Who is Jesus to you?

a reply to: ltrz2025

I will interject here only to say that even archaeologists are arguing amongst themselves as to what they are unearthing and how to decipher what is Hebrew text and what is not. So there is that.

Garfinkel and Ganor believe that the pillared building, 15 meters (49 feet) long by 6 meters wide in the north of the city, was used as a royal storeroom. “It was in this building the kingdom stored taxes it received in the form of agricultural produce collected from the residents of the different villages in the Judean Shephelah,” they said. “Hundreds of large store jars were found at the site whose handles were stamped with an official seal as was customary in the Kingdom of Judah for centuries.”

However, Mazar’s conclusion is controversial. Archaeologists from Tel Aviv University contend that her overly literal reading of the biblical text skews her analysis of the archaeological record.

www.timesofisrael.com...#:~:text=Archaeologists%20say%20they%E2%80%99ve%20found%20one%20of%2 0King%20David%E2%80%99s,By%20Lazar%20Berman%2018%20July%202013%2C%203%3A58%20pm

and -

The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.

The “House of David” inscription had its skeptics, however, especially the so-called Biblical minimalists, who attempted to dismiss the “House of David” reading as implausible and even sensationalistic. In a famous BAR article, Philip Davies argued that the Hebrew term bytdwd referred to a specific place (akin to bytlhm for Bethlehem) rather than the ancestral dynasty of David. Such skepticism aside, however, most Biblical scholars and archaeologists readily accepted that the Tel Dan stela had supplied the first concrete proof of a historical King David from the Bible, making it one of the top Biblical archaeology discoveries reported in BAR.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

So if archaeologists can't come to any agreement on this subject shouldn't certain parties on this thread call it a stalemate?

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: ltrz2025

I could counter your facts with my own but I suspect I’d be wasting my time and yours.

Kinda hard to talk about historical and archaeological evidence with someone who rejects a priori the main technique "that historians use to research and write histories of the past" in order to pass it on to the next generation via school textbooks and history books (quoting from the wikipage on "Historical method"). "Secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology may all be drawn on, and the historian's skill lies in identifying these sources, evaluating their relative authority, and combining their testimony appropriately in order to construct an accurate and reliable picture of past events and environments." (same wikipage) And what are these primary and secondary sources? "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic." "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation or a document created by such a person." (from their relative wikipages)

So with that in mind, and now responding to someone who doesn't dismiss the main technique used by historians "to construct an accurate and reliable picture of past events" or isn't triggered by anyone daring to quote some basic facts from wikipedia... let's review some of the evidence as discussed by historians and archaeologists (archaeological or historical evidence, whatever you want to call it):

Chapter 4: How Believable Is the “Old Testament”? (The Bible—God's Word or Man's?)

...

... The New Encyclopædia Britannica answers: “Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts [the historical records in the earliest books of the Bible] are merely the reflection of a much later period.”

...

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Archaeology is a much more solidly based field of study than higher criticism. Archaeologists, by digging among the remains of past civilizations, have in many ways increased our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. Hence, it is not surprising that the archaeological record repeatedly harmonizes with what we read in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

...

Other Supporting Evidence

Indeed, many archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, the Bible reports that after King Solomon had taken over the kingship from his father, David, Israel enjoyed great prosperity. We read: “Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing.” (1 Kings 4:20) In support of this statement, we read: “Archaeological evidence reveals that there was a population explosion in Judah during and after the tenth century B.C. when the peace and prosperity David brought made it possible to build many new towns.”​[Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book, by Gaalyah Cornfeld, 1976, p. 99.]

Later on, Israel and Judah became two nations, and Israel conquered the neighboring land of Moab. At one time Moab, under King Mesha, revolted, and Israel formed an alliance with Judah and the neighboring kingdom of Edom to war against Moab. (2 Kings 3:4-27) Remarkably, in 1868 in Jordan, a stela (a carved stone slab) was discovered that was inscribed in the Moabite language with Mesha’s own account of this conflict.

Then, in the year 740 B.C.E., God allowed the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed by the Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:6-18) Speaking of the Bible account of this event, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments: “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But is it? She adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating.” [The Bible and Recent Archaeology, by Kathleen M. Kenyon, 1978, p. 97.]

Later still, the Bible tells us that Jerusalem under King Jehoiachin was besieged by the Babylonians and was defeated. This event is recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle, a cuneiform tablet discovered by archaeologists. On this, we read: “The king of Akkad [Babylon] . . . laid siege to the city of Judah (iahudu) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru.” Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon and imprisoned. But later, according to the Bible, he was released from prison and given an allowance of food. (2 Kings 24:8-15; 25:27-30) This is supported by administrative documents found in Babylon, which list the rations given to “Yaukîn, king of Judah.” [Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book, p. 177.]

Regarding the relationship between archaeology and the Bible’s historical accounts, Professor David Noel Freedman commented: “In general, however, archaeology has tended to support the historical validity of the biblical narrative. The broad chronological outline from the patriarchs to N[ew] T[estament] times correlates with archaeological data. . . . Future discoveries are likely to sustain the present moderate position that the biblical tradition is historically rooted, and faithfully transmitted, though it is not history in the critical or scientific sense.”

Then, regarding the efforts of higher critics to discredit the Bible, he says: “Attempted reconstructions of biblical history by modern scholars​—e.g., Wellhausen’s view that the patriarchal age was a reflex of the divided monarchy; or the rejection of the historicity of Moses and the exodus and consequent restructuring of Israelite history by Noth and his followers​—have not survived the archaeological data as well as the biblical narrative.”​ [The Bible in Modern Scholarship, edited by J. Philip Hyatt, 1956, p. 297.]

The Fall of Jericho

...

... We have to remember that while archaeology gives us a window to the past, it is not always a clear window. Sometimes it is decidedly murky. As one commentator noted: “Archaeological evidence is, unfortunately, fragmentary, and therefore limited.”​ [Biblical Archaeology Review, January/​February 1988, p. 54.] Especially is this true of the earlier periods of Israelite history, when archaeological evidence is not clear. Indeed, the evidence is even less clear at Jericho, since the site has been badly eroded.

The Limitations of Archaeology

...

So archaeology can be very helpful, but like any human endeavor, it is fallible. While we consider archaeological theories with interest, we should never view them as incontrovertible truth. If archaeologists interpret their findings in a way that contradicts the Bible, it should not automatically be assumed that the Bible is wrong and the archaeologists are right. Their interpretations have been known to change.

It is interesting to note that in 1981 Professor John J. Bimson looked again at the destruction of Jericho. He studied closely the fiery destruction of Jericho that took place​—according to Kathleen Kenyon—​in the middle of the 16th century B.C.E. According to him, not only did that destruction fit the Bible’s account of Joshua’s destruction of the city but the archaeological picture of Canaan as a whole fit perfectly with the Bible’s description of Canaan when the Israelites invaded. Hence, he suggests that the archaeological dating is wrong and proposes that this destruction really took place in the middle of the 15th century B.C.E., during Joshua’s lifetime. [Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by John J. Bimson, 1981, pp. 22-27, 110-115, 132-137; Biblical Archaeology Review, September/​October 1987, pp. 45, 46.]

The Bible Is Genuine History

This illustrates the fact that archaeologists often differ among themselves. It is not, then, surprising that some disagree with the Bible while others agree with it. Nevertheless, some scholars are coming to respect the historicity of the Bible in general, if not in every detail. William Foxwell Albright represented one school of thought when he wrote: “There has been a general return to appreciation of the accuracy, both in general sweep and in factual detail, of the religious history of Israel. . . . To sum up, we can now again treat the Bible from beginning to end as an authentic document of religious history.”​ [History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism, by William Foxwell Albright, 1964, pp. 294-296.]

In fact, the Bible in itself bears the stamp of accurate history. Events are linked to specific times and dates, unlike those of most ancient myths and legends. Many events recorded in the Bible are supported by inscriptions dating from those times. Where there is a difference between the Bible and some ancient inscription, the discrepancy can often be attributed to the ancient rulers’ distaste for recording their own defeats and their desire to magnify their successes.

Indeed, many of those ancient inscriptions are not history as much as they are official propaganda. In contrast, the Bible writers display a rare frankness. Major ancestral figures such as Moses and Aaron are revealed with all their weaknesses and strengths. Even the failings of the great king David are honestly revealed. The shortcomings of the nation as a whole are repeatedly exposed. This candor recommends the Hebrew Scriptures as truthful and reliable and lends weight to the words of Jesus, who, when praying to God, said: “Your word is truth.”​—John 17:17.

...

a reply to: quintessentone
That's what I've been explaining quintessence. Wasn't it clear?...

That there is NO REAL HARD EVIDENCE for the myth of Israel. And Jewish scholars themselves totally disagree with whatever it's found, even after 200 years of excavations and countless efforts to find at least 1 piece of conclusive evidence. That's all I've did, literally.

From a historical methodology point of view. There was no kingdom of Israel, at least until we find the conclusive evidence. That's how honest science works. Otherwise, every unverified myth has to be taking as true or potentially true?... It's irrational.

The people who have been "battling me", lol, are trying to forcedly push the idea that "Hebrew" was a thing, that the kingdom of Israel really existed, and all that blah blah, without having the hard evidence for such. Which is the same that the mass media does, as well as google, because they are pro-zionist, and anyone with a bit of knowledge knows how that works.

Best to you

PS: regarding the sources you used (Times of Biblical, and BiblicalArcheology), are clearly biased directly by their names, and they are well known pro-bible and pro-zionist propaganda sites. I advice you to look for more neutral and objective ones if you want to have a better view of the issue. I know it's hard, because those are the first type of results that Google always pushes on people.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I don't see it that way, the way I see it is that you have taken a position that no hard evidence exists and others have put forth what they believe to be hard evidence. STALEMATE!

a reply to: whereislogic

First, you don't understand how the field of History works. Historians don't "construct" any narrative. They simply hypothesise on the available evidence and hope for the best, and they disagree all the time in many things. There is no such thing as "an accurate and reliable view of the past", that's completely childish.

That being said, the OPINION (not evidence) you posted clearly comes from a non serious source. It starts saying that it will focus on archaeology, and the first thing he does is to start reading from the bible... typical move. Then it goes to the ridiculousness of claiming that the the Bible Is Genuine History, but that accepts the same time it's full of lies, myths and legends stolen from other places, and that somehow make the bible story "true". Clownish, at best. And it ends the text quoting christian teachings of John.... it's silly to consider this opinion as an objective and neutral source.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: ltrz2025

I don't see it that way, the way I see it is that you have taken a position that no hard evidence exists and others have put forth what they believe to be hard evidence. STALEMATE!

That there is NO HARD EVIDENCE for Israel is not my position. That's a historical fact. There are no artifacts which hard prove the existence of that fantasy land called Israel. You said it yourself one comment before when you understood that archaeologists don't agree on any of the evidence, and now you are contradicting yourself. Seems like you cannot differentiate facts from opinion.

It's simple, if there is hard evidence, present it. But there is none. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

a reply to: ltrz2025
What of the Jewish funerary inscriptions from Rome ?
www.livius.org...

Still not enough?
What will be enough?

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE?
www.britannica.com...

I have a feeling nothing will be enough.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: ltrz2025
What of the Jewish funerary inscriptions from Rome ?
www.livius.org...

Still not enough?
What will be enough?

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE?
www.britannica.com...

I have a feeling nothing will be enough.

Your feelings don't matter, what matter is the solidity of the evidence.

This type of sources/proof you present has been discarded as evidence for a long time. Again, there is no record of any "Israel", "Jewish", "Hebrew", in any of these Roman carvings. The Romans called them Syrian Palestinians, and they called the REGION by the name of Judaea, that was not a reference for a nation, but for an huge region that encompassed completely different groups.

I get you, you see the menorah and you immediately think that it's Jewish. Well no, the symbol you understand as "menorah" has been used in all the Middle East for a very long time and by very diverse cultures. The menorah is actually a representation of the tree of life associated with Asherah. Look in google images for: menorah + Asherah.

