Dr. Tom Tribelhorn
Truth Driven Faith/Trust
Assumptions Versus the Evidence
Understand the assumptions hidden within the field of archaeology.
British Egyptologist Hugh Evelyn-White, a respected scholar who had served well at Oxford University, was one of the first to enter the newly discovered tomb of Tutankhamun (located in the Valley of the Kings) in 1922. Two years later, at the age of forty, he committed suicide. Why? Our only clue: moments before he hanged himself, he wrote (supposedly in his own blood, but that may be spurious), “I have succumbed to a curse.” Evelyn-White was implying he was the target of an otherworldly spiritual phenomenon. As the story goes, because the members of the expedition had “violated” Tut’s tomb,
Not challenging assumptions can lead to fallacious reasoning. And, fallacious reasoning can keep us from knowing the truth
they all died (some say mysteriously)—save for Howard Carter—not long after their entrance. Archibald Douglas Reed, who had X-rayed the Tut mummy before it was transported to the Museum in Cairo, got sick the next day and was dead three days later. Others, who died a little later, were said to have suffered and died from what was diagnosed as blood poisoning. Understandably, Evelyn-White’s basic assumption was that he and the others had vexed the gods; they had all been cursed for daring to enter the tomb . . . and he had hanged himself to avoid falling victim to a more ghastly death due to what came to be known as the King Tut Curse. (Five years after Evelyn- White’s 1924 suicide, the King Tut Curse gained even more notoriety when Richard Bethell, Carter’s secretary and the first person behind Carter to enter the tomb, died in 1929 of respiratory failure at the young age of thirty-five.)
Petra, Jordan
Today we are quite certain that the “curse” was more likely their exposure to a deadly mold which had caused a severe allergic reaction. Being the first to open the tomb, these early explorers paid no mind to the pink, gray, and green patches of fungi on the walls. The fruits and vegetables that had been placed in the tomb for the pharaoh had, through the centuries, given rise to
deadly molds. Clinical studies have proven that mycotoxins produced by fungus can cause severe neurological abnormalities . . . including tremors, convulsions, lesions on the central nervous system,
toxic encephalopathy, and death. (Today we can visit the tombs in the valley quite safely.)
Let’s think about this. Evelyn-White’s basic assumption was that he and the others had somehow been cursed for entering the tomb. We now know that his basic assumption was incorrect, and that it led to his making an incorrect conclusion with a tragic outcome. The point of my telling you this story is quite simple: incorrect assumptions typically lead to incorrect conclusions, which can produce disastrous outcomes. If the basic assumption is incorrect, then the conclusion is likely incorrect. If the basic assumption is suspect, then the conclusion is suspect. (Granted, correct assumptions do not necessarily guarantee correct conclusions, nor do incorrect assumptions guarantee incorrect conclusions in every situation. But the odds favor the “correct assumption equals correct conclusion” scenario.) An assumption is a statement that is assumed to be true, and from which a conclusion can be drawn. It is something we take for granted, typically something we previously learned from a textbook or lecture and never had any reason to question. If you were to walk down the hallway and stand outside the Critical Thinking class in session as I write this, you would hear how important it is to clarify and challenge assumptions. Not challenging assumptions can lead to fallacious reasoning. Fallacious reasoning can keep us from knowing the truth; more importantly, the inability to think critically can make us vulnerable to manipulation. Because assumptions are not always obvious, or made explicit, an especially important part of critical thinking is to identify what are called the hidden or implicit assumptions of a conclusion or argument. Think back to some of the stated conclusions of new-generation archaeologists in chapter two: Thompson’s conclusion that there is no direct integration of Biblical and extra-Biblical sources possible; Finkelstein’s conclusion that there was no mass exodus from Egypt and no violent conquest of Canaan; Dever’s conclusion that Joshua destroyed a city that wasn’t even there; Sturgis’s conclusion that Solomon’s grandeur is mythical; or Coogan’s statement that our view of Joshua has been irrevocably altered by archaeological evidence (I would call your attention to his use of irrevocably). Is there a hidden assumption inherent in each of their conclusions? Yes, there is. But, you might protest, their conclusion that the Bible is myth is based upon hard archaeological evidence. Seems logical, doesn’t it? However, the hard archaeological evidence is based upon an implicit or hidden assumption.
The hidden or implicit assumption necessary for each of these conclusions is that the modus operandi used to absolute – date the relative dates of the ancient world—namely, the conventional chronology together with all of the anchor-points used to create it—achieve an accurate historical interpretation of the past. Remember: if the basic assumption is incorrect, then the conclusion is likely incorrect … and vice versa.
​
An excerpt from The Jericho Effect, pp.70-82
Is there a hidden assumption inherent in each of their conclusions? Yes, there is.
When you grasp the implications of the assumption being made to discredit the Bible, you'll be amazed - and likely more than a little upset that some in the academic world criticizing the Scriptures have sold you a bill of goods - but only the bill; the goods are strangely absent. Pay attention and follow along...