Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall

letter-447577_1280

From the Associated Press:

JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

That’s a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible’s account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Miriam says:

    And here in Bet Shemesh they carbon dated our Canaanite ruins (near shopping center BIG) to the exact year when the region was conquested by Yehoshua. This news is 2 years old, but did anyone hear it?

    The non-believers are consistently unimpressed, and the believers don’t need proof (evidence, whatever).

  2. L. Oberstein says:

    It is true that those who deny our right to exist will discount any “evidence” and claim athat we Jews aren’t even descended from the Ancient Hebrews. Didn’t you know that the Palestinians are their progeny, not we Khazar converts from Central Asia. I hope that the Israelis themselves remain firm in their belief that Jews have a right to a state in Eretz Yisrael. If we are internally strong, we can overcome external forces.

  3. Shades of Gray says:

    I don’t have a problem with the word “proof” if it’s well supported, and coming from people who deal with and develop the opposing argument well. In this case, the archeologists may well see within their field a “proof” or “evidence” to a position—one can quibble on the details. Either way, it’s fascinating, and can be a chizuk(inspiration), because one sees how a certain anti-Torah assumption needed to be revised by scholars.

    I have a problem with the term “proofs” in other situations– when it’s used to oversimplify an overall argument, and when the one using it is not ready to publicly defend against learned opposition. In such cases, Allan Dershowitz’s approach would seem to make sense (as quoted in “An Afternoon with Alan Dershowitz”), tweaked a little for ikkarie hadaas(not literally taking the opposition, as in the case of Dershowitz’s 20% siding with JStreet):

    “I am effective because I don’t make the 100% case for Israel, but the 80% case….”

  4. dr. bill says:

    so writes the archaeologist in question, prof. mazur:

    It suits the biblical story and upgrades our ability to propose an association to the wall of Jerusalem that King Solomon built. It’s not wise to relate to archaeology without the biblical text. It is very possible that the Bible, like stories of dynasties, preserves a kernel of truth,” she says.

    I will go a step beyond Bob Miller – those who dispute even this evidence of (some) historical basis for the story of david and Solomon, are biased by a dangerous brand of post-zionism that is not just opposed to the religion of Israel but also the people(hood) of Israel. They too believe that yisroel, veOraysei veKudsha Berich HU chad hu is correct; correct but largely sharing one large myth. Bring back the zionists of old; this crew is much more nefarious.

  5. Bob Miller says:

    Those who want to dispute the whole idea of a Jewish kingdom in ancient Israel will shrug off any evidence for it, or even proof. However, others with more open minds may take note.

  6. Bruce says:

    Just a quick clarification: a better word here is “evidence” not “proof”. A proof is definitive, and it usually is reserved for things like math and formal logic. Most real world empirical theories are not capable of such verification (and this one certainly isn’t.)

    This may seem like a nitpicky point, but I don’t think it is. Labeling something a “proof” seems to be overreaching. And if something labeled a “proof” later ends up not to be valid, it weakens the whole claim.