Discovery of Ancient Hebrew Inscription Challenges Critical Theories

[Red Sky at Morning]

Discovery of Ancient Hebrew Inscription Challenges Critical Theories

The northern boundaries of ancient Israel as described in the Bible have often been rejected by critics. It is alleged that a later editor, or editors, invented or exaggerated Israel’s boundaries out of national and religious motivations. Even more, it is alleged that the worship of Yahweh, ancient Israel’s national God, was something that developed late in Israel’s history.

Now, however, the new discovery of an inscription on a clay jar in northern Israel overturns critical theories about the development of Israel’s religion, and challenges views that question aspects of the Bible’s narrative. To get a sense of the issues involved, consider the account of an ancient Israelite worshiper, Hannah, and how it led to the birth of a great prophet Samuel who would later anoint King David.

New Discovery to Redraw Israel's Ancient Borders? | Patterns of Evidence

Newly discoverd ancient inscription confirms early worship of Yahweh in ancient northern Israel and has started the process of confirming ancient borders.

patternsofevidence.com

 

[rainerann]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete fluff piece. What I mean when I say this is a fluff piece is that it is hardly something that is addressing an archeological claim or the critical scholarship that is supposed to be challenging. It is basically a brief reference to an article that mentions Yahweh and a bible study devotional on the story of Hannah.

Quite frankly, there is nothing about this reference to Yahweh that makes a direct connection to anything associated to the Biblical account. In other words, there is no reason to believe this reference to Yahweh proves the existence of Israel historically. These things are all derived by assumptions made by the Patterns of Evidence company.

The first thing that I looked for when I was reading this article is for anything that would distinguish this reference to the Ugarit tablets that date to the 12th and 13th century BC, so the reference to Yahweh within the area is not something new from an archeological perspective. I see no real reason within the article why the artifact mentioned could be associated with the Ugarit texts and that is why I would consider this a fluff piece.

Patterns of evidence appears to be for Christians what Fox News is for conservatives--biased reporting. The brief reference to the artifact mentioning Yahweh along with the confirmation that is assumed from the story of Hannah is supposed to give a warm and fuzzy feeling.

This is because the real counter-argument is concealed and most people in the church don't even know the Ugarit texts exist. So the mystical nature of the archeological reporting given by Patterns of Evidence is all they need to bolster the belief that the only reason people oppose Israel's historicity is that they oppose God. That is the basic conclusion that Patterns of Evidence appears to be selling.

Personally, I am more satisfied when research can actually embrace the actual counterclaims regarding a reference to Yahweh found within the area, which is they have already been found within the Ugarit text. That is the critical scholarship when it comes to a reference to Yahweh. There are actual tablets that are older than any Biblical text that we have available that mention Yahweh.

From the Ugarit texts

"
There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:"

sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.
This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El."

Quartz Hill School of Theology

www.theology.edu

Therefore, the critical scholarship isn't questioning the Bible because they don't like God. They have actual evidence that creates a foundation of questions that Patterns of Evidence ignores like a used car salesman selling a lemon as though it were a BMV.

It is unfortunate that the church swallows it, but it is also unfortunate that Patterns of Evidence appear to be such cowardly archeologists.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@rainerann - I wonder what you might make of the recent interest in the idea that the real Mr Sinai is in Saudi Arabia? There appears to be a substantial archaeological case...

https://doubtingthomasresearch.com/

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann - I wonder what you might make of the recent interest in the idea that the real Mr Sinai is in Saudi Arabia? There appears to be a substantial archaeological case...

https://doubtingthomasresearch.com/

I have been investigating things like this myself. However, probably not in the direction that you are thinking I will end up. This video is long and part of a whole collection. I don't fully subscribe to everything he is saying myself, but I appreciate the research efforts. The guy has poured over more old maps than I have ever seen anyone do and the information that he has collected from this is very interesting and fits with information that I have collected myself.

So I appreciate what you are sharing, but I'm already going in a different direction with it. Here is a link to the video I watched. Well it is more or less a video of the next step in the sinai expedition, but there is a video within the playlist that goes over some of the same things that you are sharing. He shows the route that I'm considering at 17:43. Although, I'm not sure that I feel like it would need to go completely over to western Africa even while he makes a good argument for this in his other videos.

Basically, the second crossing in the book of Joshua would have taken place in western Yemen over to modern day Ethiopia. I feel that this route would be a better place to continue investigation of Biblical history.

 

[TokiEl]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete fluff piece.

Quite frankly, there is nothing about this reference to Yahweh that makes a direct connection to anything associated to the Biblical account. In other words, there is no reason to believe this reference to Yahweh proves the existence of Israel historically.

What is this fluffer Ann on about ?


10. And as he transmitted to eternity his family and friends, so did he not neglect a memorial for himself, but built a fortress upon a mountain towards Arabia, and named it from himself, Herodium 35 and he called that hill that was of the shape of a woman's breast, and was sixty furlongs distant from Jerusalem, by the same name. - The wars of the jews book 1 ch 21

The Wars of the Jews by Flavius Josephus

Herodium (Latin), Herodeion (Ancient Greek: Ἡρώδειον), best known in Israel as Herodion (Hebrew: הרודיון) and Har Hordus ("Mount Herodes"), and in Arabic as Jabal al-Fureidis (Arabic: هيروديون‎, lit. "Mountain of the Little Paradise") is a truncated-cone-shaped hill, 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of Jerusalem

 

[rainerann]

What is this fluffer Ann on about ?


10. And as he transmitted to eternity his family and friends, so did he not neglect a memorial for himself, but built a fortress upon a mountain towards Arabia, and named it from himself, Herodium 35 and he called that hill that was of the shape of a woman's breast, and was sixty furlongs distant from Jerusalem, by the same name. - The wars of the jews book 1 ch 21

The Wars of the Jews by Flavius Josephus

Herodium (Latin), Herodeion (Ancient Greek: Ἡρώδειον), best known in Israel as Herodion (Hebrew: הרודיון) and Har Hordus ("Mount Herodes"), and in Arabic as Jabal al-Fureidis (Arabic: هيروديون‎, lit. "Mountain of the Little Paradise") is a truncated-cone-shaped hill, 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of Jerusalem

So basically, you have countered with two quotes and you don't make a connection to them anywhere in your post. Are you suggesting this hill looks like a woman's breast and that this is supposed to prove something of value?

For starters, all hills look a little bit like a woman's breast, but the reference to this hill is made by Josephus and is not an ancient reference. So you are basically saying that Josephus tells us that Herod named this hill after himself in the first book of War of the Jews, which is basically where Josephus presents Herod as a gallant hero. That this hill still maintains this name that was established by Herod is not unusual either.

And what you would also have to do if you want this reference to hold any weight is prove to me that Josephus is a valid reference? Josephus' writings are largely used to present the Jewish elite as though they were understudies of Elijah. I believe Josephus' writings prove the origin of a Jewish secret society basically and that it is possible that Josephus was a member of this group. They support my opinion that the Bible was translated from a source that is not credited by people such as Josephus who does everything to tell you about the history of the Jews, but tell you where these sources come from originally.

I have somehow lost my copy of The War of the Jews where I had highlighted many passages that would prove that Josephus is not a reliable historian. There may be some points of value, but overall, he provides a somewhat biased omniscient narration of historical events similar to the way the Bible is written. I do not believe this is a coincidence, and I do not believe his support of Herod and other Jewish elite is a coincidence either. Together they create an evangelistic package and the original source of this package is concealed.

"When Nero was informed of the Romans' ill success in Judea, a concealed consternation and terror, as is usual in such cases, fell upon him; "

This is clearly opinion and there is was no way for Josephus to know whether Nero experienced terror. There was no 20/20 interview to provide this information, and this is not even one of the best examples. Josephus does mention, even though it would take me a while to find it again, some rather fantastical things equivalent to limbs regrowing in certain places.

Overall, as a historian, I believe he is terribly unreliable. However, his reference, even if it is referring to the same hill, is inconsequential in proving a counter-argument to anything that I said based on the information given in your post.

But, clever way of using my screen name. That was probably the only thing that is clear in your post.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I have been pondering on an idea I came across in teacher training years ago - schema.

Christians (whether they are aware of it or not) are being presented by spiritual schema (or interpretive frameworks) all the time, from books, YouTube, significant friends and influences and their own denominations.

These schema influence how we come at certain questions, the kinds of answers we will accept and so on - e.g. the historicity of Biblical claims, the nation of Israel, the relationship between works and grace, when is the Kingdom etc etc.

 

[TokiEl]

So basically, you have countered with two quotes and you don't make a connection to them anywhere in your post. Are you suggesting this hill looks like a woman's breast and that this is supposed to prove something of value?

Yes it's just one proof that there used to be a jewish kingdom there in that area of the world.