Aha. Ummm... I can't confirm by archaeology the snake story other than to note it is unproven but also undismissible. But archaeological references from the time of the Exodus down through the end of the Persian Period is it's own separate field. That is, the archaeology available that we have compared to the Bible.
But yes, first of all, in the context of Bible history, we do first presume the story is true and it remains true until proven otherwise. That's the biblical historical position. It doesn't have to your position though. But it does make an academic difference. Take for instance the fall of Jericho. The evidence is treated differently if you presume the miracle is true vs. if you lack proof of the miracle or you are waiting to confirm the miracle first, which cannot be confirmed.
This is the fundamental mistake or difference archaeologists make in assessing evidence. For instance, an archaeologist will see walls toppled. The Bible says it was by the hand of God and a miracle. The archaeologist, lacking proof of any miracle, will presume it was an earthquake, then when presume after the walls were toppled by an earthquake, it inspired the religious fable of how God did it. But that's not their option. They have no proof the walls were not toppled by a miracle of God. But I acknowledge the different approaches.
So the way I basically handle evidence is to put it into one of three categories. 1) Something that confirms an event specifically. 2) Something not is "inconclusive" which neither disproves nor confirms, and 3) Something that would be seen as a contradiction to the historical reference.
Let's do Solomon, for instance.
Okay, the Bible says Solomon built at Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo, specifically. 1 Kings 9:15 "Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer."
Archaeologist found very similar six-chambered gates at all three places and quickly link them to Solomon, such as here:
Solomonic Gates at Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor
So what am I suppose to do now? This is either confirmatory or inconclusive, but it doesn't contradict this passage.
Is there anything else that would suggest Solomon built these gates rather someone else? That question deals with chronology. We have two references linking Solomon to these gates. One is the fall of Jericho by the Israelites per the claim of Dame Kathleen Kenyon who dates that event to between 1350-1325 BCE. That means the Exodus occurred between 1390-1365 BCE, 40 years earlier. The Exodus occurs 480 years prior to the 4th of Solomon. So the early dating for Solomon's 4th year would fall in 910 BCE, giving us the early range date for Solomon between 914-874 BCE. Those buildings per archaeologists are dated to the "early 9th Century BC" (900-867 BCE). So again, there is no conflict. The buildings are dated to the correct time period based on the fall of Jericho, meaning based on the dating for the fall of Jericho, per the Bible, Solomon would have been ruling at the time these buildings were built.
So whether this is a "confirmation" or not, nothing here contradicts Solomon building these buildings, particularly in these locations. So the upside is the Bible historian is very glad that, indeed, there is some archaeological evidence supporting Solomon building at these particular sites. It's wonderful. The same king built at these three sites at the same time and at a time when the kingdom was at the level of full statehood. So, I'm ready to move on now.
In the meantime though, since this is also a JW discussion board, JWs date Solomon's rule from 1017- 977 BCE. Based on that dating, they date Solomon's 4th year to 1013 BCE, and the Exodus 480 years earlier to 1513 BCE (1013 + 480 = 1513 BCE). So from the standpoint of a Jehovah's Witness, the archaeological dating of those "Solomonic" structures was built by someone else. OR, they presume the archaeology is defective. At any rate, the archaeological dating does not support and even contradicts Solomon's connection to these structures during the period of 1017-977 BCE. Further the fall of LBA Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE also contradicts an Exodus dated as early as 1513 BCE.
In other words, as long as you date Solomon's rule to the early 9th Century which corresponds with the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE by Joshua, then the Bible is completely confirmed by archaeology. But if you don't date the fall of Jericho and Solomon to those dates, then you have contradiction.
But this is a full circle. Archaeology confirms Solomon must have built those buildings, but only if you date Solomon to the right period and the fall of Jericho to the right period. Why archaeologists are not following the archaeology at this point is another issue. But this is ALL we need from the archaeologists. We just needed to know when they dated the fall of Jericho so we could date the Exodus and when Solomon built those buildings. We need absolutely nothing else from archaeology. Timeline issues are a chronology issue, outside the area of expertise for archaeologists.
But having noted that archaeologists volunteer to be "historians" even though their base claim is that they are NOT historians, they come under criticism because of their choices while ignoring history. Case in point, the pharaoh of the Exodus. The pharaoh of the Exodus was never lost. The pharaoh of the Exodus per historians as late as the 8th Century AD was none other than "Amenophis," that is, Amenhotep III. That's an independent reference for who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. When that reference is compared to the dating of the Exodus based on the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE, the Exodus would have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III!!!
So again, the historical reference for who was ruling at the time of the Exodus does not contradict the archaeology, but instead, is confirmed by the archaeology! The fall of Jericho points to Amenhotep III as the pharaoh of the Exodus. Note how this checks out on Biblical detail. The pharaoh that died in the Red Sea was a pharaoh that began his rule after Moses left Egypt for 40 years. So the question is whether or not Amenhotep III ruled less than 40 years? Answer: Yes. So there is no contradiction here.
What about the impact of the "alleged" 10 plagues. What do we know about the next pharaoh? Well, the next pharaoh, who was Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) decided the gods of Egypt were "worthless" and he became a monotheist. Ooops! You mean a "monotheist" like the Israelites? Yep! So that alone confirms the Exodus happened at the beginning of his reign, in perfect harmony with the historical reference of the pharaoh of the Exodus.
But you see, good-for-little lying Biblical archaeologists want people to believe who the pharaoh of the Exodus was is up for grabs. But that is not really the case. The archaeology AND history tell us precisely who the pharaoh of the Exodus is. The pharaoh that died in the Red Sea was Amenhotep III and the pharaoh who followed him became a monotheist after the 10 plagues.
But that is not the story these archaeologists are telling. They don't want you to link the sudden monotheism of Akhenaten to the Exodus. Why? Who cares? For some reason!!!
So Israel Finkelstein is an amazing archaeologist. His second greatest talent is probably being a nude model for "PlayGirl" since you think he is so cute. But as a Biblical historian, he sucks!
The historical pharaoh of the Exodus was always Amenhotep III, and now that is confirmed by arachaeology and he can't figure that out? Please!
See where this is going? The historians claim the pharoah of the Exodus has always been Amenhotep III. Now archaeology from Jericho confirms that. Where else can be go from here. The next pharaoh decided to suddenly become a monotheist? And yet Israel Finkelstein can't figure out when the Exodus happened?
Plus he's going to come out with a book and claim David and Solomon were "myths"? Plus he is going to go a step further and talk about Christian doctrines and that Jesus must be a myth too if Solomon is a myth, all based on this incompetence?
So yes, he's a great archaeologist, and yes, I can see he is very handsome, but as a Bible historian he is as phony as three-dollar bill. That's my personal opinion. You want to criticize my position? You'll lose. But bring it on.
