The Centuries Have Taught us to Read With Care
Review of P.R. S. Moorey, A Century of Biblical Archaeology, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991
Reviewed by Kerry A. Shirts
Director of Research (FAIR)
This book was a shocker. For a number of reasons when I read it a few years back (yes it has taken me awhile to review it, but I am doing all I can now to bring you what is interesting! Trust me man, I have a lotta more!)
I have usually taken the approach of showing the Bible is not proven archaeologically to those who would challenge the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds. Not to disparage the Bible, for I, for one, would LOVE to have some real grist in my bag with which to prove the Bible to atheists. Hugh Nibley showed long ago (1959) in his book An Approach to the Book of Mormon, (in the Appendix) what a sorry saga archaeology is because it is not a science, but a bunch of bias know it alls (who really know very, VERY little, and completely argue about what they think they do know!) Recently William Hamblin of FARMS has shown the critically insufficient approach to the anti-Mormon approach to archaeology as well (FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, #1, Spring 1993), but now here is another voice in testimony on the problems of Biblical archaeology, and it isn’t a Mormon voice either. The main problem? Everyone! That’s right, I didn’t say everything, but everyone. Here is the human story of Biblical archaeology and it couldn’t be worse. The bias, and prejudice and determination of archaeologists to prove their views is indeed an eye opener. It is astonishing to see to what lengths archaeologists will go to in order to "prove" their points of view. Moorey’s book tackles this in fascinating fashion.
There is no question that Bible archaeology is subject to human prejudice, both for and against, with both normally being wrong! (p. xvi-xvii).
It is virtually impossible to have control over the textual data of this subject (p. xv). BOTH evolutionists and theologians have used archaeology for their proof texts. (p. 2).
The discovery of Ninevah did not prove the Bible true whatsoever. What interested me was learning that there was a group of cities and communities which went by the name Ninevah! (p. 9).
Another theme Moorey brings out time and again is the chance happenstance finding of some archaeological relic which may or may not have to do with the Bible, and he shows the Moabite stone as a perfect example of this. (p. 20, also see, pp. 36, 41, 87).
Petrie’s weakness was digging at virtually any level and various levels with no systematic recording either. (p. 27) In other words, much of earlier archaeology was not scientific as we would understand such to be today. Hence many of yesteryears finds which were used as proof of the Bible have gone by the wayside. (see p. 32 for Gezer’s fatal archaeological practices)
The overriding desire to correlate Jericho with what the Bible said caused serious problems (pp. 35, 64, 65).
Archaeologists were not immune from drawing confused and uncertain conclusions to their findings, and in fact, this was the norm for the first 100 years of archaeology, and may still be even today. (p. 37).
In fact, the one thing Moorey notes strongly which caught my attention is that archaeology is a science to be sure…. A science of mistakes! (pp. 37-39). This is precisely what Nibley said over 40 years ago.
"To attempt to prove by Archaeology that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is simply grotesque." (p. 41)
Moorey shows that Bible scholars were suspicious of each other and were openly hostile to each other. (p. 48, 66). There are more sins committed in Palestine in the name of archaeology than anywhere else in the entire world. (p. 54).
Archaeology cannot confirm Israel’s faith (p. 87). That is a personal thing you see.
Archaeology has never been the last answer. What it does is changes our knowledge of what we believe was believed and lived yester-century, and we have always been wrong in that. (p. 168)
The consensus of biblical archaeology has been shattered by today’s information explosion. (p. 175).
Moorey’s book is a place to perhaps get our bearings on what was once claimed and classified as biblical archaeology, but is now known to have been nothing of the sort. P.R.S. Moorey is not alone in showing this. Raymond Brown in his book 101 Questions on the Bible, has said "Archaeology gives a mixed picture." (p. 38). He further elaborated that "when it comes to confirming the exact historicity of a biblical event, archaeological find have not had a uniform thrust." (p. 38). His vital conclusion is electric for those who would club Mormonism with Biblical Archaeology. "The notion that archaeology proves the Bible right is inaccurate and misleading." (p. 38). P.R.S. Moorey has shown exactly why this is.