Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: proof of First Temple's existance  (Read 4314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ecgþeow

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
    • my gallery
proof of First Temple's existance
« on: March 23, 2005, 10:52:40 pm »
hi,
I have heard many people discredit the existance of the First Temple using the proof that no archaeological evidence has ever been found to authenticate it.  My question is this: have there ever been excavations on the site of the Temple?  If so, what have these excavations come up with?  Would the Temple be directly below the Dome of the Rock?  having never been to Jerusalem, I don't really know the geography of the city very well.

Sorry, I know I'm openning up a whole can of worms here, but civil debate is a good thing, right?  :)

thanks for any clarification.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2005, 01:54:50 am »
The site of the First Temple would presumably be somewhere on the Temple Mount; it's never been excavated. The only 'artefact' ever found that was supposed to be from it was an ivory pomegranate which proved eventually to be a fake, probably from the same person who forged the James ossuary. I don't see any reason to discredit its existence though!

It's pretty plain that for the exiles to return with a grandiose scheme for reforming the Israelite religion, there has to have been a previous, well-established cult of Yahweh to be reformed. The pre-Exilic community worshipped many gods, but there's never been any serious suggestion that Yahweh wasn't worshipped, and in the ANE, you couldn't have a religious cult without a temple.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2005, 06:13:18 am »
It's pretty clear from the Book of Kings that the kings of Judah had a major role in the operation of the Temple. Exactly what that role is isn't known; the book was probably fairly heavily edited later, when there were no kings, the High Priest was the effective local ruler, and they decidedly didn't want royalty interfering in their bailiwick! But there  are references to the Temple treasury being used to supply the king's war chest, and the king giving orders for repairs to the Temple. It really has to have been in Jerusalem; why would the Old Testament authors have been going on about Zion so much if it wasn't a traditional centre of Yahweh's cult? It was probably small; I see it more as a royal chapel attached to the king's palace than anything else, in which case it would be unlikely to be found by ill-advised burrowing.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Ibex-coins

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2005, 03:30:46 pm »
There has been a persistent rumor for years that the Israelies have been digging under the temple mount/dome of the rock.  This is just a rumor and no digs have been undertaken there.  It is true that they have dug along the western wall of the temple mount, but this is on the side away from the temple mount.  You can actually take a tour of this area, it is fascinating.  There is one old ancient gateway that leads under the old temple mount, but about 10 years ago they did some minor digging their, only a few feet and the project was soon stopped.
It is true that the wafti, muslim authorities have been digging out the area that is known as Solomon's stables to make it into another mosque to expand room for prayer.  These "stables" are actually from Byzantine or Crusaders time though.  There is concern that the excavations in Solomons Stables have weakened  the foundations of this region of the temple mount.  This is disputed though, with the Palestinians saying that it has not been weakened and the Israelies saying that it has.  Recently a Jordanian team has gone in, I am not sure but I believe that the conclusion was that although the area could be in danger soon, for now it appears stable.
The main tourist entrance to the temple mount is without a doubt an unstable region, but this is not part of the temple mount itself and their is a plan inplace to replace this entrance with a bridge.
Once again, it is an old rumor that the Israelies have dug under the temple mount and made the area unstable, this is another rumor started to stir up religious fervour and cloud the climate of peaceful co-existence.

Offline Howard Cole

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Elymais forever!
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2005, 03:54:40 pm »
I have to agree with Ibex Coins.  It is just a rumor about the tunnels being dug under the temple mound.  I have been following this closely and there is no evidence for the tunnels, nothing published or found as far as I have read.

Will we ever know what is under the temple mound?  Most likely never.  It is a too holy of site to ever allow serious digging.  Unless we develop better methods of remote sensing, we can only speculate about the existence of the First Temple.

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2005, 04:12:28 pm »
Examining the Temple Mount with current techniques, wont, as hcole_1989 stated, reveal anything. however excavations at many nearby sites in Jerusalem have failled to uncover any evidence that Jerusalem was more than a small farming village during the time period the First Temple was meant to have stood, there is no evidence of the presence of any monumental architecture at all, temple or Royal enclave.
                                                    LordBest. 8)

Offline Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12278
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2005, 04:38:24 pm »
When I read
Finkelstein/Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, 2001 The Free Press
then I must agree with LordBest!

