2 of 5

Perhaps the most common argument from "biblical minimalists" is to state that since archaeologists have not uncovered explicit evidence of an event, for example, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, therefore it did not occur. They are forgetting the simple truth that a lack of evidence is not proof that something did not occur. I will be the first to admit that it would be very nice to have clear evidence of such a massive migration, but the paucity of physical remains in the desert from at least 3,300 years ago is hardly proof that the event never occurred.

We should also remember that we do have some evidence that these events occurred: the Bible, the collective memory of the Jewish people, and the fact that a nation known as Israel did indeed coalesce in that general time period and region. This is evidence that must be taken seriously. The Bible is the primary source of any evidence for Israel. Yes, the biblical text has to be read, interpreted, placed within a historical context, and examined for authorial bias—but this is also true of the archaeological evidence. To suggest otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

None of this is to say that we should not take seriously the evidence and analysis presented to us by archaeologists. There is great precision in the science of modern archaeology, including the efforts of geologists, chemists, and others. In fact, the Israeli Geological Society still, at the time of this writing, maintains that the Jehoash inscription does in fact date to the 9th century B.C. based upon their analysis of the patina and chemical make up of the artifact. The paleographers, those who examine the form of the writing, orthography, and linguistics, maintain that it is a fake. Who is right, the paleographers or the "hard" scientists? What this teaches us is that we must guard against the fallacy that archaeology is a precise science that can produce irrefutable evidence. Archaeology is an imperfect craft because, like ancient texts, the evidence requires reading and interpretation by people who are often far from disinterested in the results.

Archaeology is our friend
So what is the appropriate role of archaeology in the study of the Bible? While not rejecting out of hand the possibility that archaeology may present a challenge to the biblical account of history or (as is most often the case) a traditional reconstruction of biblical history, students of the Bible should take a more constructive and conciliatory view of archaeology. The primary role of archaeology is that of illumination. Often the results of archaeological research yield information of great importance in matters mundane, such as the kinds of pots people used, how they cooked, wrote, and, in some cases, even what they wore. This is extremely important, since the Bible rarely give us such detailed information concerning the everyday life of ancient Israel and specifically about the lives of women. These gaps can be filled at least partially through archaeology.

One of the more famous examples of archaeology "proving" that the biblical account was false is with regards to the conquest described in the Book of Joshua. In the 1950's British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon declared that Jericho had been abandoned by 1500 B.C., which would mean that Joshua could not have destroyed Jericho in the mid 1400s, the traditional date for the conquest based upon and extrapolation from 1 Kings. 6.1 (See note). This, it is argued, is evidence that an aggressive and decisive conquest never occurred. (Lazare alludes to this body of scholarship by simply stating, "the Old Testament account of that conquest turns out to be fictional as well.") Yet additional excavations have shown evidence of violent destruction of key sites in the mid 13th century B.C. along with the existence of many small settlements in the hill country during the 13th and 12th centuries B.C. Furthermore, a stele dating to the time of Pharaoh Merneptah (1224-1211 B.C.) contains a reference to Israel as a nation. It is the earliest extra-biblical reference to Israel in any source and means that by the time of Merneptah, Israel existed as a nation.

next page... |  2 of 5

share this page

September (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47