Wasn’t a tablet recently discovered that made reference to “the House of David” a generation or so after David would have existed? It commemorates a victory over them in battle, IIRC.
**
Uncle Toby, I wasn’t really mocking you, and if you took it that way, then I apologize. It certainly wasn’t my intent. Lord knows I make enough typos myself.
No, I’m stating as fact that there is enough evidence to corroborate at least the latter Judaic kings. That refutes the theory you stated.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes. A stella (sp?) was found with direct mention of the house of David. Unfortunately my reference on this is back at the house. That source, however is The Stones Cry Out by Randall Price.
There’s a blip about it on the homepage of its discoverer, Dr. Avraham Biran. http://www.huc.edu/newspubs/pressroom/2002/biran.shtml
It’s from the 9th century BCE and was found at Tel Dan, where evidence of a continuous culture from the Neolithic era to the present.
Zev Steinhardt
Explanation accepted, no hard feelings.
The problem with giving you a good argument here (your full five pounds worth) is that first I’m not an expert and have no way to assess the information to which I have been exposed and second it was along time ago and no one’s memory is perfect least of all mine. But here is what additional information I recall.
The archeologist who uncovered the data (I think was officially employed collating archeological information from all over Israel) came up with the theory that quite late in the region’s history there were three cultures inhabiting the area so distinct they probably didn’t even communicate or trade. A culture of the coastal plain, a culture of the cities and a culture of the highlands. These cultures where amalgamated around the time usually attributed to the Babylonian captivity. The previous evidence for states in Israel was dismissed by him as being no more than evidence from the city culture selectively viewed.
The theory of Judaic tradition being the result of an attempt to set up a buffer state was the result of some bright (or waggish) historian noting that there was a long tradition of doing this sort of thing in the middle east and wouldn’t it get him some press if he tagged the notion onto the other fellow’s thesis.
I realize that some religious people will take offense at such a notion as it implies that their tradition is something of a con-job but I think those who testify to revealed religion must understand that it cuts both ways and the unbelieving find your fervor silly at best. We put up with you, you put up with us and we all get along. This idea was presented because it is germane to the thread (which is a good question) and because the idea is amusing to the non-revealed-religious among us.
**
That’s all fine and well, but I’m going to have to ask for a cite as to this theory.
It is true that there were several “cultures” in the area in the immediate period preceeding the conquest of Jerusalem. The Samaritans inhabited the northern regions of the area. In addition, there were still Phillistine and other Canaanite areas in the land, not to mention the other neighboring kingdoms. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, he probably did gather the entire area into one administrative region.
However, in the end, you still have the later Judaic kings mentioned in the Bible being independently corroborated.
**
No, I have no such problems with it at all. I understand that there is no archaelogical evidence to Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David or Solomon. Doesn’t bother me in the least, and I don’t worry that other people will think that my tradition is a “con-job.”
**
That’s fine. But at least put up some evidence. Don’t just put up a “theory” that someone said (with no attribution, yet).
Lastly, I don’t ask you accept that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David or Solomon existed. I don’t ask you to accept as fact that the Exodus happened. Please don’t ask me to accept your theory as fact without some evidence.
I don’t mind you’re bringing it up. All I ask is that you back up your statements, that’s all.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev Steinhardt
Well the one part of my post you don’t quote is the one that explains why I can’t do that off hand, I don’t remember.
I could research it but I’m not interested enough. It wouldn’t make any difference to me if any of it were true so I leave the work to those to whom it would matter. I suppose there a few people who fit the bill, intellectually honest, rational believers (you may be one) and newcomers to religious questions. I’m sorry I can’t help direct you more. The post was meant to answer the argument that evidence of the Judeo-Christian tradition being a hoax was too absurd to be entertained by reasonable people.