Israel Finkelstein interview
Matt Giwer
BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
A debate rages among Biblical archaeologists: Was there a United Monarchy
under David and Solomon? Should impressive ancient structures throughout
Israel be attributed to Solomon or were they built a century later? How old
is the text of the Bible? A key figure in this debate is Israel Finkelstein,
codirector of the Megiddo excavations and head of Tel Aviv University's
Institute of Archaeology. He recently shared his views with BAR editor
Hershel Shanks.
Hershel Shanks: Israel, how long have you been the director of Tel Aviv
University's Institute of Archaeology?
Israel Finkelstein: Six long years. I hope to retire soon--if possible.
You're a young man. How old are you?
An old man. I'm 53 and I should retire soon and write more.
How about digging?
Well, David Ussishkin and I are going to continue the excavation at Megiddo.
It's an enchanting site. It's been the cradle of archaeology in this
country, Biblical archaeology if you wish. It's providing us with a window
into the history of this country. And there's a nice swimming pool in the
kibbutz. So I see no reason why not to continue excavating there.
We have new insights in almost every spot we dig, almost every issue we
touch on. We are excavating in six different fields. There's a big advantage
in going back to a site that has been excavated before, because you have
these windows into the belly of the mound. And you can excavate at the same
time in the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Bronze Age, the Late Bronze Age and
the Iron Age.
Starting from the Early Bronze I (c. 3500-3100 B.C.), we are uncovering the
largest temple compound ever excavated anywhere in the country from the
entire Bronze Age--a monumental temple with evidence of animal sacrifice.
Only one small piece of wall from that building was previously known. We
opened the rest of the area.
In Early Bronze I, Megiddo was the largest site in the country; it covered
an area of between 50 and 60 hectares [between 120 and 140 acres]. It was a
huge site, probably at least partially fortified.
That tells you that as early as the fourth millennium, you probably already
had some sort of territorial entity. You need a significant population in
order to build a temple like this. You cannot establish something like this
with only 300 or 400 people. You must have some sort of a central site with
a countryside relationship. You already have some sort of evolution of a
territorial entity, call it a chiefdom, call it an early city state, call it
whatever you want. It's the first time that we have, not on the level of
theory, but on the level of what we find in the ground, definite evidence
for something like this in the late fourth millennium B.C.
The site also flourished in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 B.C.). The city
was then destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, in the 12th century
B.C. This is what we may call Canaanite Megiddo. But, when the city
recovered from the shock, from the destruction, it was still Canaanite in
its material culture.
Who destroyed it?
Possibly one of the Sea Peoples.
The Philistines? They were one of the Sea Peoples.
Possibly. There's no way of knowing. We don't have an inscription saying so.
Could it have been destroyed by another Canaanite army?
It could have been destroyed by a neighboring city state, if you wish, but I
think one of the Sea Peoples is the best candidate.
Is there any possibility that the Israelites were the people who did
the conquering?
Well, not according to my point of view.
Why not?
I don't know what an Israelite is in the 12th century B.C.
In other words, archaeologically, you don't feel you can identify an
Israelite.
Yes. If you think that a gang of `Apiru or Habiru, an uprooted population,
or Shasu, or whatever, in the 12th century could be identified as Israel,
and, that in the turmoil of the 12th century, they took over a city, then
it's a possibility. But I don't believe in a functioning, coherent ethnic
entity named Israel as early as the 12th century.
When would you speak of such an Israel?
I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who identified
themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah Stela. You do
have some people identifying themselves--or being identified by the
Egyptians--as Israel.
When was that?
In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.
The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people, `Apiru or
Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when something larger
and more significant grew out of that, something that has a territorial
aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial entity, I would say
definitely by the tenth century and possibly before. But how much before,
that's a big question.
The Bible portrays mainly the realities of the time of its compilation
(regarding the book of Joshua, the seventh century B.C.) and a little bit
before. It also includes earlier material; there is no doubt about it. The
Deuteronomistic history [Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings]
includes material that reflects earlier memories. There is no doubt about
that. How early, I don't know. I mean these things are not reachable. They
are beyond our knowledge. The Bible may even preserve some sort of a very
vague memory or myth or folk tales about the turmoil of the 12th century.
Who knows? I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say
that there was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say
there was no Joshua or Abraham. There may have been some sort of a figure in
the very ancient past. I don't know. I can only tell you that the text we
have reflects the realities and needs and, if you wish, also the propaganda,
politics, ideology and theology of later periods.
But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham. You say you would not go to court on that question. Isn't it true
that archaeology is irrelevant to that question?
Archaeology is almost completely irrelevant to that. Archaeology is relevant
when somebody tells me that the patriarchal material in Genesis reflects the
realities of the second millennium B.C. Then archaeology is in full steam to
prove that he is wrong. Then, for instance, you can compare the names of the
sites; you can go to the sites to see whether they existed at that time.
There are things archaeology can contribute, but archaeology cannot recreate
Abraham and archaeology cannot deny the existence of a person in the very
early past.
You wouldn't expect to find in archaeology evidence of a particular family.
Of course not. But the Bible in my opinion doesn't give us any solid
information about early Israel in the late second millennium B.C., except
for possibly shreds of memories here and there, which I cannot trace. They
are irretrievable.
But what you just said is beyond your expertise as an archaeologist. Maybe
you are right, but not as an archaeologist, not based on your archaeological
knowledge.
My dear Hershel, let me remind you that there are two approaches to
archaeology. Some archaeologists see themselves as dealing only with
material culture; and this is perfectly okay with me. I see myself, however,
as an historian practicing archaeology. So I'm looking at matters from a
completely different point of view. I'm trying to put together all possible
pieces of evidence. Archaeology is one. And from my point of view, of
course, it is a central one, maybe the most important one, but not the only
one. I'm looking at the same time at the Biblical text, and at other ancient
Near Eastern texts.
Every text is biased, both the Bible and every other Near Eastern text. They
are all written from a particular point of view.
And the interpretation of archaeological materials can also be biased.
I agree with you.
And even with an unbiased approach, there are differences in
interpretation of material culture.
I agree. But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove
the existence of a person named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if
you ask me whether archaeology can or cannot shed light on a theory that the
material in Genesis depicts realities of the second millennium B.C., then
archaeology is very relevant.
An earlier generation of Biblical archaeologists tried to show that the
patriarchal age could be fixed, archaeologically, in the early second
millennium B.C. This proved not to be the case. They were wrong. But that
doesn't mean that there were no patriarchs or that the Bible's patriarchal
narratives contain no history. It only means that we have failed
archaeologically to place them in a particular period.
At the end of the day, the patriarchal narratives reflect basically and
mainly the needs, the ideology, the perspectives of the time of the
compilation of the text.
You keep coming back to the ideology of a later period when the text was
composed, and I keep coming back to the questions that our readers are
interested in, and that's the matter of historicity. In the case of the
patriarchs, people sometimes assume that because we can't place the
patriarchal narratives in a particular period archaeologically that there
was no patriarchal age. But that's not correct. There may or may not have
been a patriarchal age. We just don't have archaeological evidence to
support it or disprove it. No, you are wrong, Hershel. The descriptions are
fully immersed into the realities of Late monarchic times, into the toponyms
of late monarchic times, into the states of late monarchic times, into the
realities of the seventh, sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Since the
patriarchal narratives are immersed in these realities, we have no reason to
go and look for a patriarchal age.
I look at it from the point of view of the composition; it does have
importance, great importance and great beauty and great meaning and great
value. The value is not whether there was or was not a patriarchal age and
the value is not in historicity, either. The value is in the message that
you have in the text. There is a historical value to the stories, but the
historical value is at the time when the stories were put into writing. I
have never understood why this history is less interesting than the history
of something that may or may not have happened in the second millennium B.C.
When people ask me what's the difference between the way I understand the
history of early Israel and traditional Biblical archaeology, I say there
are two main differences. The first is that in the classical form of
Biblical archaeology, archaeology was expected to decorate the story.
Archaeology was not expected to give its own testimony. Archaeologists
started their investigation from the Biblical story, and archaeology was
expected to give some sort of illustration, nice slides for a talk. My
opinion is that archaeology is not in the business of decoration of any
text, a Biblical text or another text. Archaeology has its own voice.
Archaeology speaks with real-time evidence, and in many cases it provides
the most important testimony, sometimes the only evidence. And true, its
testimony is sometimes problematic. I'm not saying that archaeology is free
of problems and difficulties.
The second difference is about the role of archaeology. In classical
Biblical archaeology, the idea was that you followed the ancient history of
Israel from early to late (in the Biblical order of events), with
archaeology at times decorating and at times correcting the story. You start
with Abraham and the patriarchs and then you go down to Egypt and then you
have the Exodus, the Conquest and so on. My point of view is [and this is
the main line of The Bible Unearthed, written with my friend Neil
Silberman--I.F.] that you have to look at the history of Israel in the
opposite direction, from late to early. From the Biblical text point of view
also, you have to go from late to early: First, you understand the periods
of the compilation of the text, and then you try to work back from that
point into earlier history, in the opposite direction.
I start with people who are interested in the Bible as a text.
Me, too.
For example, whether the Red Sea parted is not a question of history, it's a
miracle. You either believe it or you don't. It's a matter of faith. It's
outside the function of archaeology or even of history to demonstrate that
this happened or that it didn't happen.
I agree. It's also beyond the reach of explanations that come from the realm
of nature. If the Red Sea parted because there was this natural phenomenon,
for the believer, that is blasphemy, because God's power is enough to do
whatever God wants without being explained later by all sorts of simplistic
natural phenomena.
On the other hand, someone may reason that the ancients understood a
phenomenon like the parting of the Red Sea as a God-given miracle, when in
fact there is a natural explanation for it. To such a person who sees this
text as sanctified by time and as representative of an early people's
understanding of an event, they may ask themselves, "What inspired that
understanding in ancient people thousands of years ago?" That is also a
legitimate question. I believe there are no illegitimate questions, only
illegitimate answers. To such a person, he or she may be interested in
whether or not there was some natural event that the ancients understood as
a miracle. And to such a person I say, "That's a legitimate question." It
may not interest you, it may not interest me--or it may. Would you agree
that that's a legitimate question?
Every question, almost every question is legitimate. I don't want to go into
the philosophy of whether every question is legitimate here.
Getting back to the historicity of events in early Israel, I started with a
miracle, the parting of the Red Sea. Let's take another one: God told
Abraham to "go forth to a land that I will show you" (Genesis 12). Whether
God said that of course is a miracle. That's beyond history. That's a matter
of faith. But someone may legitimately ask, did Abraham come from the east?
Does archaeology have anything to contribute to that question?
I'm not sure. I think the question should be, why did they tell the story in
late monarchic times?
That's your question. That may not be someone else's question.
But the question before was your question.
That's right.
Who are you representing? The lawyer Hershel Shanks, are you representing
the ancient people?
No, I'm trying to understand your views.
Okay, so I'm trying to tell you what my question is.
That's your question, though.
You just told me a minute ago that every question is legitimate.
Yes, your question is legitimate, too. But our readers would like to know
whether archaeology has anything to contribute to my question.
My method is to start with the question of why the story was told. What's
the purpose of telling this story in the text, a text that was put into
writing only at quite a late date?
Didn't the people who put together the Biblical text use sources? They
didn't just make up a story, did they?
Definitely not. Do you mean written sources?
They had some written sources.
How far back do the written sources go?
Probably to the tenth century.
Well, on that we don't agree. Take the Book of Joshua, for instance. I
cannot imagine the Deuteronomistic historian, who in my opinion sat in
Jerusalem in the late seventh century B.C., inventing stories out of his
imagination, to sell to the people as the story of the conquest of Canaan.
Had he done that, he would have lost his credibility immediately.
Definitely, the stories in the Book of Joshua must reflect some sort of
traditions, memories, myths, local legends about the destruction of
Canaanite cities.
Written sources?
I'm not sure. What the ancient historian wants to do is to tell a story
about the "early" history of Israel based on memories, but to present it in
a way that will be useful for his ideology and theology. Is that right? I'm
asking you.
Yes. I agree.
So the question then is whether there are written sources that he is using.
Right.
And here I think we don't agree. Here archaeology enters the story. The
question now is whether there are written sources and how early they are.
Yes, there are written sources, in my opinion. The answer is positive.
There are written sources?
I think so. The question is how far back they go. We need to look at Judah,
right?
I would say any sources.
Okay, but we're speaking mainly about Judah, because Judah is in the center
of the whole thing. Judah is the place where the history is compiled. And
Judah is also the center, from an ideological perspective. So we're speaking
about Jerusalem from the seventh century B.C., and whether there were
written sources for the historian to use.
You're saying the final compilation of the text was centered in Judah,
because Israel (the northern kingdom) had been destroyed by that time.
Right, and also because the text reflects only the ideology of Judah. And
then, since you have just mentioned the tenth century B.C., the question is
whether the historian, when describing the time of Solomon, rushes to the
archive in Jerusalem to ask for tenth-century royal correspondence or
histories. The answer is negative.
The ultimate compiler in Judah may have used Israelite sources, even sources
from the United Monarchy.
[bsba280603900.jpg] Israelite, yes. United Monarchy only according to your
viewpoint, Hershel. I don't think there are written sources from the time of
the United Monarchy. Anyway, we look around to see, first of all, whether we
have written material, in Israel or Judah, in the what, twelfth century,
eleventh century, tenth century? When do we start getting a flow, a
reasonable, a meaningful quantity of written material? This is related to a
second question: When do we start getting a flow of official inscriptions,
ostraca, etc., that may attest to literacy and real statehood in Judah?
As far as I know, there is no evidence for meaningful writing in Judah, in
Jerusalem, in Israel, before the eighth century B.C. Maybe ninth.
What about the Gezer calendar, which is ...
Wait, wait, wait ...
No, no ...
Wait, wait, wait. I mean, yes, theoretically, it's possible that there's a
single inscription in the ninth century. The Gezer calendar, in my opinion,
is ninth century B.C. [not tenth, as many scholars think.--Ed.]. In the
second half of the ninth century we do have inscriptions in Moab--the Mesha
stela--and in Damascus--the Tel Dan stela [mentioning the "House of David"],
which was written by Hazael. Why not Israel? It's possible. We don't have
such an inscription from the Northern Kingdom yet, but we may expect one ...
The Gezer ...
Wait!
The Gezer ...
Calm down, let me calm you down. I said, it's possible.
The Gezer calendar indicates that there's probably a school. This is a
schoolboy's practice text.
Yes, in the ninth century. Something is going on at Gezer and the Izbet
Sartah inscription [a student's practice text] is probably a bit older. So
what? And I even think that there is a possibility that there were royal
[Judahite] inscriptions in the ninth century. My friend Nadav Na'aman
pointed out--and I think rightly so--that the [Biblical] story of the coup
of Athaliah [c. 841-835 B.C.] and then the counter-coup of Jehoash [c.
835-801 B.C.; see 2 Kings 11-12] comes from some sort of a royal
inscription. It's a possibility. Why not? But a full flow of writing you get
only from the eighth century B.C.; in fact, only in the seventh century.
Also from the point of view of state formation and evolution of society in
Judah and in Jerusalem, I don't see a reality before the late eighth century
B.C. when you would expect to have some sort of major writing industry, if
you wish to call it that.
This is after the time of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon.
Yes, at least two centuries later.
So you say that there was no state of David and Solomon in the tenth century
B.C.?
That depends on what the definition of a state is. We'll talk about that
later.
What do you do with the texts in the Bible that are dated even before the
tenth century B.C., even going back perhaps to the 12th century B.C.?
Like what?
Like Exodus 15, the Song of Moses (or the Song of Miriam if you want to call
it that).
I am not expert on this. I don't want to speak about it [though the two are
considered by some to be of different source and age--I.F.], but personally,
I do not think that there is in the Hebrew Bible written material that can
be proven to be earlier than the ninth or eighth century, except for vague
memories, myths and folk tales. You're speaking about written material,
aren't you, Hershel?
I'm speaking about a particular poem, in Exodus 15, which Frank Cross [of
Harvard], for example, and other leading philologists and experts in the
history of language date to that very early period.
But there are other leading experts who say different things. It's like the
question as to whether material in the book of Samuel contains written
material from the tenth century B.C.
Your colleague Baruch Halpern believes that it does.
I know. And then [John] Van Seters [of the University of North Carolina]
comes and says something completely different.
Wouldn't it be relevant to your inquiry whether the Song of Moses had been
written out in that early period?
You caught me here. I'm not ready to answer you at this point. I should go
home and look at what scholars wrote, because I don't remember now. If you
give me ten minutes in the library, I'll give you an answer. [Biblical
scholars have dated the Song of Moses to anywhere between the 12th and
second century B.C.; the early date is advocated by only a few scholars,*
with most preferring a date in late-Monarchic or post-Exilic times.--I.F.]
I don't remember the Song of Moses, but I know the Song of Deborah [Judges
5], which is also early. I find it extremely difficult to buy this--that you
have 12th or 11th century B.C. written material in the Hebrew Bible. There
is no evidence of that whatsoever; not a single inscription.
Don't you think the Song of Deborah is early?
I don't think it's as early as that. There may have been oral transmission,
but I don't think that it depicts a real, historical situation of the 12th
century B.C.
That's a question that's really central to your inquiry, isn't it?
And I am answering you.
Shall we get back to the question about the United Monarchy of David and
Solomon? You said we'd come back to that later.
Okay, let's talk about the United Monarchy. I see the fire in your eyes,
Hershel, that you want me to speak about the United Monarchy. How can I let
you down? You traveled all the way from Washington to Tel Aviv to sit with
me and talk about the United Monarchy. Ask me, please.
Well, there are a couple of questions. Of course, the historical question
relates to whether the United Monarchy existed, whether David and Solomon
ruled over a united Israel, and what the nature of this entity was--a state
or a chiefdom or some other kind of entity. And of course this relates to
the question of your now-famous low chronology, in which you date things
that were traditionally dated to the tenth century B.C. down to the ninth
century B.C. According to you, what was traditionally considered the poor
material from the 11th century B.C. now becomes tenth century B.C., the
period of the United Monarchy. So we want to see if we can explain to our
readers this so-called low chronology of yours.
Let me start by saying that I see myself as a scholar standing somewhere in
the center between the more conservative camp, on one hand, and the more
critical camp, on the other. Being in the center is a very tricky business.
If you stand on one side, you are attacked only from one side; but if you
are in the center, you are always being attacked from both sides. So
sometimes some of my friends from the more conservative camp accuse me of
belonging to the more nihilistic approach (or the very critical approach),
denying the existence of the United Monarchy. This is not the case. For many
reasons I do not deny the existence of David and Solomon. The Tel Dan
inscription is one of them.
There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder of the
dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do not deny the
existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put this on the table,
once and for all, in order to make things clear.
However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the nature of
the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth century. There
was something there in the tenth century, but exactly what it is is the big
question.
In order to understand what was there in the tenth century, we have to go
back to the matter of dating.
In Jerusalem itself, regardless of the low chronology, we are in an
extremely difficult situation. I'm not saying that there is nothing from the
tenth century in Jerusalem. But whether you go with the low chronology or a
more conservative chronology--the more conventional dating of 10 or 20 or 30
years ago or for many people even today--you are still in big trouble,
because you don't have real monuments in Jerusalem from the tenth century.
You definitely have [pottery] sherds. There definitely was a settlement
there in the tenth century, but it was not the monumental, glorious,
illustrious city described in the Bible.
Before you ask me about the famous Stepped-Stone Structure in Jerusalem, let
me answer you. Sure, we have there some sort of terraced construction from
the Iron Age I (1150-1000 B.C.) that was renovated in the eighth century
B.C. So it was probably used in the tenth century for the village or
settlement that was there, but it was not constructed in the tenth century
.
The conventional dating that we have been using--I'm not using it anymore,
but many scholars are--is the system that was established mainly on the
theory of Yigael Yadin based on the results of his excavations at Hazor and
Megiddo. Yadin did a great job excavating at Hazor and a great job at
Megiddo as well. You and I both knew him very well. He was a great scholar.
There's no doubt about it, really brilliant. In the 1960s and the 1950s
there was probably no other way to describe the finds at Hazor and Megiddo
other than the way Yadin described them. We cannot judge Yadin now from the
point of view of what we know in 2002 and go back with this knowledge and
try to impose it on the 1950s at Hazor. Yadin stated that he had dated
Stratum X at Hazor and the contemporaneous material at Megiddo to the tenth
century based on stratigraphy, pottery and then the Biblical text. But in my
opinion, he based it only on the Biblical text. Stratigraphy doesn't give
you a date; it just tells you what's early and what's late. Pottery? I have
not seen a sherd with a label, "I was made by Solomon." Maybe you have. Have
you?
No.
Good. So then the whole business of archaeology is to find a way to tie the
relative chronology that we have established, from pottery and stratigraphy,
to tie it into a system of absolute chronology. How do we do that? In the
12th century B.C. there is no difficulty because you have strata with
Egyptian monuments mentioning Ramesses III. [This gives us an absolute date
because we know when Ramesses III lived--c.1184-1153 B.C.--Ed.] Basically,
we know where we are.
In the eighth century B.C., we are in the same situation. We know where we
are because we can identify the Assyrian destructions of Tiglath-pileser III
[744-727 B.C.] at Megiddo in the north, of Sennacherib [704-681 B.C.] at
Lachish in the south, etc.
The question is what we do about the eleventh, tenth and ninth centuries? In
these centuries there's no way to tie the relative chronology to an absolute
scale. There is the Shishak stela at Megiddo [dated by most scholars to
about 925 B.C.], but it was found in a dump [not in a stratified level]. The
same kind of thing is true elsewhere.
So the only way for Yadin to establish an absolute chronology was to look at
the Bible. There was no other way in the 1950s. So he came up with this
idea: You have similar gates at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. And the Bible says
that King Solomon fortified these three locations (1 Kings 9:15). Solomon
lived in the tenth century. Therefore the strata with these gates must date
to the tenth century B.C.
This whole paradigm is based on a single Biblical verse, 1 Kings 9:15. But
this verse may reflect a reality different from the time it describes. It
was compiled in Jerusalem in later times. Whether it describes a memory from
the tenth century or whether it reflects a memory from the eighth century or
the ninth century, we don't know. Now, almost 50 years later, when we look
at this, there is ample evidence coming from different directions to tell us
that something is wrong here, really wrong. First of all, you have wider
theoretical, historical questions that need to be addressed, for instance
whether Jerusalem--possibly a limited village at the time, not a very
significant settlement, not a very elaborate one--could be the capital of a
United Monarchy extending over the northern part of the country, with its
palaces at Megiddo, not in Jerusalem. It's a question that must be
addressed.
Then you have evidence of state formation in the Levant, the western part of
the ancient Near East. If you look at Moab, Ammon, Aram Damascus and the
northern kingdom of Israel, you see that they developed into real states
only in the ninth century B.C. That does not mean there could be no great
state before them--in the tenth century. But we need to remember that if you
say there was a great state in the southern Levant in the tenth century B.C.
centered in Jerusalem, then it's the only one; it's unique, and it left no
evidence. Other peoples in adjacent regions did not reach the level of state
formation at that time.
Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, but it's highly unlikely. This is
just one set of questions--there are many others--that lead me to the
conclusion that the conventional dating must be rechecked.
Then, we have more direct evidence that cannot be brushed under the carpet.
The first one is the similarity between the pottery assemblage from Jezreel,
which was destroyed apparently in the middle of the ninth century B.C., and
Megiddo, which according to the conventional theory was destroyed in the
tenth century. There's a problem there--the two assemblages are identical.
In my opinion, the only way to deal with this is either to pull one down or
to push the other up. Pushing Jezreel up to the tenth century is not an
option.
Then there is the similarity in architectural details between the palaces at
Samaria (clearly ninth century B.C.) and Megiddo, conventionally dated to
the tenth century. Again, you either have to push one down or pull the other
up. There's no way to pull the palace at Samaria up to the tenth century.
The only way is to push the palaces at Megiddo down to the ninth century.
Some of my friends tell me, "Here you are in a trap, Israel. How can you
accept the Biblical text ascribing the building of Samaria to the [ninth
century] Omrides, yet reject the Biblical text ascribing the construction of
Megiddo to Solomon?" This was the question of Hershel Shanks also.
Here's the answer: Whoever asks a question like this does not understand the
meaning of Biblical studies in the last two centuries. The study of Biblical
history is all about sorting history from non-history; accepting one verse
and rejecting another. As for Samaria and the Omrides, on the one hand, and
Megiddo and King Solomon, on the other, there are several reasons for a
difference. There's a big difference between the tenth century B.C. and the
ninth century in our historical and archaeological knowledge. In the ninth
century, we have evidence for the greatness and the strength and the
prosperity of the Omride dynasty in the northern kingdom of Israel. We have
the Assyrians referring to the Omride state as Beit Omri, the house or land
[dynasty] of Omri, which means they knew there was a monarch named Omri who
was the founder of the dynasty and the founder of the capital. So in my
opinion there is ample evidence that comes from both extra-Biblical texts
and archaeology for this understanding of the Biblical text.
So you depend on the Biblical text for dating the palace at Samaria?
Not necessarily, but why not? I'm not rejecting the entire Biblical
text. I'm a Biblical archaeologist, Hershel. Well, I can see now that
this will be the title of the interview. "`I am a Biblical
archaeologist,' says Israel Finkelstein." You see, I gave it to you.
But it's different with the stories of David and Solomon. With the Omrides,
the text and the archaeology support one another, so why not use the text?
Whoever tells me that I have either to accept all the Biblical material or
reject it all is talking nonsense, in my opinion.
Then there's the question of carbon 14, radiocarbon dates [of organic
material found in excavations]. I think that at the end of the day, this
will give us a verdict on the chronology, in maybe 20 years. Not now,
because for the time being we don't have enough samples, and we are still
far from agreement on the interpretation of the results.
When you say we may have a verdict in 20 years, does that reflect your own
uncertainty or are you saying that you will be shown to be right?
No, what I'm saying is, that for the time being, the results from Tel Dor,
even from Tel Rehov and from Megiddo, support the low chronology. It's more
probable, but it's not definite. It's not the end of the story.
For you, is it an open question as to whether the low chronology is correct,
or are you certain it's correct?
I am certain.
This is very technical material. I think what our readers would like to know
is why so many senior ...
You are stepping into a trap. I'm warning you.
Many of your remarks seem to be addressed to the fact that I oppose your
views. My purpose here is to allow you to expose your views to the readers
of BAR. So okay, I'll step into your trap. Why is it that so many leading
scholars do not accept your low chronology--Ephraim Stern of Hebrew
University, Amnon Ben-Tor, also of Hebrew University, Amihai Mazar, also of
Hebrew University, Americans like Lawrence Stager of Harvard, Seymour Gitin
of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, Timothy Harrison of the University
of Toronto. Even your close colleagues at Megiddo, David Ussishkin of Tel
Aviv University and Baruch Halpern of Penn State University, have not come
out in favor of it. They take a more stand-offish view. How do you account
for this? Is it that they are obtuse, or have they some motive? What is the
source of this intense disagreement?
There is a difference between intense disagreement and a list of names. It's
a funny question, I must say. It's the funniest question you have asked me
today because it's not relevant whatsoever. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm
wrong, I'm wrong. It's irrelevant that X and Y and Z and A and B and C are
against me, and D and E and F and G and H are for me.
Ten years ago there was a great debate in the archaeology of the Levant
about the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. One scholar argued for one
position; the other scholars argued for another position. When all the
ammunition was presented by the lone scholar who argued for an earlier date,
the final doomsday weapon was to say that this scholar was wrong because
everybody was against him. Ten years later, the scholar who stood alone was
proven right. And the scholars who accused him for standing alone were
proven wrong. What does it mean? It means nothing. There's no relevance to
this question whatsoever.
But I'm ready to play your game. You are right about one thing here, that
it's a very complicated matter. In my opinion, Hershel, the number of people
who really understand what this is all about--not in slogans, but who are
really ready to go into the nitty-gritty of the pottery and the texts and
the architecture and the scarabs, and the paleography--is extremely
limited--maybe 20. You can judge only according to those people who publish
articles about this debate, not people who say in an article yes, I support
it, or not.
In an article that is going to be published soon in BASOR [the Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research], I give a temporary list of those
who support the low chronology in one way or another. It's a very long list,
Hershel. [Since you mention names, let me do the same. The list includes
Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel
Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na'aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin
Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead and
Orna Zimhoni--I.F.]* So in my opinion, I am in the majority. You simply have
not acknowledged that yet. You have not understood what's going on. If you
take away all the declarations and all the big names, all the small names
and whatever, and you really look at people who publish articles on one
aspect of the debate or another, either on the pottery or about the
architecture or about the stratigraphy, I seem to be in the majority.
There is support for my view on the basis of history, on the basis of
paleography, on the basis of amulets and scarabs, and so on, from every
point of view, from every angle. Some of my opponents are great scholars,
and they do publish, so I accept them fully, and their view is extremely
important to me. They are real scholars who know exactly all the small
details of this debate. But the number is extremely limited. Incidentally,
you, Hershel, think that the world, the entire world, is centered in one
place in this country, and maybe one place in America. But the world is more
complex than that.
You mean Jerusalem and Harvard.
I don't mean anything, I'm just describing your point of view. I will name
one other place. It's not an important place. Negligible, on the margin. No
real education there, no scholarship, no history writing, no Biblical
history or criticism there. But maybe it is a little bit important. Its name
is Europe. Have you heard the name Europe? Europe is the place between the
two places, one in America and one in this country, and over there, for
instance, I'm definitely in the majority. So what does that say? Does it say
that I'm right? No. It doesn't mean that I'm right. But I'm not impressed by
any list of supporters or opposers. I am impressed only by evidence.
And I must tell you that I am definitely impressed by the evidence provided
by some of my opponents. Some of them are doing a great job, and putting on
the table new material, which is extremely valuable.
Would you name those people?
Amihai Mazar, for instance. He's a great scholar who really understands the
problem, including the smallest detail in the debate. I'm not going to go
farther than that. There are people who really understand the nitty-gritty,
and I respect them. I oppose them; we fight each other in writing; we debate
each other in lectures; but I hope that we respect one another. I definitely
respect them.
At one point I remember your saying that Ami Mazar was halfway to your
position. Do you still maintain that?
Well, you have to ask him. I think so.
In what respect?
Well, I cannot speak for Ami Mazar. You have to speak to him. But the way I
understand his position is, first of all, he understands that there's a real
problem with the conventional chronology. Secondly, I think he would admit
that some of my arguments are strong and should be addressed. He has
published scientific articles on several issues related to the debate, and
has provided new information, not only saying, you know, X and Y and Z and D
and F are against him, and that's why he's wrong. You'll never get this from
Mazar. This is not scholarship, it is name-dropping.
I take it you know that you are a controversial scholar, that ...
What's the meaning of "controversial scholar"? The meaning is you disagree
with me.
I'm not talking about my view: I'm talking about the world of scholarship.
One of the things we haven't spoken about is the debate in Biblical studies
between the so-called minimalists and the maximalists, the minimalists being
the people who tend to deny the historicity of the Bible in general. They're
broadly represented by a group in Copenhagen, Denmark, and in Sheffield,
England--Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas Thompson from Copenhagen, and Philip
Davies and Keith Whitelam, for example, from Sheffield. I know that you are
offended sometimes because you are lumped with these minimalists. I don't
believe I have done that, but it's often done. I was looking at something
from a very respected European archaeologist who recently wrote in a very
obscure German publication about the utter skepticism "of the Biblical
tradition" by those called "minimalists." And then he puts in parenthesis
the names of Lemche and Thompson, and, "from an archaeological angle, I.
Finkelstein." Now, I assume that you would disagree with this, that you are
not a minimalist, yet things like this get into print. There are many such
instances. I wonder if you would explain your position.
First of all, you, Hershel, play a major role in the incitement. You have to
admit this. You play a really important role in inciting people against each
other. I respect and have respected a lot of what you have done throughout
the years. But there are points that I don't respect. You know exactly what
they are. We have known each other long enough to know where we disagree.
The only problem in the last year or two has been that I felt that the
disagreement between the two of us got a twist into a hostile direction that
really surprised me.
But let's put this aside for a minute. It's not a matter of being offended
or not. I am not offended by being put with the minimalists or with the
conservative people. The only question is whether my positions are being
portrayed properly.
I think that the minimalists--the people you call minimalists--are good
scholars, and they are important scholars, and they have contributed a lot
to historical and Biblical scholarship. We have to listen to them carefully,
even when they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. It depends on what, it
depends on where; but they have steered this debate--which is a positive
debate, an important one. Whatever the verdict is, the debate is important,
and the debate is there, thanks to their publications. So we have to be very
grateful for their publications. This has nothing to do with whether I agree
or disagree with them, but I respect them and I respect their scholarship in
the same way that I respect good scholarship from the conservative side, so
it has nothing to do with being offended, this way or that way.
In any event, I think that I stand in the middle. When we speak about right,
left or middle, we are speaking about the history of Israel. When we speak
about the history of Israel, we are speaking about the text of the Bible. I
stand in the middle. On one side you have the conservative camp, which
follows basically the lines of the Biblical description of the history of
Israel, from early to late. On the other hand, you have the minimalist camp.
They argue that all or most of the material is Persian or Hellenistic
[fourth-third centuries B.C.], and it has nothing to do with the real
history of early Israel. What they are saying then is that the text was put
in writing in the Persian or Hellenistic period and therefore has no value
for understanding the history of Israel in the Iron Age.
My position lies between the two. What I'm saying is--and I'm not alone
here--that the material was put in writing in late monarchic times, and that
it reflects the realities of late monarchic times (the seventh century,
possibly also the eighth century B.C.), and that there is earlier material
which found its way as memories into these texts.
That is why I don't think that you can put me either with this group or with
that group. And the center camp is a big camp. You guys--and here I'm
talking to you too, Hershel--you have always tried to eliminate the center
camp, or you have ignored the center camp, or you have twisted the ideas of
the center camp. But the center camp will prevail. There are many scholars
in the center camp--in this university, in America, in Europe, in Biblical
studies, in archaeology, in history. Why eliminate it? Why describe me as
minimalist? With all due respect to the minimalists, I'm not arguing for a
date of the text in the Hellenistic period. I'm not arguing for a text that
reflects the tenth century B.C. either. So, I'm not offended. I just want my
views to be properly portrayed. Please try to respect this modest wish of
mine.
Thank you, Israel.
SolomonW
> Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
Per Rønne
Due to the Dan Stele's reference to Judah's King Ahaziah from "the House
of David" ...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele>
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > Israel Finkelstein
>
> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
> believes that King David and Solomon existed?
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case, the one who has been throwing around Finkelstein
as if he were the undisputed authority on every subject.
When I pointed out that, far from an authority, the guy is
a magnet for controversy, the Tom P. nut went mental.
Matthias M. Giwer
>> Israel Finkelstein
How could anyone's belief matter in the least to this discussion?
I posted this as a convenient source to rebut those who are
misrepresenting him. I thought to do it after someone declared him an
authority on middle east archaeology. In fact he declares himself expert on
only one period of Palestinian archaeology which is after the time the bible
claims David and Solomon existed.
He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
know that Finkelstein does not know.
I am always interested is reviewing the evidence he presents in
support of his considered interpretations. I have no interest in his beliefs
nor should anyone else. Nor should anyone have any interest in anyone's
beliefs on any subject as that is a fallacious appeal to authority. It does
not differ in the least from a Catholic reciting the faith of famous
Catholics as evidence Catholicism is the true faith.
Is this clear enough?
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Oct 16 04:39:48 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
> SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Israel Finkelstein
>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that
>> King David and Solomon existed?
>
> Due to the Dan Stele's reference to Judah's King Ahaziah from "the House
> of David" ...
Meaning you are going to insist what is written as a single word
BYTDWD is really two words for no reason other than your faith in Yahweh.
Does this mean some prankster has carved a dot between the T and D?
Meaning you are going to stick with your faith that this one and
only time BYT is used with a name DWD (not DVD) that is means dynasty
instead of a place to to live for no reason other than your faith in Yahweh.
Why would you do a thing like that? Have you found another usage of
BYT to mean dynasty?
Does this mean anything other than your faith governs you ability to
deal with the evidence as it is instead of what your desperate need to have
your faith validated wants it to be?
--
The professional religious class has more committed atheists
than all the secular humanists combined.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4183
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Fri Oct 16 15:32:18 EDT 2009
Tom P
> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Israel Finkelstein
>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
>> believes that King David and Solomon existed?
>
> I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
> case,
How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen School.
Giwer did.
Matt Giwer
> JTEM wrote:
>> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Israel Finkelstein
>>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
>>> believes that King David and Solomon existed?
>> I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
>> case,
> How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
> Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen School.
> Giwer did.
Never did. Never would. Never gave the name of any "member" of the so-called
Copenhagen school. Never could as it has no membership roles.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Oct 16 21:32:26 EDT 2009
jerry warner
SolomonW wrote:
"But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham."
"I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there was
a Joshua or an
Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no Joshua or Abraham. "
"But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove the
existence of a person
named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if you ask me whether
archaeology can or cannot
shed light on a theory that the material in Genesis depicts realities of the
second millennium B.C.,
then archaeology is very relevant."
Got it? Read the whole thing again!
jerry warner
JTEM wrote:
You seem to have a large focus/sensitivity... to the
mental state of others. This seems to reflect YOUR
mental state! Take a pill Homer. Get Jethrow one too!
jerry warner
Matthias M. Giwer
> Nice post!
Just to let the man speak for himself after believers started
elevating him to the world's greatest authority -- almost as great as Dr.
Irwin Corey.
The man says he is a biblical archaeologist. That automatically puts
him at a disadvantage if for no other reason than wasting his time going
verse by verse and trying to decide which to discard and which to consider
as of possible historical value. Then he has to waste time on the degree of
historical value. And he limits himself to his judgment of that
determination.
Additionally he brings with him the baggage of the present day
religious view of the OT stories. He accepts the idea they were considered
in the manner that a fundamentalist views Genesis instead of as in the manner
of the tales of Hercules as did everyone else in those days. He insists Jews
were very strange and backwards people compared to the rest of the world in
those days.
Why would anyone assume the people in Judea were dumber than the
Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians and the rest? What is the point? There
is no physical evidence the Judeans took their stories any more seriously
than anyone else. Why do the biblical types assume they did?
For what it is worth it at least lets the man speak for himself and
this being an interview of interest because the interviewer is very like the
people who are disagreeing with me and JTEM and several others who have
departed until this infestation of believers ends -- hopefully soon. The
interviewer is trying to trap him into saying exactly the words our present
believers are attributing to him.
--
Hodie decimo sexto Kalendas Octobres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Sat Oct 17 04:38:38 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Israel Finkelstein
>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that
>> King David and Solomon existed?
> "But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was
> an Abraham."
But he does restate that later on to further limit it to say "person
named Abraham" which is again a way to say something that does not upset
believers too much. I have no problem with saying there was a person named
Arthur in post-Roman England. In both cases that is a far cry from saying
there was the Arthur of the Camelot tales or the Abraham of the Genesis and
Exodus tales.
For example if the question is, was their an Abraham who interacted
with the king of Egypt as told in Genesis the answer is hell no as that
Egypt never existed. The king of Egypt was a living god who would have
killed Abraham to resolve the problem if for some strange reason he gave a
rat's ass about marrying a married woman. Instead we see the king of Egypt
paying reparations to a criminal con artist.
Obviously there may have been a person named Abraham but not the
Abraham as described in the OT.
> "I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there
> was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no
> Joshua or Abraham."
But he would have to say there was no Abraham who interacted with
the king of Egypt as in Genesis -- assuming his position as a biblical
archaeologist does not blind him completely.
> "But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove the
> existence of a person named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if you
> ask me whether archaeology can or cannot shed light on a theory that the
> material in Genesis depicts realities of the second millennium B.C., then
> archaeology is very relevant."
> Got it? Read the whole thing again!
Noting he avoids the Abraham as described in Genesis in reciting
what those realities might be. Even as a biblical archaeologist he is quite
carefully avoiding phrasing questions in a manner which would reject the
issues torah-thumpers want to corner him on.
Also note the interviewer does not ask these obvious question as not
just a man named Abraham but a man who did what is attributed to Abraham.
The believer is comfortable with what the bone he was thrown and does not
want to raise the obvious next question.
--
The boundary between the sciences and the humanities is unbreechable. Any
scientist can obtain a degree in any of the fine arts if he is interested.
The opposite is not possible.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4182
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Sat Oct 17 05:13:11 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
>
> BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
Now that everyone has had a fair shot at this let me point something out to
you biblethumping newbies. This interview was posted in these newsgroups when
it was first published. You newbies missed it. And you newbies wonder why we
do not take your rehash of long settled issues seriously.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Sat Oct 17 06:01:45 EDT 2009
SolomonW
Irrelevant!
The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you did go to
court about whether these two existed you would win.
Whiskers
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[...]
> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
> 12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
> here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
> know that Finkelstein does not know.
[...]
He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite the
opposite:
I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who
identified themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah
Stela. You do have some people identifying themselves--or being
identified by the Egyptians--as Israel.
When was that?
In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.
He has no argument with the stele's reference to Israel; he even agrees
with it's depiction of them as 'a people' but not as 'a city' or 'a
kingdom' or 'a territory'. (Which happens to agree with what seems to be
described in the Book of Judges). As an archaeologist he has no finds to
either identify uniquely with such a group, or to suggest there was no such
group. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
He does seem to be convinced of a more substantial entity by the tenth
century BC:
The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people,
`Apiru or Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when
something larger and more significant grew out of that, something that
has a territorial aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial
entity, I would say definitely by the tenth century and possibly
before. But how much before, that's a big question.
[...]
There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder
of the dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do
not deny the existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put
this on the table, once and for all, in order to make things clear.
However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the
nature of the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth
century. There was something there in the tenth century, but exactly
what it is is the big question.
In order to understand what was there in the tenth century, we have to
go back to the matter of dating.
In Jerusalem itself, regardless of the low chronology, we are in an
extremely difficult situation. I'm not saying that there is nothing
from the tenth century in Jerusalem. But whether you go with the low
chronology or a more conservative chronology--the more conventional
dating of 10 or 20 or 30 years ago or for many people even today--you
are still in big trouble, because you don't have real monuments in
Jerusalem from the tenth century. You definitely have [pottery] sherds.
There definitely was a settlement there in the tenth century, but it
was not the monumental, glorious, illustrious city described in the
Bible.
I don't disagree with that assessment at all. When the author of the
first Book of Kings, chapter 10, writes
23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other
kings of the earth.
24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God
had put in his heart.
25 Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver
and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.
we are clearly in 'lost golden age' and 'the good old days' territory -
looking back (possibly from the exile in Babylon) to a time when the
Israelites were much better off than in the author's own time.
Exaggeration of past glories is a common human trait.
What Solomon actually built and achieved may well have been deeply
impressive to people who'd only experienced tents and small buildings and
insecurity before, but it was obviously not on the same scale (either in
duration or substance) as Egypt or Babylon. Perhaps the roughly
contemporary (10th - 9th century BC; late "Dark Age" to early "Archaic"
period) Greek city-states were somewhat comparable with the real Jerusalem.
That Solomon's kingdom split on (or before) his death (if it was ever
really as 'united' as the first Book of Kings suggests) indicates that it
really wasn't as powerful and stable as all that. Even the modern
manifestation of Israel has managed to out-live David Ben-Gurion and last
half as long again as the Biblical 'United Kingdom'.
But Judah managed to survive for about 300 years, which isn't bad going for
a tiny land-locked state sitting on major trade routes and squeezed on all
sides by great empires and traditional enemies.
This period of history is the aftermath and recovery from what some call
"The Bronze Age Collapse"; a period largely devoid of written records.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> Israel Finkelstein
>>>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
>>>> believes that King David and Solomon existed?
>>> I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
>>> case,
>
>> How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
>
>> Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen School.
>> Giwer did.
>
> Never did. Never would. Never gave the name of any "member" of the
> so-called Copenhagen school. Never could as it has no membership roles.
>
your lie. May I direct your attention to your post of September 11,
2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on Sci.archaeology and
soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words:
"You can lie to your victims but there was no Solomon much less a temple
built by Solomon."
"You are clearly a con artist."
On September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in reply:
"Care to quote two, or even one, adherent to the Copenhagen School who
denies the existence of Solomon?"
September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on sci.archaeology
and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words in response:
"Why would I care? As for people who do, Silberman and Finkelstein for
two israeli [sic] archaeologists."
On September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in
reply to the Giwerian Gobbledygook of September 12, 2009:
"Oh really? I don't think Finkelstein and Silberman ever denied the
existence of Solomon. Can you quote and cite Finkelstein or Silberman
where you believe they deny the existence of Solomon?"
"I happen to have "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" in front
of me. I have read both, closely. I can't seem to find the passage
wherein they deny the existence of Solomon. What page or pages do you
find that information on, Giwer?"
"Or are you lying again? If so, you just got caught. You can't resist
the baited hook, can you, Giwer?"
"This appears on page 20 of 'David and Solomon,' actually these are the
last two sentences in the second paragraph. 'To make a long story
short, we simply do not know the exact number of years the David and
Solomon each ruled. The most we can say is that they probably both
reigned sometime in the tenth century.'"
"Not exactly a denial that Solomon ever lived, is it, Giwer?"
"Actually, the conclusion of Finkelstein and Silberman is not only that
Solomon lived, but that Solomon actually reigned during the 10th century
BCE. Not my words, Giwer. Not my sources or story either. You, Giwer,
made the asinine claim that Finkelstein and Silberman claim Solomon
never lived, as I knew you would when I posed the question yesterday.
Giwer, you are terribly predictable. You should have read what they
actually wrote before you commented."
September 15, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on sci.archaeology
and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words in response:
"If you mean someone else named Solomon instead of the one in the bible
then you are playing bait and switch."
"They clearly state the Solomon described in the bible did not exist."
Uh, actually, no, they do not, Giwer. They never did. On the contrary,
they confirm the existence of a king of Judea named Solomon who reigned
during the 10th century. Perhaps you shouldn't discuss authors whose
work you have never read, eh Giwer?
Did anyone else notice how Giwer's argument evolved from "As for people
who do [deny the existence of Solomon], Silberman and Finkelstein for
two israeli [sic] archaeologists" to "They clearly state the Solomon
described in the bible did not exist." Evidence does matter, Giwer.
Don't you wish that just for once the evidence would support your bogus
kook theories instead of proving your theories are bogus and kooky?
Have you consulted your physician about your memory loss, Giwer?
You seem to forget what you have posted here within a matter of days or
sometimes hours. There are drugs now that can possibly prevent or slow
any further memory loss you are clearly experiencing, Giwer.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
You're not disputing anything I said, shit for brains. I wonder
how many of your fellow wingnuts even noticed....
JTEM
jerry warner <jwar...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
> > case, the one who has been throwing around Finkelstein
> > as if he were the undisputed authority on every subject.
>
> > When I pointed out that, far from an authority, the guy is
> > a magnet for controversy, the Tom P. nut went mental.
>
> You seem to have a large focus/sensitivity... to the
> mental state of others.
Sometimes things are exactly the way they seem.
Clearly this comes as a surprise to you.
Matthias M. Giwer
Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear but seems
to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with the same
name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore there
was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
Believers are so desperate they will settle for the remote
possibility that an entirely different person with the same name once
existed as being sufficient to justify their faith in an anthology of
fantasy fiction.
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Sat Oct 17 20:22:13 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
> On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
> [...]
>> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
>> 12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
>> here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
>> know that Finkelstein does not know.
> [...]
> He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite the
> opposite:
Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
archaeologist.
Try to get this through your head. It does not matter what he
believes. This is only a matter of what the evidence says.
I posted it solely to show what his real position is.
If you want to talk about the man try alt.fan.finkelstein just like
Crunchy should post only in alt.fan.theiring.
--
What is the point of worshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Sat Oct 17 21:05:43 EDT 2009
SolomonW
>> Irrelevant!
>> The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you did go to
>> court about whether these two existed you would win.
>
> Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear but seems
> to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
>
> The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with the same
> name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore there
> was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
Well the guy you just quoted Israel Finkelstein, states in his book that
both biblical David and Solomon existed.
Matthias M. Giwer
Correct. I gave no names.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sat Oct 17 22:18:45 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Now you just insulted him. He presented no physical evidence for
their existence as described therefore he cannot have said they existed.
Please quote what you misread.
--
There have to be many gods. Only a committee
could have created this world.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4180
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sun Oct 18 03:17:52 EDT 2009
SolomonW
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:31:47 -0400, Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
>>
>>>> Irrelevant!
>>>> The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you did go to
>>>> court about whether these two existed you would win.
>>>
>>> Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear but seems
>>> to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
>>>
>>> The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with the same
>>> name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore
>>> there was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
>
>> Well the guy you just quoted Israel Finkelstein, states in his book that
>> both biblical David and Solomon existed.
>
> Now you just insulted him. He presented no physical evidence for
> their existence as described therefore he cannot have said they existed.
> Please quote what you misread.
Unlike you Matt, I do read on the subject I talk about and know a fair bit
about it.
Read this book by them and weep that you are so ignorant.
Whiskers
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> [...]
>>> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
>>> 12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
>>> here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
>>> know that Finkelstein does not know.
>> [...]
>
>> He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite the
>> opposite:
>
> Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
> archaeologist.
>
> Try to get this through your head. It does not matter what he
> believes. This is only a matter of what the evidence says.
>
> I posted it solely to show what his real position is.
>
> If you want to talk about the man try alt.fan.finkelstein just like
> Crunchy should post only in alt.fan.theiring.
Oh dear. You posted a long transcript of an interview that you said
supported your ideas, and then someone dared to point out that in fact it
contradicts your ideas. So you resort to stamping your feet and turning
purple.
Tom P
lies is so easy to recall from archive posts?
Who was it who introduced the names Finkelstein and Silberman into our
discussion?
It was Matt Giwer.
You should have read their books before you introduced them and so
staunchly told your readers what Finkelstein and Silberman had to say
about Solomon. Instead, you peddled the usual Giwerian Gobbledygook.
Tom P
to answer it. As usual.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually,
You're still not disputing anything I said, shit for brains. It
seems that even you can't stomach your ignorant rantings
and cheap rationalizations any more.
That's a good thing. Maybe it's a first step towards your cure.
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Oh dear. You posted a long transcript of an interview
> that you said supported your ideas, and then someone
> dared to point out that in fact it contradicts your ideas.
You're cherry picking.
What you've got to do is learn how to separate facts ("Evidence")
from conclusions. Next, you must learn to separate conclusions
(which are at least based on the evidence) and opinions.
The "Facts" would be the archaeology, and the archaeology says
that the bible is the historical equivalent to cow patties.
Yes, Finkelstein has strong opinions regarding "Israelites," their
existence and even the idea of them have a kingdom. But these
opinions are not fact-based.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Read this book
You have a lot of faith is a book, huh?
This is a discussion group. Why is it that the only "Cites"
you idiots can find are all offline, and none of you have a
copy?
It's pretty simply, really. If you agree with a book, adopt it's
position and then state your case here. Produce cites to
support any claims you make (no, don't merely quote the
book).
If you can't do that, bugger off. Seriously, why are you here,
in a discussion group, when discussion is the last thing you
want?
Tom P
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> [...]
>>> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in
>>> the 12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt.
>>> Yet people here are claiming to know what it meant in that
>>> century. I ask them how they know that Finkelstein does not know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> [...]
>
>> He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite
>> the opposite:
>
> Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
> archaeologist.
>
Matt Giwer who believes -- like Giwer-- that no Solomon ever existed and
no temple ever existed, into Giwer's enemy between September 12 and
September 15, 2009.
And Matt Giwer is too dim witted to comprehend that Professor
Finkelstein changed nothing during that period. Matt Giwer assumed for
no apparent reason that Finkelstein and Silberman actually supported
Giwer's bogus kook theories. Sounds like a solid case can be made that
Giwer never actually read anything by Finkelstein and Silberman but
assumed since they are reputable scholars who actually do know what the
archaeological and historical evidence consists of, they support
Giwerian Gobbledygook.
> Try to get this through your head. It does not matter what he
> believes. This is only a matter of what the evidence says.
>
The evidence tends to support great parts of Finkelstein's theory.
The evidence supports nothing you theorize, Giwer.
> I posted it solely to show what his real position is.
>
You lie, Giwer. You had no idea what Finkelstein's position was on the
historicity of Solomon. The evidence follows, read on.
On September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words:
"You can lie to your victims but there was no Solomon much less a
temple built by Solomon."
On September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in reply:
"Care to quote two, or even one, adherent to the Copenhagen School
who denies the existence of Solomon?"
September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on sci.archaeology
and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words in response:
"Why would I care? As for people who do, Silberman and Finkelstein
for two israeli [sic] archaeologists."
You posted because you assumed and believed Finkelstein supported your
Giwerian Gobbledygook. You were obviously surprised when you discovered
Finkelstein's work with the physical evidence disproves your cockamamie
theories.
> If you want to talk about the man try alt.fan.finkelstein just like
> Crunchy should post only in alt.fan.theiring.
>
Odd how these Nazi thugs like Giwer try to restrict the free speech of
their opponents while demanding carte blanche to spew their venomous
bile hither and yon without restriction.
The world almost handled the Nazi infection the right way in 1945 by
almost killing off the carriers. Yet another instance of liberal
Western Civilization not going quite far enough to exterminate a
murderous ideological pestilence in our midst. As a result we have Matt
Giwer, David Duke, and that ilk among us sucking up the precious freedom
paid for in blood and suffering by good people who the world could ill
afford to lose. Yet the Giwer's always seem to survive, scurrying among
the smoking ruins looking away disgustedly as they step on the corpses
of their millions of victims.
For Giwer, no lie is too dishonest, no atrocity too bloody. Have you
ever considered proving your idol Fred Leuchter's theory about how the
Zyklon B couldn't possibly have killed all those Jews?
You could lock yourself in a room exactly the size of the gas chambers
at Chelmno, Birkenau, or Majdanek and then expose a few grams of Zyklon
B to air in the chamber with you, Giwer. I have noticed that neither
you or any of the other Nazi nutters like Arthur Butz or David Irving or
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have volunteered to prove the correctness of your
assertions in a controlled laboratory experiment. Why not, Giwer?
That would settle the issue of mass extermination by Zyklon B once and
for all. We could even connect the volunteers such as yourself up to
medical monitoring systems to provide precise data concerning the
ineffectiveness of this commercial variant of hydrocyanic acid as you
ingest it through your respiration system, Giwer. Come on Giwer, in the
name of science couldn't you volunteer an afternoon? You would only
have to stay inside the room with the Zyklon B for 40 minutes or so.
All of those scum bags mentioned above invariably deny that such gas
chambers existed and support the "science" and "engineering" of Fred
Leuchter who claims such dosages cannot possibly kill human beings.
Yes, Matt Giwer, you are assuredly included among those scum bags
mentioned above.
Giwer, I believe you are too much of a sniveling coward to prove the
theories you proclaim so belligerently and loudly. Prove me wrong. How
about it, Giwer?
Like the rest of Giwer's bogus kook theories, Giwer will never prove his
pal Fred Leuchter's bogus kook theory about the efficacy of Zyklon B
is correct. The evidence falsifies all Giwer's theories and exposes
them for the Giwerian Gobbledygook they truly are.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Astonishing how quickly Dr Finkelstein was transformed
> from an ally of Matt Giwer who believes -- like Giwer--
> that no Solomon ever existed and no temple ever
> existed, into Giwer's enemy between September 12 and
> September 15, 2009.
You really don't know the difference between "Evidence"
and "Conclusions," or "Conclusions" and "Opinion." It's
not just an act.
Tom P
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:31:47 -0400, Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
>>
>>>> Irrelevant!
>>>> The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you did
>>>> go to
>>>> court about whether these two existed you would win.
>>>
>>> Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear but
>>> seems
>>> to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
>>>
>>> The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with the same
>>> name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore
>>> there was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
>
>> Well the guy you just quoted Israel Finkelstein, states in his book that
>> both biblical David and Solomon existed.
>
> Now you just insulted him. He presented no physical evidence for
> their existence as described therefore he cannot have said they existed.
> Please quote what you misread.
>
claim that, "He presented no physical evidence for their existence as
Settlement patterns are physical evidence, Giwer.
Pottery shards are physical evidence, Giwer.
Inscribed ostraca are physical evidence, Giwer.
Stela are physical evidence, Giwer.
Tombs are physical evidence, Giwer.
Many other artifacts are physical evidence, Giwer. Educate yourself.
In your own words, Giwer, "Please quote what you misread." On what page
and paragraph did Finkelstein make such a claim?
Tom P
Matt Giwer
At some point even the izziehuggers have nothing better to do that
post lies and call nazi to salvage their favority fairytales.
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Mon Oct 19 01:07:22 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the 12th
>>>> c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt.
>>>> Yet people here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I
>>>> ask them how they know that Finkelstein does not know.
>>> [...]
>>> He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite the
>>> opposite:
>> Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
>> archaeologist.
> Astonishing how quickly Dr Finkelstein was transformed from an ally of
> Matt Giwer who believes -- like Giwer-- that no Solomon ever existed and
> no temple ever existed, into Giwer's enemy between September 12 and
> September 15, 2009.
I find it fascinating you can go from Finkelstein agreeing a person
with the name Solomon *may* have existed but be nothing like the person of
that name as described in the stories to a belief he said the BIBLICAL
Solomon existed.
It is also quite fascinating I *only* mentioned him for his
formulation of the above statement to show how it avoids annoying the people
who want to believe and that you demonstrate that is what happens from
reading his words.
Of course you purpose is to preserve your beliefs so such
desperation is understandable.
Now why do you not scamper away and spend hours collecting things
that demonstrate I did not more than I have said.
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Mon Oct 19 02:27:38 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
It is also agreed I did not call them members of that thing called
the Copenhagen school.
> You should have read their books before you introduced them and so staunchly
> told your readers what Finkelstein and Silberman had to say about Solomon.
> Instead, you peddled the usual Giwerian Gobbledygook.
Therefore you are again correct. I gave no names of any minimalists.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Oct 19 02:20:06 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
True, all of the above constitute physical evidence.
True, none of the above constitute physical evidence of an Israel as
described in the bible.
Thus there is still no evidence of biblical Israel.
I described what it would be like if there actually had been an
Israel as described in the bible. Why can't you believers point to it?
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Mon Oct 19 02:33:09 EDT 2009
SolomonW
Another idiot that pretends to know it all without knowing anything about
the subject.
There is no faith involved, there are facts that Matt posted an
archeologist interview who has written books that states in his belief that
there is enough archeological evidence to support the view that King David
and Solomon existed.
Dragonblaze
Typical Giwerian double standard. According to Giwer, it's using
references when he quotes (usually misquotes and misunderstands) a
researcher, and an appeal to authority when anyone else does it.
Giwer is incapable of understanding what is the difference between
appeal to authority and providing reference.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Instruct me,
Okay: Seek professional help, and be sure to tell them
about your sock puppets.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Another idiot that pretends
No, seriously, it all has to do with the difference between
"fact" ("Evidence") and conclusions, as well as conclusions
and opinion.
I used to make a habit of intentionally selecting "cites" from
the other side. I figured that if there was anyone a wingnut
would accept it would be another wingnut. So if we were, say,
arguing over the age of something, or the text on an item, I
would produce a wingnut "Cite" demonstrating the issue.
....but invariably you wingnuts would zero in on the cite's
conclusion, ignoring the details -- the facts/evidence and how
they were arrived at -- insisting that the site supported them.
Of course, everything I just said whizzed right past you, but that
can't be helped...
Martin Edwards
However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Whiskers
[...]
> However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
> cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
> in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
> fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
Woops! As "Old King Cole" was post-Roman, or late-Roman, the archaeology
to look at for him is late-Roman not pre-Roman. "Coel Hen" certainly
existed, at the end of the Roman occupation, possibly one of the last
official Roman appointees. There are other candidates for the origin of
the character in the 18th century English nursery rhyme and Geoffrye of
Monmouth's 12th century stories.
See eg <http://www.rhymes.org.uk/old_king_cole.htm>
SolomonW
I would be quite stunned if you had read any book on archeology much less
biblical archeology.
Weland
Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic, ol' JStupid opts
out. Figures.
Weland
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
>
>
>>SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Read this book
>>
>>You have a lot of faith is a book, huh?
>>
>>This is a discussion group. Why is it that the only "Cites"
>>you idiots can find are all offline, and none of you have a
>>copy?
>>
>>It's pretty simply, really. If you agree with a book, adopt it's
>>position and then state your case here. Produce cites to
>>support any claims you make (no, don't merely quote the
>>book).
>>
>>If you can't do that, bugger off. Seriously, why are you here,
>>in a discussion group, when discussion is the last thing you
>>want?
>
>
> Another idiot that pretends to know it all without knowing anything about
> the subject.
Well, it is JStupid you're referring to.....
>
Weland
Ok, fair enough to a degree. Let's take another example. Outside
Flixborough in Merry Olde there's a purportedly Anglo-Saxon site showing
occupation from the late seventh century onwards through the medieval
period. There are artifacts, buildings, etc, but nothing that declares
these people were Anglo-Saxons or belonged to a particular A-S kingdom.
So why should we think they were Anglo-Saxons, Martin, or do you
disagree with the description of the inhabitants, and if so, on what
grounds, other than "I don't think so?"
Matt Giwer
> Typical Giwerian double standard. According to Giwer, it's using
> references when he quotes (usually misquotes and misunderstands) a
> researcher, and an appeal to authority when anyone else does it.
> Giwer is incapable of understanding what is the difference between appeal
> to authority and providing reference.
The difference is quite simple. In providing a reference one first
presents the facts and gives a source, i.e. reference, for those facts.
Leaving out the facts of interest and giving only the reference is an appeal
to authority.
But you know that.
--
God gave Israel the Ten Commandments because they
were in such desperate need of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4177
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Mon Oct 19 20:01:57 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Biblical archaeology hardly qualifies as archaeology. Archaeology is
a science. The bible is an anthology of fantasy fiction.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 20 01:35:06 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
You are well up on recent discoveries. A programme I saw about a
similar site near Bradwell suggested that the same people (generations
of them) were there all the time, but the language changed. Eg after
the Romans left (and they have still to apologize for that), North
Germany was the nearest trading partner, so Anglo-Saxon became the
language of choice. The Normans we know about. They fairly quickly
learned English and turned out to be quite nice after all.
SolomonW
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
>>> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>>> Another idiot that pretends
>>> No, seriously, it all has to do with the difference between "fact"
>>> ("Evidence") and conclusions, as well as conclusions and opinion.
>>> I used to make a habit of intentionally selecting "cites" from the other
>>> side. I figured that if there was anyone a wingnut would accept it would
>>> be another wingnut. So if we were, say, arguing over the age of
>>> something, or the text on an item, I would produce a wingnut "Cite"
>>> demonstrating the issue.
>
>>> ....but invariably you wingnuts would zero in on the cite's
>>> conclusion, ignoring the details -- the facts/evidence and how they were
>>> arrived at -- insisting that the site supported them.
>>>
>>> Of course, everything I just said whizzed right past you, but that can't
>>> be helped...
>
>> I would be quite stunned if you had read any book on archeology much less
>> biblical archeology.
>
> Biblical archaeology hardly qualifies as archaeology. Archaeology is
> a science. The bible is an anthology of fantasy fiction.
Like I said Matt Giwer, you have no idea on the subject. Clearly you have
never studied or read anything on the subject.
SolomonW
Indeed.
Matt Giwer
I do know that archaeology is a science. I do know constitutes a
science. I do know that consulting an anthology of fantasy fiction is
analogous to consulting the writings of Sir Isaac Newton on Alchemy as a
guide to research in chemistry.
There is no intrinsic difference between the two.
But you know that.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 20 05:31:12 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
One notes the absense of evidence in the matter of A-S is conclusive
in the matter of Israel.
But the manner of discussion is to weave an intricate set of
relationships in argument until one has to agree on Israel in return for an
agreement on another issue.
Argumentation is not evidence. Arguments are not commparable. Only
evidence is comparable.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Tue Oct 20 05:24:42 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-19, Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
>>> cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
>>> in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
>>> fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
>>
>> Woops! As "Old King Cole" was post-Roman, or late-Roman, the archaeology
>> to look at for him is late-Roman not pre-Roman. "Coel Hen" certainly
>> existed, at the end of the Roman occupation, possibly one of the last
>> official Roman appointees. There are other candidates for the origin of
>> the character in the 18th century English nursery rhyme and Geoffrye of
>> Monmouth's 12th century stories. See eg
>> <http://www.rhymes.org.uk/old_king_cole.htm>
> But what was he smoking, as tobacco had yet to arrive in Europe
Neither had pipes.
Opium addiction. Old World craftsmanship combined with New World
innovation.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Oct 20 05:20:41 EDT 2009
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic,
You've not only been given that opportunity countless times,
I'll give you yet another opportunity right now:
Detail for us the legitimate, scholarly reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning "Israel."
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Another idiot that pretends
You've got it wrong. This really is a discussion group. I'm not
kidding.
If you have a book whose position you want to adopt and
argue, then do so. But stop being an asshole and demanding
that everyone else read it.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> I would be quite stunned if you had read any book
This isn't a literary society. It's a discussion group. If
you've adopted the position of a book and want to
argue it here, then do so. Otherwise, please get a
clue and stop being an asshole, asshole.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Well, it is
It's Larry Swain aka Weland, the loser that isn't man
enough to admit that he was wrong, again!
You could prove everything I've been saying about you
wrong, simply by detailing for us truly legitimate reasons
for interpreting the Mernaptah stele as mentioning "Israel,"
reasons that don't assume that as Israel existed at that
time.
There's a reason you haven't done this, and anyone who
isn't emotionally disturbed knows EXACTLY what that
reason is, pussy boy. And that's the fact that there is no
reason. It's all wishful thinking.
Go on, pretend you're a man and admit it.
SolomonW
Tell me why U should discuss something with a person like yourself who
knows nothing. I am not what you need a teacher.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Tell me why U should discuss something
This is a discussion group. If you don't want to discuss
something then you have no reason to be here, other
than a deep emotional flaw which compels you to seek
conflict.
There's no getting around this: This is a discussion group.
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-19, Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
>>> cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
>>> in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
>>> fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
>>
>> Woops! As "Old King Cole" was post-Roman, or late-Roman, the archaeology
>> to look at for him is late-Roman not pre-Roman. "Coel Hen" certainly
>> existed, at the end of the Roman occupation, possibly one of the last
>> official Roman appointees. There are other candidates for the origin of
>> the character in the 18th century English nursery rhyme and Geoffrye of
>> Monmouth's 12th century stories.
>>
>> See eg <http://www.rhymes.org.uk/old_king_cole.htm>
>>
> But what was he smoking, as tobacco had yet to arrive in Europe
1) Europeans were probably smoking other stuff before tobacco arrived.
2) Old King Cole's pipe was probably some sort of flute or recorder, or
possibly a bag-pipe, not a smoking instrument. He was making music. We
still have "pipe bands" today, and "pipers" in military bands.
(I know there's a silly 19th century illustration with him wielding a
churchwarden, but that's just an ignorant illustrator).
Tom P
Tom P
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
>
>> Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Whiskers wrote:
>>>> On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
>>>>> 12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt.
>>>>> Yet people here are claiming to know what it meant in that
>>>>> century. I ask them how they know that Finkelstein does not know.
>>>> [...]
>>>> He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite
>>>> the opposite:
>>> Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
>>> archaeologist.
>
>> Astonishing how quickly Dr Finkelstein was transformed from an ally of
>> Matt Giwer who believes -- like Giwer-- that no Solomon ever existed and
>> no temple ever existed, into Giwer's enemy between September 12 and
>> September 15, 2009.
>
> I find it fascinating you can go from Finkelstein agreeing a person
> with the name Solomon *may* have existed but be nothing like the person of
> that name as described in the stories to a belief he said the BIBLICAL
> Solomon existed.
>
Even that bit of Giwerian Gobbledygook betrays your evolution concerning
Finkelstein, Giwer.
Where exactly do you get the idea that "Finkelstein agreeing a person
with the name Solomon *may* have existed"?
Read his 2006 book "David and Solomon" and you should observe that
Finkelstein and Silberman unequivocally support the existence of Solomon.
> It is also quite fascinating I *only* mentioned him for his
> formulation of the above statement to show how it avoids annoying the
> people
> who want to believe and that you demonstrate that is what happens from
> reading his words.
>
Actually, you just lied again, Giwer. You introduced Finkelstein in
"The Delian Scam" thread as someone who agreed that Solomon never existed.
> Of course you purpose is to preserve your beliefs so such
> desperation is understandable.
>
It doesn't matter what my purpose is or is not. You lied, Giwer.
> Now why do you not scamper away and spend hours collecting things
> that demonstrate I did not more than I have said.
>
Trying to restrict basic liberties again just like the rest of the Nazi
scum.
Tom P
Pottery shards are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Inscribed ostraca are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Stela are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Those bits of physical evidence are all introduced and discussed as the
reasons for drawing certain archaeological and historical conclusions in
the 2006 book "David and Solomon" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Of course one must read the book to know this. And apparently young
JTEM the nincompoop believe it is appropriate to discuss the content of
a book even though he never read the book, eh, young JTEM the nincompoop?
Tom P
Actually, that body of physical artifacts in addition to textual
description is evidence of a particular group of people in a particular
location who wrote in a specific script during a particular time frame.
Specific people by certain given names are mentioned as having
performed certain deeds in a certain place, at a certain time, at a
certain location. Occasionally, even motives for certain deeds are given.
That is more than merely "evidence that people were there."
Tom P
>
> True, none of the above constitute physical evidence of an Israel as
> described in the bible.
>
I never asserted such a claim. Therefore I will not defend it.
> Thus there is still no evidence of biblical Israel.
>
> I described what it would be like if there actually had been an
> Israel as described in the bible. Why can't you believers point to it?
>
Tom P
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Israel Finkelstein
>>>>>>>> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
>>>>>>>> believes that King David and Solomon existed?
>>>>>>> I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>
>>>>>> How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen
>>>>>> School. Giwer did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never did. Never would. Never gave the name of any "member" of
>>>>> the so-called Copenhagen school. Never could as it has no
>>>>> membership roles.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah, Giwer, more Giwerian Gobbledygook and hair splitting will not
>>>> cover your lie. May I direct your attention to your post of
>>>> September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
>>>> Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words:
>>>>
>>>> "You can lie to your victims but there was no Solomon much less a
>>>> temple built by Solomon."
>>>>
>>>> "You are clearly a con artist."
>>>>
>>>> On September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
>>>> sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in
>>>> reply:
>>>>
>>>> "Care to quote two, or even one, adherent to the Copenhagen School
>>>> who denies the existence of Solomon?"
>>>>
>>>> September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
>>>> sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these
>>>> words in response:
>>>>
>>>> "Why would I care? As for people who do, Silberman and Finkelstein
>>>> for two israeli [sic] archaeologists."
>>>>
>>>> On September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
>>>> Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in
>>>> reply to the Giwerian Gobbledygook of September 12, 2009:
>>>>
>>>> "Oh really? I don't think Finkelstein and Silberman ever denied the
>>>> existence of Solomon. Can you quote and cite Finkelstein or
>>>> Silberman where you believe they deny the existence of Solomon?"
>>>>
>>>> "I happen to have "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" in
>>>> front of me. I have read both, closely. I can't seem to find the
>>>> passage wherein they deny the existence of Solomon. What page or
>>>> pages do you find that information on, Giwer?"
>>>>
>>>> "Or are you lying again? If so, you just got caught. You can't
>>>> resist the baited hook, can you, Giwer?"
>>>>
>>>> "This appears on page 20 of 'David and Solomon,' actually these are
>>>> the last two sentences in the second paragraph. 'To make a long
>>>> story short, we simply do not know the exact number of years the
>>>> David and Solomon each ruled. The most we can say is that they
>>>> probably both reigned sometime in the tenth century.'"
>>>>
>>>> "Not exactly a denial that Solomon ever lived, is it, Giwer?"
>>>>
>>>> "Actually, the conclusion of Finkelstein and Silberman is not only
>>>> that Solomon lived, but that Solomon actually reigned during the
>>>> 10th century BCE. Not my words, Giwer. Not my sources or story
>>>> either. You, Giwer, made the asinine claim that Finkelstein and
>>>> Silberman claim Solomon never lived, as I knew you would when I
>>>> posed the question yesterday. Giwer, you are terribly predictable.
>>>> You should have read what they actually wrote before you commented."
>>>>
>>>> September 15, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
>>>> sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these
>>>> words in response:
>>>>
>>>> "If you mean someone else named Solomon instead of the one in the
>>>> bible then you are playing bait and switch."
>>>>
>>>> "They clearly state the Solomon described in the bible did not exist."
>>>>
>>>> Uh, actually, no, they do not, Giwer. They never did. On the
>>>> contrary, they confirm the existence of a king of Judea named
>>>> Solomon who reigned during the 10th century. Perhaps you shouldn't
>>>> discuss authors whose work you have never read, eh Giwer?
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone else notice how Giwer's argument evolved from "As for
>>>> people who do [deny the existence of Solomon], Silberman and
>>>> Finkelstein for two israeli [sic] archaeologists" to "They clearly
>>>> state the Solomon described in the bible did not exist." Evidence
>>>> does matter, Giwer. Don't you wish that just for once the evidence
>>>> would support your bogus kook theories instead of proving your
>>>> theories are bogus and kooky?
>>>>
>>>> Have you consulted your physician about your memory loss, Giwer?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to forget what you have posted here within a matter of days
>>>> or sometimes hours. There are drugs now that can possibly prevent
>>>> or slow any further memory loss you are clearly experiencing, Giwer.
