Biblical Archeology

[SkepticOfBible]

You can read up some on Cyrus at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...51&letter=C although I don't think it talks about Daniel at that link. It looks like they do mention him here http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...34&letter=D but I only skimmed the entry.

 

Just so you know. I spoke to the Jews on the website, and they Jewish Encyclopedia it isn't exactly a completely reliable source for Orthodox Jew.

 

Here is a link which discusses Cyrus as a possible canditate for Dan 9:24-27.

 

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewt...highlight=cyrus

 

If I recall the Jews have other potential candidates.

[mwc]

i think you've cleared up what i was trying to say very nicely, mwc.

 

Israel Finkelstein and his crew have really shaken things up! Yehetzel Kaufmann (deceased) is still the number one conservative foil to the "revisionists." But that's cuz some of them want to go so far to say that "Israel" as a kingdom never really existed and was the invention of the priests who got exiled.

Considering that there were really only about 18000 or so people taken into exile, and there had to be a something in place to be attacked in the first place, I find this unlikely. Now, I can believe that the priests, while in exile, had plenty of time to study various writings and it was at this point the Torah, as we might know it, came into being. So you could say the "history" of Israel was created during exile and then was introduced back into the country of Israel upon their return.

 

So instead of the history that occured which was a group of people came down from Canaan, into the hills, then towards the coast, at which point we end up with something like the stories in say Judges and Kings. The exiles invent a much longer history that totally separate them from their heathen brothers (that they've villified and want nothing to do with by this point) and it also allows them to exhalt their god above all others in the process (however their editing isn't perfect and remnants of their polytheistic beginnings remain in the text but the languange evolves to compensate when such a discrepency is found which is why a plural word can describe a singular god).

 

In addition they make themselves a rags to riches story. They go from one guy, to slaves to major players on the world scene (with David and Solomon). They have a "my god's bigger than your god" story in there too. If they win it's because of their god but if they lose, it's not because of someone else's god, which was the way it normally worked, but it was because of their own god. It trumped everyone else since it neutered all other gods. "We destroyed you because our god Baal is so powerful!" "No, our god YHWH is simply punishing us. Your god does not exist." "Ummm...Baal...ummm." What could anyone say?

 

Obviously this would be a much more complicated process but I think you can see this basic line of reasoning here.

 

The Merneptah Stele and the Tel Dan Stele are decent evidence that the something called "Israel" or the "House of David" existed before the exile... but Finkelstein's group is at least showing that the archaeological record reflects a way different story than the biblical narrative tells us.

Considering people didn't think he'd last more than about five years I'd say he's doing one hell of a job. From everything I've read of his (which is very small at this point since I've got a backlog of reading to do that's as long as my arm) he can back up everything he claims. This is why I think a lot of people dislike him so much. They've become complacent and he's making the connections they let slide for whatever reason.

 

As for the two stele, I'm with the "jury is still out" crowd. The Merneptah Stele does speak of an Israel but beyond that it does mean much. It really shows that it is a group of Canaanites if anything. The Tel Dan Stele is iffy since it is dated around 850BC (I think), it is missing the separators in the words (not a major issue but still an issue) and the house it is refering to doesn't have to be the one from the bible. Now the reason I mention the date is because if we had this major kingdom of David then Solomon you'd think that there'd be more than just this stele 200 years after the fact. It's a little suspicious. Now if we accept that the stories are perhaps more legend than fact (along the lines of King Arthur) then perhaps David is real and he ruled some minor hill people that eventually ended up being elevated to legendary status. Then it makes much more sense on a lot of levels.

 

mwc