Having left the Garden of Eden human females stopped suckling earlier and lost the natural contraceptive protection that went with it.

Who Lies Sleeping?

Jerusalem and Judaism before the Return 1.1

Faith or Myth
Jerusalem
Egyptian References
Jerusalem in the United Monarchy
Jerusalem in the Divided Monarchy

Abstract

Before the supposed kingdom of David, in the bible, Jerusalem was a small but well fortified town, the city of the Jebusites that David decided would be his capital. There is no historical or archaeological evidence for this belief. Kenyon found no city walls, no signs of occupation and no buildings that might have been public buildings. The Iron Age date of the excavation is certain from a complete jar found on the site. Other cities, Gezer, Hazor, Lachish and Megiddo, of the same period have grand public buildings. It suggests they were administrative centres for a rural area. The bible says Jerusalem, barely more than a village, was the capital of an empire, yet palatial buildings were in Megiddo not in Jerusalem.

Faith or Myth

Louis Rushmore reports that not long ago, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review criticized belief in the infallibility of the bible, actually admitting people had been fooled by scholars and ministers in the past, and declaring it was time to stop fooling them. He wanted ministers and priests to accept inaccuracies that have always been there—the bible is not an infallible word of God. Such an admission, he said, might be impossible because ignorant “folk” insist on their bible being infallible. He must mean believers.

David Clines of Sheffield University has found that, though theology students are taught these things at college, they ignore them in their parishes and pulpits. The happy punters are simply kept in the dark. K Van der Toorn, a Dutch biblical scholar, is also remarkably honest for those of his type. He says in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies—1998 that those involved in the study of religion always have, in one way or another, a personal stake in the matter and therefore cannot be expected to set an example of dispassionate scholarly enquiry.

Doubtless he says this because the study of Israelite religion is at present racked with ill-tempered disagreement between different factions. The central difference between them is whether faith requires the bible to be upheld or not—whether the bible really depicts the forward march of God’s unfolding revelation. Otherwise the different parties are in almost total agreement! In these pages we make no apologies for taking the view that much of the bible is myth—indeed “myth” is perhaps too noble a word and “lies” would be better because, unlike myth which is intended to edify, the founders of these biblical “myths” always intended to fool people.

Most of the relevant material has been available from time immemorial and it might be surprising that these matters are not settled. They are, of course, settled for believers in Christianity and Judaism, but if belief were sufficient, we should all be still expecting Santa Claus to fall down the chimney every Christmas with his sack of goodies. Today, even more so than in the time of Celsus, those who merely believe are fools. Whatever way one imagines the Creator, we have been created with intelligence, so to turn round and say that we are not meant to exercise it in case it tests our belief is absurd—not just absurd, a blatant insult to God, if God is who created us.

As soon as it is accepted that some of the biblical material might be in error, it is necessary to decide what is. Evidence, external to the bible and its proponents, is needed and archaeology is the most objective. Biblical archaeologists at one time had as their whole raison d’etre the aim of confirming the bible by practical research. With such a tendentious aim, they were not likely to interpret their finds objectively—nor did they! No reputable scholars deny that archaeology is the prime method of discovering facts about early Israel provided that it is not interpreted tendentiously and finds can be dated to a particular time.

The Golden Age of biblical archaeology—the period between the two World Wars—was dominated by William Foxwell Albright and his disciples—besotted biblicists to a man. A new generation of scholars in the 1960s and early 1970s dismissed their archaeological work as simplistic. They meant “wrong”. The earlier biblical archaeologists were ridiculed for circular reasoning—assuming the biblical stories, fitting their discoveries into their framework, then claiming the discoveries proved the bible! Modern archaeologists do not think the bible is the inspired “Word of God”, basing their views on the cumulative results of a hundred years of archaeology in the Holy Land.

And that is the trouble for those “scholars” whose knees are permanently bent, and not by excessive trowelling! Even James K Hoffmier, a professor at Wheaton College, declares the bible wrong about almost all the early history of Israel, based on the work of these archaeologists. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua have been rejected as historical figures. The Egyptian sojourn and exodus stories, along with Sinai wanderings and Joshua’s military entry into Canaan never happened. The United Monarchy left no traces. They are simply fictional. They are myths retrojected into Israelite history by anonymous biblical writers. The Old Testament is superstition and folk religion.

There is no archaeological evidence for a previous temple on the site of Herod’s. In other words there is no direct evidence even of a second temple, let alone the first. Nor does 1 Kings 6:2-36 make any note of the prominent rock—on which is now built the Dome of the Rock mosque—when it describes the first or Solomon’s temple. It seems impossible not to mention such a feature, so either the site of Solomon’s temple was different, or the whole story is fictional.

The history of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the hill country of Palestine seems non-existent before about 700 BC, but whereas one faction sees this as evidence that much of the Old Testament is mythology written much later than most believers think, the other factions takes comfort in scraps of “proof”, however indirect, that the Old Testament accounts contain elements of true history.

Jerusalem

Much of the archaeological work that has failed to support the biblical story has been carried out in Jerusalem, notably under Kathleen Kenyon. Latterly skilled Israeli excavators have been busy in Jerusalem but much of their work has been left unpublished or even has been reportedly lost through disagreements. Not a little of this dissension will be due to the archaeologists not producing what Israeli nationalists would like to see.

The oldest part of Jerusalem is the hill south of the temple area where the city of David was considered to have been, and tombs found here have been dated to 3000 BC. A small building with benches along the walls might have been an early shrine but the evidence is that the people concerned were herdsmen. Several small villages dating to about 2000 BC have been found in the valleys around Jerusalem, but no sign of occupation in the city has been found at this period.

However, about 1800 BC signs of activity appear and several parts of a city wall have been found. The trouble is that very little of the town itself remains because of subsequent building work. Nevertheless Kenyon unearthed several large storage jars taken to indicate that the town was a regional centre of trade—a market town. This deduction ties in with the source of the clay of the jars being local. Farms of the period seemed to produce sufficient milk for trade—that the jars were used for—and meat. Jerusalem at this time seemed to be quite prosperous to judge by the polished stone and faience beads that have been found and the inlaid bone for decorating furniture. It was obviously a regional centre of some wealth and importance with a popualtion between 1000 and 2500 people.

Egyptian References

Now a place called “Rushalimmu” has been noted on the Execration Texts found in Egypt and dated to this period. The Execration Texts were plainly some magic cursing ritual because the names of peoples, rulers and towns that the Egyptians wanted to defeat had been inscribed on to pots that had then apparently been deliberately broken. The magic is that commonly associated with names—that possession of the name gives possession of the owner of the name. This is a reason why the names of gods like that of the Hebrew god were kept secret. By forbidding anyone from uttering the name no enemies could discover the name of the god to get control of him.

The Egyptians were hoping that by breaking the names on the pots, they would facilitate the breaking of the resistence of the people, rulers or towns. Of course, there is no sure way of associating the excavated Jerusalem with Rushalimmu and, indeed, the excavated Jerusalem is hardly likely to have caused the Egyptians enough trouble to merit such a ceremony, but conceivably the excavated Jerusalem was the centre of a chiefdom and so might have been seen by the Egyptians as a potential nuisance. Unfortunately, this Jerusalem ceased to exist after a life of only about a hundred years. Perhaps Egyptian magic really worked!

About 500 years later the administrators of the Pharaohs were at the new town of Amarna busily archiving the Pharaoh’s correspondence. In the Amarna letters were six received from the scribe of the prince of “Urasalim”. If this is Jerusalem it was apparently a walled city and the assumption was that it continued the city of 1800 BC. Again, though, the excavations of Late Bronze Age Jerusalem do not bear out this deduction. There is no trace of a fortified city of this time. Not only are there no walls or towns, very few sherds of pottery can be definitely assigned to this time. There is a tomb on the Mount of Olives and traces of an Egyptian temple north of the city, but no city itself! If Jerusalem was occupied during the time of the Amarna letters, it was situated somewhere else.

Possibly, of course, the hills around Jerusalem at this period of history were all part of a chiefdom or small city state called Jerusalem. The main city itself perhaps was moved in 1800 for some reason and was still elsewhere when its scribe wrote to the Pharaoh. Since no trace of an alternative site for the town has ever been found either, a more likely solution is that the Urusalim of the Amarna letters was not a city at all but one of the Pharaoh’s country estates. Such an estate, especially in wild country, might well have been fortified. The letters mention a tribute of slaves. If the estate managers were in the habit of taking slaves locally in payment of tribute, the fortifications might have been necessary.

The real point, though, is that there is no way that archaeology supports the old idea of an ancient Jerusalem continuously occupied from the Middle Bronze Age. The possible appearance of Jerusalem in Bronze Age documents must refer to the district rather than a specific city. Scholars of all persuasions now recognize that the culture of the Judaean hills was continuous from the Late Bronze Ages to the Early Iron Age, precluding any foreign invasion or infiltration, and it was a culture based on smallholdings and villages living by husbandry and organized on the basis of kin. All scholars see these people as partial bandits raiding the civilized valleys but otherwise sharing the culture of the region including practices that later would be condemned.

Later Egyptian remains at Philistine sites are common. Excavations at Ashkelon and Ekron of twenty sixth dynasty scarabs show that, in the seventh century, Egyptians controlled Palestine, having taken over when the Assyrians withdrew. A stele of Pharaoh Necho (610-595 BC) was found at Sidon. Seventh century ostraca have numbers written on them in Egyptian hieratic, but sometimes with an additional Semitic word usually called Hebrew. Hieratic numbering was common in Israel and Judah in the seventh century, a discovery described as “puzzling”.

It is a commonly accepted view that the Hebrew kingdoms borrowed much of their administrative system from Egypt.
E Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible

Biblicists will attribute it to the emergence of Moses and the tribes from Egypt eight hundred years before, but as Moses is mythical, it is likely to have been because these lands were for a long time in the Egyptian sphere of influence as the nearest Asian colonies of Egypt. The incursions of the Assyrians only broke Egyptian hegemony temporarily.

Jerusalem in the United Monarchy

In the couple of hundred years preceding the supposed kingdom of David, Jerusalem was, in the bible, the city of the Jebusites, a small but well fortified town that David decided could be his capital. Besides the bible there is no historical evidence for this belief and the archaeological work is equally negative. Kenyon found successive built terraces of some size, but no city walls, no signs of occupation and no buildings that might have been public buildings. The Iron Age date of the excavation is certain from a complete jar found on the floor of the site and other sherds. Margreet Steiner judges the terraces to be part of a fortification, but for what purpose? It is the only fortification in the hill country in that period. Nothing suggests it is an Egyptian fort, and, indeed, everything suggests it is local, but perhaps the Egyptians made the locals build a watch tower, or the locals built one to watch for the Egyptians!

Iron Age II is the designation of the period when the United Monarchy of David and Solomon ruled the Levant in a powerful empire. In fact, several buildings large enough to have been administrative buildings are dated to the period but no pottery considered previously to have been typical of David and Solomon is found there! However, a large rampart has been found thought by some to be the “millo” mentioned in the bible. Others date it to the earlier period. Several unused or discarded parts of buildings have also been found and some have reliably been dated on style to the ninth century. Interestingly a bronze fist was discovered that seems likely to have been part of a statue of a god.

All of these are exciting finds, especially for those who want to see David and Solomon emerge into history, but the city seems to have had no population—there is no evidence of occupation—no houses! The buildings and fortifications are all high on the hill with no space for dwellings above and no sign of them below. In the Middle Bronze Age occupation and the later permanent occupation from the seventh century onwards, the walls were lower down so that dwellings behind were protected. Possibly the domestic part of the city was further north, but nothing has been found of it. What has been found here dates from a century later.

So, the Jerusalem of David was a small apparently administrative centre with no attached domestic quarter. No more than 2000 people could have lived within and presumably were administrators and those who serviced them. It must have been an administrative centre for a statelet but could not have been the capital of a state such as that of Solomon.

Other cities of the same type have been excavated from the tenth and ninth centuries like Gezer, Hazor, Lachish and Megiddo, all with apparently public buildings and few dwellings but grander ones than Jerusalem. They also suggest small city states that functioned mainly as administrative centres for a rural locality. Jerusalem, not a very significant settlement, not a very elaborate one, indeed barely more than a village in the tenth century, was, in the bible, the capital of a United Monarchy extending over the northern part of the country to the Euphrates. Yet the grand buildings, the palaces, were at Megiddo not in Jerusalem.

No trace has been found of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem and the United Monarchy has to be rejected as not historical.

Jerusalem in the Divided Monarchy

The earliest date for a temple in Jerusalem is the 700s BC when the city finally became established as the centre of a small state. Ritual baths are never found before the Babylonian conquest, unless a single example has been found at Tel Masos. This must be another surprising fact. In late Judaism, ritual baths were an essential part of pious living, yet they were not needed earlier, and baths are substantial structures that cannot be easily hidden, and do not easily crumble. It does not suggest continuity of religious practice.

On the eastern slopes of the “City of David”, naturally outside its fortifications, houses for artisans and small traders at last appeared in the ninth century BC. The buildings were small and simple and were plainly not the homes of nobility. However, tombs found cut in rocks dating roughly 850 to 650 BC show that people were getting rich and one tomb is a fine multi-chambered mausoleum. A simple blessing like that of Numbers 6:24-26 has been found on silver funereal plaques from a tomb at Ketef Hinnom. Pottery and jewellery show the tomb is later than the seventh century.

The destruction of the city by the Babylonians in 586 BC left a mass of debris that has yielded sufficient for life in the city just before its destruction to be reconstructed. It had grown enormaously in about a hundred or so years and could have reached a population of 10,000. Substantial walls had been built in about 700 BC and the water system was sophisticated. In contrast to the earlier city, no public buildings are found but many residential buildings, some obviously of wealthy families able to import luxuries from Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Cyprus.

The attack by the Assyrians had the effect of destroying most of the small towns that had earlier rivalled Jerusalem. The Assyrians therefore left Jerusalem as an unrivalled buffer city enabling it to prosper out of the misfortune of the others. There must have been a quid pro quo for this favourable treatment and whatever it was the victorious Babylonians a hundred years later did not appreciate it, but the Persians a half a century further on did. The Jews were eminent for their loyalty to the Persians, remaining steadfast to the “Great King” and regaining their prosperity as a consequence. Though the Assyrians are depicted as wolves in the scriptures, the inhabitants of Jerusalem obviously reached an accord with them and prospered as a result when all their rivals were destroyed.

Page Tags: Jerusalem, People of God, Religion of the Jews, Israelites, Baal, Biblical Evidence, Temple Cult, Moses, Israel, Canaanites, Jewish Scriptures, Van der Toorn, Margreet Steiner, Kathleen Kenyon, Bible, Biblical, Canaanite, Edom, Evidence, God, Gods, Judah, Name, Names, Religion, Yehouah

Last uploaded: 22 May, 2008.