Thinking Through Al Mohler and Archaeology

Today Al Mohler wrote about George Washington's boyhood home, Gabriel's Revelation and Archaeology.

...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.What Should We Think About Archaeology and the Bible?

I'm not sure I agree with Mohler's conclusion, however:

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.

I love Al Mohler, but I'm either missing his point, or he's using some strange logic. By saying "Nothing can be found, or not found that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God" is he assuming that the Bible is true a priori, without considering any outside evidence as to its accuracy? Is he assuming the Bible is true, regardless as to what evidence can be found against it?

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm an Biblical Inerrantist (and so is Mohler). I trust it totally, but that's because it stands up to intense and constant scrutiny. If there was compelling "archaeological" evidence to show that it was a fake (say, if there was a security tape from one of the Councils of Nicea, showing church leaders making it up), I'd have to toss it out and find faith elsewhere. My faith in God comes from my trust in the Bible, not the other way around. (Mohler agrees when he says: "Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority.") Without the Bible, we have no record of God's words, and that would make all teachings about Him potentially subjective, and therefore unreliable.

Perhaps Mohler is arguing something along the lines of Spurgeon, speaking on our efforts to defend the Bible:

"How are we to defend the Bible?" Spurgeon was once asked. The great Nonconformist preacher, with a true spiritual insight and a shrewd common sense sometimes lacking in profounder theologians and more versatile scholars, answered, "How would you defend a lion? Open his cage and leave him to defend himself!"Source

Perhaps Mohler's point is that it is improbable that any single archaeological find will ever totally prove or disprove the entire Bible. Furthermore, we, as Christians do not have to defend it, it can defend itself. To paraphrase Voddie Baucham, we don't have to defend the Bible, but we need to be prepared to defend our belief in it. I think that is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Do you agree with Mohler's conclusion? Am I way off base here?