Gooding, David: 3 - Archaeology

And it is likewise a pleasure for me to be back with you here this evening, and I shall try to reward your patience by letting you out this evening a bit earlier. Apologize for my sins on form- former occasions. What is more, let me say that if in these talks I say things that, uh, you do not understand, well, please, I neither bite, well, I might bark, but I don't bite, and, uh, please come back at me, write to me, come and see me, or do what you will, and give me the chance to explain what I meant a bit more in detail. Sometimes very difficult in the space of a short hour or half an hour to explain things that are momentous and necessarily complicated. Now, this evening we are to talk about understanding the Bible in the light of archaeology. People have been coming up to me in this last fortnight or month, complaining bitterly about a certain series of programs on BBC television, run by a certain Magnus Magnusson, dealing with the archaeology of the Old Testament. I have not myself seen those programs, so that I cannot comment. But some reports coming to me, they were a very poor series indeed, or are, shall I say, a very poor series indeed. May comfort you to know, if you haven't already observed it, that two scholars have recently written to the Times on this particular series. The Dean of Durham, E. W. Heaton, and D. Nynum of Keble College, Oxford. Neither of those scholars could be possibly be accused of being conservative scholars. They are very liberal scholars. They too have written to The Times protesting bitterly against the wretched quality of this present series of TV programs by Mr. Magnus. Let that comfort you, if you care to take comfort from such sources. Since, however, people do tend to attach significance to the names of scholars, and let me say at once, when we are investigating truth and history, it is not the names of scholars that decide the issue, it is the facts that decide the issue. But seeing in the public mind great authority is attached to the names of scholars, then just let me remind you that not all scholars will give the interpretation that Magnus Magnusson gives of the affairs that he has been surveying. Very, very different accounts would be given by other scholars. I mention here the names of three, uh, or four present sco- three present scholars who, if you consulted them, would give a, a, a very different account. They are the names of Professor Wiseman, professor for some years now of Assyriology in the University of London, Alan Millard, the Akkadian expert in the U- University of Liverpool. He was the scholar that discovered, stuffed away in the drawers of the British Museum, an account of the flood, the creation story, and the flood in Acadian that added so much to our knowledge of the ancient traditions in the Babylonian and Acadian period of the flood. Similarly, the very renowned scholar Kenneth Kitchen, the Egyptologist of the University of Liverpool. To go no further than these three scholars, they, I say, would give a very different account of the archaeology of the Old Testament than what this recent series on BBC has done. They would give you a conservative estimate. It is therefore useful for those of you who are dealing with school children, because school children are impressed, and I suppose rightly impressed, by a scholar who is accounted an authority in his field. It is a good thing to point out to the children that whereas BBC generally chooses, uh, scholars of the far left, and sometimes people that are of the far left and not really scholars, to popularize the liberal view of things. There are other scholars equally well qualified and holding responsible posts in our British universities, let alone scholars in many another university in America, that do not agree with the liberal position and hold the conservative opinion when it comes to interpreting the significance of archaeology. You will say to me, perhaps, but number one puzzle is, how is there any room for archaeologists to disagree? Doesn't archaeology settle a thing once and for all? Isn't it like mathematics? It doesn't really matter whether you are a Christian or a Muslim, whether you are a believer in God or an absolute atheist. Two and two in arithmetic make four, you'll see. Then you say, but why isn't that so with archaeology? Why doesn't archaeology settle it? Why is there any doubt? Well, for a whole range of things, of course, archaeology does settle it, so that whether a scholar is liberal or whether he is conservative, the matter is settled beyond any doubt by archaeology. Let me remind you of certain things that in the last hundred years have been settled. In previous centuries, it used to be said that Sargon, the king mentioned in the Old Testament, didn't exist. Why scholars thought he didn't exist was because they had no evidence outside the Bible for his existence. But nowadays, all scholars admit that Sargon existed, and the people who said he didn't exist have been proved wrong conclusively. He did exist. And the thing that has made the difference there is the fact that archaeology has brought to light the actual evidence, monuments with the man's name on, showing that he did, uh, exist. The matter is settled. In previous centuries, it used to be said that the Hittites, the people that are mentioned in the Old Testament, one of the tribes, that they didn't exist, or if they did exist, they weren't anywhere near so important as the Old Testament makes out. No scholar, whether liberal or conservative, would hold that view today. Archaeology has brought to light the evidence that the Hittites did exist, and they were an exceedingly important people. In previous years, scholars would have told you that Belshazzar mentioned in Daniel chapter five was not the king of Babylon. And they would have regarded him as a kind of a mythical story. No scholar worth his salt today would deny that Belshazzar existed or that he was acting as king of Babylon. And the reason for that is archaeological evidence has turned up to show us that he did exist, and more of that anon. One could go on quoting great lists of such things, where in past times, uh, uh, scholars have doubted the veracity of historical things recorded in the scriptures, and now they no longer doubt them because archaeology has proved the biblical record true. There wouldn't be a lot of point in my listing the vast lists, therefore I shall, before I'm finished, be, uh, uh, pointing out to you some of the literature where you can find the facts. But now let me come to the point that there is very often room in archaeology for scholars to disagree. And the reason is that, like all other evidence, the evidence of archaeology has to be interpreted. It has to be interpreted at various levels. For instance, it very frequently happens that when s- when archaeologists uncover an ancient city, what they're left with, of course, are a few foundation stones or a little bit bigger, and they have to try and puzzle it out what this particular building is. And sometimes a building that has been regarded as a temple for many, many years by archaeologists is suddenly proved not to be a temple at all, but a bit of a palace. And the archaeologists themselves therefore have to change their minds as to what the actual remains represent. What were they remains of? Secondly, archaeological evidence has to be interpreted in another sense. So let me use a modern illustration, if I may. Suppose one of these nights you're coming down your street up to your home, and the soldiers meet you at the beginning of the street and, uh, take charge of you. And they inform you that, uh, while you've been away, they've been searching your house, and they have found a quantity of arms and ammunition in your backyard. And you say, but that can't be! Not in my backyard. I've got nothing to do with the terrorists. Hm. So this is kind of about you. We found the arms there. Well, you say, I didn't put them there. Can't help that, they're there. So you go down with the soldiers and you come to your backyard, and there they are, a few pistols, grenades, bombs, bullets, and goodness knows what else, in your backyard. And you say, but I didn't put them there, and I've nothing to do with the terrorists. Ah, well, they're there. Now what's going to happen? Well, somebody will have to sit down and scratch his head and interpret the significance of the fact that the arms are in your backyard. And you say, but you mustn't, you mustn't, uh, interpret that to mean that I've got something to do with the terrace. It was the man next door that heaved them over the back wall into my backyard. But the man next door denies that. Of course he does. And the evidence against you might come to be overwhelming. You'd be very grateful, wouldn't you, if during that difficult time you had a few friends who said, yes, but I know John Bloggs. He's a jolly good chap. I'm sure he didn't put the arms down. Why are you sure? Well, I know John Bloggs, and he's not that kind of chap. And if he said he didn't put him there, for me that's enough. He didn't put him there. But the soldiers and the police mightn't know John Bloggs. And they say, ah, well, we must take the evidence the arms are there, and John Bloggs must be a liar, that's all. Do you see my point? That evidence has to be interpreted. And so very often it is with the evidence of archaeology. Therefore, let me at once confess what my fundamental belief is and how I would go about interpreting evidence. I start with faith that Jesus is the Son of God. That's how I start. And that God has made himself known through Jesus Christ our Lord. And I believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, not because archaeology has proved him to be the Son of God, for that archaeology could never do. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God because God has spoken and manifested himself through Jesus Christ, and I have heard his voice and been convicted on moral and spiritual grounds that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, what he says, I believe. Therefore, I believe his character. If he tells me Old Testament is the word of God, then I believe Old Testament is the word of God. If he tells me that he appointed his apostles to be his mouthpiece, then I believe his apostles. That's where I start. You can see I'm heavily biased, can't you? Of course I am. That doesn't mean that I say, well, bother archaeology, I'm not interested in it. Of course I'm interested in it. Where the New Testament or the Old tell me in the name of Christ that certain historical things took place, then I shall be very interested in the historical and archaeological evidence about those historical events. And I shall expect the historical evidence and the archaeological evidence to confirm what Jesus Christ, our Lord, says. That brings me to the point that where the evidence is difficult, or the evidence seems to conflict with what the Old Testament says or what the New Testament says, then what I shall do is to say, yes, well, frankly, there's a problem here, and I don't understand all the evidence yet, but I don't forthwith conclude that the Bible must be wrong, for why I believe the Bible is because Christ said so, because his apostles told me to, that this is indeed the word of God. I shall, as the judges say, I shall reserve my judgment. Let me come back to my analogy. You can see, I, I can see this is very important. John Bloggs. And, uh, the arms that were found in his backyard. And he said he didn't put them there. But the evidence seemed to suggest that he did put them there. So the case comes up before the court, and the jury finds that John Bloggs, yes, well, the evidence seems to suggest that John Bloggs, uh... he must have put them there, and John Bloggs get condemned. Some people up the street say, yes, I always thought John Bloggs was a bit of a liar. Ah, what would you expect? Of course he put them there. Don't believe a word he said. You'd be grateful for friends, wouldn't you, if you were John Bloggs, that would stand by you and say, ha, there must be something wrong about this, there's something fishy somewhere. If John Bloggs said that the arms, he didn't put the arms there, then I believe John Bloggs, for I know John Bloggs' character, I hope. But for the moment, John Bloggs seems to be guilty. Ah, but 6 months later, some thug or other, he's got up into court. And being cross-examined, he confesses not only he blew up five or six hotels, but that he actually dumped the guns over John Bloggs' wall. And now it comes to light that, after all, John Bloggs was true. Didn't look like it at the time, now it's been proved. Wow, if you were John Bloggs, you would be grateful, wouldn't you? For those friends who stood by you when the evidence seemed to go against you, and they stood by you because they knew your character. If we are wise Christian people and loyal to Christ, we shall learn to reserve our judgment where the evidence is difficult or apparently conflicting, and say, yes, but, yes, but. Jesus Christ said that word was the word of God, then I'm going to believe it, even though the evidence seems to conflict for the time being. And I will wait and research and investigate. And surely, if the evidence ever does finally come to light, it will prove Christ to be true. I say you'd be wise if you were a Christian to take that attitude, because now let me, uh, remind you of certain trends in archaeology. First of all, the archaeological remains that have been in- investigated are only a tiny, tiny, tiny part of what there is to be investigated. There are literally thousands and thousands of ancient sites in Palestine and in Babylon, and only a very small fraction have hitherto been excavated. We should not be very wise, should we, to rush to conclusions. Let me take some examples of what that means. There are some people that would tell you that the city of Sodom and Gomorrah never did exist, that the story of Lot is a myth. How about now, around about nineteen seventy and nineteen seventy three, certain American scholars, led by certain Bedouins, scrutinized that part of the world east of the Dead Sea and south of it, looking to see whether, after all, there were remains of cities, the great and famous cities of the plain, Edmar, the Boim, and others, the sister cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And they report that they have found at least five major, by the standards of the ancient world, major sites in that area. They discovered large cemeteries with numerous people buried in it. At first they thought that they must be special sort of holy places where people came to be buried, but then there turned out to be far too many of them. They find that these cities are placed by permanent wadis, permanent river supplies. They have found not only cemeteries, but walls, and they have found evidence of severe burning. The sites have not yet been excavated, and who knows