Watch this video:
I have an interest in Tel Rehov. I dug there in 2008.
Furthermore, those people that you saw digging at Rehov in the video were my
colleagues. In this video, CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network, put this
video together and I must admit…this makes me squirm. Why? This video
simultaneously gives an erroneous impression of what archaeology is for
biblical studies and paints Dr. Amihai Mazar is an unfortunate light.
Lets unpack this.
When the video opens, the narrator gives a line about Tel
Rehov and then immediately states that the excavators might have found the
house of Elisha. Now, the key words here are “might have found.” On the one
hand, we have to give credit where credit is due. The narrator does state that
there is an element of uncertainty with the identification. On the other hand,
the rest of the video does its best to make you forget about the opening
statement of caution. By the time the short video ends, the producers have done
their best to give the impression that 1) this is Elisha’s house and 2)
archaeology is a great avenue to “prove the Bible.”
After the opening statements, Dr. Mazar, who has
been the lead excavator at Rehov, is interviewed. The focus of his statements
falls upon a unique building that was excavated, and in that building an
ostracon (or a potsherd with writing) was discovered. Mazar’s commentary gives
way to the narrator, walking through the site amidst the bulk-walls, who states
that on that potsherd was the name “Elisha.” It has been dated to the 9th
century.
Now here is where the video begins to be dicey. The
narrator immediately states that this find has “lead some to believe, this
was the room of Elisha.” Note, the narrator makes a definitive statement. Mazar
then returns to the screen to say that 1) the potsherd was broken, and 2) the name
had to be reconstructed. The narrator returns to give a snippet of information
on Elisha as a person, but Mazar soon follows and says, very clearly, “I cannot
say for sure that this particular Elisha (reference on the ostracon) is the
Biblical Elisha…but it is very tempting…” Apparently, the phrase “…but it is
very tempting…” is all the producers of the video needed. The remainder of the
short video is devoted to presenting this possibility as a high
probability…if not certainty. The producers accomplish this is by calling the
evidence “compelling” and incorporating snippets from Steven Pfann, Cary
Summers, and the Nimshi inscriptions. This is a bit shocking on the producer’s
part to say the least.
Nevertheless, the most aggravating thing about this video
is the producer’s understanding of archaeology as a discipline that is
impressed upon the audience. Consider the final sequences of the video.
·
Narrator: “Many
archaeologists shy away from drawing conclusions about the Bible, but some see
it as a way of putting the pieces together.”
·
Dr. Mazar: “Archaeology is
like a huge puzzle. We add information from one excavation to another…together
we bring it into a large picture, a large puzzle, trying to decipher the
material culture of the Israelite.”
·
Cary Summers: “It (Tel
Rehov) is like any other archaeological site, in essence, every scoop of dirt
proves the Bible one scoop at a time.”
By giving the final word to Cary Summers, the producers
effectively tip their hands. In their minds, archaeology is a tool to “prove”
the Bible. This is misguided. Archaeology certainly can prove elements of the
Bible, but the discipline should not be utilized merely for those purposes.
Archaeology seeks to study the “stuff” of past societies
in order to reconstruct the ancient life of those societies. It concerns itself
with every aspect of those cultures, from government, to the cult, to
agriculture, to animal husbandry, and beyond. As for biblical
archaeology, it is archaeology that has implications for understanding the
Bible. Biblical Archaeology studies the societies of Syria-Palestine from the
Bronze Ages through the Greco-Roman period so that we can understand better the
daily life of Israel and their neighbors, their values, their points of
emphases, the reasons why they wrote they way they did, their governmental and
societal structures, and their economy. These revelations often illuminate text
by shedding on the socio-historical issues “behind” the text. In other words,
the benefits for biblical studies are usually indirect.
Again, archaeology can prove aspects of the
Bible’s witness (i.e. the Tel Dan Inscription), but it should not be its focus.
Its focus, as Mazar said in the video, is “trying to decipher the material
culture of Israel.” Did you hear it? “…the material culture of Israel.” So
yes, I feel the producers manipulated Dr. Mazar’s comments through their editing.