spin

Because in the time period it has a historical basis, as indicated by the kings who have been verified. If Lemche wants to argue that the cat which was put in the box isn't there until we are able to open the box to see it, he's understating the evidence. I can very happily talk about a Josiah given the fact that he is named in 2 Kings along with other kings who have been verified (2 Kings is right about Ahaz, Hezekiah, Jechoiakin), though I can't vouch for the good king stuff that 2 Kings is on about, just as I can talk about Manasseh without accepting all the bad king stuff as well. The historical Josiah need not reflect the image 2 Kings gives us, but I think we can take 2 Kings up on his existence and has earned the right to be accepted for the name. You can call him "the king" if you really must, but its unhelpful.

The inventory of epigraphic remains from the Judahite kingdom is so small that this quibble has no meaning. We have no Judahite epigraphy regarding Jehoiachin. Why should Josiah be any different? We're just lucky that there are some mention of the latter in Mesopotamian epigraphy. Had he not been exiled to Babylon to stimulate ration records we would never have had any indication of him. But we do. We also have traces of a few other Judahite kings and they support the biblical narrative framework during the period. This necessitates considering Josiah seriously, while for the period before the siege of Lachish it's hard to imagine the existence of a kingdom of Judah with such a powerful city as Lachish in the region.

Doug Shaver

So, all people for whom no archeological evidence exists, who are mentioned only in books, should be assumed fictional.
Is that a historiographical principle you apply generally, or does it work only with people mentioned in the Bible?

lpetrich

Of course not.

Romulus: 1
Numa Pompilius and other early kings: 1 to 2
Roman-Republic politicians: 2 to 3
The Scipio family: 3

The Theogony is stage 1, of course
Adventures of various heroes: stages 1 to 2
The Iliad describes part of the Trojan War, an event that's 2 tending toward 3

Some more: Manetho's history of Egypt Aegyptiaca and Chinese history. The likes of the Yellow Emperor are more or less 2.

-

It must be noted that later stage 3 in ancient histories is often well-supported by outside evidence. The Scipios in Livy, the Dual Monarchy in the Bible, etc. The big problem is how far back such reliability goes.

We do have independent sources on some stage-2 history in the Bible: the Israelites' stay in Egypt and their Exodus. However, those independent sources don't support it very well, except if it's a badly-mangled version of better-supported history, like the presence and expulsion of the Hyksos.

renassault

Yeah.. good one. guess again: http://esciencenews.com/articles/201....century.b.c.e

And the countless other evidence.

I guess the first problem you should have noticed with your theory is the fact that your last example is not rooted in the Bible, but (surprise) actual history. And we know that historically first came Jesus Christ, then Paul, then the Church Fathers.. not that a story said that they came. So if anything, that should point out to you that you can make anything you please fit your vague generalization of "founding myth"->"heroes"=>"ordinary people". Not to mention that countless heroes appear after the ordinary people you named in your second to last example. Obviously the Bible like any book of that nature would start with the history of what it's talking about, which by the way then continues to some not so heroic people such as the Patriarchs (Abraham and so on) who make practically no miracles. And then it skips to Moses, because there's nothing to talk about in between Joseph and him.

Why are Roman-Republic politicians 2 to 3 and the Scipio family a 3? There is no difference between them. And why is Numa Pompilius and other early kings 1 to 2, when it's in fact just the history of Rome prior to being a Republic.

spin

Eilat Mazar gets herself in the papers because no-one else will listen to her.

Oh please, not the anonymous countless others routine.

The evidence can be counted on no hands.

renassault

The evidence is actually fairly convincing that it can be counted on many hands, including the ones (like someone here ) who don't know how to count. I didn't want to list it all mainly because I had to waste another 30 min finding the sources, but I do remember bib-arch.org talking about an outpost in 10th century BC, Al-Qadesh I think, you can find that yourself if you're that doubtful, which was under full governmental control and had found Hebrew inscriptions there, clearly showing a strong centralized government in Judea at the time. There was also the Tel Dan Inscription mentioned here and another one, but more importantly this is more than enough, at least for any balanced view. The bottom line is the minimalist and middle view is utter nonsense.

Also, just because Lachish was a major city does not mean the kingdom of Judah had a problem exerting a big influence, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, especially with the Sennacherib prism which refers to Hezekiah of Judah and his importance the way the Bible does.

Oh please, not the anonymous "she seeks fame" routine.

