Minimalist

Has anyone ever read the full text of the Merneptah stele? It's about 150 lines long. The first 140 or so cover his campaign against the Libyans and their Sea People allies. He goes into great...some might say nauseating detail about his greatness in winning the war.

The brief remainder, excerpted from this 1976 translation by Miriam Lichtheim is from this web site:

http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studi...ranslation.php

So here are the last lines.

Contrast this with the bombast from the rest of the stele.

FYI: Tjehenu is Libya. He has just spent a lot of time telling us about his exploits subduing them. Khatti were the Hittites. Merneptah did not fight against the Hittites. In fact, they were about to go down to the Sea Peoples themselves so it seems likely that Merneptah was simply recounting that Egypt was at peace with the Hittites. Khor is a region in Southern Syria.

"Canaan is captive with all woe." Canaan had been under Egyptian control for about 3 centuries at this point. This would hardly have been news. Ashkalon, Gezer and Yanoam were all towns in Canaan. Why the duplication?
Then comes the alleged "israel" line which fundies go nuts about. And, contrary to fundamentalist wishes, there seems to be a great deal of debate about what "Israel" means in this context.

"All who roamed have been subdued." Sounds to me like a reference to the Sea People who, while the Egyptians and their Libyan allies were fighting in the Western Desert would have been free to attack Egyptian holdings in Canaan. Once the Libyans were beaten the Sea Peoples (who were essentially pirates) would have had the choice of withdrawing or facing the full weight of Egyptian power. Seems logical in a military sense that they would withdraw at that point and look for more lucrative targets.

In any event, Merneptah does not seem as boastful about Canaan as he does about the Libyan theater of operations. Could it be that rather than conquering it (which again seems unlikely as Egypt had controlled the area since Ahmose I) he simply found himself holding on to a Canaan which had been heavily damaged by Sea People attacks.

For whatever reason, it seems that Merneptah did not bother to include the "Canaanite Victory" when he transferred the message to the walls of the Karnak Temple. Why was he not so proud about this "victory."

The notion of a modest pharaoh suddenly appearing after line 140 of the stele is troubling. He certainly wasn't shy when he was bragging about taking out Libya.

yalla

AFAIK there is zero evidence for Solomon.
The Tel Dan inscription discovery might be interpreted as referring, indirectly, to a king named David.
Or it might not. It has been disputed.
Some believe it more likely to refer to a non-Israeli local diety.
Some criticise the earlier dating efforts on the grounds that there is insufficient local site knowledge to accurately do so.
Its not as cut and dried as some present.

reniaa

There is archaeology supporting solomon, mostly on the buildings and structures the bible says he built, they have been found and the "house of David" has been found mentioned in 2 separate sources from the bible not one.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/scie...e_-_Part_2.asp

mg01

The only two things that exist referencing any sort of historical Israel (prior to 1000 BCE) in any sense of the word are the names from Mari and the Merneptah stela. Neither is evidence of the validity of the Biblical accounts which are problematic on their own terms. That there was a group of people associated with the name Israel in the hill country around 1200 is not disputed. They were not however the Biblical "Israelites" and are usually referred to as "proto-Israelites", to distinguish them as the actual cultural unit.

Trying to reconcile the Biblical account of the Exodus and conquest is impossible. At the end of the day it cannot be taken literally in any sense, but a later hodgepodge of folklore. The exodus/conquest described in the Bible simply didn't happen anytime between 1300 and 1200. The Merneptah stela itself is a problem when dating which forces the Exodus back into the 1300 century at a time of Egypt’s greatest control over the Levant. If you wanted to escape the control of Egypt in the Levant you had to head west away from the line of forts along the King's Highway. Hey, guess what area saw the biggest population gain during the late Bronze Age, as a wave of destruction descended across the Levant during the time of the invasions of the Sea People and other migrations?

As literary myth, it serves to unite the mix of peoples in the hills all under one umbrella. "We're all one big family, we came from the North and settled here (one group) but later had to take shelter in Egypt (a repeated theme) but thankfully our hero Moses led us (another group) back. The purpose is to connect Joseph as the Northern descendent in a manufactured line of descendents from the North as the ancestor of the people Moses "rescued" from the South. All of Genesis (sans P) is a recasting (by J) of what was originally Canaanite stories with the purpose of putting YHWH in place as the historical "Elohim of the Fathers" and to associate him as El by another name. E started this, but didn't go as far as what J did.

Because there is no evidence that it happened. The "revisionist" argument stands on it's own. Their point is simply if you are going to claim these things are realistic depictions of actual events then you need proof. There are three problems associated with this, not only is there no proof to corroborate the claims in the Bible, what is found brings up more questions than answers, and third, the Biblical accounts themselves with the recognized composite nature are more literary than historical. The idea that the characters they portray may have been based on actual figures is plausible, but the claim that the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah extended from "the river of Egypt to the River in Babylon" is simply unfounded. The details over the argument from both sides are founded on an argument from silence. As much as I respect Dever as an archeologist, it surprises me to see how much he seems to do this, arguing simply that because certain details are in dispute doesn't rule out the plausible. He's right of course, but it's special pleading. He's also right to criticize the "minimalists" in the way he does for again simply stating that no evidence means "completely made up" as if there is no room for "exaggerated folklore" in the middle, which is precisely what the text itself points to.

Also to focus in on the three city's gates as proof simply because of a single verse in the bible is just silly when you compare the number of etiological references made in the text. The conquest narrative in Joshua gives explanations relating to him credit for having a part in the naming of practically every town in the Levant. Almost every major character in the text has an etiology associated with their name that is obviously contrived. Whole stories exist to get to the punch line of explaining, "and that's why such-and-such is named such-and-such, and it remains so to this day". Dismissing that as folklore and then accepting the verse regarding Solomon is cherry picking, pure and simple. (Not to mention that the same style gates are found in many other cities from southern Syria. Was Solomon responsible for those too?)

The arguments you usually here the most about are the ones from both ends of the extreme which is usual with any sort of debate. The simple fact of the matter is there isn't enough evidence to state with confidence that either position is absolutely correct. Almost always the answer is somewhere in the middle. When you toss out the extremists on both sides the archeology basically confirms the story told from the construction of the text itself.

I'd suggest if you want to see a well thought out description that does a great job of marrying what's known from archeology and textual criticism in context with other contemporary cultures see "Ancient Israel's Faith and History" by Mendenhall.

arnoldo

Thank you for the time you took to explain your point of view as well as for your recommendation, I will make an effort to search for it.

Minimalist

Aish.com is a conservative Jewish site, Reniaa, and one has to be careful not to let their agenda get in the way of the facts. IN his 2000 book, "What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It (or via: amazon.co.uk)" Dever does, launch a lengthy diatribe against the so-called Copenhagen School of Davies, Whitelam, Thompson, etc. He never includes Israel Finkelstein in with them, a fact which the web site glosses over.

By 2003, when he wrote "Who Were The Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (Professor Dever likes long titles) he had basically accepted Finkelstein's theory of Indigenous Origen for the "Israelites." They quibble over whether or not they were mainly nomads who settled down (Finkelstein) or Canaanite refugees fleeing the onslaught of the Sea People (Dever) but both of them dismiss the fairy tale legends of Exodus, Conquest and Patriarchs.

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever2.html

Some years ago Dever predicted that Finkelstein's "low chronology" would be overturned. It has not happened. Initial results from a C-14 testing program show that the Low Chronology is correct. The Megiddo stables and gates date from the Omride period of Israelite history...not Solomon who, if he existed at all, probably lived in a hut.

http://digitalcommons.library.arizon...ber1/01-46.pdf

Toto

BAR now has a section called Airing Differences. There is an article there on what they call the "Temech" Seal Controversy, although one of the first things it mentions is From RaineyShelomit or Shelomith, meaning peaceful, seems to be a male or female name. Would a daughter of a priest have a seal?

From html bible

Minimalist

She may be admitting she got the name was wrong (which is fine and decent of her, really) ....but the Babylonian symbolism remains.

mg01

I find it rather curious that the protrusions from the alter are explained a as the priests "burning incense". Horned alters used for bull sacrifices are commonly found in the Levant and described in the Bible are they not? Maybe they're trying to further downplay the obviously lunar symbology.

Compare the alter and the moon. "On Earth as it is in Heaven"...

Sheshonq

Originally Mazar found this seal and declared that it was the family of Temech, mentioned in Nehemiah.

But of course, Mazar is supported by a right-wing conservative religious foundation with an agenda to push for expelling Arabs to allow for Jewish settlement:

Science and skepticism prevailed, however: