Two failures of the 270s creation proposal?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 5608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Two failures of the 270s creation proposal?

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:52 am
The Tel Dan Stele at face value provides evidence of a kingdom of Israel and a house of David c 800 BCE or maybe a bit earlier.

In the context of the Tel Dan stele, Silberman and Finkelstein write in Bible Unearthed,
As far as we can see on the basis of the archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated, and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns. (p. 132)
and with specific reference to the Jerusalem site in the supposed time of David:
Yet excavations in the city of David revealed impressive finds from the Middle Bronze Age and from later centuries of the Iron Age~just not from the tenth century BCE. The most optimistic assessment of this negative evidence is that tenth century Jerusalem was rather limited in extent, perhaps not more than a typical hill country village. (p. 134)
Israel was a kingdom in the ninth century, without question, but whatever we make of the Tel Dan inscription, it cannot overturn the evidence that Judah/Jerusalem was not a viable kingdom of any extent during that time.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 5608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Two failures of the 270s creation proposal?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Further, for those who consider Finkelstein and Silberman a bit too "extreme" or "minimalist", we have Daniel Bodi
The use of the term “monarchy” is a misnomer and should be abandoned when talking of Saul, David, and Solomon. It reminds us of European monarchies and seems inadequate to describe the ancient reality of Hebrew tribes. Therefore, in describing the reigns of these rulers, it seems more appropriate to use the expressions “tribal chieftain” or “warlord,” which better describe their position among the ancient Israelite tribes. In other words, the domains that they governed may more precisely be described as “chiefdoms” rather than full-scale “states.” (p. 211 in Ancient Israel's History)
Post Reply