How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong!

043

Although Dr. Kempinski’s article begins with archaeology, it is quite obvious that his ideological attitude preceded his purely archaeological examination. His ideas about the dating of Deuteronomy and Joshua, together with his “new” ideas concerning how the Pentateuch was “corrected” by the Jews to refer to Mt. Ebal rather than, as the Samaritans originally had it, to Mt. Gerizim—all point to a very clear preconception of what ought to be found on Mt. Gerizim and on Mt. Ebal.

Despite all this, I shall deal first with Kempinski’s archaeological arguments:

049

1. His one-hour visit to our Mt. Ebal dig on October 27, 1982, was during our first season of excavation. Since then, we have conducted four additional seasons, which have provided us with very rich and new archaeological material.^a Kempinski has not the slightest idea of what has been found in those four seasons, since he never asked, nor came again to the site. His criticisms are based solely on a single, early visit, and on my popular, nontechnical article in BAR (“Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?” BAR 11:01). Consequently, I take pleasure in bringing to the layperson and the scholarly world—including Kempinski—some of our rich new data.

2. The survey of the hill country of Manasseh, begun in 1978 and continuing ever since, is one of the largest surveys ever to be conducted in Israel. It covers a huge area of 540 square miles (1,500 sq. km; one-third of the territory of the central hill country). We have discovered more than 600 sites, 500 of them unknown before. In the course of our work, we developed many new techniques concerning surveying, registration and data-compilation. Among other innovations, our survey was the first to introduce the full-scale use of a computer in site analysis.

3. In 1982, when Kempinski visited our excavation on Mt. Ebal, no one would or could have used the term “altar,” because at that time we had no idea what the nature of the site was. The decision to dig was made because of the need to explore a site from the Israelite settlement period in the territory of Manasseh. Such sites in Manasseh were important to Biblical history and none had yet been explored archaeologically I clearly expressed in my BAR article that we initially thought we were exploring an ordinary settlement. Consequently, at that time we did not use any terminology ascribing a sacred nature to the site. True, many indications pointed from the very beginning to the site’s special character; among these were the absence of any remnants of exposed architecture; the special style of the enclosure wall, encircling a vast empty area; the strange location of the site, across the middle of a ridge, etc. None of these factors apply to the Iron Age I villages in the hill-country, so we assumed that we were not dealing with a settlement or a regular village.

4. The first announcement concerning our discovery of an altar site was published in the Israeli newspaper Ha-aretz on Sunday, November 3, 1983. This was exactly a year after the time that Kempinski indicates that the news was already in the Israeli daily press, during his visit in 1982.

5. Kempinski indicates that he saw a collar-rim jar sunk into the floor inside the altar. In my previous BAR article, I emphasized quite clearly that “It is quite obvious, now, that the installations at the bottom of the structure represent an earlier phase, and the large structure itself represents a later phase—both from the same Iron I period.” The collar-rim jar together with other finds—all unknown to Kempinski—belong to Level II, the earlier phase of the altar site. It is hard to understand what he means when he says this find contradicts our conclusion that the later altar buried the earlier cultic structure—including the jar!

6. If Kempinski would just read Victor Guérin, he could easily learn that Guérin never claimed that he discovered the location of this altar. Guérin wrote:

“In order to find this precious monument [i.e., Joshua’s altar] I have thoroughly explored the southern 050plateau [of Mt. Ebal] with the northern as well; but all my explorations were in vain.” (Description Géographique, historique et archaéologique de la Palestine, Tome IV Samarie [Amsterdam, 1969, reprint] p. 451.)^b

7. The “three-phase” settlement model applied to our site by Kempinski is a purely hypothetical invention, not related to Mt. Ebal at all. In fact, our stratigraphy may be described as follows:

A. The site has two levels, or strata, not three.

B. No seminomadic or nomadic settlement left any trace of remains.

C. No pits or bins have been found at the Mt. Ebal site.

D. No defense wall surrounded the site in any stratum. In Level II (the earlier stratum), a revetment wall of big boulders was laid upon the western slope only; in Level I, a temenos wall surrounded the whole area, thus creating a sacred precinct. This later wall is low, with a poor foundation, and is constructed of small stones (see plan).

E. No evidence of destruction of any kind was found at Mt. Ebal in either Level I or Level II. So Kempinski’s entire “destruction thesis” is out of the question. On the contrary, the transition from Level II to Level I was peaceful; it left no signs of violent change. We prefer to ascribe the transformation from Level II to Level I to a decision to build a large and newly designed ritual center.

F. It is archaeologically impossible for Kempinski’s 051supposed “watchtower podium” to have been filled with debris from a Level II destruction, because there was no such destruction. Moreover, our efforts to restore some vessels from the fill layers inside the altar were in vain; this proves that the fill was collected from a wide area before the erection of the altar. In our stratigraphic section in the southern courtyard of the altar (locus 81), we found, beneath the floor, primitive hearths with much ash and burned bones. Some broken vessels were found near this installation. The whole character of the area had a highly cultic appearance. Therefore, it is impossible that these were the remains of “phase 2 building,” as Kempinski would have it.

G. Kempinski’s “watchtower” theory was discussed in the BAR article and was found to be untenable because “there [was] no reason for a watchtower to be here.” If there was no destruction, then no watchtower was needed, even according to Kempinski’s argument!

8. The fact that no other settlement dating to the Iron Age was found on Mt. Ebal was not used by me to argue for the cultic character of the site. It is just an interesting additional and unexplained phenomenon. The other sites on Mt. Ebal are: one prehistoric, one Middle Bronze IIB, two from the beginning of the Persian period and eight from the Roman-Byzantine period. It is typical of Kempinski’s argument that he uses such out-of-context points to argue his case.

9. Now, what about the ramp? Is it a ramp or isn’t it? It is true that many of the Biblical and Mishnaic terms are not clearly understandable today. The main reason for this is the lack of good archaeological evidence showing the exact meaning of the terms. This is particularly true regarding cultic terms, since very little, if any, Israelite cultic architecture has been unearthed. But I claim that the discovery of a full-scale, untouched and very early Israelite cultic center enables us to study afresh the whole issue. In this context, it is clear that a ramp to climb up an altar was used since the 12th century B.C. in Israelite religious architecture, and that the Mishnaic description of the Second Temple altar is validly based on much earlier prototypes. Moreover, it is now beyond doubt that Israelite altars maintained an old tradition and remained relatively unchanged for 1,200 years. This phenomenon of the persistence of architectural details is well known in cultic and religious architecture.

If Kempinski had looked at the plan and the reconstruction, he would have seen that the ramp cannot under any circumstances be a wall. The steps that provided access into the courtyards show that there could never have been a freestanding wall where the ramp is because there were no walls on the western (outside) line of the courtyards.

10. Now to the fill inside the altar: It took us more than two weeks to excavate this fill. We found it to be deliberately laid strata. It is beyond my understanding how a supposed scientist can rely on his one-hour visit to the site three years ago, not yet knowing the whole problem, to analyze this fill. A clear indication that the fill consists of deliberately laid strata is the fact that from the hundreds of sherds found in the fill, not one complete vessel could be restored. A destruction level of a house should contain many complete, although broken, jars and bowls. This is well known to every beginner. Moreover, since no destruction occurred during the history of the Mt. Ebal site, from where would the inhabitants have taken the ashes in order to fill their new (and unnecessary) watchtower?

