Inerrancy

 The other day I read an interesting article from a few years ago. It was entitled “Evidence for Inerrancy from an Unexpected Source: OT Chronology” and was written by Rodger C. Young. He explains two popular approaches to Scripture, particularly the period of about four and a half centuries where over 120 dates, lengths of reign and synchronisms are given in the books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Kings and Chronicles. Putting together a chronology for this period of time becomes extremely difficult and has caused some to lose faith in the accuracy of Scripture.

The first approach uses deductive methodology. Two examples of this method include Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis and offshoots of Martin Noth’s deuteronomistic history. Deduction refers to “an inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessary general or universal premises.” In this view, many believe that Scripture did not come through revelation of God-to-man, but that later on, writers built upon stories of heroes from the past and added miracles and revelations to them. One of the problems with this approach is nothing can ever be settled for certain! Obviously, the major problem is that the Old Testament content cannot be trusted.

The second approach uses inductive methodology. This view starts with different observations and “infers a generalized conclusion from a particular instance.” This method takes into account five areas of evidence:

1.      Jewish writings about the New Year

2.      Egyptology references to coregency

3.      Egyptology evidence for the existence of rival reigns

4.      Evidence for two ways of reckoning the first year of a king’s reign

5.      Texts of King, Chronicles, Jeremiah and Ezekiel

Working through these observations and their various combinations becomes very difficult, however, success has been found! Coucke and Thiele were the first big names to work on the project. McFall came after and produced a full chronology that proved to be consistent with all the Scripture texts chosen. This completed task becomes very significant in that it proved wrong the claim that it was impossible to work with the material and come up with a timeline that made sense! The author took the remaining texts unused by McFall and inserted them into decision tables to help solve the issue of complexity. Significantly enough, the inductive method could never have been successful unless the facts were authentic. Therefore, since the second approach did succeed, the facts can be trusted!

            I felt like this article was very interesting in showing how people look at different facts with different starting points. Those who come at the facts already thinking that Scripture is false easily come up with solutions for how the texts were written. All in all though, you cannot say that something is invalid just because it does not appear to make sense on the surface; it takes time, effort and diligence to understand some things, especially regarding the past. Those who come at the facts already thinking Scripture is inerrant start with the premise that Scripture is correct until proven otherwise; they discipline themselves to figuring out the puzzle! Furthermore, the author ends the article by providing three reasons for why individuals look at the Scriptures with such a view: Scripture claims itself to be inerrant, Jesus believed the Scriptures to be inerrant and God promises to reward those who choose to believe that what He says in His Word is true. I, for one, am one of those who trust what the Bible has to say! 

Overview of an Article

This next post attempts to summarize an interesting article I read by Bryant G. Wood entitled From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period. This article addresses discoveries from archaeology that have to do with the many doubts people express about Israel’s history before the kingdom period. Because of a supposed lack of evidence, many people simply address the Biblical accounts as myths or legends. However, the author makes the point that many of the arguments used fall into four categories: either they misrepresent the chronology given in the Biblical text, the come to conclusion based on arguments from silence or arguments because of no supporting evidence, or a lack of in-depth study or misinterpretation about the actual archaeological evidence and lastly, “just plain bad scholarship.”

Next, the author tackles the topic of the Exodus and the unnamed Pharaoh of Exodus 1:8. He presents arguments for why this could be the first Hyksos king, Maaibre Sheshi, and explains that because he was a foreigner, he would not be familiar with Joseph’s work years beforehand and overall would be semi-handicapped in matters about Egyptian history. Supported by the Turin king list, the Hyksos took over Egypt in a forceful manner during the mid-seventh century B.C. and ruled for about one hundred and eight years. During this time it is probable that they feared the Israelites would join forces with the Egyptians against them, hence they put them into slave labor building certain cities. Archaeologists have studied one of these cities: Ramesses. The author gives the history of the city and its different names in the past such as Rowaty, Avaris, and Peru. This city is principally important because when Jacob and Joseph’s brothers first migrated to Egypt, they settled in this area. There remains evidence of nomadic pastoral settlements that possibly support the original Israelite settlement. Of particular interest is the largest building excavated containing the tomb of an Asiatic dignitary that was broken into and the bones removed. This evidence possibly points to Joseph and the passage Joshua 24:32 (NIV) which says, “And Joseph’s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants.”

