City of David Discovered

[TyRockwell]

In an article linked to through BreakingChristianNews.com, evidence of the City of David, that is, his palace, has been discovered.

Below is the link to the original article.


http://www.archaeologynews.org/story...al%20Jerusalem

[The Curtmudgeon]

While the news is certainly interesting and important, we must be careful not to over-sell the facts. The building Mazar discovered has not yet been shown to be David's palace or even connected to him. I'm not saying that I don't believe the claim, because I certainly would welcome proof of its truth, only that it's a bit premature to state that "his palace has been discovered."

But what she's found already should be enough to bring in the necessary grants for continuing work at the site, which is what is needed. And I certainly hope that such support is quickly forthcoming.

The (if she can wipe Finkelstein's face with this, more power to her!) Curtmudgeon

[Sparko]

the article is from November 05, 2005

[The Curtmudgeon]

the article is from November 05, 2005

Thanx. I looked all over the page Ty linked to, to try to find a date and couldn't. I was curious why http://www.archaeology.org/news/ didn't include anything on it.

In any case, my comments still hold: It's an important find, and needs more research which I hope will be forthcoming.

The (and, hopefully, is already on-going) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to add:] Ah, it's the same as the Large Stone Structure, I see. I knew of it under that name, but had forgotten Mazar's original identification of it as David's palace.

[FreezBee]

the article is from November 05, 2005

Yes, it's old news. But then again, old news is usually the best news

- FreezBee

[technomage]

It's an important find, and needs more research which I hope will be forthcoming.

Agreed--while I have grave doubts of the dating (even Amihai Mazar, her cousin, acknowledges that her terminus ante quem is flawed), I look forward to more research. I do not particularly believe David was a historical personage, but would love to be proven wrong!

[Sparko]

Agreed--while I have grave doubts of the dating (even Amihai Mazar, her cousin, acknowledges that her terminus ante quem is flawed), I look forward to more research. I do not particularly believe David was a historical personage, but would love to be proven wrong!

They found a stone that refers to David

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/t...iption-faq.htm

[technomage]

They found a stone that refers to David

More precisely, they found a stone that refers to the "house of DWD." That's usually read as the "House of David" (it's the reading I prefer), but is not solid evidence of a historical king by that name.

I need to be more specific--there may have been a tribal leader named David, that I do not dispute (much). Whether or not he was a king in the sense we refer to is another matter. And yes, that probably sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm tired of those who argue that the Tel Dan stele "proves" the entire Davidic narrative.