Bible fallacies and internal contradictions

[Marras]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Is there anything in the bible that is true?

A significant chunk of the Kings, probably. Omri was certainly a real ruler and there is extra-Biblical evidence for many other kings, too.

One interesting thing is 1Kings 9:15:

Quote:

And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.

Archeological excavations have found the remains of large gate towers at Hazor, Mediggo, and Gezer that are built to a common design that isn't as far as I know used anywhere else and that are dated to the approximate period when Solomon lived if he existed at all. That's a sliver of evidence pointing to the direction that there was a strong king who did some of the stuff attributed to Solomon in the Bible at the same time when Solomon was supposed to live.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by pakeha

It is a fact that the Hittites WERE mentioned in the OT ... Given the actual OT references, we may as well discuss the accuracy of the Harry Potter series because it mentions London.

Absolutely right. The Hittites were part of the environment within which people composed the tales later promoted to the status of Holy Scripture. But it is philology and archaeology, and not the "word of God", that has enabled us to discover the language and history of this people, who are a mere name in the holy book.

And this same archaeology can find not the least trace of the alleged six hundred thousand men of military age - that is a total population of more than two million people, along with their flocks and herds, who supposedly departed from Egypt during the Exodus.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Jericho is another mystery. We know from the archeology Joshua could not have done it - But what happened there. The city walls collapse, the place is turned into a ghost town.

The victors demolishing a city's walls to make it less tempting to revolt was standard practice all through antiquity and the middle ages. So was razing a city for resisting and being too big a pain in the ass. E.g., the Romans razed Carthage, or in CE times they completely demolished Jerusalem's walls and left only its corner towers standing to show how big the city had been.

It wasn't just the Romans, either. Assyria razed Babylon in 689 BCE. Or in a bloody campaign between 647–646 BCE they razed almost every single city in Elam, and especially Susa.

It wasn't something new for them either, and sometimes it was taken to genocidal extremes. Tiglath-pileser I (1115-1076 BC) did some massive campaigns against his neighbours, going as far west as Palmyra. Anyone who didn't flee from his armies were massacred wholesale or taken slaves. The cities were almost invariably razed. In the majority of cases he made no attempt to annex the territories of those cities, he just carved a trail of destruction through the territory of any potential threat to his own.

So I'm not sure why it would be a mystery that a city in the middle east would be razed at some point. When we have a millennia long tradition of armies demolishing walls and even razing cities in the area, isn't that the simplest explanation by far? If you found a city demolished in that zone, do you really need to ask yourself WTH kind of miracle happened there to flatten it to the ground?

But at any rate, it's not even hard to see why they made up that stupid story. Let's look at the facts:

The Bronze Age city remained uninhabited until the 9'th century BCE, roughly around the time when they start writing the first books of Judaism. The ruins would still be visible, and you didn't have to be a great historian to tell that it had been a mighty city. The remnants of the walls are some 6 ft thick at their thinnest, even for the parts remaining from the Neolithic city, and in some places they had been recently thickened and expanded fairly recently before the destruction of the city.

So we have the ruins of some city with what looks like some seriously mighty walls for the time. Is it any surprise that people would make up miraculous legends for how THOSE walls were defeated?

I mean, even working from the other direction, it's easy to imagine why some BS-er making up miraculous stuff to peddle his imaginary friend in the sky, would try to use that in his favour. It's more impressive stuff than claiming God helped the guys with a ram knock out a couple of logs off some insignificant village's palisade.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Marras

A significant chunk of the Kings, probably. Omri was certainly a real ruler and there is extra-Biblical evidence for many other kings, too.

One interesting thing is 1Kings 9:15:


Archeological excavations have found the remains of large gate towers at Hazor, Mediggo, and Gezer that are built to a common design that isn't as far as I know used anywhere else and that are dated to the approximate period when Solomon lived if he existed at all. That's a sliver of evidence pointing to the direction that there was a strong king who did some of the stuff attributed to Solomon in the Bible at the same time when Solomon was supposed to live.

That doesn't necessarily follow, though. I mean, people would imitate what works, what the construction techniques currently allow, and it follows regional trends too. That's why we end up with machicolation all over France within a narrow time span, while for example the English don't use them much. (Typically only for the gate, if at all.)

