Information Related to "The Bible and Archaeology"
| Audio/Video |
Chapter 4: The Bible and Archaeology
The Bible and Archaeology
Archaeology is the study
of the material remains of past people's lives and activities. It involves the excavation
and systematic study of their weapons, tools, cookware, inscriptions and other objects
and remains. Biblical archaeology is a smaller subset of the broader field of archaeology,
limited to the study of ancient civilizations in the ancient Near and Middle East,
the geographical setting of the events recorded in the Bible.
Modern biblical archaeology is a fascinating and sometimes controversial subject.
Its aim, in general, is
to compare the findings of archaeology to the writings of the Bible. Biblical archaeologists
seek to establish the historicity, or the lack thereof, of the people, places and
events of the Bible.
For many centuries the events of the Bible were accepted as an accurate history.
The great sagas of the Bible were approved as true and accurate down to the smallest
details. However, with the arrival of the "Enlightenment" of the 17th and
18th centuries, this outlook began to change. Scholars began to exalt human reason
and scientific exploration above the Bible, mounting a frontal attack on Scripture.
Biblical heroes and other towering personalities, as well as their life experiences,
came to be considered by many scholars as mere myths. The existence of mighty empires,
some of which were recorded in the Bible as having ruled for centuries, was doubted
or even denied. Skepticism became the rule of the day among "critical"
scholars.
Where previous generations had taken the Bible at face value, now a supposedly enlightened
generation viewed it with doubt. The net effect was to deal a staggering blow to
the credibility of the Bible in the minds of many people.
Earlier, when the Bible was translated into several languages in the post-Reformation
era after the comparative illiteracy of the Middle Ages, the Bible had became for
many people their one and only textbook of ancient history. They regarded it as the
unerring Word of God.
But, after the tinkering of critical scholars, the Bible began to be viewed as suspect
by many historians. Englishman Arnold Toynbee summed up their view when he referred
to the Old Testament as merely "human compositions of varying degrees of religious
and historical merit,"? he further stated that those who accepted it as factual
were "set(ting) a religious premium on an obstinate stupidity" (A Study
of History, Vol. 10, Oxford University Press, New York, 1957, p. 260).
Given this mind-set, archaeologists who sought to excavate and evaluate the ruins
of past ages and to report the credibility of the Bible in an honest manner faced
an uphill struggle. Science in general had grown biased against the Bible, with some
archaeologists themselves among the leading critics.
The testimony of history
Sir William Ramsay, an English historian and prolific writer, was a product of a
mid-19th-century education and of this pervasive antibiblical bias. He believed the
historical accounts in the book of Acts had been written, not in the time of the
apostolic Church, but in the mid- second century. If Sir William were right, Acts
could not have been written by Luke, the traveling companion of the apostle Paul.
Luke claimed to have been with Paul as the two men trudged over the cobblestoned
roads of the Roman Empire. He wrote as one who watched as Paul was used by God to
bring a young convert back to life after a fatal fall (Acts 20:8-12). Ramsay was
skeptical of the historicity of Luke and the historical record of Acts, and set out
to disprove it.
After many years of detailed study of the archaeological evidence, Ramsay came to
a disconcerting conclusion: The historical and archaeological evidence came down
solidly in favor of Luke having written the book of Acts in the first century, during
the time of the apostles. Rather than Luke being a historical fraud, Ramsay concluded
that there are "reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians
of the first rank" (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1925, p. 4).
Ramsay became convinced of Luke's reliability because Luke wrote about the work of
the early Church as it was intertwined with secular events and personalities of the
day. In Luke's Gospel account we are introduced to Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great,
Augustus and other political players. In Acts we meet an even larger assemblage,
including Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa I and II.
Luke not only writes about these people, but he mentions details, sometimes relatively
minute facts, about them. "One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke's) accuracy
is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are
mentioned . . . Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until
22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer
by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived
in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paullus whom they met
. . ." (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1973, p. 82).
Luke mentions other particulars about the offices and titles of officials of the
Roman Empire. In every case he gets it right, as confirmed by archaeological discoveries
many centuries later. As Ramsay discovered, to show such accuracy required
that the author be well versed at the time in the intricacies of politics of the
day. Few of us could do as well if quizzed about the exact official titles of national
and international political figures today.
Accuracy: a test of credibility
Such fine details of the historical setting make the Bible interesting, but they
also put an author, such as Luke, to the test-and the Bible along with him. If he
makes a mistake in his reporting, then his work loses credibility. How does Luke
survive the test?
Bruce, professor of biblical studies, says of Luke's work: "A writer who thus
relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he
is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing
his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably" (ibid.).
Some scholars maintain that Luke was wrong in his report of a Roman census around
the time of the birth of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:1-3). They argued that Quirinius was
not governor at this time because he was given this position several years later.
Critics also argued that there was no census then and that Joseph and Mary were not
required to return to their native Bethlehem. Later archaeological evidence clearly
demonstrated that the events described by Luke were possible (Bruce, p. 86).
It turned out that those who had challenged the biblical account had done so without
all the facts.
Bruce goes on to observe that, when we see Luke's habitual accuracy demonstrated
in details that have been historically verified, there is ample reason to accept
his credibility in general.
Much yet to be discovered
A relatively small part of the remains of the biblical world has been excavated.
Of some 5,000 known sites of archaeological significance in Palestine, only about
350 have been excavated, and of these only about 2 percent have been extensively
excavated. Of those that have been excavated, it is a fact that the entire Bible
holds a remarkable track record of accuracy when compared with the finds unearthed
through archaeology.
Much of the Old Testament came under heavy assault from the guns of the anti-inspiration
scholars when the winds of doubt swept through the 19th century. Speaking of this
time and its effects, archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen wrote: "Time and again in
Old Testament studies, we are told that 'history knows of no such person' as, say,
Abraham or Moses, or . . . the battles of Genesis 14, for example. However
such phrases are totally misleading. They simply cover the ignorance not of 'history'
personified but of the person making this claim" (K.A. Kitchen, The Bible
in Its World, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1978, p. 48).
Dr. Kitchen's statement shows that the historicity of Old Testament personalities
and their worlds cannot be buried. It is important to note that scholars at one time
doubted the existence of empires, of entire populations and of many of the Bible's
central characters. In the face of a growing mountain of evidence, skeptics have
many times been forced to recant their earlier claims.
Events verified by archaeology
Some scholars have taken a deconstructionist view of many other events of biblical
history. Examples of this were the existence of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob), the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. They rejected the biblical
view because no clear archaeological evidence was known to exist.
Many archaeologists took this position because of a scarcity of evidence, outside
of the biblical record, that the Israelites were ever in the land of Egypt. As one
scholar asserted, "Not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites
has yet been found there" (Magnus Magnusson, Archaeology of the Bible, Simon
& Schuster, New York, 1977, p. 43).
Some even claim that Israel was not even a significant power during the days of the
Egyptian dynasties. They believe Israel was no more than a loose amalgamation of
impotent tribes.
The objective evidence, however, points to a different conclusion. Proof of the existence
of Israel as a nation and its warring with Egypt exists on a temple wall at Karnak,
site of the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes. The pharaoh Merenptah is depicted as
warring with Israel. This is "the oldest known visual portrayal of Israelites"
(Frank Yurco, "3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt," Biblical
Archaeology Review, September-October 1990, p. 22).
Another ancient object that intertwines biblical and Egyptian history was discovered
by the archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1896. It is known as the "Israel
Stele" because "it contains the earliest known mention of Israel . . ."
(ibid., p. 26). The stele is a black granite pillar that contains boastful inscriptions
commissioned by Pharaoh Merenptah about his victories in battles, including some
with Israel. The stele dates from 1207 B.C. (ibid., p. 27)
The biblical account of Israel's journey from Egypt to Canaan after the Exodus is
recorded as well. The Bible provides place names that figure prominently in the Israelite
journey. Numbers 33 supplies a detailed listing of sites on the route of the Exodus.
Detractors have disputed the historical record, denying that these settlements existed
at this early period in history because archaeological remains have not been found
for the time in question.
One of these is the settlement of Dibon (Numbers 33:45). No archaeological remains
have been found at that site that date earlier than the ninth century B.C. Does this
mean there was no city there when the people of Israel traversed that area?
Recently some scholars have seen the need to recant their claim that Dibon could
not have existed at the time of the Exodus. Egyptian records verify the existence
of Dibon during this time. Lists of ancient Egyptian routes mention Dibon as a stop
along one of the routes through that area. Not only did Dibon exist in that day,
but it was significant enough to occupy the attention of Ramesses II, who "sacked
the city in the course of a military campaign in Moab" during that time (Charles
R. Krahmalkov, "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence," Biblical
Archaeology Review, September-October 1994, p. 58).
The city of Hebron also figured in the conquest of Canaan. "So Joshua went . . .,
and all Israel with him, to Hebron; and they fought against it" (Joshua 10:36).
Although some critics have asserted that no city existed at Hebron during this time,
the Egyptian map lists tell otherwise. A list of cities that Ramesses II ordered
to be carved on a temple wall in Amon lists Hebron (Biblical Archaeology Review,
September-October 1994, p. 60).
Other place names on the Israelites' journey are mentioned in Egyptian records, including
the River Kishon, where the Israelite fighters under Deborah and Barak defeated a
superior force (Judges 5:19-21).
Some scholars have gone so far as to maintain that "nothing in the Bible before
the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy" (André
Lemaire, " 'House of David' Restored in Moabite Inscription," Biblical
Archaeology Review, May-June 1994, p. 31-32). Yet time after time scholars
have had to backtrack from earlier statements as additional archaeological evidence
came to light.
Does archaeology prove the Bible?
What should we say about the biblical record thus far? The skeptic can always point
to elements that have yet to be specifically verified. But we should never forget
that specific parts of the Bible assuredly have been upheld by archaeological
discoveries. The burden of proof is on the skeptics. In the wake of such evidence
as that shown in this chapter and available in numerous other books, it is up to
them to prove their case.
Frank E. Gaebelein, an eminently qualified author and general editor of The Expositor's
Bible Commentary, has remarked that "the attitude of suspended judgment
toward Bible difficulties . . . is constantly being vindicated, as archaeology
has solved one Biblical problem after another, and as painstaking re-examination
of discrepancies has finally led to answers" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. 1. p. 31).
In view of this, the doubter might do well to reconsider his position and commit
his life to serving God. If he waits until every minute issue or question that pertains
to scribal error or cultural differences is resolved in his own mind, he might
ignore or reject a call from God Himself. He could be depriving himself of the blessings
available to those who have committed themselves to learning and following God's
way of life.
The objective use of archaeology has demonstrated the truthfulness and technical
accuracy of the Bible. This chapter has demonstrated some of the factual evidence
that verifies the biblical record. More will continue to be discovered. As archaeologist
Nelson Glueck has concluded, "no archaeological discovery has ever been made
that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture" (ibid.).
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and its accuracy continues to be validated
by the spade of archaeology.
©1999 United Church of God, an International Associtaion
Related Information on Our Site:
Table of Contents that includes "The Bible and Archaeology"
Bible history: