I submitted this paper for Old Testament Introduction at Bob Jones University on November 16, 2001.
Over the years, modern science has contributed greatly to the study of the Scriptures. The wise individual will always give consideration to the findings of science to see if they can aid in clarifying his understanding of the Bible. Martin Luther is a classic example of the importance of this. The Church’s position for years had been that the earth was the center of the universe, but Copernicus challenged this view because of his scientific findings. Most were skeptical of his heliocentric theory because it was not what the Church had historically believed. However, in this case science proved to contribute to a more accurate understanding of God’s universe. The same is true today, especially in the realm of archeological discoveries. The Church can still profit from the contributions of scientific studies.1 The Bible is accurate in every area to which it speaks, history and science included. Consequently, if science and the Bible disagree, there are two options—either the scientists have not accurately evaluated the scientific data (as with Carbon 14 dating), or someone is not properly interpreting the teaching of Scripture (as with Luther and the heliocentric theory). God’s Word, God’s creation, and God’s history are all in total harmony. Therefore, archeological discoveries are very beneficial for a fuller understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures.
definition of archeology
Archeology is the study of ancient things. The word comes from the two Greek words ἀρχαῖος (“what was in former times” or “ancient”) and λόγιον (“saying”),2 and thus it involves the study of ancient things.3 These things include buildings, sculptures, art, bones, coins, tools, clothes, weapons, food, and written documents on a variety of materials. Biblical archeology is narrower in its scope in that it focuses on the study of these ancient things only as they relate directly or indirectly to the content of the Scriptures. One vital thing to keep in mind when dealing with archeology is that the truthfulness of the Bible does not rest upon findings in favor of or against the biblical claims. Archeology has no role in proving the Bible, but only in confirming that one’s understanding of it is accurate.4
background information
First, archeology contributes greatly by supplying additional background information to the biblical accounts. Extra-biblical documents furnish a wealth of data pertaining to the culture, customs, and religion of nations surrounding the Israelites. And by giving information on the common beliefs and practices of that time, archeology also affords a greater facility for understanding the Bible. The Hebrews were real people who lived in a real historical setting, and the discoveries of ancient documents shed light on the culture of the day and consequently on the Scriptural accounts. One such example occurs in comparing Genesis 15:2 (where Abraham mentions “the heir of [his] house… Eliezer of Damascus,”) with the Nuzi Tablets of 1400 b.c. Scholars have pointed out that these tablets show a significant similarity between the way the capitalists of Nuzi adopted their debtors and the way Abraham adopted Eliezer to be his heir.5 One tablet reads, “[Nashwi]… adopted Wullu…. When Nashwi dies, Wullu shall become the heir.”6 Apparently, what Abraham did in making Eliezer his heir was not uncommon.7 It seems to have been the common practice for men without children some years latter. The most vital piece of information concerns how God could say, “This man will not be your heir” (Genesis 15:4). If Eliezer became heir and fulfilled his responsibilities, it appears that there was no choice but for Abraham to regard him as heir. But the Nuzi tablets specify that the adopted heir remains heir unless his master “has a son of his own.”8 This is why God could say that Eliezer would not be the heir, because Abraham was to have a son of his own. Many other findings have provided additional data on customs and culture of the past.9
Historical events
Archeology also contributes significantly with reference to historical events of the ancient world. For example, the Moabite Stone (c. 840 b.c.) serves as an excellent extra-biblical account of the conflict between Israel and Moab during the time of Omri and Ahab, which 2 Kings 3:4–5 records. This stone was discovered in Dibon in 1868 just east of the Dead Sea.10 The author of the writing on the stone is “Mesha, son of Chemosh-…, king of Moab, the Dibonite.”11 In the text, Mesha makes reference to “Omri, king of Israel, [who] oppressed Moab many days.”12 This stone is valuable in giving extra-biblical testimony to the historicity of Omri and his son Ahab and their conflict with Moab and in verifying the date for the time of Omri. It also supplies additional information about the events not contained in the Scripture itself. One interesting note is the similarities between Mesha and his god Chemosh with the Israelites and Yahweh. There is mention that Chemosh was angry, he forsook them, and he delivered them. Additional archeological finds have brought to light many other historical events.13
linguistic knowledge
Thirdly, archeology contributes most importantly in the realm of linguistics. It has played a notable role in translation and exegesis of the Bible by a comparison of other ancient Semitic languages such as Ugaritic and Akkadian with the Hebrew. This is especially helpful in determining the meaning of Hebrew words with a low frequency in the Bible.14 One contribution that has been helpful in resolving difficult readings in the Hebrew text is the enclitic mem, which older grammarians did not recognize.15 Both Ugaritic and Akkadian have numerous instances of a similar phenomenon, which apparently has no semantic value.16 Some have argued as a result of these discoveries that such a phenomenon most likely existed in ancient Hebrew as well.17 One example where this has been suggested is Psalm 29:6, which reads in the KJV, “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.” But, although this translation is possible, it does not maintain the poetic symmetry that is characteristic of this Psalm. If the enclitic mem is a valid Hebrew phenomenon, then the word וַיַּרְקִידֵם would yield the translation, “He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox.” This maintains the symmetry well and seems to fit better.18 Grammarians have suggested many other examples of the enclitic mem as well, helping resolve numerous passages of past difficulty.19 Numerous other texts are clearer now in light of these Semitic studies initiated by the advancements of archeology.20
reversal of critical claims
Finally, archeology contributes to the study of the Scripture by countering the attacks of unbelieving critics. For years, critics rejected the historicity of Belshazzar in Daniel 5. Historical records had shown that the last king of the Chaldean empire was Nabonidus.21 However, the ancient document of the “Prayer of Nabonidus” records a statement referring to Belshazzar as “the son of the king.”22
conclusion
In conclusion, it is quite apparent that archeological discoveries are very beneficial for a fuller understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. While Christians should definitely not depend upon archeological findings to prove the claims of Scripture, archeology is profitable in giving a fuller understanding of the historical context and culture, in furnishing vital details of historical events that fill in some of the gaps of the Scripture, in supplying linguistic knowledge by comparative philology with other Semitic languages, and in putting to silence the attacks of foolish, God-hating critics. Every student of the Scriptures should avail himself to the wealth of valuable data offered through biblical archeology.
Albright, W. F. “Abram the Hebrew.” In the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (1961): 36–55.
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Barker, K. L. “The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies.” In Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 119–29.
Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Feinberg, Charles Lee. “The Value of Archaeological Studies for Biblical Research.” In Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, edited by John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, 265–91. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
Ginsberg, H. L. “Ugaritic Studies and the Bible.” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, edited by Edward F. Campbell, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, 34–50. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1964.
Hoerth, Alfred J. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Kautzsch, E. ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Kyle, M. G. “Archaeology and Criticism.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 1:226–33. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.
Milik, J. T. “Prière de Nabonide.” In Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 407–15.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. “Archaeology.” In The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, edited by Charles F. Pfieffer, 59–66. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.
Thomas, D. Winton, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, edited by D. Winton Thomas. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958.
Unger, Merrill F. “Archaeology.” In The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, edited by R. K. Harrison, 93–95. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
________. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.
________. “Archaeology and the Age of Abraham.” In Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (October 1953): 300–01.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Notes
1. While archeology is very advantageous in many regards, the Christian must use a great deal of caution in accepting all the claims of people who are generally unbelievers. Archeology can contribute greatly, but as with anything else, it can be abused. While the Christian must not totally ignore the claims of science, neither should he unreservedly accept them. Each claim must be evaluated carefully with the Scripture to see where the problem lies. ↩
2. The root meaning “word” is found in the cognate λόγος. Also, other cognates have meanings like “learned” and “reasoning.” This is why it is used in the sense of “the study of.” ↩
3. Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 137, 598. ↩
4. Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Value of Archaeological Studies for Biblical Research,” in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, ed. John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 266. ↩
5. W. F. Albright, “Abram the Hebrew,” in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (1961): 47. ↩
6. Theophile J. Meek, trans., “Nuzi Akkadian,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. James B. Pritchard, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 219–20. ↩
7. Merrill F. Unger, “Archaeology and the Age of Abraham,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (October 1953): 300–01. ↩
8. Meek, 219. ↩
9. Another custom concerning a childless couple was the providing of a handmaid by the wife to the husband to continue the line as in Genesis 16 with Hagar, Sarah, and Abraham (see the Code of Hammurabi). Also, the wickedness of the Canaanites and justification for their destruction is more clearly seen by the testimony of the Ras Shamra Tablets. ↩
10. Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 373. ↩
11. E. Ullendorff, trans., “The Moabite Stone,” in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1958), 196. ↩
12. Ibid. ↩
13. The Lachish Ostraca shed light on the Chaldean invasion of Judah and verify the date of the ministry of Jeremiah the prophet. The Nabonidus Chronicle likewise gives information concerning Belshazzar and his place as second in command over Babylon. For other examples, see Archer, 188. ↩
14. There are hundreds of hapax legomena (words occurring only one time) in the Hebrew Scriptures. ↩
15. E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). ↩
16. James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 31. ↩
17. Ibid., 31–37. ↩
18. But even though the enclitic mem appears to be a real Hebrew phenomenon, it should not be the first approach in dealing with difficult texts. Many have abused this due to the large number of mems in the Hebrew. There is the mem from the min preposition, the mem of the participle, the mem from the noun ending, and the mem in the pronominal suffix. So it would be easy to change the text on numerous occasions. ↩
19. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 158–60. See also pp. 24, 55, 93, 118, 140, 189, 648, and 659. See Genesis 14:6 (compared to the Samaritan Pentateuch); Deuteronomy 32:11; Psalm 18:16 (compared to 2 Samuel 22:16); Psalm 59:6; 74:12; 89:51; and Isaiah 24:18. ↩
20. In light of the Sumerian and Akkadian cognates, the translation of אֵד in Genesis 2:6 should most likely be “river” rather than “mist.” Another possible example is Proverbs 26:23 where, in light of Ugaritic, the phrase which has commonly been translated “silver dross” (כֶּסֶף סִיגִים) should be repointed and translated “like a coating of glaze.” See also 1 Kings 10:28. ↩
21. Archer, 426. ↩
22. J. T. Milik, “Prière de Nabonide,” in Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 407–15, cited in Archer, 426. ↩