Archaeological dig reignites debate over the Old Testament’s historical accuracy(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Archaeological dig reignites debate over the Old Testament’s historical accuracy
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/
97 comments
Yeah, the final line seems to be far from any kind of "gotcha":
> What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility.
> What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility.
It raises questions that anatomically modern homo sapiens existed for at least 200,000 years, but supposedly only developed civilization in the past five thousand years or so. Perhaps human civilization is considerably older than the mainstream view, but 5,000 years is about how long it takes for all traces to disappear? It does appear the great pyramid will probably be extant for longer than 5,000 years, but such artifacts appear to be rare.
My very limited understanding is that traditional Hindu teaching is that human civilization is orders of magnitude older than 5,000 years. If anyone who knows more about that wants to reply I’d be interested.
My very limited understanding is that traditional Hindu teaching is that human civilization is orders of magnitude older than 5,000 years. If anyone who knows more about that wants to reply I’d be interested.
We do find traces of human habitation from much older, though, including dwellings and cultural artifacts. So traces didn't disappear - they're there, and the picture that they paint is of a very primitive society.
It would be very strange indeed if the only things that disappeared were the ones necessarily to demonstrate that society was actually highly developed, no?
It would be very strange indeed if the only things that disappeared were the ones necessarily to demonstrate that society was actually highly developed, no?
> It would be very strange indeed if the only things that disappeared were the ones necessarily to demonstrate that society was actually highly developed, no?
I’m no expert, but highly developed artifacts strike me as the ones most likely to be fragile to entropy and erosion.
In any event I’m only curious. Questioning an absence of evidence implying evidence of absence is just basic reasoning.
I’m no expert, but highly developed artifacts strike me as the ones most likely to be fragile to entropy and erosion.
In any event I’m only curious. Questioning an absence of evidence implying evidence of absence is just basic reasoning.
I believe the number to look at would be 10,000 BC. That's around the time humans settled down, and there have been various human settlements and pottery found since then. I believe the number of ~5,000 years ago is just based on the records we have-- that's when the Sumerians come into the archeological record with complex artifacts. And of course that's when we have records of large civilizations like Akkad.
But humans were certainly sophisticated long before then, even if they didn't have complex writing and government. One of the strangest pieces of archeology to me is the Löwenmensch figurine or Lion-Man, an ivory figure dating to 40,000 bc. So humans definitely had some complex culture for a long time. One theory I heard about why civilization developed so recently, is that it's in the past 10,000 years that the planet warmed up enough that farming became practical. I don't know enough about geological history to confirm that, but it seems like an appealing theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man
But humans were certainly sophisticated long before then, even if they didn't have complex writing and government. One of the strangest pieces of archeology to me is the Löwenmensch figurine or Lion-Man, an ivory figure dating to 40,000 bc. So humans definitely had some complex culture for a long time. One theory I heard about why civilization developed so recently, is that it's in the past 10,000 years that the planet warmed up enough that farming became practical. I don't know enough about geological history to confirm that, but it seems like an appealing theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-man
I don't think 'anatomically modern' necessarily implies that their brains were evolved to the same level of modern humans; I don't believe there is any hard evidence, genetic or otherwise. But even if so, that 200k years could have been the time it took to develop the software (i.e. knowledge and culture) necessary to fully apply the hardware (brain) toward building more modern civilizations.
Doesn't "anatomically modern" humans include neanderthals, denizovans and so on? Those people don't seem to have left any cities.
I keep coming across the claim that humans have been around for 300,000 years. Based on no knowledge or expertise at all, I'm sceptical. It seems fairly clear that there exist remains of cities 12,000 years old (e.g. Troy); the classical Greeks regarded the stories of the Trojan war as something close to mythology, but then Schliemann found the place. But there don't seem to be stories of ancient civilisations that go back much further than that.
I find it difficult to believe that people able to build a civilisation would have existed for tens of thousands of years, without actually building one. But evidence for ancient civilisations is hard to find, so perhaps we just haven't found it yet. So I'm open to the view that humans capable of civilisation-building have been around for (say) 50,000 years. But without evidence, I find it hard to credit the claim that humans from 300,000 years ago were at all like us.
I'm ignorant about these matters, and my sketchy opinions are based on stuff I read decades ago. Is there something written for the layman that I could read to inform myself?
I keep coming across the claim that humans have been around for 300,000 years. Based on no knowledge or expertise at all, I'm sceptical. It seems fairly clear that there exist remains of cities 12,000 years old (e.g. Troy); the classical Greeks regarded the stories of the Trojan war as something close to mythology, but then Schliemann found the place. But there don't seem to be stories of ancient civilisations that go back much further than that.
I find it difficult to believe that people able to build a civilisation would have existed for tens of thousands of years, without actually building one. But evidence for ancient civilisations is hard to find, so perhaps we just haven't found it yet. So I'm open to the view that humans capable of civilisation-building have been around for (say) 50,000 years. But without evidence, I find it hard to credit the claim that humans from 300,000 years ago were at all like us.
I'm ignorant about these matters, and my sketchy opinions are based on stuff I read decades ago. Is there something written for the layman that I could read to inform myself?
David Graber’s new book leans onto this: the dawn of everything
I don't see why a mine is an indication of a local kingdom. It seems reasonable that it would be an outpost specific to resource extraction. All of the stuff they found could be the modern equivalent of finding a Rolex at an oil derrick in Oklahoma.
I think the quandary here is over the dating. There were no known civilizations with stone architecture that were extant at the time the mine was operating. Someone in between Egypt and Rome was extracting and processing copper.
The presence of an oil derrick would imply a certain level of technological sophistication. This mine might also.
This structure of steel is a monument to the god Exxon, a chthonic deity whom the ancients believed was responsible for mineral wealth and the underworld. Like similar such monuments, it includes a deep well, whereupon sacrifices could be made to the ancestors or Exxon himself, or his mole men servants. Of course nowadays, we know there is no hidden world underground.
> This structure of steel is a monument to the god Exxon, a chthonic deity whom the ancients believed was responsible for mineral wealth and the underworld. Like similar such monuments, it includes a deep well, whereupon sacrifices could be made to the ancestors or Exxon himself, or his mole men servants. Of course nowadays, we know there is no hidden world underground.
What point is that supposed to make? No one's making that error here. They know these ancient mines were mines; they're not going "dunno what this is, must be a temple."
What point is that supposed to make? No one's making that error here. They know these ancient mines were mines; they're not going "dunno what this is, must be a temple."
So maybe in this case these mines are indeed a temple!
+1 for using chthonic in a coherent sentence.
Did you ever read David Macaulay's "Motel of the Mysteries"?
A lot of the status quo understanding of the past is filtered through British Imperial Era historians and archaeologists who in turn interpreted through the eyes of the world order they lived in.
Every once in awhile there’s a headline to the effect of “Breaking: Scientists discover that Bronze Age/medieval/not European people were total idiots in <year>“
Every once in awhile there’s a headline to the effect of “Breaking: Scientists discover that Bronze Age/medieval/not European people were total idiots in <year>“
We've switched from "Is the Old Testament historically accurate?" (which was the HTML doc title, not something the submitter made up, but still too baity) to the page title, which seems more factual and neutral.
I would never imagine the Smithsonian would do a click-bait like this.
Their online history publishing group is very clickbaity in my experience.
The pressures, alas, are merciless on everybody, and it seems like they all cave eventually. Even august science journals are doing it increasingly.
We get to take a different approach here because the economics are different, which is sort of a miracle if you think about it.
We get to take a different approach here because the economics are different, which is sort of a miracle if you think about it.
>which is sort of a miracle if you think about it.
Yeah, but does the miracle reaffirm the old testament?
Jk. Keep up the good work, Dang
Yeah, but does the miracle reaffirm the old testament?
Jk. Keep up the good work, Dang
If nothing else, the old testament is a fascinatingly well-preserved look at how people viewed life thousands of years ago. Although a lot of things have changed, the nature of human conflict and the desire for power haven't.
I think the most interesting part of the Old Testament is how the ancient Israelites justified their war against Canaan.
One of the main charges against Canaan is that they accused Canaan of sacrificing children. It's the exact same "think of the children" justification used endlessly today.
One of the main charges against Canaan is that they accused Canaan of sacrificing children. It's the exact same "think of the children" justification used endlessly today.
The Israelites were one Canaanite people among others. The reason they are the main characters in our history books is because of survivorship bias. Other people had just as elaborate myths and legend (and a lot of material were shared among many groups) but their material was lost to history. The Israelites and proto-Israelites that existed around 1000 BC were most likely also sacrificing children to the god Moloch. The story of how Abraham almost sacrificed his son and other hints in the Old Testament indicates as much. The practice of child sacrifice went out of fashion over the centuries and the Israelites revised their holy texts, eventually outlawing child sacrifice. The impetus for the theological change may have been greater contact with cultures that would have been seen as more sophisticated, such as the Greeks and the Achaemenids, whose gods did not require that extreme sacrifices.
>The Israelites and proto-Israelites that existed around 1000 BC were most likely also sacrificing children to the god Moloch. The story of how Abraham almost sacrificed his son and other hints in the Old Testament indicates as much.
In fact, even as late as the Talmud it was explicitly recorded that the whole damn point of the Binding of Isaac story is to give a mythic impetus to the newly-formed Judaic religion to outlaw human sacrifice. Which, yeah, sorta indicates that it wasn't so unthinkable that nobody had to forbid it.
In fact, even as late as the Talmud it was explicitly recorded that the whole damn point of the Binding of Isaac story is to give a mythic impetus to the newly-formed Judaic religion to outlaw human sacrifice. Which, yeah, sorta indicates that it wasn't so unthinkable that nobody had to forbid it.
Where's the Talmud passages to support your claim?
It was a real thing, we know the same stuff from Roman sources about Carthage which shared much of their culture with Canaan.
I guess it's just hard to take that justification of trying to stop child sacrifice seriously when the same text describes the ancient Israelites proceeding to kill all the boys and enslave all the girls from captured Canaanite cities.
It seems like the primary goal of the war was simply conquest, not freeing Canaanite children. With the child sacrifice simply being used to justify that expansionary war.
It seems like the primary goal of the war was simply conquest, not freeing Canaanite children. With the child sacrifice simply being used to justify that expansionary war.
Or that the same text said Abraham was totally down with child sacrifice until he was stopped last second.
Fortunately the Bible later explains that Abraham remembered God had told him "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." and he therefore correctly reasoned "that God was able even to raise [Isaac] from the dead" (Hebrews 11:18-19). At worst, therefore, Isaac would only have been temporarily dead, which was not a feature observed of Canaanite child sacrifice.
Temporarily dead perhaps, but either way, emotionally scarred for life, most likely.
It's hard to take Americans seriously when they say they're for women's and children's rights, when they proceed to kill and rape innocent women and children in the middle east. See how easy that is to do?
