Chapter One
Bible Archaeology, Bible History,
and Buried Cities The Functions of Bible Archaeology
A friend once asked me, "What is the
value of archaeology for biblical study,
anyway?" I pointed out that numerous
passages of the Bible that long puzzled
the commentators have readily yielded
up their meaning when new light from
archaeological discoveries has been focused
on them. In other words, archaeology
illuminates the text of the Scriptures
and so makes valuable contributions to
the field of biblical interpretation and
exegesis. In addition to illuminating the
Bible, archaeology has confirmed countless
passages that have been rejected by
critics as unhistorical or contradictory to
known facts. This aspect of archaeology
forms a valuable part of the defense of the
Scriptures-a discipline commonly
known as apologetics. In summary it may
be said that two of the main functions of
Bible archaeology are the illumination
and the confirmation of the Bible.
The Bible, a Historical Book
The Bible is a historical book, and the
great truths of Christianity are founded
on the historic facts revealed in it. If the
fact of the Virgin Birth, the fact of the
Crucifixion, and the fact of the Resurrection
are set aside, our faith is without
foundation. Since the New Testament
revelation stands upon the foundation of
the Old Testament, the accuracy of the
Old Testament is of great importance to
us.
Although confirmation of one kind of
truth (historical) does not demonstrate
the validity of another kind of truth
(theological), the veracity of the historical
narrative of Scripture lends credence to
the theological message. Those who do
not accept the historical accuracy of the
Bible find it easier to dismiss its theological
claims. The accuracy and historicity of
the Scriptures as God's Word and as his
unique revelation has been denied by the
destructive critic who has set aside the
full validity of the Bible at point after
point. For example, certain critics have
said that the accounts of Abraham are
legendary, that Mosaic legislation was
formulated hundreds of years after the
time of Moses, that such people as the
Hittites were either legendary or insignificant,
that the book of Judges was
composed of "good stories" and not
really historical accounts, and that various
people ranging from Sargon to Sanballat
were unhistorical. Yet archaeological
discoveries have shown that these
critical charges and countless others are
wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in
the very statements that critics have set
aside as untrustworthy?
The Purpose and Nature of Bible
History; Verbal Inspiration
Bible history is not primarily a record
of humanity's seeking after God. It is
rather a record of God's revelation to
humanity. Pagan religions deal with humanity's
seeking after God or gods, but
the Scriptures are God's own revelation to
us, telling how from the beginning in
Eden God spoke to Adam and Eve and
how he later directed Noah, called Abraham
from Ur, spoke through the
prophets, and finally gave the supreme
revelation in his Son Jesus Christ.
Bible believers hold that this record of
God's revelation is not only vital for all
humankind but is accurate in all respects.
We also hold that the Bible writers exercised
their own personality, used their
own vocabulary, and drew on their own
memories, intuitions, and judgments and
that at the same time they were prevented
from making errors and were so
guided by God that they expressed exactly
what God wished to make known. This
guidance was not so vague that it assured
merely the general idea or concept that
God wished to convey, but rather it
extended even to the choice of words
when it would be essential to convey his
message. The foregoing description sets
forth my view of "verbal inspiration,"
namely, that God guided even to the
choice of words when necessary. On the
other hand, I reject the dictation theory of
inspiration, which makes the process a
mere mechanical operation, robs a writer
of his personality, and makes him a mere
machine. In summary, I agree with Gaussen's
definition of inspiration, which
holds that inspiration is "that inexplicable
power which the divine Spirit put
forth of old on the authors of Holy
Scripture, in order to their guidance even
in the employment of the words they
used, and to preserve them alike from all
error and all omission."
The Bible is not a textbook on science,
yet when it speaks of matters relating to
science, it is accurate. The Scriptures, for
example, do not claim to be, nor are they,
a treatise on astronomy, yet when Job
speaks of the Bear (Job 38:32), he writes in
accord with known astronomical facts. As
has been said, "The Scriptures were written
not primarily to tell us how the
heavens go, but to tell us how to go to
heaven." Yet the content of all Scripture is
scientifically and historically accurate,
and the scientific and historical allusions
of the Bible are constantly illuminated
and confirmed by modern discoveries.
Accuracy of the Text of the Bible
Bible believers do not hold that the
translations of the Bible into English and
other languages are inerrant. Nor do we
maintain the inerrancy of existing manuscripts.
But as believers in the fundamentals
of the faith, we do hold that theoriginal manuscripts were absolutely accurate
and without error. The question
arises, "If we do not have the original
manuscripts, how can we be sure of the
accuracy of the manuscripts we do
have?" In reply it should be said that
hundreds of manuscripts have come
down to us and that the variations in
these manuscripts are so slight that none
of them alter any vital Christian truth.
Through the science of textual study,
scholars are able to reconstruct a text so
close to what the original text must have
been that it is satisfactory to scholars of
almost every degree of liberalism and
conservatism. Hort, the great New Testament
scholar of the nineteenth century,
pointed out that "only about one word in
every thousand has upon it substantial
variation supported by such evidence as
to call out the efforts of the critic in
deciding between the readings." The
statement of Bentley, made many years
ago, is still valid, that "the real text of the
sacred writings is competently exact, nor
is one article of faith or moral precept
either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly
as you will, choose the worst by
design, out of the whole lump of readings."
Hort's statement that only about one
word in one thousand in the New Testament
would call out the efforts of
scholars, is significant when we realize
that the Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament is about five hundred pages
long and that one one-thousandth of it
would be only half a page. This does not
mean that such an amount of the New
Testament is necessarily inaccurate or
wrong; it means merely that one one-thousandth
of the material would require
scholarly study to ascertain what were
likely the original words.
The surviving Hebrew Old Testament
manuscripts show very little variation. A
careful scholar of an earlier generation,
William Henry Green said, "The Hebrew
manuscripts cannot compare with those
of the New Testament either in antiquity
or number, but they have been written
with greater care and exhibit fewer various
readings." In regard to the accuracy
of the text of the Old Testament, Green
concluded, "It may be safely said that no
other work of antiquity has been so
accurately transmitted."
Light on Bible History
From Buried Cities
A century and a half ago many familiar
biblical cities such as Jericho, Samaria,
Bethel, Shiloh, Bethshan, Gezer, Nineveh,
Babylon, and Ur were shapeless mounds,
the very identity of which, in some cases,
had been forgotten.
Skepticism had been expressed concerning
the details of the capture of
Jericho; the ivory palace of Ahab at
Samaria (1 Kings 22:39) was a puzzling
reference in the Scriptures; the Wellhausen
school of criticism doubted the actual
existence of the tabernacle and minimized
the importance of Shiloh, where
the biblical record locates the setting up
of the tabernacle in Palestine (Josh. 18:1);
and the boasted glories of Nineveh and
Babylon seemed more in keeping with
the glowing reports of an overenthusiastic
chamber of commerce than with sober
historic fact.
Within the past hundred and fifty
years, however, all of these cities have
been uncovered, some receiving additional
archaeological attention in recent
years. The importance of the discoveries
is apparent when we realize that the
excavation of these cities, and dozens
more, has produced material that
confirms the Scriptures at point after
point. In addition to confirming the Bible,
the excavations in the Near East have
brought much illumination to the pages
of Scripture. This phase of modern archaeological
investigation is well summarized
by Ira Maurice Price, late professor
in the field of Old Testament at the
University of Chicago: "The Old Testament
is fast acquiring a fresh significance.
Old Testament history has become incandescent
with the wondrous archaeological
discoveries in Bible lands. Almost
every period of that old Book has been
flooded with new light out of the ruins of
the past."
How Are Cities Buried?
Laypeople often ask, "How were these
cities in the Bible lands buried?" They
might suppose that the natural drifting of
sands covered them over; and it did. But
other processes were far more important
in building up the mounds that represent
the remains of Near Eastern cities. The
repeated destruction and rebuilding of a
city, a process that often went on during
the course of many centuries, resulted in
the formation of an artificial mound that
may range from fifty to one hundred feet
in elevation. Such a mound is known to
archaeologists as a "tell," from the Arabic
word for "hill."
The recurrent cycle is as follows: An
invader captures a town, destroys many
of the buildings, and possibly kills or
carries off the inhabitants. In the course
of time, some of the original inhabitants
or perhaps another group level off the old
ruins and build new buildings on the site
of the old city. The layer of remains and
debris from the first city forms a stratum
that often measures from one to five feet
in depth. During the course of many
centuries, such a city is likely to go
through many destructions and rebuildings,
each one leaving what is called a
"layer of occupation."
(Continues.)
