tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post5960667064739557659..comments2023-05-11T04:38:06.086-04:00Comments on Analysis of the Post-chareidi Phenomenon : Yom HaAtzmautUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-9906239696224923372012-05-31T18:45:40.153-04:002012-05-31T18:45:40.153-04:00The discussion about "Archeology and the Bibl...The discussion about "Archeology and the Bible" has been reproduced (as an independent post (with that title) as of 5/31/12. Please continue in the comments there.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-44001456412040351572012-05-31T11:01:56.134-04:002012-05-31T11:01:56.134-04:00(cont'd) The fact is, when dated reasonably, t...(cont'd) The fact is, when dated reasonably, the material you refer to as spanning 3000-1500 BCE (more like 3100 than 3000, but why quibble) actually spans the time from about 1800 to 1000 BCE. It doesn't overlap the Flood at all. And the "squashing" you're talking about isn't all that extreme, in reality. Historians often make reference to the slow pace of society in Canaan/Israel. The same quantity of remains can show a slow paced society over a lengthy period, or a fast paced society over a shorter period. And even then, there's no hard and fast rule for equating quantities of remains to time elapsed.<br /><br />So it all comes back to my initial question. Your entire argument rests on a very, very thin point, which is the absolute chronology of the ancient world. Which is an entirely separate issue from the relative chronology, which is incredibly rich and detailed. If it were to be proven to you that the absolute dates didn't contradict the biblical accounts, would that be good enough for you, or would you go and find some other reason to reject them?Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-86632212335758081392012-05-31T10:59:42.839-04:002012-05-31T10:59:42.839-04:00(cont'd) For some purposes, you don't even...(cont'd) For some purposes, you don't even really need a scale. If I'm driving from Evanston to downtown Chicago, I can see that I need to turn here, get on the highway there, get off at some or other exit... there's a lot of information that you can get from a map even without knowing the exact distances.<br /><br />In the case of archaeology, particularly in the ancient near east, the basic chronological lattice that serves as a sort of "backbone" for all of the things that have been found was decided on decades, and in some cases more than a century, before we had the incredible wealth of physical evidence we have now. Do you have any idea what would be involved in going back and re-evaluating everything in order to determine the correct dating anew? There's no guarantee that it would even be possible.<br /><br />There is nothing about the Ugarit kings list that says it should be dated to 1350-1200 BCE. There's a king listed who signed a treaty with Mursilis II of the Hittites. So assuming that it's the same king, and not another king with the same name (Ugarit had three Niqmaddus, two Ammittamrus, and possibly other royal names that repeated) we can tie Ugarit to Hatti at those two points. Which is great. But then you have to ask when Mursilis II reigned. We know that his son Hattusilis III fought against Ramesses II, so now we have to ask when he reigned. It's all a big daisy chain that sometimes even doubles back on itself, where Assyriologists date a king based on Egyptian chronology, while Egyptologists are dating things based on Assyrian or Babylonian chronology.<br /><br />It's a very fragile framework, elemir. And even if there wasn't a really solid reason for suspecting that it isn't accurate (there is), it would hardly be solid enough evidence to dismiss the biblical account.<br /><br />The fact is... (cont'd)Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-8209459334326648192012-05-31T10:58:47.786-04:002012-05-31T10:58:47.786-04:00Elemir, I think what I'd like to know is, if a...Elemir, I think what I'd like to know is, if archaeologists were to change their minds tomorrow and say that the material remains and inscriptions found in archaeological sites were consistent with the biblical accounts, would you still claim that the biblical accounts are false? In other words, are you "forced" to say the Bible is non-historical because of what you've read in the field of archaeology and ancient history, or are you pleased to find scholarly sources which confirm an a prior view?<br /><br />The reason I ask is that every single source you've sited, and every single argument you've made, has been based on one thing: the conventionally accepted dates assigned to this or that archaeological period. You even seem aware of that. You wrote:<br /><br />=====================<br />I know that the key question is:<br /><br />How credible is archaeological dating of Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Mesopotamia, etc. between 2000-3000 BCE? Are archaeologists completely nuts and the wealth of information that has been uncovered is so badly misinterpreted and mis-dated by them. Are the king-lists that correspond to names in pyramids and temples, and the thousands of documents cross-referencing names and places and events so off that they all really belong in the middle of 2nd millennium not in the early 3rd or late 2nd ???<br />=====================<br /><br />But the way you phrase the question indicates that you aren't really conversant with the subject. No one is suggesting that the kings lists and other inscriptions and documents are wrong. But you have to understand: all the inscriptions and documents and physical remains can give us is a relative chronology. It's like a map without a scale. If I look at a map, I can tell that this place is to the east of that place. That this place is twice as far away from that place than the other place. All of that is relative.<br /><br />For some purposes... (cont'd)Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-36717797088480328742012-05-30T00:47:59.091-04:002012-05-30T00:47:59.091-04:00>>> So, as I wrote at the end of that par...>>> So, as I wrote at the end of that paragraph, to my mind “The Torah is the only text-based source of history mankind possesses for “pre-historiacal” periods.” <br /><br />OK, but why, in your view, is Manetho and his Egyptian king-list any different than the genealogies in Breishit, objectively speaking? Aside from your “reliable mesorah” claim, which might be ascribed to the Egyptian priests, as well. They claim they maintained their history. From the archaeologists point of view the final version of the Torah was completed only a few centuries before Manetho.<br /><br />>>>> Stele of Djary – Sorry, never heard of it. I tried Googling it and couldn’t find it. Please supply a source. <br /><br />Stele of Djary referenced in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intef_II<br /><br />In summary, with regard to all these documents, thanks for commenting on them, but the point was not to debate each and every one, but to show that established and well populated civilizations existed in the middle east with differing languages, cultures, life styles, and infrastructure in the period just before and just after the Flood and all before the Tower Bavel (circa 1750 BCE). And thus there appears to be continuity contradicting the occurrence of a flood in this time period<br /><br />I know that the key question is:<br /><br />How credible is archaeological dating of Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Mesopotamia, etc. between 2000-3000 BCE? Are archaeologists completely nuts and the wealth of information that has been uncovered is so badly misinterpreted and mis-dated by them. Are the king-lists that correspond to names in pyramids and temples, and the thousands of documents cross-referencing names and places and events so off that they all really belong in the middle of 2nd millennium not in the early 3rd or late 2nd ???<br /><br />Very hard to believe.<br /><br />In my picayune library, I have Donald Redford “Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times”. It lays out (I guess his conclusions) on the “history” of that region from 3000 BCE and through to the end of the Hebrew Kingdoms. He supplies many, many references for his take on things. I have neither the time nor the resources to follow up on how all these sources “date” the era of our discussion. But, and here's the key, he fills the 1500 years (3000 to 1500 BCE) with extensive names and places and events. For the Torah timeline to be true, all this massive account would have to be squashed into 1750-1500 or 1400 BCE. <br />It just doesn’t seem do-able or likely.<br /><br />Further, allowing for the existence of these civilizations in the 3rd millennium, and that they were then destroyed and resurrected. How does one reasonably account for the resurrected societies having the same or very similar language, culture, technologies, laws, religion, architecture, etc. <br /><br />This is what I mean by continuity.<br /><br /><br />More to follow, I hope, in a few days…..david a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12394358328154167719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-42222499156724491022012-05-30T00:44:56.322-04:002012-05-30T00:44:56.322-04:00Back to the flood …..
>>>>. So for in...Back to the flood …..<br /><br />>>>>. So for instance, based on your reading of the Torah, you conclude that the flood occurred in the year 2100 BCE (actually 2104). <br /><br />Actually, that’s not quite correct. I chose 2100 (2104) only because it was easier than getting side tracked and trying to nail the best date for the Mabul according to our tradition. The date 2104, as you well know, is based on the timeline as provided by Seder Olam, which says we are in now in 5772 as counted from the creation. However, there are many problems with this time line. The most prominent 2, as you well know, are (a) the missing 165 years, i.e. our tradition says that the first Mikdosh was destroyed in 425 BCE, while the entire rest of the world dates this at 586 BCE which would make the starting point, i.e. creation, 5772+165=5937 and the flood at year 1656 from creation being 5937-1656=4067 years ago=2269 BCE. (2) The second problem is the gap between when Yaakov arrived in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus. One verse says that this is about 400 years. (Exod. ), while the generations delineated in the Torah seem to indicate a much shorter interval (based on Chazal, we use 210 years). And, sure, I know the Meforshim reconcile the 2 counts, but the fact is that Torah has this contradiction. Further, complicating the dating, a third date for the Mabul, is that I saw somewhere that the LXX manuscript has 500 more years in its count, from Ma-aseh Breishis (can’t verify this now, and I know you don’t like blanket statements.).<br />but it really is irrelevant if 2100, 2265 or something else nearby<br /><br />>>>> Everything is as clear as a bell. It is easy to date the events of the Torah and of the Tanach in general. The later books make references to the earlier books and delineate the passage of years in the clearest terms. This applies especially to the Torah itself. So for instance, anyone reading the Torah can easily see that it documents the passage of exactly 2488 years, from Creation to the death of Moses.<br /><br />I don’t see this as an argument for the veracity of the narratives or the dqating. All it says is that the author was intelligent enough to understand that “history” requires a uniform time line.david a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12394358328154167719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-58858650376387878262012-05-30T00:31:24.245-04:002012-05-30T00:31:24.245-04:00I’m finally back … here are some more thoughts rel...I’m finally back … here are some more thoughts related to our discussion. Sorry, if they do not correspond with, nor cover all your points….<br /><br />>>>>I said: You may not accept the evidence against something but if most everybody else does, that has to be considered.<br /><br />>>>>> YOU replied: I don’t agree. You are arguing from the force of numbers. Rabbi Slifkin does the same thing to me. He is always throwing “the global consensus of scientists” in my face. I’ve discussed this a million times and explained that this issue has to do with the philosophy of science and other topics unrelated to our current thread. …..<br /><br />No, No … you don’t understand my point. And to me it’s an extremely important point. I am NOT saying one must believe something because the vast majority of people believe it. As you say, numbers of people do not a truth make. But, what I am saying is that if your target audience believes something, and here is the point: “because they have many reasonable arguments to sustain or reach that belief”, you cannot or should not ignore this, it must be addressed. How, and for which circumstance, is another discussion. But, for example, you do not brand someone a kofer because he thinks the earth/universe is more than 6000 years old. There simply is enough compelling reasons for one to believe in an old universe. <br />>>>> But mankind does have certain ancient documents which have been in circulation since their composition <br /><br />well maybe,<br /><br />>>>> and are universally accepted by all of mankind as authentic.<br /><br />Authentic, again maybe, but here is the spoiler. If there is only one version extant of an ancient document/book, and this copy is thought not to be the actual original (as is the case of the Torah), we simply would not know if the copy on hand is a true copy of the original or has been modified. And of course, nor do we know the extent of this modification.<br />Further, if a book is considered sacred by a people and represents to a certain degree their seat of authority, it would only be natural, that if the powers that be wish to amend this authority, they would add to this book. I realize that you absolutely do not believe that this is possible with the Torah and our mesorah, but again that’s simply your faith.<br /><br />>>>>> But I have another “book” (le’havdil) at home that precedes Aristotle by 900 years. It’s the oldest book I possess and it has been in the hands of the Jewish nation for over 3300 years. <br />No, you have a copy of a book that you (and of course others) claim to be 3300 years old. I’m (and many others are) not convinced that the 3300 yr-age is anywhere near accurate. (A discussion for another time.) I’m also not convinced that when the initial version of this book first appeared, it’s contents were anywhere near what we read every Shabbos. <br /> <br />>>>>> unbroken tradition regarding the Torah’s composition.<br />Unbroken, as stated, that’s just a claim based on faith. <br /><br />next commentdavid a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12394358328154167719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-26112594750876340422012-05-29T22:43:07.542-04:002012-05-29T22:43:07.542-04:00Yes, I meant Og.Yes, I meant Og.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-51821490377047419232012-05-29T21:00:36.178-04:002012-05-29T21:00:36.178-04:00Zvi Lampel,
After re-reading your comments, I tak...Zvi Lampel,<br /><br /><i>After re-reading your comments, I take back the accusation. But the point is still very relevant. We should not expect to see reports from people describing a flood they witnessed. In fact, it must be that way--unless we would find documents written by Noach, Shem, Cham, Yafess, their wives, and/or Gog.</i><br /><br />Elemir <i>understands</i> that the assumption of a global flood makes eyewitness documents unlikely. He is referring to <i>post</i>-flood documents. His question is, why do we not find accounts of the flood in Egyptian and Mesopotamian documents such as the Heqanakt papyri or the Code of Ur-Nammu. <br /><br />By the way, Gog is the king of a nation called Magog. He wasn’t around during the times of the flood. Perhaps you mean Og, the king of Bashan?Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-1594741213500872612012-05-29T20:48:38.971-04:002012-05-29T20:48:38.971-04:00Zvi Lampel,
Hi Zvi! Thanks for weighing in.
Gen...Zvi Lampel,<br /><br />Hi Zvi! Thanks for weighing in. <br /><br /><i>Gentlemen, regarding your discussion of indications among ancient documents of the Mabul, I think the following point should be considered: You are both talking as if the Mabul was an event that was watched by people on the sidelines, and who therefore would be expected to report about the event. But the Mabul by definition was an event that wiped out all the world's people, save the few individuals of the ark. Any extant human reporting of the Mabul was solely on the basis of the report transmitted by Noach's three sons and their wives (and maybe Gog) to their offspring.</i><br /><br />Consider the following. Say the world was wiped out today in a nuclear war with only a few survivors, would you not expect that the coming generations would all be aware of what occurred? I imagine that it would be the single most talked about historical event for hundreds of years! The fact is, memoirs of a global flood can be found in almost every district on earth. Many of them possess remarkable similarities to the Biblical account. There are literally hundreds of global flood traditions (some historical, some legend) amongst all peoples and all races in the world. This is what I <i>expect</i> to find. And indeed, this is precisely what I <i>do</i> find.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-32481261096336864002012-05-29T20:03:05.123-04:002012-05-29T20:03:05.123-04:00You are both talking as if the Mabul was an event ...<i>You are both talking as if the Mabul was an event that was watched by people on the sidelines...</i><br /><br />After re-reading your comments, I take back the accusation. But the point is still very relevant. We should not expect to see reports from people describing a flood they witnessed. In fact, it must be that way--unless we would find documents written by Noach, Shem, Cham, Yafess, their wives, and/or Gog.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-90907777457378540012012-05-29T19:33:23.111-04:002012-05-29T19:33:23.111-04:00Gentlemen, regarding your discussion of indication...Gentlemen, regarding your discussion of indications among ancient documents of the Mabul, I think the following point should be considered: You are both talking as if the Mabul was an event that was watched by people on the sidelines, and who therefore would be expected to report about the event. But the Mabul by definition was an event that wiped out all the world's people, save the few individuals of the ark. Any extant human reporting of the Mabul was solely on the basis of the report transmitted by Noach's three sons and their wives (and maybe Gog) to their offspring.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-37969032761667168842012-05-25T06:14:09.196-04:002012-05-25T06:14:09.196-04:00Dear Elemir,
Here’s another one from Rabbi Miller...Dear Elemir,<br /><br />Here’s another one from Rabbi Miller’s book. “King Asa sent them to Ben-Haddad the son of Tabrimon the son of Hezion the king of Aram (Melachim 1 15:18)”.<br /><br />Bible critics never encountered these names and insisted they were fabrications. But in 1939 the Malqart stele was unearthed during excavations in northern Syria and on this stela was recorded this ruler and his ancestors exactly as they are recorded in Melachim.<br /><br />By the way, I have over 5 dozen examples like this. The reason I am submitting them piecemeal is because I refuse to appeal to archaeological evidence before researching the data myself. Accordingly, you are welcome to challenge me on any one of my assertions and insist that I produce verifiable sources. Just so you know, this applies to any scientific statement I make, under any circumstances.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-31168423757938639242012-05-25T04:41:30.239-04:002012-05-25T04:41:30.239-04:00Continued from the previous comment
The c...Continued from the previous comment <br /><br />The critics questioned the story of Shishak the Egyptian Pharaoh who swept through the Judaen land after Shlomo’s death and carried away much of the Temple vessels (Milachim 14:25-26) but subsequently archaeological discoveries in Meggido and other places verified this. Here’s a snippet from Wikipedia under the heading “Sheshonk I”. <br /><br />“Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq I (Egyptian ššnq), (reigned c.943-922 BCE)… Sheshonk I is frequently identified with the Egyptian king "Shishaq", referred to in the Old Testament at 1st Kings 11:40, 14:25, and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. According to the Bible, Shishaq invaded Judah, mostly the area of Benjamin, during the fifth year of the reign of king Rehoboam, taking with him most of the treasures of the temple created by Solomon. Shoshenq I is generally attributed with the raid on Judah. This is corroborated with a stela discovered at Megiddo.”<br /><br />And under the heading Shishak, Wikipedia shows the following: <br /><br />“Shishak or Susac…or Shishaq is the biblical Hebrew form of the first ancient Egyptian name of a pharaoh mentioned in the Bible… Shishak is best known for his campaign through Israel and Judah, as recorded in the Hebrew Bible (1 Kings 14:25;2 Chronicles 12:1-12)… In the very early years after the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, on chronological, historical, and linguistic grounds, nearly all Egyptologists identified Shishak with Sheshonk I. This position was maintained by most scholars ever since, and is still the majority position. The fact that Shoshenq I left behind "explicit records of a campaign into Canaan (scenes; a long list of Canaanite place-names from the Negev to Galilee; stelae), including a stela [found] at Megiddo" supports the traditional interpretation.” <br /><br />Incidentally, the preceding statement was made by eminent Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool. He is arguably the greatest expert in Egyptology today.<br /><br />You know, the more I delve into this line of investigation, the more I am convinced of the foolishness of questioning the historicity of the events depicted in the “Old Testament” Bible. I am scanning the books of my Rebbe (the incomparable Rav Avigdor Miller) and he has dozens of such examples! Each time I investigate his claims they are fully corroborated in the archaeological literature! I had exactly the same experience when I investigated his sources regarding evolution (see my post <a href="http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.ca/2011/08/how-i-came-to-reject-evolution-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Personally I think I am wasting my time. If anyone wants to be convinced, just read my Rebbe’s books! He is an endless fountain of wisdom and knowledge. Rabbi Slifkin <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/05/my-favorite-opponent.html" rel="nofollow">publicly mocked me for saying this</a> but I don’t care. It’s the truth. But don’t worry Elemir; as long as you continue with this thread, you can count me in. I won’t force my Rebbe’s books on you…Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-77615477497701703252012-05-25T04:40:53.163-04:002012-05-25T04:40:53.163-04:00Dear Elemir,
While you mull-over your responses, ...Dear Elemir,<br /><br />While you mull-over your responses, I have some more examples for your consideration. <br /><br />In 1948, William Albright verified the authenticity and dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls. All five books of the Torah were represented in the scrolls and other than some minor variations they exactly match what we have today! Some of the scrolls are dated to as early as 2300 BCE. Bible critics of the 18th and 19th centuries questioned the authenticity and dating of a document that was over 3000 years old but with the discovery of the DSS we have now been transported back in time 2300 years making the Bible only 1000 years old. Its text is universally accepted not only by the Jewish nation but also by the Greeks who had the Bible translated in 2400 BCE (Septuagint) using a failsafe system. And the last of its books (many of which are represented in the DSS Archives such as Yirmiya, Yechezkel and Trei Asar) were canonized a scant 300 years before! It is inconceivable that the events of a few hundred years before could simply be fabricated and then universally accepted by the entire nation! This is as unreasonable a proposition as could be.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-88670533741156296952012-05-23T05:39:35.726-04:002012-05-23T05:39:35.726-04:00Dear Elemir,
i expect to be responding within a f...Dear Elemir,<br /><br /><i>i expect to be responding within a few days.</i><br /><br />I look forward to it. Meanwhile, the following are some comments re the history of Sancheirev. The Bible relates that when he returned home from his campaign against Judah, his two son’s Adarmelech and Sharezer assassinated him while he was worshipping his idol. The Bible critics scoffed at this story as neither one of these names were found in Assyrian records. But clay tablets unearthed in the Library of Ashurbanipal eventually confirmed the exact details of the assassination as recounted in the Bible.<br /><br />The tunnel and water reservoirs which Chizkia made were not corroborated by any known source so the critics simply dismissed it as an attempt by the author of Melachim to aggrandize Chizkia. Meanwhile today we have Chizkia’s tunnel and reservoir on full display with an inscription in biblical Hebrew describing the whole affair.<br /><br />The same situation applies to Sancheirev’s father Sargon. The critics denied his existence too until archaeology revealed his reign in full detail. <br /><br />I am not going into full detail here because my claims can easily be corroborated online. If you have any issues, please let me know.<br /><br />There are many more examples of archaeological discoveries which support the Torah but I want to hear from you before I continue. <br /><br />Looking forward to your comments…Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-70366102898585623962012-05-22T23:56:10.298-04:002012-05-22T23:56:10.298-04:00i expect to be responding within a few days.i expect to be responding within a few days.david a.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12394358328154167719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-69028305801111371592012-05-20T23:39:43.641-04:002012-05-20T23:39:43.641-04:00Dear Elemir,
As promised, I am continuing to sear...Dear Elemir,<br /><br />As promised, I am continuing to search for archaeological evidence to support the Torah. I hope you enjoy the following. I’d like to focus on two examples of archaeological corroboration for Tanach. One relates to the Torah (Sodom), the other to Nach (Sancheirev).<br /><br />1) The Torah relates that at the time of Avraham there was a district composed of five distinct cities and that this district was a thriving metropolis with lush fields described as “similar to the Garden of Hashem”. Sodom and Amorah is first introduced in the fight of the five kings against the four in parshas Lech Licha and the cities are mentioned in a very specific order. Since Wellhausen, Bible critics have denied the existence of these cities claiming that the whole thing was a fable. <br /><br />Tel Mardikh is a village located in the South East of Idlib, Governorate of Syria. It is a famous location. Italian archaeologists from the University of Rome began excavating at Tel Mardikh in 1964 under the direction of one Professor Paolo Matthiae. In 1976 they made one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. After extensive digging they unearthed what is known today as the Ebla Tablets, an archive of thousands of cuneiform tablets written in a Sumerian language hitherto unknown to archeologists, currently referred to as the Ebla language, a type of Semitic language. In addition to the wealth of new information contained in these tablets about ancient Syria and Canaan, they also contained historical information which was remarkable in its similarity to the information contained in the Bible. On January 19, 1979, The New York Times reported as follows: <br /><br />“Yet another strange parallel with the Bible is a list of five towns (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela, also called Zoar.) Both the Ebla tablets and Genesis, written more than a thousand years later, give the same list in the same order. In the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, often assumed to be allegorical, are destroyed for their wickedness. In the Ebla tablets, they are thriving commercial centers.”<br /><br />So, this is remarkable, is it not? Here is confirmation for the veracity of the Torah in the face of over 100 years of academic mockery. I mentioned that I was going to provide corroboration for Biblical Sodom but I can’t resist quoting the very next paragraph in the Times. Here it is. <br /><br />“The tablets also contain a poetic account of the creation of the world that is much like the Genesis story. And there is an Eblaite tale of a great flood that destroyed the world, an account similar to the flood stories of both the Bible and Sumerian poetry.”<br /><br />So Elemir, now we have Gilgamesh <i>and</i> the Ebla tablets confirming the flood! I hope this information provides you with some of the archaeological evidence you were looking for. If you like this line of evidence, I have many more such examples along these lines. I just need to research them first before posting. <br /><br />The following comment will discuss archaeological evidence supporting the Bible story of Sancheirev and Chizkiya, his failure to capture Yerushalayim, the mysterious nature of his defeat at the gates of Yerushalayim, and his assassination by his own two sons.<br /><br />Please let me know what you think on Ebla confirming Sodom and the Flood.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-72850031024793499532012-05-20T06:11:25.011-04:002012-05-20T06:11:25.011-04:00d) And most importantly it demonstrated that a flo...<i>d) And most importantly it demonstrated that a flood would very likely leave some geological residue, but such signs are few and far between if one postulates a worldwide flood.</i><br /><br />I’m not so sure. When I first read it I thought the same as you. But this conversation with you has caused e to re-examine. Here’s what I’m thinking. Woolley couldn’t believe his eyes the first time he saw a whole civilization under a layer of clay so he told his men to dig another shaft three hundred yards away from the first and they found exactly the same thing. Now check this out. On page 27 Keller describes the next step Woolley took. He writes as follows: <br /><br />“Finally, to remove all doubt, Woolley made them dig a shaft through the rubble where the old settlement lay on a natural hill, that is to say, on a considerably higher level than the stratum of clay. Just at about the same level as in the other two shafts the sherds of wheel-turned vessels stopped suddenly. Immediately beneath them came hand-made clay pots. It was exactly as Woolley had supposed and expected. Naturally the intermediate layer of clay was missing”<br /><br />So, it seems from Keller and Woolley that it is “expected” that higher ground can segue seamlessly to lower ground without any intermediate clay layer. The clay bearing water simply ran off to lower levels and only there should we expect to find the intermediate clay layer. What happened to residual tell-tale signs? For some reason they don’t seem to have a problem with that. Now you happen to be right. Keller does seem to reject this whole idea but not because of what you’re saying. It’s because they didn’t find this clay layer uniformly all over the lower parts of Mesopotamia. But if it wasn’t for this, I’m not convinced that you are right and that we need to find flood residue wherever we look. However, you make a strong point and in fact much of my proofs for a global flood rest on tell-tale signs of the flood all over the world. So at this point I am not sure what to think. <br /><br /><i> well I only have a problem because I think there is a very basic and obvious premise that should be considered and that is that a belief system must not enforce requirements for believing in something that has extensive “evidence” against it. </i> <br /><br />I agree.<br /><br /><i>You may not accept the evidence against something but if most everybody else does, that has to be considered.</i><br /><br />I don’t agree. You are arguing from the force of numbers. Rabbi Slifkin does the same thing to me. He is always throwing “the global consensus of scientists” in my face. I’ve discussed this a million times and explained that this issue has to do with the philosophy of science and other topics unrelated to our current thread. I don’t care what “most everybody” does or does not accept. I care about one thing and one thing only. What does Elemir think about the anti-Torah evidence and can he prove it? And if he can’t, then can he provide a coherent explanation for why this “evidence” still bothers him? You’ve been on this blog long enough to know that I could care less about the opinion of the <i>olam golam</i>. I do not feel that general opinions of the masses must be considered. But that’s just me… <br /><br />>>>> Somehow, though, I feel I might be disappointed.<br /><br /><i>Yes, I fully expect that you will.</i><br /><br />See? Both you and I expected something and both of us were wrong. I was <i>not</i> disappointed. The examples you provided were good and I had no business making that snide remark. I apologize. <br /><br />Looking forward to your remarks. Meanwhile I will continue on my archaeology kick and see if I can’t produce some solid evidence for the Torah.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-72542128472058966772012-05-20T06:10:32.816-04:002012-05-20T06:10:32.816-04:00Continues from previous comment