11. With respect to the bones, instead of replying to Kempinski’s argument, I will quote here a part of the report (to be published soon with my complete preliminary report of the five seasons) relating to the bones found on Mt. Ebal. This report, entitled “Faunal Remains from the Early Israelite Site of Mt. Ebal,” was written by Liora Kolska-Horwitz of the Department of Zoology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Under the heading “Conclusions” Miss Kolska-Horwitz writes:^c

“When compared to other Iron Age habitation sites, some interesting differences are apparent between Ebal and the others. The first is the difference in emphasis in species present. Equids [the genus that includes horses, donkeys, etc.], pigs, carnivores and gazelle (both wild and domesticated) are absent at Ebal, but present at the Iron Age sites of Lachish, Tel Qasile, Tel Miqneh, Tel Dan, Hazorea, Tel Michal, Shiloh, Beer-Sheva, Tel Masos and Izbet Sartah. The species represented and their frequency suggest that only edible animals are present at Ebal, while at other sites animals possibly used for various purposes (such as equids) are present. The specific absence of gazelle and pig remains is of interest considering their presence in the immediate vicinity of the site, both in antiquity and today. This is further emphasized by the high frequency of fallow deer, which shares a similar environment to wild pig, though the latter does not appear to have been hunted at Ebal.

“An aspect which further highlights the difference between Ebal and habitation sites is the number and distribution of burnt or scorched bones from Ebal (28 bones forming 9% of the diagnostic bone sample) 052compared with 8 bones (0.8%) from the Iron Age levels at the City of David (from a bone sample of approximately 1,000 bones). Wapnish has reported that 15% of the equid material (total of 65 bones) from Tel Jemmeh had cut marks and burning. Though the exact period distribution of this 15% is not specified, this and the City of David data indicate that the burnt material from Ebal is slightly, but not significantly higher in proportion to the total bone sample. However, the most salient feature of the Ebal burnt material is the concentration of the bone in the altar area (17 of the 28 bones or 61% of the total burnt bone samples from the site). This further suggests some difference in activities between the areas at the site.

“Ebal differs from other Iron Age sites in the absence of certain species such as equids, pigs, gazelle and carnivores and in the presence of a high frequency of fallow deer. In addition, the comparative data on burnt bones suggests a frequency at Ebal, slightly higher than that expected from a bone sample of this size.

“All of these features indicate a different pattern of animal utilization at Ebal to that found at Iron Age habitation sites.

“It is suggested that the Ebal faunal assemblage represents a narrow range of activities either in function or time. The absence of animals prohibited for consumption but frequent at other Iron Age sites, suggests conformity with Biblical tenets.

12. Let us turn now to other cultic features found at Mt. Ebal. Somehow, Kempinski does not mention all these other features, for which no interpretation other than cultic can be given.

A. The absence of any architectural connection between the courtyard and the altar, apart from the ramp.

B. The secondary ramp and the surround, issues not even discussed by Kempinski. As explained in my article, a possible explanation for this very special construction is to be found in the special construction required in an Israelite altar.

C. The installations containing clay vessels, not found in any other Iron I settlements or at other sites at all.

D. The installations containing ashes and bones.

E. The complete absence of features common in Iron Age I villages: no buildings with columns or monoliths; no bins or pits; no buildings built on the so called three- or four-room plan; the unique nature of the altar plan with its absence of entrance and floor, etc.

In the last part of his paper, Kempinski deals with ideology rather than science. What is the proof that “the earliest edition of the Book of Joshua is in the seventh century B.C.”? When the Book of Joshua was written is one of the most intriguing issues in Biblical studies; the Encyclopedia Biblica (in Hebrew) devotes three pages to the different opinions regarding this date (Volume 3, pp. 543–548). Is it possible to argue that, since no sherds from the seventh century were found on Mt. Ebal, therefore no altar can be found there?

Consider the opinions of only two leading Biblical scholars, among the many who have expressed their opinions about the credibility of the description of Joshua’s altar in Deuteronomy 27. In 1934 Albrecht Alt wrote:^d

“But if an entire category of Israelite law fits into the scene described in Deuteronomy 27, this provides strong support for the view that the account is not simply the product of the writer’s imagination, bearing no relation to reality, but preserves at least the recollection of a sacral action that actually took place at one time in Israel. The recently established view that this same sanctuary of Yahweh at Shechem was visited and used in common by the whole federation of Israelite tribes, and may perhaps have been their only sanctuary in Palestine, brings the scene in 053Deuteronomy 27 quite within the bounds of historical possibility.”

On the same issue, Benjamin Mazar writes:^e

“According to Joshua 8:30–35, the first deed of the leader after the conquest of Jericho and the Ai was to fulfill Moses’ command (Deuteronomy 27) to build an altar to Yahweh on Mt. Ebal … This Deuteronomistic source is based undoubtedly upon historical event, well attested in the people’s memory.”

I do not mention Martin Noth, Yehezkel Kaufmann and many, many other scholars. Even scholars who look upon the Samaritan material as having historical significance have never tried to argue that it is the original version. Even their attitude is based simply on the later date of the Samaritan Pentateuch. We know that the schism between Judaism and Samaritanism took place in the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period. So it would seem that the Samaritans changed the existing Pentateuch, since the Jewish text was well known by this time. What is the proof for the idea expressed by Kempinski that the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch is the original? On what historical material can he substantiate his thesis?

To sum up the archaeological evidence: In the last quarter of the 13th century B.C., as shown by the two unique Egyptian scarabs unearthed at the site,^f a local cultic center was founded on the third ridge of Mt. Ebal, looking northeast toward Wadi Far’ah. Although we do not yet possess all the information, it is clear that on the highest point of this ridge there was a building serving fire-related activities in some kind of cultic function.^g To the west a revetment wall was built on the steep rocky slope, supporting a whole series of what now seems to be paved courtyards. Around the central building many other fire-related activities took place.

In Level I (the later level), around 1200 B.C., the site underwent a complete change. A large burnt-offering altar was erected upon the earlier cultic area, burying it under the debris of the earlier cultic activities and leaving the central feature of the earlier stage or platform in the exact center of the new one. The altar complex included courtyards, installations, a surround on the altar and ramps leading to it—all typical of the Israelite-altar model found in the Book of Ezekiel and the Second Temple altar described in Mishnaic sources.

At the same time that the altar was built (in Level I) an inner temenos wall was added, surrounding the site and enlarging the earlier cultic area four times. There were no structures besides the altar within the inner temenos wall. A wide gateway in the inner temenos wall was constructed. Also, a second and much larger enclosure wall (the outer temenos wall) was constructed, thus creating one enclosure inside the other.

No doubt, this ritual center was intended mainly for the gathering of a relatively large number of people. The evidence for this lies in the special location of the enclosure, in a way that the viewer could see the ceremonies on the altar from outside the enclosure wall.

How long did this cultic center exist? Archaeologically speaking, not very long. The evidence of the pottery cannot be stretched beyond the middle of the 12th century B.C.^h I would estimate this center’s existence to be not more than 50 years. The site was never destroyed, however. Rather, it was deserted while in a complete and finished state. Why? We do not yet know. Its desertion, just as its erection, seems somehow to have been the result of a deliberate decision, and not of a natural development. There was no reason for such an abandonment based on environmental conditions. But such desertions are well known at Iron Age I sites; Mt. Ebal is no exception.

The desertion of the site resulted in the fact that we now have a complete and untouched Israelite cultic center from the time when monotheism began—to be studied by archaeologists, Biblical scholars and other concerned scientists, both Jewish and Christian, from all over the world.

Although Dr. Kempinski’s article begins with archaeology, it is quite obvious that his ideological attitude preceded his purely archaeological examination. His ideas about the dating of Deuteronomy and Joshua, together with his “new” ideas concerning how the Pentateuch was “corrected” by the Jews to refer to Mt. Ebal rather than, as the Samaritans originally had it, to Mt. Gerizim—all point to a very clear preconception of what ought to be found on Mt. Gerizim and on Mt. Ebal. Despite all this, I shall deal first with Kempinski’s archaeological arguments: 049 1. His one-hour visit to our Mt. Ebal dig […]