Go to top

Amos Quakes

~760 BCE

by Jefferson Williams









Introduction & Summary

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

The Amos Quake appears to have been subject to legendary accretion. The earliest account from ~760 BCE comes from the first verse of the Book of Amos which describes this prophetic book as
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 (II) son of Jehoash [a] was king of Israel
Although the specification of the Kings provides chronological information, there is no description of seismic effects or localities. As noted by Austin et. al. (2000) and others, this earthquake may have initiated (or enhanced) a belief in seismic theophany - that God expresses himself through earthquakes (see some examples in Notes). Later prophetic accounts in the Hebrew Bible frequently mention earthquakes. One such account by Zechariah1 prophesied about the "Day of the Lord" and mentions that you will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. This appears to reference the same earthquake mentioned in Amos and it adds, via context, a location - Jerusalem. Other text adjacent to this passage mentions a cleaving of the Mount of Olives which created a valley from which people would flee Jerusalem. Although this is ostensibly about a time in the future which precedes Judgment Day, one is left wondering whether it contains echoes of seismic effects (e.g. a landslide on the Mount of Olives) recounted in oral or written lore which fed the imagination of the author of this section of Zechariah. About 850 years later (in ~95 CE), Josephus, without citing a source, wrote an expansive account about the Amos Quake telling a tale where King Uzziah decided to offer incense to God upon the golden altar of the First Temple in Jerusalem. When the Temple Priesthood objected to this transgression, he threatened to kill them. Immediately after, 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 the king's face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately. 2 Kings 15:5, thought to have been written in two editions in the late 7th century BCE and mid-late 6th century BCE (wikipedia citing Fretheim , 1997:7 and Grabbe, 2016) mentions that King Uzziah was afflicted by leprosy but does not add any of the narrative details of Josephus. 2 Chronicles 19:19, perhaps written in the 5th century BCE and sometimes using Kings as source material, recounts all of the elements of Josephus except for the earthquake. Josephus goes on to describe a long runout landslide at Eroge (likely Ein Rogel) associated with the earthquake. Later authors such as Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, perhaps originally composed between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE (Goldin, 1995:xxi) and Jerome, writing in 406 CE, repeat the essential elements of Josephus' account - minus the landslide at Ein Rogel.

By associating the earthquake and leprosy with King Uzziah's transgression against the Temple Priesthood, Josephus was reiterating one of the thematic cores of the Hebrew Bible - that when the Kings and people of Judah and Israel followed the prescripts of Jewish Law, they were protected by God and when they disobeyed they were punished. If one strips this element away, we may be left with an earthquake which struck Jerusalem creating landslides, some Temple damage, and other destruction.

If we use Thiele (1983)'s widely accepted chronology of the Kings, the Amos Quake struck between 766/765 and 751 BCE. Schoors (2013:115) noted that the Amos Quake cannot be precisely dated (sometime around 760). A more precise date requires that we assume that Josephus' chronologically suspect synchronisms are correct. Ben-Menahem (1991), assuming that Josephus' synchronisms are reliable, dated the Amos Quake to the evening of 11 October 759 BCE. This was based on a reasonable supposition that the story of Uzziah and the incense offering would have been meant to take place on 14 Tishrei; the eve before the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) which was the paramount holiday during the First Temple period. How Ben-Menahem (1991) or anyone else came up with a year of 759 BCE is not clear as it is not specified in Amos 1:2 or any other source. It is possible that this date was suggested due to an assumed allusion in Amos 8:9 to a solar eclipse that occurred in June 762 BCE2. Austin et. al. (2000) also assumed that Josephus' account was reliable but came up with a year of 750 BCE. Ben-Menahem (1991)'s and Austin et. al. (2000)'s dates appear to be flawed as they do not account for the full uncertainty associated with this event.

The Amos quake may be part of a couplet of earthquakes separated in time by up to several decades; a discovery made by Kagan et. al. (2011) who observed two seismites in the mid eighth century BC at three paleoseismic sites in the Dead Sea; each separated by a few decades. The Archaeologic site of Deir Alla also shows evidence for two earthquakes with some period of time passing between the two events. This could explain why the sometimes ambiguous archeoseismic evidence shows destruction in northern and southern sites of what is now Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. Prior to understanding that a pair of earthquakes could have been involved, Ben-Menahem (1991) and Austin et. al. (2000), assuming one large event, estimated Magnitudes of 7.3 and 8.0 respectively placing the epicenter in Northern Israel (Ben-Menahem, 1991) or southern Lebanon (Austin et. al., 2000). Ambraseys (2009), who was also unaware that two earthquakes may have taken place, suggested that textual and archeological evidence for the magnitude of this earthquake appeared to be over stated.

Earthquake couplets appear to be a characteristic of the Dead Sea transform where one earthquake triggers a second one. The time span between the first and second earthquake can be from hours to decades. Examples include
Footnotes

1 Longman and Dillard (1994:489) note that there is no consensus scholarship on the date when Chapters 9-14 of Zechariah were composed.

... the consensus among critical scholars has been that chapters 9– 14 are from a different author or authors than chapters 1– 8. However, beyond this assertion there is little unanimity. A bewildering variety of dates and settings have been proposed for the second half of the book, ranging from the eighth century BC to the Maccabean period [167 - 37 BCE].
2 See Notes in the Ben-Menahem (1991) section in Dating from Textual Sources.

Textual Evidence

Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Damage Reports from Textual Sources n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Dating from Textual Sources n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a The first line of the Book of Amos specifies that Amos prophesied while King Uzziah ruled Judah and King Jeroboam (II) ruled Israel and the earthquake struck two years later. If we use Thiele (1983)'s widely accepted chronology of the Kings, the Amos Quake struck between 766/765 and 751 BCE. Schoors (2013:115) noted that the Amos Quake cannot be precisely dated (sometime around 760).

A more precise date requires that we assume that Josephus' chronologically suspect synchronisms written about ~850 years after the event are correct. Josephus states that when King Uzziah tried to burn incense in the Temple, an earthquake damaged the Temple and he was struck with leprosy or leprosy was first recognized on him. Ben-Menahem (1991), assuming that Josephus' synchronisms are reliable, dated the Amos Quake to the evening of 11 October 759 BCE. This was based on a reasonable supposition that the story of Uzziah and the incense would have been meant to take place on 14 Tishrei, the eve before the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) which was the paramount holiday during the First Temple period. How Ben-Menahem (1991) or anyone else came up with a year of 759 BCE is not clear as it is not specified in Amos 1:2 or any other source. 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. Austin et. al. (2000) also assumed that Josephus' account was reliable but came up with a year of 750 BCE. Ben-Menahem (1991)'s and Austin et. al. (2000)'s dates appear to be flawed as they do not account for the full uncertainty associated with this event. Josephus' uncited and chronologically suspect synchronisms cannot be relied on with certainty.
Amos Hebrew
Biography

Jewish Niehaus in McComiskey (2020:316-317) suggest that it is likely that [Amos] prophesied late in Jeroboam [II]'s reign, perhaps in the early 760s. not entirely known - Bethel and perhaps other locations in the northern Kingdom such as Samaria Using Thiele's chronology, the first line of the Book of Amos dates the earthquake to between 766/765 and 751 BCE. No seismic effects or locations were specified.

Amos 1:1 - 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 (II) son of Jehoash [a] was king of Israel.
Zechariah Hebrew
Biography

Jewish unknown - Longman and Dillard (1994:489) note that estimates for the date of the likely anonymous composition of Zechariah 14 vary from the 8th century BCE to the Maccabean period unknown In Zechariah 14:5, a prophetic passage likely written by an unknown author at an unknown date about the "Day of the Lord" mentions that you will flee as you fled from the earthquake [a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Using Thiele's chronology, this dates this earthquake to between 768/767 and 751/750 BCE. The previous sentence (Zechariah 14:4) refers to a prophetic splitting of the Mount of Olives; creating a valley between northern and southern parts of the Mount. The valley is said to extend to Azel; an unknown location presumably in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This description of a seismic effect on the Mount of Olives could echo previous oral or written reports of landslides on the Mount of Olives during one of the Amos Quakes.
Isaiah and Targumn Isaiah Isaiah - Hebrew
Targum Isaiah - Aramaic
Biography - Isaiah

Background - Targum Isaiah

Jewish Isaiah - Ch. 1-39 date to 738-687 BCE
Targum Isaiah - between ~100 and ~300 CE (multiple authors)
Isaiah - Judea and Samaria ?
Targum Isaiah - Palestine and Babylon (multiple authors)
Targum Isaiah 28:21 explains or interprets a cryptic passage in Isaiah 28:21 by stating that the mountains shook when the glory of the Lord was revealed in the days of Uzziah the King. Using Thiele's chronology, this dates this earthquake to between 768/767 and 751/750 BCE. Isaiah 9:8 appears to describe damage to buildings and fallen trees in Samaria which was due to the Amos Quake.
Josephus Greek, possibly translated from an earlier version in Aramaic
Biography

Jewish about 95 CE Rome and ? In a chronologically suspect passage, Josephus synchronizes the earthquake with an incident when King Uzziah (of Judah) put on a holy garment and burned incense at the Temple and, in turn, was afflicted with leprosy and experienced an earthquake which "rents" (cracks) the Temple. Using Thiele's chronology, this equates to 750/751 BCE. The reason that the passage is chronologically suspect is that by wearing the holy garment and burning incense at the Temple (in Jerusalem), Uzziah was usurping the duties and domain of the high Priest (Azariah II); thus incurring punishment from God for his actions in the form of leprosy and an earthquake. Seismic effects from the earthquake include a cracking of the First Temple in Jerusalem and possible landslides at Ein Rogel (near Jerusalem).
Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Hebrew with a sprinkling of Aramaic along with Greek and Latin loan words
Biography

Jewish probably between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE probably Palestine Like Josephus, Avot de-Rabbi Nathan synchronizes the earthquake with an incident when King Uzziah (of Judah) burned incense at the Temple and, in turn, was afflicted with leprosy and experienced an earthquake which "rents" (cracks) the Temple. Using Thiele's chronology, this equates to 750/751 BCE. The passage is chronologically suspect because by burning incense at the Temple (in Jerusalem), Uzziah was usurping the duties and domain of the high Priest (Azariah II); thus incurring punishment from God for his actions in the form of leprosy and an earthquake. A second version of this text (version B) recounts the incident of King Uzziah burning incense at the Temple and getting afflicted by leprosy but does not mention an earthquake.
Midrash Tanchuma Hebrew
Background

Jewish 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).
Jerome Latin
Biography

Christian 406 CE Bethlehem Like Josephus, Jerome's commentary synchronizes the earthquake with an incident when King Uzziah (of Judah) attempted to make sacrifices at the 1st Temple in Jerusalem and, in turn, was afflicted with leprosy and experienced an earthquake. Using Thiele's chronology, this equates to 750/751 BCE. Although Jerome does not specifically mention damage to the 1st Temple due to the earthquake, the context of the account indicates that the earthquake was experienced at the 1st Temple in Jerusalem.
Legends of the Jews English translated from German
Background

Jewish 1909 CE New York City (USA) Like Josephus, Ginzberg (1936:262) synchronizes the earthquake with an incident when King Uzziah (of Judah) attempted to make sacrifices at the 1st Temple in Jerusalem and, in turn, was afflicted with leprosy and experienced an earthquake. Using Thiele's chronology, this equates to 750/751 BCE. Seismic effects from the earthquake include a cracking of the First Temple in Jerusalem and a landslide. Although 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), Ginzberg (1936:262)'s sources are a complicated mix of Rabbinic and other sources and include Josephus and Avot de Rabbi Nathan (Traditional Version A).Ginzberg (1936:262)'s "seismic" source does not appear be independent from Josephus and the text by Ginzberg describing seismic effects are essentially identical to Josephus' account.
Text (with hotlink) Original Language Biographical Info Religion Date of Composition Location Composed Notes
Damage Reports from Textual Sources

Seismic Effects

´

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

Possible Tsunami

Amos 5:8 reads as follows:

Who made the Pleiades and Orion,
Who turns deep darkness into dawn
And darkens day into night,
Who summons the waters of the sea
And pours them out upon the earth—
His name is the LORD!
Amos Chapter 5 is a prophecy about the destruction of Israel.

Amos 9:5-6 reads as follows:
5 It is my Lord the GOD of Hosts
At whose touch the earth trembles
And all who dwell on it mourn,
And all of it swells like the Nile
And subsides like the Nile of Egypt;

6 Who built His chambers in heaven
And founded His vault on the earth,
Who summons the waters of the sea
And pours them over the land—
His name is the LORD.
Amos Chapter 9 is a prophecy about the destruction and restoration of Israel. Amos 9:5-6 is in the section about the destruction of Israel and appears to allude to the destruction of Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE.
Amos Chapter 5 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text)



Amos Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text)



Locations

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

Dating from Textual Sources

The first line of the Book of Amos specifies that Amos prophesied while King Uzziah ruled Judah and King Jeroboam (II) ruled Israel and the earthquake struck two years later. If we use Thiele (1983)'s widely accepted chronology of the Kings, the Amos Quake struck between 766/765 and 751 BCE. Schoors (2013:115) noted that the Amos Quake cannot be precisely dated (sometime around 760).

A more precise date requires that we assume that Josephus' chronologically suspect synchronisms written about ~850 years after the event are correct. Josephus states that when King Uzziah tried to burn incense in the Temple, an earthquake damaged the Temple and he was struck with leprosy or leprosy was first recognized on him. Ben-Menahem (1991), assuming that Josephus' synchronisms are reliable, dated the Amos Quake to the evening of 11 October 759 BCE. This was based on a reasonable supposition that the story of Uzziah and the incense would have been meant to take place on 14 Tishrei, the eve before the Tabernacle holiday (aka Sukkot) which was the paramount holiday during the First Temple period. How Ben-Menahem (1991) or anyone else came up with a year of 759 BCE is not clear as it is not specified in Amos 1:2 or any other source. 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 at the bottom of the Ben-Menahem (1991) collapsible panel). Austin et. al. (2000) also assumed that Josephus' account was reliable but came up with a year of 750 BCE. Ben-Menahem (1991)'s and Austin et. al. (2000)'s dates appear to be flawed as they do not account for the full uncertainty associated with this event. Josephus' uncited and chronologically suspect synchronisms cannot be relied on with certainty. Nevertheless, the historical exegeses of Ben-Menahem (1991) and Austin et. al. (2000) have value as hypotheses and explorations so their methodologies are shown in the collapsible panels below.

The other Amos Quake (observed in paleoseismic sections of the Dead Sea) is undated but, according to Kagan et. al. (2011), struck within a few decades of the one that is written about.

Ben-Menahem (1991)

Excerpts

II Chronicles Chapter 26 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text)



Zechariah Chapter 14 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic Text)



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
Ben-Menahem's (1991) reference to a solar eclipse

Chronology

Date Reference Corrections Notes
~759 or ~760 BCE Ben-Menahem (1991) stated that
The date of this earthquake is linked to the eclipse of the Sun on June 15, 763 B.C.E. (Julian Day 1,442,902.8392, or Monday, Sivan 30, 2998, of the Jewish Calendar [see Kudlek and Mickler, 1971; Chambers, 1904, Thompson, 1900; Oppolzer, 1887; Fotheringham, 1920]). The eclipse was partial in Jerusalem (maximal magnitude 0.91). Evidence for the proximity of the earthquake and the eclipse is found in Amos 8:8-9; Zech. 14:4-7, and Jer. 4:24.
none
  • It is not clear how the prophetic texts of Amos 8:8-9, Zechariah 14:4-7, or Jerimiah 4:24 are evidence for the proximity of the earthquake and the eclipse
  • All three passages are prophesies which refer to calamities on a future date with poetic descriptions of darkness on the earth:
    • In Amos it says I will darken the earth on a sunny day
    • In Zechariah it says In that day, there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight
    • In Jeremiah it says I look ... at the skies and their light is gone
  • Niehaus in McComiskey (2020:316-317) suggests that it is likely that [Amos] prophesied late in Jeroboam [II]'s reign, perhaps in the early 760s
  • As the reference to darkness in Amos takes place in the 8th chapter of a 9 chapter book, it may have been composed towards the end of his ministry and may have referred to a recently experienced solar eclipse; such as the one in June 762 BCE (see below). If all of this is the case and the Amos Quake struck 2 years after Amos's ministry ended, this would date the Amos Quake to around 759 or 760 BCE.
  • The following online eclipse catalogs list eclipses from around this time
    • total solar eclipse on 15 June 762 BCE (not 763 BCE) which would have been visible in Judah and Samaria - NASA
    • total solar eclipse on 7 June 762 BCE (not 763 BCE) which would have been visible in Judah and Samaria - imcee
  • Ben-Menahem (1991) lists the following references for the eclipse; all of which are likely less accurate than NASA and imcee. Neither NASA nor imcee show a solar eclipse which would have been visible in Judah or the northern Kingdom in 763 BCE. Thus Ben-Menahem (1991)'s 763 BCE date appears to have been a typographic error.

Austin et. al. (2000)

Excerpts

Austin et. al. (2000)

Fig. 6 Austin et al (2000) Fig. 6 - Time line showing the historical context and dating of Amos's earthquake. Synchronisms, which are shown as vertical arrows under the time line, allow Amos's earthquake to be dated to 750 B.C. The chronology of Hebrew kings follows Thiele (1983) with slight revisions by Finegan (1998).

