According to Prof. Yossi Garfinkel of the Hebrew University, the site was the first evidence in the history of archaeological research for ancient worship in Judah during the time of King David.
An excavation expedition on behalf of the Institute of Archeology at the Hebrew University led by Prof. Yossi Garfinkel and Saar Ganor from the Antiquities Authority recently completed the uncovering of stirring evidence in the Elah Valley area about the ancient worship of the people of Israel during the time of King David. The findings also shed new light on the construction activities of King Solomon's palace and temple in Jerusalem. These and other data are published today at a press conference that will be held today at the Hebrew University. In addition, the findings are published in a new book called: King David's footprints in the Elah Valley.
At the site of the ruins of Kiapha, identified with the biblical Shaareim, about 30 km southwest of Jerusalem, a large part of a city with an area of 23 dunams was uncovered. The construction of the city was done according to a defined plan and it has residences, a fortified wall built of huge stones, some of which weigh 8 tons, two gates, and two gate squares that were probably used for gatherings.
Recently, the excavation team found three worship rooms at the site, including tombstones, basalt altars, pottery vessels for liquids and the crowning glory - two cabinets for keeping the symbols of God. These are the first evidences in the history of archaeological research in the Land of Israel for the ancient worship in Judah in the days of King David. It is important to note that no human or animal figurines, which are common in Canaanite, Philistine or Edomite places of worship, were found in the three worship rooms. The residents of the site kept the second commandment: You shall not make a statue or any image of yourself.
"The cabinets found, one made of clay and the other of stone, are identical to an object called in the Bible during the time of King David the 'Ark of God,'" Prof. Garfinkel points out and adds: "These are installations in which they kept the symbol of God, similar to the holy cabinets used in synagogues to keep Torah scrolls."
Both cabinets are decorated on the front with the model of magnificent temples. The pottery item is rich in details and includes a decorated opening guarded by two lions. In the foreground are two columns similar, according to Prof. Garfinkel, to the description of the columns of Yachin and Boaz in Solomon's Temple. Above the opening are three straight beams with incised circles on them, a description of the upper part of the house. On these beams is a rolled strip of clay which, according to Prof. Garfinkel, reminds of the veil over the entrance to the vestibule in the Temple. On the roof are three birds that are used as decoration, but may also allude to the sacrifice of birds as ritual sacrifices.
The second cabinet is carved from soft limestone, painted red, and has a magnificent front that includes a rectangular opening that is 10 cm wide and 20 cm high. Hence the height of the opening is twice its width. It is interesting to note that in the tractate of measurements different openings in the Second Temple are described, and their dimensions are 10 by 20 cubits, or 20 by 40 cubits, that is, the height of the opening is twice its width. It seems that this aesthetic concept was shared by both temples.
The opening is emphasized by transoms that recede inward. Below the roof are seven small incised rectangles in the model that creates three parallel lines simulating wooden beams to support the roof. "While examples of pottery cabinets have been found in the past, this is the first time that a stone cabinet has been discovered in excavations in Israel," notes Prof. Garfinkel. "The item reflects a magnificent construction style of temples, palaces and even royal tombs, a style known in buildings or in artistic depictions from the biblical period that are hundreds of years later than the ruins of Caiaphas. Now it turns out that this style of construction was already accepted in Judah during the time of King David."
According to Prof. Garfinkel, "The stone coffin discovered in the excavations for the first time solves the mystery of the meaning of some of the construction descriptions of Solomon's palace and temple. In the description of the palace, the difficult phrase appears: And three columns are transparent and a scene after a scene three times (XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). Now it is clear that what is being described here is a magnificent entrance to a palace with three frames that have retracted inward, three jambs on the right side, three on the left side and three above the opening. In the tradition it is also said that in the Temple there are openings built as 'fourth' and 'fifth'. Now, following the discovery of the coffin, it becomes clear that the reference is to four or five retracted frames around the opening."
According to Garfinkel, the stone model also contributes to understanding the roof of the palace and the roof of the temple. "In the sources it is written that the roof of Solomon's palace had ribs organized in threes: 45 ribs in 15 columns (XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). This is also the case in the description of a temple by the prophet Ezekiel: And the ribs, rib to rib three times, and thirty times in the wall that is in the house around it (chapter ma, verse XNUMX). Now it is clear that those ribs are wooden beams to support the roof, organized in groups of three beams close together. Such beams are known in classical Greek architecture, in magnificent buildings and temples, and there it is customary to call them triglyphs". The appearance of carved triglyphs in the stone coffin of the Kyapa ruins is an important landmark in the development of world architecture.
Also in the description of Solomon's temple it is written: And he made ribs around it (XNUMX Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX). Although the scripture does not elaborate on the ribs on the roof of the temple, but from the mention of the ribs in the building of the palace, in the temple that Ezekiel describes, and in the find from the ruins of Caiaphas, it turns out that this is what the scripture means.
