Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
AI
The paper examines the historical, archaeological, and theological significance of Jerusalem as depicted in biblical texts. It discusses the ancient history of Jerusalem, particularly its conquest by the Israelites and its strategic significance due to natural defenses. Theological insights are drawn from biblical prophecies regarding the future of Jerusalem and its role in God's plan, culminating in the anticipation of a new Temple and the return of Jesus the Messiah. Ultimately, this analysis aims to provide apologetic proof supporting the significance of Jerusalem in Scripture.
VT 69 (2019), pp. 46-59, 2019
One of the most cryptic narratives in Samuel is the story of David's conquest of the city of Jebus-Jerusalem. This paper proposes that David did not conquer the city through battle, but through the Jebusites' peaceful surrender. This understanding illuminates the meaning of the obscure reference to "the blind and the lame," as well as the word "ṣinnôr."
HA-ESI, 2015
Jerusalem, City of David (B) In June 2014, an archaeological excavation was conducted along the western edge of a paved Byzantine street ascending from the western slopes of the City of David hill to the Davidson Archeological Park (Permit No. A-7130; map ref. 222327-32/631338-61), prior to preparing the site for visitors. The excavation, in the Jerusalem Walls National Park, undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and at the instigation of the Elad Association, was directed by J. Uziel and M. Hagbi, with the assistance of V. Essman and Y. Shmidov (surveying and drafting), A. Peretz (field photography), G. Berkowitz and A. Ajami (area supervision), N. Natanel and B. Cohen (safety), A Koren (engineering supervision), J. Sheffer (conservation engineering), I. Novoselesky (wet sieving) and Y. Gorin-Rosen (glass).
New Carbon-14 tests show that massive Middle Bronze fortifications near the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem shall not be regarded to this period anymore. The archaeological community is in a rage. If the Canaanite fortifications did not exist, how credible would be the biblical account of the United Monarchy?
New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region XIV, 2021
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2008
Knowledge of the archaeology of Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) period-the size of the settlement and whether it was fortified-is crucial to understanding the history of the province of Yehud, the reality behind the book of Nehemiah and the process of compilation and redaction of certain biblical texts. It is therefore essential to look at the finds free of preconceptions (which may stem from the account in the book of Nehemiah) and only then attempt to merge archaeology and text.
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2006
This important collection of essays is based on papers held in 1998-2001 during the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature's "Consultation on Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology." Originating from a sense of despair that the fields of biblical studies and archaeology are becoming increasingly estranged from one another, this volume attempts to bridge this perceived chasm by bringing together archaeologists and biblicists to discuss issues concerning the history of Jerusalem in the Iron Age.
There are two solutions for the “problem with Jerusalem”—the fact that archaeology does not supply enough data for several periods in the second and first millennia B.C.E. which are well documented by textual material. According to the first, the acropolis, with the temple and the palace only, was located on the Temple Mount and the town itself extended over the ridge of the City of David. This means that in the Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA, Persian and early Hellenistic period Jerusalem was a small, sparsely settled settlement. In this article, we suggest a second solution to the quandary: The original mound of Jerusalem—that is, the acropolis and the settlement—which had been located on the Temple Mount, was boxed in under the Herodian platform in the late first century B.C.E. This theoretical mound could have covered a significant area of ca. 5 hectares—the size of the larger Bronze and Iron Age mounds in the hill country. It was probably fortified in the Middle Bronze Age, and again in the late Iron IIA in parallel to the fortification of important towns in the countryside of Judah, mainly Lachish, Tel Beer-sheba and Mizpah. This mound on the Temple Mount was the sole location of the town in the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, Iron IIA, Persian and early Hellenistic periods. In all these periods activity in the City of David was meager and restricted to the central part of the ridge, mainly its eastern side near the Gihon spring. In two periods—the Iron IIB and the late Hellenistic—the settlement expanded to include the southeastern ridge (the City of David) and the southwestern hill; the new quarters were fortified, but there was no need to build a city-wall in the western side of the City of David, as this line ran in the middle of the city.
HA-ESI, 2015
Jerusalem, City of David (A) In November 2014, a building in the Aderet Complex on the City of David hill was renovated (map ref. 222420/631102; Fig. 1). The work, financed by the 'Elad Foundation, was supervised by J. Uziel and M. Hagbi (field photography), with the assistance of V. Essman and Y. Shmidov (surveying and drafting) and N. Mizrahi (foreman).
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 2019
Abstract Was Jerusalem a capital of Judah in the sense that its central place status was accepted by the surrounding tribal groups of the Judahite mountains? Was Jerusalem integral to the tribe of Judah? The coupling of “Jerusalem and Judah” (and vice versa) suggests a link between the two terms while maintaining the difference between the two entities. Jerusalem was no more than a relatively modest residence of the House of David for at least two centuries. Even after its rise to metropolis at the end of the 8th cent. B.C.E., the city remained apart from the clans of the Judahite mountains until the demise of the Davidic state. The clans in turn remained distant from Jerusalem, sporadically exercising their influence to change a ruler. The term “tribe of Judah” or the image of a “royal tribe” (Gen 49:8 –12) seems to be a creation of Davidic integrative state ideology. It was aimed at uniting the clans of the Judahite mountains and binding them to the “House of David”. This was necessary, because the Davidic dynasty originated from the Ephrath clan in Benjamin and was more closely connected to the region north of Jerusalem. It is doubtful whether a tribe of Judah existed outside the royal ideology in monarchic times. The role that Jerusalem played in relation to Judah corresponds structurally and functionally to the role Samaria played in Israel. Samaria was also a residence of the military leaders of the northern tribes since the time of Omri, outside the tribal territories and independent of them.
Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David, 2016
Garfinkel, Y., Kreimerman, I., and Zilberg, P. 2016: Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, 2022
This paper presents a critical synopsis of excavations by K. M. KENYON and E. MAZAR (and to a lesser extent Y. SHILOH and D. BEN-AMI and Y. TCHEKHANOVETS) on the Ophel and on the summit and upper east slope of the City of David, with a view to reassessing the evolution of the fortifications of Jerusalem from the 11 th to 9 th cent. B.C.E. By extension, the paper also addresses the nature and extent of Jerusalem across those centuries and the contribution of Jerusalem to the problem of early Israelite state formation. Few serious attempts have been made to integrate the results of MAZAR's excavations on the summit with the earlier, contiguous, work by KENYON. As for MAZAR's Ophel excavations, their recent final publication adds important new data that warrant a critical evaluation of MAZAR's characterization and dating of the remains. The paper concludes with a rebuttal of the view that Jerusalem was a small, unfortified settlement before the 8 th cent. B.C.E.
Les échos des événements de la campagne de Sannéchérib et le souvenir du salut de Jérusalem devant les Assyriens furent interprétés, après de nombreuses générations, comme la preuve irréfutable de la réalisation du pouvoir de D-ieu sur la terre, et conforta la foi indéfectible en la protection de D-ieu pour sa cité. Parmi les dirigeants politiques, militaires et religieux à Jérusalem, la croyance était répandue que Jérusalem demeurait sûre et ne tomberait jamais sous le joug de l'oppresseur et de l'ennemi. Cette perception conduisit à lever certaines des restrictions caractéristiques des dirigeants d'un petit royaume durant toutes ses années d'existence, et autorisa un large degré de liberté politique et militaire, précisément à une période où une telle précaution était vitale.
Near Eastern Archaeology, 2013
CITY OF DAVID STUDIES OF ANCIENT JERUSALEM, 2018
Beyond the Walls New Findings on the Eastern Slope of the City of David and their Significance for Understanding the Urban Development of Late Iron Age Jerusalem
Survey of the archaeology of the Kingdom of Judah from the late 10th thru the early 6th cent. BCE
The article contains descriptions from the Talmud, Eusebius, Josippon ben Gorion, Maccabees, Philo, Aristeas, the Book of Enoch, Josephus, the Bible, pilgrimage accounts, and modern archaeologists to demonstrate the temple stood to the south, in the lower part of the city, in the middle, its east wall standing in the Kidron Valley, its west wall standing opposite the western hill "in the manner of a theater," with a natural spring enclosed within its precincts, its water originating on the east side of the temple and flowing south. All of these descriptions and more place the temple in the middle of the southeastern hill, over the Gihon Spring, on Mount Zion, in the City of David.
Tel Aviv , 2007
Recent excavations at the City of David have revealed a set of massive walls constructed of large undressed stones. Excavator Eilat Mazar has presented them as the remains of a single building, which she labelled the 'Large Stone Structure'. Mazar interpreted the 'Large Stone Structure' as part of a big construction complex, which had also included the 'Stepped Stone Structure' on the slope. She dated her 'Large Stone Structure' to ca. 1000 BCE and identified it as the palace of King David. We argue that: (1) the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to a single building; (2) the more elaborate walls may be associated with elements uncovered by A1acalister and Duncan in the 1920s and should possibly be dated to the Hellenistic period; (3) the 'Stepped Stone Structure' represents at least two phases of construction—the lower (downslope) and earlier, possibly dating to the Iron IIA in the 9th century BCE, and the later (which connects to the Hasmonaean First Wall upslope) dating to the Hellenistic period.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.