Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: "Lars Wilson" <siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:07:55 -0600
"Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:478bb538$0$82384$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
YES great stuff! Thanks Peter!! I already found a favorite quote by
I also skimmed Ussishkin ans Mazar.
Usshikin regarding Finkelstein that agrees with my take on historian vs
archaeologist:
"Finkelstein goes a long way in this direction (i.e. Finkelstein and
Silberman 2001) and he proudly considers himself as an 'historian who
practises archaeology' (Finkelstein 2005, 12). In my view the archaeologist
should concentrate on the study of archaeological data, leaving the
questions of history and the Bible to be dealt with by the historian and the
biblical scholar who are more qualified to do so.(Archaeology of the Bible
Period, David Usshikin, page 134)
Archaeologists need to present their objective findings, like the RC14
dating from Rehov pointing to that event in 871 BCE. Let the Biblical
chronologists then deal with that evidence and dating with their various
timeline theories, ranging 127 years, but some low enough to date year 39 of
Solomon in 871 BCE. Once archaeologists pick and choose their own secular
historical timeline and try to make sense out of it compared to the Bible,
which is out of their expertise generally, then they come up with all kinds
of embarassing conclusions that have nothing to do with archaeology but
history! Finkelstein, ultimately lives up to his namesake, more of a
historian than an archaeologist, because in the showdown, when push came to
shove to redate Shishak's invasion to 871 BCE, as he should have, he copped
out to history and dated it based on when Hazeal might have come through and
destroyed this level. Because of the erroneous Assyrian timeline,
Finkelstein has invented a Syro-Damascus empire that didn't exist based upon
Shishak's invasion now transferred to Hazeal because Finkelstein could not
deal with adjusting the Assyrian timeline, which all the evidence is
pointing to as an absolute must.
In the meantime, Biblical scholars like myself could have told him that 58
years were added to the Greek period by Xenophon and that's why Solomon
appears 54-60 years earlier than he should in the timeline. But few pay
attention to critical historicists, that is, not until NOW. Now that we
have some scientific and astronomical evidence to reconstruct the original
timeline academically, some people are paying attention. The RC14 dating
from Rehov is thus very much at the center of the collapse of the anciently
revised timeline now being used by historians and archaeologists.
Indeed, Peter, thanks again for these fine references!
Lars Wilson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: Doug Weller
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: David
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- References:
- Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: Doug Weller
- Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- From: Peter Alaca
- Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- Prev by Date: Re: Was Akhenaten's "monotheism" due to 10 plagues?
- Next by Date: Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- Previous by thread: Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- Next by thread: Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|