ETS 2003, Atlanta, Georgia
Excavating Jesus or Inventing a Jesus?
13
archeologists would Reed want to integrate into New Testament scholarship? Given his
view of Scripture, would he view the interpretations of archaeologists who are also inerrant-
ists or even maximalists as useful to be integrated? And, of course, therein lays the problem.
Speaking of the process archaeological of interpretation, Keith Schoville, past president of
the Near Eastern Archaeological Society
51
, states,
The surviving remains from antiquity preserve only a tiny fraction of the full picture of
ancient life, and even these fragments are mute as they are wrestled from the oil. They
speak on through informed, imaginative minds. The drawing of inferences involves the
human element . . . so the inferences drawn by an archaeologist are infused with his ex-
periences and philosophy of life. What he is will tint his imagination and influence his
judgments of what the evidence suggests . . . Historical reconstructions are necessary,
but they are not identical with what really may have been. Hypotheses possess only va-
rying degrees of probability, ranging from certain, to probable, to possible, to improba-
ble, to impossible.
52
Edwin Yamauchi, in his presidential address to the American Scientific Affiliation, noted the
same issues, stating,
But to even a greater degree that in the hard sciences, archaeological conclusions depend
upon the subjective interpretation of various factors including one`s disposition toward
the Scripture as a source of historical data.
53
Two examples of this problem in Excavating Jesus will demonstrate this point. In dis-
cussing the residential houses of Capernaum in the New Testament era, the authors (Reed?)
makes note of the episode in Mark 2:4 of the type of roof that the men lowered their paralytic
friend through. It is noted, based on the archaeological research done (to date) in the area,
51
The Near Eastern Archaeological Society is a sister organization to the Evangelical Theological Society
and has an required affirmation of inerrancy as a prerequisite for membership.
52
Keith N. Schoville. Biblical Archaeology in Focus. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1978): 122.
Wright echoes this statement as well, historical reconstructions [based on archaeological data] have only vary-
ing degrees of probability. G. Ernest Wright. What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do. Biblical Archaeolog-
ist, 34:3 (1971): 70.
53
Edwin M. Yamauchi. The Proofs, Problems and Promises of Biblical Archaeology. Evangelical Review of
Theology 9:2 (April 1985): 118 (reprinted from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36:3 [Septem-
ber 1984].