Responding to McLean's

"Is the Good Book Bad History?"

Maclean's Magazine (December 9^th 2002) featured the cover story entitled "Is the Good Book Bad history?" by Brian Bethune. The subtitle read, 'The exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the Promised Land, even the monarchy of David and Solomon - all are derided as fiction by revisionist academics.'

The article gives us the interpretation of the archaeological data based on antisupernaturalistic presuppositions, and a basic distrust in the biblical narrative. The conclusion reached by the minimalists, that the Old Testament is not a reliable guide to Israel's history, admittedly, is the obvious one based on their initial presuppositions. However, if these presuppositions can be proven incorrect, then the conclusions reached must be thrown into serious question.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the minimalist presuppositions are foundationless. Moreover, that Bethune and the minimalists he cites have ignored much of the relevant historic and archaeological data in arriving at their conclusions.

Specifically, we shall examine in brief, nine demonstrably flawed assertions made, and approaches taken to the subject in Bethune's article:

1. The antiquity of the Bible *
2. Adherence to Evolution based on atheistic preference *
3. Flawed methodology / circular reasoning *
4. The Documentary Hypothesis & antisupernaturalism *
5. An argument from silence *
6. Intellectual "Slight of Hand" *
7. Failure to acknowledge the testimony of Jesus Christ *
8. Ignorance of Relevant Archaeological Data *
9. An evolutionary view of Israel's religion *

1) The Antiquity of the Bible

Bethune states:

"Since the Bible began to be shaped about 2,500 years ago, the West has never lost touch with it, as it did with the works of classical antiquity in the Dark Ages."

This statement requires further clarification. If he is implying that the biblical text only came into existence about that time, or only shortly before, he is coming against the explicit claims of Scripture about itself. Traditionally, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) has been attributed to Moses. Though Genesis makes no mention of him personally, the others certainly do, and clearly teach that he was their author.

Furthermore, the book of Joshua, which directly follows Deuteronomy chronologically, claims to have been written within the lifetimes of the various witnesses to the events it describes (Joshua 6:25), an interesting fact seeing as this book also makes mention of Moses' authorship of the 'book of the law' and of Joshua's building of the alter at Mount Ebal (Joshua 8:30-31) in obedience to what was commanded in Deuteronomy 27:4-5.

1 Kings 6:1 states that during the reign of King Solomon, in the four hundred and eighteenth year after the exodus from Egypt, the king began work on the temple. Most encyclopedias acknowledge Solomon's existence some 1,000 years before Christ, and based on the chronology outlined in the Scriptures themselves, it appears the exodus from Egypt took place in 1447 B.C. If Mosaic authorship is maintained, the composition of the Pentateuch was completed by 1405 B.C. Only when we retain a basic distrust in the narrative itself is their reason to believe that the composition of the Pentateuch occurred much later. Many others have taken pen in hand to defend; I would say convincingly, the fundamentalist position on this matter. ¹

2) Adherence to Evolution based on atheistic preference

Bethune rhetorically asks:

"But what if the word is not to be trusted? And not just some parts, the ones that modern Christians and Jews - fundamentalists and orthodox aside - have already repudiated. The clearly mythical account of creation in six days, for one, or the miraculous touches in later accounts, like the parting of the Red Sea or the tumbling walls of Jericho. No, now it's the whole thing, historically speaking. The exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the promised land, even the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon - all are derided as fiction by revisionist academics known as minimalists."

In what way is the creation account in Genesis "clearly mythical?" This is an opinion, and no matter how many people, regardless of their intellectual credentials, deny the Genesis account, until a proper refutation is offered, it still stands as a credible explanation for our origins. For those that have been taught that the evolution / creation debate was long over, with the former having emerged the clear victor, let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Evolution's invalidity as a scientific theory has been well documented ². Today there are scientists working in virtually every area of study who maintain belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation³. This along with the evolutionist community's unwillingness to engage in a complete written debate, which would cover all the data to pertinent to the origins question⁴, makes clear the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory, but a pagan religion dressed up as science. Only a major propaganda campaign, such as is seen today in magazines, textbooks, television programs, and movies, could brainwash a nation into believing (not demonstrating scientifically) that molecules will turn into men, and rocks will become rocket scientists if one waits longs enough.

It is precisely this sort of commitment to naturalism which throws the Scriptural account of miracles, hence the trustworthiness of Scripture as a whole, into question. Based on a naturalistic / evolutionary worldview, the Red Sea crossing and the tumbling walls of Jericho are fantastic, and ought to be interpreted as fiction. Yet, as noted above, an evolutionary worldview has in no way been shown to be superior to the theistic view the Bible presents. On the contrary, the evolutionists' commitment to naturalism, based on purely philosophical grounds, while at the same time claiming strict adherence to the scientific process, presents a striking logical inconsistency in their belief system.

