Is the Bible a historically accurate document? Most people would probably give it at least some credence: ‘Well, there was Moses and Abraham and so on, and Israel and Babylon, and of course Jesus …’

Confining ourselves to the Old Testament (OT) for the moment, would you be surprised to learn that many scholars feel that it’s almost impossible to derive any firm historical information from this source at all? And that it consists of little more than pious fiction?

Even taking more conservative scholars such as archaeologist William Dever, who argues that some parts of the OT contain factual material, what is he prepared to jettison in his search for a verifiable historical record?

With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Bible], specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of ‘pre-history’ that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors …

After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible ‘historical figures’ … [A]rchaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness …

So much for the parting of the Red Sea. And on it goes:

Much of what is called in the English Bible ‘poetry’, ‘wisdom’ and ‘devotional literature’ must also be eliminated from historical consideration. That would include books such as Psalms …; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes …; Ruth, Esther, Job and Daniel …; the Song of Songs …; and a number of the late, ‘Minor Prophets’ …
(William G. Dever [2001] What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?, 97-99)

Dever, I should emphasise, is by no means a radical Bible critic, and in fact his entire book critiques the arguments of ‘revisionists’ who hold that the OT is virtually worthless from an historical point of view. (He is no fundamentalist, however, describing much of their scholarship as a ‘farce’ [p.107].) Many scholars mount similar arguments for the irrelevance to actual history of the New Testament: authors such as Burton Mack, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells come to mind.

Occasionally, however, someone comes up with an archaeological relic which appears to confirm part of the biblical story. Two such items are the ‘Jehoash Inscription’, the effect of which was to confirm that Solomon’s Temple had once stood on Temple Mount in Jerusalem; and the ‘James Ossuary’, purporting via an inscription to have once contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.

Answers in Genesis (AiG), Australia’s leading creationist group, was all over the bone-box like a rash. Amid some cursory nods to the possibility of forgery, the superlatives flowed like water. The James Ossuary could be ‘ … a relic of incredible historical significance’, ‘ … would force scholars to take the New Testament more seriously’, ‘ … most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology’ etc. A strange ‘Stop Press’ item hinted that the ossuary’s owner might not be all he seemed, but concluded that his actions ‘highlight … the likelihood of [the item's] authenticity’! (David Down ‘The James Claims’, Creation magazine, March-May 2003, 16-18)

Both the Jehoash Inscription and the James Ossuary were rapidly exposed as fakes and this was accepted by most fundamentalists, including the normally credulous Australian creationist Clifford Wilson (’Religious forgeries??’, New Life, 4 Dec. 2003). However, AiG’s Jonathan Sarfati wasn’t letting this one go without a fight. The Israeli Antiquities Authority committee which had decided that the ossuary was a forgery was jam-packed with ‘overt anti-Christian bias’, and some of its members lacked suitable qualifications:

That seemed to be the trouble with the committee - the doubts they raised were from outside their own fields of expertise.

This is particularly galling coming from Sarfati, the bulk of whose AiG writings lie well outside his own area of expertise (physical chemistry). This did not stop him from pronouncing authoritatively on the matter:

In conclusion, the evidence points to the genuineness of the inscription [on the ossuary]. Thus, it is strong support for the existence of the historical Jesus, and that He was of such unique importance that He should be mentioned as a brother on an ossuary. (’Bonebox bashers blasted’, Creation magazine, March-May 2004, 15)

Late in December 2004, Israeli police charged four antiquities collectors and dealers with running a sophisticated forgery ring that produced ‘a treasure-trove of fake Bible-era artefacts’, including both the Jehoash Inscription and the James Ossuary (Karin Laub ‘Prized biblical artefacts shown as fakes after global forgery ring unmasked’, Melbourne Age, 31 Dec. 2004).

And as for the AiG: ‘Bone-box? What bone-box?’

Filed in: Biblical criticism, Creationism