My Posts

Post 12 - Review of False Testament in comparison to traditional religious accts

1). Discuss main ideas in False Testament in comparison to traditional religious perspective.

2). What I think about this topic.

Answer:

In "False Testament", Daniel Lazare presents arguments based on modern Archaeology that he feels refutes the Bible's claim to portraying history in an accurate sense. In particular he is claiming that within the last quarter century, archaeologists have not been able to prove any of the assumptions the Bible has made about ancient Israelites. He contends that rather than a group who fought their way to the Holy Land, instead they were only a native culture that developed west of the Jordan around 1200 B.C. He further contends that the key leaders were not real but instead pieced together from various stories of folk lore. Even the most important “Davidic Empire” was nothing more that an invention from Jerusalem-based priests in seventh and eight centuries B.C. who were only interested in shining up their national history by creating a grand past that would have been appropriate to such grand empire.

Lazare then begins to define what he feels are individual accounts that are not credible. In the case of Abraham, Biblical stories indicate that his family left the city of Ur in the second millennium B.C. to the land of Canaan. Lazare claims that there is no archeological evidence that Abraham ever lived based on what is written about him. Regarding the actual Exodus of people from Egypt, Lazare claims that there is a growing volume of evidence regarding actual Egyptian border defenses and desert sites that indicates that the actual flight never occurred. Lazare claims that contemporary Egyptian records are completely silence when it comes to issues regarding the mass escape of thousands of Hebrew slaves. He feels that this also proves that the actual numbers were also exaggerated. In addition Lazare contends that the person of Moses was no more historically correct than Abraham.

Lazare then tries to explain how the Biblical fiction came about. He claims that the books of the Torah, who the Bible credits as being written by Moses were instead written by Jewish scribes that had been recently released from captivity. He states that they simply pulled together a collection of ancient writings. He then equates the key figures of Abraham and Isaac on the same realm of heroes within Greek or Norse mythology. He feels that these books, were more an artificial construct than genuine chronicle of historical events.

He then goes on to argue the earlier archeology expeditions were tainted in that they biased there findings to fit the Biblical accounts, discounting anything that countered it. He feels that eventual politicization of archeology in the 1960’s reached its climax turning this view point around, keying in on how the interpretation of pottery fragments or stone tablets didn’t fit the Biblical explanation. He also adds the archeology has not been able to find bones consistent with the frequent mention of the use of camels as transport for the time periods referenced.

Lazare then goes on to contend when archeologists began to shift their attention from surveying the lowland cities where great battles were said to take place into the highlands near the present West Bank. What they found indicated that Canaan was not actual entered from the outside as Biblical records indicated but evidence was instead found to point out that the Israelite culture actually arose around 1200 B.C. as nomadic shepherds who settled down in the nearby uplands. Thus there was no mass migration/escape, rather the Hebrew people were in fact a native people who had never left in the first place.

Lazare then turns his attention to Biblical accounts of David and his son Solomon who were said to rule the southern kingdom of Judah from 1005 to 931 B.C. The accounts also indicate that they had also ruled the northern kingdom in a rare moment of national unity and power. Accounts of Solomon indicated that he was a master builder and an accumulator / collector. However, there has been no evidence of his accumulation or inscriptions on monuments or diplomatic correspondence found to indicated that his reign in fact existed. In the 1970’s and 1980’s countervailing evidence suggested that instead of David using his power base in Judah to conquer the north, shows instead that the area was too poor and sparsely populated to support such military expeditions. While Solomon had once been credited with construction of major palaces in the northern cities, recent analysis of pottery shards (including carbon dating techniques) support that the construction of the palaces actual postdate Solomon’s reign by a century of more.

Lazare bases his claims from lack of evidence to support or confirm the Biblical records. He seems to be of the opinion that since the Bible is religious in nature that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless he can find collaborating evidence from archeology. Although it is not possible to verify every thing in the Bible, there have been enough significant discoveries to demonstrate the reliability of its accounts. For instance the discovery of the “Ebla” archive in northern Syria in the 1970’s indicating Biblical references to its Patriarchs are viable. The information written on these clay tablets can be traced back to 2300 B.C. and further demonstrate the names are genuine.

Lazare seems to join the ranks of those who question the validity of the Biblical writings based on findings of archaeology. Very frequently these discrepancies when examined in detail often fail to provide validity mainly because they are misinterpreted. In his article Lazare only refutes Biblical accounts with what he feels modern archeology has found. He does not seem to address the countless instances where Biblical writings have been found to match that which archeology has found, nor does he address the times when archeology has thought they found the Bible to be wrong, when in fact later facts or revelations about the findings proves its authenticity.

Furthermore, during the time of Biblical writing is it certain that if what was written was indeed inaccurate, there would have been countless people who would have contended it at that time and squashed its authenticity keeping it from being a writing of such significance.

While discoveries of archaeology can be helpful for some in determining trustworthiness of Biblical writing, one should instead look to the miracles they describe and the spiritual message they communicate. All of which when accepted on faith, help to form the basis of our relationship with God.