Home

The Bible and Archaeology

Submitted by godlessokie07 on Tue, 2008-06-24 13:38.

Question:

This is a somewhat detailed question and I do hope to find a satisfactory answer. I am new to atheism, having been an atheist for just over a year. I read a book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman called The Bible Unearthed that basically says that the stories in the Old Testament are mostly fiction. For example, they say there is no evidence for an Exodus from Egypt or the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua etc. Here is my question. The authors, for example say that the site for biblical Ai which fell to Joshua shows no evidence of destruction by Joshua and so it among other cities in Canaan were not destroyed by Joshua. Then Bryant Wood comes along and says they do show destruction and the site identified as biblical Ai by most archaeologists (Et-Tell) is not Ai, but another place Khirbet El-Maqatir is more likely Ai and shows evidence of destruction. Are most archaeologists looking in the wrong place? I mean, is there evidence that events like the Conquest of Canaan happened and archaeologists just weren't looking in the right spot? And what to make of this claim about Khirbet El-Maqatir being Ai, or Khirbet Nisya (made by Dr. Livingston I think) being Ai? Hope my question makes sense.

Atheist Answer

It's always possible that there is evidence for the events in the Bible which hasn't yet been found. That doesn't mean it's definitely out there, and the uncertainty does not imply a 50% chance either. Extraordinary claims demand lots of real evidence.

Bryant Wood is better known outside the apologist community for another claim he made in 1990. He dated the destruction of the ancient city of Jericho to a period which meant that part of the Biblical chronology is accurate.

He was up against another dating by revered archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. In the 1950s she placed it 150 years earlier. Wood's claims were immediately regarded as highly suspect, and eventually debunked completely by further discoveries in 1995. The evidence still supports Kenyon's date, which in turn supports the idea that the Old Testament is out of whack.

Wood's latest claim rejects the widely accepted site of Ai, Et-Tell, which was evidently completely unoccupied at the supposed time of its conquest, and substitutes another site where apparently there was a population and a battle around the right time. It's currently difficult to find any mention of this claim at all outside of religious books and websites, and even they are waiting for more evidence before really shouting about it.

If and when a full archaeological case for Khirbet El-Maqatir as Ai is presented for approval by the larger scientific community, other archaeologists will do their best to rip it to pieces. That's not because it's Bible-related, it's because they do that to everything. That's how they find out what truly stands up to scrutiny.

If in fact Khirbet El-Maqatir were generally accepted as Ai, and there was a battle when the Bible says there was, it would be a very general boost in credibility for the historical aspects of the Old Testament. However it wouldn't say a thing about who did the fighting, where the people went afterwards or whether God and his chosen marauders had anything to do with it. The hypothesis that the stories of conquest are mythology loosely based on real local events would likely be advanced as much as the probability of the Biblical account's veracity.

It remains to be seen whether Wood's new claim will get that far.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious | digg | reddit | magnoliacom | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo


 add new comment »

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Rook_Hawkins Says:
Wed, 2008-06-25 15:34

For a very detailed response, please see my blog article on ancient Israel.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ancient_israel

reply »

worg (not verified) Says:
Wed, 2008-07-16 00:04

The original question is, I suppose, interesting, but is tangential to the real question of whether there is a god, and whether or not the bible has bearing on that question.

Let's say I have a book on Napoleon. Let's say that all the history in that book is true, and at the end it happens to say "There is a god."

The fact of the correctness of all the other history in the book has nothing to do with the end postulation, for which there is no evidence. Setting up the bible as proof of the existence of god is an errand for fools.

Good thing there are plenty of them. They go to church every sunday.

reply »

SmartLX Says:
Wed, 2008-07-16 10:11

Yes, it is a tangential line of inquiry, but a valid one.

This isn't about proof of God, though many are prepared to make that illogical leap. Believers are entitled to gather circumstantial evidence for the accuracy of their sacred texts, especially since concrete evidence has been hard to come by. Of course, the rest of us are entitled to check that circumstantial evidence.

reply »