The Eye of God

Several months ago, I received the following email:

‘Subject: Fw: Eye of God

This is a picture taken by NASA with the Hubble telescope. They are referring to it as the "Eye of God.” I thought it was beautiful and worth sharing.

This email is considered an Urban Legend. The picture below is from NASA, but NASA never called it the “Eye of God.” This is a picture of the Helix Nebula, a planetary nebula created at the end of the life of a Sun-like star. The Helix Nebula, also known as NGC 7293, lies about 650 light-years away toward the constellation of Aquarius and spans about 2.5 light-years.
Eye of God



Mountains of Creation
NASA, however, has released two other pictures that bear references to creation as presented in the Old Testament. One of them is called the “Mountains of Creation.” The Mountains of Creation are located at the eastern edge of a giant stellar nursery, about 7,000 light-years away in the constellation Cassiopeia. The picture shows interstellar clouds of cold gas and dust sculpted into the form of mountains by winds and radiation from a hot, massive star near the clouds.



Another picture is called “The Pillars of Creation.” The Pillars of Creation are actually columns of cool interstellar hydrogen gas and dust that are also nurseries for new stars. The formation is part of the "Eagle Nebula" a nearby star-forming region 6,500 light-years away in the constellation Serpens.

Pillars of Creation



These amazing pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope reveal the beauty and the mystery of the universe. Hubble, looking millions and millions of years back into the history of the universe, can see amazing features that have dazzled the imaginations of people everywhere.

One night, an Israelite poet, looking at the vast expanse of the skies above, in awe of the greatness of what he saw, said: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1).

Another Psalmist, looking at the heavens above, recognizing the mystery of creation and the insignificance of human beings, burst into a song of praise: “O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens. When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? (Psalm 8:1, 3-4 ).

NASA may not have called the Helix nebula the “Eye of God,” but when we look at the mystery and beauty of the universe, we have to recognize that the pillars and mountains of creation clearly show God’s glory and greatness.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

The NIV and the TNIV: Two Bibles with Contradictory Views

The Bible has few friends outside those people who are involved with the church.  People who do not accept the Bible as authoritative in matters of faith and practice look for any excuse or any reason to criticize the Bible and belittle those who accept the Bible as God’s Word.  It seems that the TNIV will provide another reason for people to repudiate the Bible on the grounds of accuracy.

According to “A Word to the Reader,” the preface of Today’s New International Version (TNIV), the TNIV is a revision of the New International Version (NIV).  What guided the work of the Committee on Bible Translation was their “commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.”  One of the goals of the Committee that supervised the process of translation of the TNIV was that this new revision “would be an accurate translation.”

According to the preface, “The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writer.”  To achieve accuracy in the translation, the translators “have sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context.”  The purpose of this article is to study one passage in the Old Testament where additional words were supplied by the translators of the TNIV in order to clarify the meaning of the text.

Those who teach and preach from the Old Testament know that 2 Samuel 21:19 is a problematic text because the death of Goliath is attributed, not to David, but to Elhanan.  Scholars have taken different approaches to explain what seems to be a contradictory statement on who killed Goliath.

The NIV translates 2 Samuel 21:19 as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.”

This translation follows the Masoretic Text as printed in the latest edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  This is the same reading adopted by two contemporary translations of the Bible which take seriously the concept of inerrancy.  The English Standard Version reads: “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.”  The Holman Christian Standard Bible reads: “Once again there was a battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam.”  Both translations seek to preserve the reading of the Hebrew Text without compromising their view of inerrancy.

On the other hand, the TNIV translates 2 Samuel 21:19 as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.”  Here the translators of the TNIV, in their attempt to clarify the text, deliberately added the words “the brother of,” even though these words are not in the Hebrew Text.  
The translation of the TNIV is based on the reading of 1 Chronicles 20:5.  The Chronicler, sensing the tension between 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel 21, altered the received text in an attempt to resolve the conflict.  It is clear, however, that the writers of 2 Samuel knew the tradition of David’s defeat of Goliath but did not see the need to add the note that the Chronicler (and the translators of the TNIV) added to correct the reading of the text.  It seems that the writers of 2 Samuel 21:19 did not see any conflict with what was written in 1 Samuel 17.

The translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 proposed by the translators of the TNIV raises several issues that must be addressed by the Evangelical community that takes seriously the issue of biblical inerrancy:

1.  Those Evangelicals who believe in biblical inerrancy and presuppose the accuracy of an English translation, will be disappointed with the TNIV, because the TNIV’s translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 is not accurate.

2.  Those Evangelicals who take seriously the biblical principle (based in part on the view presented in Revelation 22:18) that no one should add to the word of God, will be uncomfortable with the TNIV because the words “the brother of” were deliberately added to the text of 2 Samuel 21:19.

3.  Those Evangelicals who believe in the absolute inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible will be infuriated with the TNIV.  If one imagines the writer of 2 Samuel writing under divine inspiration and writing inerrantly that “Elhanan killed Goliath,” one then must wonder how a translator could override the Holy Spirit and correct what was given by inspiration.  Can a human translator know for sure that what is present in the Hebrew Text today is not what God intended to have been preserved for posterity?

4.  In light of the recent discovery of the name “Goliath” in the remains of the site of the biblical city of Gath, the translation of the TNIV may be suspicious (if you want to read my article on David and Goliath, click here).  According to the archaeologist who found the broken piece of pottery with the name “Goliath,” the name was used one hundred years after the time of David.  So, it is possible that the name “Goliath” was used to designate a special type of soldier, like “marines” or “navy seals.”  If it is proved to be true that Goliath was the name of a champion warrior in the army of the Philistines, then David killed one Goliath and Elhanan killed another Goliath.

Since the preface of the TNIV says that the new translation is a revision of the NIV, the TNIV’s translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 creates a theological problem of monumental proportion.  The NIV says that “Elhanan killed Goliath” while the TNIV says that “Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.”  This means that the two NIVs contradict one another.

Either the NIV is right and the TNIV is wrong or the TNIV is right and the NIV is wrong.  Both translations cannot be simultaneously right.  One translation is right and one translation is wrong.  For those Evangelicals who take inerrancy seriously, this situation cannot remain in limbo.

Another problem created by the translation of the TNIV is the issue of usage.  According to the preface, both the NIV and the TNIV were designed for public and private use.  Both translations were designed for the pulpit and for the pew, for the preacher and for the average church member.  But the question is: which one should be used?

If one translation is right and the other is wrong, should the pastor of a church allow a Bible with the wrong translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 be used in preaching and teaching?  If the NIV contradicts the TNIV, and if the TNIV contradicts the NIV, which one should be used to teach believers the word of truth?

This awkward situation places the burden of solution upon the publishers of the TNIV: Zondervan and the International Bible Society.  The publishers cannot allow two contradictory versions of the same Bible to remain on the market.  They have to decide which version is closer to the Hebrew Text and decide whether Elhanan killed Goliath or whether he killed the brother of Goliath.  Once that decision is made, the publishers must recall the version that has the wrong translation of 2 Samuel 21:19.  Wrong must not prevail!

When all is said and done, this is the reason why I will not be recommending the TNIV to my students.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

The SBL Annual Meeting

I just returned from attending the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), which this year was held in Philadelphia.  The SBL is a gathering of biblical scholars who meet every year to present papers and discuss recent scholarship in the areas of biblical studies, archaeology, and related subjects.

This year I attended several conferences dealing with issues related to my areas of interest.  I attended a conference dealing with the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, one dealing with the book of Ezekiel, and one dealing with the highlands of Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age I (13th and 12th centuries B.C.E).  

I also attended a conference where the presenters were bloggers writing in the biblical area.  They call themselves bibliobloggers.  All the bloggers who were part of the discussion have been blogging for several years.  I have to confess that I learned much from them.  After all, I have been blogging for only two months.

One of the highlights of the annual meeting of the SBL is attending the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (NABPR).  The NABPR is an association that brings together Baptist professors from around the world to hear academic papers and to promote the cause of Baptist biblical scholarship.  

My association with the NABPR goes back more than twenty years.  I served as the Vice-President of the NABPR in 1999 and as the President in 2000.  I also served four years on the Editorial Board of Perspective on Religious Studies, the journal of the NABPR.  The Association is open to seminary students and pastors.  Membership in the Association also includes a one year subscription to Perspective.  If you are interested in joining NABPR, click here.

While I was in Philadelphia, I met with two editors from Hendrickson Publishers.  Hendrickson will publish my commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles in The New International Commentary Series.  I hope to finish writing the commentary on Chronicles in June 2006.  The publication date for the commentary is set for the Fall 2007.

Happy Thanksgiving!  Thanksgiving Day here in the USA is a day to express gratitude to God for all the blessings we have received from God’s hands.  Grateful people know that God is the source of all blessings.  Grateful people don’t need a special day to be grateful.  However, on this special day when we pause from all of our work, I give thanks to God for allowing me to share with you.  I also thank God for you.  You are the one who makes this blog possible.  Thank you for your many words of encouragement.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

David and Goliath

The story of David and Goliath is well known.  Children and adults are fascinated by the story of the young man David who defeated the famous giant Goliath by striking him down with a stone from his sling.  The story of David and Goliath has been memorialized in books, songs, and movies.

According to the biblical record, Goliath was a giant from the Philistine city of Gath.  In the confrontation between the armies of the Israelites and the Philistines, Goliath, “morning and evening for forty days” defied the forces of King Saul.  Although no one dared to face the giant, Goliath was eventually killed by a shepherd boy named David who used his sling to bring down the Philistine.

The story of David’s defeat of Goliath has been called a legend.  In their A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes wrote: “Folk themes, such as the lad killing the giant with a sling stone (1 Sam. 17) . . . remind us that we are dealing with largely legendary materials” (p. 153).

This view, however, is about to change if Aren Maeir’s discovery proves to be conclusive.  Aren Maeir, head of the archaeology department at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv is director of the dig of the mound widely believed to be the site of the ancient city of Gath, which, according to the Bible, was the place where Goliath lived.

During the excavation at the site, Maeir found a shard (a broken piece of pottery) containing an inscription in early Semitic style spelling with the name of Goliath.  According to Maeir, this is “the first archaeological evidence suggesting the biblical story of David slaying the Philistine giant actually took place.”  “This is a groundbreaking find.  Here we have very nice evidence the name Goliath appearing in the Bible in the context of the story of David and Goliath is not some later literary creation.”

Many people today doubt the historicity of the biblical narratives.  People believe that many of the biblical characters are legendary because there is no evidence that they existed.  With the help of the work of archaeologists, we are discovering what we knew all along to be true: that the biblical stories are based on actual historical events.

If you want to read the entire news release distributed by Reuters, click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

Senator Barack Obama and the Role of Judges

The proper administration of justice in Israel was a paramount concern of Israelite laws.
Justice for all was one of the foremost subjects which claimed the attention of the leaders of the nation. In order to dispense legal rights, the leaders of Israel created a system of justice which addressed the needs of society and met the concerns of the people.

Among the innovations of Israelite laws were the importance of evidence in conducting trials, the principles upon which the decisions of the court should be rendered, both in civil and criminal cases, the use of witnesses, and the institution of trial by jury. In addition, Israelite laws established courts at different levels and with different responsibilities. The most basic court was the local court where elders presided over local disputes. Their duty was to carry out the administration of justice at the local level in such a way that every citizen would recognize the decision as just.

A system of courts and judges with judicial authority was instituted in order to settle legal disputes between individuals and tribes. In situations where decisions were too difficult for the local judges, the case was referred to a high court, where legal experts would reconsider the implications of the case and pass judgment.

The persons appointed to be judges in Israel were taken from among the people. Judges were required to be well known for their intellectual abilities, their good reputation, and their fitness for the position to which they were chosen. Judges were required to be individuals who loved truth, persons of integrity, possessing wisdom and understanding.

The selection of qualified candidates was necessary in order to insure the impartiality of the court and the prompt administration of justice to the parties involved in a dispute. The ideal was to make sure that justice was carried out and disputes were settled according to laws derived from their constitutional document, the covenant between God and the nation.

