10 ms·

The exact dates quoted in popular science articles are typically not what you find in scientific papers. There you have a lot of data points and discussions of

The exact dates quoted in popular science articles are typically not what you find in scientific papers. There you have a lot of data points and discussions of confidence intervals, etc. To address your pottery example: Indeed, if we had dated only one shard, we could not conclude much from it. If instead we had 10,000 shards over the whole area of a city and find that they suddenly stop at a certain date, we can be fairly sure that this date is very close to the destruction of this city. The general problem with biblical archaeology is that it is particularly susceptible to dogmatically motivated biases. During my studies in Heidelberg in the 1990s, I also took a few courses in this field. I never met an archaeologist at the entire university who even remotely believed in the existence of king David, let alone Solomon, Saul or even Joshua or Moses. However, when I visited Israel with a group of students, we were proudly presented with artifacts from these "empires" in some kibbutz museums. We or our professors did not directly object, of course, but smiled politely, just like in the churches where we were allowed to admire the miraculous icons.

sndman 4y ago
> susceptible to dogmatically motivated biases. Indeed. And it's not just biblical archaeology. The Israeli government influence and corruption extends to most academics. When the Israeli academy is under control, a government can carefully construct its own history and when there is evidence of historical religious claims, well then, one can even reclaim ancient lands. Also, a government can also confiscate land and open up a theme part based on this "research". Don't laugh. Ever hear of City of David? This distrust of Israeli "historians" and it's treatment of Ilan Pappe even started the modern BDS movement https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/11/tantura-teddy-katz-and-haifa-university/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/11/tantura-teddy-katz-a...
- dogma1138 4y ago
  I know that it’s likely throwaway account but every comment it made is about Israel…
  - sndman 4y ago
    When there is an article about Israeli researchers delving into the history of the land they have stolen, I pay attention because my family was ethnically cleansed from this land in 1948 because we were not Jewish. We were part of over 750,000 Natives exiled from their land, dispossessed and exiled. And not allowed to return. Israeli citizens are not aware of their shameful past (ethnic cleansing, massacres, looting, and rapes) that took place in 1947-1949.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jjcon 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - sndman 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - sndman 4y ago
    Oy Ye! Which comment was antisemitic? Is any criticism of Israel now antisemitism? "A nation that doesn't know its past, has a dull present and a future shrouded in fog" --Yigal Alon
    - jjcon 4y ago
      Your entire post history is obsessed with criticizing Jews and Israel - you can shroud your antisemitism as “just politics bro” but it’s not a good look regardless. HN isn’t the place to peddle your hate.
Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
As an archeologist, what is your take on Jesus ? i have a suspicion that scholars have a massive dogmatic bias when they claim that historical Jesus existed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory am i the only one who keeps reading that scholars claim that no serious scholar thinks Jesus is a myth without producing a shred of evidence other than mythical gospels and other Christian sources? as an atheist i have no skin in the game whatsoever. i simply try to apply Occam's razor and will always always follow Sagan standard.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  It would be far more surprising if there were extensive documentation of someone the Romans thought of as "a random cultist who was convicted of heresy" than that the only surviving records of the historical Jesus were from his followers.
  - jhawk28 4y ago
    What about Josephus?
    - geoduck14 4y ago
      I'm curious why people are so quick to dismis evidence of Jesus as contained in the gospels. From POV, we have between 4 and 6 (depending on your cannon) different people that record first hand records of Jesus. And it turns out that these same people were passionate followers of Jesus. What other response would you expect from someone who actually knew someone who actually died and was brought back to life?
      - defrost 4y ago
        [flagged]
        trump_exists 4y ago
wisemanwillhear 4y ago
They may not be in the majority, but there are some dissenting opinions within academia. https://www.centuries.co.uk/ https://www.centuries.co.uk/
stephenhuey 4y ago
Sounds like this German university was a little behind in the 1990s: "If you were a rising young archaeologist in the 1970s, you were skeptical of stories about Jewish kings. The ascendant critical school in biblical scholarship, sometimes known by the general name "minimalism," was making a strong case that there was no united Israelite monarchy around 1000 B.C." From this article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-re... For a long time, people dismissed the idea that Vikings made it to the Americas ahead of Columbus. That changed in the 1960s: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-method-shows-vikings-occupied-newfoundland-in-1021-ce-180978903/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-met... It was laughable until it wasn't. I could point out similar discoveries that have been made about the history of American peoples before Columbus arrived that 19th scholars would have found unbelievable. In the same way, many places mentioned in the Bible were laughed away by scholars until archeology started digging up lots of finds in the 20th century. Sure, plenty of people are biased before they start digging, but it's similar to when you know there's buried treasure in the vicinity so it helps narrow down your search. A lot of discoveries in archeology, science or whatever are made when people have something specific in mind that they're looking for before they even start exploring, and when they discover something, no amount of hand waving makes the discovery untrue. :)
- wefarrell 4y ago
  The Smithsonian article that you link to provides no evidence for the existence of Solomon, David, or a united Israelite kingdom. It only posits that a neighboring people became wealthy by extracting copper and were involved in complex trade despite no evidence of permanent structures.
- coliveira 4y ago
  Even to this day (50 years after the minimalist school you mention) there are still NO archeological findings from famous biblical kings such as David and Solomon (let's not even considering the rest of the story before them). No exodus, no judges. From the point of view of archeology, Israel was never a unified territory and became what we know after the Babylonian captivity period.
ffssffss 4y ago
This is all accurate (well the technical bits, I don't know much about biblical history or its historicity) however I will make one maddening correction: archeologists conventionally use the word "sherd" (short for "potsherd") when referring to broken pieces of ceramic artifacts. The word "shard" has an almost identical meaning, except that it connotes some sharpness, and is not exclusive to ceramics as "sherd" is.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. As a non-native speaker of English, I am thankful for this correction. I sometimes miss such distinctions in my active vocabulary, even if I encountered the spelling before. (And there are this more embarassing mistakes regarding "belief"/"believe" and "live"/"life", that slip into my writing nevertheless sometimes.)
yyyk 4y ago
>I never met an archaeologist at the entire university who even remotely believed in the existence of king David, let alone Solomon, Saul or even Joshua or Moses. However, when I visited Israel with a group of students... This seems to change by university. Had you for example visited Tel-Aviv university (site of Finkelstein et. all) you would have likely gotten a different vibe.

sndman 4y ago

> susceptible to dogmatically motivated biases. Indeed. And it's not just biblical archaeology. The Israeli government influence and corruption extends to most academics. When the Israeli academy is under control, a government can carefully construct its own history and when there is evidence of historical religious claims, well then, one can even reclaim ancient lands. Also, a government can also confiscate land and open up a theme part based on this "research". Don't laugh. Ever hear of City of David? This distrust of Israeli "historians" and it's treatment of Ilan Pappe even started the modern BDS movement https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/11/tantura-teddy-katz-and-haifa-university/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/11/tantura-teddy-katz-a...

dogma1138 4y ago
I know that it’s likely throwaway account but every comment it made is about Israel…
- sndman 4y ago
  When there is an article about Israeli researchers delving into the history of the land they have stolen, I pay attention because my family was ethnically cleansed from this land in 1948 because we were not Jewish. We were part of over 750,000 Natives exiled from their land, dispossessed and exiled. And not allowed to return. Israeli citizens are not aware of their shameful past (ethnic cleansing, massacres, looting, and rapes) that took place in 1947-1949.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jjcon 4y ago
[flagged]
- sndman 4y ago
  [flagged]
- sndman 4y ago
  Oy Ye! Which comment was antisemitic? Is any criticism of Israel now antisemitism? "A nation that doesn't know its past, has a dull present and a future shrouded in fog" --Yigal Alon
  - jjcon 4y ago
    Your entire post history is obsessed with criticizing Jews and Israel - you can shroud your antisemitism as “just politics bro” but it’s not a good look regardless. HN isn’t the place to peddle your hate.

