Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ken · 04-03-2006, 08:30 PM

I recognize this post is somewhat out of the blue from only an occasional lurker, but I could use some feedback on a contentious matter that came up in a mixed Christian/skeptic discussion group I attend.

For this month's discussion, I chose The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman, hoping it would provide some food for thought to the evangelicals in our group.

Our discussion didn't get very far before a very earnest (to put it mildly) charge of deception, no, outright lying was brought forth against the authors of the book.

On pages 81-82 the authors write,

Quote:

As we have noted, the cities of Canaan were unfortified and there were no walls that could have come tumbling down. In the case of Jericho, there was no trace of a settlement of any kind in the thirteenth century BCE, and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century BCE, was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified. There was also no sign of a destruction. Thus the famous scene of the Israelite forces marching around the walled town with the Ark of the covenant, causing Jericho's mighty walls to collapse by the blowing of their war trumpets was, to put it simply, a romantic mirage.

The one bringing the charge of lying (I'll call him John) believed that the authors' omission of Jericho walls dated to 1400 or 1550 BCE (see, for example, here- search for "Jericho's walls") was purposeful and deceptive. John initially didn't mention the authors' limiting their claims to the 13th and 14th centuries, so I was able to counter that it was not an outright lie as John originally claimed (and never backed down from). When confronted with the fact that the authors made no claim about the 15th or 16th centuries, John then went on to state how the 13th century dating of the conquest was based merely on linguistic (i.e., the "completely discredited" Documentary Hypothesis) evidence, not archaeological evidence, etc., and that an earlier date for the conquest should not be ruled out.

I believe I effectively rebutted John's claim that the authors lied outright, but still I can see how John might be miffed about the authors' failure to mention a very well-known find dated to a couple centuries earlier, more or less from the period that biblical chronology suggests as the time of the conquest. It appears to John as intentional deceit. Perhaps Silberman and Finkelstein were writing only to those who accept a 13th century Exodus/conquest, but in failing to at least acknowledge an alternate position on the matter, he has effectively provided ammunition for fundamentalists to dismiss the authors as biased, deceitful, and unworthy of any further consideration. A shame, given the wealth of material in the book that should give any open-minded traditionalist (yes, such creatures exist; I was once one!) a run for their money.

I guess I'm just looking for a sounding board on how to respond to John. I feel we cannot move beyond this to anything else the book has to say until we address the integrity of the authors. Or maybe it's a hopeless cause--maybe nothing that can be said will appease John, given his stand. If you were writing the same book, would you have mentioned the walls from an earlier period in this context? Were the authors ethically obligated to do so? Does anyone of any standing still think the Exodus/conquest happened in the 15th or 16th centuries, and if so, would the authors be advised at least to give them passing mention? Or is it such a position so marginal that the authors are justified in ignoring that possibility altogether?

John was previously familiar with the authors and mentioned that they are marginal even within academic circles. Does anyone have more information on the general standing of the authors in the academic community?

It bothers me when Christian apologists make selective use of facts to bolster their cause; I suppose authors on both sides of the fence are not immune to it, but I'm still not comfortable with it, especially as it tends to provide fodder for the charge against the authors' integrity.

Thanks,

Ken

mrpsiko · 04-03-2006, 09:23 PM

Are there other portions of the book that you can discuss? This is hard to explain, but I would treat this book with as much skepticism as the group is treating the Bible, if only out of fairness.

Does John admit that perhaps God's message can shine through an imperfect book written by imperfect people? That's the only solution that I could come up with to reconcile my quest for knowledge, my Christian upbringing and what appeared to me to be some very obvious Biblical contradicitons.

It's late, maybe I don't make sense.

Kosh · 04-03-2006, 10:10 PM

A couple quick points:

- The wickipedia is not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written that entry, including an apologist with an agenda (we have already seen other instances of apologists editing out non pro-Biblical information from an entry

- How do you know that the dating of jericho walls to earlier wasn't based on the the usual "archeology with the bible in one hand" (to use a term from Finkelstein"???

Finkelsteins statement would lead us to believe that that there were never any walls of jericho in that time period. Do you have validated evidence to the contrary (other than a Wikipedia instance?).

Toto · 04-04-2006, 12:36 AM

The very term "Biblical Archeology" is suspect. It is only used by people who want the archeology to support their reading of their Bible.

Wikipedia on Jericho

Quote:

Many of the Canaanite cities were destroyed during 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and such traces have been found in Jericho by three different excavations. There are also archaeological signs of a wall around the city with a stone outer revetment but primarily built of mud brick. The exact sequence and dating of these remains is difficult and highly debated. Kathleen Kenyon noted 15 different destructive episodes in the Bronze Age remains.

