Archaeology and the Believer
Table of Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
2. Objectivity…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
3. Consider the Source………………………………………………………………………………….10
4. The Amount of Evidence………………………………………………………………………….17
5. Interpretation……….…………………………………………………………………………………..22
6. Archaeological Eras…………………………………………………………………………………….28
7. Dating the Evidence…………………………………………………………………………………..36
8. The Problem of Education………………………………………………………………………..43
9. Chronology……………………………………………………………………………………………………..50
10 Alternative Texts……………………………………………………………………………………….55
11 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………..60
12 Appendix I- The Exodus………………………………………………………………………….64
13 Appendix II- Sodom & Gomorrah………………………………………………………….69
14 Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………………………..74
15 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………..86
1. Introduction
Dr. Bryant Wood once said, ‘…that we [believers] do archaeology to keep the unbelieving archaeologists and bible scholars honest…’1 It is no small feat to do so but it is a very good reason for Christians to be involved in archaeological work because the secular world does not accept the Biblical chronology nor its recorded events and they are looking for alternatives.
If believers weren’t involved to discover the truth of the past there is no telling what kind of history would be written by those professionals who spend their lives investigating ancient civilizations. In his book, A Short History of the World, J.M. Roberts had this to say:
History is a word which traditionally means two different things: what happened, and a true account of what happened. In the second sense, it is always a selection from the past. Even the history of the whole world, though, is not selection from all the past. We can ignore most of Time…And, to make things more difficult, not everyone agrees about what sort of creatures in early times might be thought of as ‘human’…2
In other words, as we shall see in the first chapter, the professional archaeologist and biblical scholar all have their own ideas about what took place in history and especially in biblical history. They are not objective, let alone honest, in these views and they are not afraid to proclaim them in publishing their articles and books. They want to prove their ideas true, not find the truth and it is quite evident as one studies archaeology that the truth is the victim in this field as well as the ancient societies being studied.
The field of archaeology is not dominated by true Christians, there are Christians working on digs and biblical scholarship but at times one has to wonder which side of the fence they are really on as they sacrifice truth to maintain scientific principles not founded on biblical teachings.
So the believer must be wary, they must consider the source before accepting the conclusions of the professional historian, etc., for the field is dominated by those who are not believers and who look to re-write the past in their way, according to their theories and preferences. Archaeology, like all scientific fields does not include the supernatural in its thinking, it looks for physical evidence and often when it is not found, conclusions are made from silence and in archaeology that is the wrong thing to do. Yet it takes place anyways, because of the beliefs, or lack of them, held by the archaeologist, the biblical scholar or the historian.
In reading archaeological books, one must be aware of the simple fact that the amount of evidence discovered is not as grand as they are led to believe:
We must never forget that we have very thin evidence for much of prehistory. Europe for example, has just one cave where tools similar to those of Australopithecus in Africa have been found…3
What is being worked with, as we shall see, is a very incomplete picture of the past drawn from what little evidence we do discover. Pottery is everywhere but it was a common item, much like today’s pots or vases or shovels etc. yet they do not tell a complete tale.
It must be realized that the physical evidence unearthed is vulnerable and subject to the beliefs, preferences, desires and theories of the archaeologist and the biblical scholar with influence from their knowledge of ancient languages and cultural practices as well as their rejection of the biblical record. Those believers who do reject the biblical record are not as vocal as one would like and their ideas are dismissed, many times, because of their religious ‘agenda’ or bias.
Much of the conclusions of the past are secular in nature and the believer must watch out for this bias, even though many secular professionals would deny that it is part of their work as being ‘objective’ is the goal. Unfortunately being ‘objective’ does not include being honest. One can be objective but lie anyways and one can be based or have an agenda but still be honest.
It is the latter that is preferred by this author, if we cannot be totally honest all the time. Honesty is far better than theory, or the attempt to force the evidence to fit the alternative thought. The theory should fit the evidence discovered, with room left over for possibilities and future discoveries that may change the theory. Holding a rigid theory, then applying the evidence to it is unprofessional, yet is also done to some extent by those professionals who do not want to waste a life’s work.
Adding to the confusion of the archaeology field is the Age or Period system employed, not uniformly but employed with adaption, for it was not constructed to obtain the ultimate goal but to support the evolutionary thinking that is prevalent in the scientific arena and as we shall see, its construction was not based upon anything remotely close to the truth but done on a whim and an observation without fact.
In this work we shall also encounter the problem of dating the evidence and it is a problem because much of it is solely done on guess work. Yes they are educated guesses but because the piece of pottery or the monument or the buildings discovered are not stamped, ‘made in the year…,’ we can never be totally sure when it was made and for how long it was kept by a family or government officer. For all we know it was a keepsake or an inherited object, that passed down through the family for generations, much like many items, like wedding rings, are today.
Some archaeologists do use C-14 carbon dating but it is not as reliable as one would think and is in need of help through calibration via other fallible dating methods, making it and all other dating systems virtually unreliable and easily manipulated. It is not easy to date the past, for it is basically impossible to say what took place without a written record describing the exact chain of events pertaining to a particular piece of evidence.
Such texts are very rare, rarer than finding school texts in a school from an ancient civilization. Dating is a best guess possibility and it should remain so as the ancients did not use the same type of calendar as the ones in use today and for the past 1,900 years or so, approx... God does not give exact dates for many of the events that transpire and the ones we do get, are recorded according to the ancient standard not the modern one.
What complicates matters the most for the archaeologist is the lack of discovered written texts. Like today, the majority of those who write, do so on perishable materials, that is, if they write much after being taught how to do so. Thus the conclusions about illiteracy in the ancient world are unfounded because millions of modern day people have learned how to write over the centuries yet never record anything more than a note to a loved one or family member.
It is unrealistic to consider the idea that those notes or letters would survive thousands of years of wear and tear or to conclude that the person did not know how to write simply because there is no record of their penmanship.
These are some of the factors that come into play when one is listening to or reading the archaeological reports that are published or recorded on DDs or other media forms and which influence the conclusions drawn by the archaeologist or biblical scholar. When the believer learns the true chronology, it is easier for them to put things into context and see how far astray the secular, and other, professionals go in their work.
The idea that ‘the oldest discovered is the original’ is common in the field, the problem with this that the Biblical record predates all secular discoveries but the Bible is dismissed as a religious book with a religious agenda and cannot be accepted as an actual historical document.
In the nineteenth century the acceptance of evolutionary theory and the application of higher criticism in religion resulted in the Bible being cast as a work of theological fiction. Its history was regarded as legend and its miracles as myths. This radical reassessment of Scripture was argued in part on the absence in the historical record of peoples in the Older Testament such as the Hittites. And because their linkage in the biblical text with larger-than-life personages like Abraham, David, and Solomon, these figures of faith were likewise rendered suspect. Moses was also said to be a myth because critical scrutiny deemed aspects of his biblical description as unhistorical. One reason for this supposed lack of historical reliability was the biblical statement that Moses had written the Torah (Deuteronomy 31:24). The scholarly consensus was that Moses must have been illiterate since the ancient Egyptians were thought to have delegated the work of writing to scribes. As a result, neither kings nor commoners learned the art. The Newer Testament was also regarded with equal criticism. It was viewed as the product of later ecclesiastical invention, with the Gospel of John offered as a prime example of a second century document of Gentile origin.4
The Bible is relegated to the sidelines for much of the archeological work that is being done today and has been done in the past. Though, as we shall see, the alternative religious writings, with far less evidence and far less of a historical trail, are clearly accepted without as much controversy or adherence to the criteria placed upon in the Bible.
These alternatives are accepted by the secular community as alternatives to the biblical record and as a legitimate source to understanding biblical life and books, regardless of their origin, agenda, or religious beliefs. The believer must be cautious when reading the ideas of archaeologists and biblical scholars when they use these alternatives
This dissertation is not written in the orthodox manner, for the intellectual or for intellectual exercise, but for the common believer so that it is easily understood and that the warnings it sounds are not missed by the most uneducated archaeologically speaking. Its purpose is to point out the dangers that are involved in the archaeological field and that ‘all science is not good science’. The believer needs to be prepared and cannot blindly accept an opinion or conclusion simply because an expert in the field has said it was so.
Science, including archaeology, has been elevated to a position of authority that it should not legitimately hold, for it is highly subjective and leaves out data that is pertinent to discovering the truth, something all believers should be striving to obtain. Archaeology is very limited in what it can accomplish, as we shall see, and its conclusions must not be promoted above the biblical record, but must be humbled before it so the believer is not lead astray or lose their faith as has happened to some archaeologists and biblical scholars.
2. Objectivity
I. The Definition
This is a comment that all people hear when dealing with academic or scientific work and it is an ingredient most expect when they read or hear scientific reports or documentaries. The field of archaeology is no different as it is considered a science, not a theological field of study.
Because of this membership, those who work in this field and its sub-category, Biblical archaeology, objectivity is demanded for anything else will be tainted by theological bias or beliefs. As a science, Biblical Archaeology (B.A.) is expected to follow scientific rules, unfortunately, those rules originate from the dominate secular side of the field of science in general and Dr. Del Ratzsch gives 3 points on objectivity and how science is supposed to operate:
First, science is to be thoroughly objective. It was to be function totally free of human speculation, choice, politics, preference, emotion, bias and preconception”1
As we shall see in a bit, that is just not happening. It is the ideal. The second point Dr. Ratzsch mentions is:
Science was to be empirical grounded upon empirical data and empirical data alone.2
The problem with this idea is that the data that is coming out of the ground, and we shall look at this later as well, is fragmented, incomplete, and found in locations where one cannot possibly determine how it came to rest in that spot. The third point Dr. Ratzsch brings to light is:
Science was supposed to be utterly rational…Thus the process of theory construction, theory evaluation, theory testing and theory acceptance had to be protected from the infection of human subjectivity, bias, blindness, distortion and dishonesty.3
Yet those of us who study this field and its sub-categories and other scientific areas of study, know that this is simply not is taking place. Agendas do occur and they occur often and have done so throughout the history of B.A.:
In a subsequent issue, Rachel Hallote recounts the 200-year history of archaeology in the Near East and notes that “funders invariably come with agendas and always have.”4
This means that no matter how hard people try, they will have a problem with objectivity, for their theories, conclusions and comments will have the taint of their beliefs or lack of them influencing their words.
The goal of objectivity is well ingrained in people’s psychy as when they hear or read a person’s report they immediately appeal to this invisible standard and often dismiss or diminish a person’s work based solely upon this principle:
Second, nineteenth century scholars, said Schweitzer, were unable to rid themselves of theological commitments that prevented objective research5
This idea is not limited to the 19th century as the academic world has heard the accusations of prejudice and bias throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. It needs to be noted that went these accusers claim ‘bias’ or un-objectivity, they fail to render their ideas or strategies on how one can be unbiased, they simply just dismiss the conclusions of the person presenting the material.
As we can see by Dr. Ratzsch’s description of what was expected of a researcher is that the material presented must be completely sanitized and cleansed from anything remotely human, and for that matter, spiritual, before it would be given a hearing:
The supernatural, the miraculous is strictly out of bounds in science.6
But there is a problem with is ideal as we shall see next.
II. The Problem
There is a problem with this idea of objectivity; it flies in the face of what God has written when He said, ‘He who is not with me is against me’ 7. God does not present nor does the Bible teach that there is any real objectivity to be obtained, one has either His viewpoint or they have the evil one. There is no middle ground with God.
This truth has been realized by many, even the secular scholars, as one says:
Contrary to the revisionists, biblical criticism, of any school I know, has never claimed to be objective. The distinguished Oxford professor emeritus James Barr has pointed out that that is a caricature. And not since the death of 19th century positivism have, any respectable historian been naïve enough to think that they could be entirely objective.8
This is the key. It is basically impossible to be objective and one should not even try but they should, and this is key for the Christian, be honest. If an artifact does not fit their beliefs, then the Christian needs to be man enough to say so and categorize it properly instead of trying to fudge the classification or manipulate the evidence to fit what one believes.
In spite of this fact, people still seek to be objective; unfortunately, a majority of them seem to be Christians who are looking for some sort of acceptance by the secular academic world. This is underscored by the early members of the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) organization when in an early edition of their periodical, Bible and Spade, they made this remark:
We are often asked questions about these fragments and in our desire to be objective in the pursuit of truth we here present some of the arguments raised against the identification.9
The problem for the ABR group is that objectivity is not the standard for obtaining truth, Jesus made that quite clear when he said two things; 1. ‘I am the Way and the Truth…’ and 2. ‘When I am gone My Father will send the spirit of truth and He will guide you to the truth.’10
For the believer, the idea of objectivity is a secular concept that thwarts the reaching of the truth and they should not adhere to it for it is disobedience to what Jesus has said and where one finds the truth.
According to the secular scientific idea of objectivity, a person, to be objective, must not only void themselves of all their humanity but they must also refrain from turning to the supernatural to achieve this desired goal. It just does not work for that means that the believer must rid themselves of all beliefs, which are the motivating factor in investigation in the first place, and they must, in the secular world’s eyes, return to the secular world to achieve what can only be achieved via God.
In other words, this demand by the secular world to be objective means that the believer must divest themselves of all they have gained and return to being blind like the secular world is and that is just wrong. It hinders what Jesus told us when He said. ‘Ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free’11.
Thus the believer does not have to feel guilt or sorrow because they come from a biased, theological position. True objectivity, as the secular world wants it, is un-obtainable and compels the believer into disobedience if they follow the secular demands or want to be accepted by the secular world,(which a believer is not to do regardless if the secular academics reject the findings of the believer or not).
It is fortunate that many of the academics have come to this realization that objectivity is not realistic but more of an idealistic goal or direction but again, sadly, many in the believing community do not share this realization as they tend to fling the same type of accusations back at the secular world that are hurled at the Christian one:
An occasional scholar has maintained that there was a golden image of the Lord in Temple, but this view scarcely rests on solid, objective evidence… There is no agreement as to the latter’s date among scholars, and no external objective evidence from which a compelling conclusion can be derived.12
If the Christian world should not hold to the standard of objectivity, they should not hold the secular world to the same idealistic and unrealistic goal. It is best if the Christian held to honesty, something that is of God and apply God’s standards not only to their own work but to the works of those outside of the Christian faith.
III. The Double Standard
In the previous section, we saw that objectivity is un-obtainable, unrealistic, and considered more of an ideal than a practical standard but when these ideas apply to the Bible; such honesty is thrown out by the secular academic, as they hold the Bible to a standard they themselves refuse to meet. Consider Dr. William Dever, in his book, ’Did God Have a Wife’, who in his introduction wrote the following words:
This is a book that… does not attempt objectivity; for that is impossible and perhaps even undesirable.13
Here we have Dr. Dever who openly admits bias for his own work, and confesses that he did not even try to be objective for to him that would be ‘undesirable’ and most likely, to him, it would ruin his work and diminish it in the eyes of his peers. One can only speculate as to the reason why he did not even attempt to strive to be at least a little bit objective as per the comment he quoted later in his book (and quoted in an earlier section here).
He seems to allow himself the luxury of not having to meet the same demands he ,makes of others or the Biblical authors, for later in the book, he is found to say;
The perspective of all the biblical writers is a factor that limits their usefulness in another regard. It is no exaggeration to say that all the biblical literature…constitutes what is essentially propaganda. The writers make no pretense to objectivity.14
Are his readers to conclude, that since Dr. Dever admittedly did not pursue objectivity, his work is ‘essentially propaganda’? Here Dr. Dever fails to hold himself to a standard or ideal that he criticizes and condemns the biblical writers for failing to do. He forgets that it is not the duty of the biblical writers to be objective. They were not writing an academic work for peer review, they were recording God’s words per his standards and criteria.
One fails in their theological work if they decide to hold ancient biblical writers to modern standards that they had no hope of knowing about nor were governed by when they recorded God’s words. It is an unfair and one-sided condemnation that is without merit and Dr. Dever errs greatly here with his judgment.
A second example of the double standard that is prevalent in the academic world is the following, also found in Dr. Dever’s book:
That leads me to the second limitation of the Biblical texts. Its writers & editors were historians of a sort but they were highly selective in what they chose to include...15
Yet, is that no the prerogative of the modern historian? Are they not highly selective of what they include in their works? Do they not omit material that goes contrary to their own beliefs, perspective or focus of their work?
So why should the biblical writers, be condemned for supposedly doing the same thing? They should not for they were writing a history but they were under following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what they included is exactly what God wanted included. They did not have the luxury to edit or omit anything as they were the servants of God and they would do as God would want not as the modern academic would like to see.
Realistically, if the biblical writers included everything that took place, not only would the Bible be too thick to handle, and that fact would discourage people from picking it up and reading it, but it would take the eyes of the reader of God. The idea of the Bible is not only to present to God’s creation how to live, not only a brief history but the idea of God as He reveals Himself to His people. The Bible is a revelation not a modern academic work; it does not follow the rules of modern society for it is not a product of modern society, for the Bible follows God’s rules for it is a product from Him. His rules trump modern secular ones.
IV. Some Examples
In this topic of objectivity we have seen the ideal; we have seen the problems and the double standard that exists with this concept. What follows are examples of how the secular world treats this subject—they ignore the scientific ideals and basically do what they want. As is the case with Eric Cline:
…I will investigate the seven intriguing mysteries of the Bible mentioned earlier. I will put each of them into their proper historical and archaeological contexts and describe what many archaeologists and historians and biblical scholars are thinking. I will be exploring these mysteries primarily as an archaeologist and an ancient historian. I am not a theologian. So I will not be looking at the theological questions that are present in some of the mysteries. I will leave that to others.16
Several questions arise from Dr. Cline’s statement and they are as follows: #1. What makes his viewpoint or analysis greater than anyone else’s? #2. Who is to say that his proper perspective is the correct one or even superior to others? #3 how does he know what ALL archaeologists, etc., agree with his point of view or his idea of what they are saying? #4 if he is not looking at these ‘mysteries’ from all points then how does he think limited data will solve the problem as he sees it?
As it stands, he is mainly just presenting what he wants the mysteries to be, and not being honest or objective in presenting the material. It is all according to his limited viewpoint which depends upon the limited information he has found.
Another example comes from Israel Finkelstein and he says:
Most scholars followed suit, accepting the contention that the major narratives about David and Solomon were originally independent sources written in the early days of the Israelite monarchy. We now know, however, that this theory is mistaken. As we shall see, it is clearly contradicted by archaeological evidence.17
What Dr. Finkelstein omits or forgets to mention is that the archaeological evidence does not contradict the Biblical record. It is the interpretation of said evidence, the conjecture involved with said evidence and the conclusions of the archaeologist or scholar who is handling the evidence. There is not one discovery that has proven the Bible false or untrue, and there is no smoking gun hidden away waiting for the right moment to be revealed.
Also, we can see Dr. Finkelstein’s bias, and that he made no attempt at all to be objective as he claimed on the same page:
The familiar stories of David and Solomon…are the result of extensive reworking and editorial expansion during the 4th century following David and Solomon’s reigns.18
It should be noted that Dr. Finkelstein provides no evidence for this or the previous conclusion and much of his dating is based upon the lack of understanding the word, ‘renovations’.
Another of the biases that is applied to archaeology via the secular world of academia is the one steeped in the theory of evolution. Dr. Colin Renfrew has this to say:
Prehistory is the story of humans becoming. Five million years ago there were no humans on the earth, nor among the then existing apes and monkeys were there any that we could recognize as closely resembling humans in their appearance and behavior.19
Thus the idea of objectivity as secular science describes it, is actually non-existent in the work of the secular archaeologist or scholar. Their rules seem to be ignored and only applied when a biblical theologian, one who actually believes the Bible and God, attempts to present the truth to the world or the realm of academia.
It is an attempt to hinder the work of those who believe so that the secular world can remain hidden from what really took place in the past, enabling the secular scholar or archaeologist to construct their own version of what took place.
For the believer, objectivity is neither a goal nor working criteria they should use in constructing their views of the past or God’s word. They do not belong to the secular world any more, they belong to God’s kingdom, and thus they must adhere to God’s rules, not those constructed by the secular world to hinder the work of God.
It is impossible for the believer to be objective which means that they need to strive to be honest. In being honest one obeys God and will garner for themselves and their work the respect from the secular world, they so desire. Archaeology, as we will see much later, is a very limited field and the data it produces is so minute that it is impossible for the researcher to be as objective as the ideals demand.
To respond to the secular critics, the believer, in their work must strive to do as Drs. John McCray and Hoerth say in their work:
It, (B.A.), answers those who would mythologize the Bible.20
The believer, when answering those ‘who would mythologize the Bible’ need to do as God said and that is to stay with the truth, for the unbeliever ‘can do nothing against the truth’21. Being honest, being truthful makes an impact for God and goes a lot further than if they followed the secular world’s criteria. The believer is to be the light of the world22 but they cannot be that light if they follow the secular world or the secular academic demands or rules. They must separate themselves from such misleading and untrue ideas setting the example for others to follow regardless if anyone joins them or not.
Objectivity is unobtainable, as said earlier, but the truth is not thus the believer needs to refocus their attention and work on what they can obtain and not destroy their arguments or beliefs in a futile pursuit of secular excellence.