Galaxeblaffer 4y ago

As an archeologist, what is your take on Jesus ? i have a suspicion that scholars have a massive dogmatic bias when they claim that historical Jesus existed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory am i the only one who keeps reading that scholars claim that no serious scholar thinks Jesus is a myth without producing a shred of evidence other than mythical gospels and other Christian sources? as an atheist i have no skin in the game whatsoever. i simply try to apply Occam's razor and will always always follow Sagan standard.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
It would be far more surprising if there were extensive documentation of someone the Romans thought of as "a random cultist who was convicted of heresy" than that the only surviving records of the historical Jesus were from his followers.
- jhawk28 4y ago
  What about Josephus?
  - geoduck14 4y ago
    I'm curious why people are so quick to dismis evidence of Jesus as contained in the gospels. From POV, we have between 4 and 6 (depending on your cannon) different people that record first hand records of Jesus. And it turns out that these same people were passionate followers of Jesus. What other response would you expect from someone who actually knew someone who actually died and was brought back to life?
    - defrost 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - trump_exists 4y ago

wisemanwillhear 4y ago

They may not be in the majority, but there are some dissenting opinions within academia. https://www.centuries.co.uk/ https://www.centuries.co.uk/

stephenhuey 4y ago

Sounds like this German university was a little behind in the 1990s: "If you were a rising young archaeologist in the 1970s, you were skeptical of stories about Jewish kings. The ascendant critical school in biblical scholarship, sometimes known by the general name "minimalism," was making a strong case that there was no united Israelite monarchy around 1000 B.C." From this article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-re... For a long time, people dismissed the idea that Vikings made it to the Americas ahead of Columbus. That changed in the 1960s: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-method-shows-vikings-occupied-newfoundland-in-1021-ce-180978903/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-met... It was laughable until it wasn't. I could point out similar discoveries that have been made about the history of American peoples before Columbus arrived that 19th scholars would have found unbelievable. In the same way, many places mentioned in the Bible were laughed away by scholars until archeology started digging up lots of finds in the 20th century. Sure, plenty of people are biased before they start digging, but it's similar to when you know there's buried treasure in the vicinity so it helps narrow down your search. A lot of discoveries in archeology, science or whatever are made when people have something specific in mind that they're looking for before they even start exploring, and when they discover something, no amount of hand waving makes the discovery untrue. :)

wefarrell 4y ago
The Smithsonian article that you link to provides no evidence for the existence of Solomon, David, or a united Israelite kingdom. It only posits that a neighboring people became wealthy by extracting copper and were involved in complex trade despite no evidence of permanent structures.
coliveira 4y ago
Even to this day (50 years after the minimalist school you mention) there are still NO archeological findings from famous biblical kings such as David and Solomon (let's not even considering the rest of the story before them). No exodus, no judges. From the point of view of archeology, Israel was never a unified territory and became what we know after the Babylonian captivity period.

ffssffss 4y ago

This is all accurate (well the technical bits, I don't know much about biblical history or its historicity) however I will make one maddening correction: archeologists conventionally use the word "sherd" (short for "potsherd") when referring to broken pieces of ceramic artifacts. The word "shard" has an almost identical meaning, except that it connotes some sharpness, and is not exclusive to ceramics as "sherd" is.

Archelaos 4y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. As a non-native speaker of English, I am thankful for this correction. I sometimes miss such distinctions in my active vocabulary, even if I encountered the spelling before. (And there are this more embarassing mistakes regarding "belief"/"believe" and "live"/"life", that slip into my writing nevertheless sometimes.)

yyyk 4y ago

>I never met an archaeologist at the entire university who even remotely believed in the existence of king David, let alone Solomon, Saul or even Joshua or Moses. However, when I visited Israel with a group of students... This seems to change by university. Had you for example visited Tel-Aviv university (site of Finkelstein et. all) you would have likely gotten a different vibe.