The Biblical account of its destruction is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. Biblical researchers who use Scriptural genealogies to date the exodus to the 16th or 15th century BC see this as significant support for the veracity of the record, and a landmark in the Biblical archaeology corpus. Other scholars see a contradiction between history and the biblical text in this area, as the earliest known Israelite settlements do not appear until ca.1230 BC, long after Jericho's walls had already been destroyed.

more on Jericho

Quote:

Jericho was one of the first sites to be excavated in the Holy Land, second only to Jerusalem. The preliminary work was carried out in 1868 by Charles Warren, a British engineer. The first scientific excavations however, didn't come until 1907. Under two German archaeologists, Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin, a series of excavations were conducted from 1907-1909 and again in 1911. Hoping to validate the story of Jericho's destruction in the Old Testament, they collected a substantial amount of information that led them to believe the story of Joshua and the Israelites. Under closer examination of the data however , they concluded that Jericho had been unoccupied at the time the conquest would have occurred.

From 1930-1936 the site was excavated again, this time by British archaeologist John Garstang. Garstang's work revealed the remains of a network of collapsed walls (which he dated to about 1400 BC, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest) that had apparently fallen in a dramatic fashion as opposed to being ruined by abandonment or decay from natural forces. Disagreeing with Sellin and Watzinger's findings, he went on to say that the archaeological evidence did in fact, confirm the destruction of Jericho at the hands of the Israelites. Garstang's excavation techniques unfortunately were quite crude by today's standards and are thought to be only partially circumstantial.

Perhaps the best known and most accurate information from the Jericho site comes form yet another excavation under Kathleen Kenyan from 1952-1958. Her techniques were far superior to Garstang's and involved rigorous examination of the soil and very careful recording of its stratification. . . . Upon further excavation Kenyan maintained that the walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times. The damage may have been caused by earthquakes. The most recent of these walls (already dated to around 1400 BC by Garstang) was dated by Kenyan at 2300BC. Kenyan found no evidence of defensive structures that could confirm Garstang's previous claims that Jericho had been destroyed by the Israelites in the 15th century BC. In fact, she concluded that Jericho had lay in ruins for centuries before the Israelites even arrived. In short, there was nothing for Joshua to destroy.

Years later, another archaeologist named Bryant Wood would come up with another conclusion. In 1990 he published a reevaluation of Kenyan's work, challenging her assertion that the city was destroyed before the 15th century BC. ....

Bryant Wood is associated with ChristianAnswers.net and heads Associates for Biblical Research, whose motto is "Demonstrating Through Fieldwork the Reliability of Scripture. This does not justify ignoring his evidence, but it does indicate a certain bias.

Wood as the heir to Albright

Quote:

Jack Kilmon wrote [on the ANE list] of Bryant Wood’s archaeology:

I am uncomfortable with faith-based archaeology that drives a priori assumptions about artifacts and structures before they are even found and based on a non-existent chronology for the conquest of Joshua. Archaeology should be a fact gathering enterprise, not a “prove the scriptures” activity. Find a field full of the bones of the men, women and children murdered by this Bronze Age band of barbarians and we’ll talk. Perhaps the loot pillaged or the cattle and property stolen from the slaughtered inhabitants will prove correct a “scripture” whose verification is the primary motive of this brand of archaeology. Then we will know that the 10 rules God gives Moses did not apply to his “chosen” through the rest of the book. Are they sure this is what they want to show? The next thing you know, we’ll hear of excavations looking for the bones of the talking snake.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-04-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Does anyone of any standing still think the Exodus/conquest happened in the 15th or 16th centuries

No one of any standing thinks the Exodus happened at all, but the 13th century dating is based on the claim in Exodus that the Israelites were forced to build the city of Raamses, which was built by Raamses II in the 13th Century. There was never any Pharaoh named raamses until 1320 BCE.

"John's" claim that Finkelstein and Silberman are fringe in the field is complete BS, by the way. Finkelstein chairs the archaeology department at Tel Aviv University and is regarded as one of the leading Middle Eastern archaeologists in the world. It is those who still try to argue for the historicity of the Exodus (or conquest of Canaan) who are fringe in the field.

Hardheadjarhead · 04-04-2006, 11:23 AM

Biblical archaeology--as defined as being a form of archaeology designed to prove scriptures as true--is dying a hard death (kicking and screaming). Archaeology for the sake of knowing, and not believing, is replacing it.

Apparently Kenyon expressed some dismay that her findings didn't prove the Biblical accounts. She accepted what she found for what it was...an indication that Jericho was never destroyed during the time of Joshua. After her death Wood came forward (three decades years after her excavations) and "reinterpreted" her work. A pity he launched his critique when she wasn't around to defend her work.

A look at the problems with Wood's analysis:

http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm

Kenyon received the equivalency of a knighthood for her efforts, her official title being "Dame" Kenyon. Maybe that intimidated Wood a tad.

Regardless, the record is there. The site can be examined again and again, the results re-evaluated. I suspect Kenyon will be vindicated by scholars working in other areas throughout the Mediterranean, and Wood's apologetic stance will fall by the wayside. When her work is taken along with other findings throughout Israel, we pretty much can take it as a fact that there was no evidence Israelite invasion of Canaan in the time of Joshua.

This leaves apologists with the task of taking data, and making a square peg fit a round hole.

Regards,

Steve

Ken · 04-04-2006, 11:40 AM

Thanks for all your thoughts guys. I had just written a long response to them but lost it before submitting. I'll have to respond later as my lunch hour is drawing to a close.

MiddleMan · 04-04-2006, 12:49 PM

From Till's Skeptical Review site:

The Walls of Jericho

rob117 · 04-04-2006, 07:36 PM

Everything said about the walls of Jericho in this thread seems to be true, except Kenyon's 2300 BC dating of the most recent walls. I thought she dated those to about 1550 BC, at the end of the Middle Bronze. Still way too early to have been destroyed by the Israelites. The 2300 BC date comes from Ai, I believe, which was abandoned since that time save for a brief reoccupation in the Iron I (probably by proto-Israelites settling on the site of what by their time were ancient ruins).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2006, 09:23 PM	#2
mrpsiko Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Neenah, WI, USA Posts: 37	Are there other portions of the book that you can discuss? This is hard to explain, but I would treat this book with as much skepticism as the group is treating the Bible, if only out of fairness. Does John admit that perhaps God's message can shine through an imperfect book written by imperfect people? That's the only solution that I could come up with to reconcile my quest for knowledge, my Christian upbringing and what appeared to me to be some very obvious Biblical contradicitons. It's late, maybe I don't make sense.

04-03-2006, 10:10 PM	#3
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	A couple quick points: - The wickipedia is not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written that entry, including an apologist with an agenda (we have already seen other instances of apologists editing out non pro-Biblical information from an entry - How do you know that the dating of jericho walls to earlier wasn't based on the the usual "archeology with the bible in one hand" (to use a term from Finkelstein"??? Finkelsteins statement would lead us to believe that that there were never any walls of jericho in that time period. Do you have validated evidence to the contrary (other than a Wikipedia instance?).

04-04-2006, 11:23 AM	#6
Hardheadjarhead New Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 1	Biblical archaeology--as defined as being a form of archaeology designed to prove scriptures as true--is dying a hard death (kicking and screaming). Archaeology for the sake of knowing, and not believing, is replacing it. Apparently Kenyon expressed some dismay that her findings didn't prove the Biblical accounts. She accepted what she found for what it was...an indication that Jericho was never destroyed during the time of Joshua. After her death Wood came forward (three decades years after her excavations) and "reinterpreted" her work. A pity he launched his critique when she wasn't around to defend her work. A look at the problems with Wood's analysis: http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm Kenyon received the equivalency of a knighthood for her efforts, her official title being "Dame" Kenyon. Maybe that intimidated Wood a tad. Regardless, the record is there. The site can be examined again and again, the results re-evaluated. I suspect Kenyon will be vindicated by scholars working in other areas throughout the Mediterranean, and Wood's apologetic stance will fall by the wayside. When her work is taken along with other findings throughout Israel, we pretty much can take it as a fact that there was no evidence Israelite invasion of Canaan in the time of Joshua. This leaves apologists with the task of taking data, and making a square peg fit a round hole. Regards, Steve

04-04-2006, 11:40 AM	#7
Ken Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Duncanville, TX USA Posts: 64	Thanks for all your thoughts guys. I had just written a long response to them but lost it before submitting. I'll have to respond later as my lunch hour is drawing to a close.

04-04-2006, 12:49 PM	#8
MiddleMan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Between a rock and a hard place Posts: 916	From Till's Skeptical Review site: The Walls of Jericho

04-04-2006, 07:36 PM	#9
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	Everything said about the walls of Jericho in this thread seems to be true, except Kenyon's 2300 BC dating of the most recent walls. I thought she dated those to about 1550 BC, at the end of the Middle Bronze. Still way too early to have been destroyed by the Israelites. The 2300 BC date comes from Ai, I believe, which was abandoned since that time save for a brief reoccupation in the Iron I (probably by proto-Israelites settling on the site of what by their time were ancient ruins).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.