Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Biblical & Judean Coins Discussion Forum

proof of First Temple's existance

<< < (2/3) > >>

LordBest:
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)

Jochen:
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

Robert_Brenchley:
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.

Ecgþeow:
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.

LordBest:

--- Quote --- Sorry LB, but i have to disagree with you
--- End quote ---
Hey, theres nothing more healthy than friendly debate. :)
                                           LordBest. 8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page