National Geographic e as controvérsias arqueológicas

http://viajeaqui.abril.com.br/national-geographic/edicao-129/reis-davi-e-salomao-biblia-610611.shtml
A revista National Geographic deste mês apresenta o cenário belicoso que há entre duas correntes arqueológicas: os que procuram negar a historicidade dos relatos bíblicos e os que tentam confirmá-los. A reportagem de capa merece ser lida pela riqueza de detalhes com que trata o assunto e pelo relativo equilíbrio entre os “dois lados” da história. Isso deveria ser imitado pelas populares revistas brasileiras de divulgação científica que frequentemente pecam pela superficialidade e partidarismo.

O texto na National Geographic trata principalmente da descoberta feita em 2005 pela arqueóloga Eilat Mazar. Na época, ela anunciou que provavelmente havia descoberto o palácio do rei Davi. “Foi como se fizesse veemente defesa de uma proposição da velha escola de arqueologia que está sob ataque há mais de um quarto de século: a ideia de que a descrição bíblica do império fundado por Davi e levado adiante por seu filho Salomão é historicamente exata”, diz a revista. “A contundente declaração de Eilat deu força àqueles cristãos e judeus do mundo todo para quem o Antigo Testamento pode e deve ser interpretado ao pé da letra.” [Bem, a questão aqui não é de interpretação, como se verá mais adiante, mas de confirmação do pano de fundo histórico de um período descrito pela Bíblia.]

A crítica é mesmo antiga: arqueólogos minimalistas afirmavam que o império de Davi e Salomão jamais havia existido, pois aparentemente não há evidências de construções na região. Até que Eilat divulgou seu achado. A fim de desacreditar a descoberta, houve até ataques pessoais (ad hominem): críticos ressaltaram que as escavações da arqueóloga foram financiadas por duas organizações, a Fundação Cidade de Davi e o Centro Shalem, dedicadas a reivindicar direitos territoriais para Israel. “E zombam porque ela usa os métodos antiquados de antepassados arqueólogos, como os do avô, que não se constrangia em trabalhar com a pá numa mão e a Bíblia na outra”, diz a matéria. Note que os ataques são dirigidos à fonte de financiamento da pesquisa e aos métodos da arqueóloga, e não necessariamente à descoberta dela.

A matéria prossegue: “A prática antes comum de usar o livro sagrado como guia arqueológico é contestada por ser um raciocínio circular, anticientífico – e quem mais se empenha contra ela é o questionador-mor da Universidade de Tel-Aviv, Israel Finkelstein, que dedicou a carreira a demolir estrondosamente hipóteses desse feitio. Ele e outros proponentes da ‘baixa cronologia’ afirmam que o peso das evidências arqueológicas em Israel e seu entorno indica que as datas postuladas pelos estudiosos da Bíblia estão antecipadas em um século. As construções ‘salomônicas’ escavadas por arqueólogos bíblicos ao longo de várias décadas recentes em Hazor, Gezer e Megiddo não foram erigidas no tempo de Davi e Salomão, argumenta ele; portanto, devem ter sido construídas por reis da dinastia Omride, no século 9 a.C., bem depois do reinado de Salomão.”

Se acusam Eilat de ter interesses “escusos” e usar a Bíblia como documento histórico orientador de pesquisa, por que não lembram que Finkelstein é crítico ferrenho de tudo que “cheira a Bíblia”? É só notar a ferocidade da seguinte declaração dele: “É claro que não estamos olhando para o palácio de Davi! Tenha a santa paciência. Tudo bem, eu respeito seus [de Eilat] esforços. Gosto dela, é uma senhora simpática. Mas essa interpretação é, como direi?, um tanto ingênua.”

Finkelstein deve estar ainda mais irado, pois agora, segundo a National Geographic, é a teoria dele que está no paredão. “Logo depois que Eilat declarou ter descoberto o palácio do rei Davi, dois outros arqueólogos revelaram achados notáveis. Trinta quilômetros a sudoeste de Jerusalém, no vale de Elah – justamente onde a Bíblia diz que o jovem pastor Davi matou Golias –, o professor Yosef Garfinkel, da Universidade Hebraica, afirma ter escavado o primeiro trecho de uma cidade judaica datada da época exata em que Davi reinou. Enquanto isso, 50 quilômetros ao sul do Mar Morto, na Jordânia, um professor da Universidade da Califórnia em San Diego, Thomas Levy, passou os últimos oito anos escavando uma grande mina e fundição de cobre em Khirbat en Nahas. Segundo Levy, um dos mais importantes períodos de produção de cobre nesse sítio foi no século 10 a.C. – época em que, segundo a narrativa bíblica, os edomitas, antagonistas de Davi, ocupavam a região (estudiosos como Finkelstein, todavia, garantem que o reino de Edom surgiu apenas dois séculos depois). A própria existência de uma mina e fundição de cobre dois séculos antes do período em que o grupo de Finkelstein aponta como o do surgimento dos edomitas indicaria que havia atividades complexas bem no tempo em que Davi e Salomão reinaram. ‘É possível que isso tenha pertencido a Davi e Salomão’, analisa Levy sobre sua descoberta. ‘Porque a escala da produção de metal aqui é, de fato, a de um Estado ou reino antigo.’”

E as evidências? A revista informa que Levy e Garfinkel têm as pesquisas subvencionadas pela National Geographic Society e baseiam suas afirmações em uma profusão de dados científicos, entre eles fragmentos de cerâmica e datação por radiocarbono de caroços de azeitona e tâmara encontrados nos sítios. “Se as evidências de suas atuais escavações se sustentarem, a posição dos peritos de outrora que apontavam a Bíblia como um relato preciso da história de Davi e Salomão pode ser confirmada. Como diz Eilat Mazar com visível satisfação: ‘É o fim da escola de Finkelstein.’”

A reportagem apresenta outras evidências que corroboram as conclusões de Garfinkel – como centenas de ossos de boi, cabra, ovelha e peixe, mas nenhum osso de porco, o que sugere que judeus, e não filisteus, devem ter vivido ali. Tudo isso foi encontrado abaixo de uma camada do período helenístico. E tem mais: a equipe do arqueólogo topou também com um achado raríssimo, um caco de vasilha de cerâmica com inscrições que parecem ser em uma escrita protocananita contendo verbos característicos do hebraico. A conclusão parece óbvia: ali estava uma complexa sociedade judaica do século 10 a.C, do tipo que os defensores da baixa cronologia, como Finkelstein, afirmam que não existe.

Luiz Gustavo Assis é teólogo e trabalhou como auxiliar de pesquisa no Museu de Arqueologia Bíblica Paulo Bork, localizado no Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo (Unasp), campus Engenheiro Coelho. Para ele, Finkelstein não é o único com uma visão negativa a respeito da historicidade do relato bíblico. “Nos anos 1990, diversos teólogos e historiadores de universidades europeias publicaram obras extremamente belicosas contra a Bíblia Hebraica, como Thomas L. Thompson, Niels-Peter Lemche e Philip Davies. Esses são alguns dos nomes que compõem a Escola de Copenhagen, ou os chamados minimalistas, aqueles que desconsideram a Bíblia como um documento com informações históricas precisas”, informa Luiz.

Segundo o teólogo, não é preciso ter motivação religiosa para questionar as abordagens e conclusões desses autores, muitas vezes baseadas no silêncio de fontes arqueológicas. Luiz cita o agnóstico William G. Dever, autor do livro What did the Biblical Writers Know & When did They Know It?. Dever ataca ferozmente o niilismo por detrás dessa postura displicente de se encarar a história de Israel. “Dever não é um anônimo ou um novato no assunto”, diz Luiz. “Sua carreira como arqueólogo já passa dos 30 anos. Seu nome é tremendamente respeitado nos círculos acadêmicos quando o assunto é arqueologia siro-palestinense ou bíblica. Como um cético, ele não acredita em tudo o que o livro sagrado dos judeus diz, mas sua opinião é honesta: há informação histórica digna de crédito para se estabelecer uma parte da história de Israel.”

Finkelstein e outros que afirmavam não existir evidência de atividade escribal em Canaã antes do século 9 a.C. teve novamente que engolir a língua com a descoberta de um caco de cerâmica com aproximadamente 15 cm. O ostracon contém uma inscrição que data do 11º século a.C. e foi descoberto no sítio arqueológico de Khirbet Qeyafa. “Não se trata de uma aglomerado de palavras desconexas”, explica Luiz. “É um texto que faz menção de um juiz (shaphat), rei (melekh) e escravos (‘eved).” “Quando Frank Moore Cross – um dos principais especialistas em inscrições proto-cananitas de Harvard – examinou o ostracon e a inscrição, ele ficou duas noites sem dormir”, disse Lawrence Stager, professor de Arqueologia Bíblica em Harvard.

