Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Jim's question may be rhetorical, but he invites a suggested literal 
answer: Under the platform of Herod's temple which remains today and 
cannot be excavated. OK, it is not clear from the biblical narrative 
that this was built on before Solomon's time, but given the small area 
of the original city, and the fact that Jebusites continued to live 
there, no doubt any major building work and "material culture" of 
David's time was on the northern hill.

Two witnesses may be a good principle, even an essential one for a 
legal prosecution. But how much would be know about any ancient 
history if we only accepted data for which we had two independent 
witnesses? In fact we might find ourselves in the interesting position 
of accepting the existence of only those kings of Assyria, Babylonia 
etc who are mentioned in the Bible! - as surely their own boasting of 
their achievements, however many copies survive, is only a single 
witness.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Why Not? (Jonathan)
Author:  jwest AT Highland.Net at internet
Date:    26/01/1999 08:58

<snip>

If "david" conquered the city, where is the inevitable cultural material 
which would demark inhabitation by a new population?

The problem, in terms of biblical study, of accepting the biblical narrative 
at face value (which of course you are certainly free to do) is that it 
results in hypotheses which rest on one leg.  The biblical legislation 
itself requires that facts be established on the testimony of two or three 
witnesses.  There are no other witnesses for your chronology.  Therefore it 
remains theory rather than fact.  Possibility, rather than probability.

Best,

Jim

<snip>