Omigosh.

That is a textbook example of Denialism.

Denialism. And another blatant instance of the politicization of archaeology by journalists with no interest in history or science. Nazi "archaeology" functioned on the same basis of fantasy and pretext.

Does anyone at the BBC really think it's an open question who inhabited Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah? If (as I would hope) no one does, the paragraph in question is nothing but an effort to pander to Arab bigots. Why such pandering from a self-styled "news service"?

It is simple nonsense. I would like to state my shock at this type of journalism is not very profound however. It seems to be the standard in modern journalism in most respects around the world. It is a shame however that it is funded through means of unwilling or even unknowing contributions. I recall one of Margaret Thatchers more distinguished pursuits in the direction of completely privatising the BBC. Unfortunately for us all, the task went down with the ship. Perhaps the people of the UK will "revisit" this organisation. As for Jerusalem, well lets just say Arafat and friends shall meet the truth in the not so distant future.

So it does constitute proof that Hebrews settled the area first? No, no it doesn't. It simply dates when a tunnel was made which dovetails nicely with the Biblical record which itself places this event 700 years after the Hebrews arived in the area. It is questionable why the BBC inserted this caveat, but there is absolutely no doubt as to the validity of the statement. This has jack all to do with "Temple denial" - the First Temple's construction predated the tunnel by some 250 years - and it is a real stretch to equate the two.

But who lived in the area before the arrival of the Semite peoples?

The occupants of Jerusalem in 700BC were primarily Jews, along with some Phoenicians and other pagan tribes. There were no Muslims or Christians in 700BC

The occupants of Jerusalem in 700 BC were Hebrew tribespeople who were becoming urbanized. By our definition of the word, they were not "Jews" at all.

So, Smith, what's "our" definition of a Jew, and how did the Hebrews of the Old Testament not qualify?

"By our definition of the word, they were not "Jews" at all."

Speak for yourself white man. The men who built that tunnel were, like the members of my synagogue are, members of Kol Yisroel, part of a family, Beit Yakov.

Had they suffered the Babaylonian exile? Had they heard all of the Prophets? Had they been oppressed by the Selucids? Driven out of their land by the Romans? written the Talmud? Been terrorized by Crusaders? Expelled from Spain? Burned in the Shoah? Returned to the Land? Founded a State? Fought 6 wars against islamo-facism?

No, of course not, that was 100 generations ago. But they were my house, my tribe, my people. I will not be separated from them by you, smith or by your little dog, arafat, may his name be blotted out.

Harvard email address.
Figures

"to see it now embraced so protectively by the BBC is shocking, to say the least."

Captain: I am shcoked, shoked to see gambeling at this establishement!

Waiter: Here are your winnings, Captain.

Captain: Thank you.

... a great many masks have slipped in the last couple of years, haven't they?

I think you're all missing the future significance of the jew-baiting going on in our finer institutions and on the liberal street. Until lately Jews were chattels of the liberal plantation. They thought they were leaders but I hope that they've been cured of this lately. When they dared think outside the liberal box they had to be punished.

Think on this. What will the fate of blacks be if they start to question the mighty doctrines of the golden folk of liberalism.

Ask the Romans how you treat a slave group that gets uppity.

Not meaning to be petty but I always suspected the golden folk when their personal habits so closely paralleled Hitler's and Himmler's (vegans who hate smoking and spend a lot of effort glorifying sylvan pursuits).

Does this form of weak mind driven madness present as vegans who hate smoking or does the lack of meat and a decent cigar drive you to political madness.

It sounds suspicious.

But they don't actually say that Jerusalem was not a Jewish holy place at that time.

The warning, rather, suggests rather a connection between the current Palestinians and the pre-Jewish Canaanites.

There is NO connection between the current Palestinians and the pre-Jewish Canaanites.

The Palestinians of today are primarily Arabs from Jordan who were living in what, in 1967, was Jordan, and prior to 1948 was Trans-Jordan. The Jordanians which are from the Hashemite Arabs claim to be descendents of Abraham, from the tribe of Hashem. No relation to Canaanites.

"But they say it does not constitute proof that any particular race or community settled in Jerusalem before any other, and shouldn't be used to claim any kind of primacy."

The ancient Greeks would claim of their cities that they were autochthons. Literally born from the land. Their myths, such as the sown-men of Thebes and Erechtheus in Athens, half dragon half man born of the earth, reflected this idea.

The "Palestinians" (a word that they cannot pronounce as their is no P sound in Arabic) often claim that they are autochthons; That they are the decendants of the Philistiens (there is that pesky P again) or the Canaanites; and that the Jews have no historical connection to the Land.

The Palestinian's allies among European religious academics have backed their claim by asserting that the TANAK (the Hebrew Old Testament") dates from the era of the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucids (Books of Maccabees) and proves nothing about Jewish rights in the Land.

The signifgance of the Siloam is that it is physical evidence that TANAK sets forth actual history.

Can it prove that the Palestinians are not autochthons. No, despite the admonition of Numbers
33 (51 . . . When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. . .), there is no evidence that Jews were the only inhabitants of the Land. OTOH, it does not establish that the Palestinians are in any way related to the non-Jewish people mentioned in TANAK.

And the Jews, remember that they never claimed to be autochthons. Dt 26:5 "My father was a wandering Aramean." But what TANAK does show is that the Jews entered the land at least 27 centuries ago and may be as much as 32 centuries ago. Nor does TANAK show that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews. II Sam 5 reports that it was occupied by the Jebusites and that David conquered it.

Conclusion. Dating the Siloam tunnel does not prove the Palestinians are not long time occupants of the Land, but it does show that TANAK sets forth history and that the claims of the Palestinians and their allies that TANAK is fiction are themselves fiction.