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

Re: [ANE-2] Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... A small city????? I understood that it was nothing more than a little town. But perhaps the terms town and city are not very helpful after all. ++++++
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      David Hall wrote:
      >
      > Jerusalem with all its cisterns proved no match for the mighty
      > kingdoms along the rivers of Mesopotamia and Egypt. While Jerusalem
      > started small, it grew in time. During 1000 B.C. it was a small city
      > built above a spring and had not been the capitol of any large territory.
      >
      >
      >
      >

      A small city?????

      I understood that it was nothing more than a little town. But perhaps the terms 'town' and 'city' are not very helpful after all.


      ++++++

      Jim West, ThD

      http://jwest.wordpress.com -- Blog
      http://drjewest.googlepages.com - Biblical Studies Resources
    • Niels Peter Lemche
      OK, Between 721 and 701, Lachish was probably the biggest city around, then Lachish was destroyed together with most of the land, and Jerusalem began to grow
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        OK, Between 721 and 701, Lachish was probably the biggest city around, then Lachish was destroyed together with most of the land, and Jerusalem began to grow rapidly, the only major fortified settlement surviving Sennacherib's onslaught. Finkelstein and others would like to see Jerusalem grow after the fall of Samaria, adopting an old assertion by Albrecht Alt (Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums) that survivors from old Israel fled to Judah and Jerusalem. This thesis is necessary to keep a pre-exilic date of the historical tradition of historical Israel, i.e. the state of that name that existed from c. 900 to 921.

        Peter, thank you for the quote. It should help, although I am not sure about it. Logic has never been a strong point in biblical studies.

        By the way, George, even if a piece of historiography is late, say Persian or Hellenistic, it does not at the same time say that the traditions included here are by necessity Persian or Hellenistic. It's an absurd assertion by traditionally minded scholars that because some scholars maintain that the historiography, they at the same time say that it is all an invention. Of course any information about a king of the name of Akab will include at least one information that such a king is supposed to have reigned sometime in the past, and because of the external evidence, it is confirmed that this Akab is not an invention. It might be like the Viking King Ragnar Lodbrog, who belongs in the Norse sagas but is still a historical person, found in a Frankish chronicle from around 800 CE. This does, however, not mean that Ragnar won his first bride by killing a huge dragon curling around her house.

        This is not an invitation to begin again the old system of circular argumentation to save historicity; it's just a demonstration that much can be achieved by applying a sound methodology. The method of Alt, Noth and other scholars of that time was not sound, assertions based on circular argumentation -- but -- gosh -- they sounded convincing when we studied them back in the hoary past.

        Niels Peter Lemche



        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Hall
        Sendt: 1. juli 2008 14:28
        Til: ANE
        Emne: [ANE-2] Jerusalem

        Jerusalem with all its cisterns proved no match for the mighty kingdoms along the rivers of Mesopotamia and Egypt. While Jerusalem started small, it grew in time. During 1000 B.C. it was a small city built above a spring and had not been the capitol of any large territory.

        If one will walk from the Dung Gate to the north and west along the western hill torwards the Roman Cardo one might find a trench with the remains of the Iron Age II broad wall exposed. The wall is a thick stone built city fortification wall. At this point Jerusalem may have been larger than most other ciies in the land. At this point the records of the kings of Judah were sometimes verified by the records of the kings of Assyria.

        David Q. Hall
        dqhall59@...






        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Peter T. Daniels
        I always rendered Briant s ville as town, reserving city for the rare cite -- assuming he meant something by the distinction, and keeping in mind
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I always rendered Briant's "ville" as "town," reserving "city" for the rare "cite' " -- assuming he meant something by the distinction, and keeping in mind that Irving Finkel had mentioned to me many, many years ago that ancient cities were nothing like cities of the recent world.
           --
          Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Jim West <jwest@...>
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 8:36:31 AM
          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Jerusalem

          David Hall wrote:
          >
          > Jerusalem with all its cisterns proved no match for the mighty
          > kingdoms along the rivers of Mesopotamia and Egypt. While Jerusalem
          > started small, it grew in time. During 1000 B.C. it was a small city
          > built above a spring and had not been the capitol of any large territory.

          A small city?????

          I understood that it was nothing more than a little town. But perhaps the terms 'town' and 'city' are not very helpful after all.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.