Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  Bobcat:

  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.

  I would not like to speculate about 'Jonah', as that story smacks of folklore. Amos' 'prophecy', like many biblical and extra-biblical ancient writings, was more likely a historical account presented as 'prophecy' as a narrative device. (The fact that it includes the statement, 'two years before the earthquake' is a pretty big clue that it was actually written afterwards but retrodated.) However, it at least includes specific points of reference. The story about 'Jonah' provides nothing usable at all, because the net result is that nothing happened.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  [Re: the post-but-one] The contention seems to be, though, whether the debris is a result of a quake in the first place. That is what Danzig wonders considering how the digs were interpreted. More modern archaeoseismological methods may resolve this. I wonder if anyone has published a review or replied to Danzig's article yet.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  The contention seems to be, though, whether the debris is a result of a quake in the first place.

  Of course the available evidence isn't absolutely conclusive. Yet Danzig doesn't dispute the timing assigned to the the strata, and he acknowledges that something sparked rebuilding efforts around that time (though Danzig speculates that it might have been due to a period of disuse, which is equally if not more unfounded). It is, at the very least, plausible that the geologists have indeed correctly identified the period of the quake; in any case, the fact remains that there is no support for the Watch Tower Society's chronology.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The difficulty is going to be, though, that the archaeologists say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II reigned, of course, in the mid-8th century BCE as has been established. Ergo, the debris dates to the mid-8th century BCE."

  All the WTS does is say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II, of course, reigned during the 9th century BCE according to 'true Bible chronology.' Ergo, the debris dates to the 9th century BCE."

  In other words, and in line with Bart's earlier question, can the debris be dated apart from just lining it up with the known chronology? If not, then the timing of the earthquake may not prove anything either way regarding WTS chronology here.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  The difficulty is going to be, though, that the archaeologists say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II reigned, of course, in the mid-8th century BCE as has been established. Ergo, the debris dates to the mid-8th century BCE."

  That doesn't seem to be the case. Danzig is fairly liberal with his complaints, but says nothing about the geologists allegedly 'trying' to make the earthquake fit the time period of Jeroboam. Austin quotes Yadin, saying 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., with dating errors of ~30 years" (italics added; the error is given as 25 years in some sources). The margin for error provided isn't consistent with merely 'trying' to make the geological dating of the strata 'fit' the traditional dating of Jeroboam's reign, but on geological methods. The fact that the earlier sources suggest 750 BCE also doesn't help the suggestion that they were merely trying to 'fit' the reign of Jeroboam, whose reign is traditionally dated as ending in 753BCE. The older geological estimates (750 ± 30) place the earthquake in the range of 780BCE to 720BCE, and the more recent estimates (760 ± 25) place it in the range of 785BCE to 735BCE. Neither of those ranges equates to the reign of Jeroboam, though it overlaps.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  No, you misunderstand, I'm not saying they're 'trying' to make it fit. I'm saying 'Junk from such-a-stratum belongs to such-a-king's era. We know the dates when that king was around so the junk must also be such-a-date.'

  Now, you talk about 'geological methods' in pinpointing the date. I'm ignorant of the methods geologists use when dating layers of dirt, so how do they date strata independently, scientifically, without being influenced by historical chronologies?
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  No, you misunderstand

  No. I just don't agree.

  Geologists stating that an earthquake was within the range of 780BCE to 720BCE (750BCE ± 30 years [or 785BCE to 735BCE for the later estimates of 760BCE ± 25 years]) doesn't really sound anything like 'we know Jeroboam II was around from 793BCE to 753BCE so it must have been then', because their estimates cover only part of that period, and a significantly later period. If they were merely basing their findings on the expected years of a particular reign, they would more likely have said 'early 8th century BCE'.

  how do they date strata independently, scientifically, without being influenced by historical chronologies?

  I don't know the specific methods of chronostratigraphy involved.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

  As I see the situation at the moment, all the earthquake (if it is an earthquake) corroborates is Amos' testimony that one occurred in Jeroboam II's and Uzziah's time. To find out when they reigned, one needs to access other means to establish that.

  I don't know the specific methods of chronostratigraphy involved.

  Then we are both in the dark here :-)
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

  Your explanation was pretty clear. It just didn't sound right...

  I'm saying 'Junk from such-a-stratum belongs to such-a-king's era. We know the dates when that king was around so the junk must also be such-a-date.'

  That would mean they were saying, 'Junk from the earthquake stratum belongs to Jeroboam's era. We know Jeroboam was in the first half of the 8th century BCE, so the junk must be at the end of that period or some time later.' Your conclusion doesn't fit. The margin for error also doesn't have any relationship with the lengths of reigns involved. It is therefore evident that other factors were considered for dating their findings.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Just added a bit to my previous post.

  It is therefore evident that other factors were considered for dating their findings.

  That is what I'm curious about. Radiometric, for example?