A SHORT DIALOGUE WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGIST
Archaeologist:
I understand that in your book The Lost Bible you propose an alternative dating for the pre-Hellenistic strata in Israel, which is independent of the Egyptian chronology. Why? what is wrong with the Egyptian chronology?.
Etzion:
The difficulties in the Egyptian chronology are hardly discussed in my book. However, I do point out the potential problems arising from using the chronology of just one country (Egypt) as the sole basis for a huge archaeological-historical system of the pre-Hellenistic strata in the whole Eastern Mediterranean Basin (Greece, Asia Minor, Western Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Cyprus). In such a system, any mistake in the Egyptian chronology may contaminate the whole system. Lacking any outside control system, we may never detect such a mistake. This is a basic methodological problem which I suggest to overcome by using a different approach to the construction of the ancient archaeological-historical system. In my opinion, before establishing an overall system we need to construct a network of independent archaeological-historical systems, each based on the history and archaeology of only one country. Thus, each system will serve as a control for the other systems. The next step should be to compare the different systems to establish consistency. If two systems are not consistent with each other the source of the mistake should be sought in either of them in a neutral way until an overall system can be constructed.
Archaeologist:
I wonder why a comparison between the same kind of archaeological material found in different areas or countries can not help you with your dating. In such a way you are not dependent only on the Egyptian chronology. For example, when we dig in Turkey and we find Greek and Roman material, we make use of the Agora volumes with Attic material to date the finds from Asia Minor. Is this comparable with the Attic material found in Israel?
Etzion:
As you rightly point out, the Attic material is not dated according to the Egyptian chronology, thus it may be used to check the validity of the Accepted Dating of the pre-Hellenistic strata in Israel. Moreover, it provides an excellent demonstration of the potency of my proposed methodology.
A major part of the Attic material excavated in Israel has been found in the Iron stratum. According to the archaeologists, who rely on the Accepted Dating, this Attic material comes from “garbage pits” dug into the Israeli strata during the Persian and the Early Hellenistic periods.
A different interpretation emerges if we use my Alternative Dating. My system dates the Iron stratum to the Persian and the Early Hellenistic periods (see Comparative Table). Hence, the Attic material is located exactly in its proper place.
I believe that a comparison in a neutral way of the two dating systems, using the Attic material as a measuring rod, would clearly indicate which of the two is preferable.
Archaeologist:
Thank you very much for your answer. It is an interesting discussion which will become clearer and clearer when more material is found. A good combination of written sources and archaeological finds is of the utmost importance.
Etzion:
I am glad that you find our discussion interesting. In the hope that this discussion might be of interest to a wider audience I decided to present it on my website. Please note that in my book I treated the issues we discussed in length. I believe that The Lost Bible has a theoretical-methodological value that goes far beyond the issue of dating the pre-Hellenistic strata in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. Some other scientists share this view as well (see Negev Foreword and Lancet Article).