c) He dated the c...Continues from previous comment<br /><br /><i>c) He dated the clay layer at 4000 BCE (obviously, I have no idea as to the dating accuracy, but could he have been 2000 years off?)</i><br /><br /> Yes. It’s like I told you. He doesn’t have any positive means of attributing such a date to the pre-clay artifacts. Here’s what he writes on page 28-29. <br /><br />“At the foot of the old staged tower of the Sumerians, at Ur on the lower Euphrates, anyone could climb down a latter into a narrow shaft and see and touch the remains of a gigantic and catastrophic Flood which had deposited a layer of clay almost 10 ft. thick. Reckoning by the age of the strata containing traces of human habitation, and in this respect they are as reliable as a calendar, it could also be ascertained when the great Flood took place. It happened about 4000 B.C.”<br /><br />So, pay close attention to the method by which Keller dates the strata. He claims that if we refer to traces of human habitation in the strata, this informs us of the age of the strata as “reliable as a calendar”. Let me translate that for you in English.<br /><br />There are four strata in question here. The uppermost strata possesses Woolley’s monumental find of the Sumerian tombs of Kings and the like. This strata is arbitrarily assigned a date of approximately 2700 BCE. As Woolley writes: (page 27 of Keller’s book) “About sixteen feet below a brick pavement which we could with reasonable certainty date to 2700 B.C.” <i>“with reasonable certainty…”</i> <br /><br />Woolley dug further and this is what he wrote. “Directly under the floor of one of the tombs of the kings we found in a layer of charred wood ash numerous clay tablets, which were covered with characters of a much older type than the inscriptions on the graves. Judging by the nature of the writing the tablets could be assigned to about 3000 B.C.” <i>The tablets “<b>could</b> be assigned”.</i> <br /><br />They kept on digging for a while with no change which led them to believe that centuries had passed with no advancement in Sumerian technology. Finally they reached “ground level” and hit the clay deposit. They couldn’t figure out why there was a clay deposit with no artifacts but they kept on digging and eventually hit another strata with thousands of potsherds and pottery. But the pottery was less advanced (hand made) so they announced that they had found the flood. It is this fourth stratum that Keller describes as being 4000 B.C. years old. <br /><br />So, what does Keller have? Does he have any proof of the age of the strata? Did he date them with carbon dating? Does he have historical records from other civilizations which would corroborate the flood date he provides? Here’s what he has. Stratum #1 can “reasonably” be dated at 2700 B.C. Stratum #2 “could” be assigned the age of 3000 B.C. Stratum #3 is undefined and Stratum #4 can somehow be reliably ascertained at 4000 B.C. based on human evidence from the previous three strata! So the age of #4 is based solely on the acceptance of the upper three strata, nothing more. And the upper three strata are dated based on the archeological claim of “reasonableness”. What I’d like to know is why this claim is any more reasonable than the timeline of the Torah? I’d also like to know why the unverified date claims of the archaeologists posses such a problem to one who would otherwise be convinced of the Divinity of the Torah?<br /><br />I’d like to mention something here. Keller is a Christian and his book was obviously written for the express purpose of supporting the bible. This of course is a wonderful project and his book is amazing. But for some reason the Christians of his day got it in their heads that Creation occurred about 10 thousand years ago so naturally he tried to reconcile biblical events according to this timeline. His research is invaluable but sometimes his dates are off. Apparently, in order to reconcile the biblical flood with archaeology he just took Woolley’s word for it. All this is my speculation of course. You’re welcome to reject anything I say.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-47191634766365163862012-05-20T06:09:48.176-04:002012-05-20T06:09:48.176-04:00continues from previous comment
>>>> ...continues from previous comment<br /><br />>>>> thereby locking in their history?<br /><br /><i>What history, according to the Torah, doesn’t Egypt’s history begin at around 2000 BCE? do you not nterpret Breis. 10:6. as the same “Mitzraim”, that gave the name to Egypt.</i><br /><br />Yes. But I wasn’t referring to the “locking in” of Egyptian artifacts. You claimed that there were “documents” from the pre-flood and I simply said that they could have been locked in. But you’re right; if they are Egyptian documents then I’m in trouble. But as I told you before, the dating of the Egyptologists is purely speculative. You admit that you are unable to verify their dating methods. So, the onus is on you. Speak to archaeologists and ask them how they know that Egyptian document x is 3000 BCE years old. Forget carbon dating by the way. Most of the artifacts have not been subjected to carbon dating yet and besides these dates of the archaeologists have been around for a hundred years, way longer than carbon dating. So, I want to know how they know that Egyptian culture existed over 6000 years ago??? I challenge this assertion and I am entitled to a response.<br /><br /><i>Ah, Woolley. I first read about him many years ago in a book by Werner Keller entitled “The Bible as History”</i><br /><br />Great book! I’m a fan of Keller (and in fact his book is sitting on my desk right now… I wonder why… :-) <br /><br /><i>I came away with the following<br />a) That the Chumash story is very likely based on an actual flood and its not some myth made up out of nothing.</i> <br /><br />Gevaldic. That’s a first step.<br /><br /><i>b) However, his work also showed that the flood plain was limited to only a few hundred sq. mi.</i> <br /><br />Yeah. That’s a problem. But I am willing to overlook this problem for now. Let’s go with the “local flood” thesis for now. I’d like to see if we can at least agree that a major catastrophic flood incident did indeed occur around the time the Torah claims it did.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-29561233199356476422012-05-20T06:08:21.376-04:002012-05-20T06:08:21.376-04:00Elemir,
Gut voch. We continue.
>>>> ...Elemir,<br /><br />Gut voch. We continue.<br /><br />>>>> Really? Like what? Which written documents have been accurately dated to pre 2100 BCE? <br /><br /><i>I understand the operative word here is “accurately”. I grant that I am unable to independently verify or offer an opinion as to accuracy.<br />In any case, some examples.<br />• Abusir papyri “dated” about 2360.<br />• Jemdet Nasr circa 3000 BCE<br />• Not to mention all the pyramids and their contents. Are hieroglyphics not counted as documentation. Would they have survived flooding?</i><br /><br />Alright. For the sake of argument I hereby acknowledge the academic view that there are documents that predate 2104 BCE. So what? Would pre-flood artifacts and documents survive the flood? Maybe. I don’t know. In my last comment I mentioned Woolley’s idea that artifacts can be sealed in with a flood-like sedimentary layer of clay. It sounds reasonable to me. I don’t really have any idea what the affects of a catastrophic flood would look like from a geologic perspective and frankly I don’t believe anyone else does either. It’s all speculation. So, if we have some tablets with writing on them that actually existed before the flood, so be it. There are many inventions that are attributed to pre-flood civilizations. According to my Rebbi, that’s why Hashem granted them such long life. Mankind was in its infancy. Things had to be invented. The Torah talks about this. It talks about the invention of the nomadic lifestyle (collapsible tent etc.), it talks about the invention of metal extraction from the ground, it talks about the fashioning of tools, and it even talks about the creation of musical instruments. It’s quite possible that writing was also invented pre-flood. Noach and his family were recipients of this vital knowledge and passed it along to the post-flood civilizations. That’s why they were able to develop so rapidly after the flood. They built upon prior knowledge.<br /><br />>>>> Besides, who says they would have been destroyed? Perhaps the Flood deposited a thick sedimentary layer on top of the preceding generations thereby locking in their history? <br /><br /><i>Oh please, how reasonable is it that everything, absolutely everything that archaeologist pre-date 2100 BCE shows be unaffected, not a drop of water damage. And where is the residue of this sediment.</i> <br /><br />First of all, you’re making an unverified claim. I have no idea, and neither do you, if all the artifacts are free of water damage. Besides, the argument can be made that only artifacts that were somehow not exposed to the flood waters were able to survive. This is a logical argument and accounts for a lack of “water damage” in the artifacts. Again, neither you nor I are experts in the mechanics of artifact preservation. According to L. Woolley, he dug at the Mesopotamian site of the ancient city of Ur and hit a solid layer of clay fifteen feet deep with no artifacts in it. In other words, a sudden cessation of a thriving civilization. It was sensationalized all over the world as finding the biblical flood. But Woolley wasn’t satisfied. He wanted to verify his hypotheses. So he dug deeper and discovered less advanced artifacts (e.g. the pottery above the clay was constructed via the “wheel-turning” process and the pottery below was hand-made). Woolley says nothing about “water damage” to the artifacts beneath the clay. Apparently it is not an issue. <br /><br />Now don’t get me wrong. I do not claim that Woolley’s thesis is without objection. On the contrary, there are several places in Mesopotamia where this layer of clay is not found. And although I can come up with possible reasons, I am aware that it amounts to special pleading. My only point here is that I don’t think “water damage” plays a role in the considerations of archaeologists. If there is indeed some mechanism that can preserve artifacts, it must be a moisture-free one.<br /><br />continuedSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-75254422792035972972012-05-18T11:38:10.140-04:002012-05-18T11:38:10.140-04:00Here’s my take on your above-noted documents. Firs...Here’s my take on your above-noted documents. First of all, there is nothing odd about the fact that they do not discuss the flood incident. They were specific writings designed to deal with specific things. Second of all, if we were looking for types of documents that would verify the flood, we couldn’t have asked for better examples! Mankind was just wiped out. They needed to start all over again. Eventually civilizations began to arise and naturally we find codes of laws and governance abounding during this time frame! Also, assuming the narrative of the Biblical flood, surely Noach’s family explained to the future generations that the flood was due to God’s displeasure with the deeds of mankind. So what should we expect to find in these codes? Injunctions against stealing and sexual crimes, the very thing that caused the mabul. And guess what? That’s exactly what appears in these codes at length!<br /><br />I must tell you something. All these years I was bothered by a certain ma’amar Chazal which Rashi brings in parshas Va’Yishlach. He says that when the brothers came home and found out about Dina’s rape, they were very upset because “such a thing is not done” and Rashi comments that the nations of the earth accepted upon themselves not to commit such crimes due to the mabul. What bothered me is that Avraham was afraid to go down to Mitzrayim and Yitzchok was afraid to go to the pelishtim because these people were mired in lasciviousness. But wait! What happened to the Rashi that claims they refrained from such things? And also, it seems from both Avraham and Yitchok’s story that the respective kings were angry that a “sin” was almost brought down upon them. What sin??? Why do they care about sexual indiscretion? Now thanks to you I understand the whole thing perfectly!<br /><br />The nations understood that they must refrain from forcibly taking a maiden or fraternizing with another man’s wife and that’s why the codes speak specifically about these items. Avraham and Yitzchok understood that despite their supposed codes the Egyptians and Canaanites were an immoral people and they were worried that Pharoh/Avimelech would find some pretext to get rid of them thereby <b>circumventing the codes</b> and clearing the way for taking Sarah. And that’s why the brothers were so angry. Because Shechem had no excuse whatsoever! He violated the codes outright and “such a thing is not done”. <br /><br />Oh, by the way, here’s an example of something Chazal knew (codes of the post-flood nations) long before it was dug up in the 19th century! I think I’ll call Rabbi Slifkin and tell him! :-)<br /><br />I gotta run. Won’t have time before Shabbos to finish responding to the rest of your stuff. Bli Neder I will respond after Shabbos. I’d like to reiterate how pleased I am with this interchange. Also, I look forward to responding to your next paragraph. You make a vigorous argument there and I’m not sure if I will be entirely successful in repelling your attack (I like using warlike terminology; It makes our dialogue exciting… ) I might even have to make some concessions (heaven forfend!) Let’s see after Shabbos…Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-88121264993630839312012-05-18T11:37:14.574-04:002012-05-18T11:37:14.574-04:00I will be responding to the rest of your comments ...I will be responding to the rest of your comments but I’d like you to know that archaeology is not my forte, at least not yet. This is a learning experience for me and I’m glad I’ve found a partner with which to explore it. However, one caveat. My arguments are tentative, at least for now. I suspect that further communication with you may lead me to modify some of my views and possibly even reject some of them. So let’s wait until we’re done before you quote me to others. Deal? <br /><br />>>>>>> First of all, let’s clear something up. You claim that archaeology possesses documents which it dates to “around that time”. Which documents are you talking about? <br /><br /><i>OK.<br />I am not all that knowledgeable in Archaeology but I’ll give you some that I recall… <br />Egyptian:<br />Heqanakt papyri<br />Kahun papyri<br />Prisse papyrus<br />Stele of Djary<br /><br />Mesopotamian<br />Code of Ur-Nammu<br />Laws of Eshunna<br />Lipit-Ishtar</i>.<br /><br />Very good! That’s fantastic. Now that you’ve illustrated your point with concrete examples, we can go on to analyze them. <br /><br />So the first thing is to set up some parameters. The Torah discusses a flood. I’ve supplied you with Sumerian writings (the Epic) which depict a flood akin to that of the Torah. But this is not enough for you. You would like to see many more writings of many more peoples depicting the flood and if you don’t this constitutes disconfirmation for the Torah. And here’s what I say. It depends. If the writings depict historical events which occurred just prior to the writings in question then yes, I would agree that it is odd that no mention of the flood is made. But let’s go through your writings one by one.<br /><br />Heqanakt papyri – These were letters that discussed the prices and wages in Egypt i.e. economics, not history. <br /><br />Kahun papyri – Once again, these are texts that discuss academic issues such as mathematics and medicine, not history. Furthermore, the Kahun letters are dated 400 years after the deluge! Surely Egypt had other things on their mind by then.<br /><br />Prisse papyrus – The Prisse is also dated to several hundred years after the deluge (as much as 400, minimum 200) and does not discuss history. Besides, they only have a tiny fragment, one document in total. <br /><br />Stele of Djary – Sorry, never heard of it. I tried Googling it and couldn’t find it. Please supply a source. <br /><br />Code of Ur-Nammu – Is exactly as it sounds; a code of Sumerian laws, not history. Why should the flood be mentioned in their code? It is dated 150 years after the Flood which is enough time for the Sumerian kingdom to have arisen. Besides, as I mentioned, I’m not <i>ma’amin be’emunah shileima</i> in the dating system of archaeologists. They could be off by fifty years, a hundred years, or more.<br /><br />Laws of Eshunna – dated even later than the previous codes and discusses laws, not history or stories. <br /><br />Lipit-Ishtar – 350 years after the flood! And once again, a legal system of codes, not stories, not history.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-60373255759365528092012-05-18T11:36:15.102-04:002012-05-18T11:36:15.102-04:00Dear Elemir,
I am impressed with your response! I...Dear Elemir,<br /><br />I am impressed with your response! I don’t know if you and I will end up agreeing but this has turned out to be a worthwhile exercise and for this I am grateful. Thank you!<br /><br />>>> Yes. You are correct (regarding the relative date) but this is irrelevant to our current discussion. <br /><br /><i>I don’t understand your point…it is very relevant to judging the accuracy of a supposedly divinely authored document. I.e. to my mind, if inaccurate, then it’s suspect as to its divinity.</i><br /><br />Yes of course. But you omitted the remainder of my paragraph wherein I explained its irrelevancy. I do not deny that there are ancient writings in existence today. But these were only discovered recently. Archeology, as a science, is still in its developmental stages. There are many disagreements about dating systems and the like. But mankind does have certain ancient documents which have been in circulation since their composition and are universally accepted by all of mankind as authentic. I have several books like this at home. For instance, I possess a copy of Josephus Flavius’s writings. This book is almost 2000 years old but no one would deny its age or authenticity because mankind has had it in its possession since its composition. Or for instance, I have a copy of Aristotle’s writings at home. This book is about 2400 years old but once again no one would deny its age or authenticity. But I have another “book” (<i>le’havdil</i>) at home that precedes Aristotle by 900 years. It’s the oldest book I possess and it has been in the hands of the Jewish nation for over 3300 years. Now granted, the gentiles did not have wide access to it until a thousand years later but the Jewish nation has an unbroken tradition regarding the Torah’s composition.<br /><br />My next point was that the Torah is the only ancient document with a self-verifying date system which corresponds to our methods of dating. So for instance, based on your reading of the Torah, you conclude that the flood occurred in the year 2100 BCE (actually 2104). How did you manage such accuracy? Simple. The Torah is an open book. No hieroglyphics. No vague references. And no self-referencing. Everything is objective. Everything is as clear as a bell. It is easy to date the events of the Torah and of the Tanach in general. The later books make references to the earlier books and delineate the passage of years in the clearest terms. This applies especially to the Torah itself. So for instance, anyone reading the Torah can easily see that it documents the passage of exactly 2488 years, from Creation to the death of Moses. <br /><br />So, as I wrote at the end of that paragraph, to my mind “The Torah is the only text-based source of history mankind possesses for “pre-historical” periods.” There is no ancient document today (over 3300 years old) that even begins to resemble a coherent and unequivocal record of pre-history. Accordingly I conclude my paragraph by stating that “What is left to archeologists is to investigate the archaeological record and determine via indirect means whether the episodes related in the bible can be supported.” I think even you would agree that all the digging in the world will never produce a document like the Torah.<br /><br />Just to expand a bit, what I mean to say is that the ancient writings of Mesopotamia and Egypt cannot contradict the Torah’s dating system because they do not possess an objective dating system of their own. Their age is merely a matter of speculation amongst Archaeologists and Historians. One speculates this way, the other another way. That’s no way to unseat the authenticity of a universally accepted document such as the Torah.<br /><br />continuedSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.com