Monday, 18 January 2010

Old Testament Likely Older Than Higher Critics Thought

Just yesterday in a sermon (yes, I'm on holidays, but a friend asked me to preach in his congregation while he was preaching elsewhere, not enough pastors to go around!) I mentioned how many archaeological discoveries of the 2oth century have served to confirm Biblical accounts of events. Now this morning the following report came across the wires (well wirelessly, actually!) to the old manse: Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing, an inscription on a piece of pottery dating from the 10th century B.C., the period of King David's reign.



Until now, higher critics speculated that Hebrew did not exist in written form prior to the 6th century BC but was an oral tongue only. Now that this early form of Hebrew (Is it written in Canaanite script? I'm not sure, but see the report, where they say it is Hebrew) has turned up on a potsherd, echoing several Biblical texts, that theory will be subject to revision. Another higher critical dogma bites the dust? Looks likely.

Click on the post title to read the full report from 'Live Science'.

6 comments:

Matthias said...

and what would be even better wouldbe if there was found a shard from the era of the Babylonian or Persian empire containing the words of the prophet Daniel,or around the time of hezekiah containing the words of the later chapters ofIsaiah-would put the pseudo isaiah stuff to bed and stop people from linking Daniel to the Hasmonean times

acroamaticus said...

One thing we can be sure of, Matthias, there are many interesting artifacts just waiting to be unearthed, and credit to the Israelis for the extensive work they are continuing to do. Are you familiar with the 'Archaeological Study Bible'? I recommend it for getting an accessible perspective on archaeology and the Bible.

Matthias said...

No i am not and will try to get a copy of it from BSA in Blackburn-just down the road. The Australian Institute of archaeology often has some good stuff as well

Schütz said...

Don't hold your breath re Daniel, Matthias. All the historical evidence so far available makes the late dating of Daniel pretty certain - not to mention its actual contents. Recognising the late dating of Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah actually help us in the right understanding these texts in their proper context.

And speaking of "old things", Mark, is your "new Old Manse" as old as the one you left?

acroamaticus said...

Well, David, "old" is a relative term, isn't it? It certainly isn't as old as my previous dwelling, but I'm not of a mind to change my blog title again.

acroamaticus said...

This comment is a bit late, but the more I think about it, David, the more I think your comment re Daniel and Isaiah reveals much more than you intended about where you have been and why you are presently where you are. One day we must discuss your attitude to scripture.