Posted on 08/05/2006 12:35:23 PM PDT by blam
Old Testament dispute continues
Was King David Judaism's King Arthur?
By Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer
AP Photo/Biblical Archaeology Review by Thomas E. Levy American archaeologist/educator Nelson Glueck's suggestions that a gate lay buried at the entrance to the Iron Age fortress of Khirbat en-Nahas were recently realized when archaeologists discovered a four-chamber gate (only two have been excavated). Radiocarbon dating fixed the date of its construction to the 10th century.
Some scholars are busily debunking the Bible's account of the great King David, asking: Was he really all that great? Was he largely legendary, Judaism's version of Britain's legendary King Arthur or totally fictional?
These matters are crucial not only for Jews but for Christians, since Jesus' biblical identity as the messiah stems from David's family line.
Skepticism about the Hebrew Bible's history was promoted to popular audiences in "The Bible Unearthed" (2001) by Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Their most recent book focuses on "David and Solomon" (Free Press).
Though some scholars claimed David never existed, in 1993 archaeologists discovered a stone inscription from 835 B.C. that mentions "the house of David." The authors say that established the existence of a dynastic founder named David and that shortly after his 10th-century era a line of kings "traced their legitimacy back to David."
However, Finkelstein considers the Bible seriously distorted propaganda. He treats David as a minor bandit chieftain and Jerusalem as a hamlet, not an imperial capital. Supposedly, biblical authors concocted the grander David centuries afterward. The book also implies that his successor, Solomon, didn't build the Temple.
Finkelstein notes that archaeologists haven't found monumental buildings from David's era in Jerusalem. He dismisses links of David and Solomon with buildings unearthed at biblical Megiddo and Hazor. Ordinary readers might not grasp that this depends upon a disputed "low chronology" which would shift dates a century, just after these kings.
In the July-August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Michael Coogan of Stonehill College, editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, contends that Finkelstein and Silberman "move from the hypothetical to the improbable to the absurd."
Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.
Coogan also thinks "David and Solomon" downplays the significance of the Amarna tablets, which include correspondence to Egypt's pharaoh from a 14th-century Jerusalem king. Even if archaeological remains at Jerusalem are lacking, he writes, the tablets indicate that long before David, Jerusalem was the region's chief city-state, with a court and sophisticated scribes.
Discovery of ancient remains in Jerusalem is problematic due to the repeated reconstruction throughout the centuries and the modern inaccessibility of many sites.
Nonetheless, perhaps David's palace has been found. So claims Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar. Finkelstein denies this, claiming Mazar inaccurately dated pottery from the site. "Here, for the time being, matters rest," summarizes Hillel Halkin in the July-August Commentary magazine.
Jerusalem feuds aside, skepticism about David seems to be countered by recent discoveries in the biblical land of Edom (present-day southwest Jordan), also described in Biblical Archaeology Review by field experts Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar. Levy is a University of California, San Diego, archaeologist and Najjar directs excavations for Jordan's Department of Antiquities.
According to the Hebrew Bible, Edom had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31), barred Moses' wandering Israelites (Numbers 20:14-21) and later warred with King David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).
Until now, many scholars have said that's all bogus because there was no archaeological evidence for a state in Edom until long after David's day. Finkelstein and Silberman typified such skepticism in "Bible Unearthed," which said Edom achieved kingship and statehood only in the seventh century B.C.
But Levy and Najjar say lack of evidence is never conclusive, and in this case previous archaeologists dug in the wrong place. They've now excavated a major fortress that — to their surprise — is dated by radiocarbon tests in David's era. An adjacent copper mill goes back another one to two centuries, closer to Moses' time.
Biblical references have gained "new plausibility," they conclude.
On the Net: Biblical Archaeology Review: www.bib-arch.org; Commentary: www.commentarymagazine.com
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 
It is interesting to note that in the past people stamped this passage and all of the Book of Daniel as mere myth-telling because Historians didn’t believe there was such a king as Belshazzar who ever reigned in Babylon. But in 1854, a member of the British Consul was exploring ancient ruins in southern Iraq and dug into a great tower built there. He found a time capsule: clay cylinders inscribed with cuneiform writing; the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C., and commemorated repairs the king made to the tower; they included a prayer for long life of Nabonidus and his oldest son, Belshazzar.
Nabonides is considered the last great king of Babylon. His relationship with the previous Kings of Babylon is unclear, perhaps he was once a great general, but he came to the throne by overthrowing a young king named Labashi-Marduk. It is likely Nabonides substantiated his claim to the throne by marrying Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, since he was not a blood relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Being a religious eccentric, in 549 BC Nabonides left Babylon to live at Teyma (Tema) located in what is now Saudi Arabia northeast of Hijaz, where the ancient trade route between Medina and Dumah crosses the Nefud desert. Tayma is approximately 400 kilometers north of Medina. While on religious sojourn Nabonides left his son behind to rule in Babylon, but Belshazzar never fully came to the throne.
Skeptics believed that the writer of Daniel made an historical error in calling Belshazzar king, but when Belshazzar told Daniel that if he could interpret the writing on the wall he (Daniel) would be granted authority in the kingdom as the third ruler, the scriptures show a detail which lends credence to the account. Belshazzar was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but he was in a secondary position, appointed to reign in Babylon while his father was away. By Babylonian tradition, all in the city with the secondary ruler would call him king.
Belshazzar offered to Daniel third position, so the writer of the Book faithfully related the fact as a minor detail, and then much later archaeological evidence substantiated the trivia.
These findings in archaeology show that the writer of the Book of Daniel was telling of a real man. These were no fables.
Thank you so much for that fascinating excerpt!
Bible ping.
People trying to 'debunk' King David.
Hmmmmmm. Let's see- who should I believe as to the truth of the Word of God? God or man, God or man, God or man, God or man, God or man.
What a joke and what puny, irrevelant fools are those who actually embark on a serious attempt to "disprove" Scripture.
Psalm 2:4:
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. What a frightening thing it is to be laughed at by God!
It never, ever, ceases to amaze me that, instead of seeking God and joyfully accepting His gift of eternal life and a personal relationship with Him, fallen mankind spends his short years here on earth at war with Him, obsessed with "proving" that He doesn't exist, and, in the end, losing the war with God and spending all eternity in desolation and alone.
I just don't get it.
Thanks. I can't get enough.
"Man is DOOMED to Learn"
What a tagline!
Thanks for the new source material.
Excellent!
What a tagline!
LOL! Could be I guess.
I believe what my husband meant by the statement (putting it in context of our conversation) was that Man will some day, thru his own technology..become "Too big for his own britches".
If knowledge is not used properly..we have atheism , liberalism, socialism..all those "isms".
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gods |
Just updating the info, not sending a general distribution. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