This type of thing actually points out in the direction that there was no kingdom of Israel, that there were no Hebrews and no "Jewish" people at that time. No special group with special beliefs. These elements, like the menorah, from mesopotamian and phoenician cultures, indicates that they were all Canaanites worshiping different deities from the pantheon of EL-ohim, the head god of the Canaanites.

We even have archaeological records of Yahweh (one of the children of EL) having Asherah as a wife... That's what these people, there and at that time, seemed to have believed according to the evidence we have. Evidence show that they were polytheistic and their gods were sons of other gods and married with each other. Just like all the rest of the Canaanites gods. Jewish scholars have been accepting this in mass the last 15 years....

a reply to: ltrz2025
This is clearly not about my Feelz, it is about yours.
Show me where the destruction of the temple in 70AD has been "discarded".
Show me where the THOUSANDS of Jewish funerary inscriptions from Rome during 300BC to 600AD have been debunked.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: ltrz2025
This is clearly not about my Feelz, it is about yours.
Show me where the destruction of the temple in 70AD has been "discarded".
Show me where the THOUSANDS of Jewish funerary inscriptions from Rome during 300BC to 600AD have been debunked.

If you want to be childish and make this about feelings, or try to make personal remarks, go ahead, but I won't participate.

- Did the Romans flatten Jerusalem? Yes, they did. But there is no hard archaeological evidence for the destruction of any Jewish temple, that's only a myth told in biblical accounts, that's the only "source" for it. And we know how many lies and stolen myths the the Bible has, not a reliable source at all.

- You claim that there are thousand of Jewish funerary inscriptions, when we have no evidence of anything being "Jewish", "Hebrew", or "Israelite" until way into the middle ages. You are the one claiming that the myths of the bible are all true, so you are the one who needs to present the hard evidence. If you read the thread you would know by now that there isn't any, it's all just misrepresentations and wishful thinking.

- I know you probably believe in your head that all these contradictive and ridiculous myths and legends are true. But that doesn't make it true. That's just wishful thinking. Try again.

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: ltrz2025

I don't see it that way, the way I see it is that you have taken a position that no hard evidence exists and others have put forth what they believe to be hard evidence. STALEMATE!

That there is NO HARD EVIDENCE for Israel is not my position. That's a historical fact. There are no artifacts which hard prove the existence of that fantasy land called Israel. You said it yourself one comment before when you understood that archaeologists don't agree on any of the evidence, and now you are contradicting yourself. Seems like you cannot differentiate facts from opinion.

It's simple, if there is hard evidence, present it. But there is none. None an opinion, just a fact.

Where there is disagreement amongst archaeologists on what they believe to be hard evidence of the existence of the Kingdom of Judah/David et al. from unearthen 'believed to be' Hebrew text some skeptics challenge their assessment of the deciphering of the text, but if you read the archeological sources, most of the archaeologists and scholars are in agreement that it was Hebrew text, and that it is in fact hard evidence that the Kingdom of Judah/David et al. existed.

I made no contradiction because while it is still a truth that some archaeologists argue on different ways of assessing the 'majority' believe the assessment of the Hebrew text to be evidence of said Kingdom.

This goes on all the time in archeology as was the case of 'Lucy' (Australopithecus) and when the found artifact goes very far back in time the assessment becomes complex. Can we believe the consensus of scholars and archaeologists in their assessments, I suppose that is what should be debated?

a reply to: ltrz2025

PS: regarding the sources you used (Times of Biblical, and BiblicalArcheology), are clearly biased directly by their names, and they are well known pro-bible and pro-zionist propaganda sites. I advice you to look for more neutral and objective ones if you want to have a better view of the issue. I know it's hard, because those are the first type of results that Google always pushes on people.

Do you mean the same source where the skeptics challenged the scientists' assessments?

a reply to: quintessentone

LOL. So, according to whatever ridiculous source you are reading, a "majority" of archaeologists "believe" some myth to be true? Allow me to doubt such a bullcrap. So sad to see that people get into this discussions with absolutely no intelectual honesty of any kind, pushing fallacies as arguments, lying as much as they can. Terrible condition of the human spirit....

- First, what people believe has absolutely no relevance as evidence of anything. These last three years the majority of the world also believed that the mRNA covid-19 clot shot was safe and effective, and here we are.

- Second, how do you calculate that a majority of archaeologists believe in something? Is there an election process at international level among all the archaeologists of the world that we are not aware of?... It's pure B.S. Moreover, the only thing that matters are the arguments. Science is not about "majorities", it doesn't even care about it.

The point here that you are trying to evade doesn't change:

THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR THE MYTHICAL KINGDOM OF ISRAEL ANYWHERE.

Sorry....

a reply to: ltrz2025

The source contains proven science, such as carbon dating 14, and the opinions of the scientists are not opinions but educated probabilities. What the problem seems to be is how to decipher/translate ancient text and it's historical context from what I can make out. These scientists make educated assessments, we, however, make the uneducated opinions, and that includes you too.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: ltrz2025
These scientists make educated assessments, we, however, make the uneducated opinions, and that includes you too.

You don't seem to understand it. I haven't expressed any opinion, and if I did, it would be irrelevant. For the 200th time:

THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR THE MYTHICAL KINGDOM OF ISRAEL ANYWHERE.

This is a historical fact. Sorry that you don't like it, that's life bro....

a reply to: ltrz2025

By taking that stand you have made an opinion, uneducated at that. And from my source it refers only to the Kingdom of David or the Kingdom of Judah, so your Kingdom of Israel stance isn't even on topic.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: ltrz2025

By taking that stand you have made an opinion, uneducated at that. And from my source it refers only to the Kingdom of David or the Kingdom of Judah, so your Kingdom of Israel stance isn't even on topic.

For stating a fact, I made an opinion?.... My dude, if your family ever spent a dollar in your education, you seriously should consider to ask for a reimbursement. It wasn't well spent. You clearly lost it.

The rest of what you wrote makes no sense, kingdom of Israel, of Judah, of David, is all part of the same mythological legend. Clearly you went into cognitive dissonance when I refuted your bullcrap about the "majority of archeologists beliving" in Santa Claus or the Kingdom of Israel...

Sounds exactly when they tell you that "a majority of scientists" believe that the mRNA poison is safe and effective... lol

Grow up, c'mon, you can do it...

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

Archaeological Discovery Points to King David as a Historical Person

According to the Bible, King David of Israel lived in the 11th century B.C.E. and his descendants ruled for hundreds of years. But some critics have argued that David is a myth, a tribal legend created much later. Was King David a real person?

In 1993, archaeologist Avraham Biran and his team discovered a stone fragment at Tel Dan, northern Israel, bearing an inscription that refers to the “House of David.” The inscription, in an ancient Semitic script, dates to the ninth century B.C.E. It was evidently part of a monument erected by the Aramaeans, boasting of victories over the Israelites.

An article in Bible History Daily states: “The ‘House of David’ inscription had its skeptics . . . However, most Biblical scholars and archaeologists readily accepted that the Tel Dan stela had supplied the first concrete proof of a historical King David from the Bible, making it one of the top Biblical archaeology discoveries reported in BAR [Biblical Archaeology Review].”

Archaeological Evidence Supports the Bible: Tattenai of the Persian Empire

Another Bit of Evidence

Is there archaeological evidence supporting the Bible record? In 2014 an article in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review addressed the question: “How many people in the Hebrew Bible have been confirmed archaeologically?” The answer given: “At least 50!” One man who did not make the list in that article was Tattenai. Who was he? Let us review his brief role in the Bible record.

...

To be sure, “Tattenai the governor of the region Beyond the River” merits only a footnote in history. Note, though, that the Scriptures mention him and apply to him exactly the right title. That fact gives us yet another bit of evidence that archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible’s historical accuracy.

The most numerous items found by archaeologists during excavations of ancient sites are potsherds, or broken pieces of pottery. These fragments of earthenware are also referred to as ostraca, from the Greek word for “shell, sherd.” Pottery fragments served as inexpensive writing materials in many places in the ancient Middle East, including Egypt and Mesopotamia. Ostraca were used for recording contracts, accounts, sales, and so forth, just as memo pads and sheets of paper are used today. Generally written with ink, the texts on ostraca varied from just one word to several dozen lines or columns.

