The authors wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2001 book, "Almost eight years ago... the idea for this book was born. The debate about the historical reliability of the Bible was again beginning to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles and we came to the realization that an updated book on this subject for general readers was needed. In it, we would set out what we believed to be the compelling archaeological and historical evidence for a new understanding of the rise of ancient Israel and the emergence of its sacred historical texts. Over the intervening years, the archaeological battle over the Bible has grown increasingly bitter... Despite the passions aroused by this subject, we believe that a reassessment of finds from earlier excavations and the continuing discoveries by new digs have made it clear that scholars must now approach the problems of biblical origins and ancient Israelite society from a completely new perspective... we will present evidence to bolster that contention and to reconstruct a very different history of ancient Israel." (Pg. v-vi)
They wrote in the Introduction, "Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how their built their cities, and with whom they traded... Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered... But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all." (Pg. 5) But they point out, "By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described by the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred." (Pg. 19-21) They clarify, "But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history." (Pg. 23)
They observe, "Indeed, the Bible provided a great deal of specific chronological information that might help... pinpoint exactly when the patriarchs lived... we arrive at a biblical date of around 2100 BCE for Abraham's original departure for Canaan. Of course, there were some clear problems with accepting this dating for precise historical reconstruction, not the least of which were the extraordinarily long life spans of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... In addition, the later genealogies that traced Jacob's descendants were confusing, if not plainly contradictory. Moses and Aaron, for example, were identified as FOURTH-generation descendants of Jacob's son Levi, while Joshua, a contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was declared to be a TWELFTH generation descendant of Joseph, another of Jacob's sons. This was hardly a minor discrepancy." (Pg. 34-35)
They assert, "The conclusion---that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible---seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert... and where some archaeological indication---if present---would almost certainly be found." (Pg. 63) They add, "The saga of Israel's Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change... To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story's deepest meaning. Passover proved to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be." (Pg. 70-71)
They state, "Only recently has the consensus finally abandoned the conquest story. As for the destruction of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, and other Canaanite cities, evidence from other parts of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean suggests that the destroyers were not necessarily Israelites." (Pg. 83) They add, "If, as archaeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites' claims for ancient nationhood? ... archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite." (Pg. 98) They summarize, "the Bible's stirring picture of righteous Israelite judges... has very little to do with what REALLY happened in the hill country of Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Archaeology has revealed that complex social transformations... far more than the later biblical concepts of sin and redemption---[were] the most formative forces in the birth of Israel." (Pg. 122)
They explain, "many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic `empire' is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon's time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan---and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon---can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, ever existed at all?" (Pg. 124) They add, "There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there were no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what WAS the nature of David's realm?" (Pg. 142) They suggest, "the evidence reveals a complex demographic transformation in the highlands, in which a unified ethnic consciousness began only slowly to coalesce." (Pg. 150)
They conclude, "We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details." (Pg. 222)
While some theological conservatives may hate this book, it is an excellent summary of current research, and will be of great interest to students of biblical history and archaeology.
No comments:
Post a Comment