Religions > Atheism > For those who hate Israel, one of the most dangerous things a Jew can do...
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tim Campbell" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2005 01:16:05 PM |
| Object: |
For those who hate Israel, one of the most dangerous things a Jew can do... |
Now the Stones Will Speak [Excerpts]
For those who hate Israel, one of the most dangerous things a Jew can
do in
Jerusalem is to start digging. Because the more you dig there, the
worse it
gets for those who would like to pretend that Israelis are alien
colonists
imposing their rule on the so-called indigenous people of the region.
You might think arguments claiming that the Jews were alien to the
place are
limited to the nonsensical propaganda that emanates from the less
enlightened portions of the Islamic world. Claims from the Muslim Wakf
that
administers the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that the place has been a
mosque
since the days of Adam and Eve are, we hope, laughed off by those who
read
the mainstream press.
But though few in this country outside of academia have noticed, the
notion
of Israel being the historical homeland of the Jewish people has been
under
attack from far more reputable sources. In recent decades, a new front
in
the war on Israel was opened in intellectual journals and classrooms.
Its
goal? To trash the notion that the Bible's accounts of the history of
ancient Israel have the slightest value, and to debunk the idea that
the
United Kingdom of David ever existed.
As professor Jonathan Rosenbaum, president of Gratz College here in
Philadelphia and himself a leading authority on Ancient Near East
studies,
said: "If you can upend the idea that King David was a historic figure
and
that ancient Israel was real, then you can delegitimize modern Israel."
And in the spirit of the post-Zionist fashion that has swept over
Israel in
the last decade, these ideas have been embraced by a number of
influential
Israeli archaeologists, too. Most prominently, Israel Finkelstein of
Tel
Aviv University has written that the idea of the Davidic kingdom is not
based on fact, and that David's Jerusalem was nothing but a "poor
village."
But last week, the debunkers of Jewish history got some bad news. And
all it
took was for a dedicated archaeologist to start digging.
Dr. Eilat Mazar, senior fellow of the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center's
Institute for the Archaeology of the Jewish People, made public the
results
of the dig she had been conducting since February in an area south of
the
walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, where scholars believe the city of
David
existed. What she produced ought to help quiet those who think Jewish
history is bunk.
Amid the soil and rocks of the place that is now the village of Silwan,
Mazar uncovered the ruins of the building she's sure was the palace of
David
itself -- the very same structure that was built, according to the
Bible,
by King Hiram of Tyre for Israel's greatest king, around 1,000 BCE.
Directly underneath the structure that was uncovered were "masses of
pottery" all dating to the 11th and 12th centuries BCE, the era that
archaeologists call Iron Age I, which predates the era of David. By its
position in the site, this pottery, which was a unique find in of
itself,
makes it clear that "Iron I was over or almost over by the time the
building
was started," said Mazar.
"Once I started to excavate," says Mazar, "it was as if I had written
nothing. Now, the stones will speak, not me."
And speak they do.
For those who contend that what she found was more likely the Jebusite
fort
David conquered or something else that predates his kingdom, Mazar said
that
the placement of the Iron I pottery right underneath it makes such a
conclusion "problematic."
"How come I didn't find any remains of any construction underneath it?
It
doesn't make any sense. If this is the fortress, it was erected a day
before
King David captured the city.
=8CA NAME IS A NAME=B9
Just as telling was an artifact only 1 centimeter long, uncovered from
a
slightly later period. It was an impression of an ancient seal, or
"bullah,"
which bore the name of Jerucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi.
Who was he? Nothing less than a minister of the Kingdom of Judah in its
last
days before the Babylonian destruction of the city in 586 BCE. We know
of
him only because he is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. But the
bullah
proves his existence isn't a literary flight of fancy.
"Layer by layer, we must take the Bible much, much more seriously than
was
ever thought, and treat it as a most important historic document that
contains a lot of realistic descriptions," declares Mazar (Tobin,
Jewish
World Review, August 11, 2005).
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: For those who hate Israel, one of the most dangerous things a Jew can do... |
19 Aug 2005 04:44:18 PM |
|
|
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote
For those who hate Israel, one of the most dangerous
things a Jew can do in Jerusalem is to start digging.
Because the more you dig there, the worse it gets for
those who would like to pretend that Israelis are alien
colonists imposing their rule on the so-called
indigenous people of the region.
You're posting this to alt.atheism (along with one
distinctly "Christian" newsgroup), so that at least
implies that you've confused "culture" with biblical
accuracy.
No, the bible isn't the least bit accurate, and all the
digging has thus far confirmed this fact.
As for "proving" that a culture identifying itself as
Jewish existed in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, nobody
has ever disputed this fact. We know it existed. Which
brings us to another problem for you:
You don't appear to be aware of the differences between
a culture link and a gentic link.
Interestingly, the studies that claim an "ancient" genetic
middle eastern link for all Jewish populations base this
claim on the male Y-Chromosome, which is passed
directly from fathers to son without any genetic contribution
from the mother. Traditionally though, a person's status as
"Jewish" is determined through their mother and not their
father.
For tracing maternal heritage, researchers usually study
the mtDNA. It's a very small strand -- making it convenient
to work with -- and it is only ever passed from mother to
child, without any genetic contribution from the father.
Using mtDNA, tracing ancestory through the mothers, we
don't find much if any difference between European Jewish
populations (and their American counterparts) and their
European neighbors. Another way of saying it: They appear
to be the genetic prodocts of their European cultures.
HTH.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
