Scholar: Bible History May Be Correct
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.
While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history - including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar - others posit that David's monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.
Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find "the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel."
"It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction," she said.
Based on what she believes to be the age of the fortifications and their location, she suggested it was built by Solomon, David's son, and mentioned in the Book of Kings.
The fortifications, including a monumental gatehouse and a 77-yard (70-meter) long section of an ancient wall, are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem's Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. According to the Old Testament, it was Solomon who built the first Jewish Temple on the site.
That temple was destroyed by Babylonians, rebuilt, renovated by King Herod 2,000 years ago and then destroyed again by Roman legions in 70 A.D. The compound now houses two important Islamic buildings, the golden-capped Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.
Archaeologists have excavated the fortifications in the past, first in the 1860s and most recently in the 1980s. But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall's age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.
Aren Maeir, an archaeology professor at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."
While some see the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon as accurate and others reject it entirely, Maeir said the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.
"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.
? MMX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 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.
While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history - including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar - others posit that David's monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.
Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find "the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel."
"It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction," she said.
Based on what she believes to be the age of the fortifications and their location, she suggested it was built by Solomon, David's son, and mentioned in the Book of Kings.
The fortifications, including a monumental gatehouse and a 77-yard (70-meter) long section of an ancient wall, are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem's Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. According to the Old Testament, it was Solomon who built the first Jewish Temple on the site.
That temple was destroyed by Babylonians, rebuilt, renovated by King Herod 2,000 years ago and then destroyed again by Roman legions in 70 A.D. The compound now houses two important Islamic buildings, the golden-capped Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.
Archaeologists have excavated the fortifications in the past, first in the 1860s and most recently in the 1980s. But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall's age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.
Aren Maeir, an archaeology professor at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."
While some see the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon as accurate and others reject it entirely, Maeir said the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.
"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.
? MMX, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
One year after Afghan massacre, villagers work with U.S. troops One year after U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians, the villagers in the town where the atrocity took place have joined the U.S. special forces stationed there to assist in the fight against the Taliban.
- 50th Paris Air Show 19 Photos
- Widespread protests in Brazil 23 Photos
- Celebration and devotion in India 14 Photos
- One of FBI's Ten Most Wanted nabbed in Mexico
- Afghan gov't halts talks with U.S. on security pact
- Somali militants wage deadly attack on U.N. office
- Torrential rain devastates Northern India 15 Photos
- Brazil protesters flood Sao Paulo streets for 2nd night
and ziz other rrock here prooves that zis peoples there built a rock over zis other rock, so zis really iz proof of zis.
That fact that most stories in the Bible are wrapped up very cleanly with a minimum of input from characters other than the main ones should right there make it obvious that they are fictional. Real life is never as neat as the Bible.
How many times in the Bible does someone win by doing something nasty to a "good guy"? None. People win by doing nice things to "good guys" and nasty things to "bad guys" At times of course the definition of what a "bad guy" is, is rather stretched, but the fundamental gist of the Bible is that we have 2 responsibilities in the world, to do good things, and to punish people who do bad things. The Bible proceeds to hand out a laundry list of what good and bad things are so we know how to act, (a list that admittedly changes from book-to-book within the Bible) but beyond that, the Bible really doesen't have much more value. It was never written as an accurate history book, it's point of existence is to bring knowledge of morality - good and bad - to people and how to apply that morality to your lives.
People like Eilat get so caught up in the "gingerbread" parts of the Bible that they miss the fundamental morality in it.
Hosheen...You are spiritually blind and Christ Crucified is foolishness to you.
To sad all the Christian martyrs could come back from heaven to tell you
the joys that their faith in Christ Jesus brings them and all of us
who glory in the Cross of Christ.
Why do I think, if you lived in ancient Rome, you would be one of them in the arena shouting Crucify them! crucify them!
Throw those Christians to the lions!
Well done sir.
Now please go find the remains of that entire generation of 600,000 people who wandered in the Wilderness with Moses and perished there, "as it is written."
If they can find the settlements of small bands of pre-historic Indians in West Virginia, that ought to be a snap.
Unless of course, it didn't actually happen...
Nothing to really get excited or worry about. The principles are more important than the historical accuracy anyway (literalists are never at peace).
Explain the dead sea scrolls....and what lies therein.
People want to believe what they want to believe. Nothing wrong with that.
So if you think about it some more, you might realize that there is only one reason that God would actually write the bible - and that is, to get us mortals started down the road to him, rather than letting us to our own devices, where we might end up astray.
And, if that is the whole point of the bible, then why not write it in such a way as to maximize the chances that we will follow it? What's more important, that we believe in the bible and have faith in God, or that the bible is absolutely historically accurate? Wouldn't it be far better to forget the truth when writing the bible and just write whatever is going to lead us to God? After all, once we join God we will know the truth anyway - so why bother dealing with the truth before you die?
And, so keeping this in mind, what exactly is IN the bible? Why, it's nothing but a whole group of short stories, parables they call them, that illustrate some moral point or other.
The philosophy in the bible is the important thing, not the truthfulness of the stories. I can write a fictional novel that illustrates some moral point far easier and better than a real life story - and many people have done so in the past, and will do so in the future.
"Because only morons and mentally/emotionally ill people believe in invisible once dead 3 days now popped back to life people written about 2,000 years ago."
Tell me, does anyone insult you like that because of your beliefs? Why can't you just let people believe what they want instead of throwing out that stuff just to state that you don't believe? Does it make you feel better? Does that make you a better person or something else?
Those who insist on talking about "proof" can't prove anything to the contrary either."
Who says so? lots and lots of things are provable and the exoperiments are repeatable by others at will to get the same results
Unlike your buybull's fictional story about the earth being flat, the heavens revolving around the earth etc, we have PROOF the earth is NOT the center of the universe, the universe does NOT revolve around earth once a day, and the speed of light has been measured and proven- those are the things SCIENCE does.
We also PROVED mars is a rock hard planet not a speck of light- we sent a space ship there to take photos, thats PROVEN, its repeatable, again, thats how SCIENCE works.
"Proof" is actually a ridiculous argument, only meant to be contrary and not constructive."
Not when you have PHOTOS and more, proof comes in many forms- eyewitness, photo, video, peer reviewed testing repeating the same experiments and getting the same results
" I've noticed that those who demand "proof" only want to mock those who believe in something (or Someone),"
Because only morons and mentally/emotionally ill people believe in invisible once dead 3 days now popped back to life people written about 2,000 years ago. A character named jezus whose name and amazing feats did not appear in much of ANY writings by others in the era, indeed, if his walking on water and and all those alleged "miracles" happened, it would have been treated like the "9/11" story of the era- EVERYONE would have written about it extensively.
We know more about Christopher Columbus, and half of what we thought we knew was found to be in ERROR, and he only lived just 400 years ago not 2,000. As time went by stories become less and less accurate and full of holes.
Oh, they'll say that they believe in Science, but that's the biggest joke.