I see you didn't read the original comment that started this discussion ...
> Although a lot of things have changed, the nature of human conflict and the desire for power haven't.
> Although a lot of things have changed, the nature of human conflict and the desire for power haven't.
I did, I just don't see how that contradicts what I said. The motivations of large groups are generally more complex than some singular reason, and a group can care about bad things that their enemies do even if they themselves do bad things
Even today's (self-described) enlightened societies draw a distinction between the lawful killing of the children of enemy nations (as "unavoidable consequences" of war) and the unlawful killing of children by their own parents (at least once those children are outside the womb).
Unfortunately, at the time of the Canaanite cities, there wasn't really much infrastructure for providing welfare services to war orphans, and there was a very real risk that young males of conquered peoples would grow up to seek genocidal revenge on their conquerors. By that standard, offering homes to the female prisoners of war was relatively compassionate.
Unfortunately, at the time of the Canaanite cities, there wasn't really much infrastructure for providing welfare services to war orphans, and there was a very real risk that young males of conquered peoples would grow up to seek genocidal revenge on their conquerors. By that standard, offering homes to the female prisoners of war was relatively compassionate.
>> offering homes to the female prisoners of war was relatively compassionate.
more likely sex slaves, given the references to young virgins.
more likely sex slaves, given the references to young virgins.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that virginity is not a requirement for someone to be forced into prostitution. More likely the distinction was made because virgins would be young enough to form bonds with the young Israelite men, whereas the older women would not want to start new families.
Of course you see the exact same logic in today's "enlightened societies". Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan to see the same sort of logic of Americans starting a war for supposedly humanitarian causes only to make life worse for everyone involved.
>By that standard, offering homes to the female prisoners of war was relatively compassionate.
More like taking forced brides from among the desirable female captives. I'm sure many in that situation would prefer death. Arguably, sparing the male children their life dominated by genocidal vengeance is the more compassionate action.
More like taking forced brides from among the desirable female captives. I'm sure many in that situation would prefer death. Arguably, sparing the male children their life dominated by genocidal vengeance is the more compassionate action.
>I'm sure many in that situation would prefer death.
I'm not sure anyone today can reasonably say what they thought. The desire for human survival, though, is incredibly strong.
I'm not sure anyone today can reasonably say what they thought. The desire for human survival, though, is incredibly strong.
I don't think that was in dispute
Provide cite to this “main charge”.
The Pentateuch is clear that the land was given to Abraham and his descendants. After their 400+ years in bondage in Egypt, they returned and reclaimed their land. They weren’t encouraged to kick the Canaanites out because of child sacrifice; (although, that was certainly a practice that some were engaged in.) In any case, the OT doesn’t paint a picture of the Hebrews being some force of social justice, ridding that particular parcel of geography of some vile practice... indeed, Solomon ended up erecting shrines to Moloch, Manessah (a Jewish king) sacrificed his own son to Moloch, as did King Ahaz, and the Jew’s tendency to fall into periods of child sacrifice and idolatry is recounted time and time again throughout the OT. In other words, the vice of infanticide wasn’t described in the OT as exclusive to the Canaanites.
In short, I think you are somewhat confused... clearly, child sacrifice is bad, but it wasn’t the ‘main’ reason — or even a minor reason - for the conquest. Cite something specific if I’m mistaken.
The Pentateuch is clear that the land was given to Abraham and his descendants. After their 400+ years in bondage in Egypt, they returned and reclaimed their land. They weren’t encouraged to kick the Canaanites out because of child sacrifice; (although, that was certainly a practice that some were engaged in.) In any case, the OT doesn’t paint a picture of the Hebrews being some force of social justice, ridding that particular parcel of geography of some vile practice... indeed, Solomon ended up erecting shrines to Moloch, Manessah (a Jewish king) sacrificed his own son to Moloch, as did King Ahaz, and the Jew’s tendency to fall into periods of child sacrifice and idolatry is recounted time and time again throughout the OT. In other words, the vice of infanticide wasn’t described in the OT as exclusive to the Canaanites.
In short, I think you are somewhat confused... clearly, child sacrifice is bad, but it wasn’t the ‘main’ reason — or even a minor reason - for the conquest. Cite something specific if I’m mistaken.
The funny part there is that the text is offering legitimation propaganda for a war that, as far as archaeology and secular history can tell us, never actually happened. You can only trust the Biblical text as even a little historical once you get to the period of kings!
It should be noted that the historicity of the conquest of Canaan is itself highly suspect.
That was definitely one of the things I took from reading it. How human nature has changed very little, if at all, in all that time.
But a lot of things have changed. Women are for the most part not viewed as cattle anymore and we don't treat other ethnic groups as subhuman species that we are free to exterminate and/or take as our slaves.
This view has come and gone in different societies at different times. There were places 2,000 years ago with relative equality, and places today where this is still the case.
I wouldn't be so rosy about that claim. Sure in small pockets things are good, in others-- mild improvements, in still others, probably as bad.
Could be. I think the most interesting part of the article is that they have identified a limit of archeology. They discovered wealthy and powerful groups that don't exist according to archeology because they didn't leave behind buildings. The royal purple dye was very interesting as well.
I think it's interesting that it feels like we have such high expectations of archaeology to provide mostly accurate pictures of history when if we were wiped out tomorrow our historical record would exist for what 10000 years before everything is completely degraded? Most of that information loss would happen in like the first 100 years after we were gone just based on how quickly most of our digital storage mediums degrade.
