Abraham, Archaeology, and Vladimir Putin
Growth and Frustration
Engaging in Facebook threads for apologetics has provided a wide variety of opportunities to grow in grace and wisdom, through which I have often been challenged in what I believe and forced to dig even deeper. Other times, however, I can be amazed at people’s confidence, people who then demonstrate they have no clue what they are talking about. Today, I would like to talk about one such recent experience.
Today’s issue is a case of whether we have archaeological evidence for Abraham, the patriarch in Genesis. We can say several things about that, but I want to focus on the philosophy of the question, rather than archaeology directly, to demonstrate a larger principle that you can use in a wide variety of other situations.
The argument given is that we have no reason to believe the accounts of Abraham in the Bible because we have no archaeological finds supporting the accounts. I want to mention that, directly, it’s factually true: we have no archaeological finds for Abraham (hold that thought, though, I’ll be adding some nuance later on). Nothing like we have for the Pharaohs or the period of the Babylonian Exile, for example. However, that is irrelevant. To explain why, I’m first going to take one small step over to Vladimir Putin, though it might feel like one giant leap.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we had no books or movies or anything for Vladimir Putin and that someone was claiming that we shouldn’t believe Vladimir Putin exists because we don’t have any evidence that he walked on the moon. Would this be a good argument? No, it would be ridiculous. So let’s walk through this.
Calibrating Your Beliefs - Overview
The concept I’m working through here I’m calling ‘calibrating our beliefs:’ have we tested what we believe against what can or what should be believed about the particular in question? If we are skeptical of a claim, is our skepticism even reasonable? This concept falls primarily under philosophy, with a lot of emphasis on logic and reason.
When we practice science, such as seeing how different elements interact with each other, we first have to calibrate the experiment. Here are some of the things we have to calibrate or account for:
What are we measuring?
How we are going to measure it?
What is the standard for success or failure?
How are we going to account for disaster?
What are the controlled variables?
What are the uncontrolled variables?
To be clear, we have all kinds of things we have to test and question before we can experiment, just to ensure that we are doing things right and getting meaningful results. For example, imagine trying to test the effects of salt in water, but instead, we only put in sodium? That would explode in our faces.
For some reason, skeptics of the Bible tend not to calibrate their beliefs. In fairness, many Christians don’t, and while that is a problem, it’s usually not the Christians claiming intellectual superiority. So, after this brief foray into science, let’s head back to Vladimir. There are two questions with the claim about Vladimir walking on the moon: is the objection valid, and can the objection be tested? First, let’s quickly review the claims about Vladimir and Abraham and then walk through comparisons between the two.
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin has quite an interesting past, but the key points to note are these:
He lived in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
He lived in Russia almost his entire life.
He has an extensive military and political history in Russia.
He has various international travels.
Abraham
Abraham’s key points:
He lived roughly 4,000 years ago in the Middle East, between Mesopotamia and Egypt.
He is from Ur.
He traveled from Ur to Haran down to Egypt and back up to Canaan.
At his height, his tribe consisted of over 300 armed warriors.
He primarily lived as a nomad.
His grandson, Jacob (later called Israel), moved the entire family down to Egypt permanently.
Calibrating Your Beliefs - Is the objection even valid?
The first problem with Vladimir walking on the moon is that no one claims that Vladimir Putin walked on the moon. We have a complete list of all twelve men who have walked on the moon, and none of them are Vladimir Putin or are even Russian. So, if Vladimir exists, will we find his footprints on the moon? Nope. If Vladimir doesn’t exist, will we find his footprints on the moon? Nope. So, it is true that we have no evidence that Vladimir walked on the moon, but it is also meaningless. That would only matter for the claim he did walk on the moon.
Now, let’s test Abraham. What did Abraham do that would have left archaeological evidence? He isn’t claimed to have built a city. He isn’t claimed to have minted coins with his face on it. He isn’t claimed to have built an empire. So, what archaeological evidence are we looking for in the first place?
In other words, just like with Vladimir Putin: the absence of evidence for Vladimir on the moon is the same whether he did or didn’t exist; similarly, the lack of archaeological evidence we see for Abraham is the same whether he did or didn’t exist. So while it is true that we have no archaeological evidence from the moon or Palestine, it also doesn’t change anything. We are still in the same boat of trying to figure out whether the account is true or not.
To contrast this with King David, he ruled Jerusalem, a major city, and ruled a kingdom. We should expect archaeological evidence for that, and we have it. But for a man never claimed to walk on the moon, or for a shepherd 4,000 years ago? It would be great to find some, but that’s a completely unrealistic objection.
Calibrating Your Beliefs - can the objection be tested?
The second point of calibration is whether we can meaningfully test the objection. The example we will use is the footprints on the moon. Let’s say that it is true that Vladimir had walked on the moon; what then?
Well, we’re still stuck in a pickle: to walk on the moon, one needs special gear, such as a spacesuit. Spacesuits have special boots into them and are all pretty much the same, minus size. However, while we can tell distinct bootprints for different shoes on earth, there are only so many spacesuit boot designs, assuming they have any. So, to test if one of the bootprints belonged to Vladimir Putin, we need to know two things: the bootprint on the moon and the tread on Vladimir’s boots. This is real information, but that doesn’t mean we can get it. Case in point, when’s the next time you’re going to the Kremlin to get Vladimir’s spacesuit? When’s the next time you are going to the moon to get the bootprints? So, it is within the realm of possibility to get that information, but let’s be realistic: we’re not getting it.
Let’s get back to Abraham: yes, he had tents, shepherding tools, men, and wealth. But how would we identify that? What is the “tread” on his “shoes”? For starters, unlike on the moon, we have lots of wind here on earth. Those bootprints would have blown away. Tents? “Blown away:” probably taken with Jacob down to Egypt. Shepherding tools? Taken, but mostly non-metal, so likely biodegraded if lost. Wealth? Any gold not taken would either be lost or taken by others. Even for the things that Abraham did touch, which are we expecting to have survived for the last 4,000 years? And which are we expecting to find out of what has survived?
Again, let’s compare that to King David. His cities? We should expect to find them. Abraham’s tents? Good luck.
Summary
Now, I want to be clear: archaeology is a great tool, and we absolutely should use it. I am not knocking archaeology, but I am refuting a specific kind of claim that only pretends to rely on archaeology.
Having explained the issues with this type of claim, I now want to go through a variety of similar examples where we find this problem:
The miracles of Jesus. Let’s be real: a man born blind healed. What empirical, archaeological evidence would remain? Cat scans? Or camel scans, since cats didn't hold as much authority in Palestine as in Egypt? How about when Jesus walked on water? Are we expecting footprints? Pictures?
How about the Resurrection of Jesus? If we found a body, that would actually disprove the Resurrection. Would finding blood (assuming we could genetically prove it was Jesus’) prove the Resurrection?
What about the Exodus out of Egypt? A slave people who lived nomadically for 40 years before permanently moving into Canaan. Out of all the nomadic peoples we know about for the Sinai Peninsula during that period, for how many do we have any archaeological finds? How much has survived? How much of that has survived, and of that, how much has been found? What makes this one 40 year window by one people group so different that we should expect not only for so much to have survived but for us to have found it?
When someone asks why Paul’s epistles don’t contain any biographical information about Jesus, our first question should be whether Paul’s epistles are biographical in nature in the first place? What in Paul’s epistles indicates that we should expect him to write about details in the life of Jesus?
Let’s explore this further by going past direct archaeological issues to broader contexts:
If someone claims that sexual ethics are nothing more than “social constructs,” we can calibrate that belief against known sexual ethics, like rape being wrong. Are we willing to believe that rape is just a “social construct”? What about child abuse or sex trafficking?
If someone claims that the Gospels aren’t reliable because of how late they were written, we can calibrate that by seeing how we treat other ancient texts. For example, those who push this claim typically also claim that the early church excluded the gnostic gospels because of doctrinal differences. But the gnostic gospels were consistently written at least 50-100 years after Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So why are the gnostic gospels considered serious contenders for reliable information about Jesus but not earlier texts?
If someone claims that all religions are equally valid, we can test that against the claims each religion actually makes. For example, Islam claims that Jesus never died on the cross; Judaism claims that Jesus died on the cross but never rose from the dead; Christianity claims Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. Whichever one is right is more valid than the other two, right?
If someone claims that the Bible talks about slavery and is therefore wrong, we can test that against what the Bible actually teaches. For example, do they have credit cards? The Bible calls borrowers slaves. Are they employers? That was one form of authorized biblical slavery. In other words, are they using the biblical descriptions of slavery, or are they using our understanding of slavery defined by the Atlantic Slave Trade?
I want to make sure my point is not lost: the problem with the claims I addressed is not that they try to use archaeology but rather that they abuse archaeology. Such claims try to force archaeology to say something it doesn’t say, it can’t say. So, for example, archaeology doesn’t say Abraham didn’t exist, only that we don’t have that one kind of evidence for Abraham. In other words, they take a point that can warrant a healthy skepticism and exaggerate it into full-blown rejection, far beyond what the facts grant.
However, there are plenty more kinds of evidence; most notable for history is the written record. Actually, almost all historical evidence falls into one of two categories: archaeological artifacts and written records; the entire field of history consists of studying those two fields. And we have written records for Abraham: it’s called the book of Genesis. Obviously, we shouldn’t just blindly believe it; we should test it and examine it. But to dismiss the biblical texts outright is just as blind as to accept it without question—the same thing with Exodus for the Exodus or the Gospels for Jesus.
In my experience, most of the lay arguments against Christianity and the Bible end up failing for reasons like this: misunderstanding or misusing the fields in question. This is why I highly recommend books like Tactics, by Greg Koukl, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Fee and Stuart, and How to Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff: they don’t provide facts to memorize, but methods and principles to help one understand what they are looking for and what they find. It is far more important to understand than just to repeat talking points. Jesus didn’t use the disciple model to create parrots, but to mold people who would love Him with their hearts and their minds, their strength and their will; people who would love Him with their all. Specific facts are important but are only effective when understood in the right context.
Now, having said all that… It’s only partially true that there is no archaeological evidence for Abraham. There is no direct evidence that we’ve found, such as his birth certificate. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a wide variety of circumstantial evidence found that demonstrates how accurately the biblical texts portray the life of Abraham against the known cultures of his day. Here are some sources that go into that:
Comments
Post a Comment