http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5238
Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility
| by |
Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. |
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second of a two-part series on “Dating in Archaeology.”
Part I is titled “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating.”]
“Biblical historical data are accurate to an extent far surpassing the
ideas of any modern critical students, who have consistently tended to
err on the side of hypercriticism” (1949, Albright, p. 229).
“Archaeologists now generally agree that their discoveries...have
produced a new consensus about the formation of ancient Israel that
contradicts significant parts of the biblical version” (Strauss, 1988).
These statements represent the conflicting messages that characterize
the field of archaeology. In Albright’s era, archaeologists’
interpretations of field excavations ordinarily corroborated biblical
information. It was common for prominent archaeologists such as Nelson
Glueck to confidently affirm: “...no archaeological discovery has ever
controverted a Biblical reference” (1959, p. 31).
Prior to the 1970s, interpretations of archaeological explorations
generally heightened the Bible’s credibility (Davis, 1993, 19[2]:54-59).
Since then, however, the amiable relationship between archaeology and
the Bible has deteriorated dramatically. It is commonplace for the new
generation of archaeologists to spurn the historical credibility of the
biblical narrative (see Dever, 1990, 16[3]:52-62).
Archaeology, therefore, presents a challenge to those who contend for
the integrity of the Scriptures. How are we to respond? On what basis do
many archaeologists repudiate the historicity of the biblical text, and
how reliable are their methods? To answer these and other questions we
must have a basic understanding of the science of archaeology.
A “MOUND” OF EVIDENCE
An archaeologist is not a modern “Indiana Jones” searching for exotic
treasures in booby-trapped caverns. His expeditions are
carefully-planned pursuits, including a highly-trained staff of
scientists from various disciplines.
Though much surface exploration occurs, we often associate archaeology
with excavation. Most excavations involve a “tell,” which is the Arabic
word for “mound.” More descriptively, the word traces back to the
Babylonian
tillu, which meant “ruin heap” (Albright, 1949, p.
18). Similar to the Indian mounds of North America, tells are artificial
hills composed of the cultural remains (e.g., pottery, tools, weapons,
statues) from different settlements on the same site.
Stratification—the Making of a Tell
The cross section of a tell resembles a layer cake, with each layer
representing an occupational level. These mounds were not formed merely
by the natural drifting of sands, or by the gradual accumulation of
debris. Though these were factors, catastrophes such as war, fire, or
earthquake destroyed a settlement. Then, new settlers leveled the
ground, and rebuilt on the same site. The layer of debris from the
previous city formed a stratum, which generally measured from about one
to five feet thick (Free, 1969, pp. 6-7). This caused the ground level
of the new settlement to be several feet higher than the previous one.
Also, the cultural remnants of the older settlement lay underneath the
new.
Over the years, this process was repeated until several successive
strata were formed, and the mound rose higher. As the height of the
mound rose, the occupational area generally decreased (though sometimes
the reverse occurred; Albright, 1949, p. 17). When the site was finally
abandoned, wind and rain leveled the top and eroded the sides, until a
city wall or other structure halted the erosion process. The shape of
these mounds resembles a truncated cone (see Unger, 1954, pp. 19-21).
Most important biblical sites have this characteristic form, which
trained archaeologists readily recognize.
Excavation and Dating
Once a tell has been identified, then comes the arduous and fastidious
task of excavation. There is more to excavating one of these mounds than
merely removing each successive occupational layer, since artifacts
from one stratum can intrude into another level. Archaeologists,
therefore, have developed methods that help them identify artifacts with
their proper stratum (see Kenyon, 1957a, pp. 75-80; LaSor, 1979,
1:237-240). These methods also assist them in developing a sequential
chronology of the tell, since artifacts from the top layer represent the
most recent civilization and the bottom layer represents the oldest.
But how do they assign
specific dates to these levels?
Often, and especially for ancient dates, radiocarbon and
dendrochronology (i.e., tree-ring dating) are employed, whose
deficiencies have been well-documented (see Major, 1993). For more
recent dates, archaeologists generally rely on a sophisticated dating
system based upon pottery, which is used extensively in Syro-Palestinian
archaeology. Sir Flinders Petrie (1853-1942), the famed Egyptologist,
first introduced this method, and William Albright, the distinguished
American archaeologist, refined it further. Pottery serves well for
dating purposes for at least two reasons: (1) it was relatively
inexpensive, and thus plentiful; and (2) pottery styles underwent
frequent changes (see LaSor, 1979, 1:241-242; Laughlin, 1992; Wood,
1988). This system associates the marked changes of pottery styles with
different archaeological ages (see Figure 1).
 |
Figure 1: Cross section through an idealized tell showing
pottery types, and successive layers of settlement from ancient to
modern times. The evolutionary-based archaeological timescale on the
right comes from Silberman (1989).
|
How do pottery types date the strata from which they are unearthed?
