fbpx

I have a lot of books in my office, but only a few are within arm’s reach. Those are ones that I refer to most often. One of the best research tools for biblical sites is the New Encyclopedia for Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. I use this four-volume set frequently, as it is the single best source for detailed information about archaeological data about sites in Israel. In looking over my online “book list,” I noticed that the price is now lower than it ever has been – $150 with free shipping at Eisenbrauns (compared to Amazon’s $335). I also see that there are only 4 in stock. I don’t know if that’s the last four or if there are more that they can order. In any case, I highly recommend it for $335; at $150, it is a great deal! I am told that there is a “fifth volume” with updates of certain sites in process, but as far as I know, it hasn’t been released yet. Here are the full details from Eisenbrauns.

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land - 4 Volume Set

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land – 4 Volume Set

Edited by Ephraim Stern
Carta, Jerusalem, 1993
1552 pages with 3000 photos + 32 plates + 700 maps, charts, drawings, English
Cloth
ISBN: 0132762889
List Price: $335.00
Your Price: $150.75
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~STENEWEN

Share:

If you’re wondering when the next BiblePlaces Newsletter will come out, the editor is as well. Soon, hopefully. It’s not the war, it’s other things like family, vacations, projects, and real work.

I can, however, recommend another free newsletter which is faithful to its monthly schedule. The ABR Electronic Newsletter is published mid-month, every month, by the Associates for Biblical Research. In keeping with the twin foci of the organization, the newsletters usually have articles on biblical archaeology and creation/evolution issues.

This month’s issue, which came out today, has the best report on the 2006 season at Hazor that I’ve seen anywhere (without the puff that seems to typify mainstream news sources on archaeology digs this summer). And there’s a column on the religious origins of the “Big Bang” theory. Unlike some other e-newsletters, the commercial aspect of it is minimal.

I do not see how you can get a copy of this month’s newsletter; it is apparently not online. But you can subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to abrnews at dejazzd.com with the subject line “Newsletter” (without quotes).

UPDATE: G.M. Grena has found an archive of all back issues of the newsletter.

Share:

The “Megiddo church” has (already!) a published excavation report. The title gives away the conclusion of what the excavators believe the building was: A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio). I wonder if it would have attracted any attention if they had first announced it as a “prayer hall” instead of a “church.”

It’s 59 pages, due out in October, and costs $20. Get it from Eisenbrauns.


HT: JPS

Share:

As is often the case, the publication of a book is accompanied by an article in a popular magazine and a summary in a newspaper article. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t seek out mainstream scholars to get their take, and so from reading their article, you might conclude that scholars no longer believe that Essenes live at Qumran. That is just not so.

The book The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates, edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-baptiste Humbert, and Jurgen Zangenberg includes a chapter on which the articles are based.

The magazine article, Qumran – The Pottery Factory , is in the Sept/Oct edition of the Biblical Archaeology Review ($50 subscription to read online; much less to subscribe to the print edition).

That Qumran was not home to the Essenes has been suggested before, with theories that identify the site as everything from a Roman villa, military fortress, fortified farm, and now a pottery factory. To be sure, Magen and Peled are respected scholars who have excavated at Qumran. But their view is clearly in the minority. When you read a statement like this, “There is not an iota of evidence that it was a monastery,” red flags should be flying. That the majority of scholars would hold to a certain interpretation without one iota of evidence tells us more about the speaker than the theory. That the only outside scholar that the NYT quotes is Norman Golb should cause all the bells to be sounding. Anyone who has spent time in the area has to just bust out laughing when reading Magen’s idea that these caves are “the last spot they could hide the scrolls before descending to the shore” of the Dead Sea. I can just picture these guys running away from the Romans and just stopping by Cave 1 to drop off some scrolls! Oh wait, we need some jars for these – quick, run to the pottery factory and bring some back here! Those who have been to Cave 1 will understand the humor more; it’s not exactly “on the way” (Cave 2 even less so). The proximity of Caves 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the site is telling as well. They are all less than 50 meters from the inhabitation. The attempts to separate the scrolls from the site are an utter failure.

I certainly wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading the articles or the book about this theory. But here’s the problem: too often these minority theories get the sensational coverage and people read about them and, lacking any other knowledge, are taken in. Instead, they should be first directed to the theories which have long been held and tested. After reviewing the mountain of evidence that Qumran was an Essene settlement, then go and weigh it against the latest view.

There are a lot of good books on the subject, but one of the best is Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another advantage to this route: this book will cost you $13 instead of $147 for the one above.

There’s a video to go along with the NYT article here.

Side point: if scholars can’t agree on the function of a site in a relatively late period where there is lots of archaeological and historical evidence, how is it that they can be so certain about events much earlier in history for which almost no evidence has been preserved? The less evidence we have, the more certainty that scholars have.

Share:

The Biblical Archaeology Society seems to have gone after William Dever this week, with its publication of a non-complimentary book review of Did God Have a Wife? in the Sept/Oct issue. And Anson Rainey has a (web-only) column which also skewers Dever:

As Frank Cross, usually considered the dean of paleographers, once said to me, students who could not handle the languages went instead into archaeology. Sad but often true, as in Dever’s case.

The interesting thing is that if Rainey and Dever can’t get along, it really shows just how fragmented the biblical-archaeological studies spectrum is (both claim to stake the “middle ground” as they fight off “minimalists” and “fundamentalists”). Time permitting, I’ll have more to say about this in the future. It really says a lot about the state of the evidence.

BAS has links to some “breaking news” this week, as well as an update of this summer’s archaeological excavations in Israel and Lebanon.

Share:

Robert Cornuke has led many to believe that he has found the route of the Red Sea crossing, the location of Mt. Sinai, the place of Paul’s shipwreck, and, most recently, the Ark of Noah. Because of his failed track record, his imitation of the charlatan Ron Wyatt, and his own website dubbing him as “Indiana Jones,” I view Mr. Cornuke’s claims with suspicion. Yes, by the world’s standards, I am crazy: I believe the biblical account is historically reliable. But I’m not crazy enough to buy what Mr. Wyatt or Mr. Cornuke are selling. But now we find out that he’s selling something else.

In an interview in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Mr. Cornuke said,

I guess what my wife says my business is, we sell hope. Hope that it could be true, hope that there is a God.

The problem with this is that the standard needed to establish an item as justifying “hope” is substantially lower than establishing an item as actual, genuine, or persuasive. In the case of Noah’s Ark then, Mr. Cornuke need only have something that looks like wood. It doesn’t need to be wood; it doesn’t need to be the right kind of wood; it doesn’t need to be on the right mountain; and it doesn’t need to be from Noah’s Ark. It simply needs to resemble what Cornuke’s audience is looking for. If it’s possible, then you’ve succeeded. You’ve provided “hope.”

The problem with this, of course, is that hope dashed is worse than hope never raised. There’s perhaps no better example of this than Noah’s Ark. Noah’s Ark has been “discovered” so many times that the most devout Bible believer with any knowledge of the former “discoveries” simply won’t be taken in again. Some, no doubt, tire of the fraud perpetuated by “Bible believers” and choose another way. The world, perhaps at times curious if there really is some truth in the Scriptures, simply laughs at the foolish gullibility and rationalizes that such gullibility must also account for their belief in the Biblical stories. In the end, all are worse off for the perpetuation of fraudulent “discoveries.”

There is an alternative. If there is a Noah’s Ark that still exists, conduct the study carefully (1-2 years is not carefully!). Bring in well-regarded experts to study the relevant issues (geology, geography, archaeology, etc.). Do not let professional policemen promote Scriptural interpretations which run counter to the consensus of Bible-believing scholars (don’t let that scholar word scare you: scholar means “professional” – it means they do this all their life; it means they know the sources and resources and are not easily deceived). And lastly, don’t publicize. Yes, I know that you love the publicity. You love the book sales and you love the contributions. But wait. Make sure that everything is in order. Make sure that there are no holes. Make sure that you really have it this time. This is the test if what you really desire is truth or fame.

You see, we already have “hope.” There are so many confirmations of the biblical record from the historical and archaeological sources that we have hope that Scripture is trustworthy. We have thousands of confirming evidences, and we don’t need that extra one if it is in fact a false hope.

Share: