Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

>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. 

What is the real problem there? We know the topographical data about the
shape of the hill. There's not much room under the central part of the
platform where the dome is built (and we have a report from an engineer who
managed to examine the foundations under the dome). The only real space for
building is the first hundred metres of the platform to the south where
there is a rise from 720m to 735m -- a bit steep. The east side is quite as
steep as that of the Ophel hill. You will find Nahman Avigad's book of
Jerusalem quite interesting: it has some nice aerial photos.

>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.

The temple was supposed to have been built on the space occupied by
Avaunah's threshing floor.

>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, this isn't doing justice to the situation. You have heard people on
the list talking of treaty formulae. There are communications between the
courts of one power and another; there are marriage arrangements reported.
How can you call the various stelae spread through Mesopotamia,
representing epigraphic material, ie from the period they refer to (unlike
any of the biblical materials), "only a single witness"?

The boasting itself testifies to the existence of the people in the time
that they were erected: these were public demonstrations of the power of
the given ruler. The boasts may have been bloated (what else can we
expect?), but the basic events in these public documents had to reflect
what the contemporary public knew. "Hey, Hadad, this stele shows the king
conquering the Elamites, but that ain't true: we all know he went on a
fishing trip!"

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

This is an important point that Jim mentions. When one population replaces
another at a given site there is clear evidence in the material remains to
show the change in population -- as can be seen by the new material culture
reflected in the Philistine evidence. Where is it for the change from the
Jebusites to the Davidites?


Ian

>>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.