Bible Archaeology - An introduction

A DISCUSSION OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY SOME QUOTES OF PROMINENT BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."Dr. Nelson Glueck, reknowned Jewish archeologist. (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong."Dr. Joseph P. Free. (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself."Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confired the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html)"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."Dr. William F. Albright (taken from: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html )"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University (taken from:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/know_why...p07/default.htm"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge...
It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum (taken from:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/know_why...p07/default.htm"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."Sir William Ramsey, eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist (taken from: http://godisforus.com/information/bible/ev...archaeology.htm )"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible."Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."Dr. Jack Cottrell (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeologytaken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3893.aspFinally, The reknowned archaeologist Millar Burrow of Yale states, "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
(taken from: http://godisforus.com/information/bible/ev...rchaeology.htm)ARCHAEOLOGY CAN CORROBORATE BUT NOT PROVE THE BIBLE See this Jewish site: http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-5.htm(I am a Christian but I felt as though this was a good article)EXAMPLES OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.htmlhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9806a.htmhttp://www.theexaminer.org/volume5/number3/bible.htmLIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published.(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )ARCHAEOLOGY CONTROVERSIES Most of the controversies in Bible archaelogy has to do with dating. I personally, think this is now the weakest link in archaeology.Here is a website that discusses this: http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9311a.htm

Ken,Pick an archaeological find which you think proves the veracity of the bible and let's discuss it.None of the people listed in your links and quotes above are registered on this forum, so if you want a debate you are going to have to either get them to join or do it yourself.Namaste'Amlodhi

I very much doubt that Ken is up to a debate. All he seems to do is to find apologetic websites and lift material from them.

Hi Am,Not only are they not members, they are nearly all dead! LOLSome of the quotes are over 50 years old, taken out of context, their author's have altered their views since making the quotes, or the authors have died before contrary evidence has been dug up.The Glueck quote is all over the Net, despite Glueck withdrawing this statement in the second edition of his book and despite the fact that Glueck writes that Edom and Moab were not inhabited when the Bible says they were.But let's see if Ken is interested in discussing each link individually or if he is only interested in posting links.Brian.

Brian,I have edited my original post to reflect your concerns. I have also edited your original response to make it look silly. The ad hominem attacks and lack of civility I've had to endure here are just what I'd expect from jerkoffs like you. Why don't you apply yourself to refuting my links, uh I mean my arguments? If there's anything wrong there you should be able to tell me exactly what it is. Then I'll edit it and we can start over.In response to WI or WJ's response to me below, I have edited this post to include a complaint about the moderators, who are morally equivalent to the Taliban.I'm interested in debate, as evidenced by the number of threads I've started and then abandoned. You accuse me of link-listing, but I feel I'm doing a great service to lurkers on this board who may not have heard of the Internet.Ken[This message has been slightly edited by MrHambre, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited yet again by MrHambre, 03-03-2004][This message has been completely overhauled by MrHambre, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-03-2004]

Bravo.Unfortunately you neglected to include a complaint about the moderation on this thread, on this board and on life in general. Edit time again?

Hi Brian, PaulK and MrHambre,

quote:

---

Brian:

​

Not only are they not members, they are nearly all dead! LOL

---

I'm glad you made that point. I noticed the trend when I glanced through Ken's OP but was too tired to verify my suspicions.

quote:

---

PaulK:

​

I very much doubt that Ken is up to a debate.

---

I also doubt it very much.

quote:

---

MrHambre

​

Speak of the Devil

---

LOL. Delicious satire!Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-03-2004]

To: BrianI would also remind you that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information:Page not found - NizkorIn regards to the above links and information, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I also realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, at the same time I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.Lastly, I did offer new information as well as you did indicate.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

Estaban 'Son of Stan' Hambre You are a very very bad man, how are you going to get to heaven?Brian 'lost will to live' Johnston

To nitpick yet again, this should really be called ‘biblical archaeology’. These people may have been prominent quite a long time ago, but you won’t find a modern day Syro-Palestinian archaeologist that would agree with any of them, these quotes are essentially out-dated and/or taken out of context.I suggest Ken that we look at one scholar and their quote at a time, come to a conclusion about that scholar/quote and then move on. This scattergun approach and your continued refusal to address questions put to you is not becoming of progressive debate. I suggest that we look at Glueck first to discover how accurate this quote is.
Glueck: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries." Many Christian websites carry this quote, yet not all of them actually reference it, the one you cited for example doesn’t reference the quote. However, the quote from Glueck can be found in Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev New York, Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy, 1959 p.31.In regard to this quote you really need to read it properly to understand what Glueck was saying. He was not saying that you can look at any archaeological find then compare it to the Bible and the aforementioned archaeological information will never contradict the Bible. He isn’t saying anything like this, what he is saying is the archaeological evidence never controverts the Bible ONLY if there is proper evaluation of Biblical description .
I am going to give you an example of Glueck’s ’proper evaluation’ of the biblical description.Now Glueck is best remembered for his extensive surveys in the Transjordan, and in particular with the kingdoms of Edom, Moab and Ammon. Now to see how fanatical Glueck was, we can take an example from the Bible. If we turn to the biblical texts we can work out a date for when the Israelites encountered the Edomites who came out to meet them with a large and powerful army.To do this we use the Bible itself to arrive at a date for the Exodus from Egypt, In 1 Kings 6:1, it says that the dedication of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem happened 480 years after the Exodus, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Since Solomon's accession date of 960 BCE, can be calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, we would place the date of the Exodus at ca. 1440 BCE (Dever W: Archaeological Evidence, in Exodus the Egyptian Evidence, Frerichs E S & Lesko L H (eds) Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns 1997, p.69).Now if the Exodus was in 1440 BCE and the Israelites met the Edomites (and the Moabites) before Joshua had led the Israelites into Canaan, then these encounters must have taken place before 1400 BCE. So here we have established kingdoms of Edomites and Moabites in the mid 15th century BCE, according to the Bible at least.Now if we turn to Glueck’s excavations, do we find that they synchronise nicely with the biblical record and that his archaeological excavations have never controverted the biblical texts?According to this scholar: On the basis of his archaeological survey of the Transjordan conducted during the 1930s, N. Glueck (The Other Side of the Jordan. New Haven ASOR 1940: 114-157) concluded that the areas of ancient Edom and Moab were virtually devoid of sedentary occupation during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages — i.e. from ca. 2000 to the late 1200s BCE ( Miller J M Israelite History in The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters: Philadelphia, Fortress Press 1985, page 3.)Or even this one: Nelson Glueck, an American rabbi, epitomised an earlier era’s romantic notion of biblical archaeology. Whether dashing across desert sands in a jeep or trudging on foot, Glueck did important work surveying sites in Transjordan and the Sinai. Despite his desire to corroborate the biblical tradition, Glueck’s site surveys indicated that ancient Edom, Moab and Ammon were sparsely populated and defended at the beginning of the Iron Age- when, if the biblical account were accurate, the Israelites would have been cutting a victorious swath through them on the way to the Promised Land (Dever W. Archaeological Evidence , in Exodus the Egyptian Evidence Frerichs E S & Lesko L H (eds) Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns 1997, p.73)Glueck even managed to incorrectly date the rise of Edom, because later excavations using improved methods contradicted his findings.
The problem of passage through Edomite territory (Num. 20.14-29; 21.4-20; see also Num. 33.1-49; Deut. 2.1-8; Judg. 11.6-18). Glueck conducted extensive surface surveys in Transjordan during the 1930s and concluded that the area south of the Jabbok witnessed a gap, or at least a decisive dip, in sedentary occupation which extended throughout the Middle Bronze Age until soon before the end of LB. This was followed by a surge in sedentary occupation which began during the thirteenth century BCE, in Glueck's opinion, and which he believed corresponded to the rise of the kingdoms of Edom and Moab. More recent archaeological investigations in the territory of ancient Edom suggest a considerably later date for the surge in sedentary occupation. Three sites in central Edom (Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan, and Buseirah) have now been excavated by Bennett, none of which produced any clear evidence of sedentary occupation before the ninth century BCE. The results of her excavations at Buseirah are especially crucial for reconstructing Edomites history, since this is the site of Bozrah, the chief royal city of the Edomites (Gen. 36.33; Isa. 34.6; 63.1; Jer. 49.13, 22; Amos 1.12). Already before Bennett began her excavations at Buseirah, Bartlett had concluded from a re-examination of the written sources 'that whatever the strength of the early settlers of Edom, it is most unlikely that there was any national unity in Edom before the mid-ninth century BC.' (Bartlett. 1972. 26). The results of Bennett's excavations at Buseirah seem to confirm Bartlett's conclusions. Recently Weippert re-examined the pottery collected by Glueck at forty Iron Age sites and conducted a small survey of his own with the following results:
Glueck’s use of the term 'Early Iron I-II', therefore, in most cases can only mean that he had collected Iron Age pottery at a particular site. All the material up to now indicates that the main period of settlement in Edom must have been in Early Iron II, especially during the ninth to the seventh centuries. Alter this, a decline may be noted. Before the ninth century, the settlement of the land was gradual, first of all in the north. I know of six cities from the area between Wadi el-Hasa and approximately et-Tafileh which have Early Iron Age I pottery. (Hayes J H & Miller J Maxwell, Israelite and Judaean History, London, SCM Press 258-259)Same book:Page 271: Glueck’s explorations in Transjordan seemed to indicate that there was no sedentary population to speak of in the territories of Ancient Edom and Moab before the thirteenth century BCE. Apparently, then, there would have been no kingdoms of Edom and Moab before that time to refuse the Israelites passage through their respective lands. Proper evaluation for Glueck meant to reinterpret the biblical text to fit the archaeological data, he did not take the text at face value because he knew the archaeological data contradicted certain biblical events if biblical chronology was adhered to. It is pretty easy to say that nothing from archaeology has ever controverted a biblical a biblical reference IF you are quite happy to reinterpret the biblical text to fit with the archaeological evidence. Effectively, what Glueck was saying is that when the archaeological data does appear to controvert the Bible then we need to evaluate properly the particular text in question. To evaluate properly means to reject the text at face value and find a way in which to shoehorn the biblical claim into the available archaeological data.Your quote is entirely out of context and absolutely misunderstood by the people who keep posting this on their websites. This is the danger with lifting a quote from a book without actually reading the book itself, you end up taking the quote out of context.Now if you want to say that Glueck was correct and the meeting with the Edomites was in fact in 1200 BCE or later, then you can reject the dating in 1 Kings 6:1. If you want to keep 1 Kings 6:1 intact then you need to reject Glueck and stop using this quote. What is it you want to do?Now Ken, please reply to this post concerning Glueck’s quote, say what you think about it, say how it could be harmonise the biblical text and the archaeological data provided by Glueck. If you cannot harmonise the two, then you need to stop using the quote. When we have dealt with Glueck we can then move on to your next quote.Best Wishes.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 03-04-2004]

I happened to see this gem on Ken's link : http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.htmlI could hardly believe what I was reading:Pithom and Raamses:

​

The book of Exodus tells how the Egyptians forced their Israelite slaves to build these two storage cities, yet the critics said it was a fable for children. But archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie discovered the site of these cities and found that the buildings were the only ones in Egypt built with mortar. Interestingly enough, the lowest levels of the building were built with brick and straw, the next levels were built with bricks and stubble, and the upper layers were built with no straw or stubble at all! A perfect parallel to the biblical account. This is hilarious, only one thing to say Ken. Edouard Henri Naville wrote a book called The store-city of Pithom and the route of the Exodus London, Trbner & co. 1885. Why do you suppose he wrote that book Ken?What a pathetic website.Brian.

Any opinion regarding the accuracy of the Nelson Glueck quote?Brian.

what I find funny is the egyptions kept records of almost evey th e little fart... YET there isn't even a bit of evidence that anything in the Bible ever Happened in Egypt.... anyone else find this alittle odd? I read up on this not to long ago... I also saw a show on it.... that was actaully trying to say it might have happened but not as the bible says... they said he didn't part the red sea but it was winds that parted a "sea of reeds" and that a few of plagues might have been caused by a volcanic eruption around that time... But they did say there is nothing else that can be seen as any kind of evidence[This message has been edited by DC85, 03-06-2004]

Not to mention the fact that Palestine was under the control of Egypt when the Israelite exodus was meant to have happened. The Israelites would have been escaping from one part of Egypt and then battled their way to settle in another part of Egypt.As far as the Bible is concerned as well, it never mentions Egyptians in Palestine when the conquest was supposed to have happened, I find this unusual as non-biblical evidence suports an Egyptian presence in Palestine at this time.But yes, the Egyptians recorded almost eery little fart, and there is a papyrus collection in existence called the Papyrus Anastasi (fifth one I think) in which there are details of the escape of TWO slaves from Egypt and that the border guard were to keep a look out for them. However, there is no record of 2-3 million Israelites escaping from Egypt, this seems a bit inconsistent.Clearly these tales are legends that may contain an historical foundation to them, perhaps these events happened in a much smaller way and perhaps they didnt even happen to the Israelites.The main problem though is that many people expect too much from the Bible, they expect it to answer questions that it hadn't set out to provide answers for. Much of the 'history' recorded in Genesis through to 2 Kings is ideological history, it is what the Israelites would have liked to have happened, but most of it never actually did happen.If any other 'history' book was as consistently incorrect as the Hebrew Bible no one would waste as much time over it as has been wasted over the Bible.There is good news, Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are now actually examining the evidence from Near eastern sites independant of the Bible narrative to try and discover the origin of ancient Israel.You would be lucky to find a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist that believes the Bible's version of Israel's origin is accurate. Of course there are one or two fringe oddballs (Bryant Wood for example), like there are in all disciplines, who try to maintain the Bible's accuracy, but their theories are virtually ignored as they very seldom support their claims, or what evidence they do present is inadequate. For example, Wood's claim to have corrected Kenyon's Jericho conclusions has fell flat because of Wood's poor scholarship. He claimed a radiocarbon assay disproved Kenyon's dating, however, it was later discovered that this sample was one of a batch of samples that were incorrectly dated because of a calibration error by the British Museum. James Weinstein was astounded that Wood had only sent ONE sample for dating, no archaeologist would only send one sample to a lab for dating. However, misleading the public is what keeps people like those at 'Bible and Spade' and 'AiG' in a job.Brian.

I appreciate the links Ken has provided. I have learned from it. Why not you pick something from it that you choose to respond to?