Comments on: Abel Beth Maacah in the Bible

By: Alice Pontius

Alice Pontius — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:51:14 +0000

Many if not all excavations reveal the accuracy of the Bible. God doesn’t make mistakes but mankind doesn’t know and weren’t there when these cities were living, active dwellings of mankind. God doesn’t change and His word shall stand. I understand that there are many views about this subject and I have heard many of them. However, I choose to believe the God whom I worship and the Christ that He sent, are perfect. If there is a lack of understanding, it is on man’s part.

By: James Galbreath

James Galbreath — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:22:21 +0000

Thank you, Professor Monroe, for this interesting Biblical link to your excavation site. It’s set me to thinking, especially about the following paragraph:
“The point here is that none of these Biblical reflections on the city is to be trusted on its own. To privilege any one passage as “historical” is to silence the other contradictory representations, to reduce to two dimensions a multi-dimensional memory of the site that incorporates a number of “truths,” some of which may not be historical, as such.”
Perhaps the word “trusted” evokes criticism; could “exclusive” capture the meaning better? Couldn’t the claim of being part of the heritage of Israel and the connection with Aramean people both have merit simultaneously? My modern analogue would be “Is the city of Chicago Italian, Polish, Greek, African American, Hispanic, Nigerian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc.? The answer is clearly “Yes.” Couldn’t people of a cosmopolitan population (perhaps not as large as Chicago!) have claimed heritage in Abel Beth Maacah? Perhaps your thorough archaeological excavations will throw helpful light on the subjects as you progress. I look forward to reading more of your findings!

By: jimr51

jimr51 — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:29:58 +0000

At least Ms. Monroe’s bias is on honest display, so that her conclusions can be weighed against the filter she applied before turning over the first spade of earth. Jeffrey hit it on the head…it is HIGHLY LIKELY that more than one city had the same name. No different from the situation today…consider how many cities in the U.S. have the exact same names.

By: Mr. buck

Mr. buck — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:56:50 +0000

“To further complicate matters, 1 Kings 15:20 (1 Chronicles 16:4) lists Abel Beth Maacah among the cities conquered by the Aramaean King Ben Hadad, in the early 9th century, a detail that makes little sense if 2 Samuel 10:6 is to be trusted.”

You already revealed your hand: you don’t trust 2 Samuel, and refuse to entertain the possibility that it was already in print by the dawn of the 9th century. Thus without even finishing the evaluation of the excavation, your conclusions are not to be trusted.

By: Jeffrey Siegel

Jeffrey Siegel — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:22:48 +0000

I believe you’re forgetting the “if” that you yourself wrote; “If Bait Maacah and Maacah are identical”. Many places had identical names (Beth Lehem in Judea, Beth Lehem in the Galilee, several places named Gilgal, etc.) and here, they are not even identical!