Gordon Govier has written an excellent article in this month’s Christianity Today on the problem of amateur “archaeologists” who make sensational, but unfounded, claims. As Govier notes, I have commented on the issue here before. What this means to you: the next time someone forwards you an email that shows chariot wheels under the Red Sea or similar phenomena, hit the delete key.
The May/June issue of Biblical Archaeology Review arrived in the mail yesterday (and it’s online here), and it includes an article entitled Nebi Samwil: Where Samuel Crowned Israel’s First King.
The article is primarily a means of making public the results of the excavations at the site by Yitzhak Magen from 1992 until 2003. An article like this is to me a primary reason for the existence of BAR: it puts otherwise inaccessible material into the hands of the average Bible reader. I’ve read a summary of Magen’s report elsewhere before, but the book is very expensive and won’t be at your local library. With that commendation of the article and magazine aside, I’ll tell you why I think the central premise of the article, that Nebi Samwil is biblical Mizpah, is wrong.
The most detailed geographic passage in the Bible mentioning Mizpah is 1 Kings 15:17-22. In the story, the northern king Baasha takes Ramah away from the Judean king Asa. When Asa succeeds in getting Baasha to withdraw, Asa fortifies Geba and Mizpah. By fortifying Geba, Asa ensures that Ramah cannot be taken by the road from the east. By fortifying Mizpah (according to where nearly everyone except Magen locates it), he prevents Ramah from being retaken by the road from the north. If Mizpah is at Nebi Samwil, Asa was an idiot.
Though this story is critical to the premise, the article only deals with it in a footnote. There are two problems with Magen’s argument as presented in the footnote. First, it wrongly identifies Gibeah of Saul (= Tel el-Ful) with Geba of Benjamin (= Jaba). More importantly, it doesn’t make any sense what Asa gained by fortifying the two sites that Magen says he did (Nebi Samwil and Gibeah).
Baasha could simply come back, re-fortify Ramah, and Asa is back at square one. But if you control en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) and Jaba (Geba), you control the two main arteries into Judah from the north and prevent Baasha from returning to Ramah.
BAR has a map but it omits key data.
I made this using the free Bible Mapper.
As labeled, Gibeah=Tell el-Ful; Mizpah = Tell en-Nasbeh; Geba = Jaba
The archaeological evidence from the Iron Age at Nebi Samwil is so pathetic that it’s a wonder that Magen even tried. Knowing that you can read the whole thing yourself, I don’t mind isolating a few clips to make the point:
We did not find any remains from the time of the Judges… [that is, the time when Samuel allegedly crowned Saul here!]
Interestingly enough, we found not a single structure or even a standing wall from this period. On this basis, it might be tempting to conclude that the site was unoccupied at this time [Iron II]…. [He’s right; it is tempting…]
All this suggests caution in concluding that the site was not occupied until later. [In other words, the natural conclusion is that it wasn’t occupied until later, but we found a few scraps of evidence that should be considered.]
I commend him for his honesty, but does he really want us to assume that because he found a few Iron Age seal impressions that the site was a major military fortress in the Iron Age? We’re not idiots either. (Compare these remains with the significant Iron Age evidence at en-Nasbeh and it’s an open-shut case.)
Iron Age wall at en-Nasbeh
Here’s a reality I’ve seen time and again: archaeologists often identify their site with something biblical, even if the evidence is thin. It’s a natural human response to want to be associated with something great, and if it’s archaeology in the land of Israel, a biblical connection brings lots of interest. Let’s face it: most of us wouldn’t read the article if it was all about Hellenistic buildings and a Crusader castle. But here’s what this all means to you: be careful before trusting the archaeologist when he claims the site he is excavating is mentioned in the Bible.
- Tagged Analysis
Israel Finkelstein, Lily Singer-Avitz, Ze’ev Herzog, and David Ussishkin have written an article in the Tel Aviv journal entitled “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” Jim West has posted the article in pdf format here (but after Jan 29 here).
The abstract:
Recent excavations at the City of David have revealed a set of massive walls constructed of large undressed stones. Excavator Eilat Mazar has presented them as the remains of a single building, which she labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’. Mazar interpreted the ‘Large Stone Structure’ as part of a big construction complex, which had also included the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ on the slope. She dated her ‘Large Stone Structure’ to ca. 1000 BCE and identified it as the palace of King David. We argue that: (1) the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to a single building; (2) the more elaborate walls may be associated with elements uncovered by Macalister and Duncan in the 1920s and should possibly be dated to the Hellenistic period; (3) the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ represents at least two phases of construction— the lower (downslope) and earlier, possibly dating to the Iron IIA in the 9th century BCE, and the later (which connects to the Hasmonaean First Wall upslope) dating to the Hellenistic period.
Their brutal conclusion:
Eilat Mazar’s excavations in the City of David add several points of information to what we know about the history of this problematic site. Yet, the main find—the ‘Large Stone Structure’—was not properly interpreted and dated. First, it seems to consist of several elements, mainly a rectangular building in the west and the citywall in the east. Second, all one can safely say is that its various elements post-date the late Iron I/early Iron IIA and predate the Roman period. Circumstantial evidence seems to suggest the dating of most elements to the late Hellenistic period.
Beyond archaeology, one wonders about the interpretation of the finds. The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar’s literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence. This is an excellent example of the weakness of the traditional, highly literal, biblical archaeology—a discipline that dominated research until the 1960s, that was weakened and almost disappeared from the scene in the later years of the 20th century, and that reemerged with all its attributes in the City of David in 2005.
Revising Mazar’s date from the 10th century to the 2nd-1st century is a huge correction (it reminds one of the 1000-year errors that Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister regularly made). And this charge is made not in a casual conversation, but in a major journal. But the authors make no attempt to hide their own agenda: they hate “biblical archaeology.” While Mazar is possibly guilty of finding what she is looking for, I have trouble imagining a scenario where Finkelstein would agree with any conclusion which supports the traditional biblical interpretation. Perhaps herein lies a test: if every archaeological discovery of a certain excavator seems to be of a structure mentioned in the Bible, be suspicious. But if an archaeologist is able to find a reason to reject every discovery with a biblical connection, he may not be worthy of your trust.
There’s another lesson in this debate: much in archaeology is ambiguous, and multiple conclusions are possible. In most cases, a major issue is not at stake and the conclusion of the excavator is not carefully evaluated. But there are many, many examples where a site, level, or subject is re-analyzed and a significantly different conclusion is reached. For me it means one thing: thou shalt not trust in archaeology. If certain conclusions are the primary support of one’s faith, it’s quite possible that one day those conclusions will be questioned (before, perhaps, being re-adopted). Many today use archaeology in a similar way but for an opposite result: certain archaeological conclusions are their evidence that the Bible is not an accurate historical record. To all amateurs, I suggest a careful consideration of the ambiguity of much of archaeological evidence. In the hands of an interpreter (usually called an archaeologist), archaeology is no science.
In a blog comment, Aren Maier indicates that the debate is just beginning:
As someone who has seen the evidence and heard both Eilat Mazar present her case and Finkelstien, Ussishkin, Herzog and Singer-Avitz present their counterarguments, I believe that one can say that:
1) Eilat has overstated her case that she has found “David’s palace”. She HAS found a large building in the City of David, dating to the 10th or 9th cent. BCE.
2) From an archaeological point of view, the “Hellenistic” dating that Finkelstine et al. have suggested is to say the least, very unconvincing. This though is not the place to go in to details.
Sometime I’d like to post my own thoughts on Mazar’s “palace of David.” I’m not competent to analyze the stratigraphical issues, but I do think that she’s made some significant mistakes in biblical interpretation. And that’s from one who believes that David had a palace and the biblical record of it is reliable.
*The article is worth downloading for the bibliography alone, if you’re into that kind of thing.
The Israel Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of the palace of Queen Helena of Adiabene today. You can read about it in this Jerusalem Post article or in this AFP article. The JPost article also has a great photo of the excavation area. Here are some parts of the JPost article with my thoughts.
The site, which has been unearthed during a six-month ‘salvage’ excavation in the Givati parking lot just outside the Dung Gate ahead of the planned expansion of the Western Wall car park, also indicates that the ancient City of David was much larger than previously thought, said archeologist Doron Ben-Ami, who is directing the dig at the site.
If you’ve been in Jerusalem in the last five years, you’ve seen this gaping hole just south of the Dung Gate – this is the same place. I worked with our students as volunteers in digging here back in the fall of 2003, so it’s not exactly a new excavation as the article implies.
Jerusalem from southwest; excavation area circled
That the “City of David was much larger than previously thought” doesn’t make any sense to me.
The City of David has always been understood to be bordered by the Kidron Valley on the east and the Central Valley on the west and neither of those have moved in the last six months. Nobody has doubted that there was construction in this area in the 1st century A.D., especially given the Crowfoot expedition in the 1920s.
The “monumental” edifice, which was destroyed by the Romans when they demolished the Second Temple in 70 CE, was dated to the end of the Second Temple Period by pottery and stone vessels, as well as an assortment of coins from that time, Ben-Ami said.
When we were there, we were digging in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and I’ve never been part of a dig where we found more coins than this one.
According to the director of the dig, the elaborate edifice, which is an anomaly in the landscape of the Lower City at the end of the Second Temple period – which was marked with modest buildings – was probably a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Iraqi aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem with her sons.
The problem with this statement is that very little digging has been done on the crest of the City of David (as opposed to the eastern slope), and there was much destruction in later periods. So there isn’t much to compare with. If all they have is a magnificent building, I’d say it could be Helena’s and it could be someone else’s.
Helena is an interesting individual. Her tomb in Jerusalem was the second most magnificent one in the ancient world (and it’s still impressive, although difficult to visit because of poor management by the French government; cf. Ant. 20.4.3). Josephus wrote that Helena built three palaces in the Lower City (one for herself, one for her son and one for her mother-in-law; Wars 4.9.11; 5.6.1), which is (I think) the only basis for the identification of this building as hers by the archaeologist.
Though contemporary with the book of Acts, Helena is not mentioned in the New Testament.
Josephus connects her with the famine mentioned in Acts 11:28, indicating that she bought large quantities of food from Egypt to feed the people of Jerusalem (Ant. 20.2.3ff.).
The archeologists carrying out the dig have not yet found any inscription to identify the building they uncovered, but the excavation director said that there was a “high probability” that the site was indeed the 2,000-year-old palace of Queen Helena. “We need more evidence to decide, but almost everything fits,” Ben-Ami said.
This identification could well be, but there’s no evidence for it given in this article. I would think the identification would be stronger if:
1) more of the City of David had been excavated, thus excluding other sites;
2) we had more knowledge of what else was in the City of David in the 1st century; all we really know is that these palaces were here, but it’s doubtful that these occupied the entire area;
3) finds from the building were of Mesopotamian origin (Adiabene was a province in northern Mesopotamia).
The well-preserved structure being uncovered in the ongoing excavation is an impressive architectural complex that includes massive foundations; walls, some of which are preserved to a height in excess of five meters and built of stones that weigh hundreds of kilograms; halls that are preserved to a height of at least two stories; a basement level that was covered with vaults; remains of polychrome frescoes, water installations and ritual baths.
This is great, but there were many impressive buildings in first century Jerusalem, so this alone is not sufficient to prove the identification.
Those interested in Jewish evangelism and conversion in the New Testament period would find Helena’s story worth studying. For a start, take a look at the articles in Anchor Bible Dictionary on Proselyte and Circumcision.
Update: The JPost has a one-minute video of the excavations with an archaeologist talking about the discovery. HT: Joe Lauer.
Update (12/7): InfoLive.tv has a 2-minute video, and this Arutz-7 article has numerous photos which show the well-preserved walls and some of the artifacts discovered. The story is also covered by Reuters, Haaretz, and the AP.
- Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Jerusalem
April D. DeConick says that National Geographic got it all wrong in their interpretation of the Gospel of Judas. And, what do you know, but their strange choices created the story. DeConick goes further than explaining the translation errors, but she also shows why scholarship should not be done this way – in a closet by a few scholars who sign non-disclosure agreements before a major press conference designed to generate boatloads of money.
Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn’t betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas’s reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.
It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.
Several of the translation choices made by the society’s scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a “daimon,” which the society’s experts have translated as “spirit.” Actually, the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon.”
Likewise, Judas is not set apart “for” the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated “from” it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because “it is possible for him to go there.” He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can’t go there, and Jesus doesn’t want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas’s ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it’s clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will “not ascend to the holy generation.” To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.
The rest is here and it is worth reading.
UPDATE (12/8): One of the NG translators responds in a letter to the NYT.
HT: Joe Lauer
- Tagged Analysis, Discoveries
Some much of what makes the news from the archaeological world lies on either extreme of the spectrum: either wild-eyed gullibility of some sensational claim or knee-jerk denial that X has any true historical reality. Adherents of one end of the spectrum usually lack scholarly credentials, while the latter often boasts a boatload, but both extremes are at odds with a normal common-sense approach held by most archaeologists. Archaeologist Aren Maier has been excavating at Gath and he gave a lecture which is reported by the Deseret Morning News.
Contrary to the quest of many biblical archaeologists in years past, today’s “new image” of excavating ancient Near Eastern sites isn’t focused on proving that the Bible is an ancient historical document. Yet there’s no reason to shy away from comparing scientific findings to biblical text, either, says a longtime archaeologist. The challenge is to use caution, rather than leaping to what seem to be “logical conclusions” about findings that go well beyond the actual science involved with high-profile finds, some of which turn out to be forgeries. That is according to Aren Maeir, chairman of the department of archaeology and Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. Rather than trying to “verify beliefs according to archaeological remains,” Maeir said archaeologists driven by science are leaving those kinds of discussions to theologians. Archaeologists seek to provide information on what they find in the ground, when they believe it originated and how it may or may not play into theological discussions.
You can read the rest of the story here. The main points he makes seem so basic that they hardly need reporting, but given the tendencies of the media to cover the extremes mentioned above, perhaps more fair-handed approaches like this should be covered. As for the ossuary of James, I don’t think that we have heard the last word as he suggests. In the forgery conference earlier this year, most scholars in attendance agreed that the inscription was authentic. But this point is well-made: everyone must exercise caution before making a sensationalistic identification.
- Tagged Analysis
