Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 08-07-2005, 08:16 AM

Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point.
He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town.
During the Mycenaean drought, which ended c1050 he describes the region's population as ''severely stressed and [in] diminished circumstances".
He then describes the recovery period and says Lachish was the regional centre and that Jerusalem only develops the political and economic structures of a city after the destruction of Lachish in 701bce.
He does not seem to be denying it's existence in some form but only that it is ''not known'' to have been occupied at this time..he states 10th centurybce.
Which verifies what you said.

So does this make the "David building'' in the report above pretty important, even if it has nothing to do with a David?
Or rather the prescence of pottery and therefore occupation?

badger3k · 08-07-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Jerusalem was certainly occupied in the late Bronze Age.

However, IIUC some 'minimalists' have argued that Jerusalem was abandoned for a period of a century or so in the early Iron Age including the traditional dates of David and Solomon and reoccupied around 900 BCE or slightly later.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks - I hadn't been aware of that.

Wayne P · 08-08-2005, 04:08 AM

What jumps out at me, at least from the little I've read here, is that finds have been made that, just coincidentally, confirm what the sponsors of the dig want to find. And that out of all the hundreds, or thousands if you believe the OT, of servants of the king of Judah, they find seals for two that are MENTIONED in the bible.

Has not the ossuary debacle taught these people to be a little more skeptical of such convienent claims?

howzat · 08-08-2005, 06:39 PM

Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point.
He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town.

At the risk of getting a chuckle...Who is Thompson? I'm new to the list and interested but not (yet) well informed. So far I have just been lurking. Who elso writes early history that might be interesting to read? :wave:

yalla · 08-08-2005, 07:10 PM

Howzat.
No chuckle.
I'm new at this also.
See post #8 above for Thompson.

More directly related to "biblical archaeology [sic]" and generally regarded as an excellent, authoritive, easy to read book is "The Bible Unearthed" by I.Finkelstein and N.A Silberman, pub. Simon and Schuster NY 2002.

I prefer "Archaeology and the Bible", John Laughlin, pub Routledge, London 2000.

Celsus at the EvC forum has a great intro to all this.

Doubtless some people who do know what they are talking about can give you better info.

badger3k · 08-08-2005, 07:17 PM

Secrets of the Bible, from Archaeolog Magazine (ISBN: 1-57826-172-4) is an easily accessible book that covers a variety of topics from a variety of authors. It's another good place to start.

Toto · 08-12-2005, 03:24 PM

This article from the Jerusalem Post has more details: Shards of Evidence

Quote:

But it is the piles of pottery found in and around the building that is of the most critical importance to archeologists, since it is through the pottery that the building can be dated.

The pottery found under the building dated back to the last phase of the Iron Age I, 12th-11th century BC, just before David conquered Jerusalem, and predates the construction of the building.

In one of the rooms, Mazar's team also found pottery from Iron Age II of the 10th-9th century BC, leading her to conclude that the building was in use at the time, roughly the period of David?s reign in Jerusalem.

"It is obvious that whoever constructed this building not only built a monumental structure in and of itself, but was creating and initiating a whole new concept relating to the planning of the ancient city," she said.

Mazar's team did not find any construction predating the 11th century BC at the site, leading her to exclude the possibility that the building served as a Jebusite citadel, such as the Fortress of Zion that David captured from the Jebusites, as recounted in Samuel II 5:7.

"It is unrealistic to assume that the Fortress of Zion was built in the very last days before King David captured the city," she said.

OTHER ARCHEOLOGISTS, in spite of the attention they have heaped on the find, are not convinced that Mazar has truly stumbled upon the fabled palace of King David, with some voicing guarded optimism over the discovery and others downright skeptical.

rob117 · 08-25-2005, 12:00 PM

I think the immediate association of the building with a palace mentioned in the Bible is pretty irresponsible- for all we know, it could simply be a public building or an administrative building.

