|
|
|
APOLOGETICS |
|
Archaeology and
the Biblical Record --- Part 2
By Dr.
John Ankerberg and Dr.
John Weldon |
|
The Problems
of Archaeology
If we
examine the nature and problems of archaeological investigation, it
will become apparent why it is impossible for archaeology to prove
everything in the Bible and equally apparent why any findings which
first seem not to confirm the biblical record are insufficient reason
to declare that the Bible contains an error. Because the Bible is
independently established to be the divinely inspired and inerrant
Word of God on other grounds, archaeology cannot logically sit in
judgment upon the biblical record whenever an apparent
discrepancy is encountered. As archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson
points out, because archaeology deals with insufficient data and
unknown variables, and comprises a human endeavor subject to human
failings, "The Bible itself, not archaeology, is our absolute." In
The Stones and the Scriptures, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi observes, "By
its very nature archaeological evidence is fragmentary, often
disconnected, and always with the exception of texts—mute and
materialistic. Far more than our need of these materials for an
understanding of the Bible is our need of the Bible for an
understanding of the materials." 1
Nevertheless, archaeology
is a highly important endeavor for shedding light on biblical content.
In essence, archaeology helps us to understand, appreciate and, at
times, properly interpret the Bible. Thus, the major function of
biblical archaeology is both practical and apologetic, to not only
illuminate the text but to confirm the biblical record. Dr. Yamauchi
is correct in stating that properly understanding the historical and
cultural background of the Bible "has maximal significance for the
theologian." He quotes the distinguished excavator of Mari, Andre
Parot, who states, "As is well-known, certain currents of theological
thought profess towards history an attitude almost of disdain…. What
matters, we are told, is the Word, and the Word alone. But how are we
to understand it without setting it against its proper chronological,
historical, and geographical background? How are blunders to be
avoided if our interpretation treats a given situation completely
in vacuo [in a vacuum], and without first attempting to define its
exact contours?"2 As archaeologist Joseph P. Free (1910-1974), who did
extensive excavations at the city of Dothan for ten years, observed,
"In my lifetime I have heard many messages or sermons that could have
some point driven home by the effective use of some archaeological
item."3 He further points out that archaeology "has confirmed
countless passages that have been rejected by critics as unhistorical
or contradictory to known facts."4
Dr. Keith Schoville, author
of the comprehensive textbook, Biblical Archeology in Focus,
discusses the three main factors involved in the process of recovering
the story of biblical history; the Bible, archaeology, and the
archaeologist. Further, "each of these has its own peculiarities and
limitations that affect the total phenomenon that we call
archaeological research, including the final results."5
For example, one limitation of the biblical record involves the
inability, in certain cases, to properly interpret a portion of
Scripture due to lack of information.
Problems
with archaeology itself include limitations resulting from the
relative newness of the discipline and problems with the sites or
excavation methods themselves. A limitation of the archaeologist
involves the kind of educational background and philosophical or
theological presuppositions he or she brings to the interpretation of
data.
The first
problem with archaeological work per se is the relative newness of the
discipline. This means that not only are there relatively few actual
sites excavated among all known sites, but even when sites are
excavated, the process is so painstaking that only a small fraction of
a particular site can be examined:
There are over 5,000
ancient ruins in what is now Israel and Jordan, leaving aside for
the moment the sites in the other areas of the ancient world. Most
of the Palestinian sites are tells [mounds of city remains], and of
these only a few hundred have attracted excavators. Of the excavated
sites, only about 30 have been the scenes of major excavations; the
remainder have consisted of small-scale soundings, emergency
clearances, or salvage operations. It is important to be aware,
also, that even the major excavations have left most of their sites
untouched. It is apparent, then, that almost 98 percent of the major
ruins of Palestine remain untouched by an expedition. In other
words, in comparison to the minuscule amount that has been
recovered, a massive amount of data remains untouched, despite
nearly a century of excavations.6
As another example, "The
Iraq Department of Antiquities has records of over 6,500 tells (mounds
of buried cities) in the country; well over 6,000 of them have not yet
been excavated at all."7
Archeology
is, of course, about digging, and many ancient sites are buried far
beneath the ground making access to them very difficult. Indeed,
…only a minute area of an
entire site can ever be dug, especially if explored to any great
depth. Thus, ancient Ashdod comprised about 70 acres of lower city
area and about 20 acres of Acropolis, some 90 acres in all—but only
one and one-half acres of this surface (less than two percent) has
been excavated…. While surface-potshurds from the slopes of a mound
can give valuable indications of the periods during which a former
ancient town was inhabited, only full-scale excavation can reveal
the total occupation-history. But as even "full-scale" excavations
rarely touch more than a fraction of a site... important features
can still be missed by accident. If levels of a particular period
occur in only one part of a site—a part not dug—then the
archaeologist’s "record" will appear to show a gap in the town’s
history, much as when erosion has taken its toll. If one digs 5
percent of a site, one must expect to miss 95 percent (and 100
percent, if it is the wrong site!).8
Kitchen
proceeds to discuss other difficulties of archaeological work. Besides
gaps in the record caused by erosion,
Decayed mud-brick walls
can sometimes barely be distinguished at first from the mud in which
they are buried. Styles of pottery sometimes changed only slowly,
making precise dating difficult. Foundation-trenches, and storage or
rubbish-pits cut from one level down into another can mix up the
remains from two or more different levels. An undulating town-site
can result in late levels in one part being physically lower down
than early levels in another part. These and other pitfalls
frequently beset the field archaeologist.9
Then there
is the problem of site-shift:
The citizens of an
ancient town sometimes could no longer live comfortably on the crest
of their tall mound; or destruction made a new start desirable; or
new prosperity led to expansion beyond the old citadel. In such
cases a new town or suburb was built either adjoining the old mound
or at some little distance from it. Such a development could occur
more than once.... For modern investigators, the practical result is
that a site appears not to have been lived in at certain periods of
history—whereas, in fact, people had simply "moved down the road"
and actually lived nearby during the supposedly "missing" periods.
Thus, Old Testament Jericho (now Tell es-Sultan) was abandoned from
Hellenistic times, and settlement moved to near the springs of Ain-Sultan,
onto the site which became modern Jericho (Er-Riha). But in
Hellenistic/Roman times, palaces and residential villas were built
at a third site nearby (Tulul Abu el-Alaiq). So, today, there are
three "Jerichos." Consequent shifts of the ancient name can thus be
deceptive.10
A situation like this helps
one understand the problems associated with identifying the walls
dating to the time of the conquest of that city by Joshua and the
Israelites.11 Ancient Jericho
(modern Tell es-Sultan) has been the site of more than two dozen
ancient cities, each one built and destroyed on top of the other.
(to be
continued)
Notes:
1 Edwin Yamauchi, The
Stones and the Scriptures (New York: J. B. Lippencott, 1972), p.
21
2 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
3 Joseph P. Free, revised
and expanded by Howard F. Vos, Archeology and Bible History
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. IX.
4 Ibid., p. 13
5 Keith N. Schoville,
Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978),
p. 154.
6 Ibid., p. 157.
7 Free and Vos, pp.
293-94.
8 K. A. Kitchen, The
Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archeology Today (Downers
Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 12.
9 Ibid., p. 11.
10 Ibid., p. 13.
11 Schoville, P. 156.;
Dr. Bryant Wood’s article in the Biblical Archeological Review
is also relevant.
|
Apologetics
Authors
Dr.
James Bjornstad
Mrs. Lorri MacGregor
Mr. Marvin Cowan
Dr. John Ankerberg
Dr. John Weldon |
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"
CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS
Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?
|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|