The next section of the article talks about the major cities of the Israelite conquest in Canaan after the Exodus. The first city they conquered is Jericho, which I talked about in my last post. There has been a lot of controversy about this city and whether or not it was actually there for the Israelites to defeat according to the Biblical text. Wood concludes the section on Jericho by talking about wall dimensions, the presence of grain and the evidence of walls collapsing and fire. The second city conquered is Ai, which has presented a lot of difficulty in identifying its actual location. Wood ends this section by talking about the requirements the city of Ai must meet according to Joshua chapters seven and eight. Next, the city of Hazor was conquered. Hazor was one of the largest cities in Canaan and there is evidence of destruction by fire.

Before the conclusion, the author also briefly covers these topics: the Amarna Letters, Eglon’s Palace at Jericho, the destruction of King Hazor by Deborah and Barak, the migration of the Danites, Abimelech at Shechem and the fall of Shiloh. Out of all these, I found the section about Abimelech to be the most interesting. Archaeology presents evidence from this important urban center of a temple of Baal-Berith, the East Gate and the destruction level, which all coincide with the Biblical account.

Overall, scholars continue to press the issue of a lack of extra biblical literary evidence to support the Bible. However, it seems unreasonable to expect verification of every single text in the Bible and most likely that will never be achieved. Wood concludes by defending that the evidence available does shed light on events in Israel’s early history that complements the Biblical accounts well. I found this article to be very interesting and helpful. It reminds me of the importance of keeping archaeology in its place. Archaeology cannot be used to prove or disprove the Bible and our faith should not rest on it. The authority of Scripture completely trumps man’s ideas about the past. Man is looking at bits and pieces from the past and trying to make sense of it all. Honestly, I would rather trust the people who were actually there and wrote about it. 

Man vs. History

            “A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400.” I think it’s interesting how quick people are to throw what the Bible says right out the window because of so-called evidence from archaeology. Archaeology attempts to investigate the past, but cannot account for every single thing. Man does not know everything and it seems ridiculous to say something did not happen just because we cannot find what we think should be there thousands of years later.

            One of the most debated topics is Jericho, whether or not it happened when the Bible’s chronology says it did, or even if it happened like the Bible says at all. Jericho accounts a major conquer for the Israelites as they began their conquest of Canaan. The Bible says that after seven days of marching around the city, Jericho’s walls came tumbling down and the Israelites burned the city. Following the chronology of the Bible, the Exodus, where the Israelites left Egypt, took place around 1447 B.C.; this places the capture of Jericho around 1400 B.C during the Late Bronze period (c. 1550-1200 B.C.).  

            Several people have been involved in excavating the area where Jericho was located at Tell es-Sultan, west of the Jordan Valley and north of the Dead Sea. The first major excavation took place by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger from 1907 to 1909 and again in 1911. Though pottery chronology had not been well developed at this time, they came to the conclusion that when the Israelites were said to begin their conquest of Canaan that Jericho was not occupied or even fortified.

            Next to investigate the site was John Garstang. He used modern methods that had been developed and immediately published what he found. He excavated a double city wall and what he referred to as City IV from 1930 to 1936. From his findings he concluded that the city and the wall met their destruction about 1400 B.C., which he credited to the Israelites.

            Kathleen Kenyon excavated again from 1952 to 1958 at the ruins of Tell es-Sultan. She agreed with Sellin and Watzinger’s conclusion that there was no Late Bronze city for Joshua and the Israelites to conquer. She expected to find imported Cypriote ware which is supposedly a diagnostic for Late Bronze dating. She dated the wall Garstang excavated to a thousand years before 1400 B.C. and the city’s destruction at about 1550 B.C by the Egyptians or Hyksos.

            The most recent review of the excavations was conducted by Dr. Bryant Wood. He agrees with Kenyon’s conclusion about the double wall, but is skeptical of the date she assigns to the city. Here a few issues with her dates:

·         Kenyon lacked a focus on local pottery

·         Jericho was not located on the major trade routes and you would not necessarily expect to find the imported Cypriote ware

·         Her conclusions were based upon an argument from silence—what was not there rather than what was

·         Her and Garstang both excavated poor quarters of the city

·         Her analysis was of a very small excavation area

·         There is no evidence for her claim that Jericho was destroyed by Egyptians or Hyksos

Next, Wood gives four areas of evidence that support Garstang: ceramic data, stratigraphical considerations, scarab evidence and radiocarbon date. A closer look at the pottery Garstang found shows that there actually was Bichrome ware pottery! There are several other indications that support the Biblical narrative such as evidence of “tumbling down”, evidence of fire, lots of grain that was stored and left, so they obviously were not starved out, etc! Other evidence now suggests that Israel did occupy Canaan throughout the Late Bronze period.

            All in all, I reviewed this debate over Jericho to show that people have all kinds of opinions! Even though they may excavate the same areas, people come up with their different conclusions. One person thinks this, another thinks that… We are attempting to figure out the past from what we know now; this is not a fair judgment of the past! We cannot expect to prove anything 100%. Can you prove to me, without any doubt, that George Washington was the first President of the United States? Were you there? We cannot prove anything historical with 100% certainty. Remember that, and do not let man’s fallible interpretations weaken your faith.

Concerning Myths

Following up with my previous post, the authority of the Bible is often questioned when other studies come along with various hypothesis. People come to the facts and interpret them due to their starting points. For example, evolutionists say the fossil layer proves that the earth is billions of years old, while creationists say that the fossil layer proves that a universal flood took place on the earth. Obviously, archaeology is no exception to these diverse interpretations of new discoveries.

Several ancient texts of the Ancient Near East, referred to as the ANE, have been discovered due to archaeology. Examples of the popular names of these literatures are Hammurabi’s Code, the Gilgamesh Epic and the Sumerian and Babylonian King Lists. Many people have struggled with the recovering of old accounts of tales and myths within these texts that contain similarities to the Biblical narratives in the Old Testament. According to David Livingstone in Correlating the Texts of Ancient Literature with the Old Testament, people have generally approached these issues with three different premises:

1.      That the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, contain much “myth” and legend, just like the other accounts that have been discovered.

2.      That the Israelites were influenced by the religions of neighboring countries and therefore, created their own religion based upon those others.

3.      That the Old Testament, particularly again the Pentateuch, was written by unauthentic authors at a later date, during the kingdom of Israel or perhaps even later.

In particular, a popular Christian apologist once struggled with these same kinds of troubling issues. C.S. Lewis (known for authoring several books, some of which the recent films Chronicles of Narnia are based off of) followed the writings of James Frazer and Joseph Campbell, who both advocated that the Biblical accounts, particularly the virgin birth, atonement and resurrection, were all irrational beliefs based upon myths. They researched and emphasized that nearly every ancient culture contained similarities with the Bible where a god, or demigod died and rose again. However, Lewis began to see the Biblical account in a different light due to the advice of his friend J.R.R. Tolkien (known for his works such as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy). God fulfilled the chief desires of the pre-Christian pagan world; He appealed to more than just reason, but also to our imaginations. Furthermore, Christianity is set apart because its historicity has been proven! Now I realize that Lewis is primarily commenting concerning the New Testament, but as Louis Markos, author of Apologetics for the 21^st Century states: “Christians need not insist that Christianity is the only truth; we should expect to find truth in every culture and religion.” He offers a parallel to Lewis’ argument in the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Genesis flood. [Markos, Louis, and C. S. Lewis. "7—More than Balder, Not Less: C. S. Lewis and the Apologetics of Myth." InApologetics for the twenty-first century, 65-72. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010.]

              With that being said, I would like to end on what Livingstone from earlier refers to as “A Better Way.” He suggests that we begin with a completely different premise than the three previously mentioned: that the Bible is a completely true account, divinely inspired book. He admits that to do this, presuppositions are obviously present, but that those must be proven with facts and until done so, should be held “somewhat lightly.” Building upon this, he offers six hypotheses that he feels will be sufficiently supported by facts:

1.      The ANE texts that we have discovered are not equivalent to the source material of the Bible.

2.      The Bible is not a collection of myths, but rather historical facts.

3.      The ANE texts were not “evolved” but were “fabricated religio-politico” accounts that were intended to serve a specific function.  

4.      The Israelite’s religion was antithetic to the various religions magnified in the ANE literatures.

5.      The purposes of the Bible and the ANE literature were different; Genesis showed how the religion revolving around Jehovah God came about.

6.      The Bible and the ANE literature basically come down to one major issue: “Who will control men and the world?”

I found these hypotheses to be interesting and helpful in setting the groundwork for interpreting archaeological discoveries from a Christian worldview. I think it is important to remember that we cannot use archaeology as a source of proving the Bible. On the other hand, similarities in recent finds should not be a cause to say that the Bible is not true either; we should not be surprised! 

Six Days or Billions of Years?

The church distressingly finds itself losing influence on the youth of today, even children who have grown up under it’s seemingly protective roof. The church points it’s fingers at pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, cheating, and other more commonly expressed sins of our day and says “Stop that!” They shake their heads and comment on how bad the world has become and act as if there remains no salvation for the young people of America. I want to suggest that these sins are not the foundational problem; rather, we let the problem in ourselves and are continuing to urge it on with our passive view of how this universe came to be.

            My initial reaction to this topic years ago was one of little importance. I did not see how not having a clear foundation about origins would affect my life or those around me. I still believed that the Bible was true and even if we did not all agree about how the Earth was actually created that everybody still needed to accept Jesus as their Savior. As I read through Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth, I realized that many others feel the same way. He states, “…theologically, it makes no difference whether the world is of recent or ancient creation or whether the process took seven days or billions of years. It is unfortunate that some view one’s position in this matter as a test of orthodoxy.” However, as I studied the topic last semester, I realized that it is vitally important to discuss and that if affects everyone.

The church, since the proposal of evolution in the 1700’s, takes various stands regarding the issue. Some accept evolution as valid and then attempt to make it fit with the creation story in Genesis chapter one. One of these efforts is called the gap theory; this idea claims that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, millions or billions of years  took place. Another attempt, called day-age or progressive creation, accepts the big bang origin as evolution teaches and explains that the days of creation in Genesis were actually long periods of time. Others in the church regard all of the creation account in Genesis as simply a myth. Many other cultures have their own myths about how the universe came to be; the Bible just uses Genesis as its story. Lastly, Young-Earthers interpret Genesis literally and conclude that the Earth is six to ten thousand years old. They concur that the universe was formed in six twenty-four hour days, that Noah’s Flood provides the basis for geological formations we see around the world and that all death entered the universe as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sin in the Garden of Eden.

The outcomes of all the different church standings are various. The gap and day-age theories come to the conclusion that man must know more accurate information now and all the details are not properly given in the Bible. Science proves itself reliable and must be taken as fact while the Bible must be constantly twisted and distorted until it aligns with what the majority of science sees in the geological record. This analysis, along with the view that the creation story is simply a myth, creates distrust in the Bible. Because the Bible proves itself to be unreliable historically, can we really believe anything else it has to say?

On the other hand, the opposite reaction comes about from taking the Biblical Young-Earth view of creationism. Taking the Genesis account as literal without trying to impose any of man’s interpretations onto the text establishes trust in God’s account and builds a firm foundation in His Word. This foundation gives humanity not only a specific purpose, but also a moral standard. God created man for a relationship with Him and we live to glorify Him in all that we do. Decisions to determine right and wrong come from the moral law found in the Bible. Because humans are not a product of random chance, they rely on their God given conscience to help them make decisions not specified as black and white in His law.

Many Christians fail to see the importance of addressing such an issue and we are seeing the consequences of the compromise. Abortion, family breakups, racism, sexual immorality are all symptoms, but not the problem. Because the basis for absolute authority has been discredited, people are free to justify anything. Therefore, taking a stand on what God’s Word says about Creation becomes vitally important. If we teach that you cannot trust the first chapter of the Bible, then why in the world would we expect our young people to believe the Bible about its moral implications and even the redemptive work of Christ?