posted
2,641 views Jan 9, 2023 THE GETTY VILLA Israel Finkelstein, co-director of Tel Aviv University's Megiddo Expedition, examines how scholars are better understanding Israel's ancient past.
Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
from video
quote: 0:26 (Introduction of speaker by Timothy Potts): two books in which he (Israel Finkelstein) collaborated with Neil Asher Silberman. "The Forgotten Kingdom", a reference to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, north of Judah, which is somehow sometimes left out of the picture and he very much brings it back into view.
42:40 Finkelstein: the upper hand finally is with the Judahites because they wrote the story. So as you know, whoever has the pen is the winner. So Judah wrote the story of ancient Israel. I mean Judahite authors wrote the story of ancient Israel starting I suppose in the 7th century BC using material that was written before in the Northern Kingdom. And telling the story from a point of view, from the point of view of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem monarchs and the Jerusalem priesthood of the 7th century BC. But why? As long as Israel was there, as Israel was there prospering, in fact Israel controlled in a way Judah. And I think that it should be fair to say that in the 200 years that Judah and Israel lived side by side, I think half of the time Israel really ruled over Judah. Judah was a vassal of the Northern Kingdom, in my opinion, both during the time of the Omride Dynasty
107:28 [Audience Member] I've read an article recently that signs of people who were actually following Jewish law are more relatively recent. And I'm just wondering. When do you see some sign that there are people who are following the Torah? When do you see that? -
Finkelstein: Oh, yes. This is a major question. I think you read an article in Haaretz by Ariel David. A review on a book which has recently been published on the emergence of Judaism, something like this. Yes, here we have to make a distinction. And I support the same idea. I make a distinction between how to say, Judahite, Judahitism, can I say this? Judahite culture and Judaism. These are the same things in a process, but not exactly the same things. So Judaism, as we understand today, Jewish law comes, in my opinion, rightly following this book that has recently been published from the time of the Hasmoneans in the 2nd century BC. But it doesn't mean that there are no roots back in the Iron Age and in monarchic times, of course there are. But we are speaking about a process. And it is important to say when we, I mean we are now sliding into a minefield of course, but I'm sliding into a minefield. But it also depends on the question of the final composition of the Torah. And here there are different opinions. And most scholars today would say that the final compositions, the priestly material especially, and post-priestly material in the Torah, in the Pentateuch, comes from the Persian or early Hellenistic times, in my opinion perhaps even slightly later. Perhaps, perhaps. So I hope that I... But anyway, what we see here is the Israelite culture of the Iron Age at Megiddo, and then Judahite culture of the Iron Age. Specifically Judahite. And we cannot call these people Jews yet, in my opinion at least.
posted
Finklestien " I mean Judahite authors wrote the story of ancient Israel starting I suppose in the 7th century BC using material that was written before in the Northern Kingdom "
Also Finklestein, " the Northern Israelites Kingdom showed no evidence of writing... "
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
assuming he prejudiced against the Southern Kingdom, why, in your opinion, would someone hold such a prejudice?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Also Finklestein, " the Northern Israelites Kingdom showed no evidence of writing... "
where is the quote from it's not in the video?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
assuming he prejudiced against the Southern Kingdom, why, in your opinion, would someone hold such a prejudice?
It is not something new with Dr. F... I have listened to many of his lectures and its more of a pattern.. not sure why...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
E. L. Bess 5.0 out of 5 stars Good, straightforward read Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on January 2, 2014 This is basically a low-chronology synthesis on the history of the northern kingdom of Israel.
Of course Finkelstein believes the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is a fiction of the Judean monarchy after the northern kingdom was dissolved by the Assyrians. The Israelites developed statehood not on the basis of a model provided by a political power centered first in Judah, but independently from and before the latter.
Much of what is here can be found in Finkelstein & Silberman 2001 and Finkelstein & Silberman 2006 , but Finkelstein ignores Judah in this work and focuses on the history and achievements of the north, suppressed both in the Hebrew Bible and much of modern scholarship. The work is also documented.
Very important for this archeological synthesis are a variety of new radiocarbon dates, correlated with critical analysis of biblical and nonbiblical texts, especially the Amarna letters and the Bubasite Portal list of Sheshonq's subjugated cities in Palestine and Transjordan in the 10th century, which Finkelstein associates with Saulide activity (the biblical chronological data being unreliable).
The development of the Israelite state represents the fruition of a pattern of aggressive expansion by strongmen notably documented in the Amarna letters, and repeated throughout history after the decline of the hegemony of a major power in the region (e.g., Egypt). The Omrides were the first to achieve full statehood in the 9th century.
Finkelstein also explains the development of two biblical traditions: the Jacob patriarchal traditions and the exodus tradition. These are both stories of northern provenience. I was not convinced of his explanation of the exodus, however, which he connects (as a northern tradition prior to its Judahite appropriation) to the Sheshonq campaign and freedom from Egypt traditions from the lowlands. But he does show the problems with alternative attempts to pinpoint it in history. Still, in my view, the best theory remains that of D. B. Redford.
Time and future discoveries will tell whether Finkelstein's view will prevail. An excellent, straightforwardly argued book.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much of what is here can be found in Finkelstein & Silberman 2001 and Finkelstein & Silberman 2006 , but Finkelstein ignores Judah in this work and focuses on the history and achievements of the north, suppressed both in the Hebrew Bible and much of modern scholarship "
I find this interesting... Finkelstein is becoming the Israeli equivalent of Zahi Hawass.
Not just a simple archaeologist but a political propagandist
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Much of what is here can be found in Finkelstein & Silberman 2001 and Finkelstein & Silberman 2006 , but Finkelstein ignores Judah in this work and focuses on the history and achievements of the north, suppressed both in the Hebrew Bible and much of modern scholarship "
I find this interesting... Finkelstein is becoming the Israeli equivalent of Zahi Hawass.
Not just a simple archaeologist but a political propagandist
He thinks the achievements of the north are suppressed in the Bible and much of modern scholarship, that they put unfair importance on the The Kingdom of Judah
If you think that is political you would need to explain in what way it's political.
To say something is political implies it's political in relation to today's politics rather than describing ancient politics as a historian.
I am reminded of Bruce Williams of the Research Associate at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The institute was studying findings in Sundaneses Nubia in the late 80s. They found an incense burner that had pictures carved into it with what looked like some Egyptian motifs. This Lead Williams to say in 1987 "In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty."
This is a theory but is it a political theory?
It reminds me of Finkelsten with his highlighting the Northern Kingdom. Researchers like to introduce new perspectives, some other angle they think was overlooked or uncovered in new excavations
____________________________
This is his whole book, a PDF I haven't looked at it yet except for this excerpt, from page 1 to the beginning of 4 of the the introduction
THE FORGOTTEN KINGDOM HE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF NORTHERN ISRAEL By Israel Finkelstein 2013
Introduction:
Why a Book on the Northern Kingdom?
In the first half of the eighth century b.c.e., Israel ruled over the lion’s share of the territory of the two Hebrew kingdoms (fig. 1), and its population accounted for three quarters of the people of Israel and Judah combined (Broshi and Finkelstein 1992). Israel was stronger than Judah both militarily and economically, and in the first half of the ninth century and in the first half of the eighth century—almost half the time the two kingdoms co-existed—Israel dominated the southern kingdom. Nonetheless, Israel has lingered in the shadow of Judah, both in the story told in the Hebrew Bible and in the attention paid to it by modern scholarship. 1. Historiography and Historical Memory The history of ancient Israel in the Hebrew Bible was written by Judahite1 authors in Jerusalem, the capital of the southern kingdom and the hub of the Davidic dynasty. As such it transmits Judahite ideas regarding territory, kingship, temple, and cult. Moreover, even what some scholars consider as the early layers of the history of ancient Israel, such as the books of Samuel (e.g., McCarter 1994; Halpern 2001; Römer and de Pury 2000, 123–28; Hutton 2009), were written after the northern kingdom was vanquished by Assyria and its elite was deported.
quote:1. In this book “Judahite” is used as an adjective for terms relating to the kingdom of Judah (also described here as the “southern kingdom’), e.g., Judahite pottery. “Judean’ is used to refer to geographical regions, such as the Judean Desert. “Israel’ generally refers to the northern kingdom, while “ancient Israel” refers to the Iron Age people—north and south combined. In “two Hebrew kingdoms” I ostensibly adhere to the ideology of later Judahite-Judean authors but at the same time acknowledge both the proximities and differences in their material culture and cognitive world (see more in Finkelstein 1999a).
In the late seventh century, when the early layer in the Deuteronomistic History was compiled (Cross 1973, 274–88; Na’aman 2002b; Römer 2007), the northern kingdom was already a remote, vague memory over a century old, and this in a period with no continuity of scribal activity. It is true that Israelite traditions are incorporated in the Hebrew Bible. I refer to blocks such as the Jacob cycle in Genesis (de Pury 1991), the exodus tradition (van der Toorn 1996, 287–315), what is known as the “Book of Saviors” in Judges (Richter 1966), positive traditions regarding King Saul in Samuel, the Elijah-Elisha prophetic stories in Kings, and the two northern prophets Hosea and Amos (for the impact of northern texts on the Hebrew Bible, see Schiedewind 2004; Fleming 2012). These traditions could have reached Judah orally or in a written form. The original northern texts—or at least some of them—could have been written as early as the first half of the eighth century b.c.e. in the capital Samaria or in the temple of YHWH at Bethel, located on the northern border of Judah (also Fleming 2012, 314–21; for a later date of compilation at Bethel, see Knauf 2006; Davies 2007a, 2007b; for the archaeology of Bethel, see Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009). Both written texts and oral traditions were probably brought to Judah by Israelite refugees after the fall of Israel in 720 b.c.e. (Schniedewind 2004; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006b); estimates of demographic growth in Judah from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB (ninth to late eighth/early seventh centuries b.c.e.) indicate that in late monarchic times Israelite groups made up a significant part of the population of the southern kingdom (Finkelstein and Silberman 2006b). The northern traditions were incorporated into the Judahite canon either because they supported the Judahite ideology or because of political needs in Judah to absorb the significant Israelite population in the kingdom. In the latter case the original Israelite traditions were subjected to Judahite needs and ideology, as in the case of the book of Samuel, which incorporated negative northern traditions about the founder of the Davidic dynasty but gave them a twist to clear David of all wrongdoing (McCarter 1980a; Halpern 2001). So even here the genuine, original voice of Israel is barely heard in the Hebrew Bible. The political ideology of the Deuteronomistic History in the Bible depicts the reality after the fall of the northern kingdom. It is Judah-centric, arguing that all territories that once belonged to Israel must be ruled by a Davidic king, that all Hebrews must accept the rule of the Davidic dynasty, and that all Hebrews must worship the God of Israel at the temple in Jerusalem. The story of the northern kingdom is therefore mostly telegraphic and its tone negative; while the individual Hebrews can all join the nation if they accept the centrality of the Jerusalem temple and dynasty, their kingdom and kings are viewed as illegitimate. Only Jeroboam I and Ahab are given relatively large shares of text, but, needless to repeat, the tone of this text is negative. Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
What do you think his agenda is?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
this is a mixed group of people.
So assuming this means racially mixed you could either take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdom were both comprised of a racially mixed people
or you could take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms were different racially from each other
Or you could not believe that any of them were substantially "mixed"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
What do you think his agenda is?
I have an inkling since we know southern canaan had heavy influence from the Egyptians and the Kushites.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
What do you think his agenda is?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
this is a mixed group of people.
So assuming this means racially mixed you could either take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdom were both comprised of a racially mixed people
or you could take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms were different racially from each other
Or you could not believe that any of them were substantially "mixed"
It just might be, I am not a religious person... it might be that the two groups were racially different but.. I understand that the priesthood in Northern Israel was from the same root as the southern... so the priesthood for northern israel could have been different from the general population
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
What do you think his agenda is?
I have an inkling since we know southern canaan had heavy influence from the Egyptians and the Kushites.
What sources do you have indicating southern canaan had heavy influence from the the Kushites.
I haven't read this yet but Finkelstein makes no mention of Kush or Nubia in his 2013 book
However Egypt is mentioned over a 100 times and Judah over 200
THE FORGOTTEN KINGDOM HE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF NORTHERN ISRAEL By Israel Finkelstein 2013
p 14
In the area of the future territory of the northern kingdom and its immediate surroundings, the main city-states were: Tyre, Acco, Achshaph, Ginti-kirmil (= Gath Carmel), and Gezer on the coastal plain; Damascus and Ashtaroth in southwestern Syria; Hazor, Rehov, and Pehel in the Jordan Valley; Megiddo, Shim‘on, and Anaharath in the Jezreel Valley and vicinity; and Shechem in the highlands of Samaria (fig. 3). The Amarna letters also provide data on the location of Egyptian administrative centers in Canaan. In the fourteenth century, the main Egyptian centers in the area discussed here were Beth-shean in the Jordan Valley and Kumidi in the southern part of the Beqa of Lebanon. Archaeological finds indicate that Beth-shean also continued to play this role in the later phases of the Late Bronze Age.
p 81
The decline of the Gibeon/Gibeah polity could have opened the way for the rise of Jeroboam I and the northern kingdom with its center in the Shechem-Tirzah region. Jeroboam, who seems to have come from Zeredah, probably a small stronghold in the rugged, isolated area to the northwest of present-day Ramallah (Kochavi 1989), emerged as a typical highlands strongman. The connection between Jeroboam I and Shishak king of Egypt is recounted in 1 Kings 11:40. This story is more elaborate in the Septuagint version, which may have been based on an old, pre-Deuteronomistic source “resembling the books of Judges and Samuel” (Schenker 2000, 256 with reference to past studies; 2008).5 One can propose that, similar to positive Saulide traditions in 1 Samuel and the Book of Saviors in Judges, for instance, the memory of Jeroboam I’s Egyptian connection originated from old northern traditions that reached Judah after 720 b.c.e. (Galpaz 1991). If this is the case, this material may hint that the emerging northern kingdom, with its founder Jeroboam I, replaced the Gibeon/Gibeah polity as a result of Egyptian intervention, if not initiative. Whether Sheshonq I campaigned in the Jezreel Valley when it was already ruled by the Tirzah polity or whether Sheshonq I handed over the valley (which was ruled by the Giboen/Gibeah polity) to the Tirzah polity following the campaign6 is impossible to say
146
From the prophecies of Hosea (2:14–15; 9:10; 11:1, 5; 12:9, 13; 13:4–5) and Amos (2:10; 3:1; 9:7), and possibly also from a Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscription that may refer to the theme of the exodus (Na’aman 2012a), it is clear that the exodus-desert tradition was well known in the northern kingdom in its later days. But what was the source of this tradition? How far back before the eighth century could one trace it? Further, what can be said about the nature of this tradition in Israel in the time of Hosea and Amos? Regarding the first question, as noted above, attempts to isolate a “moment in Egypt” in the thirteenth century b.c.e. that fits the exodus narrative are doomed to failure (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 48–71). With no clear evidence in the biblical text, in Egyptian sources, or in archaeology, there is nowhere else to turn but to historical speculation
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Two archaeologists who disagree with Finkelstein's conclusions (2014), their reviews at link
"It is impossible to summarize Israel Finkelstein’s latest book, The Forgotten Kingdom, in a brief review because its numerous errors, misrepresentations, over-simplifications and contradictions make it too unwieldy. " The real point of this book is to argue that the Biblical “United Monarchy” of David and Solomon in the tenth century B.C.E. is a later fiction, concocted by the southern, Judahite-biased Biblical writers. The real “Israelite state,” according to Finkelstein, is the northern kingdom of Israel, and even this arose only in the ninth century B.C.E., that is, in the days of the Omrides (as Finkelstein has claimed for some 20 years).'
William G. Dever
William G. Dever is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Prior to that he served for four years as director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research). A world-renowned archaeologist, Professor Dever has dug at numerous sites in Jordan and Israel. He served as director of the major excavations at Gezer from 1966 to 1971. His most recent book, The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel, was published in 2012 (Eerdmans).
Aaron Burke
Aaron Burke is associate professor of the archaeology of the Levant and ancient Israel at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the codirector of the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project, which coordinates the research and preservation of the archaeological site of Jaffa, and is the author of “Walled up to Heaven”: The Evolution of the Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant (Eisenbrauns, 2008).
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Two archaeologists who disagree with Finkelstein's conclusions (2014), their reviews at link
"It is impossible to summarize Israel Finkelstein’s latest book, The Forgotten Kingdom, in a brief review because its numerous errors, misrepresentations, over-simplifications and contradictions make it too unwieldy. " The real point of this book is to argue that the Biblical “United Monarchy” of David and Solomon in the tenth century B.C.E. is a later fiction, concocted by the southern, Judahite-biased Biblical writers. The real “Israelite state,” according to Finkelstein, is the northern kingdom of Israel, and even this arose only in the ninth century B.C.E., that is, in the days of the Omrides (as Finkelstein has claimed for some 20 years).'
That right there is in interesting summation of Finkelstein... what is the motivation for such a claim?
According to Dever
quote:What’s going on here? It took me a while to figure it out. What Finkelstein is doing is gradually distancing himself from the extremes of his low chronology—without ever admitting he is doing so—and counting on the likelihood that readers will not check his “facts.” Even he now realizes that a Judahite state did exist in the tenth century B.C.E. and that it could have extended its rule to the north. He cannot bring himself to admit that David and Solomon were real tenth-century kings since he is on record as denying the existence of any Judahite state before the eighth century B.C.E. (or lately, the ninth century). So he does an end run around the impasse by distracting attention to their predecessor Saul as king!
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:What sources do you have indicating southern canaan had heavy influence from the the Kushites.
How long have you been on this website? You think you would have learned a thing or two .... smh... I am not going to give it all to you. I don't have the time or energy, you could do some reading on your own... maybe start with the bible.. don't read the whole thing just google
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here I can only alert unwary BAR readers that this book is not really about sound historical scholarship: It is all about theater. Finkelstein is a magician, conjuring a “lost kingdom” by sleight-of-hand, intending to convince readers that the illusion is real and expecting that they will go away marveling at how clever the magician is. Finkelstein was once an innovative scholar, pioneering new methods; now he has become a showman. A tragic waste of talent, energy and charm—and a detriment to our discipline.
as I said, Zahi Hawass level
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Finkelstein's prejudice against Judah in the Judah v Israel comparisons should raise eyebrows to anyone willing to pay attention
What do you think his agenda is?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
this is a mixed group of people.
So assuming this means racially mixed you could either take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdom were both comprised of a racially mixed people
or you could take the position that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms were different racially from each other
Or you could not believe that any of them were substantially "mixed"
It just might be, I am not a religious person... it might be that the two groups were racially different but.. I understand that the priesthood in Northern Israel was from the same root as the southern... so the priesthood for northern israel could have been different from the general population
So the Southern Kingdom were the the blacks and the Norther Kingdom were non-blacks and Israel Finkelstein doesn't like those Southern blacks so he flipped script. Ok, I see what your saying, read on
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
not "blacks" Kushites, Midianites, Egyptians... read the bible it's all right there...
how many times have you posted the kushite/hebrew & nubian soldiers being marched away from Canaan/lacish
the bible said the Canaanites were what? Cursed be Canaan.. the Rabbis said god cursed Ham black ( blah blah)
Gezer was an Egyptian out post.. like dude you have been here for years YOU should KNOW all of this already.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
— Another approach suggests that the Levites were originally non-Israelites from Egypt who joined the indigenous and settled Israelite tribes.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: how many times have you posted the kushite/hebrew & nubian soldiers being marched away from Canaan/lacish
I have never posted Kushites being marched away from Canaan/Lachish because there is no such scene
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:THE 25TH KUSHITE DYNASTY AND THE LEVANT PRIOR TO 701 BCE Egypt underwent a revival during the rule of the 25 th Dynasty (Redford 1993: 188*), but, unfortunately,there is a paucity of Kushite records in general and in particular those concerning the events of 701 BCE. This may be due to the simple fact that they did not survive (Pope 2014: 130); as a result, the Kushites, who were major players in the Levant, have not been fully acknowledged (Smith 2013: 87
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defeated Judahite soldiery of Lachish (closeup profiles and fuller scene
Kushite ( feather ) is the one being impaled
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
It's anybody's guess what this shape is or if it is attached to the mans head. These two seem to be bearded but it's hard to tell. And other man on the left has some other large unknown shape around his forehead. It is not clear if that is some object behind him or what it could be
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Also Finklestein, " the Northern Israelites Kingdom showed no evidence of writing... "
where is the quote from it's not in the video?
Finkelstein takes biblical minimalism to another level and is quite biased. He tried to prove that David was a chieftain, rather than a real king in charge of a kingdom. But the Tel Dan inscription "House of David" proved him wrong.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic