Archaeology is an inexact science. Ancient languages. Undated pottery. Unfamiliar objects. As researchers pull the past out of the ground, there are a host of questions to answer...but there is also a lot of room to make mistakes. Clay jars do not come with a date stamped on the bottom. Metal objects do not come with instructions etched on the side. Add into these unknowns the difficulty of ancient texts, and archaeology is a complex problem to solve.
As such, there are twin errors that stand ready to corrupt and taint any attempt to reconstruct the past. Both can destroy the credibility of this field of study and must be avoided at all costs. Sadly, one particular subset of archaeology has been where these twin errors most often make their presence known: the study of biblical lands and events. On the one hand, skepticism is ready to stamp out any possible connection that stones may have to biblical stories. In the other camp are believers ready to take the scantest evidence as undeniable proof of scripture’s text. To run headlong into either direction is a mistake. It undermines the field of archaeology and its intended use. Every academic enterprise has its limits and archaeology is no exception.
The error of the skeptics comes from a prejudice against the text. Seeing the recounting of miracles...reading of divine intervention in human history...this has caused some to view the Bible as a book of fairy tales. It is dismissed as a reliable source and even when similarities are found in the soil, any connection to the events described in the Bible are dismissed. Before looking at the evidence, a particular conclusion has already been ruled out.
The error of the believers is similar even as it falls at the other end of the spectrum. In an effort to prove the Bible to be true, some will look at any piece of evidence as conclusive. However, many objects dug out of the ground are fragmentary or incomplete. They do not speak definitively. To claim that a questionable piece of evidence is proof will undermine the true work of Biblical archaeologists and undermine trust in the field.
Let’s look at an example of how these twin errors can muddy the waters of archaeology. In 1976, a small piece of pottery with writing (called an ostracon) was discovered in the town of Izbet Sartah. This piece of land is but a few miles from the ancient Philistine site of Aphek. At first glance, the writing appears to be gibberish and some scholars surmised that it was merely an individual practicing their writing. There are only five lines with the last being the only clear text – the Hebrew alphabet written out in its entirety. Still, other scholars sought to see if there was any true message to be found. Some tried to read it from left to right and others sought to put the letters together from top to bottom. One scholar proposed that the text talked about the giving of a garment. But one translation stood out. In a 1990 article, it was proposed that the ostracon actually read: “Unto the field we came...Aphek from Shiloh...the Kittim took and came to Azor...Dagon the lord of Ashdod to Gath...Yearim Kiriah...” If that sounds familiar, it seems to recount the Philistines defeat of Israel in 1 Samuel 4-6 and the subsequent capture of the ark. The text tells of the taking of it and the return of it to Kiriath-Jearim. Now is the story true? Absolutely, for it comes from the word of God. However, does the Izbet Sartah ostracon definitely record the same event? It is impossible to say. Skeptics will dismiss the translation and believers will want to affirm it. But archaeology is an inexact science. It can help to shed light on the past but is limited in its scope. The same piece of pottery viewed by two people in different ways.
So where does this leave us? Archaeology is a great tool that can provide us with better insight into the people and events of scripture. In many ways, it affirms what we already know to be true. But let us allow archaeology to serve as a supplement to our study of scripture rather than as a replacement for it. Scripture is true. It does not depend upon stones. Therefore, we do not have to clamor for proof on the one hand or fear those who use this field of study to disprove the Bible on the other. Archaeology is useful when it stays in its place....when it avoids the twin errors that destroy its usefulness. So let us dig. Let us dust off. But let us also draw our conclusions with care.
