Is the Bible a historical document?

[otokage007]

This is a wonderful example of quote-mining and unethical polemic. If one wishes to quote Athas, by all means do so, but include ...

​

otokage007 would do well to actually read and understand the authors he so casually enlists in his cause.

:/ I don't see your point here. He isn't claiming that David existed, he is even saying the Tel Dan inscription isn't a proof. He is just saying the same I said before.

Jay, do not let your dogmatic fanaticism cloud your thinking... or your ability to read.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From otokage007 ...

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning “House of David” is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism.

From Athas, Chapter 6; Textual analysis, page 193 ...

Fragment A: Translation

< -- snip -- >​

(A8) the king of Israel, and killed [him .................. kin-]
(A9) -g of Bayt-Dawid. And [the] name of [........................]

 

[otokage007]

From otokage007 ...

​

From Athas, Chapter 6; Textual analysis, page 193 ...

​

......... so?

 

[Willamena]

He isn't claiming that David existed, he is even saying the Tel Dan inscription isn't a proof. He is just saying the same I said before.

He said it's extremely likely.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

......... so?

So you're either offering as a relevant reference a person you hold to be an unprofessional Christian or you're unethically quote-mining sources about which you know virtually nothing ...

... or both.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, in summary, the man foolishly proclaims ...

According to most historians ... King David ... never existed.

and then pathetically asserts ...

Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning &#8220;House of David&#8221; is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism.

As evidence he offers, ...

... "The desire to read the letters bytdvd as house of david is ... a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence."&#8211; M. Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p129.

... "The author (of Tel Dan scripture) was not Hazael &#8211; it was his son, Bar Hadad ... The inscription has nothing to do with Jehu's coup and assassinations." &#8211; George Athas (University of Sidney &#8211; archaeologist and Christian.)

claiming (without embarrassment or support) that his beloved Sturgis is ...

A journalist specialized in historical and archaeological press.

while failing to note (and almost certainly failing to understand) that Athas

• translates the text as Bayt-Dawid, and
• claims that the Tel Dan Inscriptions increases the likelihood of David.

And then our somehat challenged otokage007 ends with what might be his first legitimate claim:

:/ I don't see your point here.

Clearly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Garfinkel, Yosef. “The Birth & Death of Biblical Minimalism” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2011, 46–53, 78.

Hardly had the minimalist argument been developed than it was profoundly undermined by an archaeological discovery. In 1993 and 1994, several fragments of an Aramaic stela were found at the long-running excavation of Tel Dan led by Avraham Biran of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. The historical references in the inscription and the paleography of the writing make it clear that it dates to the ninth century B.C.E. Moreover, the text specifically mentions a king of Israel and a king of the “House of David” (Hebrew, bytdwd ), that is, a king of the dynasty of David.

This discovery led to a reexamination of the well-known Mesha Stela, a contemporaneous Moabite inscription discovered more than a century ago. André Lemaire, a senior paleographer at the Sorbonne, identified in that text an additional reference to the House of David.b This was subsequently confirmed by another senior paleographer, Émile Puech of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem.

Thus, there is at least one, and possibly two, clear references to the dynasty of David in the ninth century B.C.E., only 100–120 years after his reign. This is clear evidence that David was indeed a historical figure and the founding father of a dynasty.

This led to the collapse of the minimalist paradigm in which David was little more than a myth. There was a David. He was a king. And he founded a dynasty.

The minimalists reacted in panic, leading to a number of suggestions that now seem ridiculous: The Hebrew bytdwd should be read not as the House of David, but as a place named betdwd, in parallel to the well-known place-name Ashdod.2 Other minimalist suggestions included “House of Uncle,” “House of Kettle” and “House of Beloved.”

Nowadays, arguments like these can be classified as displaying “paradigm-collapse trauma,” that is, literary compilations of groundless arguments, masquerading as scientific writing through footnotes, references and publication in professional journals.

Presumably otokage007 will simply denigrate Yosef Garfinkel as just another unprofessional Jew, thereby joining the ranks of Mazar, Finkelstein, Athas, and countless others - although it must be said that otokage007 was kind enough to make clear the Athas is a Christian.

 

[otokage007]

So you're either offering as a relevant reference a person you hold to be an unprofession Christian or you're unethically quote-mining sources about which you know virtually nothing ...

... or both.​

I will quote myself again: Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning &#8220;House of David&#8221; is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism. It is perfectly logical to translate this into a hundred different things.

I hold my position. And I won't answer your next post since it is nonsense as the 90% of what u have posted here. There's no proof David existed, I said myself that if you don't like the words "david never existed", you can change them by "there's not a proof that supports David existence". You can search for it on the internet or on the Alexandria's Library. You won't find any proof of your beloved David. So you can go on shouting and spitting nonsense. When u have something relevant to say, let us know.

 

[fallingblood]

I will quote myself again: Nowadays no historian or archeologist can claim that the BYTDWD inscription meaning “House of David” is "the most logical", unless that historian is a jew or a christian with little professionalism. It is perfectly logical to translate this into a hundred different things.

I hold my position. And I won't answer your next post since it is nonsense as the 90% of what u have posted here. There's no proof David existed, I said myself that if you don't like the words "david never existed", you can change them by "there's not a proof that supports David existence". You can search for it on the internet or on the Alexandria's Library. You won't find any any proof of your beloved David. So you can go on shouting and spitting nonsense. When u have something relevant to say, let us know.

But you haven't proven your claim. You can keep repeating it, but it means nothing at all unless you can prove it. And really, all you have shown is an ability to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.

I highly doubt you even know what most historians or scholars thinks. And to then to claim all that don't support your position are unprofessional shows a bias that is stupefying. I mean, if you're just going to ignore everything that doesn't agree with you, why even ask a question?

And again, you have once again conveniently ignored most of my argument. Such as showing that your claim about record keeping of Egyptians or Persians was simply wrong, or my statements about genres. You have only blindly said the same thing over and over again about the Tel Dan while not acknowledging anything that anyone else is saying. That isn't professional, and it suggests that you have no want for actual knowledge on this subject.

 

[otokage007]

But you haven't proven your claim. You can keep repeating it, but it means nothing at all unless you can prove it. And really, all you have shown is an ability to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.

Look, I proved my claim quoting some people and some sources. Then I challenged you to look for any evidence that supports David existence, and you guys have quoted some people that don't say "this is evidence", they don't even say "the most logical is to think they speak bout David". So? Again, no matter how much u want David to exist, the world doesn't work this way. The most u can say is "David may have existed". Well of course, I agree. There's no proof that he existed at all, but well, he may have existed. You can also think the tooth fairy may have existed, I will allways say you could be right. Being "could" and "may" the keywords here.

I highly doubt you even know what most historians or scholars thinks. And to then to claim all that don't support your position are unprofessional shows a bias that is stupefying. I mean, if you're just going to ignore everything that doesn't agree with you, why even ask a question?

Well, that doesn't apply since u have found no one that actually doesn't support my position. And yes, those who may not support it (u still have to find them), are, as far as I know, unprofessional, because evidence points towards the opposite.

And again, you have once again conveniently ignored most of my argument. Such as showing that your claim about record keeping of Egyptians or Persians was simply wrong, or my statements about genres. You have only blindly said the same thing over and over again about the Tel Dan while not acknowledging anything that anyone else is saying. That isn't professional, and it suggests that you have no want for actual knowledge on this subject.

When I ignore your argument is because, even if I don't agree with it, I could only answer "well ok". And I don't usually do it. But here u have: to everything I have not answered you, you can take this as the answer: "You think that way? Oh, ok." .... Happy now? :/

And I've already said that when I said "we know all pharaohs" I was speaking on a practical sense, since I'm aware that we don't know ALL PHAROHS that have been through history. It was just my way of speaking. I've even said sorry to you! :/

And it's you guys who are obsessed about Tel Dan, not me. You are saying "IT SAYS HOUSE OF DAVID!!!" and I'm saying "no, that's just YOUR interpretation, since none historian have said it says that, they have said that it could be translated into many other things".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And it's you guys who are obsessed about Tel Dan, not me. You are saying "IT SAYS HOUSE OF DAVID!!!" and I'm saying "no, that's just YOUR interpretation, since none historian have said it says that, they have said that it could be translated into many other things".

No, we are not obsessed with Tel Dan. We are disgusted with your ignorance, your vacuous claims, your pathetic ad hominem, and the general lack of integrity displayed by you throughout the interchange.

As for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, I tend to be - unlike you - very well read on the subject and, for what it's worth, very much a centrist with a good deal of respect for Finkelstein.

 

[otokage007]

No, we are not obsessed with Tel Dan. We are disgusted with your ignorance, your vacuous claims, your pathetic ad hominem, and the general lack of integrity displayed by you throughout the interchange.

As for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, I tend to be - unlike you - very well read on the subject and, for what it's worth, very much a centrist with a good deal of respect for Finkelstein.

 

[Pegg]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed. However, they all agree that Jesus was probably a real person.

As we all know, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of different books, written at different times, and with different genres. You can find documents that claim to be historical, documents that are apparently myths, poetry, prose... What is real and what not? Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text?

It is 100% historically accurate. Any historian who doubts the existence of the bible have not been keeping up to date with archeological discoveries. Some archeologists actually use the bible to help them locate ancient cites and t he bible has sometimes been the only source of information about an ancient ruler (ie Belshazzar of Babylon)

Do you think that only one part is real and the rest is fiction? Or perhaps you think that it is entirely a work of fiction set in a real time and real geographic place? And what are your bases to separate fact from fiction?

Comment!

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.”

You can take the bible as an historically accurate book spanning 1600 years of history...plus it even tells us about our own time by means of prophecies. It is timeless and 100% accurate.

 

[otokage007]

It is 100% historically accurate. Any historian who doubts the existence of the bible have not been keeping up to date with archeological discoveries. Some archeologists actually use the bible to help them locate ancient cites and t he bible has sometimes been the only source of information about an ancient ruler (ie Belshazzar of Babylon)



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.”

You can take the bible as an historically accurate book spanning 1600 years of history...plus it even tells us about our own time by means of prophecies. It is timeless and 100% accurate.

I see. Do you think that, for example, Adam and Eve are also historical characters?

 

[Pegg]

I see. Do you think that, for example, Adam and Eve are also historical characters?

of course.

the geneology of Adams son Seth leads to the Hebrew race

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

of course.

The discussion just went into the toilette ...

 

[Pegg]

The discussion just went into the toilette ...

you may not be willing to uphold Gods word, but I am...and I'll do it proudly.

 

[fallingblood]

Look, I proved my claim quoting some people and some sources. Then I challenged you to look for any evidence that supports David existence, and you guys have quoted some people that don't say "this is evidence", they don't even say "the most logical is to think they speak bout David". So? Again, no matter how much u want David to exist, the world doesn't work this way. The most u can say is "David may have existed". Well of course, I agree. There's no proof that he existed at all, but well, he may have existed. You can also think the tooth fairy may have existed, I will allways say you could be right. Being "could" and "may" the keywords here.

You provided a journalist. Then one of your supporting claims seems to have been wrong as Jay pointed out.


Now, lets get to the bear bones of this. You claimed that we should have seen writings about David in outside sources. But are you aware of what was happening in Egypt, and Mesopotamia during the time of David (those are the areas closest to Israel)? They were in decline. Really, during this period in which David is supposed to have lived, we simply only have meager records from Egypt and Mesopotamia. So really it isn't surprising that we see nothing from outside sources.

If we actually look at some scholars, we do see though that they agree (for the most part), that David existed, and that the Tel Dan does refer to him. We can look at Finkelstein, who if anyone was going to deny the historicity of David, he probably would be your man. But when he talks about the Tel Dan, he states clearly that it speaks of King David.

He also mentions that the scholar Andre Lemaire has also suggested that the we can find an mention of King David in the famous inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, in the ninth century B.C.E. As Finkelstein states: "the house of David was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of a figure named David becoming the founder of the dynasty of Judahite kings in Jerusalem. " (The Bible Unearthed, page 129)

And if wanted, many scholars can be named who follow this same line of thought. What you're proposing isn't the accepted view, it is a fringe view.

 

[otokage007]

If we actually look at some scholars, we do see though that they agree (for the most part), that David existed, and that the Tel Dan does refer to him. We can look at Finkelstein, who if anyone was going to deny the historicity of David, he probably would be your man. But when he talks about the Tel Dan, he states clearly that it speaks of King David.
And if wanted, many scholars can be named who follow this same line of thought. What you're proposing isn't the accepted view, it is a fringe view.

Oh I can also name some scholars, but I fear u won&#8217;t find many more than Finkelstein or Silberman with such claims. Here u have:

Dr. Francesca Stravakopoulou, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion, Exeter University. Studied Theology and religion in Oxford and Exeter. She currenty serves at the national Society for Old Testament Study and is a member of the European Association of Biblical Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature.

Her research is primarily focused on ancient Israelite and Judahite religions, and portrayals of the religious past in the Hebrew Bible. Her doctoral thesis explored the misrepresentation of the past in the Hebrew Bible and was published as King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (de Gruyter, 2004).

She has edited a volume on ancient Israelite and Judahite religions (with John Barton, University of Oxford) calledReligious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (T&T Clark, 2010) and another on environmental readings of biblical texts, called Ecological Hermeneutics (with her Exeter colleagues David Horrell, Cherryl Hunt and Chris Southgate; T&T Clark, 2010).

Alongside her specialism in ancient Israelite and Judahite religions, her research interests include history and ideology in the Hebrew Bible; methods of historical reconstruction; constructs of &#8216;popular&#8217; and &#8216;official&#8217; religion; and &#8216;secular&#8217; approaches to teaching and learning in biblical studies.

Francesca's media work includes presenting a three-part BBC documentary series about the Bible and archaeology, called Bible's Buried Secrets, broadcast in the UK on BBC 2 in March 2011, and 'talking head' contributions to various television documentaries. She also appears regularly on BBC1's debate show, The Big Questions, and has discussed biblical scholarship on several radio programmes.

Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou - Theology and Religion - University of Exeter

On The Big Questions &#8220;Is The Bible Still Relevant Today&#8221; program, she was asked by the presenter:

-Francesca somedy of you still study it, again and again, back to front. Is it fact? Is anything in there historical fact?
Her answer is quite clear: &#8220;Very little, probably [...] It wasn&#8217;t written to be a factual account of the past [...] As an historian of the Bible I think there&#8217;s very little that's factual.
She is then asked: King David?
-No
-Moses?
-No (everyone starts to laugh. Of course, they must be asking themselves: damn, is there something real on this book?)
-Somebody said Jesus behind me.
-Jesus most scholars would agree that he existed, yes.

It is quite an entertaining debate, here u have:
[youtube]plcTMwEnyOM[/youtube]
(1/4) Is The Bible Still Relevant Today - Richard Dawkins Debates - YouTube

Now I&#8217;ve been reading quite a lot on this topic because I see how important is the existence of David to religious people. Ironicly, I turned to Finkelstein and Silberman because well, it seems they are the only ones I have found that go so far as to claim categorically that David existed (I actually haven&#8217;t found any quotes of them saying this, but ok). If that&#8217;s the case, it is a great display of unprofessionalism due to the several translations that the famous stele has. Unprofessionalism that is quite shocking coming from this two people that claim that a large part of the Bible is historically wrong. But even if most archeologists said &#8220;ok it says House of David&#8221;, it&#8217;s still too little evidence to say King David and his biblical story are true.

But back to the point, David is supposedly the founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah. If some of the stories of David have a certain verisimilitude then they should be taken as records of actual events? A novel or a romance are also stories with a lot of verisimilitude, but we don&#8217;t believe them. Truth is the story of David can't be supported by the archeology, then why should this be accorded historicity?. After all, if the portrait of the kingdom of David and Solomon is a borrowing from the reality of the Omride kingdom, as Finkelstein says, then how can we know that David the bandit leader isn't also a borrowing from other bandit popular figures?. Is this story for real? Or is it as true as Robin Hood? And given that the greater part of the story of David is clearly fictional, how can we claim that we can identify some historicity in the bandit&#8217;s stories? Aren't Finkelstein and Silberman simply attempting to hold on to the biblical story of David?. Is Samuel an authority in the field of History?

But I can go on. Let&#8217;s talk about Saul. According to Samuel, Saul is from the tribe of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem. Unlike David, Saul hasn&#8217;t got a stele with (supposedly) his name on it; But Saul's land does get an independent attestation from another source, the record of the Pharaoh Sheshonq in the temple of Karnak, which speaks about his military campaign in Canaan.

According to the Bible, Sheshonq or Shishak (his biblical name) lived during the kingdom of king Rehoboam (Solomon's son) and he attacks Jerusalem and plunders its treasures. But surprisingly in Sheshonq's own accounts of the campaign, there's no mention of an attack on Jerusalem! not any plundering, not even any foray into Judah!. And well, archeology tells us that there was not much in Judah at that time that would warrant the attention of a Pharaoh. But what we do know, is that it seems that Sheshonq accounted a campaign against Benjamin, not David here but, supposedly, Saul. Finkelstein and Silberman speculate that behind the stories of David's struggle with Saul and further stories of David as a mercenary for the Philistines, might be a memory of a struggle between Judah and Benjamin, with Judah on the side of Egypt. The biblical narrative doesn't involve Egypt in the struggle between David, Saul and the Philistines. Finkelstein and Silberman say this is the effect of it being written at a later time when the power of Egypt had faded.

It appears that for a time in the 7th century BCE Judah ruled over the region of Benjamin and it seems there&#8217;s archeological evidence that supports a migration of refugees into Jerusalem from Benjamin. Finkelstein and Silberman speculate that the stories of David during that time were created for propaganda purposes, showing him striving at all times, always remaining loyal to Saul and being innocent of any involvement in the fall of the house of Saul.

But, appart from the Biblical narratives, in what are Finkelstein and Silberman basing their reconstruction? One Iron Age reference to Judah as House of _______, which could mean maybe David, maybe not. Analogous to Israel as House of Omri. And a 10th century Pharaoh's account in which there&#8217;s not a single mention of David or Jerusalem, and even if the Pharaoh plundered Benjamin, there&#8217;s not even a mention of Saul. But according to the Bible this campaign takes place during the life of David's grandson. So Finkelstein and Silberman can fill this vacuum with their own historicising midrash on the David-Saul story. This serves them to save some credibility of the Bible and, even if they found no evidence to state categorically that David existed, they know their speculations are enough to keep Saul and David within an orbit of the historical (unproffesional, at best). At the same time, Finkelstein can't save Solomon. There&#8217;s simply no place for him and there's no move this both historians can make to sustain an historical David&#8217;s son.

So did King David exist? No that we are aware of, so I would say probably not. When asked, Finkelstein and Silbeman can only answer: maybe, &#8220;possibly a bandit and maybe eventually a warlord with authority in Judah, possibly in the 9th century, from whom a subsequent dynasty in Jerusalem claimed descent. Of the origins of that dynasty and its kings we know nothing. Solomon? Rehoboam? No idea. Are the stories about David, transplanted stories of Omri? Are David and Omri mythical heroes from whom Palestinian monarchs claimed descent? Are they simply doing the same as the Caesars claiming they descent from the Gods?

So did Saul exist? Well perhaps in the 10th or 11th centuries BCE there was some Benjamin leader named Saul, perhaps. Only thing I can say, is that for all we know these both could be just versions of other heroes from stories that are now lost to us. What about Michal and Bathsheba and Samuel and Nathan and Uriah and Absalom and Tamar? All characters from a wonderful tales, creations of the storytellers, but history? Please. What about Jonathan? If there was al David, then he had a real Jonathan in his life?. Well we will never know, as there&#8217;s not a single proof that Jonathan existed to begin with.

of course. the geneology of Adams son Seth leads to the Hebrew race

So you think the Bible is 100% accurate on everything. Hmmm... Let&#8217;s say... What about the Earth being 6 thousand years old?

 

[fallingblood]

Oh I can also name some scholars, but I fear u won’t find many more than Finkelstein or Silberman with such claims. Here u have:

Dr. Francesca Stravakopoulou, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion, Exeter University. Studied Theology and religion in Oxford and Exeter. She currenty serves at the national Society for Old Testament Study and is a member of the European Association of Biblical Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature.

She is hardly an authority, and really, most of what she is known for, is controversial. She hardly symbolizes what mainstream scholars believe. She has been criticized for being more like an undergraduate student, then a serious scholar. So if that is all you have, you have basically nothing.

Here are some other scholars who agree that the Tel Dan is talking about David:
William Schniedewind: http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Schniedewind_files/Schniedewind_Tel_Dan_Stela.pdf

Here is a PBS documentary that also verifies that it talks about David: NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets As the documentary states, archeology confirms that he did exist, and most scholars accept that. Some of those scholars here would be William Dever, Michael Coogan, Ron Tappy, Kyle McCarter, John R. Branham, Eilat Mazar, Donald Redford, and the list goes on and on.

So I simply have to assume you haven't looked at most of the evidence on this subject.

Now I’ve been reading quite a lot on this topic because I see how important is the existence of David to religious people. Ironicly, I turned to Finkelstein and Silberman because well, it seems they are the only ones I have found that go so far as to claim categorically that David existed (I actually haven’t found any quotes of them saying this, but ok). If that’s the case, it is a great display of unprofessionalism due to the several translations that the famous stele has. Unprofessionalism that is quite shocking coming from this two people that claim that a large part of the Bible is historically wrong. But even if most archeologists said “ok it says House of David”, it’s still too little evidence to say King David and his biblical story are true.

Abraham and Moses are important to religious people as well. But scholars have no problem saying that they probably didn't exist. And really, Moses may be more important than King David. As for Finkelstein, I showed you a quote from his book. Plus, I gave you a source (as in the book I quoted). So you didn't look very hard.

Also, no one is saying that the Biblical story is true. We have been saying that David exists. And it isn't about unprofessionalism. It is about professionalism. To just write off anyone who disagrees with you as unprofessional shows that you simply have no experience in this field.

But, appart from the Biblical narratives, in what are Finkelstein and Silberman basing their reconstruction? One Iron Age reference to Judah as House of _______, which could mean maybe David, maybe not.

There is also the Mesha Stele, which you completely ignore. There is also other archeological finds (and really, there is probably much we haven't found for the simple reason that we can't dig there) that also support such ideas. Really, your statement here only shows one thing, you haven't done any credible research.

So you think the Bible is 100% accurate on everything. Hmmm... Let’s say... What about the Earth being 6 thousand years old?

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6 thousand years old. There are also creationists who push it back quite some time. And there are many more who simply admit that they don't fully know, as the Bible does not make a definite statement about it.






Finally, I have made it very clear why we don't see sources outside the Bible. Because we shouldn't expect them. The empires around Israel were declining. The records we do have are sparse anyway. So why should we expect anything? The problem with a lot of people is that they simply don't realize that we are talking about ancient cultures. They didn't keep records like we do today.