Friday, April 27, 2007
Was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem the location of the "the" first Jewish Temple? Not according to Zvi Koenigsberg, who claims his research has proven that he has located the spot of the real First Temple described in Deuteronomy and that pre-dates the Jerusalem location by centuries -- on Mt.Ebal at Shechem (Nablus).
Koenigsberg has a web site you can explore and a book about his explorations and findings. There is a web site describing the actual archaeological findings, here.
My academic contacts are skeptical, informing me that the controversy here is as to the significance of this particular site (which one says the web site just above overstates), and whether this one is "the site" that Jews recognized before a consensus emerged on Jerusalem itself. They admit they haven't read the book or seen Koenigsberg present, however. For his part, Koenigsberg insists he has answers to all the questions, and that this site is consistent in all respects with Biblical descriptions and known history. He's anxious to take on objections.
I'm neither expert in the Bible nor history and archeology enough to know the questions to ask or sort sense from the answers, but the whole thing is very interesting, and Zvi is anxious to get the word out. I hear he does a good presentation, and I have a copy of the book on my reading list. A quote from the web site:
On the basis of archaeological and Biblical evidence, Koenigsberg challenges widely accepted religious and scientific doctrines. Jerusalem, he insists, is not the site of the First Temple of Israel. The first temple of Israel was at Mt. Ebal, built some 200 years before the Jerusalem temple of Solomon.
Those who find this kind of thing engaging should find much of interest in exploring the links above.
This was not a temple - or even a tabernacle.
It was (and the ruin still is!) an immense outdoor altar, constructed for a one-time ceremony reconfirming the Jewish people's fealty to the Torah as they embarked upon the conquest of Israel.
I guess you could call it a "launch event" for the new "Jewish brand".
This ruin never contained the other components of the Jewish Temple, as described in detail in the description of the tabernacle in Exodus and in the accounts of the Temple in Jerusalem. Both of those structures followed closely to the pattern described in Exodus.
The outdoor altar is incredibly significant - it anchors the Jewish claim to the land all the way back to Joshua's Bronze Age conquest. But it is not a Jewish temple:
No ark of the covenant
No holy-of-holies - or any enclosure, for that matter!
No Menorah
No show-bread table
No incense altar
Nearby in the village ("settlement") of Shiloh, Jewish archaeologists have uncovered remains of the area in which the Tabernacle stood for centuries, beginning soon after the ceremony at Shechem/Nablus. There is a wealth of pottery and other remains that jibe with the offerings as described in the Bible.
THIS was the "Jewish Temple" at that time - the focus of Jewish prayer and sacrifice long after the one-time ceremony in Shechem.
The comment by Mr Ben David is very strange, as it is obvious that he has neither spoken to me or read my book. Also, he could look in the bible and see that at least one of his statements is borne of sheer ignorance: Joshua 8:33 says that the ark of the covenant was present at this site!
The enclosures are present, and we found an incense altar as well. The "wealth of pottery" he claims was at Shiloh is also sheer foppery, as the only thing discovered there of the Israelite period by Israel Finkelstein, the last excavator, was a warehouse of large pythoi (jugs).
There are many other considerations which I have mentioned in my book which prove my case.But I would be delighted to answer any questions in the minds of the curious by the contact page of my website, www.thelosttemple.com
Mr. Koenigsberg:
I have not spoken to you either, nor have I read your book - and it is your response to Mr. Ben-David's comment that I find strange. You have hardly refuted his claims, and you certainly have not provided any bona fides for your arguments (other than your own book).
For you to claim that Mr. Ben-David's claims are wrong because he "obviously" has not read your book, is to say that your book is the only source of truth on the matter -- or that your book is so utterly convincing that no reader of it could fail to be a convert to your views (making all other sources unnecessary). Is that what you intended to say?
While I have not read your book, I have visited your Website -- and, I must admit, I'm not impressed. I was hoping to see some hard-core evidence for your claims; some photographs of important discoveries, with explanations of their significance; some citations as to what reputable archaeologists had to say about your work. I found none of this. What I found, instead, was sheer self-promotion.
In other words, the image you are projecting is of someone less interested in archaeological truth, and more interested in the money to be garnered from it. If you're looking for serious attention, I don't believe that's the right way to get it.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daniel in Brookline, since you seem keep your purse strings tied up, perhaps you could read the book at a Library or read it at one of those bookstores with the comfortable chairs and overpriced coffee. Oh dear.
If money is anathema to you, perhaps you could ask your employer to pay you in fireworks instead of money.
Daniel,
Perhaps I was a bit harsh with Ben David, but I found his reply an off-the-cuff, unfounded reply to someone who has spent two decades studying this with the best scholars available, in academia and the rabbinic world, and I mean the Orthodox rabbinic world.
I would suggest going over to the Coolidge Corner library to whom I donated a book a few years ago, and maybe read what I have to say. Perhaps you may even come to the same conclusion as my good friend, Yair Zakovitz of the Hebrew University, perhaps the most respected Biblical scholar in Israel today, who wrote that my arguments "cannot be easily refuted". This is not about money. That is laughable under the circumstances. No one makes money ever on this kind of research, especially not when they do it on their own.