Page 4 of 45

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:19 pm
by Beagle
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull
The third season of renewed excavations at Ramat Rahel in Jerusalem has come to a close, with several exceptional finds that have increased archeologists' understanding of the site.



The excavations are the result of a joint project between Tel Aviv University and the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and are scheduled for another three seasons, with the next to begin in the summer of 2009.

Dig director Dr. Oded Lipschits of Tel Aviv University said that the goals of this year's dig were to expand the area around a Byzantine (fourth-seventh centuries CE) church previously excavated by Yohanan Aharoni of the Hebrew University in the 1950s, and to further expose a garden and a profound water system from a palace or administrative building that was in use from the late Iron Age (seventh-sixth centuries BCE) until the beginning of the Hasmonean period in the 2nd century BCE.
A summary of the archaeology this season.

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:34 pm
by Minimalist
In his articles Barkay points to several "LMLK" (in Hebrew, "for the king") stamps and a small painted potsherd of what appears to be a king on a throne as evidence that the site was built by King Hezekiah, who ruled from around 715-687 BC. According to Barkay, Jerusalem had become too overcrowded and Hezekiah wanted to build a large royal palace at Ramat Rahel that would better reflect his grandeur.

Archaeology confirms that Hezekiah was a great builder and also that the population of the city greatly expanded during his reign. (A fact which always pissed Arch off, no end!) but Barkay's evidence seems a little thin to equate these items with any particular king. There were always kings, right up until the Assyrians overran the region.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:54 pm
by Beagle
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/911612.html
For some 40 years, one of the flashiest opal signets on display at the Israel Museum had remained without accurate historical context. Two weeks ago, Dutch researcher Marjo Korpel identified article IDAM 65-321 as the official seal of Queen Jezebel, one of the bible's most powerful and reviled women.
Queen Jezebel's seal has been found. From Arch. News.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:56 am
by Minimalist
That's a major find although it really changes nothing. The importance of the Omride Dynasty as a major regional player was fairly well established.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:12 am
by kbs2244
Well, that depends on your point of view.
Over there, for sure, and in some other places around the world it will be a big deal.
It is another Bible character that becomes historical.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:38 am
by Forum Monk
Let's keep the find and claims made about it in perspective, to wit:
As a researcher, Korpel will only say she thinks her research serves to prove the seal belonged to Jezebel. "True, there is no way of knowing for sure where the seal comes from. Theoretically, it could come from anywhere. But speaking as a private person, I am in my mind 99 percent sure that it belonged to Jezebel," she says after some coaxing.

However, Korpel is not an archaeologist, and her research of archaeological findings is essentially textual. "I have thought about this. But many research fields see important discoveries by researchers from related fields," she says. "I admit my solution for the seal of Jezebel is quite simple. But then, so was the invention of the paper clip."
While Korpel thinks she's right, even she concedes its an acedemic discovery at best. I didn't realize anyone doubted Ahab and Jezebel were historical. The only thing disputed is the importance of their dominion in the larger scheme of things.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:28 am
by Minimalist
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho2.htm
In actual fact, the first great king of Israel was Omri. The Bible gives a very sketchy and confused history of the first period of the Northern kingdom after its supposed defection from unity. The sordid tale of violence and treachery culminates in the suicide of a usurper, Zimri, in the flames of the royal palace at Tirzah. Omri, the commander of the army is invited by the people to become king, and he naturally obliges. It was a good choice. Not only that, the story bears some resemblance to the selection of David - a military commander - for kingship over the heirs of Saul.

Omri built a new capital for himself at Samaria and laid the foundations of his dynasty. After twelve years, his son Ahab came to the throne. Ahab made a brilliant marriage to the daughter of the Phoenician king Ethbaal, King of Tyre, so we have again a curious reflection of the Bible story of Solomon and his friendship with “Hiram, King of Tyre.” Was this Ethbaal the real “Hiram?” In any event, Ahab built magnificent cities and established one of the most powerful armies in the region. He conquered extensive territory to the north and in the Transjordan, and Israel enjoyed wealth and extensive trade connections. The kingdom of Israel was finally something to notice! However, the character of this kingdom was markedly different from the tiny kingdom of Judah.

Ahab was about the most hated individual in all the Biblical texts. What Ahab did that caused him to be so viciously vilified, according to the editor of the Bible, was that he committed the greatest of Biblical sins: he introduced foreign gods into the land of Israel and caused the priests and prophets of Yahweh to be put to death. What’s more, he did it because of the influence of that wicked Phoenician princess he had married: Jezebel.

The Bible dwells long and pruriently upon the sins of this famous couple. Nevertheless, we ought to note that these very same sins were attributed to Solomon who was, however, transmogrified into a southern kingdom monarch, and was, therefore, forgiven even if Yahweh was determined to punish his family. One gets the disorienting feeling that the stories of Omri and Ahab and David and Solomon are, essentially, the same. Jezebel was most especially hated because she tossed the prophets and priests of Yahweh out on their ears. Solomon was also recorded to have ejected the priests of Shiloh, so again, we have a cross connection.

This is an interesting interpretation.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:46 pm
by kbs2244
Oh boy!
Do we want to start up a Hebrew Bible History thread?
With the crew we have around here, it might be fun.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:47 pm
by Minimalist
We should invite Arch back for that one.

uh...maybe not.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 pm
by kbs2244
Come on!
I miss him and all his rocks.
(That's all I know him from. I seem to have missed out on a lot the pre-dated them?)

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:41 pm
by Minimalist
The only rocks that Arch has are in his head.

His geology is as bad as his archaeology.

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:53 am
by Minimalist
A very good editorial comment from Professor Eric Cline.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/fauxark/
Biblical archeology is too important to leave to crackpots and ideologues. It's time to fight back.

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:56 pm
by Minimalist
The kind of stuff that used to drive Arch nuts....not that its a long trip!

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/ ... emple.html
Archaeologists have uncovered artifacts under Jerusalem's contested Al-Aqsa mosque compound that may shed light on the first Jewish temple, the Israel Antiquities Authority said on Sunday.

"An apparently sealed archaeological level dating to the first temple period was exposed in the area close to the southeastern corner of the raised platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock," it said in a statement.

The finds include ceramic table ware, animal bones, and pottery shards from the 8th to 6th centuries BC, when Jewish kingdoms reigned over much of the area of modern-day Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 8th to the 6th century! Just when Finkelstein said there was evidence of monumental architecture!

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:17 pm
by Forum Monk
That article is short on detail. I thought at one time you were disputing the existence of the first temple, Min. Finklestein wasn't the only one who claimed it was there, jews have been saying it all along. The 8th through 6th centuries would represent the peak period of the jewish hegemony though they existed under the shadow of Assyrian and Babylonian regional dominance.

btw - why are you taking every opportunity to slap Arch when he's been banned for nearly year and can no longer speak for himself?

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:58 pm
by Minimalist
Because he still reads the board. If he wants to protest, he has my e-mail addy.

The issue is "when" was the First Temple built...not "if" it was built. The OT attributes the building to Solomon but in the 10th century when Solomon, if there was such a person would have lived, Jerusalem was a minor hill town.

However, by the 8th century a genuine kingdom had arisen there and built some sort of temple because the Babylonians sacked it during their conquest. Arch was always holding out for bible "inerrancy." I loved showing him the errors.