I just finished reading William Dever’s excellent little book, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. This well written, thought provoking and insightful book was a great introduction to the archaeological finds that relate to Israel’s settlement and emergence in Canaan. While Dever’s naturalistic (read: anti-miraculous) approach does cause me to part ways with the general thrust of his assessment of the exodus, his desire to glean from the biblical text anything he can for a historical reconstruction of Israel’s origins is excellent and a far cry from many of the biblical minimalists who dismiss the Bible outright as utterly unreliable.
That being said, reading Dever’s book reminded me that there are a number of approaches used when reconstructing the past as it is found in archaeological and textual artifacts. In doing so, I thought I’d survey four approaches which fall (along with many others) along a continuum. At one extreme is the belief that the biblical text is absolutely sufficient for use in reconstructing the past. At the other extreme is the belief that the biblical text is utterly useless in reconstructing the past. The question to be asked is what these extremes do with archaeology. (Note: don’t read too much into the order of the following.)
View 1: Fundamentalism
1. The Bible, read literally, is absolutely essential for interpreting archaeology.
2. Archaeological data is not silent; it corroborates the biblical text when it is interpreted correctly (i.e., in light of what the Bible says).This approach claims that the Bible and archaeology say the exact same thing; neither is silent and both help us to see that what is in the Bible is exactly what happened. It gives a literalistic reading to the Bible and trusts that what it says is what truly happened; i.e., it gives us modern-day precision in its description of people, places and events.
View 2: Iain Provan, Tremper Longman and V. Philips Long (A Biblical History of Israel)
1. The Bible, read appropriately and according to its various genres, is necessary for use in interpreting archaeology.
2. Archaeological data is silent apart from texts.This approach is careful to note the genres and biases of the biblical text and gives a trusting but careful read to the biblical text in order to know what it is really claiming to be historical. It likewise does not ignore archaeological data, but notes that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It claims that apart from the texts, however, the archaeological evidence is silent.
View 3: William Dever
1. The Bible, read appropriately and critically, provides us with some “historical memories” that are more-or-less accurate.
2. Archaeological data is anonymous apart from texts, though it is not silent.This approach notes that the most of the biblical literature was textualized beginning around the 8th century BC, a process which stretched all the way down into the Persian period. The texts themselves, while still preserving historical tid-bits, are by-and-large written to address much later concerns. The archaeological artifact, however, is realia from the time period it represents. While they are anonymous without texts, they are not silent; i.e., texts can illuminate the cultural setting of a given artifact (e.g., a LMLK stamp on a jar handle) but much can be learned from artifacts found with no textual illumination. This is due to the fact that artifacts had to be made by someone, are often found in particular contexts (e.g., a temple or alongside a particular pottery type or bronze object) and often share those contexts from site to site.
View 4: Minimalism
1. The bible is written entirely late and preserves no historical memories of an earlier time.
2. Archaeological data is not silent and provides everything necessary for reconstructing the past.Note that the approach doesn’t claim that the Bible was textualized late (i.e., oral tradition turned into written text) but rather than the texts were composed de novo very late. Furthermore, the character of the biblical text is entirely propagandistic; anything it says about early Israel is “spin” used to justify later concerns. Therefore when one looks at artifacts they must totally ignore its contents. Since the artifacts are not silent, they provide a clear picture which shows us that the Bible is indeed false.
I think that there is much that is noteworthy in views 2 and 3. Provan, Longman and Long do a fine job of critiquing the skepticism of minimalism and the over-confidence of fundamentalism. While I do agree with their approach noting the necessity of texts, I am wary of over-extending this principle. After all, Dever is absolutely correct, artifacts aren’t mute. Granted not every question can be answered by artifacts alone, but many questions can.
For example, if one finds one finds Mycenaen IIIC:1b wares at a particular site, one knows there was some contact with early Philistine settlements in the southern Levant. While this may be from face-to-face contact with sea peoples or simply the transportation of this pottery to a new location, one can know that these Mycenaen wares arrived from somewhere else. After all, once the sea peoples had settled, a shift to Philistine Bichrome shows that Myc IIIC:1b was not produced locally. Even if we depend on texts to know the terms “sea peoples” or “Philistines,” a text-less study of the wares will demonstrate that “some people” who originated in the Aegean slowly affected peoples from Crete to Cyprus to the Levant via trade or immigration.
Thus these pottery sherds are not silent. Granted while many questions would remain (e.g., the name of these people as noted above, their motivation for bringing these pots, etc.), other questions are clearly answered. Furthermore while the exact chronology couldn’t be pinned down apart from texts, a relative chronology could be established (i.e., one may not be able to locate these wares in the 12th century apart from texts, but they could note that Philistine Bichrome wares come after Myc IIIC:1b wares).
Thus while Dever’s naturalism will be avoided by one who believes in miracles, his careful “read” of artifacts must not be ignored. I find that conservatives often lampoon archaeology as though it was a sketchy and opaque field that can’t really be trusted. While archaeology involves a great deal of creativity (as does biblical studies!), it is not entirely subjective. Though it tends to do a better job of noting trends rather than explaining events (e.g., settlement patterns rather than the destruction of a particular site), it should be given a voice in biblical studies. Provan, Longman and Long take a number of steps in the right direction here. We must continue to allow all the data to sharpen our reading of the biblical text, even as we struggle to interpret that very data. This is not easy and may force us to nuance how texts refer to the events they describe but it will help us to understand better how various texts are to be read.
______________
Andrew
