Josh McDowell’s argument (in Answers to Tough Questions about the Chrisitian Faith) that archaeology proves the Bible reminds me of the Adventurers Club at Walt Disney World’s Pleasure Island. It also reminds me of a Seinfeld episode (but, then again, what doesn’t?). I talked about this McDowell argument in another post but it was lost in a pretty long rant and I think it’s important enough to warrant repetition on its own.
But first, to the Adventureres Club! This club has these barstools that can move up and down. But they move very, very slowly and the bartender has control over them. They move so slowly that you don’t even notice it — even the person sitting on the barstool doesn’t feel it move. Sounds weird but it’s true. So, you’ll be sitting there with a friend talking, watching what’s going on around you, drinking a cocktail and suddenly it will hit you — you are looking your friend square in the nipple ring! His barstool is almost a foot higher and yours a foot lower than normal. And you really didn’t notice anything because it happened so slowly and, I guess, your brain compensated automatically. It is a shocker when it happens.
McDowell’s argument is kinda like that. He starts off stating a simple, fairly well-defined fact. He then continues talking and at the end he has a general, all-encompassing result that “proves” his point. Most people will say, “Oh, cool!” and continue reading not even realizing that the basis of the argument was to “up the ante” with each comment with no justification — subtle escalation, if you will. But once you see it, it’s not so subtle. His basic argument goes like this …
To start off, he says that the Bible mentions some people and places which archaeology has verified did exist. In other words, “many biblical pasages are historically accurate.” His examples:
- The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in some of the 15,000 tablets uncovered at Tell Mardikh.
- Archaeological proof that a ruler named Belshazzar existed; that the Hittites had a vast empire; that King Sargon ruled; that the “matters that touch upon history in the Book of Acts are demonstrably accurate.”
Fair enough. I’m going to ignore some potential problems such as how the cities were mentioned — the way we would mention New York City or the way we would mention Altantis — and how many, exactly, is “some” tablets. After citing these few examples, McDowell then concludes that “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
Now, this is not quite as strong a point as it may seem. To say that “archaeology [has] verified … historical points of the biblical record” is a pretty solid statement in my book. But to say that archaeology has not disputed any historical points is a totally different matter. ‘Tis far easier to prove than to disprove — just ask Ravi Zacharias and his white rock with black dots. After all, archaeology hasn’t yet disputed my claim that eight-foot Amazon women were the first settlers in the Andes. They just haven’t found them yet! So, we really should forget the second part and leave it at “the findings of archaeology have verified historical points of the biblical record.”
From here, McDowell starts a very short section where he cites new “conclusions” but without offering more evidence to support. Here’s the trail …
- “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
- “[archaeology] is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are historically accurate.”
- “One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture.”
- “Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired…”
- “… it then follows that [the authors of Scripture] cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.”
Do you see what he’s done from 1 through 3? He’s gone from “historical points” to “historical passages” to “historical picture“. That’s escalation. Starting with “they mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah which, by the way, is a real place” he ends up with “the Bible paints an accurate historical picture” which implies so much more than just mentioning real places.
But he’s not done! From 3 to 4 he claims to simply “rephrase” his last point but what he actually does is escalate again. He claims that an accurate historical picture is the same thing as an accurate historical record. Again, from starting with “they mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah which, by the way, is a real place” he ends up with an accurate account of what happened, who did what to whom, who said what to whom, etc.
But, believe it or not, he’s still not done. From 4 to 5 he makes yet another escalating move. He claims that since the Biblical writers are accurate historians then everything they say must be considered as truth; even when what they say is “out of the ordinary.” This gives the Bible writers carte blanche to say anything and it is to be believed. Pretty convenient when your goal is to be able to use the Bible as the basis for all kinds of “proofs”.
McDowell’s intial claim is that archaeology proves the Bible but he ends up with something that I think is very different. Does the Bible mention some verifiable places and people? Yes, it does. Does that mean anything more than the Bible used real people and places as a backdrop for its stories? According to McDowell, yes. According to me, there’s not enough evidence to say.
And now to Seinfeld. What I am reminded of is Elaine’s escalation in “The Sponge” episode of Seinfeld where she is trying to find a store that still carries her favorite form of birth control after it was taken off the market:
PHARMACIST: Actually, we have a case left.
ELAINE (excited): A case! A case of sponges? I mean, uh…a case. Huh. Uh…how many come in a case?
PHARMACIST: Sixty.
ELAINE: Sixty?! Uh…well, I’ll take three.
PHARMACIST: Three.
ELAINE: Make it ten.
PHARMACIST: Ten?
ELAINE: Twenty sponges should be plenty.
PHARMACIST: Did you say twenty?
ELAINE: Yeah, twenty-five sponges is just fine.
PHARMACIST: Right. So, you’re set with twenty-five.
ELAINE: Yeah. Just give me the whole case and I’ll be on my way.
Not as subtle as the levitating barstools but only slightly less subtle than McDowell’s argument.
Don’t you see that Jesus had to portray God as being “out there”? He had enough troubles claiming that he was God’s Son and, therefore, God himself. Imagine if he started saying “Oh, and so are you!” His ministry wouldn’t have lasted three days let alone three years. He was talking to Jews, afterall, who had some real issues with “blasphemy”.
Recent Comments