Sources for the synchronisms:
  • S-1 is from Josephus Antiquities IX:225 - see Notes
  • S-2 is from 2 Kings 15:32 (In the second year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of King Uzziah of Judah began to reign)
  • S-3 is from 2 Kings 15:27, 30
  • S-4 is from 2 Kings 15:30
  • S-5 is from Borger and Tadmor (1982)
  • S-6 is from 2 Kings 17:6
  • S-7 is from 2 Kings 15:8
  • S-8 is from 2 Kings 15:13
  • S-9 is from 2 Kings 15:17
from Austin et. al. (2000)


The Date of Amos's Earthquake

Figure 6 is a time line that allows Amos's earthquake to be dated. According to Josephus (Antiquities IX:225; Marcus, 1937), the earthquake was associated with the events that caused King Uzziah's disability, requiring his son Jotham to become the visible coregent in Jerusalem. The synchronism between the earthquake and Jotham's first year, as noted by Josephus, is shown as a vertical arrow denoted "S-1" in Figure 6. Another important synchronism (2 Kings 15:30) links Jotham's twentieth year as king of Judah and the accession of Hoshea as king of Israel (denoted "S-4" in Fig. 6). An Assyrian inscription (Tadmor, 1994) describes how Hoshea, upon accession as king of Israel, delivered tribute payment to the Assyrian king who, at that time, was personally conducting a military campaign against the Chaldean city of Sarrabani (synchronism denoted "S-5"). The Assyrian Eponym List (eclipse calibrated) allows the Assyrian siege of Sarrabani and Sapia to be dated to 731 B.C. (Borger and Tadmor, 1982; Tadmor, 1994). 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). The earthquake in Jotham's first year is dated to 750 B.C.

These synchronisms, which establish the date of Amos's earthquake, provide the framework upon which the chronology of Hebrew kings can be superimposed. This is done in Figure 6 assuming Thiele's chronology (Thiele, 1983; McFall, 1991; Finegan, 1998). The chronology of Thiele appears to work better with the earthquake and associated synchronisms than chronologies with different assumptions. Yeivin (1979) and Na'aman (1986) dated Hoshea's accession at 731/730, not 732/731. Therefore, they place Jotham's accession and the earthquake at 749 B.C. The Yeivin and Na'aman chronologies supposedly follow Tadmor's analysis. However, Tadmor (1979, p. 54) argued for the accession of Hoshea in 732, not 731. Thus, Thiele's chronology is better for the middle eighth century, and the earthquake should be dated to the year 750 B.C.
Notes - excerpts from Josephus

  • [222] is from perseus
  • from Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.
[222] 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 ground1 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, 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. 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 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.
Footnotes

1 This account of an earthquake at Jerusalem at the very same time when Uzziah usurped the priest's office, and went into the sanctuary to burn incense, and of the consequences of the earthquake, is entirely wanting in our other copies, though it be exceeding like to a prophecy of Jeremiah, now in Zechariah 14:4, 5; in which prophecy mention is made of "fleeing from that earthquake, as they fled from this earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah;" so that there seems to have been some considerable resemblance between these historical and prophetical earthquakes.

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.
Assyrian Inscription (49) of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE) in English

Rev. 9) [I conquered the land Bit-Humri]a (Israel) in [its] entire[ty (and) I brought] t[o Assyria ..., together with] their [belon]gings.

Rev. 10-11) [... (and) I placed Hoshea as] king over them. [They brought ... to the city] Sarrabanu, before me.
Description of Inscription 49

49

A large fragment of a clay tablet that was reconstructed from three smaller fragments and that was discovered in the Nabil temple (Ezida) at Kallju preserves fifty-eight lines of a long summary inscription of Tiglath-pileser III. The beginning of the obverse and the end of the reverse are now missing, and the extant text contains descriptions of the following events: the defeat of Sarduri (743), the campaign to Urartu in which the Assyrians marched as far as Turugpa (735) (obv. 1'-5'); the conquest and annexation of Urartu (739, 736-735) — the conquest of Ulluba (obv. 6'-8"), the enlargement of the provinces of Assur-iqisa (obv. 9'-10'), the chief steward (obv. 11'-13'), the chief cupbearer ( obv. 14'-16'), the land Na'iri (obv. 17'-19'), and the turtanu (obv. 20'-23'); the conquest of Bit-Agusi (743-740) (obv. 24'-25'); the conquest of Unqi (740, 738) (obv. 26'-27'); the annexation of the north Syrian coast (738) (rev. 1-2); the conquest of Bit-Haza'ili (733-732) (rev. 3-4); the submission of Tyre (733-732) (rev. 5-8); the conquest of northern Israel (733-732) and the replacement of its king, Peqah, with Hoshea (731) (rev. 9-11); the forceful extraction of tribute from a king (of Ashkelon?) (rev. 12); the campaign against Hananu of Gaza and the submission of Gaza (734) (rev. 13-16); the defeat of Samsi (733) (rev. 17-22); the acknowledgment of Assyrian sovereignty by an unknown ruler, possibly an Egyptian pharaoh (734 or 733) (rev. 23-25); the receipt of tribute from Metenna of Tyre (730?) (rev. 26); the receipt of tribute from Hulli of Tabal (730 or 729?) (rev. 27-29); and the receipt of tribute, probably from some distant Arabian tribes (733-732) (rev. 30-31). Although the beginning of the inscription is missing, the text must have originally included an account concerning events in Babylonia and Media since the inscription follows a geographic pattern that is common to other summary inscriptions. Either text no. 51 or text no. 52 may represent that missing portion. Tadmor referred to this text as Summary Inscription 9 (Summ. 9) in Tigl. III.

Assyrian Inscription (49) of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE) - embedded

  • Inscription 49
  • see bottom of page 131 starting with Rev. 9) [I conquered the land Bit-Humri]a (Israel)
  • from Tadmor and Yamada (2011:131-132)
  • from archive.org
  • Sarrabanu is mentioned on pages 97, 102, 119, and 136
  • Hoshea is mentioned in Inscriptions 42 and 49 on pages 106 and 131-132 respectively


Assyrian Inscription (42) of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE) in English

  • Inscription 42
  • from Tadmor and Yamada (2011:106)
  • from archive.org
  • Sarrabanu is mentioned on pages 97, 102, 119, and 136
  • Hoshea is mentioned in Inscriptions 42 and 49 on pages 106 and 131-132 respectively
17'b-19’a) [I/they] killed Peqah, their king, and I placed Hoshea [as king o]ver them. I received from them ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, [together with] their [proper]ty, and [I brou]ght them [to Assyria].

19’b-22’a) As for Samsi, queen of the Arabs, at Mount Saqurri, [I] de[feated 9,400 (of her people)]. I took away (from her) 1,000 people, 30,000 camels, 20,000 oxen, [...] ..., 5,000 (pouches) of all types of aromatics, .., thrones of her gods, [the military equipment (and) staffs of her goddess(es)], (and) her property.
Description of Inscription 42

42

This summary inscription is found on a large, fragmentarily preserved stone slab, most likely a colossal pavement slab like the one inscribed with text no. 39. The object was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century at Kalhu, but left in situ. It is probably the second slab of a long summary inscription that was written from beginning to end on three consecutive slabs; the first and third slabs of the series have not survived, save perhaps for a tiny fragment (text no. 45) containing part of a description of Tiglath-pileser’s Babylonian campaigns. The extant text contains reports of the following events in the west: the annexation of northern and central Syria (738) (lines 1’-5’a); the annexation of Damascus (733-732) (lines 5’b-8’a); the campaign against Hantinu of Gaza (734) (lines 8’b-15’a); the partial annexation of Israel (733-732) (lines 15’b-19’a); the campaign against Samsi (733) (lines 19’b-27’a); the receipt of tribute from Arab tribes (733-732) (lines 27’b-33’); the appointment of Idibi’ilu as the “gatekeeper facing Egypt” (734) (lines 34’-35’); and possibly the setting up of a stele (lines 36’-38’). This text is referred to as Summary Inscription 4 (Summ. 4) in Tadmor, Tigl. III.

Assyrian Inscription (42) of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE) - embedded

  • Inscription 42
  • see bottom 2nd column on right page starting with 17'b-19’a) [I/they] killed Peqah, their king
  • from Tadmor and Yamada (2011:106)
  • from archive.org
  • Sarrabanu is mentioned on pages 97, 102, 119, and 136
  • Hoshea is mentioned in Inscriptions 42 and 49 on pages 106 and 131-132 respectively


Finegan (1998) Sections 425 and 426 dealing with the date of the accession of Hosea

  • Sections 425 and 426
  • from Finegan (1998:249-251)
425. In one of his inscriptions Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.) mentions receiving tribute from a number of kings including Azariah of Judah.450 The reference belongs to the third year of the reign of Tiglath-pileser; since he departed from the traditional system of counting regnal years and included his accession year (745 B.C.) in the numbering, his third year was 743 B.C.451 In another text, dated according to the eponym lists in 732 B.C., he speaks of the defeat of Rezon.452 This is probably the same event as that mentioned in 2 Kgs 16:9 ("he [Tiglath-pileser] killed Rezin") and provides a date for the submission of Ahaz of Judah to the Assyrian king (2 Kgs 16:7) as well as for the deportation of Northern Israelites by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29) and the change of rule from Pekah to Hoshea (2 Kgs 15:30), the assassination of Pekah and the accession of Hoshea falling between Tishri (Sept/Oct) 732 and Nisan (Mar/Apr) 731.453

426. Since the accession year of Hoshea was 732/731 (§425), his ninth and last year, in which Samaria fell to the Assyrians and the northern kingdom came to an end (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:10), was 723/722, and the specific date was after Nisan 1, 723, therefore probably in the summer fighting season of 723.454 The Assyrian king was Shalmaneser V (2 Kgs 18:9). A Babylonian Chronicle (B. M. 92502) states (1.27-31) as the noteworthy event in the reign of Shalmaneser V that the city of Shamarain was destroyed, surely a cuneiform record of the fall of the capital of Northern Israel, as per the biblical account. The Babylonian Chronicle goes on to sav that Shalmaneser (V) died in his fifth year, in the month of Tebetu (Dec/Jan), and that on the twelfth day of that month (Dec 20, 722) his successor Sargon (II) acceded to the throne of Assyria, with Sargon's first year beginning in Nisan 721.455 In some of his own late inscriptions Sargon II claims that at the beginning of his rule, in his first year of reign, he captured Samaria, carried off 27,290 people from it, and resettled the city.456 This is probably an appropriation of honor for himself of what his predecessor had done in a three-year siege (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:10), and may reflect the idea that an Assyrian king must always have accomplished something militarily significant immediately at the outset of his reign, and it has been shown to be probable that it was only late in 720 as a part of a western campaign, that Sargon first came to Samaria to deport the people and to rebuild the city as the center of a new province called Samarina.457
Footnotes

450 Luckenbill, Ancient Records 1:770; ANET 282; ANEA 193.

451. Poebel, JNES 2 (1943): 89 n. 23.

452 Luckenbill, Ancient Records 1:779; ANET 283; ANEA 194; cf. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers (1951), 90, 106, 121; Albright, BASOR 100 (Dec 1945): 22 n. 26.

453 McFall, "Translation Guide," 31, nos. 45, 46; cf. Nadav Na'aman, "Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the 8th Century BC," in VT36 (July 1986): 71-82: Pekah twenty years from 749 to 731/730 and Hoshea nine years 731/730-723/722.

454 Thiele, Chronology, S3, 59; Thiele, Mysterious Numbers (1983), 163; McFall, "Translation Guide," 33 nos. 49, 50.

455 ANET 301-303; Thiele, Mysterious Numbers (1983), 163-164.

456 Luckenbill, Ancient Records 2: 4, 55; ANET 284-285.

457 Thiele, Mysterious Numbers (1983), 163-168, citing Hayim Tadmor, "Campaigns of Sargon II," 38.

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Borger, R., and Tadmor, H., 1982, Zwei Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III: Zeits. Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, v. 94, p. 244-249.

Finegan, J., 1998, Handbook of biblical chronology: Principles of time reckoning in the ancient world and problems of chronology in the Bible: Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2nd ed., 426 p. - open access at archive.org

Marcus, R., transl., 1937, Josephus with an English translation, Jewish antiquities, books IX-XI: Cambridge, MA, Harvard Univ. Press, v. 6,532 p. - can be borrowed with a free archive.org account - this is volumes 7-8 not volume 6

McFall, L., 1991, A translation guide to the chronological data in Kings and Chronicles: Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 148, p. 3-45.

Na'aman, N., 1986, Historical and chronological notes on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the 8th Century BC: Vetus Testamentum, v. 36, p. 71—82.

Tadmor, H., 1979, Chronology of the first temple period: A presentation and evaluation of the sources, in Malamat, A., ed., The world history of the Jewish people, The Age of the Monarchies, political history: Jerusalem, Massada, p. 44-60.

Tadmor, H., 1994, The inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria: Jerusalem, Israel Acad. Sciences and Humanities, 317 p.

Tadmor, H. (2007). The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary, Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Tadmor, H. and S. Yamada (2011). The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, Penn State University Press. - open access at archive.org

Thiele, E. R. (1983). The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Academic Books. - can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Yeivin, S., 1979, The divided kingdom: Rehoboam-Ahaz/ Jeroboam-Pekah, in Malamat, A., ed., The world history of the Jewish people, The Age of the Monarchies, political history: Jerusalem, Massada, p. 161-172.

Notes - Calendars and Chronology

Table 9.34 from Onstott (2015) from Onstott (2015)


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

Amos

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
Amos 1:1-2 - English (NIV)

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.”

Amos 1:1-2 - Hebrew

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:

Embedded

Book of Amos - English (NIV)
Book of Amos - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text)



Book of Amos - English and Hebrew (chabad)



Amos Chapter 1 - interlinear
Amos 1:1 - Hebrew Text Analysis
Amos 1:2 - Hebrew Text Analysis

Other possible earthquake and tsunami references in Amos

Amos 9:1

Amos 9:1 - English (NIV)

Israel to Be Destroyed

9 I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said:

Strike the tops of the pillars
so that the thresholds shake
.
Bring them down on the heads of all the people;
those who are left I will kill with the sword.
Not one will get away,
none will escape.

Amos 9:1 - Hebrew

א

רָאִ֨יתִי אֶת־אֲדֹנָ֜י נִצָּ֣ב עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ וַיֹּאמֶר֩ הַ֨ךְ הַכַּפְתּ֜וֹר וְיִרְעֲשׁ֣וּ הַסִּפִּ֗ים וּבְצָ֙עַם֙ בְּרֹ֣אשׁ כֻּלָּ֔ם וְאַֽחֲרִיתָ֖ם בַּחֶ֣רֶב אֶֽהֱרֹ֑ג לֹֽא־יָנ֚וּס לָהֶם֙ נָ֔ס וְלֹֽא־יִמָּלֵ֥ט לָהֶ֖ם פָּלִֽיט:

Amos - Chapter 9 - English (NIV) - embedded
Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (chabad) - embedded



Amos Chapter 9 - interlinear - embedded
Amos 9:1 - Hebrew Text Analysis - embedded

Amos 8:8

Amos 8:8 - English (NIV)

A Basket of Ripe Fruit

...

8 “Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt.

Amos 8:8 - Hebrew

ח

הַ֚עַל זֹאת֙ לֹֽא־תִרְגַּ֣ז הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָבַ֖ל כָּל־יוֹשֵׁ֣ב בָּ֑הּ וְעָֽלְתָ֚ה כָאֹר֙ כֻּלָּ֔הּ וְנִגְרְשָׁ֥ה וְנִשְׁקְעָ֖ה (כתיב וְנִשְׁקְהָ֖) כִּיא֥וֹר מִצְרָֽיִם

Amos - Chapter 8 - English (NIV) - embedded
Amos - Chapter 8 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Amos - Chapter 8 - English and Hebrew (chabad) - embedded



Amos Chapter 8 - interlinear - embedded
Amos 8:8 - Hebrew Text Analysis - embedded

Amos 9:5

Amos 9:5 - English (NIV)

Israel to Be Destroyed

...

5 “The Lord, the Lord Almighty—
he touches the earth and it melts,
and all who live in it mourn;
the whole land rises like the Nile,
then sinks like the river of Egypt
;

Amos 9:5 - Hebrew

ה

וַאדֹנָ֨י יֱהֹוִ֜ה הַצְּבָא֗וֹת הַנּוֹגֵ֚עַ בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ וַתָּמ֔וֹג וְאָֽבְל֖וּ כָּל־י֣וֹשְׁבֵי בָ֑הּ וְעָֽלְתָ֚ה כַיְאֹר֙ כֻּלָּ֔הּ וְשָֽׁקְעָ֖ה כִּיאֹ֥ר מִצְרָֽיִם

Amos - Chapter 9 - English (NIV) - embedded
Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (chabad) - embedded



Amos Chapter 9 - interlinear - embedded
Amos 9:5 - Hebrew Text Analysis - embedded

Amos 5:8 - tsunami ?

Amos 5:8 - English (NIV)

A Lament and Call to Repentance

...

8 He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
who turns midnight into dawn
and darkens day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land

the Lord is his name.

Amos 5:8 - Hebrew

ח

עֹשֵׂ֨ה כִימָ֜ה וּכְסִ֗יל וְהֹפֵ֚ךְ לַבֹּ֙קֶר֙ צַלְמָ֔וֶת וְי֖וֹם לַ֣יְלָה הֶחְשִׁ֑יךְ הַקּוֹרֵ֣א לְמֵֽי־הַיָּ֗ם וַֽיִּשְׁפְּכֵ֛ם עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הָאָ֖רֶץ יְהֹוָ֥ה שְׁמֽוֹ

Amos - Chapter 5 - English (NIV) - embedded
Amos - Chapter 5 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Amos - Chapter 5 - English and Hebrew (chabad) - embedded



Amos Chapter 5 - interlinear - embedded
Amos 5:8 - Hebrew Text Analysis - embedded

Amos 9:6 - tsunami ?

Amos 9:6 - English (NIV)

Israel to Be Destroyed

...

6 he builds his lofty palace[a] in the heavens
and sets its foundation[b] on the earth;
he calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land

the Lord is his name.

Amos 9:6 - Hebrew

ו

הַבּוֹנֶ֚ה בַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ מַֽעֲלוֹתָ֔יו (כתיב מַֽעֲלוֹתָ֔ו) וַֽאֲגֻדָּת֖וֹ עַל־אֶ֣רֶץ יְסָדָ֑הּ הַקֹּרֵ֣א לְמֵי־הַיָּ֗ם וַיִּשְׁפְּכֵ֛ם עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הָאָ֖רֶץ יְהֹוָ֥ה שְׁמֽוֹ:

Amos - Chapter 9 - English (NIV) - embedded
Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Amos - Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (chabad) - embedded



Amos Chapter 9 - interlinear - embedded
Amos 9:6 - Hebrew Text Analysis - embedded

Chronology
Year Reference Corrections Notes
766/765 - 751 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam (II) son of Jehoash [a] was king of Israel. none
Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Roaring of a Lion and Earthquake Imagery - Roberts (2012)

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. 1d 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.
Footnotes

1 For a list of scholars who have advocated this position, see Karl Möller, A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (JSOTSup 372; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 160, fn. 22–23.

2 Meir Weiss, The Bible From Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 196–197.

3 Artur Weiser, Die Profetie des Amos (BZAW 53; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1929), 84.

4 Artur Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956).

5 Julius Morgenstern, “Amos Studies I,” HUCA 11 (1936): 19–140, esp. 137 n. 144. Morgenstern will further link Amos 1:2 with the Day of Yahweh, noting, “In this respect the picture here agrees completely with that of the Day of Yahweh in Zech. 14, with its earthquake likened to the terrible earthquake in the days of Uzziah. Here the picture goes even beyond, and far beyond, that of Zech. 14; here the earthquake will even affect both heaven and earth. It is indeed the utmost extreme in the depicting of an earthquake.”

6 Brent Strawn, What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, (OBO 212; Göttingen: Vandenhocke and Ruprecht, 2005), 59–62; 265–266.

7 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 156–177.

8 Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT 204; Kevelaer: Bercker & Butzon; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 173–89.

9 Meir Weiss, “On the Traces of a Biblical Metaphor,” Tarbiz 34 (1964–1965): 107–28, 211–23, 303–18 (Heb); idem, “Methodologisches über die Behandlung der Metapher dargelegt an Am. 1,2” TZ 23 (1967): 1–25; idem, The Bible from Within, 196–207.

10 Weiss, The Bible from Within, 196–197.

11 Weiss, The Bible from Within, 206.

12 Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 47.

13 Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing, 63–65. Omens continued to be transmitted into the Persian and Seleucid periods, but the building of Assurbanipal’s library enabled the bulk of exemplars to be found there.

14 The Nuzi omens were first published by E. R. Lacheman, “An Omen Text from Nuzi,” RA 34 (1937): 1–8. See also, the discussion in Hermann Hunger and David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 11.

15 Hermann Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (SAA 8; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992), 19–20, omen 36. Another Assyrian parallel is often deduced for Amos 1:2. The Middle Assyrian, “Fable of the Fox” describes the dog’s strength as: “My strength is overpowering, I am the claw of theZu®-bird, a very lion... At my terrible bellow the mountains and the rivers dry up[e-ta-na-ab-ba-la-a].” See W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), 192–193.

16 Hunger, Astrological Reports, “shouting” in omens 1, 31, 32; Hunger, Astrological Reports, “thundering” in omens 1, 31, 32, 33. Omen 36 later states, “either Adad will thun[der], or a storm will come, or [...], or there will bean earth[quake].”

17 See the explanation in Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing, 58.

18 The addition of this subject in the apodosis, not only supplies a grammatical subject, but also suggests that at least in a rudimentary way, the Assyrians saw the ground as the reason behind the earthquake. Lest this statement sound elementary, the modern theory of plate tectonics was only suggested in the 1950’s.

19 Ereskigal, known in Akkadian as Allatu,has a long religious history. She appears in “Inanna’s Descent to the Underworld” when Inanna is led by Neti through the seven gates of the netherworld to enter the underworld where, upon crouching and stripping bare in front of Ereskigal, Inanna tries to dethrone her sister. Enki will trick Ereskigal by sending two mourning specialists to free Inanna from the netherworld. A later myth, “Nergal and Eres¥kigal” is found in part in an Amarna tablet as well as in the first half of the first millennium. Here, Nergal almost kills Ereskigal before finding love with Nergal, who previously went to the underworld to cut off her head. See, Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven, London, 1976), 56–59, 229–230; Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (Austin: University of Texas, 2006), 77.

Zechariah

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English of Zechariah 14:2-5 (NIV)

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.

Hebrew of Zechariah 14:2-5

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:

Embedded

Zechariah Chapter 14 - English (NIV)
Zechariah Chapter 14 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic Text)



Zechariah Chapter 14 - English and Hebrew (chabad)



Zechariah Chapter 14 - interlinear
Zechariah 14:4 - Hebrew Text Analysis
Zechariah 14:5 - Hebrew Text Analysis

Chronology
Year Reference Corrections Notes
768/767 - 751/750 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
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 none
Effects
Location of Azel (aka Azal)

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.

Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Isaiah and Targum Isaiah

Background and Biography

Background and Biography - Isaiah

Background and Biography - Targum Isaiah

Excerpts
Isaiah 28:21 - English (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.

Targum Isaiah 28:21 - English

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.

Isaiah Chapter 28 - English (NIV) - embedded
Isaiah Chapter 28 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Targum Isaiah Chapter 28 - English and Aramaic - embedded

  • 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


Isaiah Chapter 9 in English

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!”

Isaiah Chapter 9 - English and Hebrew (sefaria - Masoretic text) - embedded



Other passages in Isaiah with shaking - Embedded

Isaiah Chapter 2 - English and Hebrew

  • Prophetic literature concerning the "Day of the Lord" has seismic shaking in Isaiah 2:19
  • from sefaria.org


Isaiah Chapter 5 - English and Hebrew



Isaiah Chapter 6 - English and Hebrew



Chronology
Year Reference Corrections Notes
768/767 - 751/750 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
For as the mountains shook when the glory of the Lord was revealed in the days of Uzziah the King (Targum Isaiah 28:21) none
Effects Locations
Building Damage in Samaria

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]).

Online Versions and Further Reading
References - Isaiah

References - Isaiah Targum

Jewish Antiquities by Josephus

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English Translation of Jewish Antiquities by Whiston (1737)

  • 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.
Footnotes

(21) This account of an earthquake at Jerusalem at the very same time when Uzziah usurped the priest's office, and went into the sanctuary to burn incense, and of the consequences of the earthquake, is entirely wanting in our other copies, though it be exceeding like to a prophecy of Jeremiah, now in Zechariah 14:4,-5; in which prophecy mention is made of "fleeing from that earthquake, as they fled from this earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah;" so that there seems to have been some considerable resemblance between these historical and prophetical earthquakes.

Greek from Niese (1892)

  • 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.

English Translation of Jewish Antiquities by Whiston (1737) - embedded



Chronology
Jewish Antiquities
Date Reference Corrections Notes
750/751 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
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 the king's [Uzziah] face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately none
  • Josephus synchronizes the earthquake with the onset of leprosy in King Uzziah
  • Thiele dates King Uzziah being struck with leprosy to 751/750 BCE, at which time his son Jotham took over the government (wikipedia)
  • 2 Kings 15:5 and 2 Chronicles 26:19-21 discuss how King Uzziah was struck with leprosy but do not synchronize this with an earthquake. 2 Chronicles 26:19-20 (written later than 2 Kings and using 2 Kings as some of its source material) does, however, synchronize Uzziah's unlawful actions at the Temple with the recognition of leprosy on the face of the King.
Seismic Effects Locations mentioned
Location of Ein-Rogel

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

Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Avot de-Rabbi Nathan

Background and Biography

Background and Biography

Excerpts
English of version A (traditional) from Goldin (1955)

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).
Footnotes

1. PA I: 7; Cf. ARNB, p. 35.

28. Cf., however, ARNS, p. 41, n. 36; ARNB, Ch. 16, p. 36.

29. Literally, "slander."

30. Text adds ma'al; cf. MT.

31. Text: lehaktiro; cf. MT.

32. Literally, "in two parts, twelve by twelve miles." See Legends, 6, 358, n. 30.

33. Cf. MT.

English of version A (traditional) 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.

English of Version B from Saldarini (1975)

  • 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
Footnotes

1. Ms. R and Schechter's edition omit this first sentence, but Ms. P (Schechter, p. 169) has it. It dropped out through homoeoteleuton between the two mentions of Joshua's name.

2 Joshua and Nittai were the second pair and flourished during the second half of the second century, B.C. Joshua had to flee to Alexandria to escape John Hyrcanus (Weiss, Dor, I, p. 133). See PA 1:6 and ARNA p. 35 (G p. 49).

3 The sayings of Joshua and Nittai have been switched in B (as compared to PA and ARNA). This switch suggests a possible disturbance in the text in Version B. Similarly, the sayings of the next pair are switched, in Ch. 20 (p. 42) below.

7. The causes of leprosy are a recurring theme in rabbinic literature. Here Rabbi Simeon distinguishes plagues (ng`m) and leprosy (qr`t) and specifies the transgressions which cause them. Then the story of Uzziah is told as an example of haughtiness causing leprosy. The Hebrew term for haughtiness (gbh rwh) is taken from 2 Chr. 26:16. Ms. H has gsy hrwh, a term similar to the one which occurs in the sources mentioned below. Ms. P : gbhy rwh; Ms. N : gbhwt hrwh. Slander causes plagues. See also LevRab 18:4 (Margulies, p. 409).

ARNA has two passages similar to this one : p. 39 (G p. 54) and p. 41 (G pp. 56-57). In the first Rabbi Simeon says that plagues come from slander and adduces the example of Miriam and Aaron in Num. 12. In the second Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says the same and then adduces the example of Gehazi lying and contracting Naaman's leprosy (2 Ki. 5:27). Rabbi Simeon then says that plagues come upon the haughty and adduces the example of Uzziah.

Slander is said to cause leprosy and the example of Miriam and Aaron is adduced in ARNB p. 116 (end of Ch. 41) and in SifreDt 275 (Finkelstein, p. 294).

Rabbi Simeon is usually Rabbi Simeon ben Johai, a member of the third generation of Tannaim and a pupil of Akiba. But if A's final attribution is accurate, Rabbi Simeon is ben Eleazar, of the fourth generation (end of the second century), a pupil of Meir and contemporary of Rabbi.

Several rabbinic passages give the reasons for which leprosy comes. LevRab 17:3 (Margulies, p. 374ff) gives ten reasons, among them haughtiness (gsy hrwh) with Uzziah as example and slander (lkwn hr`) with Aaron and Miriam as example. Arakin 16a gives seven reasons including haughtiness (gswt hrwh) with Uzziah as example and slander followed by the quoting of Ps. 101:5. In NumRab 7:5 eleven reasons are given. Haughtiness (gswt hrwh) is one, but Naaman (2 Ki. 5:1) is the example. Uzziah is connected with the sin of encroaching on another's domain (that is, unauthorized entry into the temple). Uzziah occurs under the same heading in Tan, Mesora', 4 and TanBub, Lev., pp. 48-49 where eleven things are again given. Haughtiness does not occur, but slander is given with the example of Miriam and Aaron.

8 Seder Olam Rabba 19, end, like ARNB, says that Uzziah lived for twenty-five years after contracting leprosy. TosSot 12:4 says that Jotham, his son, judged Israel all the years he had leprosy (that is, Jotham was co-regent).

For the years of Uzziah and Jotham see 2 Chr. 26-27 and 2 Ki 15. He was twenty-five when he began to reign (2 Ki. 15:33). Why ARNB and Seder Olam say Uzziah was twenty-five years leprous is not clear. Perhaps they connected this with Jotham's birth (for he was twenty-five at Uzziah's death). See Schechter, n. 6, who says it is a digression. Actually, the sentence at least shows how severe the penalty is for being haughty.

English of Version B from Saldarini (1975) - embedded

  • 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


Hebrew of versions A and B from Schechter (1887) - embedded



Chronology
Date Reference Corrections Notes
750/751 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve miles in each direction none
  • The traditional version (version A) of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Chapter 9 synchronizes the earthquake with the onset of leprosy in King Uzziah
  • Thiele dates King Uzziah being struck with leprosy to 751/750 BCE, at which time his son Jotham took over the government (wikipedia)
  • 2 Kings 15:5 and 2 Chronicles 26:19-21 discuss how King Uzziah was struck with leprosy but do not synchronize this with an earthquake. 2 Chronicles 26:19-20 (written later than 2 Kings and using 2 Kings as some of its source material) does, however, synchronize Uzziah's unlawful actions at the Temple with the recognition of leprosy on the face of the King.
  • Another version (version B - not the traditional version) translated by Saldarini (1975:113-114) includes the leprosy but does not include an earthquake
Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Midrash Tanchuma

Background and Biography

Background

Excerpts
Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 5 (Tanchuma A aka Tanchuma Buber) in English and Hebrew - embedded

  • 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


Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 5 (Tanchuma B aka Yelammedenu) in English and Hebrew - embedded

  • 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


Chronology

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).

Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Jerome's Commentary on Amos

Background and Biography

Biography

Excerpts
English from Soenksen and Scheck (2017)

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.
Footnotes

13 Cf. Cicero, De republica 3, frag. 4.

14 CE 2 Kings 15:1-2.

15 CE 2 Chron 26:16-23.

Latin from Migne (1849)

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.

Chronology
Date Reference Corrections Notes
750/751 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
Now this is Uzziah, also called Azariah, the king of Judah, who tried to claim the priesthood as his right and was afflicted with leprosy on his forehead. Not only the punishment of this sacrilegious man, but the earthquake, too, which the Hebrews remember happened then, showed the anger of God none
  • The earthquake is synchronized with the day King Uzziah contracted leprosy.
  • Thiele dates King Uzziah being struck with leprosy to 751/750 BCE, at which time his son Jotham took over the government (wikipedia)
Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Legends of the Jews by Ginzberg

Background and Biography

Background

Excerpts
Legends of the Jews volume 4 by Ginzberg (1936) in English translation

  • 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
Footnotes

28 Yahya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 97, undoubtedly based on a Christian source; comp. note 25. According to ps.-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum, s. v. "Amos", this prophet met his death through a blow on his temples dealt him with a stick by the son of the false prophet Amaziah. Comp. Index, s. v. "Amaziah, Priest of Beth-el".

29 Azariah the "chief priest" in 2 Chron. 26.20, is identified with Azariah the high priest, in 1 Chron. 5.36. Comp. Sifre Z., 112, and Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 10.4. The Rabbis maintain that chapter 6 of Isaiah is the beginning of this prophetic book, and contains the first vision granted to the prophet on the day on which the impious king Uzziah attempted to sacrifice on the altar and was stricken with leprosy. As a "leper is like dead" (comp. note 177 on vol. I, p. 364), מות in Is. 6.1 does not mean death but leprosy. See Targum, ad loc.; ShR 1.34; Tan. Zaw 13. Comp. also Seder `Olam 20; Mekilta Shirah 6 (beginning); Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 404 on Is. 6; Aphraates, 362 (read אדעא instead of עמא); Jerome on Is. 7.3, seq.; ps.- Jerome on 2 Chron. 26.22.

30 Josephus, Antigui„ IX, 10.4. Tan. Noah 13 is not contented with a breach in the Temple; it says that the hall of the Temple (היבל) was rent in two parts, separated from each other by a cleft of twelve miles (a favorite number; see Index) in width, and the Midrash transfers to the Temple itself that which Josephus tells of the Temple mount. Comp. also Targum Is. 28.21, as well as the references given at the end of the preceding note; add ARN 9, 42. On leprosy as a punishment for arrogance see ARN, loc. cit., and vol. III, p. 214. According to Tan. Noah 13, the passion with which Uzziah devoted himself to the cultivation of the soil (comp. 2 Chron. 26.10) caused him to neglect the study of the Torah. The evil consequence thereof was that he became arrogant, saying: "God is king, and so am I, and it behooves the terrestrial king to do the service in the Temple of the celestial king." As the "love of husbandry" caused the downfall of Uzziah, even so was it the cause of that of Cain and Noah. Comp. also Yelammedenu, No. 43 (here Cain, Job, and Uzziah are given); BR 22.3; Mekilta RS, 92 (where Cain, Noah, Lot, and Uzziah are described as the four men who were "greedy for husbandry", and came thereby to grief).—The statement of Josephus that a ray of sunlight caused Uzziah's leprosy is evidently based on a haggadic interpretation of (זרחה) +(והצרעת) in 2 Chron. 26.19, the usual meaning of זרח being "shone" in regard to the sun. See, however, also vol. Ill, p. 303, and note 197 on vol. III, p. 90 (bottom) in connection with death by celestial fire as a punishment for the laity usurping the priesthood.

31 Tan. Zaw 13; comp. vol. III, p. 303. As to the earthquake taking place on the day on which Uzziah attempted his sacrifice, see references cited in the two preceding notes; and Jerome on Amos 1,3.

