Biblical justification?
I received this interesting response to my message about Tel Gezer from my friend Barry Spencer:
The issue isn't whether "the relationship of descriptions in the Bible to specific actual sites in the Land is real". Yes, Gezer is specifically referred to. The Bible tells us in majestic language that Solomon built Gezer (Kings 1,9:17). The question is whether this is historically accurate. I think it's fair to say that the consensus among modern scholars is that it isn't. Let me quote the well argued conclusions reached in an excellent book which you may wish to read - "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman:
"Essentially,archaeology misdated both "Davidic" and "Solomonic" remains by a full century. The finds dated to the time just before David in the late eleventh century belonged to the mid-tenth century and those dated to the time of Solomon belonged to the early ninth century BCE. The new dates place the appearance of monumental structures,fortifications,and other signs of full statehood precisely at the time of their first appearance in the rest of the Levant. They rectify the disparity in dates between the bit hilani palace structures in Megiddo and their parallels in Syria. And they allow us finally to understand why Jerusalem and Judah are so poor in finds in the tenth century. The reason is that Judah was still a remote and undeveloped region at that time". The detailed and complex evidence for these conclusions is, of course, set forth extensively.
This is how I responded: I was merely pointing out that the fact that the sites described in the Bible have been found under the earth and with the same names does give some credence to the veracity of the Bible. I don't say it's all accurately true (certainly not), but if you like this is a first level of analysis. What you are talking about is a controversy regarding various dating methods. When Macalister excavated Gezer he came up with an analysis of the levels which was later disproven, now there is a third or fourth re-dating, that's all second level of analysis. I have a book entitled "Archaelogy of the Bible: book by book," which is now outdated. Maybe one day "The Bible Unearthed" will be replaced. Whatever, it has nothing to do with my main point, that it is an incredible fact that what people believed were imaginary places, were actually found to exist.
Now I would like to use this opportunity to expand upon Barry's point. As a scientist I will certainly accept the latest analysis based on the best methods of dating. One of the chief methods that has been used is comparison of potsherds, another is of course, radiocarbon dating (using 14C decay) of organic matter. However, none of the methods are very accurate and there is controversy about their interpretation, so a deviation of a century is in fact a small period and I doubt that any method is that accurate (a century may be within the error of the measurement, one has to worry about reproducibility as well as the intrinsic accuracy of the method).
However, having said that, this subject is one that is replete with political connotations. It so happens that many modern scholars are left-wing in their views and/or are naturally against what is the "established" viewpoint in their field (that they regard as triumphilist and religiously biased). The left in Israel is strongly against the "Biblical justification" for the existence of the modern State of Israel, namely that Jews lived here before, as described in the Bible, and that therefore Jews have an inalienable right to live here again and to settle the Land (including Judah and Shomron).
It might be said that many such scholars and the left in general view the rights of the "settlers" as much less justified than the rights of the Palestinians. In order to make their point it is often their intention (maybe even not consciously) to show that the inaccuracy of the Bible is such that it cannot be used for such a justification. One of the themes of the modern generation of Israeli archaelogists is that the description of the richness of the Land and it population density as described in the Bible are false. In carrying out their research Finkelstein and others have shown that during the Solomonic period, when the land was supposed to have been densely settled, there are in fact very few and limited settlements. When it is pointed out that incredibly Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo all have the same design of their city gates as described in the Bible for Solomon's construction they find a way to re-date or dispute this fact. They also dispute the finding of "David's City" in Jerusalem as being accurate. Their general conclusion is that "Judah was still a remote and undeveloped region at that time." Hence the Bible is inaccurate and hence it cannot be used as a justification for modern settlement.
Whether or not their methods are accurate or there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Biblical connection with the Land remains to be seen by further independent investigations. However, it is not clear to the uninitiated how far the left will go to undermine the relationship of the Jews with this land. Another example is a Thesis written in Haifa University that inter alia describes a massacre of Arabs in Tantura by an Israeli military unit during the 1948 war. When this was publicized, members of that unit (the Alexandroni Brigade) disputed the accounts (that quoted eyewitnesses) and went to court and were exonerated. In fact, no such massacre or event ever occured and the Thesis was retracted. It was carried out under the guidance of Ilan Pappe a left-wing ideologue, who the student, Theodore Katz, admitted persuaded him to include false information. Pappe eventually left Haifa University, published a book entitled "The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine" (that repeats the false information) and is now a leader of the "Boycott Israel" movement in the UK. Pappe once stated: "We do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers... ‘there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives’." Finkelstein and many others on the left subscribe to this mantra. So don't believe all that you read, even in academic books (perhaps especially not in academic books).
The issue isn't whether "the relationship of descriptions in the Bible to specific actual sites in the Land is real". Yes, Gezer is specifically referred to. The Bible tells us in majestic language that Solomon built Gezer (Kings 1,9:17). The question is whether this is historically accurate. I think it's fair to say that the consensus among modern scholars is that it isn't. Let me quote the well argued conclusions reached in an excellent book which you may wish to read - "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman:
"Essentially,archaeology misdated both "Davidic" and "Solomonic" remains by a full century. The finds dated to the time just before David in the late eleventh century belonged to the mid-tenth century and those dated to the time of Solomon belonged to the early ninth century BCE. The new dates place the appearance of monumental structures,fortifications,and other signs of full statehood precisely at the time of their first appearance in the rest of the Levant. They rectify the disparity in dates between the bit hilani palace structures in Megiddo and their parallels in Syria. And they allow us finally to understand why Jerusalem and Judah are so poor in finds in the tenth century. The reason is that Judah was still a remote and undeveloped region at that time". The detailed and complex evidence for these conclusions is, of course, set forth extensively.
This is how I responded: I was merely pointing out that the fact that the sites described in the Bible have been found under the earth and with the same names does give some credence to the veracity of the Bible. I don't say it's all accurately true (certainly not), but if you like this is a first level of analysis. What you are talking about is a controversy regarding various dating methods. When Macalister excavated Gezer he came up with an analysis of the levels which was later disproven, now there is a third or fourth re-dating, that's all second level of analysis. I have a book entitled "Archaelogy of the Bible: book by book," which is now outdated. Maybe one day "The Bible Unearthed" will be replaced. Whatever, it has nothing to do with my main point, that it is an incredible fact that what people believed were imaginary places, were actually found to exist.
Now I would like to use this opportunity to expand upon Barry's point. As a scientist I will certainly accept the latest analysis based on the best methods of dating. One of the chief methods that has been used is comparison of potsherds, another is of course, radiocarbon dating (using 14C decay) of organic matter. However, none of the methods are very accurate and there is controversy about their interpretation, so a deviation of a century is in fact a small period and I doubt that any method is that accurate (a century may be within the error of the measurement, one has to worry about reproducibility as well as the intrinsic accuracy of the method).
However, having said that, this subject is one that is replete with political connotations. It so happens that many modern scholars are left-wing in their views and/or are naturally against what is the "established" viewpoint in their field (that they regard as triumphilist and religiously biased). The left in Israel is strongly against the "Biblical justification" for the existence of the modern State of Israel, namely that Jews lived here before, as described in the Bible, and that therefore Jews have an inalienable right to live here again and to settle the Land (including Judah and Shomron).
It might be said that many such scholars and the left in general view the rights of the "settlers" as much less justified than the rights of the Palestinians. In order to make their point it is often their intention (maybe even not consciously) to show that the inaccuracy of the Bible is such that it cannot be used for such a justification. One of the themes of the modern generation of Israeli archaelogists is that the description of the richness of the Land and it population density as described in the Bible are false. In carrying out their research Finkelstein and others have shown that during the Solomonic period, when the land was supposed to have been densely settled, there are in fact very few and limited settlements. When it is pointed out that incredibly Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo all have the same design of their city gates as described in the Bible for Solomon's construction they find a way to re-date or dispute this fact. They also dispute the finding of "David's City" in Jerusalem as being accurate. Their general conclusion is that "Judah was still a remote and undeveloped region at that time." Hence the Bible is inaccurate and hence it cannot be used as a justification for modern settlement.
Whether or not their methods are accurate or there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Biblical connection with the Land remains to be seen by further independent investigations. However, it is not clear to the uninitiated how far the left will go to undermine the relationship of the Jews with this land. Another example is a Thesis written in Haifa University that inter alia describes a massacre of Arabs in Tantura by an Israeli military unit during the 1948 war. When this was publicized, members of that unit (the Alexandroni Brigade) disputed the accounts (that quoted eyewitnesses) and went to court and were exonerated. In fact, no such massacre or event ever occured and the Thesis was retracted. It was carried out under the guidance of Ilan Pappe a left-wing ideologue, who the student, Theodore Katz, admitted persuaded him to include false information. Pappe eventually left Haifa University, published a book entitled "The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine" (that repeats the false information) and is now a leader of the "Boycott Israel" movement in the UK. Pappe once stated: "We do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers... ‘there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives’." Finkelstein and many others on the left subscribe to this mantra. So don't believe all that you read, even in academic books (perhaps especially not in academic books).
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home