Silberman, Bible Unearthed, p. 37; Leinche, Prelude to Israel:r Past, p. 64. A
contrary claim that camels were already domesticated in the Levant during the
time of Abraham is based solely on drawings of camels and the finding of camel
bones in archaeological sites dated to the second and third millennia BCE. But as
Israel Finkelstein explains in his paper "Arabian Trade and SocioPolitical
Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries BCE" for the journal
of Near Eastern Studies 47, no. 4 (October 1988): pp. 241-52, these findings
only show that the people of that time were familiar with wild camels (and may
have eaten their meat?!).
23. Coogan, Oxford History of the Biblical World, p. 271; Barthel, What the
Bible Really Says, pp. 77-78.
24. Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, pp. 324-26;
Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, p. 38.
25. See Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp. 61-92; William Dever, Who Were the
Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 4-21; Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 48-
71; John C. H. Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible (New York: Routledge,
2000), pp. 86-92; Lemche, Prelude to Israel:r Past, pp. 44-61; Amy Marcus, The
View from Nebo: How Archaeology Is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the
Middle East (Boston: Little, Brown, 2000), pp. 51-77; William H. Stiebing, Out
of the Desert.?Archaeology and the Exodus/ Conquest Narratives (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 1989).
26. Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp. 70-71; Keller, Bible as History, pp. 122-23;
Lemche, Prelude to Israel:r Past, pp. 49-50; E. Riedel, T. Tracy, and B.
Moskowitz, The Book of the Bible (New York: Bantam, 1981), pp. 27-28.
27. Leinche, Prelude to Israel:r Past, p. 50 n. 49; Stiebing, Out of the Desert,
p. 20.
28. As Lemche noted, in Egyptian the name appears in compound form for
various Egyptian pharaohs, for example, Kamose, Tuthmosis, and Ramose
(Rammesses), compare Prelude to Israel:r Past, p. 52 n. 50; see also Stiebing,
Out of the Desert, p. 198.
29. Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp. 71-73; Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible
Unearthed, pp. 56-57.
30. See Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 54-57.
31. Ibid., p. 60.
32. Ibid., pp. 61-63, and appendix B, pp. 326-28; Marcus, View from Nebo, p.
75; Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 91; and Matthew Sturgis,
ItAin'tNeces.rarily So: Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past (London:
Headline Book, 2001), p. 72.
33. Quoted in Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 92.
34. Quoted in Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p. 74.
35. Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp. 100-101; R. Davidson and A. R. C.
Leaney, Biblical Criticism (Harinondsworth, England: Penguin, 1970), p. 46;
Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites? pp. 45-46; Finkelstein and Silberman,
Bible Unearthed, pp. 81-82; Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version Truth
and Fiction in the Bible (London: Penguin, 1992), pp. 226-27; Stiebing, Out of
the Desert, pp. 46-47; Sturgis, ItAin'tNecessarily So, pp. 58-59.
36. Cline, From Eden to Exile, p. 109; Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites?
pp. 46-47; Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, p. 82; Sturgis,
ItAin'tNecessarily So, p. 61. Indeed, the very name "Ai" means "ruin." This
suggests the Israelites knew the place only as the ruins of an old settlement
(Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, p. 65).
37. Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, p. 82; Fox, The
Unauthorized Version, pp. 226-28; Stiebing, Out of the Desert, pp. 84-87.
38. Although Lachish shows signs of being destroyed, the archaeological
evidence is conclusive that it was destroyed around 1160 BCE, much too late for
Joshua and his men. See Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp. 111-12; Dever, Who
Were the Early Israelites? pp. 64-65; Fox, Unauthorized Version, p. 228.
39. Only with Hazor (Joshua 11:10) is there any disagreement between
scholars. Some scholars date its destruction to the last quarter of the thirteenth
century and attribute this to Joshua while others remain unconvinced and either
date the destruction later and/or attribute the destruction to non-Israelites. See
Cline, From Eden to Exile, pp 112-14; Fox, Unauthorized Version, p. 228;
Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, p. 83; Sturgis, ItAin'tNecessarily
So, pp. 80-83.
40. Sturgis, ItAin'tNecessarily So, p. 66.
41. The discovery of the "Tel Dan Stela" in 1993, a ninth-century BCE
inscription, seems to clinch this. The inscriptions tell of the invasion of Israel by
Hazael, king of Damascus, around 835 BCE. In the inscription is written how
this king slew the king who was of "The House of David" (see Finkelstein and
Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 128-29; Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible,
p. 122; and Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So, pp. 162-64). Although for a skeptical
evaluation of the Tel Dan Stela and its use as evidence for David's historicity, see
Hector Avalos, End of Biblical Studies, pp. 127-30.
42. Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 124.
43. Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 32, 142-43; Marcus, The
View from Nebo, p. 12 5.
44. Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 132, 142-43.
45. Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 127.
46. Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed, pp. 131-35.
47. Ibid., p. 132.
48. Aesop was a Phrygian slave who (probably) lived around 620-560 BCE.
That he was a "fabulist" was mentioned in all the earliest sources that mentioned
him: Herodotus (ca. 484-ca. 425 BCE) in his Histories (2:134) calling him "the
writer Aesop," Plato (427-348 BCE) wrote in Phaedo that Socrates was "putting
Aesop into verse," Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his Rhetoric (2:20) talks about the
"fables of Aesop." See chapter 8, "Aesop the Fabulist," in Page DuBois's Slaves
and Other Objects (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008) pp. 170-88.
49. Marcello Craveri, The Life of Jesus (London: Panther, 1969), pp. 33-34.
50. Robert J. Miller, Born Divine.- The Births of.7esus & Other Sons of God
(Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003), pp. 13 3-53. See also Price, The Incredible
Shrinking Son of Man (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003).
51. Moses Hadas, Imperial Rome (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Time Life
Books, 1966).
52. Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1993),
pp. 226-27; Don Cupitt and Peter Armstrong, Who Was .7esus? (London: BBC,
1977), p. 46; Edwin Freed, The Stories of.7esus' Birth.A CriticalIntroduction
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 2001), p. 102; Gerd Ludemann, Virgin
Birth? The Real Story of Mary and Her Son Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press,
1998), p. 83.
53. See Ludemann, Virgin Birth?pp. 81-84.
54. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, pp. 227-30; Cuppitt and Armstrong, Who
Was .7esus?p. 46; Freed, Stories of.7esus' Birth, p. 102; Miller, Born Divine, p.
184.
55. See the summary of the issues (and attempts to resolve them) in Richard
Carrier, "Luke vs. Matthew
on the Year of Christ's Birth," Errancy Wiki, http://
www.errancywiki.com/?title=Legends&rcid=41896.
56. Strobel, The Case for Christ A Journalist:r Personal Investigation of the
Evidence forjesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), p. 135.
57. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 549-50; Craveri, Life of,7esus, p. 44; John
Dominic Crossan, WholsJesus? (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 23; Freed,
Stories ofJesus' Birth, p. 119; Charles Guignebert, Jesus (New York: University
Books, 1956), pp. 30-32; Miller, Born Divine, pp. 180-81; Price, Incredible
Shrinking Son of Man, pp. 65-66.
58. Strobel, Case forChrist, p. 136.
59. Brown, Birth of theMessiab, pp. 550-51; M. Cary and H. H. Scullard, A
History of Rome (New York: St. Martin's, 1979), p. 630; Price, Incredible
Shrinking Son of Man, p. 61.
60. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 550; G. B. Caird, Saint Luke (Har-
mondsworth, England: Penguin, 1963), p. 28; Guignebert, Jesus, pp. 100-101.
61. Adapted from Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 550.
62. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 550; L. Michael White, From Jesus to
Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), pp. 33-34.
63. In a sign of evangelical desperation, there is now a suggestion that there
were two different Quiriniuses: see Strobel, Case for Christ, p. 136.
64. Guignebert, Jesus, p. 100.
65. Two good references on the issue of messianic prophecies are: Tim
Callahan, "`And the Word Became Flesh and Dwelt among Us': Do the Old
Testament Prophecies Foretell the Life of Jesus?" in Bible Prophecy: Failure or
Fulllment? (Altadena, CA: Millennium Press, 1997), pp. 111-32; McKinsey,
"Second Coming and Messianic Age, Messianic Prophecies," in Encyclopedia of
Biblical Errancy, pp. 149-68.
66. J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1987), p. 257.
67. Ludemann, Virgin Birth? p. 70.
68. Miller, Born Divine, pp. 93-94.
69. A. D. Howell Smith, In Search of the Real Bible (London: Watts, 1943),
pp. 40-4 1; McKinsey, Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, p. 304.
70. Although in the first half of the book Daniel is spoken of in the third
person, later portions of the book clearly present itself as being composed by
Daniel (see Daniel 7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12: 4, 5).
71. Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (London:
Duckworth, 1979), p. 211; Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 477.
72. A detailed treatment of Daniel's prophesies can be found in chapter 7 of
Tim Callahan's book, Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulllment? pp. 149-77.
73. For a good but brief discussion of pseudonymity in the Bible, see John W.
Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist-A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008), pp. 167-76.
74. Good introductory works on Jewish and Christian pseudepigrapha and
other noncanonical writings include Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That
Did Not Make It into the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press,
2003) and Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2005).
75. Anderson, Critical Introduction, pp. 209-12; Soggin, Introduction to the
Old Testament, pp. 475-78.
76. Anderson, Critical Introduction, pp. 179-80.
77. Ibid., pp. 113, 119-20; Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 299.
78. The late Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown (1928-1998) estimated the
percentage of scholars who rejected the authenticity of the pastorals at around 80
to 90 percent. See Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York:
Doubleday, 1997), pp. 639, 654, 673.
79. Barr, New Testament Story, p. 169; G. A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (New
York: Open Court, 1999), pp. 79, 270 n32.
