Archaeologists and Historians taken to Court by R.P. BenDedek - LexiLine Journal 371

This is an interesting press release about someone who has clearly become fed up with the way in which archaeologists and historians juggle the evidence (or non-evidence) to suit their fancies. We have often said that most archaeological theories of the mainstream about the Middle East would be thrown out of court, and BenDedek has rightly come to the same conclusion.

"Australian Theologian takes Archaeologists and Historians to Court
Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document
[at] 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.
http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=256"

We will post BenDedek's four part series here on LexiLine as it appears, starting with Part 1 in the next posting. Our comment to BenDedek is "BRAVO!".