Niels Peter Lemche
npl at teol.ku.dk
Sat Feb 26 18:47:03 EST 2000
> Then how can we be sure the Tadmor that has been excavated is
> the same one referred to in the Assyrian annals and Chronicles?
> This seems like excessive assumption to me.
> > As the Chronicler seems to have envisioned Tadmor as a creation of
> > who was famous for his building operations, the temple, the palace, and
> > chariot cities, it appears obvious to me that 2 Chronicles 8:4 had to
> > been written after Tadmor had become "a famous city," so I would date
> > Chronicles to not any earlier than the 1st century BCE.
> But this is only possible if the two Tadmors are the same. How do
> you account for the Assyrian annals and the Tadmor they
> describe? It seems to me that you're dodging this little problem.
> To warrant this kind of mention by the Assyrians, it seems to me
> that Tadmor would have had to be more than a nomadic campsite,
> so I strongly suspect the site that the excavators have been
> working on is not the same Tadmor mentioned by these records
> (and by Chronicles).
> Dave Washburn
It is not really necessary to jumb around in this old fashioned way.
If the archaeology of a place mentioned in the Bible does not fit the
biblical periodizagtion, move the place to another place or ask for more
places, that's the usual game and it has been tried over and over again. And
again, Tadmor is mentioned already by Tiglat-Pileser I (end of 12th
century), so what do you demand? It is a place in Amurru, and seems to be
pretty consistent. As a matter of fact, it is the only oasis of any
importance if you want to cross the Syrian desert and take the direct route
from Mesopotamia to, say Damascus. There is no indication that there ever
was a second one, only the wish that the Bible must also here be
historically true, and that is even possible, simply because the time of
Tiglath-Pileser I predates the traditional dating of Solomon by about a 150
More information about the b-hebrew