A fellow, a biblical researcher, was on the radio (Adler Online, for those who tune into it) a few weeks ago saying that King David never existed and at that time, Jerusalem only had mud huts. Apparently, he was wrong. The archaeologist who made the find thinks it's King David's palace, but at least it shows major architectural works in Jerusalem at that period.
Some Sort of 10th Century BC Structure Found in Jerusalem
by the_classicist 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JCanon
WOW! THANKS SO MUCH!!! for this article!!! Wonderful!!!
But the anti-Biblicalists are totally ridiculous such as Finkelstein quoted trying to claim Jerusalem was nothing but some small tribes...
Archaeologists debate "to what extent Jerusalem was an important city or even a city in the time of David and Samuel," he said. "Some believe it was tiny and the kingdom unimportant." The site of ancient Jerusalem, stuck between two valleys on a ridge south of the Temple Mount, is very small, less than 10 acres.
Israel Finkelstein, another renowned archaeologist, has suggested that without significant evidence, Jerusalem in this period was "perhaps not more than a typical hill-country village."
Now, we can dismiss this as nonsense since Shishak who invaded Israel during the 39th year of Solomon which was the 5th year of Jeroboam, lists a whole line of fortified cities he conquered that were important enough to brag about! Does that sound like "typical hill-country village"? Of course not. During the United Kingdom Period Solomon was over all those cities. Thus Shishak's inscriptions proves this was a significantly developed area, whether or not the remains of it have been discovered or left for archaeologists to debate over.
Shishak's inscription reflects precisely the state of Israel and Judah at the end of Solomon's reign, a kingdom of many fortified cities not smiply "villages".
But admittedly part of the problem is the poor dating. Up until now, few have taken the reduction of 82 years of fake Persian history seriously which would reduce Solomon's reign down to 910-870BCE, closer to when the archaeologists are saying Jerusalem was more adequately developed. If they are comparing a defective timeline due to revisionism then of course they are going to find contradictions. So maybe for the time period they are claiming it was just small villiages coming out of the Judges Period, but by the time of Solomon great works were being done which they acknowledge appeared later during the time of Omri but not as early as Solomon. When you down-date Solomon by 60 years though, the archaeology and history from the Bible match up just perfectly, including the many cities Shishak mentions in his inscription.
Thanks again for the update! One day they will correct the timeline and find so much archaeology supporting the Bible they will have no choice but to accept reality.
JC
-
The Chuckler
Well David had to put his army of 1.1million men somewhere (1 Chronicles 21:5).
-
peacefulpete
The article was briefly touched on last week. Did you happen to notice who's funding the dig? An antiPalestinian Jewish radical who specifiically wants to find something to refute the prevailing conclusions that the 'united monarchy' of the OT is legend. While any finding is welcome in our efforts to reconstruct the past, so far the date and identification of the present discovery is very very speculative. Let's watch as the politics play out and see if they continue the dig.
-
peacefulpete
Here's an article that reviews what has been found throught the past 100 years od excavation:David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality
-
JCanon
As I mentioned before, this is all "straw man" arguments since Shishak establishes the state of Israel during his day and invasion. You don't list cities conquered and brag about conquering them unless they were significant. These are the cities of the time of Solomon (39th year, 5th of Rehoboam). So we don't have to worry about what they haven't found to confirm this.
Keep in mind that many times, when destroying or rebuilding cities, some builders often stole stones and other materials from other cities to use as fill or even material for rebuilding another place. So if some city had some great near-by materials and they were taken, you are not going to find the usual archaeological history for that site.
In the meantime, we have a record of an Egyptian king who listed many fortified cities of importance that was conquered which establishes the true state of development of the region at the time of Solomon. Jerusalem as it's capital could not have been some obscure city if it was the capital of all these other cities indicating a rather well-developed united monarchy at the time.
So anti-Biblical archaeologists want to claim "there is no evidence" but the Biblicalists point to Shishak and note that he conquered many cities in a highly developed region consistent with an account the Bible relates.
Now to deal with this, the anti-Solomonists want to claim that "Shishak" was really Rameses II or some later king who invades during a later time, but there is too much chronology now that establishes othewise. Shishak is Sheshonq I and when applied it proves the region was as developed as the Bible claims.
The anti-Solomonists may have their doubts, but they can't shout this too loudly because of Shishak's testimony. It's not a critical issue, therefore. There is evidence that confirms the state of the united monarchy during the time of Solomon, thanks to Shishak!