Ainda segundo a reportagem da National Geographic, para os arqueólogos minimalistas, Davi e Salomão foram simplesmente personagens fictícios. No entanto, a credibilidade dessa posição foi solapada em 1993, quando uma equipe de escavação no sítio de Tel Dan, no norte de Israel, descobriu uma estela de basalto negro com a inscrição “Casa de Davi” (para maior compreensão do que significa a expressão “Casa de Davi”, consulte a obra Escavando a Verdade, do Dr. Rodrigo Silva). Mas, como a Bíblia não pode ser usada como documento histórico, os minimalistas ainda afirmam que a existência de Salomão continua carente de comprovação.

O que Levy escavou em Khirbat en Nahas pode ainda dar muita dor de cabeça para Finkelstein e a escola da baixa cronologia. National Geographic compara: “As minas de cobre de Levy talvez não sejam tão sensacionais quanto o palácio do rei Davi ou o mirante com vista para a batalha entre Davi e Golias. Mas as escavações de Levy abrangem mais tempo e área que as de Eilat Mazar e Yosef Garfinkel, e fazem uso bem mais amplo da análise por radiocarbono para determinar a idade das camadas estatigráficas de seu sítio.”

A revista expõe a virulência de Finkelstein, que zomba das descobertas de Garfinkel em Khirbet Qeiyafa: “‘Você nunca vai me pegar dizendo ‘achei um caroço de azeitona num estrato em Megiddo, e esse caroço – contrariando centenas de outras datações por carbono 14 – vai decidir o destino da civilização ocidental.’ Ele para de falar de repente e solta uma risada sarcástica. E a ausência de ossos de porco, sugerindo que o sítio é judeu? ‘Um dado, mas não conclusivo.’ E a inscrição rara encontrada no sítio? ‘Provavelmente da cidade filistina de Gath, não do reino de Judá.’ [...] A hipótese de que uma sociedade complexa do século 10 a.C. possa ter existido nos dois lados do rio Jordão pôs na defensiva a posição de Israel Finkelstein sobre a era de Davi e Salomão. Seus muitos artigos de réplica e seu tom sarcástico refletem essa defensiva, e com argumentos que, não apenas para seus desafetos, muitas vezes parecem apelativos.”

Rodrigo Pereira da Silva é professor de teologia no Unasp, doutor em Teologia, especialista em Arqueologia pela Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém e doutorando em Arqueologia pela USP (além de autor do livro recomendado acima). Ele conhece pessoalmente grande parte dos nomes citados na matéria da National Geographic. Já conversou com Filkelstein, foi aluno de Garfinkel (na verdade, sua primeira experiência arqueológica foi sob seu comando, em Shaar ha Golan). Para Rodrigo, o mérito e o diferencial dessa reportagem consistiram em mostrar que, para os arqueólogos, o assunto da historicidade bíblica está dividido. Ele diz: “Antes os artigos deixavam o leitor com a impressão de que todos os arqueólogos sérios e profissionais questionavam a Bíblia e apenas os leigos ou pseudo-arqueólogos (como Erich von Däniken ou Werner Keller) endossavam o texto bíblico com suas pesquisas particulares que não receberiam a chancela de nenhuma universidade.”

Segundo Rodrigo, essa situação de polêmica “felizmente fez surgir as figuras de Eilat Mazar e Garfinkel, que têm autoridade acadêmica para discordar de arqueólogos minimalistas como os que, via de regra, desfilam nas páginas de revistas populares como a National, a Superinteressante ou a Época”.

Rodrigo faz ainda duas observações com respeito à reportagem:

1. Quando o texto diz: “Há um probleminha: os arqueólogos, depois de procurar exaustivamente por décadas, não encontraram nenhum indício confiável de que Davi ou Salomão tenham construído qualquer coisa”, deixa os leitores leigos com uma impressão distorcida da pesquisa de campo em arqueologia. “Posso afirmar que 80% ou 90% da história antiga geral (i.e. não bíblica) não pôde ser ‘confirmada’ por escavações arqueológicas. Terremotos, guerras, roubos, ações do tempo, construção de novas metrópoles, etc., puseram a termo ou sepultaram para sempre monumentos e artefatos da antiguidade. Isso não acontece só com a Bíblia, mas com a história em geral. Não há, por exemplo, nenhuma prova arqueológica segura da presença dos imensos exércitos de Alexandre, o Grande, na Índia; o que temos são relatos tardios, escritos 300 anos depois da morte dele (cf. As Vidas Paralelas de Plutarco), e cujos originais também se perderam (o que nos restam são cópias ainda mais tardias).”

Curiosamente, no entanto, poucos historiadores questionam a presença alexandrina desde a Macedônia até as terras indianas. “Ora, se o critério da dúvida, tão advogado em relação à Bíblia, fosse aplicado à história em geral, teríamos que duvidar quase da totalidade do que os livros didáticos nos apresentam. Mesmo na história mais recente, onde estão (arqueologicamente falando) as provas de que Colombo desembarcou nas Antilhas em 1492 ou de que a primeira missa no Brasil foi realizada em Porto Seguro, pouco tempo depois do descobrimento? A resposta é: não há nenhum indício confiável de qualquer desses eventos. Vamos duvidar deles também? Com exceção das pirâmides do Egito e de uns poucos fragmentos do mausoléu de Halicarnasso, onde estão as provas de que as sete maravilhas do mundo antigo de fato existiram?”, questiona Rodrigo.

2. Para o professor do Unasp, o tom zombeteiro sobre arqueólogos como os falecidos Yadin, Albright e o renomado Benjamim Mazar (avô de Eilat), que escavavam, como diz o artigo, “com a pá numa mão e a Bíblia noutra”, parece o argumento do espantalho, para usar um exemplo de falácia. “Em primeiro lugar”, diz Rodrigo, “esses foram alguns dos mais respeitados e renomados arqueólogos de todos os tempos. Ademais, Albright vinha de uma escola humanista que não aceitava certos aspectos da teologia cristã; suas afirmações em relação à Bíblia, portanto, eram baseadas nos fatos e não em suas predisposições ou convicções pessoais.” Rodrigo cita também H. Schelermann, que usou justamente um texto antigo (a Ilíada de Homero) como uma espécie de “mapa” para encontrar Troia. E ele a encontrou. “Não creio que a valorização do texto antigo (como é o caso da Bíblia) seja algo anticientífico ou ultrapassado. E não se trata, como diz o artigo, de ‘literalizar’ cada frase da Bíblia Sagrada. Eu, pelo menos, não acredito na inerrância do texto bíblico, mas isso não nega que ele esteja descrevendo uma história real.”

Luiz Gustavo Assis lembra que a arqueologia tem limites. Existe a confirmação histórica da existência de Davi, feita por Avraham Biran, em 1993, e agora a provável identificação do sítio arqueológico mencionado na famosa história da batalha de Davi contra o filisteu Golias. No entanto, nenhum desses achados prova que o gigante foi morto com uma pedra de funda! Provavelmente jamais seja encontrado documento com uma inscrição como essa. No entanto, a credibilidade histórica da Bíblia não está no vácuo. Existe um terreno sólido sobre o qual o leitor pode caminhar.

Michelson Borges, jornalista e mestre em teologia

Nota: O arqueólogo Michael Hasel está trabalhando com Garfinkel. Clique aqui para ler o artigo que ele publicou sobre o assunto, neste ano, na Adventist Review. E este é o site oficial com a história da descoberta do ostracon: http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon.asp



In the historical narrative of the Bible one individual attains more prominence, more mention, from Samuel until the last chapter of Revelation. It is not Abraham, the father of three great monotheistic religions, or Isaac or Jacob. It is not Moses, the great deliverer of God’s people from Egypt. It is not Joshua, the leader who led Israel into the Promised Land. These were certainly pivotal figures in the history of Israel. In fact, not even Jesus is mentioned as frequently by His name as this individual. His name appears more than 1,100 times in Scripture.

Warrior, Poet, and Nation-builder
He was a great musician, having composed much of the liturgy for Israelite worship that is still sung in synagogues and churches today. He was a poet, a warrior, a great king and leader for his people.

David as a figure has captured the imagination of millions throughout the centuries and millennia. Artists, such as Michelangelo, have been inspired by his life and personality.

But David’s centrality in the Bible is exemplified not only in his abilities as musician, poet, warrior, statesman, and hero. His significance is all the more apparent as the pro-
genitor of the Messiah. It is through the seed of David—the root of his father, Jesse—that the Messiah was to be born.

David himself pointed forward in the Psalms to the Messiah that was to come. Both Matthew and Luke include David in their genealogies of Jesus. It was “Joseph, the son of David” who became the father of Jesus (Matt. 1:20, 21).

Later as Jesus rides on a donkey into Jerusalem in His triumphal entry, the people shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 21:9, NASB).*

David is indeed a most central figure in Scripture.
•Without David, there is no founder of Jerusalem.
•Without David, there is no author for Israel’s worship liturgy.
•Without David, there is no United Monarchy of Israel.
•Without David, there is no Messiah.

The Battle Over David—And Biblical History
It may come as a surprise to many that more furious than the battle of David and Goliath itself, there rages today an intellectual battle over the history of the early monarchy in Israel. In recent years there have been an increasing number of postmodern scholars who are questioning the historicity of the figure of David himself. They question whether he ever existed.

In 1992 Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield wrote in his book In Search of “Ancient Israel” that “biblical Hebrew” was a language invented in the Hellenistic period—700 years after the biblical David lived. He writes: “The ‘Israel’ 
of the biblical literature is at least for the most part not an historical entity at all.”¹ He states further: “The biblical ‘empire’ of David and Solomon has not the faintest echo in the archaeological record—as yet.”²

The Bible in Davies’ thinking is guilty until proven innocent. In other words, the text is written late and is largely fiction unless it is corroborated by outside sources, i.e., archaeology or extrabiblical historical texts. Because the names of some of the characters of the Bible have not yet been found—David and Solomon—he simply assumes that these people and places never existed and by extension that their Israel did not exist. Obviously, this is strictly an argument from silence.

Arguments from silence are dangerous in any scientific discipline. In the field of archaeology they can be devastating. A year after Philip Davies published his book arguing that David and Solomon were not historical figures, excavations at Dan, a biblical site in northern Israel, produced new evidence. In 1993, outside the city gate, a student, while excavating a wall, turned over a stone and noticed an inscription. Written on basalt stone it stated that the House of David and the House of Israel had been defeated in battle by the king of Aram. For the first time in history the name of David was found written in stone. Scholars hailed this as clear evidence not only for the existence of David but also for the biblical division of Israel and Judah.³

Nevertheless, in the sweeping agenda of postmodernism to rewrite the past, other scholars have joined the fray, not only in questioning David, but also in questioning the entire early history of Israel. For these biblical scholars—not physicists, biologists, or philosophers, but biblical scholars—David was simply a mythical figure. John Van Seters, a well-known Canadian biblical scholar, argues in his 2009 book, The Biblical Saga of King David, that the story of David was not written until the Persian period, hundreds of years after the event.⁴ But how can he establish this? Does the origin of David’s story, even his very existence, depend on opinions, even by such leading secular thinkers? Do we create reality by eloquent theories and hypotheses? Or is reality something that is inherent in the past that we can somehow get at through the material remains of that past—namely archaeology?

The Battle Over the United Monarchy
The debate has also engulfed archaeologists working in Israel over the past two decades. In 2006 a new book was published by Israel Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman entitled David and Solomon. Finkelstein, a distinguished professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, concludes that for the period of David and Solomon there is:

•No evidence for extensive literacy
•No evidence for extensive wars
•No evidence for major building
•No evidence for dynastic intrigues between Saul and David
•Jerusalem was a small village
•Jerusalem controlled only a sparsely populated hinterland⁵

Finkelstein and Silberman base their findings on what they call “the absence of evidence.” But is the absence of evidence evidence for absence? Or like the David inscription found at Dan, might that evidence still remain to be discovered? Excavations in Jerusalem have not revealed much to date because it is a densely populated city.

Yet Dr. Eilat Mazar has recently excavated a monumental building 
in Jerusalem that she claims may be the palace of David,⁶ and this past September excavators from Haifa University and the Israel Antiquities Authority announced a massive wall built of monumental 4- to 5-ton stones preserved to a height of more than five meters in Jerusalem. Dated to 1,700 B.C., 700 years before David, it testifies to a major fortified city in the Middle Bronze Age. Director of excavations Ronny Reich said: “Despite the fact that so many have excavated on this hill, there is a very good chance that extremely large and well-preserved architectural elements are still hidden in it and waiting to be uncovered.”⁷

These very recent developments demonstrate that the “absence of evidence” argument for Jerusalem is ultimately inadequate. Who knows what new discoveries will be made this year?

David and Goliath in Archaeology
Then there is the story of David and Goliath, one of the most well-known tales of all times. The setting is 1 Samuel 17, where the Bible gives an elaborate description in the first verses of the exact geography of the Valley of Elah. The Philistines encamped on one side of the valley between Azekah and Socoh and the Israelites on the opposite side, with the valley between them. This means that Philistia camped to the south of the valley and Israel’s army camped to the north.

For the past three years new excavations have been conducted at a promising new site known today as Khirbet Qeiyafa. The site is situated on the hills north of the Elah Valley where the Israelites might have camped around 3,000 years ago. The Institute of Archaeology, Southern Adventist University, is a partner with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavating this city on the border between Judah and Philistia and on the main road to Jerusalem in ancient times.

Surrounding the site are massive casemate, or double walls, containing rooms. In 2009 Southern Adventist University excavated two of those rooms and found entire crushed vessels, including a lamp, goblet, and a number of storage jars with finger impressions.⁸ All the vessels from this level date to the Iron Age IIa, or the beginning of the tenth century B.C., around the time of David. It is estimated that the double wall and gates, which are contemporary to this period, may have required 200,000 tons of stone to construct. This would have required enormous resources, manpower, and central organization to accomplish. Khirbet Qeiyafa is not simply a farmstead or sheep pen; this is a planned garrison city, arguing for centralized governance and organization.

Two large gates were uncovered along the city walls. The first faces west toward the land of the Philistines. The second faces southeast toward the road leading to Jerusalem. They are constructed of identical dimensions 
in the opening, and the architecture is the same. The walls of these gates are massive, built with stones weighing 2 to 4 tons each, the largest stones used in buildings as compared to any contemporary site in Israel or Judah. Each gate has four rooms or chambers. The west gate has an enormous threshold stone, which would have anchored the heavy wooden doors. Drains set into the roads leading out of the gate were excavated and contained only Iron Age pottery, which helps establish the construction of the gate to the early monarchy.

These two gates are significant, because no other city of Israel in this period was built with two gates. Excavations at Lachish, Megiddo, Gezer, and other sites show only one gate. Could this help with identifying the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa?

The final verses of the story of David and Goliath describe the defeat of the Philistines: “When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. The men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron” (1 Sam. 17:51, 52, NASB). The Hebrew word shaarayim means “two gates.” Could Khirbet Qeiyafa finally be this ancient city associated with the famous story of David and Goliath? Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, joint directors of the excavation, believe it is.⁹

The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon
In 2008 an amazing discovery took place here. A broken storage jar was found with five lines of writing on it. It was sitting on the floor dating to the Iron Age. Newspapers all over the world reported the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found—800 years older than the Dead Sea scrolls!

The inscription has several words that could be read, including “king,” “land,” and “judge.” The official translation was presented in November of 2009 at the American Schools of Oriental Research professional meetings in New Orleans, where it was affirmed that the vocabulary was definitely Hebrew. This indicates that literacy was more widespread than some scholars believed, already during the period of the early monarchy. Why else would you have a major inscription far away from Jerusalem on the borders of Judah and Philistia?

The early Iron Age city was occupied for only a short time, probably less than 50 years, before it was destroyed or abandoned. After 700 years a new garrison was established by Alexander the Great or Ptolemy I. This summer on one of the floors a silver tetradrachm coin of Alexander was found and several additional coins minted during the reign of Ptolemy.

But many questions remain for future excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa. What relationship does this garrison city have with the bordering Philistine cities of Gath and Ekron? Why was it occupied for only such a short time during the early monarchy and then destroyed or abandoned? Will there be any more inscriptions found in the other houses during continuing excavation? What led to the innovation of two gates and why did this architectural element disappear in future city planning? These are the kinds of questions that drive our curiosity and research. Future excavations by the joint efforts of the Hebrew University and Southern Adventist University will undoubtedly reveal more about the border garrison of Sha’arayim.

The Battle Continues
As the postmodern battle over David and Goliath and the historicity of the Bible continues, we are faced today with a larger conflict—one of cosmic proportions that impacts the family and the church. Many times these forces converge to discourage us from engaging our world in a fight for truth, moral principle, and the everlasting gospel. Some of us may be struggling with a job loss, with an overwhelming health issue, with something that simply appears so enormous that it seems we may be overwhelmed. We may feel small and even insignificant. We may not have the most popular message for the world today, but as we arm ourselves with the promises of God’s Word, we have the assurance that He will see us through to the end.

