3 ms·

> A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered

by wl 5y ago

> A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered the fertile crescent, and everyone knew that empire never existed. > And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire. You're conflating the Assyrians and the Hittites. The Assyrians were well known from sources other than the Hebrew Bible before the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform and modern archeology. Even then, Archibald Sayce's 1876 identification of the Biblical Hittites with the Hittite Empire of Anatolia remains problematic today. You're also drawing up a bit of a strawman of pre-19th century scholars—the problem of the Biblical Hittites never seems to have been more than a minor curiosity for those arguing over the value of the Hebrew Bible as a historical work. Also, if you're going invoke Sennacherib's Annals to compare with the Biblical accounts, actually compare them. Briefly, the Hebrew Bible has Hezekiah paying heavy tribute (though not as heavy as in the Annals) to Sennacherib so he won't attack, Sennacherib lays siege anyway, and then divine forces destroy Sennacherib's army.

tomohawk 5y ago
The Hittites are another example of almost the same thing. The Bible was the only source of information about them. Some people said the Bible was making things up. Archeology has now confirmed that the Hittites existed. For Assyria, there was only textual evidence in the Bible, and some Greek manuscripts. The Greeks even say they are not sure Assyria existed as there were no ruins to point at. All the other textual evidence was based on the Bible and Greek sources. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm The excavations of the 19th century are often called a 'rediscovery'. The Assyrian and Biblical accounts are not contradictory. The Assyrian account merely leaves off the humiliation of not actually capturing and killing Hezekiah as Sennacherib intended. How that failure occured is not mentioned in the Assyrian account, which is fairly normal for defeats and failings. After Assyria withdrew, Hezekiah had a tunnel built to supply water to Jerusalem. You can see that tunnel today, and the Hebrew inscription.
- wl 5y ago
  The Assyrian Empire is documented in, among other works, Herodotus's Histories and Book II of Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca Historica, two of the most influential histories written in classical antiquity. To dismiss the these sources as merely "some Greek manuscripts" is misleading. Also, at that point, any pre-19th century debate about the historicity of the Assyrian empire is no longer just a quarrel with the Hebrew Bible, but a wider skepticism of numerous ancient and independent sources. I don't think you can provide an ancient Greek source that is skeptical about the existence of the Assyrian empire. There's a quote from Lucian's satirical dialog Charon that people try to use to for that, but I don't think it works. In the dialog, Hermes notes there's no trace of Nineveh left, suggesting Babylon would soon share the same fate. Never mind that at the time Lucian wrote that (2nd century AD), Nineveh was still standing and inhabited. Nowhere does Hermes suggest Nineveh never existed. As for Sennacherib's Annals, the similarities are: * Jerusalem was under siege but was never taken. * Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib. * Sennacherib returned to Nineveh after the siege instead of continuing his campaign. The differences: * The Hebrew Bible has the Assyrian army being defeated by an "angel of Yahweh" killing 185,000 soldiers in an unqualified defeat. The Annals have Hezekiah abandoned by his mercenary and allied armies. Then, Hezekiah is overwhelmed by Assyrian power and pays the tribute to end things. He submits as a vassal. * The Bible has Sennacherib treacherously continue his attack after being given tribute. The Annals have the Tribute ending the siege. * The tribute the Annals record is much larger than in the Bible, including 200,150 people, uncountable livestock, in addition to the aforementioned gold and more than double the silver mentioned in the Bible. Both accounts are royal propaganda and need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to say what really happened outside of where they agree. Outside of the conflicting accounts, the siege of Jerusalem comes around the time that Babylon again went into rebellion. That seems to explain the end of Sennacherib's campaign better than an overwhelming defeat by a minor vassal king.

by wl 5y ago

tomohawk 5y ago

The Hittites are another example of almost the same thing. The Bible was the only source of information about them. Some people said the Bible was making things up. Archeology has now confirmed that the Hittites existed. For Assyria, there was only textual evidence in the Bible, and some Greek manuscripts. The Greeks even say they are not sure Assyria existed as there were no ruins to point at. All the other textual evidence was based on the Bible and Greek sources. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm The excavations of the 19th century are often called a 'rediscovery'. The Assyrian and Biblical accounts are not contradictory. The Assyrian account merely leaves off the humiliation of not actually capturing and killing Hezekiah as Sennacherib intended. How that failure occured is not mentioned in the Assyrian account, which is fairly normal for defeats and failings. After Assyria withdrew, Hezekiah had a tunnel built to supply water to Jerusalem. You can see that tunnel today, and the Hebrew inscription.

wl 5y ago
The Assyrian Empire is documented in, among other works, Herodotus's Histories and Book II of Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca Historica, two of the most influential histories written in classical antiquity. To dismiss the these sources as merely "some Greek manuscripts" is misleading. Also, at that point, any pre-19th century debate about the historicity of the Assyrian empire is no longer just a quarrel with the Hebrew Bible, but a wider skepticism of numerous ancient and independent sources. I don't think you can provide an ancient Greek source that is skeptical about the existence of the Assyrian empire. There's a quote from Lucian's satirical dialog Charon that people try to use to for that, but I don't think it works. In the dialog, Hermes notes there's no trace of Nineveh left, suggesting Babylon would soon share the same fate. Never mind that at the time Lucian wrote that (2nd century AD), Nineveh was still standing and inhabited. Nowhere does Hermes suggest Nineveh never existed. As for Sennacherib's Annals, the similarities are: * Jerusalem was under siege but was never taken. * Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib. * Sennacherib returned to Nineveh after the siege instead of continuing his campaign. The differences: * The Hebrew Bible has the Assyrian army being defeated by an "angel of Yahweh" killing 185,000 soldiers in an unqualified defeat. The Annals have Hezekiah abandoned by his mercenary and allied armies. Then, Hezekiah is overwhelmed by Assyrian power and pays the tribute to end things. He submits as a vassal. * The Bible has Sennacherib treacherously continue his attack after being given tribute. The Annals have the Tribute ending the siege. * The tribute the Annals record is much larger than in the Bible, including 200,150 people, uncountable livestock, in addition to the aforementioned gold and more than double the silver mentioned in the Bible. Both accounts are royal propaganda and need to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to say what really happened outside of where they agree. Outside of the conflicting accounts, the siege of Jerusalem comes around the time that Babylon again went into rebellion. That seems to explain the end of Sennacherib's campaign better than an overwhelming defeat by a minor vassal king.