What do we do if archeology contradicts the word of God?
I read "Walking the Bible" on my flight to and from Israel last summer and thoroughly enjoyed it, and on my short blogroll I link to David Plotz' Blogging the Bible. Last week, I found on Slate that Plotz has returned with "Digging the Bible."
So, it's not exactly the Ark of the Covenant. In fact, it's not exactly much of anything - just a dirty shard of pottery the size of my big toe. But I found it. I had been scraping the floor of this Israeli cave when I spotted its sharp edge. I fished the piece out of the dirt and pushed on it, as instructed, to see if it crumbled. If it did, it was probably just the local limestone, which is as soft as a bar of soap. But my piece firmly resisted, so I brushed off the dirt until I could see smooth pottery, one side black, the other brick red. I'm the raider of the lost pot.
I hand it to my digging partner Ian Stern, the archaeologist in charge of this site. He glances at it and says, "Cooking pot. See the black part? That's where it carbonized. Probably 2,200 years old, time of the Maccabees" - the Jewish heroes of the Hanukkah story. He tosses my shard into a plastic collection bucket. "That's why this place is so great. It has instant gratification. There's a biblical connection. There's a Hanukkah connection. It takes it out of the realm of the abstract and makes it tangible. You can come here and dig up pottery from the time of Judah Maccabee. He fought a battle near here. Now, I'm not saying he ate out of that pot, but you see and hold this pottery, and he is not a fairytale figure anymore. He is real."
I've spent much of the last year blogging the Bible for Slate, writing about reading the Good Book for the first time. Now I've come to Israel to see the Bible, to dig it. I've read the stories. Now I want to see where they happened and to learn if they happened - to experience the Bible through archaeology, history, politics, and faith.
This is a similar premise to "Walking the Bible," which contains quite a few passages where Bruce Feiler is wrestling with the lack of historical evidence for major events like the Flood and the Exodus or whether Moses really existed:
The unusual circumstances of this story -- the fact that Moses gets his name from an Egyptian and is raised in the pharaonic court, the fact that he claims not to speak well -- have led m
any speculate that Moses wasn't an Israelite at all. Sigmund Freud, in his influential book "Moses and Monotheism," says that Moses was an Egyptian who learned monotheism from Akhenaten and was inspired to lead a revolt of foreign slaves out of a desire to overthrow his symbolic father. Freud says Moses gave the slaves the idea that they were a chosen people, which in turn led to anti-Semitism. "It was one man, the man Moses who created the Jews. To him his people owes its tenacity in supporting life; to him, however, it also owes much of the hostility which it has met and is meeting still.
Leaving aside Freud's psychological interpretation, many scholars agree with his underlying thesis, that Moses might have been an Egyptian.
First off, lots of scholars have lots of contradictory theories. This is the academic process. But after reading this, I jumped onto my computer and ordered Jonathan Kirsch's book, "Moses: A Life," which I anticipate will add to the discussion (though in half a year I have yet to crack).
The passage reminded me of Rabbi David Wolpe's famous Passover sermon a few years ago, when he let members of Sinai Temple know that most scholars don't believe the Exodus actually occurred. The declaration dropped on LA Jewry like an A-bomb (little hyperbole intended), thanks to the LA Times, which played the story as a Column One:
Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided. After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.
"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists. Dever's view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but "no one would do that today," he says.
The Jewish Journal followed the next week with a cover package dedicated to Exodus-doubting fallout, including conservative columnist Dennis Prager arguing that no Exodus = no Judaism, just as Christians would say that without the resurrection, Christianity is dead.
But if Christianity is built upon the Torah, upon the stories of Jewish history, does it also need a literal, factual, historical Exodus? And if we the faithful are willing to dismiss some historical findings, what is the value of biblical archeology?
This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.
Posted by Brad Greenberg on January 21, 2008 12:52PM
Comments
It's always amusing to read about "scholars" who find that their opinions (formulated thousands of years after the events) carry more weight than the witnesses who lived during the times and authors of the times who wrote it down.
Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
Posted by: Church N State at January 22, 2008
Archaeologist or Scholars don't agree with the bible? Which archaeologist and which scholars because you find a complete spectrum of belief. Over time however the weight of evidence seems to support the bible. For instance the people who say David and Solomon were fictions of the post-exile world. Until the last year when a reference to David was found in the correct time period.
I am solidly behind the idea that we Christians should have real world data for our faith. That's why I hate so many "Christian" emails that present some fairy tale story. God doesn't need our fairy tales.
But when some archaeologist or scholar preports to disprove the bible, I take their claims with the proverbial grain, make that a pillar, of salt.
Posted by: Dawson Lewis at January 22, 2008
Sorry the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' excuse/reason doesn't wash with me.