As David, holding his simple sling, stood over Goliath that day, he knew God’s promise had been fulfilled. His victory confirmed his prediction to King Saul: “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Sam. 17:37, NASB). It is here that the message of David and Goliath still speaks to us. It is not our battle, but it is the Lord’s. 

_________
*Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

______________
1P. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel” (Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 26; see the review by M. G. Hasel, Andrews University Seminary Studies 32 (1994): 260-262.
2Davies, p. 67.
3A. Biran and J. Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment From Tel Dan,” Israel Exploration Journal 43 (1993): 81-98; M. G. Hasel, “The House of David,” Adventist Review, July 14, 1994, p. 10.
4J. Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), p. 3.
5I. Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press, 2006), pp. 92-98; for more on this debate, see I. Finkelstein and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007).
6E. Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review 32/1 (Jan./Feb. 2006): 16-27, 70.
7“‘Massive’ Ancient Wall Uncovered in Jerusalem,” CNN (Sept. 4, 2009).
8Y. Garfinkel, S. Ganor, M. Hasel, and G. Stiebel, “Khirbet Qeiyafa, 2009,” Israel Exploration Journal 59 (2009): 14-20.
9Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, art. 22 (2008): 3, 4; idem, Khirbet Qeiyafa, The 2007-2008 Seasons (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, forthcoming).

____________________
Michael G. Hasel, Ph.D., is the director of the Institute of Archaeology, curator of the Lynn H. Wood Archaeological Museum, and professor of Near Eastern Studies and Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, Tennessee. This article was published February 25, 2010.



Qeiyafa Ostracon Chronicle

8 July 2008 (ca. 10.00):		A 17-year-old volunteer, Oded Yair, uncovered a large potsherd on the floor of a room. It was placed in a black plastic bucket with all the other finds unearthed that morning in the same room. Photo by G. Laron
8 July 2008 (17.00):		During the afternoon washing of the finds, after the sherd had been soaked in water, it was noticed that it bears writing. This observation was made by Sang-Yeup Chang, the area supervisor of the square in which the sherd was found earlier that morning. Now it became clear that the item is an ostracon (a potsherd bearing an inscription). In this case the writing was done with ink rather than by incision.
8 July 2008 (17.10):		A telephone call was made to Orna Cohen, who works with the Qeiyafa expedition on conservation and restoration. Our question was very simple: what should we do with a wet ostracon bearing an ink inscription? The answer was to leave it indoors on tissue paper, and to let it dry slowly.
8 July 2008 (17.20):		The ostracon was examined and photographed by the expedition staff. It now became clear that we have five rows of writing, that black lines separate the rows, and that the letters are very archaic in form, in the style known as Proto-Canaanite script. The first photo of the ostracon before any cleaning.
8 July 2008 (21.00):		We celebrated the discovery by inviting all volunteers and staff to drink beer in a nearby pub (please don't tell our funding agencies about this expense).
9 July 2008 (19.00):		The first lecture on the ostracon was delivered to the volunteers and staff of the expedition. This included a photograph of the item and a paleographic chart of early Semitic inscriptions.
11 July 2008:		The ostracon was taken to Jerusalem and given to Orna Cohen for cleaning over the weekend.
16 July 2008:		The epigraphist Dr. Haggai Misgav was informed about the inscription and was invited to decipher and publish it. Dr. Haggai Misgav holds the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon.
19 July 2008:		The cleaned ostracon was returned to the expedition. As Yossi Garfinkel took photos of the ostracon, his wife, Tal Ilan, was able to read the first identifiable word: "שפט". This can be read in English as "judge", but also as a personal name. The ostracon held by conservator Orna Cohen. A simple photo of the ostracon at the conservation laboratory, immediately after cleaning.
27-29 July 2008:		The ostracon was given to Penina Shur of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) for photography. Clara Amit, a photographer of the IAA, took various types of images: color, black and white and infra-red. It became clear that quite a number of letters are heavily faded, and the reading is quite problematic.
27 August 2008:		The ostracon was given for photography to Dr. Greg Bearman, who was visiting Israel for sophisticated photography of the Dead Sea scrolls. As he was short of time, he took photographs only of the upper right corner of the inscription. These photos enable a better reading of some letters.
11 September 2008 (morning):		A presentation of the Qeiyafa pottery to some 40 professional archaeologists from all over the country: Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, Haifa University, Bar Ilan University, Israel Antiquities Authority and the Albright Institute. In this meeting Haggai Misgav gave a preliminary presentation (photographs and reading) of the inscription.
11 September 2008 (afternoon):		Prof. Aren Maeir posted a note in Yahoo ANE-2 group about the meeting that had taken place earlier that day. He also mentioned the ostracon, making the first public announcement of this discovery: "This absolutely fantastic, fortified Iron Age site (late Iron I/early Iron IIA) has a very nice assemblage of pottery, and what may be the most important Iron Age Semitic inscription found in Israel in the last decade! (to be published by Haggai Misgav of the Hebrew University). I can't give details about it, but OH BOY - this is going to be VERY INTERESTING!!!!" As such an announcement should be made by the excavators, the Qeiyafa expedition has reservations as to whether Aren will be invited for further professional meetings…
12-15 September:		Following Aren's note, speculation on the inscription began to appear in various biblical blogs on the web. At this stage the site name Qeiyafa appeared on ca. 80 websites.
18 September 2008:		The ostracon was sampled for petrographic analysis by David Ben-Shlomo. A tiny piece of pottery was sliced from the ostracon, from the side opposite to that bearing the inscription.
30 October 2008:		The Qeiyafa expedition gave its first public presentation of the 2008 excavation season in a meeting held on the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This forum was jointly organized by the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and the Israel Antiquities Authority. The proceedings of this meeting were published in that day in a book, including the first scientific paper on the excavations: Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor. 2008. Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified Border City between Judah and Philistia. In D. Amit and G. Stiebel (eds.) New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 2, pp. 122-133. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and the Hebrew University (Hebrew). The presentation included a photo of the ostracon and discussion by Haggai Misgav. His main conclusion at this stage is that the language of the ostracon is Hebrew. He can read in the inscription the words: "אל תעש" (do not do), "שפט" (judge), ") "עבד" slave) and "מלך" (king).
30 October 2008:		Ethan Bronner reported in the New York Times on the excavations and the inscription.
1-2 November 2008:		The inscription and excavations received media attention all over the world. The number of websites mentioning Qeiyafa increased from 80 to over 20,000. On this occasion photographs of the inscription, as well as close-ups of a few letters, were released, including "אל תעש" and "שפט".
4 November 2008:		The ostracon was sampled for NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) by J. Gunneweg. A small amount of pottery was taken from the side of the ostracon, in a location far from the inscription.
18-28 November 2008		The ostracon flew to Tel-Aviv - Toronto - Boston - Los Angeles - Tel Aviv. It passed through countless immigration, customs and security checks, but no questions were asked.
18 November 2008:		Presentation of the excavation results and the ostracon inscription at Harvard University.
19-24 November 2008:		The ostracon stayed at the Boston Westin Waterfront Hotel, where the ASOR meeting took place. As it had not paid ASOR membership or participant fees, it could not attend the meetings and had to stay in the hotel safe.
19 November 2008:		Dr. Greg Bearman took the ostracon for imaging at Headwall Photonics, Fitchburg, MA, using a line scanner imaging spectrometer that acquires the entire reflectance spectrum of a line at once.
21 November 2008:		Dr. Greg Bearman took the ostracon for imaging at CRI in Woburn, MA, using a different imaging spectrometer to obtain both reflectance and fluorescence spectral images.
21 November 2008 (evening):		Prof. Larry Stager of Harvard University brought 88-year-old Prof. Frank Moore Cross to the Boston Westin Waterfront Hotel to see the ostracon. (During his academic carrier Prof. Cross has made an extremely important contribution to the understanding of the Proto-Canaanite script.) Later Prof. Stager informed us: "He was talking about it for days. In fact he couldn't sleep for two nights."
24 November 2008:		Dr. Greg Bearman took the ostracon for imaging at Mega-Vision in Santa Barbara, CA. Here they conducted 12-band spectral imaging with much higher spatial resolution (39 MP) than the previous two methods.
25-26 November 2008:		Dr. Greg Bearman took the ostracon for imaging at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles, CA. Here various imaging techniques were used. (A note to Haggai: now, after all this sophisticated imaging, you should be able to decipher the ostracon in no time….).

Qeiyafa Ostracon Chronicle continues - October 2009