Amos Quakes

´

Seismic Effects

Effect	Sources	Notes
Earthquake	Amos 1:1, Zechariah 14:5, Josephus, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Jerome's Commentary on Amos, Legends of the Jews
Landslide	Zechariah 14:4, Josephus, Legends of the Jews	Zechariah 14:4 is written as future prophecy concerning the "Day of the Lord" and describes a splitting of the Mount of Olives that could echo oral and/or written traditions about landslides in the area due to one of the Amos Quakes Josephus describes a long run-out landslide that took place at Ein Rogel in in Silwan on the outskirts of the border of what was then Jerusalem Legends of the Jews is probably relying on Josephus
1st Temple cracked	Josephus, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Legends of the Jews	Legends of the Jews is probably relying on Josephus
Damage to buildings and fallen trees in Samaria	Isaiah 9:9	interpretation from the text
Tsunami in the Sea of Galilee	Amos 5:8; 9:5-6	Ben-Menahem, 1991 states that a tsunami in the Sea of Galilee is hinted in Amos 5:8; 9:5-6. however neither of these passages seems to be about the Amos Quake and refer instead to destruction of Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. See Possible Tsunami dropdown below for details

Locations

Location	Sources	Notes
Jerusalem	Zechariah 14:5, Josephus, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Jerome's Commentary on Amos, Legends of the Jews	Zechariah 14:4 implies that Zechariah 14:5 describes an earthquake that was experienced in Jerusalem The context of the account from Jerome's Commentary on Amos indicates that an earthquake that was experienced in Jerusalem Legends of the Jews is probably relying on Josephus
Damage to buildings and fallen trees in Samaria	Isaiah 9:9	interpretation from the text

Excerpts

Chronology

Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Evening of 11 Oct. 759 BCE	Ben-Menahem, 1991 dates the Amos Quake to the evening of 11 October 759 BCE stating that the day of occurrence, according to II Chron.26 and Josephus, is likely to be on the eve of the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot), 14 Tishrei, 3003, which is October 759 B.C.E.	none	Chapter 26 of II Chronicles contains the story about Uzziah offering incense on the Golden Altar of the First Temple - a transgression against the Temple Priests - and suffering leprosy as a result. Josephus synchronizes this story with the Amos Quake Ben-Menahem (1991) interprets this text to suggest that the incense offering was on the eve of a holiday rather than on some random day. In fact, he suggests that it was on the eve of the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) which was the most important holiday of the year during the First Temple period. Rubenstein (1988:30) notes that there is a scholarly consensus that throughout the first temple period the autumnal festival [i.e. the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot)] was the paramount Israelite celebration. Solomon dedicated the First Temple during the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) (1 Kings 8:2) The Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) is celebrated from the 15th to the 21st day of Tishrei. The eve of the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) would thus be on the 14th of Tishrei In 759 BCE, 14 Tishrei 3003 in the Hebrew calendar fell on the 11th of October in the Julian Calendar (calculated using CHRONOS) Chapter 14 of Zechariah which is prophesying about the "Day of the Lord" and mentions the Amos Quake in 14:5, mentions the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) in 14:16-19 It is unclear how Ben-Menahem, 1991 or anyone else came up with a year of 759 CE for the Amos Quake which assumes that Amos produced his last prophesy in 761 CE. It is possible, this date was suggested due to an assumed allusion in Amos 8:9 to a solar eclipse that occurred in June 762 BCE. See Notes below. If we use Theile's chronology, Jeroboam II and Uzziah were both ruling (as sole rulers) between the years of 768/767 and 753 BCE. Since the earthquake was two years after a time when both men were ruling, this leads to a time bracket of 766/765 - 751 BCE. The story associating the onset of leprosy in King Uzziah when he burned incense at the Temple may be a forced synchronicity reiterating one of the thematic cores of the Hebrew Bible which is that when the Kings and people of Judah and Israel followed the prescripts of Jewish Law (Halakha), they were protected by God and when they disobeyed they were punished. Further, the earliest extant text which synchronizes this incense/leprosy story with the Amos Quake is Josephus writing approximately 850 years after the earthquake.

Online Versions and Further Reading Notes

Excerpts

Chronology

Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
750 BCE		none	Like Ben-Menahem (1991), Austin et. al. (2000) assumes that Josephus' synchronisms are correct This dates the earthquake to the same time that Jotham began to co-rule Judea with his father Uzziah. 2 Kings 15:32 states that Hoshea son of Elah conspired against Pekah son of Remaliah, attacked him, and killed him. He succeeded him as king in the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah. Austin et. al. (2000) date the 20th year of Jotham's rule to between Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 732 BCE and Nisan (Mar./Apr.) 731 BCE. This date was determined as follows: An Assyrian inscription describes how Hoshea, upon accession as king of Israel, delivered tribute payment to the Assyrian king [Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE)] who, at that time, was personally conducting a military campaign against the Chaldean city of Sarrabani (JW: This is in Tadmor (1994) which I am currently unable to access. I did access another book of Assyrian inscriptions by Tadmor and Yamada (2011) which contains multiple descriptions of the accession of Hoshea and the seige of Chaldean city of Sarrabani although this may not be what was referenced in Tadmor (1994). See the inscriptions in the collapsible panels beneath this chronology table.) The Assyrian Eponym List (eclipse calibrated) allows the Assyrian siege of Sarrabani and Sapia to be dated to 731 B.C. JW: the relevant entry from the Assyrian Eponym List (aka the Limmu list) is shown below: [731/730] During the eponomy of Nergal-uballit, the governor of Ahizu-hina, campaign against Šapiya. Therefore, the accession of Hoshea falls between Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 732 and Nisan (Mar./Apr.) 731, and Jotham's twentieth year is 732/731 (Finegan, 1998, p. 250, 261). JW: Finegan (1998:250) discusses the accession of Hoshea in Section 425 and dates it to between Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 732 BCE and Nisan (Mar./Apr.) 731 BCE. This dates Jotham's first year to between Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 751 BCE and Nisan (Mar./Apr.) 750 BCE According to Austin et. al. (2000), this dates the first year of Jotham's rule to 750 BCE. If one accepts Ben-Menahem (1991)'s supposition that the incense incident took place during the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot), Jotham's first year would have been between Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 751 BCE and Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 750 BCE which would date the earthquake to the start of his first year in Tishri (Sept./Oct.) 751 BCE.

Online Versions and Further Reading

Onstott (2015:393-395) notes the following:

The conclusion of regnal reckoning is as follows: the chronology of the Judges Era through the end of David's reign followed the linear, postdating system in which reign lengths were simply added together (a method currently popular in biblical scholarship). During this time, Israel's records and archives were handled by the priesthood (1 Chr 9:22; 18:16; 2 Sam 20:25). Under Solomon's administration, the linear-priestly system of reckoning chronology was abandoned in favor of the more sophisticated Egyptian antedating system, which depicted reigns more accurately. Solomon's strong ties with Egypt probably influenced this shift (1 Kings 9; see Table 9.31). This transfer probably occurred with the origin of the new document called "The Acts of Solomon" (1 Kgs 11:41), which was later inserted into the The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chr 16:11; see chap. 8.V.).

...

These conclusions are supported by another fact. Uzziah (Azariah), king of Judah, enjoyed one of the longest and most stable reigns in the Southern Kingdom's history. The date that Scripture provides for Uzziah allows no other conclusion for Jeroboam II's reign but the use of the linear-priestly postdating (accession-year) method. From all indications, this method continued to be employed in the Northern Kingdom until the kingdom's annihilation under Sargon and Shalmaneser V.¹⁷² Both of these systems are clarified by the scribe's synchronization of the regnal years of Judah's kings with the regnal dates of the kings of Israel (see Table 9.34).

Footnotes

172. MB, 318, emphasis added. See also, Hornung, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 13.

Online Versions and Further Reading

• from Bible Gateway (NIV translation)

1 The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa — the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash [a] was king of Israel.

2 He said:

“The Lord roars from Zion
and thunders from Jerusalem;
the pastures of the shepherds dry up,
and the top of Carmel withers.”

• from chabad.org

א

דִּבְרֵ֣י עָמ֔וֹס אֲשֶׁר־הָיָ֥ה בַנֹּֽקְדִ֖ים מִתְּק֑וֹעַ אֲשֶׁר֩ חָזָ֨ה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל בִּימֵ֣י | עֻזִּיָּ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֗ה וּבִימֵ֞י יָֽרָבְעָ֚ם בֶּן־יוֹאָשׁ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שְׁנָתַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י הָרָֽעַשׁ:

ב

וַיֹּאמַ֓ר | יְהֹוָה֙ מִצִּיּ֣וֹן יִשְׁאָ֔ג וּמִירֽוּשָׁלִַ֖ם יִתֵּ֣ן קוֹל֑וֹ וְאָֽבְלוּ֙ נְא֣וֹת הָֽרֹעִ֔ים וְיָבֵ֖שׁ רֹ֥אשׁ הַכַּרְמֶֽל:

• from Roberts (2012:194-200)

CHAPTER FIVE:THE CONTEXT OF AMOS’S EARTHQUAKE IMAGERY

...

2. Roaring of a Lion and Earthquake Imagery

Leonine imagery is found throughout the Hebrew Bible, often used in metaphorical descriptions of YHWH’s power. Amos 1:2a [] “YHWH roars from Zion and he gives his voice from Jerusalem” is one such text that provides a metaphorical description of YHWH. The verse concludes, “the pastures of the shepherds mourn, and the top of Carmel withers” suggesting judgment is behind YHWH’s roaring though the type of judgment and reason for judgment are unclear. This verse, then, has stirred considerable debate about the meaning of YHWH “roaring like a lion.” Most scholars have focused on a thunderstorm couched in theophany imagery because of the formulaic language [], literally, “he gives voice,” which is found in texts such as Exod 9:23; 1 Sam 12:17–18, Psa 18:7–15 (Heb. 18:8–16)/2 Sam 22:14, Psa 46:7, and Psa 68:34 arguing that the formulaic language employed by Amos is part of a long tradition of storm-god imagery.¹ While some of these texts make clear connections between roaring and a thunderstorm, Amos 1:2 does not make this explicit link. The imagery of YHWH roaring, however, in Amos 1:2 is better understood as referring to an earthquake due to parallel imagery in a Neo-Assyrian earthquake omen, a later allusion to this verse in Joel 3:16 (Eng. 4:16), and evidence from earthquake survivors’ descriptions of earthquakes.

Connecting “roaring like a lion” in Amos 1:2a with an earthquake has had a long but uneven history of supporters. Two early proponents of this view come from early Jewish interpreters; Eliezer of Beaugency, a Medieval Jewish commentator and grandson of Rashi first advocated this position in the thirteenth century and Zvi Hirsch Chajes, a Talmudic scholar from the nineteenth century also understood “roar” in this manner.² Interestingly, Chajes argued elsewhere that the roar was from a thunderstorm not from an earthquake perhaps foreshadowing twentieth century debate on this text. The unevenness expressed by Chajes is also found in Artur Weiser’s 1929 work, where he first suggested a catastrophic earthquake.³ Weiser, however, in his later commentary on the twelve Minor Prophets wrote about “the sound of thunder.”⁴ The strongest advocate of connecting an earthquake with the imagery of Amos 1:2 is Julius Morgenstern, as part of his four part extensive study on Amos published in Hebrew Union College Annual. In Morgenstern’s words, “Furthermore, whatever Yahweh’s roaring, as implied in the verb [], may have originally connoted, thunder perhaps, or even the roaring of the lion, in this passage, as the continuation of the v. indicates, it depicts the deep, roaring, rumbling noise of the earthquake.”⁵

Outside of these proponents, over the last decades few scholars have argued for an earthquake, as they have focused on a narrow demarcation of storm-god imagery tied to thunder. For example, in Brent Strawn’s work, What is Stronger than a Lion?, he notes that Amos 1:2 has connections to the “theophanic tradition of the thunderstorm” constraining “roaring” to thunder rather than broader notions of celestial or terrestrial phenomena.⁶ Part of the reason behind the shift to a theophanic thunderstorm is due to scholarships’ shift associating nature’s trembling solely with thunder rather than seeing earthquakes as equal or more plausible imagery. In fact, in Frank Moore Cross’s seminal work, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, he notes that the “explicit language of the storm has been largely eschewed” and uses Amos 1:2 as an example.⁷ In addition to Frank Moore Cross, the work of Samuel Loewenstamm is instructive as he demonstrates there is a long history of nature trembling in Akkadian and Canaanite literature.⁸ Loewenstamm did not slavishly link nature’s trembling to thunder but saw it as a much larger phenomena. This motif led Loewenstamm to conclude that the model of nature-shaking theophany came to Israel under Canaanite influence, which borrowed it from Akkadian literature. These distinctions are more than banal discussion in terminology and will be clearer when examining neo-Assyrian evidence that relates to Amos 1:2.

Outside of these interpreters, it is important to draw attention to Moshe Weiss, who in a number of studies, has focused his attention on the use of the metaphor in Amos 1:2.⁹ Weiss divides interpretive opinion into two categories: the tenor is a natural acoustic phenomenon, such as thunder, an earthquake, an east wind, or all three together, or the tenor is a theophany.¹⁰ Weiss provides an extensive survey of scholarly views through most of the twentieth century before arriving at his interpretive decision. In Weiss’s view, “roaring” awakens the “complex of associations aroused in the hearer’s mind by the roar of the lion.”¹¹ In sum, Weiss argues that the tenor of verse 2a is that it refers to the appearance of God where his action is active, but the action of the existence is passive, thus the Lord is not seen, he is only heard. Weiss’s survey of scholarship is instructive, but it highlights that scholarship has favored demarcating theophany image into thunder rather than seeing theophany language more broadly as all types of weather phenomena.

A Neo-Assyrian earthquake oracle from the seventh century provides new light to read Amos 1:2 in light of an earthquake. Experts in divination, especially celestial divination, compiled lists and studied observable celestial phenomena, which were seen as divine communication. In the words of Francesca Rochberg, “Every phenomenon in heaven or on earth, every experience, every symptom of a disease, every birth and human physical attribute, were potential conveyors of divine messages, and so forecasts or correlations to social, political, or economic events were obtainable from all these phenomena.”¹² The origins of Mesopotamian scholarly and literary divination come from the Old Babylonian Period and reach their zenith in the seventh-century library of Assurbanipal at Nineveh.¹³

An overwhelming majority of tablets found at Nineveh were written during the reigns of Esarhaddon (679 BCE to 668 BCE) and Assurbanipal (667 to 626 BCE). Even more specific, most tablets were written between 670 to 665 BCE due to dating scribal colophons at the end of the tablet. As mentioned above, the origins of this divination can be traced to the Old Babylonian Period and earthquake omen texts are first known from Nuzi, best known in biblical scholarship for parallels drawn between Nuzi tablets and the patriarchal period.¹⁴

The oracle studied here, however, does not have any parallels to other omen texts but was composed by a well-known Neo-Assyrian scribe, Issar-s¥umu-eres, who wrote thirty-eight other omens found at Nineveh. The omen concerns what to do if an earthquake strikes during sabatu, the eleventh month of the Assyrian calendar. Overall, the omen is in good condition with most damage occurring at the right side of the tablet. The tablet is thirty lines in total, fifteen lines each on the obverse and reverse, with the relevant portion consisting of lines eight through ten on the obverse. The excerpted portion reads:

8. 1 AN-u is-su-ma KI.TIM ir-[tu-ub]                            If the sky shouts and the earth qu[akes]:

9. me-res KUR i-ma-at-ti su du bu? uk? x[xxx]              the cultivated fields will diminish...[]...

10. 1^d e-ri-is-ki-gal ik-kil-la-sa GIM UR.[MAHSUB-d]i      If Ereskigal [utter]s her roar like a li[on]:
                                                                                    the earth will throw the land into ruins.¹⁵

As mentioned above, the omen focuses on what to do if there is an earthquake during the eleventh month. The word “earthquake” is found in lines one, six, eight, twelve, fourteen, and on the reverse in lines one and eleven. Beyond this phrase, the refrain “if the sky shouts” is found five times in the omen. The omen does not provide a subject for the sky “shouting” but other omens in this same corpus refer to Adad, the storm-god, shouting and thundering.¹⁶ In these omens, however, the earth never shakes so it remains unclear if shouting and/or thundering causes an earthquake. At the same time, the structure of the omens is formulated in conditionals: if a occurs, then b will occur, a common Near Eastern form of a protasis and apodosis. Grammatically, scholarship has seen the relationship not as a causal but a correlation; thus, if a, expect b.¹⁷ With this background in mind, the omen is best read, if Ereskigal roars like a lion, then expect the earth will turn the land into ruins. It is important to note that the wording of the apodosis appears cumbersome. It is not “expect the land to turn into ruins” but “expect that the earth will turn the land into ruins.”¹⁸ The terrestrial focus of this line is made even clearer when Ereskigal’s religious history is understood: Ereskigal, translated as “Queen of the Great Below” was the goddess of the underworld.¹⁹ Thus, Ereskigal’s roaring from the underworld caused the earth to turn the land into ruins. In other words, it is the roaring that causes the earthquake.

The imagery in this omen until this point has not been connected with Amos 1:2 but suggests a number of intriguing parallels. As Samuel Loewenstamm has argued, it is clear that storm-god imagery has a long history in Akkadian and Canaanite literature. This is not to say that Amos 1:2 borrowed from a Neo-Assyrian omen but to suggest that a contextual reading of a lion roaring outside the Hebrew Bible and close in date to Amos is understood as an earthquake. In addition, as noted above, theophany imagery should not be narrowly confined to just thunderstorms. In the Neo-Assyrian omen, the sky shouting is found alongside the earth quaking raising the likelihood that the ancients had a broader understanding of terrestrial phenomena.

• from Bible Gateway (NIV translation)

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake [a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

• from chabad.org

ב

וְאָֽסַפְתִּ֨י אֶת־כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם | אֶֽל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִַם֘ לַמִּלְחָמָה֒ וְנִלְכְּדָ֣ה הָעִ֗יר וְנָשַׁ֙סּוּ֙ הַבָּ֣תִּ֔ים וְהַנָּשִׁ֖ים תִּשָּׁכַ֑בְנָה (כתיב תִּשָּׁגַ֑לְנָה) וְיָצָ֞א חֲצִ֚י הָעִיר֙ בַּגּוֹלָ֔ה וְיֶ֣תֶר הָעָ֔ם לֹ֥א יִכָּרֵ֖ת מִן־הָעִֽיר:

ג

וְיָצָ֣א יְהֹוָ֔ה וְנִלְחַ֖ם בַּגּוֹיִ֣ם הָהֵ֑ם כְּי֥וֹם הִלָּֽחֲמ֖וֹ בְּי֥וֹם קְרָֽב:

ד

וְעָֽמְד֣וּ רַגְלָ֣יו בַּיּֽוֹם־הַ֠הוּא עַל־הַ֨ר הַזֵּיתִ֜ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י יְרֽוּשָׁלִַם֘ מִקֶּדֶם֒ וְנִבְקַע֩ הַ֨ר הַזֵּיתִ֚ים מֵֽחֶצְיוֹ֙ מִזְרָ֣חָה וָיָ֔מָּה גֵּ֖יא גְּדוֹלָ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד וּמָ֨שׁ חֲצִ֥י הָהָ֛ר צָפ֖וֹנָה וְחֶצְיוֹ־נֶֽגְבָּה:

ה

וְנַסְתֶּ֣ם גֵּֽיא־הָרַ֗י כִּֽי־יַגִּ֣יעַ גֵּֽי־הָרִים֘ אֶל־אָצַל֒ וְנַסְתֶּ֗ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֚ר נַסְתֶּם֙ מִפְּנֵ֣י הָרַ֔עַשׁ בִּימֵ֖י עֻזִּיָּ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֑ה וּבָא֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהַ֔י כָּל־קְדֹשִׁ֖ים עִמָּֽךְ:

Ambraseys (2009) notes

The location of Azal is not certain, but the name may denote some place near the western extremity of the valley near Jerusalem or a hamlet on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

• from biblegateway.com (NIV)

21 The Lord will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim,
he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon—
to do his work, his strange work,
and perform his task, his alien task.

• Austin et al (2000:663), citing Chilton (1987:56), states that this sentence in Targum Isaiah explains or interprets the verse of Isaiah 28:21
• from Stenning (1953:90-91)

21 For as the mountains shook when the glory of the Lord was revealed in the days of Uzziah the King, and like wonders (or, miracles) which he did for Joshua in the plain of Gibeon, that he might be avenged on the wicked who had transgressed against his Memra, so shall he be revealed that he may be avenged on them that work strange works as their works, and on them that serve the service of idols as their service.

• from biblegateway.com (NIV)

• from sefaria

• See 5th sentence down on Page 90 starting with "21 For as the mountains shook"
• can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org
• from Stenning (1953:90-91)
• from Archive.org

• from sefaria

7 My Lord
Let loose a word against Jacob
And it fell upon Israel

8 But all the people noted
Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria
In arrogance and haughtiness:

9 “Bricks have fallen
We’ll rebuild with dressed stone;
Sycamores have been felled
We’ll grow cedars instead!”

• from sefaria

• Isaiah appears to have written his prophetic book between 740 and 686 BCE
• Seismic shaking is alluded to in multiple locations usually describing a future time.
• The shaking may have been familiar to his contemporaries due to the relatively recent Amos Quakes
• Freedman and Welch (1994:196) suggest that Isaiah 5:25 appears to be a direct reference to the quake in Uzziah's day.
• Freedman and Welch (1994:196) suggest that Isaiah 6:4 may reflect Amos 9:1

Schoors (2013:56) states that The strophe in [Isaiah] 9:8–11 recalls the earthquakes that struck Palestine during Uzziah’s reign (cf. Amos 1:1).

Austin et al. (2000:659) concur

The biblical records indicate that Samaria received severe damage to palace-fortresses, walls, and houses (Amos 3:11 [JW: seems to allude to destruction by war not an earthquake]; 4:3 [JW: seems to allude to the Assyrian conquest(s) not an earthquake]; 6:11 [JW: This could refer to an earthquake]). Pride in Israel's royal citadel and fear of an Assyrian invasion would have been incentives for Samaria to upgrade quickly from the fallen mud brick to stronger hewn stone (Isaiah 9:9,10 [JW: This appears to discuss rebuilding in Samaria after earthquake damage] Heb. 9:8,9 [JW: I don't see how Heb. 9:8,9 is related to destruction in Samaria - this chapter is describing the original Tabernacle]).

• Jewish Antiquities Book 9 Chapter 10 Paragraph 4
• from Whiston (1737)

4. While Uzziah was in this state, and making preparation [for futurity], he was corrupted in his mind by pride, and became insolent, and this on account of that abundance which he had of things that will soon perish, and despised that power which is of eternal duration (which consisted in piety towards God, and in the observation of the laws); so he fell by occasion of the good success of his affairs, and was carried headlong into those sins of his father, which the splendor of that prosperity he enjoyed, and the glorious actions he had done, led him into, while he was not able to govern himself well about them. Accordingly, when a remarkable day was come, and a general festival was to be celebrated, he put on the holy garment, and went into the temple to offer incense to God upon the golden altar, which he was prohibited to do by Azariah the high priest, who had fourscore priests with him, and who told him that it was not lawful for him to offer sacrifice, and that "none besides the posterity of Aaron were permitted so to do." And when they cried out that he must go out of the temple, and not transgress against God, he was wroth at them, and threatened to kill them, unless they would hold their peace. In the mean time a great earthquake shook the ground²¹ and a rent was made in the temple, and the bright rays of the sun shone through it, and fell upon the king's face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately. And before the city, at a place called Eroge (likely Ein Rogel in Silwan on the outskirts of the border of what was then Jerusalem)), half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west, and rolled itself four furlongs (0.75 km.), and stood still at the east mountain, till the roads, as well as the king's gardens, were spoiled by the obstruction. Now, as soon as the priests saw that the king's face was infected with the leprosy, they told him of the calamity he was under, and commanded that he should go out of the city as a polluted person. Hereupon he was so confounded at the sad distemper, and sensible that he was not at liberty to contradict, that he did as he was commanded, and underwent this miserable and terrible punishment for an intention beyond what befitted a man to have, and for that impiety against God which was implied therein. So he abode out of the city for some time, and lived a private life, while his son Jotham took the government; after which he died with grief and anxiety at what had happened to him, when he had lived sixty-eight years, and reigned of them fifty-two; and was buried by himself in his own gardens.

• Jewish Antiquities Book 9 Chapter 10 Sections 222-227
• from Niese (1892)

[222] Γενόμενος δ᾽ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ συντάξει καὶ παρασκευῇ διεφθάρη τὴν διάνοιαν ὑπὸ τύφου καὶ χαυνωθεὶς θνητῇ περιουσίᾳ τῆς ἀθανάτου καὶ πρὸς ἅπαντα διαρκοῦς τὸν χρόνον ἰσχύος ὠλιγώρησεν: αὕτη δὲ ἦν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβεια καὶ τὸ τηρεῖν τὰ νόμιμα. [223] ὤλισθε δὲ ὑπ᾽ εὐπραξίας καὶ κατηνέχθη πρὸς τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἁμαρτήματα, πρὸς ἃ κἀκεῖνον ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν λαμπρότης καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ δυνηθέντα προστῆναι καλῶς αὐτῶν ἤγαγεν. ἐνστάσης δ᾽ ἡμέρας ἐπισήμου καὶ πάνδημον ἑορτὴν ἐχούσης ἐνδὺς ἱερατικὴν στολὴν εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ τέμενος θυσιάσων ἐπὶ τοῦ χρυσοῦ βωμοῦ τῷ θεῷ. [224] τοῦ δ᾽ ἀρχιερέως Ἀζαρία ὄντων σὺν αὐτῷ ἱερέων ὀγδοήκοντα κωλύοντος αὐτόν, οὐ γὰρ ἐξὸν ἐπιθύειν εἶπον, μόνοις δ᾽ ἐφεῖσθαι τοῦτο ποιεῖν τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ Ἀαρῶνος γένους, καταβοώντων δ᾽ ἐξιέναι καὶ μὴ παρανομεῖν εἰς τὸν θεόν, ὀργισθεὶς ἠπείλησεν αὐτοῖς θάνατον, εἰ μὴ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἄξουσι. [225] μεταξὺ δὲ σεισμὸς ἐκλόνησε τὴν γῆν μέγας καὶ διαστάντος τοῦ ναοῦ φέγγος ἡλίου λαμπρὸν ἐξέλαμψε καὶ τῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ὄψει προσέπεσεν, ὡς τῷ μὲν εὐθέως λέπραν ἐπιδραμεῖν, πρὸ δὲ τῆς πόλεως πρὸς τῇ καλουμένῃ Ἐρωγῇ τοῦ ὄρους ἀπορραγῆναι τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν δύσιν καὶ κυλισθὲν τέσσαρας σταδίους ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνατολικὸν ὄρος στῆναι, ὡς τάς τε παρόδους ἐμφραγῆναι καὶ τοὺς παραδείσους τοὺς βασιλικούς. [226] ἐπεὶ δὲ κατειλημμένην τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ βασιλέως ὑπὸ τῆς λέπρας εἶδον οἱ ἱερεῖς, ἔφραζόν τε αὐτῷ τὴν συμφορὰν καὶ ἐκέλευον ἐξιέναι τῆς πόλεως ὡς ἐναγῆ. ὁ δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αἰσχύνης τε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος δεινοῦ καὶ τοῦ μηκέτ᾽ αὐτῷ παρρησίαν εἶναι τὸ κελευόμενον ἐποίει, τῆς ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον διανοίας καὶ τῶν διὰ τοῦτο εἰς τὸν θεὸν ἀσεβημάτων ταλαίπωρον οὕτως καὶ οἰκτρὰν ὑπομείνας δίκην. [227] καὶ χρόνον μέν τινα διῆγεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἰδιώτην ἀποζῶν βίον τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτῷ Ἰωθάμου τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαβόντος, ἔπειτα ὑπὸ λύπης καὶ ἀθυμίας τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀπέθανεν, ἔτη μὲν βιώσας ὀκτὼ καὶ ἑξήκοντα, τούτων δὲ βασιλεύσας πεντηκονταδύο. ἐκηδεύθη δὲ μόνος ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ κήποις.

• Jewish Antiquities Book 9 Chapter 10 Paragraph 4
• see bottom paragraph on right page
• from Whiston (1737)
• from archive.org

Ambraseys (2009) notes

As for the location of En-rogel, it has been suggested that it is the fountain of the Virgin, the modern Ain Umm al-Daraj. Others identify it with Bir Eyub, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, and below the junction of the valleys of Kidron and Hinnom, which seems to be a more probable location, but again this is not certain.

Some websites discussing Ein-Rogel are listed below

• bibleatlas.org
• biblegateway.com
• classic.net,bible.org

• Chapter 9
• from Goldin (1955:56-57)

CHAPTER 9

NITTAI THE ARBELITE SAYS: KEEP FAR AWAY FROM AN EVIL NEIGHBOR, DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH THE WICKED, AND DO NOT LOSE HOPE OF THE FINAL RECKONING.¹

... Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says: So, too,.²⁸ on them that speak slander plagues come. For thus we find concerning Gehazi that he told a lying tale.²⁹ about his master and leprosy clove to him until the day of his death, as it is said, The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee . . . and he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow (II Kings 5: 27).

He used to say: Upon the arrogant of spirit plagues come. For thus we find concerning Uzziah, as it is said, But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed.³⁰ against the Lord his God; for he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men; and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him: It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated, it pertaineth to burn incense;.³¹ go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thy honor from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead (II Chron. 26: 16-19).

At that time the sanctuary split in two parts, leaving a cleft of twelve miles;.³² and the priests thrust him out quickly, Yea, himself made haste also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And he.³³ was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a house set apart, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord; and I tham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land (II Chron. 26: 20-21).

• Chapter 9
• from Guidoboni et al (1994)

Chapter 9

...

In connection with Uzziah we find [written (2 Chron. 26.16-7)]:

'But when he gained power, his heart grew so proud that it caused his downfall. For he transgressed against the Lord his God and went into the sanctuary of the Lord to offer incense on the altar of perfumes. He was followed there by the priest Azaryahu with eighty courageous priests of the Lord. They stood before king Uzziyahu and said to him:

'It is not for you, Uzziyahu, to offer incense to the Lord, but for the priests who are sons of Aaron and who were consecrated to offer incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have sinned and your reputation before the Lord God will not be improved by it'.

Uzziyahu grew angry, as he held the censer in his hand, and at the moment of his irritation with the priests, leprosy appeared on his brow'. At the same moment the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve miles in each direction. The priests made him leave, and he himself hurried to depart because the Lord had struck him. [King Uzziyahu] remained a leper until his death, and lived in a leper house, because he had been sent away from the house of the Lord. Meanwhile, his son Jotham supervised the royal palace and administered justice to the people of the country.

• Version B referred to as ARNB is not the traditional version of this text
• An earthquake is not mentioned in version B but leprosy is
• Chapter 16
• Can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org
• from Saldarini (1975:112-114)
• from archive.org

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

RABBI JOSHUA BEN PERAHYAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE TOOK OVER FROM THEM.¹ RABBI JOSHUA BEN PERAHYAH SAYS:² FLEE FROM AN EVIL NEIGHBOR, DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH THE WICKED, AND DO NOT SHRUG OFF ALL THOUGHT OF CALAMITY.³

...

Rabbi Simeon says : Plagues only come because of slander, and leprosy only comes because of haughtiness,⁷ as Scripture says: "But when he [King Uzziah] was strong he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the Lord his God, and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the alter of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor ; and they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, `It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.' Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead, in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord, by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priests, and all the priests, looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they thrust him out quickly, and he himself hastened to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death... (2 Chr. 26:16-21)." And Uzziah the king (lived) twenty-five years (as a leper).⁸

• Version B referred to as ARNB is not the traditional version of this text
• An earthquake is not mentioned in this version (version B) but leprosy is
• Chapter 16
• Can be borrowed with a free account from archive.org
• from Saldarini (1975:113-114)
• from archive.org

• requires that your browser has a pdf reader
• not bookmarked
• Goldin (1955:xxiii) and Saldarini (1975:14) both state that Schechter (1887)'s edition has versions A and B in parallel columns.
• from Schechter (1887)
• from wikipedia

• Guidoboni et al (1994) noted to See also Midrash Tanhuma to Noah, chapter 5. Although Amos is quoted in version B (aka Midrash Tanchuma Yelammedenu) of this text (Amos 2:6), the part of Amos mentioning the earthquake is not quoted and there does not seem to be any allusions to an earthquake. There is no mention of Amos or an earthquake in version A (aka Midrash Tanchuma Buber)
• from Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 5
• from sefaria.org

• Guidoboni et al (1994) noted to See also Midrash Tanhuma to Noah, chapter 5. Although Amos is quoted in version B (aka Midrash Tanchuma Yelammedenu) of this text (Amos 2:6), the part of Amos mentioning the earthquake is not quoted and there does not seem to be any allusions to an earthquake. There is no mention of Amos or an earthquake in version A (aka Midrash Tanchuma Buber)
• from Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 5
• from sefaria.org

• Jerome's commentary on Amos (PL, vol. 25, col. 992)
• from Soenksen and Scheck (2017:302-303)

1:1b In the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.

[This was the time] when Sardanapalus was ruling among the Assyrians and the cities of Cilicia. One noteworthy author says this about him: "He was baser in his vices than in his name."¹³ And among the Latins, Procas Silvius [was ruling]. His son Amulius succeeded to the throne after his brother, Numitor, was banished. After Amulius was killed, a band of shepherds and thieves gathered together, and Romulus founded the city that bears his name. Now this is Uzziah, also called Azariah,¹⁴ the king of Judah, who tried to claim the priesthood as his right and was afflicted with leprosy on his forehead.¹⁵ Not only the punishment of this sacrilegious man, but the earthquake, too, which the Hebrews remember happened then, showed the anger of God.

...

In the days of Uzziah, the king of Judah, the strength of the Lord remained there because of the temple and the holy of holies, and he ruled the confessing people by his own authority. But the name Jeroboam, who had emerged because of the division of the people, indicates that Israel remained for a long time in the error of idolatry, before a universal captivity shook them violently. In two years this idolatry manifested a twofold distress, for the ten tribes and for the other two. The purpose of this distress was that, if they were willing, they might not experience an earthquake in the future by repenting.

• from Migne (1849)
• from documentacatholicaomnia.eu

In diebus Oziae regis Juda, et in diebus Jeroboam fili Joas regis Israel, ante duos annos terrae motus.

Quando apud Assyrios urbesqueCiliciae regnabat Sardanapalus, de quo insignis orator : Turpier, inquit, vitiis, quam nomine. Et apud Latinos Procas Silvius, cui Amulius, expulso Numitore germano, successit in regnum. Quo interfecto, congregata pastorum et latronum manu, Romulus sui nominis condidit civitatem. Hic est autem Ozias rex Juda, cognomento Azarias, qui indebitum sibi sacerdotium vindicare conatus, lepra percussus in fronte est (III Paral. xxvi), quando iram Domini non solum poena ejus, qui sacrilegus fuit; sed et terrae motas ostendit, quem Hebraei tunc accidisse commemorant.

...

In diebus Oziae regis Juda, in quo propter templum et sancta sanctorum, fortitudo Domini permanebat, suoque regebat imperio populum confitentem. Nomen autem Jeroboam, qui divisionis populi causa extiterat, signifiat Israelem longo tempore in idololatriae [224] errore mansisse, priusquam captivitas universa concuteret, quae in duobus annis duplicem ostendit angustiam decem tribuum, ac duarum: et agentes, si vellen!, poenitentiam, motum terrae de caetero non sentirent.

• Austin et al (2000:663) state that details of the earthquake and landslide, as described by Josephus, are independently supported by very old traditions of the rabbis (Ginzberg, 1936, p. 262). The relevant extract from Ginzberg (1936:262) and it's accompanying footnotes indicates a complicated provenance which includes Josephus and some Christian sources in addition to Rabbinic sources.
• from Ginzberg (1936:262)
• from archive.org

However, the fearlessness of Amos finally caused his death. King Uzziah inflicted a mortal blow upon his forehead with a red-hot iron.²⁸

Two years after Amos ceased to prophesy, Isaiah was favored with his first Divine communication. It was the day on which King Uzziah, blinded by success and prosperity, arrogated to himself the privileges of the priesthood. He tried to offer sacrifices upon the altar, and when the high priest Azariah²⁹ ventured to restrain him, he threatened to slay him and any priest sympathizing with him unless they kept silent. Suddenly the earth quaked so violently that a great breach was torn in the Temple, through which a brilliant ray of sunlight pierced, falling upon the forehead of the king and causing leprosy to break forth upon him. Nor was that all the damage done by the earthquake. On the west side of Jerusalem, half of the mountain was split off and hurled to the east, into a road, at a distance of four stadia.³⁰ And not heaven and earth alone were outraged by Uzziah’s atrocity and sought to annihilate him ; even the angels of fire, the seraphim, were on the point of descending and consuming him, when a voice from on high proclaimed, that the punishment appointed for Uzziah was unlike that meted out to Korah and his company despite the similarity of their crimes.³¹

• See 3rd paragraph down on page 262 starting with Two years after Amos ceased to prophesy,
• from Ginzberg (1936:262)
• from archive.org

• Starts with note 28 (2nd paragraph from the bottom of page 357)
• relevant footnotes are 28-31
• from Ginzberg vol. 6 p. 357
• from archive.org

• Starts with top of page 358
• relevant footnotes are 28-31
• from Ginzberg vol. 6 p. 358
• from archive.org

[1] Amos says that the prophet received visions ‘. . . during the reigns of Uzziah king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake . . .’ (Amos, I. 1).

[2] ‘. . . they shall go into the holes of the cracks and into the caves of the earth when He arises to shake (terrify) the earth . . .’ (Isa. II. 19, 21).

[3.1] ‘. . . the Lord will go out fully armed for war, to fight against those nations. That day his feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will split apart, making a very wide valley running from east to west, for half the mountain will move towards the north and half toward the south. You will escape through that valley, for it will reach across to Azel. You will escape as your people did long centuries ago from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, king of Juda . . . [c. 767–753 BC]’ (Zech. xiv. 4–5).

[3.2] ‘And the mountain will split in half, forming a wide valley that runs from east to west . . . Then you people will escape from the Lord’s mountain, through this valley, which reaches to Azal. You will run in all directions, just as everyone did when the earthquake struck in the time of King Uzziah of Judah.’ (Contemporary English Version).

[3.3] ‘And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward . . . And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzzi’ah king of Judah.’ (Revised Standard Version).

[3.4] ‘And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south . . . And you shall flee by the valley of my mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azel; and you shall flee, as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.’ (Amplified Bible).

[3.5] ‘And the Mount of Olives shall be split in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south . . . And you shall flee by the valley of my mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azel. And you shall flee, like as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah.’ (American Standard Version).

[3.6] ‘And the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south . . . And you shall flee by the valley of my mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal; you shall even flee, like as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.’ (Darby English Version).

[3.7] ‘And the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south . . . And you shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley shall reach unto Azal; you shall flee, like as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.’ (King James Version).

[4] ‘And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal . . .’ (Masoretic text).

[5] ‘And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up; for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it . . .’ (Revised text).

[6] ‘. . . a great earthquake shook the ground and a rent was made in the temple, and the bright rays of the sun shone through it, and fell upon Uzziah’s face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately. And before the city, at a place called Eroge, half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west, and rolled itself four furlongs and stood still at the east mountain, till the roads, as well as the king’s gardens, were spoiled by the obstruction . . .’ (Joseph.AN: IX. x. 4).

[6a] ‘. . . when leprosy appeared on Uzziah’s brow, at the same moment the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve miles in each direction . . .’ (Nathan ha-Bavli. ix).

[7] ‘. . . the posts of the temple moved when the Lord spoke . . .’ (2 Chron., XXVI. 16–17; 2 Kings XV.1–7).

[8] Timna (Tel Batash) (Rotherberg and Lupu 1967, 59; Rothenberg 1972, 128, 149–150; Mazar 1993 = in fact 1160–1156).

[9] Tel Beersheba (Tel Sheva)

Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘. . . and Beersheva depends largely upon the opinion of Aharoni, thus far unsupported by an adequate publication, see Y. Aharoni et al., Beer-Sheba I. Excavations at Tell Beer-Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons (Tel Aviv 1973) 107.’ (Dever 1992, 35* n. 10).

‘At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad. The plan of Stratum III at Tel Beersheba is, again, drastically different from that of Stratum IV. The former solid city wall and city gate were completely razed, and a new fortification system was constructed. We subscribe to the “low chronology”, these changes may not be attributed to Shishak’s raid or to the division of the alleged United Monarchy. If so, what generated such a cultural shift? Since typological modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992). A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and III, respectively’ (Herzog 2002, 97–98).

[10] Tel Arad

Estimated period of occurrence: c. 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘At Arad, a new fortress was erected that only partially used the previous casemate wall. A solid wall surrounded by a glacis protected the fortress of Stratum X. A new imposing gate and an elaborate water system were constructed in this phase. As shown above, the temple, too, was first erected in this stratum. At Tel Beersheba, Strata V and IV cover the period equivalent to that of Stratum XI at Tel Arad . . . Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992). A strong earthquake in the southern part of the Judean Kingdom might explain the total destruction of the upper parts of the fortification systems at Tel Arad XI and Beersheba IV and the need to rebuild them in Strata X and III, respectively.

The pottery assemblage of Stratum X at Tel Arad is remarkably different from that of Stratum XI and exhibits new forms that display similarity to the assemblages known from the destruction layers of the end of the 8th century (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976).

The time span of the three strata was apparently fairly short. Attributing the destruction of the fortress of Stratum XI to the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, the construction of the Stratum X fortress may be dated to 750 BCE. The circumstances of the destruction of the Stratum X fortress and its reconstruction in Stratum IX are unclear’ (Herzog 2002, 97–98).

‘As stated above, the material culture of Stratum XI resembles that of Lachish Level IV. The excavators attribute the destruction of Level IV at Lachish to an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BCE, so that this date may mark the end of Stratum XI at Arad and the establishment of Stratum X. If we accept this view, then Stratum XI existed for a lengthy period, approximately 150 years’ (Singer-Avitz 2002, 162).

[11] Lachish (Hesy)

Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘Level IV apparently came to a sudden end, but it seems clear that this was not caused by fire. On the other hand, the lower house of Level III and the rebuilt enclosure wall followed the lines of the Level IV structures, while the Level IV city wall and gate continued to function in Level III; these facts point towards the continuation of life without a break. Considering that the fortifications remained intact, we can hardly identify this level with the city which was stormed and completely destroyed in the fierce Assyrian attack. Here we may mention M. Kochavi’s suggestion (made during a visit to the excavations in 1976 and quoted here with his kind permission) that the end of the Level IV structures may have been caused by an earthquake. A natural catastrophe of this sort would, perhaps, be compatible with the above findings. Of interest in this connection is the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zech. 14:5, which occurred around 760 BCE during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah’ (Ussishkin 1977, 52).

‘The case of Lachish IV is perhaps the strongest’ (Dever 1992, 35* n. 10).

‘Since typological modification runs parallel to drastic changes in the design of settlements, as observed at Tel Beersheba and Lachish, they should be related to significant events. Tentatively this development might be associated with a severe earthquake dated to c. 760 BCE, based on biblical references (Dever 1992)’ (Herzog 2002, 97).

[12] Iraq al Amir

(Butler 1907, 13 = 760?)

[13] Tel Gezer

Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘According to Macalister, a number of ashlar towers had been inserted into the Late Bronze Age Outer Wall by Solomonic engineers. In order to test this claim it was decided to locate his “Tower VII” (situated immediately north of the “Egyptian Governor’s Residency”, according to Macalister’s plan) and open two soundings – one against each of the inner and outer faces of the “tower” – in order to determine if indeed the “towers” were constructed in the manner and at the time Macalister claimed (see Plates 4, 6, and 19). After clearing off the top of the Outer Wall, however, it was discovered that Macalister’s “Tower VII” was not a tower at all, but rather an offset that was similar to what he found further west in his trenches 22–29, a stretch of wall which he described as “rebuilt”. Macalister had apparently found the same corner as our team and had simply drawn in the other three corners on his plan.

Excavation against the inner face of the “tower” reached bedrock in just over a meter (Plate 14). A foundation trench, which showed up clearly in the eastern balk, indicated that the offset was initially constructed in the 8th century B.C. Later, during the Hellenistic period, a second trench had been dug into the earlier one, suggesting that at least part of the wall was rebuilt during this period. Indeed, the ashlars in the upper two or three courses of the wall were poorly laid. They were uneven and not in the header– stretcher fashion. Thus they were probably reused from the earlier Iron Age construction.

The fact that the earliest architectural phase of the offset dated no earlier than the 8th century B.C. would seem to raise doubts about the claims of those who have argued for an earlier dating of the Outer Wall. However, excavation along the outer face of “Tower VII” revealed at least nine courses (ca. 5 m.) of excellent header–stretcher masonry. Although bedrock could not be reached in this sounding, the pottery from the lowest level of fills against the outer face consisted of red-slipped 10th century B.C. wares.

Above these 10th century fills (which were more than 2 m. thick) were at least two plastered surfaces which ran up against the wall face. The debris on these surfaces included fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century B.C. sherds. The debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction (Plate 15). The latter was followed much later by a hasty repair and rebuild, probably during the Maccabean period (2nd century B.C.).

Thus, based on the results of the excavation along the outer face of “Tower VII”, it appears that the Outer Wall was originally constructed at least by the 10th century B.C., and probably earlier. The discoveries in Square 22 to the east (see below) even suggest the possibility of an initial construction in the LB II. Engineers of the Iron 11 and Hellenistic periods apparently found it necessary to repair isolated sections of the inner face (which rested on the top of an escarpment), thus leading to the discrepancy between the dates for the construction of the inner and outer faces of the Outer Wall.

Macalister’s Tower VI

In the hope of finding a genuine Solomonic tower inserted into a Late Bronze Age wall, it was decided to move east and attempt to locate Macalister’s “Tower VI”. According to Macalister’s top plan, Tower VI was located between 25 m. and 30 m. east of Tower VII (Plate 19). Using the bulldozer to clear away Macalister dump and post-Macalister debris accumulation (which included some 1947 Jordanian army trenches), it was not long before an ashlar block of what appeared to be the southwest corner of Macalister’s Outer Wall Tower VI was uncovered.

Unfortunately, excavations indicated that this “tower” was also only an offset (Plate 16). However, the pottery from the foundation trench indicated that the earliest phase of this stretch of the Outer Wall was founded probably during the 10th century B.C. Two additional pieces of evidence also support a 10th century B.C. dating. First, a stone of the lowest course of the inner face of the Outer Wall is roughly bossed in a fashion typical of foundation ashlars of the 10th century. Second, this lowest course is clearly cut by the later “tower” or offset, indicating that this stretch of the wall preceded the construction of the “tower”. Since the “inserted tower” dated to the 9th/8th century B.C. (see below), the wall must be dated earlier. While this second line of evidence is not sufficient by itself to provide a 10th century date, the bossed ashlar and the 10th century trench combine to make a 10th century B.C. date for this section of the wall most probable.

Sometime during the 9th/8th century B.C. the upper courses of the Outer Wall were remodelled with large ashlars to create an offset. The ashlar offset was “inserted” more than a meter into the 10th century B.C. wall line.

The 9th/8th century ashlar inserts and wall appear to have been destroyed sometime during the 8th century B.C. Several lines of evidence suggest that the agent of destruction was an earthquake. For one thing, several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. Furthermore, these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north. That this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city. Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. If the wall’s outward tilt had occurred slowly, the stones on the top of the wall should have fallen off toward the downward-sloping outer face of the wall.

The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. However, even the cornerstone had been split longitudinally because of the great pressure created by the lateral movement of the upper courses. This same tremendous pressure also created fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses. The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled out depressions cut directly into the bedrock.

Evidence for an 8th century B.C. earthquake has been discovered at several other sites, such as Hazor. It is not impossible that the wall was destroyed by the well-known earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech 14:5 (ca. 760 B.C.)’ (Younker 1991).

‘Here, too, the “tower” we expected to find (Macalister’s “tower VI”) turned out to be simply an offset portion of ashlar masonry (Fig. 1). This later wall, dated by eighth-century B.C.E. sherds in the secondary back-filled trench, was probably destroyed by the well-known earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech. 14:5, c. 760 B.C.E. Not only was the ashlar “tower” cracked from top to bottom and the adjoining boulders violently thrown off their foundations, but a long stretch of the wall to the east was tilted sharply outward in one piece (Fig. 2). Preliminary research indicated that the Gezer–Ramla region has been subject to repeated earthquake damage in historical times; an earthquake hypothesis, therefore, seems plausible’ (Dever and Younker 1991, 286).

‘While the two Iron Age phases in the “Outer Wall” were so crystal clear in the sections that they constituted a “textbook” example of stratigraphy, of more interest was the evidence they preserved of an earthquake destruction of the second, 9th/8th century BCE phase. The evidence was twofold. (1) First, all three courses of the large rectangular blocks just at the “tower” offset were cracked clear through, from top to bottom, the heavy stones still approximately in place but with a large open gap running from top to bottom (Ill. 3). (2) Second, immediately to the west of the “tower” offset, the foundation course (here of marginally drafted ashlars) was still in situ; but the upper two courses of rougher boulders were found radically displaced upward and outward, but still lying in a row – as though they had violently “jumped” off their foundations (Ill. 4).

Now it seems evident that such severe damage cannot have resulted simply from the usual siege tactics carried out at ancient walled Palestinian towns. There was none of the typical evidence of burning: no calcinated stones; no trace of undermining and collapse; no evidence of battering or forcing of the wall inward. On the contrary, the wall had fallen suddenly outward, “split apart” violently.

For some time I resisted the suggestions of various staff members that perhaps an earthquake was the best explanation. And certainly I – not identifying with traditional “biblical archaeology” – did not have the earthquake of Amos or Zachariah in mind, despite the 9th/8th century BCE date for the wall that we had posited on quite independent archaeological grounds. Nor at the moment did I recall Yadin’s earthquake hypothesis at Hazor. Yet, in the end, the evidence seemed overwhelming. Several of our group from California, including Associate Director Randy Younker, had personally seen just such earthquake damage, even to the fact that random areas of the wall had been affected, and this seemed to provide the confirmation that we needed.

A final probe still farther east, in Area 20, yielded further evidence. Here we cleared a stretch of the same wall for some 15 m. At first, our efforts to trace the wall eastward failed. Because we were following the projected line from the “tower” offset on a straight course and had found no stones, we supposed that the top course was robbed out. To our surprise, we later discovered what was clearly the line of the top course curving radically, a long section bowed outward yet still intact. Furthermore, the tops of the whole line of stones were tilted outward at an angle of ca. 10–15 degrees (Ill. 4).

One could, I suppose, argue that here we are dealing simply with subsidence, perhaps because the bedrock dipped downward at this point (as indeed it did). A more reasonable explanation, however, would seem to be an earthquake that displaced the whole section bodily, especially as the foundations were already weak. Certainly a battering ram, or the work of sappers, could not have produced such a peculiar phenomenon as this whole stretch of wall tipped outward. It does indeed resemble rather closely one of Schaeffer’s toppled walls at Ugarit’ (Dever 1992, 30).

[14] Tel Michal

(Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

[15] Tell Qasile

Estimated period of occurrence: Stratum XI of Tel Qasile belongs to the phase Iron Age IB (= first half of the eleventh century BC).