That a bunch of cities in the same area would copy some improved design, is really just to be expected. It MIGHT be all commissioned by the same king, but it might just as well happen just because they saw it worked in some other city's siege.

After all, the French copied the machicolation from Middle East fortifications they encountered during the crusades. The fact that you see it both in place A and place B, doesn't mean they were built by the same ruler. It wasn't some Arab king that built those in France, nor a French king who built them in the Middle East.

[pakeha]

Ah, Jericho.
Possibly the oldest city in the world.
And famous, not only in the OT.

"Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, refounded the city one mile southeast of its historic site at the mound of Tell es-Sultan and returned the Jewish exiles after conquering Babylon in 539 BCE.[10]"
"Herod originally leased Jericho from Cleopatra, after Mark Antony gave it to her as a gift..."
"The dramatic murder of Aristobulus III in a swimming pool in Jericho, as told by the Roman Jewish historian Josephus, took place during a banquet organized by Herod's Hasmonean mother-in-law. After the construction of its palaces the city had functioned not only as an agricultural center and as a crossroad but as a winter resort for Jerusalem's aristocracy. ...[21]"

So if Jericho is the second example of something only mentioned in the OT, I think it's also going to be a fail.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Ah, Jericho.
Possibly the oldest city in the world.
And famous, not only in the OT.

"Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, refounded the city one mile southeast of its historic site at the mound of Tell es-Sultan and returned the Jewish exiles after conquering Babylon in 539 BCE.[10]"
"Herod originally leased Jericho from Cleopatra, after Mark Antony gave it to her as a gift..."
"The dramatic murder of Aristobulus III in a swimming pool in Jericho, as told by the Roman Jewish historian Josephus, took place during a banquet organized by Herod's Hasmonean mother-in-law. After the construction of its palaces the city had functioned not only as an agricultural center and as a crossroad but as a winter resort for Jerusalem's aristocracy. ...[21]"

So if Jericho is the second example of something only mentioned in the OT, I think it's also going to be a fail.

Does the Lord Of The Rings fail because Hobbiton never existed?

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by MG1962

That was one of the more intriguing arguments about the Exodus. Some suggest the narrative is written in reverse, it was the Egyptians leaving, not the Hebrews bugging out.

William Dever proposed that the exodus was from the plains of Canaan, which were already being cultivated, to the hill country, which, toward the end of the Bronze Age, was not being used. He proposed that the proto-Israelite settlements would have practiced dry country agriculture, utilizing cisterns to store rainwater, and small scale animal husbandry. Dever also suggested that the exodus from the plains to the less desirable hill country was to escape an increasingly tyrannical and economically rapacious system (as evidenced by the increasing disparity in grave goods between the upper and lower classes). While it wasn't an escape from Egypt, it was an escape from an Egyptian sponsored system of petty Canaanite kings.

You can read about Dever's theories on the origins of the Israelites in his book, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from? (Eerdmans 2003). He essentially sees the Israelites as native Canaanites who separated themselves out into a new tribal group toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. Of course, there were other elements who joined the tribal confederacy, including some Hurrian influenced Aramean pastoralists, who brought with them the tradition of origins external to Canaan.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Is there any evidence the Egyptians kept slaves beyond the occasional groups of POWs

As I recall, the records of slaves escaping were Egyptian records. So, yes, the Egyptians had slaves.However, the Cecil B. DeMille style mythos of huge gangs of slaves being forced into crushing labor to build monuments to the inflated egos of the pharaohs (Ozymandias style) has, I believe, been thoroughly debunked. The work crews were paid craftsmen, who, among other things, were given their daily allotment of beer.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

William Dever proposed that the exodus was from the plains of Canaan, which were already being cultivated, to the hill country, which, toward the end of the Bronze Age, was not being used. He proposed that the proto-Israelite settlements would have practiced dry country agriculture, utilizing cisterns to store rainwater, and small scale animal husbandry. Dever also suggested that the exodus from the plains to the less desirable hill country was to escape an increasingly tyrannical and economically rapacious system (as evidenced by the increasing disparity in grave goods between the upper and lower classes). While it wasn't an escape from Egypt, it was an escape from an Egyptian sponsored system of petty Canaanite kings.