3) Flawed methodology / circular reasoning

Bethune states:

"Once conducted by religious scholars who examined their discoveries in the light of the Bible, archaeology is now carried out by secular experts who view scripture in the light of their findings."

Again, note how presuppositions effects interpretations. Here, secular experts are interpreting the archaeological data based on a purely naturalistic worldview. It's important to realize that given such initial presuppositions, no amount of evidence will convince them of the Bible's reliability. These "experts" in reality, are arguing in a circle, the illogical practice of begging the question. They set out to determine whether or not the Bible can be trusted historically, while one of their presuppositions at the onset of their investigation is that it cannot. Is it any wonder that the "conclusion" they've reached is that the Bible is not to be trusted?

4) The Documentary Hypothesis & Antisupernaturalism

According to Bethune:

"Much of the older model of scripture supportive scholarship was a house of cards waiting to fall. It's been 250 years since scholars first noticed there seemed to be two strands of narrative running from the very start of Genesis. On[e] referred to the Almighty as Elohim or God, the other as Yahweh or Lord."

Sometimes referred to as "the documentary hypothesis", this notion has split the Pentateuch into four different sources (J,E,P and D). It is theorized these sources were written between 950 B.C. and 331 B.C., and later compiled into the five books of the Torah by a redactor(s). The reasons for this assertion are based solely on the study of word usage and stylistic changes that occur throughout the books of the law. For all the arguments that have been advanced in favor of this theory, the evidence appears compelling only if one already holds to an evolutionary / naturalistic worldview.

Those that hold to the documentary hypotheses are claiming a lot. They must claim that they are able to examine a body of text nearly 3,000 years old (3400 years old if Mosaic authorship is maintained), written in an archaic language, in a cultural setting far removed from our own, both geographically and politically, to a different people, under very unique circumstances, and, based upon word usage and stylistic changes, are able to determine which portions came from which sources, and when they were written! These are incredible claims to be sure, especially since the work itself is clearly claiming Moses as its author.

Dividing the text into "sources" based on the usage of divine names (e.g., Elohim and Yahweh) is only one interpretation of what the text is conveying. The other, more likely explanation, is that Elohim, which expresses the power and majesty of God, was used by one author in passages referring to His supremacy as Creator / Ruler of the universe. The name Yahweh, the covenant name of God, was used in passages dealing with God's personal relationship to human kind. This interpretation finds strong verification in the Scriptures⁵.

Furthermore, the Pentateuch's division into sources based on divine name usage seems flawed considering that Elohim appears in supposed 'J' source passages such as Genesis 31:50 and Genesis 33:5, 11. At the same time, the divine name Yahweh appears in Genesis 21:33, Genesis 22:4, 11, Genesis 28:21, Exodus 18:1, 8, 9, 10, 11, which are said to be "E" source passages. To claim that these are later interpolations is simply begging the question.

To Bethune's credit he states concerning source analysis of the Torah,

"Later, more than 20 other sources were postulated to cover material that didn't seem to come from the first two - a remarkable development, given that every one of them is purely theoretical."

Strangely, the theoretical and highly speculative nature of the documentary hypothesis did not stop the revisionists from using it as a foundation from which to cast more doubt on the biblical narrative, as Bethune continues,

"Growing awareness of Bible sources meant a new appreciation of when it was compiled. Passages that favor the southern realm - like Genesis 49:8, where Jacob sets his son Judah as king over his 11 brothers, founders of the other Israelite tribes - could only have been written after they had become a reality. Most scholars push that date of composition to the 7^th century B.C.E. or later."

Bethune's assertion that this portion of Scripture "could only have been written after [the twelve tribes] had become a reality" is valid only if we deny the reality of God and / or His ability to reveal future events to whom He chooses. This sort of reasoning is reminiscent of the critic's charge that the book of Daniel, which contains many accurately fulfilled prophecies, simply must have been written after the fact, though no compelling argument other than a denial of the supernatural has been advanced.

5) An argument from silence

Note how an absence of evidence becomes the springboard for an enormous speculative leap. Bethune states:

"For one thing, the patriarchal narratives - the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - make constant mention of caravans of camels, an animal not widely used as a beast of burden before then. That means that well over a millennium of Biblical narrative is drawn from oral sources: epic sagas, folk tales, hymns, poetry, even puns and jokes. Little of it is a reliable guide to what actually happened…"

The minimalists are arguing from silence. It may be true that based on archaeological discoveries, camels don't appear to have been widely used during Abraham's time, but does this seriously warrant the radical conclusion that the patriarchal narratives were thoroughly corrupted after more than 1,000 years of oral tradition? The archaeological picture is far from complete as Edwin Yamauchi, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., reminds us ("The Stones and the Scriptures, 1972, p.9):

"Historians of antiquity in using the archaeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but one fraction of a second fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the available evidence."

When we consider how little archaeological evidence actually exists, the radical conclusions reached by the minimalists appear more than a little extreme. This is especially true when we consider the archaeological evidence, which serves to validate the Patriarchal narratives.

For example, the price of slaves in the ancient near east from 2400 to 400 B.C. has been very well documented. In each case biblical narrative (Genesis 37:28, Exodus 21:32, 2 Kings 15:20) slave price fits the general period to which it relates ⁶. The irrevocable oral blessing of the dying Isaac to Jacob (Genesis 27:33) has been confirmed as a societal norm of that day based upon the inscriptional evidence discovered at Nuzi ^{7, 8}. The Mari letters indicate the use of biblical names such as Abamram (Abraham), Jacob-el, and Benjamites ⁹. This ancient document also name "Arriyuk" as prince of Mari, whom many equate with the "Arioch" of Genesis 14.¹⁰

6) Intellectual "Slight of Hand"

This argument against the reliability of Scripture is among the worst in Bethune's article:

"Those early archaeologists thought they were able to place Abraham within a period of urban collapse and migration of pastoral easterners at about 2100 BCE, just when the Bible said he lived. But subsequent excavations showed that the eastern influx didn't actually take place. Attempts to move the patriarchs to other eras produced the same unhappy results. Today even maximalists like Dever have given up hope of establishing Abraham, Isaac or Jacob as credible historic figures."

Either I'm not grasping the argument presented here, or the critics' reasoning is horribly flawed. How in the world does the lack of evidence supporting a theorized urban collapse and eastern migration, incidents not mentioned in the patriarchal narratives anyway, lead one to the conclusion that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are fictitious? This seems like an "intellectual slight of hand" intended to justify an atheistic bias.

7) Failure to Acknowledge the Testimony of Jesus Christ

Bethune continues:

"Little of [the patriarchal narratives] is a reliable guide to what actually happened, and the only confirmation is what excavations can provide."

In their search for the truth about the reliability of the Old Testament, the critics have, by accident or design, failed to look to the most important source of all - the greatest historic personage of all time; the One who literally split history in two: Jesus Christ.

It can be demonstrated quite convincingly, that the New Testament documents contain an accurate account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Greatest historic figure of all time, Jesus had much to say about the Old Testament, placing His seal of approval on the patriarchal narratives, on Mosaic authorship, on the Davidic monarchy, and on king Solomon and all his splendor.

The testimony of Jesus Christ is paramount and cannot be brushed aside by the critic. Before we can safely make the claims that the Old Testament is fictitious, we will have to first demonstrate that the words of Christ are either the ravings of a mad man, or that His words have not been recorded and preserved properly. Critics have demonstrated neither, despite centuries of scathing attacks. Many have simply chosen to deny the historicity of the New Testament based purely on philosophical grounds, but the truth is, if we test these documents the way we test any other historic work (the bibliographical test, internal evidence, external evidence, etc.,) the New Testament stands as reliable history. ¹¹

Jesus believed in the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4-5). He believed in the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in Moses and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Luke 20:37, Mark 7:10, 10:3-4, John7:19). He believed in king David, claiming descent from him (Revelation 22:16). Jesus believed in Solomon and spoke of his great wealth and the visit paid him by the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 6:29, 12:42). Jesus regarded the Old Testament of His day a trustworthy historic account. Unless someone can demonstrate that this body of text has undergone significant change in the last 2,000 years, or that the words of Christ are irrelevant, I think it wise to align myself with the opinions of the One Man who substantiated His claims by raising Himself from the dead.

Scoff at the resurrection if you like. Many have, and many more will. But scoffing is not the same as refuting. Christ's body has never been produced. And no one has ever demonstrated how a legend of such proportions could have possibly arisen within a generation of the events that inspired it. The absurdity in postulating that Christ's followers created the modern "Christian myth" is best summed up by Principle Hill:

"You must suppose that men guilty of blasphemy and falsehood, united in an attempt the best contrived, and which has in fact proved the most successful, for making the world virtuous; that they formed this singular enterprise without seeking any advantage to themselves, with an avowed contempt of loss and profit, and with the certain expectation of scorn and persecution; that although conscious of one another's villainy, none of them ever thought of providing for his own security by disclosing the fraud, but amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh and blood they persevered in their conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, honesty and benevolence. Truly, they who can swallow such suppositions have no title to object to miracles." ¹²

In light of these facts, it's probably best to give heed to Christ's words regarding the Old Testament.

8) Ignorance of Relevant Archaeological Data

With respect to the exodus from Egypt, Bethune states,

"Decades of searching the Sinai Peninsula for any trace of 40 years of Israelite wandering has turned up nothing, not a skeleton or campsite, from the period in question - even though archaeologists have found far older and sketcher remains in the Sinai."

The lack of tangible evidence of the exodus on the Sinai Peninsula can be interpreted more than one way. One would be to suggest that the exodus event never happened at all, or at least, was not the major episode that the years of telling and re-telling have made it.

The other would be to suspect that the researchers just haven't hit upon the right area yet. This is not unreasonable considering the enormous size of the Sinai Peninsula. Furthermore, it must be noted that no less than 20 mountains on the peninsula have been designated Mount Sinai, each with its own archaeological merits.  Some have even suggested that Mount Sinai is not to be found on the peninsula at all, but further east in Saudi Arabia. Exodus 3:1 and Galatians 4:25 are often used as support for the designation of Saudi Arabia as being the home of the true Mount Sinai

Further, not all agree that the Red Sea crossing took place in the Gulf of Suez. Some have proposed that the Red Sea crossing took place on the east side of the peninsula, across the Gulf of Aqaba.¹³ On the other side the mount called Jabel el Lawz, the top of which appears black as coal, is thought by many to be the true mount Sinai. Many interpret its blackened top as evidence that God did indeed descend onto the mountain in fire (Exodus 19:18).

9) An evolutionary view of Israel's religion

"An ethnic group that invoked a deity in its very name was a new development in the ancient east, and a sign that from the very beginning, the children of Israel, having defined themselves by their relationship to God, were on a path that would eventually lead them to monotheism."

Again we see opinions presented as absolute facts. Hebrew monotheism is said to have "evolved" from polytheism based on nothing but an adherence to a naturalistic / evolutionary worldview. Ronald Youngblood, B.D., Ph.D., states ("The Heart of Old Testament", 1971, p.9):

"…it cannot be shown that there is a universal tendency on the part of polytheistic religions to gradually reduce the number of deities until finally arriving at one deity. In some instances, in fact, such a religion may even add more deities as its adherents become aware of more and more natural phenomena to deify."

The question of Scriptural reliability is admittedly complex and one cannot expect that Maclean's magazine could present a complete picture of all the relevant data and issues. However, the importance of determining whether or not the Bible can be trusted cannot be overstated. If the Bible is telling the truth, then our very eternities depend upon what we choose to do with its message. Given the great importance of the question of biblical trustworthiness, a more thorough investigation into the matter on the part of Bethune would surely have been warranted. It is sincerely hoped, though not really expected, that Maclean's will run a future article on these matters using a far more informed and objective approach.

Notes and References:

1. Josh McDowel's, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict", 1999, pp.412-533 contains a thorough examination of the subject.

2. There are plenty of creationist organizations that can provide a plethora of well-documented evidence substantiating this point. Among them are Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org), Creation Science Evangelism (www.drdino.com), and The Centre for Scientific Creation (www.creationscience.com)

3. The Institute of Creation Research has proudly displayed on their website, the names of no less than 38 men and women who specialize in the biological sciences, along with 38 others whose discipline lay in the physical sciences. Among these lists we find Biologists, Geneticists, Biochemists, Botanists, Neuroscientists, Zoologists, Bacteriologists, Microbiologists, Pathologists, Anatomists, as well as Geologists, Atmospheric Scientists, Geophysicists, Palaeontologists, Archaeologists, Chemists, Chemical engineers, Astronomers, Mathematicians and many others. Even a cursory reading of these lists makes clear the fact that these men and women posses the very highest intellectual credentials.

4. Walt Brown Ph.D. the founder director of The Centre for Scientific Creation has had a standing offer since 1980 to any knowledgeable evolutionist(s) who will engage in a formal, written debate. Though the evolutionist community knows of this offer and criticize the evidence for creation where Dr. Brown is unable to respond, no serious and qualified taker has responded to the challenge.

5. See ref. 1., pp. 478-493

6. Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" Biblical Archaeology Review, March / April, 1995, p. 52

7. Joseph P. Free, "Archaeology and Liberalism, Bibliotheca Sacra 113, July 1956, pp. 322-323

8. Cyrus Gordon, "Biblical Customs in the Nuzi Tablets", The Biblical Archaeologist, February, 1940, p. 8

9. Norman Geisler, "The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1998, p. 50

10. W.F. Albright, "The Bible After Twenty years of Archeaology", Religion in Life, 1952, 541-542

11. Josh McDowell, "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" 1999, Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ" 1998, Frank Morrison, "Who Moved the Stone?", Norman Geisler, "Unshakable Foundations", 2001.

12. (Quoted in Wilbur M. Taylor, "The Miracle of Our Saviour", 1890, 21,22, also quoted in Dr. James Kennedy's "Why I Believe", 1999, pp 136-137)

13. Immanuel Velikovsky, "Ages in Chaos", 1952, p. 18, Velikovsky cites the research of Charles Beke, "Discoveries of Sinai in Arabia and of Midian", 1878, p. 561