dost

Hi.

Recently I stumbled across the following claim by a Christian apologist:

+++++++++
Other skeptics who have conceded the Bible’s historical accuracy include the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck:

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference," and "the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact." (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 65)

This is a very significant statement since it is made by one who totally denied the inspiration of Scripture.
+++++++++

I understand that McDowell is not a particularly reliable source, but is the above claim accurate? Nelson Glueck, from what I have heard (I have not read him at all), is deemed a reliable and respectable scholar is he not?

Celsus

Indeed he was a respectable scholar and archaeologist. He also died in 1971, with the bulk of his work done from the 1930s to 50s. Pretty much all of his conclusions are rejected today, together with much of the Biblical Archaeology school of W.F. Albright and G.E. Wright (the three of them were the first to receive the brunt of criticism in the 1970s). Perhaps most notable was his "Pittsburgh of Palestine"--a copper foundry at Ezion-Geber he attributed to Solomon that ended up being two centuries too late. Unfortunately, Josh McDowell seems to know precious little about archaeology since the 1960s.

Joel

dost

Thanks for your reply Celsus.

But is it true that Nelson Glueck denied the inspiration of the Bible outright and still made the above quoted claim? Or was he a practising Jew who did accept the Bible as inspired Scripture?

Celsus

I'm not too sure, as I haven't read much Glueck. First off, "skeptic" is a rather stupid label for Glueck, since his publications were rather "apologetic" in content, as P.R.S. Moorey characterises. Your quote is from one of Glueck's popularisations, Rivers in the Desert (1959), which of course the late J.J. Finkelstein savaged mercilessly in the 1960s by simply pointing to Jericho (the problems of which had been uncovered via Kenyon's and Garstang's work there). Moorey writes:
Since archaeological discoveries generally relate to the Hebrew Bible, there's no reason why a conservative Jew should be "skeptical" about its claims, and Glueck is no exception. Albright and he were good friends. I should clarify that his conclusions on the Bronze Age have stood the test of time, but only when divorced from his attempts to place the Biblical patriarchs in that setting.

Joel

rexrex4

I would just like to say I enjoyed reading this little thread. It seems to me to be an excellent example of dialogue and accurate search for truth. I don’t mean that more couldn't be brought forward, but I would think that it would be more conveniently useful if a bible believer dug up evidence to look at. Perhaps they could seek an overt consensus of say 85% of those in the field to publicly go on record about the accuracy. That might be impressive.
I know that the basic claim and the psychology are rampant in much of that school. The claim that archaeology supports 100% the bible is easy to say to a lay audience and it sounds ever so much more impressive if the support for the claim is phrased as “mind you, this is not a Christian or a Jew that’s admitting this… � I’ve heard this technique used over and over, making the context “even the heathen has to confess,� and so on. No mater how bogus or relevant in actuality, for example it may be true that they aren’t a Christian or a Jew but they may in fact have urgent political goals that can be influencing their position. And just how important is the testimony of one person. One person could be right and everybody else in the world wrong but before we jump to his side we should check the mater very carefully. People are really very silly. I often think of the debate between Darwin’s bulldog and the reverend who delivered himself into the dogs hands by saying he didn’t want an ape for an ancestor and Thomas Huxley (I think it was, I’m citing this off the top of my head) said, “I’d rather have an ape for an ancestor than a…� (can’t remember). So it amounted to a witty reply that really proved nothing factually about the truth of evolution, but in the minds of the hearers and when it got spread around, it was very effective in easing the way for the theory.
But that is not seen here so far in this thread. Thanks.

budgie

"I'd rather have an ape for an ancestor than a bishop" T. Huxley

-jim