JC
-
peacefulpete
What is remarkable is that the list of cities/villages conquered or subjegated by Shoshenq does not include Jerusalem yet countless commentators insist it proves Jerusalem was a powerful city in the 10th century. Very odd if the inscription is to be intepreted as including Judah and Jerusalem is understood as the center and Capitol of Judah and quite at odds with the OT story where Shishak (if he is to be identified as Shoshenq 1, there were at least 5 pharoahs and a number of administrative officials named Shoshenq) plundered the palace and temple. In reality the century and a half old reading that interpreted the 29th name on the list, "y-w-d-h-m-l-k" as `Iouda-ha-malek' - "kingdom of Judah" has been corrected to read as "Yadhamelek," meaning 'the Monument of the King;' which is a monument in northern Israel and not of the King of Judah. At present all available evidence tells a consistent story, Jerusalem at the reputed time of the legendary David was in fact not a city at all. It was a fortified post with no citizenry. Judah (or what would become Judah) was largely an unimportant scattering of very small city states and villages. Israel was on the other hand much more developed. OT writers used a blend of history and legend to recreate a propagandistic past that actually never happened as written. Naturally some elements reflect historical powers and conflict.
Here's another link, this one deals specifically with the inscription. Notice the last line.: Egyptian military campaigns - Shoshenk
-
the_classicist
What is remarkable is that the list of cities/villages conquered or subjegated by Shoshenq does not include Jerusalem yet countless commentators insist it proves Jerusalem was a powerful city in the 10th century.
The link says that Shoshenq's (never heard of the guy until recently) inscriptions of conqeusts are partly destroyed so it may be in there.
At present all available evidence tells a consistent story, Jerusalem at the reputed time of the legendary David was in fact not a city at all. ; It was a fortified post with no citizenry. ;Judah (or what would become Judah) was largely an unimportant scattering of very small city states and villages. ; Israel was on the other hand much more developed. ; ; ; ; ; ;OT writers used a blend of history and legend to recreate a propagandistic past that actually never happened as written. ; Naturally some elements reflect historical powers and conflict.
I believe there is no archaeological evidence either way, until we found that building, which is believed to be a civic office. The problem about archaeological digs in Jerusalem is that the city is so built up. layer after layer, that it would be almost impossible to find anything. Take Troy as an example, we'd still be diggin at the top of Troy now (Troy IX or VIII) if we went by modern archaeological methods, but because Schleimann was reckless and dug a trench straight down, we know about all the other layers.
The fact that most modernists consider David to be legendary is because no archaeological evidence has been found yet, and as I highlighted, it would be quite difficult to find such in a highly built up city (and plus, they aren't likely to destroy the older buildings already there just to look for archaeological evidence).
-
Leolaia
Here are some random thoughts:
Even if there was no full-fleged Iron I city at Jerusalem, that does not mean it wasn't an important site. The original core of the city appears to have been a temple or shrine and a fortress (the "citadel of David", cf. the Stepped-Stone structure which could correspond to this fortification). There is good evidence from the OT and extrabiblical sources that Jerusalem was a pre-Israelite cultic site for the god Shalem and his father El (who was identified with Yahweh by the time of the Divided Monarchy). The strategic importance of the citadel of David is also obvious, and if wars with Moab and even other tribes were as frequent as the OT makes them out to be, then having one's seat of government there would be a good choice (note also the etymology of "Zion"). This would mean that early Jerusalem was a cultic and municipal/administrative site, not necessarily a city with a residential quarter which came later in Iron II.
Second, I also feel a little cautious about archaeological data pertaining to Jerusalem. The Temple Mount has long been verbotten as a site of archaeological digging, so the lack of evidence of the First Temple is par for the course. Second, if I am not mistaken, the bedrock is close to the surface and there isn't a heck of a lot of depth to the strata compared to tells. And since Josephus mentions that the Hasmoneans excavated the hill at the City of David district in order to lower the height of the hill so that the Temple Mount would be higher, this suggests that much pre-Hasmonean strata would have been lost at the time.
-
Gill
Didn't we have a similar 'find' not so many years ago, when a stone from Solomons palace was apparantly found. It turned out to be an elaborate hoax.
What I noticed about this particular article was that the name of the official reputedly found on a stone, was one mentioned in the Bible. So, it's already set up to be verifiable. I smell something fishy here.