Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] Iron II Wall in Jerusalem: Was First Temple Wall, and terminology

Expand Messages
  • Eliot Braun
    I admit to not having seen the wall in question, nor did I mean to imply that I know of its date. I leave that to the capable expertise of the excavtor, Elat
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I admit to not having seen the wall in question, nor did I mean to imply that I know of its date. I leave that to the capable expertise of the excavtor, Elat Mazar. I merely wished to remark that the title given to the thread 'First Temple Wall' is terribly misleading. The wall in question is apparently massive, but I've not seen it (mea maxima culpa and shame on me but I'm busy working) and. I don't know anything of its date, except by what the ANE list has secondarily passed on from a secondary source, apparently the Jerusalem Post. I also know nothing of its function.

      I merely wished to note that the wall has nothing to do directly with the temple. The wall is located on the Ophel Hill, well away, south of the present Haram es-Sharif, believed to be the precinct of the temple (1st and 2nd and any later editions). Please, list members, do not quote me on what the wall is or isn't beyond that.

      I do have a problem with some people's habits of dating things to the 'First Temple Period' or the 'Second Temple Period'. Its merely because the terms are very parochial and quite imprecise.

      If you accept that Solomon built the first temple and that it was destroyed ca 586 BCE, then you have quite a long period of more than 300 years that relates to the 1st temple. The 2nd Temple is another matter; it was supposedly rebuilt in the Persian period, restored somewhat by the Hasmoneans, and completely rebuilt by Herod and then destroyed 70 CE. Thus the term is also very imprecise from a chronological point of view.

      Nevertheless, these terms are used by mostof us here in Israel , but really mostly in parlance. If we wish to be more accurate then perhaps more general terms are accepteable, Herodian is not too bad. Hasmonean or Hellenistic are also good terms. Early Hellenistic, Late Hellenistic, Early Roman, Late Roman are more historical and more universal terms and can be related to fairly specific dates. They are less value loaded also, which is something I prefer. Iron I, Iron II etc. are somewhat more in keeping with my ideas on archaeology.

      Eliot Braun, Ph D
      Ha-oren 12, Har Adar, Israel 90836
      Tel. 972-2-5345687
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Doug Petrovich
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:19 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Iron II Wall in Jerusalem: Was First Temple Wall and Hyperbole

      Dear Eliot and Yitzhak,

      For some reason, I did not receive Eliot's post, only the part of it quoted by Yitzhak. From the JP article, it seems as though a city wall is being implied, as a 7-m-thick wall does not seem necessary even for the greatest of rulers. Eliot's comment that it is located downhill seems to confirm this.

      I certainly would love to see a picture or two, if not just a drawing of where it is in relation to the eastern slope of the Ophel. Certainly if it is located at the base of the hill, this would be Manasseh's wall that Reich and Shukron found. And if it is high up on the hill, it would be the wall that Kenyon discovered and attributed to Nehemiah.

      Between those two locations, the sky is certainly the limit, though the options just take us back further in time than either of those two walls. I am curious what would make Mazar assign it to the First Temple, and what would make Yitzhak and Eliot--if I understand them correctly--assign it to Iron II/Second Temple.

      Doug Petrovich
      Novosibirsk, Russia

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.