In conclusion, Prof. Garfinkel points out that "the findings from the ruins of Kiyapa are the earliest evidence found so far of ancient worship in the Kingdom of Judah, and shed light on various aspects related to the growth of ancient Israelite religion, and worship without human or animal figures. The stone coffin from the ruins of Caiaphas is actually a tangible image that shows us today, after 3,000 years, how parts of the palace and temple structure described by the biblical tradition in Jerusalem looked.
Prof. Israel Finkelstein, professor of archeology at Tel Aviv University and the author of the book "Rashit Israel" according to which the Queen of Judah during the time of David and Solomon was a small mountain kingdom and did not rule over the Kingdom of Israel which was a much larger and more important kingdom. In one of the television broadcasts that reported on the press conference, it was claimed that this was a refutation of this argument. We contacted Prof. Finkelstein for a comment.
In a conversation with the Hidan website, Prof. Finkelstein said: "The findings are interesting, they should be seen in the context of the material culture in Canaan during the late Bronze Age and the early stages of the Iron Age. There are quite similar findings, at other sites, perhaps not of stone but of pottery. The site is an interesting and important site, but does not necessarily belong to the world of the Kingdom of Judah. There are other opinions. Some associate it with the Canaanite culture in the lowland region at that time. Perhaps in the context of a more northern territorial unit - Israeli. It is impossible to make a direct connection between these findings and the temple in Jerusalem. Why isn't it a temple in nearby Geth or some Canaanite site. Also the quotes from the Bible are within the context of the Canaanite culture in the Iron Age. I do not see the connection between these findings and the temple in Jerusalem in the 10th century BC. Apart from that, I also do not see the great revolution in these findings. There have already been quite a few finds quite similar to them in the Canaanite world during the Bronze and Iron Ages, but there is no arguing that this is an interesting and fascinating site."
59 תגובות
Little Yuval and his war in the science system. Although I wasted a lot of ammo, I learned another safe word 🙂
Ruby, glad to help. I hope you feel better and that you are no longer sorry.
I, on the other hand, was not convinced by the arguments you put forward. But it's not because of you, but because I'm cursed with critical thinking. My private problem should not bother you or anyone else.
Yuval, you only strengthen my argument, the fact that Islam also adopted the history of King David shows that there must be a kernel of truth in the story. You know the saying, a lie has no legs and a false story holds no water.
Do you think that a group of priests, no matter how powerful, will invent a story about a royal dynasty and the people will accept it as fact and because of that they will start working and observing religious laws? Do you think that someone would make an effort to write beautiful songs and prayers as beautiful as in the Psalms just so that the people would observe the religious laws?
Would you or someone now in Israel accept a story from Shas or Agudat Israel about a certain person in the recent past as a historical fact and start to become religious? Equally then, no one would have accepted an "imaginary story" of a group of priests, about King David and his dynasty at that time (recent past), if it was not true.
I got a birthday
Yaron
The previous comment contains content intended for you 🙂
editorial board! Please feel free to delete some of my recent comments awaiting approval, including this one:
Thanks for your comments.
You were very right in your words because "the Bible does not eradicate even bad things, and it seems very human". My opinion, which I have already expressed several times on the stage of knowledge, is that significant parts of the Bible were written in order to influence King Josiah to dominate the religion of one particular family of priests. These priests were in charge of his education from infancy, and among other things instructed him to be brave and decisive as befits a king.
Yaron,
I'm not ignoring you. My response to your words (which I sent even twice) is awaiting confirmation.
Yaron, thanks for your comments.
You were very right in your words because "the Bible does not eradicate even bad things, and it seems very human". My opinion, which I have already expressed several times on the stage of knowledge, is that significant parts of the Bible were written in order to influence King Josiah to dominate the religion of one particular family of priests. These priests were in charge of his education from infancy, and among other things instructed him to be brave and decisive as befits a king.
Yaron, thanks for your comments.
You were very right in your words because "the Bible does not eradicate even bad things, and it seems very human". My opinion, which I have already expressed several times on the stage of knowledge, is that significant parts of the books of the Torah and the Prophets were written in order to influence King Josiah to dominate the religion of one particular family of priests. These priests were in charge of his education from infancy, and among other things instructed him to be brave and decisive as befits a king.
Ruby,
I don't understand why you are sorry. If I were you, I would be happy
The Jewish people grew up in the Land of Israel, where their priests created an advanced moral theory that spread throughout the world and was adopted by many nations (even Buddhism took a significant part of the Ten Commandments). There are many reasons why this Torah was created precisely here, and I would love the opportunity to delve into it. We, who consider ourselves descendants of that people, have a solid justification for the right to this land regardless of whether David and Solomon were there or not.
And since you mentioned the Book of Psalms, Islam also accepts David as the one who wrote it - all of it.
Yuval, sorry, Jewish history as written in the Bible and verified from time to time by archeological findings and the fundamental right of every Jew to preserve it wherever he is not subject to political interpretation. Its denial is political and not the desire to preserve it as it has been for thousands of years.
Regarding David's reign and his dynasty, the songs written by him, the Book of Psalms and archaeological findings that have been discovered and will be discovered in the future are accepted by me and the Jewish people in the vast majority as well as by Christianity which claims that Jesus is descended from the seed of the House of David.
As Ben-Gurion said that the Bible is our Koshan, I would expect Jewish citizens living in the country to embrace this asset close to their hearts (even if they are not religious) and not disrespect it and treat it as a folk legend.
I must point out that the discussion here is no less impressive than the article.
With mutual respect and appreciation for different opinions - we don't always keep it that way.
another point:
It is clear to us that the detractors of the State of Israel outside are not debating the respectable scientific debate that is going on here.
For them this is a reason to legitimize the right of the people of Israel to their own state in the Land of Israel.
The opinions you present, Yuval, seem correct to me as a research approach. At the same time, the Bible does not exterminate bad things either, and seems extremely humane. Unfortunately - if there was anything archeological, it was destroyed over the years.
The other mythologies - there is nothing like the Bible in the whole world. This makes me think that there is more than a grain of truth in the stories of the Bible. The prophets who arose - I find it hard to believe that these are religious and not historical descriptions.
This is the most important philosophy in the world of belief in one God, and not pure sacrificial worship.
According to the stories of the Bible generations died for the principle. There is no net commercial business here. This people fought the world's most powerful empires only for religious/philosophical autonomy.
Ruby,
You are right because the discussion here is in a scientific framework, for example history. On the other hand, a statement such as "there is an influence here of atheist academics or trendsetting missionaries who are trying to tattoo the Jewish heritage and the justification for our existence in Israel" is a non-scientific claim that carries a political tone.
Are you implying that I "deny first and prove later"? My basic claim is that the Bible was not written to serve as a history book but to convince its readers to follow some religious path (and by the way also to provide a livelihood for the priests). The methods of operation of the writers of the Bible can be found in the work of missionaries (including the Mechabatim) nowadays, for whom scientific truth is not a candle to their feet.
David, was it or wasn't it? Assuming that in the period attributed to him there was already a writer and documents were written, it is not really necessary to find a statue. If David was king, it is very likely to find an inscription or epistle bearing his name. Indeed, letters and inscriptions were found in considerable abundance, but the expected name was not found on any of them. There is only one mention, in the Tel Dan inscription (or two, if we accept "Duda" from Misha's tombstone) to a royal court or a noble family of that name, but not to a single person who founded the dynasty in the period described in the Bible.
Yuval, this is not about political opinions but the history of the Jewish people which includes all of us, left, right, center, religious and secular. The method of denying first and proving later is suitable for the peoples around us and other deniers who are not lacking in the world (already today, in contrast, there are Holocaust deniers who do not believe the surviving witnesses and the "fabricated" photographs of the Holocaust) but not for us the Jewish people with all its long history.
Proving that King David existed is not particularly simple as according to the Jewish religion it is forbidden to make a statue and a mask in contrast to the Greeks and Romans who left many statues of their emperors.
Ruby!
First, thanks for the reference to Wikipedia. I found there that the archaeological identification of Etzion Gebr with a certain place on the coast of the Red Sea is not certain. I know the Pharisee according to which Etzion Geber is the name of a place, but, as I have stated many times before, I do not trust the reliability of stories told by priests who were interested in King Hinoka Josiah.
I have already heard Garfinkel's lecture twice in the link you provided and I found it very interesting and fascinating both in terms of the findings - which I do not dispute, and in terms of the conclusions - which are as beautiful and good as those of the people of the opposite school from Tel Aviv.
The approach you present - to accept the Bible as truth until the contrary is proven, is different from my approach - to see it at most as a recommendation for a place to dig. I have already said, and I repeat, I cannot accept the Bible as a reliable historical source and this is because it was written for religious and not scientific motives. Every liar knows that in order to convince he has to include some truth in his lies. Therefore, it is clear that there are true facts in the Bible, and we must know how to find them, but the entire Bible is biased and suspected to be false.
And finally, a request: please refrain from introducing political opinions into scientific discussion.
jubilee,
See the Etzion Geber entry on Wikipedia, an ancient city in the land of Edom / a port city on the coast of the Red Sea. King Solomon established a fleet of ships there to trade gold on the coast of the Red Sea. Jehoshaphat's fleet probably crashed due to a storm. Archaeological researchers identify it with the coral island in the Gulf of Eilat.
It seems to me that you are getting carried away with your theories to write in the Bible. I heard Dr. Gorfinkel's interview in which he says that the ruling theory in the academy is the denial of the Bible as the historical source and it's a shame, in my opinion there is an influence here of atheist academics or trendsetting missionaries who try to tattoo the Jewish heritage and the justification for our existence in Israel and you fall into this trap.
In my opinion, the correct approach is to approach the information in the Bible from the opposite direction, to accept it as historical fact unless proven otherwise by excavations or scientific experiments.
Thank you, R.H. As usual, I learn a lot from you.
I am ready to accept a Typhoon instead of a Tsunami and a Tarshish as an elite type of ships. Nor do I insist on one location or another, provided that we get the story of the loss of Jehoshaphat's entire fleet in one fell swoop.
