Archaeology & the Bible: A Cautious Relationship

September 01, 2015

Photo: Archaeological excavations at Pella in Jordan | Karin Sowada

Hardly a month passes without some new controversy, media report or documentary claiming an archaeological discovery apparently proving or disproving a biblical account. Such matters are often the subject of wide public comment.

Yet it has been so since the nineteenth century, when the first artefacts from Egypt and Mesopotamia[1] began arriving in European museums. Successive expeditions yielded magnificent sculptures, objects and many thousands of texts from Assyrian palaces at Nineveh and other sites. Alongside this, the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs and Akkadian cuneiform unlocked the meaning of inscriptions on monuments, statues, tablets and papyri. It seemed that ‘facts on the ground’ could provide external verification of the historicity of the Bible.

The evolution of archaeology

Since those times, the situation has become more nuanced. While supernatural elements of the Bible have few external written attestations,[2] such things cannot be ‘proved’ from material culture.[3] However, archaeological discoveries have produced external evidence converging with numerous parts of the biblical narrative. Various individuals have historical confirmation. Many actual Bible sites are known. Evidence for the early church is widespread. There is considerable evidence for the historical New Testament, with the earliest fragments of the text likely dating to the second century AD. All this is an on-going process of discovery and study. The picture continues to crystallise.

In parallel, archaeology has developed as a multi-disciplinary field based on the empirical scientific extraction and examination of evidence. Archaeologists now use satellites and non-destructive survey and sampling techniques to aid in the identification and study of sites in the wider landscape before excavations even take place. Expeditions include not just archaeologists, but a range of specialists examining everything from human bones, plants and seeds, to animal remains and textiles. Computer applications are revolutionising the discipline. And then there is the micro-archaeology of studying the evidence back home in a lab: radiocarbon dating, microscopy, and residue analysis to name a few key processes. All these types of scientific techniques in the field and the lab are commonplace.

Despite what seems like a plethora of science, there are limits to what the evidence can say about ancient societies. Many archaeological sites produce big datasets consisting of thousands of broken pieces of pottery, human and animal bones, stone tools and other more mundane remains. This sort of material does not normally come neatly packaged like Tutankhamun’s tomb. Rather, the left-over remains of people’s lives lend themselves more to the study of human behaviour, the function of spaces, and understanding the processes of how and why communities and societies change.

This is also true of archaeology in the Bible lands. It is no longer conducted through the single-focus lens of the people of Israel. Rather, evidence is set against the broader panorama of the many other ethnic groups and cultures which existed at the time.

Moreover, when applied specifically to the Bible, there are limitations on what archaeological inquiry can deliver. There are a number of divergences and dissonances between the archaeological record and the Bible narrative, particularly for parts of the Old Testament. Moreover, specific events from ancient times, what I like to call ‘the frozen in time moments’, are rarely identified in the archaeological record. The Bible is full of such events and exchanges between individuals which are beyond the scope of archaeological data to validate.

This should not dissuade the reader from believing its content; rather, these gaps need to be faced and recognised. Archaeology is slow in its execution and delivery of results, but one discovery can provide evidence where previously none existed.

The Archaeological Study of the Bible Lands

In Palestine, there was no research until the mid-19th century. Major Christian sites such as Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem were historically dominated by the Orthodox Church. That changed when American evangelical scholar Edward Robinson (1794 – 1863) conducted a survey of Palestine in 1838 and 1852, identifying dozens of new Bible sites near the crumbling towns of the Ottoman Empire. In a sense Robinson ‘reclaimed’ historical Palestine for the Bible by grounding the wider geography of the Bible in real places rather than superstition and tradition.

Photo: Karin Sowada

As scientific inquiry began to undermine the traditional authority of the church, believers considered that evidence obtained from the new discipline of archaeology might also prove the Bible. Inscribed objects from the great Assyrian sites of Mesopotamia were studied. Much excitement greeted the translation in the British Museum in 1872 of an inscribed clay tablet found amongst the many thousands of tablets from the library of King Ashurbanipal (ruled 669-631 BC) at Nineveh. The text was a flood narrative with many similar details to the Flood story of Genesis 6-9.[4]

Systematic investigation of Egypt began in earnest in the 1860s, led initially by the Frenchman Auguste Mariette. By the 1880s, fieldwork began to focus on the eastern Delta.[5]. This was identified as the land of biblical Goshen, and the place where likely evidence could be found of the Hebrews and sites associated with the sojourn. Results in this respect were disappointing. Even to this day evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt is ephemeral.

In Palestine, W.M. Flinders Petrie started work at Tell el-Hesi in 1890.[6] Other expeditions followed after the turn of the century. But the hidden gems of Palestine were not so easily found. The ancient remains of cities and towns, known as ‘tells’,[7] proved complicated to excavate. Field methods were still in their infancy and archaeologists, more schooled in the Bible than fieldwork, struggled to understand the complex layering of human occupation on these sites. Rather than vast libraries of fired clay tablets, sites yielded thousands of broken pottery sherds, hardly the stuff of museum displays.

Despite this, many major sites were excavated in the period up to WWII.[8] These include Gezer, Ai (Joshua 7-8), Megiddo, Jericho, the City of David in Jerusalem, Samaria (Sebaste), Lachish (2 Kings 18), Capernaum and Nazareth. In many respects the period between the wars represented the high point of traditional ‘biblical archaeology’. Plenty of money was available from Europe and the US for large-scale excavations of Bible sites, and local conditions for work were favourable. The brilliant William Foxwell Albright was a leading figure whose foundational work on pottery from the region still forms the basis of its archaeological ceramic sequence. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 remains one of the most important archaeological finds of the 20th century.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 brought change once again. In the 1950s, Kathleen Kenyon working at Jericho applied a new method of excavating with trenches and baulks, improving the controlled recovery of data from the strata (layers) of a site. The hugely influential work of Yigal Yadin at Tel Hazor (Joshua 11) helped lay the foundation for the discipline in Israel by training a new generation of Israelis in archaeological fieldwork and developing the academic study of the new country’s ancient history.

Since then, explorations have continued apace, conducted by Israeli and international missions, peppered by the hiatus of various conflicts. Nowadays it is recognised that the history and archaeology of the Bible lands and indeed the biblical narrative itself is set within the wider cultural, social, economic, political and historical framework of the ancient near east. Archaeologically, ancient Israel is no longer viewed in isolation from other cultures and developments around it.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, archaeological work continues in Jordan and Lebanon, regional political conditions permitting. The recent wars in Iraq (since, in effect, 1991) and more recently Syria, mean that archaeological work has ceased completely. Tragically, many major sites and monuments have been deliberately looted by gangs searching for saleable antiquities and destroyed for propaganda purposes. It may be years before archaeological inquiry can resume in those countries.[9]

Convergences and Divergences

Matters have changed since the heady days of Albright and his colleagues. The scepticism of our age means that the biblical text is closely questioned from an archaeological perspective. As a result the gaps between external evidence and text are more apparent for some parts of the Bible. This rather overshadows the many places where archaeology and the Bible do come together.

Associate Professor John N. Monson, of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, has helpfully described the relationship of archaeology and the Bible in the following terms

‘… archaeological evidence is scattered, random, and incomplete, just as the Bible’s record is selective, ancient and theologically oriented… there are perceived contradictions between text and archaeological evidence, but also reasonable congruencies’.[10]

So here is the nub of the matter. Given the divergent nature of the source material, it is unrealistic to expect archaeology to ‘prove’ the Bible. Yet archaeology can assist by providing the broader background to the narrative and at times directly underscore the text.

The question of divergences is, on the whole, more acute for aspects of the Old Testament than it is for the New Testament. There are several reasons for this including the uneven transmission of data over such a long period of time (e.g. the era of David and Solomon is placed in the 10th century BC, 3000 years ago!). Some types of evidence, such as documents on papyrus, have not survived in wetter climates. Excavating deeply-buried older layers on a site is complex and expensive, making retrieval of evidence harder, while at places like Jerusalem, centuries of building and re-building has destroyed evidence from earlier layers.

Yet on the present state of knowledge, difficulties remain. Key flashpoints include

evidence in Egypt for the presence of the Hebrews: at this time the external data constructs a case for plausibility rather than actuality;[11]
evidence for the Exodus from Egypt;
the uneven archaeological evidence for the Conquest in Canaan;
the interpretation of archaeological evidence for how and when the Israelites emerged as a people in Canaan;
evidence for the United Monarchy.

It should be said that new material is discovered all the time so these debates are constantly changing. Up until the mid-1990s, the ‘minimalist’ school of thought regarding the history of early Israel did not consider King David as a historical person. However in 1993-4, a fragmentary inscription on stone dating to the 9th century BC was discovered at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel. Known as the Tel Dan Stela, the Aramaic text mentions ‘House of David’ (ie Dynasty of David).[12] This was suddenly the earliest-known mention of the Davidic dynasty outside the Bible. The debate against a historical David was suddenly silent.

While the flashpoints cannot be ignored, there are also many congruencies. The father of modern Syro-Palestinian archaeology, Professor William Dever of the University of Arizona, describes the siege of Lachish by Assyrian King Sennacherib in 701 BC (see 2 Kings 18 and 2 Chronicles 32:9) as archaeologically one of the best-attested biblical events.[13] Aspects of the intersection of the Assyrian Empire with the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel is also well-attested from the Assyrian side, down to the names of specific individuals and events. And recent excavations, not only at the City of David, but elsewhere at sites like Khirbet Qeiyafa in southern Israel, annually reveal new data about social organisation and town planning. Indeed, this points to the existence of a central administration in the late 11th – 10th century, coeval with the time of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon.

There is still much we don’t know, but one season in the field can sometimes change everything.

Photo: Karin Sowada

Karin Sowada is Director of the Australian Centre for Egyptology & Senior Lecturer at Macquarie University. As well as archaeology, she has a background in politics, corporate communications, public policy, Christian ministry, and serves several not-for-profit entities.

_________________________________________________

[1] An archaic term used to describe the region around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, covered by modern Iraq, south-western Iran, eastern Syria and south-eastern Turkey.

[2] An example is the statement by first century Roman historian Josephus who wrote of the risen Christ: Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3. The veracity of Josephus’ account of Jesus’ ministry in this regard is much debated by historians.

[3] ‘Material culture’ is defined as ‘the buildings, tools and other artefacts that constitute what is … left over from former societies’ (C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (Thames and Hudson, 2008), p12). Some would argue that the Turin Shroud is evidence of the resurrection, but radiocarbon dating established the Shroud as medieval in date: P.E. Damon et al., ‘Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’. Nature 337 (1989), pp611-615.

[4] Part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, known as The Flood Tablet (BM ME K3375: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/t/the_flood_tablet.aspx )

[5] T.G.H. James, Excavating in Egypt. The Egypt Exploration Society 1882 – 1982 (British Museum Publications, 1982).

[6] M. Drower, Flinders Petrie. A Life in Archaeology (University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).

[7] Arabic for ‘mound’.

[8] There was a hiatus of work between the outbreak of WWI and the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1920. The latter came to an end in 1948 after which there was a further break in archaeological activity.

[9] On this, see a recent contribution by the writer http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/the-destruction-of-mesopotamia

[10] J.M. Monson, ‘Enter Joshua: The Mother of Current Debates in Biblical Archaeology’. J.K. Hoffmeier and D.R. Magary (eds), Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Post-Modern Approaches to Scripture (Crossway, 2012), p439.

[11] For a summary, see J. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Lion Hudson, 2008).

[12] See http://www.imj.org.il/imagine/collections/item.asp?itemNum=371407

[13] W. Dever, What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2001), pp168-169. The siege is mentioned in the Bible, Assyrian records and art, and evidence was found at the site itself of siege works and the remains of battle dated to this period.