In this Jerusalem Post report, several correspondents quote Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev:
Denying the Jewish connection to the Western Wall is to deny reality. If you deny the Jewish connection to the Western Wall you are in fact denying the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the land of Israel itself. When they deny the Jewish connection, they are unfortunately raising very serious questions as to their true commitment to reconciliation.
Gershon Baskin, the joint CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, who had sent a letter to the Palestinian leadership in the wake of the Post article, calling the findings of al-Mutawakel Taha “a serious mistake” and “a stain on the Palestinian Authority, makes the following remark:
Any observer, even a non-professional archeologist, can discern that the stones used to construct the Western Wall (the Kotel) are from the era of Solomon’s Temple and the Temple rebuilt by King Herod which was hundreds of years before Islam appeared on the world stage.
Reconstruction model of Herod's Temple Mount showing the Western Wall with the stairway of Robinson's Arch in the foreground
It makes one despair that even some Israelis don’t seem to know that the Western Wall is Herodian and not Solomonic. See yesterday’s post.
The Israeli press is full of reports of a paper prepared by Al-Mutawakel Taha, a senior official with the PA Ministry of Information to “refute” Jewish claim to the Western Wall.
Many studies published by Jewish experts have affirmed that there is no archeological evidence that the Temple Mount was built during the period of King Solomon,” the paper added. “One can only conclude that the Al-Buraq Wall is a Muslim wall and an integral part of the Aqsa Mosque and Haram Al-Sharif. No one has the right to claim ownership over it or change its features or original character. Also, no one has the right to agree with the occupation state’s racist and oppressive measures against history and holy sites.”
He is correct in saying that the Western Wall was not built in the time of Solomon. However, he appears to be ignorant of or chooses to ignore the history of the Temple Mount between Solomon and the Early Muslim period.
The drawing below from our Image Library shows the five stages in the development of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. From top to bottom:
1. The square Temple Mount built by King Hezekiah around the Temple built by King Solomon.
2. The Akra Fortress (red) was built by the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC to control the local Jewish population. The fortress was destroyed by the Maccabees in 141 BC.
3. After the destruction of the Akra, the Hasmoneans extended the Temple Mount to the south (blue).
4. King Herod the Great renewed the Temple Mount by enlarging the square Temple Mount to double its size and building a new Temple.
5. During the Umayyad period, the Dome of the Rock was built on the site of the Temple and the El Aqsa mosque on that of the Royal Stoa. Large public buildings were erected to the south and west of the Temple Mount.
The Development of the Temple Mount from Hezekiah to the Early Muslim period
I made the reconstruction drawing of the Herodian Temple Mount below at the end of the 10-year long excavation project led by the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar (1968-’78). The Western Wall, where the Jews pray today, is shown in red. This approx. 60 m. long wall is part of the 485 m. long western retaining wall of the Herodian Temple Mount. Many finds from the Second Temple period, such as Hebrew inscriptions, coins and also the architectural style prove that the present-day walls of the Temple Mount are irrefutably Herodian. To deny this is ignorance in the extreme.
Herod's Temple Mount with the Western Wall shown in red
In a previous post, we reported on the new plans for the development of the Western Wall plaza. Israel’s cabinet has now decided to allot NIS 85 million ($23 million) for this project.
The project will upgrade physical and transportation infrastructure at the site, provide access to new archeological findings, and run educational programs for soldiers and students.
The PA, of course, objects to the plan. Here is the report as it appears in today’s Jerusalem Post. A similar report appears in Haaretz.