The Bible mentions Etzion Geber in later stories (not chronologically but according to the order in which they were written) as a site that can be identified with some place in the Red Sea region. Since I doubt the reliability of these stories due to the motives of the narrators, the interpretation of "Etzion Geber" as a description of the way in which the ships were lost seems to me at least as plausible as that of a legendary place name. The root "Etzen" is similar to the root "Etsam" (in the ancient Hebrew script the letters MM and NoN are similar to each other, as in their later incarnations in Greek and Latin) and the word "Etzion" contains within it a combination of "Etsam" and "On". I repeat the interpretation "wave", because it appears anyway in the word "broken" ("shafer" = "wave").
Jehoshaphat and his extreme wealth are told in XNUMX Chronicles in four complete consecutive chapters, XNUMX to XNUMX. The description is very similar to the description given by the Bible to Solomon, and I believe that the later biblical writer copied a lot from ancient texts.
By the way, in Kublai Khan's case it was a typhoon and not a tsunami.
jubilee,
Turmeric is indeed recognized as a spray. Tarshish ships were the best ships of the period, the Mercedes of ships, or it was a style of building ships. In any case, when they wanted to say excellent ships, they said Tarshish ships, and it's not that they are stupid for Tarshish. Etzion Gavr is the name of a settlement and not a wave, apparently in the Eilat area on the coast of the Red Sea where I don't know about tsunami waves.
On what basis do you determine that Zion is a wave?
And another question, where do you infer the wealth of the David family?
Thank you, R.H
My main failing is the pretense of presenting my version as if it were the absolute truth and there is no other. So let me make it clear: my stories are no more true or less imaginary than the biblical stories.
Tsunami in the Bible - XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX: "Jehoshaphat sent ten ships to Tarshish to go from Ephira to Zahav and he did not go because the ships were broken in Ezion a man." "Tarshish" is, in my opinion, Tarsus, a port city on the east coast of present-day southern Turkey. "Etzion", in my opinion, is an "enormous wave" and "Etzion a man" is "a wave of increased intensity", a tsunami was understood. Tsunami waves in the Mediterranean caused by earthquakes in the Ai Yun region are known in history. If there is documentation for such an event in the ninth or eighth century BC, then we have a reinforcement for this assumption.
Obviously, there are other reasons for sinking ships (and let's not mention the Titanic in this context, because it is unlikely to find icebergs in the Mediterranean Sea), but in this story we are talking about the sinking not of a single ship but of an entire fleet in a single event. Evidence was recently found that the fleet of hundreds of ships sent by the King of Mongolia, Genghis Khan's grandson, to conquer Japan was completely destroyed in a tsunami. Although I sail in imaginations sometimes, but not this time.
my father
I have a serious question,
If there are words that for some reason are tracked or prevented from being published in an article due to the possibility that they will offend this or that believer, why can't the same procedure be applied to words that offend the non-believing secular person..
Dear Yuval,
This is a classic logical fallacy. Just because Solomon's story isn't true doesn't make your story true. Suppose you have convinced us that the biblical story is not true, the burden of proof is still on you for your story.
And by the way, where do you see a tsunami in the Bible? Sinking ships is still not a tsunami, you know, there are several other reasons for sinking ships. See the Titanic entry for example.
R.H., Chen Chen.
The two languages are very close to each other, and "Aral" is a hero (or representative of heroism) in Hebrew as well.
As a matter of fact, as usual you are right that I drift a lot on the waves of imagination, and I am sorry that my sounds are grating on your ears. But the terms you brought up, "tsunami", "rich family" and "religious reform", are backed up in the Bible. My anti-biblical claim, according to which Solomon did not exist but that it was a disruption of an entire temple, is no weaker than the opposite biblical claim, because the description that the Bible gives of this king is exaggerated like nothing else (even in A Thousand and One Nights you will not find such stories), full of contradictions, and in no way He has no mention of a place outside the Bible.
Amir, thank you.
I used to want to be a story writer, but I didn't find a living in it 🙁
Flavius relied heavily on the Bible. This is simply because it is the only broad source he had for the description of the ancient period. A serious scholar should cite his sources, but Flavius did not cite the Bible as a source. In my opinion, this is mainly because he himself was a Jewish priest, a descendant of a family of biblical scribes or at least close to them, and his use of the Bible would have presented the history as "correct because it was written by a relative".
Indeed, there are "non-kosher" motives for the things I say. These can be summed up in the one axiom according to which the Bible was written to convey a religious message, and the candle at his feet was not the historical truth but another truth. As you say, it is difficult to establish things if there is no evidence, and a claim that cannot stand the test of refutation does not smell good. All I have is the controversial book and the axiom I presented above. Everything else is due to simple difficulties and anyone who wants to help, such as R.H. who does it well, is welcome to tattoo my structures.
jubilee,
Arel Proshu is a hero in Moabite. The Bible uses this title in the description of the battle between Benyahu son of Yehoida and two heroes of Moab. What Misha describes in his tombstone is that in the war he managed to capture one of the heroes of the house of David, probably from the "serial" whose actions are beautifully described in Samuel. He carried the same hero and presented him before the idol of Moab.
