Liberal Logic – A Response

I previously commented about “Liberal Logic” with regard to the location of Ai. The author of the book mentioned therein responded in the comments section. As I want to respond to him, I’ve chosen to copy his comments to this post, followed by my response.

It is by accident that i came across Bolen’s critique of my chapter in Fifty. . . cities of the bible on the story of ‘Ai. He is absolutely right that all serious, scholarly discussions should be considered in dealing with any controversial issue, in or out of the Bible. However, this is trrelevant to his comments. Callaway was one of the finest archaoelogists of his day and did a thoroughy scientific responsible excavation of et-Tell, as well as the surrounding area. While traditon could easily have preserved the location of the site, that hardly means the story of Joshua is history. In fact, except for the most fundamentalist of Christians and Jews, the story of the “Conquest” is Deuteronomistic fiction. It is not that et-Tell can be identified with ‘Ai but not Joshua’s armies. There were no Joshua’s armies. What is silly non-sense is trying to take the Bible at face value where all literary and archaeological studies since 1970s and 80s have shown that no such conquest ever took place. In fact, what we now know is that the so-called “israelites” of Iron Age I were nothing more than Canaanite farmers. To conclude otherwise in the face of all the data (both literary and archaeological) now available is to be either ignorant or to have no integrity. There is no such thing as “liberal” or “conservative” scholarship. There is only competent and incompetent scholarship. The results of competent scholarship can be interpreted more or less conservatively or liberally, but that has nothing to do with the scholarship itself. To keep pretending the real ‘Ai is someplace else is wishful thinking, born out of a need to “prove the Bible true.” This wish died with mainstream biblical historians and archaeologists over 50 years ago.

Dr. Laughlin,

Thank you for your response to my comments. I appreciate them, but am unsatisfied by them. Let me explain.

You say that it is “silly non-sense” to “take the Bible at face value.” I wrote previously that I perfectly understood this position – that which rejects the historicity of the Bible. But what I don’t understand is how a reader can take parts of one biblical story at face value (in this case, the geographical details for the location of Ai) and reject other parts of that same story. It’s worse than that, because it is the accepted details of the biblical story that allegedly require an ultimate denial of the story itself. In other words, you could not deny that the event happened except in using details from the story itself. I am repeating myself, but I do not see that you interacted with this essential point.

Your more important point is that there was no Israelite conquest of Canaan. I recognize that many hold to your position. However, I think it is over-reaching to say that:
1) all literary and archaeological studies since 1970s and 80s have shown that no conquest ever took place
2) in the face of all the data
3) to accuse those who hold to another position of being ignorant or lacking integrity

Concerning #1 and #2, this is simply not so. There are studies by major scholars which suggest that there was a conquest. Bryant Wood has shown that Jericho was destroyed in the Late Bronze Age. Amnon Ben-Tor believes that Hazor was destroyed by Israelites in the Late Bronze Age. The entire “peasant revolt” theory hangs on the idea that there was military activity in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. None of these by themselves prove the biblical version (or are agreed on), but it’s not correct to say that “all literary and archaeological studies….”

Concerning #3, I think that if we sat down and talked that you might retain your position, but I don’t think you’d call me ignorant or lacking integrity. There is a lot of literature, but my observation is that many liberals simply are unaware of it or unwilling to consider other interpretations as valid. Ironically, in my observation, they refuse to consider other options. Let me illustrate…

In my previous comments, I made reference to Edward Robinson’s identification of Ai at a site other than et-Tell. I did not say that Robinson’s identification was correct, but I did suggest that it should be considered. But I ask, did you consider it? If anyone was a first-rate scholar on the subject, it was Robinson (and all agree on that). Did you consider it before you wrote the chapter on Ai, and did you consider it after reading my comments? Based on what you wrote in both places, my conclusion is no. The issue though isn’t whether or not you read and evaluated it, but whether the other scholars did. You can say the nicest things you want about Callaway, but if he did not consider Robinson’s evidence, then that is a shortcoming. My point simply was to point out this shortcoming. Instead of recognizing that perhaps some previous scholarly work on the subject was deficient and proceeding to rectify this deficiency, you (and others) tout Calloway’s credentials and go on ignoring. The cynic might conclude that those who ignore are afraid of finding something which alters their confirmed conclusions.

Again, maybe the conquest never happened. But it is circular reasoning to say that because there was no inhabitation of Ai in the time of Joshua, there was no conquest (your chapter). And because there was no conquest, we need not look for Ai (your comments on this blog).

Why can’t scholars still look? What is this overwhelming evidence that says that Ai must be at et-Tell and it can’t possibly be anywhere else? It seems that the conclusion has gotten in the way of the investigation. Now, perhaps there is a point at which one can say that the bulk of the evidence suggests a certain conclusion and therefore I am not going to pursue it any further. But to deny that investigation to others? It seems anything but scholarly or liberal. And if a scholar comes up with evidence at odds with the generally accepted conclusion, I do not believe that the evidence should be discarded without evaluation.

I know that you have participated in archaeological excavations, and for that reason I am surprised that you have as much confidence in archaeological work as you do. The evidence is often very ambiguous and often subject to interpretation. Even in our day with all of the advanced techniques, controversies abound. You can consider the differing opinions on the stratigraphy of Megiddo by the three archaeologists now working there. For this reason and others, I am going to be very cautious in coming to definitive conclusions on the basis of archaeological evidence. Even more so, I am going to be cautious in coming to a negative conclusion, in which I assert with any measure of confidence what did not happen in ancient history. I do not think that any of us realize how truly ignorant we all are about the ancient world.

Best regards,
Todd