How Do Christians Determine What They Accept as Scripture: Archaeology and Historical Accuracy

9 Nov

Last week in “The Test of Value”, we began to take a look at the influence that accuracy (especially scientific accuracy) has played in determining whether Christians accept or reject a book as Scripture.  This week, we’ll continue the theme by examining the issue of historical accuracy and the role that archaeology has played in determining what does or doesn’t merit a place in the Bible.

Before we begin, however, we must take a moment to understand what the field of archaeology can and can’t offer us in regard to determining historical truth.  It is important to recognize that archaeology does not deal directly with history, but with what remains of history.  The story which artifacts tell must be deduced from their surroundings and, sometimes, due to the differences between modern cultures and ancient ones, these deductions are inaccurate.  (If you want a great example of an argument which has arisen as the result of such deductions, take a moment to do an internet search for “Qumran” (the ancient community located near the spot where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found).  You may be surprised at what you find!)

As our knowledge of the ancient world expands, so do the possibilities for interpreting its remains.  What at one time was a “proven fact” can quickly be discarded as a misinterpretation of the evidence.  This isn’t always the case, but it does happen frequently enough to leave room for doubt.  The result is that while archaeology can do much to confirm details of an account, it is not always a source of absolute truth.  Its evidence must be weighed, often in the light of the evidence from other fields of study, before we arrive at a conclusion.  In a sense, archaeology is the handmaiden of history – illuminating our understanding of recorded history by bringing its remnants to light.

One of the most common errors made in regard to these remnants is the “argument from silence”, i.e., to argue that something (or someone) did not exist simply because no evidence of its existence has ever been found.  While this might sound reasonable at first, the argument falls to pieces upon further investigation.  For years, it was argued that the Hittites mentioned in the Old Testament were a fictional group of people.  No remnant of their society had been found anywhere near the expected Biblical location and no mention of them was made in any other ancient literature.  If God really had promised their land to the Israelites, the promise had been an empty one.

That is, until the early 1900’s when Hugo Winckler of the German Orient Society uncovered an impossibly large cache of clay tablets confirming that the Hittites had existed!  Since then, archaeologists have unearthed many remnants of their society.  The lack of evidence once thought to disconfirm the claims of Scripture was turned into a treasure trove which confirmed Scripture.

So what role does archaeology play in validating a book as part of the Christian Bible?  To begin with, it does provide us with known facts.  Archaeology has uncovered much evidence to support the Biblical record (evidence of places and people named within the pages of Scripture) and archaeologists have done a wonderful job when it comes to illuminating our understanding of ancient cultures.  As the picture becomes more complete and more gaps are filled, we find ample evidence that the writers of the Bible did live at the time and in the places they claimed.

So what happens when a book that claims to be Scripture is disproven through archaeology or other historical documentation?  The same thing that happens when a volume is proven scientifically inaccurate: it is discarded.  It has been discredited as the Word of God and does not merit a place within our Holy writ.

About these ads

4 Responses to “How Do Christians Determine What They Accept as Scripture: Archaeology and Historical Accuracy”

  1. Brian Holley November 10, 2012 at 05:00 #

    Reading your statement of faith, A.C., I can see why it might be felt necessary to prove or disprove the Bible. However, I wonder if there is a danger of missing the point. It is surely the meaning of the stories that is important, not necessarily their historicity. Therefore, though I don’t hold any of your doctrinal statements to be essential to a relationhip with God, I do have a relationship that is deep and wonderful and the Bible still holds much meaning for me, alongside the Upanishads and the Tao Te Ching. Maybe recognising the Master’s voice in all things is more important than having factual evidence about historical events.

    • acgheen November 10, 2012 at 11:41 #

      Brian,

      Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do believe that it is important to confirm the historicity of the Biblical text, but no more or less important than to confirm the historicity of any other spiritual volume. The key reason for this? Relationship.

      There is, indeed, a “personal edification” factor in texts beyond those of a single religion. Fables, legends, mythologies, fairy tales, and religious canon can all provide us with solid guidelines for living – but these guidelines alone aren’t sufficient to form a relationship with God. Think of it this way – there are a lot of nice people in the world, but they aren’t all friends with you (despite the fact that you seem from you letter to be a pretty nice guy, yourself). Why not? Because they need to know who you are before a relational connection can be formed.

      Lets pretend for a moment that someone who shares your moral views comes to you and wants to be your friend. Maybe they’ve seen your name in a few books and have some ideas about what makes you tick – who you are and where you’ve been. They want to be friends with the Brian who is an astronaut and famed neurosurgeon. The four time Olympic gold medalist who has climbed Everest and done a stint on a well acclaimed morning news show. Its great that they think so highly of you, but you:

      A. Have only done a few of those things or
      B. Have done none of those things

      In order for a relationship to form, your highly moral prospective friend will need to both drop his false impressions of you AND acquire some proper ones.

      The same scenario works with God. Not every religious text paints the same image of who he is and, when these texts present opposite images (for example, is there only one God or are there many), only one can be true. For this reason, establishing the truth value of a religious text does matter. We may recognize the Master’s voice clearly in many things, but without a factual image of Him a meaningful relationship becomes difficult at best and impossible at worst.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. How Do Christians Determine What They Accept As Scripture: Cultural Understanding « acgheen Ministries - November 16, 2012

    [...] How Do Christians Determine What They Accept as Scripture: Archaeology and Historical Accuracy [...]

  2. How Do Christians Determine What They Accept as Scripture: Doctrinal Non-contradiction « acgheen Ministries - November 30, 2012

    [...] (but sometimes questioned) rule that if texts which are otherwise sound (are scientifically and historically accurate, display the cultural understanding of eye-witnesses, and are logically consistent) fail [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: