|
|
Questions on Layers
Comments on the History of Religions
The following systems of thought on the history of religion have been developed in the more recent past.
a) The need to place the history and religion of Israel in the context of its contemporary world, to treat biblical history as part of and continuous of the total of ancient Near Eastern history.
Discussion: This approach appeared right to many scholars and shapers of opinion. However, if the historical chronology of these regions is not synchronous with real history such an approach is dangerous.
b) Others taught a more form critical analysis of biblical literature which, it is said, did not take Canaanite and ancient Near Eastern forms sufficiently into account. These were criticized because they used more often than not mostly internal biblical data.
Discussion: The same caution applies to this approach as in a) in addition to dismissing the God of the Bible as not the true God Almighty, Creator of heaven and Earth. Applying hummanistic philosophy is bound to fail to comprehend the true account of the history of religion anywhere in the world.
New Aspects of the Chalcolithic Culture
We read this interesting comment: "It is only recently that a specific branch of Chalcolithic culture has come to light in the Golan, and although there is much that remains unexplained, a definite picture is beginning to emerge as the result of excavations at a number of sites. Not only is the nature of this form of Chalcolithic settlement becoming clearer, but the extent of its distribution is seen as widespread - in all probablility stretching well beyond modern frontiers." [Claire Epstein, A New Aspect of Chalcolithic Culture in ASOR, No. 229, Feb 1978, p. 27-45.]
In revised view, we may look upon this statement as underscoring that the Chalcolithic culture represents the living areas of the poorer populations across, probably, many ages. But what if someone asks, `If the Chalcolithic age represents the poor areas, why is there no pottery found from other ages?' Well, our answer may be, `As soon as pottery of other ages is found, of course, such a site would cease to be attributed to the Chalcolithic age.' Therefore, the above statement that the picture that emerges as a result of excavations may be somewhat misleading. We would say, nothing emerges solely as a result of excavations but rather as a result of the interpretations of excavations.
In a footnote, Dever says his term EB IV is the same as Albright's MB1, and Kenyon's Intermediate EB-MB (p. 295). This would make it the same as Thompson's EB4/MB1 period. In the same volume, David Ilan contrasts Middle Bronze Age I-III with the "preceding Intermediate Bronze Age" . [T. Levy, ed.. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1995, p. 282, 297.]
This information indicates that definitions of eras among some archaeologists may be used in different ways so that one's EB III, may be another's MB I or some other sub-classification. That in turn seems to indicate that such layer labeling is highly subjective which is also suggested by the widespread lack of specific charting as to thicknesses of layers, basis of differentiation, continuity or lack of it over three dimensional space, etc.
There is A Need to Distinguish between layers (a cross sectional, vertical feature seen from the side) and the bird's eye view of a `carpet' level of a layer in excavation reports. In archaeological digs, amazing, often horizontal layers in cross section can be noted in the fresh soil. In time, however, the immediate appearance of these colors disappears depending on heat and amount of moisture present. Sometimes the layers are quite distinct, other times less so. But each layer represents the effects of a cause. While the layers are generally more or less horizontal, they are seen in vertical digs. To understand their meaning, removal of an area of soil is required to learn their horizontal, `carpet', extent. Removing a layer makes it more difficult to follow its level in all directions. Archaeologists are not always certain they are still in the layer they were first interested in when seeing it merely on the side of a trench. Since layer thicknesses are seldom stated (presumably because they can change so much or be lost track off), archaeologists are bound to make assumptions on its real significance. It is not always the case that the longer people lived on a surface the deeper a layer will be. This should give us pause on how reliable all these assigned layers really are. We like to believe in accurate assessments, but since the limiting factors are often not reported, we may be inadvertently misled. In science, as in archaeology, probability factors should play a part. Once artifacts are classified to represent certain periods, and if the classification employs a misleading chronology, then all bets are off. This may be exemplified by what has been called "one of the most advanced digs of the period" of Macalister at Gezer. "He dug over 3/5 of the mound but discerned no more than 8 of the 26 strata we now know to be present." This is part of the first revolution (1848-1940) which emphasized a) stratification and b) pottery assignment in place of just `treasure hunting. The second revolution (1918-1940) changed, what is referred to as the largely intuitive to a systematic (Albright) method. The third revolution (1948-1970, Kenyon) dug smaller squares leaving in between cat-walks to preserve depositional layers, but publication fell behind making it difficult to judge this periods merits. The fourth revolution (1970- present) brought in team work of specialists and student workers bringing in their ideas of natural science, social science, ethnography, and environmental studies[500] - in short largely evolutionistic views which in our view leads to unfailing errors in overextending history and `proving as their paradigm or point of faith, the unreliability of the Biblical record at any cost'. (So who can trust anything they say?)
[700] Unfortunately, our revision shows that, indeed, erroneous chronologies underly the writing of ancient historical events by modern authors. It seems that without written instructions [1000], the interpretation of archaeological layers is a very subjective task and ought not to replace, in particular, the testimony of the ancient biblical literature.
Flint tools and Ages: The tendency among archaeologists is to assign remote ages to excavation sites whenever they find chipped flint tools. The Hebrew word for flint is given as challamish and the Hebrew word for knife is given as maakeleth in the Bible. Both words have a strange, close sounding relationship to us, probably because they have three out of five letters in common, and we may venture a guess that the knife of Abraham in Genesis 22:10 was a flint knife.[Even though Genesis says, Abraham used a `maakeleth' knife and doesn't use the word for flint? We believe it may still be possible. Why? Because we believe that Abraham did not bring a knife to stab Isaac, but rather to cut an artery.]
The Ghassulian culture is regarded to be a specific branch of Chalcolithic culture first seen in the Golan region. In 1973 a drystone rectangular structure was found which showed no evidence of a roof and contained stone arrangements interpreted to have been altars or table altars on the basis of a schematic pillar figure nearby. Objects found included vessels, sherds (pithoi), flint tools like adzes, borers, sickle blades, perforated disks and fan scrapers; also found were basalt bowls, mortars and grinding stones. Items clearly belonging to agricultural pursuits. Carbonized pea seeds and charred olive seeds were found. Above all they shared cultic features like fertility symbols in iconography, pillar-form house gods and animalizing pillar figures. Could this culture represent Israelites during the period of their apostasy? [Claire Epstein, A New Aspect of Chalcolithic Culture in BASOR, Feb 1978, p. 27-45.]
The Late Bronze Age
For more detailed information see Albert Leonard, The Late Bronze Age in BA, Mar 1989. The magazine shows an emotional relief from the Memphite tomb of Horemheb; a chart illustrating scholars time assignments of the LBA; typical pottery; the carvings on the wooden chariot of Thutmose IV; Canaanite ships drawn by Egyptian artists; Akhnaton and Nefertiti; Gezer funerary assemblages; Sea Peoples account; tablet of Ugaritic alphabet; the governor's residency floor plan of Aphek, Tell al-Fareh, Beth Shan, Tell esh-Shariah and the temple of Ball at Ugarit.
A Critical View of Dead Reckoning from the 21st Dynasty
In this paper the author cautions against reliance on LBA absolute dating. We read:
"In spite of recent advances in scholarship, absolute dating of the Late Bronze Age remains poorly defined. There also seems to be a problems of lacunae in the records. `In Syria the 12th and 11th centuries BC following the destruction of many LBA sites like Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani, has long been regarded as something of a Dark Age, supposedly like that in other areas of the eastern Mediterranean.'(1) In an attempt to explain various anomalies in the historical records, James et al, have suggested a radical reduction of the LBA by some 250 years.(2) While the proposal faces almost insurmountable barriers(3), the extent to which more modest reduction would ameliorate these problems has not yet received attention."[1500]
(1) Dever, BASOR, 288, (1992,19).
(2) Peter James, I.J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos, R. Morkot, J. Frankish, Centuries of Darkness (London, 1991).
(3) Reviewed in CJA 1:2 (1991), 227-53.
Notes & References
[0030] There was only one Ice Age which resulted from warmer oceans. It affected the northern hemisphere of Eur-Asia and America. England was under an ice sheet to about London, the northern half of Ireland was covered, all of Scandinavia, northern Germany to about Nantes and the Loire River, over to about Longt. 44°E & Lat. 48°N in a fairly straight line along the Danube/Donau River. In America all of Canada was under ice which came down to about the Columbia River in Washington, in a northern bow over to the Dakotas, down toward St. Louis, with an uncovered island in Wisconsin (between Minneapolis and Davenport), and then up in a craggy line toward Main. - If the oceans were 85° F (29° C), copious rainstorms and strong winds would have affected these areas until ocean waters gradually cooled over a 500 year period for all the ice to melt away in the following 200 years. Today deep ocean temperature is about 39°F. The aftermath of the Great Flood in the days of Noah brought on a series of colder summers (av. Temp 20-40°F lower than now in northern Canada and Europe) due to atmospheric particles uplifted by many violent, volcanic eruptions since the Great Flood affected the crust of the earth in many places. That means summers were shorter and snow and ice did not melt bringing on the Ice Age. This shows that rising of high mountains and `Green House Effect' cannot produce an ice age. In general, evolutionary assumptions have not been helpful in explaining what we see. - Why was the ocean so warm after the Flood? Because the Bible says, ". . . all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." ... "and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (Our high Mtns are post Flood) And God remembered Noah, and . . . the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." See Genesis 7 and 8.
We can understand today that copious quantities of water from below, having been heated by the temperatures present beneath, heated the oceans much like we see hot water even now at Yellowstone park. Indian Ocean, Atlantic and Pacific Mid-ocean rifts upheavals formed mountain chains and giant earthquakes. Huge inland lakes on the continents laid down layers upon layers, carved rivers and canyons by using a lot of water in a short time. Probably by 1500 to 1200 BC the ice would have been melted or in a few spots rapidly diminishing. This was the time of cave paintings, the large woolly mammoths, saber toothed tigers, woolly rhinos, giant elk and many creatures. As the volcanic events slowed, the oceans cooled during the Ice Age and less evaporation took place. This led to less moisture in the air for snow and rain allowing warmer inland climate and thawing the ice sheets everywhere. Within about a 200 year period the Ice Age had disappeared. With warmer summers, woolly animals had a harder time and also less food as large stretches of land had changes in vegetation. This, as well as huge dust storms, caused the dying of these large animals like the woolly mammoths in Siberia.
That such an Ice Age is of a much more recent time than long age models theorize is shown by the fact that the higher peaks like Mt. Kilimandsharo (5963 meters, Long. ca. 37°E, Lat. 2°S) had an ice cap within historical times but not much (if any) left today. It shows that the melting of glaciers today is just the result of the oceans and the earth coming back to more normal temperatures like they used to be. Since only summers cooler by 20 to 40°F can produce an Ice Age, and since those temperatures developed only once, there was only one Ice Age. All the phenomena in the world and man's existence can be explained much better by this short age model. As we said, the world's human population today, is the result of about 4300 years of marrying and having children, not tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years of human and animal presence on earth. - This earth will last just a little longer until Jesus comes again to close the chapter of sin for all time to come. His advent will end all suffering, all unbelief, all sickness, heart aches and death.
[0050] Stone and Metal Ages are an invention of the Danish coin collector Christian Thompson, who tried to find a system to organize Museum collections. The archaeologist J.J.A. Worsaae, next, went around Europe looking for evidence of these age groupings, thus the contrived system was born. [Worsaae, J., The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark, John Henry Parker, 1849 quoted in Creation, Sep/Nov 2005, p. 13.]
[200] William G. Dever, Vestigial Features in MB I: An Illustration of some Principles of Ceramic Typology in BASOR, Dec 1970, p. 19-30.
[0500] William G. Dever, Archaeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution in BA, Winter 1980, p. 40-48.
[0700] Naturalism's religious statements corroborate that. D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
[Quoted in Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, [1983] 1993), 144-145.]
C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson's frank admission and responded: "Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?"
[C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 163.]
Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that 'The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.' [Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, 'Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,' in Paleobiology 3 (1977), 145.] Gould adds: "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method", with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."[Gould, Stephen Jay, 'In the Mind of the Beholder,' Natural History (February 1994), 103:14.]
[1000] On scholarly bias see also D.N. Freedman & J.C. Geoghean, House of David - Is There in BAR, Mar 1005, p. 78-79.
[1500] Graham Hagens, A Critical View of Dead Reckoning from the 21st Dynasty in JARCE, Vol. XXXIII, 1996, p. 153-163.
|
|
Main Menu