« Peter Jennings, Smoking and Lung Cancer
Main
More on "Feet" and Pudenda »
August 09, 2005
The End of the Philistine City of Gath
Haaretz reports the following:
New evidence regarding the bitter end of Gat, the largest and most important Philistine city, was recently unearthed at a dig at Tel Zafit near the Masmia intersection in the Lachish region. According to Kings II (12:18), Gat was conquered by King Hazael of Aram. He intended to capture Jerusalem as well, but King Jehoash of Judah saved the capital while losing treasure taken from the Temple (Kings II 14:14). Findings at the dig support the biblical version of Gat's demise as described in Kings II.
Well this is not quite true or at least not quite certain. Short of an inscription with Hazael's name on it no amount of excavation at Gath (Gat in Hebrew) can "support the biblical version of Gat's demise" in any strong sense of the word "support."
2 Kings 12:17a (2 Kings 12:18a in the Hebrew Bible) reads,
At that time King Hazael of Aram went up, fought against Gath, and took it.
and nothing else is said on the subject.
Christopher Heard at Higgaion spells out exactly what the excavation does and doesn't demonstrate.
- Gath was attacked - demonstrated
- Gath was defeated - demonstrated
- by the Arameans - not completely demonstrated
- under King Hazael.- not demonstrated
Claim 3 may be partially demonstrated by what is called "the unique method employed by the Arameans to seize the city." We are not told exactly what this unique method was. At best, this can only be indicative of Aramean military practice. People, including military leaders, learn from each other; so the very fact that Aramean like practices were used does not mean that the Aramean's necessarily did it.
The article also talks about an Aramean text from the same period (c. 800 BCE or a little before) discovered in the city of Zahor in Syria. Like Heard, I am not at all sure what this is. I want to go to the library tomorrow so I will take a little time to try to track it down. Depending on what it says, it could provide evidence for the Aramean conquest of Gath.
As is common in news reports to archaeological finds, particularly those that may relate to the Bible, the evidence is stretched to its limits to increase the supposed news worthiness of the piece. In the end, this does a disservice to the reader, the Bible and to archaeology.
I am anxious to see the clay tablet that was reportedly found containing Philistine names that are said to be of Greek origin.
Go read Christopher Heard's discussion. It is good and to the point. His final comment is very cogent,
It's cool when archaeology and biblical texts attest to the same event, but readers should use these synchronisms judiciously and not over-interpret them.
Via Higgaion
Posted by DuaneSmith at August 9, 2005 08:18 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/272
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.