Skip to comments.Israeli Archaeologist Says He Has Found King David's Legendary Citadel
Posted on 05/06/2014 6:48:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
JERUSALEM (AP) An Israeli archaeologist says he has found the legendary citadel captured by King David in his conquest of Jerusalem, rekindling a longstanding debate about using the Bible as a field guide to identifying ancient ruins. The claim by Eli Shukron, like many such claims in the field of biblical archaeology, has run into criticism. It joins a string of announcements by Israeli archaeologists saying they have unearthed palaces of the legendary biblical king, who is revered in Jewish religious tradition for establishing Jerusalem as its central holy city but who has long eluded historians looking for clear-cut evidence of his existence and reign.
The present-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also wrapped up in the subject. The $10 million excavation, made accessible to tourists last month, took place in an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem and was financed by an organization that settles Jews in guarded homes in Arab areas of east Jerusalem in an attempt to prevent the city from being divided. The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as the capital of a future independent state.
Shukron, who excavated at the City of David archaeological site for nearly two decades, says he believes strong evidence supports his theory.
"This is the citadel of King David, this is the Citadel of Zion, and this is what King David took from the Jebusites," said Shukron, who said he recently left Israel's Antiquities Authority to work as a lecturer and tour guide. "The whole site we can compare to the Bible perfectly."
Most archaeologists in Israel do not dispute that King David was a historical figure, and a written reference to the "House of David" was found in an archaeological site in northern Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
*ping of interest*
Reparations for Jebusites?
Oh but they try so hard to make it sound like Our Lord’s Book is nothing by fables and fiction.
I highly doubt they will do so unwillingly.
Imagine, the horror they’ll have when the finally come to the realization that they’ve screwed up so bad and at this point there’s nothing they can do to undo that damage. They will be at the Mercy of the Almighty with nowhere to run but the Lake of Fire.
Everybody will be speechless at that moment.
It’s true that archaeology is not an exact science. It is nearly impossible to NOT have some kind of bias in regard to what is found.
That being said, at one time the Bible was ridiculed for mentioning Canaanite peoples such as the Hittites, Perizittes, Amorites, and others as being “mythical” and “fanciful” with no evidence to their existence. Then, lo and behold some years later all these groups have been demonstrated to have existed, and in the places where the Bible said they existed.
The same ridicule was directed at the Bible for it’s mentioning the existence of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar - until the city and Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was discovered.
So, is it possible that Mr Shukron is mistaken, but just because he’s come to the conclusion that the Bible is a reliable source for archaeological study should not automatically disqualify his opinion or his research.
tip o the hat to Dale Gribble
Absolutely, although someone reminded me it was actually Rusty Schacklefurd, not Schucklefurd.