Posts Tagged ‘Zionism’
Archeologists from Tel Aviv university led by professor Shlomo Bunimovitz, have declared a tiny stone seal, just 1.5 centimeters in diameter (a little more than half an inch), found while excavating Tel Beit Shemesh to have an image of the biblical Samson killing a lion on it! Really! Can this animal really be a lion? The seal has an image of an unidentifiable animal, it is so badly depicted, possibly with a rider—faint, perhaps partly erased or unfinished—being controlled by an apparently human handler with something like a rope attached to its muzzle—unless it has a long tongue! It suggests a horse rather than a lion.
The seal was discovered with other finds on the floor of an excavated house, dated by the archaeologists to the 12th century BC. Along with the seal, two structures were discovered, which were apparently used for ritual purposes during the same time period. In one of them researchers found a kind of table, resembling an altar, next to which a large number of animal bones were found. Prof Bunimovitz believes the animals may have been used for sacrifices. Or maybe they were simply the remains of feasts, or both, as feasts usually accompanied sacrifices.
The stories in Judges have no known connexion with real history, and are more likely to be myths adapted to events of a much later age, namely the period after the victory of Cyrus the Persian when the Hill country was sparsely populated by native Canaanites and a few hopeful colonists from Persia. Samson is the same word as Shemesh, a Semitic sun god, the equivalent of the Greek Herakles, and beth (“house”) ususally meant a temple when associated with a God’s name. So Beth Shemesh was the place where the sun god was worshipped.
Sun Gods from sometime in the first half of the first millennium BC at least have had twelve legends associated with them one each for each constellation they pass through during the solar year. Samson depends on his long hair for his strength, the hair representing the power of the sun’s rays. The stories about Samson may be an abridgement of the full solar cycle of myths, many possibly lost when worshipping all gods other than Yehouah was forbidden. Thus, Samson, according to the story in Judges, fought a lion on his way to marry a Philistine woman. Hercules too fought a lion in what is usually listed as his first labor. Eventually Hercules is betrayed by a woman, just as Samson was.
Naughty boy British establishment Trotskyist turned celebrity American establishment neoconservative, and professional atheist, Christopher Hitchens died on 15 December 2011 of cancer of the œsophagus. A brilliant wordsmith and controversialist, Hitchens was a consistent anticommunist whose move to the US led to his abandonment of left wing communism in favour of open Bush/Cheney neoconservatism—a common path for Trotskyists in the USA—but he did seem to remain anti-Zionist throughout:
I am an anti-Zionist. I’m one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians.
One of the advantages of a Marxist and internationalist training is that it exposes one to the early writings of those Jewish cosmopolitans who warned from the first day that Zionism would be a false messiah for the Jews and an injustice to the Arabs. Nothing suggests to me that they were wrong on these crucial points.
And likening the United States leaders to the shabbos goy, the sabbath day gentile for the state of Israel:
The non-Jew who is paid a trifling fee to turn out the lights or turn on the stove, or whatever else is needful to get around the more annoying regulations [for Jews] of the Sabbath. How the old buzzard must cackle when he sees the gentiles actually volunteering a bribe to do the lowly work! And lowly it is, involving the tearing-up of international law and UN resolutions and election promises, and the further dispossession and eviction of a people to whom we gave our word…
Tudor Parfitt is a London University Hebrew scholar who likes to write astonishingly unscholarly potboilers about the myths of the Jewish scriptures. The reason they are unscholarly is that they pretend that the Jewish myths are real so that he can gad around the world solving alleged mysteries like this one—“Where is the Lost Ark of the Covenant?”. The real mystery is why does everyone think the old Jewish folk tales, like this one about the Ark of the Covenant, are somehow true when other ancient folk tales from the Grendel to Tiamat, or the Midas touch to the Elixir of Life, are accepted as the myths that they are. Children of all ages like mystery and fantasy, but scholars are not expected, these days, simply to accept tales like these as being true uncritically, and even to write books about their phony wild goose chasing scholarship supposedly in search of non-existent mysteries often aimed at misleading the general public to part with their hard earned cash. For such is the “Lost” Ark of the Covenant.
The Christian and Jewish scriptures are full of utterly impossible tales—donkeys and burning bushes that talk, rivers and even seas that open up to let the Chosen People pass them dryshod, storms being quelled, and even people who come back from the dead!—yet are believed because they have been given—by no one who knows—the caché of being written by God Himself. The well known amateur encyclopedia on the internet, Wikipedia, in its article on the Ark of the Covenant, complains that “this article needs attention from an expert on the subject”.
Professor Parfitt, the Indiana Jones of London University’s SOAS, can, perhaps, claim to be more of an expert than those of us who only comprehend English. For he purports to be an expert in Hebrew and so can read the actual Hebrew originals, if, indeed, they were originally in Hebrew. Yet this is an ideal subject for an amateur encyclopedist because there is only one source of information about the Ark of the Covenant and everyone has access to it. It is the Jewish bible. There are no contemporary references to the Ark outside of the Jewish scriptures. In fact, there are no references to most of the content of the Jewish scriptures outside of their own scope.
Over a hundred years ago, the higher critics of the bible realized that there were several authors with their own characteristsic in the early parts of the Torah. In one called J because God is most commonly called Yehouah (Jahweh) the Ark is hardly important, whereas in a parallel series of passages called E because God is most commonly called Elohim, the Ark has an important role. The two sets of passages are reconciled with the hypothesis that essentially the same myths were told by two sets of people, some of whom called God Yehouah while the others called God El. This division matches the bible in that the people chosen by God lived in two separate kingdoms in the biblical myth, the northern one, Israel, at some stage calling God El, while the southern one, Judah, calling God Yehouah.
In fact, there is little independent evidence of Judah until Israel was on the verge of destruction, so it seems that Israel was actually the only country involved for most of the period of independence of the Israelites, Judah being set up by the Assyrians as a puppet breakaway to destabilize Israel prior to annexation, rather as the USA today favors “rebel” governments to destabilize modern states whose governments they do not like.
More probably, the earliest colonists sent into Judah by the Persians, the ones who failed to set up a suitable state, worshipped El and had no central sanctuary, but instead had a movable one—the Ark of the Covenant—which travelled in procession from Shiloh to Shechem to Jerusalem and other local centers with the intention of centralizing worship on the Canaanite high god, El, but rivalry and dissension disunited the state. Then, in the fifth century, the Persians sent in a determinhed body of colonists expressly to set up a united temple state for Jews, worshippers of the god, Yehouah, centered on Jerusalem. The older—failed tradition of the movable Ark dedicated to El was incorporated into the newer myths devised to unite the people of the new state.
By the time that the temple state of Jerusalem was set up, the Ark was already history, had probably already been destroyed in the inter cultic violence that had gone before, but which was mythically placed in the inner sanctum of the temple to establish continuity and preserve unity between Elohists and Yehouists. So, in the Jewish myths the Ark plays no part after the time of Solomon, when it was placed in the Temple. While the Ark figures in Deuteronomy, the book of the law brought by Ezra, a Persian chancellery minister, that was mythologized as the law of Moses, and in the later priestly legislation, devised to benefit the temple as a cash cow, it did not actually exist. The Holy of Holies of the temple was allegedly empty. And, indeed, the Ark never appeared among the treasures of the so-called “second temple”, certainly in actuality the first temple to Yehouah. The victorious Romans took away the treasure of the Jewish temple but no Ark was among it. Biblicists—not “historians” as they are often called by other biblicists— have decided that the Ark was destroyed or captured by Babylonian when Jerusalem fell in 586 BC. It simply shows how they patch the Jewish myths to hide the rips in the fabric, the gaps and incoherence of “sacred history”.
Critics of the bible, from the close examination of the text called higher criticism, have concluded that many of the present biblical stories were rewritten long after the originals. Thus they might say the tales about the Ark were set down “long after the Exodus”. But the Exodus itself is a late addition to the biblical corpus. Why otherwise are Jews in the bible never called Moses? It is simply because Moses was invented almost at the end of the cycle of mythicization that yielded the Jewish scriptures, probably only in and after the second century BC, and perhaps then only in Greek initially.
Who was responsible? it was the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt who were collecting the great Alexandrine library. They it was who first wrote the scripture in essentially the form we have it today. The earlier, Persian historical tale about the Ark as a mobile sanctuary preceding the establishment of the temple state expanded, the Ark being described as one of the similar shrines known in Egypt, and therefore suitable for the story they invented of the Israelites being products of Egyptian culture. Sacred processions involving Arks, boats, or mobile shrines were popular among the Egyptians, and are illustrated on the walls of temples and described even in the Rosetta stone. The Ptolemaic Egyptian priests who rewrote the bible in the third century added a deal of Egyptian flavoring to support their propaganda that the Jews were once Egyptians. It has been believed ever since.
Anyway, the “scholarship” of professor Parfitt led him to conclude that the Biblical Ark of the Covenant was some sort of weapon of mass destruction which was simultaneously a musical instrument—a drum, an astonishing hybrid.
Parfitt follows a trail from Palestine to Yemen to East Africa and eventually to Zimbabwe trying to find this WMD. He found an African tribe called the Lemba who have among their traditions some, such as circumcision, and some Semitic sounding names. Well, of course, they must be one of the lost tribes of Israel! Parfitt has written about the lost tribes of Israel, and often sounds a lot more skeptical than he does in this potboiler, showing, if anything, how cynical he is.
Well, this tribe has a legend that they came from a distant city called Senna. They travelled by boat to east Africa founded a city of the same name, then gradually moved inland to Zimbabwe. Curiously, the migrants were all male, so by breeding with African women, they have ended up loooking African, but have retained some of their Jewish culture, for these men were Jewish priests, Kohanim, apparently expelled from the Yemen. At one time, the Yemenis took to Judaism as their official religion, and retained it for 200 or so years before the Moslems took over. So, the Lembas could conceivably have come from Yemen originally.
Now, the male Y chromosome obviously cannot belong to a woman. In like fashion, the Kohanim were necessarily male. So any genes in the Y chromosome that are characteristic of the Kohanim would pass down the male line and can be seen still. Tests of the Lembas show that many of them do indeed have a set of genes characteristic of many Jews bearing the name Cohen or its cognates. Thus Parfitt and his scientific co-workers have shown that the legend of the origin of the Lemba is feasible.
It is not certain though. Many Cohens do not have the supposed characteristic genes and some are not Jews! And any male that had the genes would pass them on to their male offspring. Moreover, the Canaanites themselves were believed by the ancients to have originated in Africa, so some Jews might have had the genes from their African origins. Supposed aspects of Jewish culture, like circumcision, could have been adopted from contacts with Moslems, or even ancient Egyptians, and Semitic names could have come from contacts with Arabic Moslems too.
What, though, of the Ark of the Covenant? Needless to say, Parfitt finds it in a museum in Harare as an unspectacular exhibit. It is a drum, not a boat or a box, but a musical instrument of a sort, and it is damaged! The damage shows it was a WMD! Seriously! Carbon dating, however, showed it was made of wood that was only 700 years old, not the necessary 3,200 years for the Mosaic Ark. Well, naturally a drum that was a WMD, could not have lasted all that long, so when it was used in warfare, it had to be replaced, but always by incorporating a core of the older one.
Maybe Parfitt’s novelistic scholarship can be justified as an innocent way of earning a crust, but it hardly rests easily with any claims he has to being genuinely scholarly. Pseudohistorians can get away with it because readers accept they have no real pretensions at scholarship. They are indeed closer to novelists, exploring the fringes of history and psychology via speculative fiction. Parfitt’s book has been admired as a combination of travelogue and history, but a novel is a better description. He is the center of attention in his Indiana Jones role. He stereotypes his characters rather as Dennis Wheatley, the author of occult novels half a century ago, did. Wheatley painted the rich as scented, noble and elegant—the typical Englishman—and the poor as scruffy, smelly criminals or halfwits—the typical Welshman, and any other human type unless they are nobility—and Parfitt effectively does the same. He has friends among Zionistic Jews and and anti-Semitic Moslem Arabs, and makes it plain whom he prefers. He has fabulously sexy girlfriends, and has sexy maidens or whores throw themselves at him—for a dollar or two—and he implies he has shady connexions with intelligence services.
It is all very comic strippy, like Indiana J himself, a giggle maybe but infantile as fiction, morally doubtful, and, in itself, quite ignoble in its prejudices. Is it impossible, these days, for scholars to be humble and honest in their devotion to scholarship? Must everyone be a Flashman? Can universities take more care whom they employ, or must we put up with rogues everywhere?
An interesting occasional blog called Liberate America is written by Tammy Obeidallah, a Christian, whose name suggests a Moslem, perhaps Palestinian, origin. She writes:
I have been comforted by the divine wisdom and promise found in the Bible countless times throughout my life, yet it troubles me how this sacred book has been manipulated by so many into a “how to” manual of theft and destruction. Often I have been questioned by non-Christian friends regarding biblical passages commonly abused by Christian Zionists—those who believe that Jews are God’s Chosen and must be implanted in Palestine to precipitate the Second Coming of Jesus Christ—“Does the Bible really say that?”
My answer is always a resounding “no”. While it is possible to take certain passages out of context and ignore the historical perspective in which they were written to manufacture a case for a modern day nation called Israel, it is neither accurate nor theologically sound. Yet as many as 70 million people in the United States espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism which endorses racism, ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter as manifested in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This heresy is twofold—Zionist Christians have manipulated both biblical prophecy and the Bible’s historical content to support their murderous agenda.
The author offers some pages on Christian Zionism, this insidious pseudo-Christian political ideology used by Zionists to hold the USA in bondage to Israel.
Christian Zionists put Israel First!
Many alleged Christians unconditionally support the Zionist state. They are therefore called “Christian Zionists”. Their slogan is “Israel First”, showing that they are not at all patriotic, for they put their own country the USA only second after Israel, yet attempt to denigrate patriotic American Moslems. There are at least 50 million Christian Zionists in the United States, and it is this immense solid voting unit that forces US politicians to at least nod their heads to them and their dubious politics, and at worst use them to attack all Moslems and to generate funds and propaganda for the state of Israel. Their founders have done it by teaching the false doctrine that Jesus Christ will return when all Jews are gathered in Palestine, a policy that suits Zionism down to the hilt. The Palestinian people are Moslems and do not count as being human to these supposed Christians!
Christian Zionism has certainly proved immensely useful to political Zionists in getting a Jewish homeland in Palestine, even though Palestine was sixth on Theodor Herzl’s list of potential homelands at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. Christian Zionists actually made the loudest call for a takeover of Palestine all along.
The Politics of Christian Zionism, 1891-1948 by Paul C Merkley shows that Christian Zionism predated Herzl, the father of Zionism. An 1893 pamphlet, The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy, was written by William Hechler, the son of Anglican missionaries, who arranged meetings between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II, promoting the Zionist aim of grabbing Palestine. Plymouth Brethren minister, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), popularized the doctrine as “dispensationalism”, further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 which has copious footnotes telling readers to interpret Bible verses and prophecy as the establishment of Israel as a modern nation state.
The Puritans saw themselves as the Children of Israel, escaping religious persecution in Europe just as in the exodus myth of the Hebrews following Moses out of Egypt. America was their “Promised Land”, and the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny”—that God’s will was for the new country to stretch from sea to sea—justified the genocide of Native Americans. By the same analogy, Christian Zionism justifies the genocide of Palestinians to clear the way for Zionists. Today, televangelists, who make large profits supporting Israel, preach an apocalyptic future which threatens to be self-fulfilling. They think it will bring about Christ’s Parousia, but it will just bring about world wide pain, suffering, and destruction, with no benefits. Only then will foolish believers realize they have been conned, just as they did when Christ never returned at the previous millennium. That eventually led to the Reformation, the removal of interpretation rights from the Catholic priesthood, allowing everyone to read the bible for themselves. Now, an ignorant population of Protestants, who do not have the sense to read the Bible for themselves, have let a den of thieves take over their churches and become latter day priests. So, the whole charade has begun again.
Zionist Christians are not merely a religion, so can hardly claim religious immunities or, for that matter, tax exemptions, which are unconstitutional anyway. They have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an openly political cause. By weight of numbers, especially in being manipulated by the wealthy and cryptofascist TV and talk radio pundits, they have much influence over US foreign policy. These Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to Israel by financial gifts some at least of which help Zionist settlers to expand illegally into Palestinian land on the West Bank, protected by a massive composite wall largely built on land that was even designated as Palestinian after the original wars of occupation.
Ms Obeidallah urges true Christians to fight back actively against this lethal false doctrine—one that has caused far more death and destruction than Islamic extremists like the Saudi prince, Osama bin Laden—by closely examining biblical history. A Biblical Literalist is not necessarily a Christian Zionist. A literal reading of the bible—one free of the political interpretations that are read into innocent words by greedy hate mongering pastors—refutes what these children of Satan seek to spread—extreme mischief! It is an effective way to rescue innocent, if naïve, Christians from the dangerous heresy of Christian Zionism.
What Christian Zionists Don’t Know about Jewish History
God agreed a covenant with Abram—who became Abraham—whom modern day Jews, Christians and Moslems all revere as a patriarch. God promised Canaan (Palestine) to Abram and his descendants (Genesis 17:8). Later, in the Jewish scriptures, God makes the covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac, but in the Moslem version it is with Ishmael. One or the other was to have been sacrificed to God but Jews and Christians say it was Isaac, and Moslems say it was Ishmael. It might seem clear to Christians that the later writers of the Qur’an have changed the Jewish scriptures to suit themselves, but even granting this, God does not exclude Ishmael and his descendants from the original promise to Abraham of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers. Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume (1888-1965) addresses this point:
It is generally supposed that these promises were made to the Jews alone. However, this is not what the Bible says. The words “to thy seed” inevitably include Arabs, both Moslem and Christian, who can claim descent from Abraham through his first son, Ishmael. Ishmael was the reputed father of many Arab tribes…
Nor is the actual historical reason hard to find. The land in question is the Persian satrapy of Abarnahara which was never only Jewish, though the Jews had control of the temple. The Persians made reference to the different people to be found in the province. The specification of the Jews will have happened after the Persians had been defeated by the Macedonians, leaving the temple in the charge of the Jewish priests.
Christian Zionists base Jewish claims to Palestine on the false idea that they are directly and purely descended from the biblical Israelites, as members of a Jewish “race” rather than adherents to the religion of Judaism. Even the Zionist state recognizes it indirectly, because any convert to Judaism has the same legal right to emigrate to Israel, regardless of race. Intermarriage was prevalent early on. Isaac married Rebekah, so the Israelite lineage thereafter could not have been pure. Moses married the daughter of a Midianite, apparently an Arab tribe. Ruth was not originally Jewish but Moabite, and she is a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ, according to Matthew’s genealogy. Jacob’s youngest son, Joseph, married Asenath, daughter of Potipherah, an Egyptian priest, and her two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim adopted by Jacob became two of the tribes of Israel. None of this is at all paradoxical when Judaism is seen properly as the worship of Yehouah.
The tribes of Israel were to divide the land, but one tribe, the Levites, to whom Moses and Aaron had belonged, were to be a caste of priests and not entitled to land of their own. No Jew descended from a priest therefore has any right of ownership of land in Palestine. Two and a half tribes, those of Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh settled east of the Jordan River, in land now accepted as part of the Arab kingdom of Jordan. So far, Zionists have made no move to claim this land. No doubt they will!
The defeat of Judah by the Babylonians, in 597 BC, began the period of exile which ended when the Persians defeated Babylon and resettled Judah, now called Yehud, with settlers from Mesopotamia. This real event in the bible is called the “Return from Exile”. Those who returned had been taught an ethical religion based on the Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, and they were entrusted with setting up a temple to collect taxes and tariffs from the people of Abarnahara, to keep it safe until it was required by the Persian chancellery, and to serve as a priesthood for the new religion which was being spread throughout the Persian empire as a way of uniting a disparate empire. These were the priests of the Jewish religion, the congregation of which were the Yehudim, or Jews.
Biblical names and their biblical provenance are important to Zionists. Thus Craig Winn, author of Prophet of Doom writes quite unhistorically:
The name “Palestinian” was derived from the Roman Latinized name of the Philistines. The Assyrians murdered the last of the Philistines in 585 BC. There are therefore, no Palestinians alive today. There haven’t been for over 2,500 years.
The Philistines were one of the nations that lived in Abarnahara. They still lived in Abarnahara, even though the satrapy was set up by the Persians around two centuries after the date cited in this ignorant quotation. In any case, the Assyrians had been conquered by the Babylonians, and it must be Babylonians he means at the date he cites. By this time anyway, the Philistines—originally Greeks or other Mediterranean tribes—had lived in the area for 600 years or more and had become thoroughly assimilated with the surrounding people, mainly Canaanites, including the Israelites. It is far from clear that Philistines had not in this time mixed thoroughly with their immediate neighbors in the hill country, the Judahites. It is certain that Philistines could never have been wiped out. Their genes must still exist among people in the area, and among some who have emigrated elsewhere.
One of the biblical prophecies warped by Zionist Christians is:
…and in that day there shall be no more Canaanite in the house of Yehouah Sabaoth.Zechariah 14:21b
This passage justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the classification of people in the Jewish scriptures, the Canaanites were descended from Ham (African), not Shem, so were not Semitic and cannot be related to modern day Palestinian Arabs who are Semites. Moreover, the word read as “Canaanite”, is elsewhere read as “trader”, the sense of the whole passage being that eschatological Jerusalem would be a perfectly holy place, where commerce would not be appropriate.
