http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3823
Armchair Archaeology and the New Atheism
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is
completing Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and
Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, while pursuing
doctoral studies at Amridge University. He has participated in an
archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional
membership in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of
Biblical Literature, and the Archaeological Institute of America.]
Archaeology
has an air of mystery about it. Whenever the subject is brought up,
many people instinctively think of the iconic Indiana Jones and his
adventures on the silver screen. Others think of buried treasure or
exotic locations. In the early days of archaeology, European travelers
could be seen out in the field in Victorian garb, sitting under lace
umbrellas and sipping tea from fine china. The wealthy traveled with all
the fineries of home, surveying the scene while native workers toiled
under the hot Middle Eastern Sun. There was much less of the scientific
rigor of modern archaeology. It was sometimes little more than glorified
treasure hunting. Today there is much more to the discipline than
romantic visions of danger, intrigue, and golden fortunes.
Archaeology is a scientific discipline requiring dozens of
specializations. Despite its complexity, it has the unenviable
distinction of being a field in which anyone with sufficient interest
and a modicum of experience can claim to be a specialist. Popular
examples include self-proclaimed experts who claim to have found chariot
wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, the real location of Mt. Sinai,
and the long-lost treasures of Solomon in a hidden cave beneath the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem. These claims are difficult, if not
impossible, to verify, and are often accompanied by dubious proof and
doctored evidence. Archaeology is a field subject to severe abuse by
those with too little training and too much imagination.
The mistreatment of archaeological evidence is not the sole property of
poorly trained apologists. It is also found in the writings of the new
atheists. “New atheism” is much like atheism in general, except that it
is exceptionally militant and intolerant of everything remotely
religious in nature. The term appears to have been coined by Gary Wolf
in a November 2006 article in
Wired Magazine titled, “The
Church of the New Believer.” In the article, Wolf says that the new
atheist will “not let us [unbelievers] off the hook simply because we
are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but
respect for belief in God” (2006). The new atheist is not merely an
unbeliever, but one who
promotes disbelief and has no
tolerance for anyone who respects religion, whether theist, agnostic, or
atheist. For new atheists, it is all or nothing. Incidentally,
Wolf—though an atheist himself—ultimately disagrees with the severity of
the new atheists’ approach.
The most noticeable of the current leaders in this new and virulent
strain of militant atheism include Englishmen Richard Dawkins
(biologist) and Christopher Hitchens (polemicist and political
journalist), and American Sam Harris (neuroscientist). Their diatribes
against religion are both malicious and well publicized. Virtually
anything they write is going to secure a place near the top of the
New York Times
bestseller list. This is not surprising, since their devotees are
anxious for any new criticism of Christianity, and believers want to
read them to understand the new arguments facing the faithful.
The new atheists frequently appeal to subject areas outside their
specialties for proof to support their claims. Such might not otherwise
discredit their views, but their level of proficiency in these areas is
decidedly inferior, as borne out by the numerous mistakes,
misunderstandings, and logical errors that pepper their works. One of
the blatant areas of abuse concerns their appeals to archaeology.
While Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are gifted with formidable
intellects and considerable literary prowess, archaeology lies outside
their realm of competency. They would do well to remember that expertise
in one area does not immediately transfer into any other area of one’s
choosing. Dawkins may be a highly respected biologist among
evolutionists, but he is a rather poor student of the religion he so
fiercely opposes. In some cases it appears almost as if he reaches for
any argument, no matter how poor, to justify his extreme dislike for
Christianity. Hitchens is an insightful journalist, but his impeccable
prose inadequately conceals a lamentable ignorance of Christianity and
the wealth of evidence supporting its claims. Harris is an up-and-coming
scientist, but his skills in logic and argumentation are virtually
nonexistent and have drawn heavy criticism from nearly all quarters. All
three men may be gifted in their areas of specialization, but outside
those areas they are like fish out of water. They seem to have gained
only enough familiarity with Christianity to generate criticism that
will tickle the ears of their adherents. Their attacks on the Christian
faith are little more than public proofs of their inadequacy as critics.
The Responsible Use of Archaeology
Archaeology is an exciting field that brings a great deal of
information to bear on the study of the Bible. At the same time,
archaeologists must exercise caution in evaluating ancient evidence for
several reasons. First, the ancient evidence is usually very
fragmentary. Not all the evidence from antiquity made it into the ground
in the first place, and if it did, the march of time frequently takes
its toll on ancient artifacts. This is not surprising since artifacts
deteriorate even in climate-controlled environments in state-of-the-art
museums. Second, with every season new discoveries are brought to light,
adding to the body of information we possess about the ancient world.
The next year could well produce evidence that contradicts this year’s
conclusions. Finally, the surviving evidence is piecemeal in nature,
requiring archaeologists to fill in the gaps with educated guesswork
where conclusiveness may be lacking. This is not to say that
archaeology cannot reach definite conclusions, but only to say that
those conclusions may frequently be tentative in nature. Unlike
responsible scholars, the Bible’s critics frequently make grandiose
appeals to evidence without the caution employed by those who understand
how to evaluate the evidence.
Archaeology has been misused by those wishing to foster a skeptical
attitude toward the factual reliability of the Bible. A prime example is
an article published in
Harper’s Magazine titled, “False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible’s Claim to History.” Author Daniel Lazare writes,
Not long ago, archaeologists could agree that the Old Testament, for
all its embellishments and contradictions, contained a kernel of truth….
That is no longer the case. In the last quarter century or so,
archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning
who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false
(2002, p. 39).
Lazare, a journalist with no archaeological credentials, does little
more than survey the extreme left concerning the intersection of
archaeology and the Bible. Yigal Levin, professor in the department of
philosophy and religion at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,
wrote a stinging response to the article in Harper’s. He states: “From
his essay, I learned only that Lazare is capable of summarizing
The Bible Unearthed,
written by my former teacher Israel Finkelstein and his colleague Neil
Asher Silverman. Like their book, Lazare’s essay is one-sided and overly
dramatic” (Levin, 2002, p. 4).
The book to which Levin refers in his article is T
he Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001). Finkelstein’s work has drawn substantial criticism from other scholars—
even those who doubt the Bible’s veracity.
Virtually no archaeologists have adopted his somewhat radical
conclusions, which generally deny a great deal of historicity to the Old
Testament narratives. It should be noted that Finkelstein, who once
held a relatively positive position on the relationship between the
Bible and ancient history, now holds a minority view that finds little
acceptance among even mainstream archaeologists. His work has been
heavily and publicly criticized by American archaeologist William Dever,
who called the book “an archaeological manifesto, not judicious and
well-balanced scholarship,” adding, “it will do little to educate the
public” (2001, 322:74). It is significant that Dever, one of the most
widely respected archaeologists in America, states explicitly that he is
“not a theist” (2005, p. xi).
A Classic Double Standard Used Against the Bible
The double standard employed against the Bible is both obvious and
pervasive. One such example concerns the conquest of Canaan, which is
frequently filed under the categories of fiction and myth. Joshua’s
campaign is usually assumed to be fictitious, but there is a parallel
example from Egypt that mirrors Joshua’s account. In 1275 B.C., the
forces of Egypt under Ramesses the Great, and the Hittite Empire under
general Muwatallis II, met at the Battle of Kadesh. Egyptian forces were
separated into three units as they traveled northward through Canaan.
Two divisions traveled farther inland, while a third made its route
close to the Mediterranean coastline. The Hittites, lying in wait near
the city of Kadesh, ambushed the Egyptian troops. The Hittite forces
overran the first division and shattered it. The quick-thinking Ramesses
hastily organized his troops and was able to fend off the Hittite
offensive long enough for the third division to arrive. The reinforced
troops eventually pushed back their Hittite opponents. In the end,
Ramesses won a military victory, but suffered a political defeat since
the Hittite Empire either retained or reclaimed lost territory in the
area.
In typical Near Eastern fashion, Ramesses returned to Egypt and
proclaimed a great victory. Indeed, the famous colossi at Abu Simbel
were part of a monument erected near the border of Ethiopia to convince
Egypt’s neighbors that Ramesses had won a decisive victory—just in case
they heard otherwise. A relief depicting the battle shows Ramesses
gunning down fleeing Hittite soldiers with his bow and rolling over
others like speed bumps in his oversized chariot. In the written account
of the battle, he credits both divine intervention and his own
leadership as the main causes for the Egyptian triumph over his enemies
(Kitchen, 2000, 2:37). According to the poetic version of the account,
Ramesses leaps into battle while the uraeus, the serpent-shaped symbol
of protection worn on the forehead of the king, blasts fire at his
enemies and consumes the Hittite forces like an ancient flame-thrower.
In inscription we see several parallels between the Battle of Kadesh
and the military operations carried out under Joshua as recorded in the
Old Testament: (1) both leaders are dynamic military figures, (2) each
is said to rely upon divine aid to defeat his foes, and (3) each credits
his deity with the victory. While no scholar denies the Battle of
Kadesh took place, a majority dismisses the conquest of Canaan out of
hand. For Ramesses, scholars simply excise any references to the divine
and accept the rest as reliable narrative. For Joshua’s account, the
references to Yahweh immediately place the story in the realm of myth.
No details are accepted as genuine. While there are other factors at
work in this particular case (such as the debate over the available
information that bears on the conquest of Canaan), it should be noted
that for many people, including scholars, Scripture is virtually the
only ancient literature where any mention of the supernatural
immediately disqualifies any claim to historical reliability. Other
ancient works are filled with magic and divine intervention, yet this
fact does not stop scholars from searching them for a core historical
truth. Quite the opposite is true in the case of the Bible.
Pseudo-Scholarship in the Popular Press
The popular press has been very active in its attempt to diminish the
intellectual respectability of biblical faith, and the new atheists are
one of the best examples. Their academic arrogance is nothing short of
astounding, and only further highlighted by their lack of understanding
of biblical studies. One of the most egregious examples of religious
ignorance is found in David Mills’ book
Atheist Universe:
It’s fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis accounts of
Adam and Eve, and Noah’s worldwide deluge, are fables. It’s easier to
prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the
Creation account and Noah’s flood are scientifically testable. Science
may explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this
regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is
utter mythology (2006, p. 28).
Mills provides a priceless example of just how badly militant atheists
misunderstand ancient literature. Within a mere paragraph, Mills uses
the terms “fable,” “mythology,” and (false) “story” interchangeably.
None of these terms are synonyms. A fable is a whimsical tale, usually
containing a moral or teaching point, in which talking animals
frequently play primary roles.
Aesop’s Fables immediately comes
to mind. This is quite different from the term “mythology,” which
centers on stories of the gods and often has a religious or cultic
function. These stories also have varying degrees of contradiction with
other myths within the same corpus in which the deities are represented.
Incidentally, this is also different from a “legend,” which is an
embellished story about a human figure containing at least a kernel of
historical truth.
Unlike myths, fables, and fictive stories, the Old and New Testaments
are concerned with reporting factual details. The historical books
frequently reference other sources such as the
Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), and the
Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah
(2 Chronicles 27:7). It appears that the divinely-guided Hebrew writers
worked with sources in similar fashion to modern historians. The
writers often used source material and on occasion point the reader to
those sources where additional information could be found at the
original time of writing (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19). Luke makes it clear that
he conducted an extensive investigation of the sources in the
composition of his gospel account (Luke 1:1-4). His attention to
geographical detail, long recognized by scholars for its accuracy and
thoroughness, is quite out of keeping with ancient myths, which had no
concern for this type of information. Finally, Paul (1 Corinthians
15:5-8), Peter (2 Peter 1:16), and John (1 John 1:1-2) all offer
eyewitness testimonials, presupposing their readers had the ability to
verify their claims.
It is important to note that the ancients rarely believed their myths
actually happened in real time and space. Actual history is of very
little concern in mythology, which may come as a surprise to many
moderns. It seems to be just as surprising to the critics of the Bible,
who invariably equate
myth with
fiction.
