[This solicited article points out some timely cautions to those who speak on the subject of archeology. However, the author encourages our ministers to speak on this subject and gives a list of authentic writers that can be followed with confidence.]
Archeology concerned with the ancient Near East has always had its strongest support from people interested in the Bible. Without the support of theologians, readers, and students of the Bible, archeological studies would never have been so successful as they have been. Many of the leading Assyriologists, for example, were theologians, or were led into the field of Assyriology when they were theological students.
The fact that archeological work concerned with the ancient East flourishes most when it aids Biblical studies, has long been recognized; and many clever orientalists have profited by it. When in November, 1870, a group of British Egyptologists and Assyriologists joined forces to found a new society that would promote their fields of studies, Samuel Birch, then Keeper of Oriental Antiquities of the British Museum, suggested that the proposed association 'should be named Society of Biblical Archaeology in order to appeal to a wider range of people than it otherwise would, and thus more readily find their support. This suggestion was accepted, and this society became the leading body in the field of Near Eastern archeology for fifty years. Part of its great success was due to its name and to the fact that many of the articles published in its periodical aided Biblical studies.
Editors and publishers also know that the most popular archeological works are those that appeal. to Bible readers. If in a scientific series a certain volume has any bearing on the Bible, the publisher of that series will usually increase the edition of that particular volume, knowing that the market for this book is much larger than for any of the others in the same series.
Some Cautions
Many publishers, knowing how popular works can be that deal with Biblical archeology, have encouraged able writers to produce books that describe archeological discoveries and present their bearing on the Bible in a sensational way. Many such books that have appeared during the last one hundred years have had large sales. However, they have also done much harm by bringing discredit on Biblical archeology, since many people, eventually realizing that much of what has been written on this subject is frequently entirely without foundation, have lost faith in this work. It is therefore irresponsible to defend Bible truth with sensational stories of archeological discoveries that either were never made, or are grossly distorted.
Yet, it is a fact that archeological discoveries have done much for the Bible during the last one hundred years. Although they have not produced, and cannot produce, evidence which proves that the Bible is the Word of God, they have in many cases demonstrated the historicity of disputed characters, events, and places.
Readers of the Bible who expect the Biblical archeologist to make sensational discoveries have always been disappointed. Neither the tombs of the kings of Israel or Judah nor the official records of Solomon's court have ever been found. All search for the Ark of the Covenant has so far been fruitless, and it is doubtful that the remains of Noah's ark have been seen in modern times on Mount Ararat, as some have claimed.
Most sensational archeological discoveries, like those of the unspoiled tomb of King Tutankhamen in Egypt, or the rich tombs of the kings of Ur of the Chaldees, have no direct bearing on the Bible, although they are all indirectly helping to gain a better picture of the ancient world in which the Bible was produced. On the other hand, most discoveries that have a direct bearing on the Bible are neither sensational nor spectacular. In many instances a number of insignificant discoveries, perhaps made over a period of many years, must be taken together to illustrate or vindicate certain minor details of a Bible story. For example, the existence of the once much-disputed King Belshazzar of Babylon was proved as the result of a series of little discoveries made during a period of about sixty-five years. The first evidence in this respect came to light in 1861. It showed that King Nabonidus, who up to that moment was known as the only king of Babylon at the time of its fall to Cyrus, had a son by the name of Belshazzar. Later, other evidence came to light that revealed Belshazzar had occupied an important official position in Babylon prior to its fall. However, it was not until 1924 that a document was discovered that proved that Belshazzar had actually been king during the last years of Babylon's existence. This example shows how the Biblical archeologist has the task of piecing together all the evidence, great and small, as it comes to light, and presenting it in the right way.
Many readers may now wonder how they can use archeological material effectively without making mistakes. They cannot reasonably be expected to be experts in the field of Biblical archeology, nor can they be demanded to spend a major portion of their time working through the voluminous archeological literature that exists today, in order to be accurate in using such material. It is therefore understandable that many ministers have used quotations about Biblical archeology taken from popular books, which are well-written and seem to contain weighty material supporting the Bible. Others have used material from books bought in secondhand book stores. Such works, published many years ago, were perhaps good at the time of publication, but in most cases they are now entirely out of date. How can a minister or Bible teacher know what he should use and what he should leave aside? It is well to keep in mind a few simple suggestions.
In the first place use common sense and judgment in the choice of archeological material supporting the Bible. From time to time sensational reports appear in newspapers and magazines about such discoveries. These reports must be used with great caution. It is always well to wait a few months, or even years, before using such reports of alleged discoveries, until one is certain that the discoveries in question were really made. For example, claims have been made in the past that an authentic stone inscription written by Moses had been found at Mount Sinai, also that Abraham's private library had been discovered in Egypt, where he had accidentally left it during his visit to that country. These stories stirred up much enthusiasm at the time of their announcement, and have been used repeatedly by ministers in the pulpit and by authors in writing articles and books that are supposed to support the veracity of the Scriptures. Great was the disappointment later among the hearers and readers of such stories, when the reports of these alleged discoveries proved to be untrue.
In quoting from translated ancient texts remember that during the last few decades great progress has been made in the understanding of ancient languages and scripts, for which reason only the latest translations are good enough to be used. The same caution should be exercised in the use of books dealing with archeological facts and their interpretation. Archeological discoveries are constantly being made, and the progress in this field has been just as remarkable as in the field of other sciences. It is therefore imperative to use only such archeological books of an interpretative nature as have recently been published, and as have been written by competent scholars in the field of archeology.
Some Reliable Sources
No one would seek medical advice from a journalist, knowing that whatever success a journalist may have had in his profession, his advice in the field of medicine could only be amateurish. It is equally absurd to obtain archeological source material from books written by men who are not experts in this field of scholarly activity.
I have before me the partial list of book titles written by a very popular religious author. Besides having written books on communism, Catholicism, evolution, modern science, and theology, he has also produced one volume on Biblical archeology. The fact that large editions of his books have been sold shows that the author has been a successful writer. However, although I cannot competently evaluate his books on the various subjects on which he has written, I know that his work on archeology is extremely unreliable, and contains completely untrue statements as well as distorted evidence. This should be no surprise to anyone, because a man who writes books in so many unrelated fields cannot be expected to be at home also in the field of Near Eastern archeology.
Ministers, teachers, and other students of the Bible who would like to know from which books they can draw source material effectively supporting Bible truths, are referred to the short annotated bibliographies appended to the various historical articles found in the introductory sections in each of the first three volumes of the SDA Bible Commentary. For several years to come the books described there will retain their value. However, as new and better books on Biblical archeology and ancient history become available, these bibliographies must be replaced.
For those who are interested in the subject of Biblical archeology, four books and one very useful periodical are herewith recommended. They are reliable, up to date, free of sensationalism, and very helpful, although two of them are rather expensive.
1. The first place in this short list is taken by the Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible, ed. by G. E. Wright and F. V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1945, $7.50), with an introductory article by Prof. W. F. Albright, the undisputed master in the field of Biblical archeology. It contains not only 33 fairly reliable maps in full color on 18 plates, but also a good descriptive text of 114 pages and 77 black-and-white illustrations.
2. The best currently available book providing a survey of the archeological material that has shed light on the Old Testament is Archaeology and the Old Testament by M. F. Unger (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1954, $4.95). This book can heartily be recommended, although it contains some errors and weaknesses, which are pointed out in the book review appearing on page 46 in this issue of THE MINISTRY.
3. The best work containing translations of ancient texts that shed light on the Bible is Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2d edition, 1955, $17.50). This magnificent work of 544 pages in folio format has found a wide circulation, as is demonstrated by the fact that the first large edition published in 1950, was sold out in three years in spite of its high price. All texts are translated by the foremost scholars in their respective fields: Egyptology, Assyriology, Hittitology, et cetera. Recently, Professor Pritchard has written an excellent companion volume in his The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954, $20), which contains 769 well-chosen and well-reproduced pictures with a very useful descriptive catalog.
4. Those who want to keep informed about the archeological work bearing on the Bible are advised to subscribe to the little quarterly, The Biblical Archaeologist, published by the American Schools of Oriental Research, Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut. The annual subscription price is one dollar. The journal is in its eighteenth year of publication, and back volumes are available for $1.35 each. Its articles are written by specialists and presented in a readable form. Hence it provides reliable and up-to-date information.
With these books as necessary tools anyone interested in the field of Biblical archeology can be reasonably well informed, and thus can gain access to much of the material that provides support for the vindication of the historical sections of the Bible. In studying this material he will find, for example, that the patriarchs, long regarded by critics as legendary heroes who lived in the dim past, have moved into historical light. Although no records have yet been discovered that have proved the existence of the very persons mentioned in the Bible, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, enough evidence has been found to prove that the social, economic, cultural, and religious conditions in which these men lived were exactly those described in the Bible.
Progress in Recent Decades
We have also much archeological material to defend the historicity of the book of Daniel, to mention another example. There was a time when fundamentalist scholars found it extremely difficult to harmonize the statements made in the book of Daniel with the then-known facts. Archeological evidence brought to light during the last one hundred years has changed this situation. We still cannot prove the historicity of such individuals as Daniel and his three friends, because their names have not yet been found in contemporary records, and we cannot prove that the three worthies were saved from the fiery furnace, or that Daniel escaped from the lions' den, that Nebuchadnezzar suffered from a mental illness, and that Darius the Mode is a historical figure. But enough archeological evidence is available to prove that chronological statements found in Daniel, which in the past seemed puzzling and contradictory, are correct, that whatever is said in Daniel about Babylon being the creation of Nebuchadnezzar is true, and that the information concerning Belshazzar as Babylon's last acting king reveals such accurate knowledge of the actual facts, that the conclusion must be reached that only an eyewitness of the events described in the book of Daniel can have been its author. The same observation can be made about many other details of Daniel's stories, concerning which the reader is referred to the commentary on the historical chapters of Daniel in the SDA Bible Commentary.
During the last one hundred years many discoveries of Bible manuscripts have also been made that provide clear evidence that the Bible text has faithfully been transmitted through the centuries. Although no original manuscript of any Bible book has yet come to light, every pertinent recent manuscript discovery has closed gaps that existed between Bible manuscripts known one hundred years ago and the original writings. For many years all discoveries in this respect only benefited the New Testament text. The reader may be reminded of the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by Tischendorf in 1859, of the Chester Beatty papyri of 1931, and of the John Rylands papyrus fragment of the Fourth Gospel in 1935. Recently, however, the Old Testament text has also profited by the sensational discoveries of the Dead Sea scrolls, which have provided samples of every book of the Old Testament as it existed in the time of Christ. All these manuscripts have shown that the Bible text has been faithfully transmitted through the ages, and that the claims of critics concerning the unreliability of the text are unfounded.
Such archeological material, of which only a few examples have been quoted, can be used to the fullest extent to build up confidence in the Bible. It has recently been stated authoritatively that during the last thirty years more archeological discoveries have been made which have direct bearing on the Bible than during the entire previous century. This material must be used, but cannot be found in old, out-of-date works. It is contained only in the latest archeological books and periodicals. Therefore, every minister proclaiming the truth for this time should try to keep abreast with the progress made in the field of Biblical archeology. Providence has placed this material in our hands, and it is our responsibility to use it effectively.
