As an A level Religious Studies student I was introduced to Archaeology by my teacher. She was clearly fascinated by the researches of William Foxwell Albright and as a mark of respect for her I still keep my copy of “The Archaeology of Palestine” and a book by Millar Burrows called “What mean these stones.”
I was fired by her enthusiasm for the subject very nearly attempted to pass my Old Testament paper by my encyclopaedic knowledge of the latest discoveries and finds from sites such as Mari, Nuzi and Ras Shamra. Like many others of my generation I felt this would help authenticate the stories of Genesis and Exodus and would show how the narratives could be located and authenticated as part of the ancient history of the Fertile Crescent.
Oh dear! Fortunately my lecturers and tutors at university urged caution. By the late 1970s I had learnt that a more balanced view of science, literature and history was needed. But let’s just review what was happening in the field of archaeology for a moment. I would put the development of the science in the lands of the Bible in to 4 phases.
Pre 1914 There were scientifically controlled excavations between the mid nineteenth century and 1914. The locations mentioned in the Bible were identified. Sir Flinders Petrie realized the importance of ancient tells,
mounds or ruins – artificial hills left behind by ancient cities. He also realised that it might be possible to work out the age of some of these cities by the style of pottery which was discovered there. Even so much of the excavation of this period was reduced to the search for significant artefacts or even priceless objects. Sadly sponsors of the excavations sometimes dictated what sort of finds should be classed as significant, while the rest should simply be thrown away.
1918 – 1940 A much more systematic approach was made towards archaeological sites. This was a time of large scale excavations. Advances were made in recording techniques. W F Albright devised a system for the identification of pottery and did much to promote inter-disciplinary research in archaeology and biblical studies. In this period the seeds of a categorical error were allowed to germinate. Archaeology in Palestine was considered to be a branch of biblical studies rather than a discipline in its own right. Sponsors of the expeditions tended to be church based and the expectation was that the various excavations would throw light on biblical ideas, events and possibly even personalities.
1948 – 1978 Leading universities began to take responsibility for excavations. In Israel and Jordan universities they played a much greater role in the management of sites. This ensured a greater awareness of local conditions, better treatment of workers and an assurance that sites were not simply looted by foreign organisations. Methodologies continued to be refined, but the shadow of distinguished scholars and their interpretations still prevailed. The classic example of this was W F Albright. Albright used this influence to advocate “biblical archaeology”, in which the
archaeologist’s task, according to fellow Biblical archaeologist William Dever, was seen as being “to illuminate, to understand, and, in their greatest excesses, to ‘prove’ the Bible.” Partly I suspect as a result of his Evangelical upbringing Albright maintained the essential historicity of the books of Genesis through to Joshua. His findings and his lines of thought created an academic atmosphere that was followed by non-archaeologists such as John Bright, who on the strength of Albright’s views wrote a History of Israel – which became a standard textbook in the UK and USA.
1978 – present In the years since Albright’s death, his methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that “[Albright’s] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research by younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum …” The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer ‘secular’ archaeology that has contributed the most to Biblical studies, not ‘Biblical archaeology.’ These days archaeology in the Levant is studied in its own right as a scientific discipline and as far as I know universities no longer have biblical archaeological departments.
I think we need to re-examine our methodology – and suggest as follows:-
Archaeology is a science – it deals with artefacts, soil samples, dating techniques, objects.
Theology may have been the queen of sciences but it is an arts subject
One person may feel that he or she wants to believe every word in the Bible and claim that it is true, that is fine and is an opinion.
Another person may feel that the Bible is a work of fiction, which is also allowed and is also an opinion
What I don’t think we can do is to direct the course of a science on an opinion.
Science inasmuch as it is going to make definitive statements must be the originator into which our opinions may or may not fit.
In other words I don’t think we can make archaeology a branch of theology
But theology may take information from a consistent and complete archaeological picture.
The root is archaeology – a science undertaken by professional archaeologists who may give opinions make predictions on the basis of archaeology not coloured by preconceived ideas about religion.
Interpretation of evidence
In the past scholars were made aware of archaeological finds and looked to see if the data corresponded with passages in the Old Testament. When similarities were noted it was hailed as evidence of a link between the bible and the discovery. All sorts of possibilities were hailed as significant when parallels were found between the practices of the Patriarchs and the customs which prevailed at sites such as Mari, Nuzi, or Ugarit.
A review of such evidence these days usually is far less enthusiastic. Many of the parallels are said not to be relevant after all or at best their relevance has been greatly exaggerated.
The nature of biblical studies has also changed in the years of this millennium. There is a clear move back towards the German attitude towards early Israelite theology, which denies the historical reality of Israeli’s ancestral traditions.
Theology again seems divided. Some see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be real historical individuals and think events happened exactly as recorded in the book of Genesis. Others believe that the personalities are idealistic pictures drawn for the people in exile to encourage and promote a better way of life when they return to the land of Israel.
Possibly the truth lies somewhere in between.
It is fair to say that the names found in the book of Genesis are unusual and ancient. They are not the sort of names that appear in later Israel.
The customs and practices found in Genesis do give the impression that they are old and many of them are not typical of later Israel. Parallels with customs found at archaeological sites always seem to me to be fairly neutral. They do not provide a positive link between the bible and the discovery, but may show that the biblical figures were living a similar sort of lifestyle governed by similar practices or rules despite the fact that such customs were in existence for hundreds if not thousands of years
There are also those who point out that the book of Genesis contains certain geographical hints. For example the Abraham cycle of traditions may reflect people who lived around the city of Hebron worshipping at the “Oaks of Mamre.” Lot may possibly have been located on the shores of the Dead Sea. Isaac possibly may have been located in the region of Beersheba, while Jacob seems to be associated very firmly with Bethel and Shechem.
However we are now departing somewhat from the topic of archaeology. For me now I still find archaeology fascinating as a subject, but I no longer read its findings through bible tinted spectacles. Archaeology in the Levant has come of age and must, I believe be considered as a subject in its own right. Possibly from time to time archaeological discoveries may illuminate something in the bible and that is a bonus, but it is not a precondition of the study.
Looking where we are
Do we have a canon within a canon as far as the Old Testament books are concerned? In other words are there books we like to read and books that we never, or prefer not to read?
What governs our choices?
The second century heretic Marcion wanted to dispense entirely with the Old Testament. Presumably (hopefully) we don’t want to do that. But where do we sit in this in matters like this?
Hokmah 