Biblical Scholars Agree?

by Dan Armacost (1994 Graduate, Dean of Bible, Fairhaven Baptist College)

If I had a dime for the times that I have read the phrase, " ...scholars agree...," I would be a rich man. So often, we are force-fed the idea that if scholars speak on a given subject, all "non-scholars" must accept their propositions as fact; anyone choosing otherwise is revealing himself to be an imbecile. The assumption is this: disagreement with a "scholar" equals denial of facts. This idea exists around the academic world today. Try to find a "scholar" who is truly open-minded to someone who disagrees with his "findings." You will be searching for a long time.

Before this goes any further, let it be known that there is nothing wrong with studying facts. God commands Christians to study. A person should study to know both what he believes and why he believes it. However, there is a vast difference between one whose study is interpreted in the light of and subject to God's revealed Word, and one whose study allows him to form conclusions contrary to the Bible.

I recently located a book entitled, "The Bible Unearthed" (Touchstone Books, New York, 2001). In this book, the authors (Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman) examine various Biblical accounts, including: the origin of the Israelites, the life of Abraham, the Exodus, and the reign of Solomon. They purport to contrast the Bible's rendering with that of recent archaeological finds. Time after time, archaeological "findings" are interpreted to conclude that the Bible is full of myths. According to these authors, the real truth of ancient civilizations is accurately seen only by means of modern archaeology. Of course, anyone who would disagree with these conclusions finds himself doubting "scholars." What "non-scholar" (read: uneducated and uninformed person) would dare disagree with these pillars of scholasticism?

For instance, in chapter three, "The Conquest of Canaan," the authors state " ...archaeology has uncovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggested date of the conquest." Their interpreted archaeology describes a Canaan that did not have fortified cities, and whose inhabitants were militarily anemic. Of course, this is in direct contradiction with the twelve spies' report given to Moses in Numbers 13:28.

Regarding the Exodus, they state the following: "Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications in the desert..." (page 61). The underlying philosophy of these authors is found at the beginning of the previous quote. "Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles...." Not surprisingly, there is an obvious rejection of the supernatural in most archaeological circles. For these men, archaeology circumvents revealed Bible truth. Historical records are used to refine (and even reinterpret) revealed Bible truth. The concept of absolute, for the typical scholar, exists only in the realm of rationalism, never in revelation. Theirs is a thinking unchecked by Biblical revelation. To them, a scholar's statement of "fact" is cause enough to topple revealed Bible truth. By denying the supernatural, these men reveal their standard operating procedure - reason over revelation.

The Bible Unearthed furthers its frontal assault on Bible revelation by maintaining that Joshua's conquest of Canaan was not the Israelite nation entering and overtaking Canaan (as recorded in the book of Joshua), but rather a revolt of rural peasants (already dwelling in Canaan) against the rulers of the city-states of Canaan. Thus (it is assumed), there was no crossing of the Jordan, no battle of Jericho, no conquering army empowered by God. The absurdity of this proposition demonstrates what happens when one subjects himself to archaeological and historical evidences that are interpreted for the purpose of contradicting Biblical revelation.

Now it is apparent that the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" are not fundamentalists. They make no claim as such. They treat the Bible as a dented record of history at best, and pure myth at worst, and thus their desire to "reconstruct" the Bible according to their modern day archaeological findings. There will be no end to their rebuilding of the Bible. Each new archaeological dig has the possibility of altering not only their interpretation of scripture, but their past findings as well. For them, Biblical history is, and always will be, in a state of flux.

This being said, this thirst for new findings in the realm of Bible texts is not limited to the liberal scholar; it has extended to fundamentalist circles as well. What other conclusion can be drawn from the actions of those who change the words of the Bible text based on archaeological findings (or "treasure hunts")? Should "discoveries" alter the text of the Bible? Should Christians today be waiting on scholars to discover lost words of the Bible text? If you say no, then beware. Many Christians (even fundamentalists) have all ready subjected themselves to the "Biblical Scholars agree" mantra.

I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God. For many centuries, Bible believers have received it. Why then the need to reconstruct or restore what has already been revealed and received?

There are certain ramifications should the Bible text be viewed as completely revealed, in no need of alterations. The first ramification is that the job of the archaeologist would be to reinforce Bible propositions, not reinterpret them. Next, textual criticism would take a back seat to Bible-believing instruction. "Scholars" would not rise to an authoritative pedestal; rather, they would subject themselves to God's revealed Word. Unfortunately, in today's academic world, the rationalism of the scholar almost always tramples upon the received Word of God. This ought never to be, and certainly not in fundamentalist circles.

It is one thing for scholastic genuflection to be commonplace among the unregenerate. Bible deniers will never subject their rationalism to God's revealed Word. But why should fundamentalists be interested in allowing modern discoveries to alter the text of the Bible? Would God subject His revealed Word to the chance of archaeological or historical discovery? Should a discarded Greek text discovered in a monastery alter words in the Bible that we use today? Is a Vatican relic text superior to the Scripture text that has been received by believers for centuries? Certainly not!

The choice between Bible texts is crystal clear. The Received Text is the established Word of God; the Critical Text is the continuing work of numerous scholars and archaeologists. Choose the Received Text, and you will be choosing the text received by Christians throughout the centuries. Choose the Critical Text, and you will be choosing a restored text - restored by means of archaeologists and treasure hunters over the past 150 years. "The Bible Unearthed?" - No thanks. I'll have the Bible Received.