The archaeologist is listened by all.. hands?

spin

No content here.

Obviously you know nothing tangible about the Tel Dan inscription. If you feel injured, you might like to produce something meaningful rather than facile allusions. To help you along BYTDWD is one word, just like BYT)L and BYT$M$, and even BYT(NT [Bethel, Bethshemesh and Bethanath].

Not a major city, but the major city in the area. Jerusalem was pint-sized in comparison. It doesn't compare in significance.

The kingdom of Judah didn't crop up in the literature until Assyria had already begun to trample Samaria. When the cat's away the mice will play. Take out the power of the area, as Assyria was in the process of doing, and that gives room for the mouse to roar.

Hezekiah and his father are historical, no doubt about it, but it was the historical moment for there to be a power rising south of Samaria. Before that Samaria had reached down through the Shephalah to have a trading station in the Negeb at Kuntillet Ajrud. Not much scope for a tiny Judahite kingdom then.

You can believe what you like. If you want to know about the archaeology of the period look elsewhere than Mazar.

semiopen

The theory that Josiah fucked up the high places and centralized cult worship in Jerusalem enjoys significant academic support. As such, it deserves respect. However, it is reasonable to expect archaeological confirmation of this at known high places.

The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation Author: Lisbeth S. Fried Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 122, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2002)

The Josiah sluts used to be cutting edge... maybe not so much anymore.

lpetrich

It's not exactly vague when you look at the details. I can name one overall conception of history that does not fit into this schema. The modern one, developed as a result of modern science.

Humanity does not start off as associated with gods and having great heroes. Instead, humanity has VERY lowly origins. We have less and less technology the farther back we go in time, and our species itself is descended from earlier species -- the farther back one goes, the more simian they get. Instead of falling from a past of gods and heroes, we rise from a simian past, and our ancestor species themselves have ancestor species.

The New Testament and early Xian history? Look at the central figures in the story. It starts with Jesus Christ, who is God, the Son of God, or 1/3 of God, depending on one's interpretation. Paul and his fellow early disciples are clearly heroes -- look at Acts of the Apostles.

God grants Abraham and his descendants the land of Israel -- that's an important part of the story.
The earlier leaders, like Numa, are portrayed in a rather idealized light, which suggests 2. Numa and others are founders of Rome's various institutions, and Numa himself had conversations with the deity Egeria. renassault, you really need to acquaint yourself with how skeptical some historians can be.

As I pointed out, there are usually no sharp boundaries between the epochs. Numa succeeds Romulus without a big change. Etc.

renassault

Umm, you totally missed my point. The point is that regardless of how you label it, Jesus Christ -> Paul -> Church Authors is history, not a product of someone's trifold construction as you claim. And modern science has nothing to do with this nor does history contradict it.

That's completely different. We're talking about someone's history versus what happened. We're not talking about the beginning of mankind (which you, as all of us, weren't there to be talking about it as if you know). This isn't an evolution/creation debate.

That's the very point I was making: it's history; we know Jesus Christ came first (and he did make claims about himself that weren't of purely human origin, for examples see Mark 12 and how he cites Psalm 101:1), and so did Paul (Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-8, etc). and we know after him came Paul, and there were countless heroes after Paul, you're just cherry-picking since Paul and the other Apostles clearly were closer to Jesus and obviously had a bigger importance. There have been countless hagiographies after Acts similar like Acts, so your example doesn't hold, though the canonical Acts certainly is the most important one.

Not as huge as parting the Red Sea, I'm positive. Abraham performs NO miracles. He, along with many others has a dream/vision about the future and has his wife conceive at an old age (much less impressive than the barren mother of Samson). Isaac performs no miracles and is simply the father of Jacob, where he gets duped by Jacob into giving him Esau's inheritance. Jacob is simply the father of the twelve sons that became the twelve tribes of Israel, and is himself slighted by his sons (with the exception of Reuben) and is dragged to Egypt. Joseph rises to prominence (with a divine dream) and that's it. Not exactly heroes in the sense your theory states.

I think it's better if we eliminate parallelomania instead of acquainting ourselves with skeptical historians. Of course the Romans are gonna give their early founders a bunch of crazy stories, like Romulus and Remus being raised by a wolf. That's not the point. The point is that your application can be applied to anything the imagination wants. I can apply this to your posts in this forum, starting with the "glorious" ones in the beginning and coming down to these. It's all about how much you're willing to twist to fit things when you have such broad generalities.