The site of Khirbet Kiafa in the Elah Valley presents additional proofs of the existence of David's kingdom in the tenth century BC
"From the various lectures and the various researchers, who come from Israel and abroad, more and more reinforcements are emerging for the establishment of the Kingdom of David in the tenth century BC, a large and central kingdom, urban and with a ruling administrative center," said Prof. Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa who organized the conference
The Khirbet Kiafa site in the Elah Valley presents additional evidence for the existence of David's kingdom in the tenth century BC, according to the lecture of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel from the Hebrew University at an international conference on the study of the Ancient Near East held this week at the University of Haifa. "From the various lectures and the various researchers, who come from Israel and abroad, more and more reinforcements are emerging for the establishment of the Kingdom of David in the tenth century BC, a large and central kingdom, urban and with a ruling administrative center," said Prof. Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa, who organized the conference.
The site of Khirbet Kiafa, located on a hill about 2007 km northeast of the Hala intersection, was excavated by Prof. Garfinkel and Saar Ganor starting in XNUMX. The site has a fortified city with two gates and the archaeological findings show that there was a city in the Hellenistic period and before it in the Iron Age.
In his lecture, Prof. Garfinkel confronted the claims of the "minimalists" - researchers who see the Bible as a book of folklore and not as a book with historical characteristics - according to which the kingdom of David and Solomon, as it is described in the Bible, did not exist and that even if David and Solomon are historical figures, These are leaders of local tribes at a time when there was no kingdom of the Israelites at all.
Prof. Garfinkel presented the carbon dating of the archaeological finds, from which it appears that the city existed between 1000-965 BC, the time generally attributed to the biblical kingdom of David. Secondly, the city was surrounded by a wall, so if it is a city of David's kingdom, it is not possible that the kingdom was rural.
The last question that had to be resolved is whether it is a site of the Israelites (or the Kingdom of Judah) or whether it is a Philistine city at all, as some of the "minimalists" claim. According to Prof. Garfinkel, the planning structure of the houses, where the outer wall of the house forms part of the foundations of the wall, is unique to the settlements of the Kingdom of Judah and so are the dishes found on the site. In addition, no pig bones were found at the site, as they were found at Philistine sites.
Above all this evidence, Prof. Garfinkel pointed out the pottery found at the site with an inscription on it, which was identified by many researchers as a Hebrew inscription with characteristics unique to the Hebrew language. According to Prof. Galil, who recently published his proposal for deciphering the inscription, he has already identified eight unique Hebrew words and it can now be established beyond any doubt that this is the oldest Hebrew inscription.
"From a combination of the evidence emerging from the site with evidence from previous sites such as Tel Dan, we can place the Kingdom of David in the tenth century BC, a centralized, urban kingdom, with a system of fortified cities, with administration and the ability to write," Prof. Garfinkel concluded.
More on the subject on the science website
168 תגובות
https://www.seferhayashar.com
Indeed, it is necessary to challenge the populist paradigms in the study of the Bible that are mainly based on partial knowledge. In most cases, denial and opposition to the archaeological facts arise from and are based on belief, and therefore the expectancy of these beliefs will be to move to the back of the stage of knowledge.
archaeologist,
In light of what I have read, it seems that both sides have abandoned their extreme positions and the dispute is much smaller than one might think. In light of the media statements of the researchers concerned (including what you wrote), it seems that there is no blanket agreement, but when you dig a little deeper into things, it turns out that in fact there is more agreed upon than not agreed upon.
Both sides agree that in the 10th century there was a kingdom or political entity that would later become Judah.
Both sides agree that there were probably individuals named David and Shlomo.
On the other hand, both sides also agree that that kingdom was much smaller (even in light of the wall in Ofal) than what is described in the Bible. There was no empire here that stretched from Sinai to today's Syria that traded with distant nations and that the entire region paid taxes to. Such an empire would probably have left behind somewhat more impressive remains than the wall at Opal and Hiervet Kaifa. The Mazars (Ayelet and Amichai) also agree on this point.
Both sides also agree that if there was an occupation it would have been much smaller than what is described in the book of Joshua - an entire people emerges in a storm and conquers the land. What is found is much more suitable to what is described in the book of Judges - individual tribes uniting against a common enemy.
So what remains of the dispute is the question of whether there was a united kingdom or whether there were originally two kingdoms - Israel and Judah or many tribes that only in a much later period developed a mythology about an ancient empire while using the well-known and remembered figures.
In addition, there is also a relatively slight disagreement on the dating which started with differences of about 100 years and today stands at 40-60.
The historian and archaeologist
On what basis did you write in section 6 that quality writing began in the 10th century? Unless you don't mean yours?
The language of the Tanakh contains no more than a few phrases that predate the 8th century (and the end of the 9th century), and this comment relies on linguistic and not archaeological analysis.
To the "historian and archaeologist" with apologies for my short answer to your long and elaborate response:
Your statement is incorrect. The Bible is not a historical source of the type of writings that were originally written to perpetuate the chronicles. The motive of its writers was to instill the fear of God and his priests. At a time when critical archaeological work methods were not used, the priests could distort history and invent their own history as it suited their needs.
On the other hand, Zil is perfect
Good,
A bit to put things in order:
1. The Bible is a historical source. Like any historical source, it is not free from various influences of the writers and even late editing - but (!!!) every historical source is like that and in fact most of the very accepted sources on history are much more problematic than the Bible and are still more accepted than it - why? Because they are less "emotional" and less connected to one or another right that they try to attribute to the Bible. In other words, the way in which Finkelstein uses the Bible is incorrect in relation to the way one should work with a historical source.
For this I say to the deniers of David and Solomon - it doesn't really matter if they existed or not, in any case no one, including Prof. Finkelstein, doubts that the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel were here - so those who associate something that happened 3000 years ago with rights to the land still can continue to claim so. Canceling David and Shlomo is not an argument that will help anything in the second argument that they are trying to push.
2. Finkelstein's claim launched the archaeological research of the period - many sites have been excavated in the recent period and what can be done, his theory was possible until recently (in the same way that the prevailing theory and its opposite was possible, because there was simply no information) but now the information has appeared that shows There is no doubt that there was an organized kingdom in Judah in the 10th century. Eilat Mazar also showed that a large wall in Ofal belonged to the 10th century.
The claim of the lack of information that Finkelstein uses all the time is not proof, nor was it a good enough proof - or as the founder of the Department of Archeology at Tel Aviv University said: 'We didn't find it' is not proof. In other words - you cannot base an argument on the fact that you cannot find - in order to prove that David was not in Jerusalem in the 10th century, Finkelstein needs to show that there was something else there at that time (because the city was indeed inhabited). Now that the evidence has already been found and it shows something different from Finkelstein's theory, he is not ready to release the theory and is doing everything to undermine the foundations of the evidence, to the point of undermining the archaeological methodology (for example, in Kayapa, clear floors from the 10th century approach the city walls, and he still claims that the walls were built brother How??? filled one floor - but more than 10 floors? To contradict an obvious finding is already death throbbing, it is not a way to build a scientific proof).
3. To understand Prof. Finkelstein's character, one only needs to read his publications and compare them to Prof. Amichai Mazar's publications. Finkelstein is an excellent field archaeologist, but also an amazing demagogue - the publication is built around a pre-existing claim, the facts are arranged to prove it and facts that do not fit are minimized and even partially left out. On the other hand, Prof. Mazar details all the facts in an orderly manner, deals with the difficult questions first and only at the end writes the conclusion.
4. Another method of Tel Aviv University is a targeted attack - any site that does not meet the theory they attack in the in-house journal of the Institute of Archeology (called "Tel Aviv") by a group of articles that come out together and each article attacks a different aspect - this is not scientific behavior, But more panic or targeted frustration. When a theory holds its own it does not require such methods.
5. The claim of the inscriptions has no basis. Not only David and Solomon, also the other kings of Judah and Israel did not worry about commemorative inscriptions. Again - 'we didn't find' is not evidence. Even the Nekat Shiloh inscription does not describe Hezekiah or any other king, but rather the actions of the carvers themselves - this only emphasizes how unusual Israeli culture was within its space, even though it emerged from it and included very similar characteristics in many respects.
6. Prof. Mazar's final conclusion is the most moderate and correct - the Bible should be seen as any other historical source. Herodotus, Josephus and others are also not close to being free from errors, distortions and a one-sided view of events. Therefore, the Bible must be analyzed critically, but under no circumstances should large parts of it be thrown away. The Bible contains kernels of truth that the closer you get to the time of its later editing (for example the books of Kings in the 8th century and later in the 6th century) they are much closer to reality. But quality writing begins from the moment the monarchy begins (yes, yes during the time of David and Solomon... in the 10th century, inscription "House of David" etc.) and is therefore closer to reality.
So you want to say that the tribal estates described are actually the division of the 8th century, fine. But there was a tribal society that existed like this for some time before there was a king, this is also evident in archeology. So Joshua didn't conquer the whole land in one fell swoop - in a simple reading you can see that the Bible doesn't present it like that either. It is clear that the book of Joshua and Judges present a night of traditions that have a grip on reality, but not a chronological grip and sometimes probably an explanation for the points where they settled on existing ruins from earlier periods (like Arad and the Hai), but there was some entrance that was probably not free of struggles and there were tribes. Solomon did not build an amazing temple - it may be that the description of the temple and the extent of the kingdom is exaggerated, but there was a king in Israel, from the House of David who was already weak over a considerable area.
7. A kingdom did not arise out of nothing as Finkelstein suggests. The Kingdom of Judah did not appear out of thin air in the 8th century with an orderly administrator, writing and a complex state religion, a process is needed - Kherbat Kayafa presents such a process and shows a site the likes of which would later develop only in the areas under the Kingdom of Israel. To claim that this site is Philistine is part of the dying palpitations of the theory of Finkelstein and his ilk.
The other problem lies in the political and social views of people today - people want to tattoo the Jews' right to the state and therefore exaggerate Finkelstein's views beyond what he said. In any case, all researchers today agree that in the 8th century there was a kingdom of Judah and a kingdom of Israel, so it is irrelevant to tattoo David and Solomon as part of this failed attempt.
Finkelstein himself agrees to let this barbarism continue, because that way he also receives budgets from all kinds of Israel haters - even though he himself does not deal with it at all as part of the argument. However, out of his professional respect, he finds it excessively difficult to retract what was a beautiful theory, but was disproved by the new findings. It is sad that a scientist behaves this way, but unfortunately - most scientists behave this way and only a few are willing to admit a mistake (ie, it is not a serious mistake - because it is not that a find was destroyed, excavation was not done properly or something similar, just a possible theory that was correct to put forward At the time, but it turned out to be incorrect, something that happens every day in science).
Hope I clarified something for all the debaters who lack the information.
R.H
I also believe that the priests of Anatot (that is, the members of the Avitar family) "went wild" in the Bible. There was nothing sacred about them, only their purpose. The last known of them is the prophet Jeremiah, and you will see how he is involved in the "foundation of existence" of the Jewish people, the Temple - no less. Not for nothing did Jeremiah sit in prison. The priests of Anat were "troublemakers" by any measure. They were persecuted in Israel (see Parshat Shaul and the priests of Nev) and were confined to the area of Moshav (Anat) in Judah. They were what we call today "leftists", for whom the observance of the law between a man and his fellow man is their whole world, while the law between a man and a place is not equal in their eyes to the skin of garlic.
In the days of King Hezekiah, the restrictions on the priests of Anat were removed and they were invited to occupy key positions in Solomon's Temple. So they were also given free access to the Holy Scriptures and they did what was right in their eyes. They took over the soul of King Josiah (Hezekiah's great-grandson) and brainwashed him. They employed a team of screenwriters who wrote Yasyahu bedtime stories. Most of these stories also reached us. Josiah was devoutly religious (perhaps suffering from the "Jerusalem syndrome") and the priests of Anat found it convenient to present their doctrine as coming from God, even though they themselves did not believe in it.
Avitar walked with David through fire and water, but David betrayed him when he chose to stick to Aaron's family (Arona Hibusi) and Zadok the priest. It is not impossible that in the days of David there was peace between the two families of the priests, but in the generation after him the members of Avitar's family found themselves rejected and ostracized, deprived of all their rights. Although they specifically put the responsibility for their downfall on the "Superman" King Solomon, they did not spare their tribe from David either.
In general, I believe that you are absolutely right in your opinion that the Bible contains kernels of truth. After all, it is impossible to convince the readers of the truth of the things if the entire Bible was sucked out of the finger. The argument between you and me is not about the essence but about the quantity.
Yuval, perhaps Bnei Avitar. The question is how they managed to insert subversive messages against David and Solomon when it is clear that most of the writers were their supporters or at least appointed on behalf of the kings descendants of David, for example Josiah.
The answer that seems best to me, as I mentioned above, is that it is simply about real acts and so famous that the writer against his will had to write the known and well-known version and there was a limit to his ability to beautify reality.
Yair (158)
Unfortunately (or happily) there is not. Just an imagination that works overtime without punching a clock.
R. H. (159)
Indeed, a lot of corruption, and everything leads to David. And you didn't mention the Hersh sheep.
Let's think together which of the writers of the Bible had an interest in defaming David like that. I believe that these were members of Avitar's family, because they had quite a reckoning with whoever it was who threw them into the nets. What do you think?
Jubilee 147, the fact that there were murders of kings and their sons does not constitute evidence that David was murdered but only shows that such a possibility might have existed.
Compared to the whole story of Solomon's rise to power, it is a difficult story that smells of corruption. In the commentary it is written that Shabbos and Nathan the prophet conspire against the legal heir Adonijah and Nathan instructs Bathsheba how to worship the senile king and lie to him that he once swore that Shlomo was the heir (XNUMX Kings XNUMX verses XNUMX-XNUMX).
It's a bit hard to believe that such a story is an invention in light of the general positive attitude towards Shlomo (except for his latter days), so it must be assumed that it is true and it was so well known that the writer did not dare to change it.
Jubilee 147, the fact that there were murders of kings and their sons does not constitute evidence that David was murdered but only shows that such a possibility might have existed.
Compared to the whole story of Solomon's rise to power, it is a difficult story that smells of corruption. In the commentary it is written that Shabbos and Nathan the prophet conspire against the legal heir Adonijah and Nathan instructs Bathsheba how to worship the senile king and tell him that he once swore that Solomon was the heir (XNUMX Kings XNUMX verses XNUMX-XNUMX).
It's a bit hard to believe that such a story is an invention in light of the general positive attitude towards Shlomo (except for his latter days), so it must be assumed that it is true and it was so well known that the writer did not dare to change it.
jubilee,
Do you have any sources other than names for the claim that there was a religious war in Aram? Names, as far as I understand, usually express preferences, rather than conflict.
Michael:
From fleeting visits to his forum I realized that you are right.
He has nothing smart to say. He makes empty promises and waits for opportunities to attack.
I informed him that I would impose silence in his presence until he would open his mouth and say substantive things.
I have a feeling he doesn't quite understand what I said.
Our world is not perfect and we have to accept the good with the bad.
jubilee:
Me too, but it was proven otherwise about my chest.
Hello Michael,
I believe that every talkbackist is definitely not a troll until proven otherwise. It is true that the things that Hazi says here are somewhat archaic, but who knows? Maybe someday he will start telling interesting and maybe even original things.
Hello Nadav,
Thanks
I usually read here, and not comment, but this time I have to point out that the totality of the comments here (except for the obvious section on evolution) is extremely impressive, well done.
It's just a shame that it is built in the structure of responses and not of one well-formulated text.
In any case, many of you have come up with amazing theories, although much of it is imagination.
By the way, it wasn't a marathon runner, but Rami Hoiberger in the movie Operation Grandma
jubilee:
You also need to know the context.
I don't know if you've seen the rest of Hezi's pearls, but he really believes in those many gods or idols and here he simply returns to his usual mantra - the more ancient and primitive a claim is - the more true it is.
clarification:
The description of the only God who created the universe appears in the Torah right at the beginning.
In it there is no process of unifying the "powers" of many gods under one god because from the beginning there is only one god in it (who is not called god. God is the role he carries but his name is God. At least that's how it seems to me when I see the scriptures and it is a religious fact They bother to disrupt the name "God" and do not do it for the "name" "God")
jubilee:
I would describe it a little differently.
Hezi read something plausible, didn't understand it, and therefore wrote something that was not only improbable but also untrue.
To remind you, he wrote:
"If you follow the subject, throughout the books of the Bible, you will see that "God" gradually gets more and more powerful."
Michael (148)
This time it seems to me that Hezi (145) said something reasonable, and only the imprecise wording raised an eyebrow at you.
Hezi speaks of the father of the gods in Canaanite mythology, his name was "El" (the translation of the word "reindeer" is strength). He delegated to his sons and daughters all the powers of managing the world and went into early retirement on the summit of North Mountain.
If I understood Hezi's words correctly, he meant to say that the power that the Bible attributes to God increases and goes with the development of writing.
By the way gods and idols, here is also my own opinion. The Bible tells of a religious war in the kingdom of Israel, but there are signs of such a war in the neighboring kingdom of Aram as well. As part of the tendency to simplify the religious worship, peoples and tribes switched to believing in one God. Naturally, the father of the gods was chosen to be the object of faith while his descendants descended from the rank of gods to lower ranks such as angels, demons, monsters and more. In Israel and Aram they changed to "El", and evidence of this is the suffix or initial "El" in the names of the kings and citizens. A striking example: "Israel". In Israel they loved Baal (or "Busht") very much and there was a struggle between his priests and the priests (prophets) of God. Baram loved Hadad very much. For example, the name Ben-Hadad is equivalent to Ben-El (or "Benyahu" in the Jewish version), the name Hadadezer is equivalent to Lazarus or Azriel (or Azariah or Jehoezer the Jews) and there are many parallels coming from "Baal". One of Saul's sons was Ish-busht (or Ish-baal). Since Baal is the son of God, it is possible that Saul's name was Ish-El (Joshua in Judea), but the writers of the Bible intentionally distorted his name into one that means the kingdom of the dead.
(The findings about Shaul the King might be of interest to Yair Shimron)
They once asked a marathon runner how he runs and he said: I start at the top speed and then, little by little, I speed up.
It reminds of Hezi's last pearl (145) only that he said it seriously.
The Torah begins with God creating the world and then (according to Hezi) - gradually - he gets more power.
In conclusion Solomon and Absalom
It seems that the biblical writer inflated the character of Solomon to put someone else in his shadow. The implied connection between Solomon and Absalom raises the suspicion that the shadow was ordered for Absalom.
The Bible tells about the extinction of the House of David and its renewal after seven years. The biblical writer cannot deny that extinction because an inscription engraved on a stone monument, which stood at the magnificent entrance of the northern city of Lish (address Tel Dan), testified to it explicitly. He had to be smart about her and renew the House of David in an almost experimental way. However, another event suspected as the destruction of the House of David did not require so much sophistication from the priests. The Bible says that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, made a covenant with the king of Israel (Book of Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX) and also married his daughter (Book of Chronicles XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). King Jehoshaphat had several sons. One of them, Yehoram, inherited his throne and murdered all his brothers, even though they were satisfied with their lot and did not threaten him (Book of Chronicles XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verses XNUMX to XNUMX). The Bible adds to the story that his wife, Athaliah, was the daughter of the king of Israel. At that time Ahaziah son of Ahab came to power in Israel who reigned for a short time and after him came to power his son Johoram. There was a disagreement between Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and Ahaziah, king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat died immediately after it (Book of Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verses XNUMX - XNUMX). When Jehoshaphat died, his son Jehoram came to power, and so it happened that the king of Israel and the king of Judah were both called by the same name and came to power in their countries at the same time. The son of Jehoram king of Judah was named Ahaziah, and the son of Ahaziah king of Israel was named Jehoram. The identity of the names strengthens the suspicion that at that time the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were united under the rule of the king of Israel who murdered all claimants to the crown from the house of David.
The priests could not publicly condone the violation of the divine oath to the House of David. It is mentioned again in the context of Yoram's ascension to rule in Judah ("And God did not allow his father to corrupt Judah for the sake of David his servant when he told him to give him light for his sons forever", Book of Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). Another suspicion that Yoram was not from the house of David arises from the fact that after his death the people did not behave as they did after the death of their ancestors (Book of Chronicles XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). If this was really the case, the priests did their best to obscure the facts. They presented the murdering king as if he was the son of the king of Judah and his legal heir, switched between his name and his son's name, and presented his wife as if she and only she came from the house of Ahab, king of Israel. Such cosmetic changes, unless there is an inscription carved in stone to the contrary, can be accepted by future generations. In light of this, it turns out that when Jehu destroyed what was considered the House of David, he actually destroyed only the Jewish branch of the House of Ahab, and the House of David was destroyed, as mentioned, even in the previous generation. Of those in the royal house, only Athaliah knew the truth, but she was silenced by the executioner's sword after she cried out "a lie, a lie" which the biblical writer was able to turn into "a connection, a connection" (Book of Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX; Book of Deuteronomy Two Days, Chapter XNUMX, Verse XNUMX).
It also seems that the Bible employs another obfuscation technique. In the middle of the story of the unclear exchange of power in Israel and Judah, he plants several stories about the prophets Elijah and Elisha (XNUMX Kings, chapters XNUMX-XNUMX). By the time the reader finishes reading these stories, he forgets the disorder in the royal courts.
Murders in the court of the Kingdom of Judah were a broken vision. The Bible tells about many such: the murder of Amnon by Absalom, the killing of Adonijah by Solomon, the murder of all the sons of Jehoshaphat, the murder of King Joash, the murder of King Amaziah and the murder of King Amon. And if the murder of kings is a common phenomenon, there is a great chance that King David was also murdered, along with all his sons. Even in the Kingdom of Israel kings were murdered more than once. But while in Israel dynasties changed, the Bible is careful to show that in Judah one dynasty was preserved for many hundreds of years thanks to a divine promise. The story of Absalom is one of many stories of the fulfillment of this promise.
Lechiso is nervous
The Hyksos ruled Egypt for at least 120 years, and there is no mention of this unfortunate fact (unfortunate in terms of the national pride of the Egyptians) in all the relevant Egyptian writings of the period, and of the subsequent periods as well, except for one and only one (!) hilographic combination attributed to one of the Hyksos kings, and which Egyptologists speculate - that is - not at all sure - that it refers to the Hyksos, and are still not sure about the way it is spelled and not even about its meaning (rulers of foreign lands? shepherd kings?). The only way from which it is possible to conclude about such a long and significant foreign rule in Egypt, is from the Semitic-sounding names of the Hyksos kings. At least they didn't play with the names. So if the Egyptians did not refer in their writings to those who ruled them for hundreds of years, are they supposed, in your opinion, to mention a negligible people of slaves who made fun of them and ran away overnight? It is worth considering that the historiographical method of the rulers of Egypt from the relevant period was much more similar to that of our new historians and archaeologists, and not to the method of the Bible, whose writers, unlike the Egyptians, chose not to sweep unpleasant facts for their people or their kings under the carpet, nor did they call for defeats and victories . Fortunately, quite a few physical findings were found in the area that testified to the presence of Semitic tribes in Egypt and Sinai (also as slaves of the Egyptians). It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the Egyptian historian Nathan, from the 3rd century BC, and following him Joseph ben Matityahu, considered the Israelites who stayed in Egypt to be part of the Hyksos invasion (after they and their kings were expelled from Egypt, some of them settled in Canaan, and they are probably the ones to whom the Bible refers) Kahorim (a word that means rulers), or as mentioned (the western sky).
And as for the one and only city (Jerusalem) that you refer to as the possible source of our information about the United Kingdom: this is a statement that has something to trust, of course, only if you accept the late dating method of Finkelstein and Silverman. If not, you must also refer to Hezor, Gezer and Megiddo, not to mention Tel Arad (which does not agree at all with the dating method of the denialist school) and the new findings found by Garfinkel in the Hella fortress. From reading the writings of the deniers, it is quite clear that they did not conclude on the weakness of biblical historiography as a result of their studies in the field of dating, but on the contrary: in order to try and challenge what is written in the Bible, they moved the dating to fit the theory. And it is clear that the dating is as far-fetched as the theory, and vice versa.
Liair Shimron:
Leather scrolls and papyri imported from Egypt, as well as ink produced from squid, cost a lot of money at the time. And if you think that our ancestors wasted the precious raw materials on writing nonsense and nonsense like those that are written nowadays with the press of a key, it seems that you have a very bad opinion about the genetic material from which you are made, and it's a waste of time.
Yair,
I didn't follow your comments.
But I'll throw in some food for thought here.
The God of Israel is called "El".
"God" was considered in the early biblical period to be one of the gods, not the only god.
As you write here,
The Bible was written by people.
They made "God" the only God who created the universe.
If you follow the subject, throughout the books of the Bible, you will see that "God" gradually gets more and more powerful.
R. H.,
Following our conversations here, I re-examined the idea I put forward about Saul=Yohshua, and I reject it, and prefer your answer 120.
Complete,
Regarding the episodes, I get your comment.
But what about the problematic question of Yoav's preferences - between Adoniya, between Absalom, both competing with Solomon.
And most importantly, our reading of your book is critical. The Tanach was written by people like us. Very talented, more or less. They took it upon themselves to explain, based on their beliefs, the situation of the Israeli people, and later the Jewish people. They knew part of the history, they had to explain the reality especially based on their beliefs.
There was a horrifying gap between their belief in the infinite power of their god and the incomparably bleak reality of their people.
They filled this gap first of all by adding warning clauses from God if you don't listen...
and second by adding miracles.
When these two means were not enough for them, they added their own historical ideas, which can sometimes be easily discerned.
For 400 years (according to the Bible) the people of Israel were in Egypt, during that period (at least part of it) they were slaves - and there is still no mention of such a group of slaves in Egypt (neither the Hessus nor the Aspiril are identified as slaves), in addition, such a large population has no possibility To survive in the Sinai Peninsula. And regarding David - do you really think that one city (even if we assume that it is all that is said about it) indicates a large and organized kingdom? - Absolutely not.
Liair Shimron (116)
First you tell me that many chapters have passed and then you tell me that there is no meaning in dividing it into chapters. decide And in relation to the issue being discussed in general: when I have to decide between the possibility that among our ancestors there were groups of Bedouins with a lot of imagination that suited them to falsify the history of their family/tribe/people for ideological and practical reasons, and between the possibility that groups of such Bedouins and forgers exist today and are trying to correct the history of our people - I choose without difficulty. Knowing the motives of today's counterfeiters and fakers and their sources of funding - the choice is not difficult at all. Those who wrote the history of the house of David - priests, Levites, scribes of the king and the prophets - wrote an immeasurably more reliable history than the one written by the archaeologists and historians working at Tel Aviv University and its suburbs.
Liza 137, wanted "evolution cannons" received Moshe. Poetic justice indeed.
Trying to talk to "Hazi" reminds me of a joke:
What is the difference between a dialogue and a monologue?
A monologue is when one person talks to himself.
Dialogue is when two people talk to themselves.
Website address:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html#antievolution
Another explanation for the "mystery" of Hezi:
"Not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis, consisting of egg, nymph, adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs started hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge fully grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. "
Source: Intelligent Design – Skeptic's Dictionary
The site is extremely interesting, although there is no fear that Hazi will try to visit it - it will destroy all kinds of beliefs.
A warm recommendation for the dialogue between "Hazi" and Moshe on "Hazi's" "blog".
(Remember: only read - not participate)
For "chest":
How many raises do you want? I agree with R.H.
You convinced me.
The butterfly droppings argument is indeed a winning argument. impenetrable. He knocks out every train of thought I had. How was I so blind?
And if the butterfly droppings argument is not enough, if we add the butterfly droppings argument to it, then at all!! All modern science is collapsing like a deck of cards! There is no trace left of science as I knew it.
(And I'm no longer talking about the sheep dung argument at all)
How many more hands do you need to reveal the theory?
Guess you're a snooze. Please read here some explanations for the amazing "mystery" you came up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects
Now can we hear the famous theory?
pleasantness,
There is no problem to comment here as well.
But there are at least two people who oppose it: my father, and the all-knowing…
R.H.
After Darwin's followers "raise their hands", I will present an alternative theory...
Lisa,
You are probably too young, and don't know the discussion culture:
I am the one who misleads Darwin, and it is not I who should explain his theory, but you.
I asked questions that fail the theory: the formation of the butterfly scrolls.
Neither you nor anyone else gave even a quarter of an answer...
I agree with Noam's call once again.
However, I must admit that the "blog" of "Hazi" started to take on a life of its own and a cesspool of delusions of all kinds was created there. Fascinating phenomenon!
Continue the holy work "Hazi"!
Hezi, how will I understand what you are and in what template you are, if you don't say what your theory is but only refutes the current theory? What is the guessing game?
How did the ugly one say? If you want to shoot, shoot! don't talk
Obviously, this is not a suitable place for my chest...
He can't delete comments he doesn't like.
Stay away from Hezi's blog, it's a trap of a dishonest person. He will make sure to delete any comments that embarrass him and leave only his comments, and comments that are convenient for him
Max Power,
I suggest you post your arguments on the blog.
There are people here who feel uncomfortable with this topic…
to lisa,
You are welcome to continue the discussion in Belg.
This is not the right place for that...
"Chest":
It's no wonder we didn't understand what you are fooling and what you are not fooling.
You yourself do not know what you are fooling and what you are not.
Do you suddenly have several evolution versions? Are you "for" another evolution?
What are the criteria according to which you choose the version - is it a version that promised you a reduction in taxes, or peace and security? Maybe it's a greener evolution? Or one that supports retirees? Maybe this is evolution designed to make it easier for the butterflies when they roll?
To make it easier for you, maybe tell us what evolution was taught to you in school?
To all supporters of intelligent creation, if something came to earth billions of years ago it might have been an organism in the form of a bacterium, there is no intelligence in a bacterium, if there was something more complex where is it today.
R.H.
126
I understand that you still haven't realized that I don't deny evolution...
I can understand that I don't fit into your usual mold.
I'm in favor of a different evolution than the one you were taught at school...
Lisa, are you still trying? Well, just like the other "evolution fools", they come and say they have a new theory, but they will never argue for and against the arguments of evolution, not a word about their "theory". They know that every alternative theory that has been presented to date is much weaker and unfounded, so all they do is chew until they are tired the same arguments against evolution. Hazi also thinks that he is the first to come up with the proof (look at the news!) against evolution. How was the butterfly created? Wow, indeed a new and original reasoning, really how was this not thought of before? So what if it was answered hundreds or maybe thousands of times?
They never bring positive proofs for their theory but only negative proofs against evolution.
Hazi, I urge you again, instead of talking so much about evolution, present an alternative theory and let's debate it. Evolution sucks, forget it, let's talk about your theory.
"Chazi" (119):
Of course you don't *need* to describe Darwin's theory. You can do any nonsense you can think of (as you do with remarkable excellence and persistence).
If you want to have a serious discussion suitable for mature and intelligent people, please describe to us what theory you are against.
You are also welcome to continue the infantile line you have stuck to so far.
The decision is in your hands.
Chest:
If he answered on your website - why are you bothering us here?!
Fed up!!!
incidentally,
Another note for the 88th Jubilee,
I know references from the Koran in the original language (Arabic).
The disruptions there in regards to events that are considered historical in the biblical descriptions, give me chills.
There is no doubt that the Koran was written at a time much later than the signing of the books of the Bible,
And he was influenced by Jews who lived in Saudi Arabia at that time.
Therefore, the Koran should not be considered a reliable source in terms of mentioning historical truths...
Yuval Chaikin 88
beginning,
I congratulate you for "picking up the gauntlet" on my evolution blog.
There is no doubt that the historical truth described in the Bible is not the same as the real historical truth.
The hypothesis that there were disputes between rival priesthoods is interesting in itself, but it will remain a hypothesis.
Lack of historical finds from the time of the House of David and even before that,
It is a result of the fact that the Jewish people have never excelled in construction in particular and in materialism in general.
The matters of the "spirit" were always the important matters.
The most impressive historical find of the Jewish people (in terms of its construction) is the Western Wall.
It was also built during the Roman period and under Roman inspiration.
The size of the wall's stones are particularly impressive, and there is no other find of its size.
I can't help but wonder how the work of chipping and moving the stones was done.
Yair, the truth is that when you think about it, there is something in your thesis. If we assume that the book of Joshua is fake and ask where the author got his ideas from, we can assume that some of the material was indeed based on Saul. This will not yet become the identification of Joshua = Saul, but it is very possible that Saul is the one who spared the Gibeonites and left them as a water-drawing minority, and the story of Joshua comes as an etiological explanation for this.
On the other hand, if we accept Knohl's thesis that the tribe of Levi came from Egypt through the desert, perhaps Joshua was the one who brought them to Israel after the death of the mythological leader (Moses) and this is a real figure. Of course, all the stories of the war and the occupation were added to make the story more beautiful.
Yair, the truth is that when you think about it, there is something in your thesis. If we assume that the book of Joshua is fake and ask where the author got his ideas from, we can assume that some of the material was indeed based on Saul. This will not yet become the identification of Joshua = Saul Ahel. It is very possible that Saul is the one who spared the Gibeonites and left them as a water-drawing minority and the story of Joshua comes as an etiological explanation for this.
On the other hand, if we accept Knohl's thesis that the tribe of Levi came from Egypt through the desert, perhaps Joshua was the one who brought them to Israel after the death of the mythological leader (Moses) and this is a real figure. Of course, all the stories of the war and the occupation were added to make the story more beautiful.
Lisa
115
Do I need to describe Darwin's theory?
Despite all my references both here and on the blog,
There is still not even one response that can explain the cocoons of the butterfly...
It's called "science" here...
R. H.,
Another note to identify Joshua - Saul
First, I must admit that the hypothesis is only marginally supported. but
You point out that the story of the Gibeonites in Joshua is etiological. True, but the entire book of Joshua is etiological!
This is a late book, written after most of the Torah literature had already been written. This is evidenced first of all by the many references to God's instructions to Moses and the people that appear in the Torah, and especially in the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as the language of the book, which can be shown to be late both in grammar and in the ways of the story.
The book of Joshua was written at the earliest at the end of the seventh century, after the writing of Deuteronomy. The authors took it upon themselves to explain the special relationship of the Israelites-Judah to the land, the conquest through the miracles of God, and the reason that at the time of the composition of this book the condition of the people was very bad, and the reason for the disasters that occurred in the land.
The identification I propose refers only to the occupation of the land. The book of Samuel tells about Saul's successful wars, but only a part of his conquests is described, and the rest is summarized in 47 Samuel XNUMX "And Saul captured the kingdom of Israel and fought around all his enemies in Moab and the Ammonites and Edom and the kings of Zoba and the Philistines and wherever he turned he would punish."
In other words, his conquests are reminiscent of David's conquests! As for the area of his residence, there is no mention of conquests or the extermination of a population - and this fits the story of an oath to the Gibeonites, his neighbors.
On the other hand, the character of Joshua has no real evidence and is entirely fiction, and the mention of the story of the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua is taken directly in my opinion from the stories of Saul, and comes to explain why at the time the book was composed there were still many of non-Israeli-Jewish origin.
Lisa 115:
"You go against an idea you don't understand and worse, you also refuse to learn"
This should be Hezi's motto, like a permanent signature of users in the forums.
Abby, maybe you can fix it for him? 😛
Solomon (81)
Those who wrote the texts known today as Samuel XNUMX, XNUMX, did not count chapters like we do. Of course, it is possible that the mention of Absalom where we would have expected the name of Solomon is not a mistake, but as R. H. suggests is simply a historical mention. What else,
Even if Yoav leaned after Absalom and not after Adonijah, what did this tendency mean for Solomon?
After all, Absalom is also, as far as Solomon is concerned, a rival for that kingdom, that is, a son of death!
I don't know what the real reason for this verse is, but Chaikin's suggestion is not absurd at all.
I agree with the reading of the anonymous from 98 (which is not me).
Hezi's blog is being run unfairly.
Like his blog, Hazi himself, as reflected in the discussions with him here, is not decent.
Every discussion requires a certain level of cooperation between the parties even when they disagree.
Hezi repeats his empty slogans without a hint of honesty and fairness towards his interlocutors. To add insult to injury, he began censoring answers on his dubious website.
Regarding the last comment on "Hazi's" "blog" - I didn't even ask him to present an alternative. All I asked was for him to describe what the theory of evolution is and how it is flawed.
I'm still waiting for your answer bro.
You're going against an idea you don't understand and worse, you're also refusing to learn.
R. H.,
You can find my books in some libraries such as Beit Ariela or Tel Aviv University, or send me an email address. Today they are no longer distributed in stores.
yshimron@gmail.com .
bra and laugh,
You ask for proofs but don't read them. Not long ago we televised a discussion on Iranian television about evidence of the Holocaust. The moderator asked if there was evidence of the Holocaust. The expert said there was no evidence. No evidence? There is no evidence. No evidence? There is no evidence. Then another expert was brought up who said, but in Albania there were 60 people who said they saved Jews. The previous expert said there is no evidence, the Holocaust is a hobby of the West.
When you don't want to learn and know, you don't learn and everything that is said is dismissed outright. you to Iranian television.
The crazy ones will be censored!
my father
I am only responding to lies and slander against me...
pleasantness,
You don't read or worse, read and don't understand what I write...
I invite anyone to write opinions contrary to mine. inviting. inviting.
If Mandhoe has a Darwinian answer to the morphs of a butterfly,
Why doesn't he show her?
I include you of course, Noam...
Hezi, why are you wasting all the space of the talkbacks in which people want to express themselves regarding the kingdom of David, on fights about an external site that opposes evolution. There is not even a logical connection, evolution has existed for billions of years and King David may or may not have been 3,000 years ago.
Please do it elsewhere. Why did you open your own website if you continue to harass the knowledge surfers?
Just so no one gets confused by Hezi's lies:
The questions that Hazi raises aren't even particularly smart, and all of them have long had excellent explanations.
Hezi strictly ignores any explanation, then declares with a determined forehead that there are no explanations for his questions.
Arguing with him is worthless and unnecessary, because he is simply not an honest person - this is not slander, this is a simple and clear fact.
To delete a comment on your blog, because someone disagrees with your opinion, and even "dare" to ask you to present your position, is so low and vile - and Hazi doesn't even understand it.
Those who are really interested in the theory of evolution will find convincing explanations for all the old-fashioned questions that Hazi raised, as well as much smarter questions.
Of course, there is no serious person who is bothered by the "truth" of Hezi, not to mention serious scientists.
It's the stupid arrogance that's off-putting.
Stay away from Hezi's blog - he will decide for you what to publish and what to delete for his convenience!
pleasantness,
You are a hypocrite.
I didn't block anyone.
I just deleted his one and only comment, which again repeated his prompting me to present my position.
Both you and he can now write any response to the topic,
and present it here as well.
It turns out that all the "scientists" do not have an answer to the question I presented,
which presents Darwin's theory in its entirety.
I have already proven before,
Because slander does not deter me from telling the truth (which is not convenient for "scientists")...
So no hypocrisy please...
The one who is vile is you, who accuses falsely...
Hezi, okay, I admit you convinced me that evolution is flawed. You brought me to the hidden light. Thank you, thank you, I hope that many will follow me. Now can we finally read your alternative theory?
Hezi,
You are a dishonest person period.
You blocked Lisa because "he refused to admit that Darwin's theory is flawed" ???
You still do not understand to what moral low you have degenerated.
What will be the next step against Lisa and others who are not willing to "admit" that Drowin's theory is flawed??? inquisition? a fire?
Imagine if my father would block you because you are not ready to admit that Drouin's theory is correct!
You repeat here like a broken turntable and sleep on empty slogans, do not deal with the arguments of others, and allow yourself to open a blog where you determine which opinions will be heard, under the guise of wanting to understand better.
Shame and disgrace, leave in the dark and dark cellar of your knowledge, and leave us alone.
enough,
All Lisa wanted in his last response, that I present an alternative, without being willing to admit that Darwin's theory is flawed.
No one has a response to what I asked,
Regarding the explanation for the formation of "incarnation" of four stages in butterflies (for example)?
You don't read what I write...
I am waiting for a response
"Random evolution" has only a chest version.
Why didn't you respond to Lisa's last comment? The blog has been dead for a week and I am all anticipation.
Lavi 102 and Noam 103
father,
I enter according to what I did not say.
There were comments on the blog that were off topic.
I didn't delete any actual comments.
pleasantness,
You are wrong.
I do the exact opposite of what you claim.
I invite comments that do not suit my opinions.
If you see Leah's last comment on the blog,
You'll see that he urges me not to wait for responses that contradict my opinions,
but to present an alternative theory of mine.
my method
exhaust the claims of Darwin's followers to the limit,
and only after that,
After the nonsense of the claims about "random evolution" Darwinian style is revealed,
I will present my view on "intelligent evolution".
Hezi,
Do not add sin to crime…
Liza complained that you delete his comments, and even though I don't always agree with his views, he is certainly not a garbage man.
I didn't see that you even bothered to answer Liza about his complaint
A blogger who calls "trash" anyone whose opinions do not agree with him, and even dares to delete these comments, is a lying and dishonest blogger.
Joins the call to stay away from the blog.
Hezi, what do you mean that everyone who defends Darwin (the consensus) is a scumbag?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and not the other way around. (Quote from Carl Sagan).
Response to 99 and 98
If there really is someone here who can answer the question,
He is welcome to do so here and I will move it to the blog.
Please no garbage...
R.H. 97
You have a fundamental mistake.
I do not rule out evolution at all.
I only claim that it was not created "by itself" in a random way, but was purposed by reason...
For 98 who is afraid to even write a nickname:
Like any self-respecting blog,
I only delete junk.
You, like everyone else, are invited to answer the last question,
which has been waiting for an answer for several days...
There are many who want to trash there, because it is not convenient for them to deny Darwin...
R.H.:
You might be right but I'm not sure.
Just as the existence of intelligent life on Earth indicates the possibility of their existence on other stars, so the existence of one person suffering from the syndrome of "not knowing" can indicate the possibility that this syndrome also exists in others.
One of the reasons I thought that these were different people was their web addresses, but upon closer inspection I saw that all the "laughing" comments were probably written through a website designed for impersonation - by the way - just like Ron's comments.
There are people who impersonate blood.
By the way, I'm guessing that the anonymous in 98 is Liza because Liza has already told about this dirty exercise by Chazi.
Hezi's blog is run in a dishonest way.
He tends to block any response that he is uncomfortable with, thus creating the false impression that he has "an answer to every question", while others have no explanations for his questions.
Stay away from such blogs.
Hezi, first of all 93 is not me. No one makes me smile.
Second thing about your blog, you didn't read the comments because you were answered by all the formation of the butterfly reincarnations, you disrespected even the only two commenters who agreed to look at it and you still haven't presented any thesis that denies evolution, so what do you want?
I know only one person who ran a campaign (!), or perhaps it is correct to call it a persistent struggle. In favor of using the letter e for the male form in Hebrew (she laughed, she wanted, she said, etc.). What could be more? Woe.
R. H. 93
It's good that someone else here puts a smile on your face.
My blog on evolution is still waiting for a response regarding the formation of the "butterfly reincarnations" by themselves...
http://www.kaspit.com/blog/index.php
No one has responded yet…
R.H.:
I don't think this is the same person.
The style is different, the nonsense is different, and only the arrogance is shared.
R.H
Israel Knohl brings talks about the composition of ethnic groups. The lovable Chazi(?) managed to put a smile on my face and I'm not in a hurry to deny it. A nation consists of several ethnic groups, large and small, and it is not impossible that Israel Knohl omitted the tribe of Ali Baba and Fatma (or any small and not very significant group) due to the brevity of the canvas.
Tracing the origin of peoples provides a wide and interesting occupation, but it seems to me that when discussing the biblical people of Israel, ethnic probing misses the point. Those who always knew how to unite different people into one group were kings or priests. In my opinion, the origin of the nation of Israel must be sought in the family of the priests.
to make me laugh:
Where would we be today without healthy laughs?
My inflated ego is expressed in the fantastic stories I write. As far as I am concerned, the Tanakh is a literary work, and as such it stimulates me to try my best as well. I humbly announce that until today I have never been able to write something as beautiful as the Tanach. As for the question of the Tanach speaking the truth, you and I may differ in our opinions.
Michael, is it also clear to you that her laughter is the best-remembered chest?
Her laugh:
Since you really believe in Ali Baba's stories that have no proof, I find your attack on people who are trying to understand what really happened and do not base their claims on Ali Baba but try to derive them from the findings that actually exist - ridiculous - to say the least
Historians "Elec"
After all, it is clear and well-known and supported by the scriptures that the origin of the Jewish people is from Eli Baba and his wife Tzadkat Petma. Admittedly, there is a dispute as to whether Avraham Yitzchak and Jacob are the descendants of the robbers who repented
And they allowed Ali Baba's son - Moshe, to take all the credit for the strt-up or whatever these three made him a "red cap" and brought in Jeroboam to guard the cheese while inventing a sophisticated cover story that brought in a significant group of people to keep it tight for three thousand And eight hundred years on a serious "for" between the meat and the milk.
Now we will see you contradicting my thesis.
If you had a minimum of integrity in addition to your ego, you would bow your head and admit that it is difficult for you to accept
the truths of the Bible's theories, but you do not have the power! for their unwillingness.
The wild difficulty level rampant here is simply a disgrace to any sane person.
Yuval, regarding the houses of the priesthood and the tribe of Levi, I generally agree with Israel Knohl's thesis (where did we come from, if I'm not mistaken) who claims that the people of Israel is a synthesis of several groups -
1) Those who came from the north from the area of today's Iraq who brought the stories of the creation of the world, the flood and the ancestors, their god was "El" or in the plural God.
2) Locals who always lived in Canaan and became a nation, always continued to worship Asherah and Baal.
3) The tribe of Levi who came from Egypt and the desert and brought the tradition of the exodus from Egypt and the God Jehovah. These arrived last and took over the worship, but never won their own land and became the priestly class. Aaron and Aaron's priests were part of Levi.
4) Apparently the tribe of Dan was from the Philistines (Samson, etc.).
All these formed into one nation and synthesized the stories into one story with continuity.
In terms of the priesthood, there was a struggle between Zadok priests who advocated a centralized worship in Jerusalem and the priests of Beit Ali, Avitar for example, who advocated a decentralized worship in the platforms. Finally, with the exile of Israel, the centralists won and they are also the ones who wrote the Bible we know.
What do you think?
R. H., justice is with you
Since I wrote the things about the ten tribes and Islam, 24 years ago, I have discovered more things and I have had questions like the ones you raised. For example, if we accept the thesis according to which Solomon is a fiction invented only in the days of Josiah, then he should not have reached the Koran in the way I suggested. Another fictitious character from that period, Joshua ben Nun (conqueror of the land, not Moses' boy and one of the good spies), did not make it to the Koran. One possibility I put forward to solve the dilemma is that the image of Solomon was invented long before the days of Josiah and circulated throughout the kingdom of Israel.
But today I don't see things that way. Those who spread the religions in the world were priests. Two central priesthood houses were in Israel and Judah, Beit Levi and Beit Aharon. Today's Judaism maintains the customs of both. Relics from the worship of Solomon's temple and Aaron's house can be found in the Christian church. Beit Levi was not concerned with rituals and temples, but with relationships between people. They focused on the Torah of Moses. The commandments of the Torah of Moses are observed today by Muslims very meticulously.
I assume that Muhammad was influenced by the priests of the House of Levi and received from them. Perhaps he was even from Beit Levi. He did not like the priests of the house of Aaron, slandered Ezra the scribe and slaughtered an entire tribe of priests
Yair Shimron, did you write the books on the origin of Hebrew and the language in general? If so, where can I get them? (I checked online at Stimatsky and other stores, but I couldn't find it).
with gratitude
R.H.
Yuval Chaikin, I read elsewhere your thesis regarding a possible connection between Arab people and the exiles from Israel (the ten tribes) and I found it interesting and original. It is especially interesting that in the Koran figures appear only from before the exile, I don't remember seeing a reference to this point before.
However, there are also some problematic points in the thesis, first of all it is clear that Islam was also influenced by the Christians and indeed Jesus (Isa) was added to the prophets. That is to say that at least from the side of the Christians and also, I suppose, from the Jews of the Arabian Peninsula, the first Muslims were exposed to all the characters and still chose what they chose.
Second point, the house of Omri, Omri himself and Ahab were probably the greatest kings of the kingdom of Israel (and probably also of Judah). Ahab managed to stop the Assyrian invasion at the time. They had a rich palace in Samaria that contained ivory (in agreement between the Bible and the findings). So it must be assumed that the tribes of Israel will remember them with admiration and yet they are not remembered as prophets or heroes as was done to David and Solomon. The same goes for Jeroboam ben Nebat who freed them from Solomon's yoke. Moreover, it must be assumed that the ten tribes did not have a particularly sympathetic attitude towards them, so why were they adopted by Islam?
In fact, if we go by Finkelstein's thesis, David and Solomon, who were relatively minor kings, received a special status and were revered only in the days of Josiah after the Assyrian retreat for political reasons.
Another point, why did the Muslims when they conquered the area, if indeed they came with the myths of the ten tribes, sanctify Jerusalem and not, for example, Nablus, Beit El or Dan?
Does anyone read this garbage? It seems to you
I will gladly interview him in light of the renewed interest in his findings, I will find out when this can be done
The article here prompted me to locate the 2 books written by Professor Israel Finkelstein. The man is the winner of the Dan David Award, even if he arouses controversy, in my opinion: the number 1 archaeologist in Israel - I have to believe his theory. A researcher on the level of the late Yehezkel Koipman, Eliezer Soknik as above and Darwin to contrast. Avi: In my humble opinion, it is appropriate that you dedicate an article or another article to him. In 100 years history may forget the other historians - but Finkelstein will be remembered if he is right. The books are: David and Shlomo - between historical reality or myth
The beginning of Israel - archaeology, the Bible and historical memory.
There is no claim that David and Shlomo did not exist - but that they were perhaps governors of a city. Ahab, on the other hand, was a great king in the kingdom of Israel, and Josiah - in his days the historiography was written, in light of the attempt to deal with the trauma of the destruction of a great kingdom from the north by the Assyrians. The problem is that there is no lack of haters of Israel who will take advantage of these things to tattoo our existence in Israel. After all, the history of Jesus and Muhammad are also a myth. The myth is important in any case.
Thanks to all the commenters and counter-commentators. I became wiser and educated.
The Bible was written over a long period of time. Some say decades and some say hundreds. Parchment and papyrus scrolls are made of material that wears out quickly, and it is necessary to renew them from time to time. During the copying of an old text, the copyist has the opportunity to re-edit, omit and add as he sees fit.
I do not personally know those who were engaged in copying the Holy Scriptures, and for that reason I am prevented from testifying to their honesty. All I have is an understanding of the nature of people in our generation, and the conclusions I reach are very sad.
Not only that I cannot accept the Bible as a reliable source of information, but I also believe that the Bible is a rich repository of disinformation. Examples of this are not lacking, and I will not go into it because of the boredom involved. However, the Bible is almost the only source we have for these periods. Therefore, to get as much out of it as possible, I treat it like any other disinformative source.
One of the methods for extracting a shred of reliable information from a sea of disinformation is to try to understand who wrote it and what their motives were. Often there is no choice but to use creative imagination. Obviously, I'm drawing fire for this, but it's a price that sometimes has to be paid. I try to benefit from the criticism I received and as mentioned, I learned a few things here that I will probably use in the future.
And thanks again
Thanks to R.H. And to Yair, before you give medical advice, you should take a look at the Bible: the story of Yoav and Absalom ends in the book of Samuel XNUMX in chapter XNUMX. In XNUMX Samuel there are XNUMX chapters, and in the second chapter of XNUMX Kings comes the reminder. If you believe that in the Bible a difference of seven chapters is "many chapters", it seems that you have not opened the book in a long time. It has many, many chapters. Seven is nothing.
Yair, you mentioned Absalom here, in my estimation, the intention is to remind the reader of the episode in which David (again with typical cynicism) disavowed the elimination of Absalom even though he probably supported him a lot and laid the blame and even cursed the sons of Tzarua. This is actually a pretense that Shlomo uses during the assassinations of all the supporters of his master, the legal heir - Yoav, Avitar and others, even though they were very loyal to David his father. The author is actually saying "Do you think Yoav was faithful? Absolutely not, remember Absalom? Refusal of a direct order from the king"?
Complete,
The joke is good for you too, you have to explain why many chapters after Absalom was killed he is again mentioned precisely as an opponent of Solomon.
To Yuval Chaikin
In the meantime, without referring to the rest of the ramifications of your fevered imagination, you write as follows: "While I do not have many reasons to doubt the existence of King David, the story of King Solomon seems to me fundamentally far-fetched." In one place, the biblical author calls the young King Solomon by the name "Absalom" (Book of XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX), and from this I suspect that the king who rose after Adonijah (and also murdered him) is of the seed of Absalom." So far your words. Well, below is the exact quote from the book of XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX: ""And the rumor (that the new king expelled Avitar the priest, Yoav's accomplice in the crowning of his master's fall, and even called him a "man of death", that is, a son of death) It came up to Joab, because Joab leaned after her master, and after Absalom he did not lean, and Joab went to the tent of the Lord and strengthened the horns of the altar." The same Absalom whom Yoav was not inclined to follow, unlike his brother Adoniya, was David's rebellious and long-haired son, which was his fate: "And (Joab) took three tribes in his hand and settled in the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the heart of the goddess. And ten young men carrying Joab's instruments turned and beat Absalom and killed him." (XNUMX Samuel XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX). It is therefore quite clear that Yoav did not lean towards Absalom. Given that this verse is the solid basis for your suspicions, you might want to take some henna to calm the fever.
76,
All the research says is that a large part of those with the name Cohen have a common origin, and nothing about the origin of the ancestor.
Fortunately for us today there is science that can disprove theories that are without foundation, to your question were the priests from the seed of Aaron? , the answer is in your genetic code, more precisely that of the priests' family, it has been known for some time that the priests carry a genetic change that is not similar to the rest of the population, in a calculation made on the same change in the gene, the researchers came to the conclusion that the father of the family lived 106 generations ago, which is about 3000 years for a more detailed reading Here is the link.
http://www.qsubs.org/index.php?showtopic=9170
So apparently their shield was true and not made up...
Yair
Yes! please send ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
My opinion is also that the priests who served in Solomon's temple served there even during the Jebusim period. They attributed themselves to Aaron the priest, who is told in XNUMX Samuel and in the Chronicles that he sold to David the plot of land on which the temple was later built. Lest you say, "Not Aaron, because it is the Hibbos' ark", after all, Aaron and Arona are the same name as far as letters are concerned, and in the Bible the same arona appears in other occurrences "Aranya" (ShamXNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX) and "Arnan" (DBAXNUMX , XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX and onwards).
The Levites were priests in the kingdom of Israel. There was no connection between them and the priests of Solomon's Temple. It was only in the days of Hezekiah, when they were invited to perform duties in Solomon's temple, that the myth was built according to which Aaron the priest was the brother of Moshe the Levite and that Avitar the priest was one of his descendants.
Thanks for the correction on the whole "religion" matter. Indeed, I meant the faith that bore this name which, in my opinion, also evolved into "Islam".
Yehoshua and Isaiah, the sound of both of them is similar to Yehoshya - and not without reason. The teachers and educators of the king, who inherited the crown when he was only eight years old, were priests. They wrote the Bible specifically for King Hinoka to brainwash him. Joshua, the hero who conquered all of the land of Canaan and ruled over the religion of Israel, was meant to serve as an example and a role model for the king so that he would do exactly the same: conquer the territories of the land of Canaan and rule over the religion of Israel.
Saul is the kingdom of the dead. The king's original name was perhaps "Ish-El", since his son's name was "Ish-Baal" and in Canaanite mythology Baal was the son of El. The priests had an account with him and by giving him the name Saul they commemorated the fact that he persecuted and murdered them.
R.H
I liked your version of King David. It seems to me that we see things eye to eye, and only the wings of imagination keep us apart. It is clear to both of us that the writing of the Bible is biased and for that reason it is suspected of falsifying the facts. I say "faking a lot" and you say "faking just a little". In short, we have a lot to argue about if we want to.
Yair and Yuval, wow, you are drifting into very faraway realms of imagination in my humble opinion. I agree that the story is biased and you should always think about what the author intended and who the author was.
The writers' motivations were:
1) Explaining the current situation in the light of history with evidence for the future of what needs to be done, i.e. centralized worship in the Temple, unification of control in the area under Josiah.
2) On the other hand, it was not possible for the writers to ignore northern myths and stories whose interpretations were already rooted in tradition. However, it was possible to paint them a new color. For example, Ahab, who was perhaps the strongest and most successful king in the Bible, is presented as the greatest sinner.
And so in my opinion things are much simpler and what is written is more or less what was. Let me also tell my version:
David, head of a gang of outlaws, succeeds with strong Philistine support to rise to power. In the process, he brutally sarcastically destroys the family of the previous ruler (apparently Saul, but this may be a northern, non-Jewish myth inserted into the story). One of the prominent eliminations is the murder of all the remaining sons of Saul, which is cynically placed on the shoulders of the protégés from Gibeon (for it is clear that if he wanted to prevent the murder, he would have prevented it).
A rebellion of the northern tribes broke out against David. The writers put it on the shoulders of his son Absalom, and in my opinion, if there is anything invented in the whole story, it is Absalom. Why, if he was the king's son from Judah, did all the northern tribes support him as they later supported Shevi and Jeroboam?
This is probably the truth that the writers used to explain how Solomon, who was not the eldest son, ascended the throne. There remains only the problem of her master, who is also easily eliminated. Again, if the writers could have made Adoniya's story disappear, I suppose they would have buried it, but the people knew, so it was necessary to change and paint the story in a sympathetic light to Shlomo.
Yair, regarding Joshua = Saul. Your explanation is very weak in my opinion.
1) Indeed interesting, but only saying that there is something special about Joshua and maybe he is mythical or based on a mixture of people, nothing about Saul.
2) The Gibeonites were indeed mentioned in both stories. In my opinion, Gibeon had a kind of Canaanite proteges and the writer had to explain why. The story of Joshua is an etiological story for this purpose. As mentioned in the story of David, the blame for the elimination of Saul's sons was placed on the "foreign workers".
3) Inaccurate, Hazor and Nablus for example were not within the boundaries of Saul's kingdom
4) It means nothing, so there were name changes.
5) I agree and therefore I think Joshua was a mythological figure but why Saul why?
RH, at the other end of the clock,
There are several reasons to assume that there was no historical Joshua, and on the other hand this figure is a substitute for Saul. I assumed that Saul is a historical figure, I can't reason here.
1. Yehoshua is attributed to Moshe, at the time of which there are actually no Yehu names at all (apart from Yochaved).
2. The case of the Gibeonites that bothers David and serves as a pretext for the destruction of Shaul's family.
3. The conquests of "Joshua" are mainly concentrated in the areas where Saul lived. Shaul cannot get credit.
4. Changing names following events was acceptable, thus Jeroboal's name was changed to Gideon after his victory, and other changes.
5. Archeology does not fully support the conquests in the period attributed to Joshua, and the idea of conquest and settlement is completely rejected in the research.
And there are other reasons for my hypothesis, which I will not be able to provide here.
jubilee,
While your appeal to the existence of a "whole" historical figure is reasonable, the grand opera that you base, among other things, by changing the text is unsuccessful, historical, even if not prohibited, literary.
Your claim that a "religion" called "Salem" was established is a colossal anachronism. At that time there were no religions at all in today's sense. There was a large collection of beliefs and customs and each region contained parts of that collection. There was no comprehensive religious corpus that he had there. The Tanakh itself testifies that everyone learned from others, including his enemies, and took what pleased him.
It is possible that in Jerusalem there was competition for priestly positions in the king's temple (probably there were other temples there, less prestigious), but the competitors were not "Israelites" against "Jews" but the Hibusim who were not destroyed (I wrote a whole chapter about this, if you want I can send it to you) and news from David's loyalists in his wars.
Your basic claim that Absalom murdered David is not impossible, but in the absence of any actual clue there is no point in speculating.
Regarding the meaning of the name David, the accepted hypothesis is that it means a leader or a military commander. This hypothesis explains the scene at Misha's "Arel Doda" monument, that is, some kind of device that was a shaikh for the leader.
A. Ben-Ner:
First of all, I am not a doctor and certainly not in history.
Besides - your words are not true.
This is not confirmation of the existence of David's kingdom and that is all we have said.
It is possible to indicate that a conclusion is incorrect without indicating the correct conclusion (in fact - the entire scientific method in which a theory is disproved through an experiment and not through another theory is based on this fact).
Scientific research does not always have to produce a thesis and when it chooses to do so - it must choose a thesis that has significant confirmation.
This is not the case here and that is the criticism.
R.H.
To the question "why would the author of a story want to greatly distort reality" you can find a sea of answers. Time flows forward and brings in its wings new events. There are coups and counter coups and repeated coups, and following each such coup one must go back to the old stories and adapt them to the current demands. Here is a story that is the fruit of my feverish imagination, from which a possible script emerges for three successive court coups in Jerusalem:
======
Israeli priests joined the leaders of the tribe of Judah in the hope of helping them in strengthening their influence in the Kingdom of Israel. Ben Yishai, as told in the Bible, was loyal to two large priestly families - the priests of Jerusalem to the house of Aaron and Zadok and the priests of Israel to the house of Levi and Abitar. However, with his double support, he brought about the fact that these two priesthoods competed with each other for hegemony in Jerusalem. The Bible says that shortly after the time of Ben Yishai, the priests of Jerusalem had the upper hand and their Israeli competitors were exiled to the city of Anatot (XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verses XNUMX-XNUMX).
Absalom murdered his father and all his brothers and seized power. The two priesthoods competed with each other for his support, and both came out to justify the bloodbath he conducted. The priests of Jerusalem to the house of Aaron and Zadok spread the story of Tamar, Absalom's sister (Book of Samuel XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verses XNUMX-XNUMX). In the original version (which we do not have) of the story, Amnon, the heir to the throne, asks Tamar's hand in marriage from Ben Yishai, their common father. Ben Yishai is very interested in this match, because of the royal lineage of Tamar (daughter of Makkah, daughter of Ptolemy, king of Geshur) which is to compensate for the popular lineage of Amnon (son of Ahineam of Israel), but he cannot support him openly because of the opposition of Absalom, who considers himself a candidate It is natural to inherit the crown by virtue of that lineage. Ben Yishai suggests to Amnon that he secretly invite Tamar to him ("And the king said to him, lie down on your bed and begin, and I will tell Tamar your sister, come and break bread and make the creation before his eyes, so that he may see and eat from your hand", verse XNUMX, ibid., with slight changes) and see if her heart will open to him, and at the same time encourages Tamar to respond to her stepbrother's advances. Amnon conquers Tamar, and his position in the royal court is strengthened. This move is not acceptable to Absalom, Tamar's brother, who considers it a scoundrel act. Absalom does not agree to the marriage of the two, he is repulsed by Amnon and his father and the male members of his household, murders them all during a ball, takes control of Jerusalem and assumes the kingship of Judah. He shuts the mouths of the detractors by saying "The adulterer will make my sister".
The priests of Israel from the house of Levi and Avitar expanded to do and weave the story of Dina daughter of Ya'akov concerning an event in which the founding fathers of the Israeli nation behaved in exactly the same way in the great Israeli city of Nablus and were repulsed by the entire family of their neighbor who competed with them on the land; They took his city by force of arms and bloodshed, but with justice and merit, as revenge for the dishonor of their sister (Book of Genesis, chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX; chapter XNUMX in its entirety). The story of Dinah remains in our hands relatively intact, while the story of Tamar went through several incarnations and changes.
Later Absalom was also murdered and the government was taken by Adoniyahu ben Hagit who was loyal to the Israelite priests of the house of Levi and Abitar. He attributed himself to Ben Yishai, which contradicts the story, which has already been widely circulated, according to which the entire royal family was lost in a bloodbath. The writer of Adonijah is faced with the challenge of restoring the good name of Son Yishai, mainly by defaming Absalom's name, and resurrecting him together with most of his sons. To this end, the character of Yondav (who knows the letters of "Badion") was discredited, who took the place of Ben Yishai in the sly advice given to Amnon (XNUMX Samuel, chapter XNUMX, verses XNUMX-XNUMX) and later also announced that not the entire royal family had been murdered but Only Amnon alone (ibid., verses XNUMX-XNUMX). In the new state of affairs, a Dina story was made detached from what happened in Ben Yishai's court, and the writer, who did not understand the connection, did not find it particularly interesting and left it unchanged. Although the story of Dina was no longer necessary to justify Absalom's revolution, it was not lost but remained in our hands thanks to another use found for it: after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel, when Samaritan priests worked to renew the Israeli religion around their center near the city of Nablus, the story of Dina was used to strengthen the bond of the Israelites To this city which was sanctified by their hands forever and justly with the honorable blood of the daughter of the family.
Later, Adoniahu ben Hagit was also murdered, and his place was taken by Absalom's son, who was loyal to the Jerusalem priests of the house of Aaron and Zadok, who saved him from the massacre conducted by Adoniahu. The Bible is now littered with descriptions of Absalom wearing a title and a beloved king. As part of the beautification of Avshalom, the story of Tamar is also re-edited. This time, Amnon is described in ugly lines as an abominable and fickle rapist whose love changes in an instant to hatred and the desire to humiliate his neighbor to the ground, and this is in contrast to what is told in the original story, which parallels Dina's story, in which his love for Tamar is stable and strong.
From then on, the story of Tamar also remained unchanged, but until the days of Josiah, the story of the three court coups was minimized to make room for the story of the rise to power of the wonderful and glorious King Solomon, who sat on the throne next to his father who lived a long life in honor and peace.
=====
Etc. Etc. Etc. My imagination is no better than anyone else's
To Dr. Yehiam Sorek and Dr. Michael Rothschild
After all, the article did not explicitly state a conclusive conclusion that these are findings from the period of David's kingdom. This is a cautionary omission. However, in view of the weak and partial evidence, it is also not possible to completely rule out this opinion.
On the other hand, on the path of negation, any attempt to identify the place and period, with a high probability, with any other civilization, is also (probably) destined for failure.
It is clear that the identification of this specific site is not certain and not even close to it.
At the same time, and this must be clarified and emphasized on both the principle and the practical level (!!!) scientific research must create some kind of thesis, the most plausible thesis based on the findings, if only so that the continuation of the research can be confirmed or flourished. And that's what I understand from the article.
In my opinion, your attack on the article and the thesis presented in it, have at least the same shortcomings that you attribute to it. That is, you do not bring up, even if only a partial omission that relies on the findings, in connection with a possible identification and as mentioned existing findings such as:
Unique architecture, unique dishes, not finding pig bones, an inscription identified as Hebrew.
These are some hints after all.
Only the continuation of the research will clarify the conclusions.
Yair, it's not the middle of the night everywhere, you know.
I didn't understand your argument, do you think that Joshua is actually Saul?
Yair and Haikin, regarding David and Shlomo. In my opinion, it is possible to take real events (the kingdom of David and Solomon) and embellish them in light of what happened not long ago (Menashe's time) and of course with over exaggeration. For example, if the narrator tells his audience, "You know that during the Palmach era, they fought terrorism with exploding buses and suicide terrorists, and thousands were killed in every city, and then the armored forces invaded the enemy's territory and occupied it." On the other hand, it is a little more difficult to be completely alone "You know that the head of the Palmach Moshe Cohen has done heroic deeds and sieges". I don't think it will be accepted.
Why would such an author falsely claim that Prince Absalom rebelled and was killed and then tell about that person only in the name of Shlomo who became the heir? I do accept that Shlomo may have been of Absalom's seed, although this is also problematic because if the story of the rebellion is true, it must be assumed that Absalom's descendants had no chance to reign.
Yair Shimron, R.H. dear ones
First, I am grateful to you for reading the long text. I'm also glad that you still have enough time left to respond. It really moves me to see that good people take my things seriously. sincerely.
And now, let me expand a little on the background to my story. I look at the Bible, as well as other scriptures, as a tool in the hands of priests to impart religion to the masses. In each generation, a priest must recruit new generations of believers, and in each generation, he must adapt his words to what is true and acceptable for his time. For this he has to rewrite the old and even alone facts in order to plug holes.
If David was indeed murdered, contrary to what we want to believe about such a devout and God-fearing king, then the storyteller would prefer to hide it from us. According to the Bible, David was privileged to reign until old age and return and to see his son in front of you with wisdom by his side. A real idyll. I wouldn't have suspected the validity of this story if it hadn't seemed to me that a whole character was fabricated to an extreme extent. That's why I made the statement I made. With the same degree of confidence I could come up with other stories that contradict this explanation.
The story about the unification of the houses of the priesthood, Beit Zadok and Beit Avitar, does not seem far-fetched at all. King David's greatness is in the synthesis he created between Israelite and Jewish religion. As the story goes, this union did not last, and Avitar was exiled to Anat. It is very likely that King David is alive and well and that the dynasty he established was named after him. The new religion he founded was called "Shelem" and the city that served as a center for the worship of this religion was named after her, Ir-Shelem, and the central temple that was built there, the Temple of Solomon.
While I don't have many reasons to doubt the existence of King David, the story of King Solomon seems to me to be fundamentally false. In one place, the biblical writer calls the young King Solomon by the name "Absalom" (Book of XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX), and from this I suspect that the king who rose after Adonijah (and also murdered him) is of the seed of Absalom. Lest it be said that Absalom died without descendants, according to one verse in the Bible, according to another verse he had three sons and a daughter. One way or another, the impression emerges that the royal court at the end of David's days was washed with a lot of blood, which the writers of the Bible washed away as much as they could. The name "Shlomo" was chosen after the name of the temple, claiming that it was not David who built it but his fabricated son who, naturally, immortalized his name in the great building he built.
And thanks again
Bob:
True, I wasn't trying to address this bland fact at all, but what he was really trying to say.
It may even be that what he said about his name (Aviram) is true, but that is not the point.
R. H.,
Is that why you don't sleep at night?
What is your opinion on my proposal: Is Joshua made up? the historical? A nickname for Shaul (and historically, made up) who should not have been given credit for success?
And if you were convinced by Finkelstein (which I am not) that the stories of David and Solomon are a reflection of Menashe, then Chaikin's suggestion about the invention of Solomon is even more relevant.
Yair, I don't think you can compare Yehoshua (Ben Nun) to Shlomo. Joshua could indeed be a mythical figure in light of the time gap between the writing and the events described. However, it does not seem to me that it would be possible to come up with a story and tell the people "that temple that you all know as the Temple of Shalom was actually built by Solomon who was actually the son of David, the founder of the famous dynasty, he and not Rehoboam". I don't think the story would have caught on if it wasn't already rooted in tradition.
Regarding the splendor of the kingdom of David and Solomon, I was convinced by Finkelstein and his colleagues in the books The Beginning of Israel and David and Solomon that the story is actually a reflection of the kingdom of Manasseh + traditional stories that circulated among the people whose purpose was to legitimize Josiah's takeover of the northern territories vacated by the Assyrians. The real kingdom of David and Solomon was probably small and poor.
Precisely on the subject of the name Jesus Aviram is right...
Even Vicky thinks like us:
"The name "Jesus" is the most accepted among Hebrew speakers, although in translations of the "New Testament" into Hebrew, as well as among Hebrew-speaking Christian communities, the name "Jesus" is accepted. It seems that "Yeshua" is the original name, and that it is a version of the name "Yohshua" (for example, Joshua ben-Nun is referred to as "Yeshua ben-Nun" in Nehemiah XNUMX:XNUMX).
The existence of the name Jesus is documented among Jews during the period of the Mishna and the Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud mentions a Jewish sage named "Rabbi Yeshu Darumiyya" (Rabbi Yeshu of the South), and another Jewish sage named "Rabbi Yosho Baria Darbi Tanhum" (Rabbi Yoshua son of Rabbi Tanhum). These names are found in the Geniza sections of the Jerusalem Talmud, but over time they were "corrected" to the name of Joshua, in order to sever the connection between the Jewish sages and the Christian Jesus, and were not preserved in print. [1] The evidence of the Geniza sections proves that the pronunciation of the name Jesus is an ancient and reliable tradition , and that there is no basis for the claim that the name Jesus was created by Jews as an acronym "May his name be blessed."
R. H.,
The biblical writer invented many things in order to produce the tradition itself. Yuval Chaikin's words about Shlomo are surprising - at least to me, and there are diagnoses in them that seem very reasonable. As far as I understand, Solomon is not the only invented great figure, it is possible that Joshua is one too, if he is not synonymous with Saul. think about it.
Chaikin 38, I'm interested in what you claim about Shlomo, but it seems to me that you are going too far. David's house was according to Dan's address, hence David was also highly probable. There were certainly many traditions and stories about him and his family. Most of them are exaggerated, but at least they are based on a kernel of truth passed down from generation to generation. I don't think the biblical author would have dared to invent the character of Solomon out of nowhere contrary to tradition. Let's say Rehoboam was the son of David and everyone would have accepted it. Solomon's stories exaggerated? Sure, but I don't think they're invented.
Aviram:
Is all the text before the insults intended to demonstrate to us what a sleazy politician is saying?
Dr. Yehiam Sorek
The explanation that the name Jesus derives from the rabbinical word for his name and memory is only one version of the issue.
A study of the Hebrew of the Second Temple period certainly raises the possibility that the name "Jesus"
Represents the actual pronunciation of the name Jesus- Joshua due to the throat weaknesses during this period
This is also the opinion of David Flosser in his book on Jesus.
Real science involves presenting a polemic and not presenting only one opinion.
You yourself argued in the name of this view in favor of Prof. Tuaf's theory of blood
And precisely there your arguments were extremely weak (as the principle of the argument was - anything is possible)
Blessed are the people, these are its scientists - I must say in the name of the freedom of academic discussion
That you are simply reducing the difference between a scientist and a politician to a slob
To Ron
The presence of chariots and human bones proves that they were drowned there. Remains of shipwrecks were also found there, and perhaps the things are related to each other, and in any case the dating of the finds is uncertain, which makes it very difficult to find the historical context between the finds and the biblical story.
By the way, we would have expected to find hundreds of equestrian items and chariots there, since in front of the multitudes of the Israelites, only one or two chariots were not sent.
to the spaghetti monster
What's the deal with bed linen? And by the way, the name is not Jesus but Yeshua. Yeshua is the notary of "dear" Jews whose throats emit only sparks of evil and hatred (Yeshua = May his name and his memory be blessed). Indeed, until an independent and reliable address or source is revealed in this regard, doubt will arise regarding his name and his very activity.
No. Ben Ner - You may have tried to testify, but the Shield David logo is very late and there is a belief that it originates from Indo-European magical rituals.
The Jewish worship, Heavistic, somewhat abstract and universal, did not precede, so similarly, the days of the Second Temple. If it is claimed that a certain archaeological site is attributed to the kingdom of David, one should not be satisfied with weak and obscure data, and in any case it must be proven in the overall aspect that there was indeed a kingdom ruled by a king, who may have been named David or perhaps bore a different name altogether, what was his connection to the people of Israel and did such a nation even exist in in question.
New evidence apparently points to new evidence, and therefore caution must be exercised and the statements resolutely qualified, which is not evident from the conference articles.
To Max Power - the name is Goldstone and not Godstone, and as for war crimes, and this is none of our discussion, what our government and France are afraid of. Rather, a thorough investigation will be conducted so that the truth will come out. After all, when one or another personality is brought to trial and his sentence is decided, his followers and supporters rush to shout - he is entitled! is that so?!
And really, what is the connection between erasing the connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel and the report in question? I'm tired of understanding you!
hello my father
It doesn't look like I put a wrong word in there. However, in another response in another article I did put such a word. I guess when the red light goes on, it flashes in all the comments of that talkback player.
Thanks for approving that comment as well
There are keywords that bring the response to approval, and we decide manually whether to approve or not. And there are responses that fly straight to spam (due to keywords defined in the BUILD IN system
Every time a certain word caused a mess it was added to the list.
Someone above listened to me 🙂
My comment from an hour ago (right after comment 51) is awaiting approval, while a later comment has gone in. The truth is that I didn't say who-knows-what important things there, but I'm interested in the criteria according to which the filtering works here. Does anyone have an idea?
correction
In 34 I stated that the name "Red Sea" originated from a misreading in English, and it is not. The origin of the name comes from ancient Greek literature, where the name Eritrea was applied to the Red Sea and later to the entire Indian Ocean. In parentheses, what is not mentioned in my sources, those who have seen photographs of the land of Eritrea can guess that its red color is the origin of the Greek name. Erythro in ancient Greek, red.
Michael, just now! Nobody blames you.
Did you see the 2012 movie? When the neutrino particles started to react with the Earth's core the flood phenomenon occurred, and when the interaction stopped, it subsided.
By the way, on that occasion hairs grew on the palm of my hand, and no one blames you for that either.
Has anyone among those who claim that Noah's ark was found at the top of Harratt (which is factually not true) given their opinion to the question of what was necessary for the peaks of this mountain, which rise to a height of over 5000 meters, will be covered by water?
And what exactly happened since then to all that water?
I'm already announcing that I didn't drink them!
Yair Shimron! apology.
I did a "drag and paste" from something broad I wrote. I omitted the reasons for my claim about the murder of David by Absalom. Please ignore.
sorry and thank you
Thank you Ron! You gave me an idea
On occasion, I will travel to the Ararat mountains to witness the animists first-hand. Until then, bye
jubilee,
I like your analysis of Shlomo's question, I have never thought of it that way before.
On the other hand, your claim that Ashlot killed David has nothing to rely on, the biblical story is the other way around, and does not cause any difficulty, whether it is an inter-historical fiction.
Ron,
Your calculations are absurd. In ancient times, population growth was tiny and sometimes negative throughout the world. In fact, a significant jump in the rate of population growth first began more or less with the industrial revolution, but even at the beginning of the twentieth century, close to half of the children died before reaching adulthood.
jubilee
You ignore that the story is told in cultures that have nothing to do with each other around the globe (America, Oceania, Asia)
These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. .
Search the text on Google and you will also see the comparison table
Strictly:
You said that despite all the abundant evidence there are holocaust deniers.
This is true.
What are you trying to say by that?
Are you tempted to say that despite all the many testimonies there are those who deny the story of King David?
Well - it is completely different and your inability to see it shows that what you need more than money is care.
1. What "many evidences" are you alluding to in David's case? After all, the whole discussion starts with the fact that there is not a single testimony!
2. What "deniers" are you talking about? After all, people here do not "deny" but only say that there is no proof.
The very use of the holocaust deniers parable shows that you had no intention of appealing to people's intelligence but only to emotionally manipulate them.
It is an act that is not honest in the first place, but it is the main way of discussion of people with an agenda who are not interested in the truth.
Archeology is based on this with Israel or any nation - it is almost never concerned with "raising its evidence" on stone, engraving or in any other way, but rather its very existence leaves characteristic evidences resulting from its day-to-day activities.
People use coins - not to commemorate something but to pay.
People put up street signs - not to commemorate something but to allow orientation.
People do put up tombstones to commemorate, but what do you think is the reason why people who lived at that time avoided it? Do you think they cremated the dead bodies and scattered the ashes in the Ganges?
sweet Dreams.
Ron! Are you serious?
I have already seen the video in the link you provided a long time ago and I was just talking about it.
And if it is not a rock but a tree (or a fossil), does it change anything in my claim? The writers of the story took a certain known fact and wrapped it in clouds of imagination. In the same way that the ark (if it is indeed a sailing vessel) reached the top of the mountain after a journey of forty days and forty nights and sending the raven and the dove and the rainbow, it could have reached there from outer space as well. You are welcome to compose such a story and prove that there will be children who will believe it
jubilee
It's not a rock - it's really a liner
The technological reviews confirmed this.
Go to the link I provided in response 23. There is also a video summarizing the study of the artifact in the Art Mountains.
For responses 42 and 41
The article deals with a certain biblical-archaeological question. The book deals with a general archeological biblical question and expands from the topic of the article to other related topics. To me it is legitimate.
Ron! Calculations like the one you brought were also done by those who compiled the stories. Their goal was not to tell grandmother's stories but to convince, and for that they also invested logic in them. For example, the story of the ark of Othnephisthem (Noah in Seven Errors) was connected by following a ship-shaped rock found in the Ararat Mountains since ancient times. The error of many of the best of us is that we take the basis of the legends (logic or findings in the field in this example) and say that it proves the legends.
Ron, thanks, wait for the comments and answer in the next article. This article is not about the Exodus but about David and Solomon.
There are enough articles on the Exodus including all The unbelievable numbers
https://www.hayadan.org.il/exodus-from-egypt-unbelevable-numbers-0804092/
Shalom Yair.
I am the first to admit that I am a great expert on the subject.
But the underwater findings and their location convince me.
Regarding the questions you raised, I don't see a problem with the numbers
According to the Bible, all the Hebrews who had been until then, during the time of Joseph, came to Egypt.
A small group for sure.
The story describes that they multiplied and their numbers became very strong
A short rough calculation of say 4 children (probably more but we will take a minimum) per 70 families give birth to children for 400 years (until the exodus from Egypt)
We reach around 2 million easily.
The fact that this sounds too much compared to the Egyptian population - can easily be compared to the state of Kuwait today - according to the 2008 numbers, most of the residents are workers
and not bruised (almost 70 percent)
Strictly speaking - regarding Chomsky, I understood, but what did you mean about Tommy Lapid? He was an enthusiastic Zionist until his last day.
Lai, what an attack, why bite why pull my hair?
1. You didn't understand - who said that the survivors are holocaust deniers? And on this occasion: read Imra Kerts, the
Primo Levi and the heathen: Greenfeld/prophets in Babylon without honor.
What I said is that despite the many evidences, there are holocaust deniers.
2) It occurred to you that the people of Israel, with the book, raised their testimonies (however beautiful they may be) - not in engraving
on stone, or clay, but on parchment that may be erased, rotted, or burned by fire, so there is less written evidence
In addition to the book of books (where is the straight book?)
3) The people of Israel "inherited" walled cities.
4) The identification of the victim with his attacker is a harmful, painful and shocking thing in my eyes. See case Noam Chomsky, Yosef Tomi
torch, and distinguish sadomasochists.
5) A private point: My dream is that they will still find the bill of the prophet Isaiah, who bought land before the occupation, in order to
To prove to everyone that the people will still live safely in their country.
6) Hey Rothschild, do you have some extra money? I need…
In Jerusalem there was a temple called "Solomon's Temple". The name "Solomon" is derived from "Shelem", the name of the faith that was worshiped at a certain time (which also gave its name to the city of Shelom), but the biblical writer preferred to say that the temple was named after Bonho, so to speak.
Although the start of its construction is attributed to King David, the biblical writer says that it was not David who built Solomon's temple, but his son, because David's hands were full of blood. Adonijah, who logically was the legitimate heir to the throne who was murdered, was presented by the biblical writer as unjustly agitating for kingship. About King Hinoka, Solomon son of David building Solomon's temple, he said that he was endowed with great wisdom. He turned Solomon's wisdom into an extraordinary phenomenon. He added stories of miracles and wonders about him, that he was the wisest of men and a great builder whom God gave him much wisdom and understanding, and the breadth of a blue heart that is on the shore of the sea. And the wisdom of Solomon increased from the wisdom of all the ancients and from all the wisdom of Egypt. And he was wiser than all men, and his name became known to all the surrounding nations. And he spoke three thousand parables and he sang five thousand. And he spoke about the trees from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the moss that comes out of the wall, and he spoke about the beast and the fowl and the creeper and the fish. And they will come from all nations to hear Solomon's wisdom from all the kings of the earth who have heard his wisdom. And also great speeches there written by Solomon and prophetic dreams in his sleep. The author took the story of the two women who came to Solomon for trial from the story of the two women in the siege of the city of Samaria, and hardly changed anything in it.
But it turns out that none of the great stories about Shlomo is backed up. It is common for the description of royal connections to be accompanied by the names of those involved in the connection. Solomon married the daughter of the king of Egypt, but the Bible does not mention her name nor her father's name. The Queen of Sheba comes to visit, but she is also unknown there. Only the name of the king of Tyre, Ahiram (Hiram) who was his main partner in construction and trading business, appears very prominently in these stories; However, the mention of the name of the king of Tire does not testify to King Solomon, and this is because the kingdom of Tire was known for the extensive trade relations it had with all the kingdoms of the region, and these excellent business relations between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Tire that Ahiram began to establish, according to the Bible, back in the days of King David was in all his power, and according to the archaeological discoveries, at least during the days of Ahab, King of Israel. In Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, it was impossible to spread the legends about King Solomon, because it was a small city where everyone knew everyone and knew the truth. But throughout the kingdom of Israel the stories were distributed without limit to the joy of the priests of Solomon's temple.
The story of King Solomon is a prime example of legends that feed on themselves. From descriptions given by later writers to the royal court after the days of David, Solomon is depicted as the exact opposite of his father. While David was a leader who ruled with justice over the people and the people love him back, Solomon was a cruel tyrant who did not stand up like him to the people of Judah and the people of Israel before or after him. A huge fortune passed under his hands all his life and he beat the people with whips and dealt with them with an iron fist. The legend according to which he was a wise man and believed in the God of Israel with all his heart, stands in contradiction to all the idol temples he built. However, this contradiction did not lead to a weakening of faith but to its strengthening. Writers had a motive behind their writing. They did not dare to deny the very existence in the past of a mighty king named Solomon, because it was already deeply embedded in the national heritage of Judah and Israel. The most important economic branch of Jerusalem may collapse if it turns out that it is all fundamentally a lie. And since in the days of Josiah the belief in only one God was very well established, his writers found themselves grappling with a difficult problem and that was to explain how it happened that such a prudent and wise king, a perfect righteous man who believed only in God, built in the holy city to God temples and shrines to all the idols of the world. The solution they chose was simple and cheap: take care of the women. Among the other legends that were spread in order to enhance the greatness of King Solomon was one that said that he had a thousand wives, of which seven hundred were official and three hundred concubines, all of them from different countries and nationalities, not one of them Israeli or Jewish. And they are the ones who inclined his heart to build for each of them a temple for its idol.
But even though there were a thousand women in that Solomon's harem, the Bible does not tell us anything about his sons and daughters. There is reference to only one son, and not a single word about any succession war within the royal court. The later writers, from the time of King Josiah onwards, make an effort to present Rehoboam as the son of Solomon and the heir to his throne. This presentation is also suspected to be wrong, because if what is said about him is true, then he was born even before his father Shlomo reached sexual maturity, before he came to power and before he married his first wife. Based on the statements made in the Book of Kings, it is possible to think that Rehoboam married his niece, Maacah daughter of Absalom ("King of fathers [son of Rehoboam] over Judah... and his mother's name was Maacah daughter of Abishalom", Book of Kings XNUMX, Chapter XNUMX, Verses XNUMX - B'). But if this is the case, then if Rehoboam was born eleven years after Shlomo's birth, Maka would have been at least fifteen or twenty years older than him and was already of the age of menopause when she bore him the heir to the throne. The Book of Chronicles also debates this issue and gives her father Rehoboam two mothers ("He [Rehoboam] took Maacah, the daughter of Absalom, and she bore him her father. And Rehoboam set her father, son of Rehoboam, as the head of his brother as governor. And her father reigned over Judah, and his mother's name Micaiah daughter of Uriel of Gibeah", Book of Chronicles XNUMX, a collection of verses from chapters XNUMX and XNUMX) but does not manage to avoid mentioning the familial kinship to Absalom. This is not because Rehoboam was older than the Bible tells about him, and his number of years is the age of King Solomon himself. To add to the confusion, Rehoboam's son also married the same Makaah daughter of Absalom ("King Asa [son of Avim], king of Judah... and his mother's name was Makaah daughter of Avishalom", ibid., verses XNUMX-XNUMX) and the Book of Chronicles does not mention at all Asa's mother's name, although the names of other kings' mothers are also mentioned.
King Solomon also built a large and magnificent palace for himself, but none of the other kings of Judah used it; And as for the sword of Solomon's palace, the Bible doesn't tell us anything about it. Unlike David and other kings, who left behind detailed life stories, Solomon left nothing behind except the abundance of legends woven about him by the legend books that were mobilized to speak. They left many parables to the world in the name of King Solomon, and the great lesson that can be learned from them is "the governor is the ruler", a play on words in the Hebrew language which is itself a parable meaning "the one who holds the means of communication holds the power".
And the rest of the words of Solomon and all that he did and his wisdom, are they written on a book. which book? Not the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, nor the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, but rather the Book of Solomon. Indeed, this king was unique and special to such an extent that we even dedicated to him his own private book of Chronicles - which has disappeared and is no more. One way or another, the stories about Solomon raise many questions.
The stories of the Bible as a whole are not true, because the truth is trivial and boring. However, in order to convince the listeners, there must be a kernel of truth in them. For example, the story of the settlement of the tribes must correspond to the location of the tribes at the time it was told. A number of biblical stories have received confirmation from important findings, such as the Tel Dan inscription, the tombstone of Misha the king of Moab, the Sennacherib sawmill and more. For example, it is unlikely that the fact of the existence of the great temples in Dan and Beit El would be mentioned in different books if it had no basis when the words were written. Remains of a magnificent king's palace were found in Samaria, which indicates wealth at least for a short period of time.
Misha's tombstone seemingly confirms the story of the Moabites renouncing Israeli oppressive rule, but it is possible that the biblical narrator did not record things from a first-hand source but wrote his story based on what was found engraved on the tombstone (which at the time was located in a visible place on the mother of the main road). Either way, it testifies to the expansion of the Kingdom of Israel during the time of Beit Omri with borders similar to those attributed to David and Solomon.
I believe that the myth of the Great Kingdom has some basis, even if not very broad. But what really seems like a far-fetched legend is the glorious figure of King Solomon who had a thousand wives, each from a different country, and of all his descendants (about a thousand), the Bible only knows how to tell about one who was born when his father was ten years old.
to me:
If you don't bother to study the subject - on what do you base your claim that the side that claims there is no evidence for the existence of King David is based on personal beliefs and opinions (which are not relevant - because if I have personal beliefs and opinions on the subject in question that are based on the facts - I guess you don't see it as a problem) ?
A personal opinion, I am not taking any side here on the issue (if there was a large Israeli kingdom, in which of course David ruled, during the period in question), because I have not delved into the issue and my understanding of it is quite superficial, but what bothers me here is that people reach dangers here that are influenced by beliefs and personal opinions which do not necessarily align with reality, and this is no less than the people who wrote the Bible and recorded history through it in a distorted way according to their own good, purpose or personal belief.
Ron, (23)
I spent almost half an hour to find out the nature of the evidence you recommend, what to do in this eye-popping clip there are not two consecutive sentences of the truth. Science is not done in music videos. Anyone who has studied even a little about the subjects of Egypt and Israel will easily recognize the porridge that was mixed there. For example, he talks about the Red Sea, something that does not exist in the Bible and is nothing more than a misreading in English. He interprets the Egyptian name Phi Hirot as the mouth of... but in Egyptian it is not a mouth but "the" knowledge.
We learn the fact that the Exodus is a fiction from the huge numbers: 600000 men with their families is about two and a half million people, which is about the entire population of Upper and Lower Egypt 3000 years ago! And they left Egypt in one night.
Ron:
There is no need for me to google what all kinds of people have written on the subject.
I have the most convincing information Wyatt could obtain and it is presented inLink this And fully justifies the criticism.
It is possible that after reading the review all kinds of people decided to fabricate evidence and it is possible that they would have fabricated it this way and that.
Mehadrin
What does the Holocaust have to do with the topic of our discussion? And if so, why do the governments of Israel refuse to recognize the holocaust of the Armenian people and demand that the holocaust be appropriated only to the cause of the Jewish people.
I have never claimed that the kingdom of David or Solomon or their descendants did not exist and will not be created, but that the one who took it from his friend has the evidence - in the meantime there is almost certainly no cross-cutting and continuous testimony to the events of the Bible. At this stage, the stories of the Bible should be considered in the literary phase only, and in general the credibility of the Bible should be put into one big question mark.
Conclusive evidence for the existence of David's kingdom will be discovered, I will be the first to warmly embrace the new facts.
The kingdom of David and Solomon in its borders as given in the Bible is a legend that has no corroboration in external sources such as Egyptian or Mesopotamian. Also, no inscriptions or tombstones from the period have been discovered that glorify the works of these kings as the kings of the ancient East Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites and the like used to do.
At most it was a tribal kingdom on the back of the mountain that was able to withstand the pressure of the Philistines from the west and the Arameans from the north
Also at that time in Syria and Aram Nahraim there were a number of strong Hittite and Armenian kingdoms that succeeded in oppressing the Assyrians, therefore the story that these kingdoms were under the control of David and Solomon seems far removed from reality
Ego is no substitute for sound knowledge
I find the discussion with you pointless
That's it from me.
Ron,
An interesting article was broadcast on television that described a study on the effect of the Internet on human ways of thinking.
One of the findings was that many people tend to surf to a large number of links to substantiate their arguments, without delving at all into what is written in them - in short - a takeover of superficiality.
I couldn't help but think you were one of the research subjects. Every argument of yours is simply a new link, which sometimes you haven't even read to the end. Any argument with you turns into a useless link war.
I have already told you several times: the Internet is not a substitute for the brain.
It's not bland - that's the main thing
(And by the way, needless to say that the study found that this is a wide-ranging phenomenon, that is, actually "the trouble of many")
Noam, you deal with care
Watch and respond to the material
Ron,
The essence of your knowledge in one response:
My link is better than yours...
Indeed, your link is lying - "He only discovered corals..."
Really?
Put images in Google
red sea chariots
Who wants to read the truth about Ron Wyatt the Liar (the one who stars in the links of Ron the local) is welcome to click on This link and within it click on the upper rectangle.
You can also read something about him on page 238 in this document
I, Annie Bar Samka, also believe that Prof. Finkelstein substantiated his claim more firmly than the claim here. Show an inscription bearing the name David or evidence in stone of a ruler from the time - none. At most a local city ruler. Finkelstein speaks of Ahab as a great king (Tel Megiddo - horse stables) and Josiah "reveals" the book of Deuteronomy which expands the kingdom of Judah - and what is better than claiming it was ours all along.
The truth may be that the Kingdom of Judah expanded little by little. In my opinion, this does not detract from the story of Moshe, and therefore, since there are those who clearly denigrate our heritage, I accept the silence - David was a great king, Moshe was. If Rashi dared to put a comma in the blessing of Yitzchak to Jacob: "I am your son (Ya'akov), I am your son," in order to shut the mouths of Christians, who claimed that the fathers of our nation were corrupt, and if Goldstone, who insults us, carries skeletons in the coffin, then we too can keep the truth to ourselves.
Yair in response to your response 15, specifically:
The exodus from Egypt is not fiction - but there is an agenda to rewrite history.
Findings not according to tradition but according to biblical data - proven to be true
For example - the crossing of the Red Sea happened in the Gulf of Eilat, not in the Gulf of Suez (Sinai was part of the Egyptian Empire) - according to biblical data, the Hebrews had to flee through one path that leads to the only beach that can accommodate a large amount of people - geographically, this is Nuayeva
And surprisingly, in an underwater investigation of the two banks - the Egyptian and the Saudi
A number of ancient Egyptian chariots and human bones were found under the sea.
The sequel
http://tinyurl.com/2vyxahj
to me:
I'm starting to think you're a real genius.
Really - you can find a tombstone only if it is in every house and otherwise there is no chance.
The genius is also evident in the amazing conclusion that if no evidence of David's existence has been found, it does not mean that he did not exist.
True - this does not mean that it did not exist, but it certainly does not mean that it did exist!
The multitude of evidence confirming its existence (including the findings described here) also confirm the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as much as they confirm the existence of King David, so do you want to try to convince me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists?
Ah
Max Power:
I brought the coins as an example (one of several that I brought and which was intended to demonstrate one of the many pieces of evidence that would have made it possible to prove the existence of David's kingdom and none of which was found).
Nor was I talking about a portrait but about the engraving of the name.
Full disclosure: my opinion relies only on understanding the biblical text as written by interested parties, and in this sense I can be categorized as a minimalist. In each generation, priests sat down to write more or less accurate things on the Korah in their time and to edit and rewrite and distort things written in previous generations.
The united kingdom existed alternately until the destruction of the House of Omri and the House of David by Jehu (and the Tel Dan inscription testifies to this). Athaliah, even though she was from the House of Omri, won the trust of Jehu and he let her rule Jerusalem without interruption (until she was eliminated during the dramatic process of renewing the House of David dynasty by the priests of Jerusalem).
The name "David" or "David", which means friend and lover (in an erotic and religious sense), was given to the royal house of Jerusalem because of the covenant that was signed between it and the priestly family of the House of Zadok in which it was granted exclusivity over the ceremonies in the temple and in return they helped (not always successfully) to continue the royal dynasty . This temple knew many idols and worship until, in the days of King Josiah, the idol was established, whose name dominates the prayer arrangements to this day. However, the covenant between the priestly family of the House of Zadok and the royal family of the House of David was kept until it was broken
In the hands of Josiah (who, under the influence of the priests of Anat, who were rivals to the priests of Beit Zadok, conducted an elementary house test in the Temple). The term "David" or "David" appears in the introductory line of many psalms. Those in charge of a king's education are naturally the most educated. In the days of Josiah, these were the priests from Menat, who already in the days of Josiah's grandfather, the elder, were added to the temple service. The same priests were also involved in editing the books of the Bible. Unlike the priests of the house of Zadok who cultivated the worship of God in his kindness and mercy, the priests of Anat used to blaspheme in the holy place. It was convenient for them to present the "David" in the psalms as king "David" who was chosen to serve as an example and role model for Josiah, and they trampled with a rough foot in the psalms and planted in them additions indicating events, so to speak, in the life of that king.
The only extra-biblical evidence, for now, of the existence of the House of David is the Tel Dan inscription. However, it does not indicate a specific king for whom this was his first name. It is clear that the region knew a strong king, whether his name was really David or whether it was the name invented for him by the priest in charge of writing the stories for King Hinoka Josiah. There are findings (to which the latest discovery was added) that indicate a large kingdom that ruled the region. The massive construction plants that were discovered only recently in Jerusalem testify to a centralized rule of the order of magnitude of a power like Egypt about 700 years before David (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1112102.html).
The small kingdom of Judah was sometimes annexed to the great kingdom of Israel. One biblical evidence of this is the family ties between the house of David and the house of Omri which, because of the identity of the names in the house of Omri and the house of David (Joram-Ahaziahu from this and Ahaziah-Yoram from this), a suspicion arises that these were not two houses but one house. The current discovery does not help determine with certainty whether the kingdom in question was independent Judah or united Israel. It also does not point to Jerusalem as the capital of the kingdom, and for that reason even Hebron (which is closer geographically, and the Tanakh says that David reigned there for seven years) is nominated to be the capital.
Compared to David, there are signs that he was (even if not in his name), there are many signs that Solomon was not and was not created but only with the quick pen of the talented story writer. There are hints of three bloody court coups (Absalom kills David, Adonijah kills Absalom, "Solomon" kills Adonijah). However, in light of the need to present David as a follower of God who received a good reward and had the privilege of reaching an honorable return and seeing his son in front of him by his side, the stories of the coups were blurred.
Michael, I understand that in your house there are tombstones with the names of all the Prime Ministers of Israel.
In addition, I do not accept the assumption that if no evidence was found for the existence of any historical event - that means it did not exist.
Michael Rothschild you are considered a wise man at least in my opinion you should know that the minting of silver coins on which a portrait of a ruler appears appeared at least 500 years after David's reign, if I am wrong the first coins on which a portrait is minted was of Alexander the Great.
A. Ben-Ner:
I am not surprised by the doss that were born from their infancy, but the demagoguery in your response actually amazes me.
Why are you talking about the Star of David and not the Davidka mortar?
Yachiam said something about Magni David?
He would have been satisfied with any kind of evidence (such as - for example - a coin on which the king's name was stamped as is customary, or a marker sign intended to indicate the way to David's palace, or a tombstone with the name of King David written on it - in short - something - some kind! But there is nothing like that ).
These testimonies are not evidence (and certainly not additional - the word "new" implies something about the existence of "old" evidence) of the existence of David's kingdom.
They can equally be used as evidence of the existence of the Zorro Philistine kingdom.
I was not convinced by Prof. Garfinkel, in my opinion the book written by Finkelstein is much more reliable.
Max
The amount of insipid fictions that the dosas invent today is equal to the amount of fictions that were invented in the Bible, such as the Exodus from Egypt.
Finkelstein's thesis is based on a reasonable basis and the holocaust you make indicates an inability to confront reality.
Finkelstein's thesis that there is no proof of the existence of King David is equivalent to Godstone's research on the war crimes of the Israelite army, a political goal to omit the context between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel,
Dr. Yachiam Sorek whistles
Pay attention to the minor title of the article:
"New evidence about the establishment of David's kingdom..."
Testimonies (!!!) only. No conclusive arguments, no proofs.
To the best of your knowledge, is there conclusive evidence or proof that contradicts the continued existence of David's kingdom in the period in question?
Eddie,
Finkelstein's building is not made of peels, but of stones, gazit and goil.
Only if they find inscriptions that can be safely deciphered and tell about the kingdoms of the 11th-10th century will Finkelstein's building collapse.
And don't be so quick to dismiss him, he contributed a lot to our historical archaeological knowledge, and the fact that he may have been wrong, in your opinion, in some of his conclusions does not undermine the importance of his contribution.
To the honorable Dr. Yehiam Sorek.
In response to your response:
Is it possible to expect to find Star of David paintings on the walls of a prayer house from the time of David?
Is it possible to expect the remains of an ark in a prayer house from a time before the Torah book was written and sealed?
Is it possible to identify a house of worship facing Jerusalem before it was founded (by David) as the capital of the kingdom?
Perhaps you could then, as an expert, elaborate a bit more on what the typical signs of worship are to be expected to find
In Israeli-Jewish houses of prayer in settlements from the time of King David and earlier periods?
Lihiam Sorek: Have you heard of the Tel Dan address?
http://www.jewishhistory.com/jh.php?id=Assyrian&content=content/david_found_dan
There is enough evidence for the establishment of a Hebrew settlement in 1000 BC, if you accept that there was a Hebrew settlement from 850 BC why is it difficult for you to accept that there was also a king named David in the not so distant past?
Maybe because it conflicts with your political views?
By the way, there are also no inscriptions from the time of Jesus that bear his name, but only decades later, didn't Jesus also exist?
Dr. Yehiam Sorek,
Your response is surprising in its partiality.
I accept your claim 3 about the political bias of the interpretation of the archaeological find.
And 4, the absence of pork bones proves nothing.
And 5 is all correct
And 7 is also correct.
But: your claim 2 is incorrect. From later times, the 8th-7th centuries, there are findings typical of the "Israeli" house structure, and there are also findings typical of the Philistine house structure from different times.
Your claim 6 is superficial, because you know that at that time there was no Judaism at all.
Your claim 1 is also wrong: from the 9th century the name Beit David is known from Tel Dan, as well as Doda vessels from Misha's tombstone - two written instances that mention the name David as a political authority.
In a broader aspect, we need to examine the biblical story as a whole and ask if he is just making things up - and we know that indeed sometimes he does make up a lot,
But it is often historically reliable.
Thus, for example, the story about the invasion of the king of Egypt into the land at the end of the tenth century is confirmed by an Egyptian source, and the existence of the Philistines, whose origin is from Mion, is a proven fact, and many other historical stories of the Tanakh are proven to be true.
Therefore, the negation of the stories about the reigns of David and Solomon, just as it is impossible to prove them from the archaeological findings, their negation using the same findings has no hold, and is actually a casual induction.
Mehadrin - Tel Mond-Kadima @ How dare you make this despicable analogy? Holocaust denial from survivors who experienced the inferno? ... Shame on you, you probably forget that the holocaust did not only happen to our group but to many others as well, and that what they all have in common is the attempted murder of one or another nation or one or another group of people in the name of hatred. And for this one can find countless proofs and decisive proofs that are visible to the eye and audible to the ear (I probably don't need to tell you that). The fact that it happened not long ago is enough, and whoever denies it can also deny all the events of that terrible war about 65 years ago.
The issue of the existence of one or another united kingdom on the one hand, and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah on the other hand is a subject in itself on which opinions are divided due to the lack of solid evidence for the existence of those kingdoms. Other kingdoms should have given an equivalent memory even to a glorious united or divided kingdom like the one described in the same book. The situation is in dispute between those who claim the existence of those kingdoms, with an emphasis on how they are described in that sacred book, and their actual existence in the history of the ancient Near East alongside the peoples of the region.
I personally do not have any problem if conclusive proof is found for the existence of a united, Israeli or Jewish kingdom as described in scripture. On the contrary, if the peoples of the region had an abundance of kingdoms with enough evidence of their existence, I am sure that our ancestors may have had them too - the question is whether the same size mentioned in the book or a smaller size? And that's all the noise.
Furthermore, I recommend that you avoid a cheap analogy like this, which has no place next to such a sensitive and fragile subject as the Holocaust, which, unlike that sacred book, does not pretend to tell about any miracle, about any supreme being, about any do X and don't do Y and mythological stories whose main concern It is to form one group from many and to introduce morality (among other things) between a person and his friend.
Strictly:
If we are trying so hard to fabricate history - what do we have to complain about the fact that there are those who take advantage of our fabric to justify denying true things that we say happened?
If there are Holocaust deniers, which occurred in our era, and is documented by the murderers themselves and by survivors who experienced it,
What is it to us that we lament over those who are unable (poor me) to accept, that there was a period of Jewish/Israeli rule here,
Luxurious and modern for its time?
The advantage is that this encourages the continued search for relevant archaeological findings.
It is not my intention to rule out the need for in-depth discussion and the raising of opposing opinions.
Below is an initial response
First - I was shown an inscription with geopolitical proximity indicating the existence/presence of a mythological hero bearing the name David.
Second - unlike the Hellenistic or Roman period, a clear line that characterizes the "Davidian" architecture, or any other associated with the royal figure appearing in the Bible, has never been established. And then it is possible to confirm on the one hand or to contradict on the other a structural affiliation of one kind or another to David.
Thirdly - the desire to find relics of the days of David, when the desire is not innocent, at least sometimes, of political dependence, blinding even the eyes of the "righteous".
Fourth - since when does the no point to the yes, as in the case of pig bones, whose samples are not even found in dozens of other, non-Jewish sites, such as the rumor that once ran around among archaeologists, that in excavations in Jerusalem in the XNUMXs and XNUMXs, proof of wireless was found. wireless? The skeptics wondered. Indeed, they answered with a laugh: We didn't find any wires there. And by the way, a complete waste.
Fifth - no one can doubt the findings of the condemned mound, but the interpretation to attribute them to the days of David, to the kingdom of David, without a proper evidentiary foundation, raises many question marks.
Sheshit - why, on the other hand, were no signs of Judaism, any rituals, found in the condemned Tel?
Seventh - even the presence of archaic Hebrew language signs still does not indicate a connection to David.
Eighth - let's imagine that the mound is indeed Jewish and is associated precisely with the early days of David, when he served as a protector under the Philistine oligarch - Acish the king of Gath, what was said then?
Which of the respected commenters can add up-to-date information on Dr. Eilat Mazar's excavations in the City of David?
Eddie. If I don't post opinionated articles, I get criticized for it. If I upload - directly it means that the previous articles are incorrect. I still support Finkelstein, and I'm not sure that one fortified building is the one on which you can dress an entire kingdom, but it is the right of other archaeologists to criticize it or think that their new findings change the picture.
The house of cards of Finkelstein & Co. is collapsing, until in the future there will be nothing but an example of bad science and learned charlatanism.
In the future, will there be a section in the regulations of the Dan David Foundation that allows the awarding of the award to be canceled?
I would love to hear a "manimalistic" response to the article