Biblical archaeology spurs debate

[Mr. Drags]

This stuff is fasccinating!!!!!


By RICHARD N. OSTLING
AP Religion Writer
An ancient fortress, a burial box and a piece of cloth — historical remains related to the Bible never cease to provoke heated debate, whether the discoveries are thought to be tantalizing clues, cynical hoaxes or just archaeological mistakes.
Right now, for instance, three highly technical disputes have erupted over materials linked to Scripture:
—In the most important development, scholars say tests on remains from a dig in modern-day Jordan indicate the biblical country of Edom existed during the era of Kings David and Solomon, if not earlier. The find could undercut skeptics of biblical history.
—Prosecutors in Israel filed fraud charges Dec. 29 involving a purported first-century inscription of Jesus’ name. But this month a prominent archaeology magazine will assail the government’s scientific evidence.
—New testing indicates the “Shroud of Turin,” a celebrated relic said to be Jesus’ burial cloth, could actually date from his time. That opposes scientists’ earlier conclusion that the artifact is a fraud from the medieval era.
The unending popular interest in such matters is undeniable.
Says Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen, part of an arch-skeptical faction that treats most of the Old Testament as politically motivated fiction: “The public, that is people not members of the fraternity of biblical scholars, are still mainly interested in history. Did it happen as written or did it not happen? That is the question most often asked when talking to an audience of lay persons.”
The public’s fascination is evident to Lemche in the success of Biblical Archaeology Review, a 30-year-old glossy magazine with 120,000 subscribers. It explains scholars’ ongoing dustups for lay readers.
Consider the excitement over the magazine’s 2002 report about a first-century burial box for bones (or “ossuary”) with an inscription that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” James led the early church in Jerusalem and — depending on which Christian tradition is being invoked — was either Jesus’ brother, stepbrother or cousin.
Some immediately suspected the inscription was a hoax perpetrated either in ancient or modern times. Israel’s new fraud indictments say the ossuary’s owner was among five men who forged dozens of biblical artifacts.
The magazine’s editor, Hershel Shanks, says the issue being released Feb. 15 will argue that nobody can yet decide whether the inscription is fake because Israel has thoroughly “bungled” the scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, the important Edom research has added fuel to one of the hottest archaeological disputes of recent years.
The Bible reports that Edom was a well-defined land southeast of the Dead Sea that had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31, 1 Chronicles 1:43), barred Moses during the Exodus (Numbers 20:14-21) and warred with King David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).
But many scholars have claimed the Bible got it wrong, and no Edomite state existed before the eighth century. Part of their thinking stemmed from the fact that physical evidence of Edom was lacking. Meanwhile, Lemche’s camp claimed that far-later writers invented David and Solomon and their kingdom, which the Bible says began around 1000 B.C.
Related to that, Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein made a controversial bid to shift the usual dating of major sites in the Holy Land to say they came just after Solomon’s reign. Unlike Lemche’s group, Finkelstein doesn’t deny there was a Solomon — but his theory means the Bible’s record of Solomon is hugely distorted. The argument between Finkelstein and most archaeologists’ older chronology was pursued in Science magazine and at a recent radiocarbon summit in Britain.
Now comes the report on Edom, in the current edition of the quarterly Antiquity, by Russell Adams of Canada’s McMaster University, Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and other colleagues.
They say pottery remains and radiocarbon work at a major copper processing plant in Jordan indicate settlement in the 11th century B.C. and probably before that, with a nearby monumental fortress from the 10th century era of David and Solomon. They are convinced the site was part of the Edomite state.
University of Arizona archaeologist William Dever had been skeptical about Edom’s existence that early but says this “discovery is revolutionary” and lends credibility to the biblical kingdom of David and Solomon.
The Shroud of Turin dispute also involves radiocarbon tests, those done in 1988 on threads from the famous relic — which bears the faint image of a crucified man. The tests dated the cloth at A.D. 1260 to 1390. But in the current edition of the journal Thermochimica Acta, Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos National Laboratory argues that the tested threads came from later patches and might have been contaminated.
Rogers’ major point is that his chemical tests found no vanillin, a compound in flax fibers that gradually disappears. From that, he calculated that the shroud is 1,300 to 3,000 years old and could easily date from Jesus’ era.
The cloth is “from the right time but you’re never going to find out if it was used on a person named Jesus” through science, Rogers notes.
Indeed, given the difficulties in interpreting the meaning of scattered items that by chance have survived from ancient times, the latest findings probably won’t settle any of the three debates — if any of them can ever be truly put to rest.

[Rightwingnut]

You had to know I would answer this one :D

This debate has had some interesting turns over the years. But there is one issue that the article does not address.

One of the things that Biblical Archeology does, obviously, is give more clearly defined dates to events in the bible. What the fail to realize is that this allows other sciences a shot at defining those events.

