Archaeology and the Bible

    A few years ago, archaeology and Biblical studies seemed to go hand in hand. It was not unusual at all to
hear of some recent “discovery” in the archaeological field that seemed to confirm some biblical claim. As
such, it seemed that archaeology was a friend to the biblical account.  The two seemed to share an almost
intimate relationship

     Unfortunately, times have changed.  As Gary Brantley notes in his book Digging for Answers,
archaeology and the Bible enjoyed a healthy relationship from about 1920 to 1970. Bible scholars and
archaeologists alike approached archaeology from a biblical perspective. Since the seventies archaeologists
have attempted to dissociate theology with archaeology. William Dever,  chairman of the Department of
Oriental Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, has gone so far as to deny the term “biblical
archaeology” in favor of the term “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology”. This comes from a belief that archaeology
and biblical studies should be considered independent studies and not influence each other.

     What is archaeology? The Greek word from which “archaeology” originates means “a study of
ancient things”. Today archaeology is considered a study of the past based upon findings of artifacts
relating to past times and cultures. Biblical archaeology deals with the study of biblical events, characters,
and teachings by studying findings of sources outside the Bible.  It should be noted that archaeology is not
meant to “prove” the Bible, nor should it be used in such a manner. Even so, archaeology can, and in many
cases, does provide evidence that confirms biblical accounts. For example, one may find evidence in
excavation of an area that a city referred to in the Bible actually existed (such as Nineveh), or even that a
person existed (such as Sennacherib) but to show that Nineveh was used as an example of God’s wrath,
justice, and mercy, is left solely to God’s word. Likewise, it is possible to show that Sennacherib invaded
Judah during the reign of Hezekiah, but to assert that he was used as a tool by the Lord is again a fact that
relies solely on the Word of God. Having said such, it is advisable that the student of the Bible bear in mind
what can be and what cannot be asserted from archaeology (or any science) so that he maintain his
credibility.

     It remains that God’s word, although not written for the purpose of a history book is a record of
literal history.  By this I mean that the places, events, and characters found in the Bible are real, and have
their rightful place in the history books. So, why is it that the very field of science that at one time
corroborated with biblical teachings is now tending to be in direct opposition to it? This is a question that
is worthy of discussion. Is it because new findings are proving the Bible wrong?  Or is it because of a new
slant with a bias against the Bible in archaeological studies? Certainly, it appears to be the latter. Next
month we will look at this issue and discuss some of the basic assumptions that underlie the modern
approaches to archaeology.
 

                                                                                                                             Michael Grooms
 
REFERENCES
 
Brantley, Garry K. (1995) Digging for  Answers  (Montgomery, AL:  Apologetics Press).
Eakins, J. and Lewis, J. (1991)  Holman  Bible Dictionary for Windows  (Hiawatha,IA:Parsons Tech.)
Nelson, Thomas (1986) Illustrated Bible  Dictionary ( Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson Inc.)