1/25 Lecture

Hezekiah's Jerusalem: The Growth of the City


When David and Solomon's Reign ended, so did the Golden Age. The United Kingdom then gets divided into Judah in the South under the reign of Rehoboam and Israel in the North under the reign of Jeroboam when the North "rebels." Something that Professor Cargill noted that piqued my interest was that the Bible has a very heavy theological/religious bias and is written in the standpoint of the South. Then why does Bible refer to Jesus as the King of Israel, and not King of Judah? 


Because Temple in Jerusalem remained within the Southern territory, the North built temples of their own--one in Bethel and one in Dan--because they didn't want to support the South economically. However, even though the South was critical of the North, it also built alternate temples (Beer-Sheva and Arad) for reasons that seem unclear to me.


Despite the false imagery created by the Bible that portrays David & Solomon's Jerusalem as a power player, it was actually very weak compared to the other rising empires. The pacts were made between Judah and Egypt/Syria and Israel and Assyria. The kings of Israel and Judah sought help from their "mother" nation to fight off the other state and, in return, paid tribute in gold and other valuable objects. This is controversial because in the Bible, it clearly states that the chosen city of God should wipe out other nations. With the rise of the powerful and intimidating Assyrian Empire in 8th century BCE, many states were conquered, including Israel and Judah. Assyria then undertook the policy of deportation, and the survivors eventually flocked into Jerusalem. Jerusalem, being a walled city, becomes overcrowded and expands its territory to the other hill. With population growth, urbanization and economic growth follow suit, slowly but surely increasing Jerusalem's influence. This period of growth that lasts roughly about 200 years represents Jerusalem's cultural and religious expansion and embodies Jerusalem's legend as God's chosen city. This is also the period corresponds to Hezekiah's Jerusalem.


Hezekiah fortifies Jerusalem with a "broad" wall on the Northern border, increases water supply with Hezekiah's tunnel, and establishes a royal administration. Hezekiah was indeed preparing for a imminent attack from the Assyrian Empire, which could only mean that Jerusalem had become a power player and a threat. It was fascinating to see how such a small city that was overlooked by the most powerful empire at the time because it seemed too powerless and weak to be even conquered grew to pose a threat to the same empire. It was also interesting to learn about Jerusalem outside of religious context--Jerusalem seemed more like any other ancient city that earned its significance through growth and expansion.

1/20 Lecture

Today in lecture we discussed the most important passage to the Christian faith--the Promise to David. In 2 Samuel 7, after he conquers Jerusalem and builds a magnificent palace for himself, King David decides to build a house for God. In response, God tells Nathan, who is the court prophet to David, that God Himself will build David a house. Then God continues "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth fro your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me... Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever." In this context, the "house" God promises to David can be interpreted as a dynasty. This eternal promise to David assures that the Davidic line will never pass away. I thought that this passage was very interesting because in the Hebrew Bible, Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of David." This is because David's genealogy becomes important through God's promise. In addition, God states in the passage that David's son will build a house for Him, which Solomon, one of David's sons, fulfills further validating this scripture passage. 

To sum up the past several lectures so far, Jerusalem's Sacredness is established and supported by these following passages:

1) God Chooses Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12; 2 samuel 24)

2) The Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 24:12-31:18)

3) Creating and the Sabbath (Genesis 1-2)

4) Jerusalem & Mt. Moriah (Genesis 22; 2 Chronicles 3)

5) Melchizedek's Salem & Jerusalem (Ps 110; 76:2)

After discussion of David, we then moved onto Solomon's Jerusalem. Just like David, there is no archaeological evidence and only literary evidence that Solomon built the Temple or even existed. But there is abundance of literary evidence that King Solomon (~970-930 BCE) was a "wise" King who built the Temple for God, one of his many accomplishments. However, strictly speaking, there is no significant archaeological evidence from Solomon's Temple and thus a whole set of arguments that rise as to whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

I thought that differing opinions regarding Tel Megiddo, which was the place where all ancient battles took place, was very interesting because not only did such large-scale excavations such as this just seemed unimaginable but how different archaeologists interpreted the same findings differently (ie. dating evidence and assigning different layers to different tine periods) also seemed very daunting. It gave me respect for archaeologists and their field. However, there have been some fragmentary archaeological evidence that show that Solomon's Temple resembles other temples from the same time period, such as Tel Ta'yinat and 'Ain Dara. This evidence and further support from the Bible then seem to suggest that Solomon's Temple actually existed. Although I believe that descriptions of Solomon's Temple might have been derived from these other temples to make the existence of this Temple seem more believable, I do see the value in such an argument. 

Overall, from this lecture I have gained insight and respect for the field of archaeology and I find the whole set of arguments over the existence of Solomon and his Temple fascinating. 

1/18 Lecture

We discussed the many arguments that surround the question of how to get water from the Gihon Spring to Jerusalem. It is a central question that contributes to the significance and sacredness of Jerusalem, because as stated in the first lecture, every great city needs a water source. However, I was a bit confused about whether the water source in Jerusalem was an important factor in promoting the image of Jerusalem as a holy city. The impression I got from the very first lecture was that Jerusalem actually lacks in factors that one needs for a great city, which included water, sea port, and a trade route. But the reality for Jerusalem was that it had just one spring that was located outside the city in the Kidron Valley. G.A. Smith, referring to Jerusalem, states that the "whole plateau stands aloof, waterless, on the road to nowhere. There are none of the natural conditions of a great city."


On the other hand, in Tuesday's lecture, this water source is much more glamorized and there are, indeed, evidence that supports this idea. Gihon actually means "gushing," and the amount of water it provides is 317 gallons per day, which can support about 2500 people--a very suitable statistic for the ancient Jerusalem population. Also, the excavation of Warren's Shaft not only shed evidence that it connected the Gihon Spring to Siloam Pool, but its correlation to the Bible added validity to its historical existence and significance to the actual water source it's connected to. In addition, there are also Biblical texts that designate Gihon as the site for anointing new kings of Israel, which also increased Gihon's historical and religious significance.


So was Gihon Spring a legitimate water source that contributed to Jerusalem's image as a great city or was it only after Jerusalem developed into a great city that Gihon Spring received recognition?

1/13 Lecture

Today, we finally delved into the history of Jerusalem.
Canaanite Jerusalem represents pre-Israelite Jerusalem, from the early history to about 1000 BCE. What was most noteworthy about Jerusalem's early history was the fact that it had an early history. I have always perceived Jerusalem as the Holy City central to many religions, but did not even imagine that Jerusalem existed even prior to the emergence of those religions. The evidence from early settlement came from non-Biblical texts, such as ritual curse texts and the Amarna letter.


The early Biblical accounts of Jerusalem from Joshua tells the successful accounts of Israelites driving out all their enemies--Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites--and the Lord fulfilling His promise, but a big problem arises when the Israelites re-encounter the same peoples that they have supposedly driven out in the books following Joshua, such as Judges, Samuel, and Chronicles, and even in the book of Joshua. From this textual contradiction, three different theories arise on how the Israelites got to Jerusalem:
1. conquest/Non-conquest: they were suddenly there
2. immigration: they were slowly there
3. Canaanite city - mixed ethnic origins: they were always there


What's important at the end of it all is not the contradictions within Biblical texts but the idea that peoples of different religious and cultural origins were present before the Israelites settled and that somehow Israelites ended up in Jerusalem and started an entirely new history there--Davidian Jerusalem.


David, the hero in the timeless David&Goliath story, had been a mythical character only exiting in the Bible until the Tel Dan Inscription was excavated. It was the first extra-Biblical evidence that recognized the existence of "House of David." Although it does not prove that David actually exited, that there were a group of people that called themselves the "House of David" is still a worthy piece of evidence. 


Looking at religious texts and information with the eyes of a scientist, archaeologist, and scholar continues to bring engaging insights. What other interesting historical and archaeological facts Davidian Jerusalem has to unveil, next week's lectures await... 

1/11 Lecture

In today's lecture, we continued to learn about Eliade's concept of "Sacred Space." Several important points made were:
-Three features of "Sacred Space" are:
  1. construction 
  2. consecration 
  3. center of the world - axis mundi
-Construction of Sacred Space, such as a temple, is carried about by specific plans given out by god for his place of worship. 
-Consecration of Sacred Space is achieved by attracting stories (historical or borrowed). Examples of stories include Gihon in Garden of Eden, the "Akedah," and also the tradition that Adam is buried under Dome of the Rock.
-In addition, Jerusalem even brought in Canaanite tradition (they believed that their god, Baal, lived in the mountains and Mt. Zaphon was the highest mountain) that existed before Israelites took over Jerusalem. In Psalm 48, comparison is made between Mt. Zion and Mt. Zaphon. Psalm 48 is essentially trying to blend 2 myths. 


Professor Cargill also talked about Eliade's second concept of "Sacred Time."
-The Sabbath was a prime example of Sacred Time, but what was interesting was to see the progression in Biblical texts about the reason for the Sabbath. For example, in Exodus, the reason for the Sabbath is the Creation, but in Deuteronomy, the reason for the Sabbath is for Exodus. 


Overall, this lecture provided me further insights into the concepts of Sacred Time and Space. But by far, the most interesting idea from the last two lectures that captivates me is the idea of Jerusalem being a magnet. The fact that after being established by as a Sacred Space, it attracted many stories and traditions boggles my mind but makes so much sense at the same time. Making sense of Gihon existing in Garden of Eden and the two contradicting creation stories (Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2) is a challenge I've never faced as a believer, yet I am fascinated by the new facts and perspectives thrown out by Professor Cargill.