About the above -
I find it confusing so ought to correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual text posted (as opposed to the title) only says repeatedly that there were scribes at the time who 1. could write, 2. could write complicated things, 3. in the purported decipherment, seem to have been writing in Hebrew or related similar language and 4. wrote things in a style similar to the Judaic scriptures (Pentateuch and Prophets parts of the TeNaCH, I think). It doesn't seem to state anywhere that it's been proven that any part of the Judaic scriptures themselves existed at the time:
The following statement seems to cover that as well:
Besides, Professor Galil says "it is clear that [the inscription which they *have* found] is not copied from any biblical text" - which:
1. obviously means it is not biblical text (notwithstanding the christist Chindu paper's jubilant title. Chindu overreaches itself in its christian eagerness); and
2. implies they haven't found evidence of existence of any Jewish biblical text at that time, else they would have said so (and they wouldn't have required recourse to such data as is not directly/demonstrably related to the Judaic scriptures).
I find it confusing so ought to correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual text posted (as opposed to the title) only says repeatedly that there were scribes at the time who 1. could write, 2. could write complicated things, 3. in the purported decipherment, seem to have been writing in Hebrew or related similar language and 4. wrote things in a style similar to the Judaic scriptures (Pentateuch and Prophets parts of the TeNaCH, I think). It doesn't seem to state anywhere that it's been proven that any part of the Judaic scriptures themselves existed at the time:
Quote:ââ¬ÅIt can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BC [...] there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.ââ¬ÂThe article does not say they found actual contents from the Pentateuch or Prophets (Judges?) there, just that there were people in the region who were capable of writing such material - based on some non-quantified degree of similarity in style with the material people of the time *had* actually written.
The following statement seems to cover that as well:
Quote:He said that this inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.Again, I am still unable to read into this any implication of actual Judaic scripture being found to have been written at that early time: there's only purported demonstration of text whose style and content are reminiscent of the sort of text found in Judaic scripture, but not such scriptures themselves. How does this then become 'evidence' that the Thora was of that early time? They can't simply QED before showing us the intermediate steps.
Besides, Professor Galil says "it is clear that [the inscription which they *have* found] is not copied from any biblical text" - which:
1. obviously means it is not biblical text (notwithstanding the christist Chindu paper's jubilant title. Chindu overreaches itself in its christian eagerness); and
2. implies they haven't found evidence of existence of any Jewish biblical text at that time, else they would have said so (and they wouldn't have required recourse to such data as is not directly/demonstrably related to the Judaic scriptures).
Quote:He added that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.But how does it refute anything (unless there is more to be said on the matter than Prof. Galil has revealed in this interview)? To refute, they would still need to prove that the actual Jewish religious literature in question existed at that time. Else, all they've shown is that the text could possibly be older. (Of course, even were it so, it would not prove that the literature is fact - the truth or falsehood thereof being a separate matter: Ancientry of texts do not make them sources of complete historical or factual information. Nor does a historical setting to narratives prove the truth of the narratives themselves: e.g. the fact that an Egypt existed at the time a text purports to narrate about, does not prove Moses/Exodus. Separate issues.) However, even the geographical and monarchical data contained in some key parts of the Tenach are shown to be seriously suspect by archaeological discoveries in a recent decade - work which apparently draws question marks even over Jewish religious characters like David (in which case, Professor Galil cannot assume "the reign of King David" as if it were a universal given; unless he and his colleagues have found hard data in the interrim - but the Chindu report has made no reference to such).