Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Textual and archaeological evidence for Tadmor

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Textual and archaeological evidence for Tadmor
  • Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:14:16 -0500


Let's have a look at the evidence quoted here and see if it supports
Walter's conclusion. We have mentions of a place Tadmor "in the
archives of the kings of Kanes, Mari, Emar and Assyria, the 11th-9th
centuries BCE" and in the book of Chronicles, whose date we are
seeking to narrow down. We have archaeological evidence for a 1st
century BCE city of Palmyra. We have an identification between the two
dated to the late 1st century CE (Josephus) which is not necessarily
at all reliable.

Now if there are no artefacts of any sort at Palmyra from before 1st
century BCE, this must be a different place from the Tadmor mentioned
in the 11th-9th century archives, for even passing caravans would have
left some pottery and other remains, surely. Or perhaps no-one has yet
looked in exactly the right place. So we must conclude that the
location of Tadmor is unknown. It may have been very close to Palmyra,
but in an as yet unexcavated spot (not necessarily a big mound -
Solomon's city, if it ever existed, may not have lasted long, and
other settlements may have been transitory); or it may have been
somewhere completely different. But as we know that Tadmor existed in
the 11th-9th centuries but we don't know where it was, we have no
argument for dating Chronicles late.

Indeed the evidence, that the name Tadmor was used in 11th-9th
centuries but not later, actually points to Chronicles being earlier
rather than later. Now Chronicles in its final form cannot be 11th-9th
century. But 1 Kings 9 may well date back to this period, and the
unknown name "Tadmor" in 9:18 may have been copied faithfully by the
Chronicler while becoming corrupted later in Kings. In fact "Tadmor"
is the reading of the Qere, of many MSS and of many ancient versions
in 1 Kings 9:18, where the BHS text is "Tamar". Very likely late
copyists changed the unknown "Tadmor" into the better known "Tamar".

Peter Kirk

PS to Walter: Can you clarify "The earliest artifact bearing a date is
from 44 BCE"? I assume this is a reference to coins, inscriptions etc.
But are you saying also that there are no artefacts datable e.g. by
their style to an earlier period? Is there any pottery etc of an
earlier period? Of course, even if there is nothing, this is argument
from silence, which is very dangerous in archaeology.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Tadmor
Author: <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com> at Internet
Date: 27/02/2000 20:54


Jason's request is reasonable, others on this list may have the same
reservations, so here's an excerpt from a manuscript I did last year. One
can obtain the work cited and check for one's self if my Point Of View has
misinterpreted the author's words:

Second Chronicles mentions that King Solomon was not only famous for
building the temple of Solomon, but also great chariot cities like Hazor,
Megiddo and Gezer and the great trading city of Tadmor in the wilderness (2
Chr. 8:4). Josephus understood Tadmor to be Palmyra. Although scholars have
found mention of Tadmor in the archives of the kings of Kanes, Mari, Emar
and Assyria, the 11th-9th centuries BCE (p.307, Vol.6, "Tadmor," David Noel
Freedman, Ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday, 1992), excavations at
Palmyra have failed to indicate any kind of a presence there, from those
periods, archaeologically. The earliest artifact bearing a date is from 44
BCE. Millar has concluded that on the basis of the excavations, that
Tadmor/Palmyra was probably founded in the early first century BCE and by
the second half of that century had acquired enough of a renown for its
wealth, as a great trade city, so as to attract a raiding party of Marc
Anthony's troops in 41 BCE seeking plunder:

"...Palmyra as an urban centre was a new creation, which did not go back
beyond the first century BC. The place had certainly existed and had been
referred to centuries before. But there is nothing in the archaeological
record to show that there was any settled occupation of the site through the
Hellenistic period...Suggestions of a phase of urban development in Palmyra
before the disturbances of the late Hellenistic period can only be
speculation. Inscriptional evidence does, however, now suggest, by the
reconstruction of a family tree, that the foundation of the first temple of
Allat went back to the earlier first century BC. We cannot at any rate
construct a picture of a Persian or early Hellenistic Tadmor from the fact
that the Chronicler took the city Tamar which Solomon built to be Tadmor in
the desert (II Chronicles 8.4). It is only Josephus who expands on this brief
allusion to give one of the best pictures of Palmyra- but as it was in the
first century AD." (p.320, Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31
B.C.-A.D.337, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1993)

In order for Tadmor to have attracted the Chronicler's attention it must
have been a great and important city, worthy of being ascribed to Solomon's
prodigious building reputation. It would appear then, that based on the
archaeological evidence found at Tadmor, that 2 Chronicles 2:8, and thus
perhaps Chronicles itself, must have been written some time during the 1st
century BCE, probably in the second half of that century, 50 BCE or later.

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




  • Textual and archaeological evidence for Tadmor, Peter Kirk, 02/28/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page