Ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years

[Little Rock]

Shalom.

This article may be of interest to both Jews and Christians.

In 3,000-year-old wall, scholar sees proof for Biblical narrative

Ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon. Here's the link:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1...l_ancient_wall

Cheers from Little Rock

Here's the article:

Mon Feb 22, 11:04 AM

By Matti Friedman, The Associated Press



JERUSALEM - An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.


If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C


That's a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible's account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.



While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history - including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar - others posit that David's monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.



Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find "the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel."



"It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction," she said.
Based on what she believes to be the age of the fortifications and their location, she suggested it was built by Solomon, David's son, and mentioned in the Book of Kings.



The fortifications, including a monumental gatehouse and a 77-yard (70-meter) long section of an ancient wall, are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem's Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. According to the Old Testament, it was Solomon who built the first Jewish Temple on the site.



That temple was destroyed by Babylonians, rebuilt, renovated by King Herod 2,000 years ago and then destroyed again by Roman legions in 70 A.D. The compound now houses two important Islamic buildings, the golden-capped Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.



Archaeologists have excavated the fortifications in the past, first in the 1860s and most recently in the 1980s. 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.



Aren Maeir, an archaeology professor at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."



While some see the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon as accurate and others reject it entirely, Maeir said the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.



"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.

[Maccabee]

This article is like thorns in the eyes of those who believe that the Great Men and Women of the Jewish Bible, the Torah are nothing more then mythical individuals.

Thanks for this article.

[PILMAN]

What's sad is that Homers Illiad and the battle of troy which cannot even be proven are taken as history in schools, but Israels existence is reduced to being a mere tribal kingdom that didn't exist as a country until 1948, it's pathetic what the schools teach nowadays.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

What's sad is that Homers Illiad and the battle of troy which cannot even be proven are taken as history in schools, but Israels existence is reduced to being a mere tribal kingdom that didn't exist as a country until 1948, it's pathetic what the schools teach nowadays.

I was thinking upon this very thing.

And this is actually only a recent thing. I grew up believing that David was the greatest King of Israel. And a real person. Still believe it.

I did not realize that there is no overwhelming (well accepted evidence) evidence, other than Scripture, of David's life. I led a very sheltered life I guess.

That is changing now, but there is still great resistance to any evidence of a Jewish presence in Israel thousands of years ago. Especially as a nation.

[AEWHistory]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

What's sad is that Homers Illiad and the battle of troy which cannot even be proven are taken as history in schools, but Israels existence is reduced to being a mere tribal kingdom that didn't exist as a country until 1948, it's pathetic what the schools teach nowadays.

To be fair, I can tell you that I don't teach that. For me Homer is Greek literature and Troy, until proven otherwise, is mythological. Troy is almost certainly BASED on something that was reality, but this is almost always the case with many myths. Even the Lone Ranger is based on a real person (see Bass Reeves), but that doesn't mean he went around with a black mask and Tonto. See what I mean?

All of that said, I think that the Bible/Torah is more than just a religious document, I think it is pretty good history, especially if you factor in the time period in which it was written as well as other considerations. Much of what is in the Torah has been verified and I strongly believe much of what has been called into question are things that are either misinterpreted, lost to time, or simply haven't been corroborated yet.

As an aside, I am sure there are teachers who portray the Iliad and Troy and history, but I would hope they aren't any mainstream. That's just ignorance. I try to be accepting of these errors, to an extent, because we are asked to teach vast swaths of subject matter far outside our own areas of expertise. I'm a modern military historian, but I teach ancient history all of the time. But except for the military history of the ancient west there is nothing of ancient history that I would dare to call myself "expert" on, and even on that subject I feel I could be better educated. So when a student asks me about how the Incans treated women I sometimes find myself at a loss and I have, no doubt, sometimes given answers I believed to be correct but in actuality were probably heavily reliant on my own superficial knowledge of the subject. Sadly this is the nature of colleges relying on a few faculty to teach a HUGE array of subjects.

[AEWHistory]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

I was thinking upon this very thing.

And this is actually only a recent thing. I grew up believing that David was the greatest King of Israel. And a real person. Still believe it.

I did not realize that there is no overwhelming (well accepted evidence) evidence, other than Scripture, of David's life. I led a very sheltered life I guess.

That is changing now, but there is still great resistance to any evidence of a Jewish presence in Israel thousands of years ago. Especially as a nation.

The problem I have with people who've used this seemingly limited evidence for David, ancient Israel and even the supposedly limited Jewish presence in Israel, is that is requires a helluva lot of the following:
1. It goes against how every single other ancient subject is handled. All of these subjects, not just Jewish related, have very modest supporting evidence compared to more modern studies. This is the nature of the beast, but for Jews the bar has been raised MUCH to obtain proof of historical ownership, residency, and just plain veracity.
2. It requires quite a bit of informational cherry picking.
3. It leaves some historical vacuums that are poorly explained without a large Jewish presence.
4. It fails to explain where Jews suddenly popped out of in later centuries! If the history before, say, the Maccabean revolt is open to question then why was there such a large, divided Jewish community in Judea agitating against the Seleucids? Or did they fall out of the sky with a bunch of gripes against Antiochus? It is patent silliness.

I do accept that the historical narrative may need amending. This is true of ALL historical narratives. However, the history of the region makes no sense without the Jewish narrative. I have never seen a people's history so utterly attacked, trashed, defiled, and stolen like that of the Jews (although there are a few extinct people who might disagree with me I suppose and native Americans are certainly in the running).....

Sorry for the rant, Aaron