fbpx

The Media Line interviews James Snyder on the eve of the re-opening of the Israel Museum.  Here’s a portion:

Well, it’s an amazing thing. Jerusalem is a unique city in that it’s built from its own bedrock, as we all know. So the Israel Museum, clad in Jerusalem stone but built of glass, steel and other materials, sits on a hilltop that is Jerusalem stone and we actually excavated 1,000,0000 cubic feet of Jerusalem stone so as to order the plan and reengineer the plan within the original and preexisting envelope of the campus. The changes, in a way, that we made are surgical. When we are all finished, you will see and feel the aura of the essence of the original modernist idea of this place as a modernist that is modern backdrop for showing the history of material culture from the start of time to the present moment. It’s a curious thing. It’s a thrilling thing. Now, as you arrive here, we have formalized the entry. We have made a more clear path from the front of the campus to the heart of the campus. But now, unlike before, you will stand at the heart of the museum and you will be able to turn around 360 degrees and you will see the entrances to our collections for archaeology; Jewish art and life; the Western fine art traditions; the non-Western fine art traditions; our main auditorium; and our main temporary exhibitions galleries—all in a main 360 degree turn from the heart of the museum, from a place we now call the Cardo.

The full interview is here.

Share:

I would not have predicted these results.  I know that polls are sometimes skewed by the way the questions are asked, but it’s not clear to me what factors might have been involved here. In my experience, only a small percentage has any interest in the temple in Jerusalem. From Arutz-7:

Half the Israeli public wants the Holy Temple (Beit HaMikdash) to be rebuilt. This is the main finding of a poll commissioned by the Knesset Television Channel and carried out by the Panels Institute. The poll was taken in advance of this Tuesday’s national day of mourning, known as Tisha B’Av, on which the two Holy Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed, 2,000 and 2,500 years ago, respectively. Forty nine percent said they want the rebuilding of the Holy Temple, while 23% said they do not. The remainder said they were unsure. The public is about evenly split on whether they believe it will happen, with a slight edge – 42% to 39% – to those who believe the Third Holy Temple will be rebuilt. Should the State of Israel take active steps towards the reconstruction? Forty-eight percent said no, while 27% said yes.

The story continues here.

Share:

According to the book of 1 Samuel, David found an ideal hideout at Adullam where he gathered hundreds of men into a small militia. In his earlier days, David had served King Saul well, but the king’s growing jealousy of his popular warrior forced David to flee. For reasons that don’t seem to make sense, David thought he could find safety in the Philistine city of Gath. When his identity was discovered, his feigned madness allowed him to escape once more. Desiring safety from both the Israelite forces as well as the Philistine garrison, David found refuge at the ideal location of Adullam (1 Sam 22).

Adullam area aerial from west, tb010703651

Aerial view to the east.
Adullam is the tree-covered hill in the center.

Adullam has been identified as Tell esh-Sheikh Madhkur, and its situation is ideal for one seeking to avoid the Israelites and the Philistines because it was effectively located in “no man’s land.” The Israelites controlled the hill country to the east, and the Philistines were in possession of the coastal plain to the west. That left the low rolling foothills known in the Bible as the Shephelah as the “middle ground.” It was in this region that the Israelite Samson had defeated the Philistines, and it was here where David’s slingstone sent the Philistines running. During the period of the late judges and early monarchy, the Shephelah was contested ground that neither party could consistently control.

Adullam is situated on the eastern edge of the Shephelah, well out of range of the Philistines and apparently in territory that the Israelites were reluctant to travel. This reality is borne out by the story in the next chapter, in which the Philistines are attacking Keilah (Khirbet Qila), a city about three miles (five km) south of Adullam. Saul was apparently unwilling to go to the city’s defense, and it was only his motivation to capture David that changed his mind (1 Sam 23). That Adullam was apparently safe from either side is suggested in the comment that David was joined by men in debt and distress.

The situation of Adullam today is remarkably similar to ancient political realities, though the sides have switched. Israelis hold the territory once controlled by the Philistines, whereas the Arab Palestinians live in the hill country of Judah. The Shephelah is mostly populated by Israeli cities and villages, but parts of the eastern Shephelah are on the other side of the “green line.” Adullam today sits immediately next to the large border fence that Israel has constructed to prevent unauthorized access by Palestinians. A few years before that fence was erected, a friend and his wife were hiking in the area and decided to camp the night on the hill of Adullam. My friend was crossing a portion of the site that evening when he was suddenly tackled in the darkness. An enforcement team from the Israel Antiquities Authority was monitoring the site because of recent illegal excavation activity. The site was attractive to thieves because of its easy access to and from the Palestinian territories.

Chalk trough with border fence view e from Adullam, tb021707853View east from Adullam showing the border fence 

Recently Adullam has been in the news because of oil exploration in the area. According to a citizen group fighting the project, the American company IDT has been given a license without public hearings of environmental assessments. The commercial activity was only discovered when a resident of nearby Moshav Aderet happened upon it while out for a walk. In some ways it is not surprising that the government would grant such permission and that the activity would be discovered by accident, given Adullam’s location. Its out-of-the-way location is just as attractive to oil drillers today as it was to David in antiquity.

Share:

Excavations this week have uncovered some potentially dramatic new material at Khirbet Qeiyafa, reports Luke Chandler.  We’ll have to wait for word from the authorities before we know what it is.

At Gath, on the other hand, they keep pulling out great stuff and telling everyone about it.  On Thursday, they not only worked in the field until 8 pm (work usually ends by 2 pm), but Aren Maeir still took time late that evening to report on the discoveries. Arutz-7 also had a story this week on the excavations at Goliath’s hometown.

The Mystery of Bethsaida – if you are hoping that this op-ed at The Bible and Interpretation will deal with the substance of the objections to the identification of et-Tell as Bethsaida, you’ll be disappointed.  Here’s one of the claims: “At Bethsaida in the 1996 season of excavation was uncovered a Roman temple.”  Notley has pretty well demolished this idea, but since it’s the only thing they have, they keep repeating it (see The Sacred Bridge, pp. 356-59).  Only the grammar gets worse.

The Magdala synagogue stone with the menorah inscription is now on display in the (not quite open) Israel Museum.  There’s a photo here.  Expect a lot of stories on the newly renovated museum in the next two weeks.

As a follow-up to last week’s notice on the pre-publication special on the two Talmuds for Logos, see this post that explains some of the advantage of this electronic edition.

Share:

Is Holy Land Archaeology Being Hyped by Politics?  The answer is yes, according to this article by Matthew Kalman.  But if your major sources are Jim West and Meir Ben-Dov, this is an entirely predictable, but not necessarily accurate, conclusion.

Is archaeology hyped?  Sometimes it is.  But is the cause politics or something else?  Does the problem lie with archaeologists or with someone else?

Everybody wants a sensational story.  The public doesn’t want to read about a clay tablet, they want to hear about the oldest inscription ever found in Jerusalem.  Journalists and their publishers want stories that sell.  Archaeologists are typically tireless workers who often lack necessary funding and sometimes may stretch the significance of their discovery for personal or professional reasons.  In my observation, archaeologists in Israel generally present their work in an appropriate way that doesn’t overstate the evidence.  Sometimes the media spins things to boost pageviews, such as one headline on this story that makes this latest discovery the “oldest document found in Israel.”  That’s not true, and it’s not what the archaeologists reported. 

I have been concerned in the past with some claims.  Usually I find fault because the sensational conclusion is announced prematurely.  Eilat Mazar found the palace of David in her first season of excavations in the area.  If this claim was made after five years of careful investigation and discussion with colleagues, I would be less inclined to view it as a fundraising device.  Shimon Gibson announced his discovery of the “Cave of John the Baptist” at the same time that his book was released, but I don’t know of any archaeologists who find his evidence compelling.  Rami Arav is very outspoken about his excavations at the New Testament city of Bethsaida, but his impressive finds are from an Iron Age city of the kingdom of Gesher, and there is very little that he has excavated which supports the Bethsaida identification.

Are there problems with archaeologists hyping archaeological discoveries?  Yes.  Are they systemic and primarily motivated by politics?  I hardly think so.

Share:

Christopher Rollston has written a brief analysis of the recent IEJ report on the Jerusalem cuneiform tablet fragment.

Strikingly, the authors conclude that “given the fact that the tablet is written on clay from the Jerusalem region and that its find site is close to what must have been the acropolis of Late Bronze Age Jerusalem, there is good reason to believe that the letter fragment does, in fact, come from a letter of a king of Jerusalem, mostly likely an archive copy of a letter from Jerusalem to Pharaoh” (emphasis mine).  It is also contemplated that, for Jerusalem 1, the “Jerusalem King in question could be Abdi-Heba,” but the authors also state “but again perhaps not, since Jerusalem 1 does not include any specific feature that would tie it directly to El Amarna 285-290.”  They then conclude that “in short, the ductus of our letter fragment would be appropriate for a finely written letter from a king of Jerusalem to the Egyptian court.”  It is with the probability of these historical conclusions and Sitz im Leben that I wish respectfully to differ.

He then makes eight observations before concluding that the text “could be one of various things . . . e.g., an epistolary text, a legal text, an administrative text, a literary text.”

You can read the whole piece here.

HT: Paleojudaica

Share: