Amazing discovery in heart of biblical Jerusalem

Cleveland Jewish News ^ | December 5, 2005 | DAVID HAZONY

[NYer]

Recent archaeological find, thought by some to be the biblical palace built by King David, stirs controversy over the right of the Jewish people to claim Jerusalem.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Apologies if this is a duplicate thread. I searched on Jerusalme and came up with only older news postings.

[fanfan]

Ping!

[Knitting A Conundrum]

You beat me to it, Fanfan...that's definitely a GGG pinger...

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Whatever it is it is: *Fascinating* And like anything else of this world- people who need nothing more than faith will have difficulty seeing eye to eye with people who need concrete proof.

[fanfan]

;-D

[NeilGus]

It has been a while since I last studied this in the Old Testament but didn't Solomon build the temple from plans God gave David?

[paudio]

All ancient texts are subject to historiography doubt, as the texts we have now might have been written by officials, visitors, poets, priests, etc. Now, if we put aside the value of biblical texts as religious texts, I don't see why they have to single out books in the bible to have higher burden of proof.

[timtoews5292004]

the temple, yes. but this is David's royal palace, built by hiram, king of tyre.

[MBB1984]

You are correct, but this article discusses David's palace, not the temple built by Solomon.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Others, driven by a combination of interests, ideologies, or political agendas, will seize on any shred of uncertainty in the building’s identification to distract attention from the momentousness of the find. Both groups will invoke professionalism and objectivity to undermine the proposition that this was David’s palace: They will either raise the bar of required proofs to a standard that no archaeological find could ever meet, or they will simply dismiss it all as wishful thinking in the service of religious or Zionist motives.

Sounds like the archaeological community has its Democrats as well.

I guess Biblical archaeology will always be thus: simply deny outright all historical assertions of the Bible, and then when reasonable supporting evidence is found, either pretend the evidence doesn't apply or change the subject by attacking the motives of those presenting the evidence.

[redgolum]

This will drive the IEA nuts.

They are very against anything that says that ancient Israel actually existed. It is not PC.

[N8VTXNinWV]

interestng read ping-a-ling!

[agere_contra]

But what about the poor dispossessed Jebusites? Oh those evil Joooos ...

[R. Scott]

… the absence of evidence from the relevant period shows that the great unified monarchy of David and Solomon was really an imaginary historiosophic creation.

Absence of proof is not proof. I haven’t access to the full article, but it would be nice if a miqveh is found.

[Sleeping Freeper]

Thanks for the post. I enjoy history and view the biblical accounts as one source of history. To me this theory is more plausible than many other claims that have been made about other sites.

[Lafayette]

Oh, it's lots worse than that. I subscribe to Immanuel Velikovsky's assertions that the world is dominated by "homo ignoramus". In one of his books Velikovsky compares the pictures on an Egyptian Stele with the biblical contents of the Ark of the Covenant, and concludes that it is a very close match... That got ignored just like everything else he ever wrote.

[VRWCmember]

It has been a while since I last studied this in the Old Testament but didn't Solomon build the temple from plans God gave David?

An excellent observation, except for the fact that this article was about the PALACE that David built rather than the temple that Solomon built.