Biblical & Theological Issues

by Craig Branch –

Apologetics involves several dimensions. One dimension is to make the case for Christianity (positive apologetics). Another is to respond to objections raised against Christian belief (negative apologetics). Yet another demonstrates the errors and flaws in competing belief systems (critical or polemical apologetics).

When most Christians consider the field of ancient archaeology, they typically hold the belief that archaeology substantially makes the case for the accurate historicity of the Bible. For example, in Josh McDowell’s classic apologetics book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, under the heading “The Reliability of the Bible,” the chapter is described as, “The trustworthiness of Scripture is confirmed by specific, documented, archeological discoveries. Testimonies are given of skeptics who have their attitudes of the Bible radically changed as a result of archeological investigation. “¹ And indeed archaeology should substantially validate the historicity of people, places and events written in the Bible, if true. And Christians should know why they believe what they believe as part of the affirmation of our faith, and especially be able to make the case for Christ and Christianity.

This issue of the Areopagus Journal provides substantial evidence for the archaeological and historical validation of the Old and New Testaments. And it addresses skeptics’ claims inside and outside the field of archeology. For example, Time magazine ran a cover story, “Are the Bible ‘s Stories True? Archeology’s Evidence ,” which began with the affirmation , “But a series of crucial discoveries suggests that some of the Bible’s more ancient tales are also based firmly on real people and events.” ² But then the article added, “On the other hand, say many scholars, much of what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some characters and events are probably totally fictional.” The article goes on to point to some people and events that “most scholars” believe are fictional: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel’s slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, and Joshua’s conquest of Jericho and the Promised Land.

The Time piece then states that interpretation of discoveries prior to King Solomon’s reign, “are vigorously contested on all sides by archaeologists, religious scholars and institutions.” But it notes that on the biblical accounts after the reign of Solomon (about 930 B.C.), “just about everyone agrees.” The archaeologists and theologians who dispute the accuracy of the Bible are called “Biblical Minimalist s” (contrasted with “Biblical Maximalists” who consider the Bible a legitimate guidebook for substantiating and interpreting archaeological discoveries). Biblical minimalists believe that only the barest minimum of the Bible history is true and then only if events can be incontrovertibly corroborated by extrabiblical evidence, including archaeological substantiation. The key words in this definition are “incontrovertibly corroborated.” This of course depends on what standards are used to corroborate. For example, a naturalistic materialist will not accept miracles no matter how much corroborating evidence there is.

Biblical minimalists have based their theories on a liberal theological presupposition, traced back to the Documentary Hypothesis commonly attributed to German theologians Graf and Wellhausen, formulated in the late 1800’s. The hypothesis is that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) were not authored by Moses. Instead they were written by multiple authors, and much later than the tradition claims.

DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

The Documentary Hypothesis was a product of the rationalistic “Age of Enlightenment” and Darwinian evolutionary theory. Miracles, predictive prophesy, and even divine revelation were considered pure myth and scientifically impossible. The prevailing theory in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was that the Pentateuch evolved and was compiled roughly between 950 B.C. and 400 B.C. This of course is in serious conflict with the authorship of Moses around 1400 B.C.

This “Age of Reason” shaped an era of critical study of the Bible rooted in this humanistic and so-called scientific worldview. The studies included the interpretation and approaches to archaeology. Unfortunately, there was then very little archaeological activity going on in the biblical geographic areas. But then a more serious archeological focus began in the mid 1900 ‘s.  One of the most esteemed leaders in the field of archeology was W.F. Albright. Not ably, Albright was a follower of Wellhausen. Even the more liberal Biblical Archeology Review holds Albright in high esteem.

What came to pass in the blossoming field of biblical archaeology was that in case after case where alleged historical inaccuracy was pointed to as proof of late and spurious authorship of biblical documents, the biblical record has been vindicated by the results of more and more recent excavations. The excavated material has confirmed the Scriptures at point after point. Archaeology not only illuminates the texts of Scripture but can make valuable contributions to the field of biblical interpretation (exegesis), as the historical veracity lends credence to the theological message.

The archaeological discoveries of recent decades have led to growing change of opinion for many liberal scholars.  For example, even as early as 1941, the “father of biblical archeology, ” W.F. Albright, wrote, “Archaeological and inscriptural data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament; the number of such cases is many times greater than those where the reverse has been proved or has been made probable.” ³ Albright also wrote that “we may rest assured that the  consonantal  text  of the Hebrew Bible, though not infallible, has been preserved with an accuracy perhaps unparalleled   in   any   other   Near-Eastern literature,” 4 and that “new discoveries continue to confirm the historical  accuracy or the literary antiquity of detail  after detail  [in the Pentateuch]. “⁵ Furthermore, Albright specifically addresses his contemporary biblical historians who believe that the “sagas” of the patriarchal fathers of Genesis were all “artificial creation.”  He wrote, “Now it has all been changed. Archeological discoveries since 1925 have changed all this. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial history of patriarchal tradition.”⁶

Even the more liberal oriented Biblical Archeology Review, in its May/June 2011 issue, featured a major article titled, “The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism,” written by archaeologist Yosef Garfinkle. He continues the fact that discoveries since the inception of the minimalist position have continued to undermine it to the point of making it intolerable. He particularly focuses on an archaeological site called Khirbet Qeiyafa which has consistently refuted the minimalist claim that there is no proof of the existence of a ” united monarchy” under David and Solomon.

This is also confirmed in a recent feature article in Christianity Today.⁷ The story features Israeli archeologist Eilat Mazar and her discoveries confirming the biblical stories of Solomon’s temple. The article addresses the tension between the liberal archaeologists and more conservative ones. Mazar points out that her work is under the direction of the Institute of Archeology at the Hebrew University and that she is using the best and most accurate archaeological practices.

In the issue of the Areopagus Journal, we present three articles addressing this subject. The first is an introduction and overview of the various approaches and methodologies used in biblical archeology, “Archeology and the Bible ” by Dr. Steven Ortiz of the Charles D. Tandy Institute for Archaeology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The second article, “Archaeology and the Old Testament” is written by Dr. Walter Kaiser, President Emeritus of Gordon -Conwell Seminary. Kaiser gives an overview of the development of biblical archeology from its inception, including the rise of the minimalist school, and then shares key archaeological finds supportive of Old Testament history.

The third article is “Jesus and Recent Archaeology” by Dr. Craig Evans of Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia. Evans discusses recent archaeological discoveries that support historical and theological aspects of the Gospel accounts of Jesus ‘ life.

There are many attacks on the Bible today because Satan knows the real issue is whether Christianity is true. It doesn’t matter if someone wants or doesn’t want to surrender to Christ. The real issue is whether it is true. Is it historically accurate, is it reliable in its transmission, is it infallible and inerrant, and is it miraculous in the prophetic and the resurrection of Christ? This issue of Areopagus Journal helps give solid proof of the valid historicity of the Bible which then gives more support to the theological and miraculous nature of the Bible. Share this with others!

Craig Branch is the director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham, AL.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 11 No. 3 Biblical Archaeology)

NOTES

¹ Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publisher, 1979), ix.

² Michael Lemonick, “Are the Bible Stories True? Archeology’s Evidence,” Time (Dec. 18, 1995).

³ W.F. Albright, “Japheth in the Tents of She m,” The American Scholar 42:692-94 (1941): 181.

⁴ W.F. Albright, “Old Testament and Archaeology of the Ancient East, ” Old Testament and Modern   Study (Oxford University Press, 1951), 25.

⁵W.F. Albright, More New Testament Studies (C.H. Dodd University Pres s, Manchester, 1968), 224.

⁶ W.F. Alb right, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra New York : Har per & Row, 1960), 1- 2.

⁷ Eilat Mazar, “Bible in One Hand, Spade in the Other,” Christianity Today (Nov. 2011).

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 11 No. 3 – Biblical Archaeology)