51 Sermon Illustrations on Archeology

At south end of Temple mound, archeologists have uncovered a probable gate. Discussion of "Ophel", "Millo" and city gates in Nehemiah are given, as well as role of gates in ancient Israelite cities.

JER 36:10* From the room of Gemariah son of Shaphan the secretary, which was in the upper courtyard at the entrance of the New Gate of the temple, Baruch read to all the people at the LORD’S temple the words of Jeremiah from the scroll.

===================================================

Gemariah son of Shaphan

An official clay seal, or bullae, with Gemariah’s name was found in the rubble of Jerusalem, its soft clay hardened by the burning of the city by the Babylonians. It was discovered in what appears to have been an office of David’s city hall, and it and others were scattered amid numerous arrowheads, testifying to the battle won by the Babylonians. A layer of ash, one yard thick in some spots, is mute testimony to the destruction of the First Temple by the invaders in 586 B.C. [Newsweek,12/18/89.44]

When God encountered Abraham, he asked him to have this second kind of faith. First we have to understand Abraham's situation.

Verse 4 makes it sound like he was in a city called Haran, but other passages like Acts 7 make it clear that the actual call of God came while Abraham was in Ur.

Ur was a fabulous city. It was near the Persian Gulf, over by Iran, and even in 2000 BC it had an advanced culture.

Back in the twenties and thirties Sir Charles Leonard Woolley excavated Ur and came up with some of the greatest treasures of archeology. In Ur's royal cemetery they found 16 tombs, each one filled with golden headdresses and gold and silver harps. Each tomb also contained up to 74 bodies of servants who were buried alive with the king.

Woolley's excavations also revealed that the houses in Ur were 2 stories high and were whitewashed to be pleasing to the eye. The larger homes had up to 20 rooms, with well-equipped kitchen, good plumbing and sanitation. Their schools taught mathematics, astronomy and medicine.

Abraham was not a yahoo from the back side of the desert who didn't know anything. He probably had a very comfortable life in the most advanced culture of that time. He was also in his golden years.

An instance where archaeology confirms an account in the Bible:

In 1984 Israeli archaeologists found the earliest and most complete ancient altar in the country at Mt. Ebal. The pottery at the site dated to the early Iron Age. The ten-foot high altar was made of large unhewn field stones, just as the Bible describes. Burned animal bones were found in layers, and were the ones listed in Leviticus as sacrifices.

Almost all Near Eastern altars are ascended by stairs, but the archaeologists uncovered a narrow ramp leading to the top of the altar. This indicates a strict adherence to the law in Exodus 20:26 that prohibits steps. The date, place, and nature of the Mount Ebal altar all point to this as the site where God's covenant once thundered down on the hills of Canaan.

Walking past a newsstand this week, your eye may be caught by a dramatic painting of Adam and Eve on the cover of U.S. News and World Report. Alongside the two figures, the title of the cover story asks, "Is the Bible True?"

Flip open the magazine and you'll find that the answer is a confident "yes!" U.S. News has summarized exciting new archeological evidence that confirms the historicity of the Bible.

For example, a few years ago, a group of archeologists found an Assyrian stone tablet in Northern Israel dating from the ninth century B.C. The Aramaic inscription listed Assyria's foes. Included in the list were the words "king of Israel" and "house of David."

The significance of these findings is that they toppled years of archeological skepticism. Many archeologists have long questioned the historical accuracy of the Bible, maintaining that there was no such person as King David. They pointed to the lack of any reference outside the Bible to David in the archeological remains from Assyria, Egypt, or Babylon. They argued that David's name, a Semitic word meaning "beloved," was evidence that biblical writers created a legendary king to create a glorious past for Israel. But now archeology has given proof that King David was an historical figure after all -- exactly as the Bible teaches.

This latest discovery isn't the first time the evidence has confounded the skeptics. For instance, Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of London, told U.S. News that documents recently discovered in Syria confirm the amount of money Joseph's brothers received when they sold him into slavery. According to the book of Genesis, it was twenty silver shekels. In later centuries, the price typically paid for slaves in Israel was ninety to one hundred shekels. If the biblical account was made up later, as skeptics have argued, then the authors would have picked a sum much closer to the going rate at the time.

Archeological discoveries also help document the veracity of Testament texts. For example, scholars have long doubted gospel accounts of Jesus' burial. They maintained that the Romans simply tossed crucified bodies into a common grave or left them to be scavenged by wild animals. But archeologists recently discovered the remains of a crucified man, a contemporary of Jesus, buried in a family grave. These remains suggest that the Romans did allow for the kind of burial described in the gospels.

Why are secular scholars constantly being refuted? The answer is that they approach Scripture from a naturalistic perspective that discounts any document that speaks of the SUPERnatural. Since the Bible records miracles as though they really happened, the Bible is simply discounted out of hand. Scripture is reduced to stories that merely illustrate theological points, while containing little that is historically accurate.

But, as the U.S. News article illustrates, this distinction is crumbling under the weight of empirical evidence.

The latest archeological news is an exciting reminder that Christians have nothing to fear from scientific inquiry. In fact, we welcome it.

The next time you hear Christianity characterized as an ancient legend, be prepared to describe the exciting evidence unearthed by archeology. To answer the question on the cover of U.S. News -- yes, the Bible is really true.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[see #4929 for original article]

Most of us think of Goliath, the Philistine giant slain by David, as someone huge and fierce-looking. According to a new theory, however, there's one more detail we can add to our mental picture: glasses. Well, not glasses perhaps, but certainly the need for an eye doctor.

While this theory may be one scientist's fanciful speculation, it is, nevertheless, an example of the new-found respect that science is showing for the words of Scripture.

According to Vladimir Berginer, a professor of neurology at Ben Gurion University in Israel, Goliath may have been suffering from a condition known as acromegaly, a disease that affects the pituitary gland.

With this condition, a benign tumor on the pituitary gland would cause too much growth hormone to be released, causing the gigantism described in the Bible. In addition, people suffering from acromegaly often suffer from tunnel vision which restricts their field of vision to a narrow area directly in front of them.

According to Berginer, this condition not only explains Goliath's great height, it also explains why David was able to defeat him so easily -- Goliath never saw him coming.

Berginer has submitted a paper about his theory to a London journal. I don't know whether his theory holds water, but it's worth noting that scientists are increasingly using biblical texts in their research.

This is an about-face from the way academics regarded the Bible just a few years ago. As Jeffery Sheler points out in his new book, Is The Bible True?, for more than a century fields such as archeology and biblical scholarship were dominated by what could be called "minimalists" -- people who believed that the Bible contains little or no history.

When scientific methods were applied to the Bible, it was usually an effort to disprove the truth of biblical narratives.

But the past few decades have seen what Sheler calls "refreshing winds of change" blowing across the biblical landscape. Sheler says " biblical archeology ... [has] produced breathtaking discoveries that ... [shed light] on the historicity of the scriptures." These discoveries have corroborated biblical narratives that earlier scholars had written off as myth.

Now, scholars like Berginer are beginning to look to the Bible as history. Not so long ago, no scholar would have dreamed of submitting a paper on Goliath to a scientific journal -- not when his peers believed that Goliath was a fictional character. But the growing body of scientific evidence now means that Berginer's hypothesis are beginning to be taken seriously.

Parts of what the Bible says are, frankly, beyond the scientific method -- the resurrection of Jesus and life after death are just two examples. But the kind of discoveries that Sheler describes in his book sends a clear message: Believing what the Bible says is a very reasonable thing to do. In fact, simply dismissing the Bible out-of-hand is ignorance.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be telling you more about exciting developments in biblical archeology that you will want to share with your neighbors.

Because there's a worse kind of tunnel-vision that the one that may have cost Goliath his head: It's the kind that blinds us to the truth of Scripture.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

In modern English, the word "Philistine" refers to an uncouth or uncultured person. The term is taken from the name of the people who were Israel's biggest rivals in the period between the Exodus and the reign of David.

Until recently, many scholars doubted the existence of the Philistines. But, as with so much of the biblical text, the more the archeologists dig, the more they confirm the historical nature of the biblical narratives.

As Jeffrey Sheler writes in his new book, IS THE BIBLE TRUE?, recent archeological discoveries have not only proven the existence of the Philistines, they have also revealed much about how they lived.

What's even more significant for the doubters is that much of what archeologists have learned confirms what the Bible says about the Philistines.

For instance, ancient Egyptian inscriptions indicated that the "Sea Peoples" -- the ancient Near Eastern name for the Philistines -- most likely came from the island of Crete.

Well, the books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah say that the Philistines were originally from the land of Caphtor. And, as Sheler points out, scholars now believe that "Caphtor" is another name for Crete.

The Bible characterizes the Philistines as the best metal workers in the ancient Near East -- so much so that they exercised a virtual monopoly in the sword- making trade.

This characterization has been substantiated by the archeological record. The record confirms both the Philistines' skills in metallurgy and the advantage that their superior weaponry gave them in their battles with the Israelites -- just as 1 Samuel describes it.

There is a remarkable consistency between what the Bible says about the Philistines and what archeologists are finding. This consistency prompted William Dever of the University of Arizona to say "that all [the archeological evidence] 'fits' the many biblical allusions so well . . .[and] shows that a post-exilic editor cannot simply have invented these passages, that they are genuinely archaic."

In other words, archeology is debunking the idea that books such as Judges and 1st Samuel were the products of some later writer's fertile imagination. The authors of these books weren't inventing some glorious past for Israel out of whole cloth. Instead, they were working with real history -- oral and written.

The narratives from the time of the Judges aren't the only ones being verified by archeologists. So many recent finds have given credence to the biblical text that Biblical Archeology Review suggests: "Biblical archeologists have been ... heavily criticized [for] being biased, for trying to prove the Bible."

But that's not what's going on. The researchers are simply following where the evidence leads.

Many people -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- seem to believe that science is the enemy of faith. But new discoveries in the Middle East show us that scientific knowledge, when it is simply testing facts, often buttresses faith. And that's something your neighbors need to learn about.

Because, as it turns out, the real Philistines of our day are those who simply dismiss the Bible without looking at the facts.

[slightly modified version below...]

For further reference:

Sheler, Jeffrey. Is the Bible True? New York: HarperCollins, 1999.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

===============================

Version from March 22, 2002:

"Philistines and Archeology: Digging Out the Truth"

In modern English, the word "Philistine" refers to an uncouth or uncultured person. The term is taken from the name of the people who were Israel's biggest rivals in the period between the Exodus and the reign of David.

Until recently, many scholars doubted the existence of the Philistines. But, as with so much of the biblical text, the more archeologists dig, the more they confirm the historical character of the biblical narratives.

As Jeffrey Sheler writes in his book, IS THE BIBLE TRUE?, recent archeological discoveries have not only proven the existence of the Philistines, they have also revealed much about how they lived.

What's even more exciting is that much of what the archeologists have learned confirms what the Bible says about the Philistines.

For instance, ancient Egyptian inscriptions indicated that the "Sea Peoples" -- the ancient Near Eastern name for the Philistines -- most likely came from the island of Crete.

Well, the books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah say that the Philistines were originally from the land of Caphtor. And, as Sheler points out, scholars believe that "Caphtor" is another name for Crete.

The Bible characterizes the Philistines as the best metal workers in the ancient Near East -- so much so that they exercised a virtual monopoly in the sword-making trade.

The archeological record has substantiated this characterization. The record confirms both the Philistines' skills in metallurgy and the advantage that their superior weaponry gave them in their battles with the Israelites -- as described in 1Samuel.

As Sheler documents, there is a remarkable consistency between what the Bible says about the Philistines and what archeologists are finding. This consistency prompted William Dever of the University of Arizona to say: "That all [the archeological findings] 'fit' the many biblical allusions so well ... and show that a post-exilic editor cannot simply have invented these passages, that they are genuinely archaic."

In other words, archeology is debunking the once-dominant idea that books such as Judges and 1Samuel were the product of some post-exilic writer's fertile imagination. The author of these books wasn't inventing some glorious past for Israel out of whole cloth. Instead, he was working with real history -- both oral and written.

The narratives from the time of the Judges aren't the only ones being verified by biblical archeologists. So many finds in recent years have lent credence to the biblical text that critics are becoming suspect of the archeologists' motives. According to the BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW: "Archeologists have been ... heavily criticized [for] being biased, for trying to prove the Bible."

But, as the magazine also points out, that's not what's going on. They're simply following where the evidence leads, and this is all that anyone can ask of a scientific endeavor.

Many people -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- believe that science is the enemy of biblical faith. But these discoveries in the desert show that scientific knowledge doesn't have to come at the expense of faith. It can buttress biblical faith, and that's something your neighbors need to understand.

Because, as it turns out, the true Philistine is the person who dismisses the Bible without first looking at the evidence.

For further reading:

Jeffrey Sheler, IS THE BIBLE TRUE? (HarperCollins, 1999).

Visit the Biblical Archaeology Society website.

Randall Price, THE STONES CRY OUT: HOW ARCHEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE (Harvest House, 1997).

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

*

The American Egyptologist, Kent Weeks, made an exciting discovery not long ago, in a burial tomb in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings. He found four broken canopic jars. "What are they?" you ask. Well, they’re ancient burial jars that just may provide further proof that events described in the book of Exodus really happened as described.

Canopic jars were used for holding the mummified organs of the dead. The remarkable thing about this find, Weeks says, was that the names of four of the sons of Ramses II were painted on them. Scholars believe Ramses II was the Pharaoh who debated with Moses over the fate of the Israelites, and whose resistance provoked the 10 plagues.

Even more exciting was the fact that, painted on one of the jars, is the name of Ramses’ oldest son: Amun-her-khepshef. The oldest son would have been the one who was killed during the plague on the firstborn sons of Egypt, described in the Bible.

And near the broken jars, lying in a pit, were the skulls of four young men, likely thrown there by ancient grave robbers. These skulls provide additional evidence that the tomb contains the sons of Ramses.

For instance, each of the skulls has perfect white teeth -- an indication that the young men enjoyed a diet available only to those of royal blood. Most ancient Egyptians, by their mid-twenties, already had teeth that were stained and ground down to the gum line from eating bread contaminated with sand.

Weeks also found fragments of mummies that ancient grave robbers had torn to shreds. He sent samples of bones and tissue to Cornell University for genetic tests. If the tests reveal that the owners of the four skulls were brothers, Weeks will have strong evidence that the tomb is indeed the burial chamber of the sons of Ramses II.

Who knows? If the four brothers are the sons of Ramses, and the oldest can be identified, researchers may even discover the exact nature of the plague that struck down Ramses’ son that grim night when the Israelites were miraculously spared.

Sifting through bone fragments and pottery shards from 3000 B.C. [1400-1200 B.C? probably should be 3000 YEARS AGO, not B.C. -Holwick] has led to many stunning discoveries, supporting the biblical texts. But this isn’t the first time archaeology has helped confirm the authority of Scripture -- not by a long stretch.

Critics used to just dismiss the stories about the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But then archaeologists discovered cuneiform tablets containing references to several biblical names: names like Abraham and his brothers, Nahor and Haran.

Suddenly those passages in Genesis were transferred from the realm of myth into the realm of real history -- where the Bible had put them all along.

With a record like this, Christians don’t need to be intimidated by liberal critics. In fact, we ought to eagerly anticipate every new discovery -- like the jars and skulls Kent Weeks just uncovered in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings.

For each new excavation provides fresh evidence we can offer to skeptics -- evidence confirming that the God of faith is also the God of history.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[inscription was later found to be fraudulent - Holwick]

Archaeology made headlines around the world last fall when an ossuary, or burial box, surfaced in Israel that bore the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Now, a book is picking up where the headlines left off. It is called THE BROTHER OF JESUS: THE DRAMATIC STORY AND MEANING OF THE FIRST ARCHAEOLOGICAL LINK TO JESUS AND HIS FAMILY.

The book is co-authored by Hershel Shanks, publisher of the BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW, and Ben Witherington III, a noted New Testament scholar.

Shanks is the man who first broke the news of the ossuary. In the book he details the scientific tests and scholarly examinations that preceded the announcement and the academic furor that followed it. Witherington describes the life and beliefs of James who was a leader of the early Church. James brokered the famous compromise in Acts 15 that allowed Gentile believers to join the early Church.

Now that the dust is settling and the critics have had their say, it appears that the early consensus is left intact. Although the burial box will always be controversial -- because it surfaced through an antiquities market, rather than a controlled dig -- leading experts agree that it is authentic. And it represents hard evidence to corroborate ancient Christian manuscripts.

It's refreshing to see objectivity at work through the story of the ossuary's discovery. André Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions and a former priest, was the first to authenticate the ossuary's inscription even though the word brother challenges the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Israeli experts confirmed the artifact's authenticity even though it backs up Christian, rather than Jewish, tradition. And Hershel Shanks broke the story, not because he believes in Christianity, but because he believes in good scholarship.

While I'm thrilled by the new evidence that demonstrates the Bible's historical accuracy, there is reason for some caution. Some Christians want to base their beliefs entirely on extra-biblical evidence, but the fact is that we must never downplay the Bible's inherent credibility.

We need to remember which witnesses are primary and which are secondary. Moses, the prophets, and others were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” to write holy Scripture. Some were eyewitnesses of the events they reported; through them the Scriptures were “God-breathed” to record every thought faultlessly.

If an ossuary or an ark corroborates a point the Bible has declared for thousands of years, we are thrilled. But that does not make the biblical facts more factual. It simply confirms, and as historian Paul Johnson says, the confirming evidence is mounting -- so much so that the skeptics, not the Christians, must fear the further course of scientific discovery.

But always remember the Bible stands on its own credible witness, regardless of whether secondary sources confirm or contradict it. It is the veracity of the Bible that forms the basis on which a Christian worldview is built.

That said, the James ossuary does give us a wonderful opening to share with our neighbors and to remind them that our faith holds up under scientific scrutiny -- thanks, in this case, to scientists and scholars who champion the free marketplace of ideas rather than their own private agendas.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, THE BROTHER OF JESUS: THE DRAMATIC STORY AND MEANING OF THE FIRST ARCHAEOLOGICAL LINK TO JESUS AND HIS FAMILY (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

On Easter Sunday, April 20, at 9:00 p.m. EST and Monday, April 21, at 12:00 a.m., the Discovery Channel will air “James: Brother of Jesus,” the story behind the archaeological find. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030324/dcm026_1.html http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=24198&gid=0

Rossella Lorenzi, “First Proof of Jesus Found?”, Discovery News, 21 October 2002. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html

“Cracks in James Bone Box Repaired: Crowds Flock to Toronto Exhibit,” BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY, 10 January 2003. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2901f1.html

Order the November/December 2002 issue of BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, featuring “Burial Box of James, The Brother of Jesus.” http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html

Ben Witherington III, “'The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind,'“ BELIEFNET, 18 October 2002. http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/115/story_11561_1.html&boardID=47202

Jeordan Legon, “Scholars: Oldest Evidence of Jesus?”, CNN, 22 October 2002. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box

Charles Page, “Biblical Archaeology and the James Ossuary, Part 1,” Crosswalk.com. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1180609.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_1180609_html Also read Part 2 and Part 3. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1189304.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_1189304_html http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1193746.html

Susan Weiner, “The Best Evidence We Have: The History of the Christian Scriptures,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 16 January 2003. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/OnlineFeatures/The+Best+Evidence+We+Have.htm

Also see “The Evidence for the Bible,” the April 10 edition of “Worldview for Parents.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/WorldviewForParents/The+Evidence+for+the+Bible.htm

Jeffrey Sheler, IS THE BIBLE TRUE? (HarperCollins, 1999).

Randall Price, THE STONES CRY OUT: HOW ARCHEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE (Harvest House, 1997). http://www.parable.com/breakpoint/item_1565076400.htm

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by Prison Fellowship Ministries, the Wilberforce Forum, and BreakPoint is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.

CONFERENCES AND EVENTS “Being the Body: A Challenge to the Church” -- On May 18, Chuck Colson will lead a seminar that will be broadcast live by satellite. Host this once-in-a-lifetime event at your church! http://www.christianitytoday.com/conferences/events/2003/30518.html

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12576]

[inscription was later found to be fraudulent - Holwick]

Early examinations of the ossuary reputed to have once contained the mortal remains of James, half-brother to Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, have sent ripples of excitement and expectation across the archaeological community. Could the box, dated to A.D. 63, actually have belonged to the biblical James?

By all indications the ossuary itself is authentic and a valuable find for scholars. It was cut from the limestone around Jerusalem, carved in typical Herodian fashion, and shows no sign of tampering by modern implements. It bears the Aramaic inscription "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua," which renowned paleographer Andre Lemaire confirmed was written in the first century.

The bone box belonged, as the inscription indicates, to a James, a son of Joseph and a brother to Jesus. What will forever remain unknown, regardless of the conclusions of scientists and theologians, is whether the James, Joseph and Jesus mentioned are our Lord's earthly "father," brother and our Lord himself. Although such a connection may be probable, we need not know for certain.

Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Time magazine that while the discovery of the bone box, housed for years in the apartment of its owner, was "fascinating" and may be a useful evangelistic tool, Christians should avoid "building faith on archaeological discovery."

Why? Because "faith" then becomes faith in an object, and true faith, by its very nature, doesn't require evidence or proof.

The veneration of relics is a practice nearly as old as the church itself, but began in earnest after Bishop Ambrose of Milan displayed the relics of two martyrs in his church between A.D. 385-388. Veneration of the relics was thought then to aid in worship.

But by the Middle Ages, countless articles were visited upon the masses of Europe in ceremonial procession because the Roman Catholic Church believed that "holy relics" held miraculous power and could increase the faith of the flock. Hoards of peasants thronged to see splinters from the true cross of Christ and fragments from the table where Jesus presided over the Last Supper.

Others longed to see thorns from the Savior's crown and even the head of John the Baptist. Wherever the relics went, miracles followed, or so the church claimed. Christian historians refer to the belief that such objects -- or body parts -- held magical power as "fetishism."

Such belief is amusing considering that as many as five heads of John the Baptist floated around Europe. Fourteen churches claimed to possess the foreskin of the baby Jesus, and Martin Luther, who sparked the Protestant Reformation because of his belief that the "just shall live by faith," lampooned the church when he wrote that enough splinters of the cross existed in Europe to build a mighty ship.

In the "Schmalkald Articles," Luther wrote that relics were tomfoolery and that "even the devil has laughed at such rascalities." The veneration of relics, he said, ought to be condemned because such practices were not contained within Scripture. They were "an entirely unnecessary and useless thing." Luther wrote in his "Large Catechism" that relics were "lifeless, dead things that can make no man holy."

But the Church of Rome continued to teach that beholding the relics conveyed salvific benefits. Lutheran historian Bernhard Lohse wrote that in 1517 that even Luther's protector, Frederick the Elector, displayed relics, claiming that those who viewed all of them would escape the suffering of purgatory 127,800 years early.

I do not believe that Baptists, nor any Protestants for that matter, are in danger of becoming entangled in such beliefs.

What I find intriguing, however, is the enthusiasm of archaeologists and the public for the notion that this new relic might be a link to Christ, as if they would believe should the ossuary be authenticated. Some scientists have even suggested extracting DNA from the bone fragments in order to learn about the mother of James -- Mary, also the mother of Jesus.

I am reminded of the words of Margaret Deanesly, who wrote in her book on medieval church history of Christians building churches over the graves of apostles. "The dust of the apostle who had seen with his own eyes and touched with his hands the very body of the Savior was itself a link with Christ, inexpressibly precious."

Ironically, the owner of the bone box reportedly claimed that he withheld his name from public media because he feared his home would become a church where those seeking a tangible connection to Christ would venerate the ossuary.

Those who are looking for a link to Christ need not hope to build their faith by caressing a stone box or laying eyes on a bone fragment. They need to look no further than to the Christian. A relic, while it is a link to the past, is a memorial or testimony to the power of the individual to whom it belonged or belongs. That is precisely what Christians are -- living relics.

John wrote in his first epistle that "the one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ... and this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

I wonder sometimes if the church forgets how simple that is. We are his workmanship, saved by grace, and we preach the written word and live the testimony of the living word. We live by grace, we love, we share, we build, we pray for peace and if need be we die for others. If the world doesn't find Christ in us, it surely will not find him because his name is etched into a 2,000-year-old piece of limestone that may or may not have belonged to his relative.

_________________

Tomlin is news director at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

*

Some say that archaeologist Bryant Wood does his research a bit backwards. He looks first to the Bible, then tries to line up the archaeological evidence with the scriptural account.

Wood, though, believes he is doing God's will. Best known as an archaeologist with the Associates for Biblical Research, as well as the editor of Bible and Spade magazine, Wood talked about his view of archaeology during a lecture series Sept. 25-27 at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Wood lectured on such biblical stories as the destructions of Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah, then showed that archaeological evidence does in fact complement the biblical accounts.

He acknowledged that he is in the minority among his peers.

"When there seems to be this discrepancy between the findings of archaeology and the Bible, almost all scholars will say, 'Well, archaeology provides us with scientific evidence, and so there must be a problem with the Bible.' That gives rise to the idea that the biblical story is some kind of a myth or legend," he said.

But Wood argued that close scrutiny of archaeological evidence always shows that Old Testament stories are indeed historical fact. Wood holds to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

"When the evidence is in and we have the archaeological findings before us, they support the truth of Scripture," he said. "Places that scholars said never existed, in fact existed."

It is important to have conservative scholars within the archaeological community, Wood said, because many archaeologists discredit and mishandle Scripture. This elevation of archaeology above the Bible has led some scholars to suggest that the Israelites never fled Egypt and never conquered Canaan. In fact, these same scholars argue that instead of the Israelites being one common people group -- and descendants of Abraham -- the Israelites were formed when several groups of people with common interests simply came together over a period of time.

"If the biblical account isn't true, then how do we explain the people of the Israel, the nation of Israel?" he asked. "... They, in fact, are saying that there was no conquest, so right away you have to throw away the book of Joshua. But if they didn't come in from outside, [then] obviously there weren't any wilderness wanderings. If there were not any wilderness wanderings then there was no Exodus. There were no patriarchs. This emergence theory as it's called, really does [do] away with the first six or seven books of the Bible. Some of the greatest events in human history that are recorded there, these scholars are saying, are all mythology and folk stories.

"That's why I think it's very important for us as evangelicals to look at this archaeology evidence, to analyze it and to come up with a proper interpretation."

Wood said he simply looks at both the biblical account and the archaeological evidence, then tries to line up both sides.

"That's what the Lord has laid on my heart -- to correlate the findings of archaeology with the Bible," he said. "Most scholars in archaeology are very reluctant to do that, because they're accused of trying to prove the Bible. That's the last thing they want, because then they'll be considered a fundamentalist.

"I guess I'm the point man in this area, and I'm taking all the flak when I do these kind of correlations. I think they're real and valid. We have the biblical record on one hand -- an ancient document that talks about these things -- and we have the archaeology findings on the other hand. They fit and they relate and they seem to go together."

______________

The Bryant Wood lectures can be heard on the seminary's web page at http://www.sbts.edu/bryantwood.html

*

Beginning in Sunday school, children are taught a catchy song about Joshua and the battle of Jericho.

As the story goes, the city's wall collapsed after Joshua and his troops marched around the city, blew their trumpets and let out a great shout.

Some scholars contend that it is simply a myth, but one Old Testament archaeologist, Bryant Wood, argues that archaeological evidence in the Palestinian region lines up precisely with the Old Testament story. Wood, an archaeologist with the Associates for Biblical Research and the editor of Bible and Spade magazine, gave a series of lectures at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Wood contended that not only does archaeological evidence match the story of Jericho, but it also agrees with the biblical story of the city of Ai, which is found in the book of Joshua.

"Most scholars in the field of archaeology - and even in Old Testament studies -- tend to put the findings of archaeology above what the Bible says," he said. "So if there's a discrepancy, they will say, 'Well, it must be that the archaeology is correct and the Bible is wrong.' That's basically what you'll read in most books - that the biblical story evidently never actually happened. It must simply be a legend or a folk tale."

Wood, who holds to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, said that the Bible should be the starting point for any archaeological expedition.

The controversy surrounding Jericho is over the date of the city's existence and destruction. Biblical evidence would place the city's destruction at 1400 B.C.

However, some scholars argue for a earlier date, leading them to conclude that the biblical narrative is wrong. In the 1930s, archaeologist John Garstang completed a dig at the sight of the ancient city and concluded that the evidence pointed to the biblical date. Years later, British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon examined Garstang's findings and dated the city's destruction at about 1550 B.C. - some 150 years before the time of Joshua. Kenyon based her conclusions - which have established the standard academic position - on a type of pottery missing from the site.

But Wood said Kenyon's revision of the dating was based on a superficial foundation at best.

"She based her dating not on what she actually found, but on what she didn't find ... a certain type of pottery which was not there," he said. "So she concluded that nobody lived there [at Jericho] in the 15th century but admitted that the dig was in a poor [economically] part of town."

Wood, an expert on certain types of pottery from this age, pointed out the unlikelihood of finding this particular type of pottery in a poorer section of the city.

Pointing to other evidence, Wood cited Joshua 6:20-24, which depicts the city as having been burned. Kenyon, he said, also found evidence of the city being burned.

Archaeological evidence also exists for the existence of Rahab's home, Wood said. According to the Bible, Rahab and her family were the lone Jericho residents allowed to live; her house was on the city wall. Wood said German archaeologists found evidence in 1907 that is consistent with the biblical description of her house.

Wood said both Kenyon and Garstang unearthed signs of an earthquake that toppled the city walls. This order coheres with the scriptural account of Joshua in which the walls of Jericho tumbled down by an act of God.

One key find came when archaeologists discovered at Jericho clay jars filled with grain, which was a valuable commodity in this region during biblical times. Scripture places the Israelite attack on Jericho during the harvest season. The grain offers perhaps the most compelling evidence of the truthfulness of the Old Testament account, Wood said.

"Grain was valuable and was never left in the city but was plundered," Wood said. "The Bible says God commanded the Israelites not to plunder the city but to offer it to the Lord, and they left it. The siege of the city was during harvest time, so this agrees with biblical timing."

Regarding Ai, the controversy surrounds its location. Ai was one of the royal cities of the Canaanites. It was the second Canaanite city taken by Israel according to the account in Joshua 8.

Archaeologists of the Associates for Biblical Research [ABR] have spent many years trying to determine the controversial sites of both these ancient cities. ABR is currently excavating Khirbet el-Maqatir - a site 10 miles north of Jerusalem - as a possible location of Ai. This excavation began in 1995.

Most archaeologists, however, disagree with the conclusions of Wood and ABR and argue that Joshua's Ai was at the present-day site of et-Tell, some six- tenths of a mile from Khirbet el-Maqatir. Excavations have revealed a city gate and wall system. ABR is continuing to excavate these features as they uncover the layout of this 15th-century B.C. Canaanite fortress, Wood said.

Wood gave two lines of evidence for placing Ai at el-Maqatir: the topographical witness found in Joshua 7-8 which is consistent with the lay of the land there, and the archaeological research which coincides with Scripture.

It is possible that two historical cities -- one mentioned in Genesis, one mentioned in Joshua -- could have shared the name "Ai," he said.

"It was not uncommon for cities to move around," Wood said.

___________________

The Bryant Wood lectures can be heard on the seminary's web page at http://www.sbts.edu/bryantwood.html

*

The barren Sinai desert has seemed devoid of clues to the Exodus described in the Old Testament, leading many modern scholars to conclude the account of Israelites leaving Egypt under Moses is a fabrication. But one skeptic has changed his mind.

Charles Krahmalkov, professor of ancient Near East languages at the University of Michigan, says the evidence he has read on the walls of Egyptian temples has reversed his thinking.

Krahmalkov has been studying Egyptian place lists, an ancient type of road map. The Egyptians ruled Palestine in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1220 b.c.) and mapped the area thoroughly.

In one list inscribed in the Temple of Amon at Karnak, from the reign of Thutmose III (c. 1504-1450 b.c.), Krahmalkov has found a list that matches the final stage of the Exodus described in Numbers 33:45-50. Two other lists of the same route from succeeding centuries have also been found. The city Dibon is mentioned on two of the lists and in Numbers.

Dibon (modern Tel Dhiban) is located 13 miles east of the Dead Sea and was excavated during the 1950s. No evidence of a city as early as the Bronze Age was found, an important argument in the arsenal of the doubters.

Krahmalkov also notes skepticism among these Bible scholars about the existence of Hebron at the time of the conquest, based again on a dearth of archaeological remains. Yet, on a wall of the mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, another list of Ramses II (1279-1212 b.c.) mentions Hebron and several other cities that are linked with Hebron in Joshua 15:52-54.

"I am not a conservative believer," Krahmalkov says, implying that such commitment could make his research suspect. "I am a scholar of the old school who believes we try to let our data speak to us. We don't force it into a preconceived idea. I find myself astonished at the results."

Krahmalkov has gained respect for the ancient historians of Israel. "They have preserved in the Bible true historical sources of a very early age," he says. "They cannot possibly have invented them."

Kenneth Kitchen, an evangelical scholar at Liverpool University, believes Krahmalkov's findings are relevant, though not necessarily conclusive. "It's quite tricky," he said. "I'm not sure he's got all his map lines right."

Kitchen believes Krahmalkov has proven archaeologists sometimes jump too quickly to conclusions. "They dig at a place. They find some things. They don't find something else. They say, therefore, that something else never existed."

Kitchen also has researched the Egyptian evidence for Bronze Age Dibon. "Ramses II records [his conquest] on the walls of the Temple of Luxor," he says. "I've gone to that wall six times to make absolutely sure the readings are correct. The archaeologists have not gone to the right spot to find late Bronze Dibon. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

__________________

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazines

ctap0395mrw5T40875320

*

Archaeology is in the news again. It is claimed that a collector has revealed an ancient stone tablet from Israel that might -- hold that thought -- speak of a resurrection just years before the time of Jesus. The media attention devoted to what some call “Gabriel’s Revelation” is a matter of some controversy.

Here is the issue as reported by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk of TIME:

“A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed ‘Gabriel’s Revelation’

could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian

Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the

years just before the birth of Jesus and yet -- at least

according to one Israeli scholar -- it announces the raising of a

messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean

that Jesus’ followers had access to a well-established paradigm

when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day --

and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their

grief after their master was crucified. However, such a

contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative

interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry

in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament

artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and

to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle

them nor shake anyone’s faith.”

The tablet is owned by a Swiss-Israeli collector and it “came to light” about a decade ago. The tablet itself is interesting, but as Professor Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary argues in the story, the reading of the ink-on-stone text is contentious at best. As for the text itself, even if correctly dated to years just before Jesus, the text at the crucial line is smudged and the wording is unclear.

TIME’s story concludes with this:

“It remains to be seen whether Gabriel’s Revelation, and

especially Knohl’s [Israel Knohl of Hebrew University in

Jerusalem] interpretation, will weather the hot lights of fame.

Even the authors of its initial research seem a little dubious

about his claims that it is a dry run for the Easter story. But,

as often happens in such cases, they seem better disposed to a

slightly toned-down assertion: in this case, that the Gabriel

tablet does indicate a very rare instance of the idea that a

messiah might suffer -- a notion introduced in Judaic thought

centuries before by the prophet Isaiah but which supposedly went

out of style by Jesus’ time. If that more modest theory gains

traction, it will forge a link between a trend in first-century

Judaism and one of Christianity’s galvanizing thoughts -- that

God might throw in his lot with a suffering or even murdered man

-- that could contribute to a growing mutual understanding.

Van Biema and McGirk are helpful in acknowledging the fact that many supposed “discoveries” much-touted in the media turn out to recede quickly from attention. For example, they refer back to last year’s media swarm over the so-called “lost tomb of Jesus,” and note that “despite considerable initial hoopla” the entire story is still regarded as speculation by many. The media attention moved to other concerns long ago.

All this raises the whole issue of archaeology and the Christian faith. Christians are understandably interested in the archaeology of the lands of the Bible. After all, ours is a faith that makes historical claims about persons and events with specific places, timing, and details provided in the text of the Bible. This was true for Israel and it is equally true for the church.

Our faith looks to the fall of the walls of Jericho as Joshua and the people of God marched around its fortified walls, to Jerusalem and the building of the first and second temples, to Galilee and the miracles performed by Jesus, to Bethlehem and the birth of the Messiah, back to Jerusalem where Christ was crucified and raised from the dead, and to a host of other places where the Bible grounds God’s acts in history. Authentic biblical Christianity stands on these events as events in history, not as cherished myths.

For this reason, Christians are too often overly excited about the latest “discovery” that gains media attention -- either in elation or travail. Archaeology is an important scholarly discipline, but it is not immune from ideology and many of the conclusions and arguments announced to the public are actually not at all what they first appear to be. Furthermore, archaeology is largely a matter of historical reconstruction, often with little actual evidence. As a rule, the more distant the time, the more difficult the reconstruction. That makes sense, of course, as time destroys both evidence and the preservation of memory.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Christians were tempted to argue that the historical claims of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) had been “proved” by the intense proliferation of archaeological investigations that marked the period. This was the era in which William Foxwell Albright and his American Schools of Oriental Research were defining a new discipline known as “biblical archaeology.”

Then, especially after World War II, a new generation of archaeologists argued that their findings effectively disproved the accounts of the Bible. Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jericho and argued that the Bible’s account was factually wrong. Others made similar claims.

Those Christians who were tempted to place too much confidence in archaeological discoveries (and too little in the Bible’s own claims of inspiration and authority) were shaken by Kenyon’s “findings” and by similar accounts. This same pattern appears when the media give attention to stories like the “lost tomb of Jesus” or the so-called “gospel of Judas.”

Archaeological findings are of great interest, of course. But the key issue is what kind of authority we invest in archaeology in terms of authenticating or disproving the text of the Bible. Christians err by accepting or investing too much evidentiary authority in archaeological “findings,” whether considered to support or to question the biblical accounts.

Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority. In the end, archaeology cannot prove or disprove the biblical text. Nothing can be found, or not found, that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God. Archaeology can expand our knowledge and understanding, but cannot establish the authority for our faith.

That authority is the Word of God, and the Word of God alone.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #954]

“But wanting their ears tickled, they will not endure sound doctrine.”

The Apostle Paul wrote this warning to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:3) to guard against false teaching, but the exhortation/warning is applicable to the recent sensationalism surrounding archaeological discoveries that support the Bible.

This past year has witnessed the publication of two dramatic inscriptions supporting the New Testament and Old Testament. The first was the James ossuary, the purported bone box that held the remains of James, the brother of Jesus and bishop of the church of Jerusalem. The second is the Joash inscription purporting to recount renovations and repairs to the temple as recorded in Kings. The public and press were quick to tout these as proof of the historicity of the Bible. Recent developments in the saga have placed these objects in a dark light.

The James ossuary initially was subject to scholarly investigation and the results were presented to a conference of biblical scholars and archaeologists in November. The Aramaic inscription was analyzed by one of the top Aramaic scholars. After the publication of this inscription, the Joash inscription also was publicized. The Geological Survey of Israel authenticated both inscriptions.

The authenticity of the Joash inscription was immediately questioned in publications in the Israel Exploration Journal. An upcoming article in Archaeology magazine will state that the James ossuary also is a fake.

There have been some recent developments. The owner of the Joash inscription and the James ossuary was arrested by the Israeli police, charged with illegally selling fake artifacts. Police found an elaborate lab used to produce fake artifacts according to reports in the Israel press.

If the James ossuary inscription is proven to be a fake like the Joash inscription, does this cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible?

Ironically it seems that some Christians feel that they need to support the authenticity of these inscriptions because they are defending the Bible. The proliferation of fake artifacts on the market does not say anything about the truthfulness or accuracy of the historical accounts in the Bible. It only proves that there is a willing public to jump on the bandwagon of biblical archaeology.

The Apostle Paul constantly confronted a church that wanted to view signs and wonders instead of a reasoned faith, which was the hallmark of Paul's Gospel message.

There will continue to be archaeological data that supports the historicity of the Bible and there will be artifacts that appear on the antiquities market that will be frauds. The popularity of the “Indiana Jones” movies has conditioned people to see archaeology as glamorous with the discovery of exciting finds.

Biblical archaeologists are uncovering and documenting finds that support the biblical account but it is not done by swinging with ropes while saving heroines or dodging giant rolling balls; it is done by the systematic excavation and research of the archaeological enterprise. Unfortunately, this is too labor-intensive and financially difficult for those who want immediate gratification without the cost.

The good news is that a consortium of Southern Baptist seminaries is joining forces to establish a biblical archaeological research program in the Middle East. The work will be done by solid and reasoned scholarship, not the sensationalism of frauds and fakes.

_____________

Dr. Steven M. Ortiz, with more than 20 years experience serving as a senior staff member of excavations in Israel, is assistant professor of archeology and Bible at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminar and director of the Archaeological Research Program. To contact Ortiz concerning research and study opportunities, or to obtain more information about the Archaeological Research Program, 1-800-662-8701, ext. 3249, or send e-mail to sortiz@nobts.edu

*

“National Geographic’s promotion of their costly manuscript acquisition and television program, ‘The Gospel of Judas,’ is one of the most deceptive and brazen attempts to profit from the general public’s unawareness of early church history since, well, ‘The Da Vinci Code,’” seminary professor Fred M. Williams III said in a statement to Baptist Press.

Williams, associate professor of history and languages at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., observed that the promoters of the Gospel of Judas and The Da Vinci Code imply that the Gospel writers had something to gain either financially or otherwise in their eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Williams responded. “The only expectation that the New Testament Gospel writers -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- and their followers had was exclusion from the polytheistic society of their day, fear of persecution from those misunderstanding the Christian message, or torture and death from the Roman authorities if they were identified.”

Referencing Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp who sat at the feet of the Apostle John, Williams said, “Irenaeus was aware of, and described the contents of, the Gospel of Judas just as it is being described by the National Geographic Society today. Irenaeus said that it was a product of a cult known as the Cainites who deliberately honored every wicked figure in the Bible so as to promote their own immoral lifestyle. The Cainites considered the God who created the world as evil and Satan as good.

“Obviously, they would especially glorify the traitor Judas,” Williams said. “We have known all this for more than 1,800 years.

“Why is the National Geographic Society promoting this as the most sensational and important archeological find in the last 60 years?” the professor asked. “Obviously, National Geographic has a lot more to gain financially from all this than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever did.”

*

It is Christmas time. Time for holiday events, Christmas trees, gifts, etc. It is also the season to get asked the question, “What is the archaeological evidence for the birth of Jesus?”

This question has been especially prevalent this year because of all the publicity and hype surrounding the “lost gospels” of Jesus and the “lost tombs” of Jesus. Herod the Great’s tomb recently was found at the Herodium just outside of Bethlehem. Jesus is a major figure in history and it is natural to want to do an article on the historical background, and specifically the archaeological evidence for the birth of Jesus.

Truth be told -- while there are plenty of archeological proofs about the life and ministry of Christ -- there are no artifacts evidencing His birth.

There are many archaeological finds that affirm the historicity of the biblical texts, so surely there must be something archaeological connected with the Christmas event, some people believe. Many have gone on Holy Land tours and have been taken to the Church of the Nativity and out to the shepherd’s fields, and while there is occupational history that dates to the time of Jesus, there is no house, field or stone that can be archaeologically associated with Jesus. My audience assures me that we just have not found it yet. A little more activity with the spade of the archaeologist and we should find something that can be tied to the Christmas event. Archaeologists have found many things to verify the events of the story: a first-century A.D. house and villages, geo-political situation of the census, taxes, Roman rule, relationships between the city and countryside, regional variations between Galilee and the Judean region, etc.

It is difficult to find archaeological evidence for any particular individual in history. Americans are spoiled because they go to museums and see the false teeth of George Washington, personal letters from great men and women of history, and even visit the childhood homes of Hollywood stars. Naturally we expect to have the same evidence for persons in ancient History. Archaeologists look at the material culture of society -- basically the garbage, what is left over and is of no value. These material correlates of society further disappear with erosion and decay throughout the centuries. Those historical events that we do find are usually the activities of kings and conquests. Kings send their military to conquer the land and the evidence of this destruction of battles is found by the archaeologists. Kings build temples and palaces. They change the landscape and construct roads. Archaeologists tend to find the evidence of kings.

When it comes to the archaeology of Christmas there is an abundance of archaeological evidence for Herod the Great. We have Caesarea maritime where he built a man-made harbor. We have Samaria-Sebaste where even today visitors can walk the colonnaded street. We have more than 20 major cities and fortresses built by Herod; the most famous is Masada. Just southeast of Bethlehem is the mountain fortress of Herodium where archaeologists recently found what they think is Herod’s tomb. This is to be expected, since kings of ancient history leave their mark in the archaeological record. Peasants tend to be mute in the record; we know they are there -- we excavate their homes and villages -- but we cannot identify them individually. That is why we locate numerous finds from King Herod’s kingdom but not a single artifact from the King’s manger.

Archaeologists find the material remains of human activity. It is usually only the elite of society who leave their individual mark in the archaeological record. The lack of archaeological evidence for the birth of Jesus makes a statement about the incarnation. Jesus did not come as any other ruler of this world would come. His kingdom was not one constructed of palaces and temples. Ironically, He was born to an earthly father who was a construction worker, and there probably are many buildings in the Nazareth region that He helped build, but none built to honor Himself.

As an archaeologist I am fairly confident that we will not find archaeological evidence for the birth of Jesus. Those who are looking for it either do not understand the nature of the archaeological record or the nature of God’s Kingdom. The lack of archaeological evidence illustrates this description offered by the apostle Paul. He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:7-8). God sent His son as a baby in a manger, born to an earthly peasant family in Bethlehem, in a humble manger -- not a palace. Jesus did not come to establish a kingdom of wood and stone. His kingdom was established with flesh and blood.

________

Steve Ortiz is assistant professor of biblical archaeology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13412]

According to Dr. Hawass, director of national archaeology in Egypt, no concrete evidence has been found in his country that would support the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert.

But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs. Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of excavations along ancient military roads in the Sinai, seems to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt. “A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said, recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army. “This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”

Internet blurb on how Public Broadcasting approaches the Bible:

Bill Maher, on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” frequently refers to the Old Testament of the Bible as the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales. The description might anger the pious and the fundamentalists, but guess what? Maher’s close to the truth, according to the Public Broadcasting Service.

A visually stunning two-hour special edition of “Nova” examines decades of archaeological studies that contradict much of what is in the Bible. The entire Exodus story is debunked, as is the idea that the Israelites were monotheistic following the contract made between God and Abraham. It turns out idol worship was common through the reign of King David and right up to the Babylonian exile.

Is the Bible the word of God? Only if God dictated it to dozens, maybe hundreds, of different writers, each of whom wrote and modified stories using different patterns of language over a period of centuries.

To be sure, writer-producer-director Gary Glassman does not dismiss the Old Testament as a collection of fairy tales. He asserts that the stories, though provably false in many cases, were intended to give identity to the Israelites, a group likely made up of former Canaanites, nomads and runaway slaves. Also, the Bible provided the Israelites with a moral framework.

The special, narrated by Liev Schreiber, is not likely to sit well with those who believe that the Bible, despite its internal inconsistencies, should be interpreted literally. Then again, science and religion have had a long history of conflict until, ultimately, the former prevails.

________

Reuters / Hollywood Reporter

Between 1997 and 2016, researchers at an excavation near Ashkelon in Israel examined the remains of more than one hundred humans, remains that dated from the 12th to 6th centuries before Christ. The researchers hoped to find human DNA in order to answer an old question: Who were the Philistines? Where did they come from?

As it turns out, the Philistines were exactly who the Bible says they were, and they came from where the Bible says they did.

Amos 9 speaks of God bringing up the Philistines from Caphtor, just as he brought Israel out of Egypt. Deuteronomy 2 tells us that “the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed [the original Canaanite inhabitants] and settled in their place.”

This brings us to the obvious question: “Where was Caphtor?” We just don’t know for sure, but the Bible does provide an interesting clue. Jeremiah called the Philistines “the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.” The Hebrew word translated “coastland” can also mean “island.”

For this and other reasons, many archaeologists have concluded that biblical Caphtor was Crete. In fact, some modern Bible translations even render “Caphtor” as “Crete.” We can’t be completely certain that it is, but the Bible does tell us three additional things about the Philistines. First, they weren’t native to Iron Age Canaan. Second, they displaced the original inhabitants of the region. And, third, they came via the sea, that is, the Mediterranean.

Which brings me back to the excavation in Ashkelon. After analyzing DNA from the site, Michal Feldman, an archaeogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute, and Daniel Master, the head of the expedition, revealed the results. Master announced, “Our study has shown for the first time that the Philistines immigrated to this region in the 12th century (BC).”

And from where did they immigrate? According to Feldman, “This [DNA] ancestral component is derived from Europe, or to be more specific, from southern Europe, so the ancestors of the Philistines must have traveled across the Mediterranean and arrived in Ashkelon sometime between the end of the Bronze age and the beginning of the Iron age.”

Over time, the “ancestral component” became diluted as the Philistines mixed with the local Canaanite population.

All of this is pretty much in accordance with the Biblical narrative. The Philistines were ancient Israel’s principal antagonist during the period of the Judges, which coincides with the time frame Feldman and Master mention, as well as the early Monarchy. As the biblical narrative continues, they become less distinct from their Canaanite neighbors and basically drop out of the picture, except as an historical reference, as in Jeremiah.

Whenever the latest archaeological evidence confirms parts of the Biblical narrative, we are told that this does not prove the Bible is “true.” I suspect what critics are trying to say, for example in this case, is that confirming the biblical narrative’s account of the origin of the Philistines doesn’t necessarily mean the rest of the Bible is true.

Of course, it doesn’t. But the Bible is on quite a streak here, isn’t it? And, each finding further distinguishes the Biblical narrative from other religious or even ancient historical texts. The Biblical writers weren’t creating myths or recounting legends. They were relating history.

Like all history, the events it describes are interpreted within Israel’s larger story, but the events are clearly not created out of thin air to suit their agenda. These were events either witnessed or received from reliable sources.

Which is why we must say that Biblical faith is a historical faith. Many other faiths are “ways of life” or “paths to enlightenment” or something like that. The Bible is different. It tells the story of God’s dealing with His people as it unfolded in human history. Its details are grounded in real events, not in some mythological “once upon a time.”

And, along the way, we learn of other actors. You know, like the Philistines.

________

Copyright (c) 2019 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Israeli archeologist Eilat Mazar has reported an exciting discovery — evidence that newly unearthed fortifications in Jerusalem were built 3,000 years ago. Based on the age of pottery shards that she found at the site, Mazar believes that the fortifications were built by Solomon, just as described in the Old Testament.

Of course that’s interesting news for Jews and Christians, but there’s a lot more to this than you might expect. As the Associated Press reported, “If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.”

That’s a direct contradiction to the views of some scholars who believe, as the AP puts it, “that David’s [and Solomon’s] monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.”

No wonder that Mazar calls the wall “the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel.” And if she’s right, we will have another link in the long chain of evidence that demonstrates the historical veracity of the Bible.

As I’ve said before on BreakPoint, discoveries like these are worth getting excited over — even though we need to be careful not to get TOO carried away by them. Every archeological, historical, or even scientific find that we make that supports the Scriptures is welcome news. They remind us that the Bible is a record of real people, places, and events — that as Dorothy L. Sayers put it, Jesus Christ was “born into history,” not into mythology.

At a time when the veracity of the Bible is under attack from all sides, such reminders are always refreshing and encouraging.

Yet at the same time, the primary source of our beliefs must remain the Bible itself. I made this point several years ago when archaeologists discovered an ossuary — that is, a box for bones — marked “James...brother of Jesus.” Even today there is controversy over the ossuary’s authenticity.

But even if the discovery of an ossuary or a city wall corroborates what the Bible says, that does not make the biblical facts more factual — it simply confirms them. And as historian Paul Johnson says, the confirming evidence for scriptural accuracy is mounting — so much so that the skeptics, not the Christians, must fear the further course of scientific discovery.

But always remember — the Bible stands on its own credible witness, regardless of whether secondary sources confirm or seemingly contradict it.

If we get too caught up in each discovery that seems to support the Bible, we run the risk of building our faith on a less-than-solid foundation. And we run the risk of being disappointed and disillusioned should a certain artifact be somehow discredited.

Better to build our faith on the solid rock of God’s Word — even as the evidence continues to mount, this time from a pile of ancient rubble pointing to the Word’s veracity.

Several years ago, Paul Johnson gave a remarkable speech at Dallas Seminary called “A Historian Looks at Jesus.” It’s one of the best pieces on the accuracy of Scripture I’ve encountered. I encourage you to read it as well — and you can do that now because we have it for you at our website, BreakPoint.org.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Viewing the remains of the Jewish Temple complex that Jesus visited on many occasions remains the favorite aspect of both trips I’ve made to Israel. After nearly 2,000 years, the Temple still inspires the many Jewish and Christian visitors to the old city of Jerusalem.

In the New Testament, the term “Temple” is used for both the sanctuary/shrine as well as for the whole Temple complex site that includes its many courts and retaining walls. The Temple that Jesus visited was started by King Herod beginning around 20-19 B.C. Under Herod, the sanctuary itself was completed in a year and a half, but construction on the various courts, gates and retaining walls continued on and off until just a few years before the Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.

In the early ministry of Jesus, the most recent terminus of construction to that point had occurred 46 years after Herod began the project, according to the biblical record in John 2:20. It was the third Jewish Temple built on the site. Solomon and Zerubbabel had earlier sponsored Temple complexes there, but the historian Josephus related that Herod even removed the foundation stones of the earlier Temples to construct his Temple (Antiquities of the Jews, 15,391; 15,421).

Herod’s Temple complex was impressive. Largely constructed of local white meleke limestone from the Jerusalem area with a veneer of marble and gold on the shrine itself, the huge ashlars (finely cut and dressed rectangular blocks designed to fit together without mortar) were polished to reflect the sunlight. Josephus tells us that visitors seeing the Temple from a distance may have thought it a snow-covered mountain (Jewish War, 5,223). Even a disciple of Jesus marveled at the beautiful and massive stone work of the Temple (Mark 13:1).

Nevertheless, the Lord knew that Herod’s great Temple would be destroyed -- particularly the buildings and shrine at the site. Jesus replied to His disciple: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here on another that will not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2 HCSB). His prediction came true in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed all the buildings on the Temple Mount, including the magnificent sanctuary.

So, what remains of the Temple that Jesus visited? Although the buildings on the Temple Mount were destroyed, one can still find a good deal of the Temple complex that Jesus, the disciples and the apostle Paul would have recognized. Specifically, the following features still can be viewed today: portions of the massive retaining walls, some special features and even some signage that once was posted in the Temple complex.

The retaining walls

Today we know that the lower courses of Herod’s retaining walls are found on all four sides of the Temple Mount (or the “Haram al-Sharif” to Muslims who currently possess the Temple Mount platform). Most of the north side retaining wall is under the present ground level, but on three sides -- the west, south and east -- portions of the retaining wall exist above ground. We can identify the Herodian masonry because of the huge stone ashlars in the lower courses of the present old city wall around the Temple Mount. The upper portions, containing smaller stones from later centuries, were not present in New Testament times.

One of more imposing parts of the Herodian retaining walls is at the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount (the “pinnacle of the Temple” -- the highest point of the Temple complex above the Kidron Valley). Here the Gospels record that Satan unsuccessfully tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:5; Luke 4:9). Below-ground portions of the “pinnacle” platform extend another 75 feet or so underneath the present ground level.

Nevertheless, the most famous above-ground portion of the retaining wall is the Western Wall (the so-called “Wailing Wall”). Here 21st-century Jews pray at the most impressive surviving portion of the wall above ground. Like the stone courses of the “pinnacle” platform, many layers of the Western Wall continue underneath the present ground level. A tunnel adjacent to another portion of the Western Wall reveals the Herodian ashlars set on massive foundation stones.

Special features

Other aspects of the Temple that Herod built and Jesus visited still are extant today. These include some paving stones and floor tiles that match tiles found at Herodian palaces at Masada and other locales, a sundial for perhaps determining the time of day for prayers (Acts 3:1) and sacrifices, geometric and floral designs on the column capitals and facings of the stone work (no animal or human likenesses have been found among these) and, just outside the Temple complex on the south side, there are a number of Jewish “mikvot.” A “mikveh” (singular) was a baptismal pool for Jews undergoing ceremonial cleansings. Many Jewish pilgrims to the Temple made use of these before ascending the steps into the Temple complex on the south side.

In addition, some surviving architectural features can still be viewed today. Among these is Wilson’s Arch on the Western Wall (named for the archeologist who rediscovered it). The arch once was part of a bridge over the Tyropoeon Valley (the misnamed “Valley of the Cheesemakers”) into the Temple. A part of the arch is the original Herodian structure or a later rebuilt arch constructed with Herod’s huge building blocks. Archeologists remain divided on the origin of the current structure. Not disputed are the nearby partial remains of Robinson’s Arch (named for another archeologist) also on the Western Wall. Here pilgrims could enter the Temple from the valley below on a staircase supported by the arch.

On the south side of the retaining wall for Herod’s Temple are a number of interesting features. These include the stairs to the Double and Triple Gates. Both gates functioned as the entrance way for most Jews entering the Temple Complex in the New Testament era (Mishnah, Middoth, 1,3) but today, no one can enter the Temple Mount in the vicinity of these gates. Some of the stair steps have been reconstructed and restored while other original steps reveal their 2000 years of wear and tear. The lintel piece atop the walled-up Double Gate is partially visible today but the rest of it is covered by a Crusader era structure. The Triple Gate also is walled-up but contains some of the original stones at the bottom and below the ground level. It is not known if this was a “Triple Gate” in antiquity; the modern Avi-Yonah model of the Temple shows it as another Double Gate.

Around and under the Temple Mount are a number of other surviving features. Highlights include some of the cisterns and water courses that served the Temple and the Fortress Antonia (some still carry water), storerooms and the massive Herodian structures misnamed as “Solomon’s Stables.” These huge pillars supported the massive works above ground near the south side. Some of these features have only recently been accessible to tourists by the opening of tunnels under and adjacent to the Temple Mount.

Signage

Like most public structures in the 21st century, the Temple that Jesus visited possessed signage. Only a few years ago, archeologists recovered a sign in Hebrew letters announcing “to the place of the trumpeting.” At the original site somewhere atop the southwestern part of the Temple complex, Jewish priests blew the shofar to announce the beginning of the Sabbath and other special days. The sign either was a deliberate permanent sign to designate where the priests would trumpet or a temporary sign that remained to point construction teams to the site of the “place of the trumpeting.”

Josephus acknowledged that special signs in both Greek and Latin warned Gentiles not to go beyond the Court of the Gentiles into those courts reserved for Jews (Jewish War, 5,194). Although no Latin signs have been recovered, today we possess two stone signs in Greek that caution Gentiles not to go any further into the Temple Complex. The signs warn: “No foreigner [Gentile] is to enter within the forecourt and balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death” (ABD 2.963). That the Jews of this period took the warning seriously can be gleaned from Acts 21:27-33.

Conclusion

Aspects of the first-century Temple fascinate both Jews and Christians. One can still view some of the sights that Jesus saw when He ministered at the Temple. Archeologists continue to uncover both artifacts and even structures (largely underground today) connected to the Temple of this era.

Although Christians are not commanded in the New Testament to make pilgrimages, Southern Baptists can learn much about their faith by touring Israel and Palestine and visiting places like the Temple Mount. Having returned from my second trip shortly after the tensions with Gaza last fall, I found the experience inspirational, safe and problem-free. My two visits to the Holy Land have positively impacted my faith.

The name of Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who ordered the killing of Jesus, according to the Gospel, is mentioned in thousands of sermons every year and is familiar to countless people, but little is known about his life and work.

To the very short list of clues about Pilate as a historical figure, archaeologists have added one more: a 2,000-year-old copper alloy ring bearing his name.

The ring was discovered in the late 1960s, one of thousands of artifacts found in the excavation of Herodium, an ancient fortress and palace south of Bethlehem, in the West Bank. But it was not until recently that researchers, analyzing those objects with advanced photography, were able to decipher the ring’s inscription.

It reads “of Pilates,” in Greek letters set around a picture of a wine vessel known as a krater, and is said by archaeologists to be only the second artifact from his time ever found with his name. Kraters are a common image in artifacts of that time and place.

The findings were published last week in the Israel Exploration Journal, an archaeological review in Israel.

Pilate was the prefect, or governor, of the province of Judea, on the eastern fringes of the Roman Empire, roughly from A.D. 26 to 36.

The report says it is unlikely that the ring belonged to Pilate, in part because such simple rings usually belonged to soldiers and lesser officials, not to someone as wealthy and powerful as a prefect.

“We think it implausible that a prefect would have used a simple, all-metal, copper-alloy personal sealing ring with a motif that was already a well-known Jewish motif in Judea before and during his rule,” it says.

“But in practice, we have a ring inscribed with the name Pilate and the personal connection just cries out,” Roi Porat, one of the authors of the report told The Times of Israel. The name Pilate was not common in the region at the time.

The New Testament story of Pilate presenting a scourged Jesus to an angry crowd with the words “behold the man” — “ecce homo” in Latin — was a central theme of religious art for centuries.

Beyond the Gospel, most of what little is known about Pilate comes from the surviving work of the ancient historians Flavius Josephus, a Jew, and Tacitus, a Roman.

Herodium, where the ring was found, was built by Herod the Great, a client king of the Roman Empire, and is the site of his tomb. (One of his sons, also named Herod, was king in Jesus’ time.) The site is controlled by Israel and is claimed by Palestinians.

The ring was found in a room filled with bits of glass, shards of pottery, arrowheads, coins and other items.

The language of the ring’s inscription is Greek, which Roman officials used to communicate with the peoples of the eastern Mediterranean. It could have been used for official correspondence by Pilate himself and his officials who had to sign his name.

The first archaeological find in Judea that mentioned Pilate was a fragment of carved stone, discovered in 1961, in the ancient port city of Caesarea. It is known as the Pilate stone and is kept at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

“It solved the problem of what actual title he had,” said Jonathan Price, professor of classics and ancient history at Tel Aviv University.

According to Mr. Price, for historians of the Roman period, Pilate was just one of a string of Roman officials who were sent to Judea to govern and keep the peace. Were it not for his biblical role, “he would be remembered as a Roman official who didn’t do so well,” he said.

During his decade-long tenure, which was longer than usual, Pilate displayed hostility to local residents and nearly provoked two uprisings.

“He was called back and called to account for what seemed to be a lack of competence,” Mr. Price said. “And after that we don’t really hear about him.”

________

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 1, 2018, on Page A7 of the New York edition with the headline: "2,000-Year-Old Ring Bears Name of Pilate".

No one names their son Jehoahaz. It’s just too tough to pronounce. On the other hand, most of us know a Josiah or two. Not only is it a much more pronounceable, but as we read in 2 Kings chapter 22, “Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years ... He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.”

See, King Josiah stands out among Judah’s final monarchs. Not only did he refuse to take part in idol worship, he tore down the high places and the Asherah poles, and he reinstated the worship and feasts of the true God.

According to the Bible, Josiah did all this because of a discovery in the Temple of a scroll of the Law, which had long been neglected and forgotten. He wept over Judah’s disobedience and recommitted his kingdom and people to the covenant recorded in that scroll. As a result, God promised that the judgment He would eventually send would not occur during Josiah’s lifetime.

A much more recent discovery brought this particular section of 2 Kings to light even more. The Times of Israel recently described two tiny objects unearthed at a dig in the City of David: an agate stone and a lump of burnt clay that both had Hebrew inscriptions which were the names of two individuals — ”Ikkar son of Matanyahu” — and “Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King.” Whoever can tell me which one of those two names appears in Scripture deserves this week’s Bible trivia award.

These were seals, you see — the kind once pressed into wax or dipped into ink to sign letters. According to Yiftah Shalev of the Israel Antiquities Authority, where these seals were found sets the 2,600-year-old signets apart for archaeologists. They were discovered in the remains of what was likely an administrative building dating to the 8th century B.C.

Many such artifacts hit the antiquities market, but often no one is really sure where they come from. These, however, were found in “their true archaeological context.”

The name that astute students of Scripture might recognize, by the way, is Nathan-Melech, an official who gets just a passing mention in 2 Kings 23:11, just as Josiah is purging Jerusalem of the trappings of idolatry. Outside of the Bible, this tiny clay seal is the first confirmation of this man’s existence.

And to be clear, it’s the obscurity of his name — both in recorded history and in Scripture — that should amaze us.

In biblical archaeology, it’s often the big players we look for — Moses and David and Paul. Last year’s announcement of a ring bearing Pontius Pilate’s name was big news, and rightly so. It’s a name we say every time we recite the Apostles’ Creed, proclaiming that Jesus’ redeeming work happened in real history.

Still, names like Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King, may offer an even stronger confirmation that the events recorded in the Bible actually happened. The seemingly insignificant name from 2 Kings reminds us that King Josiah, who rediscovered the Law in the Temple and cleansed the nation of idols, isn’t just a character from a mythical story. He was a man in history; he had court officials and administrative headquarters; and he was part of the lineage that led to another King — the Lion Who sits on the throne of Judah and is ushering in a Kingdom — one that, unlike ancient Jerusalem — will never be conquered.

Of course, we don’t believe this big story because someone unearthed a piece of clay with an obscure name on it. But it is exciting to see how even the smallest details in Scripture can hold up under the digging and the scrutiny.

________

Resources

"Tiny First Temple find could be first proof of aide to biblical King Josiah," by Amanda Borschel-Dan, The Times of Israel, March 31, 2019.

"Clay seal of King Josiah’s aide is found in the remains of an ancient office burnt down by Babylonians in 586 BC – adding weight to proof that the king really existed," by Joe Pinkstone, Dailymail.co.uk, April 1, 2019.

"A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament: What the Archaeological Record Shows," by J. Warner Wallace, BreakPoint.org, May 15, 2017.

"Real History, Toilets and All Our Favorite Archaeological Finds," by Eric Metaxas, BreakPoint.org, January 11, 2017.

________

Copyright (c) 2019 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[inscription was later found to be fraudulent - Holwick]

Early examinations of the ossuary reputed to have once contained the mortal remains of James, half-brother to Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, have sent ripples of excitement and expectation across the archaeological community. Could the box, dated to A.D. 63, actually have belonged to the biblical James?

By all indications the ossuary itself is authentic and a valuable find for scholars. It was cut from the limestone around Jerusalem, carved in typical Herodian fashion, and shows no sign of tampering by modern implements. It bears the Aramaic inscription "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua," which renowned paleographer Andre Lemaire confirmed was written in the first century.

The bone box belonged, as the inscription indicates, to a James, a son of Joseph and a brother to Jesus. What will forever remain unknown, regardless of the conclusions of scientists and theologians, is whether the James, Joseph and Jesus mentioned are our Lord's earthly "father," brother and our Lord himself. Although such a connection may be probable, we need not know for certain.

Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Time magazine that while the discovery of the bone box, housed for years in the apartment of its owner, was "fascinating" and may be a useful evangelistic tool, Christians should avoid "building faith on archaeological discovery."

Why? Because "faith" then becomes faith in an object, and true faith, by its very nature, doesn't require evidence or proof.

The veneration of relics is a practice nearly as old as the church itself, but began in earnest after Bishop Ambrose of Milan displayed the relics of two martyrs in his church between A.D. 385-388. Veneration of the relics was thought then to aid in worship.

But by the Middle Ages, countless articles were visited upon the masses of Europe in ceremonial procession because the Roman Catholic Church believed that "holy relics" held miraculous power and could increase the faith of the flock. Hoards of peasants thronged to see splinters from the true cross of Christ and fragments from the table where Jesus presided over the Last Supper.

Others longed to see thorns from the Savior's crown and even the head of John the Baptist. Wherever the relics went, miracles followed, or so the church claimed. Christian historians refer to the belief that such objects -- or body parts -- held magical power as "fetishism."

Such belief is amusing considering that as many as five heads of John the Baptist floated around Europe. Fourteen churches claimed to possess the foreskin of the baby Jesus, and Martin Luther, who sparked the Protestant Reformation because of his belief that the "just shall live by faith," lampooned the church when he wrote that enough splinters of the cross existed in Europe to build a mighty ship.

In the "Schmalkald Articles," Luther wrote that relics were tomfoolery and that "even the devil has laughed at such rascalities." The veneration of relics, he said, ought to be condemned because such practices were not contained within Scripture. They were "an entirely unnecessary and useless thing." Luther wrote in his "Large Catechism" that relics were "lifeless, dead things that can make no man holy."

But the Church of Rome continued to teach that beholding the relics conveyed salvific benefits. Lutheran historian Bernhard Lohse wrote that in 1517 that even Luther's protector, Frederick the Elector, displayed relics, claiming that those who viewed all of them would escape the suffering of purgatory 127,800 years early.

I do not believe that Baptists, nor any Protestants for that matter, are in danger of becoming entangled in such beliefs.

What I find intriguing, however, is the enthusiasm of archaeologists and the public for the notion that this new relic might be a link to Christ, as if they would believe should the ossuary be authenticated. Some scientists have even suggested extracting DNA from the bone fragments in order to learn about the mother of James -- Mary, also the mother of Jesus.

I am reminded of the words of Margaret Deanesly, who wrote in her book on medieval church history of Christians building churches over the graves of apostles. "The dust of the apostle who had seen with his own eyes and touched with his hands the very body of the Savior was itself a link with Christ, inexpressibly precious."

Ironically, the owner of the bone box reportedly claimed that he withheld his name from public media because he feared his home would become a church where those seeking a tangible connection to Christ would venerate the ossuary.

Those who are looking for a link to Christ need not hope to build their faith by caressing a stone box or laying eyes on a bone fragment. They need to look no further than to the Christian. A relic, while it is a link to the past, is a memorial or testimony to the power of the individual to whom it belonged or belongs. That is precisely what Christians are -- living relics.

John wrote in his first epistle that "the one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself ... and this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

I wonder sometimes if the church forgets how simple that is. We are his workmanship, saved by grace, and we preach the written word and live the testimony of the living word. We live by grace, we love, we share, we build, we pray for peace and if need be we die for others. If the world doesn't find Christ in us, it surely will not find him because his name is etched into a 2,000-year-old piece of limestone that may or may not have belonged to his relative.

_________________

Tomlin is news director at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

*