Suppose workers discover a cooking pot with relatively straight sides, a
row of holes just below the rim, and a rope decoration below the holes.
According to pottery typology, this kind of vessel was dominant in the
Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1500 B.C.; Laughlin,
1992, 18[5]:73). Thus, if a sufficient amount of such vessels is found
in a level of a tell, an archaeologist will date the stratum between the
years 2000-1500 B.C.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY
This pottery-based dating scheme has proved to be helpful in assigning
general dates to occupational levels of a mound. Further, the dates
determined by this scheme often coincide with biblical chronology. For
instance, excavators at Shiloh have dated a destruction level on that
site at 1050 B.C., which corresponds with the
battle of Ebenezer recorded in 1 Samuel 4 (cf. Jeremiah 7:12; Albright,
1949, p. 228). Such finds (and there are many) confirm the historical
data of the biblical text. However, archaeologists’ interpretations
based upon this dating scheme often conflict with biblical chronology.
Consider two examples.
The Age of the Earth
First, there is a discrepancy between the archaeological and biblical
estimations of the Earth’s age. The chronologies supplied with the
genealogies from Adam to Abraham prohibit the Earth from being as old as
the archaeological timescale indicates. While it is true that
genealogical rec~ords occasionally may contain gaps, this does not
negate the force of the chronologies attached to them. If Seth were, for
example, a distant relative of Adam, nevertheless, Adam was 130 years
old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). We cannot dismiss
a priori biblical chronology simply by assuming genealogical gaps.
The archaeological timescale indicates a Paleolithic era which dates
back to 700,000 years ago. Further, archaeologists generally recognize a
Neolithic settlement at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) which dates to about
8000 B.C. (Wood, 1990, 16[2]:45). Since the Flood
would have destroyed any orderly remains of antediluvian civilizations,
the remnants of ancient societies preserved in mounds (as those at
Jericho) most likely accumulated
after the Flood (Vaninger,
1985a, 20:34). Such a timetable forces the Creation back several
thousand more years than allowed by biblical chronology.
Conquest of Canaan
Second, biblical and archaeological dates of some historical events are
in conflict. A classic example of this chronological tension is the
conquest of Canaan. The Bible indicates that 480 years transpired
between the exodus and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 6:1).
We can date his reign with reasonable confidence at 971-931 B.C., which
places the date of his fourth regnal year at 967 B.C. This would place
the date of the exodus at 1447 B.C.
Allowing for the 40 years of wilderness wandering prior to the
Israelites’ invasion of Canaan, the initial stages of the conquest
occurred around 1407 B.C.
However, archaeologists generally believe that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230-1220 B.C.,
nearly 200 years later than the biblical date (Bimson, 1987,
13[5]:40-42). Again, excavations at Jericho, the first fortified city
conquered by the Israelites (Joshua 2-6), are at the heart of this
controversy. John Garstang was the first to employ modern pottery
chronology to explore this biblical site. He uncovered a residential
area in the southeast slope of the tell, which he called “City IV.” This
city had been destroyed by a violent conflagration. Based on pottery in
the destruction debris, and other artifacts in the nearby cemetery, he
associated City IV with the first city Israel defeated in the conquest.
Garstang dated this destruction level to the late 15th or early 14th
century B.C., and he believed that the invading
Israelites caused the destruction, in harmony with the biblical record
(Joshua 6:24; Wood, 1987, p. 7).
Kathleen Kenyon critiqued Garstang’s work in 1951, and did additional
excavation at this site during 1952-1958. Kenyon disagreed with
Garstang’s date of the destruction level, and placed it at c. 1550 B.C.,
many years before the biblical date of the conquest. She further
contended that in 1400 B.C.
there was no fortified city for Joshua’s army to conquer, and that the
archaeological evidence does not agree with the biblical description of a
large-scale military incursion contemporary with the destruction of
Jericho (Kenyon, 1957b, p. 259). Kenyon based her conclusions largely
upon the
absence of pottery typically used around 1400 B.C.
Subsequently, scholars have critiqued Kenyon’s work and have vindicated
the conclusions of Garstang, and, by implication, the biblical
chronology (Wood, 1990; Livingston, 1988; see also Jackson, 1990).
Kenyon’s conclusions, however, caused Jericho to become the classic
example of the difficulties with correlating the biblical account of the
conquest with the archaeological record. Pottery stands at the center
of the interpretive and dating discrepancies of the conquest.
PROBLEMS WITH ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS
How should we respond when archaeologists’ interpretations are at
variance with biblical facts? The following principles might be helpful
as we struggle with the increasing antagonism toward the Scriptures from
the field of archaeology.
Evolutionary Assumptions
As a rule, archaeologists endorse evolutionary assumptions that the
Earth is ancient and that man developed gradually—both physically and
intellectually—over millions of years. Kenyon attributed the development
of the Jordan Valley to vast terrestrial movements two million years
ago (Kenyon, 1957b, p. 23). Albright discussed in detail the
“...artistic evolution of
Homo sapiens,” which first began around 30,000 to 20,000 B.C.
(1942, pp. 6-10). Allegedly, as man slowly “evolved,” he learned how to
manufacture tools from stones, and gradually developed the ability to
make pottery. With his discovery of fire, he learned to fashion tools
from copper and iron. Thus, archaeologists assume that centuries
transpired before man graduated from stone tools and weapons to metallic
implements.
This, however, is an assumption that is plainly at odds with biblical
revelation. Man was highly intelligent from the dawn of Creation, and
possessed the ability to manufacture tools and musical instruments
(indicative of artistic ability) from metals (Genesis 4:20-22). Further,
the descendants of Noah retained the technical ability for making tools
and weapons, which would allow for rapid cultural recovery and
restoration after the Flood (see Vaninger, 1985b, 22:67). The tower of
Babel is an eloquent, and infamous, witness to the postdiluvians’
technical abilities (Genesis 11).
In addition, the divinely prompted dispersion from Babel would account
for the cultural disparity between ancient Egypt and Mesopotamian
cultures. Researchers have found virtually no evidence of
unsophisticated cultures in Egypt; advanced civilization in that region
veritably explodes onto the historical scene. In contrast, Mesopotamia
exhibits a clear cultural development from simple societies to more
advanced civilization (Vaninger, 1985a, 22:38). This has puzzled
archaeologists for many years. But, the ancient dispersion could account
for these disparate cultural developments.
Evidence indicates that an aggressive transfusion of culture from the
Near and Middle East into Egypt occurred in ancient history, which
directly corresponds to biblical information (cf. Genesis 11:8-9;
Albright, 1949, pp. 71-72). Those who migrated to Egypt obviously
carried with them both culture and technology more advanced than those
possessed by the people who remained in the Mesopotamian region.
Accordingly, highly developed civilizations, and cultures which used
stone implements, were contemporary; they were not separated by
millennia. Even today, some cultures remain isolated from advanced
technology, and continue to employ implements generally associated with
the so-called Stone Age (see Livingston, 1992, 5[1]:7). Thus, evidence
of settlements using stone tools does not demand an ancient Earth.
Paucity of Evidence
Second, we must recognize that archaeological evidence is fragmentary
and, therefore, greatly limited. Despite the amount of potsherds, bones,
ornaments, or tools collected from a given site, the evidence reflects
only a paltry fraction of what existed in antiquity (Brandfon, 1988,
14[1]:54). Unearthed data often are insufficient, inconclusive, and
subject to biased interpretation. The current debate about the time of
the conquest is a case in point. Archaeological data alone are
inadequate to determine the exact date, or cause, of Jericho’s
destruction. Therefore, we should listen with cautious skepticism when
archaeologists appeal to evidence that conflicts with the biblical text.
Presuppositions of Archaeologists
Third, the paucity of archaeological evidence provides fertile soil for
imaginative—and often contradictory—conclusions. We must not overlook
the matter of subjectivity in interpretations. Regarding this matter,
Jesse Long Jr. correctly stated that “...presuppositions and assumptions
determine interpretive stance and often color conclusions” (1992,
134[12]:12). He further added that “...the new archaeological consensus
[regarding discoveries contradicting significant parts of the biblical
version—GKB] may be more a reflection of philosophical assumptions than
the concrete evidence of sherds and stones” (1992, 134[12]:12).
Inexact Science
Finally, archaeology is an imprecise science, and should not serve as
the judge of biblical historicity. The pottery dating scheme, for
example, has proved to be most helpful in determining relative dates of
strata in a tell. But, at best, pottery can place one only within the
“chronological ball park.” John Laughlin, a seasoned archaeologist,
recognized the importance of potsherds in dating strata, but offered two
warnings: (1) a standard pottery type might have had many variants; and
(2) similar ceramic types might not date to the same era—some types may
have survived longer than others, and different manufacturing
techniques and styles might have been introduced at different times in
different locales. Further, he mentioned the fact of subjectivity in
determining pottery typology: “...in addition to its observable traits,
pottery has a ‘feel’ to it” (1990, 18[5]:72). Therefore, we must
recognize archaeology for what it is—an inexact science with the innate
capacity for mistakes.
CONCLUSION
There are many archaeological evidences, both artifactual and literary,
which have undermined liberal interpretations of the biblical text, and
supported its credibility. However, archaeology, like other natural
sciences, has its limitations. William Dever, for example, observed that
although archaeology as a historical discipline can answer many
questions, it is incapable of determining “why” something occurred
(1990, 16[3]:57). The destruction level at Jericho, for instance, which
many date to the early 15th century B.C.,
corroborates the biblical text, but it cannot prove that a transcendent
God caused its walls to fall. We must turn to sacred history for
causative details. However, the physical evidence does support the
historicity of the biblical narrative—certainly something we would
expect of a divinely-inspired volume. Further, archaeology often serves
to illuminate biblical texts. The literary discoveries at Ras Shamra
(ancient Ugarit), for example, have enhanced our knowledge of Baalism,
shedding considerable light on biblical allusions to this pagan cult
(see Brantley, 1993).
Indeed, archaeology is most helpful in biblical studies, often
confirming and illuminating biblical texts. We must be aware, however,
of its limitations, and deficiencies. The dating methods employed (e.g.,
radiocarbon, dendrochronology, pottery, and others) are imperfect, and
are always based upon certain assumptions. Further, we should be aware
of the current anti-biblical trend among many archaeologists. As with
any scientific discipline, we need not sift God’s Word through the sieve
of archaeological inquiry. Archaeological interpretations are in a
constant state of flux and often wither as grass, but God’s Word abides
forever.
REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1942),
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press).
Albright, W.F. (1949),
The Archaeology of Palestine (Hardmondsworth, England: Penguin Books).
Bimson, John (1987), “Redating the Exodus,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[5]:40-68, September/October.
Brandfon, Fredric (1988), “Archaeology and the Biblical Text,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 14[1]:54-59, January/February.
Brantley, Garry K. (1993), “
Pagan Mythology and the Bible,”
Reason & Revelation, 13:49-53, July.
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology: A Brief History to the Present,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Dever, William (1990), “Archaeology and the Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[3]:52-62, May/June.
Free, Joseph (1969),
Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press).
Glueck, Nelson (1959),
Rivers in the Desert (New York: Grove Press).
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “
The Saga of Ancient Jericho,”
Reason & Revelation, 10:17-19, April.
Kenyon, Kathleen (1957a),
Beginning in Archaeology (New York: Praeger).
Kenyon, Kathleen (1957b),
Digging Up Jericho (New York: Praeger).
LaSor, W.S. (1979), “Archaeology,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:235-244, revised edition.
Laughlin, John (1992), “How to Date a Cooking Pot,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 18[5]:72-74, September/October.
Livingston, David (1988), “Exodus and Conquest,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[3]:13-17, Summer.
Livingston, David (1992), “Was Adam a Cave Man?,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[1]:5-15, January/February.
Long, Jesse C. Jr. (1992), “Archaeology in Biblical Studies,”
Gospel Advocate, 134[12]:12-14, December.
Major, Trevor (1993), “
Dating in Archaeology—Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating,”
Reason & Revelation, 13:73-77, October.
Silberman, Neil Asher (1989), “Measuring Time Archaeologically,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 15[6]:70-71, November/December.
Strauss, Stephen (1988), quoted in: Long, Jesse Jr. (1992), “Archaeology in Biblical Studies,”
Gospel Advocate, 134[12]:12-14, December.
Unger, Merrill (1954),
Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Vaninger, Stan (1985a), “Archaeology and the Antiquity of Ancient Civilization: A Conflict with Biblical Chronology?—Part I,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 22:33-39, June.
Vaninger, Stan (1985b), “Archaeology and the Antiquity of Ancient Civilization: A Conflict with Biblical Chronology?—Part II,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 22:64-67, September.
Wood, Bryant (1987), “Uncovering the Truth at Jericho,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, pp. 7-16, premier issue.
Wood, Bryant (1988), “Before They Were Sherds,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[4]:27ff., Autumn.
Wood, Bryant (1990), “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?—A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 16[2]:45-57, March/April.
How
do Galatians 6 verses two and five harmonize? According to the apostle
Paul, Christians are to “[b]ear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill
the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). However, only three verses later, he
writes: “For every man shall bear his own burden” (6:5). Skeptic Steve
Wells, author of the popular Skeptic’s Annotated Bible,
categorizes Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 as contradictory verses (see Wells,
2015). Bible critic Dennis McKinsey comments on these verses, saying,
“Gal. 6:2 says that we should bear one another’s burdens to fulfill the
law of Christ, while three verses later we are told that everyone should
bear his own burden. So who is to bear our burdens?... One can’t help
but ask why people would be obligated to aid the poor if every man is
supposed to bear his own burden” (1995, pp. 86, 430). So are Christians
to “bear one another’s burdens,” or is the child of God to “bear his own
burden”?