Why the Bible trumps archaeology

Some years back, I read the book, The Stones Cry Out, by Randall Price.  I recently came across some notes I’d made about the book and, even though the book may be a bit dated now (it was originally published in 1997), some of the points it makes are timeless.

All in all, archaeology has been friendly to the Bible. Several archaeological finds have marvelously confirmed facts previously only known from Scripture. Even so, some difficulties remain. Critics will sometimes claim certain details in Scripture have not been verified by archaeologists. Indeed, some current evidence seems to contradict Scripture. Can the spade of modern archaeologists overturn the authority of the Bible? Heaven forbid! Early in the book, Dr. Randall Price outlined why he believes the Bible trumps archaeology.

 

1) “Only a fraction of what is made or written survives”: We have found a lot of things which had been written down by the ancients but the overwhelming majority of what they wrote simply no longer exists. At the time “The Stones Cry Out” was published, no sizable archive has been discovered in the Land of Israel. What certainty do we have that what survives is representative of the whole body of what was written?

 

2) “Only a fraction of the available archaeological sites have been surveyed”: In Israel and the Near East, there are thousands of unexcavated tels. Sites that are surveyed cannot keep pace with the many more that are being discovered. Many of these sites will never be properly explored because of political disputes and lack of resources. Many are also being destroyed by population growth and construction.

 

3) “Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated”: In Israel, military spending takes priority over archaeological excavation. Most work in this area is done by volunteers or by archaeologists who make their real living as professors. These people must raise money for their expeditions from private resources and can only work a few weeks out of the year. Because of all these factors, only 2% of surveyed sites in Israel have been excavated.

 

4) “Only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined”: Due to limited time and resources, archaeologists tend to invest the majority of their time in sites they suspect have the best chance of yielding a sensational find. A big find helps in future fund-raising. Strategic sites, such as Tel Hazor, have been repeatedly excavated yet there is so much ground that Tel Hazor still remains the largest unexcavated tel in Israel.

 

5) “Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published”: There was a forty year delay between the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the release of just their photographs. It is a simple fact of archaeological research. There are tens of thousands of cuneiform texts in museum storage rooms all over the world and there is simply not enough time, expertise, and resources to review it all.

Dr. Price concluded his points with these insightful words:

“In the final analysis, it must be remembered that the Bible itself is our finest example of an archaeological document. While we have only a limited number of archaeological artifacts from the biblical period, the Bible represents the most complete literary record we possess of ancient times. Surviving in one form or another since its first books were penned by Moses some 3400 years ago, it remains the most accurate and trustworthy account of antiquity in the archaeological record. For this reason it is improper to elevate other archaeological inscriptions above the Biblical text in order to challenge the latter's integrity.”

 

What more can I say?  Dr. Price has nailed it.  The lack of discoveries confirming some of the events attested in the Bible is not a sufficient argument to challenge its veracity.  As the old saying goes, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  To the contrary, the Bible itself is the best record we have of the history of God’s people!

What was the Star of Bethlehem?

This Christmas season, you may have heard this old hymn:

We three kings of orient are

Bearing gifts, we’ve traveled so far.

Field and fountain, moor and mountain,

Following yonder star.

 

(Chorus)

O star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy perfect light

The song was inspired by Matthew 2 which describes the coming of the wise men (magi) to worship Jesus.  In our minds, we usually picture three kings riding on camels, traveling by night, looking up at an especially bright star. I believe this common perception is completely wrong. There has been much speculation about what the Star really was. It just so happens that I have my own theory as well.

The idea that the Star was some natural, astronomical phenomenon doesn’t, in my opinion, fit well with the events described in the Bible.  What I’d like to do is, first, discuss the scriptural difficulties I see with the Star being an unusual, but still mundane, astronomical event.  After that, I will suggest my own theory and explain how it better explains the details given in the chapter.  Is that fair?  Then let’s get started!

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 

Immediately, I see something wrong with the idea that a star was leading the magi.  If a star was leading them, why did they end up in Jerusalem when Jesus was born in Bethlehem?  

v. 2, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

This verse seems to confirm my suspicion.  They weren’t following a star.  Read it again - the word follow isn’t there.  It says they saw His Star in the east and then came to worship Him.  

v. 3-4, When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Herod was probably familiar with Old Testament prophecies about a coming Messiah because he immediately knew who they were talking about.  When they told Herod that a star had announced His birth to them, Herod didn’t point to the sky and say, “Do you mean that star standing over Bethlehem?”  He seemed totally unaware of any star.  Instead, he had to consult with the scribes and priests to see where Scripture said Christ would be born.  

v. 7, Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

We see again Herod was completely ignorant about the Star.  The use of the word diligently suggests he was very careful and thorough to learn about the Star.  Herod seems to know nothing about the Star except what the magi tell him.  

v. 8, And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

We know the motive of Herod making this request is not to worship the Messiah but that he might come to kill Him.  Remember, he is now completely aware of the appearance of the Star and has diligently interrogated the wise men about it.  Even so, he doesn’t know the location of the Child.  If this were some heavenly body that could be seen by the entire world, why doesn’t Herod just send his guards to follow it and find the Messiah all by themselves?  Obviously, he still couldn’t see this Star, even after having been told about it!

v. 9, When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Just a few verses earlier, the wise men had arrived in the wrong city.  Now the Star stood directly over where the child was!  Ask yourself, what star, comet, nova, alignment of planets, or any other astronomical event is able to pinpoint a single house?  I know of none.

v. 10, When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

This verse seems to confirm, yet again, my suspicion above.  Namely, they didn’t follow the Star.  They saw it once in their homeland and then journeyed to Jerusalem by their own means.  Now that they are nearing the Messiah, the Star has appeared to them again and they are exceedingly joyful when they see it.

v. 16, Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

The wise men had been warned in a dream about Herod’s motive (v.12) so did not return to him to reveal Jesus’ location.  Herod’s response to their actions tell us two things: 

1) he still didn’t know the location of the child!  The Star that led the magi to the very house where Christ still wasn’t obvious to Herod.  We are certain he knows about the Star yet he still isn’t able to use it to lead him to the Child.  He decides instead to kill every child in hopes that he kills the One.  

2) He chose the age of 2 years old for his execution order based on when the wise men said they first saw the Star.  We can assume that means they magi first saw the Star 2 years earlier and it took them that long to reach Jerusalem.  A nova can perhaps be seen for 2 years but, as discussed above, neither a nova nor a star can pinpoint an individual house.  Comets aren’t usually visible for 2 years.  Any unusual alignment of planets cannot last for two years.  

By itself, a two-year duration of the Star is strong evidence against any natural explanation for the Star.  Combine this with what has already been discussed and I do not see any room for uncertainty.  What has been called the Star of Bethlehem was a miraculous event that cannot be attributed to any natural, astronomical phenomenon.

MY THEORY

So after having told you all the things I think the Star wasn’t, let me tell you what I think it was.  I believe the Star was an angel that appeared to the wise men and announced the birth of Jesus to them in the same way the angels announced His birth to the shepherds in Luke 2.  I think it went something like this:

An angel appeared to the magi on the same night the angel appeared to the shepherds.  He may have had the same message, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”  

When they heard this, the magi may have said to themselves the same thing the shepherds said, “Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us,” - except, the magi were not Jews.  When the angel told them “the city of David,” they may have believed that meant Jerusalem and so they traveled there.  Maybe they went to Jerusalem believing that, by the time they arrived, the King would already be there, sitting on His throne.  

Regardless of why they went to Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem, when they arrived, they said, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”  This is entirely consistent with an announcement by an angel, telling them of Christ’s birth.  No similar announcement was made to Herod.  When he heard these things, about a King of the Jews having been born, he was surprised.  He searched the Scriptures to find out where Jesus was prophesied to be born and he questioned the wise men about the appearance of this “star.”  

There’s no hint anywhere that Herod looked up into the sky and searched for some beacon that might lead him to the usurper.  I think it’s because there wasn’t any point in it.  He knew there was no bright light that was pointing the world to the Nativity.  He was counting on the revelation of Scripture and the testimony of the wise men to find the child.  

As the wise men neared the place where Jesus was, the same angel that appeared the night of His birth appeared to them again.  He led them directly to the house where Jesus was.  When the Bible says the Star stood over where the child was, I believe the angel flew and hovered directly over the house.  He was visible to the magi - or maybe anyone in the immediate area - but he wasn’t visible to everyone in the world nor was he visible to Herod.  

When the wise men left his country without revealing to him the place, the only thing Herod would have known was the prophecy indicating the Prince would be born in Bethlehem.  Having no angel to guide him to the house, Herod could think of no other course but to kill all of the children in Bethlehem.

Now, some people have asked me, why does the Bible call the Star, a star?  Well, technically, the magi called it a star - and the Bible just recorded their words.  We sometimes have a tendency to impose our understanding of words onto the original speaker’s understanding.  In other words, what we think of as a “star” isn’t necessarily what the magi were thinking when they said, “star.”  

Other passages in the Bible have described angels as being shining and white, usually having a fearful appearance.  Revelation 1:20 specifically uses the imagery of stars to represent angels.  So if the wise men were referring to a heavenly being with a shining countenance, I believe star might be an appropriate description.

Having said all that, let me close with this.  I believe the Star was probably an angel but I can’t say it must be.  At the very least, it was something miraculous. Perhaps it was simply a ball of light that appeared to the wise men in their home country and announced the Birth of Jesus.  It went before the magi in a way similar to how the people of Israel were led by a pillar of fire.  Of course, that’s not significantly different from saying it was an angel.  Regardless, it was not some mundane event.  Of that I’m certain.