Archaeology and the Bible

[Nicolae Roddy]

Now here's a real can of worms to get discussion started! Our colleagues excavating in other parts of the world often encounter challenges when their fieldwork is carried out in areas still regarded as sacred by local populations, but the archaeology of the Near East, aka Levantine archaeology, aka Syro-Palestinian archaeology, aka Biblical archaeology, in one way or another existentially involves the agents themselves. Those who claim to be free of religious convictions are no less invested in the tensions created by conducting science related to one of the foundational pillars of the entire western worldview. So what is the relationship between archaeology and the Bible? Should there be such a thing as Biblical archaeology? Does Levantine archaeology support or refute the Bible? I'd like to hear some discussion before I weigh in as not to persuade or dissuade discussion.

[JB]

Like you said, this topic is a sticky one. So for the sake of arguments I will try to make my opinion as least argumentative as possible. So here is my opinion. I think that probably the least important reason to study the Bible and have Biblical Archaeology is simply because it's the oldest printed book. It was printed in 1455 thus exceeding the age of any other printed book! A more important reason, I think, is that the Bible is a history book written by God. Now, He didn't write it Himself, but He had chosen people to write it. Moses, Micah, Samuel, Joel, Amos, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Peter, John all were used to write some part of the Bible. Just as a side note there were over 40 writers of the Bible. Not only that but It's God using History to teach us how to live properly, how to act in certain times and things along those lines. Look at David. His entire reign his kingdom was never completely peaceful. There was always something going on and I think we can learn from it by reading the parts of the Bible that talk about him. By reading it we get a sense of it and a love for the history so it becomes important to study what is left of it today. Now, I have no idea if there are any excavations out there on David's kingdom, but I was just using that as an example. Like Mr. Roddy's Bethsaida excavations. Bethsaida was a very important city in ancient times. It was the birthplace of Andrew, Philip and Peter. This is where Jesus fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and two fish. It was also where Jesus heald the blind man (Mark 8:22). So there is great Biblical importance to that city which today is being excavated. I also believe people are slowly loosing interest in the Bible as history but are starting to look at it as just another boring book with no value at all. With sites like Bethsaida and Hazor, another excavation of a Biblical era city, I think it might strengthen peoples interest in it once again. This though is just my opinion so please don't get mad if you are offended at something I said.

[Nicolae Roddy]

Hi, JB, thanks for weighing in! Why should anyone get mad or offended at a statement of faith? It us true that in most academic settings we take a somewhat different approach. Often members of the class (including the instructor) generally agree to bracket out faith (as much as one can anyway) and begin by looking at the Bible as any other book, free of presuppositions that it was written by God or serves as a reliable witness to actual, factual history. That way one can get closer to how the text was most likely understood by its original audience. In fact, one could say that treating the Bible as an actual, factual account of history could cause one to miss the big picture. For example, we read in Assyrian archaeological sources that King Ahab (last chapters of 1 Kings) had 2000 chariots of iron and participated in a ten-nation coalition that stopped the Assyrians in their tracks at the battle of Qarqar in Syria in the mid 9th C BCE. This would have been a monumental thing for a historian to report, but nowhere in the BIble will you find this information. Instead, the biblical writer directs his readers to the Annals of the Kings of Israel if they want to know anything over and above what he says about Ahab. Fact is, the usual historical books did not survive--largely because they were just that, namely mere history. The writer of the books traditionally known as the Former Prophets was writing what I refer to as "ultimate" history, which is something that transcends actual, factual reporting. This is why he focuses only on the great extent to which Ahab persecuted the prophets and was therefore rejecting Israel's God. Here's a better example of mere history vs. ultimate history: Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians, who destroyed the Temple in 586 BCE. An objective historian would report it just that way. But the biblical writer, in writing ultimate history, pointed to the invisible causes behind the event, namely that God used the Babylonians as a rod with which to punish the Judahites for their lack of faith. On the negative side of all of this is that there are occasionally disappointments lying in store for those who expect the Bible to be an actual, factual account of mere history, such as the fact that Jericho was virtually uninhabited at the time Joshua would have come through. All these are just a few of many such examples, which hopefully will not discourage you in your faith, for I believe that the more one's faith allows the Bible to speak for itself, the more real and all-embracing one's faith can become.

[JB]

I see. I have no problem talking about faith but it's just that everytime I talk about it it seems that someone doesn't like it and starts arguing with me about it. Even on "Christian" message boards, all of which I am not a part of any more. On the note of ultimate history. What you are saying is that if you focus on just the history of it and miss what is trying to be explained by the author, then you miss the whole bigger picture?

[Nicolae Roddy]

Yeah, people used to say that religion, sex, and politics are the three things one shouldn't discuss in social situations. Religion gets especially heated, but people don't seem to realize that they can disagree with one another without losing respect and civility. Anyway, I never wish to tell anyone that taking a literal interpretation of the biblical text is "wrong," for it's not about right or wrong, but about how one wishes to use the Bible. What I'm suggesting is that there may be something at play with the Bible that transcends the limitations of a mere literal approach. In the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem, in the exile in Babylon, members of disparate groups and traditions laid aside their differences for one brief moment to engage in trying to answer the question "What went wrong?" The result became a complex compendium of perspectives held together in flux, such as the transcendent God in Gen 1 vs. the anthropomorphised, immanent YHWH of Gen 2-3. Either story by itself would not embrace God as Jews and Christians and Muslims understand God; but taken together, that God of the monotheist's experience is revealed in the flux.

[JB]

Ok, I understand what you're saying. When I gave that first paragraph I think I might have come off as the Bible is just a history book. Which it definitly is not. The whole, as I have been brought up to believe, is ment to win people to Christ so we can go to Heaven and live eternaly with God. But I do understand what you are saying. The Bible definitly holds it's fair share of mysteries!!

[Jessica SC Sproviero]

I must say, I joined this group just so that I could post on this thread. Before I begin, I just want to start by saying that while I was raised catholic, I am no longer Christian, however, 9 years of private school has certainly exposed me to a bit of the bible.

I think biblical archaeology certainly has its place in the field. What makes the discipline of anthropology, and subsequently archaeology, so great is its holistic approach! We look at things from all different points of view, and who is one person to tell another that they cannot peruse a path of interest. I may not agree with a few of the claims I've heard over the past few years, but that doesn't make them worthless. As long as you don't start trying to force a belief (*cough*cough*creationism*cough) on someone it should be fine.

For the most part I no longer discuss such issues with people sensitive to the topic. I believe that if you want to have your point-of-view spoken, then you should pay respect by listening to another persons point of view. A lot of the people I've been exposed to (namely my family) jump down your throat as soon as you say something that they don't believe in- be it religion, politics, or sex.

Getting everyone to listen isn't the easiest thing in the world, but if people approach things with at least a considerate mine (doesn't even have to be an open mind!) we would be fine. I feel really bad when people can't have themselves heard, so I just stop getting into conversations like this. =P

[JB]

I agree with the fact that if someone is not willing to listen and have a civilized conversation with another person about any topic, then that person should just keep quiet himself. But I do believe that Religion is a topic to have a serious (civilized) conversation about. I myself am more of a "listen and reply only if you feel the person wants a reply" kind of person. That's one of the problems I have with message boards. I don't feel like I know enough or am old enough to have conversations with people like you guys who are trainned in this field. So I tend to just sit back a listen alot. But I do agree that if your not willing to listen to someones opinion then you should just refrain from talking at all.

[Dan McLerran]

The term "Biblical archaeology" has always been a little uncomfortable to me, as it can imply a research philosophy/methodology that focuses on "proving" the authenticity of the historical events and characters presented in the Bible through archaeological methods of data recovery and analysis. For me, the Bible is more a record of "spiritual" or religeous history or values, as opposed to a record of actual events and people. As such, it can only serve as a limited source of information in conducting the necessary research or in developing the research design that should underpin any archaeological investigation. In my opinion, the value of archaeology as it relates to the Bible lies in the light it can shed on the lifeways of the people and culture that formed the backdrop or context of the Biblical writings. As archaeology is a subset of anthropology, I think this reasoning makes sense. To approach it otherwise would be considered bad science, in my opinion.

That being said, the writings of the Biblical canon, along with all of the other related writings (apocryphal, "Dead Sea Scrolls", etc.), constitute a very significant and meaningful part of our religeous and cultural heritage (certainly of mine). Inasmuch as the archaeological investigative and analytical/interpretive process can enrich and more fully illustrate the context and cultural mentality and perspectives of the people who came before us in that region of the world, representatives of whom contributed to those writings, "Biblical Archaeology" is a legitimate term. As there is also a public archaeology in addition to a "scientific" one, I think this is important. This side of archaeology raises some very fascinating questions, such as, did King Solomon and King David really exist, and was the United Monarchy as extensive as the applicable writings in the Bible suggest. I could start with the hypothesis, for example, that King Solomon really did exist, as the current lack of evidence does not necessarily "prove" otherwise. Only time and continuing research may tell. This is totally apart from the important spiritual or religeous lessons we read about in the Bibilical writings. The Bible should therefore continue to be one among a number of vital reference sources for archaeological research (not the sole source), and as long as how we feel about it does not dictate how we go about uncovering and interpreting material culture, then "Biblical Archaeology", "Levantine Archaeology" or "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" (whatever you want to call it), is an undertaking with respectable validity.

[JB]

I'm confused as to what you mean. After reading your post I get the sense that you believe that "the Bible is more a record of 'spiritual'or religeous history or values, as opposed to a record of actual events and people" but I also get the sense that you believe that we should keep using the Bible as a source for Archaeology. But this confuses me, if one does not think that the Bible holds "Hard Facts" how can he use the Bible as a reference for Ancient History? I probably just don't have enough experience in studying history to be able to understand it but I am curious to understand what you are saying. I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge.

[Nicolae Roddy]

Ahhhh! This discussion is great and just what I had hoped it would be. I'm not interested in any one view "winning out," rather I enjoy the many facets of the discussion. I agree with JB's position of listening and learning because it is what I continue to do (I don't think I will ever be able to say "I have arrived at full knowledge--at least I hope I don't anyway). Jesiica's attitude of openness is also refreshing. I enjoy the dialogue and end up learning something new everytime I listen; conversely, when I contribute to the dialogue, I try to keep in mind that I have only a perspective informed by experience and that it may be something entirely different than (objective) reality. I really resist pontificating positions, finding them sorely fruitless. I really like what Dan has to say about a "public archaeology." It is a legitimate perspectival realm and one in which I realize many of my volunteers operate. As Dan points out, the terms in use by archaeologists in the Near East carry unique presuppositions only, attempting to color expected outcomes but at the end of the day still remain open-ended. Thank you all for your refreshing comments.

[JB]

EXACTLY! "when I contribute to the dialogue, I try to keep in mind that I have only a perspective informed by experience and that it may be something entirely different than (objective) reality" That is exactly how I feel!

[Alexey]

Well, from a perspective of an archeo student in Israel i can say that the general tendency is to move away from the biblical writing and concentrate on Archeology rather then trying to prove or disprove the biblical writings.
Personally, I think that archeology is about writing history and better understanding of our past and future, and not about proving writings, historical or religious.