Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 13.43 01/01/00 -0800, Numberup AT worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I agree.  So much has already been discovered by archaeologists that might
not have
>been found at all, except that it was written in the Bible.  

Schliemann used Homer and we still don't know exactly what it is he found.
People have used indications from the Arthurian literature and found
various bits and bobs.

The OT/HB is as often right as it is wrong and the rest of the time one
cannot say. Think about the erroneous picture of the Hittites. What about
the term Ur of the Chaldeans? The warped view of the Philistines? Ai,
Jericho and the "conquest"? The conflict between the archaeological
Jerusalem and that of David and Solomon?

>And I think that, in the
>main, Biblical historiography is at least as well-attested as much of the
ancient
>history that we take for granted.  

I'd definitely think again if I were you. The big boys have left a great
abundance of attestations on the walls of palaces and tombs, libraries and
statues. Because we have descriptions from both antagonists in the battle
of Qadesh, we know the tactics and events better than most other battles
from the ancient world. No comparable detail is to be found in anything
from the OT/HB.

>Who knows what corroborating bits and pieces of
>history a new century, with improved means and methods of discovery, might
produce?

After a century and a half of vain digging for archaeological support for
the OT/HB, the one clear thing comes out we know more about the cultures
that we didn't know existed than we have learnt about the OT/HB culture.
Biblical archaeology is one of the biggest failures in the history of
social science.


Cheers,


Ian