MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:57 am
But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:
Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.
Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.
Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.
Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.
Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!
This isn't evidence. I don't think there is anything in this that requires comment as there is no burden of evidence to contend with here. The same could be said for any number of mythological figures.
Old Testament scholar James Hoffmeier (who specializes in issues of Old Testament historicity and archaeology) says:
As a field archaeologist myself, I am keenly aware of how little has actually survived from the ancient past, owing to natural forces, such as moisture in many forms, deflation, and earthquakes, as well as human impact in the form of later occupation (in ancient times), reusing earlier building materials, human destruction (war and burning), and modern development (urban and agricultural). Realistic expectations about what archaeology can and cannot do for biblical studies must always be kept in mind.
Again, there is no burden of evidence posed by this paragraph. It therefore does not demand comment or response.
the Archaeological Study Bible says this:
No mention of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) has been found in extrabiblical documents from their era (c. 1950-1550 B.C.), nor should we expect to find such references. Living as nomads on the fringes of populated areas, the patriachs wandered between the great empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and their activities would have been insignificant to scribes and annalists of that period. The Biblical narratives, which from their side make few references to political events of those times, are nevertheless historical, not myth or fiction. Biblical writers simply selected material appropriate to their theological objectives.
There are various reasons (above and beyond basic faith commitments) for us to acccept the Biblical accounts as historically reliable, among them:
Because writing systems were in use by the third millenium B.C, it is unnecessary to assume that a long period of oral transmission existed between the events themselves and their documentation in written records. People of the late third millenium and the early second millenium B.C. maintained written records and did not depend on memory for matters they condisered to be important. The events of the patriarchal period may have been recorded soon after their occurrence in texts that the Biblical writers later utilized as sources.
Once again, no actual evidence is presented yet. Therefore no response to it is required.
Names similar to Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram/Abraham (Gen 11) and Jacob (ch. 25) appear in documents of the first half Old Testament he second millenium B.C., showing that these names were common during that period. The names of kings mentioned in Genesis 14 are difficult to account for, but the evidence does collaborate the story itself.
Finally, an evidence-based claim. The evidence? There are names from the 2nd millenium B.C. that are similar to those in the Genesis narratives about Abraham, and those similar names were common in those sources.
What does this demand of us? As best as I can tell, it could just as easily show that the mythological narratives drew from a culture. Ok.
Apparently some locations mentioned in the patriarchal narrative were sparsely inhabited during the time of the patriarchs and thus are difficult to account for archaeologically. Other locations, however, had larger populations and are known from archaeology and/or texts contemporary to the lives of the patriarchs. There is strong evidence, for example, related to the location of the cities of the plain.
The patriarchs’ travel is not to be regarded as improbable. Texts from Ebla (c. 2300 B.C.) and Cappadocia (C. 2000 B.C.) indicate that travel, commerce and trade regularly occurred throughout the ancient Near East.
Another evidence-based claim. That being, there is evidence of travel from the period that shows Abraham's exodus from Ur to Canaan isn't improbable based on the ability of a group like that to travel those distances over time. Ok.
Hurrian family law, in force in Haran (see chs. 12; 24) and Nuzi, shed light on some of the activities of Abraham’s family that might otherwise perplex us. Another parallel has been found in a letter from Larsa (an ancient Summerian city on the Euphrates River), indicating that a childless man could indeed adopt his slave as his heir (see 15:2).
Interesting. So this looks like it is trying to be specific and is the strongest claim so far. It doesn't provide direct evidence but refers to a source and tells us that information in that source supports the cultural activities in Genesis being from a period of time when Abraham would have lived. Is there something here you think demands comment or response, though? It leaves the burden of evidence on the reader to find the sources and then contend with their content. I am not sure what you expect here if there is just a poorly written suggestion rather than actual evidence provided.
The patriarchal stories faithfully reflect customs that were not practiced and institutions that did not exist during later periods, some of which were even prohibited under the religious norms of later Israel. For example, marriage to a half sister (cf. Lev 18:9) or to tow sisters simultaneously (cf. Lev 18:18) was permissible during patriarchal times but forbidden in later Israelite society. This fact argues against the idea claimed by some critics that these stories were invented during the period of the Israelite monarchy.
Thus, various contemporary Near Eastern sources lend support to the historicity of the Genesis narrative.
Again, there is no actual evidence provided. Just a claim.
All three quote sources are from:
https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2019 ... r-abraham/
My point in cut and pasting some references dealing with Abraham are simply to make the point that, as I said, the jury is out on Abraham as a historical figure. As we look through the fog of history we can, believer and disbeliever alike, find information and evidence that supports our point of view and presuppositions.
The critics, of course, would like to make a slam dunk in regards to the non existence of an Old Testament Patriarch named Abram/Abraham.
In effect they can then discount everything that came after in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant and that covenantal relationship that Latter Day Saints claim to have with deity. Obviously it’s a big deal.
My response to critics is simply…not so fast. There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.
Regards,
MG
I don't know, MG. You need better evidence to demand a response the way you have. The jury isn't out on this. It's much like our past discussions regarding the Book of Mormon being obviously of the 19th century. The jury isn't out on that claim, either.
