BBS Hazor
Introduction
Why was such a supporting mass of
information avoided or swept under the table?
There is no dispute over the facts as stated. Ben-Tor’s logic is hard to refute. So why is the battle described as blitzkrieg
and posed out of reported chronological sequence? If real evidence exists in the 14C
dating of charred wheat for charred walls at Hazor, why not bring it out in the
interests of science? We have showed
that the idea of blitzkrieg is an insulting caricature of the Israelites. We have showed that the charred wheat does
not establish the absence of Joshua at Hazor.
We have showed that both the Southern Campaign and the Northern Campaign
were initiated by massive Amorite and Canaanite coalitions, and not by Joshua. These coalitions freely chose to opt for war,
rather than to sue for peace. We have
showed that while Joshua’s campaigns were very effective, they in no way
represent a total annihilation of enemy forces: their focus is limited to
thirty-one kings and their pivotal city-states.
Script[1]
Hazor
(time 27:10)
And if what the Bible describes as the
greatest of all Canaanite cities, Hazor[2] there is more evidence of
destruction. Today, Hazor is being
excavated by one of the leading Israeli archaeologists, Amnon Ben-Tor,[3] and his protégé and
co-director Sharon Zuckerman[4].
Ben-Tor: I’m walking through a passage between
two of the rooms of the Canaanite palace of the kings of Hazor. Signs of the destruction you can still see
almost everywhere. You can see the dark
stones here, and most importantly you can see how they cracked into a million
pieces. It takes tremendous heat to
cause such damage. The fire here was, I shall
say, the mother of all fires.
N: Among the ashes, Ben-Tor discovered a
desecrated statue, most likely the king or patron god of Hazor. Its head and hands are cut off, apparently by
the city’s conquerors. This marked the
end of Canaanite Hazor.
Question number one, who did it? Who was around? Who is a possible candidate? Well, number one, the Egyptians. They don’t mention having done anything in
Hazor in any of the inscriptions of the time of Hazor. Another Canaanite city-state could have done
it, maybe? But who was strong enough to
do it? Who are we left with? The Israelites, the only ones involved who there
is a tradition, they did it. So let’s
say they should be considered guilty of the destruction of Hazor until proven
innocent.[5]
Blitzkrieg
The real purpose, in The
Bible’s Buried Secrets (BBS) chain of logic, for introducing Hazor
outside of its historic sequence, is to continue the development of the idea of
blitzkrieg introduced in the BBS Jericho discussion.[6] By presenting a “straw man” caricature of
Joshua’s campaigns, BBS hopes to show that Joshua never existed. Eventually, in this chain of logic, Zuckerman’s voice will be raised against her mentor Ben-Tor, in
order to make him seem like an unscientific old man. Then the weight of Finkelstein’s “evidence”
will be brought to bear. At which point
the proof that there is no historical Moses, Joshua, Exodus, Conquest, or even
period of Judges will be complete: or so BBS will claim. There is only an idealistic, idealized, and
imaginary Moses, Joshua, and the like: according to BBS.
We have everywhere showed that this
chain of logic is severely flawed and, thus far, without any evidence. No one debates the destruction of Hazor, or
its degree of severity: it is plainly there for all to see. But, the dating and interpretation of such destruction
is clearly up for dispute. So this is
what we shall bring to the table and dispute.
There is no blitzkrieg by any dating
or interpretation, so the false claim of blitzkrieg will fail in spite of other
logical outcomes. Thus, the chain of
logic that attempts to prove that neither Moses nor Joshua, nor any of their
acts ever existed in history; that chain of logic is broken.
Campaigns
In 1406 the Israelites entered Jericho;
all the people were executed except for Rahab and her family; finally the city
was burned with fire.[7] After a first defeat at Ai, the battle was
set in array in an ambush outside of the city; the city was entered and burned;
the combatants were executed; finally all the other inhabitants were slain.[8] After Ai, Joshua established a worship center
at Ebal[9] which will remain the
Israelite worship center until Yahweh defects to the Philistines[10] and David restores the
Ark to Jerusalem.[11] At this point Joshua returned to Gilgal[12] where he made an alliance
with the city-state Gibeon, without any battle or destruction.[13] This sequence of events constitutes Joshua’s
Central Campaign.
After or even because of Gibeon,
Joshua was compelled to face the Amorite Coalition, engaging their armies:
Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon.[14] Finally, Joshua continues to the south,
engaging their city-states: Makkedah,[15] Libnah,[16] Lachish,[17] Gezer,[18] Eglon,[19] Hebron,[20] Debir,[21] from Kadeshbarnea to
Gaza, from Goshen to Gibeon.[22] Then Joshua and the Israelite armies returned
to Gilgal a second time.[23] These battles conclude Joshua’s Southern
Campaign.
Joshua did not, at this time and
without provocation, unilaterally launch his Northern Campaign against the
Canaanite Coalition: Hazor, Madon, Shimron, Achshaph, the northern mountains,
the southern plains, Chinneroth, the valley, Dor to the west, the Canaanites on
the east and on the west; as well as other enemy allied states: the Amorites,
Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites,[24] all in league with Hazor.
Caricature
These campaigns have been
caricatured as a blitzkrieg. It is not
only insulting to compare Israelites with Nazis, it is a rather anti-Semitic
claim; it is also grossly untrue. Joshua
caries out his campaigns at a rather leisurely pace, all things
considered. After Ai, he pauses to
establish a center for worship. He make
allies. He returns to camp. He does not initiate either the Southern
Campaign or the Northern Campaign. All
of the city-states involved knew of Joshua’s alliance with Gibeon; all had an
opportunity to sue for peace; all chose war as their preference. Joshua does not begin the Southern Campaign
until the Amorite Coalition attacks his allies at Gibeon. Now, he has no choice but to fight. Joshua does not begin the Northern Campaign
until the Canaanite Coalition is arrayed against him. Again, he has no choice but to fight. These massive coalitions could have sued for
peace; yet, they did not.
Neither was Joshua a wanton
destroyer. He evidently only used fire
as a means of suppressing further combat.
The list of cities that Joshua burned includes Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. Other cities were not burned.[25]
Effectivity
It is easy to overstate the
effectiveness of Joshua’s campaigns.
They were effective: they destroyed the armed combatants that they
engaged, and the city-states that they faced.
They did not destroy the armed combatants that fled from the battle, the
reserves that never entered battle, or the non-combatants that went into
hiding. They did not engage enemy allies
such as Egypt to the south, or Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites
to the north; not in their power centers.
Only those specific units which were sent into battle were engaged.
The survivors, together with the
supporting enemy allied states constitute a massive body, easily able to
regroup, rebuild, rearm, and repopulate in the vacuum left as Joshua returned
to Gilgal, leaving no armies of occupation behind.
Joshua’s completed task was the
elimination of thirty-one kings, their command and control structure, and most
of their active forces.[26] The record shows that Joshua left a
considerable amount of work undone.[27] Joshua established a peace that may have
lasted ten years from 1406 to 1396, and possibly a little longer.
Dating
We have not yet located data for 14C
dating of burned wheat at Hazor.
Statements such as “3,400 year-old wheat”[28] or “wheat from some 3,400
years ago”[29]
are not really helpful. We need to have
access to the raw data to learn anything useful. The number 3,400 could be calculated from the
year of discovery, possibly 2012, in which case, this number would mean 1388
BC. More likely 3,400 would be in
relationship to the standard base of 1950, which yields a crude idea of 1450
BC.
Moreover, a great amount of wheat
was found, so we can only hope that at least one-hundred random samples were
taken and tested using the same sort of high precision equipment as was used at
Jericho. If we have one-hundred samples
we expect a calculation of the mean, the standard error of the mean, and a
report of the confidence interval at 95%.
The method and accuracy of equipment calibration would also be nice to
know. When all the known errors are
added to standard error of the mean we begin to get a picture with which we can
deal more exactly.
Because we are dealing with a mean
and the standard error of the mean, the dates being evaluated must fall outside
of the confidence interval. Otherwise,
there is no reason to believe that the biblical dating is not an accurate
description of the events in question.
We’re not done yet. Once the mean and its error-corrected
confidence interval is known, it must still be calibrated against the INTCAL
13 calibration curve, the “wiggles”. So,
is the number 3,400 already calibrated, in which case it must look like 3,400 ±
200 or worse? That’s equivalent to 1450
± 200 or worse. So any date lying
between 1650 and 1250 cannot be demonstrated to be in error. Since the dates 1406-1396 fit handily within
this range there is no statistical reason to believe that Joshua did not attack
and burn Hazor in 1406-1396. Barack
defeats Jabin in 1235 and
that date is barely excluded by the data.
Based on the data received we are 95% confident that the burned wheat
discovered at Hazor does not date from the age of Barack.
On the other hand, if the number 3,400 is not already calibrated
the results would look more like 1650 ± 200 or worse: in other words
1850-1450. Now we have a 95% confidence
that both Joshua and Barak are excluded.
We must keep in mind that what this sort of
statistic really means that in cases of this type we have 19:1 odds that
1406-1396 and 1235 dates are excluded.
We have learned some betting odds, but we no absolutely nothing about
the specific instance at Hazor.
Our statistical calisthenics have established
the mean behavior of average burned wheat; they say nothing about the behavior
of an individual grain, less about the pot, and least about the adjacent
wall. Sorry folks, statistics just don’t
work the way we intuitively want them to work.
So it all boils down to a bet and calculating the odds.
Lacking further detail, Ben-Tor has
the better bet by far. Our
safe bet is that we are looking at pieces of Joshua’s walls at Hazor; elsewhere
we have Omride features; just
as Yadin dated them; and six chambered gates, just as Solomon designed
them. Elsewhere, we also have the
remains of Barak’s destruction, we’re just not wise enough to sort them
out. Yet, it’s all here, mixed together
in one site covering a span of history nearly one thousand years long or more
(1850-884) and somebody actually expects us to sort that out using 14C
dating on a handful of grain pots.
Let’s do some critical thinking
here. Where were these grain pots
discovered? Above that specific strata
is most likely younger, and below that specific strata is most likely older,
provided that the whole tell developed at the same rate. Well, we already know that this is not the
case, don’t we? Hazor is a large place,[30] and parts of it fell into
disuse, or otherwise developed at different rates.
Proposed destructions by Seti I
(1290-1279) and Ramesses II (1279-1213), are both later than Joshua. While not completely excluded by the 1650-1250
span, they are almost as unlikely as Barak in 1235.
Zuckerman
Hypothesis
Does the Zuckerman hypothesis hold water? What was discovered at Hazor? There was “one archaeological stratum … shows
signs of catastrophic fire…. evidence of
violent destruction by burning…. a
scorched palace from the 13th century BCE[31] in whose storerooms they
found 3,400 year old ewers holding burned crops.” Nobody disputes this evidence: it’s quite
visible.
Again, some critical thinking is required. As with the Chicago fire, once the blaze
starts, the whole city burns to the ground.
Former residents watch helplessly as the whole site goes up in
smoke. Given their primitive
firefighting capabilities there is nothing they can do except wring their hands
in frustration. We must not think of
these people as ignorant, surely they understood the cost of fire. Because of this extreme cost, the disgruntled
residents of Hazor have very little motive to burn their own house and security
down around their own ears. It is very
unlikely that they actually did so. The Zuckerman hypothesis does not hold
water. Burning a city was an extreme
measure, even for the invading Israelites: its only advantage was to delay a
counterattack.
Conclusion
Why was such a supporting mass of
information avoided or swept under the table?
There is no dispute over the facts as stated. Ben-Tor’s logic is hard to refute. So why is the battle described as blitzkrieg
and posed out of reported chronological sequence? If real evidence exists in the 14C
dating of charred wheat for charred walls at Hazor, why not bring it out in the
interests of science? We have showed that
the idea of blitzkrieg is an insulting caricature of the Israelites. We have showed that the charred wheat does
not establish the absence of Joshua at Hazor.
We have showed that both the Southern Campaign and the Northern Campaign
were initiated by massive Amorite and Canaanite coalitions, and not by
Joshua. These coalitions freely chose to
opt for war, rather than to sue for peace.
We have showed that while Joshua’s campaigns were very effective, they
in no way represent a total annihilation of enemy forces: their focus is
limited to thirty-one kings and their pivotal city-states.
[1]
What is for the most part an exact copy of the script follows. There are a few places where individual
speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for this we apologize. Every effort was made to be precise: there
were just spots that defeated us. Since
this is a quote in its entirety it seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation
marks. The notation for each speaker is
tedious enough: Narrator, Reader, etc.
If you discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point
them out. You may verify the script more
easily by starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion
begins. The second of these links is
free from advertising and thus easier to use.
This blog is found at:
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
[2] Part
of the dating for Hazor is prescribed by the Amarna letters. According to the Egyptian chronology, Amarna
is only an official capital from 1351-1334, during the reign of Amenhotep
IV/Akhenaten. If Yahweh made a believer
out of some Egyptians in 1446, Akhenaten may have received his henotheism from
his immediate ancestors. In any case, if
the Egyptian chronology is correct, seventeen years of Hazor’s vassalage to
Egypt is fixed in time. That vassalage is
at least this large and doubtless much larger, so when Joshua attacks Hazor
shortly after 1406, he is most likely attacking an Egyptian satellite state: according
to the Amarna record, “EA 148 specifically
reports that Hasura’s king had gone over to the Habiru, who were invading
Canaan.” This is too close to the Joshua
and Judges chronology to escape our attention.
