CT article on Amateur Archaeologists

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. 

Nebi Samwil is not Mizpah

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.

"David's Palace" and Contrary Opinions

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.

Palace of Queen Helena Found?

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.

Gospel of Judas: NG Blew It

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

Maeir Urges Caution in Reaching Archaeological Conclusions

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.

"But I Used the Tractor Carefully..."

The Jerusalem Post story on the on-going saga of "excavations" on the Temple Mount is here.  The abbreviated version follows:

Genius #1: Shmuel Dorfman

"There was no damage to the remains of buildings or artifacts."

Sir, can you tell me if you excavated with a tractor?

"They were under time pressure."

It's good to know that you can excavate with a tractor and cause "no damage" to ancient remains.  This guy wouldn't pass Archaeology 101.  Unfortunately he is the Director-General of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

 

Genius #2: Meir Ben-Dov, retired archaeologist

"There were no archeological findings in the ground," Meir Ben-Dov told the committee. "They dug a total of 50 cm. [18 inches] deep and all of it was fill-in from the earlier infrastructure that had been installed."

Somebody should have told this guy about the Iron Age remains from an undisturbed layer that were discovered in this trench.  Ben-Dov is not an honest man.  He just expected that the Muslims would have destroyed it all so thoroughly that no one would ever be able to prove him wrong.  Fortunately somebody was watching "the excavation" between tractor scoops and not all was lost.

 

The good news:

"The Knesset State Control Committee on Monday decided to ask the State Comptroller's Office to investigate procedures for allowing the Wakf Islamic trust to excavate on the Temple Mount, amid claims by archeologists that the laying of electric cables there in August endangered ancient artifacts."

Bad "Archaeology"

Eric Cline has a good op-ed on "biblical archaeologists" who are frauds.  Entitled "Raiders of the faux ark," the Boston Globe piece exposes some of the "discoveries" made by guys with no archaeological training whatsoever.  It's not only worthwhile to expose such "scholarship" for what it is (and Cline does this more thoroughly in his recent book, From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible), but he avoids making a mistake that many do - lumping all religious scholars in with the nut cases.  The article in full is worth reading, but here is an important paragraph:

Religious archeologists and secular archeologists frequently work side by side in the Holy Land. Among the top ranks of researchers, there are evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews, and people of many denominations. It is not religious views that are the issue here; it is whether good science is being done. Biblical archeology is a field in which people of good will, and all religions, can join under the banner of the scientific process.

From reviews I've read, I think I would find more to disagree with in his book than in this article.  A couple of evangelical writers are working on a book debunking some of the "amazing discoveries" made in the last few decades and I'll mention it here when that gets closer to publication.

Loan Siloam Inscription: Don't Believe It

I read this story yesterday in the Washington Times and ignored it, because I thought it was in error.  I've since seen it mentioned in blogs online as if the story was credible.  Jay Bushinsky of the Washington Times begins his report:

An ancient inscription memorializing Jerusalem's salvation from Assyrian invaders 2,700 years ago is to be returned to the Holy Land from Turkey for study and public display.  Israel has been trying for about 20 years to recover the artifact, which marks one of the most important turning points in Hebrew history.

I think this story is bogus for the following reasons:

1. No one else is reporting this.  I hardly think that the Washington Times knows something that no one else does.  You can check online news sources easily by searching for "Siloam Inscription" at Google News (here is that link).

2. A story like this would be broken by the Israel Museum or a major government agency, and not only are they not mentioning it, the WT story does not cite them.  The story is long, but the length is deceptive as only the first sentence mentions the return. 

3. About a month ago, various news outlets reported some discussion of the matter.  The essence of the story was that a Turkish official agreed to consider some sort of loan.  In the Middle East, such "consideration" is a far cry from a decision.  And a decision is very different than action.  In other words, this isn't "news" until the inscription is sitting in Jerusalem.

What I think happened is that this reporter read some of those stories too quickly and wrote an article based on a misunderstanding.

By the way, if you want to take a picture of the inscription, don't wait until it comes to Jerusalem.  The Israeli authorities won't allow it, I'm certain.  You'll do better to go visit it in Istanbul, where you can take pictures.  Which is far better anyway, because there are so many great artifacts on display that won't be coming to Jerusalem on loan.  There would be a certain irony as well if the Siloam Inscription came to Jerusalem the next couple of years, as hundreds of the best archaeological finds in Israel are locked up out of sight of visitors.

Excavations in West Bank

The Jerusalem Post reports on the number of excavations that have taken place in the West Bank or Gaza Strip since 1967.

About 15 percent of the total number of archaeological excavations conducted in Israel over the past 40 years took place across the Green Line, a study released Wednesday showed.

The Tel Aviv University study reveals that approximately 1500 excavations had been carried out at some 900 different sites across the Green Line over the last four decades, which comes to about 15% of the total number of excavations conducted in Israel during that time.

The study, by Dr. Rafi Greenberg and Adi Keinan of the university's Department of Archeology and Near Eastern studies, found that the peak of academic involvement in the excavation of east Jerusalem occurred in the first decade following the unification of the city in 1967, while the height of academic activity in the West Bank came between the rise of the Likud to power in 1977 and the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987.

A few points of interest from this brief article:

1. Many of the sites related to Israel's ancient history are located in the West Bank, and 15% is a very small number for such an important area.  There is much to be done here, and it won't happen if Israelis do not have access because a) there are not many Palestinian archaeologists; b) the Palestinian people are largely uninterested in sites related to Jewish history.

2. The article doesn't give the total number of excavations in Israel since 1967, but there apparently have been 10,000 (1500/.15).

3. Israeli archaeologists should be hailed for studying these sites and gaining much knowledge from them, instead of being vilified as "occupiers."  Some of the important Israeli excavations in this area include Herodium, Shiloh, Jericho (Tulul abu el-Alayiq), Mt. Gerizim, and Mamre.  Sites that need more excavation include Samaria, Tirzah (Tell el-Farah North), Bethel and vicinity, Tekoa, and Jericho (Tell es-Sultan).

Bahat: Archaeologists Politically Motivated; Wall Must Not Exist

The AFT has a follow-up to yesterday's article on the discovery of a wall from the Second Temple.  The article is headlined "Doubts over 'second temple remains' in Jerusalem."  The headline is misleading.  The only one casting doubts in the article is Dan Bahat, who has a record for distorting evidence related to the Temple Mount.  He admits that he hasn't seen the wall, and his reaction is but a knee-jerk response to the claims of other archaeologists who he says are "waging a politically inspired campaign, systematically for several years, to strengthen Israeli control over the esplanade."  Even assuming that this charge is true, that doesn't change the nature of construction that is being revealed and possibly destroyed on the Temple Mount.  The fact that the police haven't stepped in doesn't mean anything; they didn't step in when thousands of tons of earth were removed in the late 1990s either.  I mentioned in the last post that Barkay is a trustworthy voice on the subject; I can't say the same for Bahat.  In addition to his appearances in the media, his Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem is filled with errors.  I use portions of it with students, but with cautions.  The maps are very helpful and generally more reliable.  (I list some better books here.)

UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post now covers the story.

A New Reference to a Biblical Figure

This story in The Times looks very interesting.  It's another one of those occasions when the discovery is made long after the excavators leave the field.

The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

The cuneiform inscription in a tablet dating from 595BC has been deciphered for the first time – revealing a reference to an official at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, that proves the historical existence of a figure mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.

This is rare evidence in a nonbiblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible.

The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to Jeremiah xxxix was present in 587BC when Nebuchadnezzar “marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it”.

The rest of the story is here.  I've been working for some years on a list of extrabiblical references to biblical people.  I'm not ready to share it, but I can tell you that it is long.

The stupid quote of the story goes to renowned scholar Geza Vermes, who said, according to the reporter, "the Biblical story is not altogether invented."  My response: there is not a fraction of evidence that it is invented at all.  Many scholars have many theories, but these are possible only because of the lack of evidence.  The more evidence, the less room for scholarly ideas about the invention of the Bible.  This observation is not based upon the above story, but upon years of study in the land of Israel.  The liberal case gets weaker the more I know.

The Dangers of Wikipedia

I like and use Wikipedia for all kinds of things.  The more I know about the subject, however, the poorer the quality of the articles.  This morning I was going through some photos I took a few months ago, including some that I took of Har Nitai, across the Wadi Hammam from Arbel.  This picturesque mountain is not easily accessible as there are no roads and no good footpaths (that I could find).  The site has significant ruins on the surface, but as far as I could tell, no excavations have been carried out.

A quick search for the site on Google brought me to this Wikipedia entry, which is largely a page written by a single person ("Truthresearch").  That should be the first clue; anybody with a username like that is immediately suspect. 

The entry gives a little information about the site, but quickly goes to a suggested identification of the site as Nazareth.  The basis for this identification appears to rest solely on the location of a steep cliff here (fitting the story in Luke 4 where Jesus is nearly thrown off a cliff).  If that's the method for site identification, then we can rearrange the entire map of Galilee.  The writer acknowledges that the present-day Nazareth has the evidence of tradition, but it tries to make that a negative, explaining that it is only about 300 A.D. when Nazareth is mentioned in ancient sources.  He fails to note that most Christian traditions are not attested until that time because Christianity was persecuted until the end of the Roman empire (circa 300 A.D.).  Nazareth's insignificant status and size explain its lack of mention in non-Christian sources.  None of this of course is any sort of an argument that Har Nitai is the real Nazareth.  But there is a cliff; what more do you need?

The link at the bottom of the article to a geocities site ("The Real Nazareth?") suggests that the author of the two is identical.

All of this does of course give me the excuse to share a photo of the Arbel cliffs taken from Har Nitai.  No sign yet of the planned golf course on top of Arbel.

Excavations and Journalists

Here's a rule of thumb: if a news article touches on the Temple Mount or the City of David, you can pretty much count on large parts of it being politically motivated and inaccurate.  A good example of that is yesterday's Haaretz article by Meron Rapoport.  Non-Israeli readers may not know of Haaretz's reputation as the left-wing newspaper of the country.  You can read the short article yourself; I'm going to limit myself to addressing the article's failures.

1. The supervising archaeologists are Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun.  There is no Gabi Reich.  That's such a basic error that you know this reporter is completely unfamiliar with the subject.  Reich is a first-rate archaeologist who has been an excavation director in Jerusalem for more than a decade and in other capacities since the early 1970s.

2. "This is a very sensitive region for a dig. Should it approach the Temple Mount wall, it will certainly elicit angry reactions from the Muslim Waqf..."  The dig is in the City of David, many hundreds of meters from the Temple Mount.  Ronny Reich has led excavations immediately next to the Temple Mount and there were no protests.  For the record, Muslim protests are unrelated to reality.  If some Muslim leader wants a reason to get his people worked up, he will claim his mosque is being undermined, even if last year's dig was closer than this year's.  Given the context of the article, it appears that the author is trying to create a problem that does not exist.  [Note that this excavation is completely separate from the dismantling and construction of a bridge for tourists to the Temple Mount, which was the stated reason for Muslim violence today.]

3. "Moreover, most of the excavation site is inhabited by Palestinians, and thus far, no effort has been made to get their permission, as required by law, for digging on and under their property."  There is no evidence that the author knows where the excavation really is.  This is just an attempt to get somebody excited to shut down this dig.  He certainly is unwilling to admit that the workers employed in these excavations are Palestinians who live in the area.

4. "But on top of all that" - is this really an appropriate phrase for a news article, or should this be on the editorial page?

5. The heart of the article concerns whether or not the excavators have a license to dig.  "The excavation of a tunnel under Jerusalem's City of David has gone on for months without a license from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), as required by law."  This indeed is strange, given that the chief archaeologist on the ground (Shukrun) is an IAA employee.  That means he does what he is told.  If the IAA doesn't grant him a license, then he's not going to be digging there, assuming he wants to receive his salary.

6. The rat seems to be buried in the details.  Possibly the issue is not the IAA not issuing a permit (even the article says, "the IAA decided to extend Reich and Shukrun's license to dig in Silwan"), but the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority (INNPPA) not giving permission to the IAA.  Aha - this is a spat between governmental agencies.  One is trying to control the other and when he doesn't get his way, he calls his local journalist.  I have no idea if the INNPPA really has authority over the IAA, but it really doesn't matter to me.  The issue is this "news article" and the dirty work that this journalist is willing to do.

7. "But INNPPA spokesman Moshe Gabay said that there is currently "no operative plan" to develop the area for tourism..."  Well, this guy must live in Eilat.  In the last couple of years, they've done extraordinary things in the City of David, including the excavation of the Pool of Siloam and opening it to tourists; the opening of the Siloam Tunnel to tourists; the construction of a visitor's center at the entrance; the construction of a viewing point of the City of David; the excavation of the "palace of David" with attendant provisions for tourists.  And just last week they drained Hezekiah's Tunnel so that metal steps could be installed.

8. "nor did the organization [INPPA] approve an expanded dig. Instead, he said, it approved only an "exploratory dig" of 50 to 100 meters, after which a decision will be made."  So, what do you know?  The INNPA actually did approve the dig. 

The problem with articles like these is that they lead everyone astray except those closest to it.  Thus, the esteemed Paleojudaica blog can conclude from the article, "there are irregularities with this dig which are a cause for concern."

Back to the rule of thumb.

Response to Rafi Greenberg - now in English

I've just received and posted an approved English translation of Amnon Ben-Tor's letter to the editor. See the "Response to Rafi Greenberg" below.

Response to Rafi Greenberg

I commented previously on a horribly one-sided Haaretz article (or here) on Israeli archaeology in the West Bank. Professor Amnon Ben-Tor, an esteemed archaeologist at Hebrew University, has written a letter in response. This was published in the Haaretz Hebrew edition, but there are no plans to publish it in the English edition. The letter is posted here, but letters to the editor are not archived and will be removed soon. Thanks to Joseph Lauer for passing this on.

Ha’aretz [Hebrew]

December 29, 2006

יום שישי ח' בטבת תשס"ז

כתם ארכיאולוגי
בתגובה על "ת"פ אלוף מרכז" מאת מירון רפופורט ("הארץ", 15.12

מירון רפופורט, המצטט את הארכיאולוג רפי גרינברג, כותב מפיו: "מאז 1967 נסקרו כ-5,000 אתרים ארכיאולוגיים בגדה... ארכיאולוגים ישראלים הם שניהלו את הסקרים, והם העדיפו, כמובן, לסקור אתרים החשובים להיסטוריה היהודית ולא להיסטוריה הפלשתינית... הארכיאולוגים הישראלים חיפשו בעיקר את בית ראשון או בית שני... אך טבעי הוא שארכיאולוגים יתעניינו בהיסטוריה של העם שלהם, ככה זה בכל העולם".
האמירות האלה של גרינברג אינן מבוססות. כל כוונתו של סקר היא לקבוע את המפה היישובית באזור הנסקר בכל תקופה ותקופה, ולכן אין כל אפשרות להעדיף תקופה אחת על רעותה. כל המעיין בנתוני הסקרים העיקריים שנערכו בגדה לאחר 1967 על ידי זרטל, פינקלשטיין ועופר, יראה מיד שמספרם של האתרים שאינם "יהודיים" שנסקרו) כנעניים, ביזנטיים, מוסלמיים) גדול בהרבה מאלה ה"יהודיים".
אשר לאתרים שנחפרו - גם כאן התמונה דומה: מאז שנת 2000 הוצאו רישיונות חפירה בגדה המערבית ל-147 אתרים, מהם ניתן להגדיר 14 כ"יהודיים" (20%), מספר קטן של אתרים כנעניים, ואילו הרוב המכריע הוא אתרים מהתקופה הביזנטית והמוסלמית.
דברים אלו נכונים גם לחקר האתרים שבתחומי הקו הירוק: האתרים שבהם נערכות חפירות בקנה מידה גדול בשנים האחרונות ובהם עכו, קיסריה, בית שאן, סוסיתא, בית גוברין, מרישה - אף לא אחד מאלו ניתן להגדיר כאתר "יהודי". בשנת 2006 הוציאה רשות העתיקות 281 רישיונות חפירה: בכ-100 מאלו נחקרו מתקנים חקלאיים שאת "זהותם האתנית" של המשתמשים בהם לא ניתן לקבוע. בין יתר האתרים, כ-60 הם אתרים בני התקופה המוסלמית, 45-50 הם אתרים נוצריים, 35-40 הם אתרים בני התקופות הכנענית והפרהיסטורית ו-25 (פחות מ-10%) הם אתרים שבהם נחשפו שרידים מימי בית ראשון ושני. נתונים אלה כוללים גם את החפירות בירושלים.
את כל הנתונים הללו קיבלתי מקצין המטה לארכיאולוגיה ומרשות העתיקות בתוך פחות מ-12 שעות מאז פנייתי.
טענות מסוג אלה שטוען גרינברג נשמעות כמעט בכל כנס בינלאומי וכן בפרסומים "מדעיים", ולצערנו התרגלנו כבר לסילופים אלו שכל כוונתם היא לתקוף את ישראל. גרינברג הכתים לא רק את עצמו, אלא את הארכיאולוגיה הישראלית בכללה. מה חבל, שבדומה לאלו שאינם ישראלים, נתן גם גרינברג להשקפתו הפוליטית לסלף את העובדות.

אמנון בן תור
ירושלים

*******************************

The following is an English translation of Dr. Amnon Ben-Tor’s Letter to the Editor published in Ha’aretz [Hebrew] on December 29, 2006. It was translated and is circulated with Dr. Ben-Tor’s permission, and also corrects a numerical typographical error made by the paper.

The letter was written in response to an article published in the Ha’aretz Hebrew Language Edition on December 15, 2006. The article was also published in the December 17, 2006 Ha’aretz English Language Edition under the caption “Buried treasure that’s kept in the dark”. The article is based on claims made by Dr. Rafi Greenberg regarding Israeli archaeology and archaeologists. As is evident from his letter, Dr. Ben-Tor takes strong exception to those claims.

*********************

An Archaeological Stain

In response to “Under Command of the GOC Central Command” by Meron Rapoport (Ha’aretz [December 15, 2006]).

Meron Rapoport, who quotes the archaeologist Rafi Greenberg, writes that he says that “Since 1967, some 5,000 archaeological sites in the West Bank have been surveyed…. the surveys were done by Israeli archaeologists and they naturally preferred sites that are important to Jewish rather than Palestinian history…. Israeli archaeologists have excavated mainly the First Temple and Second Temple periods…. It is natural for Israeli archaeologists to take an interest in the history of their people, … it’s the same everywhere.”

These statements of Greenberg are baseless. The whole purpose of a survey is to determine the map of settlement in the surveyed area in every period, and therefore there is no possibility of preferring one period over another. Anyone who studies the data from the main surveys that were conducted in the West Bank after 1967 by Zertal, Finkelstein and Ofer, will immediately see that the number of the surveyed sites that are not “Jewish” (Canaanite, Byzantine and Muslim) greatly exceed those that are “Jewish”.

The picture is similar with regard to the sites that were excavated. Since the year 2000, excavation permits were issued in the West Bank for 147 sites. Of them, 20 can be classified as “Jewish” (14%), and a small number as Canaanite sites, whereas the vast majority are sites from the Byzantine and Muslim periods.

These facts are also applicable to the examination of sites within the Green Line. Of the sites at which excavations were conducted on a large scale, including Acco, Caesarea, Bet Shean, Sussita, Bet Guvrin, Maresha, not even one could be characterized as a “Jewish” site. In 2006 the Israel Antiquities Authority issued 281 excavation permits: in about 100 of these agricultural installations were studied, about which the “ethnic identity” of their users could not be determined. Of the remaining sites, about 60 are Muslim-period sites, 45-50 are Christian sites, 35-40 are from Canaanite and pre-historic periods, and 25 (less than 10%) are sites at which First and Second Temple period remains were discovered. These data also include the excavations in Jerusalem.

I obtained all of these data from the staff officer for archaeology and from the Antiquities Authority in less than 12 hours from when I approached them.

Allegations of the type made by Greenberg are heard at almost every international conference and also in “scientific” publications, and to our regret we have already become accustomed to these distortions which are only intended to bash Israel. Greenberg did not only stain himself but Israel archaeology in general. What a pity that, like those who are not Israeli, Greenberg too has permitted his political opinions to distort the facts.

Amnon Ben-Tor
Jerusalem

Top 10 and Qumran Latrine Response

Haaretz has a very one-sided article on Israeli archaeology in the West Bank.  Somebody should write an honest response to what's essentially a mouthpiece for the opinions of one Rafi Greenberg.

Archaeology magazine lists the Top 10 Discoveries of 2006.  Nothing of biblical significance is included, but the #1 discovery is the tomb in Luxor's Valley of the Kings.  KV63 is the first tomb excavated here since King Tut's tomb in 1922.

Hardly a week goes by when some argue is promoted or dismissed on the basis of logic rather than evidence.  In this Haaretz article about the Qumran latrines, Yitzhak Magen responds to the recent proposal by Zias and Tabor that only Essenes would have ventured outside the camp.

"In addition," Magen says, "the Qumran area and particularly the caves surrounding the site, are full of predatory animals and animals that consume carrion, like foxes, hyenas, and leopards. People who lived in this area for years were well aware of that. They feared these animals and certainly would not leave their camps to relieve themselves. Thus, it is unreasonable to assume that the camp's latrine was located at such a distance."

"It was not the Essenes who buried the scrolls in the caves near the Qumran ruins," Magen adds. "The scrolls were buried by Jews who escaped from Jerusalem after the destruction of the Second Temple." One of the main escape routes from Jerusalem passed through Qumran. Jews, who were somewhat unfamiliar with the area and had no knowledge of its predatory animals, did not fear entering the caves to bury the scrolls, he proposes.

So it's unreasonable that Essenes walked a few dozen yards to bury scrolls, but it's reasonable that people came dozens of miles and hid them there (but only because they didn't know about the foxes!).

Magen does not respond to the ancient texts which specify the Essenes should travel 1,000 or 2,000 cubits (1,500-3,000 feet) outside of the settlement to relieve themselves.

Whenever you hear that something is "unreasonable," that should alert you to the likelihood that there's no good evidence to support the proposed conclusion.

"No Room in the Inn"

In the typical Christmas pageant, one of the children will be cast as the heartless innkeeper who refuses lodging to Joseph and pregnant Mary.  Most know that there is no innkeeper mentioned in the Bible, but fewer are aware that there is not even an inn described.  The view that Joseph and Mary simply arrived late to Bethlehem and accommodations at the local hotel were full is incorrect.  The word translated as "inn" is the word kataluma, which is used elsewhere by Luke and translated as "guest chamber" or "upper room" (Luke 22:11; cf. Mark 14:14).  When Luke wants to speak of a paid establishment (i.e., an inn), he uses a different Greek word, pandocheion, as in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34).  Unfortunately, of the dozens of English translations that I've checked, all translate kataluma as "inn" in Luke 2:7 and not as "guest room" (that includes the recent ESV and NET; apparently they are unwilling to buck tradition in favor of accuracy).

The result of this mistranslation leads to a different understanding of the story.  It's not that Joseph and Mary were late to town, but it's that they were rejected by their family.  Clearly they had family members in town, as that was the reason they returned to Bethlehem for the census.  That there was no room in the guest chamber for a pregnant woman indicates that they chose not to make room for this unwedded mother.  The birth of Jesus in a room where animals lived suggests shame and rejection. 

Most of what I have described above is the general view of scholars and I find it compelling.  But some scholars err in arguing that Bethlehem could not have had an inn.  This view has been repeated enough for me to address it.  Ben Witherington, for instance, says this:

It can be doubted whether there would have been an inn in Bethlehem in Jesus’ day since it was not on any major road, and inns normally were found only on major roads, especially the Roman ones (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p. 69).

Doug Greenwold, in the December 2006 Preserving Bible Times Reflection, writes:

These pandoxeion inns were typically located 16-18 miles apart on major trade routes, the average daily distance traveled by a caravan. Since Bethlehem was five miles south of Jerusalem, it was far too close to Jerusalem for the placement of such an inn. Furthermore, Bethlehem was not on a major trade route so there was little need for a pandoxeion.

I'm not sure what qualifies as a "major trade route," but if there was any trade route in the hill country of Judea, Bethlehem was on it.  The only way you can say that there was no "major road" near Bethlehem is by saying that there were no major roads in the hill country.  But were there no travelers in this area, and were there no traders bringing supplies to Judea and Samaria?  Certainly there were. 

An understanding of the topography of the hill country will help here.  The Judean hills are very rugged as they are divided by deep wadis (canyons) on the eastern and western slopes.  Consequently, travelers have always preferred to stay on ridges, to avoid frequent ascents and descents.  For this reason, travelers have moved along the watershed ridge, from the time of Abraham until the present.  About a decade ago, Israel decided that for political reasons they needed to build an alternate road to bypass the Arab population of Bethlehem.  They built a road less than 2 miles to the west of the watershed ridge.  Even such a small deviation required that they spend millions of dollars in the construction of tunnels and bridges.  Today we can do it; in ancient times, they did not.  In short, there can be no doubt that historically any north-south traffic in the hill country passed near to the town of Bethlehem (cf. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:783).

Modern Israeli road that bypasses Bethlehem, with bridge and tunnel

Furthermore, the argument that Bethlehem is too close to Jerusalem to warrant an inn presupposes that all travelers left from the same point and had the same destination.  Jerusalem may have been a major destination of travelers in the hill country, but it was not the only destination.  Travelers could have been going to and from countless villages in the hill country.  Some known settlements in the 1st century B.C./A.D. include Hebron, Gabath Saul, Ephraim, Gophna, Sychar, Sebaste.  That travelers might stop at any point along the major north-south hill country route is illustrated well by the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19.

In the end, the argument that there was no inn in Bethlehem in the time of Jesus falls short.  Luke, however, says nothing about an inn.

Is This Noah's Ark?: A New Critique by Gordon Franz

The alleged discovery of Noah's Ark in Iran has been discussed on this blog before ("Christians Doubt Cornuke Has Found Noah's Ark" and "We Sell Hope"), and we wanted to alert our readers to a new critique of Robert Cornuke's theory by Gordon Franz. The author's conclusion is appropriate and fair:

With so many theories claiming to discover biblical truth, the evangelical Christian community must be very discerning and follow the model of the Bereans who, after hearing the Apostle Paul himself, "searched the Scriptures to see whether these things are true." Before swallowing the next claim, our community must do our homework on the history, archaeology, geology and geography of the landing place of Noah's Ark using primary sources and hard data. If we cannot, then hold off judgment (pro or con) until others are given the opportunity to do so.

At this point the claims made by BASE Institute do not seem to have any merit. For the sake of the truth, however, I encourage the BASE Institute investigators to offer scholars, independent of the BASE Institute, full access to all the data. Let their best evidence come under the tests of scholarly scrutiny. When all the test results are in, the investigation and its claims will either be vindicated or proven false. The church, the witness to an unbelieving world, and truth itself deserve no less.

David's Spa, Ha, Ha

The stupid article by Ynet News has been mentioned a few places in the blogosphere already (best take: Higgaion), but I want to add my two cents and a photo. I'm assuming that you've read the original article and Higgaion's response.

1. I don't think archaeologists are to be faulted here. I'd be willing to bet that this entire article is a figment of the author's imagination, possibly stimulated by some of the local paid workers at the site. The only archaeologist cited is Ronny Reich who rejects the article's premise. I don't know any other archaeologists who would claim something so foolish, especially at such an early stage.

2. An aqueduct has been found. In fact, a number of aqueducts have been uncovered in the last few months. The origin(s), destination(s), and date(s) of these water channels are not always clear. Collectively, there's a lot going on near the Pool of Siloam that archaeologists do not yet understand.

3. There is good reason to believe that there is another ancient pool or two to be found in the area. Pools mentioned in Jerusalem include the Old Pool (Isa 22:11), the Upper Pool (Isa 36:2), the Lower Pool (Isa 22:9), the King's Pool (Neh 2:14), the Pool of Siloam (Neh 3:15), and the artificial pool (Neh 3:16). It's quite possible that a pool had multiple names, but it's clear that these names do not all refer to the same pool. The convergence of the Kidron, Central, and Hinnom Valleys is a natural place to find pools because this is the lowest place topographically in the city.

Does it bother anybody that the article's author doesn't even know where the City of David is in reference to the Western Wall (it's directly south, not west). I confess that when I first read the article, I decided to ignore it because it was clearly worthless. I changed my mind because some people have paid attention to it.

One thing worth remembering: current excavations are uncovering new finds from the Second and First Temple periods that will certainly increase our understanding of Jerusalem's water systems in the biblical times.

Water channel recently discovered near Pool of Siloam
Photo taken Sept. 13, 2006


Adapted from Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1865

Review of The Exodus Decoded

I've mentioned The Exodus Decoded here before, and over at Higgaion, Chris Heard is doing a very extended review of the movie (Part 1 | Part 2 (with addendum) | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7). His analysis has elicited responses from the man behind the movie, Simcha Jacobovici, which gives the reader the chance to decide for himself/herself who to trust. Those who have watched the movie and think there's something to it would do well to read it. Such a dialogue should have taken place before the 3 million dollars was spent, and it's a lesson on why you should never trust new ideas which are first promoted on television. If the ideas had merit, they could bear the weight of scholarly scrutiny and an end-run around academia to the masses with dazzling graphics would not be necessary. Unfortunately this isn't the first guy to pull such a trick and it won't be the last.

Lest any new readers to this blog think that I'm just another liberal blasting someone trying to prove the Bible true, that's not so. I believe the Bible is an accurate record of history, including in all of its details about the exodus. I just believe that The Exodus Decoded does not do any favors to the biblical record.

UPDATE (9/22): Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research has posted a review of the movie. This one is shorter than Heard's and is written by one who believes in the accuracy of the biblical narrative. I recommend it.

The Exodus "Decoded"

Yesterday the History Channel showed "The Exodus Decoded," written by Simcha Jacobovici and directed by James Cameron. Given its high budget (for a documentary) of $3 million, there's a good chance you'll have the opportunity to see this either as a re-run or possibly at your church's evening service. I have not seen it, but have a few comments based on the press coverage.

First, you can read about it in the New York Times (poor), or the Associated Press (a bit better), or the Miami Herald (best). Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, has posted a lengthy correspondence between him and Jacobovici. Wikipedia covers the main aspects of the theory. And there's always the official website with a 5-minute trailer.

From the trailer and reviews it is apparent that this is one slick production. That immediately suggests to me their facts aren't good and they're trying to hide it with fancy graphics. That of course doesn't necessarily follow, but it has been true often enough that I'm wary.

The essence of the theory is that the Israelites are the Hyksos and the exodus occurred during the time of the eruption of Thera (Santorini) about 1500 B.C. Is this possible? Well, I have never read one scholar who believes either of those suggestions. Some believe that the Hyksos may have been in power when the Israelites began their sojourn (assuming 430 years in Exodus 12:40 refers to time in Egypt and Canaan, a less preferred textual variant). But no one believes that the Hyksos were the Israelites and that the Hyksos expulsion is the same thing as the Israelite exodus.

There's also a problem with the dating. The Biblical dates, if taken literally, add up to an exodus around 1450 B.C. (cf. 1 Kings 6:1). There's no way to push that number back (to 1500 or earlier) without suggesting the biblical numbers are not literal. Now many scholars do reject the biblical numbers, but they always push the date of the exodus down (to about 1250 B.C.) The rest of the scholars believe that there was no large exodus of Israelites from Egypt. But no one dates the exodus to 1500 because there is no biblical or non-biblical evidence for it. (Those who favor the biblical evidence typically prefer an exodus date of 1450; those who favor the non-biblical evidence date it to 1250).

The movie locates Mt. Sinai at a site that has no major proponents, if any. That doesn't make it wrong, but before you buy it, you might ask yourself how a moviemaker found it when no one else could. I think the miracle explanations are bound to fall apart as well.

There are a number of other pieces to the "Code," but they hang on the above. Having skimmed the Shanks-Jacobovici correspondence, I would commend Jacobovici's motivation but not his data.

Those Pottery Makers at Qumran

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.

"We Sell Hope"

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.

Christians Doubt Cornuke Has Found Noah's Ark

Recent claims that Robert Cornuke discovered the Ark of Noah in Iran are questioned by several people who believe that the flood of Noah was a historical event, but doubt that Cornuke has found evidence of it.

Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research comments on the "petrified wood" that Cornuke believes is from the ark. The article is brief and worth reading in full. Among other things, Morris notes:

The claim is made that the material is petrified wood, and it may be. But petrified wood is found in thousands of places around the world. Finding it here means nothing. Perhaps the ark is petrified, but this would necessitate conditions and a sequence of events which hardly seem likely here. Wood is best petrified when buried in volcanic ash, but the team have asserted that the region of their discovery is not volcanic. Without precise maps and study, it would be impossible to refute this claim.

Rick Lanser of the Associates for Biblical Research has written a much more detailed article, questioning in particular the Iranian location of Cornuke's find. He concludes:

For the above and other reasons which space does not allow me to deal with, it appears that Bob Cornuke's "filters" have prevented him from dealing fairly with much information which does not fit into his "Ark in Iran" hypothesis. When such data is considered, it raises great doubt that he has found anything related to Noah's Ark on Takht-e Suleiman. I would love to see his find hold up to close scrutiny so it can be used as a witness to the world of the trustworthiness of the Bible, but if I – who, as a brother in Christ, am "on his team" – can come up with this many problems in identifying the find on Mount Suleiman with the Ark, we can be sure that an unfriendly, secular world full of dyed-in-the-wool skeptics will find many more reasons to reject it. The best I think he can hope for is that many will want to hear his story as an adventure tale – but that may be enough for him, an expected benefit of the aggressive promotion of the site at the beginning. I just hope that in view of the many problems that have come to light, he presents his audiences with the FULL story, warts and all.

The Top 5 in the Last 5

I've been asked what the top 5 archaeological discoveries related to the biblical record have been discovered in the last 5 years. I'm not really sure where to start in formulating a list except from my memory. So I'll start a list here and welcome suggestions for additional items.

Pool of Siloam
James Ossuary (forgery?)
Jehoash Inscription (forgery?)
Tel Zayit 10th c. abecedary
"Goliath" inscription from Gath
Ketef Hinnom Silver Amulets - new inscription
Palace of David (?)