semiopen

That must be Jephthah, whom you have promoted to king. This is very deep because he had the power to kill his daughter without getting hassled. Judges 11:29-31. This is a tragic incident that brings tears to my eyes to this day, however he did have the virtue of honesty. My belief in your possessing this virtue has been shaken, and frankly I'm not sure which is the greater tragedy.

Numbers 31:18 discusses the sacrifice of 16 (or 32 depending on how you calculate) Moabite girls.

The whole point of the destruction of the first temple and subsequent exile was considered to be the lack of monotheism (to say the least)

Manasseh got some extra heat because they needed to explain how God could have let them lose. The point being, that the bible is saying that Judah was worshipping idols. The bible is littered with examples.

The Merneptah Stele is evidence the Israelites were in Canaan around 1300 BCE, I don't see this as evidence that they were in Egypt.

This is interesting and I've commented about it previously. The Book of Esther doesn't seem to be Jewish. The story is clearly not monotheistic. Esther seems to be Ishtar and Mordecai, Marduk. Another interpretation relates to the "Slaughter of the Magi"

http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/.../Hdt/Hdt3.html

I have to admit you have a certain bumbling charm... "Proof does not get better." Your arguments are easy to refute, but also educational. Unfortunately this nastiness you seem to be developing is disturbing.

mg01

The Torah makes it clear that other gods exist. It does so every time it indicates "YHWH (the) elohim (of) Israel" and elevates him as greater than the elohim (gods) of other nations. The exact same context of the descriptions of the divinity of YHWH is repeatedly found referencing other gods.

If you are assume any mention of "other gods" automatically implies they are false gods you are interpreting something that simply is not in the text. (Some places do state this though, exilic Psalms in particular.) There are only a few places that come close to declaring YHWH as the ~ONLY~ elohim that exists, Deuteronomy has several as well as Isaiah. These are the only verses that come close to being a tacit declaration of montheism.

At the same time, Deutronomy has other verses that are undouboutly henotheistic. Chapter 32 has the world being divided up by El Elyon ("Most High God") and YHWH being alloted the peoples of Jacob. Exodus and Psalms asks: "who is like thee among the gods (elohim)?" or "among the hosts of heaven". Even the english "King of Kings" comes from verses like Deut 10:17 which actually states "YHWH (is) (the) Elohim (of) the/ha Elohim", essentially "god of gods". None of these verses imply these other deities do not exist. In fact, this is the overall theme of Deuteronomy in general, that YHWH is the greatest of all the gods, which is the precise point of the 1st commandment.

If you only look at English translations you will never pick up on the fact that the same words used to express the divinity of YHWH in Hebrew are also applied to other gods. Or in particular, that in the development of Hebrew montheism, one of the most used words for "God", Elohim, in a more archaic sense simply refered to the divine in general (as with the context of ilm at Canaanite Ugarit), or as a property which an individual (or el) posessed. The original context leaves little that can be questioned with this regard.

WVIncagold

Not to throw salt in a wound but my great grandfather deserted from the Swiss Navy. So yes they do have one. Actually he got drunk, passed out in New York and the ship sailed without him. Today you would call him an illegal alien. But considering a total lacking of evidence for Solomon Navy and i use the word Navy not Merchant Marine here as there is a difference. Navy is a battle unit at sea and at the time we are talking about Polensians ( later to be called Carthage)was the premeir Navy of the time. If Solomon had a Merchant Marine he would of probably paid for safe passage to Carthage (considering the close proximity) rather than make a feeble attempt to do one himself, which was a common practice. This is assuming Solomon or David existed at all which i personally doubt. Navys consummed a great deal of money and consumables and were hard to maintain.Triremes were expensive and were not effecient at cargo carry. they were ships of war. it is highly unlikly that a little king with very little in the way of resources would maintain a navy since it was hard for Athens and Carthage to both maintian their navies. ( I know i am jumping around in years but alll ancient Navies followed the same type of problems no matter on advances in ship building)
Only the richest maritime states such as Athens could maintain such an enormous revenue consuming navy. The great sea power of Corcyra around 480 BCE (reference Thukydides) was unable to follow the Athenian example - It was just too expensive.

We should remember that the Spartan navy in the Peloponnesian war was financed by Persian gold. Only Syracuse could afford to follow the Athenian example.

The trireme had an extremely short lifetime - about 20 years. In contrast, the penteconter was far less expensive and more durable. It didn't need such a large crew, and was multi-purpose. It had plenty of room for stores, so it could be used for both war and trading purposes in extended voyages. The Pentaconter was also much more robust than the trireme.

WVIncagold

Then you should have no trouble producing those treaties. I would imagine with a HOST (notice no defined number just an arbitrary evocation) of nations as well as the well documented Egypt you should be able to produce a document signed by Solomon. Since you are sure Solomon had a Naval command what type of ships did he use? what type of wood. who werre his shipwrights? where are the ship building docks? Where are the Hebrew rams and smelting areas for makin gthe large rams? Where did they get their masts from? how did they hold the mast to the deck? See when you start talking Navy stuff with actual people who served in the Navy we tend to ask such questions that are very relevant to making a proclamation as Solomon had a Navy. Also at the time of solomon did they use slaves or were they able bodied seaman? where were the bonds of seamanship that show the enlistment of the latter? Excalaiming Solomon had a Navy brings much more problems than it supposedly solves for you.

semiopen

That's a cool story about your great grandfather.

