Thanks, Doug. I was hoping to focus on some specific archaeology.
You stated that some people remained in the land during the exile and these made up those who opposed the Jews when they returned. i was hoping for some cities that the settled and the archaeology establishing they were continuous residents during the alleged exile period. No specifics were given.
In the meantime, I had already noted that the destruction of Ashkelon had been confirmed to be a 75-80 years period just prior to the Persian Period.
Furthermore, it was prophesied the temple rebuilding work would meet opposition by Jewish enemies. But is it really clear they were continuous inhabitants before the Jews arrived, or did they arrive and set up at the same time the Jews did?
So what I was hoping to do was to hunt down some specific archaelogical sites that compared pottery patterns or changes during the Neo-Babylonian Period that showed specific continuous or intermittent occupation during the 70-year exile/desolation period.
I tried doing a quick search and found it difficult to pin something down.
So it seems every city does not tell a complete story. But Ashkelon did. It showed the complete destruction by Babylon followed by 75-80 years of non-occupation ending with the Persian Period, which reflects the Biblical history. So at least the archaeology of Ashkelon fits the Biblical narrative of the full 70 years.
It could be said this might challenge the prsumably revised Neo-Babylonian Period. Josephus and the Bible, of course, represent the NB Period as 26 years longer than the current Babylonian records, though those records come from the Persian Period, indicating revision. Ashkelon's 75-80 year devastation, again, dated from about the fall of Jerusalem and thus the 1st of Cyrus in c. 538 BC dates the destruction back to 618 BCE, which would have been well before Nebuchadnezzar (604 BC) or the deportation of Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar
The Bible, of course confirms that Ashkelon was still a functioning city before Jerusalem was destroyed. So that is one Biblical contradiction, not to the "relative" chronology but to the new "absolute" chronology of the revised Persian Period. Thus note how this works out with the Biblical timeline dated from 455 BCE.
When 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, 80 years earlier dates us back to 535 BC. 535 BC would be the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jerusalem was not to fall until 529 BCE. Per the Bible, if there were any inhabitants at Ashkelon, they would have had to have been beported by year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar in 525 BCE, which is exactly 70 years earlier than 525 BCE. So that compared with the archaeology is not a bad fit. Per the Bible, Ashkelon must fall after Babylon in 529 but be completely desolated by 4 years later in 525 BCE.
The archaeologist said 75-80 years. 528 BCE, year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar is 73 years earlier, which is very close. Close enough to be considered as a confirmation of the 70-73 years of desolation required by the Bible.
Further, it should be noted that this long period of desolation, if we do follow the history of the bible which requires the destruction and desolation after the fall of Jerusalem, would be direct archaeological evidence that the Neo-Babyloniaan Period timeline was reduced! That's because these 70 years of archaeological devasation do not fit into the shortened Neo-Babylonian timeline which removes some 26 years of Neo-Babylonian kings. So the archaeology from Ashkelon is a potential contradiction and indication the current Neo-Babylonan Period is too short. So we know at least one city, Ashkelon, confirms the desolation by Babylon lasting at least up to 70 years.
That is why we need specific cities to compare with Ashkelon to see how strong the archaeology is for a continuous occupation. One indication to me would be an intermediary pottery period just prior to the Persian Period that is absent at Ashkelon. But if the pottery in use at Ashkelon's destruction is the same for the "continuous occupation" period, it would be difficult to confirm that site wasn't abandoned and destroyed for the same period.
At any rate this is an excellent opportunity to look closely at what archaeologists have. I'm surprised I wasn't able to find some discussion on the topic easier, but also surprised you provided not specific archaeological city names that indicated continuous or partial occupation, giving us nothing to specific cross check against. Let me explain to you why this close look is necessary.
Jezeel compound fudging by Israel Finkelstein:
Here is what Israel Finkelstein says in his book, The Bible Unearthed" to help support his Low Chronology dating in relation to a Jezreel compound excavated by David Ussishikin Page 342:
"They[Ussishkin team] uncovered a large fortified enclosure, which they identified with the palace built by Ahab in the first half of the ninth century BCE. This palatial acropolis was destroyed a short while after it was built... the date of abandonment of the Jezreel enclosure would be around the middle of the ninth century BCE. The surprise was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identical to the pottery of he city of the palaces at Megiddo."
Finkelstein then uses this to try to establish the dating of the destruction of the Solomonic level to a time past the time of Ahab. But note that it is not the actual absolute chronology from radicarbon 14 that is being used to date this, but the presumption made by Ussishkin that this building work was the palace of Ahab. Problem is, the palace of Ahab was next to a vineyard of Naboth and this enclosure is on the top of a hill, clearly designed as a military lookout. It is said to have been destroyed shortly after being built because of the lack of internal structures not yet built. So what does Finkelstein really have?
He has a military enclosure, newly built, destroyed by Shishak in 871 BCE. Meaning what? Meaning that likely Rehoboam built it during his 6-year co-rulership with Solomon with no connection whatsoever to the palace of Ahab. Thus these archaeologists, apparently just because this compound was located at Jezreel presumed this was the palace of Ahad and thus became confused by the chronology, when in fact, absolutely nothing associates this with Ahab or the time of Ahab, since this clearly would not be a location near a vineyard.
In the meantime, there is no problem placing the setting of this new compound into the Biblical timeline. This is merely consistent with Rehoboam building this new compound late in the reign of Solomon and Shishak destroying it when he came through and destroyed all the other cities. So you see, archaeologists not being that thorough or honest have to be check up after on all their evidence since this is an example of a clear distrtion. And note that Finkelstein himself doesn't say this would have been built by Ahab but says that Ussishkin thought this was Ahab's palace. So it is high-level propaganda, the power of suggestion to lead you to unsubstantiated suppositions.
So getting back to the 70 years of desolation of the land or whether or not there was some continued or partial occupation during the desolation period, we need the precise details of the cities and research involved with drawing to these conclusions because, as you can see above, archaeologists don't always follow the Biblical details nor are aware of them.
Another embarrassing example is that of Ami Mazar who is digging in the city of David.
Here is a typical quote attributed to Mazar:
"The findings suggest that the structure was actually part of the same city wall the Bible says Nehemiah rebuilt, Mazar said. The Book of Nehemiah gives a detailed description of construction of the walls, destroyed earlier by the Babylonians."
The problem here is that Ezra 4:11,12 clearly shows the walls were completed even before the temple was. The description in Nehemiah about his "rebuilding" the walls was thus repair work on the new walls already rebuilt just 16 years after the return. Nehemiah's work only took a mere 52 days! So in fact, Mazar, an archaeologist, thinks that Nehemiah describes the rebuilding of the walls left destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, even though this is long after the temple would have been rebuilt. The temple was completed in the 6th year of Darius. Nehemiah's 52-day repair work was done in the 20th of Artaxerxes. Thus we'd have to presume that Mazar thinks that the Jews rebuilt the city without a wall, leaving the temple without protection until Nehemiah came and threw up a quickie wall in 52 days. That's not what the Bible says. So Mazar might be a great archaeologist, but is a poor Biblical historian, and is making false presumptions about when the wall would have been rebuilt, though a period of 20 years or so probably wouldn't be archaeologically significant. Still, this demonstrates, like Ussishkin, how they are not following the Bible specifically enough to be effective scholars in the field when it comes to the interpretation of their work.
So in CONCLUSION, at this time, we have at least one confirmed archaeological site at Ashkelon that supports the 70-80 years of total desolation described in the Bible. This at least circumstantially challenges the shortened NB Period secular chronology now in place, though supports the Biblical and Josephus timelines that is 26 years longer, allowing the destruction to occur by the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar and still remain desolate 70 years by the 1st of Cyrus, that is, between 525 and 455 BCE. There have been comments, some I've read myself, claiming some cities were continuously occupied in the region, suggesting a contradiction. But so far the specifics of this claim have not come forward to check against which archaeologists are making this claim and on what basis.
So until such evidence actually is vetted, we have to presume no critical archaeological evidence contradicts the 70-year destruction throughout the northern and southern kingdoms after the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. If such evidence shows up and it seems to be valid, like the lack of any evidence the Israelites were trekking through the wilderness for 40 years, then we'll have to deal with that. That's not absolute proof but it is out there as a challenge of archaeology vs the Bible. So we'll have to see. But for now, this continuous occupation in the region is just an unsubstantiated rumor we've tried to confirm but have not yet.
Thank you, Doug, for your information. Cyrus was said to release many nations in exile in his first year to rebuild the land. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates those opposing the Jews were not new settlers recently released, therefore, ther eis also no true historical reference that there were people in that specific region around Judea that I can confirm.
Thank you, again, for helping explore this detail.
LS
