Hex

As an archaeologist more than someone who needs to 'prove' anything about a religion or ideology, I've always been after just seeing what's there and putting it in the greater context rather than trying to make it 'fit'. (Yes, I'm trained in the American school of archaeology which draws on anthropological theory, hence holistic in view).

As such, I've been both intruiged and baffled by the attempts to 'prove' a cosmogeny through archaeological finds. Taking Christianity, for an example, archaeology seems more of an enemy than a friend. Look to the discredited hoaxes of recent memory, such as the James Ossuary Box and the the Solomon Temple Ivory Pomegranite.

Also, the aspects of 'finding' a location 'named' in the Bible, seems to be troublesome, as some of the towns and cities -share- the same name. What's the proof in finding something labeled a 'city' in the Bible that's a small town when there are two or three others in the region with the same name? (But I digress. Sorry, some of my bafflement coming through there ...)

Now, I've seen the lengths to which some people will go to make the archaeology 'fit' their ideas, and how tenuously they cling to mere scraps in the face of, what seems to me, overwhelming evidence. (BTW: Thanks, Lars, dealing with you has been -most- informative on that)

So, all of that said, what is there that is 'archaeological proof' to theists? Stuff that honestly, truely and conclusively 'proves' some of the supernatural posits of their religion?

Thanks,

- Hex

Larsguy47

Hello Hex. Just speaking generally, I think it has to do with "science" seen as a confirmation of reality of certain things. So astronmy, archaeology and biology, especially related to evolution theories that seem to contradict the Bible are investigated aggressively to try and find a scenario that gives you the best of both worlds, in this case, harmony between Bible and archaeology. But this is by no means an absolute comparison, so we grab what we can.

Now my approach is to use what is out there too and use it, but I find when I do the anti-Biblical scholars tend to balk at it totally! Case in point, my oft mentioned reference to Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites. She dates that, for whatever reasons, between 1350-1325 BCE. Period. Now the only known historical reference I know of that's extra-Biblical for dating the Exodus is in Manetho where the year Joseph is assigned as vizier is given as the 17th of Apophis. Another quote! But that dates the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten.

But this historical reference, fits into the dating for the fall of Jericho. For instance the 1st of Akhenaten dated often to 1378 BCE would date the Exodus 40 years later to 1338 BCE, which falls within Kenyon's dating of 1350-1325 BCE for the fall of Jericho.

Now you would think this is a slam dunk, since you have a historical reference and an archaeological reference that agree. But all I get is opposition to this notion. They don't like Kenyon and they don't like Manetho's reference.

Thus characterizing the Christian apologists as simply not taking what's there and trying to make things fit has two sides. Thus some archaeologists are notorious for aggressive Bible bashing with a clear motive toward dissmissive Christian beliefs that Jesus is the Messiah. Case in point Israel Finkelstein, whose books dismiss Solomon as a real character basically asserts that if Solomon was no great person, then Jesus coming to become the "greater Solomon" has no historical basis. So it works both ways.

Second, the Bible is a complex historical document, with many hidden and not so obvious chronologies. For instance, it took Edwin Thiele to organize the co-rulerships during the divided kingdom period, removing about 49 overlapping years. Jehovah's witnesses when establishing their chronology didn't want to be bothered and so end-to-ended the Judean kings, leaving interregnums, some times up to 12 years in the Isrealite kingships. My point being, even those who believe the Bible don't always come to the same conclusion about the chronology. That doesn't help the situation when comparing perfectly compatible archaeological reference with the Bible.

If I may, here's a PERFECT EXAMPLE: THE MESHA STELE. Basically, this Stele is considered only generally supportive of the Bible's history because it does mention some Bible characters but specifically says that Mesha rebells in the middle of the ruling king of Israel, the son of Omri. The Bible says that Mesha rebelled immediately after the death of Ahab. This has been claimed by archaeologists or Biblical apologists to be an apparent contradiction, with each dismissing the other as inaccurate. But in fact, it is quite accurate when you understand the accurate Biblical chronology. That is, there are two kingship dates for Jeroboam, one in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat and another in the 5th of Jehoram of Judah who, in turn, became king in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel (JOI). That means JOI became king in his own 6th year. That means that Ahab died in his sixth year, as the latter date is the date he becomes sole-ruler. His earlier kingship in the 18th of Jehoshaphat was when he became co-ruler. The reason why this makes the two references compatible is because JOI ruled for exactly 12 years, which is "half" way into his rule, exactly when Mesha claims he rebelled. Thus in the Bible, when he rebells, right after the death of Ahab, it is Jehoroam we find immediately responding to this claiming he "rebelled against me!"

