Toto

Dr._Ernest_L._Martin had split from Herbert W. Armstrong by the time he did his work under discussion here, and there is no clear connection between his religious beliefs and his scholarship.

Roger Pearse

Where did we get the early 2nd century BC for Menander from? (I didn't see that)

But yes, he must date between 301 and 86 if he is 'Hellenistic', and so be quite a bit later. That does not make him unreliable as such. On the contrary he clearly does have some solid information, king lists and the like.

What *will* be a problem for him, tho, is the lack of AD and BC. Every ancient chronographer has a massive problem here: "when did anything happen, and what things were happening in the world at the same time?"

All Menander seems to have is lists of king names, and brief entries of events in the reign of the king against these. There seems no reason to query that these come from Phoenician sources, in Tyre. (I don't think we need to suppose that Menander knew Phoenician, tho.) His work then is an example of Hellenistic history writing, like that of Berossus and Manetho, which were undertaken by the new Greek rulers of their respective lands to give a historical background for their new empires.

To relate the annals of Tyre to Greek history will have been hard, and to Jewish history likewise. It is quite possible that his phoenician records contained something about Solomon, or a Jewish king; or did so by the time they reached him in Greek translation from the Tyrians. If so he will have seen it as a godsend -- a link to the outside world, from which he can work out chronology.

Alternatively he may have inferred the link himself, based on similarity of names, in order to relate the Tyre king list to Jewish events, which in turn would relate to Greek ones. After all, he has no reason to doubt the Jewish record, other than prejudice.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Cranks often have money and determination. If you can find a modus vivendi, this can be a way to get some real scholarship done on something that no grant-giving foundation would look at.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lucretius

Even if we treat ancient historians differently than we do modern historians (as we have to do at times ) I doubt very much that Josephus would "fabricate " these sources as that implies an "conscious activity or process".
Rather we must consider that possibly Josephus merely accepted as fact what previous historians had written,without any of the processes of verification that modern historians would follow .

S.C.Carlson

He split with Armstrong after his archeological fieldwork over an unrelated issue.

Roger Pearse

I agree. In fact how could an ancient historian follow these processes, even if he could throw himself forward 2000 years, and learn them? Could a modern scholar follow them, thrown back to 94 AD, with none of the helps and handbooks of our own day?

Standing on the shoulders of giants is not merely a pretty phrase.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

Gidday Roger,
-I got the 2nd C BCE bit by googling "menander ephesus" and found this:
"[PDF] TACITUS ON JEWISH HISTORYFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Menander of Ephesus, for example (early second century B.C.),. whose dating of Hiram, king of Tyre, a century and a half. before the foundation of Carthage ...
jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XXIX/1/33.pdf "

-The question of his reliability [not quite the right word, it does not necessarily need to be derogative] remains however. As you point out, he may simply be regurgitating the Jewish record as he finds it. Hence his 'solid information' is just repeating that which was current and accepted in his era, accepting it on face value and thus containing no independent verification regarding Solomon and the kings lists etc.
It shows what was accepted at that time but is not a verification in itself of anything that allegedly occurred about 600 years prior.
cheers
yalla

Edit by yalla Thanks Toto!

Roger Pearse

Thanks!

This phrase "independent verification"... it sounds like weasel wording to me, and more so every time I see it. What we mean, surely, is "no other writer says so". But of course most of our ancient sources would fail that demand.

Why not?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist

I'm not blaming her at all, Roger. As you say, it's a legitimate way to separate people from their money in a worthwhile cause. Mazar is always careful to say that her find "may be" or "could be" "David's palace." Nothing wrong with that, as long as it is understood that it just as easily "might be" or "could be" Hezekiah's out house or barn.

The Mazar family in archaeology goes back generations and she isn't going to trash her family's reputation for a bunch of right-wing nuts.

DCHindley

Dated a WWCOG member when I lived in LA back in the late 70's, but I wasn't interested in her theology, if you know what I mean.

Are you suggesting this is some sort of "advocacy scholarship?" If I remember, they were kind of "British Israelist" types, but I did not remember them being "different temple-ists."

Looks like this fellow is placing the temple about where most folks place the old City of David. That doesn't seem so fantastic to me, but I haven't really looked into this claim. After all, I'ver seen others place it way to the north of town, which is difficult to believe.

DCH