G W Bush thought God was his co-pilot. He left Him in charge of the plane.

The Lost Temple of Israel by Zvi Koenigsberg 1

Three Books in One?
Zvi Koenigsberg
Preconceptions
Jewish Neighbours
A Mound of Stones on Ebal
Deuteronomy and Joshua
Biblical Chronology
Settlement Period

Abstract

The altar at Ebal was used only 70-100 years. The unhewn stones of the altar had to be plastered and have words of the Torah written upon them. No words of Torah have been found inscribed on the slabs, nor is there any other inscription on the site except on Egyptian scarabs. The pottery types found were thirteenth and twelfth century. The doubt is whether biblical dates and the pottery sequences deduced from them are valid at all. Dating is by the supposed incursions of the Pharaoh Shishak of the time of Jeroboam I. Destructions in suitable layers are attributed to Shishak and are dated from the bible! But the tenth century Jeroboam I looks like the eighth century one written back 200 years into a mythical epoch. Then, this Shishak is not the tenth century Shoshenq but Akheperre Shoshenq V who reigned at the same time as Jeroboam II of Israel, and the pottery sequences have to be adjusted by 200 years.

Three Books in One?

The book is a good read, and breezily written but rather irritating and frustrating. The reason is that it is really three books, two of which I did not want to read. On the face of it, it is a book about archaeological excavations of a site thought by the author to have been the original temple of the Israelites. However, it is described in the blurb as a “personal journey with political and religious implications for all of us”. The personal journey is of course the author’s personal exodus, in which he travels from an orthodox Jewish hotel manager to trying to be a scientific archaeologist, but cannot give up his juvenile obsession with orthodox Judaism to do it properly.

The political part is an apology for the behaviour of the Israeli state and government, and a constant bleat at the Arabs for not being grateful to be attacked by tanks, rockets and helicopter gunships, awful monsters that they are—fighting to recover their own countries occupied by Israelis and Americans. That will explain to the liberal reader, at least, why this book can be annoying.

Here, the book under review is the one about archaeology which, except for the introduction of Adam Zertal, the leader of the excavation, does not begin until the third chapter on page 69. Book publishers these days are keen on “yooman inerest”, as the American call it, but not all of us who want to read about archaeology and history want to hear pages and pages about the author’s trials and tribulations. But doubtless many do. They will enjoy this book, then, though a novel or a purer biography might be more suitable for them. In fact, the author’s experiences, or a suitable fictionalization of them, might make a good novel, and his easy-reading style would lend itself to such a book. Novelists have done well at later ages than fifty seven.

Zvi Koenigsberg

As to the theory this book is meant to explain, the author, Zvi Koenigsberg (ZK), was brought up as an orthodox Jew and remains as committed to the Jewish scriptures as any Moslem is to the Quran. He is a biblicist, one of those curious people who think the bible is true despite the vast array of evidence to the contrary, and feels the need to prove it is. At the end of his personal exodus, it is no longer through religious conviction but through pride in his origins—all very well if the myths of origin are true history!

The biblicist outlook is not conducive to objective thinking, and leans steeply towards ultra-conservatism, blinding biblicists to any alternative view. That is how the author is. His first reaction to any discovery seems to be to look for a biblical text to which it could, by stretching chronology or circumstances, fit with. He ends up, having departed from strict orthodoxy to let his theory fit his idea of the archaeology, but still a believer in the biblical epic of the Israelite migration into Canaan thus alienating himself from his scientific peers who can see no convincing evidence for it. He thinks both ends of the opposing spectrum are biased and unreasonable, failing to consider that the lack of consistency and reasonableness might be his own. His chum, Adam Zertal, seems similarly disposed, appearing to be a biblicist rather than a scientifically objective archaeologist too.

ZK says he expected the Talmud “to deal with the problems [of scriptural interpretations] with absolute divine precision”. Such naïvetë and lack of rigour stems from a lifetime of indoctrination and self indoctrination into the imaginary value of books that are a late human compilation of many comments, the originals of which are themselves attributed to legendary Rabbis, and none of it to God, except as the usual delusion. It illustrates fully how the biblicist attitude is anathema to scholarship. ZK repeats twice that he started reading the Jewish scriptures at the age of three, a great shame, for if he had studied hotel management from that age he might have been running the Ritz, or by studying archaeology from that age, he might have been making genuinely astounding discoveries. It seems the Rabbis discovered Loyola’s dictum separately from the Jesuit. By the end of his book, ZK seems to appreciate that his indoctrination was wrong, but it does not dent his commitment to it!

Preconceptions

No one joins the study of ancient Israelite and biblical history without bringing certain preconceived notions. All biblical researchers have grown up within certain environments, and each environment implies certain attitudes that colour subsequent interpretation of evidence.
Zvi Koenigsberg, The Lost Temple of Israel

It is inevitably true, but it is not an argument against the goal of being objective. Honest historians try their darndest to know what their own preconceptions are, and make allowances for them. Not biblicists however. They know they have preconceptions and are so proud of them they know they are not preconceptions but “the Truth”. Why they need to be biblical historians or archaeologists when they know what is true anyway is a conundrum. Though they know the truth already because God has told them, they still want to prove it, as if they are not really sure that God is right, or because they get personal kudos from God by proving Him to be right. Objectivity has to be rejected because they know full well they are not only not being objective and they are not testing their preconceptions, they are making the data fit the biblical jug. Students of the bible cannot be objective—“Period”!

So, we must all agree with ZK that it is all right, then. Sorry, mate! Just because people are happy with the prejudices they have grown up with does not mean they have been educated properly. Agreed, it is better to admit them to the reader, because then the reader can be skeptical about everything deduced, though it is better when the scholar will highlight the deficiencies of his own thought. It is better also because so many biblicists simply pretend they are being objective when they know they are as prejudiced as any other believer, that their readers are left thinking their scholarship is objective when it is not. So, maybe a single cheer for ZK in at least admitting his orthodox Jewish foibles.

Jewish Neighbours

The author identifies the Samaritan sect with the Samarian people, the inhabitants of Samaria, dating it therefore to about 700 BC, a date that few would agree with. The origins of the Samaritans are unclear, but it is obviously related to Judaism, and cannot be pre-Persian if Judaism was founded by the Persians. Archaeological evidence suggests the Gerizim temple was founded when the Persian empire fell, so the Samaritan’s own claim—that they were the original people of the hill country when the Persian colonists returned and refused the locals’ offer of co-operation in building the temple—might be true in the sense that they formed an anti-Jerusalem tradition that could only be realised when the Persians were no longer in power. At a later date, Torahs were altered to make one sect the original one, and the other renegades. This must have been in or after the third century when Moses was given the present extended saga we now read. Samaritans are not Samarians. It is simply another illustration that ZK would rather believe his bible than the findings of the archaeologists.

The Samaritan Pentateuch differs in 6000 ways from the Jewish one, all of them Samaritan alterations such as changing Ebal into Gerizim to suit themselves. It might be so, although why could the change have not been made from Gerizim to Ebal, to eliminate a strong point for the Samaritans when the Jews and Samaritans began their hatred for each other? Since ZK says Moses preceded Samaria by 500 years, why would the Samaritans have not picked the holy mountain Moses mentioned in the Torah as their own holy place? In circular reasoning, ZK says the discovery of the “temple” on Ebal proves the Samaritans to be the frauds.

ZK thinks the Philistines disappeared by 850 BC. It seems not to be true, unless he means they had acculturated to the Canaanite lifestyle. There were Philistines still in Persian times, and it is hard to understand how Hadrian could have named the whole region Palestine if he did not know the place on the coast was called Philistia, even if the Philistines were indistinguishable from the Semites by the second century AD. The idea that the Philistines were the Phoenicians seems far-fetched.

A Mound of Stones on Ebal

Chapter three, where the story really begins, is called “Leviticus”, and the author shows something of his personality when he admits that Leviticus, the book of temple procedures, irrelevant old hat to most modern Jews and Christians, is for him the most fascinating in the Jewish scriptures. Fate, or God’s providence in this context, must have been lending a hand, because the author was to become obsessed by an ancient mound of stones he thought was the first temple of the Israelites.

Adam Zertal, a young archaeologist, undertook a fieldwalking survey of Samaria about a quarter of a century ago. It proved to be particularly difficult because Zertal had been seriously wounded in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 leading a charge across the Suez Canal for general Ariel Sharon. A year in hospital left him walking on crutches, but Zertal was determined enough to see that walking was the way to strengthen his shattered limbs and so he undertook the difficult survey. He noticed a large mound of stones north east of Mount Ebal, one of the twin mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, that overlook the ancient city of Shechem (the modern Arab town of Nablus). Zertal’s fieldwalking skills told him that the pottery sherds visible on the ground at the site—of which there were many—dated to the Iron I age, with some from the LBA.

The structure was built of unhewn stones, ordinary field stones apparently, which must have made excavation tricky because it was filled in with the same sort of stones. No mention is made of mortar being used, and, if the structure was made of dry stone walling, then it must have been hard to know what was fill and what was the original structure. What is more, in only the third approximately month long period of excavation, Zertal was drawing a diagram of what he expected to find! One can hardly avoid having expectations, but sharing them among co-workers, many of whom were inexperienced, can only be predisposing them to find what the leader expected! Above all studies, archaeology should be allowed to tell its own story. Even, worse, the author realises Zertal’s drawing is similar to the illustrations of the altar of the Jerusalem temple as described in the Mishnah, a sixth century AD Jewish commentary on the scriptures. Thereafter, one wonders whether they were excavating a structure or building it.

Now Ebal is said to mean “bare” in Hebrew, but it looks like the eastern Semitic for “House of Baal” or “House of the Lord”, if “baal” is itself translated as Lord. So, there is, in the name of the mountain, an aetiological suggestion that once there was a shrine there to Baal, the Canaanite Lord. Why would it be named in the eastern Semitic dialect? The most obvious reason is that it was named by the “returners from exile”, the Persian colonists sent in to Yehud in the fifth century.

Excavations at the site revealed large amounts of bones burnt on an open fire, “the bones of animals the bible designates as suitable for sacrifice”. It is disingenuous to say this because it proves nothing that the author would like it to prove. The acceptable sacrificial animals throughout the ancient near east were the same ones, goats, sheep and cattle, usually young animals, but not pigs. If the rules of sacrifice are uniform in the region, it follows that they are not characteristic of the Israelites. The site could, on that criterion have been Canaanite.

Deuteronomy and Joshua

Deuteronomy 27:5ff describes the ceremony prescribed by Moses that later was conducted by Joshua (Josh 8:30f). These texts become the scriptural core of the author’s idea that the structure on Ebal (or “in” it, the preposition being important to the theory because the structure was on the side of Ebal not on top of it) was the first Israelite temple built in the Promised Land. A reading of the verses does not incline anyone to think that the structure was built on the side of Ebal in a position that did not relate it to the ceremony described, which was held directly between the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim. The site was to the north east, when something to the south or the south east would surely have been more appropriate to a ceremony held due south of Ebal in the saddle of the Shechem valley between the mountains. Gerizim is not visible from the proposed cult site even though it had an equal part in the ceremony. That seems odd.

In biblical chronology, Shechem already existed and had its own shrine just down the valley. And Abraham, in a supposed earlier myth had built another altar on another nearby mountain considered to be Elon Moreh. Elon Moreh is Jebel Kabir, the Great Mountain, though it is not as great in height as Ebal and Gerizim. It is “great” in the Moslem tradition precisely because God appeared to Abraham there, ZK thinks. Of course, Moslem traditions date only from the seventh century AD, some 2500 years after the supposed act of Abraham. In fact, these myths are from the fifth century when the Persians took over from the Babylonians, and a set of new myths were invented for various shrines that then existed, or had existed but now were ruined, and were accepted by the Persians as sacred spots.

