Menu

Showing posts with label Scientific Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific Report. Show all posts

Dec 26, 2021

Response to unjustified criticism of the Tall el-Hammam Scientific Report

The 62 page scientific research report on the destruction of Tall al-Hammam (also Tell el-Hammam, biblical Sodom), one of the largest populated sites in the Jordan valley in the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze period,  has been published online in a peer reviewed well respected science journal called Nature and is now the most downloaded/viewed scientific paper in the world. T. E. Bunch,  M.A. LeCompte, A.V. Adedeji, et al. "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea." Scientific Reports 11, no 1 18632 (2021), 1-64. I have announced this in a previous blog post. 

Original version had some errors so the publishers added an addendum of all affected figures used in the article are reproduced at this link for the record and transparency. Updated report Feb 202. 

     The site in Jordan has been professionally excavated by an international team of archaeologists each season continuously since 2005 (no excavations for the last two years due to Covid restrictions). While I have excavated at the site of Tall el-Hammam since season one and  for ten of the 15 seasons I did my PhD at the University of Aberdeen and not at Trinity Southwest University and have no formal connection with the Trinity or Veritas University. Also, I am now retired from teaching at Liberty University who are not associated with the excavation at Tall el-Hammam at any point.

1. Scientists involved

The scientific tests and report were NOT carried out by the Tall el-Hammam team but by some 18 labs and independent scientists from around the world and then published independently from the Tall el-Hammam team. Dr. Phil Silvia (director of Scientific Analysis for Tall el-Hammam) whose name appears on the scientific report was the lead contact on the Tall el-Hammam team who provided the samples to the lab and some of the photographs for the report. Other photos were provided by Dr. Collins. 
     These scholars have also published other academic works in such prestigious scientific journals as Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The report also deals with samples taken from the region around Tall el-Hammam by the scientific team not associated with Tall el-Hammam. I have no idea about their religious beliefs but regardless that would not affect the tests that were performed. The quantity of the proxies in the middle bronze age strata are what is so significant. At every level of the tall (IA, IB, MB, EB, Chal) samples were taken but it was the Middle Bronze Age strata that showed an unusually high number of proxies.
     Other air-burst phenomena have happened, not only at Tunguska, Russia (1908), but also regularly in recent times such as the Chelyabinsk meteor (2013). This is not some Alien conspiracy theory but a known and documented event being studied by the scientific community and rightfully so. NOTE: There is disagreement between Mark Boslough (who has criticized the report) and the Comet Research Group (CRG) group who published the paper. https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../06/the-mark-boslough-affair/   air-burst research is a relatively new field of research and some scientists are skeptical, thus the voice of some critics come from this perspective, but it is a growing and important field of study.
 
     The nineteen academic intuitions who were involved in the present scientific report who are not associated with TeHEP include the following:

2. Mention of Sodom

Such an important and popular scientific report, that in passing is connected to the Bible and Sodom (4 time, 3 on page 5 and once on page 57), would naturally garner criticism given the anti-Bible sentiment in the world today. 

The report begins with:

There is an ongoing debate as to whether Tall el-Hammam could be the biblical city of Sodom ( Silvia [Silvia, P. J. "The Middle Bronze Age civilization-ending destruction of the Middle Ghor." Ph.D. thesis, Trinity Southwest University (2015)] and references therein), but this issue is beyond the scope of this investigation. Questions about the potential existence, age, and location of Sodom are not directly related to the fundamental question addressed in this investigation as to what processes produced high-temperature materials at Tall el-Hammam during the MBA. Nevertheless, we consider whether oral traditions about the destruction of this urban city by a cosmic object might be the source of the written version of Sodom in Genesis. We also consider whether the details recounted in Genesis are a reasonable match for the known details of a cosmic impact event. [1] page 5-6.

