BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTION

Why are historical facts important to a Christian or a Jew in a way that doesn't apply to a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Scientologist? They are historical religions describing the actions of God in human history. C.S. Lewis noted that there are many stories in Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse mythology describing the death and resurrection of a deity. Lewis felt that these early myths were placed there by God to prepare humanity for the real thing. But the biblical account differs in that it occurred at a particular time and place in history. See Luke 2:1-4.

Because of that reason, people over the years have used the results of archeology in the Holy Land to “prove” or “disprove” stories that are in the Bible. Both sides are sadly misled in thinking that archeology can do either one. That is because of the inherent limitations of that field. Let me explain by comparing archeology with the area of “hard science” in which I spent my career as a research chemist.

Misguided Research

Twice in my research career I wasted almost one year of meticulous experimentation in a very specific area only to find out later that I was looking in the wrong place for answers. Both times I was misled from the start into thinking that I knew how to approach the subject because my mind was filled with preconceptions as to where the answer lay. In one case, I looked into the area of chemistry in which I had prior knowledge and training rather than keeping an open mind as to the possibility of a completely different solution. In the other case, I was misled due to other researchers' “findings” in the area, which turned out to be totally wrong.

And if that sort of thing can happen in a “hard” science, it certainly can occur in a field such as archeology which uses the tools and findings of science and then applies them to much “softer” fields such as sociology and history. As one example, Kathleen Kenyon explored part of the rather extensive site of ancient Jericho and concluded that it had been deserted well before the Jews entered Canaan. Her conclusion was based, as are many others in the field of archeology, not on what she found, but on what she didn't find. She didn't come across any examples of bichrome pottery common to the time period in question.

But decades later, the archeologist Bryant Wood dug in a completely different part of that site and came up with many examples of such pottery as well as Egyptian scarabs dating from that critical time period. Despite that finding, there are now two completely different schools of archeology in Israel divided over the results, and much of the division stems from the presuppositions they have regarding the worth of the Bible as a valid historical source.

Interpretation of Data

The above brings up another area of uncertainty regarding the proper treatment of results. Early in the research for my doctorate I synthesized a particular chemical that had never been reported before in the chemical literature except in one Russian journal. But the characteristics of that chemical were nothing like those possessed by the one I had synthesized. I realized that the Russian scientist had instead synthesized a different product without realizing it. But in order to prove to my research professor that I was right and the Russian was mistaken, I had to spend several more months of laborious work proving my point unambiguously. I confirmed that the Russian had gone wrong in his interpretation of the data.

Some of you may remember the raging controversies over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary. Almost all the archeologists involved in the dispute had access to the same scientific data for these objects, but there was a world of difference regarding the way in which they interpreted this data.

Control of All the Parameters

Another experimental endeavor I was involved in years ago gave me a great deal of trouble. You must realize that a synthetic organic chemist such as myself always carries his or her experiments out under extreme control of all the parameters that might affect the results obtained. The chemicals brought into contact with one another have to be reagent-grade pure without a trace of impurity. The amounts of each chemical are carefully weighed to the accuracy of several decimal points, and the time and temperature of reaction precisely measured. But even with this sort of control, the results I obtained, even under “identical” conditions, were quite erratic. One time the reaction would take place as expected, and the next time it would utterly fail. At last, I was able to show that there was a hidden parameter that caused the variations – the presence of trace quantities (parts per million) of water in one of the reagents.

Now compare this sort of exercise with the case of field archeology which is at the mercy of prior excavations at the same site, historical destruction of earlier strata, the skill or lack of skill of the archeological workers involved, theft of valuable finds, and other chance accidents affecting which data survived the years and which did not.

Lack of Evidence

Both of the above categories lead to the obvious fact that archeologists never have complete data on which to base their conclusions. It even happens in the hard sciences. For example, late in my doctoral studies I came across a tantalizing direct-line correlation between the amount of a particular element in the catalyst I was using and the amount of product yield I obtained. I included the results in my PhD thesis, and managed to pursue this result in a few months of post-doctoral work at the university to obtain more data. To my horror, the more data I collected, the more random the so-called correlation appeared to be. I was misled by basing my earlier conclusion on woefully inadequate data points.

The above phenomenon is common and has given rise to the popular saying applicable to many fields of endeavor, especially archeology: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

One example in the field of biblical archeology will suffice. It was an accepted conclusion among educated Bible scholars and theologians of roughly 100 years ago that the books of the Old Testament were written many decades, or even centuries, after the actual events. The reason was that there was no evidence of early Hebrew writing. Based on that lack of evidence, the various liberal schools of Source Criticism and Form Criticism arose with their wealth of complicated theories regarding the long and convoluted process that each book went through before it reached its present form.

The problem for that approach is that time and time again, earlier and earlier examples of Hebrew writing have been uncovered by archeologists since then. But Frankenstein's monster had taken on a life of its own by then, and these earlier critical appraisals of the Bible have never been appropriately revised in many scholars minds.

Conclusion

All of the above deals with only one facet of our human knowledge: What we do or do not know. But there is another aspect to it as well, as a theologian pointed out in a recent Christianity Today article: What we can or can't know.

Let me explain with the example of the prophet Jeremiah. Can archeology prove or disprove the existence of Jeremiah and confirm or deny the various interactions with the king at the time that are described in the book of Jeremiah? To a certain extent, that is possible. Thus, hordes of clay seals have been uncovered dating from that time period, and some of them include the names of Jeremiah's scribe Baruch, the king, and some of his officials said by the biblical account to be serving at the time. That is what we do know, and additional evidence may turn up in the future to confirm yet more, but at the present time there is much yet that we do not know.

But even if a royal archive were discovered in which the king recorded in detail every fact that is in the biblical account, there would remain important facts which we cannot know such as whether Jeremiah really got his words from God or whether he made them up out of his own imagination. Thus, both the biblical apologist and the biblical critic can take the results of archeology only so far.

So, of what use is archeology to the Bible scholar? There are at least five ways in which it can help:

    It recovers a broad spectrum of ancient Near Eastern peoples and places, allowing for cross-cultural comparisons.

    It provides a specific context (historical, religious, cultural, economic, and geographical) for biblical events.

    It provides an alternative perspective from which to view biblical narratives and events from the view of the Jews' enemies.

    It provides corroborative details for particular biblical texts and their interpretations.

All of this confirms what the most famous archeologist of all, Indiana Jones, said:

    “Archeology is the search for FACT, not TRUTH.”