80. Barr, New Testament Story, p. 171.
81. Ibid., p. 170; Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New
Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 170.
82. Werner G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 382.
83. Barr, New Testament Story, p. 169; Ehrman, New Testament, p. 357.
84. Barr, New Testament Story, p. 169; Ehrman, New Testament, p. 358.
85. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 591, 600, 621.
86. Ibid., p. 762.
87. According to L. Michael White, who is Ronald Nelson Smith Chair in
Classics and Christian Origins at the University of Texas at Austin and director
of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins, the authenticity
of 1 Peter "is now doubted by almost all modern scholars" (From,7esus to
Christianity, p. 272).
88. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 726; Schnelle, History and
Theology, p. 417.
89. See the addendum at the end of this chapter and my book Rejection of
Pascals Wager, pp. 187-96, on how liberal Christians trip all over themselves
trying to make some sense of what they believe.
90. Brown, Introduction to theNew Testament, p. 586.
91. David L. Barr, New Testament Story.• An Introduction (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1995), p. 158.
92. A more thorough analysis of this relationship between 1 and 2
Thessalonians can be found in Gerd Lbdemann's Heretics: The Other Side of
Early Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox 1996), pp. 108-19.
93. Ehrman, Lost Christianities• The Battles for Scriptures and Faith We
Never Knew (London: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 30-32, 210; Ehrman,
The New Testament A History Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 341-44.
94. Bart Ehrman, ,7esus Interrupted, p. 116.
95. William Hordern, A Layman:r Guide to Protestant Theology (New York:
Macmillan, 1968), pp. 31-33.
96. While this section concerns mainly Protestant liberal theology, it should be
mentioned that there was a similar movement in the Roman Catholic Church
toward the end of the ninteenth and early twentieth century, which was also
called "Modernism." Its advocates openly accepted the findings of biblical
criticism and generally rejected the traditional Catholic scholastic theology. This
group was eventually suppressed by an encyclical in 1907 by Pope Pius X. See
Alan Bullock, Dictionary of Modern Thought (London: Fontana, 1977), p. 540;
and E L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 341. Although Roman
Catholic scholarship is nowadays quite "liberal," its scholars tend to treat central
Roman Catholic dogma (e.g., Mary's perpetual virginity, Jesus' resurrection)
with kid gloves or tend not to study these critically.
97. Quoted in Margaret Knight, Honest to Man.- Christian Ethics Reexamined
(London: Pemberton, 1974), p. 172.
98. Carl Lofmark, What Is the Bible? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,
1989), pp. 138, 61-62.
99. Quoted in Knight, Honest to Man, p. 173.
100. Leslie Weatherhead, The Christian Agnostic (Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 1965), quoted in George H. Smith, At
heism: The Case against God
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989), p. 79.
t has been said that the Bible debunks itself, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Isaac Asimov wrote, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for
atheism ever conceived."1 When atheist Christopher Hallquist was asked in a
debate on Christianity which books he would recommend for further reading, he
said, "The Bible. Read the Bible." 2
One approach to seeing this is to simply look at the many barbarisms in the
Bible.3 There are moral problems to be found in almost every chapter. Some of
them do not need comment because they go against every decent moral standard
civilized people accept in today's world, despite several Christian
rationalizations for them. Nearly every book contains at least some good moral
teachings. So it should surprise none of us that there is good in the Bible. But the
barbaric things in the Bible need to be examined and explained, not explained
away.
There is another approach I'll take in this chapter. I'm going to take readers on
a brief romp through the Bible with an eye on the failure of a perfectly good
omniscient God to communicate (or reveal) his perfect will to believers.
Dispensing higher critical studies and just taking the Bible at face value, what
are we to make of the way God communicated, given the final canonical Bible?
My claim is that God did a woefully inadequate job, especially since he's
supposedly omniscient and knows how "sinful" people such as us could
misunderstand his words. Because God did not communicate clearly, believers
who thought they were doing his will caused a great deal of suffering. Add to
this the failure of the Holy Spirit to "illuminate" believers to know the will of
God and there is a very serious problem here. I call it the Problem of
Miscommunication. I don't think Christians can completely exonerate an
omniscient God from being at least partially to blame for the miscommunication
that was used by sincere believers to commit so many horrendous acts.
The famous American agnostic of the nineteenth century, Robert G. Ingersoll,
introduces much of what I will argue for in this chapter: "Every [Christian] sect
is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader
the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a
revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If
written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow;
and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all."4 I'll not argue God is
responsible for it all though. I need only to establish God is at least partially to
blame.
Friedrich Nietzsche likewise noted this problem when it came to why people
cannot understand God's supposed warnings:
A god who is all-knowing and allpowerful and who does not even make
sure his creatures understand his intention-could that be a god of goodness?
Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of
years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and
who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if
any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? ... Did he perhaps lack
intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then ... be able to help
and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all
kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on
his child or dog?5
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 23
