Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Only in a very tenuous sense of ideas of the Last days and messianic age coming in with the Hasmoneans (which it didn't) being rehashed in term of the Zealot revolt against Roman Rule, the more warlike documents in the Qumran library and a possible connection with the Final Chapter of the Bible. Possibly. Otherwise, no.
Me too. Think is, nobody doubted the Exile - not any atheist or Bible -skeptic I ever heard of. Certainly I didn't. I was initially willing to credit the Exodus and conquest, give or take some story - telling. And certainly not the Assyrian siege of jerusalem. But on study, the exodus and conquest seem to be so far removed from history as to be effectively, Myth.
The siege of Jerusalem, on the other hand, happened. The archaeology/history supports it. But what iit does is give a very different take on it from the one we get in the Bible. In fact that version is more religious polemic than history.
So while evidence like this may validate the Exile as fact, it might also be the start of a re-assessment of how the Exile is presented in the Bible. Though in fact to be honest, I don't believe for a moment that we shall ever be presented with evidence that will debunk a real conquest and effective relocation of the bulk of Judea to Babylonia.
Maybe this question would warrant a separate thread, but for now I'll just ask it here. When you read the OT, you get an impression that ancient Israel in the times of David, Solomon or shortly afterwards was an incredibly wealthy, powerful, influential state - a kind of ancient superpower under Jehova's blessing. I remember reading some theologians saying as much - that God once blessed Israel with great wealth and power.
But from reading some secular sources (and some discussions here on CD) I get a different impression - that Israel of the OT times had never been anything of importance, that it was always just a small backwater Middle Eastern country. Now, which of this is really true?
I don't think that those are the only 2 necessary choices. A nation can be internally strong, organized and unified and even wealthy and diplomatically connected to the countries right around it, but still be small and not of vast international importance.
I think that we could take the exaggerated claims about Solomon with a pinch of salt always, but it is only recently with Israeli archaeology, that a different picture has begun to emerge. The building ascribed to Solomon never mind David is now thought to be the work of Omri, and Solomon's 'Empire" never extended down to the Red sea with a Venice - like port of trading ships.
Nor does it seem that the Exodus happened -or could happen - as Egypt in any period that looks possible controlled Sinai and Canaan and wherever Moses went into was in Egyptian territory patrolled and garrisoned by them. What does seem to be the case is a tribe of Amorite (Aramaic -speaking) goat - herding hillmen, finding that the Caananite city -states had vanished, came down from the hills and looked for markets and trade, and eventually formed their own settlements and cites. They didn't need to conquer anything. Just resettle. Of course, Moab and Ammon and Edom were doing the same and they soon came into conflict.
There is no doubt that the Israelites had the House of David as rulers - the Moab stone shows that. And they came into conflict with the Philistines, which dates them to after the general collapse of Canaan (and the Hittites) apparently thanks to the 'Sea -peoples' (q.v) (1) But it does look as though they were by no means the monotheists they later became. "Eli" was not the top (never mind the only) god, but was their tribal god and no other should they worship. Not even Mrs God - because Ashtaroth was Yaweh's goddess in the early days. The first part of the Bible were the books of Law (Omri's time, again) covering the rites of their god, and it wasn't even until later that their origins (Genesis and Exodus) were written exhorting the Hebrews not to have anything to do with foreign gods, such as Baal or Dagon. Or indeed in alliances with foreign states, but trust in the Lord alway. Which is why they got beat so often. Or that's the way it seems to be looking now.
(1) a fascinating study with mystery and obscurity with occasional flashes of a face to face, like an Egyptian mummy who was a Royal Butler -and one of the 'Sea people' - a "Teresh" - and a Hittite tablet asking to interview a man who had been prisoner of a group of Sea peoples' to get intelligence about them. The tantalizing links with Troy and other Greek Myths which may actually contain garbled history of the incursion of the Sea Peoples, and the evidence of their pottery (related to late Helladic III), the Philistines and the 'Peleset' (the names have to be "Read through" Egyptian or Hittite pronunciation (2) - one of the Sea Peoples groups and their involvement -if not the cause - of the collapse of Canaan that allowed the rise of Israel to happen.
(2) the bastards fought on both sides - (different Tribes, though) as mercenaries/ recruits on the Egyptian side and as allies on the Hittite side at the battle of Kadesh.
P.s I'm rather pleased to see...well, sorta...rather the way I'm pleased that Vesuvius buried Pompeii....to see that the Thera eruption might have caused the Near east collapse even though it is centuries earlier. The Sea Peoples The "Sherden" (Sardinia?) with their curiously Etruscan helmets were held back by the Cretan sea empire until the eruption caused the sinking of "Atlantis" and the occupation of Crete by the Bronze -age Greeks (13th c BC) and they had no answer to the waves of sea -people who now surged into the Aegean. They first fought and then became allies (Acheans become Ahhiyawa in Hittite and Denyen perhaps - excitingly - Danaiians) in their attacks on Egypt, Canaan and the Hittite empire (12th c BC). They were beaten by Merneptah and Ramesses III, but they did for the Hittites and Canaan.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-01-2016 at 09:03 AM..
When you read the OT, you get an impression that ancient Israel in the times of David, Solomon or shortly afterwards was an incredibly wealthy, powerful, influential state - a kind of ancient superpower under Jehova's blessing. I remember reading some theologians saying as much - that God once blessed Israel with great wealth and power.
But from reading some secular sources (and some discussions here on CD) I get a different impression - that Israel of the OT times had never been anything of importance, that it was always just a small backwater Middle Eastern country. Now, which of this is really true?
both Christianity and Islam throughout history have sought to copy Judaism, annihilate it, and displace it through their own versions of replacement theology. They would not have done that if it was not strong and powerful. People don't try to appropriate (steal) something for themselves unless they deem it to have significant value, worth, power.
both Christianity and Islam throughout history have sought to copy Judaism, annihilate it, and displace it through their own versions of replacement theology. They would not have done that if it was not strong and powerful. People don't try to appropriate (steal) something for themselves unless they deem it to have significant value, worth, power.
Unfortunately that is true. But my question concerned the state itself, not the philosophy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.