Frankly, I was struck by the obscurity of the reference when IAJ mentioned it, and in looking at it more closely the oddness of Ezion-Geber as the major port. Not a lot of trees around there.

Ezion-Geber

The article mentions 2 Chron 22:37 where

God can be a real pisser.

Clivedurdle

I have been wikiing and getting depressed by the articles assuming the Biblical picture of Solomon is in any way real.

And I would like to explore the phoenician, punic connections further - like was the first temple actually for Baal?

The Romans went out of their way to destroy Carthage and its records - might history have been rewritten to make the Jews fill the gaps left by the Phoenicians - who must have been very wealthy to afford such a huge navy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omrides

semiopen

Mark S. Smith deals with this a little in "The Early History of God."

The Omrides are key and Jezebel is Phoenician.

The exact iteration of Baal as worshipped in Israel is unclear. I guessed Melqart earlier but Smith (who is a leading authority) says Baal Shamen, which he infers from "proper names attested for the Tyrian royal family."

He also cites an "invocation of Baal Shamen in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20 written in Demotic may also provide evidence for this god in Israelite religion." Although he notes Z. Zevit "The Common Origin of the Demotic Proyer to Horus and Psalm 20" presents a different view.

Melqart is a cool guy though... awakened from death.

Smith says:

Josephus (Antiquities 8.146) also mentions that Hiram "brought about the resurrection of Herakles"

... Interesting stuff

IamJoseph

I don't think so. This is a half complete distorted view.

True, and this is due to Menasseh - a corrupt king, which is presented as such in the writings, and a revolt ensued. It is hardly a valid evidence this is the traditional or that king was beatified: he is villified - it is thus a positive for the Jews.

Actually - it is great circumstantial evidence, with no other conclusion possible - and it becomes a proof in the absence of alternative proof.

Monotheism is its central feature: the Jews rejected bowing to a divine emperor, and this was used against them by Haman. The names being Babylonian, then Persian, are not hard to understand: most exiled Jews sent to Europe also doctored their names. The Hebrew was banned in babylon same as with Europe. Esther and her uncle Mordechai were 100% Jewish, and it is ludicrous to question.

So show a book such as that of Esther which describes it setting better - choose from any part of history you like of this period? Its negation and distrtion, with no evidence whatsoever - is more disturbing. BTW, counter evidence must be contemporary - all other views are opinions.

Anat

To IamJoseph:

The existence of traditions about burial sites does not mean the person buried in them (if there was one) is the one mentioned in the tradition. Muslims have pilgrimages to Nebi Musa, supposedly the place where Moses was buried, yet according to the Bible the site of Moses' burial is unknown. What makes you think other burial sites are more credible? The structure in Machpelah, Hebron is from the Herodian period. What makes you think the identification of the place as the burial site of the Patriarchs is reliable? Similarly to alleged burial sites of Joseph, Joshua, Daniel, Reuben and many assorted others. Some of them may have been the sites where people with similar names in much later periods were buried. Some are simply unidentified.

The existence of seemingly historical details in Biblical accounts is one tool historians and archaeologists use to disprove them. For example Finkelstein shows how many place names in the stories of the Patriarchs and the Exodus reflect the geography of the region in the 7th century BCE rather than the times the stories were set in. In his book 'David and Solomon' he shows how the details in the stories come from different times, and rather than tell us about the lives of David and Solomon they tell us about how the people of Judah perceived themselves at different times. (The only part of the account he believes matches its supposed times is the part about David escaping from Saul in the wilderness.)

It is established that an ethnic group (or two related ones) settled in the hill country at the beginning of the Iron Age. What is not established at all is that they arrived their as conquerors or that before that they had spent centuries in Egypt. In fact Finkelstein, Dever and others believe they arose from among the Canaanites.

As for the stele, do you mean the one by Merneptah? It does not talk about Israelites in Egypt but about a military campaign of Egypt in Palestine, in which among many others a group with a name similar to Israel was subdued.

I have no doubt there was an ethnic group that lived in Judah, had a temple in Jerusalem (and other places) and had kings in Jerusalem. What I doubt is that the religion of those temples was anything like the Judaism we see post-exile. The evidence supports that they worshipped a god named YHWH the way others worshiped Baal.

More later.

IamJoseph

Agreed, and most Hebrew burials declare in most cases, these are believed by tradition [as opposed proof] to be those burial sites. However, equally this is not the case when there are other imprints of a figure's historical evidences. This is different from the Gospels & Islam making claims solely by belief, and where no historical tracks exist.

Your example of Finklstein says much to me - this is a whacko of the highest order. Both David and Solomon are proven as historical figures - more so than any other figures in that period - and of later periods of other figures, more so than of Jesus or buddha, for example. Mentioning figures like finklestein is the favorite of those with questionable agendas, but not mine or those whose pursuit is truth.

It does not mention Palestine, a name which never emerged till after 70 CE in Judea, and was applied exclusively to Jews and the Jewish homeland. The stelle mentions 'ISRAEL' and that a war was conducted and it is about the same time when th Hebrews returned to Canaan [not ficticous palestine!]. When examined for what it is - there is only a singular conclusion of its meaning.

It was not an ethnic group but a 2000 year 'nation' at that time, with its own history, country, Capital, language, writings and emblems. You may doubt what you wish, but the evidence says this was the nation which introduced both Monotheism and Creationism, and was the only one which had these beliefs till Islam emerged some 1,500 years ago. That one king married a Baal worshippper and allowed her to cause some disruption does not diminish anything - this is usually used eronously - by those who have a pre-dispositioned agenda.