Without Archeology or Other External Evidence, There’s Still No Reason to Believe the Stories in the Bible
Kevin R. Henke
October 28, 2022
In Henke (2022bh) and Henke (2022b), I stated the following:
“Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that ancient histories by themselves cannot be trusted, especially if they were written centuries or millennia after the supposed event that they are describing or if the documents are copies of copies of copies of copies... and not the originals. Even if an ancient history happens to be an original copy describing an event that occurred at the time that the document was written, unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history. There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.” [my original emphasis in italics; my emphasis in bold]
In Lundahl (2022t), Mr. Lundahl makes the following comments about my bolded phrase:
“If there weren't, the other manuscripts wouldn't add it and archaeology is too easy to reinterpret to be the arbiter of historic fact. Only very few types of claims can actually be checked by archaeology. Hittites were a culture with wide span of influence (deduceable from a Hittite at King David's court) - confirmed by archaeology. Solomon built a temple. Confirmed by recent archaeology. Christ died on a cross on Calvary and lay an a rock grave that was since then emptied - confirmed by the Holy Patroness of archaeologists, St. Helen, the mother of Constantine. But Christ cured a leper - how could archaeology confirm that?”
Archeology certainly cannot confirm every claim and because we can’t find some way to confirm that Jesus ever healed a leper that’s a very good reason to be skeptical of such baseless Bible stories! Also, why should we believe that Constantine’s mother, Helena, actually found Jesus’ tomb (Carrier 2014, footnote #6, p. 257)? Could it be that Jesus’ body was thrown into a mass grave along with other crucified enemies of Rome and that the Jesus’ rich man’s tomb story in the Gospels is nothing more than an invention taken from the “prophecy” in Isaiah 53:9? That’s something to consider.
Certainly, I agree that relatively very few ancient claims can be checked by archeology or other external evidence. Yet, as I discussed in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), there is a wealth of archeological data that confirms some of what the ancient histories said about the activities of Alexander the Great. In other cases, archeology actually cleared up errors and contradictions in the histories, as I stated in Henke (2022a):
“Using the two Babylonian tablets and the Astronomical Diaries, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) were able to derive more precise and consistent dates than what could be derived from [the histories of] Arrian and Plutarch alone. Their results are September 18, 331 BC for the panic, which they think probably coincided with Alexander’s crossing of the Tigris River, the lunar eclipse was on September 20, 331 BC and the Battle of Gaugamela occurred on October 1, 331 BC. Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 539-543) then correct and reconcile the accounts in Arrian and others with their results. In another study, Polcaro et al (2008) used an astronomy computer program to confirm that the lunar eclipse would have been visible in the region where Alexander the Great, his troops and his opponents were located shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela and that it would also have been observed by the Babylonian astronomers on the evening of September 20, 331 BC.”
Nevertheless, we need to be more concerned about having a reliable, high-quality history than having a large quantity of baseless claims to put into textbooks, papers and Sunday School materials. Mr. Lundahl continues to fail to realize that quality is more important than quantity when it comes to history and most other disciplines (Henke 2022br2).
While many archeological results may be interpreted in a number of different ways by using the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, as scientists should do (Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20), there are many examples, including in the Bible, where linguistic experts cannot decide on what the authors really meant (e.g., Twardziłowski 2020 on Genesis 1:26-28). Also, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians certainly cannot agree on how to interpret the Hebrew in Genesis 17:9-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53. So, any type of evidence, whether written or in artifacts, may be ambiguous and could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Nevertheless, archeology has rendered many claims in the Bible as unreasonable. As explained in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), the archeological evidence does not support the Exodus story. Certainly, detailed examinations of the geologic record have thoroughly refuted Flood geology (Strahler 1999; my web site).
References:
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020a. “Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 536-559. Also: Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020b. “Erratum: Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 103, n. 1, p. 408. The erratum deals with acknowledgements and the authors’ affiliations, and is not important to the arguments of the text.
Polcaro, V.F., G.B. Valsecchi, and L. Verderame. 2008. “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”: Mediterranean Archeology and Archaeometry: v. 8, n. 2, pp. 55-64.
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.
Twardziłowski, T. 2020. “The Command to Rule over the Creation (Gen. 1:26-28) in the Ecological Hermeneutics of the Bible” Collectanea Theologica, v. 90, n. 5, pp. 9-32.