Without going into this video, what is the thrust of their argument?
I recall people saying that camels were not domesticated in Abraham's
day, so the camel story in Genesis didn't happen. It added to other
claims made against the bible that caused many to lose their faith in
the book. Later it turned out that camels WERE domesticated in
Abraham's day (long before actually) but that didn't bring people back
to believing in the bible.
Ultimately, there is a body of facts AND METHODS OF ARGUMENT
about the bible - some for and some against. Your typical "expert" will
pick for "against" and your typical believer will pick the "for."
That's all it is. The issue will remain forever on a tight rope.
Oh, it's not a video it's an interview with William Denver:
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. In the following interview, Dever describes some of the most significant archeological finds related to the Hebrew Bible,
NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.
Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.
The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.
and so forth........
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
But the work that really established the position that scholarship now takes is by archeologist Thomas Thompson:
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing."
In the field there is no debate, Moses and the Patriarchs are myth.