Legends of the Jews volume 4 by Ginzberg (1936) in English translation - embedded



Footnotes for Legends of the Jews volume 4 by Ginzberg (1936) in English translation Part 1 - embedded



Footnotes for Legends of the Jews volume 4 by Ginzberg (1936) in English translation Part 2 - embedded



Chronology
Date Reference Corrections Notes
750/751 BCE
(Thiele's chronology)
Like Josephus and Avot de Rabbi Nathan (Traditional Version A), Ginzberg (1936:262) synchronizes the earthquake with the day that King Uzziah attempted to offer sacrifices at the 1st Temple in Jerusalem and, in the process, contracted leprosy and experienced an earthquake which damaged the Temple. none
  • The earthquake is synchronized with the day King Uzziah contracted leprosy.
  • Thiele dates King Uzziah being struck with leprosy to 751/750 BCE, at which time his son Jotham took over the government (wikipedia)
  • 2 Kings 15:5 and 2 Chronicles 26:19-21 discuss how King Uzziah was struck with leprosy but do not synchronize this with an earthquake. 2 Chronicles 26:19-20 (written later than 2 Kings and using 2 Kings as some of its source material) does, however, synchronize Uzziah's unlawful actions at the Temple with the recognition of leprosy on the face of the King.
  • As evidenced by his footnotes, Ginzberg (1936:262)'s sources are a complicated mix of Rabbinic and other sources and include Josephus and Avot de Rabbi Nathan (Traditional Version A). His "seismic" source may not be independent (at least fully independent) from Josephus as stated by Austin et al (2000:663). The text by Ginzberg describing seismic effects are essentially identical to Josephus' account. Thus, in all likelihood, the "seismic source" here is Josephus [or Jospehus' source(s)] and Austin et al (2000:663) overstated 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)
Seismic Effects Locations Online Versions and Further Reading
References

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Jerusalem - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Jerusalem - City of David possible to probable ≥ 8 Uziel and Chalaf (2021:55*) discovered an 8th century BCE destruction layer in the earliest layer of Building 17081 in Area U where they found fallen stones above a row of smashed vessels ... along its northern wall. The fallen stones appeared to be from the upper part of the walls of the room, which had collapsed. They attributed the collapse to an earthquake. Dating was based on ceramics with one of the smashed vessels identified as Iron Age IIB - i.e. 8th century BCE. Uziel and Chalaf (2021:60*-61*) also re-interpreted destruction evidence at Area E, just south of Area U, in the City of David where they suggested that Stratum 12B contained a collapse layer likely caused by the same 8th century BCE seismic event seen in Area U.
En Hazeva possible to unlikely ≥ 6 Tilted Gate Earthquake (?) - Ben-Ami et al. (2024) used radiocarbon to produce an absolute chronology for the so-called "Early Fortress"1 of Strata VIII and the so-called "Middle Fortress"1 of Stratum VII. Stratum VIII was dated ending in ~950 BCE while both phases of Stratum VII (A and B) were dated to between ~950 and ~900 BCE. Ben-Ami et al. (2024) assigned Stratum VIII to Iron Age I and both phases of Stratum VII to Iron Age IIA - which appears to follow Finklestein's Low Chronology2. The date ranges of Ben-Ami et al. (2024) were supplemented with pottery, cross-checked with radiocarbon dates from nearby sites, compared to architectural styles of the time, and assessed in regards to historical trends in the region. Ben-Ami et al. (2024) contend that during the Early Iron Age IIA (Stratum VII), 'En Haseva was associated or involved with copper trade from the nearby copper mining and production site of Khirbet en-Nahas in Wadi Faynan. They also concluded that abandonment at the end of Stratum VII in ~900 BCE was not due to Egyptian Pharaoh's Shoshenq I's ~925 BCE military campaign in Southern Canaan. Post Stratum VII abandonment, according to Ben-Ami et al. (2024), lasted for nearly a couple of centuries showing no trace of later occupation activity and the immense fortress established at ‘En Hazeva over the abandoned building (Stratum VI), opens a new chapter in the site’s history, dating to the Iron Age IIB–C.

Cohen and Yisrael (1995) suggested that the so-called "Middle Fortress"1 of Stratum VII was damaged by one of the Amos Quakes while Austin et al. (2000) and others have suggested that the tilted wall (see Fig. 5) in the Casemate Gate was tilted by one of these earthquakes. However, Dogon Ben-Ami (pers. communication, 2024)3 indicates that this Casemate Gate pier is in Stratum VI which dates its construction to nearly a couple of centuries after ~900 BCE putting it outside of the time window for the Amos Quakes - one of which struck in ~760 BCE.

Although the Amos Quakes are excluded, it is possible that a later earthquake caused the tilt. However, there is a question why the other walls were not tilted. Dogon Ben-Ami (pers. communication, 2024)3 indicates that the tilted casemate pier is underlain by a layered sediment foundation like that which underlies Building 3011 (see Ben-Ami et al., 2024) while Roberts (2012:187-189) noted that floors were absent in the casemate walls. All of this points to a weak foundation which suggests an alternate theory for the wall tilt - poor construction techniques eventually led to differential settlement.

In its current post excavated state, the wall is underlain by an earlier stone wall and stratified sediment and much of the tilt (along with a recent looking stone fracture) occurs at the interface between the stone wall and stratified sediment. This also suggests that the tilt is due to differential settlement.

Although this would seem to close the Chapter on Amos Quake evidence at En Haseva, I am going to assign an Event probability of possible to unlikely rather than unlikely simply because a final excavation report has not yet been produced, there have been changes in chronology at En Haseva as new research uncovers new evidence, and work on the site is still on-going.
Footnotes

1 These designations come from Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

2 For details on competing Iron Age Chronologies in the south Levant see deadseaquake.info's page for Iron Age in the Southern Levant

3 Underneath the Stratum VI gate pier (the tilted wall) is the foundation of the Stratum VII Building 3011.

Samaria-Sebaste no evidence needs investigation. There is no archaeoseismic evidence at this site for an 8th century BCE earthquake that I am aware of.
Shechem
Iraq el-Amir no evidence needs investigation. There is no archaeoseismic evidence at this site for an 8th century BCE earthquake that I am aware of.
Hazor possible to probable 7 Stratum VI Earthquake - Excavations by Yigal Yadin at Hazor in the last half of the 1950s uncovered fairly compelling archaeoseismic evidence on the south side of Area A in Stratum VI (see, for example, Yadin et. al., 1959, Yadin et. al., 1960, Yadin, 1970, and/or Yadin, 1975). The excavators encountered tilted and collapsed walls including collapses which preserved the original courses, inclined pillars, and fallen ceilings with extensive debris from ceiling plaster lying on floors. Broken jars were found on the floors and some expensive luxury items were found in the debris. Stratum VI is fairly well dated. Pottery dates it to the 8th century BCE perhaps even the first half of that century (Dever, 1992:28* and Finkelstein, 1999:65 Table 1). The overlying Stratum, Stratum V, is terminated by a burned destruction layer which appears to coincide with the Assyrian destruction of Hazor in 732 BCE. Thus, it appears that Stratum VI contains a seismic destruction layer from the first half of the 8th century BCE which may coincide with one of the Amos Quakes.

Although Dever (1992:28*), relying on personal communication with Amnon Ben-Tor, reports that more archaeoseismic evidence in Stratum VI was uncovered during renewed excavations in the 1990s - 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, Amnon Ben-Tor in Stern et al (2008) reports that indications of the destruction of stratum VI by earthquake, noted by Yadin, were not identified.

A number of walls were described as tilting to the south and to the east. Ben-Menahem (1991) took this as evidence that Hazor was in the near field of seismic energy when the earthquake struck and estimated that the epicenter was only ~20 km. to the northeast.
According to the report of the excavating archeologists [Yadin et. al., 1959], northern walls were tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward. Figure 8 shows that these orientations are consistent with the effect of a near field horizontal shear acceleration coming to Hazor from the north east. This is consistent with modern ideas that structures in the near-field of a major earthquake are mostly affected by SH body waves and the fundamental Love mode. ( Ben-Menahem, 1991)
While this may be correct, a true archaeoseismic survey was not conducted on the site in order to, for example, make exact measurements of tilting directions and inclinations, look for shifted ashlars, see if there were rotated stones, etc.. The fact that the damage was concentrated on the south side of Area A rather than throughout the entire site casts doubt on Ben-Menahem (1991)'s estimate of a ML = 7.3 earthquake with an epicenter a mere ~20 km. to the NE of the site. An earthquake that large and that close would have probably caused extensive damage throughout the site; not just on the south side of Area A. In addition, as noted by Korzhenkov and Mazor (1999), areas above a hypo-center do not reveal systematic inclination and collapse patterns, whereas some distance away inclination and collapse have pronounced directional patterns. Thus, while the archaeoseismic evidence does suggest that an earthquake struck the site, shaking would have been moderate rather than severe. This site may be subject to a ridge effect.
Megiddo possible ≥ 8 Stratum IVA Earthquake (after ca. 800 BCE) - A destruction layer was found in Level H-5 of Area H which correlates to Stratum VA-IVB. Eran Arie in Finkelstein et al. (2013 Vol. 1:270-272) reported evidence of collapse and destruction by fire while Knauf (2002:2) reports that the occupation of Phase H5a [which correlates to Stratum IVA] was terminated by an earthquake, which cracked the city wall and strewed parts of walls of these southern buildings all over Area H.

Marco et. al. (2006) observed that a staircase between the Iron II gate complex and a reservoir was tilted and faulted, a wall in the courtyard of the Southern Stables tilted to the west, there were fractures in the walls of a Silo (1404), and there were fractures in the limestone bedrock of Tunnel 1000 of the water system. Although they suggested the most likely candidate for this archaeoseismic evidence was the ~760 BCE Amos Quake, they noted that an inability to establish a terminus ante quem created chronological uncertainty and opened up the possibility that the causitive earthquake struck later. The terminus post quem was c. 800 BCE.
Gezer possible ≥ 8 8th century BCE Earthquake - In the vicinity of what Macalister (1912 vol.1:251) labeled as "Tower VI" and "Tower VII", the outer city wall was variously displaced, tilted, or folded. At "Tower VI", joints traversing adjacent ashlars and shifted ashlars were observed. Dating appears to have been assisted by a terminus ante quem due to a destruction layer created when the Assyrians sieged the city in 733 BCE. Younker (1991) reports that debris layers consisting of fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century BCE sherds were found above 10th century BCE fill from an excavation against the outer face of Macalister's "Tower VII". This would seem to date the apparent outer wall archaeoseismic evidence to the 8th century BCE and before 733 BCE. However, displacement and tilting is all in a downslope direction on top of a steep slope. The deformations could be due to soil creep rather than an earthquake. This site may be subject to a ridge effect.
Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob possible Iron Age IIA and later Earthquake(s) - 980 BCE - 142 BCE - Ellenblum et. al. (2015:6) uncovered Iron Age IIA remains (ca. 980-830 BCE) to the south and partially beneath the Hellenistic ruins in the southern part of the site. Preliminary dating was based on architectural style and pottery typologies. Ellenblum et. al. (2015:6) estimated that the Iron Age IIA wall was displaced 8 m across the fault with 6 m of displacement taking place after the early Hellenistic period. This left 2 m of displacement in an unknown number of events during the first millennium BCE prior to the 142 BCE earthquake.
Arad possible ≥ 8 Stratum XI Earthquake - 2nd half of the 9th century BCE to the 1st half of the 8th century BCE - Herzog (2002:96-97) suggested that the ~760 BCE Amos Quake destroyed fortifications at Arad in Stratum XI leading to the rebuilding observed in Stratum X. Since his earthquake assignment was based on rebuilding evidence, no seismic effects were observed but one could assume that, if Herzog (2002)'s seismic interpretation is correct, that there would have been some collapsed walls in Stratum XI. Herzog (2002:94) dated Stratum XI to between the second half of the 9th century BCE and the first half of the 8th century BCE. He used the 'low chronology' of Finkelstein and dating was based on pottery, comparison with other sites, climate change, interpretation of socio-political developments, and architectural style. It appears that the ~760 BCE Amos Quake was used to assign the end date of Stratum XI and an association with Pharaoh Shishak's raid in 926 BCE and other concomitant phenomenon was used to assign the start date. Arad was mentioned in the list of cities conquered by Pharaoh Shishak in 926 BCE ( Herzog, 2002:92). Singer-Avitz (2002:162) noted that there was no clear indication of the date of the establishment of Stratum X which followed Stratum XI. This inferred archaeoseismic evidence is not particularly well dated. The Intensity estimate is based on an assumption of collapsed walls.
Lachish possible ≥ 8 Level IV Earthquake (?) - ~8th century BCE (?) - Ussishkin (2014:214) wrote that it is not at all clear why the fortified city of Lachish Level IV came to an end and Level III was built. Ussishkin (2014:214) noted changes to the the City Gate, building and rebuilding activity in domestic structures in Area S, and changes to the superstructures but not the foundations of the Palace Fort and the Southern Annex. The city walls seem to have continued in use unchanged. Level III structures were said to resemble their Level IV predecessors. Numerous broken pottery vessels found in Level IV of Area S (domestic dwellings) was thought to allude to sudden destruction but nothing was found that would indicate that this destruction had been intentional or that an enemy had set fire to it. Moshe Kochavi, who had excavated with Yigal Yadin at Hazor in 1955 (Roberts, 2012), was said to have visited Lachish in 1976 and suggested that Level IV was destroyed by the Amos Quake ( Ussishkin, 2014:215). While Excavator David Ussishkin has reported this as a possibility, he has never mentioned it as a certainty or even a probability in a number of subsequent publications about Lachish. In addition to the mystery of what led to the destruction of Level IV, there is a chronological debate over it's date that largely stems from a lack of sufficient evidence to date it solely from material found at the site.
Tell es-Safi (Gath) probable 9 Stratum F8A Earthquake - early to mid 8th century BCE - Chadwick and Maeir (2018) uncovered collapsed walls of what was a then abandoned domestic dwelling in Area F. Brick collapses were all found to be sloping northward having shifted violently and simultaneously north off their stone foundations. They added that in some cases the lower courses of brick wall superstructures were still intact, and in one instance the flat course lines of a wall showed where its second course had sheared cleanly away from its foundation course, lying slanted over a meter north of its original line. They report that consulting engineers Oded Rabinovitch (The Technion, Israel Institute of Technology) and Amos Shiran estimated it would have taken 1 g-force of energy to move the walls off their foundations in this manner. This equates to a local Intensity of ~IX using the equation of Wald et. al. (1999).

A bit below the collapse layer was Stratum F9 - dated as Iron IIA and interpreted as reflecting Philistine occupation. Above this layer two successive debris layers were found: a layer of destruction debris from the attack of Hazael (r. 842-796 BCE)'s Aramean forces, and atop that another layer of eroded brick detritus, winter rain-wash, and wind-blown soils which had all accumulated as the abandoned houses decayed over several decades. Collapse Layer F8A was found above this detritus and was overlain by a much thinner layer of winter rain-wash and wind-blown soil which in turn was covered by Judahite structures dated by ceramics to the 8th century BCE and which were probably built as early as the mid-eighth century B.C.E. and were designated as Stratum 8 which was discerned across the entire area. Because the Judahites buried the F8A earthquake collapses under new terraces and fills in Area F, the chronology of seismic destruction was preserved enabling the excavators to supply a confident date of the early to middle part of the 8th century BCE for this seismic shaking in Stratum F8A.

In addition to the collapsed wall in Area F, Chadwick and Maeir (2018) report that walls collapsed by the earthquake were also found in in Area A, on the flatter terrain of Gath's lower east side, and in Area D of the northern lower city.
Tell ej-Judeideh possible ≥ 8 Lower Phase of Iron IIB Earthquake (?) - 8th century BCE - Gibson (1994) re-appraised earlier excavations reported in Bliss (1900a), Bliss (1900b), and Bliss and Macalister (1902). He detected two Iron IIB level building phases noting that the structures from the lower phase were apparently destroyed (in an earthquake?) and then, in the upper phase, [] rebuilt roughly along the same lines. The pottery belonging to the lower phase did not contain the lmlk stamped handles so typical of the upper phase (Bliss 1900b:219) which led Gibson (1994) to conclude that the lower phase of the Iron IIB level at Judeideh may be the equivalent of Level IV at Lachish. Ussishkin (2014:214) mentioned the possibility that Lachish Level IV ended in destruction by the Amos Quake. According to Gibson (1994), the destroyed structures at Tell ej-Judeideh were reported in Pit 4 by Maclister where an earlier system of walls were detected beneath the structures of the upper Iron IIB phase. Gibson (1994) also noted that Macalister pointed out that many of the stones from the lower phase walls had been re-used in the upper phase walls.

lmlk stamped handles are thought to have have first been issued around 700 BCE during the reign of King Hezekiah (wikipedia). Gibson (1994) suggested that the upper phase of Iron IIB at Tell ej-Judeideh which contained lmlk stamped handles ended in destruction by Sennacherib in 701 BCE and was equivalent to Lachish Level III.
Tel Agol possible ≥ 8 Stratum IIIB Earthquake - probably in the mid-eighth century BCE - Feig (2021a) reports damage to casemate walls in Stratum IIIB which she interpreted to be due to seismic shaking. She estimated the date of the damaging event to probably in the mid-eighth century BCE. Underlying Stratum IV was dated, based on pottery, to Iron Age II - probably Iron IIA. Overlying Stratum II showed evidence of repairs to the Stratum IIIB walls. As there were no signs of destruction or devastation due to the Assyrian conquest in 732 BCE, the excavator surmised that the settlement may have been abandoned around that time. Observed damage included collapsed, displaced, and folded walls along with broken pottery found in fallen position.
Deir 'Alla possible ≥7 Phase M/IX Earthquakes - 8th or 9th century BCE - Extensive archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered at Deir 'Alla in Phase M (aka Phase IX), particularly in Area B. The mud brick walls of the damaged structures were built on top of existing surfaces, and occasionally on reed layers or wooden beams (Franken, 1976). They lacked a true foundation and the walls were only one mudbrick thick (Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1986:135-142). They were not seismically resistant. Some of the archaeoseismic evidence looks like what one would see in a paleoseismic trench with some vertical mostly E-W cracks extending through the top of the stratigraphic layer (M/IX) and ending where other deposits began. One crack was described as being 10 cm. wide and extensional (Franken, 1976). Some of the mudbrick walls broke away at floor level while others broke above the floor but after the whole wall had shifted (Franken, 1976). Complete pottery, though often broken by the destruction of the buildings, was found in almost all of the rooms of Area B (Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1986:138).

The stratigraphically confined cracks were caused by the second earthquake as this location recorded two Phase M/IX earthquakes (Franken, 1976). The first earthquake led to a fire and, apparently, some type of abandonment ( Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1991). The second earthquake occurred after some time, because the new surface had been used a bit ( Ibrahim and van der Kooij, 1991). Franken and Ibrahim (1978:60-68) suggested that it was raining when the second earthquake struck. Dating from radiocarbon, pottery (not wheel thrown), palaeography of an inscription found in the rubble left by the second earthquake, and cultural relations (i.e. before Assyrian influence was visible) suggest an 8th or 9th century BCE date.

This site in Phase M (IX) appears to have been subject to a construction related site effect due to the foundation-less one mudbrick thick buildings built on top of what Franken (1976:9) described as clay.
Tell el-Mazar possible Stratum VI Destruction on the Main Mound - 8th century CE ? - Yassine & van der Steen (2012:81-83) saw evidence of possible earthquake destruction in Stratum VI on the main mound.
On the main tell architecture has been found from the Assyrian period onwards.

... The earliest excavated areas (Stratum VI) revealed fragmentary but promising remains of substantial architecture, probably representing some kind of public building(s), the nature of which is unclear. What little pottery was found in context with these remains does not differ significantly from the pottery of the succeeding Stratum V, which is dated to the Assyrian period (end of the 8th century).

The region became a vassal state of Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727). There are traces of a violent destruction of Stratum VI (burnt remains, and layers of mudbrick rubble). Since the transition of Ammon into an Assyrian vassal state seems to have been peaceful, there are no historical events that can directly be related to this destruction.

The Balaam text at Deir Alla dates from the same time as Stratum VI, and it is likely that Deir Alla had a religious function. At Sa’idiyeh there were rows of houses, with evidence of weaving, possibly on an industrial scale (Pritchard 1985). Deir Alla Phase IX was destroyed by a violent earthquake in the second half of the 8th century. The region is prone to earthquakes, and it is by no means certain that this was the same destruction, but the scale of the destruction at Deir Alla makes it a distinct possibility the destruction of (parts of) Stratum VI can be attributed to the same natural disaster. Tell es-Sa’idiyeh was also destroyed in the same period.
This site may be subject to a construction related site effect in this stratum due to mudbrick construction
Damiya possible ≥7 Stratum VIII Destruction - 8th century BCE - In Stratum VIII, beneath the Stratum VII in area A, Petit & Kafafi (2019) report that remains of of an older, rectangular building was discovered with wide walls made of square clay bricks. Petit & Kafafi (2020:52-54) report that although not burnt, collapse debris suggest some sort of destruction, although the team could not exclude deliberate dismantling. They also report the discovery of broken pottery - sherds of a large pithos (a storage container >1 m in diameter) found on the floor and painted with a “tree of life” and two bulls or zebus. Petit & Kafafi (2018b:35-36) report that the wall and associated finds, such as a typical Iron Age II bowl, were dated to the 8th century B.C. (Fig. 31).

This site may be subject to a construction related site effect in this stratum due to mudbrick construction
Tell Saidiyeh possible Stratum VI Destruction ? - Iron IIB - mid 8th century BCE - Tubb (1998:126) noted that towards the middle of the eighth century the houses of Stratum VI were knocked down and leveled in preparation for another major building programme in Stratum V - something that may have been a response to earthquake destruction. This site may be subject to a construction related site effect in this stratum due to mudbrick construction
Pella possible ≥8 Iron IIB Earthquake (?) - ~800 BCE - Bourke (2004:13-14, 20) described a destruction layer dated to ~800 BCE in Iron IIb at the Temple Complex in Area XXII on Tabaqat Fahl (Pella) and throughout the area.
The remodelled Iron Age II temple precinct at Pella was in use for perhaps 150 years (ca 950–800 BC) before the temple and the entire settlement was destroyed in an extensive conflagration (Bourke et al. 2003). While earthquake activity has been suggested as the likely cause for similarly dated destruction horizons at Deir ’Alla (Franken 1992), the same horizon of destruction at nearby Tell Hammeh (Cahill et al. 1987) and Tel Rehov (Mazar 1999) has been attributed to the military activities of either Egyptian (or just possibly) Aramaean invaders. At Pella, while earthquake destruction is still considered the most probable cause, significant militaria (specifically iron arrowheads and scale armour) are consistently associated with this destruction horizon. Whatever the ultimate cause, this destruction proved to be catastrophic to the long-term well-being of the city of Pella, as settlement ceased across the site for the next 500 years, only reviving with the Seleucid occupation of the region after 200 BC (Bourke 1997)
Bourke (2004:13-14, 20) discussed the destruction layer and challenges in interpreting it.
Thick deposits of ash and brick debris sealed the temple proper and most nearby areas. Interpretation of the final Iron II destruction horizons is complicated by the large and intrusive Late Antique (ca 550 AD) foundation trenches that cut through much of the area, largely frustrating attempts to study the spatial patterning of objects found in situ below destruction horizons. The Iron II temple proper suffered quite severely from later constructional activity. However, the area of the eastern courtyard surrounding the central altar was largely undisturbed, and it was here that many cult objects were identified.
Tel Abu Hawam possible ≥8 Stratum IIIB Destruction - 2nd half of the 8th century BCE or possibly even in the 7th century BCE - During R.W. Hamilton's excavations in 1932-1933, Stratum III was found to lie between two destruction layers: a thick upper one, below stratum II, and a lower one, above part of stratum IVB. According to Hamilton, Stratum III contained more than a single phase of construction ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). Herrera (1983) examined original documents and material finds from the 1932-1933 excavations and divided Stratum III into two phases
  • IIIA (older)
  • IIIB (younger)
The destruction and end of Stratum IIIB was re-dated to no earlier than the latter half of the eighth century BCE ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). This firm terminus post quem was based on the fact that the ceramic assemblages found their best parallels at Israelite, Phoenician, and Cypriot sites, mainly in the second half of the eighth century BCE (Tell el Far'ah VIID, Hazor VI-V, Samaria V-VI, and Tell Keisan 5, among other sites). It was noted, however, that the possibility of even later finds, as suggested by a seventh-century Judean cooking pot, could move the end of Stratum IIIB to an even younger date ( Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., 1993 v.1). Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy in Stern et. al., (1993 v.1) dated Stratum IIIB, before it's destruction, to the time of the Divided Monarchy. In agreement with Herrera (1983), they provided a suspiciously narrow date range of ~750-725 BCE for it's destruction. As a caveat, Balensi (1985b:66-69) noted a lack of stratigraphic homogeneity within Stratum III.

The destruction event that ended Stratum IIIB is described by Balensi et. al. (1985a:95) as a burnt layer which seals Stratum III and was followed by a period of abandonment. Hamilton (1935:6) described the destruction layer as ashes and mixed debris which, though tenuous or non-existent at the edges [of the Tel], were thick and well defined at the centre of the site.

The cause of this destruction is unknown. It could have been due to human agency.
Tel Rehov possible ≥8 Stratum IV Destruction - Late Iron IIA - ~9th-8th century BCE - According to Panitz-Cohen and Mazar in Mazar et. al. (2020 v.2:186), Stratum C-1a [equivalent to Stratum IV] came to an end in a sudden violent destruction that involved a fierce conflagration, evidenced in each of the excavated buildings revealed just below topsoil. Temperatures were thought to exceed 500°C, since it caused partial firing of the brick courses and the mud plaster in many of the walls. In several cases, they report that pottery vessels cracked and became distorted, with much calcification. As an example, they noted that the large pottery crate in Building CF was so distorted by the fire that it was extremely difficult to restore.

According to Panitz-Cohen and Mazar in Mazar et. al. (2020 v.2:186), the destruction was sudden, based on the incredible quantity of pottery vessels and other objects found in the houses. Only one skeleton was found which might suggest an earthquake which struck during the daytime. No activity on the site was detected after the Stratum IV (C-1a) destruction except for one deep pit (6498 in Square Y/6) which cut through most of the Iron IIA strata, and possibly, a gray fill, devoid of finds, in Square Z/1 above part of Building CL. The site appears to have been abandoned after the earthquake.

Archaeoseismic evidence in Area C, the best studied location, is fairly extensive and includes collapsed and tilted walls, fallen ceilings, broken pottery (some apparently found in fallen position), and debris. There also appears to be archaeoseismic evidence for this event in Areas D, E, and G. Unlike the Stratum V and VI earthquakes, there is no compelling or obvious evidence of vertical shaking during this event indicating that Tel Rehov probably was not in the hypocentral region and the active faults underlying the site probably did not slip.

Dating was based on ceramic evidence and radiocarbon. Although Panitz-Cohen and Mazar in Mazar et. al. (2020 v.2) dated this Iron IIA event to the 9th century and no later than 840/830 BCE, Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010:Table 2) and Finkelstein (2013: 7-8, Table 1, 83; 2017: 186) date the end of Late Iron IIA to ~760 BCE - which coincides with the approximate date of the Amos Quake. In the Tel Rehov Paleoseismic Trench, ~300 m north of Tel Rehov, Zilberman et. al. (2004) identified an Event (I) with 1.2+ meters of slip which they suggested was caused by the ~760 BCE Amos Quake (despite the fact that they dated Event I to the 7th century BCE in their report). Thus, it seems prudent to consider that the Stratum IV destruction could have been one and the same with the ~760 BCE Amos Quake. The dating range for this Stratum IV event has therefore been expanded out to include the 8th century BCE.

The damaged structures were made entirely of mudbricks with wood beam foundations so there is likely a construction related site affect for all the Iron Age II structures.
Dan no evidence End of Stratum III - Iron Age II - No reported earthquake evidence - Although Alanne (2017) lists an Earthquake between Strata III and II in the 9th or 8th century BCE in Table 1 (Stratigraphy), this appears to be based on Yadin's excavations at nearby Hazor where he interpreted archaeoseismic evidence on the south side of Area A in Hazor Stratum VI due to the ~760 BCE Amos Quake. Alanne (2017:46) noted that Strata III and II show a progressive development without any traces of destruction layers while Stratum II (dated by Biran to the 8th century) faced quite a sudden destruction, most probably caused by the Assyrian attack around 732 BCE.
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Jerusalem - Introduction



Jerusalem - City of David



En Hazeva



Samaria-Sebaste



Shechem



Iraq el-Amir



Hazor



Megiddo



Gezer



Tel Ateret aka Vadun Jacob



Arad



Lachish



Tell es-Safi (Gath)



Tell ej-Judeideh



Tel Agol



Deir 'Alla



Tell el-Mazar



Damiya



Tell Saidiyeh



Pella



Tel Abu Hawam



Tel Rehov



Dan



Israel north

Khirbet al Asiq aka En Gev

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[20] Khirbet al Asiq (En Gev) (Dever 1992, 34 n. 10 = n.d.).

Wikipedia page for En Gev



Tel Mevorakh

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

21] Tel Mevorakh (Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

Wikipedia page for Tel Mevorakh



Tel Kabri

Middle bronze age 1700 BCE

Lazar et al 2020 Earthquake damage_as a catalyst to abandonment of a Middle Bronze Age settlement Tel Kabri, Israel Coastal Archaeology and underwater survey

Israel central coast

Tel Qasile

1100-1050 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

For Tell Qasile, which is included in the list of sites damaged by the earthquake of 760 BC, archaeological evidence suggests that the site was damaged during the period 1100-1050 BC (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993; Mazar 1993, 298; Stern 1993).

[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 (XIIX) 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 tb 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).

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books



Excavation Reports



Websites

Tell Qasile Excavations at Musa Eretz Israel Museum - Tel Aviv

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993)

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (2008)

Wikipedia page for Tel Qasile



Tel Michal

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[14] Tel Michal (Mazar 1993, 298 = ?).

Wikipedia page for Tel Michal



Israel south

Be'er Sheva'

Per conversation with Steve Austin - 1/9/2020 - More archeoseismic evidence has been uncovered in Tel Rehov, Tel Dan, and Beersheva. Also Elijah reports a drought in ~800 BC

Be'er Sheva'

Approximate Location - Austin et. al. (2000), Ambraseys (2009)

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Tel Sheva, identified by some as biblical Beersheva, shows signs of earthquake destruction in the Stratum III. This destruction was dated by the excavator to the middle of the eighth century B.C. (Aharoni, 1973, p. 107).

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

[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).

References

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquakes_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Mid.html?id=x2veAAAACAAJ

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206810009465104#

Yadin, Y. and S. Angress (1960). Hazor II: an account of the second season of excavations, 1956, Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Hazor_II.html?id=C-EMAQAAMAAJ

Tell Erani

759 BC - Austin et. al. (2000)

Excavations at Tel Erany indicate a mid-eighth century earthquake in Stratum VI of the acropolis (Yeivin, 1979, p. 168). Unfortunately, a final report has not been published.

Wikipedia page for Tel Erani



Timna

759 BC - Ambraseys (2005)

Timna = Tel Batash [Rotherberg and Lupu, 1967.59; Rotherberg, 1972.128, 149-50; Mazar, 1993=in fact 1160-1156]

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books

Mazar, A.. 1993, Archaeology of the land of the Bible.

Rotherberg and Lupu, 1967.59

Rotherberg, 1972.128, 149-50



Excavation Reports





Websites

Tibneh (Ancient Timna) at BibleWalks.com

Timna – ancient copper mines at BibleWalks.com

Solomon’s Pillars (Mines) at BibleWalks.com

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993)

Main Publications

Other Studies

Bibliography from Stern et al (2008)

Main Publications

Other Studies

Wikipedia pages

Wikipedia page for Timna Valley



Wikipedia page for Timna



Wikipedia page for Timna (Tel Batash) - in German



west bank

Bethel

Bethel

Approximate Location - Literary Evidence Only - Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000)

Literary Evidence Only - At Bethel, Amos indicated severe damage to altars, houses, and the temple (Amos 3:14,15; 9:1). However, excavators have not located Bethel’s temple at Beitin, and they provide only a general description of damage (Kelso, 1968, p. 37, 52). This Iron Age II damage is neither precisely dated to Jeroboam II’s time, nor has it been assigned to just one earthquake.

Wikipedia page for Bethel



west bank or jordan ?

Tell el Hauma

Tell el Hauma aka Tel el Hama aka Hauma

759 BC - Ambraseys (2009)

18]Tell al Hama(Mazar 1993, 208 -= ?).

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books



Excavation Reports





Websites

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993)

Main Publications

Other Studies

Bibliography from Stern et al (2008)

Main Publications

Other Studies

Wikipedia pages

Wikipedia page for Tell el-Hammeh



Wikipedia page for Tell Hammeh



can't find for now

Khirbet Magari

Khirbet Magari

approx. location, Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

approximate location based on map of Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

7th - 8th century BC - Karcz, Kafri, and Meshel (1977)

Violent destruction, collapse

References

11 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, Hebrew edn, 2 vol (Massada, Jerusalem, 1970).
12 Encyclopaedia of Archeological Excavations in Eretz Israel, English edn (updated), vol 1 and 2 (from 4) (Massada, Jersualem, 1975).

References

Karcz, I., et al. (1977). "Archaeological evidence for Subrecent seismic activity along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift." Nature 269(5625): 234-235.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242863909_Archaeological_evidence_for_Subrecent_seismic_activity_along_the_Dead_Sea-Jordan_Rift
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v269/n5625/abs/269234a0.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/269234a0
https://www.academia.edu/4321286/Archaeological_evidence_for_Subrecent_seismic_activity_along_the_Dead_Sea-Jordan_Rift

to do

To Do

See gearth for more textual references

chase rafael and agnon refs in notes

dever 1992 - For these references, I am indebted to Mr. Gordon W. Franz for the use of his unpublished paper `The Earthquake in the Days of King Uzziah: An Archaeological, Geological, and Theological Ap¬praisal In the paper already cited (above, n. 2), Gordon Franz attempts to add several sites to Hazor VI and Lachish IV, relating them to the 760 BCE earthquake, including `En Gev II, Deir `Alli phase IX ( = M), and Beersheva III. °En Gev remains very speculative, and Beersheva depends largely upon the opinion of Aharoni, thus far unsupported by an adequate publication; on the latter, see Y. Aharoni et al., Beer-Sheba I. Excavations at Tell Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons, Tel Aviv 1973, p. 107. The empirical evidence at Deir 'Alla, dated to the mid-8th century BCE, perhaps by the famous "Balaam Inscription," is stronger; see M. Ibrahim & G. van der Kooij, 'Excavations of Deir `Alla, Season 1979,' ADAJ 23 (1979), pp. 41-50. The case for Lachish IV is perhaps the strongest; see D. Ussishkin, 'The Destruction of Lachish and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars,' Tel Aviv 4/1-2 (1977), pp. 43-52. Again, I am indebted to Mr. Franz for these references.

ck ambraseys methodological and 2009 for refs

benMen91

There was great destruction in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Intensity at Jerusalem (A = 135 km) estimated as MM 8; Io = 11; big earth slips in the Kidron Valley, destruction of Razor, Sebastia (Mic. 1: 6) and the ancient city of Kinnereth (9 km north of Tiberias). A tsunami in the Sea of Galilee is hinted in Amos 5: 8; 9: 5-6.

Am09 - [7] ‘. . . the posts of the temple moved when the Lord spoke . . .’ (2 Chron., XXVI. 16–17; 2 Kings XV.1–7).



Am09 - There remains the question of whether there is any evidence today for active faulting in the immediate vicinity of Old Jerusalem that can be associated with the ground deformations mentioned by Zechariah, Josephus and Nathan. Old aerial photographs of the chalky geological formations of the region show only landslides on steep slopes, but no through-going faults. A relatively large slide can be recognised on the Mount of Olives, which is located on the slope which faces west towards the Old City, the scarp of which can be seen halfway up the Mount of Olives. However, according to the Geological Survey of Israel, it is probably much more ancient than Biblical times (Wachs and Lewitte 1984; Frydman 1997). The multitude of short scarps shown on relatively recent geological maps of Jerusalem all terminate at the Kidron Valley (Gil 1996). The exception is a short northeast– southwest-running fault trace, which is shown on the Geotechnical Map of Jerusalem (Israeli 1977), which the Atlas of Israel labels Zechariah 14:4, earthquake fault. This feature extends from a point a few hundred metres south of the Jerusalem Railway Station to the west, running for more than three kilometres, to just north of al-Ayzariyah to the east, striking about N–70◦ E (Atlas of Israel 1985). The reason why this feature has been associated with Zechariah’s earthquake is not given.

Am09 - Amos’ earthquake may be dated vaguely from the line of Jewish kings chronicled in the Old Testament, which provides us with 756 or 759 BC as a terminus ante quem (Soggin 1970, 120), or perhaps earlier. Courville dates this earthquake to 751–750 BC, on the basis of the Jewish legend reported by Josephus in which the prophet Zechariah is quoted as a source indicating the severity of the earthquake. This, however, would be the correct date only if the earthquake could be associated with the judgement on Uzziah, that is, only if Josephus’ account that the earthquake occurred at the same time as Uzziah was stricken with leprosy could be proven to be true [6]. While the Zechariah quotation is suggestive, it does not specifically associate the earthquake with God’s judgement on the king, and we cannot follow either Josephus’ or Courville’s attempts at a correlation without further evidence (Courville 1971, ii, 122). For instance, Courville goes on to correlate Uzziah’s earthquake with other catastrophic events, such as, for instance, the eruption of Thera. He can do this only because he brings the Late Bronze age down to the time of Uzziah, a view that must be rejected (Crisler 2004). If Courville’s view is adopted, however, the placement of Uzziah’s earthquake at the end of Samaria II can be correlated with a wave of destructions at this stratigraphic level, destruction that is said to have affected the Holy Land and could also have been due to the invasion by the Egyptians.

Am09 - 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). need to find Nur and Ron

ANTONOPOULOS (1979) lists a tsunami hitting Coasts of Lebanon. Sur (Tyre) with m = VI

Sources are

AMBRASEYS N., 1962 - Data for the investigation of the seismic seawaves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., , 52, No. 4, pp. 895-913, October.

SIEBERG A., 1932 - Untersuchungen Aber Erdbeben und Bruchschollenban im Astlichen Mittelmeergebiet. Denkschriften der Medizinish-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena, vol. 2, Jena.

Landslide Evidence

1 PGA to Intensity conversions use Wald et al (1999).
Location (with hotlink) Status Minimum PGA (g) Likely PGA (g) Likely Intensity1 Comments
Jordan River Delta possible Niemi and Ben-Avraham (1994) estimated that Event 2 was younger than 3-5 ka and older than 1927 CE.
Jerusalem Landslides
Location (with hotlink) Status Minimum PGA (g) Likely PGA (g) Likely Intensity1 Comments
Jordan River Delta

Niemi and Ben-Avraham (1994) estimated that Event 2 was younger than 3-5 ka and older than 1927 CE.



Jerusalem Landslides



Tsunamogenic Evidence

Paleoseismic Evidence

Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Hacipasa Trenches possible to unlikely ≥ 7 The oldest event identified in the Ziyaret Trench dated to before 983 CE. A lower bound on age was not available due to insufficient radiocarbon dates.
Kazzab Trench possible ≥ 7 Daeron et al (2007) dated events S4, ?S5, and ?S6 to between 2115 and 6288 years B.P. These appear to be in Sequence 2 for which the age-depth function is unknown and a hiatus was suspected.
Jarmaq Trench possible ≥ 7 Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Y to between 2920-2879 BCE and 84-239 CE.
al-Harif Aqueduct possible ≥ 7 Sbeinati et al (2010) dated Event W, characterized from paleoseismology (Trench C only), to between 3400-3000 BCE and 800-510 BCE and speculated that it may have been caused by the ~1365 BCE earthquake which, they claim, affected Ugharit near Latakia in Northern Syria and Tyre in Southern Lebanon or another earthquake. They noted that the rate of sedimentation in unit f of trench C implies a minimum age of 962 B.C. for event W and estimated ~4.6 m of slip.
Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls possible Kanari, M. (2008) examined rockfalls in Qiryat-Shemona which were attributed to earthquakes. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating was performed on soil samples beneath the fallen rocks. Sample ID QS-13 was dated to 3.2 +/- 0.45 ka BP which makes one of the Amos Quakes a possible candidate (Kanari, 2008).
Bet Zayda no evidence ≥ 7 Earthquakes before 392 BCE were not observed by Wechsler et al (2014) or Wechsler et al (2018) however Tom Rockwell (personal correspondence, 2022) indicates that several unstudied southern channels in the area could have captured older events such as one of the Amos Quakes.
Jordan Valley - Tel Rehov Trench possible Zilberman et al (2004) dated Event I to the 7th century BCE and Event II to the 6th century BCE. Based on displacements, they estimated a Magnitude of 6.5-6.6 for Event I and 6.6-6.7 for Event II.
Jordan Valley - Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed Trenches no evidence ≥ 7 Ferry et al (2011) detected 12 surface rupturing seismic events in 4 trenches (T1-T4) in Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed; 10 of which were prehistoric. They did not identify any paleoseismic events matching with the Amos Quakes and cited archaeoseismic evidence from other studies in Deir 'Alla (Franken, 1989:204) and Tell Saidiyeh (Tubb, 1988:126-127, 130) for an earthquake from around this time.
Dead Sea - Seismite Types n/a n/a n/a
Dead Sea - En Feshka probable 8 - 8.8 (both seismites) Two seismites are candidates (Kagan et al, 2011)
  • a 2 cm. thick brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 515 cm. depth with modeled Ages of 723 BCE ± 62 (1σ) and 731 BCE ± 124 (2σ)
  • a 2.5 cm. thick brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 521 cm. depth with modeled Ages of 821 BCE ± 65 (1σ) and 831 BCE ± 132 (2σ)
Dead Sea - Nahal Darga possible to probable ≥ 7 Enzel et. al. (2000) identified a 150 cm. thick seismite in coarse grained lithology in Deformed Unit 7 in Stratigraphic Unit 9 which dated to ~750 BCE +/- 300 (~ 3000-2400 yrs BP).
Dead Sea - En Gedi possible 8 - 8.9 (both seismites) Two possible seismites from the En Gedi Core ( Migowski et. al., 2004)
  • a 2 cm. thick brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 351 cm. depth dated to ~700 BCE
  • a 5 cm. thick brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 355 cm. depth dated to 759 BCE
Dating appears to be based on radiocarbon rather than varve counting however there is a mis-match with the varve counting in this interval by Neugebauer (2015) and Neugebauer et al (2015).
Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim probable 8 - 9 (both seismites) Two possible seismites from Kagan et al (2011) at ZA-2.
  • a variable thickness brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 700 cm. depth with modeled Ages of 741 BCE ± 41 (1σ) and 746 BCE ± 79 (2σ)
  • a variable thickness brecciated (Type 4) seismite at 710 cm. depth with modeled Ages of 777 BCE ± 43 (1σ) and 783 BCE ± 78 (2σ)
The dual seismites at Nahal Ze'elim and En Feshka is what led Kagan et al (2011) to hypothesize that the Amos Quakes were a pair of earthquakes (i.e. a couplet) thus explaining archaeoseismic evidence for this earthquake(s) north and south of the Dead Sea.

Jefferson Williams observed similar seismites in the East section of site ZA-4 above the Late Bronze Beach Ridge at (floating) depths of 577 cm. (8 cm. thick) and 616 cm. (6-8 cm.thick).
Araba - Introduction n/a n/a n/a
Araba - Taybeh Trench possible to probable ≥ 7 Event E8 in the Taybeh Trench (LeFevre et al., 2018) was dated to 700 BCE +/- 186 and matches well with a ~750 BCE date for the Southern Amos Quake.
Araba - Qatar Trench unlikely ≥ 7 Klinger et. al. (2015) did not identify any events in the Qatar Trench which correlate with either of the Amos Quakes.
Araba - Taba Sabhka Trench unlikely ≥ 7 None of the events in the Taba Sabhka Trench correlate with an earthquake around the time of the Amos Quakes (Allison, 2013).
Araba - Shehoret, Roded, and Avrona Alluvial Fan Trenches possible ≥ 7 Event 5, with 0.2 m of displacement, dated to 500 BCE +/- 1000 (1500 BCE - 500 CE).
Location (with hotlink) Status Intensity Notes
Hacipasa Trenches

The oldest event identified in the Ziyaret Trench dated to before 983 CE. A lower bound on age was not available due to insufficient radiocarbon dates.



Kazzab Trench

Daeron et al (2007) dated events S4, ?S5, and ?S6 to between 2115 and 6288 years B.P. These appear to be in Sequence 2 for which the age-depth function is unknown and a hiatus was suspected.



Jarmaq Trench

Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Y to between 2920-2879 BCE and 84-239 CE.



Displaced Aqueduct at al Harif, Syria

Sbeinati et al (2010) dated Event W, characterized from paleoseismology (Trench C only), to between 3400-3000 BCE and 800-510 BCE and speculated that it may have been caused by the ~1365 BCE earthquake which, they claim, affected Ugharit near Latakia in Northern Syria and Tyre in Southern Lebanon or another earthquake. They noted that the rate of sedimentation in unit f of trench C implies a minimum age of 962 B.C. for event W and estimated ~4.6 m of slip.



Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls

Kanari, M. (2008) examined rockfalls in Qiryat-Shemona which were attributed to earthquakes. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating was performed on soil samples beneath the fallen rocks. Sample ID QS-13 was dated to 3.2 +/- 0.45 ka BP which makes one of the Amos Quakes a possible candidate (Kanari et al, 2019).



Bet Zayda (aka Beteiha)

Earthquakes before 392 BCE were not observed by Wechsler et al (2014) or Wechsler et al (2018) however Tom Rockwell (personal correspondence, 2022) indicates that several unstudied southern channels in the area could have captured older events such as one of the Amos Quakes.



Jordan Valley - Tel Rehov Trench

Zilberman et al (2004) dated Event I to the 7th century BCE and Event II to the 6th century BCE. Based on displacements, they estimated a Magnitude of 6.5-6.6 for Event I and 6.6-6.7 for Event II.



Jordan Valley - Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed Trenches

Ferry et al (2011) detected 12 surface rupturing seismic events in 4 trenches (T1-T4) in Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed; 10 of which were prehistoric. They did not identify any paleoseismic events matching with the Amos Quakes and cited archaeoseismic evidence from other studies in Deir 'Alla (Franken, 1989:204) and Tell Saidiyeh (Tubb, 1988:126-127, 130) for an earthquake from around this time.



Dead Sea - Seismite Types



Dead Sea - En Feshka

Two possible seismites from Kagan et al (2011).



Dead Sea - Nahal Darga

Enzel et. al. (2000) identified a 150 cm. thick seismite in coarse grained lithology in Deformed Unit 7 in Stratigraphic Unit 9 which dated to ~750 BCE +/- 300 (~ 3000-2400 yrs BP).



Dead Sea - En Gedi

Two possible seismites from the En Gedi Core ( Migowski et. al., 2004)

Dating appears to be based on radiocarbon rather than varve counting however there is a mis-match with the varve counting in this interval by Neugebauer (2015) and Neugebauer et al (2015).



Dead Sea - Nahal Ze 'elim

Two possible seismites from Kagan et al (2011) at ZA-2.

The dual seismites at Nahal Ze'elim and En Feshka is what led Kagan et al (2011) to hypothesize that the Amos Quakes were a pair of earthquakes (i.e. a couplet) thus explaining archaeoseismic evidence for this earthquake(s) north and south of the Dead Sea.

Jefferson Williams observed similar seismites in the East section of site ZA-4 above the Late Bronze Beach Ridge at (floating) depths of 577 cm. (8 cm. thick) and 616 cm. (6-8 cm.thick).



Araba - Introduction



Araba - Taybeh Trench

Event E8 in the Taybeh Trench (LeFevre et al., 2018) was dated to 700 BCE +/- 186 and matches well with a ~750 BCE date for the Southern Amos Quake.



Araba - Qatar Trench

Klinger et. al. (2015) did not identify any events in the Qatar Trench which correlate with either of the Amos Quakes.



Araba - Taba Sabhka Trench

None of the events in the Taba Sabhka Trench correlate with an earthquake around the time of the Amos Quakes (Allison, 2013).



Araba - Shehoret, Roded, and Avrona Alluvial Fan Trenches

Event 5, with 0.2 m of displacement, dated to 500 BCE +/- 1000 (1500 BCE - 500 CE).



Notes

Ambraseys (2009)

c. 759 BC Judaea

Among Biblical earthquakes the mid-eighth-century-BC earthquake known as ‘Amos”, ‘Zechariah’s’ or ‘Uzziah’s’ earthquake is an important event. Modern writers date the earthquake to 759 BC and assign to it a very large magnitude of ML (sic.) 8.2, with an intensity in Jerusalem between VIII and IX (Ben-Menahem 1979, 262; Austin et al. 2000). In addition, the event is said to have been associated with the coseismic left-lateral offset of the Jericho fault, which is a segment of the north–south trending strike–slip Dead Sea fault (Nur and Ron 1996). Obviously, such an important earthquake deserves authentication and its effects, reappraisal.

The earliest reference to a mid-eighth-century-BC earthquake in Judaea can be found in the opening verse of the Book of Amos who, without giving any details, mentions in passing an earthquake during his time, somewhere in Judaea, during the reign of Uzziah (791–752 BC) (numbers in square brackets refer to the notes at the end of the entry, [1]), perhaps the same event as alluded to by Isaiah (c. 700 BC) [2].

About three centuries later, early in the sixth century BC, Zechariah (c. 520 BC) mentions an earthquake in Judaea, again in the days of King Uzziah and probably the same event as that mentioned by Isaiah, which he says affected Jerusalem and caused the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, to split and form a valley [3]. The interpretation of this passage in Zechariah (14, 4–5), which seems to be a later fifth- or fourth-century-BC insertion, is not clear. Other versions of the same passage say that the Mount of Olives will split in two and create a valley that will reach Azel. This valley will run from east to west with half of the Mount of Olives moving to the north, away from the position it occupied, while the other half will move to the south. The valley will stop where the mountains will touch each other [3.1, 3–7].

A somewhat different reading is to be found in the Masoretic version, where, following the mention of the splitting of the Mount of Olives, it says that the valley shall reach unto Azal, as compared with the Revised Standard Version, which says instead that the valley shall be stopped up, for the valley shall touch the side of it (the mountain) [4, 5]. The source of this difference lies perhaps in the confused reading of the Hebrew words for ‘shall be stopped up’ (ve-nistam), and ‘you shall flee’ (venastem). The consonants are identical, but when the diacritical points were added to the Hebrew Bible to facilitate reading, the text was apparently misunderstood and the meaning changed (see the editor’s note in Wachs and Lewitte 1984). Upon adopting the latter reading as more plausible in relation to the natural phenomenon described, it is obvious that there is no other explanation than a large landslide, which may, or might not, have been triggered by this or by another earthquake.

Also, Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), a book written about six centuries later, refers to an earthquake that happened in the last months of King Uzziah’s life, which caused a crack in the Temple at Jerusalem. Josephus adds that at a place called En-rogel, outside the city, half of the mountain in the west broke off from the rest and slid 800 m up to the mountain on the east, spoiling the king’s gardens [6]. Assuming that the two authors refer to the same event, this passage in Josephus seems to suggest that in all probability Zechariah describes a landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake, rather than a graben formed by normal faulting.

There is a further reference to these events in Uzziah’s days by Nathan ha-Bavli, who was writing in the middle of the second century AD. He does not mention the earthquake, but he says that at the time of the desecration of the temple by Uzziah the temple split open and the fissure extended for twelve ‘miles’ in each direction [6a].

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. 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.

There remains the question of whether there is any evidence today for active faulting in the immediate vicinity of Old Jerusalem that can be associated with the ground deformations mentioned by Zechariah, Josephus and Nathan. Old aerial photographs of the chalky geological formations of the region show only landslides on steep slopes, but no through-going faults. A relatively large slide can be recognised on the Mount of Olives, which is located on the slope which faces west towards the Old City, the scarp of which can be seen halfway up the Mount of Olives. However, according to the Geological Survey of Israel, it is probably much more ancient than Biblical times (Wachs and Lewitte 1984; Frydman 1997). The multitude of short scarps shown on relatively recent geological maps of Jerusalem all terminate at the Kidron Valley (Gil 1996). The exception is a short northeast– southwest-running fault trace, which is shown on the Geotechnical Map of Jerusalem (Israeli 1977), which the Atlas of Israel labels Zechariah 14:4, earthquake fault. This feature extends from a point a few hundred metres south of the Jerusalem Railway Station to the west, running for more than three kilometres, to just north of al-Ayzariyah to the east, striking about N–70◦ E (Atlas of Israel 1985). The reason why this feature has been associated with Zechariah’s earthquake is not given.

There is no direct or indirect evidence that Jerusalem was damaged, and it is interesting that the details in Josephus concerning the effects of the earthquake on the temple are not supported by earlier sources, which remain silent about damage anywhere in Judaea and Israel [7].

Amos’ earthquake may be dated vaguely from the line of Jewish kings chronicled in the Old Testament, which provides us with 756 or 759 BC as a terminus ante quem (Soggin 1970, 120), or perhaps earlier. Courville dates this earthquake to 751–750 BC, on the basis of the Jewish legend reported by Josephus in which the prophet Zechariah is quoted as a source indicating the severity of the earthquake. This, however, would be the correct date only if the earthquake could be associated with the judgement on Uzziah, that is, only if Josephus’ account that the earthquake occurred at the same time as Uzziah was stricken with leprosy could be proven to be true [6]. While the Zechariah quotation is suggestive, it does not specifically associate the earthquake with God’s judgement on the king, and we cannot follow either Josephus’ or Courville’s attempts at a correlation without further evidence (Courville 1971, ii, 122). For instance, Courville goes on to correlate Uzziah’s earthquake with other catastrophic events, such as, for instance, the eruption of Thera. He can do this only because he brings the Late Bronze age down to the time of Uzziah, a view that must be rejected (Crisler 2004). If Courville’s view is adopted, however, the placement of Uzziah’s earthquake at the end of Samaria II can be correlated with a wave of destructions at this stratigraphic level, destruction that is said to have affected the Holy Land and could also have been due to the invasion by the Egyptians.

Modern writers have suggested that archaeological evidence points to at least 20 sites in Judaea and Israel that were destroyed by the same earthquake, although it is not possible to confirm this. The chief problem is the identification of the cause of the destruction at these sites, which are scattered in a north–south direction from Tel Hazor in the north to Tel Batash in the south, a distance of 350 km, and from the Mediterranean coast to the east side of the Dead Sea fault zone, that is, within an area of about 100 km radius. Archaeological reports give little or no technical justification to support the conclusion that damage was due to earthquake, and if so, due to the very same earthquake as that mentioned by Amos. Stratigraphic control did not consider or discuss the possibility that the observed damage was the result of later earthquakes, and dating is based solely on the only literary source available, the Bible.

For example, for Tel Beersheba (Tel Sheva) Herzog concludes that ‘Tentatively the destruction might be associated with a severe earthquake dated c. 760 BC, based on biblical references’ (Herzog 2002, 96). For Tel Arad the excavators attribute the destruction ‘to an earthquake during the reign of Uzziah in 760 or 750 BC’ (Herzog and Singer 2002, 96–98; Singer-Avitz 2002, 162).

The same is also the case for Lachish (Hesy), where the archaeologists consider ‘A natural catastrophe of this sort would, perhaps, be compatible with the earthquake mentioned by Amos’ (Ussishkin 1977, 5; Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Herzog 2002, 97).

For Tel Gezer, ‘evidence for the destruction, as in other sites, can be attributed to the earthquake in Amos and Zacharia c. 760 BC’ (Dever and Younker 1991, 286; Younker 1991; Dever 1992, 30).

For Tell Qasile, which is included in the list of sites damaged by the earthquake of 760 BC, archaeological evidence suggests that the site was damaged during the period 1100–1050 BC (Dothan and Dunayevsky 1993; Mazar 1993, 298; Stern 1993).

Also Tell Abu Hawam, belonging to the same list, was damaged between 1125–1050 BC (Balensi 1980, 586; Warren and Hankey 1989, 161).

Crisler considers that ‘The destruction of Samaria [Shechem] was probably due to Uzziah’s earthquake of 783 BC’ (Crisler 2003; 2004).

For Tell Deir Alla the excavators say that ‘Indeed, the earthquake that destroyed level M/IX could well be the one mentioned in Amos, dated about 760 BC’ (Dever 1992, 35, n. 10; Lemaire 1997, 139 = 750; Knauf 2002). The same assumption is also made for the case of Megiddo, for which it is concluded that ‘The destruction may be linked to the biblical reference to a major earthquake c. 760 BC in the time of Jeroboam II’ (Knauf 2002).

Similarly for Tel Hazor ‘The damage is likely to be due to the well-known earthquake mentioned by Amos’ (Yadin 1972, 113, 181; Dever 1992, 28; Knauf 2002).

An earthquake that could obliterate man-made structures within an epicentral area of radius about 100 km, an area including all the sites listed as destroyed, is an earthquake of a size beyond the limits of the possible. The destruction of the towns and forts could have been the result of Zechariah’s earthquake or of separate events that occurred during the same week, month or year, but were not differentiated in the sources or, more likely, was the result of the invasion of Judaea and Israel by pharaoh Sheshonk I. It is interesting that many of the sites are included in the list of cities conquered by the Egyptians, the names of which are carved into the south wall of the courtyard of the temple of Karnak in Egypt, i.e. Timna (Tel Batash), Tel Gezer, Tel Michal, Tell Qasile, Tell el-Mazar, Tell el Saiidiyeh, Tell el-Hama, Tel Mevorakh, Tell Abu Hawam and Megiddo. It is probable that Megiddo, where Sheshonk erected a victory stele, was only partially destroyed, since it continued in use. The stele belongs to the time of Jeroboam II, and is dated to c. 783 BC (Kitchen 1986; Mazar 1993, 298; Ng 2004; Crisler 2004). Unfortunately, because of the differences between the Egyptian record and the Biblical account, it is difficult to establish whether the invasion by Sheshonk I was coeval with Amos’ earthquake.

In conclusion it is possible that the earthquake mentioned by Amos was embellished by Josephus and by later writers in their narratives to include the effects of an earthquake, to which the prophets do not refer. The available tectonic and geological evidence suggests, however, that it is more probable that the natural phenomenon that Zechariah describes fits better the more plausible ‘shall be stopped up’ reading of his text, which implies the occurrence of a large landslide, perhaps triggered by an earthquake. The uncritical amalgamation of biblical information and archaeological evidence from various distant parts of Judaea has produced a very large earthquake of MS > 8.0. Such an earthquake should have razed Jerusalem to the ground, an event that the prophets or later chroniclers would have mentioned or that would itself have left its mark in the form of a major surface fault rupture. The date of this earthquake is very uncertain, since archaeological evidence is hampered by the unresolved differences between conventional chronology and New Chronology. The description by Josephus, whether really of the earthquake mentioned by Amos, Josephus and Nathan or not, is at least evidence of the effects of an earthquake that had occurred before their time somewhere in Judaea for which there are no means today of assessing its location and magnitude.

Notes

[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).

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

Guidoboni et al (1994)

(001) c.760-750 B.C. Jerusalem, the valley of Hinnom, landslide

In our opinion, this is the only earthquake mentioned in the Bible for which there is sound and direct historical evidence. At the beginning of the Book of Amos, we read:
The words of Amos, one of the sheep-farmers of Teqoa, which he received in visions concerning Israel during the reigns of Uzziah king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
Amos is considered to be the foremost and earliest of the prophets of Israel. The opening words of the book say that he lived at Teqoa, a village south of Bethlehem; and if we accept the biblical chronology - it is possible to establish fairly accurately that he was active during the reigns of Uzziah in Judah (c.783-742 or 787-736 BC) and Jeroboam II in Israel (c.786-746 or 787-747BC.). Since the memorable occurrence of an earthquake is used in the prologue to the book to indicate the date of the prophecy, it must have been serious enough to suggest itself as an obvious and unquestionable term of reference, even though a number of years had passed. But exactly when did the earthquake occur, and what area did it affect? While Amos provides us with the broad chronological limits of c.787 and c.736 B.C., we can gain more accurate information from the book of the prophet Zechariah. According to Rahmer (1870), Shalem (1948, p.28), Soggin (1970) and Ben-Menahem (1979), the whole of Zechariah 14.3-5 is related to an earthquake which occurred during the reign of king Uzziah. First of all, however, it has to be kept in mind that the passage in question, as it appears in the Hebrew text of the Bible, is very corrupt. If it is to be interpreted correctly, therefore, we must have recourse to emendations arrived at by comparing it with early Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of the Scriptures. Using the textual emendations suggested in the apparatus to the Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia, we can establish the following reading:
The Lord will come out and fight against those peoples, as in the days of his prowess on the field of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is opposite Jerusalem to the east, and the mountain shall be cleft in two by an immense valley running east and west; half the mountain shall move northwards and half southwards. And the valley of Hinnom shall be blocked, for it shall reach as far as [the valley] which is close to it [the text being emended to read as follows: We-nistam ge'-Hinnom ki-yaggia` ge-Hinnom el eslo]. You shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the time of Uzziah king of Judah. And the Lord my God will appear with his angels.
A literal translation of verse 5, however, following the unemended Hebrew text, gives a different topographical description of events:
You shall flee from the valley of the hills, for the valley of the hills will reach as far as Asal; you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the time of Uzziah king of Judah.
It should be noted that, even though the prophecy about Jerusalem is expressed in the future, the reference to the earthquake at the end of verse 5 and the accuracy with which the splitting of the Mount of Olives into two is described, suggest an underlying historical earthquake experience.

The passage from Zechariah is to be related to what Josephus has to say (AI 9.223-7) about damage to the Temple in Jerusalem in an earthquake provoked by an impious act on the part of Uzziah king of Judah:
Thus, on the occasion of a notable day which was a public festival, he put on the priestly garment and entered the sacred precinct to offer sacrifice to God on the golden altar. And, when the high priest Azarias, with whom there were eighty priests, tried to prevent him for they said it was not lawful for anyone to offer sacrifice, but to do so was allowed only to those of the line of Aaron and they all clamoured for him to go out and not transgress against God, he became angry and threatened them with death if they did not hold their peace. But, while he spoke, a great tremor shook the earth, and, as the temple was riven, a brilliant shaft of sunlight gleamed through it and fell upon the king's face so that leprosy at once smote him, while before the city at a place called Eroge half of the western hill was broken off and rolled four stades till it stopped at the eastern hill and obstructed the roads and the royal gardens. When the priest saw the king's face smitten with leprosy, they explained to him the cause of his misfortune, and told him to go out of the city as an unclean person.
The same damage as that mentioned by Josephus is also mentioned in chapter 9 of Auot de-Rabbi Nathan, one of the so-called extra-canonical tractates of the Talmud:
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.
See also Midrash Tanhuma to Noah, chapter 5 and Jerome's commentary on Amos (PL, vol.25, co1.992).

The Scriptures also contain another passage about Uzziah which is parallel to that in Chronicles. It is to be found in 2 Kings 15.1-7, where Uzziah is strangely called Azariah. There can be no doubt, however, that the same person is being referred to:
In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah became king. He was sixteen years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned in Jerusalem for fifty-two years; his mother was Jecoliah of Jerusalem. He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as Amaziah his father had done. But the hill-shrines were allowed to remain; the people still continued to slaughter and burn sacrifices there. The Lord struck the king with leprosy, which he had till the day of his death; he was relieved of all his duties and lived in his own house, while his son Jotham was comptroller of the household and regent. The other acts and events of Azariah's reign are recorded in the annals of the kings of Judah. So he rested with his forefathers and was buried with them in the city of David; and he was succeeded by his son Jotham.
If we compare the various pieces of literary evidence mentioned above - that is to say, Amos, Zechariah, Kings, Chronicles, Josephus and the rabbinical tradition of exegesis - we find that historical fact and legendary elements are superimposed on one another. And we can summarise the available data by saying that the sources speak of an earthquake at Jerusalem and in the nearby Valley of Hinnom, in the Mount of Olives area.

This earthquake, and more particularly the damage it caused to the temple in Jerusalem, is linked to the punishment which God inflicted on Uzziah king of Judah for his impious behaviour. Since we know that when king Uzziah was suffering from leprosy, Jotham became regent - around 756 (or 759) B.C. - we have a valuable piece of chronological evidence for dating the earthquake (Soggin 1970, p.120). In other words, we know that king Uzziah caught leprosy in the sixth decade of the eighth century B.C. At the time of his illness there was an earthquake, and these two unusual events were interpreted as a punishment from God. King Uzziah's place was taken by Jotham, as regent, and in the memory of the Jewish people these individual episodes became superimposed upon one another in such a way as to constitute one of the many events in the continuing history of the relationship between the God of Israel and his people. According to Ben-Menahem (1979, p.262) we can be even more precise: in his opinion, the earthquake is very likely to have occurred at Yom-Kippur, Monday, 10 Tishrei, 3003, which is Oct. 07, 759 B.c., during day time.

It is very important to note at this stage that the historical reality of the earthquake and its approximate date have been confirmed by recent archaeological discoveries. Excavations carried out by the Israeli archaeologist Y.Yadin in 1956 at the Hazor site revealed traces of an upheaval of the earth which caused serious damage and a sudden interruption to the building of the settlement. Stratigraphic evidence suggests that the earthquake is likely to have occurred around 760 B.C. Hazor was in northern Galilee, and is to be identified with present day Tell al-Qidah (or Tell Waqqas), 14 km north of Lake Tiberias. Traces of the earthquake were found in the sixth stratum o f the upper city (8th century B.c.); see Yadin (1961, p.24, note 73). There is further evidence of this from recent excavations at Gezer. Dever (1992) has in fact attributed to the earthquake of c.760 B.C. signs of sudden destruction found in a defensive wall (an Iron Age addition to the Late Bronze Age walls: 1990 season of excavations).

References

Guidoboni, E., et al. (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Rome, Istituto nazionale di geofisica.

Zohar (2019)



Abbreviations and References









Zohar et al (2016)

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

References

Zohar, M. (2019). Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Seismic Activity Associated with the Dead Sea Transform (DST) during the Past 3000 Yr. Seismological Research Letters 91(1): 207-221.

Raphael and Agnon (2018)

Table 1 Earthquake damage around the DST during Bronze and Iron Ages




References

Raphael, Kate and Agnon, Amotz (2018). EARTHQUAKES EAST AND WEST OF THE DEAD SEA TRANSFORM IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. Tell it in Gath Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday J. R. C. Itzhaq Shai, Louise Hitchcock, Amit Dagan, Chris McKinny, and Joe Uziel.

Danzig (2011)

2. Biblical Evidence for the Earthquake Mentioned in Amos

Physical phenomena related to earthquakes include loud noises, ground shaking, ground displacement, landslide, liquefaction of unstable soils, sand blows from the ground, damage to or collapse of units of the human constructed environment, fire, changes of water courses, and tsunami. Forty possible references exist to almost all of these throughout the Book of Amos, excluding only sand blows and changes of water courses (see Table 1). Of these forty, ten are quite certain. The distribution of such references throughout the book clearly indicates the high degree of impact that at least one earthquake had upon Amos and the people of Israel. Earthquake-related destruction is one of the major types of looming destructive forces that Amos proclaims will befall the Israelites. When taken in aggregate including all of the possible resultant phenomena, earthquake-related destructive threats are the most numerous among the threats in Amos. The prominence of earthquake references and allusions substantiates the notion that the earthquake in Amos's time is what solidified his prophecies as true via what must have been seen, at least in part, as their fulfillment. Some scholars have gone as far as designating this turn of events as a major causative factor in the onset of classical Israelite prophecy in the form of non-professional, morally sensitive, exhortatory prophets whose visions and admonitions were written down as non-narrative, literary works.

There are several types of references to earthquakes and earthquake-related phenomena in Amos. Most straightforward are explicit references to actual events, which is found only in the superscription to the book (Amos 1:1). Other references in are found in the types of literature common to the book, mostly visions and oracles. In those, there are allusions to impending disastrous events and descriptions of God's power over nature, as well as to God's walking and presence, which may cause catastrophes. All of these types of allusions are used in multiple ways in connection with earthquakes and earthquake-related events.

... The explicit references in Amos to the earthquake at his time are found in 1:1 and 9:1. The former, the superscription to the book, or at least its first group of prophecies, locates the earthquake in time as [] two years before the earthquake. It also places Amos' mission in the days of Uzziah and Jereboam II, which substantiates the equation of Amos' earthquake with that mentioned in Zechariah 14:4-5 that is said to have occurred in the days of Uzziah. Isaiah may also refer to that same earthquake in 2:10-21 and 6:4.

Amos 9:1 describes an interactive prophetic vision:

[] I saw my Lord standing by the altar, and He said: Strike the capitals so that the thresholds quake, and make an end of the first of them all.
God instructs Amos to strike the capitals of the columns of the doorway to a temple in which Amos beholds Him standing atop or beside the altar. This will then shake the pillars of the doorway, which will tumble down on the people. Seemingly, this will initiate an earthquake. Even though this is not stated as historical fact, it still might indicate that the epicenter, the central surface location of an earthquake that corresponds to its underground focus, was near this temple. It is unclear to what temple the text refers. The only specific temple environs referred to in Amos are that of Bet El in the vignette of Amos and the priest Amaziah (7:10-17). As such, it is the most likely location for this story, although it may be in the temple in Jerusalem in Amos' homeland, or in another temple.

... Some view the apocalyptic earthquake envisioned in Zechariah as, at least in part, a description of what occurred during the one in the days of Uzziah. The text reads:
[] 4 On that day, He will set His feet on the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall split across from east to west, and one part of the Mount shall shift to the north and the other to the south, a huge gorge. 5 And the Valley in the Hills shall be stopped up, for the Valley of the Hills shall reach only to Azal; it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. And the Lord my God, with all the holy beings, will come to you.
This passage describes some type of ground movements, either faulting, or, more probably, major landslides, which significantly changed the landscape east of Jerusalem. The first verse seems to describe the disintegration of the central part of the mountain, leaving two sister mountains, side-by-side. The second seems to refer to the damming up of the valley, either the new one between the mountains or the one between the Mount of Olives and the temple mount. However, it is very unclear as to how much of this description refers to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah. If one reads the word [] in accordance with the Massoretic Pointing as you escape(d), then the whole description seems to be of something similar to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah. But, if one understands [] as was closed up, then it seems that only the closing up of the valley is what was similar to that of the days of Uzziah. In either reading, it seems to imply that the earthquake in the days of Uzziah affected Jerusalem, although even that could be questioned.

... In sum, the direct textual evidence for the earthquake in the time of Uzziah and Amos is unanimous regarding its occurrence and dating to King Uzziah's reign. Specific details about its physical impact, possibly in Bet El and Jerusalem, are less certain

...

There is also a phrase describing impending disaster, appearing twice nearly identically, that certainly refers to earthquake:
[] And all of it swells like the Nile and subsides like the Nile of Egypt (8:8, 9:5).
The image of the rise and fall of the Nile as applied by these verses to [] forms a double entendre, indicating both the ground movements of an earthquake and the water movements of a tsunami. Another phrase that is doubled in Amos, which directly describes God as creating a tsunami, reads,
[] Who summons the waters of the sea and pours them over the land (5:8, 9:6).
It seems that the phrases in 8:8 and 5:8 were copied from the earlier locations in Amos and collated in Amos 9:5-6, possibly as an expansion on Amos' vision of the striking of the capitals in 9:1. If so, the collator definitely understood 9:1 as describing the divine onset of the earthquake. Tsunamis reach the Levantine shores of the Mediterranean due to either earthquakes from the underwater subduction zone arcing south of Cyprus or from farther afield, such as offshore Greece or Italy, or to nearby underwater slumps or avalanches caused by seismic shaking from the Dead Sea Transform.

God is standing on the altar resonates in connection with an earthquake, since one of the ways the ancient Israelites and other peoples of the ancient Near East understood earthquakes was as the walking of the gods. 30

...

4. Archaeological Evidence for the Earthquake Mentioned in Amos

...

Regarding the earthquake referenced in Amos, strata identified as belonging to Iron Age IIB in the 8th century BCE, at sites as far flung as Hazor and Meggido in the north, Gezer and Lachish in the middle, and Beersheba and Tell Deir Alla in the south, have been proposed as containing damage from this earthquake (see Table 2 for a list). Some archaeological arrangements that have been suggested as possibly indicative of earthquake damage related to the earthquake in Amos are: site abandonment; building restorations; destruction layers; destroyed buildings; and deformation of buildings or city walls, including fallen, tilted, or displaced walls, displaced blocks, or cracks in wall stones, especially vertically and in a series of contiguous stones. Since many of these things can happen in connection with normal geological processes over longer stretches of time, scholars have sought criteria for better identification of finds. Most important other than identifying possible reasons for the unusual geometry of finds are stratigraphic considerations. Also, one must keep in mind that in areas where earthquakes are common, damage often occurs as an accrual of smaller structural problems from several earthquakes over longer spans of time, rather than of major collapse at one time.

