Yes, Jonah, he
lived in the whale
Oh, Jonah, he lived in the whale
For he made his home in that fish abdomen
Oh, Jonah, he lived in the whale
Little Moses was found in the stream
Little Moses was found in the stream
He floated on water till old Pharaoh's daughter
She fished him, she says, from that stream
It Ain’t
Necessarily So
Joshua
Schachterle (April 7th, 2025) reckons that he has found:
10 Times Archaeology Has Disagreed with the
Biblical Narrative
10 Times Archaeology Has
Disagreed with the Biblical Narrative
For centuries, the Bible has been revered as a sacred
text, guiding the beliefs of billions of people worldwide. Yet, as archaeology
has advanced, many discoveries have challenged the historical accuracy of
certain biblical narratives. The field of archaeology offers a lens through
which we can scrutinize the events and figures described in the Bible, testing
them against physical evidence from the past.
What can we determine regarding conflicting archeology
and the Bible? In this article, I’ll explore ten instances where archaeological
findings have contradicted or provided an alternative perspective to the
biblical story, raising questions about the historical underpinnings of some of
the most famous biblical tales. These archaeological revelations invite a
reevaluation of how we interpret the ancient texts and their connection to
history.
Damien
Mackey’s comments:
Joshua Schachterle makes a correct and very important observation
when he writes that: “The
field of archaeology offers a lens through which we can scrutinize the events
and figures described in the Bible, testing them against physical evidence from
the past”.
The
foundational significance of archaeology is something in which I have believed.
For
instance, in my 2007 doctoral thesis I regularly referred to the fact that my
historico-biblical reconstructions could not be considered valid without a firm
stratigraphical underpinning to support them. And, whenever archaeological
evidence was found to contradict any of my hopeful reconstructions, I have not
hesitated to reject them – even when these may have been pet theories, some of
which had also proven to be popular with readers.
Truth is
paramount! (John 18:37)
The point
was not lost on two of my examiners, who applauded the fact that I had recognised
just how important a factor was the archaeological aspect.
So far,
then, I am on the same page as Joshua Schachterle.
But I cannot
agree at all with what he writes next, on the basis of the findings of an
earlier (1994) postgraduate (MA) thesis of mine. Joshua
Schachterle writes:
What can we determine regarding conflicting archeology
and the Bible? In this article, I’ll explore ten instances where archaeological
findings have contradicted or provided an alternative perspective to the
biblical story, raising questions about the historical underpinnings of some of
the most famous biblical tales.
For in this
particular thesis, that could be called a work of demolition - as
contrasted with the 2007 thesis of construction - I called into
question the very foundations upon which ancient chronology had been
established.
This thesis
was eventually passed on both historico-chronological and scientific (archaeoastronomical)
grounds. For a simplified version of the thesis, see:
Fall of the Sothic theory:
Egyptian chronology revisited · Creation.com
Fall
of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian chronology revisited
For a
relatively brief account of my two theses, and my overall purpose in writing
them, see my article:
Damien
F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses
(6) Damien F.
Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses
One examiner of my 1994 thesis would make the remark that,
with the conventional system now exposed as flawed (he mentioned the word [getting
a] “thrashing”), “the way lay open for a more acceptable alternative”. This is
precisely what the ambitious 2007 thesis was intended to be. The old house had
collapsed like a pack of cards; the new one would hopefully be built on solid
rock rather than sand (cf. Matthew 7:24-27).
So when Joshua Schachterle writes of an archaeology that
contradicts the Bible, he, unawares, is referring to a conventional textbook
archaeology that has been chronologically mis-dated. He is referring to an
archaeology that cannot possibly be, for the most part, co-ordinated with
biblical history – for such an uneven pair cannot satisfactorily be yoked
together (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14).
The Bible
and true archaeological evidence, on the other hand, do not conflict.
The problem
is wholly with the conventional chronology that was early devised on quite artificial
archaeoastronomical assumptions, and – despite some very serious objections –
was retained, and has since become an accepted, monolithic norm.
It is far
easier to fall in line with an established system that one has been taught, and
teaches, and has written about, despite its grievous errors, than to exclaim out
loud:
‘Something
is seriously wrong here!’
On that
note, see my article:
Dumb
and Dumbfounded archaeology
(6) Dumb and
Dumbfounded archaeology
telling of a
catastrophic shock for conventional history, especially Islamic history, with
the discovery that supposed C7th AD Umayyad strata lies at the same level as
C1st AD Roman strata. The ramifications of this true archaeology are absolutely
mind blowing.
Joshua Schachterle’s
10 Examples of
Conflicting Archeology and the Bible Narrative
Damien
Mackey’s comments:
Let us here test the first 3 of these.
#1 – History and identity of the Israelites
In the book of Joshua, the Israelites invade the land
of Canaan, conquering the cities and then dividing the land between their own
twelve tribes. However, archeologists have discovered a different story.
In Who Were the Early
Israelites and Where Did They Come From?,
William Dever writes that the ancient settlements found in the land of Canaan
show no sign of armed conflict. In addition, he says that large Canaanite towns
such as Jericho show no evidence of having been destroyed contrary to
depictions in the book of Joshua. Instead, Jonathan Laden writes that the Israelites were one group of Canaanites who
gradually became their own social group. ….
Damien
Mackey’s comments:
This is so wrong as to be laughable.
The Sothic-based chronology has not made William Dever,
clever.
The nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people were undoubtedly the
Exodus Israelites, as Dr. Rudolph Cohen had sort of, dimly, discerned (The
Mysterious MBI People, Rudolph Cohen, Biblical Archaeology Review (9:4),
Jul/Aug 1983), even whilst being yoked to an uneven dating system that would
set the MBI almost a millennium too early (Dr. Cohen’s “… from about 2200 B.C.
to about 2000 B.C.”)
The
direction of the in-coming MBI people points from the S to NE. Thus Dr. Cohen:
I have been studying the MBI sites in the Central
Negev for almost two decades now. The result of this study can, I believe,
elucidate some of the outstanding issues. My own conclusion is that the MBI
culture must be differentiated from those both preceding and following it. MBI
is, in this sense, intermediate.
…. other new aspects of MBI culture, including burial
customs and social structure, imply a new ethnic element. Thus, the MBI culture
is also intrusive; migrating peoples who destroyed the existing urban centers
must be involved. But this new ethnic element was neither Amorite nor “Kurgan”
peoples who supposedly came from the north and east. In my view, the new MBI
population came from the south and the Sinai, the route of the Israelites on
that journey known as the Exodus. This is a new hypothesis published here for
the first time.
Dr. Cohen continues
further on:
This hypothesis, of course, contradicts
the prevailing assessment, which describes the MBI sites in the Central Negev
as a movement that came from the north. It is interesting, however, to note
that this migratory drift, as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking
similarity to that of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt to the Promised Land,
as recorded in the book of Exodus. The concentration of MBI sites in the
relatively fertile district east of Kadesh-Barnea recalls the tradition that
the Israelites encamped near this oasis for 38 of their 40 years of wandering
after leaving Egypt (Deuteronomy 1:46). If the EBII communities were
still flourishing in the Negev and Sinai at the time of this MBI incursion,
then the capital city of EB Arad with its satellites in the desert no doubt
formed a kind of league like that of the Canaanite king of Arad, described
in Numbers 21:1, and like that of the Amalekites in Exodus
17:8–13. Both no doubt offered fierce resistance to the northward-advancing
MBI Israelites. The establishment of the MBI settlements directly over the
ruins of the EBII–EBIII sites in the Central Negev is consistent with the
tradition that the Israelites dwelled in the area previously inhabited by their
Amalekite foes (Deuteronomy 25:17–19). The northeastward migration of
the MBI population into Transjordan has parallels in the Biblical recollection
that the Israelites remained in Moab before crossing the Jordan River and
laying siege to Jericho (Deuteronomy 3:29).
In this connection, it is interesting to
note that Early Bronze Age Jericho was destroyed by a violent conflagration,
and the site was thinly reoccupied by MBI newcomers, who were apparently
unaccustomed to urban dwellings.
In the central and northern parts of
Israel, the EBIII urban culture flourished. The MBI invaders in the south
overwhelmed this urban Canaanite civilization and destroyed their cities but
thereafter persisted in a semi-nomadic way of life. This bears a striking
similarity to the tradition of Joshua’s devastating campaign against the
Canaanite centers in central Palestine and his ban on rebuilding some of them
(e.g., Joshua 8:28). Both Jericho and Ai were fortified cities at
the end of the Early Bronze Age. According to the Biblical account, they were
both destroyed by the Israelites; God specifically instructed that these cities
should not be rebuilt. Interestingly enough, after the EBIII destruction of
Jericho and Ai, both cities lay in ruins for hundreds of years.
Having successfully taken over
Palestine, the MBI tribes were profoundly influenced by the mores of the people
they conquered, and many of their artifacts and customs have their origin in
the Early Bronze Age.
[End of quote]
The fact
that the MBI people brought with them Egyptian/Red Sea artefacts does no harm to
this reconstruction: “Apart from pottery, the other artifacts included grinding
stones (sometimes of Aswan granite), fragments of ostrich egg shells, Red Sea
conches (and the ornaments fashioned from them) …”.
Revisionist
Dr. John Osgood, who has not had to wobble under the Sothic yoke, as did Dr.
Cohen (d. 2006), has done a better job than anyone else in confirming the MBI
as the Exodus Israelites.
In his brilliant
article, “The Times of the Judges — The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest” (N
Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 56–76), Dr Osgood has set side by side:
Figure 7.
Expected MB I sites according to Exodus narrative.
Figure 8.
Actual findings of MB I (EB-MBA). (Sources — references 10, 12–22.)
Figure
7 is a map of the distribution of known archaeological sites in
the
Sinai and the Negev, while for comparison, Figure 8 is a map of the
expected
distribution of artifacts if the MB I culture was in fact Israel.
The fit is
almost exact.
The
identification of the MBI people as the Exodus Israelites - with MBI to be
re-dated from c. 2000 BC to c. 1450 BC - has to be, for me, the very
archaeological foundation for biblical history before and after this time.
“… the ancient settlements found in the land of Canaan
show no sign of armed conflict. … large Canaanite towns
such as Jericho show no evidence of having been destroyed contrary to
depictions in the book of Joshua”.
Not clever, William
Dever.
Recall what
Dr. Cohen wrote:
…. it is interesting to note that Early
Bronze Age Jericho was destroyed by a violent conflagration, and the site was
thinly reoccupied by MBI newcomers, who were apparently unaccustomed to urban
dwellings.
In the central and northern parts of
Israel, the EBIII urban culture flourished. The MBI invaders in the south
overwhelmed this urban Canaanite civilization and destroyed their cities but
thereafter persisted in a semi-nomadic way of life. This bears a striking
similarity to the tradition of Joshua’s devastating campaign against the
Canaanite centers in central Palestine and his ban on rebuilding some of them
(e.g., Joshua 8:28).
Both Jericho and Ai were fortified
cities at the end of the Early Bronze Age. According to the Biblical account,
they were both destroyed by the Israelites; God specifically instructed that
these cities should not be rebuilt. Interestingly enough, after the EBIII
destruction of Jericho and Ai, both cities lay in ruins for hundreds of years.
What did I
exclaim earlier:
‘Something
is seriously wrong here!’
Wouldn’t it
be nice, just for a change, if an archaeologist would say, as did Dr. Cohen,
“This [scenario] bears a striking similarity to the [biblical] tradition”, but
without having to add, as had he, due to those uneven, lop-sided chronological
difficulties:
I do not necessarily
mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic
identification should not automatically be ruled out. But I am suggesting that
at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may
have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period.
In other
words, the real MBI scenario inspired the much later, fictitious (or literary) biblical
account.
Although
there was no biblical Joshua, we could propose the notion of a proto-Joshua.
How about
this, instead: Since archaeology is a mirror-image of the biblical scenario,
might not our chronology be grossly out of whack? So, let us scrutinise the
chronology.
#2 – There was no mass exodus from Egypt
The book of Exodus begins with the Israelites enslaved
in Egypt until God sends a charismatic prophet named Moses to liberate them. Is
there evidence for this event?
In her commentary on Exodus, Carol Meyers notes that there is no archeological
evidence, either for a large Israelite presence in Egypt or for a mass exodus.
She writes that while there is some evidence for a small number of Canaanites
living in Egypt, there is no indication that they left, which implies that they
simply became assimilated Egyptians.
Furthermore, Stephen Russell argues in Images
of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature that
the stories of Exodus are the creation of the Jewish community both during and
after exile, an origin story of sorts with little historical basis.
Damien
Mackey’s comments:
The “mass exodus” of which the Old Testament speaks is the
march of the MBI people from Sinai to the Negev, and into Transjordan (as noted
by Dr. Cohen), and then crossing the River Jordan and conquering and settling
in Canaan, as so well described by both Drs. Cohen and Osgood.
If it walks, talks, and travels, like an Exodus Israelite,
then ….
A Blogger, “Nugget”, has well written on this fascinating
subject, providing this nugget.
The Discoveries at Avaris
For more than two centuries archaeologists have sought
evidence for the Israelites in Egypt. No Israelite settlement has ever been
found in the 19th Dynasty where the Orthodox Chronology predicted it would be.
I told you in the last Nugget about the Austrian team of archaeologists, led by
Manfred Bietak, who have been excavating at Tel ed-Daba since 1960, more
commonly called Avaris in ancient times. Bietak and his team have made many
astounding discoveries.
Manfred Bietak and his team have found evidence of a long
period of Asiatic settlement in Avaris. Between Stratum G/1 and F there is a
definite break between two distinct phases of settlement. Both Rohl and Bietak
believe this line of demarcation between Stratum G/1 and F at Tel ed-Daba
likely marks the break that resulted from the biblical Exodus of the Israelites
from Tell ed-Daba.
Around Goshen in the Second Intermediate Period there is
incontrovertible evidence for a large Asiatic population. ….
The majority of the tombs in the earlier strata are of
Asiatic people from Palestine and Syria. Bietak says the early Asiatics were
heavily Egyptianized. These people have spent considerable time in Egypt and
have taken on many of the cultural practices of the Egyptians themselves. Under
the New Chronology these people have to be Israelites. The fit for the time
period perfectly matches the other indications that this indeed is the correct
time period for the Exodus. These earlier Asiatics are more likely to be
Joseph’s relatives. The later Asiatics were very different and were not
Egyptianized at all and appear to be of Hyksos descent.
In the Brooklyn Papyrus there is a list of 95 names of
slaves, over 50% of which are Semitic names. There are several Biblical names
in the list, e.g. Menahem, Issachar, Asher and Shiphrah. The term Apiru (the
equivalent of Hebrew) appears first in the Brooklyn Papyrus. William Albright
recognized the language belongs to the northwest Semitic language family which
includes Biblical Hebrew. There is a high proportion of female slaves. More
adult women are buried here than men. 65% of all burials are children under the
age of 18 months with girls out numbering boys by a ratio of 3:1. This could be
explained by the massacre of Israelite boys whose bodies were then disposed of
in mass unmarked burial pits.
All over the city of Avaris are shallow burial pits with
multiple victims. There were no careful interments as was required under
Egyptian customs. The bodies were thrown one on top of another in mass graves.
There is no evidence of grave goods being placed with the corpses as was the
Egyptian custom. Bietak is convinced this is direct evidence of a plague or
catastrophe. The large part of the remaining population abandoned their homes
and left en masse. Bietak says the site was then reoccupied after
an unknown interval of time by Asiatics who were not Egyptianised. Hence the
break between stratum G/1 and F. There is a strange anomaly where the Asiatic
folk who inhabited Stratum F lived in poor conditions yet their graves were
richly endowed with precious metals and jewellery.
The sources are unconnected and yet intriguingly consistent.
Putting all the pieces together one can build up a consistent story which
supports the Biblical account. The break in archeological stratum between G/1
and F marks the intervening years following the exodus of the Hebrew slaves
from Egypt.
The repopulation of Avaris sometime afterward by the Hyksos
people who moved into Egypt matches the beginning of the Second Intermediate
Period of the Egyptian Pharoahs [sic]. They were Asiatic people from the same
region as the Israelites but not Egyptianized as Joseph and his family had
been.
The facts fit the period before the Exodus well. Given the
disruption at the time of plagues and the magnitude of the deaths which
occurred there would have been no time to bury the dead according to Egyptian
customs. The predominance of females, especially among children would have been
a result of the deliberate murder of the male children by the Pharoah. Where
did such poor people (slaves no less) get such riches? Simple: read Ex 11:2
which says, “Tell all the Israelite men and women to ask their Egyptian
neighbours for articles of silver and gold.”
#3 – Jerusalem in the time of King David
In the books of Samuel and Kings, King
David is portrayed as a powerful
ruler over a vast and formidable territory. However, Israeli archeologists
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say the data doesn’t support this
claim.
In their book The Bible Unearthed:
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Finkelstein and Silberman write that there is little
evidence to indicate that Jerusalem, David’s capital city according to the
Bible, was "more than a typical hill country village" during David
and of Solomon’s time. Additionally, David’s region, Judah, was a lightly
populated rural region until long after David and Solomon’s time.
Damien
Mackey’s comments:
What might we say about that grossly incompetent,
biblical minimising, emeritus professor, The King”:
Israel “The King is a Fink”
Finkelstein?
He always gave me the impression that he and his colleagues
were standing in one (relevant) strata level, whilst pointing to another -
misguided to there by the flawed Sothic chronological dating.
Let me explain that.
In the
search for archaeological evidence for, say, the kingdom of David and Solomon, these
Israeli archaologists, while metaphorically standing in the correct strata,
would be pointing to some other level, an impoverished one, like Iron IIA, and foolishly
identifying that as the stratum level for the Unified Kingdom of Israel.
My comment
as to why we never find anything appropriate:
“Because
you’re standing in it!”
True
archaeology has provided us with firm evidence for the House of David, with the
now famous Tell Dan inscription:
And, when the El Amarna (EA) letters are re-dated from the C14th BC to the
C9th BC, where they properly belong, there emerges also the “House of Solomon”
(Bît Shulman) (EA #’s 74 and 290 – the latter written by the King of
Urusalim, Jerusalem).
