Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SLD · 02-22-2010, 04:20 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35522099...ience-science/

According to the site, an archeologist has been able to prove, for the first time, that Jerusalem was a major fortified city about 1000 BC and would thus support the biblical narrative of David and Solomon.

Thoughts?

SLD

PhilosopherJay · 02-22-2010, 06:19 PM

Hi SLD,

I assume that the archaeologist asked the wall, "Who built you?"
The wall replied, "King Solomon built me."

This seems to be a premature announcement before other archaeologists have had a chance to examine the evidence. Let's remember the "James ossuary" before the celebration begins.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35522099...ience-science/

According to the site, an archeologist has been able to prove, for the first time, that Jerusalem was a major fortified city about 1000 BC and would thus support the biblical narrative of David and Solomon.

Thoughts?

SLD

Joan of Bark · 02-22-2010, 06:23 PM

As with all discoveries, we'll have to wait to see what other scholars say before drawing any conclusions. Such a process will take years. Every scholar wants to make headlines, which makes all initial 'eurekas' suspect.

steve_bnk · 02-22-2010, 06:32 PM

From what I saw on TV one of the conclusions on excavations was that the Jews may have been(gasp) exagerating in the bible on the power and glory of what amounted to a small state.

It is not a proof of anything other than old ruins unearthed.

Toto · 02-22-2010, 06:33 PM

Eilat_Mazar, the archaeologist, has been discovering the relics of David and Solomon since 2005.

Quote:

According to Mazar herself,

I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other

Thread in the archives: Eilat Mazar and Palace of David

rob117 · 02-22-2010, 07:08 PM

Eilat Mazar makes archaeologists look bad.

semiopen · 02-23-2010, 08:45 AM

The proposed date is based on pottery.

Quote:

But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall's age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.

I'm pretty sure I noticed that she said that some of the pottery had seals with peoples names on it which is quite interesting (dubious?) in itself.

Will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out.

semiopen · 02-23-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The proposed date is based on pottery.

Quote:

But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall's age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.

I'm pretty sure I noticed that she said that some of the pottery had seals with peoples names on it which is quite interesting (dubious?) in itself.

Will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out.

This was off of Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ayIaI8YxoAa4

Quote:

Discovered along with the wall were seal impressions on jar handles with the words "to the king," and other bullae with Hebrew names that also testified to the royal nature of the structure, Mazar told journalists at the site.

Considering the problems with the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon, it's pretty remarkable that apparently readable 10th century Hebrew just pops up here and only gets a passing mention.

Anat · 02-23-2010, 09:58 AM

Weren't previous LMLK jar handles dated to the 7th century BCE?

semiopen · 02-23-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Weren't previous LMLK jar handles dated to the 7th century BCE?

Or even 6th century. Finding them in the 10th century seems to be more important than a stupid wall. The Hebrew names would be fantastic also.

02-22-2010, 04:20 PM	#1
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	Proof of King David found? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35522099...ience-science/ According to the site, an archeologist has been able to prove, for the first time, that Jerusalem was a major fortified city about 1000 BC and would thus support the biblical narrative of David and Solomon. Thoughts? SLD

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

02-22-2010, 06:23 PM	#3
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	As with all discoveries, we'll have to wait to see what other scholars say before drawing any conclusions. Such a process will take years. Every scholar wants to make headlines, which makes all initial 'eurekas' suspect.

02-22-2010, 06:32 PM	#4
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	From what I saw on TV one of the conclusions on excavations was that the Jews may have been(gasp) exagerating in the bible on the power and glory of what amounted to a small state. It is not a proof of anything other than old ruins unearthed.

02-22-2010, 07:08 PM	#6
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	Eilat Mazar makes archaeologists look bad.

02-23-2010, 09:58 AM	#9
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Weren't previous LMLK jar handles dated to the 7th century BCE?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.