The new atheists assume that Jesus is a mythological creation of the
early church, missing the point that the early Christians actually
believed that He walked the Earth, performed miracles, and rose from the
dead. Unlike the pagan populace of Greece and Rome, early Christians
were willing to die for their convictions. This attitude made them a
target for the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, who mocked their
belief in eternal life. He wrote in “The Death of Peregrine”:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account…. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general
conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the
contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among
them… (n.d., 4:82-83).
Since martyrdom was virtually unknown in the Greco-Roman world, why did
it become so common in the Christian community? Simply put, no one else
believed in the exclusivity of religion. The ancients were polytheistic
and inclusive. Not only were other gods recognized, but initiation in
one of the mystery religions did not exclude membership in other cults.
As long as one had enough money for the expensive initiation rites, he
or she could be a member of any number of the secretive mystery cults in
the Greek world.
In his book God is Not Great: How
Religion Poisons Everything,
Christopher Hitchens spends a few pages alluding to Jesus as merely one
of many virgin-born, crucified messiahs (2007, pp. 22-23). Many critics
have argued Jesus is nothing more than a plagiarized myth from other
world religions, adapted for use by the earliest Christians. Allegedly,
the virgin birth is found in Mithras worship, and other gods such as
Attis and Osiris were crucified and resurrected. Critics do not appear
to realize that in the mystery cult of Mithras, the god was born from a
rock, and that the earliest stories come from over a century after the
time of Christ (cf. Butt and Lyons, 2006). Further, Attis and Osiris
were never crucified. Attis killed himself and Seth drowned his brother
Osiris in the Nile River. Further, the two never truly resurrected.
Attis remained in a comatose state where his hair still grew and his
little finger twitched. Osiris is said to have been brought back to life
but did not rejoin the land of the living. He instead remained in the
underworld as the lord of the dead (the story also explains
mummification, which is decidedly different from the Christian view of
resurrection). One would be hard-pressed to find a true resurrection
outside the Bible. All of this information is readily available in
popular translations of the ancient myths that seem to have escaped the
attention of Christianity’s most popular critics. In their haste to
relegate the Bible to the realm of myth, the new atheists have failed to
realize that the Bible records actual persons, places, and events that
can be located in the archaeological record.
Embarrassment in the New Atheism
The new atheists are quite skilled at parroting critical scholars in
the popular media, but give little evidence of having done any real
research into the archaeological concerns surrounding the Bible. Their
mistakes are so elementary that, if one did not know that they were
ranked among the world’s intellectual elite, one would simply consider
them part of the lunatic fringe. The dogmatic conclusions reached by
Dawkins and company are unjustified for several reasons. First, none is
well-acquainted with the material he cites. Their specialties lie in
unrelated fields, and their conclusions are frequently unsupported or
even contradicted by the archaeological artifacts. Second, none
possesses a basic, reasonable knowledge of Christianity. They often make
basic mistakes that could have been easily prevented by spending time
doing minimal research into basic biblical teachings. Finally, they make
very few attempts at formulating arguments, and those they make are
peppered with logical errors and fallacious reasoning.
Apologists for disbelief have noted the criticism of their leading
spokesmen and have rushed to their defense. In a blog called the “Black
Sun Journal,” editor Sean Prophet writes:
The flimsiest of all the rhetorical devices used by religious writers
is the accusation that atheists lack scholarship on religion. That they
supposedly “don’t even understand what they have rejected.” This
dismissive attitude is repeated ad nauseam in the popular
media. While it’s true that few atheists have doctor-of-divinity
degrees, it’s completely false that they therefore can’t understand
theology (Prophet, 2008, italics in orig.).
Prophet argues that it is false that atheists cannot understand
theology. Yet, he misses the fact that critics such as Dawkins and P.Z.
Meyers defend their refusal to engage Christian thought, sometimes
crudely, as in the case of a Meyers’s piece titled, “The Courtier’s
Reply” (2006). Georgetown professor John Haught critiques them, saying,
“Given all their bluster about the evils of theology, why do they wade
only ankle deep in the shallows of religious illiteracy? A
well-thought-out military strategy sooner or later has to confront the
enemy at its strongest point, but [Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
have—DB] avoided any such confrontation. Unlike the great leaders in
war, these generals have decided to aim their assaults exclusively at
the softest points in the wide world of faith” (2008, p. 63, bracketed
item added). While he criticizes the supposed myth of ignorance
surrounding the militant, atheist movement, Prophet appears to have as
little understanding of religion as those whom he defends. Indeed, his
assertion that “[r]ank-and-file atheists are far more facile with
scripture than rank-and-file Christians” is so laughable and outrageous
as to be absurd. A cursory survey of militant, atheist literature from
those who are considered its greatest scholars quickly reveals a host of
misunderstandings readily apparent to any unbiased observer.
One example of Dawkins’ many academic sins concerns the Gnostic gospels. In
The God Delusion,
he argues that Thomas Jefferson advised his young nephew to read the
other accounts of Jesus’ life, which Dawkins claims are the Gnostic
writings such as the “Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip,
Bartholomew, and Mary Magdalen” (2006, p. 95). It would be quite
impossible for Jefferson to have recommended the Gnostic gospels to his
nephew since
they were unknown in his day. So it is
with the apocryphal gospels. Those of Thomas and Philip were among the
cache of documents discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The gospels
of Peter and Mary were both found in the late 1800’s. The gospel of
Bartholomew has yet to be positively identified. In every case, these
non-canonical writings date much later than the time of Christ and
provide no evidence of offering genuine accounts of Christ’s life.
Christopher Hitchens follows in Dawkins footsteps when he
misunderstands the nature of the Gnostic writings. He says that the
gospels “were of the same period and provenance as many of the
subsequently canonical and ‘authorized’ Gospels” (2007, p. 112). Yet,
Gnostic beliefs arose shortly after Christianity, and the documents
produced by Gnostics date from the second century to the fifth century
and later. As a marriage between Christianity and Neo-Platonic
philosophy, Gnosticism reached its height in the second and third
centuries, but its incipient form is implicitly condemned in several New
Testament passages (Colossians 2:9; 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 Peter 2:24).
Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris appear to draw their notions about the
supposed legendary nature of the gospel accounts from Bart Ehrman’s
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
All three heartily recommend Ehrman’s book and give him high praise for
his journey into unbelief, which he never seems to tire of describing
(2005, pp. 1-15; 2008, pp. 1-19; 2009, pp. ix-xii). The new atheists are
apparently unaware that Ehrman’s work has drawn heavy criticism because
of its tendency to sensationalize, overplay the evidence, and present
ideas that few of his academic peers affirm, regardless of their
religious orientation or lack thereof. That the trio—as non-specialists
who know relatively little about Christianity—would lean so heavily on a
scholar like Ehrman is, perhaps, understandable, but remains
inexcusable.
Hitchens claims that the existence of Jesus is “highly questionable”
and there is a “huge amount of fabrication” in the details presented in
the gospel records (2007, p. 114). The only genre into which the gospel
accounts could possibly be forced would be legend, but even then, there
was insufficient time for Jesus to reach legendary status. As the
acclaimed classical scholar A.N. Sherwin-White pointed out, it takes
time for legends to accumulate about a historical person (1963, pp.
188-191). The gospel records are clearly non-mythological and give no
evidence of being legendary.
The biblical ignorance of the new atheists is on full display when
David Mills begs for Christians to defend why they believe in mythical
creatures such as unicorns (Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21), cockatrices
(Isaiah 11:8), and satyrs (Isaiah 13:21). He embarrasses himself when he
writes:
I also find it revealing that, in the newer, modern-language
translations of the Bible, these ridiculous passages of Scripture have
been dishonestly excised, rewritten or edited beyond their original
translation in the King James. So not only are the Great Pretenders
forsaking long-honored and long-held Christian beliefs, but the Bible
itself, under their supervision, appears to be experiencing a quiet,
behind-the-scenes, Hollywood makeover as well (2006, p. 150).
The words rendered “unicorn” (
re’em, “ox”), “cockatrice” (
tsepha`, a type of serpent), and “satyr” (
sa`ir,
“goat”) have nothing to do with mythological creatures. In fact, these
creatures did not even exist in ancient Near Eastern mythology. The last
400 years has seen an explosion in the knowledge of the biblical
languages. Scholars now have the benefit of the numerous manuscripts and
inscription discoveries that have greatly expanded our knowledge of the
languages. The work at the ancient city of Ugarit alone has provided a
wealth of information on the Hebrew language through the study of the
closely related language of Ugaritic. Mills’ objection evaporates when
we understand that the change in English translation is not due to a
dishonest makeover, but to a better and truer understanding of how the
original text should be translated. To his discredit, he mistakes
dishonesty for intellectual progress, which only further underscores
his unfamiliarity with the Bible and its ancient context—and his extreme
prejudice.
Christopher Hitchens says the material from the Exodus to the Conquest
of Canaan “was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much
later date…. Much of the evidence is the other way” (2007, p. 102).
Elsewhere, he says the Pentateuch is an “ill-carpentered fiction, bolted
into place well after the nonevents that it fails to describe
convincingly or even plausibly” (p. 104). Here Hitchens alludes to the
Documentary Hypothesis which claims the books of Moses were compiled
from different sources much later than the time of the Exodus. Again,
Hitchens does not seem to know that recent discoveries have presented
the Documentary Hypothesis with significant challenges that have yet to
find plausible answers (cf. Garrett, 2000; Kaiser, 2001). While much of
modern scholarship believes in the hypothesis, it must be noted that
professors essentially pass on the theory to their students as a body of
dogmatic teaching and rarely require them to actually question the
theory (cf. evolution). Moreover, archaeology has consistently produced
evidence that implies the writing of the Pentateuch is genuinely
ancient.
Just when things could not get any worse, Hitchens further destroys his
own credibility by claiming urban myth as fact. He states: “the
Pentateuch contains two discrepant accounts of the Creation, two
different genealogies of the seed of Adam, and two narratives of the
Flood” (2007, p. 106). The two creation accounts are intentionally
written for two different purposes and are complimentary, not
contradictory. This is similar to the way in which a person might take a
photograph of an object from two different angles in order more fully
to explore the subject in view. Critics seem fixated on digging this old
chestnut out of the wastebasket where it rightly belongs (cf. Jackson,
1991). Also, genealogies in the Bible are selective by nature, so
differences in genealogical lists are inconsequential (cf. Miller,
2003). The alleged two narratives of the Flood in Genesis 6-9 refers to
the artificial separation of the story into two constituent parts, which
falls under the purview of the Documentary Hypothesis. This allegation,
too, has been shown to be fraught with problems.
The Plausibility of the Biblical Record
Archaeology demonstrates solid connections between the biblical record
and ancient history, in contrast to Christopher Hitchens’ assertion that
it is an implausible record. Consider the following:
The Patriarchs
Critics often malign the patriarchs without just cause. They insist
that camels were not domesticated during the patriarchal age, thus
constituting an anachronism in the biblical text. Yet evidence of camel
domestication appears as early as 2000 B.C. in several places in
Mesopotamia, concurrent with Abraham—if not slightly preceding him
(Kitchen, 2003, p. 339). Another point of confidence is the names of the
patriarchs. While God selected Jacob’s name, they all highlight the
Mesopotamian roots of Abraham since the names of Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael,
and Joseph are all of Amorite origin (pp. 341-342). These names were at
the height of their popularity when the patriarchs lived in the early
second millennium and quickly fell into disuse in subsequent centuries.
A vital piece of evidence is the structure of covenants in the Bible.
Covenants made in antiquity evolved over time, and each period has a
distinct structure for the covenants made at various times and
particular locations. Kenneth Kitchen has surveyed a wide range of
covenants used from the third millennium through the first millennium
B.C. (Kitchen, 2003, pp. 283-289). He found the Abrahamic covenant made
in Genesis 15-17 fits securely in the early second millennium, while the
covenants in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 24 fit only in a late
second millennium context.
The Life of Joseph
In the very section of the Bible that Hitchens questions is found some
of the most compelling evidence for the historicity of Scripture. As
Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier demonstrates, the story for Joseph rings
true with numerous details (Hoffmeier, 1996, pp. 77-98). The 20-shekel
price paid for Joseph (Genesis 37:28) is consistent with the price of a
slave c. 1700 B.C. Egyptian mummification took about 70 days once the
period for mourning was included, which matches the time given for the
mummification of Jacob (Genesis 50:3). Examples of non-Egyptians
becoming viziers is known from Egyptian sources. Further, it appears
that the story of Joseph was put down in writing during the 18
th-19
th
Dynasties in Egypt, the very period during which Moses lived. This idea
is borne out by the fact that the Pentateuch uses the name “Pharaoh”
(Hebrew
phar’oh, Egyptian
per-`3) when referring to
the king of Egypt. During this time, the term was a generic one
referring to the king, similar to referring to the U.S. President as
“the White House,” or to the British monarch as “the Crown.” Prior to
this time, the name of the king was used, and afterward sources mention
the monarch as “Pharaoh X” or “X, king of Egypt”—as in the case of
pharaohs Shishak (1 Kings 11:40; 2 Chronicles 12:2) and Neco (2 Kings
23:29).
The United Monarchy
David’s existence has been questioned frequently. Examples of petty
monarchs ruling miniscule kingdoms in the Near East find rare mention in
ancient sources, yet generally their historicity is taken at face value
with minimal skepticism. Even Gilgamesh, the hero of the
Epic of Gilgamesh,
is thought to have been a historical figure ruling in Mesopotamia
between 2600-2700 B.C. based on a reference in the famous Sumerian king
list. Yet, David’s historicity is viewed with extreme suspicion, even
though there are references to David found in the Tel Dan Inscription
and the Moabite Stone, as well as numerous references in the Hebrew
Bible. Indeed, Gilgamesh is thought to have been a real person despite
being the semi-divine hero in a mythical composition, which also
includes such fantastic details as a beast-man named Enkidu, a divinely
sent creature of destruction called the Bull of Heaven, and a plant that
can grant the person who eats it eternal life. David is frequently
labeled a myth despite the solid evidence in favor of his existence.
The Divided Monarchy
Archaeology has vindicated the Bible’s mention of several figures that
were once thought to have been fictional. The existence of Sargon
(Isaiah 20:1) was questioned until a relief bearing his image was found
in the throne room of his capital city of Dur-Sharrukin (“Fort Sargon”).
Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) was likewise questioned because Babylonian
documents listed Nabonidus as the last king of the Babylonian empire.
Scholars uncovered ancient evidence showing that Belshazzar co-ruled
with his father Nabonidus, ruling from the city while Nabonidus sat for
10 years in self-imposed exile. Balaam (Numbers 22-24) has been located
in an extrabiblical source called the Deir ‘Alla Inscription written
during this period (Mazar, 1990, p. 330).
The Life of Christ
Archaeology does not always mention any one individual, and in the case
of Christ, more substantial evidence comes from history rather than
archaeology. One significant find is the 1990 discovery of the ossuary
(bone box) of Joseph Caiaphas, high priest at the time of Jesus’ trial
and crucifixion (John 11:49-53). Jesus is mentioned by the Roman writers
Suetonius and Tacitus, the Roman governor Pliny the Younger, and is
indirectly referenced by the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata. He is
also noted in a Jewish composition from the fifth century called the
Toledoth Jesu,
which gives an alternate explanation for the empty tomb from a hostile
source. Jesus is far from the “myth” critics claim Him to be.
The Early Church
Inscriptions have revealed the names of numerous individuals mentioned
in the New Testament. Gallio, proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-17), is
mentioned in an inscription found at the city of Delphi. Paul’s friend
Erastus (Acts 19:22) is likely mentioned in an inscription found at
Corinth. Sergius Paulus, mentioned as the first convert on the island of
Cyprus, was proconsul (a Roman governor) when the apostle Paul visited
the island (Acts 13:7). He is mentioned in an inscription found near
Paphos (Reed, 2007, p. 13).
After the evidence is surveyed, it is apparent that much of the
criticism of the Bible arises—not from intense scrutiny of the
evidence—but from ignorance of it. The overwhelming weight of the
archaeological and historical evidence firmly places the Bible in the
sphere of reality rather than myth.
Knowing Should Lead to Knowing How Much One Does Not Know
Part of the problem with secular science is that it focuses on
empirical data, but has little to no interest in epistemology: the study
of how human beings know what we know. This great divorce has become
clearer over the past couple of centuries, and is on full display in
books like
The God Delusion, where Richard Dawkins commits
dozens of logical errors. Many of his arguments fail because he is not
conversant with religion. They also suffer from his lack of
understanding how evidence outside his specialty is to be interpreted
and applied.
Journalist David Klinghoffer points out: “A favorite strategy of such
groups has long been to attack cartoon versions of older rival
religions” (2007). He cites as evidence Dawkins’ now-infamous phrase
about the God of the Hebrew Bible being “arguably the most unpleasant
character in fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a
misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent
bully” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 31). No believer in the Judeo-Christian
tradition would ever agree to this assessment, nor would anyone familiar
with the Bible defend it. While Prophet argues that contrarians like
Dawkins should not be labeled as ignorant of religion (2008), the
evidence argues powerfully against him.
The unmitigated vitriol that pervades the works of Dawkins, Hitchens,
and Harris is a clear indicator that their intolerance of Christianity
is not motivated by objective reason. These men give every appearance of
being desperate to artificially maintain a hatred of God. They fail to
demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the Bible and fail to understand
the ancient evidence supporting it.
Christians everywhere should be reminded that grandiose assertions,
unsupported by adequate evidence, can be dismissed safely. This is the
case with much of the material produced by the new militant breed of
atheism—which makes many bold claims and offers remarkably little proof.
Such is certainly the case with the facts concerning the reliability
and historicity of Scripture. Boisterous claims do nothing to bolster
their case when Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris find themselves
contradicted by the evidence. If these three are the best that militant
atheism has to offer, Christians have nothing to fear.
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006),
Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Dawkins, Richard (2006),
The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Dever, William (2001), “Excavating the Hebrew Bible or Burying It Again?”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 322: 67-77, May.
Dever, William (2005),
Did God Have a Wife? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ehrman, Bart (2005),
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperSanFrancisco).
Ehrman, Bart (2008),
God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer(New York: HarperOne).
Ehrman, Bart (2009),
Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001),
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press).
Garrett, Duane (2000),
Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch(Geanies House, Fern: Christian Focus Publications).
Haught, John F. (2008),
God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007),
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(New York: Hachette).
Hoffmeier, James K. (1996),
Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Jackson, Wayne (1991), “
Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194.
Kaiser, Walt C. Jr. (2001),
The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, IL: IVP).
Kitchen, Kenneth A., trans. (2000), “The Battle of Kadesh—The Poem, or Literary Record,”
The Context of Scripture, Volume Two: Monumental Inscriptions Form the Biblical World(Leiden: Brill).
Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003),
On the Reliability of the Old Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Klinghoffer, David (2007), “Prophets of the New Atheism,”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003653502_klinghoffer06.html.
Lazare, Daniel (2002), “False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible’s Claim to History,”
Harper’s Magazine, 304/1822:39-47, March.
Levin, Yigal (2002), “Let There Be Light,”
Harper’s Magazine, 304[1825]:4, June.
Lucian of Samosata (no date), “The Death of Peregrine,” in H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler (1905),
The Works of Lucian of Samosata (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Mazar, Amihai (1990),
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E.(New York: Doubleday).
Meyers, P.Z. (2006), “The Courtier’s Reply,” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php.
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1834.
Mills, David (2006),
Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism(Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Prophet, Sean (2008), “Pastor Acknowledges Arguments of New Atheism,”
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/atheism/1397_pastor-acknowledges-arguments-of-new-atheism_2008.html.
Reed, Jonathan (2007),
The HarperCollins Visual Guide to the New Testament: What Archaeology Reveals about the First Christians (New York: HarperOne).
Sherwin-White, Adrian Nicholas (1963),
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament(Oxford: Clarendon).
Wolf, Gary (2006), “Church of the Non-Believers,” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html.