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘Stratum XI was completely cleared in the southern part of the mound, where a large building, built mostly of kurkar stones, was found. The structure’s plan was not fully traced. East of it was a large square, and nearby were two clay crucibles containing remains of smelted copper. In the northern sector of the mound, the buildings in this stratum were destroyed down to their foundations when the stratum X buildings were erected. The nature of the ruins indicates that the settlement was destroyed by an earthquake.

The fortifications in Area B include a massive brick wall (c. 5 m thick) in stratum XI. No architectural continuity was noted between strata XII and XI. The latter was laid out on a different plan and a new wall was added.

It was possible to distinguish clearly between the different Iron Age I strata (XII–X) at Tell Qasile; thus, separate and well-defined pottery assemblages could be established. Changes and developments can be traced in the ordinary local pottery, in which the Canaanite pottery tradition continues, as well as in the Philistine ware. The stratum XII Philistine pottery includes bowls, kraters, jugs with strainer spouts, and stirrup jars. The pottery contains several distinctive features that date it to the early phase of its appearance in Israel: thick white slip and bichrome decoration on some of the vessels with narrow, close-set lines, similar to the Mycenaean “close style”; the bird motif is limited to stratum XII (only one example was found in stratum XI). The ceramic assemblage of stratum XI is similar to that of stratum XII. However, a change is discernible in the Philistine pottery: there is a deterioration in ornamentation, and monochrome decorations become more frequent. Other finds in this stratum include bronze arrowheads, a bone graver, spindle whorls, flint sickle blades, numerous loom weights, and various stone objects, such as grindstones and mortars. Iron objects were not found in Area A in strata XII and XI’ (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993).

[16] Samaria (Shechem)

Estimated period of occurrence: 784–750 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘In the Shechem essay it was argued that the end of Shechem 9b correlates to the end of Samaria Building Period 2. Excavations at Shechem 9b yielded evidence that it had been destroyed by an earthquake, and this was interpreted as the level destroyed by the earthquake of Uzziah’s day. Since the end of Samaria 2 correlates to the end of Shechem 9b, this means the destruction of Samaria 2 could well have resulted from the same earthquake. Wright describes the destruction of Samaria 2 (which required a rebuilding under Samaria 3):

“In Period III a wholesale rebuilding of the structure adjacent to the northern enclosure walls, and also of the royal palace to the west, suggests that a catastrophe had brought Period II to a close . . . The stones employed for this purpose were re-used from earlier buildings; some still had plaster adhering to them. The date for this period is given as ca. 840–800 B.C. [sic].” (BASOR, 155, pp. 18–19.)

The 2nd ceramic phase in use at the time of the earthquake (as we are interpreting it) was used as fill for Jeroboam’s rebuilding operations – i.e., Building Period 3. From this point on until the destruction of Samaria, the 3rd Ceramic Phase developed. This is enough time to allow for Wright’s view that the difference between Pottery Periods 3 & 4 was of a “similar interval” to the difference between Pottery Periods 2 & 3. The time would be from 783 BC to 721 BC – 62 years, the date of Sargon’s capture of the city.

The date of Uzziah’s earthquake

According to Wright, the Ostraca House of Samaria correlates with Building Period 3 . . . In his article, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing,” Ivan T. Kaufman points out that the ostraca were not found on the floor of the Ostraca House but were found in the fill underlying it. This was affirmed also by Anson F. Rainey . . . From this, we can infer that the ostraca were found in the fill of Building Period 3, and hence would correlate to our 2nd ceramic phase. If the 2nd ceramic phase was brought to an end by Uzziah’s earthquake, as we have argued, then it may be possible to link the ostraca to the earthquake. This is of considerable importance, because one thing we know about these ostraca is that they can be dated. Some of the ostraca are dated to the 15th year of an unnamed king, and some are dated to the 9th or 10th years of an unnamed king. The lack of any intervening years, among other things, led Kaufman and Rainey to regard these years as belonging to a single date of two co-regent kings, rather than to different dates of one king (cf., Kaufman, p. 235.). We cannot go into great detail about it, but the conclusion of Anson Rainey’s discussion of these finds is that they should be dated to 784/783 BC, during the time of Jeroboam 2. Thus, the ostraca are something like a stopped watch during an accident or explosion. Just as the watch gives the actual time of the accident or explosion, so the ostraca provide, on our theory, the actual year of the earthquake, c. 783 BC.

Courville himself dated the earthquake of Uzziah’s day to 751–750 B.C, based on a Jewish legend reported by Josephus. (Exodus Problem, 2:122–23.) The prophet Zechariah is quoted as a source indicating the severity of the earthquake . . . Josephus claimed that the earthquake was God’s judgment on Uzziah for his attempt to burn incense to the Lord, a rite reserved to the priests alone (2 Chr. 26:17–18). Josephus speaks of a rent made in the temple, and bright sunlight falling on the king’s face, as he was seized with leprosy. The king’s son, Jotham, perforce had to become the acting king, c. 750 B.C., while Uzziah remained in a quarantined house for the rest of his reign. Courville concludes from this that the earthquake must have happened in the year 751–750 B.C.’ (Crisler 2004).

[17] Tell Deir Alla

Estimated period of occurrence: 800–750 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘I have already mentioned that the site was shaken by earthquake round 1200 B.C. The destruction of the buildings of Phase M, the phase to which the Aramaic text belongs, was also caused by an earthquake. Deir Alla has suffered more earthquakes, not only during the time of habitation but also afterwards. These earthquakes and tremors caused vertical cracks which in the excavated area run mostly in east–west direction. When tracing the frequency of these cracks along a north–south line we find at least one every twenty cms. The tell is thus cut into vertical slices and these slices may have sunken for instance from a few cms. to several cms. and sometimes shifted sideways, whereas most of them apparently under the pressure from higher parts of the tell are inclined to lean out to the north. Expressed in geological terms we have found, be it in miniature size normal faults and even pivot faults. Cracks reaching the present surface must have been caused after the tell had reached that height and cannot therefore be dated to the stratigraphy . . .Moreover, unless all the cracks that run through the deposits overlying Phase M and their exact position had been recorded, we would not be able to say whether any cracks seen in Phase L stop at the floor levels of Phase M. However we had several other indications. We have recorded cracks and shifts of material that run through the ruined buildings but stop at the point where erosion began to level off the debris. These were caused by a second shock which followed the first one after the buildings collapsed and the fire caused by the earthquake had burned itself out. I shall have to refer to the second shock in relation to the position of the text.

However, the first shock was also recorded. There is a long crack about 10 cms. wide running through the deposits of a little lane which formed during Phase M and is almost 60 cms. high. This crack is closed further to the east but here a horizontal shift could be seen because the crack runs lengthwise through the low stump of a mud brick wall. The clay mortar between the bricks on both sides of the crack does not fit together any longer. The horizontal shift was about 10 cms. Such cracks have not only been recorded on paper but also on “pull offs”, a method used in agriculture to take a thin slice of earth to the laboratory (Franken 1965b), in order to keep an authentic record of the accumulation of deposits. The slice is thick enough to make samples from it for microscopic analysis. Incidentally horizontal shifts of more than 30 cms. were recorded. It was the second shock which brought the preserved fragments of the Aramaic text down from their support’ (Franken 1976, 7–8).

‘We have seen that Phase M consists of traces of a situation that must have existed one day in the past when an earthquake hit the site and traces of the impact of the first and the second earthquake shock. We must now consider the value of the interpretation of Phase M as a sanctuary. The earthquake has nothing to do with this interpretation, but had it not been for the earthquake the text might not have been preserved. Also thanks to the earthquake many objects were found which otherwise might have disappeared for ever. The plan of the buildings has to be partly hypothetically reconstructed since some walls were dislocated at floor level leaving barely any traces of where they stood before the destruction. Also a number of objects like the text were knocked about when the shocks hit the site. In contrast to two earlier earthquake phases we did not find human victims in the ruins. This may indicate that the disaster took place during daylight but it seems more likely that the destruction happened at night when there was nobody in these rooms. Somewhere there was a fire burning in a breadoven or otherwise, because the first shock was followed by a conflagration, wooden objects burned away like the looms, of which we found the clay weights in several rooms, and charred beams which may also partly have belonged to other wooden furniture. But what was left, the less perishable objects, was found and reconstructed as far as possible’ (Franken 1976, 12).

‘Pl. 16a shows the plan of four rooms. On this plan the entrance to room GG205 from the south is located between walls BB 320 and BB 427. When found this entrance was blocked by a wall fragment. The blockage may have been caused by the earthquake. In the corner formed by wall BB 320 and the blocked doorway eighteen burned clay loom weights were found lying on the floor. Eighty cms. north of the corner and lying against wall BB 320 inside room GG 205 three remarkable objects were found in the debris on the floor: the inscribed stone, a goblet on a high foot with a spout (R. no. 1990) and an outsize loom weight (R. no. 2006). A large piece of charred wood lay beside these objects in front of the passage between rooms GG 205 and GG 102. The goblet (pl. 16b) was only slightly damaged near the rim; the stone and loom weight were complete . . .’ (Franken 1976, 15).

‘This phase IX is the same as phase M in previous countings. Much of it had been excavated in 1967 in an area of c. 25 × 25 m NW of the trenches dug during the last three seasons. Much of the architecture had been revealed, and some of it has been published preliminarily in J. Hoftijzer, G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, Leiden, 1976, (Pls. 16–19) and in A.D.A.J. op. cit. 1978, p. 64, fig. 6 (square B/C5). During this season excavations of phase M were done in one square only, namely in B/C6, to the E of B/C5, labeled EE 400 and EE 300 respectively in 1967. In 1967 it became clear that all the phase M architecture excavated had been destroyed by earthshock and fire. The room found in B/C6 was destroyed by fire too.

The walls are partly still standing up to 1.25 m high, and the room is found filled with burnt roof and wall debris. For a plan of the walls combined with those of B/C5 see plan drawing (fig. 5). The height of the debris (deposits 61 and 63) is shown on (Pl. XX, 2) where the floor is visible as well as the E most part of the burnt debris. Note also the lower course of mudbricks 57 going N–S at the top of the photograph. To the left is a doorway with a quern at the threshold. See also (Pl. XXI, 1) for a photograph of one stage in the removal of the debris inside the room. In the NW corner the floor of the room is visible. An especially interesting feature is the antler found as fallen almost directly on the floor of the room (Pl. XXI, 2). Some of the artifacts found may be mentioned here. Plates (XXVIII, 2– XXIX, 2) show some of the pottery found. A sealed jar handle (see Pl. XXX, 1). A shard with graffiti writing and drawing (Pl. XXX, 2). Phase IX probably has to be dated in the 8th century B.C. (Pl. XXXI)’ (Ibrahim and Kooij 1979, 48–50).

‘The empirical evidence at Deir Alla, dated to the mid-8th century BE, perhaps by the famous “Balaam Inscription”, is stronger’ (Dever 1992, 35 n. 10).

‘The details of their language [of the texts], restoration, script, reading, and interpretation are still under discussion; however, following a preliminary palaeographic dating to the Persian period, and then in the editio princeps to about 700 BCE (Hoftijzer and Kooij, 1976), most commentators now agree that the palaeography fits the dating of the archaeological context: about 800 BCE (Hoftijzer and Kooij, 1991) or the first half of the eighth century BCE. Indeed, the earthquake that destroyed level M/IX at Deir Alla could well be the one mentioned in Amos 1:1 (cf. Also 4:11, 6:8–11, 8:8, and 9:1; and Zec. 14:5), dated to about 760 BCE’ (Lemaire 1997, 139).

[18] Tell al Hama

(Mazar 1993, 208 = ?).

[19] Tell al Saiidiyeh

(Mazar 1993, 208 = ?).

[20] Khirbet al Asiq (En Gev)

(Dever 1992, 34 n. 10 = n.d.).

[21] Tel Mevorakh

(Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

[22] Megiddo

Estimated period of occurrence: c. 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘What did we excavate in the season of 2000 in Area H? At the lowest level, we reached an elaborate semi-monumental building added to a pre-existing, small-scale domestic occupation (Phase H6b). The monumental building was never finished; it may have housed some squatters in the period of its abandonment (Phase H6a). Squatter occupation continued in the ruins (Phase H5d), followed by the construction of city Wall 325 (Phase H5c). It is obvious from the inclination of the Area H surfaces that Wall 325 represents the first city wall of Iron Age Megiddo. Throughout the different phases of occupation of Level H5, Area H is devoid of architecture; it contains a sequence of more than 20 floor levels with abundant traces of open-air domestic activity. There was domestic architecture immediately to the south of Area H (unexcavated), for the occupation of Phase H5a was terminated by an earthquake, which cracked the city wall and strewed parts of walls of these southern buildings all over Area H. Our Phases H6b–a should be assigned to the University of Chicago’s Stratum V, while our Phases H5d–a (plus Levels H4 and H3 excavated in past seasons) cover the time-span of the University of Chicago’s Stratum IVA.

How to decipher all this historically? The commencement of elaborate construction in Level H6b testifies to the prosperity at the end of the Omride dynasty as its abandonment may reflect the consequences of Jehu’s revolt. The destruction of Phase H6a and the subsequent squatter-occupation (H5d) illustrate the fate of Israel under Aramaean domination (II Kgs 10:32–33; 13:3, 22). The construction of the city wall in Level H5c indicates the beginning of Israel’s recovery under Joash and Jeroboam II (II Kgs 13:24f; 14:25–28). City Wall 325 was the wall of the city conquered by Tiglat-pileser III in 733 BCE. The destruction of Phase H5a should probably be attributed to the earthquake in the time of Jeroboam II, mentioned in Amos 1:1 and archaeologically also attested at Hazor and Tell Deir ’Alla in the Jordan Valley, where it toppled and buried the stele with the famous Balaam-text.

Synchronizing the stratigraphy of Area H with the biblical record is perfectly possible within the framework of the “Low Chronology”. According to the traditional chronology, Phase H6b (= University of Chicago’s VA) should reflect the time of Solomon. The subsequent decline would then be due to the demise of the “United Monarchy” and the civil wars in Israel between Jeroboam I and Omri. It would have been Omri or Ahab who built city Wall 325 But then, the earthquake of Jeroboam II’s time would not have left any trace in the occupational deposits, whereas the earthquake in our Phase H5a escaped the attention of the ancient texts’ (Knauf 2002).

‘In the summer of 2000 we carried out fieldwork at Megiddo, with the aim of tracing evidence of ancient earthquakes. We were looking for structural damage such as tilted walls, cracks and fractures in stones etc. We located about a dozen spots with possible evidence for tectonic activity. Following are three examples.

Extension cracks occur in the six-chambered, Iron II gate complex. Rows of ashlars in the middle of the walls (enclosed between other rows) are fractured. Horizontal sliding of the fragments occurred everywhere in the same direction, nearly parallel to the face of the wall. The damage was probably caused by earthquake-related horizontal shaking. The 8th century Stratum III gate built on top of the six-chambered gate is not damaged. Therefore, this event may be linked to the biblical reference to a major earthquake in the time of Jeroboam II, ca. 760 BCE.

In Area L, the stone and plaster floors of the Stratum IVA “stables” are level, while the walls and fills of Stratum VA–IVB Palace 6000 are tilted. This indicates a deformation after the construction of the palace, but before the building of the “stables”, a deformation which may be linked to the 8th century event mentioned above’ (Shmulik and Amotz 2002).

[23] Tell Abu Hawam

Estimated period of occurrence: 1126–1050 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘Stratum IVA (dates) from c. 1125 to c. 1050 B.C. This city was violently destroyed, possibly by earthquake’ (Warren and Hankey 1989, 161).

[24] Tel Hazor

Estimated period of occurrence: 760 BC.

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘Stratum VI was found to have been destroyed by a violent earthquake which could be associated with the one mentioned in Zechariah (14:5) and Amos (1:4) in the days of King Uzziah, c. 760 B.C.’ (Yadin 1972, 11).

‘Stratum VI, Area A, Building 2a.

The house was severely damaged by an earthquake; all the walls and pillars were tilted southwards. In all the rooms, as well as in the western part of the court, huge blocks of ceiling plaster were found sealed off by the floors of Stratum V, which were built 1.5 m. above the floors of Stratum VI. The reason for this is that, although the walls of Stratum VI were still standing after the earthquake, they were so tilted that only their tops could be used, and even those only as a base for the new foundations. The earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI seems to be the one referred to in the Bible, which occurred during the reign of King Uzziah (c. 760 B.C.)’ (Yadin 1972, 181)

‘Area A, Stratum VI, Building 2a.

Due to the excellent construction of building 2a, we can trace in it the effects of the earthquake which destroyed Stratum VI better than anywhere else in the excavation area. Its strongly-built walls remained standing to a considerable height, but the earthquake is evidenced by their tilt southwards, particularly that of the three pillars (Pl. XXV, 2). In all the rooms and in the northern part of the courtyard, we came upon great quantities of debris comprising lumps of plaster from the collapsed ceilings (Pl. XXVII, 1, 4), resembling those that we found in storeroom 148 in 1956 (Hazor I, p. 23)’ (Bent-Tor 1989, 41–44).

‘A later, more modest effort to utilize seismic chronology was that of the late Yigael Yadin, who saw the destruction of Hazor VI (Area A) as dramatic evidence of the earthquake of ca. 760 BCE, citing the biblical texts mentioned above. Despite the clear evidence of several displaced walls and cracked surfaces at Hazor, Yadin’s earthquake hypothesis does not seem to have attracted much attention. This was possibly because of the author’s well known predilection towards using biblical texts to explain or corroborate archaeological phenomena – a style of “biblical archaeology” that Yadin popularized with enviable success, but one that left some of his professional colleagues skeptical.

Nevertheless, when the Hazor excavations were resumed in 1990 under the direction of Amnon Ben-Tor, further evidence of a Stratum VI earthquake came to light, especially in a street and drain in Area A that seemed simply to have split down the centre – difficult to explain by any other hypothesis. And since Stratum VI dates to the early 8th century BCE on independent grounds (as one may maintain, with Yadin), the well known earthquake of ca. 760 BCE seems a likely candidate’ (Dever 1992, 28).

‘The destruction of Phase H5a [in Megiddo] should probably be attributed to the earthquake in the time of Jeroboam II, mentioned in Amos 1:1 and archaeologically also attested at Hazor and Tell Deir Alla . . .’ (Knauf 2002).

[25] Jerusalem

Estimated period of occurrence: 760–750 BC. (Guidoboni 1989, 632 n. 17).

Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

‘Going further back in time, the Bible records Zechariah’s prophecy, based upon the description of a large earthquake which occurred during the reign of King Uzziah around 760 BC: “ . . . and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the E and toward the W, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the N, and half of it toward the S. And ye shall flee . . . like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah King of Judah” (Zechariah, Chapter 14, Verse 4–5).

This earthquake happened probably somewhere E of Jerusalem, most likely along the Jericho fault. Apparently, the offset of the rocks across it was great enough to reveal the northward slip of the eastern side relative to the southward slip of the western side. This motion is remarkably similar to the motion observed in the 1927 Jericho earthquake, and is, of course, consistent with the N–S movement of the plates in this area’ (Nur and Ron 1996, 81).

760-750 BCE

Time Uncertainty +/- 10 years
Type of Quake Single
Reliability Very High
Zone central (Israel and southern Lebanon)
Most Damaged or felt locations Judea

Damaging event during mid-8th century BCE. Amos references his prophecy according to an earthquake occurred two years before in a time frame that can be reconstructed today, during the reign of Uziah and Jerova'm, kings of Judea and Israel, respectively. Consequently, we assume the event had indeed occurred and was significant enough to be remembered and documented. However, apart from Amos, there are only a few late secondary sources (Ambraseys (2009); Guidoboni et. al. (1994) and references therein) that imply of a possible damage in Jerusalem but they cannot be authenticated. Other archaeological evidence cannot be unequivocally associated with this event (Ambraseys (2009))

Reported damaged localities

Jerusalem, Judea

Estimated magnitude in previous studies

7.8-8.2 Austin et al. (2000)
8.2 Ben-Menahem (1979)
7.3 Ben-Menahem (1991)

Average magnitude n/a
Size degree n/a
Casualties n/a

7 Brian J. Skinner and Stephen C. Porter The Dynamic Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (2d ed.; New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1992), 415-7.

8 Other instruments of God's wrath said to be in store for Israel include an unnamed foreign oppressor, such as in 2:15, 3:11, 5:5, 5:27, 6:7, 7:17, 9:9-10, as well as some other natural disasters, though they are not related to one type of event. Those include drought (4:7-8), blight (4:9), pestilence (4:10), and eclipse (8:9).

9 Ben Zion Luria, Understanding the Land via the Interpretation of Difficult Verses: (1) Haqqore leme hayyam vayishpehem al pene haarets [Hebrew], Bet Miqra 101 (1987), 261, views the earthquake as a formative experience for Amos in that he understood it as God's punishment and therefore felt the need to proclaim that to Israel. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 110, 125, sees the earthquake as the cause for the formation of the book of Amos' prophecies, since it proved his threats true.

10 See Freedman and Welch, Amos's Earthquake and Israelite Prophecy, 196-7. For a description of classical prophecy, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (2d ed., revised and enlarged; Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 65-110.

13 This seems to mean that Amos prophesied during the overlapping years of the Israelite and Judahite monarchs, and according to Wolff, Joel and Amos, 124, in exclusion of the later years of Uzziah, when Jotham was his coregent. This sets Amos' prophecies between 787/86, the accession year of both Jeroboam II and Uzziah, until the beginning of Jotham's coregency in 757/56, according to Wolff; 791/90, the first year of Azariah's reign (third of Jeroboam II's coregency with his father), until 753, the year of Jeroboam II's death, according to Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 69-73; or 788/87, the accession year of Uzziah (second year of Jeroboam II), until 758/57, the beginning of Jotham's coregency, according to Gershon Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 9; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 76-9. Also, see the chart in King, Archaeological Commentary, 8.

16 Wolff, Joel and Amos, 338, thinks it unknown and discounts completely scholars who had posited Jerusalem as the location.

19 So does Natan Shalem, Earthquakes in Jerusalem, [Hebrew] Jerusalem: Quarterly Devoted to the Study of Jerusalem and its History 2 (1949), 28-9, 32-4.

20 David L. Petersen, Zechariach 9-14 and Malachi (The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 135, reviews the conflicting versional evidence. LXX reads the root as indicative of to be stopped up and Targum splits the first appearance of the word accordingly and the other two as to flee. Petersen sides with MT, which is backed by V and S, finding that the locution of stopping up does not make sense modifying a valley nor is it used as such. Nonetheless, it is possible that it forms a circumlocution for the stopping up of waters that would flow through the valley.

27 Characters not in parentheses appear identically in both verses. Translation is of 9:5, JPS, 1325.

28 See Luria, Haqqore leme hayyam, 260-1, who collocates several rabbinic sources related to God's use of tsunami as a destructive, retributive force based off of this verse.

29 Tsunamis reaching the Levant are found in the historical record back to the 2nd century B.C.E. For an up to date overview of eastern Mediterranean Tsunamis, see Amos Salamon, et al., Tsunami Hazard Evaluation of the Eastern Mediterranean: Historical Analysis and Selected Modeling,Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97:3 (2007), 705-24, with Electronic Supplement (), 1-23.

30 James L. Crenshaw, Wedorek al bamote ares, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34:1 (1972), 43, sees Amos 4:13 as referring to God's trampling of the sanctuaries on the elevated heights. Although his interpretation is aimed at understanding the purpose of the trampling, the means of trampling could have a physical analog in the earth shaking due to God's enormous size.

51 Ambraseys, Earthquakes and Archaeology, 1009-11.

52 See above, n. 49.

53 Galadini, et al., Archaeoseismology, 402-3, 404-6.

54 Ambraseys, Earthquakes and Archaeology, 1009-11.

55 Complete reports of the first two seasons were published subsequently in 1958 and 1960 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958]; Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960]), along with plates from the third and forth seasons in 1961 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavations, 1957-1958. Vol. 1: Plates [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961]). The text of those later reports was published in 1989 (Yigael Yadin, et al., Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavations, 1957-1958. Vol. 2: Text [Biblical Archaeology Society, 1989]). Excavations were continued in 1990 under the direction of Amnon Ben-Tor, who also published the results of Yadin's 1968 season in conjunction with some of the results of his first four seasons (Amnon Ben-Tor and Robert Bonfil, Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavations, 1968 [Israel Exploration Society, 1997]).

56 Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).

57 Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975). 58 Amnon Ben-Tor, The Yigael Yadin Excavations at Hazor, 1990-1993: Aims and Preliminary Results, in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 237; Eds. Neil A. Silberman and David Small; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 107-27.

59 Yadin, Hazor II, 24, lists damage in four rooms as follows (see Figure 4): [Room] 78 The N. wall was leaning to the S., and was partly supported by the debris that blocked the W. entrance to the room. Next to the wall was a sloping pile of debris made up of courses of stones; buried beneath it were several vessels. The earthquake wrought most havoc in this room, and it was the wreckage here that first gave us the clue to the disaster. [Room] 14a The W. wall leans sharply to the E., the E. wall less so. [Room] 113 The W. wall is cracked down the middle and leans eastwards. The N. wall leans southwards very markedly. [Room] 21a The E. wall slants eastwards, and fallen courses of stones covered the street to the E. of the room (28a).

72 Although the chronology of Iron Age strata of many sites in Israel has come under question, this seems to not be an issue at Hazor for the levels beginning exactly with Stratum VII. Israel Finkelstein spearheaded the argument that the Iron Age levels at Hazor and other sites need to be down-dated to better correlate with carbon 14 dates from those sites (see Amihai Mazar, The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science [Ed. Thomas E. Levy and Thomas Higham; London: Equinox, 2005], 15-30). But, he leaves Stratum VII at Hazor untouched (Israel Finkelstein, Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314 [May, 1999]: 57).

87 William G. Dever, A Case Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of Ca. 760 BCE, Eretz-Israel 23 (1992), 27*-35*.

88 Randall W. Younker, A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the Outer Wall and the Solomonic Gateway (July 2 to August 10, 1990), Andrews University Seminary Studies 29:1 (1991), 28.

89 Galadini, et al., Archaeoseismology, 403.

90 Ambraseys, Earthquakes and Archaeology, 1010.

91 Younker, Preliminary Report, 29.

• See verses 6-7
• from sefaria.org

• See verses 23-26
• from sefaria.org

• written during the Babylonian exile

• written around the time of the fall of Ninevah (capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire)

sefaria.org desribes Joel as follows:

Joel (“Yoel”) is the second of 12 books of Minor Prophets (“Trei Asar”), marked by their shortness. The prophet begins by describing the devastation wrought by a locust plague and calling for repentance, fasting and prayer. Joel describes God’s future response to Israel’s reform, promising abundance and prophecy for all. He also tells of a future “great and terrible day of God” when the “sun shall turn to darkness” (3:3-4) and Israel’s oppressors will be judged.

• See verse 1
• In verse 2, The Lord roars from Zion may ocaasionally be used as a euphemism for seismic shaking in this and subsequent Hebrew literature
• from sefaria.org

• date of composition for this part of Zechariah is unknown - estimates vary from the 8th century BCE to Maccabean times - 167 - 37 BCE

• While modern scholarship views the Book of Isaiah as being written by more than one person, the section below is from a part of Isaiah which is thought to contain his words and to have therefore been composed a decade or two after Amos.

• written in Hebrew or Aramaic sometime between 40 CE and 398 CE
• The original author may have been the Apostle Matthew

The Gospel of the Hebrews is no longer extant. It is mentioned a number of times in ancient literature  frequently as a document written in Hebrew and used exclusively by the Ebionites and Nazarenes who were reportedly derived from Jesus' original followers in Jerusalem and the Galilee respectively. The Ebionites were said to have lived a communal lifestyle, refused to eat meat, obeyed Jewish Law (Halakha), rejected the teachings of the Apostle Paul (which evolved into normative Christianity), believed Jesus was a human being and not a God, and attempted to imitate the life of radical ascetic poverty advocated by Jesus of Nazareth. There are claims that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by the Apostle Matthew before 40 CE when he left Jerusalem and traveled northeast into the Parthian Empire (according to Pantaeunus and Hippolytus).

Jerome, who translated the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the New Testament into Latin for the Catholic Church, produced the most extensive list of quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews which he claims to have obtained from the Library in Caesarea (Israel) in 398 CE. At this point in time, this text (which was also viewed as canonical by the Nazarenes) may have been distorted from the original Gospel of the Hebrews and hence is also referred to as the Gospel of the Nazarenes.

One particular quote from Jerome is noteworthy for it's seismic description of Temple damage from the earthquake of the crucifixion :

In the Gospel we often mention we read that the immense Temple Lintel fell and broke into pieces

While the canonical synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all mention the tearing of the curtain of the Temple in the moments after Jesus death, the description above is more compatible with archeoseismic evidence in the region. Lintel Stones above doorways are in fact among the weakest part of a structure and are frequently the first part of a structure to fail. Hence the description of lintel destruction associated with an earthquake is seismically compatible and could also explain the curtain tearing descriptions in the canonical synoptic gospels since the curtain (parochet) would presumably (possibly?)  be attached to the lintel.

Although one might be tempted to view the Greek New Testament Gospel of Matthew as a translation from The Gospel of the Hebrews written in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic, this view is not accepted by New Testament scholars. The Gospel of Matthew is noted as being written in what appears to be fluent original Greek and does not bear any marks of being a translation from an earlier text. It is possible however that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as other source documents that have been lost to history.

Notes

• The Nazarenes appeared to be similar to the Ebionites (vegetarians, followed Jewish law, believed Jesus was human and not divine, rejected Paul, etc.) and were said to be derived from the original followers of Jesus in the Galilee. Some passages in the Quran and Hadith about Jesus suggest that Mohammed may have come in contact with Ebionites. (reference to Waraka Ibn Nawfal in the Hadith or references to Ebionite-like people in the Hejaz in 1128 AD)
• The curtain tearing mentioned in the 3 synoptic canonical gospels could be allegorical fiction symbolizing that the sacrifice of Jesus provided a direct personal link to God thus making the formerly necessary barrier to protect an impure and unclean  world from a pure and clean God in the Holy of the Holies of the Second Temple obselete. Such a point would be well understood by readers of these Gospels in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

• written in Greek by an apparently anonymous author sometime between 70 CE and 120 CE

Seismic Events described in The New Testament Gospel of Matthew could have been an effort on the part of the author of Matthew to fit the events surrounding Jesus' death to coincide with Hebrew Prophetic Literature regarding the "Day of the Lord". Although this day is often thought of as a period of time preceding Judgement Day, it's meaning was apparently extended to include a day of a collective spiritual transformation. Whether the author of  Matthew was inventing, mis-reporting, or accurately reporting seismic history, it seems certain that he was aware of the role of earthquakes (and darkness and moons turning red and stars disappearing etc.) in Hebrew prophetic literature as his gospel is widely noted to include more passages about prophecy fulfillment than any other and is thought to have been written for a primarily Jewish (rather than a Gentile) audience. Although the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, it is is clearly in the tradition of Hebrew literature. Estimates for date of composition range from 70 to 120 CE.