Skip to comments.Deciphered etching sheds new light on Bible's origin
Posted on 01/10/2010 10:16:56 AM PST by NYer
Did the writing of the Bible begin as far back as the 10th century B.C.E., during the time of King David? That is four centuries earlier than Biblical scholars currently believe - but an inscription recently deciphered by a scholar at Haifa University indicates that for at least some books of the Bible, the answer may be yes.
The inscription, written in ink on clay, is the earliest yet found in Hebrew. It was discovered about 18 months ago in a dig at Khirbet Qeiyafa, near Emek Ha'ela. While it was quickly dated, its language remained uncertain until Prof. Gershon Galil was able to demonstrate that it was an early form of Hebrew - containing roots commonly found in Hebrew, but which are very rare in other Semitic languages.
The content, Galil said, "which relates to slaves, widows and orphans," is typical of the Biblical text, but reflects ideas virtually unheard of in the surrounding cultures.
Galil said this discovery disproves the current theory, which holds that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century B.C.E., because Hebrew writing did not exist until then.
Moreover, he added, the inscription was found in what was then a minor, outlying community - so if scribes existed even there, Hebrew writing was probably sufficiently well developed to handle a complex text like the Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
English translation of the deciphered text:
1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.
I’m not a scholar, however, any communication that replaces the traditional B.C. (before Christ) with B.C.E. (before current era) is suspiciously P.C(politically correct) to me.
Any time I see the letters BCE, I know it is coming from a Christian hating bigot. No other possible reason to use that term.
Not necessarily Christian-hating, it’s just what’s fashionable now in academia. People will take up the fashion without thinking, or because they are afraid of being censured.
Before the Current Era, makes no sense, because the current era is ‘anno domine’.
But then, academics are slaves to fashion...
At any rate the text is very interesting. I wonder what book of the Old Testament it is part of?
It’s very moving that the concern here is with the poor.
What's the problem? BCE just stands for "Before Christian Era." Or at least, so I tell anyone who is adamant about using BCE instead of BC!
There is one thing sure, if a man claims to be the Son of God, he is either a nut (and not just a prophet/philospher), or he is telling the truth. I choose to believe the latter so this origin/time nonsense is of no import to me.
Call me a bigot, eh? Look to the mirror!
What exact day and year was Jesus born, and what is your source for that?
Actually, I believe BCE stands for "before common era".
No, it stands for Before Christian Era, as I tell anyone who is adamant about the issue....
(Hint - It's a joke)
bce- before Christian era
Yes, I most certainly do call you a bigot. Actually that is a bit mild for what I really think of you.
There is no other possible reason for someone using that phrase. It is totally illogical to use BCE for any other reason other than a jab at Christ.
The reference to Hebrew is interesting, but there seems to be something overlooked here.
The King James or New International versions of the Bible were translated from prior languages. That doesn’t devalue the significance of the text.
Why couldn’t early Biblical texts have been written in a language that preceded Hebrew? Why is it important to refer to this as an early version of Hebrew?
It may have simply been an earlier language than Hebrew.
The article is from an Israeli paper -- Jews were using CE and BCE long before political correctness was ever heard of.
Academics have been using BCE instead of BC since at least the 1960s. “Before the Common Era” is intended a) to provide a name for that era that is acceptable to all users of the Gregorian calendar, who include adherents of most religions of the world, and b) to reflect the fact that it is a near certainty that Christ was NOT born in either the year 1 AD or the year 1 BC.
The dating of this inscription puts it at less than 300 years after Moses’ death, if you accept the Biblical chronology. I’m not sure why they have so much difficulty considering that the original was written in Moses’ time, as it says it was.
Awesome God, He has been alongside His creation faithfully all along!
The same way that CAF stands for "Commemorative Air Force".
In other words you don’t know the answer and are afraid to admit to ignorance. Great way to stay stupid!
Why so much difficulty? Because the ‘consensus’ of the scientific Biblical Scholars and archaeologist has been like the consensus of climatologists. At first the same personality driven hubris that inspired the research and scholarship translated into all-knowing overblown pronouncements as to how the Scriptures came to be. And once the field was established and the chairs endowed and departments furnished — it was all dogmatic politically empowering assertion of ‘well established’ facts. It was fiercely protective of its ‘intellectual property’ and aggressively shut down or fenced out all competition.
As an establishment, mostly German based, it showed absolute loathing for Jewish traditions as to the provenance of the Scriptures, despite the fact that the narrative and facts per those traditions were and remain highly fidelic, unchanged over thousands of years, and have always shown exacting levels of scholarship and continuity.
These secular, Christian and Catholic scholars developed a consensus history of when the Bible was written down that put it after the Jewish exiles to Babylon. That’s a thousand years after Moses.
It is the huge inertia of the intellectual establishment of Bible Scholarship that has made it difficult to consider challenges to the orthodoxy.
What I find interesting is the claim (implied) that King David court was illiterate. Writing had been around for thousands of years prior to King David so why would anyone think that the bible could only date back to 600 BC?
Interesting article thanks for posting it.
“These secular, Christian and Catholic scholars developed a consensus history of when the Bible was written down that put it after the Jewish exiles to Babylon. Thats a thousand years after Moses.”
That means they’ve devoted themselves to a document they believe is fictional. The Bible itself says when it was written. Must cause them some cognitive dissonance, to say the least.
Current theory, they say? What intellectually masturbatory academic rot-gut do these idiots consume, anyway?
Moses lived 1500 - 1300 BC. The finger of God inscribed the 10 Commandments and gave them to Moses. What language in the 14th Century BC does one logically suppose the 10 Commandments were written in to the HEBREW PEOPLE???
So just because modern scholars haven't found alot of 10th Century Hebrew writing on clay tablets in ink, it somehow didn't exist? Are they trying to say that Solomon didn't write his Proverbs nor Moses or David their Psalms? An inscribed ancient clay staff topper has been unearthed from the 1st Temple Period, belonging to what is believed to be a relic from the destroyed 1st temple. What language do you suppose it's inscribed in? Do I have to say any more?
I laugh at the sophomoric self-important "since I didn't find it it didn't happen" philosophical approach to archaeological academia. These pompous-assed pricks are far too "intelligent" to actually be smart.
...suspiciously P.C(politically correct) to me.
I suspect it has something to do with the Jews not recognizing their Messiah and the crusaders holding them left 1000 years after the fact accountable for Christ death
Ding ding ding! We have a winner..one with a brain!
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
The article is correctly dated Tevet 24, 5770 along with teh more recent January 10, 2010 dating, but though it's an interesting article, those who consider the use of BCE a demonstration of Israeli/Jewish Christian hatred should probably skip the thread. No point in aggravating yourselves.
There are manifold cognitive dissonances going on here. But that’s life too. It’s not meant to be a ‘gimmee’, a welfare state so to speak. It takes effort, there is no retirement, no pension seekers, no retirement lifestyles, no sinecures, no vacations.
The Biblical Scholars, however created one. An establishment. Intellectual property rights and rents. Sinecures, pensions, power, franchises.
Not to say that these kind of establishments — or vacations, pensions, intellectual property land rents and nobility classes are bad things. They can be good for a time for some, but they are easily corrupted, corrupting. It’s just something to watch for, to not get too sucked into.
It originated in 18th century Europe, in fact was used in the Encyclopedia Brittanica in that era. I doubt Jews were the impetus.
They have now!
I love the 1st Temple artifacts being discovered too. Hopefully the palestinians won't be successful destroying more of them.
“Any time I see the letters BCE, I know it is coming from a Christian hating bigot. No other possible reason to use that term.”
All it means is “Before the Christian Era”. Do I hate Christianity if I simply don’t regard its dating as definitive (Before Christ), but its historical emergence as too significant to ignore? The exact birth year of the child who later became known as “Christ” is not known, merely claimed. His date of death (AD) would have had to been a decade and a half later. If you are a Christian, you take that claim as authoritative, and all power to you. If you are not, you take that claim into account because that is the way that Christians date history, and Christians are too important to ignore, while at the same time registering a modicum of skepticism. “Hatred”? Lighten up. Come on.
Yes, a lot of these types of biblical scholars treat it as fictional. They treat it like they treat the Illiad.
This is a story from Haaretz which is an Israeli news agency. It is to be expected that an Israeli news agency would use BCE and CE rather than BC and AD.
It implies that YHvH was born in 0 AD. We all know YHvH created the universe and our time and space continuum. The fearful Day of YHvH will come at His second coming.
Do you know how blasphemous and ignorant anno domini is? shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
It implies that YHvH was born in 0 AD.
We all know YHvH created the universe and our time and space continuum.
The fearful Day of YHvH will come at His second coming.
Historically, it likely means Common Era, an offshoot of the older Vulgar Era terminology, which doesn't change the accuracy of your post.
Until people start checking which verse this is, they need to stop calling it scripture
Cuz I sure cant find any of this in my searches, not in this form at all. not in this order, not these verses.
No, it is a phrase that is about 20 years old that I know, and it is COMMON ERA
people left out Christian to avoid openly offending Christians. The first places I saw it printed were Archeologist magazines
touche, but I dont think they intended YEAR OF OUR LORD to mean that God the Father was born in year zero. :)
the dating thing dont make me angry, what gets me going is NO ONE found a verse in the OT that thiese passages correspond to!
That means it AINT the Word of God.
That’s true, but it was cited only as evidence of the existance of Hebrew. If the words were divinely inspired, that case remains to be made.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Iliad and the Odyssey were based on actual occurrences and actual people.
Perhaps there is confusion about whether there is ONE YHvH or three gods.
Another artifact of the Roman church from around 500 CE. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Perhaps there is confusion about whether there is ONE YHvH or three gods.
oh no it didn’t, read the very first line!
It completely says it is the Bible
btw, your posting isn’t the first time I seen this, all other articles said the same thing, they act like it’s the Bible just because it says nice things, only when you do a Bible search, none of that is in any recognizable order of any passage
You’re right, it does, and clearly doesn’t make the case. Or even attempt to link the sentiments.
When I was in the Seminary, I actually had a Priest as an instructor taht used that term. He wore a Tau cross, and rarely wore his collar, so that tells you which side of the aisle he voted for.