Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Earlier this month he released a book (written with A. Mazar) that contains surprising commentary on biblical archaeology and history,
Jerusalem, Nov. 21, 2007 – Remains of an ancient synagogue from the Roman-Byzantine era have been revealed in excavations carried out in the Arbel National Park in the Galilee under the auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Archaeologists differ among themselves as to which period the ancient Galilean synagogues belong. The generally accepted view is that they can be attributed to the later Roman period (second to fourth centuries C.E.), a time of cultural and political flowering of the Jews of the Galilee. Recently, some researchers have come to believe that these synagogues were built mainly during the Byzantine period (fifth and sixth centuries C.E.), a time in which Christianity rose to power and, it was thought, the Jews suffered from persecution. Dr. Leibner noted that this difference of scholarly opinion has great significance in perhaps redrawing the historical picture of Jews in those ancient times.
http://www.netours.com/jrs/2003/Hammat-Tib.htmIn the period of the Second Temple (515 BC - 70 AD), the ban appears to have been taken literally. In the architecture, frescoes and mosaics at Jewish sites from this time we do not find images. (An exception: Josephus reports that Herod the Great placed a golden eagle over the gate of the Temple; pious Jews ripped it down (and were executed). War Book 1, Ch. 33). In the necropolis of Beth She'arim, however, which dates from the second to the fourth centuries AD, the limestone sarcophagi (including those of important rabbis) are decorated with images in sculptured relief, the exact kind of thing against which their ancestors had risked their lives in protest. And here at Hammath and elsewhere, we find images in the synagogue floors. How shall we explain this change?
First, there is no doubt that they were synagogues, for Jewish motifs dominate the other mosaic panels.
It seems that Greco-Roman culture had permeated the land so thoroughly, and images were so much a part of everyday life, that the discrepancy with the Biblical text did not bother the pious, if they noticed it at all.
Sounds interesting. More news in the link.JERUSALEM: A biblical wall that has eluded archaeologists for years has finally been found, according to an Israeli scholar.
A team of archaeologists in Jerusalem has uncovered what they believe to be part of a wall mentioned in the Bible's Book of Nehemiah.
The discovery, made in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, came as a result of a rescue attempt on a tower which was in danger of collapse, said Eilat Mazar, head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem-based research and educational institute, and leader of the dig.
Artifacts including pottery shards and arrowheads found under the tower suggested that both the tower and the nearby wall are from the 5th century B.C., the time of Nehemiah, according to Mazar. Scholars previously thought the wall dated to the Hasmonean period (142-37 B.C.).
The findings suggest that the wall is actually part of the same city wall the Bible says Nehemiah rebuilt, Mazar said. The Book of Nehemiah (chapters 3-6) gives a detailed description of construction of the walls, destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.
Gotta love it."The wall could have been built, theoretically, in the Ottoman period," he said. "It's not later than the pottery — that's all we know."
(Joe Zias was a former Curator for the Israeli Antiquities Authority....he's not some shmuck.)Joe Zias
Having been there at Bar Ilan and then reading the news coverage today I wondered if the journalist and I were were on the same page. True she gave a passionate plea for her theory however colleague after colleague refuted it. Moreover the idea that the portion of a wall she showed as being the wall from the time of Nehemiah has been an idea around for decades and is nothing new at all.
Yitzhak Sapir
I was there. The journalist took it much further than Mazar. A different news article could have stated, “Biblical archaeologist Eilat Mazar admits she may have exaggerated her use of the Bible.” And that title would be true, because that is how Mazar began her reply to the team of archaeologists from Tel Aviv (Finkelstein, Herzog, and Ussishkin). They suggested the structure dates from the Hasmonean period. In addition to them, Amihai Mazar also gave his opinion and suggested that the structure dates from earlier in Iron I (something like the 12th century). Finkelstein’s talk later on in the day explored the archaeological evidence for Nehemiah’s wall, but was probably not written after or even with knowledge of the recent excavations that Mazar reported. Finkelstein began his talk by noting that professional disagreements with Mazar cannot cover for a life long friendship between the two. Finkelstein et al also thanked Mazar for showing them through the site, but apparently they did not ask to look at the pottery or have details of the pottery further explained. Thus, they used numbers in the published interim report to make an argument as to when items were discovered when in fact these numbers are given irrespective of the time of discovery, after they had been collated and analyzed. Similarly, they used a small picture from the interim report to claim that some of the pottery date from much later period. On this particular point, Amihai Mazar noted that he reviewed the pottery pretty thoroughly and did not see any later pottery. I myself, in a tour of the site given by Mazar, asked her about a figurine she found — and she invited me to her office to come look at it. So certainly, Finkelstein et al. could have done better as far as the analysis of the pottery is concerned. However, on a different point, Mazar’s use of ambiguous names rather than strata numbers, they are probably right on target. Mazar was also rebuked for not consulting a fellow archaeologist (Ronny Reich) in analysis of the pottery from a wall that Reich found. I think, therefore, we can offer even a third title for the news report: “Archaeologists publish opinions on unpublished dig results without going over to the original excavator to review the pottery.”