Regardless of that, it does provide evidence of urban development in Jerusalem long before the fall of Samaria, so the extent to which Judah could be considered a "rural backwater" before then may have to be reexamined.

spin · 08-25-2005, 12:01 PM

It might be better not to follow Mazar in jumping the gun.

spin

Toto · 12-05-2005, 04:57 PM

The Washington Post has discovered the story:

A Dig Into Jerusalem's Past Fuels Present-Day Debates

Quote:

Mazar's find is emerging at the nexus of history, religion and politics, volatile forces that have guided building, biblical scholarship and war in this city for millennia. Even before the findings have been assembled in a scientific paper, the discovery is prompting new thinking about when Jerusalem rose to prominence, the nature of the early Jewish kingdom, and whether the Bible can be used as a reliable map to archaeological discovery.

. . .

Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology said Mazar's interpretation should be understood as the latest in a series of "messianic eruptions" designed to bolster the image of David as a ruler of an important civilization, an idea that has lost currency in recent years in part because of Finkelstein's writing against it.

"That is why you are seeing this interpretation, to counter that momentum against it," said Finkelstein, co-author of the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts."

"It's an important find, and I'm not underestimating it," he said. "But from what she has found to the palace of David is a big distance."

. . .

But Finkelstein said Mazar's find appeared to show that Jerusalem, while perhaps not important during David's time, began emerging as an important city earlier than he previously believed.

"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."

08-08-2005, 06:39 PM	#14
howzat New Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tacoma, Wa. USA Posts: 1	Hello Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point. He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town. At the risk of getting a chuckle...Who is Thompson? I'm new to the list and interested but not (yet) well informed. So far I have just been lurking. Who elso writes early history that might be interesting to read? :wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2005, 08:16 AM	#11
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point. He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town. During the Mycenaean drought, which ended c1050 he describes the region's population as ''severely stressed and [in] diminished circumstances". He then describes the recovery period and says Lachish was the regional centre and that Jerusalem only develops the political and economic structures of a city after the destruction of Lachish in 701bce. He does not seem to be denying it's existence in some form but only that it is ''not known'' to have been occupied at this time..he states 10th centurybce. Which verifies what you said. So does this make the "David building'' in the report above pretty important, even if it has nothing to do with a David? Or rather the prescence of pottery and therefore occupation?

08-08-2005, 04:08 AM	#13
Wayne P Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Great Northeast Posts: 58	What jumps out at me, at least from the little I've read here, is that finds have been made that, just coincidentally, confirm what the sponsors of the dig want to find. And that out of all the hundreds, or thousands if you believe the OT, of servants of the king of Judah, they find seals for two that are MENTIONED in the bible. Has not the ossuary debacle taught these people to be a little more skeptical of such convienent claims?

08-08-2005, 07:10 PM	#15
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Howzat. No chuckle. I'm new at this also. See post #8 above for Thompson. More directly related to "biblical archaeology [sic]" and generally regarded as an excellent, authoritive, easy to read book is "The Bible Unearthed" by I.Finkelstein and N.A Silberman, pub. Simon and Schuster NY 2002. I prefer "Archaeology and the Bible", John Laughlin, pub Routledge, London 2000. Celsus at the EvC forum has a great intro to all this. Doubtless some people who do know what they are talking about can give you better info.

08-08-2005, 07:17 PM	#16
badger3k Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Killeen, TX Posts: 1,388	Secrets of the Bible, from Archaeolog Magazine (ISBN: 1-57826-172-4) is an easily accessible book that covers a variety of topics from a variety of authors. It's another good place to start.

08-25-2005, 12:00 PM	#18
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	I think the immediate association of the building with a palace mentioned in the Bible is pretty irresponsible- for all we know, it could simply be a public building or an administrative building. Regardless of that, it does provide evidence of urban development in Jerusalem long before the fall of Samaria, so the extent to which Judah could be considered a "rural backwater" before then may have to be reexamined.

08-25-2005, 12:01 PM	#19
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It might be better not to follow Mazar in jumping the gun. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.