Yigael Yadin was the first to attempt to ascribe an archaeological arrangement to the earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos. Yadin excavated for four seasons in 1955-58, working in several different areas on Tell Hazor, as well as one season in 1968. He claimed to have found evidence for earthquake-related ruins at Hazor in his Stratum VI, which he dated to the 8th century B.C.E., to the time of Jeroboam II, and connected it to the earthquake mentioned in Amos. Aside from the excavation reports, Yadin describes and interprets his excavations in two later works, Hazor: Head of All Those Kingdoms, the 1972 publication of the Schweich Lectures he gave in 1970, and Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, 1975. Further excavations, directed by Amon Ben-Tor, began in 1990 and are ongoing, but only partially published.

Yadin reported observations of several leaning walls, some partially collapsed walls, and fallen ceiling materials as proof of his interpretation of earthquake damage. All of this damage was found in levels he ascribed to Stratum VI in Area A, on the middle of the upper citadel area of the tell (see Figure 3). Yadin described this area in Stratum VI as mostly shops and workshops. Another building with purported earthquake damage is Building 2a (see Figure 4). Yadin claims, based on his observations, that [t]he house was severely damaged by an earthquake.

... There are several problems with Yadin's conclusion that an earthquake is evidenced by finds in Stratum VI at Tell Hazor and that that earthquake is to be identified with the one described in the Book of Amos, in the mid-8th century B.C.E. Some pieces of Yadin's evidence for an earthquake are not convincing and his stratigraphic conclusions in Area A, where all of the purported earthquake evidence was found, have been challenged by Ben-Tor's excavations. The items of evidence Yadin found are mainly of two types: leaning or fallen walls or pillars and fallen ceiling pieces. In total, Yadin describes 7 leaning or partially fallen walls, 3 leaning columns, collapsed plaster ceilings in 2 buildings, and broken pottery under some of those ceilings.

...

In sum, although Yadin's reasoning and evidence is questionable in several different ways, making it more probable that it does not substantiate the earthquake mentioned in Amos than that it does, more investigation is necessary to make solid conclusions. One can hope that the current excavations will include experts trained in the detection of archaeoseismic evidence, that the excavation design will include emphasis on answering this question, and that the reports will contain the detail needed to investigate such possibilities.

More recently, William Dever claimed to have discovered evidence for an earthquake in the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. at Tell Gezer. The focus of his evidence is on the outer wall of the city, in which he has found cracks through several courses of stones, bends in the wall, and stones fallen off of it, supposedly with stretches of courses together. Although the arrangement of courses of stones falling in both directions off of a wall is good evidence for an earthquake, collapsed, bulging or outwardly leaning retaining walls are unlikely to be due to earthquake damage alone. And, even though the bottom courses of the wall were set into leveled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock, the outward pressure from the inside ground of the tell could very well have caused significant displacement of higher stones. Since Dever offers no other evidence than that of the outer wall at Gezer, our conclusion will have to be open ended until further inspection of the site and/or its reports are completed.

...

6. Conclusion

This paper has investigated the possible biblical and some of the possible archaeological evidence relating to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah mentioned in the Book of Amos. Our conclusions are mixed. Biblical evidence points toward an impactful earthquake. As of yet, the archaeological evidence which has been suggested as indicative of this earthquake by several archaeologists and scholars is largely inconclusive. Further archaeological excavations with this problem in mind, as well as with personnel knowledgeable in archaeoseismological investigation could make significant inroads toward its solution. The biblical evidence is very strong since most scholars recognize the earliest parts of the Book of Amos as belonging to the 8th century B.C.E. Because of that, there is an expectation that corresponding archaeological evidence will be found, but that will not necessarily occur. It is quite possible that no recognizable trace of this earthquake has remained in the archaeological record due to myriad factors. Even if it might exist, the biblical account is so vague regarding the location of actual damages incurred that digs may not be aimed in the correct locations. As such, it remains an open problem.
Footnotes

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.

Table 1 - Danzig (2011) Table 1 - Danzig (2011)


References

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

Ambraseys (2005)



References

Ambraseys, N. (2005). "Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem – A methodological discussion." Journal of Seismology 9(3): 329-340.

Austin et al (2000)
















Ben-Menahem (1991)



Ben-Menahem(1991)

5.4.3. 759 B.C.E. Felt throughout Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia, Af 1200 km. According to the Bible, Josephus, the Talmudic literature and the late archeological findings at Hazor and Sebastia, the epicenter seems to be east of Hazor, approximately at 33.0° 35.5° E.

Year of occurrence is likely to be 759 B.C.E., in which King Uziah abdicated the throne in favor of his son Yotam [Cassuto, 1976; Josephus; II Chr. 26]. The date of this earthquake is linked to the eclipse of the Sun on June 15, 763 B.C.E. (Julian Day 1,442,902.8392, or Monday, Sivan 30, 2998, of the Jewish Calendar [see Kudlek and Mickler, 1971; Chambers, 1904, Thompson, 1900; Oppolzer, 1887; Fotheringham, 1920]). The eclipse was partial in Jerusalem (maximal magnitude 0.91). Evidence for the proximity of the earthquake and the eclipse is found in Amos 8: 8-9; Zech. 14: 4-7, and Jer. 4: 24.

The location of the causative fault can be estimated from the oriented tilt of the walls in stratum 6 at Hazor (Figure 6), a detail of which is shown in Figure 7. According to the report of the excavating archeologists [Yadin et al., 1959], northern walls were tilted southward, while western walls tilted eastward. Figure 8 shows that these orientations are consistent with the effect of a near field horizontal shear acceleration coming to Hazor from the north east. This is consistent with modern ideas that structures in the near-field of a major earthquake are mostly affected by SH body waves and the fundamental Love mode.

Day of occurrence, according to II Chron.26 and Josephus, is likely to be on the eve of the Tabernacle holiday, 14 Tishrei, 3003, which is October 759 B.C.E. There was great destruction in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Intensity at Jerusalem (A = 135 km) estimated as MM 8; Io = 11; big earth slips in the Kidron Valley, destruction of Razor, Sebastia (Mic. 1: 6) and the ancient city of Kinnereth (9 km north of Tiberias). A tsunami in the Sea of Galilee is hinted in Amos 5: 8; 9: 5-6.

Ben-Menahem et. al. (1976)

(5) Strike-slip faulting east of Jerusalem at about 760 B.C. Amos (I and VIII, 9), Zacharias (XIV, 5) and Josephus (Anti.quities of the Jews, IX, 14) (see below) relate the effects of a seismic event dated about 760 B.C. (Ambraseys, 1962). In particular, the description of Zacharias is that of a sinistral strike-slip faulting(!).

References

Ben-Menahem, A. (1991). "Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea rift." Journal of Geophysical Research 96((no. B12), 20): 195-120, 216.

Wachs and Levitte (1984)



References

Wachs, D. and D. Levitte (1984). "Earthquake risk and slope stability in Jerusalem." Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 6(3): 183-186.

Wachs, D., Lewitte, D. (1984). "Earthquakes in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives landslides." Israel Land & Nature 3: 118-121.

Amos Chapter 1 - wikipedia



Thiele's Chronology

Chronology of the Hebrew Kings according to Thiele Chronology of the Hebrew Kings according to Thiele

wikipedia


The New Years in in the Divided Kingdom Period (Chart)

The New Years in in the Divided Kingdom Period (Chart)


Deciphering Zechariah 14:5 Azal: A Longtime Mystery Rediscovered







































Examples of Seismic Theophany

Haggai Chapter 2 in English and Hebrew



Jeremiah Chapter 4 in English and Hebrew



Ezekiel Chapter 38 (593-571 BCE)

  • written during the Babylonian exile
Ezekiel Chapter 38 in English and Hebrew

  • see verse 20 - every human being on earth shall quake before Me. Mountains shall be overthrown, cliffs shall topple, and every wall shall crumble to the ground.
  • from sefaria.org


Nahum Chapter 1 (~610 BCE)

  • written around the time of the fall of Ninevah (capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire)
Nahum Chapter 1 in English and Hebrew

  • see verse 5 - The mountains quake because of Him, And the hills melt. The earth heaves before Him, The world and all that dwell therein.
  • from sefaria.org


Joel Chapters 2 and 4 (~400 BCE)

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.
Joel Chapter 2 in English and Hebrew

  • see verse 10 - Before them earth trembles
  • from sefaria.org


Joel Chapter 3 in English and Hebrew

  • see verse 16 - So that heaven and earth tremble
  • Joel 3:16 uses a phrase (in Hebrew) which is identical to a phrase (in Hebrew) in Amos 1:2 - roughly translated as the Lord will roar from Zion and from Jerusalem
  • from sefaria.org


Amos Chapter 1 in English and Hebrew

  • 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


Zechariah Chapter 14 (8th-1st century BCE)

  • date of composition for this part of Zechariah is unknown - estimates vary from the 8th century BCE to Maccabean times - 167 - 37 BCE
Zechariah Chapter 14 in English and Hebrew

  • see verse 5 - it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah
  • from sefaria.org


Isaiah Chapter 2 (~730 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.
Isaiah Chapter 2 in English and Hebrew

  • verse 19 containing When He comes forth to overawe the earth is also translated as when he rises to shake the earth
  • The operative verb is לַעֲרֹ֥ץ (la'aros) which Strong's Concordance (6206) defines as to tremble, to cause to tremble, dread, fear, oppress, prevail, break, be terrified, be terrible, regard or treat with awe, regard or treat as awful, inspire with awe, or terrify
  • from sefaria.org


Isaiah Chapter 2 Interlinear in English and Hebrew

  • See verse 19 containing when he arises to shake mightily the earth
  • from biblehub.com


The Gospel of the Hebrews

  • 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.
Gospel of the Hebrews in English (extract from Jerome)

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

Gospel of the Hebrews in Latin (extract from Jerome)

In evangelio cuius saepe facimus mentionem superluminare temple lintel infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus.

Gospel of Matthew Chapters 27 and 28 (between ~70 and ~120 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.
Gospel of Matthew Chapter 27 in English (NIV)



Gospel of Matthew Chapter 28 in English (NIV)



Paleoclimate - Droughts

References

References

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Austin, S. 2010. The Scientific and Scriptural Impact of Amos' Earthquake. Acts & Facts. 39 (2): 8-9.

Roberts, R. N. (2012). Terra Terror: An Interdisciplinary Study of Earthquakes in Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Hebrew Bible. Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Los Angeles, University of California - Los Angeles Doctor of Philosophy.

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

Albright, W.F., The archaeological results of an expedition to Moab and Dead Sea, Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 7, 2-12, 1924.

Ambraseys, N. (2005). "Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem - A methodological discussion." Journal of Seismology 9(3): 329-340.

Ogden, K. 1992. The earthquake motif in the book of Amos. In Schunck, K., and M. Augustin, eds., Goldene apfel in silbernen schalen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 69–80

Freedman, D.N., and A. Welch. 1994. Amos's earthquake and Israelite prophecy. In Coogan, M.D., J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager, eds., Scripture and other artifacts: essays on the Bible, and archaeology in honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 188–198 - can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Nur, A. and H. Ron (1996). The walls came tumbling down: Earthquake history of the Holy Land. in Stiros, S. and Jones, R. Archaeoseismology. Institute of Geology & Mineal Exploration at the University of Michigan

ANTONOPOULOS, J. 1979, "Catalogue of Tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to Present Times." Annals of Geophysics 32(1): 113-130.

Atlas of Israel (1985), Physical and Human Geography, 3rd edn, The Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, p. 17.

Avi-Yonah, M. (1975). The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press.

Balensi, J. M. J. C. (1980). LES FOUILLES DE R.W. HAMILTON A TELL ABU HAWAM EFFECTUEES EN 1932-1933 POUR LE COMPTE DU DEPARTEMENT DES ANTIQUITES DE LA PALESTINE SOUS MANDAT BRITANNIQUE NIVEAUX IV ET V DOSSIER SUR L'HISTOIRE D'UN PORT MEDITERRANEEN DURANT LES AGES DU BRONZE ET DU FER (?1600-950 ENV.AV. JC. [S.l.], [s.n.].

Cassuto, U.M.D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia Biblica, The Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, 1976.

Chambers, G.F., The Story of Eclipses, McClure, Phillips, New York, 1904.

Crisler, V. (2003). "Shechem."

Crisler, V. (2004). "Samaria (rough draft)."

Dever, W. G., Younker, R. W. (1990). "Tel Gezer, 1990." Israel Exploration Journal 41(282-286).

Dever, W. G., 1992, A case study in biblical archaeology: The earthquake of ca. 760 BCE: Eretz Israel, v. 23, p. 27-35

Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. (1993). Tel Qasile. Excavations in area A and B The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. E. Stern.

Fotheringham, J.K., A solution of ancient eclipses of the Sun, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 81, 104-126, 1920.

Frydman, S. (1997). "Geotechnical problems in the Holyland - Then and Now." Electronic J. Geotechn. Eng. 2(1-28).

Garstang, J. (1948). The Story of Jericho, Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Gil, D. (1996). The geology of the city of David and its ancient subterranean waterworks. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, vol. 4. D. T. A. a. A. De and Groot. Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: 1-28.

Herzog, Z. e. (2002). "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad an Interim Report." Tel Aviv 2002(1): 3-109.

Israeli, A. (1977), Geotechnical map of Jerusalem and surroundings, Report M.M./12/77, Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.

Karcz, I., et al. (1977). "Archaeological evidence for Subrecent seismic activity along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift." Nature 269(5625): 234-235.

Kenyon, K. M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho. London, Ernest Benn.

Kenyon, K. M. (1985). Archaeology in the Holy Land, Methuen.

Kenyon, K. M., et al. (1987). The Bible and recent archaeology, British Museum Publications.

Kitchen, K. A. (1986). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: (1100-650 B.C.), ARIS & PHILLIPS % HUMANITIES.

Knauf, E. A. (2002), 'Excavating Biblical history, revelations from Megiddo', The Newsletter of the Megiddo Expedition 6, Tel Aviv: Technical University of Tel Aviv.

Kudlek, M., and E.H. Mickler, Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East from 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer, Berlin, Germany, 1971.

Lemaire, A. (1997), Deir 'Alla Inscriptions', in E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 11, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138-140.

Lemonick, M. D. (1990). Score one for the Bible: fresh clues support story at the walls of Jericho',,. Time: 59.

Marco, S., A. Agnon, I. Finkelstein, and D. Ussishkin (2006). Megiddo earthquakes, in Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein et al. Tel Aviv, Israel: pp. 568-575.

Mazar, A. (1993a), 'Beth Shean. The Beth Shean and the Northern Cemetery', in Stern (1993), vol. 1, pp. 214-223.

Mazar, A. (1993b), 'Beth Shean in the Iron Age. Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 1990-1991 Excavations', Israel Exploration J. 43 (4), 201-229.

Neev, D., and K.O. Emery, The Dead Sea, Bull. Geol. Surv. Isr., 41, 147pp., 1967.

Neev and Emery, W. H. O. Institution (1995). The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho : Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background, Oxford University Press, USA.

Nigro, L., Marchetti, N. (1998). ? New York Times.

Nur, A. and H. Ron (1997). "Armageddon's Earthquakes." International Geology Review 39(6): 532-541.

Oppolzer, T.R., Cannon Der Finsternisse, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschafter, Wien, 1887.

Rothenberg, B. (1972), Timna. Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines, London: Thames and Hudson.

Schaeffer, C. F. A. and G. Institute (1948). Stratigraphie Compare Et Chronologie de L'Asie Occidentale (IIIe Et IIe Millnaires): t. 1, Griffith institute.

Schaeffer, Claude Frédéric-Armand (1948). Syrie, Palestine, Asie mineure, Chypre, Perse et Caucase

Sellin, E. and C. Watzinger (1913). Jericho: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Hinrichs.

Singer-Avitz, L. (2002). "The Iron Age pottery assemblage." Tel Aviv 29: 110-215.

Thompson, R.C., The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum, I-II, Luzac, 1900

Tristram, H. (2005). The Land Of Moab: Travels And Discoveries On The East Side Of The Dead Sea And The Jordan, Kessinger Publishing.

Ussishkin, D. (1977). "The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars." Tel Aviv 4(1-2): 28-60.

Wachs, D., Lewitte, D. (1984). "Earthquakes in Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives landslides." Israel Land & Nature 3: 118-121.

Warren, P. M. and V. Hankey (1989). Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol Classical Press.

Wood, B. G. (1990). "Did the Israelites conquer Jericho?" Biblical Archaeol. Review 16(2): 5.

Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, I. Dunayevsky, T. Dothan, R. Amiran, and J. Perrot, Excavations at Hazor. The Second Campaign, Aug. 1, 1956-Nov. 1, 1956 (in Hebrew), Mosad Bialik and the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1959.

Yadin, Y. (1972), Hazor, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970, London.

Younker, R. W. (1991). A preliminary report of the 1990 season at Tel Gezer. Excavations of the `outer wall' and the `Solomon wall', July to August 10,1990' Andrews University Seminar Studies, Andrews University 29: 19-60.



Citations in Ambraseys (2009)

Carville 1971
Aharoni et al 1970
Aharoni and Aharoni 1970
Soggin 1970
Herzog and Singer 2002
Ng 2004
Rotherberg and Lupu 1967




Ancient Texts

Josephus, F. (1930). Jewish antiquities. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Josephus; II Chr. 26

Josephus [9: 14]



Biblical References

Amos 1.1

Amos 3: 14-15

Amos 4: 11

Amos 5: 8

Amos 6:11

Amos 8: 8-10

Amos 9: 1

2 Chron. 26.16-7

Jeremiah 1:3-6

Jeremiah 4: 24

2 Kings 12: 6

2 Kings 15.1-7

2 Kings 23: 22

Nahum 1: 4-5

Zechariah 14.3-7



Misc Links



Nathan Ha-Bavli

The Archaeological Context of the Tell Deir Alla Tablets