Archaeologists claim to have found King David's palace in Israel

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Sure. Whatever our pal with the aggressively American avatar might think, I am not trying to deny the existence of a nation – that is, a people – calling themselves Israel. Nor am I proposing to deny that said people established various kinds of settled polity or state in the area known since ancient times as Palestine. At times, they even called their state 'Israel'. However – as the Bible itself testifies – this polity or state lacked historical continuity; it was conquered by external enemies more than once, its inhabitants dispersed, and for most of history the region was ruled by others. Even by the most charitable interpretation, the Kingdom of Israel lasted only about three hundred years – less than a tenth of the time-period we are discussing.

For the historical details, see here.

As to the Merneptah Stele, it's worth noting that

While Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam are given the determinative for a city - a throw stick plus three mountains - the hieroglyphs that refer to Israel instead employ the throw stick (the determinative for "foreign") plus a sitting man and woman (the determinative for "people") over three vertical lines (a plural marker).

This "foreign people" sign was typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic tribes, as opposed to settled city-dwellers. Source

'Israel' in those times was a tribe of nomads, not a settled state or 'country'.

Just to make things clear, my concern is with historical accuracy, not politics. I have no position on the Arab-Israeli conflict except that I wish it would stop.

reply to post by Astyanax


Fair enough

I guess I got the impression you were denying Israel's history in the region. Instead it would appear you are just trying to minimize it. You're certainly right about the Merneptah Stele. It does imply Israel was a nomadic people instead of a nation state. The bible says as much about the history of israel during this period (which is kind of the point that some people are trying to make in this thread). In fact, the bible pretty much agrees with much of what you stated. The "golden age" of the kingdom of israel is recorded as being quite brief in the bible, which would seem to correspond to archaeological finds.

People tend to disregard the bible because of the more miraculous things recorded there, but it really is quite a remarkable book from a historical perspective, and some of it has been validated by archaeology. Of course, even that evidence is controversial and highly contested, but I would expect nothing less from a region where all three Abrahamic faith's scrape out a very uneasy co-existence. The history of the region is different depending on which religion the person you are talking to subscribes to, so getting anyone to agree on highly "controversial" finds (i.e: anything that confirms the bible's version of events) is a tall task.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I guess I got the impression you were denying Israel's history in the region. Instead it would appear you are just trying to minimize it.

It would be more correct to say that I'm trying to give it its due – neither more nor less.

The Merneptah Stele... does imply Israel was a nomadic people instead of a nation state. The bible says as much about the history of israel during this period (which is kind of the point that some people are trying to make in this thread).

I understand the point. Some of what the Bible records is historically accurate; it would take a fool to deny this. But it would be just as foolish to deny that much of it is historically inaccurate, and I'm not just talking about the miraculous bits. I don't think it's good for people, in the long run, to believe things that are not true.