by
Damien F. Mackey
“Then Antiochus [‘Epiphanes’] and
his forces built high walls and strong towers in the area north of the Temple,
turning it into a fort. They brought in a group of traitorous Jews and
installed them there. They also brought in arms and supplies and stored in the
fort all the loot that they had taken in Jerusalem. This fort became a great
threat to the city”.
I Maccabees 1:33-35
According
to this ancient text, the fort of king Antiochus lay “in the area north
of the Temple”.
Now archaeologists, excited
that they believe they have found this ancient Greek fort, or Acra, place its
location “south [my emphasis] of … the Temple Mount”.
A section of fortification was discovered
under the Givati parking lot in the City of David south of the Old City walls
and the Temple Mount. The fortification is believed to have been part of a
system of defenses known as the Acra fortress, built by Antiochus as he sought
to quell a Jewish priestly rebellion centered on the Temple.
From this I might conclude either that the Temple
Mount has been wrongly located/identified, or that archaeologists have not uncovered
the actual Seleucid fort.
But, having already in my article:
Third Temple and the Red Heifer
(following Dr. Ernest Martin) that the site of the
Dome of the Rock is not the true site of the Jewish Temples, then I would
expect that an “area north of the Temple” would today be interpreted (but
wrongly) as lying “south of … the Temple Mount”.
Having made this clarification, then one may be
hopeful that the archaeologists really did, in 2015, discover the ancient Greek
Acra.
Here is a description of the find (continuing with
the timesofisrael site above):
In what archaeologists are describing as “a
solution to one of the great archaeological riddles in the history of
Jerusalem,” researchers with the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Tuesday
that they have found the remnants of a fortress used by the Seleucid Greek king
Antiochus Epiphanes in his siege of Jerusalem in 168 BCE.
A section of fortification was discovered
under the Givati parking lot in the City of David south of the Old City walls
and the Temple Mount.
Mackey’s comment: The Givati parking lot is situated in the region of
Silwan (see map below), well to the south
of the so-called Temple Mount.
The fortification is believed to have been
part of a system of defenses known as the Acra fortress, built by Antiochus as
he sought to quell a Jewish priestly rebellion centered on the Temple.
Antiochus is remembered in the Jewish tradition as the villain of the Hanukkah
holiday who sought to ban Jewish religious rites, sparking the Maccabean
revolt.
The Acra fortress was used by his Seleucids to
oversee the Temple and maintain control over Jerusalem. The fortress was manned
by Hellenized Jews, who many scholars believe were then engaged in a
full-fledged civil war with traditionalist Jews represented by the Maccabees.
Mercenaries paid by Antiochus rounded out the force.
Lead sling stones and bronze arrowheads stamped with the symbol
of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, evidence of the attempts to conquer the
Acra citadel in Jerusalem’s City of David in Maccabean days. (Clara
Amit/courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority)
….
The discovery of the Acra’s foundations ends
over a century of intense speculation over its location, the archaeologists
said Tuesday. The fortress is mentioned in the Book of Maccabees I and II, and
by the Roman-era Jewish historian Josephus.
The archaeological record from the period of
Seleucid Greek control of Jerusalem is scant, a fact that contributed to the
difficulty in resolving the longstanding mystery.
But in recent months, researchers digging at
the site slowly unearthed a massive wall, the base of a tower “with impressive
proportions,” 20 meters (66 feet) long and fully four meters (13 feet) wide,
the IAI said. The wall’s outer base was coated with a layer of dust, stones and
plaster, a slippery slope deliberately added to the wall to make it difficult
for attackers to scale it.
The dig, which has been ongoing for the past
10 years, also uncovered lead sling stones, bronze arrowheads and stones shot
by a ballista, an ancient catapult. The ballista stones were stamped with the
image of a pitchfork, the symbol of Antiochus’s reign. Coins found at the spot
were dated from the reign of aforementioned Antiochus IV Epiphanes to the reign
of Antiochus VII Sidetes, who died in 129 BCE.
The finds were “silent remnants of the battles
that took place there in the days of the Hasmoneans,” the priestly family that
led the Maccabean rebellion, the archaeologists said.
The Acra fortress remained a symbolic and
strategic foothold of Seleucid power in Jerusalem until it was finally
conquered by Simon Maccabeus in 141 BCE, after a long siege during which the
Hasmonean king essentially starved out the Greek defenders.
Remains of the Acra citadel and tower in the City of David in
Jerusalem. (Assaf Peretz/courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)
Lead sling stones and bronze arrowheads stamped with the symbol
of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, evidence of the attempts to conquer the
Acra citadel in Jerusalem’s City of David in Maccabean days. (Clara
Amit/courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority)
“This sensational discovery allows us for the
first time to reconstruct the layout of settlement and the actual look of the
city on the eve of the Hasmonean revolt,” the excavation’s directors Dr. Doron
Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets and Salome Cohen were quoted as saying.
“The new archaeological finds testify to the
establishment of a properly fortified stronghold constructed on the high
bedrock cliff overlooking the steep slopes of the City of David hill,” they
said. “This stronghold controlled all means of approach to the Temple, and cut
the Temple off from the southern parts of the city. The many coins dating from
the reign of Antiochus IV [Epiphanes] to that of Antiochus VII [Sidetes] and
the large number of wine jars (amphorae) that were imported from the Aegean
region to Jerusalem and were found at the site bear witness to the citadel’s
age, as well as to the non-Jewish identity of its inhabitants.”
….
Mackey’s comment: The conventional dates for the Maccabean era given in
the above article will need to undergo a sharp revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment