Hebrew Warrior 900BC

[Todd Feinman]

Wow. Just Wow. I suppose a thread like this is inevitable now and again. Okay, logging off now.

[Alan Hepworth]

The only significant change (besides changes in spelling) Was to Remove the books of Apocrypha. (not sure about that spelling. Which are not scripture. So While you are Right The KJV has been changed, Gods word has not been added to or subtracted from. God promised his word while abide forever. and it has and will.

now As for giants. (although we are continually getting more off topic) numbers 13:32-33 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through
which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;
and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we
saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our
own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deutoronomy 9:1-2 Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations
greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven, 2 A people
great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou
hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!

Genisis 6:3-4 And the
LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet
his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in
those days.

Deutoronomy 2:10-11
The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and
many, and tall, as the Anakims; 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the
Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

Deutoronomy 2:19-21 And when thou comest
nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with
them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession;
because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. 20 (That also was
accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites
call them Zamzummims; 21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in
their stead:

Deutoronomy 3:10-11
All the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salchah
and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 11 For only Og king of Bashan
remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is
it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

2 samuel 15-17
Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and
his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16
And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear
weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new
sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured
him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto
him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the
light of Israel.

The occurrence of giants is not an isolated event in the bible.

The word Giant occurs twenty times in scripture.

And what I asked was, What Kind of Shields would a hebrew warrior carry. I am leaning towards round domed with a spiked boss. What do yall think. also it says in the goliath account that he "had a target on his back in the midst of his shoulders. what peice of armor is a target, I thought it was a kind of shield.

[boris_]

I will take a moment to speak as an Orthodox Jew. There are many ways to understand the bible. (The Jewish tradition has many, I subscribe to a rational one that (and this is omitting many complicated details) discounts scientific impossibilities unless they are clearly states to be miraculous). Religious interpretation of the bible are a reglious topic, not a historical one. The bible is not a history book. It is none the less a helpful document for historical study, in this case the detailed description of Goliath's armor is quit handy. Again, the Bible is NOT a history book.

Alan, why must the target resemble a modern circular target? can you cite the passage so I can look at it when I take a look at the Hebrew for the others (and bug my professors who I took my college Bible classes with)

[Alan Hepworth]

1 samuel 17:6-7 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs,
and a target of brass between his shoulders. 7 And the staff of his spear was like a
weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one
bearing a shield went before him.

1 kings 10:16-17 16 And king Solomon
made two hundred targets of beaten gold: six hundred shekels of gold went to one
target. 17 And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pound of gold
went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon.

2 chronicles 14:8
And Asa had an army of men that bare targets and spears,
out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bare shields and
drew bows, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were mighty men of
valour.


I was wondering what the target was. Also I am leaning towards the circular domed shield because that is the shield the muslim warriors used. and it was used by the assyrians. and I dont have a better idea. so I am asking for better ideas.

[Dan Howard]

Here is a decent summary of the problems with the KJV, written by an expert in theology and biblical studies. He even says that he believes that the Bible "is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life."
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not- ... able-today

It is just not possible to use a translation for this kind of study. One of the first things that history students learn is that you have to look at the original passages in their original languages.

[MJBlazek]

ok, can I say how rediculous it woudl be to make a shield out of gold?
Gold is a VERY soft metal. It wouldn't be protective.

I am sayign this in the calmest, friendliest voice I can think of, coupled with a big smile.
From this point on I say do whatever you want.
You ask for help to be more historical, but then you argue that the historians are wrong.

Circular, square, oval, whatever you want man. The sky is your limit on this. If it were me, I woudl probably go with circular too, but I don't know or think that it is necessarily correct.

[Dan Howard]

I was wondering what the target was. Also I am leaning towards the circular domed shield because that is the shield the muslim warriors used. and it was used by the assyrians. and I dont have a better idea. so I am asking for better ideas.

There were no muslim warriors during that time; Muhammad wouldn't be born for another fifteen hundred years. You should be less worried about the shape of your shield and more worried about where you are going to get a mail shirt made of brass.

[Alan Hepworth]

If you look it was for a palace guard. and a temple guard. if you read on in the passage it makes it clear it was for ceremoniula use only. in which case a gold shield is great. i agree useless in combat. but not for combat.

Also that "good" article Mr Howard Was utter hogwash. Unsupported, he did not cite a single source. God promised us his word would abide. And I believe in faith that it abides in the KJV (in english anyway)

if you want to bash a bible version How about the NIV? http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

[Dan Howard]

All biblical translations have problems. I only picked on the KJV because you fail to acknowledge the problems with that particiular version.

[Alan Hepworth]

I am aware of the fact that muslims where not around assyrians where. and also I have decided to use leather armor. it is cheaper. and also period.

[Dan Howard]

You can't use leather armour. It isn't mentioned in the bible.

[Alan Hepworth]

Thats true. but it is also not excuded. and archeology tells us that it was the poor mans armor of the time. And I am a poor man.

[Dan Howard]

The occurrence of giants is not an isolated event in the bible.

The word Giant occurs twenty times in scripture.

That certainly explains how they could ride these.

[Dan Howard]

Thats true. but it is also not excuded. and archeology tells us that it was the poor mans armor of the time. And I am a poor man.

Poor men didn't wear leather armour. Poor men wore no armour.

[Alan Hepworth]

It does not contradict. Nowhere does the bible say "no warrior of the Hebrews wore leather armor at any time." So in this I am free to reference archeology. And yes riding dinosaurs is a distinct possibility. and kind of fun to think about.

[MJBlazek]

O.o The absence of evidence is not the evidence of possibility.
The existence of evidence is the foundation of possibility.

AND THERE IS NO WAY PEOPLE RODE DINOSAURS.

[Dan Howard]

The Book of Genesis posits a world that's only several thousand years old. We know that dinosaurs existed and so they must have been created ex nihilo, by god, along with humans and all the other animals. So if humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time it is reasonable to conclude that some of them might have been ridden by humans. I had problems picturing how the really big dinosaurs could have been used as mounts but the existence of a biblical race of giants solves that problem too. So archaeologists and paleontologists put away your shovels and trowels. Do away with your fruitless digging. Dispense with geology and astronomy. Take up the good book and all will be well.

[MJBlazek]

*uncontrollable giggling*

[Matthew Amt]

Awright, guys, quit sniping at him. You run the risk of ridiculing Christians in general, which some of us might object to. If you think he's silly, then why not stay on the moral high ground, eh?

Alan, I think we're going to have to let you do your own thing, not sure how much help we can be beyond this point. Except to point out that there *isn't any* leather armor from archeology from Biblical times, except possibly for King Tut's leather scale armor--and that certainly didn't belong to a poor man. There are definitely literary references to leather armor, but none that I recall say that it was used by poor men, only by pretty wealthy warriors. Though I confess I don't know the Bible well enough to say whether leather armor is specifically mentioned there.

Good luck!

Matthew

[Alan Hepworth]

I have been having a ball matthew. As for Blaze I would advise yall to look into the Ica stones from Ica peru. http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -the-rest/ Quickest link I could find to a picture. For better pictures Just search, "Ica Stones Dinosaurs"



And I woud like to thank yall for the advise. It has been extremely helpful. And I appreciate it. (the debate was Very fun also) Also some of the stuff yall popped out with had me in stiches.

[MJBlazek]

Interesting link. But fairly well debunked. Good luck on your quest to a better kit though!

[Alan Hepworth]

Thank yall again. And I did not ike that link either I just wanted the picture of the rock. and could not get it by itself.

[Todd Feinman]

Awright, guys, quit sniping at him. You run the risk of ridiculing Christians in general, which some of us might object to. If you think he's silly, then why not stay on the moral high ground, eh?

Alan, I think we're going to have to let you do your own thing, not sure how much help we can be beyond this point. Except to point out that there *isn't any* leather armor from archeology from Biblical times, except possibly for King Tut's leather scale armor--and that certainly didn't belong to a poor man. There are definitely literary references to leather armor, but none that I recall say that it was used by poor men, only by pretty wealthy warriors. Though I confess I don't know the Bible well enough to say whether leather armor is specifically mentioned there.

Good luck!

Matthew

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18468-f ... -i-did-not
Totally, Matt. In the end we're all just people.

[Konstantin the Red]

Why is a person a "bad Christian" if they don't believe that the ible is the literal word of god? If archaeology contradicts something in the ible, why is a person a "bad Christian" if they are inclined to believe the archaeology over the book?

All this being in a way my point, Dan. If indirectly.

. . . and also I have decided to use leather armor. It is cheaper.

Might be cheaper than sheet bronze, foot for foot -- and have you been by a Tandy recently? Might only want to go there day after payday.

[RandallMoffett]

still cheaper than brass from what I have seen.... not sure what the heck happened but you almost need a loan now to get a good sized sheet of brass. Only a decade ago I could get a sheet for 1/3 of what it is now.

RPM

[Alan Hepworth]

I have not been by a tannery I intend to cure my own rawhide. Thus it is MUCH cheaper then bronze. Leather is free. I can get raw hides form any butcher.

[Dan Howard]

What little we know about armour of the time suggests that it was made from rawhide, not tanned leather. Save yourself a lot of trouble and do the same.

[Todd Feinman]

Yeah! And don't use the white boiled stuff used for dog chews --you want the translucent to transparent brown hides. Scales have to be to pretty specific tolerances --elk hide can be the right thickness. A little to thin and it is useless. About 1.75 to 2 mm or so seems best. I'd paint the surface of each scale rust red with milk paint, and then shellac and oil, or just oil each with safflower oil with a little beeswax. Over time your scales will "cure".
Need to think about a hole pattern and whether or not you want horizontal overlap...

[Iacobos]

My advice to you would be to make the scales from the leather as noted above and then use an outdoor copper colored spray paint to make them look like hammered bronze. That's what I use for my Spartan kit and it works perfectly. Before you dive headfirst into this undertaking keep in mind that you will almost certainly have to make your own helmet or have one custom made for you with a face grill attached for SCA heavy fighting. Find out how much your helm will be before you decide to take on this persona. Finally, in order to do this persona properly you must utilize archaeological sources outside of the bible. Believing that the bible is the word of God (as I do) and believing that it is a how to manual on your SCA kit (which I don't) are two very different things. Don't take any of this as personal offense, I like that you are doing a non traditional persona but it isn't from a culture that gives us very much to work with archaeologically.

[ushumgal]

I don't have any training in Hebrew - I've just looked up lexicions but apparently the word "mail" in biblical translations really just means "armour". One word that is used is shiryan, which just means "armour". I think it is derived from the same source as the Arraphian sariam and Assyrian siriyâm. Then there is zonowth which I think refers to military equipment in general, not just armour. Apparently the word qasqeseth is used a few times to describe fish scales and once in Samuel 17:5 to specifically refer to scale armour.

Dan hit the nail on the head - you can't trust translations. Akkadian texts also rarely differentiate types of armor (except for the small pectoral breastplate, which was called an irtu - they generally just called them all "armor" (siriam or sariam – which interestingly enough appears to be a loanword from a non-Semitic language – or halluptu, which literally means “covering” - LU2.ḫalluptišunu means "armorer" ).

Also, remember that at the time the KJV was translated, there were many obscure Hebrew word the meaning of which was simply not known (e.g. Joseph's fancy garment, which was translated as a "coat" in the KJV), so the translators had to guess. I don’t mean to disrespect peoples' religious beliefs, but if you want to have anything whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, you have to deal with these issues. Believing they don’t exist won’t make them go away.

We see here earlierHis armour was made of bronze, not brass. AFAIK no copper alloy armour has been identified as being made of brass until the Roman period. "Mail" has been incorrectly associated with any kind of metal armour since before the Victorian period. During the time in question solid plate cuirasses have been found in the archaeological record and so has scale armour so Goliath could have been wearing either, but scale seems more likely IMO. in Samuel 17 Another refrence to "mail" and it says made of brass, so probaly scale . I think it is safe to say scale armour. We see this supported by history in what we know the other nations wore. the Assyrians, even right in to the Romans.

Again, we have terminology issues. Even the ancient languages were sometimes vague on the specific metals they referred to – in Akkadian, bronze objects were sometimes called “copper” (presumably it had a poetic sound to it), and vice versa. So even the term used in the source should be taken with a grain of salt. In any case, Dan again nailed it. No brass. In the early 1st Millennium BC, you would have either pure copper, or more likely some variety of bronze – either arsenic bronze (possibly naturally occurring) or tin bronze (certainly deliberately made). The Ulu Burun ship from the Late Bronze Age carried copper and bronze ingots in roughly the correct proportions for making the most common type of bronze – ca. 90% copper to 10% tin.

Also the Textus Receptus is the inspired word in the original languages. but knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is not necessary for a proper and correct understanding of The Word.

Understanding “the Word” is a metaphysical issue, and you are welcome to believe that God inspired the translators to preserve the meaning. But were are not here to debate metaphysics, but to discuss details about objects in use at the time, and for that, the original text is of the first importance. I have seen plenty of older translations of Mesopotamian texts where they use the word “mail” to refer to the armor, when true mail was not invented until centuries later. Also consider that some objects in use during Biblical times (however you define those) were long out of use by the time the KJV was translated, so there were no words for them. How do you translate something when you don’t have a word for it? Generally, if you actually understand the original word, you pick the closest approximation that your language has. It may work to convey a general meaning, but it can only mislead you when it comes to the details.

I have been having a ball matthew. As for Blaze I would advise yall to look into the Ica stones from Ica peru. http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -the-rest/ Quickest link I could find to a picture. For better pictures Just search, "Ica Stones Dinosaurs"

Well known and thoroughly debunked hoax.

Iacobos is right, you’re trying to do a persona from a very, very poorly documented era (both archaeologically and textually). Good luck with it, but if you take my advice, if you want to do an ancient Near Eastern persona, do an Assyrian! There is a HUGE amount of primary texts and archaeological finds to work with, and basically they were just brimming over with awesome.

[Dan Howard]

In the early 1st Millennium BC, you would have either pure copper, or more likely some variety of bronze – either arsenic bronze (possibly naturally occurring)

Probably naturally occurring. The local ores have been analysed and they have a similar arsenic content as the artefacts.