Analysis Archives - Page 17 of 29

The Palace of David: A Flawed Proposal

Several years ago Eilat Mazar announced with great fanfare that she had discovered the palace of David. It was right where she had predicted it would be. Her analysis was based in part on the Bible, which she believed gave clues to where David’s palace was.

The main verse in Mazar’s proposal is 2 Samuel 5:17:

When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to search for David. But David heard of it and went down to the stronghold.

The key word for locating the palace is “down.” Because David went from the palace “down” to the stronghold, the palace must be north of the stronghold because of the topography of Jerusalem.

But the Bible doesn’t say that David went from the palace, and it doesn’t say that he went to the stronghold of Jerusalem. In fact, I’m certain that he did not.

You might read the passage in 2 Samuel 5 yourself. I think you’ll be surprised that Mazar ever made this proposal, that it has been published twice in Biblical Archaeology Review, and that it (apparently) has never been critiqued.

Then you might check out my analysis published today at The Bible and Interpretation. Who do you think is right? Does it matter how one reads the biblical text as long as it agrees with the archaeological discoveries?

Area of excavations of possible palace of David

Tagged Analysis, Jerusalem

Questions about a Hasty Excavation in Jerusalem

I am intrigued by a new report of an excavation of a Jerusalem burial cave for several reasons (HT: Roi Brit). First, the tomb is interesting in its own right, with six kokhim, a standing pit, a blocking stone, and seven complete ossuaries. The lid of one of these bone boxes was attached by a bronze nail and another had a two-line inscription which read in part, “Cursed is the one who casts me from my place.” The archaeologists date the cave to the 1st century AD.

But I’m less impressed by the obvious haste with which the tomb was excavated. The archaeologists make no attempt to mask the conditions under which they worked. They write:

On the night of January 18, 2009, a rock-hewn burial cave was hastily documented in the Qiryat Shemuel neighborhood of Jerusalem.

Night conditions are less than ideal for archaeology, even when the excavation is in a cave.

The hurried process and poor lighting conditions in the cave precluded a proper examination and description of the cave’s contents.

The operation was so hasty that they could not even get sufficient lighting in place for their examination.

Artifacts were not removed from the cave and once its documentation was done, it was sealed and covered with soil.

Sealing a cave after excavation is not unusual, particularly when it is not necessarily unique and lies in the way of a building project. But it is disturbing that artifacts were left in the cave when a proper examination was not done. The world has not yet been rid of grave robbers.

Due to the haste, only two complete ossuaries and several decorated fragments were documented (Figs. 4, 5)….Careless engravings or traces of faded paint were noted on other ossuaries; these may also be inscriptions that require further research for decipherment.

The obvious question here is who is running the show in Jerusalem. Do building contractors have more authority than government archaeologists? It seems to me that this report is a quiet protest against the way antiquities are being treated in Israel. The tomb and its artifacts are part of the nation’s heritage. Whatever construction project is involved is likely not part of that heritage. What is so important that the contractors cannot wait one day while the tomb is properly studied? Who makes the decision on these matters? Are they influenced by the deep pockets of the building contractors? Are Israeli government officials selling out the nation’s heritage to line their pockets?

Tagged Analysis, Excavations, Jerusalem

Does the Merneptah Stele Contradict Archaeology?

Many times I have told a classroom full of undergraduates, “I thank God every day for the Merneptah Stele.” They no doubt thought I was a strange duck, but this crazy claim didn’t help my reputation.

It’s not that I don’t like the other famous inscriptions that relate to biblical history. I remember one of my professors saying that there was no extrabiblical evidence for the “house of David” and then a few months later (in the summer of 1993), the Tel Dan Inscription was discovered. I appreciate the Black Obelisk which has a depiction of King Jehu bowing down and paying tribute to the Assyrian monarch. And I love to point out the Ketef Hinnom silver amulets in the Israel Museum as the earliest portions of Scripture ever found. But I don’t thank God every day for any of these.

The Merneptah Stele is a 10 feet- (3 m-) tall monumental inscription that records the victory hymn of Pharaoh Merneptah (1213-1203 BC). Most of the lengthy poem is about his campaign against Libyan tribes, but at the end he describes some victories in Canaan. One of the enemies he claims to have thoroughly obliterated is the people of Israel.

Merneptah’s boast has had the opposite effect: instead of destroying Israel, he has actually preserved the fact of their existence at that time. Everyone agrees that Israel existed sometime later, but without the Merneptah Stele, very few scholars would acknowledge that they existed at this time. In fact, it’s my opinion that even today, 114 years after the discovery of the Merneptah Stele, most scholars don’t properly account for this inscription in their reconstruction of the origin of the people of Israel.

That’s the point of my brief essay posted today at The Bible and Interpretation. I’d be gratified if you’d give it a read. Maybe I’m not as crazy to give thanks as my students thought.

Tagged Analysis, Egypt

A New Theory on the Death of Herod Agrippa I

Have you ever thought that some ruler/king/president/official was just so evil that the Lord should strike him down? Of course not. But there was a king whose life was ended by God not long after Jesus’ crucifixion. The book of Acts describes the failure of Agrippa I to give glory to God with the result that he was eaten by worms and died (Acts 12:20-23).

The New Testament records that the episode occurred in Caesarea, but Josephus is more specific and writes that Agrippa was in the theater. For that reason, I’ve always read the story of Acts 12 with my students while in the theater. Now, however, I think I was wrong. Josephus, it seems to me, undermines his own presentation.

I make my case in an article posted this week at The Bible and Interpretation. I’d be happy if you’d read it and note in the comments if you’re convinced or not. As far as I know, no one has made these observations before.

Tagged Analysis

Archaeology and Hype

Is Holy Land Archaeology Being Hyped by Politics? The answer is yes, according to this article by Matthew Kalman. But if your major sources are Jim West and Meir Ben-Dov, this is an entirely predictable, but not necessarily accurate, conclusion.

Is archaeology hyped? Sometimes it is. But is the cause politics or something else? Does the problem lie with archaeologists or with someone else?

Everybody wants a sensational story. The public doesn’t want to read about a clay tablet, they want to hear about the oldest inscription ever found in Jerusalem. Journalists and their publishers want stories that sell. Archaeologists are typically tireless workers who often lack necessary funding and sometimes may stretch the significance of their discovery for personal or professional reasons. In my observation, archaeologists in Israel generally present their work in an appropriate way that doesn’t overstate the evidence. Sometimes the media spins things to boost pageviews, such as one headline on this story that makes this latest discovery the “oldest document found in Israel.” That’s not true, and it’s not what the archaeologists reported.

I have been concerned in the past with some claims. Usually I find fault because the sensational conclusion is announced prematurely. Eilat Mazar found the palace of David in her first season of excavations in the area. If this claim was made after five years of careful investigation and discussion with colleagues, I would be less inclined to view it as a fundraising device. Shimon Gibson announced his discovery of the “Cave of John the Baptist” at the same time that his book was released, but I don’t know of any archaeologists who find his evidence compelling. Rami Arav is very outspoken about his excavations at the New Testament city of Bethsaida, but his impressive finds are from an Iron Age city of the kingdom of Gesher, and there is very little that he has excavated which supports the Bethsaida identification.

Are there problems with archaeologists hyping archaeological discoveries? Yes. Are they systemic and primarily motivated by politics? I hardly think so.

Tagged Analysis

Questioning the Identification of the Magdala Synagogue

Tom Powers began to comment here on yesterday’s post on Magdala, but it grew to such length that he put it up on his own blog. Tom questions the present identification of the synagogue to the first century.

However, I must ask certain questions about the present find, especially in relation to the other synagogues long dated to the late 2nd Temple period in this country – and there are only a handful: Masada, Herodium, Gamla, Jericho, and perhaps one or two others. For one thing, what other synagogue from this period has a mosaic floor (of any kind or design)? What other synagogue lacks stepped benches around the periphery of the hall? What other synagogue has a decorative carved stone set into the middle of the floor? In short, everything about the Magdala structure seems to be an anomaly – if it is what the archaeologists claim.

These are good questions. Typically mosaic floors from this time period are found in houses or palaces, not in synagogues. Other synagogues have benches on the walls, including the 1st century synagogues at Masada and Gamla (for a reconstruction and photo of the latter, see here).

Tom is not questioning the date of the building (contra the post title; see update below), but rather whether this building is in fact a synagogue. It is a curious fact that archaeologists too often tend to find exactly what they’re looking for. Might this be a public building, not necessarily religious in nature? Tom questions whether the inscribed stone with a menorah is a sufficient basis for the synagogue identification. One further question in that regard is what periods the site was occupied.

You can read Tom’s whole post here.

UPDATE: Tom has kindly informed me that I have misrepresented his post. Indeed I have! I read what I expected rather than what he wrote. I apologize to him and to my readers. The above post has been corrected. In case it is not clear above, Tom questions the function of the building, not its date, as I previously stated.

Magdala synagogue

Carved stone in Magdala synagogue. Photos courtesy of Gordon Franz.

Tagged Analysis, Excavations, Galilee