In contrast to the Bible's account, archeologists have long debated "to what extent Jerusalem was an important city or even a city in the time of David and Samuel" (Times, op. cit.). Some scholars suggest that King David and Solomon were nothing more than petty tribal chieftains who ruled over an area comprising little more than a few scattered rural clans (Washington Post, op. cit.). One renowned archeologist has even hypothesized that Jerusalem during David's time was nothing more than a "typical hill country village" (International Herald Tribune, August 5). Some scholars go even further, suggesting that the biblical account of King David is nothing more than a myth (Washington Post, op. cit.).
If the massive structure found by Ms. Mazar does prove to be 10th century, Seymour Gitin, director of the Albright Institute of Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem, says it will "demolish the view of the minimalists" who dismiss the biblical accounts of history and religion (ibid.).
It would also discredit the claims of many Arabs, including the late Yasser Arafat, who deny any Israelite links to Jerusalem. Digs in the city, especially in areas around the Temple Mount, have been politically sensitive in the past (New York Sun, op. cit.).
Even if this structure does not turn out to be the palace, it could still be an archeological find of "revolutionary proportions" (Canadian Jewish News, op. cit.). Regardless, it is a major construction from the early Israelite period in Jerusalem. As such, it would negate the views of critics who claim there is no evidence of a major Israelite presence during this time period. The Bible's description of a great, unified and influential monarchy of David and Solomon would also be reinforced.
Lately there have been other archeological discoveries within Israel that have also supported the Bible's validity.
This past July, in what archeologist Michael Homan calls an "Indiana Jones moment," the sun's rays illuminated an inscription of the Hebrew alphabet on a 40-pound stone, found at the Tel Zayit excavation site. After analysis of the stone, the two lines of incised letters was reportedly determined to be the earliest known specimen of the Hebrew alphabet and an important benchmark in the history of writing. Lawrence Stager, a Harvard archeologist working on other excavations in Israel, says that what makes this find exceedingly rare is that it was found with pottery that "fit perfectly with the 10th century" (New York Times, November 9). Dr. Ron Tappy, the lead archeologist for the dig, is stating that actually "[a]ll successive alphabets in the ancient world, including the Greek one, derive from this ancestor �" (ibid.).
Tel Zayit is thought to be an ancient Israelite border town 18 miles inland from the ancient Philistine port of Ashkelon established by an expanding Israelite kingdom based in Jerusalem. Dr. Tappy says that such a well-developed border town suggested a "centralized bureaucracy, political leadership and literacy levels that seemed to support the biblical image of the unified kingdom of David and Solomon in the 10th century b.c." (ibid.).
Another interesting find of late was that of a tiny ceramic shard that was unearthed at the biblical city of "Gath of the Philistines." According to the Jerusalem Post, this shard contains the earliest Philistine inscription ever discovered. Fascinatingly, the inscription mentions two names that are surprisingly similar to the name Goliath. What makes this story even more exceptional is that according to the Bible, the city of Gath is identified as Goliath's hometown (1 Samuel 17:4). Although Goliath was supposedly a very popular name during the time of King David, this find still enhances the Bible's validity.
As more and more evidence of the Bible's accuracy is unearthed, scholars are forced to reconsider the veracity of the Bible as a historical document and its use as a reliable map for archaeological discovery.
For many people, this brings up some unsettling questions. After all, if the Bible is proven to be archeologically and historically accurate, what about the rest of the written Word? Is it possible that what the entire Bible says is true? Should we also consider it as a reliable map for instructions on human living?
In light of these and the many other recent archeological finds not mentioned here, it is important to reevaluate just what modern education and society say about the Bible. Maybe it is time for all people to question Bible critics and prove the veracity of the Bible for themselves.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1932
