Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Readers of Christianity Today are by now familiar with the debate surrounding the authenticity of the so-called "James Ossuary" and the Jehoash inscription. In the last few months, the Israel Antiquities Authority and a number of preeminent scholars in paleography (the science/art of reading scripts) have determined that both the James ossuary and the Jehoash inscription are modern forgeries. Discussion will no doubt continue, since many scholars such as Ben Witherington III still believe that the James ossuary is indeed genuine. But if these two examples are a guide, it might seem to some that the only archeological "discoveries" that support the Bible are ones that have been forged.

Before we become too morose, however, we should note that just last week Israeli scientists announced that they had confirmed through radiocarbon-dating that the tunnel commonly referred to as "Hezekiah's Tunnel"—widely believed to date to the time of King Hezekiah (727-698 B.C.) and the events described in 2 Kings 20:20—indeed dated to the eighth century B.C. So the pendulum swings again, and we can once more shout "Hurrah!" as science and archaeology prove the Bible.

But should we really be so concerned with what portions of the Bible archaeology seems to confirm or deny? What should be the importance of archaeology for faithful Christians and Jews?

Archaeology is a unique enticement for Christians of our era. We are called to live by faith, yet we also want tangible proof of that which we believe. The result is that we are eager to find evidence of David's kingdom, and are leery of those who claim that archaeology has disproved the Bible. The challenge is to read all our sources critically, whether it is the Bible or an archaeologist's report. Such a critical reading of the Bible includes evaluating and examining any new evidence that comes to light, whether through archaeology, linguistics, or other modes of research. The best scholars, regardless of faith convictions are those who apply critical thought to all the sources, whether textual or archaeological, tradition, or hypothesis. Those who believe that archaeology has disproved the Bible (see, for example, Daniel Lazare's 2002 article in Harper's Magazine, "False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History") have simply traded the unquestioned authority of Scripture for an unquestioning faith in certain scholars.

Reading archaeological evidence is much like reading a text. It is not uncommon for a particular doctrine to be set aside as a "bad reading" of the Bible (consider the historical debate regarding slavery), but many do not seem to realize that all evidence requires reading or analysis. The analysis of archaeological remains is particularly fraught with difficulty. The first question is origin: Where and how was the artifact in question discovered? This was the biggest red flag for the two items produced in the last year. Both were of questionable provenance and came to the attention of scholars through a collector (and, in the case of the Jehoash inscription, through his lawyer). There was no way to authenticate its origin; there were no accompanying layers of earth, potsherds, or anything else to place it within a chronological context. Even when a proper dig allows us to know precisely where an artifact came from, what condition it was in, and its surrounding environment there is still the process of dating, analyzing, and figuring out precisely an object's original use and importance.

next page... |  1 of 5

September (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47