|
< Back to the Current Issue of BAR  Talkback Add Your Comment
First Person: The Palace of Solomon’s Daughter?
 When is it OK to suggest that an ancient building belonged to a particular historical figure—that is, barring an inscription saying something like “Solomon lived here”?
The best known recent example raising this question is archaeologist Eilat Mazar’s suggestion that the building she has excavated with walls 7 to 11 feet thick might well be King David’s palace in Jerusalem.a She was led to the site by geographical and Biblical clues and predicted in an article that an excavation would show that she was indeed correct.b As a result a sponsor came forward, and when she dug at the site, she found a major public building that appeared to be from King David’s time. The dating of the structure is not 100 percent certain, but that is often the case in archaeology. She has yet to find a datable floor that connects to a wall of the structure, but the pottery makes it likely that the building, or at least part of it, dates to King David’s time, according to the conventional chronology.
Archeologists Reluctant To SpeculateWhen one considers the many and often outrageous claims currently being made in Egyptian archeology, the reluctance to reference the Bible as a source is clearly a bias. Indeed, it would not help even if the structure had "King David Slept Here" carved into it ... consider the case of the house of St. Peter. • • • • • • • Speculation must be reasonableWERSLER: "No one has found any artifacts on the structure on Mt. Ararat indicating that it is Noah's Ark, but how could that structure that has been found gotten to the high elevation where it is without acknowledging that it could be. Let the evidence speak for itself." Perhaps it got there the same way that any other structure on the top of any other mountain got there-- someone carried materials up the mountain and built a structure on top. The absence of any evidence consistent with a worldwide flood massive enough to have submerged Mt. Ararat during any historical era "speaks" with sufficient force to rule out the hypothesis that it's "Noah's Ark". You're not asking for speculation, you're asking for fantasization. • • • • • • • Archaeologists reluctance to refer to ScripturesIt is only a fairly recently that we are embarrassed to say structures, particularly Jewish structures are Biblical, because of One-Way-Political-Correctness. There are already too many finds which coincidentally fit the scriptures. It's time to stop 'feeling' that you can't refer to the Scriptures which led you to search in the first instance, just because there is little evidence of other specific cultures; that the facts don't fit someone's idea of what ought to be found. Also, David - Noah's ark landed on the mountains of Ararat, not a specific mountain, so no wonder it's difficult to find. • • • • • • • Archaeologists reluctant to speculateI agree with the fact that archaeologists may be reluctant to make speculations about sites they are working on. No one has found any artifacts on the structure on Mt. Ararat indicating that it is Noah's Ark, but how could that structure that has been found gotten to the high elevation where it is without acknowledging that it could be. Let the evidence speak for itself. • • • • • • • |
 BAR VoicesHershel ShanksApril D. DeConickWhat’s Up with the Gospel of Thomas? Daniel M. MasterFrom Volunteer to Field Director Leonard J. GreenspoonThe Bible in the News: Lazarus lives again ... in print FREE Downloadable E-BooksThe First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Legend
Israel: An Archaeological Journey
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West
Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land
Island Jewels: Understanding Ancient Cyprus and Crete
The Olympic Games: How They All Began
The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say
Real or Fake? Forgery Conference Report |
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
