Sojourner553

Let me help out Nomand some:

US News had an article on this subject in their December 24th, 2001 issue. It had some good points questioning whether archelogists like Thompson and Finkelstein have really accumulated enough information yet. I quote salient points on this below:


"While part of a retaining wall supporting Herod's temple still stands (it is revered as the Western Wall in modern Jerusalem), no remntants of any of Solomon's Jerusalem structures have been found, prompting minimalists to conclude that they were never really there. If the rich and powerful Jerusalem of David and Solomon "existed at all," argues Thompson of the University of Copenhagen, " and years of excavation have found no trace of a 10th dentury B.C. town -- it was still centuries from having the capacity of challenging any of the dozens of more powerful autonomous towns of Palestine."

[***This is the important point here***]

"However, other scholars note that there are other blank spots in Jerusalem's archaeological record during periods when the city is known to have been occupied, and they caution against reading too much into a lack of evidence.

"Ronny Reich, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, notes, for example, that excatations near the Gihon spring outside the present Old city have turned up "no pottery, nothing" from the Byzantine era -- roughly AD 330-1430. "Does this mean there were no people in Jerusalem?" Reich asks. Of course there were. "How do you explain it? You can't."

...

"At many important sites, like Jericho, that have been excavated for decades -- only a fraction of the ground has been explored. At others, like Jerusalem, work is hampered by dense population and religious restrictions, and more recently by violence. Who can say what biblical bombshess lie buried in the sands of Egypt or the hills of the West Bank and Israel? Despite the dramatic discoveries of recent decades, Holy Land archaeology has still only scratched the surface."

My point is -- just like evolution is most likely true despite the fact scientists have not always found bones clearly showing transitions between species, the same parallel principle applies here in archeology: There probably have not been enough digs/evidence yet to state with confidence that the Exodus and King Solomon periods did not occur at all!

Sojourner

madmax2976

Could be for the same reasons that some theists are so credulous about claims that agree with their a priori biases.

Why would you assume that all skeptics actually be "good" skeptics?

madmax

Toto

I'm sure that Nomad could use some help, but it will take more than a few quotes from a conservative mass circulation journal.

I am puzzled by this:

"Ronny Reich, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, notes, for example, that excatations near the Gihon spring outside the present Old city have turned up "no pottery, nothing" from the Byzantine era -- roughly AD 330-1430. "Does this mean there were no people in Jerusalem?" Reich asks. Of course there were. "How do you explain it? You can't."

But there are archeological remains in Jerusalem from the Byzantine era. A casual Google search found <a href="http://www.nclci.org/news/archeology_news.htm" target="_blank">this</a>.

And yes, there is always more to learn, which is why science, unlike religion, is always ready to revise its theories in the light of new evidence. Perhaps Holy Land archeology has only scratched the surface. Perhaps there will be proof that aliens landed and gave the early Israelis their holy texts. But the point of the original article was that archeologists of an earlier era thought they had found confirmation of Biblical events in their excavations; they are now convinced by and large that their earlier assurance was mistaken, and there is no independent verification of many significant points in Biblical history.

Jayhawker Soule

It's not as if they've found the trumpets but can't quite date the wall. You've got a breathtaking escape from Egypt, a remarkable sojourn in the wilderness, an unparalleled military victory over the Canaanites and, sometime later, a wonderous United Monarchy, and nothing in the archaeological record to verify it.

Forget about Finkelstein and Silberman if you'd like. Read Mazar and Dever. Read what Redford has to say about the Egyptian evidence. Read Hershal Shanks' comments in the current issue of BAR. The 'argument' that goes: "Who can say what biblical bombshess lie buried in the sands of Egypt or the hills of the West Bank and Israel?" should be taken as advice that cuts both ways, and the evidence is accumulating.

Sojourner553

To Toto and Reasonable Doubt:

Thanks to both of you for great posts! Here is one interesting item I found on the ARCHEOLOGY NEWS source document you referenced Toto:

DRAMATIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY: KING DAVID DID NOT BUILD JERUSALEM (7/23)
Sections of giant walls that surrounded Jerusalem during the Canaanite period, 800 years before of David, were discovered by chance. Antiquities Authority has called the find the most important discovery in Jerusalem studies since the beginning of century; all history books on the city will have to be rewritten.
ARCHEOLOGISTS SAY CANAANITES BUILT JERUSALEM'S ANCIENT WATER SYSTEM (7/29)
New archeological discoveries near the Gihon Spring, ancient Jerusalem's principle water source, show that the sophisticated water system which has been attributed to the conquering Israelites actually predated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined, THE JERUSALEM POST reported. Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed recent excavations of the site along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire water system was built by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Age, around 1,800 B.C.E. Ceramics found in the excavations have been dated to the time of the Caananites, 800 years before David's conquest of the city. It is presumed that the water system was still functioning when the city, inhabited by the Jebusites, was captured by David around 1,000 B.C.E.

*********

By the way, the article in US World gives good space to the fact that the Exodus and King David periods may be made up too. And I was looking for multiple points of view on this subject (as long as the individuals are as unbiased and rational as possible.)

I would give it a high probability that a very large percentage of the Exodus and Davidic accounts are greatly exaggerated. But it requires a very high bar of proof to say they did not exist at all -- ie that 100% of it is false.

The Exodus could have been a dozen guys out of Egypt meeting up with the rest of their clan Canaanites. Technically, more than 0% of the biblical account then is still true.

As for the Ronnie Reich quote-- have you seen evidence that finds pottery remains during AD 330-1450 IN JERUSALEM -- ie a response to Reich? This is an area I am not strong in, but I find very fascinating.

Sojourner

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

hezekiah jones

This is why I don't quite understand Nomad's attempts to color Wellhausen as some sort of Victorian curiosity, and that his efforts were somehow irrelevant to the archaeological issues - and indeed the verification (or not) of the biblical tales. Were it not for the efforts of Wellhausen et al, with respect to unravelling and dating the texts, the archaeologists wouldn't bloody well know where to dig.

Jayhawker Soule

You're welcome. But, I must say that you seem easily swayed ...

Sauron

Let's look at the Reich quote again:

Reich is guilty of too much extrapolation here. He started by discussing a lack of finds at the spring of Gihon.

But then his question was "does this mean that there were no people in Jerusalem? There is more to Jerusalem than just the spring of Gihon. If the spring at Gihon were unused, uninhabited, caved in, or whatever during the Byzantine era, that would tell us nothing about whether or not Jerusalem was inhabited.

Furthermore, any first-year archaeology student knows of several pieces of evidence of habitation in Jerusalem during the 11 centuries that transpired between AD 330 and 1450. Records from Byzantine, Crusader, and Islamic sources are replete with evidence.

Reich's question is nonsense. Either that, or someone (the US News reporter who did the interview, the magazine editor, somebody) has edited out Reich's question to remove valuable context and thus make him look like a fool.

But to answer your question about pottery: I believe turtonm gave you a reference. If that isn't enough, check this out. It's a link to a book at amazon.com that contains detailed chronology of pottery in Jerusalem, between 200 AD and 800 AD, based upon style, location of the find, etc.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1850754136/slide-show/104-6545056-1610320#reader-link" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1850754136/slide-show/1 04-6545056-1610320#reader-link</a>


And here's a link about a research project that is excavating a Byzantine monastery in Jerusalem:
<a href="http://www.nd.edu/~stephens/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.nd.edu/~stephens/index.html</a>

There's a whole page on pottery, complete with photographs.

This took less than 2 minutes to find on the web, by the way.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus

Hi guys,

I think we are missing Reich's point. He says there is no evidence for settlement in a particular period in a certain small spot that was excavated. Hence, we cannot draw general conclusions about the whole country from the certain small spots that have been excavated. This is a truism of archaeology, I expect.

The point that it has not proved the bible stands. That is a long way from saying that it has disproved it as is sometimes implied.

Regards

Alex

Jayhawker Soule

The analogy of excavating "a certain small spot" is silly on the face of it. There is, and has been, an energetic search for evidence of the Patriarchs and the Exodus.