The Annual Meeting of ASOR starts tomorrow in Atlanta. This is the first year in a while that I am unable to attend due to other commitments. There are many interesting lectures, but I would like to have attended the following:
Norma Franklin (Tel Aviv University), “Ivories, Votive Capitals, Stele, and Beyond: The Origin of the Proto-Ionic or Volute Motif and its Evolution”
Kimberly Bauser (Boston College),“Khirbet Qana (Cana of Galilee): In Galilee and in the Gospel of John”
Carl Savage (Drew University), “Bethsaida: The Context for Jesus’ Ministry from the Archaeological Perspective of a Corner of the ‘Evangelical Triangle’”
Yardenna Alexandre (Israel Antiquities Authority), “Pagans and Jews: The Hellenistic and Roman Villages at Cana of Galilee (Karm er-Ras)”
Doron Ben Ami (Israel Antiquities Authority) and Yana Tchekhanovets (Israel Antiquities Authority), “A Roman Mansion Found in the City of David”
Sarah Collins (British Museum), “Recent Results from the Excavations at Sidon, Lebanon”
Steven Collins (Trinity Southwest University), “The Rise and Ruin of a Bronze Age City- State: Insights from the 2009/2010 Excavations at Tall el-Hammam, Jordan
Session on Teaching Archaeology to Undergraduates: Success Stories and Cautionary Tales
Aren M. Maeir (Bar-Ilan University), “The 2010 Season of Excavations at Tell es-Safi/ Gath: Bronze and Iron Age Remains”
Amihai Mazar (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), “Jerusalem before the 8th Century B.C.E.: An Archaeological Assessment”
National Geographic magazine’s feature article for the December 2010 edition is devoted to “David and Solomon — Kings of Controversy” and asks “Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on which archaeologist you ask.”
It is difficult to determine if the archaeological remains do indeed belong to David’s Palace, but the location is a logical one. Long before Eilat Mazar’s controversial dig started, I already made a reconstruction drawing of David’s Palace, based on the results of Yigal Shiloh’s excavations in Area G. This drawing is one of the many images in our new Image Library.
In a previous post we reported on the copper mines that have been excavated in Jordan.
On November 23, 2010, the NOVA program on PBS will be on:
Quest for Solomon’s Mines — Archeologists seek the truth about the Bible’s most famous king and his legendary riches.” The Program Description states: Countless treasure-seekers have set off in search of King Solomon’s mines, trekking through burning deserts and scaling the forbidding mountains of Africa and the Levant, inspired by the Bible’s account of splendid temples and palaces adorned in glittering gold and copper. Yet to date, the evidence that has claimed to support the existence of Solomon and other early kings in the Bible has been highly controversial. In fact, so little physical evidence of the kings who ruled Israel and Edom has been found that many contend that they are no more real than King Arthur. In the summer of 2010, NOVA and National Geographic embarked on two cutting-edge field investigations that illuminate the legend of Solomon and reveal the source of the great wealth that powered the first mighty biblical kingdoms. These groundbreaking expeditions expose important new clues buried in the pockmarked desert of Jordan, including ancient remnants of an industrial-scale copper mine and a 3,000-year-old message with the words “slave,” “king,” and “judge.”
According to the Biblical text in 1 Kings, Solomon’s Temple had many bronze vessels, such as the Altar, the two giant columns Yachin and Boaz, the bronze Sea and ten smaller basins. See this image from our new Image Library:
I have been informed by Immersion Digital, the Florida based company that produces GLO Bible Software, that a Mac version will be published soon. As a dedicated Mac user, I very much look forward to using it. I have been promised a preview test copy and can’t wait to see it.
This is a question which used to be debated by scholars, but is now used by politicians to delegitimise the Jewish claim to Rachel’s Tomb, as reported in a previous post. The Palestinians are trying to deny that the disputed building near Bethlehem is Rachel’s Tomb, thereby denying their own traditions, up to 1996 that is to say, for political reasons. Israeli commentators on the right of the political spectrum insist on the historicity of Rachel’s Tomb, while others on the left don’t seem to care, doubting if Rachel ever existed.
I have no political axe to grind, but am interested in the geography of Biblical places, although the narrative is not always easy to understand. The Bible tells the story of Rachel’s giving birth to Benjamin and her subsequent death in Genesis 35. Jacob later sums it up in Genesis 48.7:
“When I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.”
Based on this text, it is clear that Rachel’s Tomb must be near Bethlehem and a little to the north of it, as Jacob came from that direction. This is further emphasised by Genesis 35.21: “And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar”. Migdal Eder in Hebrew means: The Tower of the Flock. This is picked up by the Prophet Micah 4.8,
“And thou, O tower of the flock, (Migdal Eder) the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.”
According to Mishnah Shekalim 7.4, Migdal Eder was a place near Bethlehem where special flocks were kept from which lambs were taken for the Temple sacrifices on a daily basis. The next chapter in Micah states that the Messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem:
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel” (Mic. 5:2 ).
The connection between Bethlehem and Rachel remains strong in the story of the Massacre of the Innocents by King Herod, recorded only in the Gospel of Matthew (2.16). The evangelist sees the slaughter in Bethlehem as the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy: “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not” ( 31.15).
Why did Jeremiah mention Rama in connection with the weeping of Rachel? In Jeremiah’s time, Rama was the place where the prisoners of Judah and Benjamin were gathered before they were carried away to Babylon (Jeremiah 40.1). Jeremiah was one of the prisoners, but was set free:
“Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard had let him go from Ramah, when he had taken him being bound in chains among all that were carried away captive of Jerusalem and Judah, which were carried away captive unto Babylon.”
Rachel represents the Jewish nation in trouble, just as Rachel herself was when Benjamin was born. It does not mean that her tomb must be in Rama.
This last quote and the one in 1 Samuel 10.2, where Samuel tells Saul to go to Rachel’s sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah, has prompted some scholars to locate Rachel’s Tomb to the north of Jerusalem. The location of Zelzah is unknown and the word does not appear as a place name anywhere else in Scripture. If it was a place name, it must have been on or near the border of Benjamin. The term ‘borders’ in the Bible is not to be understood as having fixed barriers as we have today. It denotes an area of influence that can shift over time. For example, Kiriath-jearim is located on the border of Benjamin and Judah. In the allocation of the Land to the tribes, Joshua 15.9,60 includes it in the portion given to Judah, while three chapters on, it is listed as one of the cities of Benjamin (Joshua 18.28). In this interesting fluctuation between Judah and Benjamin, Kiriath-jearim resembles Jerusalem, which is also variously described as belonging to one or the other tribe (Joshua 15.63; 18.28). At the time of Saul, the border may have shifted to the south and west of Jerusalem.
I came across a novel solution to the “border problem” and have tried to illustrate this (see map below). In my plan chest, I have a set of Palestine Exploration Fund maps published in 1880 with the tribal territories marked on. It also shows Rachel’s Tomb by its Arabic name of “Kubbet Rahil”. The map doesn’t agree with modern ones, but is interesting nevertheless. The territory of Benjamin is shown with the border west of Jerusalem (Jebus) further to the south. The mapping may have been influenced by the Irish missionary, Josias Leslie Porter, who wrote about Rachel’s Tomb in his “A Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine,” (1858, p.74) “It is one of the few shrines which Muslems, Jews, and Christians agree in honouring, and concerning which their traditions are identical.” In referring to the nearby village of Beit Jala he asks, “Is this not the Zelzah mentioned by Samuel in sending Saul home after anointing him king in Ramah?” He then sketches out what for him must have been the southern border of Benjamin – “a crooked one it is true”. When he became president of Queen’s College in Belfast, he published “Jerusalem, Bethany and Bethlehem” (1886) in which his question about Zelzah was formulated as a statement!
I have used the PEF maps with the anachronistic territory of Benjamin marked out as a background to reconstruct the journey of Jacob and his family recorded in Genesis 35 (according to Porter).
The territory of the Tribe of Benjamin according to Porter. The yellow arrow indicates the journey from Bethel to the place where Rachel was buried. Porter includes territory to the southwest of Jebus and places Zelzah at Beit Jala. Samuel told Saul that he would meet two men at Rachel's sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah. According to this map, the Tomb of Rachel should therefore be located between Beit Jala and Bethlehem.
