Analysis Archives - Page 10 of 29

The Date of the Beginning of Iron II

In 1996, Israel Finkelstein proposed a significant lowering of dates in the Iron I-II periods in Israel.

This sparked a debate which has often been heated in part because Finkelstein’s conclusions entail a virtual elimination of the United Monarchy as described in the Bible. This is the result of Finkelstein’s dating of the end of the Iron I period, with its poor material culture and lack of monumental construction, to the time after David and Solomon lived.

In an article published in 2008, Amihai Mazar released the results of Carbon 14 studies at four sites where “it is agreed by all that these four destructions mark the end of the Iron Age I.” He reports the results as follows:

After eliminating clear outliers, we reached the following results (all in 68% probability) (see Fig. 3, upper line, for combined averages from these four sites):
End of Qasile X: 1039-979 B.C.E.
End of Megiddo VIA: 1010-943
End of Yoqne‘am XVII: 1045-997
End of Tel Hadar: 1043-979

Just to get a better handle on the matter, I pulled out my calculator to determine the middle of the range for each site: Qasile: 1009; Megiddo: 976; Yoqneam (Jokneam): 1021; Tel Hadar: 1011. So it’s safe to say, based upon these results, that the Iron I ended and Iron II began about 1000 BC.

With the calculator still handy, I tabulated the average of the four dates. It came out to 1004 BC.

That’s a familiar number to students of biblical history who know that (1) Shishak invaded Israel in 926 BC, the fifth year of the rule of Rehoboam, such that (2) Solomon died in 931 BC, after forty years on the throne following (3) David who died in 971 and ruled for 33.5 years in Jerusalem, or 1004 BC. This 1004 BC date was acknowledged by the Municipality of Jerusalem which celebrated the 3000th anniversary of the city in 1996 (mistakenly, because of the missing year “0”).

The Carbon 14 numbers provide nothing more than ranges, with varying amounts of probability, but I thought it curious that the average date of the numbers for the beginning of Iron II just happened to be the year that David began ruling in Jerusalem.

The above quotation is from page 114 of Amihai Mazar, “From 1200 to 850 B.C.E.: Remarks on
Some Selected Archaeological Issues,” pp. 86-120 in Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). Volume 1. The Archaeology, ed. L. L. Grabbe.

A recent article that reveals the lack of precision in Carbon 14 dating is “The Four Pillars of the Low Chronology,” by Daniel A. Frese and Thomas E. Levy, pp. 187-212 in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future.

Tagged 10th Century, Analysis

Evidence for April 3, 33 CE Crucifixion Earthquake?

by Chris McKinny

A recent study of seismological activity carried out in the Dead Sea region by geologist Jefferson Williams claims to have found evidence for an earthquake that can be dated to April 3, 33 CE. This study then goes on to make the claim that this earthquake relates to the crucifixion earthquake mentioned in Matt. 27:51. However, later in the article Williams concedes that the earthquake could have happened some time “before or after the crucifixion” at which point it was “borrowed” by the “author of the Gospel of Matthew.” Jennifer Viegas writes in Discovery News:

To analyze earthquake activity in the region, geologist Jefferson Williams of Supersonic Geophysical and colleagues Markus Schwab and Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences studied three cores from the beach of the Ein Gedi Spa adjacent to the Dead Sea. Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.

In terms of the earthquake data alone, Williams and his team acknowledge that the seismic activity associated with the crucifixion could refer to “an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 A.D. that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments of Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record.” If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory,” they write.Williams is studying yet another possible natural happening associated with the crucifixion – darkness. Three of the four canonical gospels report darkness from noon to 3 PM after the crucifixion. Such darkness could have been caused by a dust storm, he believes. Williams is investigating if there are dust storm deposits in the sediments coincident with the early first century Jerusalem region earthquake.

This last paragraph effectively shoots holes in the somewhat sensationalistic exactness of the claim.

What’s the point of arguing for the calendar week and day in which Jesus was crucified if you are going to say it could have happened any time in 33 CE? Moreover, the fact that he is looking for naturalistic ways of explaining the phenomena mentioned in Matt. 27 reeks of the formula used in “The Exodus Decoded.” So prepare yourself for a Discovery channel documentary in the near future.

That said – if the report is to be trusted – it is quite interesting that there is seismological activity in the period in question. In fact, this lines up quite well with the late Harold Hoehner’s chronology in Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (see pg. 95-114). However, given the caveat of the geological analysis proving to be accurate, this evidence still proves relatively nothing. I suspect scholars will line up along party lines with inerrantists claiming infallible evidence and the rest claiming allegorical etiological explanations (e.g. Arad, Ai/Et-Tell, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.)

Update 6/1/2012
Geologist Jeff Williams has sent me an email clarifying his team’s findings and subsequent interpretations. I have reproduced his clarifications and personal input with his permission below.

Based on his response which expresses a strong desire to maintain objectivity, it is my feeling that this is not a case that should be lumped into the growing sensationalistic pseudo-archaeological, pseudo-scientific “discoveries” related to Jesus. You can also check out some more of there research here.

An early first century earthquake shows up in the Dead Sea sediments for which the historical record (that we know of) shows no plausible candidates. However, there is mention of this earthquake in the New Testament. In fact, we added no new information about the date of the crucifixion. We took previous work by other authors largely based on astronomical calculations pertaining to the Jewish Lunar Calendar which assigned a range of likely dates for the crucifixion and compared them with our geologic estimate of the age of the earthquake; which was dated to have occurred between 26 and 36 AD. We also performed a geomechanical analysis to examine all historically reported earthquakes within a 40 year time span around 30 AD to see if it was likely that any of them would have deformed the sediments. None appeared to be likely candidates. Then we made some conclusions which are listed in the abstract of our article.

The abstract of our article is reproduced below :
This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. We have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory.

Finally, I think I should explain who I am and what I am about.
I am first and foremost a scientist. I am also agnostic. I assume the New Testament is a human document that contains errors. I am not trying to prove or disprove the Bible. I am treating the statement by Matthew that there was an earthquake on the day of the crucifixion as a hypothesis that needs to be tested. I will publish whatever I can coax out of the sediments; whether this supports or contradicts biblical accounts. I have much respect for people of faith but I personally do not rely on faith. I am naturally curious and don’t know what the end result will be of the research I am undertaking.

Tagged Analysis, Jerusalem

Qeiyafa Shrines: Garfinkel Responds

Yosef Garfinkel, excavator of Khirbet Qeiyafa, has written responses to some of the recent questions about the cultic material uncovered at the site.

To Aren Maeir he addressed questions concerning calling the shrines “arks.” He argues that a more appropriate term than shrine or building model is the biblical term “ark.”

I proposed that the technical term of such items, in their own time, was “Aron Elohim” (box for keeping god symbols). Each religion kept different gods or goddesses in such boxes. In Middle Bronze Ashkelon such example was found with a small calf figurine inside it. The bible described a portable shrine (“Aron”) in various traditions and it was translated into English as: “The Ark of the Covenant”, “The Ark of the Lord”, and other names. I am not talking about this ark, or any other specific ark mentioned in the biblical tradition, but that the term “Aron Elohim” was used to describe this category of objects.

Maeir responds at length, rejecting the proposal. He writes, in part:

There is simply no supporting archaeological, biblical and ANE textual sources that imply this directly (and as far as I know, even indirectly). To this one can add that if “Ark/Aron” was the term used for these and various other types of objects, I think one should expect some extra-biblical mention of this term. Even if these small models were called “arks” – it is clear that the “Aron Elohim” referred to in the biblical text was envisaged as something quite different – see the Aron Brit Adonai that the Philistines capture in the battle of Eben Ezer and moves around Philistia – would it be moved around in a wagon drawn by oxen if so small?

In a comment on that post, Victor Hurowitz rejects the use of the term ark, insisting that these are actually temple models.

The temple models from Yossi’s dig should be compared with well known parallels from Yavneh and elsewhere. In my opinion they resemble the miniature shrines you can find in private houses and on street corners in the far east.. No Temple was found at Keiyafah, and these two models probably came from private homes and represent a family parallel to the official cult.

Garfinkel addressed several other issues on the blog of Luke Chandler, including concerns raised about his claims of aniconism.

Indeed one of them has two guardian lions and birds on the roof, but these are clearly different from similar items in Canaanites, Philistines, Edomite and even sites of the Kingdom of Israel, where naked goddesses were found attached to the models. We never talk about monotheistic cult here, but instead draw attention to the absence of iconic representations. I think that aniconic cult evolved over a large period of time, with deep struggles between those who accepted it and those who still believed in graven images. In Khirbet Qeiyafa we see a strong attitude toword aniconic cult. This needs to be addressed and discussed.

Yesterday I was interviewed about the Qeiyafa discoveries on the Science News Flash produced by Reasons to Believe. A link on that page will take you to a previous post on “Avoiding Crackpot Archaeology.” Krista Bontrager offers some good advice on how to evaluate the latest sensational claim.

Tagged 10th Century, Analysis, Shephelah

More on the Qeiyafa Shrines

A lot has been written about the recent announcement of two portable shrines discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa. I might draw your attention to a small portion of what has been written in the last two days.

To get a better sense of just what is depicted on the shrines, start with the captions on Luke Chandler’s post.

Luke also addresses the question of whether the shrines are “aniconic,” though as discussion in the comments there indicate it seems best to recognize that while the shrines have depictions of animals, this does not necessarily violate the biblical command against worshipping images.

John Hobbins says that the new discoveries are “boring” because “they are compatible with biblical traditions about the time period in question.”

When you see similar shrines such as those posted by Tom Verenna and Owen Chesnut, the uniqueness of these discoveries is certainly diminished.

Leen Ritmeyer rejects any connection between these shrines and the temple, declaring that “their
origin is patently Pagan and not Biblical.”

Nadav Na’aman believes that the shrines were Canaanite and “had no connection to Jerusalem.”

Aren Maeir makes some brief observations and asks, “Why does this prove ANYTHING about the
accuracy of the bible, the existence of the United Monarchy, etc.?”

James McGrath provides a lengthy list of links.

Finally, it may be worth observing that much of the present discussion concerns the sensational interpretation of the objects and that if the excavators did not promote theories without sufficient evidence these discoveries would be like all the others—described in excavation reports and unknown to most. The question, then, is whether increased publicity is worth inflated or inaccurate claims.

Tagged 10th Century, Analysis, Discoveries, Shephelah

Why No Esther in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Probably every tour guide who visits the site of Qumran makes note of the fact that a portion of every Old Testament book was discovered in the nearby caves with the exception of Esther (given that Ezra-Nehemiah were a single book). You may have heard a suggestion or two offered for this lack, but I found helpful a summary of possibilities given by Sidnie White Crawford in her article on the Book of Esther in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1: 269).

1. The fact that no fragments have been preserved is simply owing to accident or chance. The book is relatively short and may have been in existence in the community but simply not preserved or discovered.

2. The male community at Qumran was not interested in a book in which the hero was a female.

3. The Qumran community was opposed to the book which describes a Jewish woman marrying a Gentile king and not following the Jewish laws.

4. The book of Esther was not known in the land of Israel in the first century.

5. The book was written too late to be included in the body of sacred scrolls.

I would be inclined to believe that because of #2 and #3, #1 is true. It may also be observed that the book of Esther is never quoted in the New Testament, nor is Purim mentioned.

Cliffs near Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found

Tagged Analysis, Dead Sea

The Real Indiana Jones

It’s May 1, not April 1, but it might as well be with an article entitled “The Real Indiana Jones” that includes an interview with me. Originally published in the excellent Insight’s Archaeology Handbook, the interviews with Bryant Wood and me are now online. Here’s a snippet:

What can archaeology prove or teach us about the Bible? What are its limitations?

BW: Archaeological findings have revolutionized our understanding of the Bible. Through the discoveries of archaeology, we have ancient texts that help us better understand the original languages of the Bible as well as the world of the Bible. The people, places, history, religion, and material culture of the Bible are much better understood as a result of archaeological finds. Many finds are limited in that they are “silent,” and have to be interpreted. This leads to a variety of understandings by various scholars.

TB: Archaeology illuminates the world of the Bible. The Bible was written to a contemporary audience, who didn’t need an explanation of what a house looked like, how a city gate functioned, or what types of tombs people were buried in. Its original readers knew all of this and much more. But today we live in a different world and culture, and archaeology helps to bridge the gap so that we can more properly understand the context in which the Bible was written. Archaeology cannot prove the Bible as a whole, but it can support and confirm the Bible’s records of events. Some people today think that the Bible was a myth written hundreds of years after the events it purports to describe, but archaeological evidence reveals the names of people and places that confirm that the Scriptures were written by first-hand witnesses. Archaeology cannot prove many aspects of the text, such as the faith of the people or the supernatural work of God. Furthermore, archaeology has a significant weakness: All discoveries are subject to a human interpreter, who is fallible. Many archaeological discoveries have been misinterpreted, both by those who believe the Scriptures and by those who deny them.

This is the nature of the discipline of archaeology, and believers should not place too much confidence in the discoveries of archaeology per se because of the ambiguity involved in much of the evidence.

The full article is here. Now where’s my bullwhip?

Archaeologists interpret stratigraphy at Tell Deir Alla (Succoth?)

Tagged Analysis