Thanks I will chase that up. Dever's theory has a definite practicality about it. Does he discuss possible contenders for the destruction of Jericho?

Quote:

As I recall, the records of slaves escaping were Egyptian records. So, yes, the Egyptians had slaves.However, the Cecil B. DeMille style mythos of huge gangs of slaves being forced into crushing labor to build monuments to the inflated egos of the pharaohs (Ozymandias style) has, I believe, been thoroughly debunked. The work crews were paid craftsmen, who, among other things, were given their daily allotment of beer.

Yes the discovery of the Builders City really put paid to a lot of theories and legends. Regardless unless if I am miss remembering my history, the Jews could never have been the builders of the pyramids in any case

[Marras]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

That doesn't necessarily follow, though. I mean, people would imitate what works, what the construction techniques currently allow, and it follows regional trends too. That's why we end up with machicolation all over France within a narrow time span, while for example the English don't use them much. (Typically only for the gate, if at all.)

It's certainly not a conclusive proof, but those are rare in history anyway.

That thing is that the gates didn't pop up all over Palestine at the time, but only at the sites mentioned in that specific verse out of dozens of fortified towns in the general area. A bit of googling reveals that the fourth such gate has been found in Jerusalem a couple of years ago - and that was the fourth place mentioned in the verse. (My half-remembered source for the gates is Dever's What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? that was published well before the Jerusalem find).

There are alternative explanations for the coincidence. For example, it might be that the construction was common at the time but archeologists just haven't excavated the right sites, yet. Time will tell that. Or the author of Kings might have noticed that the gates are similar and assigned them to a single legendary builder. However, in that case he was lucky to guess the correct time period, given that the walls were already a couple of centuries old by that time.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Does the Lord Of The Rings fail because Hobbiton never existed?

Who says Hobbiton doesn't exist?
It's not an hour's drive from my cousin's home!

[pakeha]

inadvertant double post removed

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Thanks I will chase that up. Dever's theory has a definite practicality about it. Does he discuss possible contenders for the destruction of Jericho?

I'm not sure why he'd have to. Jericho was destroyed long before there was evidence of anything resembling Judaism, and also long before Egypt was a power in the area to sponsor such exploitation by vassal kings.

Jericho IV was destroyed somewhere between 1617 and 1530 BCE, according to carbon dating. At that time, Egypt was just licking its wounds after expelling the Hyksos.

To put things into historical context: Ahmose I began his reign, and started the 18'th dynasty, somewhere between 1570–1544 BCE (radiocarbon dating again), and reigned 25 years (at least 22 confirmed by an inscription from yeah 22 of his reign.) He did not do much more than reconquer Egypt from the Hyksos, and stopped pursuing them after a costly campaign that did manage to raze a city held by the Hyksos in Canaan, namely Sharuhen, but that's nowhere near Jericho.

The first who actually conquered Israel was Thutmose I, the THIRD in the 18'th dynasty. That's entirely too late to explain Jericho.

And, of course, impoverishing their vassals' lower classes in the area only happened centuries later, MUCH too late to have anything to do with Jericho.

Basically I'd say give that canard a rest. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the formation of the Jews and Jericho had anything to do with each other. Just because a lying peddler of a "and here's why you should support me and my caste" religion tries to connect his God to a mighty ruin there, doesn't mean it's actually historical.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Basically I'd say give that canard a rest. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the formation of the Jews and Jericho had anything to do with each other. Just because a lying peddler of a "and here's why you should support me and my caste" religion tries to connect his God to a mighty ruin there, doesn't mean it's actually historical.

Feel free to point to any post where I have stated or implied Joshua and his armies had anything to do with the destruction of the city. I think you will I have expressly said they did not.

I am interested in the fate of Jericho because it had reasonably substantial walls along with a fairly extensive defensive ditch. This points to someone with pretty good resources and military organisation active in the area.

Aside from that I was asking Tim about a book he recommended - so unless you have read the book and can answer the question I see no reason why you had to stick your nose in in the first place

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Who says Hobbiton doesn't exist?
It's not an hour's drive from my cousin's home!