when they'll get money enough and time enough to proceed with the excavation of those cities. But just because the cities have never been found up to the nineteen seventies, we should be unwise, shouldn't we, to say, hmm, Bible talks of the cities of the plain, nobody's ever found them, so therefore they never were there. If we said that, we stand in grave danger of being wrong, don't we, because the evidence is now coming to light that the cities were there. Take another line of argument. Liberal critics have told us that the book of Daniel wasn't written when it purports to have been written. It wasn't written, they say, till one hundred and sixty BC. And one of the reasons they give you for telling you that it was of a late date is the style of the Aramaic language in which the Aramaic chapters of Daniel are written. But then you know that's a very risky argument because hitherto we, we don't know very much about ancient Aramaic. And our knowledge of Aramaic is liable to change very considerably in these coming years. Let me point out to you one new source of Aramaic that has recently come to light. Here I hold in my hand the article by Jacob Hofstider. He is giving us a description of a sixth century, that's five BC plus, a sixth century Aramaic inscription. It is interesting because this particular inscription mentions Balaam, the old wicked prophet Balaam. And here is an inscription. It's not part of the Bible. It's quite independent of the Bible, and it mentions our dear old friend, well, perhaps you don't count him one of your friends, but you know what I mean, Balaam the prophet. Here he appears with some of his curses. This dear old Balaam was in the habit of cursing people more than Israel, indeed. But the interest for us is not particularly in this further evidence for the existence of Balaam, independent of Old Testament. The chief interest is for scholars who work on the history of the Aramaic language, and the editor of this text points out how all sorts of surprising things about ancient Aramaic have come to light in this, um, inscription, such as we never knew about Aramaic before. So you see, perhaps, the point I'm trying to make, that the evidence that archaeology keeps turning up keeps altering many points about which scholars beforehand would have claimed to be sure, and now they have to alter what originally they said. Let me then proceed to take some outstanding examples in which archaeology has changed people's ideas. It used to be said, for instance, that the fourth gospel was a very late gospel. Instead of been being written by John the Apostle in the closing years of the first century AD or earlier, people used to say it wasn't written till the hundreds, the second century, and some people the third century AD. They don't say that nowadays. Why don't they say that nowadays? Well, for a number of reasons. First of all, there turned up some tiny little bits of manuscript of the fourth gospel. Some of them are in Manchester University, John Ryland's library, and they are very ancient. These bits of manuscripts date to the early second century AD, and they themselves are not the original copies, of course, so they presume co- the original copy lying further back in the past. It is now seen to be utter nonsense to say that the Fourth Gospel wasn't written till the 2nd century AD. It is proved by the sheer survival of this ancient bit of manuscript to have been much earlier. Again, scholars used to say that the fourth gospel can't be actual historic fact. It must be stories made up by some writer about the Lord Jesus, made up and put into the past. They said, for instance, you take that story about the pool, uh, of, of, uh, Bethesda in chapter five. We have no evidence, they used to say, that there was ever such a pool. Ah, but then the archeolo- archaeologists began to dig, and first of all, they found in the very early remains of a church a picture on the walls of the particular church of this pool with five porches therein. So they went on digging down below the foundations, and there they came across the pool with the five fortunes. Fourth Gospel, people used to say, must be late. Look at the terminology it uses. It talks about light and darkness. It talks about the Lord Jesus as the Word of God. They say, you know, this wasn't written by John, who was a Jew. Surely this was written by an Hellenist under the influence of later Hellenism, using the terms light and darkness and such like things that mark him to be very late and under the influence of Greek philosophy. Consider the term the Logos, the Word of God, they said. There you are. That's a kind of Alexandrian philosophy when the church, uh, in the second century moved in Hellenistic circles, and there the gospel has been written. But then, as you know, the excavators dug up Qumran. And what the monks at Qumran were writing in those early centuries before Christ and during Christ's time on earth, and it was discovered that they used these same terms of light and darkness, and they certainly weren't Hellenists. They were conservative Jews, deep blue blooded, if that's what conservative Jews are, the color of their blood, blue blooded Jewish conservatives of the straightest conservative sect that you would find on earth anywhere, they were Jews. And they were using these terms of light and darkness. Ah yes, and they were using the term memra for the word of God. And therefore the fourth gospel can well have been written by the Apostle John in the first century AD. Now let me tell you something astounding, and if you suffer from a weak heart, well, perhaps you ought not to try and listen, because the shock might be too much for you. There is a British scholar, he was a bishop, he isn't now, but he's an ex-bishop, and his name is Robinson, and he wrote a famous, or shall I say infamous book, uh, you'll see, well, he wrote a whole, uh, lot of them. One of them was about God is dead, and another was entitled This I Can't Believe. And he is a scholar, a very good scholar in things academic, exceedingly acute scholar, but his theology, alas, is preposterous. Uh, he wrote, as I say, this thing about God is dead. Recently, that learned scholar has produced a book in which he says that nothing in the New Testament is later than AD seventy. Well, if a conservative scholar had dared to say that even ten years ago, five years ago, the man would have been howled out of court for daring to believe it. But now your extreme liberal scholar, Robinson, tells the world that in his scholarly opinion, there is nothing in the New Testament later than AD seventy. What changes we can see, can't we, in the world of scholarship? In other words, he's coming round to the view that the new documents were written when they say they were written, liberal though he is. Let me take you some, some older examples. Well, just like last week when we were considering science, we found it profitable to look back a bit and see how scientific theories have changed. So we would be wise men and women when it comes to archaeology, to look back over the years and see how views have been changed by archeolo- archaeological research. For instance, in the Acts of the Apostles, and I'm now going to take a very detailed little thing because it's important. In the Acts of the Apostles, there is the statement that Paul and his fellow Christian workers came to a place called Iconium, and there they were persecuted full force. And so Luke says they fled from Iconium, and they came to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia. Aha, aha, said the ancient critics. Now just look at that, the stupid man. See what Luke has gone and said, that Paul fled from Iconium and came to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia. Well, the silly chump. Iconium was a city of Lycaonia as well. They say that poor old Luke was booed. Let me try and show you the point of what they're saying. Suppose somebody two thousand years from now was writing the history of Ulster, and he said, there was a man, and he lived in Lisburn. Unfortunately, his house got bombed, so he left Lisburn and he fled to Belfast and Bangor, uh, sorry, Belfast and Ballycastle, cities of County Antrim. Well, you say that's funny, funny because Lisburn's in County Antrim as well. What do you mean he fled from Lisburn to Belfast and, uh, uh, uh, and Ballycastle, cities of, of, of Antrim? They're all cities of Antrim. Man doesn't know what he's talking about. And so they said of Luke. He says that Paul fled from Iconium, and he went to Lystra and Darby, cities of Lycaonia, but all three are cities of Lycaonia. He's got the counties muddled up. So they said, you see, that's only a small thing, but that shows you got the counties muddled up. So they said, you see, that's only a small thing, but that shows you that Luke didn't know what he was talking about. He was writing years and years and years after the event, and he's muddled it all up. Ah, but then a scholar by the name of William Ramsey, who later was knighted, went out with his old spade and started to dig, and he dug up a boundary stone, and he was able to digitate the old boundary stone and discovered that just at that time when Paul and company were traveling in those parts, the boundaries had been altered. And this boundary stone actually proved that at the time Paul and company were traveling there, Iconium was not a city of Lykaonia, whereas Lystra and Darby were cities of Lykaonia. And to get from Iconia to the other two, Paul had had to leave one sort of county and go into another. And Luke was exactly right and precisely right. Though the whole thing, the boundaries were changed after that. And if he had been writing many, many years later, he wouldn't perhaps have known that the boundary lines had been changed and might well have made a mistake and said that all three towns were in the same province. It was discoveries of Luke's accuracy in those minute points that converted that great scholar, William Ramsay, from being a liberal as he was brought up to being a conservative scholar in things archaeological. That was a difficult one, wasn't it? We'll come back to that in a minute. Huh. Let's now think again of the question of Belshazzar, mentioned in Daniel chapter five as king of Babylon. For many years, as you may know, it used to be said that Daniel must be wrong, for how could, um, Belshazzar be king of Babylon anyway? And, uh, how could he be called Nebuchadnezzar's son when he wasn't Nebuchadnezzar's son? But then, of course, in nineteen twenty four, archaeological evidence came to light to show that Nabonidus, the king in between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, had gone away into the Arabian desert for a long period. And what had happened was that Nebu- uh, Nabonidus, who was really king, had gone away and committed the kingdom to Belshazzar. And then in nineteen fifty six, somebody else dug up three monuments at Haran. They described not only old Ne- Nabonidus, bless his heart, but his mother too, a remarkable woman she was. That is beside the point. No scholar now worth his salt would question that bit of the story of Daniel, or they still question a lot of other bits, for archaeology only convinces those who want to be convinced, very often. But there you are. Differences then, have I made my point? Differences of interpretation that have come over the years because of the increased evidence. Differences that support the story of Holy writ, whereas before the story had been doubted. That, therefore, is the main impression I want to leave with you. And I tell you why I do that. We as Christians have no need to be other than absolutely intellectually honest. It would be a temptation for me, perhaps, of talking to you this evening to say that archaeology has proved the Bible and that there are no difficulties. That would not be true. There are difficulties. All sorts of things that we don't understand. There are places where the evidence might be interpreted. Indeed, some scholars do interpret it to go against Bible. And if you were to ask conservative scholars their opinion, they would say, well, on that matter, we have no answer at the moment. We reserve our judgment. It doesn't strengthen the case for the validity of Holy Scripture to make rash, false, exaggerated claims. For instance, there was a little tract that circulated some months ago, some years ago. Somebody gave me a copy of it. It's purported to tell how somebody had got a computer and worked out by computer all sorts of marvelous things, and it actually found by computer the lost day in Joshua's time and the lost few hours in the time of Hezekiah when shadow went back upon the sundial. And this was supposed to have been done by an American scholar in a computer laboratory, and it was offered to the public as some supporting holy writ. As I understand it, the whole thing is not true. No such thing ever happened. Simple wishful thinking. Every now and again we are told somebody's found the ark, if not Noah, found the ark. And Christians clap, well, I suppose I understand why they clap. But it doesn't do the truth of God any good to show ourselves willing to believe such stories, unless the evidence is exceedingly strong for them. We believe in a God of truth. That means that we too must be truthful and intellectually honest and face the facts, and where there are difficulties, say, yes, there's a difficulty there, and I can't explain it, but I'm not going to abandon my faith in the deity of the Lord Jesus, in his character, in the reliability of his word, because I have come across a difficulty that I can't for the moment explain. And if you will read the conservative scholars that I have been talking to you about, you will find that they are wise and honest men who come to their task as scholars seeking the truth. They will admit to you where the difficulties are. Having said that, therefore, let me just close by reminding you once more of what the general tendency of archaeology has been. The way back, the beginning of this century, the great scholar Ramsay, brought up in extreme liberal, uh, traditions and full of unbelief of the New Testament, went out to Asia Minor with his spade and was converted to believing in the validity of scripture by his discoveries in archaeology in that part of the world. The famous scholar Sais, the great Egyptologist, was no, uh, evangelical, but simply on the basis of the archaeological evidence that he uncovered, he rejected the critical theories associated with the name of Wellhausen that still fill our books. He rejected it on the grounds of sheer archaeology. Let me read you some testimonies, and I take them from the collection of testimonies made here by one certain Joss McDowell. That is an useful book for the collection of evidence. It is entitled More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, written by a young Christian man, uh, who's collected all sorts of bits and pieces of evidence from one source and another. And here he has collected a number of quotations from certain leading scholars. To start with, H. M. Orlinski. Now, H. M. Orlinski is not a scholar whom you would call a conservative scholar. You would say that Orlinski is a liberal. Now listen to what he says. More and more, the older view that the biblical data were suspect and even likely to be false unless corroborated by extra biblical facts, that older view that the biblical data is likely to be false is giving way to one which holds that, by and large, the biblical accounts are more likely to be true than false. And this is not a conservative, this is a liberal scholar speaking. The biblical accounts are more likely to be true than false, unless clear-cut evidence from sources outside the Bible demonstrates the reverse. Here another scholar, L. H. Gollenberg. The views, he says, of the older critics proceeded from a rather hasty application of the evolutionary pattern and were based too exclusively upon textual criticism. Thanks to the work of the archaeologist, the modern scholar is in closer contact with the actual world in which Israel had its roots. Today, many scholars feel a renewed confidence in the skillful narrators of chapters twelve to fifty of Genesis. The stories of the patriarchs must be based on historical memories. Professor Bauman of University of Chicago. The conf- 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. The famous scholar Albright, he began life as an exceeding liberal. He ended life much more as a conservative, but not one hundred percent conservative, of course. But he says, archaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of innumerable passages and statements of the Old Testament. They are biblical scholars. Let me now read you the verdict on the New Testament of some classical scholars. And you'll see now I am quoting because I don't profess myself to be an archaeologist nor a New Testament historian. But take this. B. H. Warmington, reader in ancient history at the University of Bristol, commenting upon the historical sources for Nero's reign, writes, lastly may be mentioned Acts and some of the Pauline epistles in the New Testament. Their importance in describing the early progress of an ultimately dominant religion are obvious. When they deal with aspects of Roman law and government, that is when the Acts and the epistles talk about the history of their time and the law and the government, they have long been regarded by historians as reliable. In a similar vein, the distinguished Roman historian, now professor A. N. Sherwin-Wright, has recently remarked, for the Acts of the Apostles, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians, that's the thing from theologians, Roman historians have long taken the historicity of the acts of the apostles for granted. Weighty evidence from men, most of whom would not be conservative, some of them distinctly liberal. You hear their testimony to the trend of archaeology over this last fifty years. We should be wise people, then, to remember that. That is not to say that there are not problems. I want to end with one more quotation about how some scholars look at the matter when problems arise. You'll see, let me just illustrate to you what I mean by a problem. Take the city of Jericho. One scholar published a book in which he claimed that he'd found the walls that actually fell down flat when Joshua and the Israelites went in. Well, that was a hasty judgment. Because now the scholars come along and they have dug further, and they find different periods in Jericho, and there rises a problem at to what period should those walls be, uh, attributed. The famous archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon has said, look, there is no evidence on this site at Jericho for any invasion by Joshua and the Israelites. There are no remains from that particular period of history. So what? The history that the the city that would have existed in Joshua's time has disappeared completely. Now, what do you deduce from that? That they never was a city, and therefore the Bible is wrong? Or there was a city, and the thing has perished because it's all been knocked down and has perished completely? How will you decide? That is very often true, particularly with cities that were built on top of hills. Because of their exposure, certain of the levels of those hills have been eroded and blown away by the winds and don't en- do not any longer appear. So what do you do when the Bible says that Joshua or somebody else came along and he captured and destroyed these cities, and when you go along you find that nowadays there is no evidence that any such city existed at that time? What do you decide? Well, some very popular writers and people like Magnus Magnusson would tell the world, there you are, do you see? The Bible says there was a city there, and Joshua went and destroyed it, but we've no evidence there was ever a city, therefore there wasn't one. Ah, but many archaeologists wouldn't take that view. Over Jericho, various opinions are held at the moment. One, the city of Joshua's time has been so completely destroyed and its stones removed by other invaders for rebuilding and other things that no evidence remains. That doesn't prove it wasn't there. Two, a large part of Jericho City has not yet been dug. Kathleen Kenyon left a good great deal of it on purpose so that, uh, scholars could perfect their techniques in archaeology, and when they have perfected them more and more, say in fifty years time, then they should be allowed to come along and dig the rest of the city. And that's very interesting, because, you see, we have had cases in archaeology where archaeologists have dug a bit of a city, and they have not found anything worth finding, and have given up the site as useless. And years later, other archaeologists have come along, and they've happened to dig in a slightly different place and found untold treasure and historical evidence. We do have to remember the kind of material we're dealing with. And other scholars are of the opinion that the city that is now called Jericho is not perhaps the ancient Jericho. So when Magnus Magnusson and other such like make their confidence d- confident deductions, because the evidence no longer survives, you will be wise to take them with very, very large doses of salt. Yeah. And listen finally to the words of the l- late and lamented great archaeologist Paul Lapp. As far as I know, he wasn't a conservative either. Listen to him express what should be our attitude where we have problems. The author of the booklet comments Lapp, who is otherwise exceedingly cautious in claiming the confirmation of a biblical narrative on the basis of the archaeology. He's always cautious, he doesn't jump to conclusions. He is convinced that the best explanation of the series of thirteenth century destructions in the biblical account of Joshua's campaign. Uh, sorry, he is convinced that the best ex- explanation of the series of thirteenth century destructions is the biblical account of Joshua's campaign. He asks, is it possible to attribute these destructions to Egyptian campaigns, sea peoples without their characteristic pottery, or internecine struggles? Well, you can if you wish. It is possible to do it if you want to, but why promote such postulations, such hypothetical reconstructions in the face of the clear statements in the biblical sources that these two sites were destroyed by Joshua? That is to say, you have time to ponder that or listen to it again one of these days on the tape. What that scholar was saying was this: we don't have evidence to prove it. Therefore, some scholars reject the Bible and make up hypothetical explanations, supposing this, supposing that, and supposing the other. But he says they are only hypothetical. Why should we follow them rather than follow the clear-cut statements of Holy Writ? Now, why should Paul Lapp prefer the statements of Holy Rip- Writ as an archaeologist? For this simple reason, that in this last fifteen years, in Israel at any rate, with the immense amount of archaeological discovery that's gone on, so many times have the Jewish scholars said, well, now let's suppose the Bible is true, let's go and excavate. If the Bible is true, there ought to be a city here of such and such a kind, and when they've gone and dug, there has been a city. With the consequence that many of the archaeologists nowadays would give the preference to Holy Scripture if there is any doubt. Now, you have been exceedingly patient. I cease with what I said at the beginning. If anything that I have said has upset you, or you have misunderstood it, then I beg your pardon, and I ask you to give me the chance, privately, sometime or other, to explain exactly what I mean. If you are interested and would like to know where you can get detailed and technical evidence, then I should be delighted to, uh, give you the reference to books wherein you can find the information. Remember that we don't believe the gospel because archaeology has proved it. We believe the gospel because we believe Jesus Christ is God's son. Don't think that, uh, our faith depends on the archaeologists. For if you think that, you're going to live in great uncertainty, worrying about what the archaeologists are going to turn up next week. Our faith doesn't rest on archaeology. It rests in Jesus Christ, God's son, as the word of God. But because he is the word of God and has told us that Old Testament and new are God's word, then we are interested in history, in archaeology. It is an important issue. We take courage because archaeology has so frequently demonstrated that the Bible is true, that even now where there are still difficulties, we wait in eager expectation, willing to face the fact, and wait for the further light that we are convinced will eventually show that the Bible is true, or if not true, that there is nothing against believing it is true. Thank you very much for your kind attention.