Then much later, Sodom is mentioned one more time:

Regarding this proposed airburst, an eyewitness description of this 3600-year-old catastrophic event may have been passed down as an oral tradition that eventually became the written biblical account about the destruction of Sodom. There are no known ancient writings or books of the Bible, other than Genesis, that describe what could be construed as the destruction of a city by an airburst/impact event. This airburst/impact hypothesis would make Tall el-Hammam the second oldest known city/town to have been destroyed by an airburst/impact event that produced extensive human casualties, after Abu Hureyra, Syria at ~ 12,800 cal BP17. [2] page 57

So Sodom is only mentioned four times in a 62 page scientific paper.  Still anti-Bible critics do not like even that connection and what about the scientific research.

3. Doctoring Photographs

The next criticism is we are being accused of doctoring photographs, a criticism that has made it to the Wikipedia article on Tall el-Hammam. However, what was edited were the labels and not the scientific material in the Photographs. In the spirit of honesty and integrity the publishers have added an Addendum to publish the original photos and explain what had been changed. See Addendum

Comet Research Group (CRG) who produced the scientific report admits that:

 "Our graphic artist made minor, cosmetic corrections to five of 53 images. All of them were distant from any important scientific data and no changes were made to key data, such as bones or potsherds. . . .We have already submitted corrected images to Scientific Reports."[4]

Fig. 015b. The image was rotated to fit on the page better and the corners were filled.
Fig. 44c. The original image was unavailable, so we removed the text inset at bottom right.
Fig. 07d. The red directional arrow at right was removed.
Fig. 07c. The red directional arrow at bottom was removed. 

The original photographs have now been published for transparency and the report has also been peer reviewed a second time for accuracy. See Addendum

Comet Research Group

Human remains in the Middle Bronze Age.
destruction layer at TeH
Courtesy of TeHEP Michael Luddeni

     It is now clear that the images were touched up for publication as with all publications with no scientific research altered. I have published the image of the skeletal remains earlier in my book The Location of Sodom (2016) (see attached) and was present when the image was photographed. It is a red herring to suggest that the scientific data was altered to make a scientific conclusion. There is the real dishonesty in misleading the public in casting aspersion on the evidence claiming the photos were altered for science.

One of the photos had the north direction incorrectly imposed on the photo by some one unfamiliar of where it is (admitted by Dr. Collins who corrected them) but does not affect the direction of the blast nor the many tests done on the samples. We know where the north is as I used a compass and for 15 years we had a Jordanian Department of Antiquities (DOA) total station surveyor lay out our squares. Others may not be familiar with the direction on a photo. Not some conspiracy to alter the data!!  

Original version had some errors so the publishers added an addendum of all affected figures used in the article are reproduced at this link for the record and transparency. Updated report Feb 202. 

4. Pseudoscience

An extended critique published in Sapiens Anthropology Magazine states that the pseudoscientific claim has eroded scientific integrity and encouraged destruction of the site by looters. It also states that few knowledgeable archaeologists believe that the site represents Sodom or Gomorrah.[5]

Ms Kersel and Chesson, two of the authors of the article (whom I know and corresponded with for my book The Location of Sodom 2016) exudes in pride that they collaborated "with Jordan's Department of Antiquities to track how Early bronze Age ceramic vessels" were looted from their burial site at Bab ehd-Dhra.... and imply that only Christian's buy ancient artifacts, and inspired Pseudoscience. Not sure how a major scientific report that tested sample from various noted and respected US and International scientific laboratories can be considered Pseudoscience, and we did not pole the religious beliefs of any of the scientists who performed the tests. 

In addition, contrary to what they might think, the Tall el-Hammam excavation is not an illegal rogue dig but one accompanied each season by Jordanian archaeologists (two to three on location at all times) using legal DOA permits. Tall el-Hammam directors must purchase their excavation permits from the Jordan Department of Antiquities each year (15 seasons) under several different Jordanian directors over the years. It defies reason how this can be Pseudoscience other than an Ad Hominem argument meant to falsify our research.

