History, Archaeology and Biblical Criticism

The Argument from Silence and human folly: a non-biblical example

As stated in my First Principles list, arguing from silence, that is, distrusting a source because what it says is not corroborated by other available evidence, is foolish and an act of hubris. Yes, hubris, the Greek word for excessive pride that comes before a great fall.

While this has been regularly used to discredit the Hebrew Bible, the lack of respect for the written texts has been an ongoing problem since the start of archaeology.

Put simply, without corroborating archaeological ‘proof’, written texts have been ‘rejected’ as if the authors had nothing better to do with their time and money – don’t forget that only educated people know how to write and it costs a fair bit in previous generations to buy paper, papyrus, parchment or even clay tablets, styluses, inks, etc.

A case in point is the recent discovery of a teenage girl’s skeleton buried in the ruins of the early Jamestown Virginia settlement in the USA. (Globe and Mail, May 2, 2013, A18, “New evidence of cannibalism in colonial U.S. revealed”)

The body, according to forensic analysis, showed clear signs of cannibalism and is the first such corpse found on the site.

It is being linked to the famous “starving time” winter of 1609-1610, for which written evidence of cannibalism by then leader George Percy and by Captain John Smith has long been rejected or deemed suspect by historians and archaeologists.

Their writings spoke of people digging up the dead for eating, and one case where a man killed and then ate his pregnant wife.  The colony, of course, tried and executed the man “as he well deserved’ -- as Captain Smith put it in his written account.

Now, 400 years later, the reputations of George Percy and Captain John Smith have been vindicated and their writings corroborated.

How sad that such leaders -- who had better things to do with their time and money than to randomly concoct and write down fantastic events -- had to wait 400 years to have their reputations and credibility exonerated.

So much for the heavy-handed dependency on archaeology as the ‘ultimate’ and almost ‘only’ form of proof!

So much for relying on the Argument from Silence!