The Brimstone that fell on The Cities of the Plain

As I Bible scholar, I continue to look for groundbreaking research on topics that help us understand the Bible better. YouTube is a great resource in this area, and recently I spent a lot of time watching videos about the destruction of the Cities of the Plain (b`iri hakikar). The problem is, no one can agree just what the Plain was, or where the cities were, other than that they were all in the vicinity of the Dead Sea: either to the north, the south, the east, or the west. This website makes a strong case for Tel el Hammam, north of the Sea. Strong, that is, until you actually examine the biblical record. The ONLY correlation between the ruins of this unidentified city and those of the Cities of the Plain, is summed up in the closing paragraph of the website:

That the most productive agricultural land in the region, which had supported flourishing civilizations continuously for at least 3,000 years, should suddenly relinquish, then resist, human habitation for such a long period of time has begged investigation. Research results concerning the "3.7KYrBP Kikkar Event" are presently being compiled for publication and presentation.

There are many things to keep in mind here. Perhaps we could list some of them.
1. The destruction of the Cities (basically Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar) was complete. The word used (mahpekah) refers to utter desolation. The Cities were never conquered by enemies, or even destroyed by natural disasters; their unique obliteration was accomplished directly by the Hand of God: burning sulphur from the sky. The ruins of Tel el Hammam simply don't fit this description.
But other ruins do. Beginning with Ron Hyatt, amateur archaeologists have identified at least four discrete sites along the west shore of the Dead Sea by three or four unique characteristics they all share: the outline of the city is a distinct ashy colour; all that is left are layers of ash, interspersed with carbonized wood and underlaid by layers of calcium sulphate, scattered throughout with colourless balls of sulphur that is purer than any naturally occurring deposits anywhere in the world.

2. The destruction was accomplished by intense heat accompanied by sulphur, which reacted chemically to destroy stone structures, replacing them with layers of sulphate ash. Even crops were wiped out in this way. Sulphur residue rendered the soil toxic to plant life. The area of the Dead Sea is proverbial for nothing being able to grow there. So, not only were the cities destroyed, but the entire area, which had a population density comparable to the Nile Delta, became uninhabitable--as it is to this day; no cities have ever been built there, and the main industry is mining the harsh chemicals that render it so hostile to life.

3. The cities, and their surrounding lush farm and pasture land, were so utterly desolated that no one would ever live in them again. It is no wonder that even now, 4000 years later, one can walk through the region picking up balls of brimstone from off the ground; no one has ever even attempted to mine it, despite its amazing purity. The very desolation that resulted from God's judgement has protected these ruins from exploitation to this very day.

The temple of Nisroch, his god

And it happened as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer, his sons*, struck him with the sword and delivered themselves into the land of Ararat. And Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place.
--Isaiah 37:38, translation of the Masoretic Text ('his sons' is a marginal reading in 2 Kings 19:37)

Now, there's a problem with this account: Nisroch is not known as a member of the Assyrian pantheon. He seems to be a personal deity of Sennacherib. It turns out, however, that there is an account in Jewish tradition that identifies Nisroch and ties into another unusual name in this passage--Ararat.

Ararat (Armenia in the KJV, but that's a paraphrase, not an interpretation or transliteration) is, as we know, the biblical location of Noah's Ark. What is known today as the Mountains of Ararat (Greater Ararat and its subpeak Lesser Ararat) turns out to have been given that name because of a relatively recent association with the account of Noah's Ark. It's Turkish toponym is Agri Dagh.

On the other hand, the word 'Nisroch' is associated with another location entirely, and one with widespread ancient association both with the story of Noah and with artifacts of the ark itself: Cudi Dagh, some 200 miles southwest of Agri Dagh,.

Gordon Franz tells the story:

In Tractate Sanhedrin, Rabbi Papa (ca. AD 300-375) recounts a story about Sennacherib, king of Assyria, finding a piece of wood from Noah’s Ark. It states: “He [Sennacherib] then went away and found a plank of Noah’s ark. ‘This’, said he, ‘must be the great God who saved Noah from the flood. If I go [to battle] and am successful, I will sacrifice my two sons to thee’, he vowed. But his sons heard this, so they killed him, as it is written, And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adram-melech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword.” This story is recounted in Louis Ginzberg’s classic work, Legends of the Jews, and implies that this is a legendary account. One reason it might have been considered a legend is because Sennacherib was never on, or near, the modern-day Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh). Yet there are plausible historical reasons to believe this story is true and not legendary.

There are three lines of arguments that suggest the historical plausibility of this event. First: at one point in his life, Sennacherib was on the mountain in the Land of Ararat where tradition and ancient history say Noah’s Ark landed. Second: he learned of the story of Noah’s Ark from some Israelites or Judeans with whom he had contact. Third--the strongest--: the temple of Nisroch was dedicated to a plank of wood from Noah’s Ark.

Bill Crouse, president of Christian Information ministry, was one of four plenary papers at the beginning of the conference. His paper was: “Five Reasons for Rejecting Agri Dagh as the Ark’s Final Resting Place and Five Reasons Why it Did Land on Cudi Dagh.” His five reasons for why it did not land on Agri Dagh, the traditional site of Mount Ararat, are:
(1) The early ancient sources do not mention Agri Dagh as the landing site of Noah’s Ark,
(2) Agri Dagh is a volcanic mountain and was never submerged under water, and thus it was formed after the Flood and could not be the landing site of the Ark,
(3) Geographically, the peaks of “Greater Ararat” and “Lesser Ararat” are not located in the “Mountains of Ararat,” but rather, in a plain,
(4) The “eye-witness” accounts [of the Ark at Agri Dagh] are unreliable, and
(5) Thus far, after 60 plus years of [scientific] searching, nothing has ever been found there.

The five reasons Bill believes the Ark landed on Cudi Dagh are:
(1) There is a consensus of diverse ancient sources that place the landing site of the Ark in the area of Cudi Dagh, including pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sources,
(2) Diverse groups of pilgrims have visited the site for over at least two thousand years,
(3) There are olive trees in the area of Cudi Dagh (cf. Gen. 8:10), but none in the area of Agri Dagh,
(4) Possible archaeological remains have been discovered on the top of Cudi Dagh, including wood that has asphalt on both sides (cf. Gen. 6:14), 9-12 inch nails/spikes (cf. Gen. 4:22), and other objects found in the area of the landing site, and
(5) Cudi Dagh is a much more accessible mountain for disembarking from the Ark.

To conclude:
1. The identification of Agri Dagh as "Mount Ararat" is based on legends of the Ark being seen there, and the biblical identification of "The Mountains of Ararat" as the Ark's final resting place. Thus, Agri Dagh needed to be thoroughly searched by scientific expeditions (especially during the most recent global warming cycle that culminated in 2012) in order to ensure that the Ark was, or was not, present there. The verdict is in that the Ark is not there in any way that is accessible to science. Thus it is now reasonable to search for it elsewhere.
2. Cudi Dagh ("Mount Judy") is identified as the Ark's final resting place in all ancient accounts that specify a geographically identifiable mountain. Since it is not nearly as inaccessible as Agri Dagh, it is possible that no more of the ark remains to casual view. Thus what is needed to further the science of Arkeology is a systematic archeological excavation of Cudi Dagh in search of evidence that the Ark once rested there.

Scorched wheat and the Chronology of the Conquest

In 2012, a report was released on the latest excavation of Tell Hazor, the ancient capital city along the northeastern border of Israel. In it we read that amongst the latest findings were 3400 year old jars of scorched wheat. What this means, in archeological terms, is that the city was conquered and, rather than being sacked, burnt to the ground. Finds of this nature tend to be in Israel, and correlate to the Late Bronze Age.

Why would an invading army go to all the work of conquering a city, only to burn it down, loot and all? The answer is pretty obvious, if you believe the Bible: God told them to.

The two cities so far in which jars full of grain have been found by excavators are Jericho and Hazor; two cities, as it turned out, recorded in the Book of Joshua as having been first conquered, then burned. In fact, Joshua 11:11-13 tells us that Hazor was the only conquered city in the region around Chinneroth that Joshua burned.

Now, inasmuch as these scorched grains can easily be Carbon-dated, we should be able to establish, within just a few years, the date that Hazor was burned: it turns out to be--still waiting on a more precise date--1400 BC.

Now, 1400 BC is a bit late for the conquest of Hazor by Ussher's chronology, but it's certainly within a quarter century--well within the margin of error for Carbon dating. But it's well over a century too early for the skeptic's date of the Exodus, in the mid 13th century.

What this scorched wheat is telling us is that it's more likely that Ussher was right, and today's scholars are wrong.

Incredibly, scholars are still holding out for a 1250 BC date for the fall of Hazor--with 150-year-old jars of wheat stored in Jabin's royal palace.

Now, these scholars could actually have their cake and eat it too, were they interested in the truth. Remember that there are two separate conquerings of Jabin king of Hazor: one in Joshua 11, and one in Judges 4. Ussher would date this latter one to--get this--about 1250 BC.

Indications of sudden death--or something else?

In this article in the Biblical Archaeology Review, the remains of an ancient Palestinian are described as "a badly crushed human skeleton . . . sprawled on its back with limbs splayed, indicative of sudden death."

I ran a search on "indicative of sudden death" and found that all other references were to forensic investigations in the present. This was the only one in an archaeological setting. And there were no hits whatsoever for the two terms in juxtaposition, "limbs splayed", and "sudden burial."

Actually, it is sudden burial, not sudden death, which is most likely indicated by a crushed and splayed skeleton. Most people who die suddenly are subsequently laid to rest in a position of calm repose, with nothing to indicate how fast it took them to die.

I raise this issue because most vertebrate fossils are found sprawled and crushed, and often fragmentary; very indicative of sudden burial--and just as sudden contemporaneous death. Yet the classic view of fossilisation requires a long and gradual process of burial.

If archaeologists can clearly recognise the signs of sudden burial--whether or not they know what to properly call it--why can't paleontologists?

Another thing Asimov had wrong--and right.

In the 3½ years after I first wrote about Isaac Asimov's Nightfall, that post has remained in the top ten, with over 2300 hits--so I am regularly reminded of its popularity. It occurred to me today, in going back over what I had written, that there is another fascinating correlation between Asimov's fiction and the reality of the struggle between atheists and Christians. Note that in Nightfall, the scientists of Lagash and the religionists of Lagash are members of non-intersecting sets. This is how Asimov and his fellow atheists would have it: a classic battle in which all the science is on one side, and all the religion on the other. Among Asimov's blind spots should be pointed out his failure to see that this has never been the case. Even with PhD programs being virtually closed to anyone willing to admit that he believes the biblical account of creation, there are still thousands of practicing scientists who see no conflict between their beliefs and their ability to do real science. In fact, they lay against the atheists the opposite charge: that their unwillingness to believe the Bible's account as true history is an obstacle to scientific progress. So, Asimov was wrong about that.

But notice what he was right about: on Lagash, it was only the religionists who had any record of Lagash's ancient history: the scientists had none. Although their science had advanced to the point that they were able to run the astronomical clock back to a time when none of Lagash's six suns were visible, they had no historical memory amongst themselves that it had actually happened. For this, they had to turn to the records of the religionists, as despised as they were.

When Nightfall became such a popular story that it was made into a movie, that was changed. In the new version, archaeologists stumbled across evidence that showed the scientists they had been wrong all those years in denying the religionist's stories about an ancient darkness--and new studies of planetary motion were forcing the scientists to admit that there must be something to what the religionists were saying after all.

Now, why would Asimov change his story in this way? Was it due to the fact that, in the decades following the publication of Nightfall,  archaeology had vindicated many tenets of Scripture that had been previously scoffed at?

Note: this was actually posted on September 4, 2014. Some glitch in blogger predated it when posted.