Doubtless, to a biblicist, the shrine of the Shechemites was unsuitable for God’s purpose, but surely that built by Abraham was not? Of course, the whole problem with believing myths is that the believer has to explain them in terms of God’s actions when there is not the least sensible reason why anyone should think God is directing primitive men to build altars at all. Human beings build altars out of superstitions spread by priests and princes to keep the ignorant masses in check. No God has anything to do with it. The maturity of human beings can be measured by the degree to which they believe what is unbelievable.

The author says that Moses’s instructions in Deuteronomy 27:2-8 are “opaque”. It sounds as though the altar was to be built as soon as the Israelites had crossed the Jordan, but then it mentions Mount Ebal, twenty miles away and over 3000 feet up! The unhewn stones had to be coated with plaster and have the words of the Torah written upon them (Dt 27:8). Joshua 8:30-32 makes it clear that these stones were the stones of the altar. Little is said of plaster at the site itself. ZK apparently found a pit with plaster in it, seemingly used to mix plaster, and somewhere is a mention of slabs of plaster, but considering they ought to be vitally significant to the hypothesis, nothing particular is said about them. It is clear, though, that no words of Torah have been found inscribed on the slabs, or indeed anywhere else, nor is there any other inscription on the site except those on Egyptian scarabs. ZK remains optimistic that words will be found, but optimism is not evidence.

Though the Mishnah was written down 1500 years as a minimum after the event ZK is trying to describe, it is reliably preserved over that time presumably by a miracle of God. Since it is reliable, ZK can use it to clarify the Torah passages and Joshua. It turns out, from this source, that the Torah was not written on the plaster of the stones of the altar in just one language but in all seventy supposed languages of the ancient world. So, plenty more slabs of plaster can yet be expected at the site, it seems. ZK hopes it has been buried in a sort of Iron Age geniza, which remains yet to be found and confound the skeptics.

Even supposing this were possible, it is impossible that bits of plaster were not left in the rubble of the site, around the base of the walls, for example, where the plaster was being chipped away. Even in this cold and damp climate in the UK, Roman plaster is often found after 2000 years of lying in the damp soil, and the colours and designs on it can still be seen. At Ebal, the site was protected by boulders.

The Mishnah contradicts the archaeology in making out that the altar was used once only, then was dismantled and removed to their camps by the tribes. The altar under consideration was apparently used 70-100 years. ZK seems unfazed by this. He just ignores the Mishnah in this respect. Moreover, the camps were notionally 60 miles away at Gilgal by Jericho, a problem for the hypothesis. No problem! Zertal found another Gilgal just a few miles away. Problem solved. ZK, using Deuteronomy 11:26-30, claims the proper Gilgal is east of Ebal and Gerizim near Elonei Moreh. This is the mountain where Abram came into Israel, before it was Israel, of course, passing Shechem and building an altar (Gen 12:6). Then God appeared and said: “To your offspring I will give this land (Gen 12:7).”

This is the deed of entitlement to the land of Israel claimed by all Israeli Jews whether observant or secular. ZK tells us it is “the entire and sole foundation of Zionism”. If that is so, the Zionists have conveniently forgotten that the Arabs in this myth are also the offspring of Abraham, via his son Ishmael. Zionists do not wish to know that. If the myth is to be taken literally as the word of God, then observant Jews ought to accept that the will of God was that the land should be shared by the offspring of Abraham, and the two sets of people with the same mythical ancestor should be working together.

Biblical Chronology

The author makes a virtue out of the Rabbinic claim that the scriptures were not chronological. It is an interesting revelation because the scriptures have an obvious chronology. The Rabbis must be saying it is not the true one, an admission that suits the Persian origin of the Jewish myths with Deuteronomy, followed by a false history based on Assyrian chronicles, and set into a false history from Genesis to Judges a lot of which was written last of all. The Rabbis can pick bits of the scripture from anywhere and claim it illustrates something from quite a different place and time. Such are the ways of God.

The author likes this ruse because it allows him to claim that Jacob’s blessing of Manasseh and Ephraim, where he deliberately crosses his hands to rest his mighty (right) hand on the younger one Ephraim, symbolises the temple passing from the tribe of Manasseh (at Ebal) to the tribe of Ephraim (at Shiloh). In the biblical chronology, this transfer happens about 500 years before the temple is even founded on this theory, but that is no trouble to the biblicist—God knows! If God does not know, then the stories of the patriarchs were written long after the swap actually happened, and they therefore are not contemporary accounts, but are myths. Plainly this action of swapping the blessing symbolises something. The whole crux of the matter is what it does symbolise. It might be a simple reference to the wicked king Manasseh, who had to be symbolically disowned. It might symbolise the disappearance of the northern state of Israel while the more southerly one remained. Power transferred from north to south. In short, it is impossible to be certain about such abstract interpretations.

Settlement Period

ZK and, from what he says, Adam Zertal, repeatedly speak of the “Settlement Period”, begging an important question. Was there one? “Scholars mark the 13th century BCE as the beginning of the Settlement Period”. Scholars? Who are these scholars? Simply believing the biblical myths requires no scholarship. It does require ingenuity to find excuses for them being incoherent. Scholars are people who use all valid evidence to test their beliefs. That is why it counts out biblicists. Proper scholars do not think there was ever a settlement period in the biblical sense—a particular time when a new people calling themselves Israelites entered Canaan from Egypt and settled down there. So, ZK’s “scholars” are just old-fashioned biblicists like himself.

The same thing happens with references to Solomon and David, kings who are invisible in the archaeological record, but prominent in the Jewish scriptures. Without any Solomon or David apparent in the record of history, to speak of the “time of David” and the “time of Solomon” assumes what no scientist should assume. The settlement period is controversial, ZK admits, but dates it to 1300 to 1000 BC. Joshua, in its first part, makes the conquest of Canaan rapid—a blitzkrieg campaign, all the tribes, like the Nazi panzer divisions, sweeping down on the innocent Canaanites, who, until then, had believed the land was rightfully their own. This did not need 300 years.

Elsewhere in Joshua and in Judges, it is not a blitzkrieg but a piecemeal occupation of the land, tribe by tribe taking its own allocation by its own efforts. This is a much slower process than the blitzkrieg, to be sure, but it hardly can be said to have taken 300 years, can it? The scriptures tell us that most of that 300 years was taken up by the settled Israelites fighting off the Philistines who evidently thought they would do to the Israelites what they had done to the Canaanites. They were also fighting each other, some apostates in rebellion, some Canaanite stragglers, an unknown king of Canaan, and so on. It is the “period of the Judges”.

All of the latter is better applied to the dark period from the victory of Cyrus over Babylon to the dedication of the temple by Ezra, a period of a hundred years when nothing certain is known about Yehud. The Jews believe they had been told to return from exile by Cyrus but few did, and little definite is known of those that did. They had been told to restore their religion, but it proved too difficult, it seems, and many, apostatized, the cult centers were fierce rivals, factional infighting took place, and the whole place was a mess. All of it seems to have been administered by magistrates, whether or not there was a Persian governor, ruling like the magistrates or “Suffetes”, ruled in Tyre and Sidon, and even Carthage. The Hebrew word is “Shophet”.

Cyrus did not have enough capable men to rule his conquests and had to rely on local appointments, many of whom were unreliable. Later Shahs changed the system, and the period of “Judges” was over. Can this be shown to have happened when it did according to the bible’s own Chronology? No! Why then do we have to hear from responsible archaeologists of the “time of the conquest”, the “time of the settlement”, the “time of the Judges”, and so on? Biblicists would not accept the truth, if God hit them with it. Perhaps He is doing just that! Whatever their chosen form of patriarchy, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, they all so lack any comprehension of God that they persist in killing each other in His name. No doubt God is happy to let them get on with it, but He shows no compassion for those caught in the crossfire.

Page Tags: First Temple of Israel, Joshua, Josiah, Deuteronomy, Conquest, Canaan, Judaism, Altar, Bible, Biblical, Canaanites, Cult, Ebal, Evidence, God, Israel, Israelites, Jerusalem, Pottery, Site, Structure, Temple, Years, Zertal

Last uploaded: 19 April, 2008.