What I mean is, say they define the dates of Edoms existance. That then allows climatologists to study the weather patterns or known events from that time, which in turn allows them to better define events that have been defined as devine intervention.

Dont beleive me? Look at whats happening with the Story of Moses. Climatologists and other disciplines are finding patterns in weather and geological movement that can explain away the plagues...and are making it look more and more like the events were deciphered after they occured as opposed to being "inflicted".

Like it or not, Biblical archeology is going to open up more debate and controversy than exists with just the legends of the events. In a way, they would be better off NOT proving certain things.

[Mr. Drags]

You had to know I would answer this one :D

This debate has had some interesting turns over the years. But there is one issue that the article does not address.

One of the things that Biblical Archeology does, obviously, is give more clearly defined dates to events in the bible. What the fail to realize is that this allows other sciences a shot at defining those events.

What I mean is, say they define the dates of Edoms existance. That then allows climatologists to study the weather patterns or known events from that time, which in turn allows them to better define events that have been defined as devine intervention.

Dont beleive me? Look at whats happening with the Story of Moses. Climatologists and other disciplines are finding patterns in weather and geological movement that can explain away the plagues...and are making it look more and more like the events were deciphered after they occured as opposed to being "inflicted".

Like it or not, Biblical archeology is going to open up more debate and controversy than exists with just the legends of the events. In a way, they would be better off NOT proving certain things. of course I knew yo'd answer :)

One of my friends is an archaeologist (mostly contract work for the state) and he's not enamoured with Biblical Archaeologists. He's always held the notion that the BAs use the Bible to define what they are looking for, rather than let the field work define itself -- making it a self fulfilled prophecy in a way. Again, his criticism.

Certinaly modern science can explain away some things, or at least make them clear. you cite the plagues -- climatologists have offered a theory, this is true, anything from massive floods bringing the red clay into Egypt from the headwaters of the Nile, to a physteria outbreak causing the open sores in the fish and leading to blood in the water. which of course then propels us into the second plague.

But for science to explain it away means conditions had to be JUST RIGHT.

However, they're still struggling with that pesky 10th plague. And I've only heard one theory that made some sense, but again, it had to be JUST RIGHT -- mold spores in the grain houses, eldest sons would have been responsible to go get the daily ration, and would inhale the most spores and die.

Then of couse we've got the theory (one that's easier to accept) of Moses being a renegade prince and a follower of aton, the monotheistic sun god, which was "translated" into the notion of the Hebrews 1 God.


Like I said, fascinating stuff. the more questions one seeks to explain, the more new questions open up!!

[pilobolus]

The James Ossuary was debunked about a year ago in Archaeology magazine

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/

[pilobolus]

Shroud of Turin debunking:

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

More than a decade ago, three independent labs were provided with three additional textile samples. All were of "unknown" age to the labs, but of known provenance:

Sample 2. Linen (sample QI.T/32) from a tomb excavated at Qasr Ibrîm in Nubia by Professor J. M. Plumley for the Egypt Exploration Society in 1964. On the basis of the Islamic embroidered pattern and Christian ink inscription, this linen could be dated to the eleventh to twelfth centuries AD.

Sample 3. Linen from the collection of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, associated with an early second century AD mummy of Cleopatra from Thebes (EA6707). This linen was dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory using liquid scintillation counting, giving a radiocarbon age of 2,010 ± 80 yr BP (BM-2558). This corresponds to a calendar age, rounded to the nearest 5 years, of 110 cal BC - AD 75 cal at the 68 per cent confidence level 5 (where cal denotes calibrated radiocarbon dates).

Sample 4. Threads removed from the cope of St Louis d'Anjou which is held in a chapel in the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, Var, France. On the basis of the stylistic details and the historical evidence the cope could be dated at ~ AD 1290 - 1310 (reign of King Phillipe IV).

The three labs concured on the known samples and also agreed that the SHroud of Turin was AD 1260 - 1390 (mediaeval).

There has been nothing since that has produced, under such a rigorous and controled study, information to dispute this finding.

[Mr. Drags]

The James Ossuary was debunked about a year ago in Archaeology magazine

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/
and according to the article I posted, Biblical Archaeology Review is coming out with an article saying the debunking may not be right, that no definitive answers can yet be given.

Same thing with the shrouf, acording to the article, a scientist has a new theory and says the cloth may date as old as 3,000 years ago.

Soon as people think they've got something down, whamo something new comes along.

God I love this stuff 8)

[Synner]

The James Ossuary was debunked about a year ago in Archaeology magazine

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/
and according to the article I posted, Biblical Archaeology Review is coming out with an article saying the debunking may not be right, that no definitive answers can yet be given.

Same thing with the shrouf, acording to the article, a scientist has a new theory and says the cloth may date as old as 3,000 years ago.

Soon as people think they've got something down, whamo something new comes along.

God I love this stuff 8)No offense to your sources...but isn't that similar to AnswersInGenesis.com saying they've found "evidence" of creation? Point being, the fact that a "find" is published only means that the author found someone that agrees with his conclusions. It doesn't mean the material was properly peer reviewed. In fact, since the source is a journal that is obviously biased towards the goal of finding archeological evidence of biblical accounts, I'd bet my bottom dollar that "peer review" consisted of passing the information around to a few other contributors of the journal.

[KaLIfOrNia YaNqUi]

Bare with me here. I find history to be a fascinating subject, and with all the manuscripts available, it should be easy to gain a conclusion to answers. Especially where archaelogy is involved to correspond with religeous texts. Systematic tracing from point (A) to point (B) can take us to point (Z) where we start all over again to examine all the evidence.

I'll start with a scripture from the old testament from Amos.

Amos 1:6–8 Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Gaza and for four I will not revoke the punishment ... I will cut off the inhabitants from Ashdod and the one who holds the scepter from Ashkelon; I will turn my hand against Ekron and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish says the Lord God ...


The Philistines were people who lived in Canaan along the Mediterranean coast at the time the Israelites sought to occupy the land. They were centered in five cities called the Philistine Pentapolis: Ashkelon Ashdod Ekron Gath and Gaza ...

The two erstwhile major powers at the time (Egypt and the Hittites) were politically weak and militarily impotent and the* Sea Peoples *- among them the Philistines -- exploited this power vacuum by invading areas previously subject to Egyptian and Hittite rule. This confederation of tribes included also the Tjekker –- Sheklesh –- Denyen -– and Weshesh. In wave after wave of land and sea assaults they attacked Syria –- Palestine -– and even Egypt. Ramesses III defeated the invaders at his doorstep but was unable to stop them from subsequently settling on the southern coast of Palestine. There they developed into an independent political entity of major importance and constituted a threat to the disunited Canaannite city-states .....




Tel Miqne-Ekron was originally surveyed in April 1924 by William Foxwell Albright, who is often referred to as the father of American biblical archaeology. In Arabic the site is called Khirbet (ruins of) el-Muqanna` and bears the name of the stream that flows immediately by it. Albright noted that the debris layer was not particularly deep and that he found no remains of a Bronze Age settlement. He did remark on the numerous sherds of Philistine pottery found that dated from the early Iron Age I (twelfth century B.C.). On the basis of these sherds he also came to believe that the site was abandoned after the Persian period, circa fourth century B.C. He found physical evidence for ruins of a fortification system and thought that with everything considered, including biblical and extrabiblical sources, this site had to be Eltekeh, a tribal town of Dan which later gained prominence as the location for a major battle between Assyria and Egypt that occurred shortly after the fall of the ten northern tribes of Israel.

http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c2.htm

Inconclusion of my rambling statements, elements of archaelogy have uncovered biblical matches.

[Syn]

Well, as far as I know, no one's been able to refute this find:

www.spydercorner.org/ano.html%20%20%22http://www.spydercorner.org/ano.html%22&hl=en] (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:yZtS7ynPNrgJ:"Testicle of the Gods" [/b]

http://www.spydercorner.org/stone_ball_lg.jpg

:wink: :lol:

[Mr. Drags]

No offense to your sources...but isn't that similar to AnswersInGenesis.com saying they've found "evidence" of creation? Point being, the fact that a "find" is published only means that the author found someone that agrees with his conclusions. It doesn't mean the material was properly peer reviewed. In fact, since the source is a journal that is obviously biased towards the goal of finding archeological evidence of biblical accounts, I'd bet my bottom dollar that "peer review" consisted of passing the information around to a few other contributors of the journal. oh, you can't ofend me regarding te sources, it's not my reseach. I was just proclaiming my love for the continued debate over biblical archaeology -- not necesarily the conclusions of the researchers.

I'm of the opinion that few of the biblial stories that are told only in the Bible, will ever be proven by archaeologists, but as I said, the debate over the issue is what I'm fascinated with

[Preacher_Man]

oh, you can't ofend me regarding te sources, it's not my reseach. I was just proclaiming my love for the continued debate over biblical archaeology -- not necesarily the conclusions of the researchers.

I'm of the opinion that few of the biblial stories that are told only in the Bible, will ever be proven by archaeologists, but as I said, the debate over the issue is what I'm fascinated with
I think I'll pass on the debate. :?
I just found some pages from the old IH debate Biblical Prophecy Proves Christ. (yeah they're still around if you know how to find them :wink: )
No matter how much proof you provide the 'believers' won't listen.
No matter how you equate finds with scripture it doesn't prove anything about the scripture.
faith is not science
science is not faith
Pretty pointless really. :|

[Bag Sniper]

While I do find all this interesting I have to admit that I'm pretty skeptical of BA research .... for several reason's ...

I guess number one would be because of the intervention of the religious power trolls of the Dark Ages ..... those guys hijacked the Christian religion more than anyone in history. It's my understanding that whole books were editted and/or discarded from the Bible strickly based on what the head-sucker-whats-in-charge (HSWIC) at the time deemed relevant.

Then I guess number two would be that today's biblical artifacts have been man-handled (no pun intended) by so many incompetant bafoons over the century's that contamination would render any conclusions meaningless ... and that includes any current scientific analysis du jour ....

And then there's number three .... why is it we have the Shroud of Turin but the actual cross of Christ is no where to be found .... granted the shroud could be saved more easily because it is much more compact than a heavy wooden cross but given religious (historical) symbols I'd think that would rank right up there at the top ....

And please spare me "the Vatican must have them" kind of stuff ... I hold that organization in the direst of contempt .... there is no one more sinister in maintaining the status quo than the Vatican .... their very existance depends entirely on controlling the mystery of Christ .... no .. I don't advance any conspiracy there ... it's just common sense ....

[Master Chief]

Shroud of Turin debunking:

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

More than a decade ago, three independent labs were provided with three additional textile samples. All were of "unknown" age to the labs, but of known provenance:

Sample 2. Linen (sample QI.T/32) from a tomb excavated at Qasr Ibrîm in Nubia by Professor J. M. Plumley for the Egypt Exploration Society in 1964. On the basis of the Islamic embroidered pattern and Christian ink inscription, this linen could be dated to the eleventh to twelfth centuries AD.

Sample 3. Linen from the collection of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, associated with an early second century AD mummy of Cleopatra from Thebes (EA6707). This linen was dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory using liquid scintillation counting, giving a radiocarbon age of 2,010 ± 80 yr BP (BM-2558). This corresponds to a calendar age, rounded to the nearest 5 years, of 110 cal BC - AD 75 cal at the 68 per cent confidence level 5 (where cal denotes calibrated radiocarbon dates).

Sample 4. Threads removed from the cope of St Louis d'Anjou which is held in a chapel in the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, Var, France. On the basis of the stylistic details and the historical evidence the cope could be dated at ~ AD 1290 - 1310 (reign of King Phillipe IV).

The three labs concured on the known samples and also agreed that the SHroud of Turin was AD 1260 - 1390 (mediaeval).

There has been nothing since that has produced, under such a rigorous and controled study, information to dispute this finding.

BUT, their tests rely on the degeneration of carbon... Remember the fire that nearly destroyed the shroud... sometime. (I can't remember the exact dates...) there was undoubtedly smoke damage as some of the shourd itself was slightly burnt. Now, fire breaks apart CARBON bonds, and the smoke therefore is abundant in CARBON. So, in effect, the smoke replenished the carbon that had decomposed, making the fabric *APPEAR* to be "younger" than it actually is. It could *very* easily date back to the time of Christ... I guess we'll never know tho? It'd be cool if it *were*, regardless of your religious beliefs tho, wouldn't it?

[Nero]

...One of my friends is an archaeologist (mostly contract work for the state) and he's not enamoured with Biblical Archaeologists. He's always held the notion that the BAs use the Bible to define what they are looking for, rather than let the field work define itself -- making it a self fulfilled prophecy in a way...

Isn't that the same thing materialist scientists do? Have you ever seen a criticism or "debunking" of natural selection published in a mainstream scientific journal? Plenty of them exist.

Hell, when Reimann and Einstein started making noises about higher dimensions the loudest critics were from the scientific community. They were scared shitless that investigating higher dimensions might suggest the existence of "supernatural" entities.

I'm not a big fan of stifling free thought whether it comes from the pulpit or the university ivory tower. And it behooves all others who are fans of free thought to realize it does come from both places.

Case in point. I believe it was Georgia which wanted to place a sticker in their biology textbooks stating that evolution is only a theory and not a fact and the subject should be approached with an open mind. Well, it is only a fucking theory and not a fact. And science is supposed to be about approaching subjects with an open mind. But did the secularist zealots applaud this espousal of open-mindedness and scientific integrity? Hell no. They blew a gasket, scared to death that someone might be suggesting that creationism might be right and evolution might be wrong.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong. But I'm a bit suspect of the kind of objectivity we get when this type of reaction ensues. We all know there are religious zealots who allow their preconceived notions to get in the way of their objectivity. But we can adjust our assesement of their opinions armed with that knowledge. I'm concerned that we've overlooked the zealotry that exists in the "objective" scientific world. Bias is only dangerous when it's not recognized.

[Mr. Drags]

Bias is only dangerous when it's not recognized. Bravo sir!