>>>
>>> Correct. I gave no names.
>>>
>> Ah, Giwer, why do you bother to lie when the evidence which exposes
>> your lies is so easy to recall from archive posts?
>>
>> Who was it who introduced the names Finkelstein and Silberman into our
>> discussion?
>>
>> It was Matt Giwer.
>
> It is also agreed I did not call them members of that thing called
> the Copenhagen school.
>
By whom?
>> You should have read their books before you introduced them and so
>> staunchly told your readers what Finkelstein and Silberman had to say
>> about Solomon. Instead, you peddled the usual Giwerian Gobbledygook.
>
> Therefore you are again correct. I gave no names of any minimalists.
>
Only because you mistook Finkelstein and Silberman for minimalists.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic,
>
>
> You've not only been given that opportunity countless times,
> I'll give you yet another opportunity right now:
Already done. Just because you keep ignoring the post doesn't mean it
wasn't posted.
So hey, how about you tell us whether you think the Libyans are
mentioned on the stele.
Weland
> SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would be quite stunned if you had read any book
>
>
> This isn't a literary society. It's a discussion group.
One in which JStupid demonstrates many times a day that he's uninformed
because he doesn't read books and shouldn't be discussing topics he
knows nothing about. Now he justifies his lack of reading by retorting:
"It's not a literary society, but a discussion group!" HILARIOUS!
JUSTIFICATION FOR SHEER JSTUPIDERY!
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it is
>
>
> It's Larry Swain aka Weland, the loser that isn't man
> enough to admit that he was wrong, again!
You can always tell when the craven JStupid has lost: JStupid who hides
behind a false name likes to use my real name, a name I have publicly
identified with my sign on when I changed providers a year ago, cause he
thinks he's got something by pointing out that Weland is Larry Swain.
OOO, the obvious gets him bonus points!
> You could prove everything I've been saying about you
> wrong, simply by detailing for us truly legitimate reasons
That was easy and its already been done. I even pointed you to the
appropriately titled post. Somehow you keep missing it. No one else
has though.
Weland
But you've avoided the question.
Matt Giwer
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Wed Oct 21 01:03:59 EDT 2009
SolomonW
Checkout circular logic because that is your mistake here.
SolomonW
Where your analysis falls down is that many people here beside you do know
what they are talking about. So I am happy to discuss with them. You need
to study a lot before I talk to you.
Weland
Now why would ol' JStupid actually want to do that? Were you around for
his citation of a book he claimed proved that the Bible was the template
for deciphering Akkadian only to find that the author wasn't talking
about deciphering Akkadian at all but about historical events and listed
three sources for determining those events, one being the biblical text,
the Assyrian inscriptions, and Egyptian records. Why would ol' JStupid
the Jester need to study when he can just simply make it up?
Tom P
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant.
Matt Giwer
Thanks to Weland we are now all on the same page.
There was no biblical United Kingdom of David and Solomon and you
did not intend to imply there was any physical evidence for its existence as
decribed in the bible.
Finally we are in agreement.
Thank you for your time.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Oct 25 01:26:21 EDT 2009
Tom P
what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the Euphrates"?
Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of David"
by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th century?
Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
"magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
Do the sites of Hazor, Megiddo, Dan, Arad, Beersheba, Samaria, and
Shechem count as "monumental"?
All of those need to be defined before you can presume agreement with me.
Matt Giwer
You do know what the united kingdom of David and Solomon means, no?
So now you know what is meant. That united kingdom never existed.
Thank Weland for clarifying the matter.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun Oct 25 18:41:22 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
>>
> You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know
> what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
> please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
> questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
>
> Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
> and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
> Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the Euphrates"?
>
Don't be silly.
> Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of David"
> by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th century?
>
Who says that apart from Bible bangers?
> Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
> and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
>
You seem to be implying that, if there were prayer house two or three
times as big as a normal house of the time, the Bible story is true. As
I do not consider you stupid, I can only assume sophistry.
> Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
> "magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
>
Do you mean the only sites anywhere?
> If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
>
> Do the sites of Hazor, Megiddo, Dan, Arad, Beersheba, Samaria, and
> Shechem count as "monumental"?
>
> All of those need to be defined before you can presume agreement with me.
Pass.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Matt Giwer
> Tom P wrote:
>> You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know what
>> that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify, please
>> reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three questions
>> before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
>> Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
>> and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
> How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
It is so obvious he agrees there was no biblical Israel as clarified
by Weland it is pathetic. He keeps trying to claim something he can imagine
might have been called Israel in a vaguely described geographical area just
to try to make his undefined point.
He really should thank Weland for defining biblical Israel beyond
the limits of reasonable misunderstanding. Of course Weland is trying to
kick his own ass for trying to salvage the nonsense so thoroughly.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Mon Oct 26 03:52:26 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Science remains science and there in no intrinsic difference between the
bible, astrology and alchemy when it comes to describing this reality.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 27 02:56:04 EDT 2009
Tom P
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>>>
>> You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know
>> what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
>> please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
>> questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
>>
>
>
>> Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th
>> and and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
>
> How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
>
By applying archaeological and historical methods such as mentions in
monumental inscriptions, surviving written records, archaeological site
surveys, settlement patterns, the presence of potsherds and ostraca,
mentions in later literary manuscripts, but surely you know that.
>> Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the
>> Euphrates"?
>>
> Don't be silly.
>
I asked a question. I did not make an assertion.
>> Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of
>> David" by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th
>> century?
>>
> Who says that apart from Bible bangers?
>
Who says what? I asked a question. I did not make an assertion.
>> Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
>> and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
>>
> You seem to be implying that, if there were prayer house two or three
> times as big as a normal house of the time, the Bible story is true. As
> I do not consider you stupid, I can only assume sophistry.
>
I made no mention of an "Bible story." I merely asked for working
definitions of two adjectives Giwer likes to toss around.
>> Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
>> "magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
>>
> Do you mean the only sites anywhere?
>
Yes.
>> If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
>>
Can you name any site from the 10th century BCE or earlier that compares
to Egyptian Thebes.
Giwer could not, you might have noticed.
Kendall K Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
> BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
Brilliant. So Matt the Pratt reproduces an interview which shows that
his hero, Finkelstein, does not agree with his nutty views.
Finkelstein accepts the Tel Dan Stele, believes that there was a David
and a Solomon, boasts of being a "Biblical archaeologist".
So where does that leave Matt the Pratt?
Out on a limb (as usual) and with no visible means of support.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Finkelstein has strong opinions regarding "Israelites," their
> existence and even the idea of them have a kingdom. But these
> opinions are not fact-based.
Ah. Only JTEM knows the facts. Thanks for clearing that up.
Kendall K Down
SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
> David and Solomon existed?
Hey, come on, SolomonW! You can't expect Matt the Pratt to have
actually *read* it, can you? There's no pictures, no speech bubbles;
it's *way* over the Pratt's head. He just saw the name "Finkelstein"
and posted it without reading it.
Kendall K Down
"Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
> Meaning you are going to insist what is written as a single word
> BYTDWD is really two words for no reason other than your faith in Yahweh.
No, our faith in Israel Finkelstein.
Incidentally, "Mattias". That's a Jewish name. You wouldn't be an
anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying Jew, would you?
Matt Giwer
> In message <4ad7b368$0$5664$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy BAR Interviews Israel
>> Finkelstein
>
> Brilliant. So Matt the Pratt reproduces an interview which shows that his
> hero, Finkelstein, does not agree with his nutty views. Finkelstein
> accepts the Tel Dan Stele, believes that there was a David and a Solomon,
> boasts of being a "Biblical archaeologist".
> So where does that leave Matt the Pratt?
> Out on a limb (as usual) and with no visible means of support.
He identifies himself as a biblical archaeologist. How could I
possibly consider such a fruitcake a hero?
Rather you torah thumpers need to read his statement with regard to
the Egyptian inscription that he has NO IDEA what israel might have meant in
that time frame.
I am hoping some of you believers will explain it to the fruitcake
since you all claim to know.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Nov 10 01:20:13 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c>
> "Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
>
>> Meaning you are going to insist what is written as a single word BYTDWD
>> is really two words for no reason other than your faith in Yahweh.
> No, our faith in Israel Finkelstein.
> Incidentally, "Mattias". That's a Jewish name.
German actually. If on claims it is "jewish" then one asserts YHWH
has no meaning, that it is not a name, merely a generic identifier like
theos. It also traces back to Alexandria where the OT first appeared in
hisotry in Greek. You will never learn.
> You wouldn't be an anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying Jew, would you?
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
--
The conundrum of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is simple to state.
Is God circumcized?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4201
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Tue Nov 10 01:22:43 EST 2009
Kendall K Down
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> German actually.
Ah, so *that's* where your antisemitism comes from. Hey, everybody!
Martin Borman has finally been found!
Kendall K Down
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> He identifies himself as a biblical archaeologist. How could I
> possibly consider such a fruitcake a hero?
No idea, but as you constantly quote him as a supporter of your nutty
theories the onus is on you to explain.
Per Rønne
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c>
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>
> > German actually.
>
> Ah, so *that's* where your antisemitism comes from. Hey, everybody!
> Martin Borman has finally been found!
Actually, Martin Borman was found 7th December 1972
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Borman#Discovery_of_remains>
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
Matt Giwer
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c>
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> He identifies himself as a biblical archaeologist. How could I possibly
>> consider such a fruitcake a hero?
> No idea, but as you constantly quote him as a supporter of your nutty
> theories the onus is on you to explain.
I have never accused you of literacy.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Thu Nov 12 22:26:48 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c>
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> German actually.
> Ah, so *that's* where your antisemitism comes from. Hey, everybody! Martin
> Borman has finally been found!
Which does not change its origin as a Greek variation of Matthew.
Nor does not eliminate the Alexandrian connection to the original Old
Testament, the Septuagint.
Nor does it make St. Matthias other than the 13th apostle.
Gotta love the Greeks.
As for antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ everyone
comes by it honestly these days. See also the Goldstone report as well as
The Invention of the Jewish Peoply Sand. Watch the news for the upcoming
memorial ceremony in the Israeli Congress, Knesset, honoring the terrorist
Meir Kahane. It is quite like the Government plaque honoring the terrorists
who bombed the King David Hotel.
I've got hundreds of these and all from impeccable sources which are
both Jewish and Zionist.
The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. They are all murderers and
thieves by definition. Better they should disappear for the good of the
world.
--
Goldstone, Israel's Dreyfuss.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4203
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Thu Nov 12 22:17:47 EST 2009
Kendall K Down
p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
>> Ah, so *that's* where your antisemitism comes from. Hey, everybody!
>> Martin Borman has finally been found!
> Actually, Martin Borman was found 7th December 1972
Nah, they only *think* they found him. He's alive and well and living
on a trailer park in Florida.