A facinating archeological discovery in Jerusalem: workers repairing a sewage pipe have uncovered the Pool of Siloam, which is mentioned in the Gospel of John.
Add this to a growing number of archeological discoveries regarding Hezekiah’s tunnel. These particular discoveries do a great job of providing convincing historical proof of portions of the Old and New Testament. What other secrets are lying underneath the streets of Jerusalem?
I find such discoveries to be simultaneously exciting and disturbing: it’s great that we have more knowledge of ancient Jerusalem and the New Testament, but it only makes the lack of solid archeological evidence for the BOM in the Americas all the more stark by comparison. I realize comparing the BOM to the Bible is apples and oranges, that there are plenty of interesting textual evidences in the BOM, but finding some thing that can be convincingly tied to the text would probably help with missionary work.
Greg, I think there is some evidence for the BoM. You may have seen Jeff Lindsay’s summary here. On a grander scale, the Book of Mormon’s geography fits well with Mesoamerica. The Jaredites were probably the Olmecs and the surviving Lamanites were probably the Mayans. One of the more interesting books I’ve read is “Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon” by Joseph L. Allen. At the very least, it was helpful it associating geographical points in the BoM to possible real places. But I would agree that archeology in BoM lands has been significantly less promising than Biblical archeology in the Middle East and Turkey. There are also a lot fewer people digging around Mesoamerica than there are in the Biblical lands, and a lot fewer of them are believers, which means discoveries are much less likely to be put in a “BoM context.”
Perhaps the devestation, fire, earthquakes, et al. had something to do with the lack of BoM evidence? hm…
The main reason for the difference in evidence is the nature of the work. Scholars have been trying to identify sites mentioned in the Bible since 400 AD (though “scholar” doesn’t really apply back then), whereas Mesoamerican archaeology is barely 170 years old. I read one non-LDs Mesoamerican archaeologist’s guess that they have, so far, uncovered .5% of the sites that remain, and those that remain are a subset of what existed at the time.
Furthermore, most of the Book of Mormon events date to the Mayan pre-classic period, but most work so far has centered on the classic period.
I’m confident that when the equivalent amount of work has been done in MEsoamerican archaeology as has been in biblical studies and archaeology that the evidence for the BoM will be where today’s evidence for the Bible is (which, frankly, is not terribly good.)
While mesoAmerica is largely compatible with the text, with only a few issues (such as direction) that need less convincing explaining away, I’m not sure that is the same as evidence. Consistency is helpful to believers. But evidence is helpful to non-believers. Right now there’s simply no positive evidence for non-believers.
With regards to the OT though, I’d caution this as really being evidence of the OT. Likely around the time the texts were composed at the *latest* these features were still present in the area. So it’s not really evidence of much beyond evidence that the texts were written where there is already abundant evidence they were written.
More compelling would be evidence for Solomon’s empire, for the Jews leaving Egypt in the fashion described, and so forth.
Clark, I must be missing your point on the OT comment. Hezekiah was 8th century BC. It’s unclear when the OT was written exactly. Different books were written at different times. I happen to believe that the first five books were written by Moses, and Joshua by Joshua and the prophets by the prophets. As for Kings and Chronicles, perhaps they were written in 5th century BC, but who knows for sure? There are significant differences among OT scholars, as I’m sure Ben can attest. But there are many, many scholars who claim that the OT may have been written in the 2nd or 3rd century BC and that it has huge historical errors. There is a significant school of scholars, perhaps even the majority, who believe that there were two or three Isaiahs, for example — one who wrote in 8th century BC, one in 5th century BC and another even later. I think one of the purposes of the BoM is to put to rest that argument and show that Isaiah was one prophet at one time. But some of these archeological finds show that the history of the OT is actually quite accurate — the inscriptions on Hezekiah’s tunnel exactly mark the history as claimed in the OT, for example. That was the point I was trying to make.
Interestingly, there have been recent finds from Jerusalem around the 10 century BC, which would have been the time of David and Solomon, that also support the OT. Many Jews and Christians believe that the Palestinians are systematically destroying this evidence underneath the temple mount to de-legitimize the historical Jewish claim to Jerusalem. I would agree that there is no real archeological evidence yet of the Exodus. We may never see that.
I cannot completely agree with the statement that “right now there’s simply no positive evidence for non-believers.” Of course, there’s never going to be enough evidence for somebody who doesn’t want to believe. Take it from a relatively recent convert: the only convincing evidence for a non-believer is the Holy Ghost testifying Truth to you. But for people with an open mind, I think a visit to Jeff Lindsay’s page makes some very compelling arguments. It is “evidence?” That depends on the reader. But I think there’s some very interesting evidence there. It certainly cannot be dismissed easily.
The point is that if they were composed in say the 2cd century then they could make use of extant scenery. Thus finding scenery that was around in the 2cd century is no evidence that the earlier histories are accurate.
Geoff, what exactly does this actually prove? While it is certainly interesting and exciting to be able to reconstruct the ancient city better, I am not sure that this really tells us anything all that interesting about the “historical proof” of the OT and NT. To my knowledge, no one ever disputed that the Pool of Siloam existed! This is the problem with the use of archeology. It cannot establish the “truth” of anything. Even the James ossuary (which was a hoax), doesn’t tell us anything other than that James died, which no one ever said that he didn’t do.
“I happen to believe that the first five books were written by Moses, and Joshua by Joshua and the prophets by the prophets.”
You seem to attribute something to these books which most of them do not claim for themselves. It is fine if you choose to believe this, but it isn’t scriptural to do so.
Clark, I got it. Interestingly, the LA Times story says: “The First pool of Siloam (Built by Hezekiah) was the reservoir holding the water brought into the city. It was presumably destroyed in 586 BC when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar razed the city. the pool of Jesus’ time was built early in the 1st century BC and was destroyed by the future Roman Emperor titus about AD 70.”
There are some scholars who believe the pool still existed in Nehemiah’s day in 5th century BC, and was later restored by Herod, so the LA Times might be wrong about this. If you take two archeologists you’ll get five opinions.
“I think one of the purposes of the BoM is to put to rest that argument and show that Isaiah was one prophet at one time. “
Sorry to keep posting, but the BOM no where quotes from Trito-Isaiah (56-66).
Taylor, I agree with some of your points. I guess my view is that Biblical archeology is useful in a general sense to bring the scriptures to life. It is easier to picture the stories in the scriptures if you have a sense of the history. Archeology can help you do that. It is worth pointing out that many scholars doubt the historicity of the Bible. The LA Times story, for example, quotes a professor as saying that many “scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit.” Based on this discovery, those scholars appear to be wrong. I have personally debated many atheists who claim that the OT was written in its entirety in the 2nd century BC and that it is factually inaccurate. Finding evidence showing that the OT was factually accurate (“there was a king named Hezekiah and he built a tunnel that went to the Pool of Siloam just as the Bible describes”) is just an interesting tidbit to keep in mind.
It’s worth pointing out that there are many respected archeologists who continue to believe the James ossuary was not a hoax and that it really did carry the bones of “James, the brother of Jesus.” The jury is still out on that one. But it is correct that many scholars do believe it was a hoax.
Your point in #9 is valid.
Taylor, some scholars (Torrey, for example) believe Trito-Isaiah included Isaiah 55 (quoted in 2 Nephi 26:25). See here for more.
Geoff,
I agree with your more circumspect claim about the value of archeology in #12 as “bringing the scriptures to life,” but this is quite different from “providing convincing historical proofs” of the Bible.
As for Charlesworth’s quote that “scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit,” I am not quite sure what he heck he is talking about. This site shows the history of the excavation and shows that what the real discovery was is the lower pool, which it says that most scholars thought was there all along: http://www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm . Additionally, the pool is mentioned by Josephus several times so I am not sure how anyone could have doubted its existence.
My point is that now that we know where the pool is, it doesn’t prove that Jesus performed a miracle there. Nor does it prove that Isaiah is a prophet.
As for your athiest interlocutors, they are simply misinformed about biblical scholarship, which you should rightly correct them on. However, even if the bible does confirm that Hezekiah built a tunnel, it doesn’t prove that it was written at the same time that Hezekiah built the tunnel.
Old news is good news. This discovery is a bit old. I read several history blogs and this was mentioned last year in the Jerusalem post.
“some scholars (Torrey, for example) believe Trito-Isaiah included Isaiah 55 (quoted in 2 Nephi 26:25).”
This is older scholarship. Most commentaries now consider Is. 55 to be the conclusion to Dt Is, rather than an introduction to Tr Is. The opening words of Is 56 “Thus says the Lord” is an introductory formula and starts a new theme.
The reality is that archaeological evidence is much easier to find in desert countries than in tropical ones. For one thing, the jungle tends to overrun building sites, etc. and for another, humidity does significantly more damage than dry air does. If the Dead Sea Scrolls had been in jungle country, all that would have remained were the skeletons of the bugs that ate the fungus that destroyed the scrolls.
Ben said:
“I’m confident that when the equivalent amount of work has been done in MEsoamerican archaeology as has been in biblical studies and archaeology that the evidence for the BoM will be where today’s evidence for the Bible is.”
The BofM is a story in which you have faith in its truth. Leave it at that. You’ll be disappointed if you don’t. Cureloms, chariots, steel, Hebraic DNA, and millions of dead armored soldiers aren’t going to materialize out of the archaeological record. The next stop on this ride is the Limited Island Model (a remote island that has been swallowed up by the sea), followed by the description of the BofM as “divinely inspired.”
For Taylor and others, this story provides one of the reasons for taking archeology seriously, despites its controversies and contradictions.
Geoff, this article makes my stomach hurt. It is quite obviously propaganda. I don’t deny the connection between archeology and politics, but honestly, this connection is seriously problematic and should be subject to intense scrutiny.
Does anyone really truly beleive that if we find the walls to what is *perhaps* the palace of David that this justifies the state of Israel? The Romans once controlled northern Africa. Are they justified in taking it over again and repopulating it with Italians? The Germans once controlled much of Europe. Does that mean that they are justified in taking it over again? I really hope you don’t think so.
The Kingdom of David barely lasted a generation, and that was 3000 years ago. Just because David conquered a bunch of rival tribes during a power vacuum in the Near East is no reason for anyone to start taking over lands. As wonderfully rich as this nostalgia and memory is to Jewish piety, it is not a convincing political argument. Nor does the work of ideological archeologists reveal anything about the ultimate truth of the bible or the ultimate truth of Israeli propaganda. The justification for the state of Israel (and I do believe that one can be found), should not be based on a bunch of old rocks and pottery shards.
Dude what about the altars found by German archeologists that have the inscription NHM very similar linguistically to Nahom where Ishamael died in a place called Nahom!
the location of which would be geographically in the same place where Ishmael died. [Hugh Nibley said that most evidence in support of the BOM would come from the old world, not the new] If this is not convincingly enough people are as bad as Thomas who doubted the Lord was resurrected until they saw him. Religionists who refute the BOM on archeological evidence might as well be Darwinists when it comes to faith. The LDS faith is one of the few faiths that dwells close to science w/out making you question your faith. One example is the 98% similarity in DNA of Chimps compare to the DNA of Humans. One who believes in ex nihlo creation would have a hard time dealing with this scienitific fact, but not for the LDS member. Pre-existing buidling blocks of life for the self-existant beings! Now that is what I call creation