But does that prove that Gandalf had magic powers?

[Elypsis44]

Interesting thread!

Also noteworthy is the absence of the usual apologists.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Feel free to point to any post where I have stated or implied Joshua and his armies had anything to do with the destruction of the city. I think you will I have expressly said they did not.

I am interested in the fate of Jericho because it had reasonably substantial walls along with a fairly extensive defensive ditch. This points to someone with pretty good resources and military organisation active in the area.

So your interest the the bible is of an historical nature, not religious?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by dafydd

So your interest the the bible is of an historical nature, not religious?

Both - for whatever people get out of the Bible, the one thing that cant be argued is it's historical value in seeing how people defined their relationship with God, and too and extent how they defined themselves.

Any thoughts we have with the Bible have to be tempered with the knowledge who was the intended audience. Stuff such as a talking serpent leaves us scratching our heads - Three thousand years ago it may have made perfect sense on a symbolic level, but with out the cultural context it is like an American talking to an Australian. We sort of speak the same language but much of a conversation means nothing because one of us is missing context.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by dafydd

But does that prove that Gandalf had magic powers?

Sigh.
Not 'magic'. He was an Istari.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

...Basically I'd say give that canard a rest. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the formation of the Jews and Jericho had anything to do with each other. Just because a lying peddler of a "and here's why you should support me and my caste" religion tries to connect his God to a mighty ruin there, doesn't mean it's actually historical.

Thanks for that post! It was clear and showed perfectly why the association of Jericho with the OT is misleading.

Originally Posted by MG1962

So if we find one thing in the Bible that is correct, but not recorded anywhere else, where does that leave your statement?

Well, we've looked into the Hittites and Jericho at your suggesion.
Neither can be considered to fit your argument. Any other suggestions for facs mentined only in the bible, not recorded elsewhere?

Originally Posted by MG1962

...The Bible has been an incendential witness to a lot of things not recorded anywhere else. ...

It rather looks to me as though you're shifting goal-posts.
Still, you'll recall my post where I allude to the subject of the bible as inspirer of archeological digs.

So. Neither Jericho nor the Hittites fit such a claim.
Any other candidates or shall we let this claim go the way of the Magi?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Both - for whatever people get out of the Bible, the one thing that cant be argued is it's historical value in seeing how people defined their relationship with God, and too and extent how they defined themselves.

Any thoughts we have with the Bible have to be tempered with the knowledge who was the intended audience. Stuff such as a talking serpent leaves us scratching our heads - Three thousand years ago it may have made perfect sense on a symbolic level, but with out the cultural context it is like an American talking to an Australian. We sort of speak the same language but much of a conversation means nothing because one of us is missing context.

So the bible has no relevance to us nowadays?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by tsig

So the bible has no relevance to us nowadays?

Depends - there are some pretty basic universal truths in the Bible. Dont covert your neighbors wife is a pretty good tip in any time period

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Still, you'll recall my post where I allude to the subject of the bible as inspirer of archeological digs.

Sure - repeating it doesn't make it right. But help me out, how was Troy discovered again

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Sure - repeating it doesn't make it right. But help me out, how was Troy discovered again

By an archeologist who used Homer, not the Bible, as an inspirer of archaeological digs. And the existence of Troy doesn't verify the existence of the gods or talking horses or wooden horses or one eyed giants mentioned by Homer.

Troy is independently referred to in Hittite inscriptions, (see http://www.livius.org/to-ts/troy/troy_VI-VII.html) so that's a tenuous link with the Bible, I suppose.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

By an archeologist who used Homer, not the Bible, as an inspirer of archaeological digs. And the existence of Troy doesn't verify the existence of the gods or talking horses or wooden horses or one eyed giants mentioned by Homer.

Troy is independently referred to in Hittite inscriptions, so that's a tenuous link with the Bible, I suppose.

There was no link to the Bible intended. My point is archeologists will use anything they can to point them in the right direction. Troy was found using a poem

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Sure - repeating it doesn't make it right. But help me out, how was Troy discovered again

Would Troy have remained undiscovered without Illiad? Would Troy have existed without Homer writing about it?

The best thing about archaeology is that, to borrow Israel Finklestein's analogy, it's a book of stone. It's there if it's there (the best kind of logic -.- but I can't find another way to articulate the point), regardless of who wrote or did not write about it.

You know what would have been really interesting? If the Bible was never written at all and yet evidence accurately led to the flood of Genesis. Ah, that'd be interesting... Imagine if some secularist geologist with no idea of religion were to find evidence of a global flood. Wouldn't that be hilarious.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Would Troy have remained undiscovered without Illiad? Would Troy have existed without Homer writing about it?

Yes, to some extent, as a result of the Hittite notices; it would be a real place with named kings and relations with other cities. And if it had been discovered by someone consulting the Hittite inscriptions, had there been no Homeric poems, it would have been identified as "Troy" and "Ilion", as these names are attested independently of Homer.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Would Troy have remained undiscovered without Illiad? Would Troy have existed without Homer writing about it?

Until they unearthing of the Hittite archives probably not - Until it was discovered Troy was always thought to be a mythical place, and Heinrich Schliemann was always thought to be a little soft in head because of his obsession with the search.

Trouble is there seems to be increasing belief that the city discovered is not Troy, even though it seems to match Homers description

Quote:

The best thing about archaeology is that, to borrow Israel Finklestein's analogy, it's a book of stone. It's there if it's there (the best kind of logic -.- but I can't find another way to articulate the point), regardless of who wrote or did not write about it.

That makes sense - but archeologist sometimes need clues about where to dig

Quote:

You know what would have been really interesting? If the Bible was never written at all and yet evidence accurately led to the flood of Genesis. Ah, that'd be interesting...

The flood story was a very old one before it was ever written into the Bible. Interestingly (according to Wiki) two of the kings mentioned in that story appear now to have been real. Here is a link to the text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Yes, to some extent, as a result of the Hittite notices; it would be a real place with named kings and relations with other cities. And if it had been discovered by someone consulting the Hittite inscriptions, had there been no Homeric poems, it would have been identified as "Troy" and "Ilion", as these names are attested independently of Homer.

I thought the name Troy is disputed and it is called Wilusa in the Hittite texts?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Until they unearthing of the Hittite archives probably not - Until it was discovered Troy was always thought to be a mythical place, and Heinrich Schliemann was always thought to be a little soft in head because of his obsession with the search.

Trouble is there seems to be increasing belief that the city discovered is not Troy, even though it seems to match Homers description



That makes sense - but archeologist sometimes need clues about where to dig



The flood story was a very old one before it was ever written into the Bible. Interestingly (according to Wiki) two of the kings mentioned in that story appear now to have been real. Here is a link to the text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

The clues are irrelevant to the archaeology. Troy was reached by a clue, may have been found without one. The weight of the clues doesn't matter to the "book of stone".

As for the flood story, while interesting how many there are, it's no surprise that civilizations that suffer floods (pretty much all the Mesopotamian civilizations) have flood myths. Japanese myths include earthquake myths and various fauna myths. It's not surprising.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

The clues are irrelevant to the archaeology. Troy was reached by a clue, may have been found without one. The weight of the clues doesn't matter to the "book of stone".

LOL sure okay..........stick to that by all means

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by MG1962

LOL sure okay..........stick to that by all means

I will, I suggest you take it to heart lest you allow romanticizing to make you look silly.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I will, I suggest you take it to heart lest you allow romanticizing to make you look silly.

So it is your contention that archeologist wander around randomly digging holes dreaming of finding something? My experience suggests they begin with a search of literature relevant to what they are intending to uncover

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Feel free to point to any post where I have stated or implied Joshua and his armies had anything to do with the destruction of the city. I think you will I have expressly said they did not.

I didn't mean you by that peddler of religion, but some smart psychopath in the 10'th century BCE trying to convince a bunch of tribesmen to give him money and status because his imaginary friend says so.

Originally Posted by MG1962

I am interested in the fate of Jericho because it had reasonably substantial walls along with a fairly extensive defensive ditch. This points to someone with pretty good resources and military organisation active in the area.

So was Babylon, and in fact even more so, and it still got razed by the Assyrians. And later Rome was the biggest city ever, and had concrete walls with overlapping fields of fire from the towers, and it still fell to the Alans after a long siege. Etc. Really, Jericho was just one of several large and fortified cities that fell anyway, not a one time deal. Besiege it long enough and it will open the gates just the same.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Aside from that I was asking Tim about a book he recommended - so unless you have read the book and can answer the question I see no reason why you had to stick your nose in in the first place

I think I know enough about the timeline of Egypt in the area to judge that Jericho was several centuries before anything anyone can blame on Egyptian sponsorship in the area.

I mean, it's on par with wondering whether English sponsorship might have helped the rise of the Mughal Empire in India. You don't need any particular book specifically to know they had nothing to do with each other, you just need to know that the English simply weren't there in the 16'th century

So what's YOUR excuse for the above?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I thought the name Troy is disputed and it is called Wilusa in the Hittite texts?

The source I linked to states:

Quote:

In Hittite sources, it is called Wilusa, which is the name that Homer also uses: Ϝίλιος, Wilios, from which names like Ilios and Ilion were derived when the Greeks no longer pronounced the W. The name Τροίη, Troy, was also used, and also corresponds to a word known from Hittite texts: Truwisa.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by MG1962

So it is your contention that archeologist wander around randomly digging holes dreaming of finding something? My experience suggests they begin with a search of literature relevant to what they are intending to uncover

Randomly digging will yield the same result, but maybe not in the same time frame. It will yield the same evidence with or without the literature. And before you should think that context of the literature aids the examination of evidence, that should be taken with a massive grain of salt, as early archaeologists who "carried a spade in one hand, a Bible in the other" soon learned.

But I'll admit it's nice when the literature gives and "X marks the spot" hint. Would help to have a more efficient expedition with less unknowns. Wouldn't change the evidence of the archaeology though.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Randomly digging will yield the same result, but maybe not in the same time frame. It will yield the same evidence with or without the literature. And before you should think that context of the literature aids the examination of evidence, that should be taken with a massive grain of salt, as early archaeologists who "carried a spade in one hand, a Bible in the other" soon learned.

So when an archeologist is given permission to dig somewhere but is only allowed three trenches how does he improve his chances of useful use of his grant?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The source I linked to states:

Sorry I didn't even see that link in your post my bad

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Sure - repeating it doesn't make it right. But help me out, how was Troy discovered again

Your evasion is noted, though I'm a bit surprised you weren't willing to accept the life-jacket I threw you.


So.
Back to your claim:

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yeah I have a couple and a few maybes depending on where archeology currently stands on the topic

We've discounted both Jericho and the Hittites. What other candidates do you have?

"So it is your contention that archeologist wander around randomly digging holes dreaming of finding something? My experience suggests they begin with a search of literature relevant to what they are intending to uncover."

Wrong.
Apart my surprise at your use of a fairly silly straw-man, it's hard to imagine you aren't aware of an archeologist's beginning step:
They start with fund-raising, sparking interest in their project with financial backers.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by MG1962

So when an archeologist is given permission to dig somewhere but is only allowed three trenches how does he improve his chances of useful use of his grant?

Irrelevant to a buried city and all the mysteries it contains.

Now that I hope that's been hammered into you, we can discuss what you're bringing up which isn't what I've been arguing but I can see that you'd rather deal with this rather than what I have been saying. Yes if you want to be an efficient archaeologist the literature is something, if not at least a good opportunity to utilize the literature. The Bible is a stunning example.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by pakeha

"So it is your contention that archeologist wander around randomly digging holes dreaming of finding something? My experience suggests they begin with a search of literature relevant to what they are intending to uncover."

Wrong.
Apart my surprise at your use of a fairly silly straw-man, it's hard to imagine you aren't aware of an archeologist's beginning step:
They start with fund-raising, sparking interest in their project with financial backers.

Take that up with Lowpro - I know exactly how the average archeological dig works

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Irrelevant to a buried city and all the mysteries it contains.

Now that I hope that's been hammered into you, we can discuss what you're bringing up which isn't what I've been arguing but I can see that you'd rather deal with this rather than what I have been saying. Yes if you want to be an efficient archaeologist the literature is something, if not at least a good opportunity to utilize the literature. The Bible is a stunning example.

You realize you just argued yourself in a complete circle