• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Archaeological & Other Scientific Findings Vs. Religious Texts

M

minordrag

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
1,076
OK, not the "sexiest" thread name.

There has always been interest in the "historicity" of religious texts like the Old and New Testament, the Koran, and the Sutras. Scientists and cranks alike have sought to either find the truth behind supposedly historical accounts, or buttress their own agenda through ignoring/doctoring facts. Such pursuits have included unearthing the evidence of the city of Jericho (and subsequent evidence that the walls were brought down 70 years before Joshua's army), "finding" Noah's Ark (or geological evidence of a great flood), the search for the Holy Grail, Masada, the locations visited by the Buddha in life (there is a tour in India that retraces his travels)...the list could go on. Likewise, fossilized remains fly in the face of the "Creationist" viewpoint of an Earth only six thousand years old.

Not sure what my question is. What examples can be given (by those more intelligent and well-read than me) of scientific findings that either prove or question the historicity of religious texts? Is this a fruitfull scientific pursuit? How can this synthesize, resolve, or destroy the old science/religion duality?
 
Crikey, where to start..?? :)

This is a set of really big questions, and answering them would depend on which specific religion you had in mind, how historical that faith is supposed to be both to outsiders and believers and the nature of the sources for those historical events.

I could describe how the Bible is by no means a history book in the accepted modern sense of the word, but then I'd have a lot of committed literalists explaining precisely why I am wrong, and the same would go for any other faith that you care to name.

What I would say with certainty is that any historical researcher who goes out specifically to prove the bible true tends to find the evidence needed whereas their openminded brethren dont'...

...Or perhaps years of reading half-baked, speculative, tripe has made me cynical ;)
 
The thing is, this research is usually done with the idea in mind that ASPECTS of the Bible/Koran/Torah/etc. are true.

For example, Meggido AKA Armageddon.

In the Bible, it says something like "The kings of the world shall watch the final battle between good and evil from Armageddon". I can't remember exactly.

Anywho, Meggido is Armageddon. One is an ancient name, the other is a Greek or Roman version of it.

Archeologists have found Meggido. It does exist. It is near Gaza IIRC.

It also turns out that it is smack-dab in the middle of a cross-roads for four major routes. If you wanted to move around that area a few millenia ago, you HAD to go through Meggido.

Turns out, around 1469 BC, Tuthmosis III went on a rampage through that area. He managed to get Nubia under Egyptian rule, as well as Meggido and 349 other cities! He attacked the Syrians for 18 straight summers!

Tuthmosis III kicked the Holy Land's ass!

So did a bunch of other people. Meggido was often rebuilt.

Now, during this time, there were Israelites in Egypt. IIRC (and if the info I was told was correct), the Jews fled Egypt around 13xx BC. After the conquering of Meggido.

We also known that the Israelites took on some Egyptian customs and aspects. Moses is NOT a Jewish name. It is Egyptian.

So if we add it up, we can reasonably assume that the legend of Armageddon most likely springs out of the stories of utter destruction that arose form the constant attacks on Meggido as well as the Egyptian legends of their conquest (Pharoh's tended to GREATLY exagerate their battles....much like politicians today...).

That is the kind of things archeologist look for when working on biblical sites.

They find the site, and by looking at it and other histories they can find out why the bible says some of the things it does.

In the case of Meggido, history shows that numerous battles took place there. Some of HUGE scope. Actually they took place BELOW Meggido. Meggido is on a hill. The defenders and attackers fought on the plain beneath it.

And people looked out at the battle FROM Meggido.

All the bible is saying is that when the final battle takes place, you will be able to see it from Meggido.

Which in the ancient world they lived in would have made sense.
 
I know it's pedantic, but is it significant.. isn't Moses a Greek version of an Egyptian name?
 
Schmell, I agree entirely with you about how the best biblical archaeology should be approached.
Megiddo was also a strategic choke point for anyone trying to invade Egypt or repel an invasion from there. The history of the ancient near east in the first two millenia BCE revolved round the interaction of the two super-powers Egypt and whoever was ruling mesopotamia at the time. Israel/Judah was the buffer zone in the middle so they tended to get a thumping by whichever power was in the ascendent at the time. It was therefore a potent symbol to use to describe a future eschatalogical event.
 
Who was running Mesopotamia at the time? The Sumerian civilisation, as I recall reading..
 
The Sumerians ruled Mesopotamia from c2850-2360 BCE, much earlier than the period of history that roughly corresponds with the Old Testament.
After that, the area was ruled by a succession of groups who dominated the area before declining and being taken over by the next group on the up.The background to the OT is mainly the rule of Babylon, Assyria, Babylon again and finally the Persians.
 
Regarding Jewish scriiptures and archaeology, the Ebla tablets are quite interesting. The excavations which began at Tell Mardikh in northern Syria unearthed artifacts of ancient Ebla, which flourished around 2,300 BC.
Since 1974 over 17,000 inscribed tablets dating back to this period have been discovered at the Ebla site. They predate the supposed Mosaic authorship of the Torah by about a millenium and describe law codes involving elaborate judicial proceedings once thought not to have developed until the first half of the Persian period (538-331BC). Some of the law codes are quite similar to the Deuteronomy law code - which was previously thought too complex for so 'early' a date as 1400BC.
One Ebla tablet lists the Five Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar), which until its discovery were dismissed as fictions of Genesis chapter 14. (They are curiously listed in the same order as in Genesis.)
 
Just read the bit in the New York Times (under Breaking News on main page as "Rabbis face facts of bible history") You have to subscribe to NY times online, but apparently it's free, and it's well worth reading and completely relevant to this thread.
 
That links to the letters page (interesting in itself), but there's a link to the article in the "related articles" box.
They reckon that the flood story may be based on the cyclical flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates. Geography not being a strong point of mine, did they used to flood in a similar way to the Nile?
 
Think this can be shoehorned in here.

Betlehem antiquity 'confirmed' by ancient seal find
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18182507

Archaeologists say the seal is the first physical evidence that Bethlehem existed before the birth of Christ

Related Stories

Archaeology and the struggle for Jerusalem
Struggle over Jewish tourist site Watch

Israeli archaeologists say they have discovered the first physical evidence of Bethlehem's ancient origins.

They say they found a small clay seal, dating from the 7th or 8th Century BC, with the word Bethlehem written in ancient Hebrew on it.

It would be the earliest mention of the town's existence outside the pages of the old Testament.

The town, south of Jerusalem, features in the New Testament as the birthplace of Jesus.

The archaeological dig has been controversial, because it is financed by an organisation which advocates the creation of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas with ancient Hebrew links.

The tablet - which is the size of a small coin - was found near the walls of Jerusalem's Old City.

The archaeologists said its age appears to prove that the town already had an ancient history by the time of Jesus' birth.

Eli Shukron, from the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the tablet sealed a shipment of silver or agricultural produce sent from Bethlehem to Jerusalem.

"This is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible in an inscription from the First Temple period [1006 - 586 BC]", he said.
Click to expand...
 
This is a radio discussion that overlaps several existing threads, but none of them seem quite right as a home for it - it covers a lot of ground in 30 minutes!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Religion/

Beyond Belief
- Archaeology and Religion

Late last year a team of archaeologists who had been working on a site in Nepal announced that they had uncovered the earliest known Buddhist shrine, a discovery which leads them to place the date of the Buddha's birth three centuries earlier than previously thought.

In the first of a new series of Beyond Belief, Ernie Rea and guests discuss the impact that archaeological discoveries have on the study of religion and on the faith of believers. What added dimensions does archaeology bring to religions of the book? What light does it shed on the worlds of the founders of the faiths? And can archaeology ever be used to prove or disprove the beliefs of the billions that have followed them?

Ernie Rea's guests are Professor Robin Coningham, Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Professor Tim Insoll.

Available until 12:00AM Thu, 1 Jan 2099
 
This article from Haaretz a few years back would seem to fit here
Is the Bible a True Story?
Some Samples
Among archaeologists, the camps have split according to academic institution: In Jerusalem the biblical (maximalist) camp dominates, for instance arguing that the impressive palace found in the City of David practically had to have belonged to David. In Tel Aviv, the critical (minimalist) camp prevails in Tel Aviv, arguing that there is no evidence to buttress the bible, and that the palace in Jerusalem evidently doesn't date to the Davidic era.
Click to expand...
//snip

... the Philistines, who seem to have actually sailed to the Holy Land only centuries after the Bible says they did.

//snip

... For instance, no remains of a city wall have ever been found at Jericho from Joshua's era (about the mid-13th century B.C.E.) Other cities that are mentioned in the story of the conquest did not even exist during that period

//snip

Earlier periods, the Jebusite and Canaanite stages of the city, before it was conquered by David, did yield many findings inside the City of David digs, including sophisticated defense and water systems. But researchers are having difficulty identifying an imperial capital of a mighty unified kingdom as described in Scripture.

Most researchers therefore suspect that at during the so-called Davidic era, Jerusalem was at most a town, smaller than the Canaanite Jerusalem that preceded it and the Jerusalem of the days of the independent Kingdom of Judea that came after it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top