As a matter of fact, as usual you drift on the waves of imagination and go a few steps too far for my opinion. Tsunami? A rich family? Religious reform? Solomon did not exist and this is a disruption of an entire temple? Very weak in my opinion.
Avi Shalom,
As you can see from the many responses, the topic is charged and each side tries to find in it their belief or denial of their belief.
The highlighting of Prof. Finkelstein's response presents the findings in one place with the response, that is, creates a situation (at least in my view) of disproportion, what's more, no attack by the media was mentioned.
It was equally possible to include Prof. Finkelstein's response in the body of the article and not give it equal space to the findings in the title.
It seems like a desperate attempt to hold on to the ability to disprove the possibility of Jewish history, and give it an equal place in the same article describing the findings.
and Jubilee:
Most of us have no idea what happened in the past.
What we have is a collection of fragmented glimpses randomly preserved from the past.
We also have the biblical tradition that has been preserved very carefully, (including difficult and not particularly flattering descriptions) with strict adherence to the principle of truth.
If we accept Josephus Flavius, we have no reason not to at least consider the biblical story as a reasonable option and therefore, in my humble opinion, the Bible should be taken seriously.
It seems that the attempts to deny any basis for the biblical stories is based, to a large extent, on personal motives, mainly the denial of religion and tradition, which in my view is sad and certainly does not correspond to any scientific standard.
A scientific theory is good if it is based on facts and can be disproved.
Otherwise, it's just a story.
Ruby
I am proud that we have such a book and especially admire the language and expressions. And I appreciate, first of all, that it reflects or touches on the past of the Jewish, Israeli, Hebrew people. And some of the archeological findings strengthen, perhaps verify, some of what is written in the Bible.
But I treat it like any other literature, historical, biographical and otherwise. I very much appreciate Alaa who participated in its writing and editing and especially in keeping it for many years.
I hope you don't mean by the term "it is desirable to give credit and deny if there is such evidence" that you believe in everything
What you hear and read, I in any case do not.
Thanks to my admirers and fools, from all my educational teachers.
R.H., Mishna, thank you. Thanks to you bringing "Arel Doda" an idea came to me that might close some loopholes (by the way opening new loopholes 🙂 ):
The family that ruled the city of temples was called "David" and was extremely rich. Their house was named after her, "Aunt". Her partnership with the kings of Israel from the House of Amri suffered a severe financial setback, as mentioned in the Bible (the natural phenomenon, which in today's language is called a "tsunami", resulted in the failure of the attempt to compete with Sidon in the field of maritime trade [XNUMX Kings, XNUMX:Mt]), and another financial setback following a military defeat In Moab, about which Misha's tombstone tells. At that time, a raid was conducted in the Kingdom of Israel and Beit Douda, during which the main god was replaced (the Bible tells in Parashat Ataliya about the conversion of the worship of Baal to the worship of Jehovah [Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX et seq.] but the official version of the Bible is that the worship of this new god was practiced even before that) . The Duda family tried to declare political independence and secede from the Kingdom of Israel, but was eliminated by Yehoram. Only after Jehu's coup was the long-awaited separation between the Kingdom of Israel and the economic empire of the City of Temples, all of whose shares were now held by Queen Ataliah of Omri. The kingdom of Jehoash transferred the properties of the extinct House of David to the family of Yehoida the priest. The presentation of Jehoash as the only survivor of the massacre, in the "deus ex machina" examination, raises the suspicion that he was not really a scion of the house of David, but the real son of Jehoiada (the Bible states that he was Jehoiada's nephew, and this is probably to explain the family similarity). Just as Jehu was called the son of Omri (on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser III) and Joram was known as the son of Jehoshaphat, Jehoash was also declared to be the son of David. A hint that Jehoash was the son of Jehoiada and not a real son of David can be found in the change of the name of the kingdom from "Duda" to "Judah".
Seriously, instead of denying and asking for / looking for evidence, it is possible and desirable to give credit and deny if there is such evidence.
in his credibility an event
apologetic. I now understand that you also do not accept biblical history as simple.
What is said and narrated in the Bible is similar to any historical book in its reliability,
Every event or character, if it did exist, receives in the story its essence, its importance, its form, its influence, etc., from the writer.
I think that as long as no supporting findings have been discovered and examined, there is no point in analyzing and explaining the existence of that character or event because it is possible that they did not exist.
It's like analyzing the story of Cinderella.
Yuval Shalom:
In appreciation of your knowledge, in my subjective opinion, Professor Israel Finkelstein's reasons are no less convincing. The history of the Kingdom of Israel is recorded in non-biblical sources from at least the days of Ahab. Excavations in the land show no signs of settlement during the settlement period, but of the growth and expansion of existing cities. I do not believe any less in my right to a national state in this country. I heard about the stone in the Golan Heights with the inscription "Beit David" that was found by an archaeologist. I also heard about the Minister of Finance in Egypt named Yosef. More discoveries may be added over the years. What I appreciated about Finkelstein is that he broke for me the axiom of the time of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, settlement, the house of David and I am now ready to look for proofs of something that I was taught is the Torah from Sinai. I am grateful to Finkelstein for that. In my humble opinion, it is our duty to examine the validity of biblical history according to other archaeological and literary sources. In my opinion, we must not say "from the time of the house of David" as a fact.