Specific laws were enacted to govern the conduct of the judges. Among the many laws governing the work of judges were those related to impartiality in judgment. Several laws were enacted to deal with the issue of impartiality:

“Don't go along with the crowd in doing evil and don't fudge your testimony in a case just to please the crowd. And just because someone is poor, don't show favoritism in a dispute” (Exodus 23:1-3).

“Don't pervert justice. Don't show favoritism to either the poor or the great. Judge on the basis of what is right” (Leviticus 19:15).

“Listen carefully to complaints and accusations between your fellow Israelites. Judge fairly between each person” (Deuteronomy 1:16).

“Appoint judges . . . in all the towns. They are to judge the people fairly and honestly” (Deuteronomy 16:18).

In all these regulations, judges are commanded to give their decisions without partiality. As arbitrators in litigations between fellow citizens, judges must do no wrong to either party of the dispute but, to the utmost of their abilities, they must judge a case with equity, taking into consideration only the merits of the case and not the character of the people involved in the case.

Thus, for the proper administration of justice to be carried out equally, a decision of the court must never be perverted, either in favoritism of the poor or in partiality of the rich.

Whenever a judicial decision was rendered in favor of a rich person, the decision should be on the merits of the case, not because the person was famous or powerful. Whenever a decision was given in favor of the poor, the decision should be awarded to him as his right, as something to which he was legally entitled to receive. In all cases, judges are morally obliged by law to be impartial in their judgment.

To be impartial, judges must hear the case, hear both sides of the argument, and then be just and impartial in their decision. Impartial judges are an indispensable condition of the stability and prosperity of a nation. Without impartial judges and without an impartial administration of justice it becomes impossible to maintain the rights of individuals and to develop a society ordered by constitutional laws.

There is no doubt that most Western law codes are highly influenced by Judeo-Christian legal traditions. President Andrew Jackson, on a speech given on June 8, 1845, said that “the Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.” The Declaration of Independence contains expressions such as “Supreme Judge,” “unalienable rights” and "self-evident truths.” This language reflects the Judeo-Christians tradition that is the foundation of the laws of our country.

Judges in American courts have the responsibility to treat all citizens with fairness, impartiality, and equality under the law. In order to preserve and protect equal justice under the law, judges must promote the public’s trust and confidence in our system of justice.

Article III of the Constitution of the United States declares that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court. The Constitution also declares that the President, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate shall nominate candidates to serves as judges in the Supreme Court.

In order to fulfill his constitutional responsibility, President George W. Bush nominated U. S. Court of Appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to become the new justice in the Supreme Court. In selecting Judge Alito, the President selected a man with a distinguished record, a man known by his judicial temperament and his personal integrity.

At the time of his nomination to the Court, Judge Alito said: “Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to do these things with care and with restraint, always keeping in mind the limited role the courts play in our constitutional system.” His words describe the same role judges played in Israelite society.

Critics of Judge Alito have criticized his view on the role that judges and the court play in the administration of justice under our Constitution. Among his critics, the most important issue is Roe v. Wade and the rights of abortion for women. Another issue raised by his opponents is Alito’s views on human rights.

Senator Barack Obama, in an interview on “Fox Chicago Perspective” with Walter Jacobsen and Jack Conaty, which aired on Sunday, November 6, 2005 said: "For me, the main criterion is how well does Judge Alito understand the historical role of the Supreme Court as telling the majority 'no,' from making sure the Court serves its historic role of protecting the powerless and the vulnerable, and not just looking after the powerful. And I think that question is not clear. In some cases, I agree with some of his opinions. There are other cases where it appears that he has favored the advantaged, and that's my criteria." [Note: the quote from Senator Obama was mentioned on “The Teri O'Brien Show.” Her show is broadcast on Sundays 12-3 pm on WLS, 890 AM. Visit Teri’s web page at http://www.teriobrien.com/]

Obama’s view is contrary to the role established by judges both in the Constitution and other law codes. When judges become partial in their judgment, the whole system of justice is in danger. The fundamental concern of judges should be the fair application of the law. Reverse prejudice becomes a threat to our system of justice because judges fail to provide equality to all before the law.