Most importantly, though, is that the exclusion of one nation completely contradicts the whole of the meaning of the preceding passage, which is that all of the nations who were enemies of Israel would be scrambling to go to Jerusalem to make offerings to Yehouah Sabaoth. The Canaanites necessarily would be among them, so the exclusion is ridiculous, and any other reading is not only contrary to Christian principles, it is contrary to the triumphant sense of God’s victory after the eschatological battle. God has no need to encourage genocide, and both testaments of the bible explicitly forbid killing, and Christ urges mercy and loving kindness on to everyone, yet these deranged Christians—antiChristians, guided by their Satanic pastors— read the exact opposite of its plain meaning into it.
Christian Zionists have started to use the anniversary of the 11 September tragedy to accuse Moslems of celebrating the attacks. Traditional Christians ought to take back their faith by refuting the heresy of Christian Zionism and its racial and religious hatred. Christians who have read and accept Christ’s message of love seem too intimidated by the loud mouthed, unintelligent and threatened violence of the right wing Christians and their Christian Zionist coreligionists.
A rare 2,200 year old gold coin, weighing 27.71 grams, has been found at the Tel Kedesh site in the Upper Galilee of Israel on the Lebanese border. It is only the second of its type known and one of the largest denominations minted in antiquity. It dates to 190 BC.
The coin dates back to the rule of the Iraq-based Seleucid Empire, though it was minted by the rival Egyptian Ptolemies. It has an image of a Ptolemaic Egyptian queen on its face, and mint mark of the Ptolemaic mint at Alexandria on its reverse, and dated to the 14th year of the reign of Ptolemy V (190 BC).
Some Zionists and their fundamental Christian apologists like the presence in Israeli soil of many coins from the Hellenistic era as proof that Palestine was always Jewish, but coins like this remind us, and should remind them, that Palestine was ruled from Seleukia, Alexandria, Persia, Babylonia and Assyria before it was ruled by a Jew, only in 162 BC! It ceased to be ruled by Jews in 4 BC, when Herod (an Idumaean convert to Judaism) died, whereupon it was successively ruled by Rome, Byzantium, and the Moslem Caliphs. The case of Herod shows that the Jews are believers in a religion—like Christians and Moslems—they are not a race or a nation. Indeed, there were no Jews before the Persians ruled Yehud. The local people before then were polytheistic Canaanites.
PhysOrg.com—A press release from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem announces that a tiny clay fragment, dating from the 14th century BC, found in excavations outside Jerusalem’s Old City walls is inscribed with the oldest text ever found in Jerusalem. Said to be part of a tablet from a royal archive, the press release cites researchers as saying:
It further testifies to the importance of Jerusalem as a major city in the Late Bronze Age, long before its conquest by King David.
One wonders immediately what sort of researchers these “researchers” were. They relate the supposed date of the find to the supposed time when the mythical king David mythically conquered Jerusalem, a tale which appears in the Jewish scriptures and nowhere else. These researchers are writers of fiction, citing fiction as evidence! And their fiction does not stop.
Details of the discovery appear in the current issue of the Israel Exploration Journal. The clay fragment was uncovered recently during sifting of fill excavated from beneath a 10th century BC tower dating—apparently by pottery sherds—from the period of King Solomon in the Ophel area, located between the southern wall of the Old City of Jerusalem and the City of David to its south.
Having used the mythical David, they now refer to his mythical son, Solomon, speaking of the “period of King Solomon” as if they had certain sure evidence that king Solomon existed in some period that they have now allegedly found a tower in. There is not an iota of evidence that Solomon ever existed even has a “kernel of truth”, a phrase these professional biblical myth defenders often use to defend shabby evidence and argument. It is like speaking of Hadrian’s Wall as being of the time of king Arthur.
The chief propagator of this pathetic excuse for scholarship is one Dr Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology. She has conducted the excavations in the Ophel with funds provided by Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman of New York, who also have provided funds for completion of the excavations and opening of the site to the public by the Israel Antiquities Authority, in cooperation with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Company for the Development of East Jerusalem. The sifting work was led by Dr Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Zweig at the Emek Zurim wet sieving facility site.
Needless to say Zionist blogs, Christian blogs and Neoconservative blogs all over the internet have been citing this as “proof” that Jerusalem always belonged to “the Jews”. Even a tyro scholar as opposed to a Hebrew University “scholar” knows there were no Jews until the Persians set up the satrapy of Abarnahara, and colonized Jerusalem with people from elsewhere who were thereafter called Jews or Yehudim. The people who lived in the area of Jerusalem in the 14th century were either Egyptians or were Canaanite puppet Lords, as the press release admits a few paragraphs later.
The fragment that has been found is only 2 x 2.8 x 1 centimeters in dimensions. Dated to the 14th century BC, it appears to have been part of a tablet and contains cuneiform symbols in ancient Akkadian, an eastern Semitic dialect, described as the lingua franca of that time, presumably because it was the language of the around 380 El Amarna tablets found in Egypt in the 19th century. It is believed to be contemporary with these tablets which were the archives of Pharaoh Amenhote IV—Akhenaten—who lived in the 14th century BC.
The El Amarna archives include tablets sent to Akhenaten by the kings who were subservient to him in Canaan and Syria and include details about the complex relationships between them, covering many facets of governance and society. Among these tablets are six that are addressed from Abdi-Heba, the Canaanite ruler of Jerusalem. Note, not a Jew! Not an Israelite either, if we use the source favored by these scholars, the Jewish scriptures. The Israelites came later, around the twelfth century as far as can be made out from the bible. The tablet fragment in Jerusalem is most likely part of a message that would have been sent from the king of Jerusalem, possibly Abdi-Heba, back to Egypt, said Mazar. Effectively, she is admitting that the Israelites were Canaanites, not Jews, and Canaanites were polytheistic, not monotheistic worshipers of the Yehouah allegedly introduced by Moses.
Tablets with diplomatic messages were routinely exchanged between kings in the ancient Near East, Prof Wayne Horowitz, a scholar of Assyriology at the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology, said, and it is likely, because of its fine script and the fact it was discovered adjacent to in the acropolis area of the ancient city, that the fragment was part of such a royal missive. Horowitz has interpreted the symbols on the fragment to include the words “you”, “you were”, “later”, “to do”, and “them”. The words the symbols form are not significant in themselves, but what is significant is that the script is of a high level, testifying to the fact that it was written by a skilled scribe who probably worked for the royal household of the time, said Horowitz. He and his former graduate student Dr Takayoshi Oshima, now of the University of Leipzig, Germany, deciphered the script.
In the mixed and confusing messages these mythologizers are putting over, we are now being assured that Jerusalem had Jewish kings before there were Jews or even Israelites around. The kings were vassals of the Egyptian king. Palestine was an Egyptian colony. They were not David or Solomon, or even Saul, who has not so far been mentioned, perhaps because he was a failure, and got kicked out by God who preferred David in the biblical myth. Zionists are not fond of Jews who failed, even mythical ones.
Examination of the material of the fragment by Prof Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University, shows that it is from the soil of the Jerusalem area and not similar to materials from other areas, further testifying to the likelihood that it was part of a tablet from a royal archive in Jerusalem containing copies of tablets sent by the king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaten in Egypt.
It must have been a primitive carbon copy then! Maybe the original will turn up at El Amarna?
[Added note: 8 August 2010. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv university has developed a portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometer with which he can obtain the composition of a pot and so have a good idea of the origin of its clay. Referring to some clay tablet found in the Ophel—sounding like the one discussed here—he explains that it is indeed a local copy of an Amarna tablet, possibly sent by Abdi-Heba!!]
Mazar says this new discovery, providing solid evidence of the importance of Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age—the second half of the second century BC—acts as a counterpoint to some who have used the lack of substantial archeological findings from that period until now to argue that Jerusalem was not a major center during that period. It also lends weight to the importance that accrued to the city in later times, leading up to its conquest by King David in the 10th century BC.
Ho hum, tiddly dabe! All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Here we are back at king David again. What is major to a Zionist Israeli—many of whom now are Slavs—is not major to most other people. They accept from the El Amarna tablets that there was a Jerusalem (almost!) and some minor local lord administered it for the pharaoh. He might have raised sheep or slaves for the mother country along the Nile, so it was important to him, and of some importance to the Pharaoh. It has as much bearing on modern day Jews or even Israelis as the discoveries in Boghazkoy have for modern Turks. None! By force of arms, they now merely live where the discoveries were made. Mainly, they are different people.