Book Briefs: November 10, 1972

Does Archaeology Prove the Bible?

The Stones and the Scriptures, by Edwin M. Yamauchi (Holman, 1972, 207 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by William Sanford LaSor, professor of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

Nearly all we know of the ancient past has come to us through the various types of archaeological material, and biblical scholars have used archaeology both to “prove” the Bible and to “disprove” many statements in it. Yamauchi, testifying that he is “committed to the historic Christian faith,” describes the purpose of this book as seeking “to summarize, albeit in selective fashion, the archaeological evidence and its bearings upon the Scriptures … [and] to face the complexities of problem areas and to offer some suggestions as to the perspective in which some of these difficulties may be viewed.”

The material is presented in four chapters: (1) “Mari, Nuzi, and

Alalakh: The Illumination of the Old Testament”; (2) “Ramsay vs. the Tübingen School: The Confirmation of the New Testament”; (3) “Qumran and the Essenes: The Dead Sea Scrolls”; and (4) “Fragments and Circles: The Nature of the Evidence.”

Yamauchi has attempted to cover a great amount of ground in very little space. What he has done, he has done well.

But the question must be asked, For whom has he written this book? Certainly not for scholars, for anyone seriously working in the Old or New Testament is already fully aware of all the facts here set forth. Then the book must be intended for the layman, the busy pastor, the Sunday-school teacher, the person interested in knowing more about the Bible and its background. But for these persons, the book can do little more than whet the appetite—or lead to dogmatic statements based on very little knowledge. One could wish that Yamauchi had doubled, or even tripled, the length of the work. Then he could have discussed more fully the “complexities” of the problem areas he has introduced.

In some respects, the best part of the book is chapter four. While this is an expansion of replies to the “argument from silence,” it is well handled, and makes the point crystal clear that lack of confirmatory archaeological evidence is not to be taken as evidence against a biblical statement.

Yamauchi states: “Thanks to Qumran we know that the OT goes back to a Proto-Masoretic edition antedating the Christian era, and we are assured that this recension was copied with remarkable accuracy.” This statement is correct for many portions of the Old Testament; for other parts, however, it would seem that the consonantal text used by the Masoretes was a resultant text, possibly emerging from the Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90), based on two or possibly three earlier and somewhat differing recensions. This evidence from Qumran, incidentally, is confirmed not only by ancient versions but also by New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.

Biblical Authority

The Ground of Certainty, by Donald Bloesch (Eerdmans, 1971, 203 pp., $3.25 pb), The Authority of the Bible, by Donald Miller (Eerdmans, 1972, 131 pp., $2.25 pb), How Dependable Is the Bible?, by Raymond Surburg (Holman, 1972, 190 pp., $5.95), The Doctrine of the Word of God, by Thomas Thomas (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972, 114 pp., $2.50 pb), and The Bible: God’s Word, by Tenis Van Kooten (Baker, 1972, 227 pp., $2.95 pb), are reviewed by Martin Scharlemann, graduate professor of exegetical theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

The whole concept of authority is not only questioned in our day; it is specifically rejected by the citizens of Woodstock nation and their kin. To read five works that deal seriously with the subject as it applies to Scripture is refreshing.

Although Miller’s book is the only one with the word “authority” in the title, each of the five in some way touches on this crucial issue, mostly as it is related to the doctrine of inspiration. None, however, refers to what is surely the most comprehensive study of biblical authority: the final results of a project undertaken by Faith and Order and reported in the Ecumenical Review, October, 1971.

The early Church had a word for it: autopistia (the quality of self-authentication). That may have been a more satisfactory term. For the only way in which the notion of “authority” can be oriented properly is to go by way of the power ascribed to our Lord for his word and work.

“Authority” is not easily understood as it applies to Scripture; it needs specification. With what kind of authority does the biblical account confront the reader and the hearer? Is it that of a code book? Does it derive from obvious factual precision? Do the Scriptures elicit the kind of response, that, let us say, a great work of art does? Or is it a quality that invites trust as an act of the will? These are questions to which each of these authors might have given more space.

Miller addresses himself primarily to biblical authority itself, seen as the vehicle of God’s self revelation. He takes up the discussion by seeking to refute two false assumptions: that there is no such source outside the stream of history itself, and that there is no such source outside human experience.

The chapter distinguishing between biblical authority and human experience is surely Miller’s finest contribution, especially in a day of charismatic movements. His central thrust can perhaps be put best in his own words: “Are we willing to allow God to redeem us in His Son? If so, then the Bible would speak to our redeemed souls with authority.”

Bloesch wrote to offer an evangelical theology of revelation. The heart of his work is a chapter on “The Meaning of Truth,” whose theme is that “truth in the New Testament sense essentially means personal encounter and participation.”

That being the case, there is a biblical view of existence and of reality. Hence two dangers must be avoided: subordinating the biblical vision to some philosophical construct, and emptying the vision that the Scriptures offer by neglecting its metaphysical import. One of the bonuses the reader receives is Bloesch’s keen dissection of the kind of philosophical empiricism that underlies the attempt made by such scholars as John Warwick Montgomery to base the truth of Scripture on objective factuality.

Surburg’s volume is more a defense of traditional views in biblical introduction (isagogics). Some space is devoted to an evaluation of the concept of revelation. Surburg ascribes to revelation the word “progressive.” I doubt very much that this is a helpful adjective to use; it suggests that parts of God’s previous self-revelation were deficient and needed to be corrected. “Cumulative” might have served him better. Every revelation God gave of himself was “true” and therefore authoritative. Later manifestations built on previous ones to expand them or make them more explicit.

No serious believer can quarrel with Surburg’s statement that “the issue of the truthfulness, dependability and trustworthiness of the Bible is interlocked with that of its divine inspiration.” But the question is. What is the nature of this “interlocking”?

The same question arises in response to Van Kooten’s assertion, “It must be understood that divine authority and the inspiration of the Bible are inseparably bound together.” The inner connection between authority and inspiration is not spelled out. No space is devoted to the question, Is the meaning given to historical happenings by prophets, apostles, and evangelists part of revelation, or it is an aspect of inspiration?

For example, when Saint Paul makes the point in First Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins,” he is offering an interpretation of the Crucifixion that escaped Pontius Pilate. Did he say this in consequence of revelation or under inspiration? The affirmation is authoritative in either instance, but the relation of authority to inspiration is different in the two cases.

Van Kooten wrote his work as a study text for Bible classes, and so there are questions for discussion at the end of each chapter. These are very helpful.

Thomas includes a short chapter on the “Authority of the Bible.” Its burden is that Christians read the Bible with different assumptions from those of the scoffer and gnostic. The chapter suffers from the implication that somehow man can move himself to take a position that might make the Scriptures more acceptable. Prayer itself is introduced into this context as something of a means of grace.

All five of these works suffer from the failure to note that there are two elements in Scripture: Law and Gospel. Each has its own kind of authority, which must be carefully distinguished from the other. Hence these books offer little help in solving what is surely very puzzling: that one can accept the Scriptures as fully inspired and as totally authoritative and yet come out, as do so many conservative or traditionalist Christians, as a person living under the authority of the Law and not of the Gospel.

None of these five reckons with one of Luther’s great insights, that no one will understand the Scriptures unless he first knows its “res” (the heart of its message). This turns biblical authority into a circular operation. First we read Scripture to see what its message is, and then we go back to find out what the specifics mean. Within that circle, “authority” is a matter of eliciting trust from man in God for what he has done as these actions are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The authority of Scripture confronts man at the point of his rebellion to redirect his will.

The early Church had something when it called this quality autopistia.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.