Whenever the time comes to vote to confirm Judge Alito, I just hope that Obama will recognize the importance of impartiality in judicial decisions. Our country is a nation where each citizen should be treated with respect. Knowing what is at stake, it is imperative that we uphold the Constitution and make sure that its laws are applied equally to all citizens.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Dr. Eilat Mazar

A few days ago, I sent an email to archaeologist Professor Eilat Mazar about the bulla found at the City of David and the remains of what she identified as David’s Palace. In the bulla found at the site, Shelemiah is called the son of Shevi (see my post dated November 4, 2005). In response to my email about her findings, Professor Mazar wrote:

“You are right. The name svi (שבי), shin, bet, yod, doesn't appear in the Bible as the father of Shlemyahu. It appears only on the bulla. It is quite unusual to add the grandfather's name as we learn from the 45 bullae found at the City of David excavations directed by the late prof. Shiloh and published by my (late) husband Y. Shoam, who was also a member of Shiloh's expedition. All the names mentioned in the bullae list only the name of the father, like the famous Gemariahu ben Shaphan.”

For those who are interested in knowing more about Professor Eilat Mazar, the following bibliographical information was taken from Wikipedia, the free internet encyclopedia (click here for the complete information on Professor Mazar).

“Eilat Mazar is a third-generation Israeli archaeologist, specializing in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She has worked on the Temple Mount excavations, as well as excavations at Achzib and Bethlehem, and is a visiting scholar with the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.”

“On August 4, 2005, Mazar announced she had discovered in Jerusalem what may have been the palace of the biblical King David, the first king of a united Kingdom of Israel, who ruled from around 1005 to 965 BCE. Mazar's discovery consists of a public building dated from the 10th century BCE, pottery from the same period, and a bulla, or government seal, of Jerucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi, an official mentioned at least twice in the Book of Jeremiah. The research was financed by an American investment banker and the Ir David (City of David) Foundation, a private Israeli research institute.”

“Amihai Mazar, a professor of archaeology at Hebrew University, and Mazar's cousin, called the find ‘something of a miracle.’”

“Mazar obtained her Ph.D. from Hebrew University in 1997. She is the granddaughter of pioneering Israeli archaeologist Benjamin Mazar.” - Wikipedia

I appreciate Professor Mazar’s contribution to my web page and her email shedding additional light on her discoveries.

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

David’s Palace - Two Corrections and One Observation

Several days ago, while doing research on the discovery of David’s palace, I read the article written by Steven Erlanger, “King David’s Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says,” published in The New York Times on August 5, 2005.  This article was also published in several newspapers, both in the United States and abroad.

While reading the article, I discovered two factual errors made by Mr. Erlanger that need to be corrected.  These two errors were also reproduced by those newspapers that carried the article.  Below is a list of the two factual errors in the article.

Mr. Erlanger wrote: “Even Israeli archaeologists are not so sure that Mazar has found the palace - the house that Hiram, king of Tyre, built for the victorious king, at least as Samuel 2:5 describes it.”  Mr. Erlanger cites “Samuel 2:5" but this citation is an error since it does not give the precise location in the Book of Samuel where the information is found.  The correct biblical reference for David’s conquest of Jerusalem and the building of his palace is “2 Samuel 5.”

Mr. Erlanger wrote: “Archaeologists debate ‘to what extent Jerusalem was an important city or even a city in the time of David and Samuel,’ he said.”    Mr. Erlanger mentions “David and Samuel” but this information is incorrect.  The prophet Samuel died many years before David became king of Judah and conquered Jerusalem.  Jerusalem became an important city to “David and Solomon” since it was David who made the city his capital and it was Solomon who built the temple for God in Jerusalem.  In other places in his article, Mr. Erlanger correctly mentions “David and Solomon.”

In his article, Mr. Erlanger mentioned that in the remains of David’s palace, Professor Mazar discovered a bulla, or governmental seal, of a Judean official named Jehucal (or Jucal), the son of Shelemiah, the son of Shevi.  One interesting fact about this bulla is that Shelemiah is called the son of Shevi.  Jehucal, the son of Shelemiah appears twice in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1), but Shelemiah is never identified as the son of Shevi.  In fact, Shevi never appears as a personal name in the Hebrew Bible.

There are several persons named Shelemiah in the Old Testament:

1. One person named Shelemiah was a Levite appointed to guard the east entrance to the tabernacle under David, while his son Zechariah guarded the northern gate (1 Chronicles 26:14).

2. Another person named Shelemiah was the son of Cushi and the father of Netaniah.  Netaniah was the father of Jehudi.  The princes of Judah sent Jehudi to Baruch to invite him to read
Jeremiah’s scroll to them (Jeremiah 36:14).

3. Another person named Shelemiah was the son of Hananiah and the father of Irijah.  Irijah arrested Jeremiah as the prophet was leaving the city and accused him of deserting to the Babylonians (Jeremiah 37:13).

4. Another Shelemiah was the son of Abdeel and one of those ordered by King Jehoiakim to apprehend Baruch and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:26).

5. Two persons named Shelemiah appear in the Book of Ezra as descendants of Binnui who were commanded to divorce their Gentile wives after the people returned from their exile in Babylon  (Ezra 10:39, 41).

6. Another Shelemiah was the father of the Hananiah who repaired part of the walls of Jerusalem
(Nehemiah 3:30).  This Hananiah may have been the same person who was one of the perfumers who helped repair the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:8).

7. Another person named Shelemiah in the Old Testament was a priest appointed by Nehemiah as commissary of the Levitical tithes (Nehemiah 13:13).

8.  Then, there is Shelemiah, the son of Shevi, who was the father of Jehucal.  Jehucal was one of the palace officers, whom Zedekiah, King of Judah, sent to Jeremiah to intercede for Jerusalem during the Babylonian crisis (Jeremiah 37:3).   Jehucal was probably one of those officials who asked King Jehoiakim to put Jeremiah to death, accusing the prophet of being a traitor and of undermining the morale of the soldiers who were left in Jerusalem, as well as the morale of the people who were taking refuge in the city. (Jeremiah 38:1, 4).

The fact that the bulla discovered by Professor Mazar says that Shelemiah was the son of Shevi is important because this information does not appear in the Old Testament.  Once again, archaeology provides that kind of information that helps us understand the life and times of the people who are mentioned in the Bible.

Mr. Erlanger wrote a good and informative article.  It is just sad that the errors he introduced in his article were reprinted in so many other newspapers, giving readers incorrect information about some of the items related to Professor Mazar’s discovery.

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament

David’s Palace – A Rejoinder

A reader to my article on the discovery of David’s palace raised several good issues about the implications of Professor Mazar’s discovery. I thank him for his comments. His comments deserve to be addressed in such way that it will allow for a broad discussion of the issues raised in his reply to my article. I invite you to read my article and then read his response.

First, any archaeological discovery requires interpretation. A careful stratigraphic study of the site can provide invaluable clues that can aid the process of identifying and dating the findings. Professor Mazar’s findings provide a good case for a 10th century B.C. date for the site.

Second, those whose ideological views are focused on denying a historical place for Israel as a people will not accept the validity of the findings. They will interpret the findings in such a way that they will eliminate any possibility that the site was related to David because in their minds, David never existed.

Finally, I recognize that the language about the Palestinians in my article was a little vague and that was deliberate. My information came from my reading of several articles on Professor Mazar’s discovery. One of those articles was written by Steven Erlanger, “King David’s Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says,” published in The New York Times on August 5, 2005. In that article, Mr. Erlanger quoted Palestinian officials who dismiss Israel’s presence in Jerusalem as a myth.

I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians. I believe that both the Palestinians and the Israelis must solve their problems and learn how to live together as two nations in a community of nations. However, a solution to the Palestinian problem will never happen as long as people insist on denying thousands of years of history by declaring that the existence of biblical Israel is a myth created to justify conquest and occupation.

Again, I thank the reader for his comments. I invite others to join us in this dialogue about this important topic.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary