Archeology and Biblical Criticism Part IV: Archeology and Higher Criticism -- By: Joseph P. Free

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 114:453 (Jan 1957)
Article: Archeology and Biblical Criticism Part IV: Archeology and Higher Criticism
Author: Joseph P. Free


Archeology and Biblical Criticism
Part IV:
Archeology and Higher Criticism

Joseph P. Free

[Joseph P. Free is Fred McManus Professor of Bible Archeology and Department Chairman at Wheaton (Illinois) College. His article is fourth in the series of his W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectureship for 1955 on “Archeology and Biblical Criticism.”]

In earlier years certain liberals set aside the full validity of the Bible on the grounds that it was historically inaccurate, and that it contained legendary and even mythological material.

As we have seen, archeological discoveries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have shown, on the other hand, the validity and trustworthiness of one passage after another which in earlier years was set aside as historically invalid. Of real significance has been the archeological evidence relating to the patriarchal period, Joshua, Judges, the period of the monarchy with the evidence concerning Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and numerous other kings, and finally the period of the captivity and the restoration, with the various discoveries relating to the time of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Acknowledgment of the force of the archeological discoveries has come from many quarters. Albright has pointed out that “archaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament” (W. F. Albright, “Archeology Confronts Biblical Criticism,” The American Scholar, 7:2:181, Spring, 1938).

Professor Raymond A. Bowman of the University of Chicago has acknowledged the significance of archeological evidence as a check on the credibility of the Bible narrative and on critical hypotheses. In this connection, he has stated:

“The confirmation of the biblical narrative at most points has led to a new respect for biblical tradition and a more conservative conception of biblical history” (“Old Testament Research between the Great Wars,” The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, p. 30).

Although Millar Burrows of Yale holds to the liberal view, he directly acknowledges the force of archeology in confirming the Bible. Burrows states: “The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respect of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents. The confirmation is both general and specific. The fact that the record can be so often explained or illustrated by archaeological data shows that it fits into the framework of history as only a genuine product of ancient life could do. ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()