I am aware that detractors of Israel misuse this discussion.
Your knowledge of the relevant history is impressive.
I'm not an expert in this matter, but if, indeed, it is Solomon's temple that we know from the Bible and tradition, how
Didn't the artist find another symbol from the gates? What about the Menorah, the Holy Ark, etc...
The article is mainly archaeological, and contributes to the findings and discussion.
I wanted to say thank you to Yuval Chaikin for enriching the article and the questions that stand in the background with his comments and knowledge.
Dror, there are bigger stones in the Kotel and in general they got the stage in the pyramids...
Such an experiment has already been carried out in the pyramids with the help of slopes, wooden cylinders, ropes and many, many workers.
Someday someone will have to organize a serious experiment of building with huge stones with approximate means of the time. 8 tons?!
Hello R.H.,
Arel is mentioned not only in Misha's tombstone, but also in the book of Samuel: "...Beniah son of Yehoida, son of a living man of many deeds from Kebzal, he struck the two Arals of Moab..." (Samuel XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX). Since "Moab" is the name of a kingdom, I make an equal judgment and assume that "Duda" is also such, perhaps even an ancient name of the Kingdom of Judah.
Beit David (in one word, so in the original) of Tel Dan is certainly very close to the royal line that was wiped out by order of King Hazael of Aram (probably by Jehu, as the Bible says). It is customary that a royal dynasty is named after its founder, and for that reason it is quite likely that the name of the founder is David. The question that interests Yuval Haikin is not the name of the founder but under what circumstances the royal house was founded. The Bible tells of several bloodbaths in the royal court between David's sons (Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah were murdered, in order. We do not know what happened to his second son, Kelab [or Daniel, depending on the version]). After several generations, a bloodbath again takes place in which all of Jehoshaphat's sons are murdered and Jehoram is left to reign alone.
The Bible presents Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, as having wealth and assets. A business dispute arises between Jehoshaphat and Joram due to a debt that Joram cannot pay, and a very short time later Jehoshaphat dies. The Bible does not indicate how he died, but the circumstances raise suspicion that he was murdered by Jehoram after he lost a fleet of merchant ships to a tsunami. Yehoram comes to power in Judah in the fifth year of Yehoram's rule in Israel. The Book of Kings says that Jehoram is Jehoshaphat's son, but the Book of Chronicles suggests that this is not the case. Jehoram married Athaliah, the daughter or sister of King Ahab of Israel [again, depending on the version]. Even if Jehoram king of Judah and Jehoram king of Israel are two different people, at that time Judah and Israel were one united kingdom. The Bible emphatically states that the kingdom of Israel was united in the days of David and Solomon and was torn apart with the outbreak of Jeroboam's rebellion, but obscures the fact that the kingdom was united during the days of Ahab and Joram and was torn apart with the outbreak of Jehu's rebellion. But something else happened. The sequence "Jehovah" began to appear in the names of the kings of Israel and Judah. The first is Jehoshaphat. After him Ahab's sons Ahaziah and Johoram in Israel, Athaliah, Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah. After them Jehu, four of the five kings in the dynasty he founded carried the sequence "Jehovah" in their name, and a long list of kings in Judah. "Jehovah" are the first three letters in the name of the Kingdom of Judah and also in the explicit name of the God whom the Bible presents as the only God of the one-of-a-kind faith. In other words, during the bloodbaths, not only kings were changed, but also a religious reform was carried out. The branch of the House of Omri that ruled Jerusalem and Judea during the religious revolution was called the House of David. The Bible attributes the religious reform to the kings it names David and Solomon and presents their time as a hundred years earlier than that of Omri and Ahab.
Yuval Haikin claims that the name "David", which means "beloved", was given to the king who respected and nurtured all religious beliefs and founded in Jerusalem a center of freedom of worship for all idols under the auspices of the priests of the central god Jehovah. Yuval Haikin also believes that this is the king known as Jehoshaphat.
The house of David is extinct, at the hands of Jehu or Hazael or both. The Bible says that Athaliah cooperated with Jehu and also killed the wrongdoers. This terrible act indeed presents her as a monster, but by doing so she saved Jerusalem from a mass slaughter at the hands of Jehu. Myths that took root in the public attributed to the House of David a promise from the mouth of the great God that he would reign forever, and it was indeed miraculously renewed by the priests of that God when the danger of invasion from Jehu passed.
In Jerusalem stood a central temple called "Slomo". Knowledge suggests that a large building is named after its builder, so it was easy to accept that it was built by a unique king whose name was Solomon. But Solomon is derived from the name "Shelem" which was the name of one of the beliefs that prevailed in the city which was also called "Eir Shelem". Since that city enjoyed religious freedom and worshipers of many faiths practiced it, it had many temples and each temple was named after its particular faith. Therefore, according to Yuval Haikin, the temple was named after the faith from the beginning and that the magnificent and wonderful King Solomon was an invention of late writers and never really existed.
Cassiopeia! It is true that many times the truth is simple and not complex. But when human interests require connections and collusions, the truth is precisely complex and not simple.
Does the revealed testimony have an inscription from the Kingdom of David or an Israeli symbol? I understand no.
If this is how I understand the article says "the findings belong to the dated period in which we consider the days of David".
In mathematical logic does it follow from this that there was a kingdom of David?
I don't think so. There is not a single king who mentions David. On the other hand, I love you.
jubilee,
David is also mentioned in Misha's inscription ("Ariel Doda"). It must be assumed that there was such a person because for example the kings of Israel including Jehu who destroyed the House of Omri are mentioned in Assyrian and other inscriptions as the House of Omri. That is, the house was named after its founder, so David was probably there too.
If there were no David and Shlomo, then who would there be?
And how does Yuval Chaikin explain the address "Beit David" in Tel Dan?
I don't know any other meaning of an inscription such as the House of David other than that it is a description of a dynasty
A government whose founder was David.
Many times the truth is simple and not as complex as the researchers try to present.
Ruby,
Although I am not as convinced as you, but I hope together with you.
"We are a nation that has gone through destruction and conquests" simply because out of all the world we have chosen for ourselves precisely this region of the country which, due to its location in the narrow path between the northern and southern powers, draws fire from all directions without ceasing.
Do you think the menorah robbers left it intact and did not melt it into coins? I doubt.
I am convinced that in the future more evidence will be discovered that will verify what is written in the Bible.
We are a nation that went through destruction and conquests by empires of different religions and each in turn wanted to obliterate and destroy the memory of the Israeli/Jewish settlement and the name was even changed to Palestine, but it did not help them.
It is difficult after such a long time to find evidence of the existence of a certain person and only with great luck will proven evidence be discovered.
I wonder if the lamp you see in the Titus Gate exists somewhere in the Vatican cellars.
Hello Ruby,
I do not doubt the information about the findings presented by Prof. Garfinkel, and in these he also convinces me. I also have no reason to doubt the purity of his intentions. To his credit, he said that he repeatedly emphasizes the importance of scientific criticism and the danger of jumping to hasty conclusions, but I do not rule out the possibility that the interpretation he gives fits in some way (even if only subconsciously) to some line that may have been drawn in advance.
My education is not relevant. My words are not based on any scientific method or academic school of thought, but only on what is visible to the eye, i.e. the biblical text and archaeological publications, and minimal skeptical criticism.
I am not categorically against the existence of Kings David and Solomon, but only saying that as long as we do not have solid evidence, we cannot accept the biblical version. Unlike David and Solomon, of whom not a single identifying inscription was found, the names of many officials mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah were found on clay seals (stamps) in excavations in Jerusalem in the layer corresponding to the time attributed to them. King Hezekiah also left an inscription, and like him other biblical kings. The reason why I do not accept the Bible literally (even though I use it, for example to show that Jerusalem was a place of hundreds of worship sites for various idols until the days of Josiah) is that it was not written in the first place to serve as a historical document but to convey a religious message and in this it is Suspected of being biased in favor of the interests of its writers.
Hello Yuval,
Do you have an education in the field in question?
Professor Gorfinkel sounds very convincing to me.
http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortalStorage/a/56/72/79-kv1SDwmpR6.mp3
SAFKAN, thanks for the link. Beautiful and instructive
Professor Garfinkel!
In my opinion, the conclusion that the monotheistic worship proves that it is a Jewish settlement is wrong. Indeed, Judah, and especially Jerusalem, excelled in many idolatrous worships. Jerusalem was loved by seekers of holiness hundreds of years before the time attributed to David and Solomon, and attracted pilgrims who provided plenty of sustenance for many priestly families in the hundreds of places of worship that were scattered around it. The Bible testifies that these sites existed until the days of King Josiah and that Josiah's son also tried to renew them. I learn about the large number of places of worship indirectly from the stories about Solomon (who had a thousand foreign wives and for each of them he built her own temple).
The ban on sacrificing pork and eating it in general is not Jewish in origin but was practiced in Israel as early as the time attributed to Joshua. We learn this, for example, from Adam Zertal's finds in the altar on Mount Ebal.
After the destruction of the northern Hebrew kingdom at the hands of Assyria, when Judah was flooded with Israeli refugees and immigrants, only then did the Israeli religion begin to spread in Judah as well. King Hezekiah invited Israelis to come to Jerusalem and for that he brought Israeli priests into Solomon's temple. The Israeliness of the new priests is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but it is strongly requested: the division into two priestly families, Eleazar and Itamar in a ratio of two to one, is, in my humble opinion, part of Hezekiah's reform; The High Priesthood was promised forever to the descendants of Pinchas ben Elazar, so why do we find there also the descendants of Itamar? Only from the time of Hezekiah does monotheism begin to take over Jerusalem little by little. But the monotheistic religion, whose essence - contrary to what is commonly thought - is not the worship of one god but rather the imparting of progressive social values, began its growth in Israel and not in Judah.
"David" is a "friend" or a beloved lover (cf. the Song of Songs), and this is probably the name given to the king who allowed freedom of worship for all religions in Jerusalem. "Shaul" is the name of the kingdom of the dead, and it is the name given to the king who slaughtered the priests of Nob (whose refugees settled in the city of the book Anatot and later also established themselves in Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and contributed a lot to the writing of the Bible). "Solomon", like "Absalom" and like "Eir Shelem" and more, is derived from the name of a "Shelem" cult that is also mentioned in the book of Genesis ("Melchizedek king of Shelem... ...a priest to the Most High"). We have no extra-biblical evidence of the actual existence of these figures. "Beit David" mentioned in the Tel Dan inscription is not the explicit name of one person but of the dynasty of kings that ruled the city of a thousand idols.
The big question here is not Israel Finkelstein's ego (or mine) but how to understand the motives of the writers of the Bible for their generations.
Slowly but surely there will be more archaeological evidence of the truth of Jewish history in the Land of Israel as written in the Bible.
Too bad you can't dig on the Temple Mount...
It gives the impression that Prof. Finkelstein, nothing will convince anymore.
He decided, and that's it!
Who said: Brain trouble???
The only thing missing here to complete the findings is an inscription, and if and when an inscription is found within its stratigraphic context, i.e., within a known layer and not within a mound of dirt (like the Shishak/Shushank inscription that initially caused controversy in Megiddo), the findings will turn from exciting to world-class breakthroughs!
On the other hand, an address is always missing to complete such a picture and due to the lack of findings there are many disputes regarding dates and identifications of places, the main thing is that we enjoy all these findings.
A lecture by Professor Gorfinkel (the main archaeologist in the study in question) is available in the link listed below. I thought it was a 40 minute lecture. I heard the above lecture yesterday and Gorfinkel sounded quite convincing.
Below is a link to the lecture
http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortalStorage/a/56/72/79-kv1SDwmpR6.mp3
There is no doubt that Gorfinkel brought significant evidence that Kaifa was an established Jewish settlement under the auspices of a strong government body: proof of the strength of the government is the massive wall (8 ton rocks), proof of Jewishness is the absence of statues and human masks and the absence of unclean animal bones, proof of Jewishness is also compatibility between what is said in the Tanah "You and the findings.
Since the settlement of Kiyfa is located 30 kilometers from Jerusalem, it is hard to believe that there was a non-Jewish government in Jerusalem (since in this case the existence of a settlement like Kiyfa-Shaaraim (?) constitutes a security threat to the government in Jerusalem).
The editing of the article was due to the fact that there were media outlets that attacked Finkelstein in light of Gorfinkel's findings, and therefore it was necessary to request a response. A journalistic step is required.
Prof. Finkelstein's response is very shallow and evasive!
The comparison and the look at the "context" of that time, only strengthens Prof. Gorfinkel's opinion,
And it's a shame that the colleagues at the academy are not able to withdraw their position and admit their mistake.
Now I know what Garfunkel's next lecture will be about.
Very interesting article.
It's a shame that the editing of the article is so biased.
It is evident that the fear of some possibility of backing up the Bible distorted the editorial considerations. At least you could also bring the opposite opinion among the researchers, if only to maintain ethics. As someone who loves the site and appreciates it very much, it is a shame to see every time how the fear of religion distorts even scientific articles.
Reference to the original article
http://www.demotix.com/news/1201316/archaeologists-claim-proof-hebrew-bible-not-be-dismissed-legend#.T6l5SR4f3IE.facebook
The reference to the period of "King David" is problematic, since no extra-biblical evidence has been found for the name "David" as the given name of a certain king (although the name "House of David" appears in the Tel Dan inscription, but not as a given name). No evidence of the existence of a king named David was found in the sword of Caiaphas either. On the other hand, the worship of Jehovah was adopted by King Ahab and preserved by his successors even in the dynasty that deposed him (and of course also in Judah) and evidence of this is the suffix or initial "Jehovah" in the names of most of the kings of Israel and Judah after Ahab. Assuming that Yahweh is the name of the only god in whose work photographers were forbidden, it was worshiped all over the country only beginning in the days of Ahab.
In the original article it was claimed that the dating of the findings of the sword of Kyapa according to carbon 14 is 1020 - 980 BC. It corresponds precisely to the time attributed to David, 1040 - 970, and not to the time of Ahab, 871 - 852 (I would request a re-examination). It is quite possible that this city preceded Jerusalem as the place of worship of the one God. Indeed, the Bible itself testifies that Jerusalem was the center of much pagan worship (a thousand temples and tombs, if we believe the biblical writer who attributed to Solomon an unparalleled mighty power) until the days of King Hezekiah and even after.