Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 00.34 03/01/00 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>If you want a royal palace for Judah, I'll tell you exactly where to 
>dig: under the Temple Mount. That's where the texts imply that it is - 
>clearly close to the temple in 2 Kings 11. (Don't forget that 
>Schliemann followed the clues from Homer, which everyone else presumed 
>to be fiction, and found a city!) The problem is, you'll have to fight 
>off a lot of angry adherents of several religions first.

What exactly did Schliemann find? Troy? Doesn't fit the description and
Schliemann started off looking in a different zone to find his Troy.
Schliemann fits into the category of "creative archaeologist". But then he
couldn't go too wrong in finding some city: all one needed to do was to try
enough mounds.

I must admit that I was under the impression that the work attributed to
Homer gives the impression that it was written by numerous hands and that
it may have come to fruition under Peisistratos (though I'm not up with
such study anymore). So, whatever it was Schliemann found is anyone's guess
-- it sure ain't the size of the joint described in the Iliad, if that
matters. I can imagine someone finding a Superman comic a couple of
millennia from now and getting the bug to dig for Gotham City. What would
he come up with? Guaranteed he'd find something, right?

If you've read the Satyricon, I'm sure you'd conclude that the events
recorded must be true seeing as there is a Pozzuoli and a number of other
places and details found in that literary effort have been born out. If you
don't conclude such, why not? What criteria would you use that are
different from those you use now?

Besides your surmises for a palace for the kings of Judah based on your
personal and literal reading of 2Kgs11 from which you claim that now even a
palace is under the temple mount, what about a palace for the kings of Israel?


Cheers,


Ian