2 Kings 3:5 And it came about that as soon as A´hab died, the king of Mo´ab began to revolt against the king of Israel. [And just who was the king of Israel in question at the time?: ]6 Consequently King Je·ho´ram went out on that day from Sa·mar´i·a and mustered all Israel."

So Mesha was talking about Jehoram, who was half-way through his reign in his 6th year. Meanting there is complete archaeological compatibility between the Mesha stele and the Bible. Now that is by far not always true, since revisionism does occur, but when there apparently has been none, one side or the other still get things wrong.

So your position is understandable and what is commonly thought of in terms of Christians looking to archaeology, which is characterized humorously as "Having a shoven in one hand and the Bible in the other", your reference to "Why don't thy just accept what's there?"

The answer is, it's not that simple. What is just there is seldom just there without interpretation. And interpretations vary. Errors are made. Options exist. That's why each little thing has to be taken individually and established in the context of the whole.

But things are changing! The more digging is done on both sides, that is understanding the Bible's history better as well as new findings in archaeology are moving toward more support of the Biblical fixed timeline. So archaeology, for me, is much more of a friend now than any challenger. One of my focuses has been to attempt to establish the correcte secular timeline as extra-Biblically as possible, and I've had great success at doing so, from my own perspective of harmonizing the history and archaeology.

Finally a passing comment as far as "missing cities" are concerned. Some have immediately brought up the city of "Ai" as not matching the Biblical record. They say there was no Bronze Age occupation there and they had lots of archaeologists in consensus on that. Now I could have just shrugged, but instead I investigated both sides of the issue and found out the Biblical "Ai" was right "next to" Bethel. So the "Ai" being used by archaeologists to bash the Bible is the wrong city! But apparently the city of Ai that should have been right next to Bethel is GONE! Archaeologists I suppose think they should find something, but there's nothing. Of course, if the city had been built on a mound and then over time the mound got blown away in the wind, then of course there would be nothing there. Apparently it used nearby Bethel's fortifications and had maybe just a wooden wall around the sub-city. But it isn't there now. Many cities mentioned in Shishak's inscription likewise havent' been "found" by archaeologists, and some likely never will. So "missing cities" are just not an issue. Enough of them have been found, though, to confirm the context of what the Bible says, like Solomon building at Megiddo, etc.

So, YES, point well taken, Bible-thumpers do try and make archeology fit the Bible to an extent, but on the other side the anti-Biblicalists are desperate to use any archaeology or pseudo-archaeology to contradict it. So it's both sides.

LG47

mountainman

Hey Hex,

At present I am researching any and all scientific and/or
archeological citations to the existence of "christianity"
in the prenice epoch (say 000 - 325 CE).

The quantitative and qualititive evidence for this period
in support for the "existence of a tribe of christians" is
sparse, to say the least.

I have recently attempted to summarise both my findings
and my (preliminary) conclusions in this thread.

In this thread I have attempted outline a draft specification
for the understanding of "historicity" or "historical authenticity"
or indeed "historical integrity".

Please feel free to comment here or there.

Larsguy47

I commented on your previous thread. But generally, the "apostasy" that was already beginning via the Mysteries in the Christian congregation officially took over when Constantine came along. So at some point that should be addressed, the corruption of Christianity by the Mysteries cults. Thus historical evidence of the early Christians, say up to the fall of Jerusalem would be a different study than after that. At that, it becomes a study of the influence of paganism in the Christian cult.

You also have to deal with the specific Bilblical indication that the true Christian congregation would soon go underground since some where chosen to never die and live down to the time of Christ. I know that sounds totally sci-fi, but if that is true then it would affect what you are looking for. It's my contention that is the true quest of the "Templars" to find these surviving Jews who were spared to restart the 12 tribes of Israel in modern times. They certainly are not in search for any Mary Magdalene descendants since they, of of people, knew Jesus was clearly in love with John. Of course John and Mary Magdalene are interchangeable as the "chalice" in Holy Grail legend. I realize if that is too far out for you, then I understand. But the historical reference if that a segment of the true practicing Christians would purposely go underground, while the pagan-corrupted church grew and grew.

LG47

whichphilosophy

Archeological proof is left to the experts but obviously they will publish their findings. You can't prove the supernatural looking at ruins or rocks.

Theism (exclusive of rites and rituals) and Atheism are about whether the cause of existing life forms is alive(theism) or not/possibly so not (atheism).

spin

Larsguy47,

You've said this a number of times:
Could I have the exact evidence from Manetho (cited where?) for this claim please?


spin

Hex

Lars, I couldn't have asked for a better straight man. Since we went round and round on this elsewhere (wade through this if you must know more), I just want to address what you've got here. I'm not going to disprove, but I want to show you -why- all you got was opposition.

Let's take Kenyon's dates first, 'kay? Now, Kenyon is a well respected archaeologist. And, I beleive that I linked to a nice article of hers about Neolithic Jericho. If you read that article, it's a whole 9 pages of information and text to explain -why- she comes up with:

The idea that people could take a single, off-hand remark in order to glean a dating to +/- 12.5 years for a date based on -her opinion-. Well ...

Also here, note the date of the work. 1957. The work is -only- 50 years old. Recent sources carry more weight, as archaeologists work in more data to refine or understand the dynamics of places and regions.


Now, why would people -not- like your quote from Manetho? How about because it doesn't fit with the overall context of Manetho?

First, we've only scraps of relevant works (eg. Aegyptiaca), some of which only exists in quote in other works - each of which had their own agenda to put forth, one must recognize. What are the missing bits? Well, nevermind, let's just look at the scraps. For your timing of Joseph, you know what Manethos says? That Lower Egypt is ruled, not by Egyptians, but by the Hyksos. Outsiders.

Now, the other King Lists that we have (like the Turin Royal Canon), don't all macth up with Manetho's list. Most don't recognize the 'heretic' rulers at all, such as the Hyksos or Akhenaten. Old Kingdom Annals (ca. 2500-2200 BCE) differ widely from the information that Manetho has in his lists -and- include yearly summaries of occurances of the kings.

Why cling to Manetho? Well, early French Egyptologists used information attributed to him to present the dynasties. And, for the Biblical folk, he's the only one who mentions Joseph, which is about the best representation that the Jews get in such histories. Except that the reference we get is via Syncellus.

Why does that matter? Well, look to the time periods involved. Manetho writes around 250BC. About 1100 years -after- the event you're looking to have him provide you information on.

Syncellus does his work around 800AD. That's only 1050 years -after- Manetho. And, he was a monk, or at least a Christian. During a time when relics were hot items. Mightn't he have had some small agenda in perhaps sneaking information in? And, his source material might not actually -be- Manetho!



As documenary evidence, Manetho holds -some- value, especially when put together with several other sources.

As an archaeologist, Kenyon probably knew more than anyone about Jericho during the late 1950's and early 1960's. But an off-hand remark is not necessarily data.

Thus, neither your archaeological date nor your documentary evidence are strong enough to hold your hypothesis up. Even together they are not conclusive.

And why do I not count the Bible as a vote of evidence? It's a book of myth, legend, poetry, and history. Not a historical treatise, nor a simple recording of fact.

A "slam-dunk" is not built on two shreds of information.

Hex

Very true. And hence my boggle over why people -try- to prove the supernatural via archaeological debris.

Unless, of course we find the remains of some 'god' in an archaeological dig. :Cheeky:

Larsguy47

"In the Book of Sothis which Syncellus believed was the genuine Manetho it gives the specific time when Joseph rose to power under Hyksos king, Aphophis who ruled 61 years. It says: Some say that this king (Aphophis) was at first called Pharaoh, and that in the 4th year of his kingship Joseph came as a slave into Egypt. He appointed Joseph lord of Egypt and all his kingdom in the 17th year of his rule, having learned from him the interpretation of the dreams and having thus proved his divine wisdom (Manetho 1940, 239). "

FROM: http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible...sis/joseph.htm


LG47

Hex

Well ... This is something a mite different. You're working in the Hellenized Roman world, from which we still have plenty of writings that support each other. Structure and the like.

Unfortunately, what you're after here is most likely going to be very difficult to find. If the nascent Christians of the time are existing as 'tribes', they'll just look like everyone else, won't they? As I see it, the best you might be able to get is one of the underground meeting areas or possibly a crypt area, but, I'm not sure. And telling them apart from the other mystery cults of the time might be tough as well.

The 'fish' sign might be an indicator, but you'd have to have proof that it wasn't later than the period you're examining.

Best of luck.