Leaven Leaven

Volume 3 Issue 1 Galatians Article 10

1-1-1995

Does Archaeology Prove the Bible? Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?

John F. Wilson john.wilson@pepperdine.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology

and Philosophy of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Wilson, John F. (1995) "Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?," Leaven: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss1/10

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Katrina.Gallardo@pepperdine.edu, anna.speth@pepperdine.edu, linhgavin.do@pepperdine.edu.

Galatians 35

Does ArchaeologyProve the Bible?

byJohn F. Wilson

From time to time stories appear about dra-matic archaeological discoveries which seem toverifysome aspect of a biblical text. Reading these, manypeople tend to conclude that the main purpose ofarchaeological research is to "prove the Bible is true."Thus, when I am asked by churches to speak on thetopic "Archaeology and the Bible" I am well aware ofthe expectations. The audience is poised to hear onepowerful example after another ofhow the spade hasturned up irrefutable evidence of the inspiration ofthe Scriptures.

But the use of archaeology in apologetics is atwo-edged sword. It is true there have been cases inwhich discoveries have provided evidence that someperson or place mentioned in the Bible did in factexist, despite the doubts of some critics. Recently aninscription found at ancient Dan, in northern Israel,provided the first extra-biblical reference to KingDavid, for example - surely a lesson to those whoclaim he belongs only to mythology. An ossuaryfound just south of Jerusalem, also very recently,apparently contains the very bones of Caiphas theHigh Priest, mentioned so prominently in the Gos-pels, lending historical plausibility to the often ma-ligned account of the trial of Jesus. Many otherexamples could be given.

We must remember, however, that merelyproving that an ancient document is historicallyaccurate does not prove it to be inspired. After all,archaeology has sometimes verified a detail from theworks of Homer. For every case in which the Biblehas been corroborated by archaeology, a similar casemight be presented for the corroboration of somehistorical detail in the works of the first centuryJewish writer Flavius Josephus. But no one hasseriously suggested that Homer or Josephus there-fore speak for God!

Furthermore, anyone who has ever been in-volvedin field archaeology knows that the conclusionsdrawn by the archaeologists are often subject toquestion by other scholars. These conclusions are farmore tentative, and far more subjective, than thepopular articles one might read about them wouldindicate. Archaeologists, like other scholars, arenotorious forchanging their minds, or for interpretingthe same set of data differently one from the other.Many years ago archaeologists pointed to certaincollapsed walls found at Jericho as "proof' for thebiblical story ofthat city's capture by Joshua and themiraculous destruction of its walls. Then a genera-tion ofarchaeologists arose, using the same data, androundly denied that it proved the biblical story. In

1

Wilson: Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995

36 Leaven, vol. 3, #1

fact, they said, nothing has ever been found at Jeri-cho dating anywhere close to the time of Joshua!Walls may have fallen outward, but certainly not atthe time, or for the reason, which the Bible accountsuggests.

Now, if we had counted on the conclusions ofthe first group of scholars for our faith in the Scrip-tures, then what would be our response to the sec-ond? Wouldwe claim they were somehowless "scien-tific" then the first group? And on what basis, andwith what claim to expertise, would we make thatcharge? It should be noted, by the way, that both the"David" inscription at Dan and the "Caiphas" in-scription from Jerusalem, may be read differentlyfrom the way the discoverers read them, and may notrefer to the biblical David or the biblical Caiphas atall. I believe that they do in fact refer to the biblicalcharacters. But I must balance my enthusiasm withmy experience at various meetings of professionalarchaeologists, where I have heard the discoverersgive their reports to colleagues. On those occasionsthey sound much less sure of their conclusions thanthey do when being quoted by the secular press.

It would seem unwise, therefore, to baseone's faith, or even to attempt to bolster one's argu-ments about the truth of the Gospel, on the shiftingsands of scholarly opinion in any field, includingarchaeology .

I do not mean that archaeological data can-not sometimes provoke strong spiritual experience.One such experience is the impact which physicalartifacts coming directly from the biblical world canhave in focusing on the reality of that world. Evenbelievers tend to think of the world of the Bible as akind of literary entity, having no substance in the"real world" which we live in each day. One mayclaim to believe a biblical story and yet, perhapsunwittingly, mentally place that story in the "never-never land" where fairy tales take place.

An ancient coin lies on my desk as I writethese words. It bears this inscription, written in clearGreek letters: EPI BASILE AGRIPP ("Under thejurisdiction ofKing Agrippa"). Every time I hold thiscoin, encrusted with the dirt of the centuries, wornand corroded by the ages, I experience the storyrelated in Acts 25:13-26:32 in a way I never couldhave, had this coinnot comefrom the ground and intomy hand. This coin somehow verifies forme that thisKing Agrippa, who told the Apostle Paul, "Areyou soquickly persuading me to become a Christian?" (Acts26:28),was not a mere literary device,but a real king.It was he who gave the order to mint the coin I nowhold in my hand - the same man who, according thebook of Acts, once talked with Paul face-to-face andheard his warning about "righteousness, and self

control, and judgment to come."But what I am experiencing as I contemplate

this coin has its origins in the substance of my ownfaith, not in the little circle ofbronze. The coin doesnot "prove" that Paul and Agrippa ever met, or thatthe defense which Luke describes ever took place, orthat the gospel which Paul preached was in fact thetruth ofGod. Archaeology, then, is far more valuablein bringing the believer "back to earth" - in remind-ing him or her that God has acted in history and notmerely in books - than it is in stopping the mouthsof the gainsayers or eliminating the possibility ofdoubt. If archaeology could settle the matter offaith,then archaeologists would be the most faith-filledpeople on earth. But they are not. Some believe,some do not, just as is true with the rest of human-kind.

Beyondits ability to confirm the reality oftheworld of the Bible as a substantial world filled withreal people, real places and real events, archaeologyperforms other important services for the Bible stu-dent. Many biblical passages are illuminated byarchaeological finds. This is one of the most fruitfulareas of investigation nowadays, when more discov-eries are being made, and those discoveries betterunderstood, than at any other time in history. But Icite only one very old example: In 1871 and 1938stones were found in Jerusalem bearing inscriptionswhich seemtobe the very ones mentioned byJosephus(Ant. 15.11.5). They read "No foreigner is to enterwithin the balustrade and enclosure around thetemple area. Whoever is caught will have himself toblame for his death which will follow." Armed withthese discoveries, go and read Acts 21:27-36 , whichdescribes the riot whichbroke out when the Jerusalemcrowds thought Paul had brought a foreign gentileinto the forbidden area. Is not the rage of the crowdbetter understood because of the discovery of theseancient inscribed stones?

Many other examples exist. Any modernBible student who wants to find all the light possiblein interpreting and understanding the text shoulddiligently keep abreast of the discoveries now regu-larly being published from excavations in the biblicalworld. Because of the sophistication of modernarchaeological technique, the amount of new datawhich can be placed at the service ofbiblical studiesis truly amazing. A good place to begin would be toexamine all the issues from the last ten years of twomagazines: The Biblical Archaeology Reviewand The Biblical Archaeologist. Every goodpublic library should subscribe to both. For theadvanced student, more scholarly journals such asThe Israel Exploration Journal and the Pales-tine Exploration Quarterly provide up-to-date

2

Leaven, Vol. 3 [1995], Iss. 1, Art. 10

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss1/10

archaeological information. A host of useful booksare now coming onto the market. Only one will bementioned here. No one interested in this subjectshould be without John McRay's Archaeology andthe New Testament (Baker Book House: GrandRapids, 1991).

Archaeology can not, and should not, becomethe basis for faith in the Scriptures, and certainly not

Galatians 37

for faith in the Gospel. It is nevertheless an excitingfield which can throw much light on the texts whichcarry the message of God to our lives.

John F. Wilson serves as Dean of Seaver College,Pepperdine University and as an elder of MalibuChurch of Christ, Malibu, California.

3

Wilson: Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995