50 people in the Hebrew Bible also in archaeology

[Peter Kirby]

BAR has a list going:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... logically/

Some entries may be a bit tendentious (e.g., David).

[Blood]

Good resource. It appears most of them come from the Book of Kings. None from the Pentateuch. Sorry Ken Ham.

[Blood]

Here is how it breaks down, from highest to lowest:

2 Kings - 26 references
Jeremiah - 7
1 Kings - 6
2 Chron - 2
Nehemiah - 2
Ezra - 2
1 Samuel - 1 (David)
1 Chron - 1
Isaiah - 1
Daniel - 1
Esther - 1

[semiopen2]

I discussed the historical kings of Judah and Israel in a recent FRDB King David thread. I think four are mentioned from Judah and one or two more than four from Israel.

There is also a List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

I haven't seen much academic opinion on this, but it suggests that there was some kind of relatively accurate source listing them, which the later writers (like 2Kings and Chronicles) were able to copy.

The succession of the Kings_of_Judah (figuring the list becomes historical at some point) is interesting. Were these guys all related to David (or whoever the founder actually was) son after father (ben akhar ben)? The wiki says they were.

My initial guess is "no" because it's hard to believe this could happen in an area that was politically unstable. That might imply that the new king was given the ben soandso as a title when he took over. I don't think the historical references deal with the King's actual father.

[andrewcriddle]

I discussed the historical kings of Judah and Israel in a recent FRDB King David thread. I think four are mentioned from Judah and one or two more than four from Israel.

There is also a List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

I haven't seen much academic opinion on this, but it suggests that there was some kind of relatively accurate source listing them, which the later writers (like 2Kings and Chronicles) were able to copy.

The succession of the Kings_of_Judah (figuring the list becomes historical at some point) is interesting. Were these guys all related to David (or whoever the founder actually was) son after father (ben akhar ben)? The wiki says they were.

My initial guess is "no" because it's hard to believe this could happen in an area that was politically unstable. That might imply that the new king was given the ben soandso as a title when he took over. I don't think the historical references deal with the King's actual father.

There is possibly a special issue as to whether Jehoash (who as a seven year old replaced Queen Athaliah following a coup) was really the son of Ahaziah having survived as a baby the massacre of all his brothers.

Andrew Criddle

[Mental flatliner]

BAR has a list going:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... logically/

Some entries may be a bit tendentious (e.g., David).

Missing from their list:

Abraham
Anak
Naphtali
Issachar

(All named in Egyptian execration texts dating to the 18th century BC. Job is also mentioned, but since Job was not 1600 years old when he was immortalized in his book, I assume it's a different guy.)

Source: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament

**************
I just thought of it: "Aziru" in the Amarna letters is the "Sisera" of Judges. The timing of the "Aziru" letters are all within only 2-3 years of the timing of Deborah and Barak, and the descriptions of Aziru's advance into Canaan match that of Sisera into Canaan.

Source: Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters

[nili]

Please forgive what might be a naive question, but is the 'confirmation' seen as surprising or controversial?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing on that list is surprising or controversial except David, which is a little strained.

Notice that Solomon is not on the list. He should have made one of the biggest marks, yet his kingdom appears to be non-existent in the archaeology. So does his name. We can't even confirm that there was really a first Temple.

[nili]

Nothing on that list is surprising or controversial except David, which is a little strained.

I understand your comment regarding Solomon, but why do you consider the Tel Dan reference strained?

[semiopen]

Nothing on that list is surprising or controversial except David, which is a little strained.

I understand your comment regarding Solomon, but why do you consider the Tel Dan reference strained?

I don't completely understand this myself but "bytdvd" which looks like the house of David, does have some technical problems. Finkelstein thinks it means house of David which would usually be good enough for me, but the objections are better than that portrayed in the popular press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ATel_Dan_Stele

George Athas says BYTDWD should not be understood as a dynastic name ('House of David'), but as another name for Jerusalem, comparable to (YR-DWD (City of David).[1]. If we are serious about a good article, why aren't we using (besides Lemche's article) sources such as The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction by George Athas,and more Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Diogenes probably described the situation well, if a little cryptically.