Archaeological excavations in Israel have uncovered numerous ostraca from Biblical times. Three collections dating back to the seventh and eighth centuries B.C.E. are of special interest because they confirm various details of historical information found in the Bible. They are the Samaria ostraca, the Arad ostraca, and the Lachish ostraca. Let us take a closer look at each of these collections.

Ancient Records Confirm the Location of an Israelite Tribe

The Bible says that when the Israelites conquered the Promised Land and divided it among their tribes, ten clans of the tribe of Manasseh received tracts of land west of the Jordan, separate from the rest of the tribe. (Joshua 17:1-6) Is there archaeological evidence that this happened?

In 1910 a collection of pottery fragments inscribed with writing was unearthed in Samaria. These fragments, or ostraca, contained records written in Hebrew, which documented the delivery of luxury goods—including wine and cosmetic oil—to the royal palace of the capital city. Altogether, 102 ostraca were found, dated to the eighth century B.C.E., but only 63 are fully legible. Collectively, however, these 63 fragments reveal dates and the names of clans, as well as the identities of the senders and the recipients of the merchandise.

Significantly, all clans identified in the Samaria Ostraca belong to the tribe of Manasseh. According to the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, this provides “an extrabiblical link between the clans of Manasseh and the territory in which the Bible claims they settled.”

The Samaria Ostraca also verify the accuracy of the Bible writer Amos, who said regarding the rich people of that era: “They drink wine by the bowlful and anoint themselves with the choicest oils.” (Amos 6:1, 6) The Samaria Ostraca confirm that such items were indeed imported to the section of land that was inhabited by the ten clans of Manasseh.

Samaria was the capital of the ten-tribe northern kingdom of Israel until the city was overthrown by the Assyrians in 740 B.C.E. Commenting on the discovery in 1910 referred to above, the book Ancient Inscriptions​—Voices From the Biblical World says: “The 63 ostraca found in 1910 . . . [are] justly regarded as one of the most important bodies of epigraphic [written] material to survive from ancient Israel. This importance does not derive from the content of the Samaria ostraca . . . but rather from their extensive inventory of Israelite personal names, clan names and geographic designations.” How do these names confirm details in the Biblical record?

When the Israelites conquered the Promised Land and divided it among the tribes, the site of Samaria was located in the tribal territory of Manasseh. According to Joshua 17:1-6, ten clans of Manasseh, through his grandson Gilead, were allotted tracts of land in this area. They were Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, and Shemida. The sixth male, Hepher, had no grandsons but had five granddaughters​—Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah—​and each of them received a tract of land.​—Numbers 27:1-7.

The Samaria ostraca preserve seven of these clan names​—all five names of Gilead’s sons and two of Hepher’s granddaughters, Hoglah and Noah. “The clan names preserved on the Samaria Ostraca provide an extrabiblical link between the clans of Manasseh and the territory in which the Bible claims they settled,” notes the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, as quoted before but now the full sentence. Thus, this aspect of Israel’s early tribal history as described in the Bible is confirmed by these ostraca.

The Arad Ostraca

Arad was an ancient city located in the semiarid area called the Negeb, considerably south of Jerusalem. Excavations at Arad revealed six successive Israelite fortresses, from the time of Solomon’s kingship (1037-998 B.C.E.) down to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. The excavators recovered from Arad the largest collection of ostraca from Biblical times. It includes more than 200 inscribed objects in Hebrew, Aramaic, and other languages.

Some of the Arad ostraca confirm the Biblical information about priestly families. For example, one potsherd mentions “the sons of Korah,” referred to at Exodus 6:24 and Numbers 26:11. The superscriptions to Psalms 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, and Ps 88 specifically attribute these psalms to “the sons of Korah.” Other priestly families mentioned on the Arad ostraca are those of Pashhur and Meremoth.​—1 Chronicles 9:12; Ezra 8:33.

Consider another example. In the ruins of a fortress dated to the period just before the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, excavators found a potsherd addressed to the commander of the fort. According to the publication The Context of Scripture, it says in part: “To my lord Elyashib. May Yahweh [Jehovah] concern himself with your well-being. . . . As regards the matter concerning which you gave me orders: everything is fine now: he is staying in the temple of Yahweh.” Many scholars believe that the temple referred to is the temple in Jerusalem, originally built in the time of Solomon.

The Lachish Ostraca

The ancient fortress city of Lachish was located 27 miles [43 km] southwest of Jerusalem. During excavations in 1930, a batch of ostraca was found, and at least 12 pieces are letters described as “extremely important . . . for their illumination of the political situation and general turmoil as Judah prepared for the inevitable attack by [Babylonian King] Nebuchadnezzar.”

The most important letters are correspondence between a subordinate officer and Yaosh, probably the military commander at Lachish. The language of the letters resembles that used in the writings of the contemporary prophet Jeremiah. Consider how two of these letters support the Biblical description of that crucial time period.

At Jeremiah 34:7, the prophet describes the time “when the military forces of the king of Babylon were fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah that were left remaining, against Lachish and against Azekah; for they, the fortified cities, were the ones that remained over among the cities of Judah.” The author of one of the Lachish Letters seems to describe the same events. He writes: “We are watching for the [fire] signals of Lachish . . . , for we cannot see Azeqah.” Many scholars believe that this indicates that Azeqah, or Azekah, had fallen to the Babylonians and that Lachish was next to fall. An interesting detail in this text is the reference to “fire signals.” Jeremiah 6:1 also mentions the use of such means of communication.

Another Lachish Letter is believed to support what the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel say about efforts by the king of Judah to get support from Egypt in the revolt against Babylon. (Jeremiah 37:5-8; 46:25, 26; Ezekiel 17:15-17) The Lachish Letter says: “Now your servant has received the following information: General Konyahu son of Elnatan has moved south in order to enter Egypt.” Scholars generally interpret this action as an effort to obtain military assistance from Egypt.

The Lachish ostraca also mention a number of names found in the book of Jeremiah. They are Neriah, Jaazaniah, Gemariah, Elnathan, and Hoshaiah. (Jeremiah 32:12; 35:3; 36:10, 12; 42:1) Whether these names represent the same individuals cannot be known for certain. Inasmuch as Jeremiah lived during that period, however, the similarity is notable.

A Common Feature

The Samaria, Arad, and Lachish ostraca collections confirm a number of details recorded in the Bible. These include family names, geographic designations, and points regarding the religious and political climate of the times. There is an important feature, though, that is common to all three collections.

The letters found in the Arad and Lachish collections contain such phrases as “May Jehovah ask for your peace.” In seven of the Lachish messages, God’s name is mentioned a total of 11 times. Moreover, many Hebrew personal names found in all three collections contain the abbreviated form of the name Jehovah (these are called theophoric names, see last video). These ostraca thus confirm that the divine name enjoyed everyday usage among the Israelites of that time.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I see your last post as projection so look deeper at yourself and be free.

a reply to: whereislogic

LOL, the zionist propaganda is flowing hard now.

My dude, just to let you know, all the "evidence" you presented in your post has been challenged and some even refuted by Jewish scholars themselves. What you show is not really hard evidence, if you read closely you can see that they are just interpretations, things that allegedly "point towards" some theory and only for some people. Look into each thing you report, and you'll find the criticism and refutations in some cases, to each one of them. Interpretations are not evidence. Important things to differentiate.

The last 20 years, Jewish scholars themselves, have been destroying the bible myths inside and out. The wave is in the middle of the ocean, can't be stopped by now. They clearly showed how the Exodus was impossible, how Moses was a fictional character, how much of the Jewish mythology was stolen from Sumeria and Babylon, how there are two contradictive versions of Genesis in the bible itself, how the Bible worships the Canaanite head god called EL-ohim, etc. They exposed so many biblical lies, that no one in academia can take the bible seriously anymore. The bible was considered a valuable document for almost three centuries, when the Universities were mostly catholic or Christians institutions. But the developments of the last 80 years have proven that is a very unreliable document, full of lies and myths. The world has not woken up to that yet, but it will soon.

And these Jewish scholars did that because they are honest and valuable people, who face the facts, disregarding of their faith and their beliefs, or their political positions. Try, at least (I know it's difficult for you), to respect them a little bit...