Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15079Re: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah

Expand Messages
  • Doug Weller
    Jul 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Brian,

      Anyway, isn't the Samaritan Book of Joshua dated to around the 13th
      century CE, so is irrelevant?
      Doug

      Friday, July 19, 2013, 6:27:19 PM, you wrote:

      > Ian,

      > Great, so now we have to explain why we haven't found "made by
      > David" inscriptions for a dozen or more Amorite rulers?! One was challenging enough!

      > best,

      > R. Brian Roberts
      > Charlotte, NC


      > ________________________________
      > From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      > To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:10 PM
      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah
      >


      >  
      > Dear Douglas,

      > I see no reason why we should delete David from the literary record
      > as given, nor do I see reason to talk of a David in the
      > archaeological record. Especially since the Masoretic and Septuagint
      > are not the only sources speaking of David. The Samaritan Book of
      > Joshua dates this same David to around 1250 BC instead. Who are we
      > to believe? Can we please be impartial about it? "David" simply
      > means "leader", so every Amoritic leader from 2300-1650 BC was
      > therefore a "David". The most famous "David" would be Hammurabi, and
      > his son Samsuiluna would then be the most famous "Solomon", when
      > Jerusalem was indeed the expected city-state/kingdom of such great
      > figures as a "Saul", "David" or Solomon, between 1900 and 1750 BC.
      > So we may well be misled to look in the wrong millennium and
      > century. That gives us all the more reason to keep "David" out of
      > the archaeological record until we do have evidence of a king David and his kingdom.

      > It is possible that one day we may uncover a kingdom of a real
      > living king Osiris, but until then it should not be entertained in
      > the archaeological record. Not long ago, the 1st and 2nd dynasties
      > were kept out of the archaeological record for the same reason, but
      > we finally dug up their tombs and artifacts. So yes, whenever the
      > Bible comes into play, nationalistic sentiments do distort our perception of the facts.

      > Regards,
      > Ian Onvlee,
      > Netherlands.

      > ________________________________
      > From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:07 PM
      > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah


      >  
      > Ian,

      > While I appreciate your zeal immensely, I must say that it is
      > exceedingly misguided. I would call your perspective ‘studying
      > archaeology in a vacuum’. Actually, this is a trap into which even
      > many brilliant archaeologists have ensnared themselves, astoundingly
      > enough. So, you certainly are not alone.

      > This diseased approach to archaeology is the result of the
      > archaeology-enthusiast’s volitional act of divorcing archaeology
      > from the greater field of (in this case) ancient history, at least
      > in his/her own mind. As I mentioned recently, I am one who devotes
      > himself to the greater field of ancient history, of which
      > archaeology is merely one branch among others, such as epigraphy, iconography, glyptics, etc.

      > I constantly have a front row seat for the silly battles that take
      > place between archaeologists and epigraphers. They each fight to
      > maintain the superiority of their own subdiscipline, using the
      > belittling of the other’s subdiscipline as a springboard to exalted
      > status. This is self-deceptive in its most pristine form.

      > All the while, the greater discipline of ancient history suffers
      > immeasurably during these childish turf wars in the realms of its
      > constituent parts. No, I have neither time nor patience for such
      > arrogant and vain battles. But I can tell you this: whatever you
      > call it, what you suggest is NOT good archaeology; rather, it is
      > revisionary history, arrived at with a dash of smugness and a
      > smattering of naiveté. The belittling of the ancient written sources
      > does no justice whatsoever to archaeology.

      > Yes, if we were to follow your mantra, we would not only remove
      > David from the record books despite the Tel Dan Stele (and yes, I
      > read Lemche, Athas, et al.), but we would etch out figures such as
      > Lugalzagesi, Ur-Zababa, and even Sargon of Akkad, among many others,
      > though their fingerprints are seen all over the landscape of the
      > ancient world, even by archaeologists! Are you certain that you are
      > ready for such a bold campaign as this? Arguments from silence are
      > precarious foundations on which to build castles, my friend.

      > There are not as many of us dinosaurs around nowadays, having lost
      > a great champion of ancient history with the passing of Anson
      > Rainey. However, we will survive this ice age, and we will be the
      > stronger for it. We will not allow archaeological arrogance or
      > revisionary history to win the day.

      > Sincerely,

      > Douglas Petrovich
      > Toronto

      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      >

      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      > ------------------------------------

      > Yahoo! Groups Links







      --
      --
      Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
      Director The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
      Doug's Skeptical Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
    • Show all 51 messages in this topic