Even among “Lord of the Rings” devotees, there are no Middle Earth archaeologists. What is it about the Bible then that inspires so much debate about the historical value of a book, archaeologist and Trinity International University Prof. James Hoffmeier asked at a lecture Monday.

About 150 people came to the three-speaker lecture, entitled “Were the Israelites in Egypt? Archaeological Perspectives on the Exodus”, at Annenberg Hall, co-sponsored by the Crown Family Center for Jewish Studies and the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies. Students from Prof. Benjamin Sommer’s Introduction to Hebrew Bible class, who were required to attend, made up most of the audience.

Hoffmeier said it was entirely possible for ancient Israelites to have escaped from slavery in Egypt, as the story told in Exodus states. This escape was the defining experience of Jewish history. He based his argument on archaeological evidence, citing the discovery of ancient Egyptian cities and forts mentioned in the Bible.

Hoffmeier’s statements were followed by a counter-argument from archaeologist and Schechter Institute Prof. Gabi Barkay. He said the Exodus was possible, and there is no evidence disproving it. But Barkay said dating discrepancies diminished the value of the archaeological evidence Hoffmeier presented. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting the Exodus, he said.

“The answer to the question is very much in the eye of the beholder,” Barkay said. “Archaeology does not provide a clear answer. Archaeology is very accidental.”

A third speaker, David Golinkin, a professor and rabbi at the Schechter Institute, said whether or not the Bible is historically accurate is not important. Instead, it is the overall message and teachings of the Bible that matter. If the historical accuracy of the Bible were disproved, he would remain faithful, he said.

“I believe that faith is a matter of faith,” he said. “Regardless of whatever data we retrieve from the Bible, it is primarily a book of theology.”

However, he would like to hear that evidence had been found proving the Bible’s historical accuracy, he said.

“We should give the Bible the benefit of the doubt,” he said. “If you want to prove that something in the Bible is not true, then prove it.”

Tanvi Hathiwala, a Weinberg sophomore said as an outsider to Christianity and Judaism, she looks at the Bible as a piece of literature rather than historical record. She values the messages her Hindu teachings give her more than any historical facts.

Evanston resident Jonathan Smith came to the lecture because he had known Golinkin since childhood and had not seen him in 30 years. He said he did not ascribe to either a literal interpretation or a completely theological, faith-based interpretation.

“I’m not sure the (history and theology) are inconsistent,” Smith said. “I’m not searching for an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible.”

Reach Diana Samuels at [email protected].