The more people sift through the sands of the Holy Land, the more artifacts they turn up - silent witnesses to the lives and times of the razor-thin slice of humanity captured in the Bible. But also there is more opportunity than ever to generate meaningless but lucrative controversies by pretending to dig up material that “disproves” the Bible. Here are some recent, apparently genuine, finds:

In November 2007, Dutch researcher Marjo Korpel identified an imposing document seal at the Israel Museum, first catalogued in 1964, as belonging to the prophet Elijah’s nemesis, Jezebel.

There has been much scholarly chinwagging since then about whether the seal really belonged to the infamous queen. In its favour are the fact that the name Jezebel is rare and few women in the 9th century BC were powerful enough to have one.

That same month, workers trying to save a teetering tower in Jerusalem’s ancient City of David stumbled on what looks like Nehemiah’s controversial 5th century BC wall. Archaeologist Eilat Mazar commented that the discovery was greeted with amazement because many scholars argued that the wall never existed.

In March 2008 a “rich layer of finds” was unearthed from the First Temple (Solomon’s Temple), dating from the 8th to 6th centuries BC. It included pottery and figurines, and the signet ring of someone named Netanyahu ben Yaush—thought to be a senior official. The area had been covered by a Roman road, thus hidden from plunderers for thousands of years.

Better still, in April, among the many cuneiform tablets in the British Museum was found a receipt given to royal official Nebo-Sarsekim of Babylon (see Jeremiah 39) for a donation of gold to a temple in about 595 BC. Archaeologist Irving Finkel told Britain’s Daily Telegraph, “If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power” (April 19, 2008).

In February 2008, archaeologists announced that they had finally found the sarcophagus of Herod the Great (37 BC–4 BC). There ended a mystery: Ancient historian Josephus recounted that the unpopular monarch was buried at Herodium, his lavish city. But many previous excavations had failed to find him. The workers found his sarcophagus smashed to bits and the bones removed—most likely during the Jewish rebellion of 66-72 AD, which ended when Rome destroyed Herod’s Temple and dispersed the Jews.

According to archaeologist Amiram Barkat, “At Herodium, Herod built one of the largest monarchical complexes in the Roman Empire, which served as a residential palace, a sanctuary, an administrative center and a mausoleum. Herod first built an artificial cone-shaped hill that could be seen from Jerusalem, on which he constructed a fortified palace surrounded by watchtowers that he used solely in wartime.” (Haaretz, February 7, 2008)

A man whose taste for self-aggrandizement (on taxes and plunder) reached these heights was not likely to welcome the learned strangers looking for a child “born king of the Jews”.

Archaeologist Finkel speaks of Nebo-Sarsekim’s receipt giving the Biblical witness “a new kind of power.” Is that perhaps because we realize that the Bible is mostly about real people like ourselves—people who expect receipts?

The oft-heard claim that the Bible recounts mere myths or propaganda was first advanced seriously in the 18th century before archaeology came into its own. Today, a single recovered artifact can establish a historical existence—and there is still lots of ground to excavate.

One outcome is that skepticism has focused in recent years on artifacts that supposedly debunk the Bible. One thinks, for example, of the 2006 claim, into which National Geographic sunk millions, that an apocryphal Gospel of Judas shows that Jesus’s betrayer was really a nice guy. More than seven million people watched the film and many more read the book. Later, the claim was found to rest on mistranslations and missing words. And National Geographic has been credibly accused of “scholarly malpractice” (Chronicle Review, May 30, 2008).

We can choose to believe the Bible or not, but based on historical experience, I would surely not advise anyone to bet against it.

Denyse O’Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca) is a Toronto-based Canadian journalist and blogger who is the author of Faith@Science: Why science needs faith in the 21st century ( J. Gordon Shillingford, 2001), and By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004, an overview of the intelligent design controversy), and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain (Harper: September 2007). Her current blogs are the Post-Darwinist, the Mindful Hack, and Colliding Universes.

My other recent stories:

Today at Colliding Universes (a blog that supports a book I want to write with a physicist about goofy theories in cosmology that are simply intended to avoid the fact that our universe is  fine-tuned for life):

“Privileged planet” astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez: Dissing St. Carl in his own church - my column on line (Yes, Gonzalez is the guy who was denied tenure in that big flap at Iowa State University because his findings don’t square with materialist theories.)

Will the cosmic multiverse landscape ensure the triumph of intelligent design? You’d be surprised.

Murchison meteorite claimed to hold genetic materials … well, maybe

The Butterfly Effect: Totally wrong? Not even wrong? Not even a butterfly?

Science teaching: The peril in the big questions

You heard it here first, or last, or anyway here: The universe is a donut

Could God live in an infinite sea of universes? Depends …

Well now, and what of Berlinski’s Devils

Who reads popular books on cosmology? Well, almost everyone who actually reads, it seems

Teacher: Big ideas without science methods are blank cheque

And today at the Post-Darwinist (supports By Design or by Chance?):

Jailed Canuck media mogul Conrad (Tubby) Black endorses ID-friendly Jindal for McCain’s veep

Straw in the wind: Science writer tries to figure out why intelligent design theory doesn’t go away

From my mailbox …

Expelled movie’s screenwriter - recently demoted from “evil” to “stupid” - regains “evil” status

Brain evolution gene?: Move over already yet, gay gene, fat gene, and God gene!

The Right’s war on science? Lot’s of ink spilled there, but how about the Left’s war on science?

Teacher accused of burning cross on student’s arm and of teaching creationism

Write! Canada coverage highlights intellectual freedom risks, troubles of book industry

Write! Canada 2008: CD of my business course for writers available - an inexpensive gift for a writer you may know

Also, today at The Mindful Hack (supports The Spiritual Brain)

Real Buddhism scholar to “neural Buddhists”: The Buddha does not infinitely morph and would never drop two grand for “meditation gear”

The Spiritual Brain gets Award of Merit at Write! Canada, plus Mario gets tenure

Free will: How can a guy who doesn’t believe in free will take credit for writing a book? I mean …

Evidence? If you are a materialist, trust me, you need never bother with evidence.

Alzheimer helps atheist appreciate God. Yes, really

Evolutionary psychology: Speculation rather than sound science, says new MIT Press book (= Future lies with “Clan of the Cave Bear” fiction)

World’s ten worst books?: Read them so you don’t end up living them.

Evolutionary psychology: The “meme” generates a fruitful hoax, if nothing else

Sci Phi Show podcast features scholar on near death experiences

Psychology: Jokes help us survive even when we daren’t laugh aloud

Psychology: If people were robots, safety devices would abolish most accidents, but …

Spirituality: Today’s students spiritually repressed?

Brain: Find me those darn pigs … or else! A poem that sends up materialist neuroscience.

Evolutionary psychology: The selfish gene in the art world

Evolutionary psychology: Key concept of “memes” trashed as “one of the bigger crocks hatched in recent decades”

Does a recent discovery in honeybees “prove” that the “selfish gene” exists?

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...