The standard of archaeology is to reconstruct a civilization from its remains. From that reconstruction one can then evaluate any written materials about the civilization uncovered. Archaeology being a science in that it uses scientific methods is separate from the stories some arkies like to weave about the finds themselves. Clearly buildings do not come with stories attached. The only credible source is inscriptions on the buildings or written material uncovered in the process such as the clay tablets of Babylon and Ugarit. In some cases all we have is a library and indications there was once a lot of written material kept here at one time. In some cases we have only stories about libraries like the one at Alexandria. Of course the existence of libraries is not license to fantasize about the contents of the material that was once in the library.
In the 19th c. with the opening of Egypt to the west by France under Napoleon and later England the rich hired adventurers to go there and bring back the evidence of Abraham, Moses and Exodus. They charged off with a bible in one hand and cash in the other to bring back this evidence. The more they looked the more they found that was incongruent with a flea-ridden goatherd barging in on the king and making demands. Where a backwater kingdom made prosperous by Greek rule was expected they found a culture far beyond their imaginings. To put this in context, there is still so much to be uncovered today that Egypt has penciled in the digs it will authorize over the next century.
By the end of the century serious researchers realized the bible was totally worthless as a guide for ancient Egypt, rejected its use, and adopted scientific methods. This was the invention of the science of archaeology. Unfortunately an entire class of fake archaeologists commonly called biblical archaeologists continues to exist and rip off believers to this day. They no longer ply their trade in Egypt but in bibleland. On top of the believers the rise of Zionism added a political element to the subject which should be called zionists archaeology.
You can recognize the writings of these people by their biblical references. They will take finds which by themselves show nothing more than the land was inhabited (which likely goes back some 80,000 years) and talk about "the time of Solomon" and "the first temple period." Of course there is no Solomon nor first temple in archaeology. So they are bringing the long discredited bible, discredited since the 19th c., into the discussion to describe finds which have no intrinsic relationship to the stories the descriptions they use.
Moderator warning: Enough of this bullshit. You're off topic. The thread is about a man digging under the Temple Mount, not the history of ANE archaeology. Stop trying to turn every conversation back to your fringe theory. This is an official warning. This is not an invitation to a debate. Scale back with the one-trick pony shit and try to contribute something else once in a while or we'll see you later.
The standard of archaeology is to reconstruct a civilization from its remains. From that reconstruction one can then evaluate any written materials about the civilization uncovered. Archaeology being a science in that it uses scientific methods is separate from the stories some arkies like to weave about the finds themselves. Clearly buildings do not come with stories attached. The only credible source is inscriptions on the buildings or written material uncovered in the process such as the clay tablets of Babylon and Ugarit. In some cases all we have is a library and indications there was once a lot of written material kept here at one time. In some cases we have only stories about libraries like the one at Alexandria. Of course the existence of libraries is not license to fantasize about the contents of the material that was once in the library.
In the 19th c. with the opening of Egypt to the west by France under Napoleon and later England the rich hired adventurers to go there and bring back the evidence of Abraham, Moses and Exodus. They charged off with a bible in one hand and cash in the other to bring back this evidence. The more they looked the more they found that was incongruent with a flea-ridden goatherd barging in on the king and making demands. Where a backwater kingdom made prosperous by Greek rule was expected they found a culture far beyond their imaginings. To put this in context, there is still so much to be uncovered today that Egypt has penciled in the digs it will authorize over the next century.
By the end of the century serious researchers realized the bible was totally worthless as a guide for ancient Egypt, rejected its use, and adopted scientific methods. This was the invention of the science of archaeology. Unfortunately an entire class of fake archaeologists commonly called biblical archaeologists continues to exist and rip off believers to this day. They no longer ply their trade in Egypt but in bibleland. On top of the believers the rise of Zionism added a political element to the subject which should be called zionists archaeology.
You can recognize the writings of these people by their biblical references. They will take finds which by themselves show nothing more than the land was inhabited (which likely goes back some 80,000 years) and talk about "the time of Solomon" and "the first temple period." Of course there is no Solomon nor first temple in archaeology. So they are bringing the long discredited bible, discredited since the 19th c., into the discussion to describe finds which have no intrinsic relationship to the stories the descriptions they use.
Moderator warning: Enough of this bullshit. You're off topic. The thread is about a man digging under the Temple Mount, not the history of ANE archaeology. Stop trying to turn every conversation back to your fringe theory. This is an official warning. This is not an invitation to a debate. Scale back with the one-trick pony shit and try to contribute something else once in a while or we'll see you later.
Diogenes the Cynic
-Jack-booted mod
In my defense I must point out the topic is strictly commentary on a news report. I assumed in my first response it was reasonable to comment upon what he thought he was doing, looking for the temple. I felt it on topic to comment that he was looking in the wrong place. After that others carried it off that topic. At one point I tried to return to that topic and again others took it off topic.
However point taken.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
stephan happy huller wrote:Don't worry. He's the one participant who probably takes "fascist" and "jack boots" as positives
And in response one asks Diogenes the Cynic if personal attacks referencing modern history are on topic regardless of the title of the thread?
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
spin wrote:You stated: "Josephus records Herod and his guests could observe the temple sacrifices from his palace. There was even a dispute that had to be settled in Rome when the priests built a wall to block his view." Where the fuck is it said in Josephus? Answer the question. Or say clearly that you were mistaken in your initial post.
That comes from Josephus' Antiquities Book 20.
Here we have to have some foundation.
We are not talking about Herod's Palace, but the old Asamonean palace, that was just across the cardo on the south side of the temple. That was where Agrippa liked to be and apparently it was high enough to peak over the 135 foot walls of the second Temple- and the sixty foot walls of the inner temple- and see what the priests were up to.
North of the Asamonean palace was the Herod's palace proper, that was also set apart by walls and probably covered 10-15 acres.
The dispute was actually very significant- the High Priest Ismael went to Rome to argue the case. Nero's wife Poppea was so taken with Ismael that she persuaded him to resign the Second Temple High Priesthood and stay in Rome as part of her salon!
spin wrote:You stated: "Josephus records Herod and his guests could observe the temple sacrifices from his palace. There was even a dispute that had to be settled in Rome when the priests built a wall to block his view." Where the fuck is it said in Josephus? Answer the question. Or say clearly that you were mistaken in your initial post.
That comes from Josephus' Antiquities Book 20.
Here we have to have some foundation.
We are not talking about Herod's Palace, but the old Asamonean palace, that was just across the cardo on the south side of the temple. That was where Agrippa liked to be and apparently it was high enough to peak over the 135 foot walls of the second Temple- and the sixty foot walls of the inner temple- and see what the priests were up to.
North of the Asamonean palace was the Herod's palace proper, that was also set apart by walls and probably covered 10-15 acres.
The dispute was actually very significant- the High Priest Ismael went to Rome to argue the case. Nero's wife Poppea was so taken with Ismael that she persuaded him to resign the Second Temple High Priesthood and stay in Rome as part of her salon!
All this happened around A.D. 61.
source Hagan "Fires of Rome"
The importance of the question is that the person responded to didn't know how to cite sources properly, as is the case with you. When you quote a modern source, you are supposed to at least supply the page number (better also the publisher or journal and year of publication). With an ancient source you are expected to supply the book, chapter and paragraph where applicable. People who don't cite properly tend to curry others' ire.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down and eat and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. At these doings both king Agrippa and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman and had requested these favors of Nero and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. (Antiq XX 8:11)
The layout of Jerusalem and palaces is from various places in Antiquities and Wars, and is summarized with suppositions and maps in John Hagan's "Fires of Rome" in the first two chapters "Ancient Jerusalem" and "The Second Temple."
spin wrote:You stated: "Josephus records Herod and his guests could observe the temple sacrifices from his palace. There was even a dispute that had to be settled in Rome when the priests built a wall to block his view." Where the fuck is it said in Josephus? Answer the question. Or say clearly that you were mistaken in your initial post.
Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 8, Section 11 (Whiston translation, for ease of pasting and copying):
About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.
Oooops. I'm new to the board and missed that this passage had been cited already. Apologies.
This thread seems to be hingeing on what could or couldn't be seen from Agrippa's dining-room window. But embedded in Josephus' account is what seems to me at least as important a reason for increasing the height of the western wall of the inner temple precinct:
...which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals.
Only a few chapters earlier, Josephus has given an account of a soldier who "let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude" at Passover (Ant 20.5.3/[108]), so those conspicuous Roman guards, parading along the roof of the western stoa, looking down on the sacrificial rites within the inner courtyard, were clearly resented. I suspect that Agrippa's dining-room was a bit of a red herring.
