|
|
|
APOLOGETICS |
|
Archaeology and
the Biblical Record --- Part 3
By Dr.
John Ankerberg and Dr.
John Weldon |
|
The Problems
of Archaeology (con’t)
There are
also problems with the methodologies involved in excavation. When you
crack an egg for breakfast you have to live with it—so if you want it
"over easy" and not scrambled you have to be careful. Every
archaeological site is unique, and once part of a site is disturbed,
that experiment can never be redone. This underscores why the
methodological approach of the archaeologist is so important. To
illustrate, problems have arisen not only from lack of proper
techniques but from the archaeologist’s own methodological
idiosyncrasies. For example, a good number of major excavations were
conducted before 1936, prior to the development of the more
sophisticated techniques currently employed. As a result,
The results of earlier
excavations may be suspect.... Megiddo, Jericho, Shechem, Gezer, and
the famed Tell el-Hesi are among these sites which have been
re-excavated recently in order to clarify the work of the earlier
excavations. [Tell el-Hesi, originally incorrectly identified with
Lachish, was the 120-foot mound near Gaza where, in 1890, Sir
Flinders Petrie introduced the first steps toward stratigraphical
excavation. This greatly increased interest in Palestinian
excavation in that prior to this time, mounds were usually
considered natural formations rather than archaeological deposits.]
Undoubtedly the final results of other earlier excavations will be
reevaluated in the future through similar operations.1
Archaeologists themselves can sometimes be the source of the problem,
either by nature or nurture:
In archaeology as in
other fields, different individuals do things differently, and if
any statement can be made about archaeologists generally it is that
each one is strongly individualistic. Therefore no self-respecting
individual will feel constrained to excavate his site according to
an absolute standard that has been imposed upon him by an exterior
source.2
Further, the
archaeologist is
…inevitably a product of
his times. The world in which he grew up and in which he
functions has left its indelible mark upon him, and it affects not
only what he is particularly interested in, in terms of his
archaeological activities, but also how he understands and
interprets what he finds. The general validity of this idea can be
recognized by noting that Palestinian archaeology has gone through
several phases in which the predominant interests of the
investigators have undergone gradual modification.3
Besides
those issues there are also problems associated with recording of the
data:
The exact and meticulous
recording that is required in modern archaeological research is also
subject to manifold variations. No two excavations are going to
employ, among other things, exactly the same recording forms, and
the emphasis upon meticulousness will vary from dig to dig, again
because archaeology is a distinctly human enterprise and because
directors of digs are notoriously individualistic.4
To cite an example, the
importance of pottery analysis as a key to chronology is still
evolving as a method. Thus, "only occasionally are shurds profiled by
cutting them with a ceramic saw so that a clean, sharp surface is
observed and recorded."5 And there are additional problems associated
with photography, recording of ecological data, and many other
important details.6
Finally,
there is the issue of properly interpreting the data one uncovers.
Although some archaeologists avoid interpretation and merely present
the evidence from their excavations, leaving the interpretative task
to other specialists, most archaeologists seek to interpret the
meaning of their finds in their publications and lectures. Despite the
necessity of interpretation, this is one of the most problematic
aspects of archaeological research, because of the
…incomplete and
fragmentary nature of the surviving remains and, especially, because
of the complexity of the human element, the interpreter.
Interpretation has been called an art, with the interpreter as the
artist, and as with an artist, the interpreter brings all that he or
she is to the task, including his educational background, his
experiences in life, his philosophical presuppositions, and in
biblical archaeology his views about the Bible.7
Finally, it
is crucial to remember that
…there are no pieces of
evidence that carry their own interpretation. Meaning can only be
derived from context. Archaeological evidence is dependent on the
context of date, place, materials, and style. Most important, how it
is understood depends on the interpreter’s presuppositions and world
view. Therefore, not all interpretations of the evidence will be
friendly to Christianity.8
The above
discussion gives one an idea of the problems inherent to
archaeological work. However, this should never cause us to conclude
that archaeology is an unimportant or impossible endeavor. To the
contrary, a large number of important discoveries and legitimate
conclusions continue to be made from modern archaeological work. One
only need think of the law code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, the
Egyptian Rosetta Stone and the Behistun inscription, the Mesha Stone,
the Amarna Letters from Egypt, the Elephantine papyri, the Hittite
clay tablets from Boghazkoy, the religious texts from Ras Shamra in
Syria, the Nuzi tablets and the Mari texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag
Hammadi, the fascinating search for Noah’s Ark, 600,000 Babylonian
clay tablets, 25,000 Ebla fragments (Tell Mardikh), and other
magnificent finds. All this and more helps us to understand how truly
important archaeology is and how great a debt we owe to archaeologists
for the many sacrifices involved in their painstaking work.
The problems
inherent to archaeological work mean only that findings must be viewed
cautiously and critically until all the data are in. One often hears
of the "assured results" of archaeological research and yet such
assured results often turn out to be fragile. "These limitations
indicate the importance of the idea of ‘the present level of
information.’ There must always be an open-ended quality to
archaeological research which permits and encourages whatever changes
in the understanding of old data the new data may require." 9
Regardless,
what is most satisfying about biblical archaeology is that, even with
all the problems, archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the accuracy of
the biblical record. Archaeological work has confirmed a great deal of
both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and even theological
liberals and Bible skeptics are forced to admit this. Archaeology has
consistently refuted higher critical views of the Bible and corrected
claims of alleged errors in Scripture.
Notes:
1 Keith Schoville,
Biblical Archeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), p.
157.
2 Ibid., p. 158.
3 Ibid., p. 161.
4 Ibid., p. 158.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., p. 159.
7 Ibid., p. 165.
8 Norman Geisler and Ron
Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences
(Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), p. 179.
9 Schoville, p. 159.
|
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
|
