Israeli archaeologists expose the myth of the Old Testament.

[moon]

Did you know that there was no such name as ' David ' when 'David' was supposed to have had a kingdom ?
The nearest name to it is a word meaning ' Uncle '.

' This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people – and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story – now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells. '

Ze’ev Herzog and the historicity of the Bible - Noah Kennedy

Explore Noah Kennedy's discussion with Dr. Ze'ev Herzog on the historicity of biblical stories. Gain insights from a distinguished Israeli archaeologist

noahkennedy.net

 

[Knuckles Neanderthal]

I call bullshit.

The article is 9 years old and contains zero facts and is based on an article written 25 years ago.

 

[Walt]

The disagreement is how the Jewish people started to be in the area, not that they were in the area from 1,000 BCE to 70 AD... And then again starting in the 1900's.

 

[Cypress]

the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells. '

I don't know any established poster here who thinks the Hebrew bible is a completely accurate rendering of history.

The Hebrew Bible is a collection of stories, poetry, religious law, literature, and only peppered with some historical data points.

Archeological data from the 12th century BC prove the Egyptians knew about a people from the Levant called the Israelites.

Archeological data from the 9th century BC in Tel Dan proves people in ancient Israel knew there was a house of David.

Jerusalem in the time of David was probably just a small, fortified town. But since the regional neighbors of the Israelites in the early first temple period included Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, I am not going to begrudge the Israelites from considering themselves a "regional" power within the trans-Jordan area. They obviously knew they were not the equal of Assyria.

 

[moon]

I don't know any established poster here who thinks the Hebrew bible is a completely accurate rendering of history.

The Hebrew Bible is a collection of stories, poetry, religious law, literature, and only peppered with some historical data points.

Archeological data from the 12th century BC prove the Egyptians knew about a people from the Levant called the Israelites.

Archeological data from the 9th century BC in Tel Dan proves people in ancient Israel knew there was a house of David.

Jerusalem in the time of David was probably just a small, fortified town. But since the regional neighbors of the Israelites in the early first temple period included Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, I am not going to begrudge the Israelites from considering themselves a "regional" power within the trans-Jordan area. They obviously knew they were not the equal of Assyria.

Your own waffle carries the same weight as any other philosemitic myth-maker.