Hi Chris –

I’ll try to take a stab at answering your question.

While I was doing the research for my book, From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible, I became amazed and, frankly, appalled by the amount of pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been published on biblical mysteries, especially on the Internet but also in book form. Therefore, I would begin by warning people that the vast majority of the work on such topics -- including the locations of the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Ten Lost Tribes, events connected with the Exodus, and even the Lost Tomb of Jesus -- has not been produced by professional scholars but rather by a certain breed of amateur enthusiasts…and this includes the so-called discovery of Noah’s Ark that you mention above. With a few exceptions, professional scholars generally prefer to excavate sites or pursue questions about the ancient world that will yield real scientific data, rather than chasing after such ephemeral biblical mysteries.

Moreover, these particular amateur enthusiasts -- most of whom are self-trained and self-employed, and some of whom publish only, or primarily, on the Internet -- all work outside of academia. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, it also means that they are therefore not held to the same standards of rigor, peer review, and scrutiny as are professional scholars employed by colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning. Let me make it clear that I am not standing on a soapbox here, decrying anyone who doesn’t have a professional degree or who is infringing upon our professional turf, for some enthusiastic amateurs have made great contributions in numerous fields, including archaeology. However, they can also make any claims that they want, without fear of repercussions from their peers, while I and my colleagues have to back up our claims with real evidence. Indeed, the work of such enthusiasts frequently meets the criteria of “junk science,” especially when it “advocates a cause, pays little attention to the investigative process, ignores contrary evidence, and advertises a high moral purpose.”

In this age of the Internet and vanity publishing, anyone can claim anything. Therefore, as a general rule of thumb, I would also say that 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 biblical mystery or locate more than one of the missing biblical objects or places. 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, Mount Sinai, and Noah’s Ark defies both logic and common sense. As we frequently say in archaeology, “If something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is.”

It certainly seems like gullible people everywhere will send their money to fund dubious “archaeological” expeditions, especially those that set out in search of Noah’s Ark or the Ark of the Covenant. From my perspective, that money will simply go into a black hole and vanish, for such dubious expeditions never actually find what they are looking for, despite their claims to the contrary. However, if someone wants to donate money to a real archaeological expedition, there are numerous legitimate excavations that can use funds each and every summer -- many of which are excavating at real, and fascinating, biblical sites (including our own site of Megiddo -- biblical Armageddon -- where we will be digging this coming June and July 2008). There are many places which can provide a list of such digs, including the American Schools of Oriental Research (www.asor.org) and the Archaeological Institute of America (www.archaeological.org); I’m sure they would be happy to talk to anyone who wants to see their money used for a legitimate purpose on a real excavation, rather than throwing it away on dubious expeditions led by amateur enthusiasts.

As far as helping your readers distinguish between the merits of various discoveries, or any other biblical finds they might hear about, I can tell you that what I tried to do in my book is to introduce an ancient historian’s and archaeologist’s point of view regarding each of the biblical mysteries, along with genuine archaeological and historical data and considerations -- which is information that is all too frequently lacking in the publications and television specials written and produced by non-specialists. Call me a dreamer if you’d like, but I harbor some small hope that future discussions of such biblical mysteries will be based more upon facts and less upon flights of fantasy. I firmly believe that we owe it to the ancient world, and to the people of the Hebrew Bible, to do nothing less.

Cheers,

Eric H. Cline

While I fully agree with Eric Cline he ignores the fact that many textual colleagues have as of recent either written books, posing as biblical archaeologists, taken part in documentaries where they pose as archaeologists much to the dismay of those in the profession all for the sake of fame and fortune. They along with us in the profession are guilty for much of decline in the field, they for posturing and we for not being vocal enough as well as enabling these abuses to occur.

Joe Zias

I would like to add to Eric Cline's comment the observation that a number of 'sensational' biblical discoveries are claimed by professional archaeologists who are funded by groups interested not in objective discovery but vindication of the Bible - such as recent claims about 'David's palace' in Jerusalem. However, in such cases proper academic discussion usually follows and the initial claims are challenged and even modified. The problem with even well-controlled digs is that the evidence is hardly ever (by the nature of the case) presented fully or coherently; hence non-specialists are quite unable to assess the value of claims.

Both Joe Zias and Philip Davies make interesting comments. Speaking as someone who has frequently been behind the scenes on the media side of things, I can vouch for the fact that the name of the game is attracting audience, whether it is for broadcast or print media. If someone comes to us (media) with a great story, but not-so-great credentials, it is tempting to turn a blind eye to the poor credentials and find ways to finesse it. At National Geographic Magazine, we try our best to avoid that by checking with more than one expert (for perspective) and waiting for peer-reviewed publication before we publish. But I have to say, that costs us by slowing us down and having to support a large research staff. Other, less careful media charge ahead with little concern. We at NGM wonder sometimes if the general public is losing a sense of the difference between schlock and good reporting.

I'm glad Philip Davies mentioned "David's Palace" in Jerusalem. Is this another example of "science by press conference." Has Eilat Mazar published anything on this yet in an peer reviewed journal? It is very difficult to assess the situation. In speaking with a variety of scholars, I heard mixed reviews of the "David's Palace" work.

I wanted to point out, here, that you really ought to check up on the validity of your reader's objections before you accept them as accurate. That is, regardless of what any other evidence may or may not show about its authenticity (don't want to get into that mess right now), nothing harder than a quick Google search for a full-length image of the Shroud will show you that the space between the "frontal image" head and the "dorsal image" head (identifiable by the first noticeable blood spackles) is far more than two inches. In fact, it's as long as the entire face and forehead; easily long enough for the cloth to have been draped over an actual human figure as depicted.

I think you may be right that there's more than two inches there, but not being any kind of an expert on the shroud, I found it difficult to judge what was going on in the images. Thanks for pointing this out. I've edited the original blog entry above to point to you're comment.

More shroud stuff coming, apparently. See http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html