3. Consider the Source
I. What the Bible Says
I am starting off with Biblical texts to set the tone for this next section. For believers, these words are most important as in today’s modern society, the words of the scientific experts carry more weight than they should. Too often, believers, and secular people as well, stop using their heads and rely on what the experts say. Unfortunately not all experts are Christian, not all experts carry the truth and not all experts have the common people’s best interests at heart.
Jesus never taught that one needed to listen to experts to get to the truth, but let’s see what the Bible does teach;
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrines which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing nut is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wrangling of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth…1
Then we have:
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly.2
And finally there is:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires…and will turn their ears away from the truth.3
For the first quote, we can see this in action at every level of biblical studies and the most widely known debate over words, begins at Genesis 1 and the Hebrew word ‘Yom’ 4. This battle over words is continual simply because people do not want to believe God or His word.
The second passage provides the believer with instructions on what they are not to do. They are not to follow or pattern their lives after what unbelievers say. This includes the field of B.A. because those people who do not follow God, are not getting their inspiration, their theories, and their conclusions from God, they have an alternative source, one that is in conflict with God and the truth.
One must be careful here, as a believer should not throw out evidence simply because an unbeliever has talked about it. Evidence is evidence and holds no theological beliefs; it is the theories, the conclusions, the conjecture, and so on, that come from the unbelieving expert that needs to be discarded.
For centuries, the unbelieving archaeologists and biblical scholars declared the Hittite nation a myth and claimed that proved the Bible false. But to their embarrassment, in 1876 and onward, discoveries were being made that would eventually lead to the Biblical verification of the Hittite people 5.
Then finally, we come to the third scripture which will eventually lead us into the next point, people do not want sound teachings, they want what they want to hear and that desire leads them down a path away from the truth.
Thus W.G. Dever called for the abandonment of the term ‘biblical archaeology’ in favor of the term ‘Syro-Palestinian archaeology.’ This suggestion reflects the tendency to abandon the theological approach of traditional biblical archaeology in favor of a secular, professional approach which defines the archaeology of the Levant as a specific branch of world archaeology with its own methods and goals.6
This falling away from the theological approach has led many an archaeologist down a garden path and opened the door to others, who already did not believe, to advance their non-biblical theories.
One such man is Philip Davies, an ardent subscriber to the minimalist Copenhagen school of thought, who clearly and unabashedly stated in a lecture that the whole biblical history of the Israelite people from at least the 5th century back to the beginning, simply ‘did not happen’7. Even when presented with physical evidence that proved that the Biblical history was viable and took place, Dr. Davies, living in a state of denial, flatly rejected the clear cut evidence and would not discuss it further8.
Simply put, the Bible has described the modern example taking place today and we can see it happen year by year.
II. The Evidence
There is one thing that all believers need to know, the evidence is the evidence. Everyone has the same pieces of pottery, the same artifacts, the same buildings, and so on, to look at and study. The minimalists have no smoking gun hiding in the closet, waiting for the right moment to thrust it upon an unsuspecting Christian world. Once a major discovery is made, everyone knows about it, long before the final report has been published (which can take years or even decades)
It’s been 28 years since we finished our excavations at Nabratein and we’ve just published our final report, a hefty volume of 472 pages.9
Yet even though this gap is common, the discoveries are well known because the archaeological community is small and the Israeli government has a database for anyone to search in pursuit of their studies of the past. This database is not small:
Through the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) database alone, armchair quarterbacks now have access to more than 100,000 archaeological relics discovered in the State of Israel since 1948. 10
Then consider all of the museums of the world which hold treasures from Jordon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and so many other Middle Eastern/Mediterranean countries and one would realize that we have a lot of information to use to help us study the past.
Some archaeologists use these discoveries to support their agenda against the Bible as they cite the discovery of evidence as proof of their arguments:
In recent years, dramatic archaeological discoveries have cast important new light on some of the Bible’s deepest and most intriguing mysteries… [and] have provided surprising new evidence about the origins of the People of Israel…and about the historical realities that underlie the scriptural narratives… 11
So they say but, it is not the physical evidence that contradicts the Biblical record,
He [Dr. John McCray] shook his head. ‘Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible…On the contrary, as we’ve seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong’ 12
It is not the Bible that archaeology or the evidence discovered that has been contradicted, it has been the unbelieving scholars’ opinions, conjectures, and theories, which have long been ‘accepted as fact’ that has proven wrong through discovery after discovery.
Thus, when one hears what Dr. Finkelstein and others claim, that the Bible has been proven wrong by archaeology, it is not true. As said earlier, the evidence is the evidence, it does not take sides, it is how one ‘interprets’ the discovery which influences the conclusions and opinions of the scholars. That interpretation, as we shall see later, is also influenced by a professional’s beliefs or lack of them, their likes, dislikes, their preferences, their favorite solutions, and so much more.
Different archaeologists and scholars can take the same evidence and come to two different conclusions, which is exampled by the recent discovery of King David’s palace.
But recent discoveries and research by Hebrew University archaeologist, Dr. Eilat Mazar, the granddaughter of the renowned archaeologist, the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar, has unveiled convincing evidence that pinpoints the exact location of this most important biblical structure 13
But when another archaeologist visited the site, he just gave a cursory glance to the entire exposed discovery and the pottery used to date the remains and came to a much different conclusion. He had to as he is an advocate of the lower chronology and his acceptance of this evidence would have ruined his theories:
As for Assignment 2, Mazar’s interpretation, according to which the stepped stone structure and the large stone structure belong to one Iron Age IIA complex, is based upon circumstantial considerations that are open to alternative interpretations. 14
The evidence is very easy manipulated as it just depends upon the point of view held by the one handling it.
III The Secular Sources
In science, many people think that ‘all science is good science’. That is just not so, as they forget that the field is rife with the same problems the everyday world faces throughout life. There is right, wrong, good and evil in science and this extends to the field of archaeology as well. There are many, many professional archaeologists and biblical scholars who do not side with the Bible but influence young students and many unwary adults, both believers and not.
Their views are vastly influenced by what they believe and the following examples will show why they are not to be trusted nor listened to by Christians. One popular writer and speaker, calls himself a biblical scholar yet he has openly admitted, not only in lectures and his books, that he lost his faith due to his scholarship 15. He also lost faith in the Bible as the words of God:
…my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the Bible that way. The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. 16
Another influential archaeologist used to be a Christian minister then one day he woke up and realized that he ‘was never really a believer and it took him 40 years to figure thatout’.17 His views concerning the Bible are very well known:
The biblical texts were very heavily edited right from the beginning and they have undergone continual reinterpretation for 2,000 years and more. But what we call the archaeological record has not been edited by anyone…Surely such an unbiased source provides a more comprehensive picture of what life was really like in Ancient Israel than do the biblical texts. 18
It is very clear that his views, and those of Dr. Ehrman, do not line up with the criteria set forth in the Bible and provide clear warnings that these men, and others like them, cannot be listened to by Christians. There are other men, whose quotes will be used as examples here to show that they have no intention of supporting the biblical record nor proving it true, providing more clear cut examples for believers to use to guide them when they hear ‘experts’ talk about Israel, the Old Testament and archaeology.
One such person is Andre Lemaire, a fine scholar in his own right and well respected but his words expose his anti-biblical record leanings:
There are a number of problems, however, in using the Bible as a history text. The Bible was not written all at once by trained historians with access to reliable documents. Rather it was written by a number of people over a long period of time; and large sections of the Bible were re-written or re-edited at a still later time. 19
As can be seen, his unbelief dictates his view of how and when the Bible was written and that it should be disqualified from consideration because it does not meet his elitist standards. His problem is, the Biblical writers do not make any claim to be writing a history, they are writing about God, His acts, His laws and interaction with His creation. Much has been left out and the Bible does not pretend at all to be a history book thus his dissent is moot.
Another author who underscores Dr. Lemaire’s point of late writing of the Biblical text is a Dr. Bahn, whose Atlas of the World Archaeology has heavy evolutionary leanings and he says this:
The early books of the Bible (written down centuries after the events they describe) recount the story of the arrival of God’s chosen people… 20
Finally we have Dr. Eric Cline who said:
Plenty of people read the Bible as history even though we cannot correlate and confirm its specific details until the events of the first millennium. 21
In other words, he does not believe the Bible or its record until he can confirm it via ‘unbiased’ scientific research. All in all, the believer needs to be discerning when they listen to those who claim to be experts as those who do not believe the Bible will not be presenting the truth, they will be presenting their manipulation of the evidence, their faulty interpretations of the Bible but are far from God and thus need to be ignored when it comes to their hypothesis, assumptions, suggestions, theories and conjecture because none of it are based upon God or the truth. It is all based upon their secular point of view and beliefs and to listen to them would be opening the door to being led astray.
This does not mean we throw out the evidence they have or are discovering. Far from it, believers are to take that evidence and let God help them apply it correctly, so that they can obtain the real truth and grow as believers. Evidence is evidence and it does not matter who discovers it, it just matters what is applied to it.
IV. The Christian Sources
In the archaeological world, we have many believers who are archaeologists and biblical scholars who feel that their duty is, as Dr. Bryant Wood once said, is not to prove the Bible true, but to keep the secular scholars and archaeologists honest. 22 If there were not these men out there, then the secular professionals would have free reign to re-invent Israel’s past and write any way they want, robbing the believer of support of their faith by the manipulation of the evidence and the unopposed publication of their theories.
These, like Dr. McCray, help keep science and archaeology in perspective as he writes:
Biblical Archaeology is a scientific discipline, which when properly employed, can contribute to the placement of the Old and New Testament narratives in their correct historical and cultural settings for more accurate interpretation of the Bible. 23
In other words, archaeology, and all scientific fields, is a mere tool to aid the person in gaining more knowledge. It, and they, is not the final authority and when archaeology and the other fields disagree with the Bible, and then there is something wrong with archaeology and science, not the Bible.
