Well now, where to begin? If this were 'true' it would be about the biggest story in archaeology since ... well, I struggle to think of a bigger one. The claimed ark is at an altitude of 4000m, which implies one serious flood.
There are lots of reasons to suppose that the story in Genesis is more allegorical than historical. I don't doubt that quite a few communities in the ancient near east encountered catastrophic floods, and indeed that at least one saw a family saved with some livestock in a boat or ship of some kind. The details presented in Genesis seem to present a whole bigger story than that - and, to be honest, I can't say I think could sustain the 'obvious' interpretation.
But if there were evidence of a boat which floated to 4000m, well, I'd need to reconsider a lot of things. All the commentators seem to say that the evidence won't withstand scrutiny: some think that the "evangelists" (hmm. good research there, eh?) have simply fabricated the evidence, others think that an ancient theme-park attraction has been (re?)discovered. Perhaps other explanations will come to light: I'm rather taken with the skepticism from the young-earth creationists (because radiocarbon dating is clearly bogus because it gives some dates older than 6000 years).
The other rather great quote comes from 'Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.'
"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it,"
So my hunch is that I'm not going to have to reconsider my understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. But the jury's out, I suppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment