Archaeology and the Believer

By Dr. David Tee

This work is the author's THD dissertation. Its content is meant to bring a better understanding of the field of Archaeology to the Christian believer and other people groups. The work is a must read for all those in archaeology, beginning their studies in archaeology or have studied this research field

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dr. David Tee
• Release date: Mar 21, 2024
• ISBN: 9798224686063

Book preview

Archaeology and the Believer

Dissertation

Dr. David Tee

Author’s Note

After many years of criticism about my Doctoral degree, I have decided to publish my Dissertation. This is the complete work intact and if there are mistakes it is because this work was recovered form corrupted files. Work has been done to correct those mistakes but some slip through the cracks.

This work was written approx. 14 years ago and was the the starting point for all of my books written afterwards. The key is that the content is as valid today as it was when it was written. We left the original font used in this work, plus we added our legitimate title to in sync with our other works.

The cover is an image from Pixabay.com, we did not record the photographer but it is no ours. This work is very compelling and should be read by all believers to help them understand archaeology as well as protect and strengthen their faith.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction -  3

2. Objectivity -  7

3. Consider the Source-  14

4. The Amount of Evidence-  21

5. Interpretation-  27

6. Archaeological Eras-  34

7. Dating the Evidence-  41

8. The Problem of Education-  49

9. Chronology-  56

10 Alternative Texts-  62

11 Conclusion-  69

12 Appendix I- The Exodus-  73

13 Appendix II- Sodom & Gomorrah-  78

14 Endnotes-  84

15 Bibliography-  96

1. Introduction

Dr. Bryant Wood once said, ‘...that we [believers] do archaeology to keep the unbelieving archaeologists and bible scholars honest...’1 It is no small feat to do so but it is a very good reason for Christians to be involved in archaeological work because the secular world does not accept the Biblical chronology nor its recorded events and they are looking for alternatives.

If believers weren’t involved to discover the truth of the past there is no telling what kind of history would be written by those professionals who spend their lives investigating ancient civilizations. In his book, A Short History of the World, J.M. Roberts had this to say:

History is a word which traditionally means two different things: what happened, and a true account of what happened. In the second sense, it is always a selection from the past. Even the history of the whole world, though, is not selection from all the past. We can ignore most of Time...And, to make things more difficult, not everyone agrees about what sort of creatures in early times might be thought of as ‘human’...2

In other words, as we shall see in the first chapter, the professional archaeologist and biblical scholar all have their own ideas about what took place in history and especially in biblical history. They are not objective, let alone honest, in these views and they are not afraid to proclaim them in publishing their articles and books. They want to prove their ideas true, not find the truth and it is quite evident as one studies archaeology that the truth is the victim in this field as well as the ancient societies being studied.

The field of archaeology is not dominated by true Christians, there are Christians working on digs and biblical scholarship but at times one has to wonder which side of the fence they are really on as they sacrifice truth to maintain scientific principles not founded on biblical teachings.

So the believer must be wary, they must consider the source before accepting the conclusions of the professional historian, etc., for the field is dominated by those who are not believers and who look to re-write the past in their way, according to their theories and preferences.  Archaeology, like all scientific fields does not include the supernatural in its thinking, it looks for physical evidence and often when it is not found, conclusions are made from silence and in archaeology that is the wrong thing to do. Yet it takes place anyways, because of the beliefs, or lack of them, held by the archaeologist, the biblical scholar or the historian.

In reading archaeological books, one must be aware of the simple fact that the amount of evidence discovered is not as grand as they are led to believe:

We must never forget that we have very thin evidence for much of prehistory. Europe for example, has just one cave where tools similar to those of Australopithecus in Africa have been found...3

What is being worked with, as we shall see, is a very incomplete picture of the past drawn from what little evidence we do discover. Pottery is everywhere but it was a common item, much like today’s pots or vases or shovels etc. yet they do not tell a complete tale.

It must be realized that the physical evidence unearthed is vulnerable and subject to the beliefs, preferences, desires and theories of the archaeologist and the biblical scholar with influence from their knowledge of ancient languages and cultural practices as well as their rejection of the biblical record. Those believers who do reject the biblical record are not as vocal as one would like and their ideas are dismissed, many times, because of their religious ‘agenda’ or bias.

Much of the conclusions of the past are secular in nature and the believer must watch out for this bias, even though many secular professionals would deny that it is part of their work as being ‘objective’ is the goal. Unfortunately being ‘objective’ does not include being honest.  One can be objective but lie anyways and one can be based or have an agenda but still be honest.

It is the latter that is preferred by this author, if we cannot be totally honest all the time. Honesty is far better than theory, or the attempt to force the evidence to fit the alternative thought.  The theory should fit the evidence discovered, with room left over for possibilities and future discoveries that may change the theory. Holding a rigid theory, then applying the evidence to it is unprofessional, yet is also done to some extent by those professionals who do not want to waste a life’s work.

Adding to the confusion of the archaeology field is the Age or Period system employed, not uniformly but employed with adaption, for it was not constructed to obtain the ultimate goal but to support the evolutionary thinking that is prevalent in the scientific arena and as we shall see, its construction was not based upon anything remotely close to the truth but done on a whim and an observation without fact.

In this work we shall also encounter the problem of dating the evidence and it is a problem because much of it is solely done on guess work. Yes they are educated guesses but because the piece of pottery or the monument or the buildings discovered are not stamped, ‘made in the year...,’ we can never be totally sure when it was made and for how long it was kept by a family or government officer. For all we know it was a keepsake or an inherited object, that passed down through the family for generations, much like many items, like wedding rings, are today.

Some archaeologists do use C-14 carbon dating but it is not as reliable as one would think and is in need of help through calibration via other fallible dating methods, making it and all other dating systems virtually unreliable and easily manipulated. It is not easy to date the past, for it is basically impossible to say what took place without a written record describing the exact chain of events pertaining to a particular piece of evidence.

Such texts are very rare, rarer than finding school texts in a school from an ancient civilization. Dating is a best guess possibility and it should remain so as the ancients did not use the same type of calendar as the ones in use today and for the past 1,900 years or so, approx... God does not give exact dates for many of the events that transpire and the ones we do get, are recorded according to the ancient standard not the modern one.

What complicates matters the most for the archaeologist is the lack of discovered written texts. Like today, the majority of those who write, do so on perishable materials, that is, if they write much after being taught how to do so. Thus the conclusions about illiteracy in the ancient world are unfounded because millions of modern day people have learned how to write over the centuries yet never record anything more than a note to a loved one or family member.

It is unrealistic to consider the idea that those notes or letters would survive thousands of years of wear and tear or to conclude that the person did not know how to write simply because there is no record of their penmanship.

These are some of the factors that come into play when one is listening to or reading the archaeological reports that are published or recorded on DDs or other media forms and which influence the conclusions drawn by the archaeologist or biblical scholar. When the believer learns the true chronology, it is easier for them to put things into context and see how far astray the secular, and other, professionals go in their work.

The idea that ‘the oldest discovered is the original’ is common in the field, the problem with this that the Biblical record predates all secular discoveries but the Bible is dismissed as a religious book with a religious agenda and cannot be accepted as an actual historical document.

In the nineteenth century the acceptance of evolutionary theory and the application of higher criticism in religion resulted in the Bible being cast as a work of theological fiction. Its history was regarded as legend and its miracles as myths. This radical reassessment of Scripture was argued in part on the absence in the historical record of peoples in the Older Testament such as the Hittites. And because their linkage in the biblical text with larger-than-life personages like Abraham, David, and Solomon, these figures of faith were likewise rendered suspect. Moses was also said to be a myth because critical scrutiny deemed aspects of his biblical description as unhistorical. One reason for this supposed lack of historical reliability was the biblical statement that Moses had written the Torah (Deuteronomy 31:24). The scholarly consensus was that Moses must have been illiterate since the ancient Egyptians were thought to have delegated the work of writing to scribes. As a result, neither kings nor commoners learned the art. The Newer Testament was also regarded with equal criticism. It was viewed as the product of later ecclesiastical invention, with the Gospel of John offered as a prime example of a second century document of Gentile origin.4

The Bible is relegated to the sidelines for much of the archaeological work that is being done today and has been done in the past. Though, as we shall see, the alternative religious writings, with far less evidence and far less of a historical trail, are clearly accepted without as much controversy or adherence to the criteria placed upon in the Bible.

These alternatives are accepted by the secular community as alternatives to the biblical record and as a legitimate source to understanding biblical life and books, regardless of their origin, agenda, or religious beliefs. The believer must be cautious when reading the ideas of archaeologists and biblical scholars when they use these alternatives

This dissertation is not written in the orthodox manner, for the intellectual or for intellectual exercise, but for the common believer so that it is easily understood and that the warnings it sounds are not missed by the most uneducated archaeologically speaking. Its purpose is to point out the dangers that are involved in the archaeological field and that ‘all science is not good science’. The believer needs to be prepared and cannot blindly accept an opinion or conclusion simply because an expert in the field has said it was so.

Science, including archaeology, has been elevated to a position of authority that it should not legitimately hold, for it is highly subjective and leaves out data that is pertinent to discovering the truth, something all believers should be striving to obtain.