Biblical Archaeology

[Matthias]

I might. Any first-century historian who investigates events of decades earlier -- no library of books, no newspaper collection, no internet to consult on the topic -- is largely an interviewer, and thus subject to potential error from the mistakes made by his sources. I hope we can agree on that much.

Luke mentions that other accounts were written before he wrote his. He had knowledge of them and, presumably, access to them. So, in addition to speaking directly with eye-witnesses himself, he had books on the life to draw from.

Mistakes made by his sources? The sources fall into two categories: 1. the other written accounts that he was able to draw on; and 2. the eye-witnesses he spoke with.

Shake that foundation, bust it up and haul it away, and what do we have left? That’s an atheist’s dream.

But I don't think writing investigative histories are what Mark or Matthew or John did in writing their gospels. Any factual errors in their gospels have a different origin. (And there are some.)

No investigative history. Factual errors. Different and erroneous source material.

It feels like I’m talking to an atheist at this point. What do you have to stand on now that you’ve convinced yourself of these things about the Gospels?

Perhaps (in which case, Kudos to Luke for hunting such a witness down). And archeology discloses that this particular interviewee's testimony was mistaken.

For a long time “Archaeology disclosed” that the kingdom of David didn’t exist. “We can’t find evidence of David anywhere in the land.” That is no longer the case. The source wasn’t mistaken. Archaeology can prove but it can’t disprove. It can continue to search or it can abandon the search.

Missing tiles. That’s all it took for you to call the witnesses testimony mistaken. Witness dismissed, over something which may yet be found.

I agree with your first sentence, but I disagree with the second. Luke's "account of the life of Jesus," broadly construed, is not fabricated.

You’ve cast doubt on the sources. You’ve planted in the mind: there is no historical investigation, there are factual errors, there are erroneous sources. What can be believed?

But God wouldn't care what the Capernaum roof was made of. God would care about Luke's message being correct. And the roof materials are irrelevant to the message.

Detail helps establish credibility of the witness. There was a fisherman’s net containing fish. Where is this net? There was a fisherman’s net containing 153 fish! (John 21:11). The net wasn’t torn! God wouldn’t care about the number of fish in the net? The net wasn’t torn by this enormous haul? Really? It’s irrelevant to the story? Archaeologists haven’t found anything to prove the story is true. John fabricated the story? He embellished it? John isn’t reliable? Wait, he was there. Wasn’t he? Maybe not. What do other sources say? Can they be trusted? No historical investigation? No one else mentions this detail. Witness dismissed?

Wait. John says there is even more to the story that hasn’t been written down (John 20:30). Really?There’s no evidence that there is. Is he telling the truth? Why didn’t he write a few more of the details down? Was he afraid of something? The more details given the more potential to tear his witness apart.

Did Jesus ever really exist? Where is the tomb he was buried in? There it is. No, that’s not it. His tomb is over there. Is it now? Someone call an archaeologist.

Believe the women, you say? They were first to see the empty tomb. The women? Now you want us to believe women? LOL! All right. All right. Let’s see what the women wrote down. What’s that you say? The women didn’t write anything down? Get out of here.

I agree with you. And I know you'll agree with me that it doesn't mean that the writer ISN'T fabricating or embellishing. To figure out which is the case, we would need to look elsewhere. To archeology, for instance.

I believe the witness. Archaeology may one day confirm more than it has, just as it has confirmed many things and continues to confirm things which were confirmed only a short time ago.

“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry … “ Stop right there. Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. How much longer must we bear with you fabricators and embellishers of a non-existent person?

Fabricating and embellishing = the witness is unreliable; the witness is not to be believed.

We’ve torn it all down, to the rousing cheers of the atheists.

 

[Matthias]

I like to gather perspectives on such matters from serious thinking people. I find it helpful.

Commentaries are written by serious thinking people. I take it that you’ve consulted many of them, long before speaking with me about it. If they haven’t been able to help you resolve the doubts that you have then what is the probability that I will? I’m going to tell you what they’ve already told you.

 

[Matthias]

Biblical archaeology is interesting and useful but it doesn’t prove (nor does it disprove) the faith.

 

[Behold]

If one writer says something that another writer doesn’t say anything about, it doesn’t mean that the writer who said it was fabricating or embellishing.

4 Gospels.
4 Sets of eyes.
4 different accounts that are witnesses of the same event, will always have slight variations, slight differences of perspective.

 

[Matthias]

4 Gospels.
4 Sets of eyes.
4 different accounts that are witnesses of the same event, will always have slight variations, slight differences of perspective.

Yes. All dragged to the ground and trampled on in this once pleasurable, now miserable, thread.

 

[Behold]

Yes. All dragged to the ground and trampled on in this once pleasurable, now miserable, thread.

You killed it for me, when you posted this.

@Matthias posted

(Maybe he made that up, too?)

So, you are casting doubt on the Bible, and that is not a good idea, as you are not the authority.

 

[Matthias]

You killed it for me, when you posted this.

@Matthias posted

(Maybe he made that up, too?)

So, you are casting doubt on the Bible, and that is not a good idea, as you are not the authority.

You’re lacking in understanding.

I’m not the one casting doubt on the writing. (I’ve defended the writing, and always will.) It was a rhetorical question put by me to the one (a Christian) who is doubting. It was for the purpose of causing him to think about what he is doing and where it is leading.

Then along comes you; doing that thing you do.

 

[Behold]

I’m not the one casting doubt on the writing. (I’ve defended the writing,

So then he didn't "make it up, too"?

Did i miss something?

Who are you talking about that "too"... "maybe HE made it up".

Who is the 'HE", ?

 

[Matthias]

So then he didn't "make it up, too"?

Did i miss something?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have.

Who are you talking about that "too"... "maybe HE made it up".

Who is the 'HE", ?

 

[Behold]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have.

You dont want to state who the "He" is, that "maybe HE made that up, TOO"?, as you suggested, in a previous post?

Ok.

 

[Matthias]

When did the professional excavation of the land of Israel begin? I read an interesting book last year about Biblical archaeology - Under Jerusalem: the buried history of the world’s most contested city, written by Andrew Lawler.

What did people do before the age of Biblical archaeology?

“In the beginning, Biblical archaeology …”

No.

“In the beginning, God …”

Yes.

 

[Wick Stick]

It is worth noting that Luke doesn't always agree with Mark/Matthew. Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon in Matt. 1:6, but through Nathan in Luke 3:31. The transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” according to Mark 9:1-2, but eight days later according to Luke 9:28.

I wonder how @Matthias squares this.

The two genealogies problem is fascinating.

The gospel of John has Jesus teaching that genealogies are not trustworthy, and that the true test of one's heredity is behavior. Abraham's true children ACT like Abraham. (John 8-10) 1Timothy likewise tells us that genealogies do not edify and that we should avoid them. In Romans, Paul reckons Abraham's children to be those who believe-like-Abraham, echoing Jesus' sentiments in John's gospel.

So why then, if genealogies are so dubious, do Matthew and Luke give us Jesus' genealogy? Perhaps they disagree about the worth of genealogies? Is it too much to expect them to agree with Jesus' teaching? (I don't think so...)

For myself, I have a hypothesis that Matthew has a different purpose for his genealogy. I think he may have considered genealogies to be a literary form, something that wasn't necessarily to be taken literally. Some of the intertestamental books certainly treat genealogies that way (Enoch, Jubilees, etc).

 

[Wick Stick]

Archaeology can prove but it can’t disprove.

A profound statement. Something to keep in mind.

 

[RedFan]

Luke mentions that other accounts were written before he wrote his. He had knowledge of them and, presumably, access to them. So, in addition to speaking directly with eye-witnesses himself, he had books on the life to draw from.

Mistakes made by his sources? The sources fall into two categories: 1. the other written accounts that he was able to draw on; and 2. the eye-witnesses he spoke with.

Shake that foundation, bust it up and haul it away, and what do we have left? That’s an atheist’s dream.



No investigative history. Factual errors. Different and erroneous source material.

It feels like I’m talking to an atheist at this point. What do you have to stand on now that you’ve convinced yourself of these things about the Gospels?



For a long time “Archaeology disclosed” that the kingdom of David didn’t exist. “We can’t find evidence of David anywhere in the land.” That is no longer the case. The source wasn’t mistaken. Archaeology can prove but it can’t disprove. It can continue to search or it can abandon the search.

Missing tiles. That’s all it took for you to call the witnesses testimony mistaken. Witness dismissed, over something which may yet be found.



You’ve cast doubt on the sources. You’ve planted in the mind: there is no historical investigation, there are factual errors, there are erroneous sources. What can be believed?



Detail helps establish credibility of the witness. There was a fisherman’s net containing fish. Where is this net? There was a fisherman’s net containing 153 fish! (John 21:11). The net wasn’t torn! God wouldn’t care about the number of fish in the net? The net wasn’t torn by this enormous haul? Really? It’s irrelevant to the story? Archaeologists haven’t found anything to prove the story is true. John fabricated the story? He embellished it? John isn’t reliable? Wait, he was there. Wasn’t he? Maybe not. What do other sources say? Can they be trusted? No historical investigation? No one else mentions this detail. Witness dismissed?

Wait. John says there is even more to the story that hasn’t been written down (John 20:30). Really?There’s no evidence that there is. Is he telling the truth? Why didn’t he write a few more of the details down? Was he afraid of something? The more details given the more potential to tear his witness apart.

Did Jesus ever really exist? Where is the tomb he was buried in? There it is. No, that’s not it. His tomb is over there. Is it now? Someone call an archaeologist.

Believe the women, you say? They were first to see the empty tomb. The women? Now you want us to believe women? LOL! All right. All right. Let’s see what the women wrote down. What’s that you say? The women didn’t write anything down? Get out of here.



I believe the witness. Archaeology may one day confirm more than it has, just as it has confirmed many things and continues to confirm things which were confirmed only a short time ago.

“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry … “ Stop right there. Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. How much longer must we bear with you fabricators and embellishers of a non-existent person?

Fabricating and embellishing = the witness is unreliable; the witness is not to be believed.

We’ve torn it all down, to the rousing cheers of the atheists.

I am not of that view. I focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned.

Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

That theological soundness is what my faith is based on. NOT on the inerrancy of immaterial minutia.

Because of this, I don't have to worry about Matthew 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. You do.

I don't have to worry about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14). You do.

I don't have to worry about Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17). You do.

I can do this all day long if you wish. But I'm sure you can see the logic of my approach. I am not scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. You demand literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for you, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err. I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not troubled by inaccuracies as to the latter. It doesn't shake my faith in Scripture.

 

[Matthias]

I am not of that view. I focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned.

Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

That theological soundness is what my faith is based on. NOT on the inerrancy of immaterial minutia.

Because of this, I don't have to worry about Matthew 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. You do.

I don't have to worry about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14). You do.

I don't have to worry about Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27). You do.

I don't have to worry about whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17). You do.

I can do this all day long if you wish. But I'm sure you can see the logic of my approach. I am not scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. You demand literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for you, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err. I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not troubled by inaccuracies as to the latter. It doesn't shake my faith in Scripture.

Thanks. I’ve done all that I’m going to do to try help you and our readers deal with the harmful idea that archaeology is able to disprove the Bible.

 

[RedFan]

Thanks. I’ve done all that I’m going to do to try help you and our readers deal with the harmful idea that archaeology is able to disprove the Bible.

Fair enough. And what about all the inconsistencies I mentioned? What do they prove or disprove?

 

[Matthias]

Fair enough.

We part on good terms.

And what about all the inconsistencies I mentioned? What do they prove or disprove?

A thread on Biblical archaeology isn’t the right place to discuss it.

 

[Matthias]

“In a groundbreaking archaeological discovery, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Thursday that a natural gas company’s standard survey of the Eastern Mediterranean floor had uncovered the most ancient ship ever found in the deep seas.

The discovery of the remains of the ship from the 14th-13th century BCE proves that Late Bronze Age mariners could navigate the seas without a line of sight to the shore, contrary to what was previously believed, the IAA said. …”

3,300-year-old ship discovered off Israeli coast, the oldest ever found in deep waters

Researchers say location of wreck, carrying hundreds of intact storage vessels, proves Late Bronze Age mariners could journey far out to sea

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Matthias]

“A recent discovery in Israel may corroborate an epic biblical account of an angel of the Lord wiping out 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, an independent scholar claims.

Stephen Compton, an independent scholar specializing in Near Eastern archaeology, utilized a modern mapping technique to find the discovery of, what he believes, are ancient Assyrian military camps, from circa 700 B.C.

The discovery, which is also detailed in Assyrian texts, Greek histories and the Hebrew Bible could verify the biblical account of 2 Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36-38 and 2 Chronicles 32:22. …

’One of the important cities that he conquered, which is mentioned in the Bible as well as in Assyrian documents, is Lachish,’ he said. ‘And on the wall of Sennacherib’s palace he had a relief depicting, in stone carving, the conquest of the city of Lachish, and then after one side his military camp. And his military camp was a large oval. This image from the wall of his palace is now on the wall of the British Museum. But it’s never been found.’

Matching the landscape to the relief in Assyrian King Sennacherib’s palace and using early aerial photographs of Lachish prior to modern development, Compton created a virtual map to pinpoint the site of the military camp. …”

Newly found Assyrian camp supports epic biblical account, expert says

A long-lost Assyrian military camp recently found by a Near Eastern archaeology scholar may provide insight and corroborate a biblical account.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Matthias]

“A synagogue built in 380AD was discovered in the early 1900’s, but there was no physical evidence dating it back to the times of Jesus - until now. …”

Archaeologists make discovery at city where Jesus performed miracles

Archaeologists recently made a groundbreaking discovery in Israeli that could provide evidence to Biblical text about Jesus visiting a city where he performed miracles more than 2,000 years ago.

www.dailymail.co.uk