If we can't build a long and comprehensive enduring legacy of our civilization why should we expect older civilizations to have been better at it while theoretically having worse means to do so and expect that legacy to be wholistic when archaeologists explore it?
If we can't build a long and comprehensive enduring legacy of our civilization why should we expect older civilizations to have been better at it while theoretically having worse means to do so and expect that legacy to be wholistic when archaeologists explore it?
I mean check out that 3000 year old smelting furnace. Not only does it work as a piece of aesthetically intriguing sculpture, it probably still works as a blast furnace! I think about this a lot actually. When ancients built, they had to built for survival, so the focus, care and attention was exponentially multiplied. The result is of course things that were implicitly designed to last for generations.
It must be an amazing feeling to be an archeologist at the moment of new discovery. You suddenly enjoy a serendipitous connection with a human being who has been dead for ages. But is suddenly memorable again, as if reborn.
I think that human connection is the seed of "psychohistory". What message or wisdom can we wish to convey to our Future Selves?
It must be an amazing feeling to be an archeologist at the moment of new discovery. You suddenly enjoy a serendipitous connection with a human being who has been dead for ages. But is suddenly memorable again, as if reborn.
I think that human connection is the seed of "psychohistory". What message or wisdom can we wish to convey to our Future Selves?
Not an archeologist, but isn't most of what we find pretty sharply split between everyday stuff that was frozen in time or left behind in an unplanned catastrope (Anasazi, Pompeii, etc), and then the formal, intentional records left in tombs and so on?
I know both pieces are important, but the intentional record of some ruler tells you more about their ego than what everyday life was like.
I expect that even if we were all snuffed out tomorrow, there would be loads of our record remaining 1000+ years from now— both the intentional efforts like seed vaults, time capsules, stacks of hard copy documents sealed in safes, but also the enormous presence of all kinds of plastic, which even divorced from context would still give myriad insight into what daily life was like at the start of the 21st century.
I know both pieces are important, but the intentional record of some ruler tells you more about their ego than what everyday life was like.
I expect that even if we were all snuffed out tomorrow, there would be loads of our record remaining 1000+ years from now— both the intentional efforts like seed vaults, time capsules, stacks of hard copy documents sealed in safes, but also the enormous presence of all kinds of plastic, which even divorced from context would still give myriad insight into what daily life was like at the start of the 21st century.
One thing I really like about Doctor Who, is the absurd mis-remebered fake histories they make up for our current era. Hilarious!
Puts into perspective how we think about the cultures that came before us.
Puts into perspective how we think about the cultures that came before us.
The tent theory makes a lot of sense. Prior to Solomon's temple, the temple was a tent, and is recorded as being a tent for hundreds of years.
A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered the fertile crescent, and everyone knew that empire never existed.
And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire.
Interestingly, records from that empire concur on some of the same events in the Bible. For example, Sennacherib is mentioned as the leader of Assyria who conquered most of Judah (the southern kingdom of Isreal - he had already conquered the northern one). See, for example, Isaiah 37.
From an unearthed clay tablet:
"But as for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not bow to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled towns, and innumerable smaller villages in their neighbourhood, I besieged and conquered by stamping down earth ramps and then by bring up battering rams, by the assault of foot soldiers, by breaches, by tunnelling and military engineering operations.
I made to come out from them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, innumerable horses, mules, donkeys, camels, large and small cattle, and counted them as spoils of war. He himself I shut up like a caged bird within Jerusalem his royal city. As for Hezekiah, the awful splendour of my lordship overwhelmed him."
This coincides with the account in the Bible.
Note that Hezekiah is a descendant of Solomon - less than 200 years separate them.
A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered the fertile crescent, and everyone knew that empire never existed.
And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire.
Interestingly, records from that empire concur on some of the same events in the Bible. For example, Sennacherib is mentioned as the leader of Assyria who conquered most of Judah (the southern kingdom of Isreal - he had already conquered the northern one). See, for example, Isaiah 37.
From an unearthed clay tablet:
"But as for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not bow to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled towns, and innumerable smaller villages in their neighbourhood, I besieged and conquered by stamping down earth ramps and then by bring up battering rams, by the assault of foot soldiers, by breaches, by tunnelling and military engineering operations.
I made to come out from them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, innumerable horses, mules, donkeys, camels, large and small cattle, and counted them as spoils of war. He himself I shut up like a caged bird within Jerusalem his royal city. As for Hezekiah, the awful splendour of my lordship overwhelmed him."
This coincides with the account in the Bible.
Note that Hezekiah is a descendant of Solomon - less than 200 years separate them.
> A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered the fertile crescent, and everyone knew that empire never existed.
> And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire.
You're conflating the Assyrians and the Hittites. The Assyrians were well known from sources other than the Hebrew Bible before the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform and modern archeology. Even then, Archibald Sayce's 1876 identification of the Biblical Hittites with the Hittite Empire of Anatolia remains problematic today. You're also drawing up a bit of a strawman of pre-19th century scholars—the problem of the Biblical Hittites never seems to have been more than a minor curiosity for those arguing over the value of the Hebrew Bible as a historical work.
Also, if you're going invoke Sennacherib's Annals to compare with the Biblical accounts, actually compare them. Briefly, the Hebrew Bible has Hezekiah paying heavy tribute (though not as heavy as in the Annals) to Sennacherib so he won't attack, Sennacherib lays siege anyway, and then divine forces destroy Sennacherib's army.
> And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire.
You're conflating the Assyrians and the Hittites. The Assyrians were well known from sources other than the Hebrew Bible before the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform and modern archeology. Even then, Archibald Sayce's 1876 identification of the Biblical Hittites with the Hittite Empire of Anatolia remains problematic today. You're also drawing up a bit of a strawman of pre-19th century scholars—the problem of the Biblical Hittites never seems to have been more than a minor curiosity for those arguing over the value of the Hebrew Bible as a historical work.
Also, if you're going invoke Sennacherib's Annals to compare with the Biblical accounts, actually compare them. Briefly, the Hebrew Bible has Hezekiah paying heavy tribute (though not as heavy as in the Annals) to Sennacherib so he won't attack, Sennacherib lays siege anyway, and then divine forces destroy Sennacherib's army.
The Hittites are another example of almost the same thing. The Bible was the only source of information about them. Some people said the Bible was making things up. Archeology has now confirmed that the Hittites existed.
For Assyria, there was only textual evidence in the Bible, and some Greek manuscripts. The Greeks even say they are not sure Assyria existed as there were no ruins to point at. All the other textual evidence was based on the Bible and Greek sources.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm
The excavations of the 19th century are often called a 'rediscovery'.
The Assyrian and Biblical accounts are not contradictory. The Assyrian account merely leaves off the humiliation of not actually capturing and killing Hezekiah as Sennacherib intended. How that failure occured is not mentioned in the Assyrian account, which is fairly normal for defeats and failings.
After Assyria withdrew, Hezekiah had a tunnel built to supply water to Jerusalem. You can see that tunnel today, and the Hebrew inscription.
For Assyria, there was only textual evidence in the Bible, and some Greek manuscripts. The Greeks even say they are not sure Assyria existed as there were no ruins to point at. All the other textual evidence was based on the Bible and Greek sources.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm
The excavations of the 19th century are often called a 'rediscovery'.
The Assyrian and Biblical accounts are not contradictory. The Assyrian account merely leaves off the humiliation of not actually capturing and killing Hezekiah as Sennacherib intended. How that failure occured is not mentioned in the Assyrian account, which is fairly normal for defeats and failings.
After Assyria withdrew, Hezekiah had a tunnel built to supply water to Jerusalem. You can see that tunnel today, and the Hebrew inscription.
The Assyrian Empire is documented in, among other works, Herodotus's Histories and Book II of Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca Historica, two of the most influential histories written in classical antiquity. To dismiss the these sources as merely "some Greek manuscripts" is misleading. Also, at that point, any pre-19th century debate about the historicity of the Assyrian empire is no longer just a quarrel with the Hebrew Bible, but a wider skepticism of numerous ancient and independent sources.
I don't think you can provide an ancient Greek source that is skeptical about the existence of the Assyrian empire. There's a quote from Lucian's satirical dialog Charon that people try to use to for that, but I don't think it works. In the dialog, Hermes notes there's no trace of Nineveh left, suggesting Babylon would soon share the same fate. Never mind that at the time Lucian wrote that (2nd century AD), Nineveh was still standing and inhabited. Nowhere does Hermes suggest Nineveh never existed.
As for Sennacherib's Annals, the similarities are:
* Jerusalem was under siege but was never taken.
* Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib.
* Sennacherib returned to Nineveh after the siege instead of continuing his campaign.
The differences:
* The Hebrew Bible has the Assyrian army being defeated by an "angel of Yahweh" killing 185,000 soldiers in an unqualified defeat. The Annals have Hezekiah abandoned by his mercenary and allied armies. Then, Hezekiah is overwhelmed by Assyrian power and pays the tribute to end things. He submits as a vassal.
* The Bible has Sennacherib treacherously continue his attack after being given tribute. The Annals have the Tribute ending the siege.
* The tribute the Annals record is much larger than in the Bible, including 200,150 people, uncountable livestock, in addition to the aforementioned gold and more than double the silver mentioned in the Bible.
Both accounts are royal propaganda and need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to say what really happened outside of where they agree. Outside of the conflicting accounts, the siege of Jerusalem comes around the time that Babylon again went into rebellion. That seems to explain the end of Sennacherib's campaign better than an overwhelming defeat by a minor vassal king.
I don't think you can provide an ancient Greek source that is skeptical about the existence of the Assyrian empire. There's a quote from Lucian's satirical dialog Charon that people try to use to for that, but I don't think it works. In the dialog, Hermes notes there's no trace of Nineveh left, suggesting Babylon would soon share the same fate. Never mind that at the time Lucian wrote that (2nd century AD), Nineveh was still standing and inhabited. Nowhere does Hermes suggest Nineveh never existed.
As for Sennacherib's Annals, the similarities are:
* Jerusalem was under siege but was never taken.
* Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib.
* Sennacherib returned to Nineveh after the siege instead of continuing his campaign.
The differences:
* The Hebrew Bible has the Assyrian army being defeated by an "angel of Yahweh" killing 185,000 soldiers in an unqualified defeat. The Annals have Hezekiah abandoned by his mercenary and allied armies. Then, Hezekiah is overwhelmed by Assyrian power and pays the tribute to end things. He submits as a vassal.
* The Bible has Sennacherib treacherously continue his attack after being given tribute. The Annals have the Tribute ending the siege.
* The tribute the Annals record is much larger than in the Bible, including 200,150 people, uncountable livestock, in addition to the aforementioned gold and more than double the silver mentioned in the Bible.
Both accounts are royal propaganda and need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to say what really happened outside of where they agree. Outside of the conflicting accounts, the siege of Jerusalem comes around the time that Babylon again went into rebellion. That seems to explain the end of Sennacherib's campaign better than an overwhelming defeat by a minor vassal king.
Possibly related, but not mentioned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos#Potential_biblical_conn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos#Potential_biblical_conn...
I am reminded of a piece I read about a dig in either Central or South America. It was probably a thousand years old and archaeologists were baffled by something commonly found in the burial sites.
A local fisherman was able to readily identify it as a spacer for making fishing nets with consistently sized openings.
So much of what gets left behind only makes sense if you have knowledge of human behavior. It isn't necessarily readily inferable from the physical remains themselves.
A local fisherman was able to readily identify it as a spacer for making fishing nets with consistently sized openings.
So much of what gets left behind only makes sense if you have knowledge of human behavior. It isn't necessarily readily inferable from the physical remains themselves.
[deleted]
Is any historical text from similar time period accurate?
I got chills when I read about the protagonist being too fearful of the wrath of the mob to publish his theory until after he got tenure.
Reminded me of the quip that science advances one gravestone at a time.
Reminded me of the quip that science advances one gravestone at a time.
Loved this article, thanks for sharing!
No.
A better title could have avoided this simple answer.
A better title could have avoided this simple answer.
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- "Is it true that they give out free BMWs in Moscow?"
- "Yes it is true. But it's not in Moscow but in St Petersburg. And it's not BMWs but Ladas. And they don't give it, they steal it"
- "Yes it is true. But it's not in Moscow but in St Petersburg. And it's not BMWs but Ladas. And they don't give it, they steal it"
No it's not.
The Genesis account states that the earth was created, then the oceans, then trees and plants, and after all that the sun the moon and the stars were created.
The correct historical order is stars existed, then the sun was formed, then the earth and moon, then oceans, and finally trees and plants.
The Genesis account states that the earth was created, then the oceans, then trees and plants, and after all that the sun the moon and the stars were created.
The correct historical order is stars existed, then the sun was formed, then the earth and moon, then oceans, and finally trees and plants.
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. It's the last thing we want here, and it's particularly easy to avoid.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The original title of this submission until it was changed was "Is the Old Testament historically accurate". My response was to that title, no it isn't historically accurate.
I know, but you broke several of the HN guidelines with that response, including these:
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The article is obviously talking about historical accuracy in the context of archaeology and really in the context of a specific archeological dig. It's not about whether God created the earth in 7 days or put a bunch of animals on a boat.
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The article is obviously talking about historical accuracy in the context of archaeology and really in the context of a specific archeological dig. It's not about whether God created the earth in 7 days or put a bunch of animals on a boat.
Except fact is not provocative at all. They were objective with their answer and did not respond in a way that was derogatory nor mean spirited. They didn't even mention their opinion on religion, just responded "No, here would be the sequence of things". That's not even critical.
You trying to weaponize the guidelines is an abuse of the community and against the spirit and purpose of the rules.
You trying to weaponize the guidelines is an abuse of the community and against the spirit and purpose of the rules.
That's a strained interpretation both of the GP comment and of the HN guidelines. I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community here doesn't want to argue about whether the creation story of Genesis is "factual" or not. There's zero intellectual interest in that; it is, in fact, an absurd thing to argue about, unless you feel charged up about religion somehow.
> fact is not provocative at all.
There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves—humans do that—and often they do it in a highly provocative way. That's why "I'm just stating facts" is one of the classic troll tropes.
For example, if one middle schooler points out the acne on another kid's face, that's both factual and provocative. I've used that analogy before. Recently I ran across an old comment by pg where he made a similar point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> fact is not provocative at all.
There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves—humans do that—and often they do it in a highly provocative way. That's why "I'm just stating facts" is one of the classic troll tropes.
For example, if one middle schooler points out the acne on another kid's face, that's both factual and provocative. I've used that analogy before. Recently I ran across an old comment by pg where he made a similar point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Interesting that your mind immediately goes there. I read the title and wondered about the historical accuracy of, say, Abraham offering his wife to pharaoh or Solomon killing his brother to ascend to the throne. With a handful of exceptions, after the part with the Ark, the old testament is at least believable.
I find "the part with the Ark" fascinating. The number of different traditions that have a deluge myth has to make you wonder if there isn't something behind it.
Obviously if you take it very literally, every species on earth in the back of a homemade boat, the entire planet being wiped out, etc - it doesn't stand up very well. But I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that the story is the fossilised remains of an oral tradition that predates the written record - perhaps the loss of lands after the last ice age, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
Obviously if you take it very literally, every species on earth in the back of a homemade boat, the entire planet being wiped out, etc - it doesn't stand up very well. But I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that the story is the fossilised remains of an oral tradition that predates the written record - perhaps the loss of lands after the last ice age, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
There have been a number of catastrophic floods in history, as well, which could possibly account for some of flood stories being shared by so many cultures--including some in the Americas, like the Maya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
> I find "the part with the Ark" fascinating. The number of different traditions that have a deluge myth has to make you wonder if there isn't something behind it.
The biblical account isn't the oldest version, however. So it seems unlikely that that version is correct, whereas older versions were wrong. Although the older known versions weren't very believable either, so it's possible something might have happened, but it doesn't seem like there's really much to go on beyond "there was a huge flood, and a few people survived." Which definitely did happen, repeatedly.
The biblical account isn't the oldest version, however. So it seems unlikely that that version is correct, whereas older versions were wrong. Although the older known versions weren't very believable either, so it's possible something might have happened, but it doesn't seem like there's really much to go on beyond "there was a huge flood, and a few people survived." Which definitely did happen, repeatedly.
I think "correct" is a weird way to think about it. I mean, if we take the theory that these are an oral tradition of post ice-age sea level changes - then there was more time between the ice age and the start of the written record, than there is between the bible and the present. These would have been myths told for thousands of years before they appeared in the written record.
That's the part that fascinates me - it seems obvious that the OT gets more realistic the closer events get to the written record. But some of the parts we write off as unrealistic could be the remains of stories as old as the human race. If the flood myth describes the end of the ice age, that would mean you and I are sharing an oral tradition 10,000 years old. I find that a lot more exciting than how factually accurate it is.
That's the part that fascinates me - it seems obvious that the OT gets more realistic the closer events get to the written record. But some of the parts we write off as unrealistic could be the remains of stories as old as the human race. If the flood myth describes the end of the ice age, that would mean you and I are sharing an oral tradition 10,000 years old. I find that a lot more exciting than how factually accurate it is.
> I find that a lot more exciting than how factually accurate it is.
I agree with you, although there's a large contingent for whom whether or not it's factually accurate is the most significant concern.
I agree with you, although there's a large contingent for whom whether or not it's factually accurate is the most significant concern.
Here is something from Zoroastrianism akin to the Ark, connecting it with winter and "foul frost":
FARGARD II. Yima (gamshêd).
And Ahura Mazda spake unto Yima, saying: 'O fair Yima, son of Vîvanghat! Upon the material world the fatal winters are going to fall, that shall bring the fierce, foul frost; upon the material world the fatal winters are going to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an aredvî deep on the highest tops of mountains. And all the three sorts of beasts shall perish, those that live in the wilderness, and those that live on the tops of the mountains, and those that live in the bosom of the dale, under the shelter of stables. Before that winter, those fields would bear plenty of grass for cattle: now with floods that stream, with snows that melt, it will seem a happy land in the world, the land wherein footprints even of sheep may still be seen. Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square , and thither bring the seeds of sheep and oxen, of men, of dogs, of birds, and of red blazing fires.
Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square, to be an abode for men; a Vara, long. as a riding-ground on every side of the square, to be a fold for flocks. There thou shalt make waters flow in a bed a hâthra long; there thou shalt settle birds, by the ever-green banks that bear never-failing food. There thou shalt establish dwelling places, consisting of a house with a balcony, a courtyard, and a gallery. Thither thou shalt bring the seeds of men and women, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth; thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of cattle, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth.
Thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of tree, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth; thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of fruit, the fullest of food and sweetest of odour. All those seeds shalt thou bring, two of ever, kind, to be kept inexhaustible there, so long as those men shall stay in the Vara. There shall be no humpbacked, none bulged forward there; no impotent, no lunatic; no poverty, no lying; no meanness, no jealousy; no decayed tooth, no leprous to be confined, nor any of the brands wherewith Angra Mainyu stamps the bodies of mortals. In the largest part of the place thou shalt make nine streets, six in the middle part, three in the smallest. To the streets of the largest part thou shalt bring a thousand seeds of men and women; to the streets of the middle part, six hundred; to the streets of the smallest part, three hundred. That Vara thou shalt seal up with the golden ring, and thou shalt make a door, and a window self-shining within.'
https://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0408.htm
FARGARD II. Yima (gamshêd).
And Ahura Mazda spake unto Yima, saying: 'O fair Yima, son of Vîvanghat! Upon the material world the fatal winters are going to fall, that shall bring the fierce, foul frost; upon the material world the fatal winters are going to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an aredvî deep on the highest tops of mountains. And all the three sorts of beasts shall perish, those that live in the wilderness, and those that live on the tops of the mountains, and those that live in the bosom of the dale, under the shelter of stables. Before that winter, those fields would bear plenty of grass for cattle: now with floods that stream, with snows that melt, it will seem a happy land in the world, the land wherein footprints even of sheep may still be seen. Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square , and thither bring the seeds of sheep and oxen, of men, of dogs, of birds, and of red blazing fires.
Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding-ground on every side of the square, to be an abode for men; a Vara, long. as a riding-ground on every side of the square, to be a fold for flocks. There thou shalt make waters flow in a bed a hâthra long; there thou shalt settle birds, by the ever-green banks that bear never-failing food. There thou shalt establish dwelling places, consisting of a house with a balcony, a courtyard, and a gallery. Thither thou shalt bring the seeds of men and women, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth; thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of cattle, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth.
Thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of tree, of the greatest, best, and finest kinds on this earth; thither thou shalt bring the seeds of every kind of fruit, the fullest of food and sweetest of odour. All those seeds shalt thou bring, two of ever, kind, to be kept inexhaustible there, so long as those men shall stay in the Vara. There shall be no humpbacked, none bulged forward there; no impotent, no lunatic; no poverty, no lying; no meanness, no jealousy; no decayed tooth, no leprous to be confined, nor any of the brands wherewith Angra Mainyu stamps the bodies of mortals. In the largest part of the place thou shalt make nine streets, six in the middle part, three in the smallest. To the streets of the largest part thou shalt bring a thousand seeds of men and women; to the streets of the middle part, six hundred; to the streets of the smallest part, three hundred. That Vara thou shalt seal up with the golden ring, and thou shalt make a door, and a window self-shining within.'
https://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0408.htm
I was like, pretty sure all those people didn't live 900 years. I like a lot of the stories and subjective meaning, but you kind of have to look past the odd factoids.
As a thought experiment, could it be a units translation issue?
A person who lived 175 seasons (each 3 months long) would be 44 years old. A person who lived 900 moons would be 74.
It’s happened to spacecraft, http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
A person who lived 175 seasons (each 3 months long) would be 44 years old. A person who lived 900 moons would be 74.
It’s happened to spacecraft, http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
The likely solution is that it is a unit translation issue. Apparently Sumerian had three numbering systems, depending on what you were counting, and they each reused the same symbols, some of them to mean different things.
Robert Best wrote "Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth" ( https://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Ziusudra-Epic-Sumerian/dp/0... ) in which he translates the numbers back into Sumerian using the incorrect numbering system and then retranslates them using the correct numbering system. He ends up with not only ages that make sense, but it also fixes the unevenness of the Biblical ages. It also sorts out the Kings List numbers.
Robert Best wrote "Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth" ( https://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Ziusudra-Epic-Sumerian/dp/0... ) in which he translates the numbers back into Sumerian using the incorrect numbering system and then retranslates them using the correct numbering system. He ends up with not only ages that make sense, but it also fixes the unevenness of the Biblical ages. It also sorts out the Kings List numbers.
People have suggested that it's miscounting months as years, but that now means you get 10 year-olds (and sometimes even younger!) popping out babies, which doesn't make that much sense either.
I find it interesting that the Sumerian King List exhibits the same behaviour. The earliest kings rule for tens of thousands of years (each), the second wave rule for hundreds of years, and the third wave rule for tens of years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List ).
So I'm left with three thoughts that don't necessarily agree with each other.
One, is that it seems fairly obvious that there's some transition from oral histories to written histories; and the closer the event was to the written record, the more realistic it gets (which we also see in the OT).
Two, is that there's a lot of crossover between Sumerian kings and Gods, so it doesn't seem inappropriate for the oral tradition to imbue kings with god-like properties.
(As an aside - I can easily imagine that in tens of thousands of years from now, with fragments of records remaining, someone could argue with a straight face that the early space-agers actually believed Queen Elizabeth was immortal and semi-lizard. This is obviously comical, but does illustrate the risks of an oral tradition.)
And three - the possibility that there's intermingling between these two traditions? Or that there's some cultural factors here where we're seeing the effects without the causes (ie we're not seeing why it was popular to assign these characteristics to ancestors, only that they did so).
But to come back a little more on-topic - Sumer is also where we get the sexagesimal (base-60) numbering that we still see in time & angles. So when comparing units, there could be some mistranslation between different number bases at some point.
So I'm left with three thoughts that don't necessarily agree with each other.
One, is that it seems fairly obvious that there's some transition from oral histories to written histories; and the closer the event was to the written record, the more realistic it gets (which we also see in the OT).
Two, is that there's a lot of crossover between Sumerian kings and Gods, so it doesn't seem inappropriate for the oral tradition to imbue kings with god-like properties.
(As an aside - I can easily imagine that in tens of thousands of years from now, with fragments of records remaining, someone could argue with a straight face that the early space-agers actually believed Queen Elizabeth was immortal and semi-lizard. This is obviously comical, but does illustrate the risks of an oral tradition.)
And three - the possibility that there's intermingling between these two traditions? Or that there's some cultural factors here where we're seeing the effects without the causes (ie we're not seeing why it was popular to assign these characteristics to ancestors, only that they did so).
But to come back a little more on-topic - Sumer is also where we get the sexagesimal (base-60) numbering that we still see in time & angles. So when comparing units, there could be some mistranslation between different number bases at some point.
> space-agers actually believed Queen Elizabeth was immortal and semi-lizard
Oh my god I'm picturing bojack horsemen as the last surviving digital media; not so different from ancient hieroglyphs of animal heads and human bodies...
Oh my god I'm picturing bojack horsemen as the last surviving digital media; not so different from ancient hieroglyphs of animal heads and human bodies...
[deleted]
Actually there are TWO incompatible accounts of creation in Genesis, one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2.
Genesis 1: the world initially all water. God has to dry it to create land. Genesis 2: the world initially all land. God has to add water.
Genesis 1 creation order: water, land, plants, animals, humans (male and female at the same time, most reasonable reading is many humans all at once). Genesis 2 creation order: land, water, Adam alone, plants, animals, Eve alone.
Genesis 1: the world initially all water. God has to dry it to create land. Genesis 2: the world initially all land. God has to add water.
Genesis 1 creation order: water, land, plants, animals, humans (male and female at the same time, most reasonable reading is many humans all at once). Genesis 2 creation order: land, water, Adam alone, plants, animals, Eve alone.
The two accounts aren't necessarily incompatible, and they can be interpreted as offering two parallel perspectives of Creation: the first with a cosmological focus, and the second with a sociological one. A synthesis of the two accounts would give an order something like this:
Fluid (the proto-Earth which didn't have a distinct atmosphere), solid Earth (with liquid water forming oceans, and a gaseous atmosphere), plants, animals, humans, Adam, the garden of Eden (in an area that had been barren), (animals brought to Adam for naming), Eve.
Fluid (the proto-Earth which didn't have a distinct atmosphere), solid Earth (with liquid water forming oceans, and a gaseous atmosphere), plants, animals, humans, Adam, the garden of Eden (in an area that had been barren), (animals brought to Adam for naming), Eve.
Meh, apologetics. Either the water was first or the land was. Either man was explicitly created before the plants, or he was explicitly created 3 days after them. On and on. There are tons of irreconcilable differences among the creation accounts.
[deleted]
We can try "new evidence of an advanced society in the time of the biblical Solomon" would probably be a better fit.