The trend in among some in the archaeological and biblical studies field is to emphasize the archaeological record and to see little value in the historical (mostly biblical) record. There are many examples of this, but here’s two:
Archaeology’s “finds have revolutionized the study of early Israel and have cast serious doubt on the historical basis of such famous biblical stories as the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan, and the glorious empire of David and Solomon” (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 3).
“If the meaning of the archaeological evidence is clear, one might say that it gives a more ‘neutral’ history than the textual material. It is free from the Tendenz or evaluation that easily creeps into an author’s writings” (G. W. Ahlstrom, cited in Provan, Long, and Longman 2003: 63).
The foolishness of this approach should be readily evident
and is to most except some of the “brightest” scholars. One example of the difficulty of “reading” the archaeological remains can be seen from the other side of the world.
“Until the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphics, beginning in the 1970s, the Maya were widely considered a peaceful, childlike people–contentedly agrarian, artistic, enchanted with nature and the heavens. The hieroglyphic texts, however, tell a different story; often carved on stelae, these texts are devoted to the reigns of the kings who erected them, especially their conquests. According to Yale University scholar Michael Coe, the texts indicate that the Maya were not so much ‘peaceful theocracies led by priest-astronomers’ as ‘highly warlike city-states led by grim dynastsy obsessed with human sacrifice and the ritual letting of their own blood” (Archaeology Odyssey, Jan/Feb 2006, p. 52).
What a major misread! The conflicts between the archaeological record in Israel and the biblical text are not nearly so great, but I’ll tell you which side I’ll choose when there’s a conflict. And I make this prediction: in 100 years time, my side will have “beaten” the archaeological record nearly every time. The works of those who have opted in the other direction will be forgotten.
Methinks this trend in Biblical (or un-biblical, as the case may be) Archaeology to discount the Bible and rely on their own knowledge comes largely because of which text they are using: the Bible. May it never be that their wisdom would be inferior to such “religious paraphernalia”! I suspect that if any other text from ancient history contained as much detail it would be hailed as marvelous and would not be so easily discounted. But scholars instead have decided to suppress the truth, becoming futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and I agree with you, Todd, that they will be revealed as such in time.
Todd, you might be interested to see a picture of the Merrills over at my blog.
Todd, I have a questions about this sentence, “And I make this prediction: in 100 years time, my side will have ‘beaten’ the archaeological record nearly every time.”
Could you please tell me where it wasn’t beaten? The subject of archeology and the Bible has always intrigued me, and I wouldn’t mind knowing what you meant by nearly…I was hoping that it would be a 100% ratio.
Thanks,
Sean
Sean – I mean that in 100 years I think we still will have a very small amount of information about the ancient world and because of that, there will be uncertainties. Some of those uncertainties may seem to indicate an archaeological finding that is in conflict with the Bible.
Jonathan – great picture!
Scribe – I think you are right though I usually prefer not to speak in those terms as it tends to cut dialogue short. Sometimes conservatives can tend to over-simplify, in my opinion.