Israel Finkelstein says much the same thing when he says,
Archaeology is today the most important tool at our disposal. 24
But his meaning is vastly different than that of Dr. McCray’s, as he seeks to rewrite the Biblical accounts not prove them true or validate their words. It should be noted that the majority of Christian archaeologist hold to the idea that the Bible needs no confirmation for it contains the words of God and His words are sound, needing no support.
The Bible does not need confirmation of its theological truths or its historical references in order to do that for which it was written and canonized that is to produce faith in the hearts and minds of its readers. 25
In this work of keeping the secular scholars honest and verifying the biblical records there is much opposition. The secular world feels that such endeavors are a mistake,
Many of the scholars deplored the attempts of evangelicals and conservatives to try to prove the religious truth claims of the Bible with archaeology. Well, this was hard for me to read. That's exactly what I'd been doing. Yet, here were world-renowned archaeologists saying that this annoys them and it's a big mistake. It's an unprofessional thing to do. It's is a misuse of archaeology. 26
In other words, these opponents to the Biblical record do not want conclusions to be published that violate their rules, ones that they rarely adhere to, if at all, and provide support for the Biblical record and message. Now it is true that many religious people are out there and they do not do very good work at all. The late Ron Wyatt was one of them, and was a person who made fantastic claims of discovery, far beyond what would be physically impossible for a human archaeologist to do. 27
A believer cannot just blindly accept the word of those who claim to be Christian for their agendas, their conclusions, and their promotions are not only far outside proper archaeological work but also far too tainted by fanatical religious fervor to be credible.
To give the late Ron Wyatt the benefit of the doubt, he may have been suffering from an affliction that hampered his judgment and cause him to see things that were not really there. 28 Regardless of that fact, it does not excuse the faulty claims that continue long after his death by his museum. Christians have a responsibility to be honest and truthful, which govern our work so that we do not bring shame to Christ.
The oft quoted Kenneth Kitchen is one such responsible Christian scholar and his famous words, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, has been proven true time and again as the secular world fails to find certain people mentioned in the Bible and use that lack of archaeological evidence to say the Bible is wrong or worthless. Yet time and again, the archaeological work of many have shown that the secular world only embarrasses itself when it uncovers the very missing people the secular professionals use as a mocking point.
One famous example was the Hittite civilization. For over 1800 years, the only reference to this empire was found in the Bible and this was used frequently by secularists to claim the Bible was in error and could not be of any value. Then in the 1800’s, archaeologists uncovered the long lost civilization. 29 Proving once again that the Bible was accurate and correct.
The believer must consider the source, for if they listen to the wrong people, then they will not be given the truth and they will be following or accepting false ideas that lead them away from Christ or weaken, if not destroy their faith. Drs. Ehrman and Dever did what Peter did, when he hopped from the boat to join Jesus on the water, they took their eyes off Jesus and placed them on the troubles around them. Unlike Peter, they did not cry out to be saved and they have now been spiritually destroyed.
Being discerning is key to the believer for not all the experts will tell the truth and will manipulate evidence, findings, and facts to fit their desired purpose. The believer needs to keep their eyes on Jesus and follow what the Bible says, not follow those who are being deceived and are far from God. Being an expert does not qualify a person to over-rule the Bible nor re-write its accounts, what it means is that they have a little more knowledge than the next person but it does not imply they use that knowledge correctly.
Believers need to be wary and consider the source before deciding on whom and what they will believe. A close examination of the secular professionals’ arguments will help them see the errors, making it easier to avoid the lies and find the truth.
4. The Amount of Evidence
I. The Definition
Everyone hears the word ‘evidence’ or ‘physical proof’, and I like the term ‘physical evidence’ as it is more specific, yet most of the time they are not sure what that word is referring to. To begin there will be a brief description of what is included when we use the word ‘evidence’. Fist, there is the word ‘artifact’ and this is defined as-- ‘any movable object that has been used, modified, or manufactured by humans’1. These include and are not limited to: figurines, certain pottery, tools, weapons, household goods and so on.
The second word often used is ‘potsherd’ or ‘ostraca’ and these are –a fragment of a pot2 or piece of pottery. Usually they have writing on them:
The inscriptions are normally written in ink and short, ranging from a few words to several lines. It appears that some of them were written in times of crisis when other writing materials were unavailable.3
The third item referred to when the word evidence is used is, ‘stele’ or ‘stele’, these are defined as—an upright stone slab often inscribed or carved in relief and sometimes painted.4 These can be found in various sizes and locations. The final term that will be defined here is the word ‘texts’, which are: written sources that provide historical, geographical, religious and other clues to the ancient past5. These include manuscripts, (ms. or mss.), papyrus documents, inscriptions, and other written documentation from the past.
These items are the main source of our information concerning past civilization and languages, along with, ruined buildings, monuments and other structures like sewage systems, canals, and so on. One thing that needs to be noted, and has been stressed in another part of this paper, is that everyone has the same discoveries. There are no smoking guns out there ready to stun Christianity and prove it once and for all as untrue. What attempts to do that is the opinion of the archaeologist in his description of the find and his theory about what the artifact represents.
Unfortunately for the archaeologist, these discoveries or pieces of physical evidence rarely come with any documentation on why they were found where they were or what their intended use was. Much is left up to the professional to ‘interpret’ what he or she has found, and most often they may not be correct, for it is purely guesswork as is the case for the myriads of figurines that have been discovered over the years.
Many archaeologists call them goddesses6 while others see them more as knick knacks or decorative items and even toys, similar to what modern women place on their shelving in their homes today.7 it is the ‘interpretation, as we shall see, that messes up the truth of the past as archaeologists and bible scholars try to put their spin on the ancient world.
Over the years fakes and forgeries have become a problem as there is an antiquities market in the Middle East, filled with peddlers waiting to sell to the unsuspecting tourist, the original mss. of the Bible, or King David’s spear and so on (these are just examples to give an idea what they try to sell). These peddlers get their product from forgers and also nomads who are digging up the dessert in hopes of raising needed cash.
The trend now has become that the professional archaeologists, at least some of them, are calling for a ban on accepting articles who use artifacts whose source is unknown or as it is normally called- unprovenanced.
A trend has developed recently in the archaeological establishment: Ignore all unprovenanced artifacts. This approach is especially popular among field archaeologists, who believe that objects without a stratified context are worthless. The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) have even banned the publication of articles and the presentation of papers about unprovenanced objects from their journals and conferences.8
Many professional archaeologists would love to have the amateur removed from the digging aspect of archaeology for they feel they are making a mess of things and the field should only be handled by their accepted brand of archaeologists and bible scholars:
As a result, however, we have seen a rise of two cultures - the scientists and the amateur enthusiasts. Lacking the proper training and credentials, the amateurs are sustained by vanity presses, television, and now the Internet.9
This thinking is basically a call to elitism in the field of archaeology and the public would only suffer as the professional would not have amateurs ‘keeping them honest’. The other problem with this thinking is that the professional are too few in number and they cannot get to all the locations that the many amateur enthusiasts or treasure hunters can. They just do not have the time, the money or the manpower to travel to and excavate the Middle East.
Unfortunately for the professional, the field of archaeology needs the amateur because it has been the amateur, not the professional who have made some of the greatest finds in archaeological history. Finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library and the Tablets, all were discovered by those looking for something else and their discovery was by pure chance. The professional needs unprovenanced artifacts or they would have little to tell the world and archaeology would grind to a halt.
Other scholars reject this view, however. As Swiss Biblical scholar and religious historian Othmar Keel said in an interview with BAR, “I don’t think we can write a history of the ancient Near East without relying on unprovenanced material.”10
Thus the professional, in their attempts to control the field, are creating greater problems for themselves and for the archeological world. Their attempts to close the field will only hurt themselves and cause them to lose vital artifacts needed to help them decipher the past.
Yet this is the way things are in today’s world. Evidence is coming under greater scrutiny because of the vastly impossibility to regulate the field and solid, legitimate finds could be lost, as well as their information which may be key in unlocking a mystery or two, because of this attitude of some professionals and scholarly organizations.
If someone had a legitimate artifact in their personal collection, because it came from an unprovenanced source, suspicion would throw away all of its valuable and needed information, but then the bias of some professionals would rather have it that way for then it makes the Bible harder to prove true.
II. The Amount of a Dig Site, part 1
It may seem to the believer or unwary, that large amounts of the site being dug by the archaeologist is large and encompassing. Or that the archaeologist has pristine material to work from which all comes from an area that is well preserved. That is not so and Kenneth Kitchen, (he is not a dr. and proud of it) has documented much of the reality that is part of the archaeological field.
At periods when a town site was deserted driving wind, sand and rains would often erode away the upper levels of the abandoned houses. Thus at Ur, the town of neo-Babylonian times, was largely swept away…While 20ft. depth of human occupation had been lost from ancient Babylonian Eshnunna before it was excavated.11
But it isn’t just natural destructive forces at work, wars, invasions, earthquakes and other factors play a large part in providing the archaeologist with little to work with. There is also the size of the dig in comparison to the actual size of the town being dug.
Problems of other kinds can affect the results reached by excavators…And normally, only a minute area of an entire site can ever be dug…Thus ancient Ashdod comprises 90 acres in all but only 1 ½ acres of this surface has been excavated…At Tel el-Areini the excavated area cover barely 4% of the whole site and likewise..at Arad. Only 10% of the area of El-tel has been dug and similarly at tel-Ajjul.12
So the smallness of an area excavated, plays a large role in the amount of physical evidence the world sees and there is so much missing that it is almost impossible for the archaeologist to determine what really took place in the past.
Another factor that plays a large role in obtaining artifacts that will provide clues to how the ancients lived is the fact that important areas can be missed accidentally if the archaeologist digs in the wrong spot.13 Then there is the problem of the present archaeologist who does not dig up the site completely but leaves much buried for future generations.
…it is often wise in any case to leave good sized areas of a site intact for later generations to tackle with the hindsight of better knowledge or improved techniques.14
This, in my view, is a big mistake, not only does it keep the archaeologist from discovering vital information needed now, it allows for false theories to be produced from the lack of information. As Kenneth Kitchen puts it;
Thus, the information we obtain by excavation can often be very incomplete15
This incompleteness, again in my view, makes it virtually impossible for the archaeologist to compile a vast record of the past and say with any confidence that they know what took place when. Some things can be ascertained as to when and what but for many others that is just not so.
III. The Amount of Evidence Discovered, part 2
Now to the unwary it may seem like there is a large amount of physical evidence actually unearthed and on the surface that may be so:
Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published…of the known 500,000 cuneiform texts lying in museum storage rooms, only about 10% have ever been published.16
500,000 texts, coupled with the previously reported 100,000 pieces on the IAA database, seem like a very large amount but in reality it is not. As we see in the following:
Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives…For example the great library of antiquity located at Alexandria held almost 1,000,000 volumes…All of these works were lost when it was burned to the ground in the 7th century AD..Only a fraction of the available archaeological sites have been surveyed. In Israel and the Near East there are still thousands of unexcavated tells…Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated…Only a fraction of an excavation is actually examined.17
The piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller as more work is put into the site. What ancient sites actually exist in number is astounding but as these are surveyed, examined, excavated the number goes down incredibly and we are left with a very small amount of material we can glean from the whole piece.
For example, if we were to speak of the Exodus, we are looking at what basically resembles nomadic life, and even though there were roughly 2,000,000 people (give or take a million or two, the exact figure is not important here) traveling through the Sinai desert for 40 years, it is still virtually impossible to gather concrete physical evidence due to the nature of the lifestyle, the mitigating factors of destructive forces and the fact that nomadic life leaves virtually nothing behind in its wake for future people to find.
Of special interest to the current study is the question of whether nomads are discernable in the archaeological record. Finkelstein…argue for only negligible evidence, if any, which is true not only of the ancient desert dwellers but even of the 19th century Bedouin whose traces are difficult to identify.. But for the most part, they speak of the nomadic lifestyle as archaeologically invisible, one that doesn’t leave an archaeological footprint.18
Thus even though we have a large amount of people who possibly left some things behind as they traveled for those 40years, it would be impossible to find any trace of their wanderings let alone their existence. With all the events that took place, whether major national or city wide spectacles or simple daily life, little will remain to proclaim their existence.
IV. The Common Theme Heard
Because of this lack of physical evidence, there is a common theme that is heard throughout the archaeological world and its publications. This theme will be exampled via quotes from a variety of sources.
In other words as the official 13th century archives from the East delta centers are 100% lost, we cannot expect to find mentions in them of the Hebrews or anybody else. The only trace of raw administration found at Pi-Ramesse is a handful of wine jar dockets detailing a vintage of year 52 of Ramesse II. How much would we learn about the last congressional election in the U.S. or Parliamentary election in Great Britain from the torn labels of broken wine bottles discarded by customers from Macy’s or Harrods’s 19
That was speaking of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and then we have John Bottero on the Akkadian language:
Of this most ancient literature written in the Akkadian language practically nothing has survived and today we can scarcely reconstruct its early manisfestation.20
William D. Whitt says that the ‘origins of the earliest writing systems known to us- in Sumer and Egypt- are obscure.’21 This is true for textiles as well as Carol Bier says, ‘but too often, because of the perishable nature of textiles, the lack of remains has obscured their importance to the economy and to society.’22
Palaces and temples are not left out of this trend for lack of information as they are not immune to time and what destructive forces or lack of preservation or inscribing can do.
Little or nothing is preserved from the earliest palaces, which were appoint of departure for many later developments but it is possible to reconstruct a hypothetical image of them23
We can see the truth in that just by looking at the lack of evidence left by David’s palace and Solomon’s temple. Even well known civilizations or cities are not immune from this reality of the past.
One great difficulty in studying Phoenician history and culture is that virtually no histories or literature of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians survive in their original form. What is known of them in written sources comes from others, chiefly their enemies.24
As are kings for many of the ancient societies:
At present, the earliest known direct evidence for a Mitanni ruler is the seal of a king, Shuttarna, son of Kirta. Impressions of his seal are found on 2 records from the second half of the 15th century BC.25
Then finally, the whole movement of a complete society is lost in obscurity:
We cannot say when the Hurrians first arrived in this area...we do not know when Hurrians migrated into the area between the Euphrates and the mediteranean… because no Hurrian texts from before the middle of the 3rdmillenium have yet been found in northern Syria. We are largely dependent on texts of the Hittites for the reconstruction of this culture…In this ‘dark age’ for which we have no sources…26
As you can see, the trend is ‘I (or ‘we’) do not know for we do not have the physical evidence to tell us what took place, and thus when many archaeologists and bible scholars speak on Israel and its history, the story is the same.; they do not have the sources, the physical evidence to tell them what took place and when it took place. It is mostly guess work, from the fragments that have been uncovered and by sifting through the interpretations of other archaeologists, scholars and professionals who came before them.
Without the Bible, secular archaeologists are handicapping themselves and making their lives far more difficult as they try to re-invent the past according to the way they want it to be and not the way it was. It is their interpretations, their opinions and their theories which guide their conclusions, not historical fact or complete, real, hard evidence.
This means that the believer cannot take the words of professionals, their publications, or their conclusions at face value, simply because these they are the experts and know what they are talking about and because they are looking at all the evidence firsthand. The believer must be prepared to be discerning and prepared spiritually to be able to keep what they read and hear in perspective both educationally and spiritually so that they will not be led astray.
5. Interpretation
I. The Definition
It is not uncommon for people to use the phrase, ‘that is your interpretation’ meaning that what you say is your own ideas and disagree with mine. We find this in many discussions:
The fact that Babylon and Edom (Petra) were repopulated argues against your interpretation of the curse and for the repopulation of the Sodom area. There are Roman ruins at Petra the famous Edomite territory. 1
But this theme of interpretation is not limited to mere common dialogue between people, for it has found root in the field of archaeology and has opened the door for anyone, professional or amateur, to re-write Biblical history because they do not like what the Bible says.
Many critics who doubt the historicity of the Exodus share a problem: over-reliance on what archaeology can prove. Archaeology is, in fact, a limited and imperfect area of study in which the interpretation of findings, as archaeologists readily admit, is more of an art than a hard science. 2
Thus the word ‘interpretation’ is being used more of an excuse to justify creating one’s own ideas instead of humbling oneself to accept and follow the truth. Yet, what does the word ‘interpretation’ mean and how is it used? Webster’s dictionary has this to say:
1. The act of interpreting; explanation of unintelligible words in language that is intelligible. Interpretation is the design of translation.
2. The act of expounding or unfolding what is not understood or not obvious; as the interpretation of dreams and prophecy.
Look how we can, or sad or merrily,
Interpretation will misquote our looks. Shak.
3. The sense given by an interpreter; exposition. We sometimes find various interpretations of the same passage of Scripture and other ancient writings.
4. The power of explaining. 3
The 4th meaning basically joins with the first two thus it will not be addressed on its own and the third meaning will be discussed in the next section. What will be looked at in this section are the first two meanings for they are the most important ones when it comes to Biblical passages and archaeology.
Here we can see that the act of ‘interpreting’ means to explain to those who do not understand, whether it is another language or a dream but Webster’s definition does not go far enough for the Biblical usage and we need to turn to another source to retrieve more information:
1. Hermeneuo (ἑρμηνεύω, 2059), denotes “to explain, interpret”, and is used of explaining the meaning of words in a different language, 2. Diermeneuo (διερμηνεύω, 1329), signifies “to interpret fully, to explain.” In Luke 24:27, it is used of Christ in interpreting to the two on the way to Emmaus “in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself,” rv, “interpreted” (kjv, “expounded”);
3. Methermeneuo (μεθερμηνεύω, 3177), “to change or translate from one language to another
And for the word ‘interpretation’ we have this meaning:
2. epilusis (ἐπίλυσις, 1955), from epiluo, “to loose, solve, explain,” denotes “a solution, explanation,” lit., “a release” (epi, “up,” luo, “to loose”), 2 Pet. 1:20, “(of private) interpretation”; i.e., the writers of Scripture did not put their own construction upon the “Godbreathed” words they wrote.¶ Note: For “hard of interpretation,” Heb. 5:11, rv, see utter, 5
I like the KJV’s use of the word ‘expound’ because it means ‘Explained; laid open; interpreted.’6 The underlined words (underlining mine) are the key words to focus upon. As we look upon these definitions, we see that the person doing the interpreting is not advancing their own ideas, nor looking for excuses to avoid accepting the truth. We can see that those who interpret ‘lay open’ the passage or scriptures or work and explain fully what they mean.
They are not advancing a theory or a hypothesis or an idea that is full of conjecture but that they are fully aware of what the passage has to say and they are taking the time to clearly explain it to another person who does not know what the work means, they are confused or the words are unintelligible.
We can see this in two examples in scripture, first the book of Daniel:
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a message was revealed to Daniel…The message was true, but the appointed time was long, and he understood the message and had understanding of the vision. 7
There is no doubt that Daniel was fully prepared to clearly ‘lay open’ or explain what the message was and he knew what the vision was about. He did not present his own private interpretation but had the correct meaning in his head and he could speak the truth that left no doubt.
The same applies to Joseph in Genesis:
Now there was a young Hebrew man with us there, a servant of the captain of the guard. And we told him and he interpreted our dreams for us; to each man he interpreted according to his dream. And it came to pass…’8
Thus, when one interprets, God has prepared them with the answers so that people are without confusion and doubt. They know what they are to do or what is going to happen. Plus the person is not injecting the interpretation with their own thoughts, theories or private agendas. They stick with the truth and everyone will know it is the truth:
And Pharaoh said to his servants, Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God? Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Inasmuch as God has shown you all this, there is no one as discerning and wise as you.9
And,
The King answered Daniel and said ‘Truly your God is the God of gods and a revealer of secrets, since you could reveal this secret.’10
Interpretation is not the advancement of one’s personal views or thoughts on a past event, which we have so much of in today’s modern world. It is the ‘expounding or laying open’ what is hidden from another person so that they too can know the truth and walk in it. Yet there is more for such is not practiced today, especially in the archaeological world. As seen by the previous quote, people use the act of interpreting for their own benefit and that creates a problem.
II. The Problem
The act of interpreting, whether it is scripture or archaeological discoveries, is that it opens the door to a very major problem. Dr. John Stott said it best when he said that ‘interpreting today is leading one to an existential belief. What one passage says to you does not say the same thing to me’11 He went to discuss how the modern usage of interpretation was in effect a form of existentialism proposed by Rudolph Bultmann:
Bultmann and his followers 're-interpreted' the Gospels as metaphor whenever in their view reason (of theologians and modern man) did not meet a comfort level with supernatural descriptions. He in effect gutted the Gospels of miracles as divine transactions, interpreting them instead as metaphor applicable to modern life.12
This is underscored by Webster’s third dictionary definition quoted earlier. In other words, this third usage of the word ‘interpretation’ is granting permission for people to place upon whatever artifact, text or scriptural passage, etc., their own ideas and theories. They do not have to stick with the truth nor do they have to be honest. Whatever feels good or is the most interesting that is the view they can hold.
What this does, then, is allow for the truth to remain hidden while those who do not believe get to fashion the past in whatever format they please. And this is what is taking place in the field of Biblical archaeology. What one scholar or archaeologist says an artifact, or other piece of physical evidence, represents or means, another can disagree and put forth their own ideas, regardless if there is enough evidence to support any of the conclusions. We do not know if that supporting evidence has also been manipulated so that they say what the archaeologist wants it to say, without a lot of research to contradict the previous findings.
Some examples:
It seems proper to conclude by quoting the British scholar Hector Catling, one of our greatest living Cypriot archaeologists: “If anyone doubts the subjective nature of archaeological interpretation, let them give their attention to Late Bronze Age Cyprus for a while13 {bold mine}
Here we see that one scholar recognizes and admits to the fact that interpretation is dependent upon who is doing the talking and that it is not ground in truth but in a person’s subjective opinion.
It is a relatively recent idea that Biblical archaeology should be first about archaeology and only secondly about the Bible. There is a fundamental rift in the profession—between those who view Biblical archaeology as archaeology and therefore independent, and those who view Biblical archaeology as a textual-interpretation exercise and therefore derivative. This rift explains much of the professional dissension. It in effect creates two disciplines with widely divergent goals, sources and methods14
Here we see that there is dissension amongst the scholars and archaeologists and that those who are experts and who should know what the truth is, really don’t and that they fight over simple things. Because of the separation the conclusions concerning the evidence depend upon which side of the fence a scholar or archaeologist resides. It is the same evidence yet the views held by the professional dictate what it is saying though it may not be saying what they think it is.
I have recently had occasion to re-examine the Akkadian text of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic, which has long been looked upon as the classical tablet on the Flood in ancient Assyro-Babylon and the prototype of the Flood narrative in Genesis chapters 6–9. Various reasons had prompted me to make this effort. The most immediate one was the knowledge of the wide disagreement among Assyriologists over the rendering and interpretation of numerous features in the cuneiform narrative, and I thought that a new attempt at sorting out those differences might be worthwhile.15 {bold mine}
As we can see by the bolded words, the animosity or the inability to agree affects what the evidence is saying and in reality, renders the idea of interpretation as useless, for no one may see the real message being presented by the text or artifact discovered and the truth is lost.
One school of thought (the consensus upheld by scholars) is that each word should be read separately as the name of a place:
Hbrn (sometimes spelled hbrwn in the Hebrew Bible) = Hebron, the original capital of the Israelite kingdom before David moved to Jerusalem (2 Sm 5)
Swkh (sometimes spelled skh or swkw in the Hebrew Bible) = Socoh, either the city where the Philistines camped when David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:1), or a lesser known village southwest of Hebron (Jos 15:48)
Zyf = Zif, either the famous site where David composed Psalm 54, or a lesser known town located somewhere south (Jos 15:24)
Mmst = a city not mentioned in the Bible or any other ancient record besides these seals
A second opinion views them as the districts/regions/zones surrounding those cities even though three of them have never been positively identified.
Yet a third interpretation comes from a literal reading of the inscriptions, as so often is necessary to fully understand the Bible.16 {bold mine}
Sometimes a group may hold to the same interpretation but that does not mean that they will be right and the believer cannot assume that the majority rules in this case. Seeing a majority siding with one theory does not mean they have the truth either, it could mean that that is the easiest rendition to accept and have nothing to do with the truth.
We see this a lot, multiple opinions on the same subject, for as shown earlier, the subjective nature of archaeology reigns and accepted. One more example:
I am troubled by the ambiguity of the words “My interpretation” as they appear in the footnote. If Professor Freedman is referring to his rendering of cezer kenegdo as “a power equal to him,” then his statement is correct—there is support for such a notion among the traditional Jewish commentaries—but it should have been made the first time this phrase was used.
If, as I suspect, however, the words “My interpretation” refer to the concluding paragraph in its entirety, then I must take strong exception to this statement. No classical Jewish thinker would lend credence to the notion that God’s original creation of man was “inadequate” or that God “admitted” such an inadequacy. God does not change His mind! He doesn’t vacillate! He doesn’t create by trial and error17 {bold mine}
The opinions of the scholar are so generalized that the reader or listener cannot decipher exactly what the scholar is saying and such methods provide the scholar, or archaeologist, an escape route if future discoveries prove their quasi-opinion to be on the wrong track. The scholar can easily say, ‘well I did not mean it that way , I meant to say …’ Thus we get a wishy-washy conclusion that does not lead to the truth.
III. What the Bible Says
What does this all mean to the believer? First, the Bible doesn’t tell the Christian to follow science or the experts, especially if they lead people away from Jess and disagree with the Bible. Second, neither God nor Jesus told those who decide to follow them to follow interpretation.
We are not to look at the best interpretation and decide to follow that for that would be in direct contrast to what the Bible says. When God called Abraham, He did not tell Him to follow the interpretations of His directions or words, but said to follow Him to the land God would show Abraham.18
The same goes for when the people of Israel demanded a king. God did not say they rejected the interpretation of His words but Him19. The Jesus, when calling the disciples did not say, come and follow an interpretation of my words, He said, ‘Come and follow Me.’20. He then said,
If you love me, keep my commandments’ 21
He did not say, keep the interpretation of my commandments, finally, two more examples, He told us in scriptures that a). ‘Ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free; 23 and b). ‘The Spirit of truth will come and he will guide you into all truth…’24 Notice that Jesus did not say, ‘you shall know the interpretation and the interpretation will set you free’ or that ‘the spirit of interpretation will come and will lead you to interpretation.’
That is not the goal of the believer. We cannot participate in the practice of interpretation for it leads us into secular existential teachings at worst and subjectivism at best. Then we would not have a clear guide as to who is right for anyone could be right and that leads to confusion and confusion is not of God. We have no ultimate and superior guide for that has been demolished and replaced by virtually nothing for one man’s idea of the truth is as good as another man’s as there is nothing to determine who is right or who is wrong, they are both the same and success depends upon who is mightier.25
One thing that the believer needs to be aware of is the power of knowledge. If they hold themselves ignorant, do not study nor research, and then they are vulnerable to the wiles of the scholar for his knowledge, right or wrong are available to him to weave any tale he or she wants and the believer would be none the wiser.
After years in the academy, I have learned a trade secret: If you know enough about a subject, you can confuse anybody by a selective use of the facts.26
This includes believers who unwarily listen to secular scholars and archaeologists and ignore the teachings of the Bible. For it is important for the Christian to remember that the unbelieving people of the world are lacking in aid that is accessible to the believer alone:
And I will pray the Father and he will give you another Helper that He may abide in you forever-the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him…27 {bold mine}
The believer should not be participating in the practice of interpretation because it is not of God and it is a secular method to deceive those who are not aware of its dangerous qualities. The believer should go with the truth, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them there.
One illustration, in the book Lost Civilizations, there is a stunning aerial photograph of a patch of ground. In the middle of the photograph there is a square of what looks like hard packed dirt (hard to describe because of the quality of the picture) and that square is surrounded by what looks like a ditch or a moat. The inset describes this scene as “the stunning aerial view of the Tower of Babel and its surrounding area reveals the scale of the entire complex and the enormity of its architect’s vision”28
Yet there was no sign from antiquity discovered on it or nearby saying ‘this is the Tower of Babel’, for all we know, this was a palace from any time in the past, or an old fort to protect a trade route or country’s boundary. Or yet, it could have been a massive apartment building or a sports complex. We really do not know and depending upon the scholar’s beliefs or lack of them, or the archaeologist’s views it could be described as anything and we would not know the difference because we are not given any options to choose from and we have no corroborating texts or monuments, or steles, and so on providing us with the exact nature of those remains.
And without that type of information, we are vulnerable to and left with pure speculation and guess work. What truth we can derive from those remains is fairly simple and boring: Those are the remains of some sort of structure that has survived from antiquity and we do not know what it was used for.
A far less romantic and enthralling description than simply labeling it the Tower of Babel, for the latter immediately sparks interest especially in the rich Christian who desperately wants physical evidence to prove the Bible true and who will donate money to allow the archaeologist to dig at the site for years to come. The former sparks no such interest and would probably elicit a ‘ho-hum, an old building? We have seen those before.
Yet the truth is what the believer has to side with and promote, not the fiction. This is why believers cannot delve into interpretation, be it archaeological remains or biblical passages, for it is not producing the truth and not following the Spirit of Truth but our own wishful thinking and romantic desires.
Also, interpretation does not meet the English language nor the Greek language definitions to be one who knows what is being said and being able to expound upon the message without importing one’s own ideas to those who cannot comprehend the message in its original form. Plus being recognized that the interpretation is correct.
As was shown earlier, when one interprets, those around them do not argue and claim, ‘well that is your interpretation’, no, they know already that what was expounded was or is the truth and they need to adhere to the message or else.