Regards

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2005, 06:46:45 pm »
It's perfectly true that very little has been found of pre-Exilic Jerusalem, but Palestinian  towns and cities in that period were very small. Lachish, an important city destroyed by the Assyrians in 701BC, amd the subject of a vast frieze which is now in the BM, was only about 350m across, if the plan of Tel Lachish in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is anything to go by. Given the intense building and rebuilding on the site over the centuries, you might not expect to find too much. Some fragments have been found though; there does appear to have been something significant there from what I can see! Trouble is, of course, Palestinian archaeology has, unfortunately, been used as a weapon in the modern politics of the area, and as usual, truth, whatever it is, becomes the first casualty of war.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Ecgþeow

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
    • my gallery
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2005, 01:50:09 am »
Sorry LB, but i have to disagree with you.  Evidence has shown that Jerusalem was a bit more than a small farming village.  You should definately read BAR's "Jerusalem in David and Solomon's Time."  Yes, they do have a certain bias, but they bring up many interesting points that seem to prove Jerusalem's relative prominence in the region.
Within the City of David, there is a massive stepped stone structure that has been traditionally dated to around the 12th century in its first form, putting it before David's conquest of the city, with subsequent add-ons in the tenth century, eith scentury and the second century.  this structure reaches about 12 stories tall, so it is a pretty large building.  The function of this structure was to support some building.  Now to be 12 stories tall, it must logically  be supporting something rather large (probably a large fortress housing the city's administrative functions).  I am not going to spend time explaining all the reasoning, you can read it in the article, but the major point was that this proves the existance of a reasonably large city with both the resources and the need for such monumental projects - hardly the characteristics of a small farming village.  
Briefly, other proofs for the existance of a large city are the Bronze age channel system from Gihon Spring, along with large towers protecting both the spring and the pools that this water suply created in the city.  There are also corespondences between Egypt and the king Abdi Heba of Jerusalem ("Urusalim" at the time) in the Amarrna Letters, proving that Jerusalem was a city of enough importance to be corresponding with the largest political power in the region.
Ok, I don't have time to repeat every assertion made, but do read the article.
So, all in all, Jerusalem was an important city.  Sorry for the rant, but I enjoy this kind of thing.

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2045
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2005, 06:29:24 am »
Quote
Sorry LB, but i have to disagree with you
Hey, theres nothing more healthy than friendly debate. :)
                                           LordBest. 8)

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2005, 08:29:24 am »
It's undoubtedly true that there's a fair bit of revisionist history about these days, saying basically that pre-exilic Israel didn't exist. I think it goes far too far, but I also think it's an understandable and perhaps inevitable reaction to the traditional picture of the Old Testament accounts as historical! I regard them as essentially propagandistic, and there are parts which I do think are completely unhistorical, but I find it impossible to understand post-exilic Israel without a pre-exilic Israel, even if it wasn't exactly as Samuel and Kings describe it. Then there's the archaeological evidence, which again isn't anything like as good as 19th Century archaeologists claimed, but which undoubtedly exists.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2005, 01:26:11 pm »
I had the good fortune to work in Jerusalem for a few weeks about 5 years ago. I managed to pick up quite a good guide book - not the usual tourist rubbish. The maps below come from that book. The first dates up to about 1000 BC, the second to Solomon in 965 and the other two are self-explanatory. Interestingly, the city has moved slowly north over the centuries.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2005, 01:27:03 pm »
maps 3 and 4
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline Ibex-coins

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re:proof of First Temple's existance
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2005, 01:54:03 pm »
Peter,
Your point is a good one.  Where the ancient city of David we think lies has never been had many opportunities for Archaeological digs due to the fact that it lies below (or we think it lies below) an arab village that is heavily populated.  The stepped structure that Zam refers to is one of the few opportunities archaeologists have had to peer below this village.  

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity