In his new book, Fifty Major Cities of the Bible, John C. H. Laughlin has a chapter on ‘Ai (et-Tell). It’s actually a pretty standard treatment of the subject from the liberal perspective. The only real surprise is that though this book claims to be up-to-date (2006), the latest source in the chapter’s bibliography is 20 years old. There is no mention of recent attempts to locate Ai elsewhere. Even if one disagrees with those conducting the research, they are respected scholars with the backing of the Israel Antiquities Authority. One can hardly imagine the investigation efforts of non-conservatives being completely ignored in a similar way.

What most interests me in this chapter, and it’s not unique to Laughlin, is the way in which the Bible is used in this study. One can understand an approach which consistently regards the biblical record to be accurate, or alternately, one that consistently rejects the historicity of the biblical record. But what Laughlin (and many) do is to use details of the biblical record as essential in establishing the site identification, and then use that very site identification to deny the accuracy of the biblical record. Follow along.

1. Laughlin says that we know where Ai was because of the details given in the Bible of hills and valleys around the city. Quoting Zevit, “These topographical details reinforce the conclusion reached on general geographic considerations that et-Tell is to be identified with ‘Ai. In fact, they guarantee that the ‘Ai story in the Bible was told about Khirbet et-Tell” (emphasis original; p. 18). In other words, you can trust the biblical description of where the armies were located in relation to Ai.

2. “The archaeological history of et-Tell does not ‘fit’ at all with the biblical story” (p. 18). Everyone agrees on this, because et-Tell was abandoned from 2400-1200 B.C., the very time when the Bible describes the city as being inhabited and then destroyed by the Israelites. Therefore et-Tell cannot be Ai as described in the Bible. The obvious conclusion would be to look for another site with evidence of inhabitation in the time of Joshua (Late Bronze Age).

3. But no, you can’t do that, because #1. That is, the Bible forces us to remain at et-Tell, with the result that the Biblical story is proven to be false. To say it another way, we must trust the biblical details in order to learn that the biblical details are false. By insisting on some of the biblical details (where the armies were positioned), we have no other choice than to deny other biblical details (that there were armies at all). I have a little trouble with this logic.

Maybe the biblical story of Ai is false. I’m willing to entertain that possibility. But it seems to me that first we must really study the area and make sure that there really are no other possible sites for Ai. Did Calloway do that? Did Laughlin do that? The answer to each is no. Callaway ignored Edward Robinson, who reported that the local inhabitants pointed to a site other than et-Tell as Ai. Calloway did not investigate or excavate Robinson’s site, less than 1 mile from et-Tell. (For more on this, see my article in Bible and Spade 1999, p. 99ff.) Laughlin ignored the excavations of Livingston and the excavations of Wood. You don’t have to agree with their conclusions, but shouldn’t an open-minded liberal scholar at least consider these scholarly expeditions? Shouldn’t there be at least a reference and some evidence or references to the contrary? Will it go away if you ignore it?

The short answer is that many liberal scholars are open-minded to anything but what they don’t believe.

Sidenote: the idea that there is only one possible place that fits the biblical description of Ai (to the east of Bethel, with valleys on the north and east side) is silly nonsense, perpetuated by too many intelligent people.