SOBRE EL OSARIO Y LA INSCRIPCION REFERENTE A JESUS
Hacia el final hay un articulo de una conocida mia, Ada Yardeni, describiendo el osuario (sarcofago de huesos) del hermano de Jesus. En el aparece el nombre, que segun los mas entendidos, es el hombre Hebreo de Jesus, escrito en el primer siglo A.D. Si quieres te mando una foto. Esta escrito
Y(e) sh u a. Es el unico lugar donde ese nombre existe. Yo comparto con Ada que la escritura es original y fidedigna.
Ya ves lo que es la historia? Manuel
HAY UNA POLEMICA DENTRO DE ISRAEL MISMA, mientras tanto academica, pero de vez en cuando manchando el credo politico, y peor, dudando las creencias del pueblo Judio durante estos 3300 a#os, en la Biblia.
Los
gladiadores de esta polemica son Israel Finkelstein, jefe del departamento
arqueologico de la Universitad Tel-Aviv y Adam Zertal en la misma posicion en
Haifa. Recuerden que Tel-Aviv es la capital de la izquierda moderna. Que
ironia del destino, cuando Ben Gurion vivia, el representaba la izquierda y
entonces Tel-Aviv la derecha, compuesta principalmente de centristas.
Para
darles un resumen de la polemica, el tema empezo con la “indoctrinacion”
de la izquierda de que no hubo tal conquista de Josue de Canaan. Bueno si se
aceptara esa version, la Biblia entoncs tendria que ser una buena novela. A
veces eso mismo es lo que dice la izquierda, que la Biblia fue una
“fabricacion” genial de los dirigentes Kohanim, Levitas, los Shoftim y las
asambleas de los sabios, como el Sanhedrin, para justificar la existencia de
un pueblo Judio en Eretz Israel. En esa indoctrinacion de la izquierda esta la
contencion de que los reinados de David y Salomon no existieron. Que Josue es
una ficcion. Bueno, esa ‘suposicion’ fue lanzada a bombos y platillos
durante a#os y convencio a muchos ‘analfabetos,’ hasta que se encontro
hace unos diez a#os la piedra de una estela en Tel Dan donde las palabras
“Beit David” aparecen. Beit David en el idioma Tanajico significa “la
Dinastia de David.” La estela era una bombastica auto-adulacion del rey
Hazael cuando vino de Damasco y conquisto Dan. Y miren, el tinte politico
actual no falta en esta polemica: Zertal es de los que soportan la
colonizacion, como vuelta a la populacion de Shomron. Y Finkelstein esta en el
lado de ‘shalom ajshav,’ paz ahora mismo, aunque haya que entregarse a los
herederos de Yassin.
La
controversia despues se volco al altar, mizbeaj en el Monte Eibal, lugar de
concentracion de las 12 tribus, secundario solo a la asamblea en la base del
Monte Sinai. Pero hay mas: cuando Yigael Yadin vivia, me conto personalmente,
y publico, que encontro en las excavaciones de Hatzor, la mas grande ciudad
Canaanita de la epoca de Josue, una capa que corresponde a unos 3290 a#os
atras, del fuego con el cual Josue destruyo la ciudad. Y concluyo que la
salida de Egipto sucedio unos cuarenta a#os antes. Estoy hablando en idioma
arqueologico y no en idioma “jazali,” de la Torah.
Quiere
decir, que Josue vivio, peleo, conquisto y escribio. Quiere decir que
Finkelstein debe ponerse el rabo entre las piernas traseras, y cerrar la boca.
Pero la boca no la cierra.
Les
voy a copiar la carta de Adam Zertal en el “Biblical Archeology Review” de
Marzo/Abril 2004, pgs. 22-23 bajo el titulo: “Debate. Sticking to the
facts. Adam Zertal counters Israel Finkelstein,” en Ingles: “In the May/June
2002 issue of BAR, we published Adam Zertal’s “Philistine Kin Found in
Early Israel,” in which he argued that the ruins found at el-Ahwat in
northern Israel were the remains of an Iron Age I (1200-1000 B.C.E.) city
built not by locals but by a tribe of Sea Peoples known as the Shardana.
Zertal links the Shardana to distant Sardinia, basing his claim on the site’s
many unusual features. Among them are small domed structures, known in Greek
as ‘tholoi’, that resemble edifices found in the Late Bronze Age
(1500-1200 B.C.E.) Sardinia. Another is the apparent brevity of the city’s
history: according to Zertal, the entire city--walls, homes and all—was
built at one time and inhabited for less than a century.
However,
another prominent archeologist, Israel Finkelstein, disagreed with Zertal’s
findings. Finkelstein published his critique in the Israel Exploration Journal,
which we summarized in “Just Another Israelite Village” (May/June 2003).
Contra Zertal, Finkelstein claims that the site, despite its unusual features,
was, as our title says, just another Israelite village, and that its
supposedly massive walls date to a much later time and are simply field stones
cleared for Roman agricultural terraces. Below is Adam Zertal’s rebuttal to
Finkelstein’s critique. (-) Editor.
El-Ahwat
is a highly interesting site: If our interpretation is correct not only did
the site belong to the Shardana, one of the most important Sea Peoples, but
the Shardana may have had a connection to Sardinia. We may be dealing here
with a very significant discovery. With this in mind, any contribution
proffered by serious scholars would be more than welcome. Unfortunately,
Finkelstein’s article is everything but this. [* I (Zertal) sent a full
answer to Finkelstein to the Israel Exploration Journal where the original
attack was published. When I asked the editors why they would not publish my
response, they replied that publishing it would open “a Pandora’s box.”
I then wrote a detailed ten-page response with full stratigraphical data and
many plans, which they insisted needed “revision.” The policy of
publishing a baseless attack yet not publishing a detailed response is beyond
my undertanding.] Instead of challenging our interpretation concerning the
link with the Sea Peoples and their identity, he chose to attack our
stratigraphy and the dating of the city wall, even questioning the wall’s
existence.
He
does this, moreover, after only two short visits to the site and without
having had access to all the documentation amassed during seven seasons of
digging, making his claims groundless, if not absurd. Indeed, Finkelstein
discusses only the short preliminary report on el-Ahwat, published in Hebrew
in 1996. That report presented data from the first three seasons, which
remained valid, though with minor changes, until we published further findings
after four more seasons. In any case, this later report also does not provide
any support for the redating of the city wall, and the reasons for the attack
on our interpretation of el-Ahwat remains obscure.
More
than 40 years ago the English archeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, in her
comments on the Meggido excavations (M.V.: Lease “The Source” por James
Michener, el mas impotante libro sobre la historia Judia en Eretz Israel
escrito por un ‘goy’, basado en los encuentros en Meggido.) of the 1920s
and 1930s, set a precedent by being the first to openly criticize the results
of other scholars’ work. However, in contrast to Finkelstein, she did not
redate the Meggido levels but proposed a new stratigraphic division for them.
She was also careful to base her analysis on the final report of the Chicago
Expedition to Meggido rather than on a preliminary report (the final report on
el-Ahwat, a book of 400 pages, will appear in mid-2004).
Finkelstein’s
attack fits what now appears to be a pattern. A few yars ago he attacked
Amihai Mazar on the dating of the “Bull Site” without visiting the site or
inspecting the pottery. In his response Mazar faced the same dilemma as we do:
an attack that ignores the facts. In our case, Finkelstein has built his
argument on the assumption that our large wall was not a city wall but a
terrace wall built by farmers during the Roman period. If this assumption is
wrong, his entire argument collapses. Here we shall try not only to show that
our interpretation of the wall is correct but also return to what
is the real issue here: whether or not the site belonged to the
Shardana.
For
the sake of brevity, I will make only the following points in support of our
views:
1
City Plan: The entire site was clearly pre-planned and built in one phase. The
findings of seven seasons of excavation (1993-2000) and repeated examinations
along the wall and its junctions indicate that the structure was built as one
single unit at one time. All archeologists are inclined to find stages and
levels in their stratigraphy, for that would make the site more attractive and
interesting. We tried, but we could not find them.
2
City Wall. City walls (and other walls as well) are dated according to the
floors and levels that abut them. If these relate clearly to the wall, then
they date it. Another criterion is the presence of datable pottery and other
objects in a wall’s foundation trenches. Our city wall was analyzed at many
points along its perimeter, including the 200-foot strip in area C (the
domestic quarter). In all the houses that we inspected, the floors that
abutted the city wall and integrated the wall into the structure of the house
yielded pottery, jewels, scarabs and other objects that came entirely from
Iron Age I (1200-1000 B.C.E.). No other strata or other houses were found; the
site only had one thin stratum. Moreover, since there is no evidence of
repairs in the walls or of reflooring, we assume that the whole city existed
for only 50 or 60 years. In addition, the foundation trenches of the city wall
revealed by our section into it also yielded esclusively Iron Age I pottery,
confirming the findings from the house floors. Finally, an agricultural
terrace wall is extremely different in construction from a city wall. It is
narrow, short and lacks continuity, none of which is true of the wall at our
site.
3
The Roman Level at el-Ahwat: El-Ahwat was fully abandoned around 1150 B.C.E.
and stood unoccupied for some 1500 years, until the fourth century C.E. Then
the site was converted into an agricultural field. The stones of the ancient
site were collected and accumulated into piles to make room for topsoil, which
was imported from a Roman site elsewhere and spread over the foundations of
the Iron Age city. It is quite easy to tell the difference between the floors
of the Iron Age structures, which relate to the lower courses of the wall and
abut them, and the upper level of agricultural soil, which contains Roman
potsherds. This distinction is easy even for the beginning student to discern
and was indicated on all the sections and plans we made of the site. Had
Filkelstein been interested, he could have seen our sections and plans by
request.
4.
The Corridors and Tholois: These are perhaps the most intriguing features of
the el-Ahwat site, for they are alien to local Bronze and Iron Age
architecture. The corridors are long tunnel-like constructions that extend
into the city wall. They are covered by long stone slabs and end in small
round rooms roofed by the “false” dome method (“false” domes are made
of rows of overlapping stones and do not have a constructed arch, which would
make it a “true” dome). The tholoi are round huts, also with “false”
domes. Although comparable structures dating to the Roman and Byzantine
periods have been found nearby, the tholoi of el-Ahwat are clearly from Iron
Age I: They are too well-integrated into the city wall to have been later
additions.
5.
Domestic Architecture: Most of the architectural styles found at el-Ahwat
exist nowhere else in the region. These buildings are further evidence that a
foreign element inhabited this site.
6.
Rural Iron Age I Settlement or Sea Peoples’ City? El-Ahwat has all the
trappings of a full-blown city: a relatively large size (equal at the time to
the City of David in Jerusalem!), fortifications, evidence of urban planning,
division into quarters, public buildings such as the “governor’s house”
and rich material finds. Indeed, el-Ahwat is quite different from any rural
sites known in ancient Canaan or Israel.
7.
Pottery: The pottery of el-Ahwat is different from any known assemblages from
the same period. It is composed of vessels that can be divided into two basic
groups, the courseware of the Iron Age I hill country (Mt. Ebal, Giloh and
Shiloh) and Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B.C.E.) traditional pottery. What is
unique about the pottery of el-Ahwat, however, is that it contained no
imported or painted pottery of any kind. We found not a single imported sherd,
and only one or two painted sherds. This is unheard of for a site this size.
Filkelstein’s
claims are groundless. All indications support the uniqueness of the site,
which differs from all other known Iron Age I cities. The special
characteristics, particularly the corridors and tholoi, may indicate a special
ethnic element with architectural traditions very different from those of the
local population. The site differs in many respects from contemporaneous sites;
the architecture most similar to it is that of Sardinia, where features such
as the tholoi originated in the Bronze Age.
Historically,
the location and the period of occupation of el-Ahwat coincide well with
Egyptian description of the settlement of the Shardana in the northern Sharon
plain. Our interpretation is based on data, on historical texts and the fact
that no other interpretation explains as well the el-Ahwat site.”
¿Porque
traje este articulo cientifico en estas paginas? Porque parte del ataque de la
izquierda contra la Biblia tiene sus fundaciones en negar que la Biblia
describe hechos reales, durante el transcurso de siglos. La Historia antigua
de Israel es la Biblia, una parte de la moderna es la arqueologia. Todos los
goyim que han venido a excavar a la Tierra Santa, que yo sepa, no hay refutado
practicamente ningun versiculo de la Biblia. Hay cosas que no se han
encontrado, otras que no pueden existir, aunque las busques. Una vez en una
controversia sobre el tema le dije a uno de esos: Si buscas las huellas de
Najshon cuando salto primero al Yam Suf, no la vas a encontrar, pero eso no
quiere decir que las sandalias de Najshon no dejaron marcadas por algunas
horas sus huellas en el fondo del mar, donde sus pies cayeron. Hay una leyenda
Egipcia sobre Moises. Los guias de turismo te llevan al lugar “exacto”
donde la canasta con el bebe Moises estaba tramada en la vegetacion.
Y
miren ahora, la demonstracion de que la descripcion de la Biblia de los
“goym provenientes del Mar” de los cuales los Filisteos eran uno de esos
grupos, no cuadra a la sa#a que tienen los negativistas de la existencia del
antiguo pueblo de Israel en Eretz Israel. Esos fueron los ‘Filisteos’ que
David derroto y humillo, segun el lenguaje de la Biblia. En mi opinion Zertal
es un gigante de la historia moderna del Estado de Israel y el peor enemigo de
la negacion de que los Judios vinieron a establecerse en su cuna. En Hebreo
hay una frase que se puede traducir como: “Que se mueran los celosos.”
manuel_vider@yahoo.com
Preambulo:
Ya hace muchos meses hay una controversia sobre la autenticidad, o la
falsificacion, de dos artefactos con epigrafia del Primero y el Segundo
Templo. La Tabla de Joas y el Osuario de “James, hijo de Jose, hermano de
Jesus”. Los mejores expertos de esta epoca estan involucrados en esta
disputa que a veces ha tomado tonos acerrimos. Aqui he escogido la opinion de
la persona, que a mi entender, sabe mejor que los demas distinguir entre
original y falso. Este articulo que sigue fue publicado en el magazine bi-mensual
“Biblical Archeology Review” recientemente:
UPDATE—FINDS
OR FAKES?
Hebrew
Script expert Ada Yardeni on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet.
Regarding
the inscription on the famous James ossuary, “Ya’akov bar Yosef, ahui d’Yeshua”
(Yod, ayin, qof, waw, bet, bet, resh. Yod, waw, samah, pe, aleph, het, waw,
yod, dalet, Yod, shin, waw, ayin, translated in English as “James [Jacob]
son of Joseph brother of Jesus”), I have been following the discussion and
reports, and I am by no means persuaded by the claims that it is a forgery. My
opinion is based on paleographical as well as circumstantial evidence.
Having
studied thoroughly the script of the Second Temple period (see my two-volume
work “The Aramaic Hebrew and Nabatean Documentary Texts from the Judean
Desert and Related Material,” Jerusalem 2000), I have managed to develop a
feeling for this script. When I copied the inscription, I initially had some
question about the qof and the final pe, as well as the angular first ayin. I
also wondered about the name Joseph spelled Ywsp this way rather than Yhwsp (with
a he). The latter spelling was much more popular in this period. I also noted
that the first name, Yqwb (James/Jacob), is spelled with the waw (w) which
might lead one to expect a he (h) in Joseph. (Both waw and he are rudimentary
vowels.)
These
were the only (M.V: strange) peculiarities I saw in the inscription. I also
observed that there was no difference in the depth of the engraving between
the two parts of the inscription.
It
is quite normal for a hand-made inscription to display variations in the
execution of the letters. However, the use of the cursive alef seems to be
more sophisticated for a forger, while it may easily have occurred to a scribe
who was trained in the cursive script.
I
don’t see any similarity between the somehowhat distorted dalet of this
inscription and the dalet in ossuary No. 570 in Rahmani’s catalog of
ossuaries. No. 570 is, of course, the only other ossuary inscription
containing the name of the deceased’s brother. The verbal form is the same
as in our ossuary. But it is clear that the engraver of our ossuary did not
copy the dalet in No. 570.
I
am confirmed in my opinion by external circumstances. When the ossuary’s
owner, Mr. Oded Golan, first gave me a photograph of the inscription on
November 1, 2001, it was with photographs of the two other ossuary
inscriptions, one of which is incised in a “Jewish” cursive script. There
is no way that this could be a forgery. The second additional photograph was
inscribed with letters in a so-far-unidentified script. Perhaps it’s a
forgery. On January 2, 2002, I traced the inscription from the photographs,
but Mr. Golan did not seem anxious to see my drawings. I think that I gave
them to him later that month when he brought me, at my request, some Idumean
ostraca to be examined an copied by me. I really don’t know if at that time
he was aware of the meaning of the inscription. It was not until July 2002
that Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne told me that he is going to publish in BAR
the inscription mentioning Jesus.
This
was totally different from the circumstances involving the so-called Yehoash
inscription. In that case photographs were sent to me by a messenger in a
mysterious way on November 18, 2001, following a phone call six days earlier.
I was never told that Mr. Golan was actually behind the request that I write a
paleographical report on this inscription. Looking back, this seems quite
strange, but it could be explained by the claim that the dealer wanted it to
be kept a secret.
In
sum, I am confident that the James ossuary inscription is authentic. About the
Yehoash inscription, there is more doubt.
Ada Yardeni
Reported by manuel_vider@yahoo.com