Can Archaeology Deliver?
Essay by Matthew McAffee
Introduction
In the popular consciousness, archaeology captures the fascination of a generation that grew up with Indiana Jones and his far-flung adventures in search of ancient treasures. For them archaeology spells adventure and excitement—the exploration of real-life ancient ruins which provide a fresh rendition of days gone by. Not too long ago, the world of biblical studies experienced similar exhilaration with the burgeoning of archaeological discoveries related to the biblical world. During the early-mid years of the nineteenth century students of the Bible thought that archaeology had the potential to prove the historical reliability of events recorded in the Bible, as ancient artifacts unearthed for the first time in millennia harkened back to Bible days.
As we might expect, such glory days have long since passed and have given way to a much more suspect view of the Bible’s historical accuracy. The enthusiasm for Bible “proofs” has been rejected as archaeologists increasingly claim that their discipline has all but eliminated the viability of both the events of biblical history as well as the broader historical framework in which those events are cast. Though maximalists are willing to utilize the metanarrative of the biblical text as a starting point for historical reconstructions, the minimalists are not so inclined. Rather, the minimalists argue that we need to start from scratch with the material culture made available to the researcher via archaeology, in concert with the growing corpus of extra-biblical texts (also thanks to archaeology). In their view, the ideological presuppositions of the Bible bar its usefulness as a reliable historical source [1].
Scientific Data or Interpretation?
Perhaps we should step back from the fray in an attempt to evaluate just how much one should expect from archaeology in these matters of biblical historicity. It seems that scholars on both sides of the discussion have invested too much capital in the discipline and are operating under the assumption that we are dealing with raw scientific data, (though agreement on what that data really means remains elusive). For example, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman provide the following thesis statement for their book on David and Solomon:
Our challenge will be to provide a new perspective on the David and Solomon story by presenting the flood of new archaeological information about the rise and development of the ancient society in which the biblical tale was formed. We will attempt to separate history from myth; old memories from later elaborations; facts from royal propaganda to trace the evolution of the David and Solomon narrative from its ancient origins to the final compilation of the biblical accounts [2].
Unfortunately, this purpose statement already tips us off to the kind methodology adopted in this study, one that assumes the mythic qualities of the biblical account. Many of their assumptions about these two biblical figures depend upon Finkelstein’s low chronology, moving the monumental building structures once attributed to Solomon much later to the period of the Omride dynasty under the auspices of King Ahab [3]. However, other archaeologists in the field have expressed serious doubts about this newer chronology and have shown it to be fraught with difficulty and almost impossible to maintain from the archaeological record [4].
It would appear, then, that we have come full circle to the realm of interpretation, in spite of all aspirations to be “factual” and objectively “historical.” When it comes right down to it, it is difficult for artifacts unearthed from the ground to tell us anything about the ancient past without interpretation. All in all, it would be wise for us to keep in mind the old adage: Pots don’t equal people. In other words, physical objects do not automatically produce objective history. On the contrary, they provide more texts and artifacts for study.
A More Reasonable Approach
David Merling offers a refreshing take on archaeology’s ability to prove or disprove the Bible. He suggests that most, if not all, Syro-Palestinian archaeologists would admit that the discipline is unable to offer “proof” for the historical reliability of biblical events. In light of this majority consensus, he probes the matter further by asking: “If archaeological finds seldom impose on the biblical stories, how is it then that some have concluded that those stories are in error, based on the archaeological data?” [5] It is a fair question.
Merling counters that the absence of evidence for something should not necessitate that it never existed. He explains, “Such nonevidence [sic] is used as though it had the status of true data, even though it is what does not exist” [6]. Of course, there may be valid cases in which the absence of something discredits the viability of its existence, but in reality it cannot be the only means of disproof. For example, Merling expends a great deal of effort applying this problem to the situation on the ground during the Israelite conquest and settlement period. He argues that the so-called absence of evidence at et-Tell for the Bible’s retelling of the destruction of Ai cannot support or deny its reliability, contrary to what J. Maxwell Miller and others are saying [7]. To exacerbate matters even more, archaeologists cannot be certain that et-Tell equals biblical Ai in the first place, a hypothesis that is not without difficulty.
Perhaps another typical example of this sort of reasoning might elucidate further the problem with this absence-of-evidence approach. With regard to the Israelite monarchy, Finkelstein presents himself as a centrist, arguing against the minimalists that David and Solomon were indeed historical figures, while at the same time denying the extent of their power as presented in the biblical narratives. One of the problems he presents has to do with the possibility of there being a Solomonic archive, which a later historian like the narrator of Kings might have consulted in his depiction of Solomon’s building activity in the north. How else would he have known this information? Finkelstein explains: “The commonsensical answer would be that he could have consulted with a Solomonic archive in Jerusalem. But over a century of archaeological investigations in Judah has failed to reveal any meaningful scribal activity before the late-eighth century. The idea of a Solomonic archive is therefore no more than wishful thinking” [8].
Can we firmly conclude that the inability to locate the said archive means that it never existed? Typical writing materials from this period suggest that a hypothetical Solomonic archive would have likely used papyrus that has not survived in the damper climate of the Levantine central highlands. It has only survived in dryer climates like Egypt and the Dead Sea region, and therefore it seems unrealistic to conclude, as Finkelstein and others do, that its historical existence depends upon our ability to find it. Accordingly, our inability to locate such an archive has nothing to do with its historical viability. The demand on the evidence appears to be wishful thinking.
From a slightly different perspective, Merling adds that archaeology is woefully inept at proving or disproving events that are referenced in the historical record. Usually an author mentions an event to serve a given theological purpose without the kind of explanation an archaeologist would need for historical verification. He offers the example of Ai, whose destruction is cast in the Joshua narrative with utmost brevity: “And Joshua burned Ai” (Josh. 8:28). “This story does not tell us that the gate was destroyed,” explains Merling. “It does not tell us how much of the site was burned. It does not tell us that any specific building on the site was destroyed. It does not even inform us that there was a building on the site” [9].
I must say that there have been numerous occasions when archaeologists have made assumptions about the Hebrew narrative that cannot be maintained upon a closer analysis of the text. In the case of the conquest narratives, the common idea that the book of Joshua depicts the widespread destruction and total inhabitation of Canaanite infrastructure does not hold up to closer scrutiny [10]. It is much more restrained and gradual, not to mention partly unsuccessful. What the text does provide by way of history is much harder to verify archaeologically.
Summary
Perhaps we should moderate our view of archaeology as a tool for historical reconstruction. This is not to say that the discipline does not share an important role in historical inquiry. At the same time, we should not be so naïve as to think it is the only means of true objectivity. Unfortunately, archaeology has to deal with the same level of subjectivity that has plagued readers of texts, only in this case we are reading artifacts! Consequently, we should not expect more from archaeology than it can reasonably deliver in our understanding of the biblical world. Merling summarizes the relationship between archaeology and the Bible this way: “Both can help us better understand the other, but neither can, nor should, be used as a critique of the other. They must live separately and be blended and amended together cautiously” [11]. I tend to agree.
______________________________________
[1] For a representative example of the maximalist approach to the Bible, see J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). For varied examples of the minimalist approach, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press, 2006); Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel(London: Equinox, 2007); and Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville: John Knox, 1998).
[2] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon, 3.
[3] Note also Israel Finkelstein, “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History or Myth?” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel, ed. by Brian B. Schmidt (Society of Biblical Literature 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literary, 2007), 113-14.
[4] See Amihai Mazar’s response to Finkelstein, “The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective” in The Quest for the Historical Israel, 117-21.
[5] David Merling, “The Relationship between Archaeology and the Bible” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 32.
[6] Ibid., 33.
[7] Ibid., 34, cites the study of J. Maxwell Miller, “Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan: Some Methodological Observations,” Palestine Excavation Quarterly 109 (1977): 88-89.
[8] Finkelstein, “King Solomon’s Golden Age,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel, 112.
[9] Merling, “The Relationship between Archaeology and the Bible,” 39.
[10] See K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 169-74.
[11] Merling, “The Relationship between Archaeology and the Bible,” 42.
_______________________________________
About the Author: Matthew McAffee serves on the ministry/biblical studies faculty at Welch College. He returns to the faculty while completing a doctorate in Northwest Semitics at the University of Chicago. He is also a graduate of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Welch College. He has ministered in Free Will Baptist churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Canada. He is married to Anna, with whom he has three young children: Abigail, Lydia, and Samuel.
Recent Comments