Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  Amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both Uzziah and Jeroboam (II), "two years before the earthquake".

  Geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760BCE, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.

  *Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42 (2000) 657-671. Y. Yadin, Hazor, the Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York: Random House, 1975). I. Finkelstein, "Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314 (1999) 55-70. D. Ussishkin, "Lachish" in E. Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993) vol. 1 338-342.

  According to Insight (volume 1, page 99), this earthquake occurred "sometime within the 26-year period from 829 to about 804 B.C.E.," at least nineteen years before the earliest point within the margin of error for the earthquake.

  Conversely, my chart shows Uzziah's sole reign beginning in 767BCE, and Jeroboam's final year overlaps Uzziah's reign in 753 BCE. Because Amos says his writing is during those two reigns but two years before the earthquake, that would place the earthquake itself within the range of 765BCE to 751BCE, which agrees perfectly with the geologists' findings.

  This is yet another area where the Watch Tower Society must throw its hands up in the air and claim all the experts must just be wrong.
• 

  Crazyguy

  The JW's have to date everything on the premise that Jerusalem was sacked in 607 bce, therefore everything they date is going to be wrong.
• 

  Londo111

  marked
• 

  Jeffro

  Crazyguy:

  The JW's have to date everything on the premise that Jerusalem was sacked in 607 bce, therefore everything they date is going to be wrong.

  That is true. But it's worse than just then '20-year gap' they add to the Neo-Babylonian period. See here for more info.
• 

  DS211

  Marked
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  Jeffro- What was the primary dating data the geologists used? And which timeline did they relate it to? I feel confident that bible chrono would not have been considered.

  BB
• 

  St George of England

  Never heard of this before.

  The things you learn on JWN.

  George
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Jeffro - very interesting! You don't miss a trick :-)

  However, it felt a little too convenient - wanted to check some things first - so I've been doing some googling, prompted in particular by Bart's questions:

  What was the primary dating data the geologists used? And which timeline did they relate it to? I feel confident that bible chrono would not have been considered.

  Actually, from what I have picked up from a cursory look around, there are some published criticisms (from bona fide academics) about the possible circularity in dating these ancient Levantine earthquakes. I haven't read these sources properly so I don't want to misrepresent their arguments by giving a poor summary of them, but here are some references you can investigate yourself:

  "The largest flaw in most of these assessments [relating to the Amos earthquake] is that they were performed without training in identifying seismological damage and in ignorance of the developments in the relatively new field of archaeoseismology."

  - David Danzig, 'A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake' (2011), p. 1.

  Danzig's article is worth a look, especially where he discusses the 'Archaeological Evidence' on p. 15f. and critiques Yadin's findings.

  His conclusion on p. 26:

  This paper has investigated the possible biblical and some of the possible archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah mentioned in the Book of Amos. Our conclusions are mixed. Biblical evidence points toward an impactful earthquake. As of yet, the archaeological evidence which has been suggested as indicative of this earthquake by several archaeologists and scholars is largely inconclusive. Further archaeological excavations with this problem in mind, as well as with personnel knowledgeable in archaeoseismological investigation could make significant inroads toward its solution. The biblical evidence is very strong since most scholars recognize the earliest parts of the Book of Amos as belonging to the 8th century B.C.E. Because of that, there is an expectation that corresponding archaeological evidence will be found, but that will not necessarily occur. It is quite possible that no recognizable trace of this earthquake has remained in the archaeological record due to myriad factors. Even if it might exist, the biblical account is so vague regarding the location of actual damages incurred that digs may not be aimed in the correct locations. As such, it remains an open problem.

  Also see Rucker and Niemi's article, 'Historical earthquake catalogues and archaeological data: Achieving synthesis without circular reasoning' in the Geological Society of America's book Ancient Earthquakes (2010), p. 97f - note the diagram Figure 1 on p. 98. This one analyzes a 6th century CE quake but still may be useful in outlining some of the problems.
• 

  Bobcat

  Jeffro:

  Just as another event that overlaps this period (c.760 BCE) -

  Jonah, according to 2 Kings 14:25 served during Jeroboam's reign (782/1 - 753). Whether Jonah's service extends more before or after, the Bible doesn't say. What's interesting to me is that this earthquake may give added reason for the Ninevites positive response to his message that he delivered.

  The McComiskey commentary on Jonah mentions " 'There was famine in [Assyria in] 765, recurring in, or lasting to, 759 B.C. In 763 there occurred the ominous solar eclipse. All this gave rise to rebellions in various cities until 758 B.C.' (Wiseman, "Jonah's Ninevah," p. 50) As a possible background to Jonah's mission all this information is of great interest."

  The events memtioned in the commentary would have primed the Ninevites into thinking the gods were angry or upset. I wonder if the earthquake (or at least the rumble from it) might have also had an effect on the Ninevites?

  Secular dating puts Jonah's visit to Ninevah possibly on the heals of these events adding reason to why the Ninevites reacted possitively to Jonah's message.

  The Society's dating of Jonah (and also of Jeroboam II) puts Jonah somewhere in the 844-804 timeframe, way before any of the events described above. And thus, the Society's dating has the effect of removing evidence supporting the plausibility of Jonah's preaching campaign.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  However, it felt a little too convenient - wanted to check some things first

  I was a bit skeptical of one of the sources too. One of the more recent researchers, Steve A. Austin, has a Ph.D in geology , but is also a creationist who believes in 'the Deluge' . However, his information about Amos' earthquake states that "Earthquake debris at six sites (Hazor, Deir 'Alla, Gezer, Lachish, Tell Judeideh, and 'En Haseva) is tightly confined stratigraphically to the middle of the eighth century B.C.," rather than claiming that it was 'linked to biblical dates'. Austin's work (et al) was published in the International Geology Review rather than a creationist publication.