If one could accept Porter’s sweeping statement that Beit Jala is Zelzah, it could work. Jacob travelled from Bethel in the north (vs. 16) over the main north-south road, passing by Ramah and continuing on the west side of Jerusalem (Jebus) and, after crossing what would later become the border between Benjamin and Judah at Zelzah, planned to travel to Bethlehem. It would place the location of the original Tomb of Rachel firmly in the territory of Judah in between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. But certainty eludes us …
This map shows the generally accepted territory of Benjamin with Porter's addition shown in the broken red line. In this case, Zelzah could have been located where the yellow line crosses the red line, west of Jebus. Rachel's Tomb would have been located a little distance further to the south.
Unlike the Tomb of the Patriarchs at Hebron, see previous post, I could never make a reconstruction drawing of Rachel’s Tomb. It was marked originally merely by a pillar and its subsequent forms simply reflected the architectural style of whoever was ruling the country. No one knows exactly where Rachel was buried, but the Biblical pointers indicate that it must have been somewhere close to the site traditionally believed to be that of the Jewish matriarch.
The new Carta Collection offers an outstanding collection of Bible Atlases and books on the historical geography of the Bible. Each book is richly illustrated with original artwork, reconstructions, drawings, and diagrams. These are must-have volumes for anyone interested in the background of the Bible, and for teachers at every level.
As a Mac user, Accordance is my favourite Bible Software and I use it almost on a daily basis. We were pleased to know that three of our books were chosen to be part of this selection:
The Quest, Revealing the Temple Mount in JerusalemJerusalem in the time of NehemiahJerusalem in the Year 30 A.D.
Todd Bolen of BiblePlaces.com wrote this about the collection:
An extraordinary collection of historical and geographical works on the Bible from the Carta Publishing House in Jerusalem has been announced for Accordance Bible Software (Mac). Some of these works are the best in the field and available nowhere else electronically.
The collection consists of the following books:
Bible Lands Atlases
The Sacred Bridge
Carta’s New Century Handbook and Atlas of the Bible
The Carta Bible Atlas
The Illustrated Bible Atlas with Historical Nots
Bible History Atlas Study Edition
The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea
Jerusalem
The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem
Carta’s Historical Atlas of Jerusalem
Jerusalem in the Time of Nehemiah
Jerusalem in the Year 30 A.D.
Temple
The Quest
Carta’s Illustrated Encyclopedia of The Holy Temple in Jerusalem
Here is a report concerning the recent dismissal by Israel’s High Court of Shurat HaDin’s private prosecution of the Islamic Waqf for the Waqf’s depredations on the Temple Mount:
Israel’s High Court of Justice has handed down a decision which blocks a
first-of-its-kind private prosecution brought by Shurat HaDin against the
Islamic Waqf (“Trust”) in Jerusalem.
The Waqf is the radical anti-Israel authority which the government allows to oversee Muslim holy places including the mosques on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Following months of reports that the Waqf was utilizing bulldozers on the Temple Mount to carry out unauthorized construction that was obliterating ancient Jewish artifacts and the refusal of the Israeli police to act to safeguard these relics, we decided to go to Court against the Muslims.
Israel National News (Arutz 7) has a similar report:
Attorneys from the Israel Law Center accused the Wakf of deliberately destroying Jewish artifacts in order to eradicate evidence of the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount. By neglecting to take action to stop the demolition of ancient historical finds, the Israel government has been “abandoning the millenniums-long Jewish claim over the Temple Mount and allowing Islamic extremists to re-write Jerusalem’s history,” they said.
The attorney general’s office had tried to get the Israel Law Center suit dismissed, arguing that private citizens should not be allowed to prosecute in a case that affects the general public. The Law Center responded by accusing the attorney general of caving in to political pressure.
