Steven Avery

If Finkelstein iis giving even a grudging acknowledgment, that is really something.

A while back I was in touch with the org of the late Ernest Martin , Askelm, and I was told that they would be some digging in the City of David/Silwan area. As I understand, there are some who actually place the 2nd Temple there, and consider the western wall and Temple Mount area to be part of Fort Antonio, not the 2nd Temple (very controversial view, of course). I think thats the area of this dig, and the likely prime spot for new archaelogical discoveries.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

yalla

Praxeus "If Finkelstein iis giving even a grudging acknowledgment, that is really something."

But there is a big step between what is acknowledged [ Jerusalem beginning, note beginning, ie "first step", to be an important city earlier than expected , c9cbce,] and jumping to Dave 100 years plus earlier...note ''big distance"/ ''lunatic''.
Finkelstein:
"This is the missing link we have been looking for. It represents the first step in the rise of Jerusalem to prominence in the 9th century," he said. "Why does it have to be the palace of David? Once you bring that in you sound like something of a lunatic."

Wait and see seems appropriate.

Diogenes the Cynic

What do you think he's acknowledging? At the most he's acknowldging that Jerusalem may have existed as a city (albeit an unimportant one) in the 9th century BCE. As Finkelstein himself says, that's a long, long way from claiming this building has anything to do with the Biblical David.

And for the record, the possibility of a Davidic kingdom is not something that was ever ruled out by Finkelstein and Silberman anyway. They don't say David couldn't have existed, only that if he did exist, he would have been a much less significant figure than what the Bible portrays- essentially he would have been a minor tribal chieftain, not anything like the powerful king of legend.