King David\'s palace?

[M. Demetrius]

http://news.yahoo.com/king-david-era-pal...07932.html

Looks like they found something of real noteworthiness. Hope the excavation reveals some useful artifacts. There's too few relics from that era.

[Robert Vermaat]

Sorry David, not a hoax but not a new discovery either.

[M. Demetrius]

So, should we look at the results, or not? Not sure what you're saying, exactly.

[Robert Vermaat]

the claim is very hyped. It's a large building, no evidence of a palace, much less that it's a palace of king David.
http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/...discovery/

[john m roberts]

Archaeology is the most politicized of all the sciences and nowhere more so than in the Middle East, where people exploit it to reinforce their territorial claims. Plus, in the Holy Land (note that expression) there is a further complication: religion. Many people excavate specifically to find evidence that supports Biblical accounts. Needless to say, this colors all their findings and interpretations. When you see any find associated with a prominent OT figure, use discretion.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Politics and Religion aside, it is an interesting discovery. A building dating back that far is likely to yield something new about the culture or tools of that era.

[M. Demetrius]

Many people excavate specifically to find evidence that supports Biblical accounts.

Well, from what I've seen anyway, just as many excavate specifically to DISprove biblical accounts. Should we likewise use discretion when these excavations concern prominent OT figures?

[john m roberts]

Sure. Any time someone digs specifically to find evidence supporting a particular belief (and ignoring or reburying all else) should be regarded as suspect. It is the same as the "will to believe" in other sciences. You should draw conclusions from the evidence you uncover, not the other way around. Not that good stuff isn't sometimes found this way. Schliemann was besotted with Homer and jumped to ridiculous conclusions about his findings ("I have touched the face of Agamemnon!") but he sure found some good stuff. We just have to be careful about half-baked reports.

[Robert Vermaat]

Indeed we should be careful. This report should have been 'building from the time of King David found' or something like that. But digs need money and therefore headlines... ad:

[Jona Lendering]

Many people excavate specifically to find evidence that supports Biblical accounts.

Well, from what I've seen anyway, just as many excavate specifically to DISprove biblical accounts. Should we likewise use discretion when these excavations concern prominent OT figures?

In this case, dear Dave, I think we're justified to be skeptical. Here is the harvest of two weeks archaeology from Israel.

• The legionary base of VI Ferrata was identified - except that it had already been identified with certainty six years ago.
  
• The palace of David - except that it might have been Canaanite or Philistine as well.
  
• The house of Elisa - yes, a sherd that might be read Elisa. But might as well be read differently. The house is a bit too young and I think there were more Elisa's (although the name is rare).
  
• Evidence for the Roman copy of the treaty between Rome and the Maccabees - except that it's almost certainly a Medieval forgery
  

In Israel, the stakes are higher than anywhere else. But the exaggerated reports only mean that retractions are necessary, which makes normal science/scholarship look as if it is trying to disprove the Bible. It isn't, but the evidence is assymmetrical, and if the Israeli archaeologists stopped making exaggerated claims, we could finally improve our knowledge.

The main excavation to keep in mind, at the moment, is Megiddo, where organic material has been found that may soon finally settle the debate about the Iron I / Iron IIa border. After that, we can finally proceed to something better.

[M. Demetrius]

I completely agree, Jona. Unless they find a bronze plaque that says, "This be the Palace of Good King David", it's not really certain that it is that. There's little to point one way or another. Marketing certainly plays a part in raising funds for further excavation.

I can think of an illustration of excavations in Jerusalem in an attempt to disprove some historical facts, at the end of which, all relics or artifacts are simply dumped in the junk pile, and the excavation is conducted with earth moving equipment, not trowels and brushes. But to say more might be stepping over the line.