Khirbet Qeiyafa biblical view

1. ¨ Khirbet Qeiyafa biblical view Kateřina Klimešová Protestant Theological Faculty Charles UniversityPraha

2. Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological site Excavated by Y.Garfinkel ( Hebrew University Jerusalem) G.Sanor ( Israeli Antiquities) Judahite settlement from early Iron Age IIA Probably Shaarayim (Joshua 15:36)

3. Architecture • The city’s architectureis similar to other cities in Judah. It is different than that of the nearby Philistines, or even the northern tribes of Israel • Four chamber gates - typical for Judahite architecture in other • Unique two-gate design. This fact leads the excavators to identify this town as Shaaraim (Heb. – “two gates“) • Site without human and animal figurines. Figurines are common in Philistine, Canaanite and even northern Israelite cultic sites.

4. casemate wall

5. Western gate

7. Southern gate

8. Geographical situation

9. Cultic room

10. Evidences • Pottery • The pottery at Qeiyafa is (almost)clearly not Philistine.It is closer to to Israelite and Judahite pottery. • Finger impressions on storage jars at Qeiyafa may be precursors stamps that marked government property in the Kingdom of Judah. • Ostracon. An inscription discovered at Qeiyafa in 2008 is believed by many to be Hebrew. The inscription’s language is clearly Semitic, not the Indo-European language of the Philistines. • No pig bones. Pig bones are common at Philistine and Canaanite sites but rare-to-nonexistent in Israel and Judah, where these animals were considered unclean(according to the Torah).

11. Photo: Y Garfinkel, Khirbet Qeiyafa,official page

12. 1.Sam 17,1-3 • Now the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle, and were gathered together at Shochoh, which belongeth to Judah, and pitched between Shochoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered, and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines. And the Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them.

13. It is pleasant to the eyes… BUT…..

14. Biblical view?? • What are problems of biblical science? • Biblical science • Beginings: lies in the biblical criticism - crystalized mainly in Germany and Scandinavia in the 19th century, - raised significant questions about- the historical elements underlying the biblical text - the date of composition of the biblical text - the authors’ aim - the reality the text reflected • discussion over the historical validity of the holy Scriptures. • chronology controversy, the debate over the scope and status of kingdoms of David and Salomon . • Main „groups“- maximalists (maximal historical validity of the biblical text) -minimalists ( minimal or no historical validity of biblical story)

15. Maximalists • Fathers:-W.Albright -Y. Yadin, B.Mazar • Maximal historical validity on the biblical frame story • Monarchy period 10th-7th century BC • United monarchy (‚from Dan to Beer Sheva‘) is the historical fact (archeological evidence) • the early kings ( Saul, David, Salomon) are to be taken as historical • Bible in one hand, a spade in the other Question: Why not?

16. Yadin saw history repeating itself: the conquest of the land then and now, and the glorious kingdom of David and Solomon then and now, this time taking the form of a democracy in the Midle East. The archeologists played between past and present, and they cannot be criticised for that.

18. Minimalists • After biblical criticism in late decades of 20th century • Bible is principially theological and apologetic work • Early stories are held to have historical basis, that was reconstructed centuries later • Twelve tribes of Israel were a later construction • Stories of Saul, David, Salomon were modelated upon later example • No archeological evidence that the United Monarchy ever existed • Primacy of modern archaeological evidence • Names: T.L. Thompson, N.P.Lemche et al.

19. Khirbet Qeiyafa

20. Israel FinkelsteinDepartment of archaeologyTel Aviv University bible narratives have no significant historical foundation

21. „Dating of Khirbet Qeiyafa destroyed low chronology“ Y.Garfinkel

22. Y.Garfinkel and I. Finkelstein

23. Olive pit „No relevance in the dispute over chronology. Because four (4) carbon14 readings (there are the four burned olive pits) cannot change the picture in the face of 400 existing reading ( support low chronology) . The interpretation of Garfinkel, that “ this dating destroyed the low chronology”, is false. I. Finkelstein

24. casemate wall ? Finkelstein in visit of Moab or by excavations in Ofra also saw fortified sites with casemate walls from the exact same period. In result, according to Finkelstein, the casemate walls are not something especially Judahite.

25. Southern gate? There are not two gates there. There is one gate, the western gate. Ninety percent of what you see in the southern gate is a reconstruction. ( I. Finkelstein)

26. Western four chamber gate ? N. Naaman: „There is no city structure of this type in the period during whitch KhQ existed. All examples ( Megiddo, Gezer) are of later provenance, i.e. from 9th and 8 th century BCE.

27. Only later on, in the process of the further excavations in Khirbet Qeiyafa, more precise picture of Judah and its relation to Philistia will be possible. For now, there are still many question marks to be answered and many issues to be solved.