Posted by: Larry at January 22, 2008
The role of biblical archeology is not to prove or disprove the Bible, it main role should be to illuminate the material culture of the Bible. the Biblical text does not submit to the findings of archeology which by its very nature cannot be the controlling hermeneutical factor in biblical interpretation (the fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence, the fact that a lot of the manuscripts and artifacts have not being found and as such what we have today only paint a partial picture of the whole, the need not to confuse evidence and interpretation of the same evidence and so on). a Christian does not get to choose what biblical claims are acceptable. a true Christian would not give the same value to fallible human interpretation of fragmentary evidence that is given to the inerrant Word of God. Without a literal exodus, most of the history of Israel does not make sense. Why would a people invent a traumatic experience such as slavery in Egypt? additionally, major theological themes in scripture (both in the Old and New Testaments) are dependent on the reality of the Exodus which shows God's pattern of dealing with His people in history. if the pattern in based on myth, believers have no reason to hope that God will intervene in history for them
Posted by: Alain Maashe at January 22, 2008
It's always amusing to read about people who believe that just because someone said they witnessed something thousands of years ago, it must be true. Of course, they discount the pagans, Zoroastrians, and others who claimed to have witnessed things, because they are contrary to he person's pet prejudices about which witnessed things are true and which are not. Yet they will make blanket statements about believing witnesses over scholars.
If you believe something, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary, that is your right. And nobody has really proven that the Exodus did not happen. But to believe things just because others claimed to have witnessed them is no evidence at all; unless you are ready to accept bigfoot, Elvis sightings, and alien abductions.
Posted by: soulspice at January 22, 2008
Archeology is a study by people of things that are left over from past civilizations. As such, the reported results are only as reliable as the one who records them is honest. Everyone has presuppositions. If the archeologist does not believe the Biblical record, quess what he will find. Or do you suppose an education some how makes one more honest?
Posted by: Dafydd ap Glamis at January 22, 2008
I suggest that people have a look at www.diggingsonline.com for a more biblical view of Israelite history as presented in the Bible and evidenced by archaeology.
Posted by: Mart de Groot at January 22, 2008
By definition, archeology can never contradict "the word of God" proper. The two belong to completely different and opposite dimensions of life. Like the Jews before us, Christians have not found God and eternal life in our "Scriptures" (John 5: 39-40) which are far from interchangeable with the "word of God". The latter requires a better understanding than what is conventionally accepted as a collection of books. As things stand, history is surely repeating itself with Christians rejecting the very Christ whom they nominally profess to believe in!
Posted by: Ephrem Hagos at January 23, 2008
It makes absolutely no difference to me whether "scholars" believe in Moses or the Exodus. I could care less. I believe the Holy Spirit dwells in those of us that believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is real. I know that because I have lived it.
It really doesn't matter to me that people don't believe like they should. But non belief is one of the "signs" of His coming. So in essence, we are living in the end times.
My only responsibility is to fulfill the "great commission". If you don't believe in Jesus Christ or His purpose, you should actually toss a little faith in there and see for yourself. You have absolutely no idea what you are missing. The Holy Spirit is wonderful.
Posted by: KayKay at January 23, 2008
I would point out that there has been no extra-biblical evidence of the Exodus so far. That does not mean it did not happen or that evidence will never be found to prove the Exodus. We cannot accept some archaeological data and discard the data we do not like. We can examine and evaluate the methodology used to reach conclusions and this has always been subject to debate among archaeologists. The aim of archaeology is not to prove or disprove the Bible. Its aim is to discover and understand the world of the Bible and that takes a lot time and a lot of digging.
Posted by: William Hooper at January 24, 2008
So called Monotheists; Muslims, Jews and Chistians are the BIGGEST? BADDEST HYPOCRITICAL LIARS walking the face of the planet. Before claiming spiritual and moral superiority over everybody else they should go and do some serious, critical historical research on Kemet (Ancient Egypt) and they will see that most if not all they claim to have been revealed to them by Allah Yahweh and God actually existed thousands of years in this ancient Afican civilization before the Jews borrowed or stole essential aspects of this system of belief and started claiming to be the chosen ones and later influencing later Christians and Muslims. ENOUGH OF ALL THIS RELIGIOUS HOODWINKING.
Posted by: Sam at January 25, 2008
Is one of these "scholars" named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Posted by: Kevin at January 26, 2008
Well, if scholars have known this for a "whole decade"...then it must be true.
All kidding aside, I enjoy reading about archaelogical findings especially biblical studies but I believe the Holy Word of God above all.
Case closed for me.
Posted by: Trisha at January 27, 2008
Professor Nelson Glueck was a famous archaeologist who for over 30 years excavated sites in Israel. He once said that he had “never found the Bible to be in error”. And he is not the only archaeologist he believes the Bible can be trusted. Of course, archaeology does not prove the Bible, but it does support its historical reliability. The most trusted witness should be Jesus Himself who regarded the entire Old Testament history as factual.
Posted by: Joel Kontinen at January 28, 2008
Moses is not an Egyptian - Exodus 2:1-6 (NIV) 1 Now a man of the house of Levi married a Levite woman, 2 and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. 3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile.4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.5 Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it.
6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. "This is one of the Hebrew babies," she said.
Posted by: willofiam at January 29, 2008
Post a comment