We have dated the first battle of Hazor at 1406-1396, and the second
battle of Hazor at 1235, one-hundred-sixty-one to one-hundred-seventy-one years
later. If EA 148’s Hasura is identical
to Jabin, and Habiru means Hebrews or Israelites, then we have strong evidence
for the presence of Israelites as a powerful force in the Promised Land. This evidence is at least as sound and as strong
as the Merneptah Stele, so we wonder why it was not discussed.
There is no need to
conflate the first and second battles of Hazor: for it is no more difficult to
believe that two wars were fought against the same militarily strategic city
over one-hundred-sixty years apart, than to believe that two wars were fought
over Europe, only twenty-five years apart: WWI (1914), WWII (1939). Hazor was very likely, the most strategically
important city in the north, and it would make no sense at all if it were not
immediately rebuilt, refortified, and reoccupied.
[3]
Amnon Ben-Tor, a professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Works: Horvat Usa (1963), Tel Yarmuth (1970),
Azor (1971), Athienou, Cyprus (1971-1972; with T. Dothan), Tel Qiri
(1975-1976), Yoqne‘am (1977-1979; 1981; 1987-1988), Tel Qashish (1978-1979;
1981-1985; 1987), The Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael
Yadin (1990-present). Ben-Tor’s
observation is well taken. Who did
it? By default Israel defeated both
Jericho and Hazor.
[4] Sharon Zuckerman (1965-2014) little
bibliography. Works: Hazor.
[5] Tell
el-Qedah is not to be confused with other sites with the common name of
Hazor. The Amarna letters are dated
between 1388 and 1332. This fits very
well with Joshua defeating Jabin and his city and burning parts of it (Joshua
11:1), yet being unable to retain control and possession of it. Hazor and Tells like Hazor were able to
regain control under a successor, Jabin II, and recover with the help of their
Egyptian and other allies (Judges 4; Psalm 83:9). Little-by-little the Israelites were able to
settle and reconquer the land. In this
process, most of the Israelites quickly compromised and politicized their
religion. Not until David, was this
conquest completed in Judea (1010), and in the monarchy (1003). Solomon later rebuilds and refortifies the
city.
[7]
Joshua Chapter 6, especially verses 20, 23, 24
[8]
Joshua Chapters 7 and 8, especially verses 8:16-18, 19, 21, 24-27
[9] Joshua 8:30-35
Northeast of Nablus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ebal
South-southeast of Nablus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gerizim
East-southeast Nablus about 3 miles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechem
Khirbet Seilun, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiloh_(biblical_city)
North of Nablus about 20 to 25 miles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria
[10] 1
Samuel 4:11 to 6:12
[11] 2
Samuel 6:1-19
[12]
In the plains of Jordan, adjacent to Jericho, at an unknown location, possibly Khirbet
en-Nitleh or Khirbet El Mafjir, Joshua 4:19; 5:10
[13] Joshua Chapter 9
[14] Joshua Chapter 10
[15] Joshua 10:28
[16] Joshua 10:29
[17] Joshua 10:31
[18] Joshua 10:33
[19] Joshua 10:34
[20] Joshua 10:36
[21] Joshua 10:38
[22] This
concluding polygonal construct defines the general area of conquest. Joshua
10:41
[23] Joshua 10:43
[24] Joshua
11:1-15
[25] Joshua 11:13
[26] Joshua 12:31
[27] Joshua 13:1
[30]
This is an area in excess of 200 acres; in contrast one square mile, which is
also called a section of land, and amounts to 640 acres. So this is a little less than one-third of a
section in area, or a rectangle about 0.3125 miles wide and 1.00 miles long, or
a 0.559 miles square, or a circle 0.631 miles in diameter, or 193.6 football
fields. It is impossible to maintain
uniform terrain over such a great area.
The upper city amounted to roughly 30 acres; while the lower city
covered more than 175 acres.
[31] This
is actually a considerable error. The 14C
dating centers on a 1450 date, which can only be made older by further calibration;
the biblical date hinges on a 1406 date to possibly as early as 1396, which is
barely four years into the fourteenth century.
Since both 1450 and 1406 are in the fifteenth century, this is what the
statement should have been. Doubtless
the writer wanted to support a Ramesses II (1279-1213) Exodus and
Conquest. That being said, even the 1279
date is close to being eliminated by the 95% confidence interval 1650-1250. It would have been necessary for Moses to
confront Ramesses II in the first twenty-nine years of his sixty-six year reign
rather than at the end of that reign as the narrative clearly shows. A 1213 date is completely incompatible with
the Hazor evidence, so unless the Ramesses II dates are completely in error, we
are 95% confident that Ramesses II is not the pharaoh of either the Exodus or
the Conquest. The scorched wheat dates
in the mid fifteenth century.
[32] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment