[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference taveng::bagels

Title:BAGELS and other things of Jewish interest
Notice:1.0 policy, 280.0 directory, 32.0 registration
Moderator:SMURF::FENSTER
Created:Mon Feb 03 1986
Last Modified:Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1524
Total number of notes:18709

1285.0. "Historical evidence for the Old Testament" by SDSVAX::SWEENEY (Patrick Sweeney in New York) Mon Nov 30 1992 18:49

    I'm assembling some references for a discussion of what's accepted and
    what's disputed among archaeologists with respect to events and persons
    of the Old Testament.

    Let's start with Adam and the account of creation (as the first and
    most unhistorical) and proceed to Maccabees and the revolt (as the last
    and most historical).

    Where is the line drawn in history from which everything that follows
    has incontrovertible and non-theological evidence that this event took
    place and this person existed?
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1285.1You want miracles!CRLVMS::SEIDMANTue Dec 01 1992 17:1542
    Re: .0

    Hoo Boy!  As if it isn't hard enough to find incontrovertible evidence
    of what happened this century(*), you want to know for sure what happened
    several millenia ago!

    Part of the problem is tying the archeological evidence to the textual
    account.  In Genesis 14 there is a story about Abram and an invasion of
    the Jordan valley.  There is archeological evidence that is consistent
    with the idea that a war took place in the area about four thousand
    years ago, but whether the Genesis story is an accurate description of
    that event we have no way of knowing.

    More reliable, perhaps, is the attribution, in 2Kings 20, of the
    building of a water conduit, to King Hezekiah.  The conduit has been
    found, along with a plaque that seems to confirm the biblical account.

    The fact that something is more recent, however, does not necessarily
    mean that we have better non-textual evidence for it.  There are
    traditional accounts of the Maccabean revolt, but I'm not sure there is
    any evidence, outside of the texts, that the events happened as
    recorded.  There are other literary sources that tend to support that a
    war of some sort was fought, but some scholars think it was primarily
    a civil war among Jews.

    Or, consider what evidence there is for the existence of Jesus. 
    Outside of the accounts in the Gospels and Acts, I know of no evidence
    that he existed.

    You might find it worth visiting your local public library and looking
    through back issues of Biblical Archaeology Review to get an overview
    of some of the work that has been going on.

                                          Aaron

    (* E.g. At last summer's Republican Convention, Reagan quoted several
    lines that were supposed to be from Lincoln--and were cited as such in
    some reference books--but were actually written by a New York clergyman
    who put out a collection quotes from  both Lincoln and himself.  Others
    reprinted the collection but failed to make the distinctions in
    authorship.  In fact, in the 1940s the Rep National Ctte apparently
    reprinted the collection, attributing everything to Lincoln.)
1285.2SDSVAX::SWEENEYPatrick Sweeney in New YorkTue Dec 01 1992 17:499
    I'm looking for a higher standard than "consistent with".  If there's
    evidence of a war, it doesn't mean that it contributes evidence to the
    Biblical account.
    
    The water conduit (a culvert?) is a good point.
    
    As for accounts of Jesus, there's references to his followers that date
    back to the decade of 40 A.D. in Roman histories.
                                                     
1285.3It's hard to find the evidenceCRLVMS::SEIDMANWed Dec 02 1992 18:4324
>    I'm looking for a higher standard than "consistent with".  If there's
>    evidence of a war, it doesn't mean that it contributes evidence to the
>    Biblical account.

    That's my point.  There are very few things where we can compare the
    text with specific archeological evidence and say with any degree of
    assurance that there is a direct relationship.  Hezikiah's water tunnel
    is one of the few.
    
>    As for accounts of Jesus, there's references to his followers that date
>    back to the decade of 40 A.D. in Roman histories.   ^^^^^^^^^
                                                     
    Again, that is not direct evidence for *his* existence, just for the
    existence of some form of early Christianity.  There is considerable
    evidence for the existence of the later Hasmonean rulers, but I don't
    know of any concrete evidence for the existence of Judah Maccabee,
    outside the apochryphal books.

    We have a certain amount of material that have names on them that
    correspond to names mentioned in the Bible, but we cannot say that they
    belonged to the people mentioned.  A few years ago a seal turned up in
    the pre-exilic stratum in Jerusalem with the name "Baruch," which
    corresponds to the name of Jeremiah's secretary.  Did this seal belong
    to that particular individual?  Who knows?