Archeology is Important in Confirming History and Mr. Lundahl’s Dating Scheme is All Wrong
Kevin R. Henke
November 22, 2022
In Henke (2022bn), I said the following:
“Lundahl (2022k) makes the following comments about point #5 in Henke (2022b) about who wrote Genesis 3 and when:
“First known audience considered it to have been written by Moses, and considered Genesis 1 to be based on a vision granted him on Sinai. They are not known to have made a parallel claim of prophecy for the parts that could be historically transmitted. This means, Genesis was finished as book after the Exodus event, and by Moses, who had access to revelation for a limited part of it and historic traditions and documents for the rest.”
“Here, Mr. Lundahl is again making groundless proclamations that have no evidential support whatsoever. So, where’s the archeological evidence that Moses ever lived? If he did happen to exist, how do we know that he wrote anything? How do we know when Moses lived, if he lived at all? Why should we trust the traditions of ancient Israelites? How can we trust the beliefs of individuals that lived about a thousand years after Moses supposedly lived and many more thousands of years after Adam supposedly lived? To be exact, the archaeological results in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) and other 21st century sources provide good evidence on the origin of ancient Israel and the Moses story is baseless. Lundahl (2022k) needs to look at the evidence and not just blindly trust groundless Hebrew speculation and myths. Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, pp. 10-24) and many other experts also present good evidence that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors and not all at once. Various individuals, including conservative Christians and secular archeologists (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001), have thrown out dates on when the Pentateuch or various parts of it were written. None of these dates are well verified.” [my emphasis]
In Lundahl (2022x), Mr. Lundahl continues to respond to Henke (2022bn) by addressing the above bolded statement:
“To be exact, archaeology is not and will not be my final word against a tradition, unless the aptness is very much better argued than for an investigation, the details of which Mr. Henke refuses to provide, even any especially striking one, but which are so far (before I have any chance of reading them) suspect of being:
· misdating organic material older than the fall of Troy
· misdating the Biblical archeology
· misinterpreting the similarity of otherwise between what is found and what one would suspect from the Bible
· misjudging the likelihood of finding evidence for sth
· presuming on one's status as archaeologist to reconstruct history rather than receive it ...
... with the last of these as a good parallel to Joseph Smith finding Golden Plates and the ones accepting the conclusions as a good parallel to 16 million Mormons.
Oh, I make suspicions against the book by Finkelstein and Silberman without reading it, and so without giving specifics why this or that argument of them is wrong? Yeah, like some guys are making suspicions against traditions.”
First of all, Mr. Lundahl needs to write better and define or identify what a “sth” is. When he used the word in Lundahl (2022w), I thought that it might be a typo (Henke 2022kt). However, now that he uses it again in Lundahl (2022x), I don’t know what he means. According to what I’ve been able to find, sth is a growth hormone.
Before Mr. Lundahl starts complaining about how archeologists and other scientists date samples, he needs to learn something about chronology and abandon his outdated biblical and other misinterpretations about dates. As I explained in Henke (2022gu), Mr. Lundahl’s interpretations of radiocarbon dates are based on flawed biblical genealogies and a lack of understanding of how scientists actually calibrate the method (e.g., Dellinger et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2004). Many other young-Earth creationists don’t even agree with Mr. Lundahl’s reliance on the Septuagint for biblical genealogies (Henke 2022do; e.g., Sarfati 2015, p. 130). So, Mr. Lundahl’s dating system is worthless even by the horrible standards of other young-Earth creationists.
Mr. Lundahl also needs to provide some peer-reviewed references to support his case against the views of Finkelstein and Silberman (2001). Perhaps, if Mr. Lundahl actually read Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) and some other 21st century literature on biblical archeology, he would have greater respect for archeology and other sciences, and less respect for baseless and far-fetched Bible stories. I’m certainly willing to discuss any of the details in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001). They could always be wrong. However, I’m not going to discuss a lot of the details in this book until I see evidence that Mr. Lundahl has done some leg work and actually obtained a copy of it. In Henke (2022je), I explained why I am deliberately withholding information from him about the contents of my recommended references:
“As I said before, I’m not going to extensively discuss any of my references until I see evidence that Mr. Lundahl has a copy of it. How can Mr. Lundahl effectively review any of my references in context if he won’t or can’t read them? How can Mr. Lundahl successfully debate anyone if his sources are almost entirely limited to Wikipedia and easily clickable links on the Internet? I also know what Mr. Lundahl wants to do. He wants me to summarize the documents for him so that he can attack my summaries and then convince himself and our readers that the documents are worthless without him having to take the time to get copies and read them. No thanks, Mr. Lundahl, I’m not going to do your leg work for you.”
Now, no one should accept any tradition at face value. We should be skeptical of all traditions until we see good evidence to support them (Henke 2022Lc; Henke 2022cg). In some cases, archeology and other external evidence certainly support long-held traditions and history. However, in other cases, such as with Moses and the Exodus, archeology exposes them as myths (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). As I’ve repeatedly stated in this debate, written history and archeology need to work together. The claims in historical documents need to be confirmed with archeology and/or other external evidence. In turn, historical documents may provide important insights into the meaning of archeological discoveries and possibly tell archeologists where to look for additional evidence.
References:
Dellinger, F., W. Kutschera, K. Nicolussi, P. Schieβling, P. Steier, and E.M. Wild. 2004. “A 14C Calibration with AMS from 3500 to 3000 BC, Derived from a New High-Elevation Stone-Pine Tree-Ring Chronology”, Radiocarbon, v. 46, n. 2, pp. 969-978.
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.
Reimer, P.J. et al. 2004. “INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration,0-26 CAL KYR BP” Radiocarbon, v. 46, no. 3, pp. 1029-1058.
Sarfati, J.D. 2015. The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11: Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, GA, USA, 786 pp.