Monday, November 29, 2010

David: King. But of What?

Here's a fine, accessible description for regular folks of the archeologist controversy about Kings David, Solomon, and Western Civilization.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a post in which Yaacov referred dismissively to the claim that the historical King David was not as he is depicted in the OT. Given the picture presented by the linked article--research agendas driven by egos, research funding driven by ideology, paucity of evidence, inexact tools for analyzing the evidence, multiple plausible interpretations for the evidence, etc.--how could any non-expert (or even a moderately humble expert) come to any other conclusion than "we don't have any clue, really" or, perhaps, "my personal inclination is to conclude such and such, but I realize that we are nowhere close to having a definitive answer"?

November 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Raed Kami said...

forget about David. There is no evidence of Jewish colonization in Palestine before the 1880s. Around this time, master real estate agent Hertzel figured out "location,location, location" and since Palestine was holy to two religions, Islam and Christianity, it had to be valuable. You actually have more of a historic claim to Las Vegas than you do to Al Quds. I wish Finkelstein would take on your so called temples

November 30, 2010 at 6:37 AM
Barry Meislin said...

Buttons well pressed. Congratulations!

Anyway, what you'd like to believe.

Except that Jerusalem always had a significant Jewish population. Always. And the village of Peki'in (mostly Druze) in the north had a continuous Jewish community from before the Second Temple's---you want to deny it's existence, too?---destruction until the village's last Jewish family moved away in the past decade or two (they still own property there).

Should one mention Tzefat? Tiberias? Hebron (you know, Al Khalil)?

Probably not. Wouldn't want to harm any necessary illusions.

P.S. Keep dreaming (and praying), and perhaps, just perhaps, Israel will be destroyed in your lifetime (or the lifetime of your grandchildren). Pray hard.

November 30, 2010 at 7:41 AM
peterthehungarian said...

Yes Raed, we know all of this.
BTW you forgot to mention that Jesus was a Palestinian Muslim too...

November 30, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Barry Meislin said...

And sing too, while you're at it.

(You know, music, the international language.)

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/11/pmw-dance-group-that-sings-about-end-of/index.shtml

November 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Yaacov said...

Anon

Adopt yourself a consistent moniker and I might respond to you. I see no reason to respond to vapor.

November 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Silke said...

here is a pretty detailed description of Finkelstein's expertise as displayed during a recent appearance:

please forgive the author his "cheap" shots, they should be pardonable with everyone who had to have his head screwed with like that:

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/norman-finkestein-israel-could-nuke-lebanon/

Silke

November 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
joseph said...

Silke,

Norman Finkelstein and Israel Finkelstein are two different people. Norman is a deeply troubled man with serious mother issues, Israel is a biblical minimalist who, as far as I know is neither anti-semitic nor anti-Israel.

Joe5348

November 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...

I wouldnt be surprised if Israel and Norman Finkelstein are closely related. They both engage in forms of denial. According to Norman, the worst thing about the Holocaust is that Jews went after Swiss banks for restitution. According to Israel, the entire history of ancient Israel is suspect and probably agrees to some extent with Raed above. Perhaps they should get married. They would make a good couple

November 30, 2010 at 10:45 PM
joseph said...

Anon,

It seems to me that one could be a religious Jew and a Biblical minimalist at the same time. Israel Finkelstein doesn't deny the building of Herod's Temple or a long Jewish relationship with Jerusalem.

Joe5348

December 1, 2010 at 2:29 AM
4infidels said...

As Hugh Fitzgerald has pointed out, the importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Christians is based on a real history that took place in Israel. The Muslim connection to Jerusalem is based solely on religious myth: that Muhammad made his night journey from "the farthest mosque" from the Temple Mount. Of course "the farthest mosque" wasn't determined to be in Jerusalem until years later for political reasons, because as far as anyone knows, Muhammad was never in Jerusalem and there was no mosque in Jerusalem until many years later.

But the authors quote a Palestinian with none of the analysis of his comments that surrounds the quotes from Israelis. And, of course, the Palestinian talks about history in the land being in their DNA and the women doing things the same way as their ancestors did in the 5th century B.C.E. The author also introduces that quote with a statement about Palestinians who have been in East Jerusalem for generations. While some Arab families have been in Jerusalem for centuries, the overwhelming majority are relative newcomers who likely settled during Jordanian occupation. Using a vague term like "generations" doesn't help clarify the matter for those who may not know that history.

December 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM
4infidels said...

How about the National Geographic look into the origins of the Kaaba, search for evidence in Saudi Arabia about the existence of Muhammad and use the latest science to validate the veracity of Muslim historical claims?

What happened to the Jews of Arabia? Was Muhammad's wife, Aisha, really six years old when he married her and nine when he consummated that marriage? So much that the world needs to know about Islamic history that should be explored without politics keeping us from seeking truth for its own value.

So let's get to it National Geographic!

Stop me from laughing...

December 1, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)