They then claim that "Clickbait Cause Looting". Now we also acknowledge the unfortunate problem of looting at Bab edh-Dhra and many archaeological site, not just in Jordan. However, the publication of a scientific site can hardly be blamed for looting otherwise no one would publish their findings and as they should know, that unlike most sciences that base their research on experimental repetition, archaeology is a destructive science. Once the dirt and structures (i.e., stones, mudbrick) are removed all that is left is the documentation to rebuild the site. So if one does not publish their finds, then they are lost to humanity for further study and comparison. To ignore what we can learn from ancient texts would be foolish. It was not published as clickbait nor does clickbait cause looting, the sad state of the economy in many countries has contributed to looting and not Christians doing archaeology. And it is certainly not just Christians who buy ancient artifact or interested in antiquities. There are so many ad hominem arguments here that are similar to many people on the internet who create nonsense posts and replies. I would have expected better from professionals who ironically have created their own clickbait to promote their agenda against looting (there is no neutrality and everyone has a bias that I have dealt with on a previous post concerning this ad hominem argument).

5. Unaccredited Christian school

Wikipedia states that 
Since 2005, the site has been excavated by a joint project of the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University (Albuquerque, New Mexico) and the creationist Veritas International University's College of Archaeology & Biblical History (Santa Ana, California), headed by Steven Collins.

Physicist Mark Boslough, [he has a disagreement with the Comet Research Group (CRG) group who published the paper. https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../06/the-mark-boslough-affair/ ] a specialist in planetary impact hazards and asteroid impact avoidance, has undertaken a sustained critique in social media and in print of the hypothesis that an air burst was responsible for the destruction of human settlements at Tell el-Hammam. His critique calls attention to a perspective of biblical inerrancy that has been used in claims that an air burst destroyed the biblical town of Sodom.[6]

The terms "unaccredited" and "creationist" try to discredit the research because some of those involved are Christians as if Christians cannot do legitimate scientific research.

Dr. Steven Collens is Director of the School of Archaeology at Veritas International University, and serves as Consulting Research Professor in the College of Archaeology, Trinity Southwest University.

Trinity Southwest University (TSU) is an approved provider for The Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). Relative to traditional accreditation, TSU has chosen to remain non-aligned. It is our opinion that any governmental association or oversight (including that provided by default via all federally-approved “secular” and “religious” accreditation associations) is inappropriate for a faith-based organization or institution, and constitutes a fundamental violation of church/state separation. Therefore, TSU accepts no federal, state, or local governmental funding, nor do we participate in GSL or other government-based financial aid programs. TSU grants degrees under religious exemption as required by the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, USA.[7]

Veritas International University is a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), having been awarded Reaffirmation of its Accredited Status as a Category IV institution by TRACS Accreditation Commission on November 5, 2019. This status is effective for a period of ten years. TRACS is recognized by both the United States Department of Education (USDOE), the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).[8]

Both schools are accredited to grant degrees under government regulations although obviously do not meet the approval of everyone out there. Another ad homenum argument to try and discredit their research. 

Dr. Collins academic training is as follows:

  • 1972, B.U.S., University of New Mexico
  • 1975, M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
  • 1978, D.Min., Luther Rice University
  • 1983, Ph.D., Trinity Theological Seminary
  • 1985, Post-Doctoral Studies, Archaeological Methods, Tulsa Seminary
  • 1987, Post-Doctoral Studies, International Seminar in Theology & Law; University of Strasbourg, France
  • 1987, Post-Doc. Certificate, Int’l Law; International Institute of Human Rights, University of Strasbourg, France
  • 1989, Levantine Ceramic Typology, Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies
  • 1997, Ph.D., Archaeology & Biblical History, Trinity Southwest University

Collins' response to these criticisms include a book published by TSU, The Kikkar Dialogues, which presents conversations he has had with other biblical archaeologists.

Another area of criticism is the fact that Dr. Collins is accused of being connected with an unaccredited Christian school (Trinity Southwest University) and they imply that they cannot possibly do scientific research (I guess there are no scientist who are Christians and if they are their research is suspect). 

6. ad hominem arguments 

While these ad hominem arguments do not deal with the science of the report many have chosen instead to spew nonsense in order to muddy the waters with the research. Sadly those who are minimalists and who do not accept the Bible as an historical text want to use disparaging comments to negate the results. Then on the other hand maximalists have also been critical because they do not agree with their early dates which they claim are biblical dates (no dates are given in the Bible for the Patriarchs and must be calculated on other evidence from the text). For the dates of the Patriarchs see my blog post and chart. Again, rather than dealing with the results of the science they wish to defend their biases and claim it is our bias that have influenced the science. I have responded to the Christianity Today's article in an earlier post. 

Then in a recent article When Biblically Inspired Pseudoscience and Clickbait Cause Looting Article they blame us for the looting of artifacts because of the popular nature of the report and because it was connected to the Bible (yes as ridiculous as this sounds). Let me respond.

Heinrich Schliemann,
Archäologe (1822–1890
Ed. Schultze Hofphotograph
Heidelberg Plöckstrasse 79
Wikimedia Commons

1. First, lets set the record strait, that even if you consider the Bible to be a myth (which I do not but many do), the Germen archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann used Homers Iliad, a myth, to locate the archaeological remains of Troy, the setting for the Greek myth of the Trojan War, so why cannot we use the Bible to find Sodom, even if you consider the Bible to be myth.[1]  It is common practice to use the geography in ancient texts (including the Bible) to locate ancient sites. It would be foolish and irresponsible not to use ancient texts to do so. They often claim that the Bible cannot be used because it is religious but what ancient text has not been influenced by their local religions? Such an argument just displays their ignorance of ancient texts and the role religions played in their culture.

See Can the Bible Be Used in Archaeology?



7. Some have suggested the we have gone in with an a prior agenda to find what we are looking for. I have previously addressed this Fallacy in THE FALLACY THAT THE A PRIORI METHOD IS BAD SCIENCE on page 71 of Digging up the Bible.

If archaeology is a dialogue, then each excavation must begin with a question or hypothesis, and in this sense we begin with an a priori approach. [2] The a priori approach is a standard method used by archaeologists for all sites (not just Christian sites). All good scientists, including archaeologists, begin with a working hypothesis and then excavate to test their hypothesis against the data collected.

For example, James K. Hoffmeier, the Egyptologist and professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History at Trinity International University, Divinity School (Deerfield, IL ), illustrates this method for his research on Migdol. He argues: “We believe that Gardiner’s proposed association of Migdol of Egyptian texts with Migdol of the Exodus narratives is a reasonable one, and thus accept it as our working hypothesis.”[3] At Tall el-Hammam our working hypothesis has been proposed that it meets the location (right place), destruction (right stuff), and Middle Bronze Age (right time), for biblical Sodom. And the Scientific Report now provides the evidence for the right event which corresponds to the biblical account.

To ensure that we do not affect the conclusions of the evidence, the pottery is put through a triple blind read in two different countries (Jordan and USA) and by experts in ancient pottery from their respective countries. Thus, the methods used in the Field are directed by the hypothesis, though there must be guards in place to stop them imposing answers on the research. This is a delicate dialogue, but one that must be followed and is also followed at Tall el-Hammam.[4]

I am disheartened by those who do not understand the scientific and archaeological process to make the finds available to the public.

All I ask is for honesty and integrity in research by all parties but these days that is just too much to ask.

__________________

Footnotes

[1] T. E. Bunch,  M.A. LeCompte, A.V. Adedeji, et al. "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea." Scientific Reports 11, no 1 18632 (2021), 5.

[2] Ibid, 57.

[3] Bik, Elisabeth . "Blast in the Past: Image concerns in paper about comet that might have destroyed Tall el-Hammam". Science Integrity Digest. (2 October 2021). 

[4] Ibid. Source: https://cosmictusk.com/pebblegate/ – archived: https://archive.is/XGhgm 

[5] Kersel, Morag M.; Chesson, Meredith S.; Hill, Austin "Chad" (15 December 2021). "When Biblically Inspired Pseudoscience and Clickbait Cause Looting". Sapiens.

[6] Boslough, Mark (2022). "Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken with a Pillar of Salt" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. 46 (1): 10–14.

[7] https://trinitysouthwest.com/about-tsu/

[*]

[1] Edwin M. Yamauchi, ‘Historic Homer: Did It Happen?’, Biblical Archaeology Review 33, no. 2 (2007): 28–37, 76; Edwin M. Yamauchi, ‘Homer and Archaeology: Minimalists and Maximalists in Classical Context’, in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 69–90.

[2] The Webster’s New World College Dictionary defined a priori as a theory which is determined “before examination or analysis.” Michael E. Agnes, Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. (Cleveland, Ohio: Webster’s New World, 1999), op. cit.

[3] James K. Hoffmeier, “The North Sinai Archaeological Project’s Excavations at Tell El-Borg (Sinai): An Example of the ‘New’ Biblical Archaeology?,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 61.

[4] Thomas W. Davis, “Theory and Method in Biblical Archaeology,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 27.

__________________

Research

Dr. Collins responds:

Troweling Down:  Episode 21: The Airburst is Official!
Troweling Down:  Episode 21: Evidence Supporting An Airburst Event Part 1
 
I have responded to several criticism of the Scientific Report that was published by a peer reviewed journal recently.

__________________

Books

_________

 
Updated Feb, 2024 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Oct 5, 2021

The Date of the Patriarchs (Sodom Debate)

I will begin this post with a great analogy that one of my late professors Dr. Roger Nicole gave in my class (1979) that always stuck with me.  It was a military analogy but brilliant. He began by reminding us that you need to always know the location of your enemy and represent their arguments accurately. Represent the argument of your opponents correctly and do not misrepresent it so that when you drop your bombs it will land on the target, otherwise they will say I am over here and you missed me (I can still hear his Swiss/French accent). This has been true for so many debates in Biblical Archaeology but perhaps no more pertinent than in the date for the Patriarchs and the debate over The location of Sodom that I have been dealing with for over 40 years.

The largest opposition I get for The Location of Sodom is the date of the Patriarchs. And the analogy of Dr. Nicole is spot on here. They drop their bombs and miss the target because we are not where they think or assume we are. They do not represent the position of their opponents accurately and so when they drop their bombs (early or late date for the Patriarch) it does not land on the enemy. I have always, since that day, made sure that I understand where my opponent is coming from and accurately understand their position so when I drop my bomb it lands on my opponent and not out in the field somewhere. 

So lets consider the dates of the Patriarchs and the various positions of the debate. This is more complicated than most acknowledge and understand. So where is the targets located so you can drop your bombs on the target and not miss it so they say sorry we are over here and you missed me.

Chart of various dates for the Patriarchs
documented by various authors

1. Fact 36: Conservative scholars debate the date of the Exodus

The date of the Patriarchs is determined in large part by the date of the Exodus and then worked backwards. The generally accepted dates for the Exodus among conservative scholars fall into two camps: the early dates (1491[1], 1461[2], 1447[3], 1446[4], 1445,[5] 1430[6] BC LBIIA) and the late dates (1300,[7] 1290[8], 1270–1230,[9] 1260[10] BC LBIIB).[11] Collins argues for what he calls “a middle date” between 1416–1386 BC, in the eighteenth Dynasty and during the reign of Pharaoh Tutmoses IV.[12]

What is clear in this brief, and certainly not exhaustive, sampling of dates is that there is no consensus even within each camp as to the exact date of the Exodus.[13] The conservative scholar, Charles Pfeiffer, commented four decades ago with a statement, which is still relevant, that: “the evidence for the historicity of the Exodus account is decisive, but the evidence for the specific date is still inconclusive.”[14]

To further complicate the matter, conservative scholars hold to both early and late dates for the Exodus. While the early date is often categorized as the view of conservative theologians, the late date is also held by many eminent conservative biblical scholars and archaeologists[15] (see chart above).[16] James K. Hoffmeier, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, states:

many conservative scholars are adherents of the so-called “early” date [1446 BC]. Unfortunately for some, this date has become a sort of litmus test for one’s evangelical orthodoxy. This is lamentable, because I believe that the 13th-century date [late date] is equally based on biblical evidence.[17]

Steven M. Ortiz, former Professor of Archaeology and Biblical Backgrounds and Director of the Charles D. Tandy Institute for Archaeology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and now Director of the Center for Archaeological Studies no Lipscomb University, also maintains a late date for the Exodus, placing it in the 13th cent. BC.[18]

The dates for the Exodus are calculated based on the statement in Exodus 12:40 about the 430 years of travel.[19] But when does this period begin and end? Wood follows the Masoretic text (MT),[20] while Collins follows the Septuagint (LXX) reading, which is supported by the MT patriarchal chronologies, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the apostle Paul (Gal 3:16–17), and Josephus who claimed that the sojourn was 215 years in Canaan and 215 years in Egypt (Ant. 2.15.2).[21]

Depending on when one places the date of the Exodus, the date of the Patriarchs also moves to arrive in different periods.

To state that the early date is the date mentioned in the Bible reveals one's ignorance of the way dates are calculated and the bombs drop missing their target.

The Location of Sodom page 96.

Footnotes Fact 36

[1] Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 53.

[2] E. W Faulstich, History, Harmony and the Hebrew Kings (Spencer, IA: Chronology Books, 1986), 196–200.

[3] Tutmose III would be the Pharaoh of the oppression and Amenhoptep II would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, 82; J. Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), 129.

[4] Bryant G. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” JETS 48, no. 3 (2005): 488; James K. Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” JETS 50, no. 2 (2007): 225–47; Bryant G. Wood, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus Is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier,” JETS 50, no. 2 (2007): 249–58.

[5] Charles H. Dyer, “The Date of the Exodus Reexamined,” BSac 140, no. 559 (1983): 225–43.

[6] John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 2nd ed., JSOT Supplement Series 5 (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1981), Part 2; John Van Seters, “Review of John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70 (1984): 180–82.

[7] Brad C. Sparks, “Egyptian Text Parallels to the Exodus: The Egyptology Literature,” in Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination Conference, ed. Thomas E. Levy (Qualcomm Institute, University of California, San Diego, 2013), .

[8] Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, 83; Price, The Stones Cry Out, 130; Charles F. Aling, “Historical Synchronisms and the Date of the Exodus,” Artifax 17, no. 2 (n.d.): 19.

[9] Kenneth A. Kitchen and T. C. Mitchell, “Chronology of the Old Testament,” ed. I. Howard Marshall et al., NBD (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity, 1996), 191; Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 307–311.

[10] Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 159, 307, 359.

[11] Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) would be the Pharaoh of both the oppression and the Exodus. Lawrence T. Geraty, “Dates for the Exodus I Have Known,” in Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination Conference (Qualcomm Institute, University of California, San Diego, 2013).

[12] Collins and Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom, 140; Steven Collins, Let My People Go!: Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Albuquerque, NM: TSU Press, 2012); “Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus,” BRB 5, no. 7 (2005): 1–70.

[13] Omar Zuhdi, “Dating the Exodus: A Study in Egyptian Chronology,” KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 4, no. 2 (1993): 15–27.

[14] Charles F. Pfeiffer, “Exodus,” in The New International Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and James D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 333.

[15] R. K Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 115–16; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP Academic, 2008), 104; Caroline Masom, Pat Alexander, and Alan R. Millard, eds., Picture Archive of the Bible (Tring, Herts, UK: Lion, 1987), 22; R. Alan Cole, Exodus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 2 (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP Academic, 2008), 40–43; John D Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, An Evangelical Press Study Commentary (Auburn, MA: Evangelical, 2000), 27–29; Richard S Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity, 1996), 139–43; Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 57–69; The Bible in Its World (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1977), 75–79; Reliability of the OT, 307–9.

[16] Ralph K. Hawkins, “Propositions for Evangelical Acceptance of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data and the Royal Scarabs from Mt. Ebal,” JETS 50, no. 1 (2007): 31–46.

[17] Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus?,” 225.

[18] Steven M. Ortiz, “Hermeneutical and Methodological Comments on the History of the Conquest and Settlement: The Archaeological and Biblical Support for the 13th Century,” in Southwest Regional ETS Meetings (Fort Worth, TX, 2006), 1.

[19] Paul J. Ray Jr., “The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn In Egypt,” BS 17, no. 2 (2004):  33–45; Collins and Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom, 134–36, 139; Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 307–308.

[20] Wood, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus Is 1446 BC,” 249.

[21] Collins and Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom, 134–41; Collins, Let My People Go!

Fact 35: Not all archaeologists approach biblical numbers in the same way

An issue which affects chronology is the different methods of handling biblical numbers. Wood proposes a literal chronology using base-10 hard numbers.[1] Wood states that he bases his dating scheme on “a straightforward reading of the chronological data in the Old Testament.”[2]

By contrast, Collins uses a different method of accounting for numbers, also employed by other conservative evangelical scholars,[3] where he treats the years as “formulaic/honorific” or authentic.[4] He states: “I do take the number [440] as formulaic and not literal in the arithmetic sense, and I rely on historical synchronisms to link the Exodus to Egyptian history.”[5]

 Collins goes on to explain “in terms of its original cultural context. . . . Authentic may equate to literal if that’s what the writer intended.”[6]

This explains why two otherwise conservative scholars both arrive at conclusions with such a large spread between the dates of the Patriarchs.

Footnotes Fact 35

[1] Wood, “Locating Sodom: A Critique of the Northern Proposal,” 81; Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 83–96; “Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology,” BSac 137, no. 547 (1980): 241–51; “Texts, Talls, and Old Testament Chronology,” 20–21; Edwin Richard Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, revised (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 1994).

[2] Wood, “Locating Sodom: A Critique of the Northern Proposal,” 81.

[3] David Mark Fouts, “A Defense of the Hyperbolic Interpretation of Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” JETS 40 (1997): 377–87; “The Demographics of Ancient Israel,” BRB 7, no. 2 (2007): 1–10; Carol A. Hill, “Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55, no. 4 (2003): 239–51; Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers Of the Book of Judges,” JETS 48 (2005): 491–500.

[4] Collins, “Tall El-Hammam Is Still Sodom,” 4; “Tall El-Hammam Is Sodom,” 6.

[5] Collins, “Tall El-Hammam Is Still Sodom,” 8.

[6] Collins and Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom, 138.

The Location of Sodom page 114.

Fact 37: Most maximalists believe that the Patriarchs lived in the Middle Bronze Age

Most conservative evangelical scholars [D1] and maximalists would place the period of the Patriarchs (including Abraham and Lot) in the Middle Bronze Age (See Charts 2, 4, 5 and 6). This is based not so much on archaeological finds as on correlating characteristics in the biblical text with the cultural markers of the MB periods. Scholars who hold to a MB I period for the Patriarchs base their position on the literal biblical chronology based on a mid–15th cent. BC date for the Exodus, the antiquity of the biblical accounts (Gen 14), the geopolitical conditions and climate of the regions in the MB I period, nomadism and migration exemplified in the domestication of camels, and personal names and places identified in MB texts from Egypt, Ur, Mari, Ebla, Nuzi and Anatolia (20th–18th cent. BC).[1] Those who support a MB IIA/B date for the Patriarchs rely on the 13th cent. BC date for the Exodus, the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt, pottery in Negev, the Beni-Hasan mural (1890 BC), Middle kingdom Egyptian chronology, the geopolitical conditions (Gen 14), parallels with the MB culture and the price of slaves, and the structure of covenants.[2]

Collins explains some of the issues surrounding the question of chronology when he states:

While high, middle, and low ANE chronologies exist—tied principally to the chronology(ies) of Egypt—the differences between them consist of one or two decades, not centuries [See Chart 2]. (I am talking about the well-worked-out chronologies of mainline scholars like W. F. Albright, K. Kenyon, A. Ben-Tor, B. Mazar, A. Mazar, K. A. Kitchen, D. Redford, Wente and Van Siclen, J. Hoffmeier, J. Currid, and W. Dever; not the fringe, radical revisions of ANE chronology suggested by D. Rohl, G. Aardsma, and a few others.).[3]

Based on Chart 4 below, almost all evangelical scholars place the Patriarchs in the Middle Bronze Age, including Wood (2166–1991 BC MB I) and Collins (2000–1600 MB IIA/B). Freedman and van Hattem place the Patriarchs in the EB age, to support a SST.[4] The proponents who place them in the LB, Iron, and Persian/Greek periods are in the minority. Even Wood, who supports the idea of the EB destruction of BeD as supporting its claim on being Sodom, places the Patriarchs in the Middle Bronze I along with other scholars.[5] Wood acknowledges the discrepancy and explains:

If we assume a mid–15th century BC date for the Exodus, the date for the destruction [of Sodom] would then be ca. 2070 BC. The archeological date for the destruction of Bab eh-Dhra and Numeira, however, is considerably earlier than this. . . . This leaves a discrepancy between the Biblical date and the archaeological date of 230–280 years.[6]

The fact remains that most evangelical scholars believe that the Patriarchs live in the MB period (2nd millennium BC).

The Location of Sodom page 114.

Footnotes Fact 37

[1] John J. Bimson, “Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. Alan R. Millard and Donald J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity, 1980), 59–92; Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 47–48; “Texts, Talls, and Old Testament Chronology,” 20–21.

[2] Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 352–53; John E. Goldingay, “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. Donald J. Wiseman and Alan R. Millard (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 11–42; Alan R. Millard, “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. Donald J. Wiseman and Alan R. Millard (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 43–58; Nahum M Sarna, “The Patriarchs Genesis 12-36,” in Genesis: World of Myths and Patriarchs, ed. Ada Feyerick, Cyrus Herzl Gordon, and Nahum M Sarna (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 117–66.

[3] Collins, “Tall El-Hammam Is Still Sodom,” 10.

[4] Recently Kris Udd wrote his dissertation on the subject and states in his abstract “Combining the new lower archaeological chronologies and the higher dates for the patriarchs indicates the possibility that Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ’ and Numeira could be two of the biblical cities of the plain.”  Udd applies two extreme views to propose this speculative hypothesis. Kris J. Udd, “Bab Edh-Dhraʿ, Numeira, and the Biblical Patriarchs: A Chronological Study” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2011).

[5] Wood, “Discovery of the Sin Cities,” 78.

[6] Ibid.

 [D1] See “A Chronology for the Cities of the Plain” and “Abraham and Tall Nimrin: Docs the Chronology Work?” in Collins. Sodom and Gomorrah, The earliest possible birth date for Abraham working from The Masoretic Text is 2166 BC. but all the chronological evidence (apart from the Masoretic version of Exodus 12:40. which I regard as problematic), would put his birth about 215 years later, if the patriarchal life spans are taken literal)). If they aren’t literal, but arc somehow “honorific attributions.” then the lime of Abraham is later still. But regardless of which “Biblical” date you assign for Abraham, he’s a resident of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000-1600 BC the period from 2300-2000 BC is now included in The Intermediate Bronze Age). In Ibis light, one must note that the oft-proposed Sodom and Gomorrah sites—Bah edh-Dhra and Numeira were both destroyed about 2350 BC. long before the time of Abraham and Lot Although there’s a smaller Early Bronze Age village built after the 2350 BC destruction at Bâb edh-Dhrâʿ, it’s unfortified and short-lived. The Biblical description of Sodom requires that it be fortified (“Lot sat in the gateway of Sodom”), 72 n. 3.

 Conclusion

So before you drop your early or late date bombs you may want to know were your target is located because you have missed the target, we are in a different honorific time zone.


Facts taken from The Location of Sodom.

Further Research

Sodom Research Blog to related articles and links.

David E. Graves, “Sodom And Salt in Their Ancient Near Eastern Cultural Context,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 61 (2016): 18–36.

For the historic publication of the Scientific Reports in a peer reviewed publication see my Post. Bunch, T. E., LeCompte, M.A., Adedeji, A.V. et al. "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea." Scientific Reports 11, no 1 18632 (2021), 1-64.  Online article link


For my response to Gordon Govier's article in Christianity Today see my blog post.

For the Fallacy of Neutrality see blog post.

For the Date of the Patriarchs see blog post. 


_________

 
Updated Feb, 2024 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)