Ever wondered why Christian fundamentalists aren’t taken seriously?
Take archaeology. Turns out there’s no convincing evidence for the Conquest of Canaan. Enter renown archaeologist Bill Dever. From “Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?” (2003: Eerdmans)
Hormah? “...there is no Late Bronze Age Canaanite occupation of the 13th century B.C. at Tel Masos, so the Israelites can hardly have battled the native inhabitants of the land there. Nor is there any such occupation anywhere in the northern Negev” (p27)
Edomite opposition to Israel? “...there cannot have been a king of Edom to have denied the Israelites access, since Edom did not achieve any kind of statehood until the 7th century B.C.” (p28)
What about Adad? How about no: “Arad has no Late Bronze Age occupation. Indeed, it was not founded until one small, isolated village was established in the late 10th century” (p29)
Heshbon’s destruction? “...the town turned out to be founded only in the Iron II period -long after any supposed conquest. There were only a few scattered remains of the 12th-11th century B.C...and no trace whatsoever of occupation cupation in the 13th century B.C.” (p30)
Dibon? “There are remains of city walls and some buildings of the 9th century B.C. -Mesha's city -but very little earlier in the Iron Age. And there are no Late Bronze Age remains whatsoever. Once again, the silence of the archaeological record is deafening.” (p32)
Ai? “Judith Marquet-Krause...brought to light a[n] Early Bronze Age city-state...destroyed sometime around 2200 B.C. After scant reoccupation in the early 2nd millennium B.C., `Ai appears to have been entirely deserted from ca. 1500 B.C. until sometime in the early 12th century.
The implication? “Thus it would have been nothing more than ruins in the late 13th century B.C. -that is, at the time of the alleged Israelite conquest.” p47.
That was in 1933-35. Between 1965-1972 Joseph Calloway excavated the site. Same result.
That was in 1933-35. Between 1965-1972 Joseph Calloway excavated the site. Same result.
“For many years, the primary source for the understanding of the settlement of the first Israelites was the Hebrew Bible, but every reconstruction tion based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archaeological remains....” (p47-48)
Gibeon? “The problem, however, is that Gibeon was apparently not occupied in either the late 13th or the early 12th century B.C. The American excavator who dug there in the 1960s -James Pritchard -found Iron Age remains, but nothing earlier than the 8th century B.C.” (p48)
Dever concludes: “We must confront the fact that the external material evidence supports almost nothing of the biblical account of a
large-scale, concerted Israelite military invasion of Canaan, either that of Numbers east of the Jordan, or of Joshua west of the Jordan.
large-scale, concerted Israelite military invasion of Canaan, either that of Numbers east of the Jordan, or of Joshua west of the Jordan.
“Of the more than forty sites that the
biblical texts claim were conquered, no more than two or three of those that have been archaeologically investigated are even potential candidates for such an Israelite destruction in the entire period from ca. 1250–1150 B.C.” (p71)
biblical texts claim were conquered, no more than two or three of those that have been archaeologically investigated are even potential candidates for such an Israelite destruction in the entire period from ca. 1250–1150 B.C.” (p71)
And it’s not just Dever: “Were it not for the Bible, no late thirteenth-early twelfth century Israelite invasion would be suspected” Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Beth Alpert Nakhai, A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron
Age I, Near Eastern Archaeology 62, no. 14 (1999): 118-119.
Age I, Near Eastern Archaeology 62, no. 14 (1999): 118-119.
Geologists and geneticists are outside my remit, but two quotes from *Christians* would not go astray. Take Davis Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 2)” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987) 257-304.
“A review of 300 years of literalistic and concordistic harmonizations between the...text and...geological study shows that there has been absolutely no consensus among evangelical[s]... about interpretation of the details of the biblical accounts of creation and the flood.”
How about genetics? The fundamentalist belief that we all descend from two people is neatly torpedoed by genetics. Enter geneticist Dennis Venema:
biologos.org/files/modules/…
biologos.org/files/modules/…
“...the hypothesis that humans are genetically derived from a single ancestral pair in the recent past has no support from a genomics perspective, and, indeed, is counter to a large body of evidence.” (Venema, p 175)
This is why fundamentalists aren’t taken seriously.
