“When you set out on your journey to Ithaca,
then pray that the road is long,
full of adventure, full of knowledge.”
—Constantine P. Cavafy (1911)
In trying to unravel the various mysteries of the Bible, we have literally gone from Eden to exile—from looking for the Garden of Eden to looking for members of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel who were sent off into exile by the Neo-Assyrians. While we may not have located Noah’s ark, I believe that we have successfully documented that the Ten Lost Tribes weren’t lost after all, that the Ark of the Covenant was most likely destroyed during the obliteration of Solomon’s Temple by Nebuchadnezzar and the Neo-Babylonians, that Jericho was probably not destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites, that we can neither confirm nor deny the biblical account of the Exodus, that Sodom and Gomorrah are still missing, and that the Garden of Eden is most likely to have been located in Mesopotamia.
Although we have had mixed success in solving these mysteries, it is my sincere hope some interesting things have been revealed along the way, as we have reviewed the available data and looked at each topic from a variety of angles, evaluated the various suggestions, and then, whenever possible, considered what I believe to be the most likely solution at this time. Of course, my suggestions will be immediately added to the pile of previous hypotheses to be considered and evaluated by other scholars, and may be overturned at any moment by future archaeological discoveries.
There are also a number of other mysteries in the Hebrew Bible, both major and minor, that are still out there waiting to be discussed and possibly solved. One that immediately comes to mind is the mysterious plague that the biblical account tells us killed 185,000 Neo-Assyrians in Sennacherib’s army in a single night, right before they were to attack Hezekiah and the city of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. (II Kings 19:32-36; II Chronicles 32:20-21). How can we explain that? Was it the wrath of God? Or is the alternate version, that Hezekiah bribed Sennacherib to go away—which is duly noted not only in the biblical account (II Kings 18:14-16) but also in Sennacherib’s own inscriptions—more believable? Then of course, if we move into the New Testament period, we will find a whole additional set of mysteries that we could discuss. But those are best left for another book.
Some readers will be disappointed that we have not solved all of the mysteries here. To that, I would say that it is acceptable not to have a definitive answer at the end of each chapter, especially if we are trying not to abuse the data presently available. Moreover, in some cases it is the journey that matters more than the destination, as the modern Greek poet Constantine Cavafy says in his poem “Ithaca”:
Always keep Ithaca fixed in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for long years;
and even to anchor at the isle when you are old,
rich with all that you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.
We may have come up empty-handed in some instances, but now we are also more certain about what we do and do not know, and how we can better evaluate the claims that have been made. Moreover, if archaeologists do not yet have an answer, they can simply keep digging and retrieve more information, and any new piece of data can radically change or confirm hypotheses in an instant. For example, the discovery of the fragmentary House of David (Beit David) inscription found at Tel Dan in the early 1990s finally provided extra-biblical confirmation that King David really lived. As Hershel Shanks, the editor and publisher of Biblical Archaeology Review once said about archaeological evidence, it “is subject to change tomorrow.”
One thing that remains intriguing is what these topics tell us about ourselves. Is it simply human nature that we still wonder about these mysteries? At the end of chapter 2, I asked why it was that so many people are still looking for Noah’s ark, when not a single person is looking for Utnapishtim’s ark or Atrahasis’s ark or Ziusudra’s ark. And at the end of chapter 7, I admitted that I am puzzled as to why people are still looking for the Ten Lost Tribes when it is clear they were never lost in the first place. But I think I can explain some of the continued intrigue.
People need stories, not just data, to make sense of their lives. As a friend of mine likes to say, human beings are stories made flesh and blood. We make sense of our lives and of our history with narratives, and the Bible is one of the greatest stories ever told. People read the Bible to find themselves in it, and many people don’t just read the story, they live it. They don’t just watch history unfold on a stage, they see themselves as actors under the lights. As such, even if the Bible cannot always be taken as literal history, its words can still speak a certain truth—and can transform people’s lives in the process. And the biblical story says nothing about Ziusudra and everything about Noah. Hence the search continues today for Noah, but not for the other heroes of the Flood.
There are undoubtedly other more mundane factors involved as well. Robert Eisenman, professor of biblical archaeology at California State University in Long Beach, once said, “These adventure stories appeal to the imagination of the gullible. Yet there is the remote possibility that they are true and that’s what makes them so interesting.”
Yes, there is certainly the remote possibility that they are true, because each of these mysteries contains a historical context that must be considered. As we have seen, Sodom and Gomorrah must be considered within the context of Abraham and the Patriarchs: Did these men exist, and if so, when? The Exodus must be considered within the framework of Egyptian and Canaanite history. Joshua and Jericho must be considered in light of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The Ark of the Covenant must be considered within the question of David and Solomon’s existence and empire (not to mention the entire history of Jerusalem up until the Neo-Babylonian destruction of the city in 586 B.C.). And the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel must be considered within the context of the Neo-Assyrian deportations that took place during the late eighth century B.C. This is, however, rarely stated by any of the enthusiasts or on any of the television shows.
In this age of the Internet and vanity publishing, anyone can claim anything, and gullible people everywhere will send their money to fund dubious “archaeological” expeditions. In fact, based upon what we have seen in the preceding pages, it would be prudent to be wary of anyone with a Web site or multiple publications who claims to have been able to “solve” more than one of these mysteries or locate more than one of these objects or places. It is frequently said in archaeology, “If something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is.”
It is not likely, or logical, that a single person can solve more than one, if any, of these mysteries in their lifetime, so for an amateur enthusiast to claim that he or she has found not only the whereabouts of the Garden of Eden, but also the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, and Noah’s ark defies both logic and common sense. So why do the major television and cable networks keep producing shows on these topics and featuring such people, reducing the real experts to nattering nabobs of negativism? “Because it makes good television” or “because it is entertaining” are not valid enough reasons—the general public is more intelligent and deserves better treatment than that.
What we really should be promoting is a shared methodology that can be used by everyone, even if it turns out that we cannot reach a consensus on the final results. In fact, such a methodology already exists. It was suggested several years ago by Randall Younker, director of the Institute of Archaeology and professor of Old Testament and biblical archaeology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Andrews University is a Seventh-day Adventist institution, and the archaeologists who work and teach there sometimes discover that their archaeological findings affect their own belief systems. In a candid article, Younker said that the “Andrews Way” of doing archaeology, as he phrased it, is as follows:
1. Be forthright with findings. Do not minimize problems or stretch interpretations of data to explain things away.
2. Do not make claims beyond what the data can support.
3. Be quick and complete in publishing results.
4. Engage and work within mainstream scholarship.
5. Include a diversity of people and specialists.
6. Take the history of the Bible seriously, but do not place upon archaeology the burden of “proving” the Bible.
I would like to think that most professional archaeologists and ancient historians already follow Younker’s six points and that the “Andrews Way” is actually an excellent blueprint for how to conduct biblical (or Syro-Palestinian) archaeology. And three of his points (1, 2, and 6) seem eminently appropriate for enthusiasts, pseudoscientists, documentary filmmakers, and even the most fervent evangelical biblical maximalists and minimalists to adhere to as well.
Rather than practicing junk science, if we are instead forthright with our findings and do not minimize problems or stretch interpretations of data, if we do not make claims beyond what the data can support, and if we take the history of the Bible seriously but do not place upon archaeology the burden of proving it (as so many presently do), then I believe that both the general public and academia will be much better served in future publications and television presentations. This would be true not only for those books and television shows concerned with specific biblical mysteries, but also with those exploring the ancient world of the Bible in general.
Virtually everything that I have stated in these pages has been said before by numerous other archaeologists, ancient historians, or biblical scholars. Strange or even heretical as some of my statements and conclusions may seem, almost nothing is particularly novel, almost nothing is totally new. I have simply been looking at the available evidence from an archaeological and historical point of view—gathering the facts, subjecting them to analysis, and then presenting my thinking and interpretation of the data. Some people may agree with my interpretations; others will almost certainly disagree.
In fact, I am quite sure that the data and opinions I have presented here will not end the debates. I do hope, however, that they will serve to jumpstart new discussions in classrooms, study groups, and homes. What I have tried to do in this book is introduce an ancient historian’s and archaeologist’s point of view, along with genuine archaeological and historical data and considerations—information that is all too frequently lacking in the publications and television specials written and produced by nonspecialists. Still, I harbor some small hope that future discussions will be based more upon facts and less upon flights of fantasy. We owe it to the ancient world, and to the people of the Hebrew Bible, to do nothing less.