Do archaeologists and historians sometimes ignore simple biblical answers?
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Few people say that the Tanakh has *no* historical information. But it has been proven to have a good deal of historical MIS-information as well. Archaeologists of that region and period make plenty of use of the texts. They just know that it’s not always right. So while, the Tanakh *might* tell what happened, archaeologists are looking for *physical* evidence (including unearthed texts). If they find it, and thereby confirm the story in Judges, that’s even better proof. Why not accept that that’s the way they work?
They have a saying in archeology. If you’re looking for something, you’ll find it. If you have preconcieved ideas, any information can be read to support you. Most of the stuff on the history channel and the discovery channel are one sided. I don’t really care for the Naked Archeology show because he only interperets things the Biblical way and leaves next to no room for anyone who disagrees with him. There was one show about Nefertiti they had where they gave all this information supporting this woman’s belief that a mummy that she found was her. But if that were her she would have to have out lived her husband. There aren’t many people out there who accept that theory. Another problem I have with the learning channels about is they don’t have a unified belief on things. The information you get from one cannot be transferred from one to another. An example of this is their endorsement of the arch being invented by the Romans. It wasn’t invented by the Romans but the Romans used arches
