[CPProt.net] Australian Theologian takes Archaeologists and Historians to Court

[MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)]

Australian Theologian takes Archaeologists and Historians to Court 
 
 Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document:
http://pdfserver.prweb.com/pdfdownload/318005/pr.pdf 
 

Australian theologian, historian and newspaper columnist, R.P.BenDedek has
accused a number of archaeologists and historians, of using false
documentary evidence to support claims in relation to the history of the
Ancient Near East.

(PRWEB) December 4, 2005 -- Australian theologian, historian and newspaper
columnist, R.P.BenDedek has accused a number of archaeologists and
Historians, of using false documentary evidence to support claims in
relation to the history of the Ancient Near East. 

In a four part series of 'legal' articles entitled "The Law, Rules of
Evidence & Archaeology", BenDedek, using both Australian and American Law,
has written a judicial cross examination of witnesses, to prove that
evidence used by academics to reconstruct the history of Assyria, Syria,
Judah and Israel, would not be permitted in a court of law, and that their
conclusions would not be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
     
Claiming their evidence is legally 'false evidence', he suggests that
prejudice and bias are the reasons why academics knowingly use factually
erroneous evidence.

In one criticism, he writes: "if you logically follow some 'contrary
academic explanations' that are offered without 'evidence', the fanciful
theory ultimately turns into a 'conspiracy theory', that defies both
evidence and logic."

Whilst admitting errors exist in Israel's historical records, and allowing
Academics to draw inferences from fragmentary evidence, BenDedek is adamant
that they cannot be allowed to 'pass off opinions as actual evidence of the
facts'.

The Judge in BenDedek's criminal law cross examination exercise received the
verdict from the jury, and promptly threw the academic evidence out of
court.

Full story: The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 1.

The Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Part 1. 
Published on 12/01/05 at 17:05:46 AEST by R .P. BenDedek  
  
 LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book
Company Limited. 
Freckelton. I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence
and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press. 
Ligertwood. A.L.C. [ 1988 ] Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths
P/l. North Ryde 
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal
72, 76 
Gobbo. J.A., Byrne. D., Heydon J.D. (1979) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition.
Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd. 
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal
72, 76 
Legal Information Institute : Federal Rules of Evidence
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ 
======================================================================= 

The Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Part 1. 

(Legal Issues related to Chapter Seven of the King's Calendar : "The Battle
of Qarqar - 853 BCE") 

Prologue 

The intention of this article is to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic
methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel. 

The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. is an important event in relation not only
to the Ancient Near East, but specifically to the 'King's Calendar'
chronology for Ancient Israel, for the accepted archaeological evidence
suggests that the 'King's Calendar' is in grievous error in its' placement
of the reign of King Ahab of Israel. 

The 'King's Calendar' indicates that King Ahab of Israel, died in 863 BCE, a
decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE), in which, according to the
Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III, Ahab participated. 


A. THE BATTLE OF QARQAR 853 B.C. 

1. Introduction 

Derived from the archaeological evidence left to us, it has been determined
that king Shalmaneser of Assyria, in the year 853 BCE, fought against a
coalition of kings at Qarqar on the Orontes. 

Ahab king of Israel is named in the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser as one of the
leaders of this coalition. Although Shalmaneser claimed victory, the records
indicate that the battle was probably a stand-off. 

The significance of this battle is that despite this particular
archaeological identification of Ahab, and current academic insistence that
he died shortly after the battle, the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that he
died a decade earlier in 863 BCE. 

"So what?", you ask, "It is just your theory against theirs!" 

Well actually it is not! It is actually a legal argument based soundly on
the principles of Law, specifically the laws relating to the giving of
evidence, as practiced in (if no where else) the Australian Law Courts. The
'evidence' offered by historians for their chronological schemes, is 'false
evidence', and under any other circumstance, would be unacceptable as 'legal
proof' of anything at all. 


B. KURKH STELE OF SHALMANESER III 

The Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III in the British Museum is the lynch pin
upon which all current theories concerning the reign of King Ahab of Israel
are hinged, and with good reason. 

This archaeological record specifically names this King of Israel, as being
one of the Kings in coalition against Shalmaneser, in the Battle of Qarqar,
in 853 BCE. 

This is what is referred to in law as, 'Direct Evidence'. An historical
document has been offered into evidence by the prosecution, as legal
evidence that 'proves' that a specific event occurred, and that the
defendant is indeed, the person involved in that incident. 


C. LEGAL EVIDENCE 

In all matters to do with the proving of a point in a case of law, there are
two "types of Legal evidence" that are introduced to the judges. These are:
'Direct Evidence' of the facts in contention, and 'Circumstantial Evidence'
tending to demonstrate the verity of the facts presented to the court. 

'Direct Evidence is evidence of the facts in issue themselves and will be
constituted either by the testimony of a witness who perceived the event or
the production of a legally admissible document which constitutes the fact
in issue.'(Bates,1985,p.2) 

'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from
which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2) 

D. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? 

What evidence do the historians present to prove that Ahab was at the Battle
of Qarqar in 853BCE? 

Interestingly enough, the evidence that they produce, exists in duplicate,
with just one small detail missing in one of them; his name. 

The Direct Evidence of Ahab's involvement in the Battle, comes from
Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription (Kurkh Stele), and together with a second
record of these events, ('The Throne Base Inscription'), are direct
evidences of 'A' fact, which is, that there was a battle at Qarqar, against
a coalition of specified Kings. 

The Bible records no such battle (which is neither here nor there), but were
it to contain an account of this battle, it too would be considered 'direct
evidence'. 

E. THE PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCE. 

'Evidence' by definition, is not something that we merely 'claim' is
evidence. 

While documents do constitute a form of legal evidence, in criminal and
civil law cases, it is necessary to establish their reliability. [For legal
issues in relation to documentary evidence Refer to Ligertwood, 1988, p.353]


Just because a Document in Evidence is 'Legitimate', that does not mean it
is correct. 

Documents, which are records of "Eyewitness Testimony", must not only be
scrutinised to be certain that they have not been fabricated, but examined
for 'bias'. They can in fact, be so subjective in their recounting of the
details of some event, as to be ultimately untrustworthy. 

As an example of this, if you go to Bates, 1985, p.2 citing Wooldridge v
Sumner [1963] 2 Q.B. 43, you can find an account of twelve (12) qualified
witnesses whose combined testimony could not render a precise account of
what actually transpired in a particular witnessed incident. 

While the 'evidence was genuine' and the 'eyewitnesses' reliable and
trustworthy, the testimony they gave was ultimately too distorted by their
own 'personal' perceptions. They were in fact, unreliable. 

Succinctly, we should be warned not to take anything at face value, without
proper investigation; and be aware that there is always the possibility that
the evidence as presented, is fabricated, or results from a 'prejudiced'
viewpoint. 

In this case today, [The State of Current Opinion Vs The KingsCalendar], the
"Direct Evidence" offered by the 'State', is the Kurkh Stele, in which it is
plainly stated that Ahab was at the Battle. 

F. AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE: 

Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription - Kurkh Stele records that: 

a) Shalmaneser III defeated the coalition, which included Ahab of Israel -
AND - 

b) It records the size and composition of the individual armies. Ahab
provided 2,000 chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers. 

-------------------------------------------- 
a) Ahab's Involvement in the Battle 

Ahlstrom (1993, p.578 Footnote 2) points out that a second record of this
battle recorded on Shalmaneser's throne base fails to mention Ahab,
indicating that he was not one of the leaders of the coalition. [He refers
readers to Aharoni.Y. (1966) & Burns and Oates. p 336 and Bright. J.(1981)
p. 243.] 

He makes the assumption that the failure to mention Ahab on the Throne base
inscription indicates that Ahab was not a leader in the coalition, without
considering the possibility that Ahab was not in fact there. This is what
happens when 'Assumptions' take the place of 'facts in Evidence'. 

However the important point in law is that this failure to mention Ahab in
the duplicate copy, indicates from a legal viewpoint, that there is no
legally acceptable corroboration between the two documents with regard to
Ahab's identity. [Refer to Bates, (1985, p.82) for an elaboration on the
legal implications in 'corroboration'. ] 

Corroborating testimony must be independent. 
This is not the case in relation to these two Assyrian Records. 
Corroboration must directly indicate or implicate a direct relation to the
issue in question. 
In the case of the Throne Base inscription, its' record in relation to Ahab,
does not corroborate. 

IRRESPECTIVE OF THIS HOWEVER, is the fact that even if it did corroborate
the Kurkh Stele's assertion, it could still not be considered corroboration,
because corroborative testimony must be independently sourced. 

In Short, of the Two Documents presented in evidence, only one mentions
Ahab. 
A matter may not be decided on the basis of only one witness - and - 
A matter will be thrown out of court if two witnesses disagree with respect
to basic facts. 

----------------------------------- 
b) The Size of Ahab's Army 

The size of Ahab's army as recorded in the Kurkh Stele is incompatible with
the Archaeological evidence, particularly in relation to the number of his
chariots. Its' numerical claim indicates that Ahab 'alone', had an army of
equal size to that of the Assyrians. This is assumed to be a scribal
error.[Ahlstrom (1993, p.578 Footnote 1, Citing Na'aman.M. 1976 pp89-106) ] 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Not only do the two documents disagree with each other, but 'the State's'
own 'independent' evidence is, that the testimony of their witness is either
deliberately or accidentally erroneous. [Ref:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule902 : Rule 902.
Self-authentication : Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition
precedent to admissibility in relation to both authenticity and accuracy of
documents] 

Under these circumstances, the legal requirement would be to throw out 'the
evidence', because it is neither effective as evidence nor effective as a
witness to an event. 

In this case, if errors exist in one section of the evidence, then the
defense counsel can claim that errors exist in other sections of the
evidence. It can then be asserted that not only is the size of Ahab's army
incorrect, but Ahab's identity as well. The legality of the evidence is
called into question. 

Another thing to bring to your attention in relation to legal evidence, is
that sometimes, third parties are called in to give their 'expert opinion'
on the reliability of certain evidence. 

When it comes to expert opinion about the content of the Kurkh Stele, the
experts have differing opinions. [Ahlstrom, citing Aharoni and Bright,
maintains that Ahab was not a leader in the coalition but Miller and Hayes
(1986, p.270) disagree.] 

>From this academic disagreement, we learn an important lesson; that
academics, and especially experts, often differ in their opinions concerning
the same material presented them. 



G. EXPERT OPINION 

If the claims mentioned above are presented as being based upon 'expert
opinion', it becomes obvious that the facts surrounding this historical
event are not readily apparent, and that what is offered is not 'fact' but
'opinion' or 'assumptions'. [For a legal definition of 'expert' see
Freckelton 1987, p.18 Quoting: Order 34 Rule 2 (2) of the Australian Federal
Court Rules]. 

-------------------- 
1) Presumption: 

Presumption and assumption are generally speaking, synonymous. In law,
presumptions cannot be given concrete value. That we believe (presume or
assume) that something is so, is insufficient in law to justify legal
'action'. 

Presumption and assumption are not permitted as evidence in legal issues.
(See Bates, 1985, p.46) 

Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to
evidence. [For a sociological explanation of why presumption is often
accepted as fact, see Bates, 1985, p.46] 

Presumption can rightly be described as an attempt to establish as a fact
something for which no legal evidence or proof exists. 

-------------- 
2. Opinion 

A clear connection may be seen between 'Opinion' and 'subjective
inferences', which like presumption and assumption, are inadmissible in
court. [Ligertwood (1988, p.284) in discussing 'opinion evidence' makes it
clear, that opinion is an attempt to establish a fact from other facts] 

Archaeologists and historians must be permitted their opinions; to draw
inferences from fragmentary evidence, but they cannot, by commission or
omission, be allowed to pass off opinions, as 'actual evidence of the facts'
in question. 

---------------------- 
3. Partiality 

In law, expert witnesses are not permitted to become involved in final
decision making with regard to the 'fact' of a disputed matter or issue.
[Gobbo. Et.Al.(1979, p.430) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust.
Butterworths Pty.Ltd.] 

The exception occurs when there is no other way of concluding the matter. In
such cases, experts must be both highly qualified and impartial. This is
clearly not the case when it comes to this particular issue of Ahab's
presence or otherwise at the Battle of Qarqar. 

It is paramount to Academic interests, that Ahab be at the Battle of Qarqar,
for it is the lynchpin upon which their chronologies turn. They are anything
but impartial. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------- 
H. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 

Criminal cases require matters to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If
reasonable doubt exists as to a person's guilt, the 'benefit of the doubt'
is required to be given. It is also the duty of judges to draw attention to
'legal' weaknesses in evidence. (Ligertwood, 1988, p.111) 

When we rely on the 'testimony' of 'highly qualified expert witnesses', the
question of "doubt" becomes clouded by our inability to assess the validity
of the testimony. 

This is especially so in cases in which 'experts' offer 'conflicting
opinion'. [See: Freckelton.I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of
Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University
Press. p.165. : see also p.137 for his discussion on cognitive and affective
decision making processes in relation to decisions made by jurors. Refer
also to: Vinson.D.E. (How to Persuade Jurors: 1985)] 

In Short, the 'experts' have a vested interest in the outcome of the
evaluation of the evidence. They know that the evidence they present in
support of their claim is untrustworthy, they even demonstrate how and where
it is untrustworthy, but in the final analysis, they insist that the
evidence is reliable. 

[See also: Legal Information Institute : Federal Rules of Evidence : ARTICLE
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule702 - may testify if (1)
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is
the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has
applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.] 


Conclusion: 

The only evidence that places King Ahab of Israel at Qarqar in 853 BCE,
comes from the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III. This Stele finds no support
in the Syrian record, is repudiated by the Biblical Chronologies and
Narratives, and finds no corroboration in the Throne Base Inscription. 

The Jury is Back: 
The Verdict is Given to the Judge: 
THE 'STATE'S' EVIDENCE IS THROWN OUT! 

=============================================== 
RELATED ARTICLES & HISTORICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 2. 
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=257 

The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 3. 
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=258 

The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 4. 
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=259 

No. 16: The Life and Death of King Ahab of Israel. 
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=173 

No. 17 : The Significance of Ahab's death.
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=172 

Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit and
Manipulation 
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=234 

=============================================== 
HISTORICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Ahlstrom.G.W. (1993) The History of Ancient Palestine. USA Minneapolis.
Fortress Press. 
Aharoni.Y. (1966) The Land of the Bible (2nd Edn) London. Burns 
Bright. J. (1981) A History of Israel. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia. Westminster
Press. 
Miller,J.M., Hayes,J.M. (1986) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. USA.
Westminster Press. 
Na'aman.M. (1976) Two notes on the Monolithic Inscription of Shalmaneser III
from Kurkh. Tel Aviv 3. pp89-106) 
Oates. p 336 and Bright. J.(1981) A History of Israel (3rd Edn)
Philadelphia. Westminster Press. p 243.