For some people, the Bible looks as though it should be a history book, but serious scholars recognize that it is a collection of oral histories, most of which were written down many centuries after the events which were supposed to have taken place. To provide additional insights into Bible stories, scholars often turn to archaeology.
Biblical Archaeology is a sub-discipline of historic archaeology which focuses primarily on the geographic region of modern Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai—in other words, the lands of the Bible. This sub-discipline was originally founded by W. F. Albright (1891-1971). Leona Glidden Running, in an entry in The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, writes:
“As director of the American School of Oriental Research (now the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research) Albright established the modern discipline of Biblical Archaeology, in which the realia of ancient Near Eastern material culture were used to illustrate and deepen scholarly understanding of the biblical text.”
In her
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology, Barbera Kipfer defines Biblical Archaeology as the “branch of historical archaeology devoted to the discovery and investigation of the places and artifacts recorded by the Bible and to the study of Biblical times and documents.” Biblical Archaeology is a part of Near Eastern Archaeology and a number of archaeologists feel that the designation Biblical Archaeology should be replaced with Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.
While there are some people who think that Biblical Archaeology focuses on proving the literal readings of the Bible, this is not true. In the textbook Archaeology: The Science of the Human Past, Mark Sutton and Robert Yohe write:
“It has been demonstrated through scientific archaeology that many of the places, events, and people described in the Bible are, in fact, historical, while others may not be.”
In fact, archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament than it provides answers.
One of the goals of early Biblical archaeology was to provide the historicity of the patriarchs and to locate them in a particular period in archaeological history. However, there is no direct archaeological proof that Abraham, for example, ever really existed. On the other hand, archaeology does provide some insights into the pastoral nomads and the migrations during the period of about 1800 BCE. There is also no direct archaeological evidence of Moses nor any evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt.
Another area of controversy involves the archaeological evidence that Yahweh had a wife. In 1968 archaeologists found a Hebrew cemetery inscription from the eighth century BCE at the site of Khirbet el- Qôm. The inscription gives the name of the deceased, and it says “blessed may he be by Yahweh and his Asherah.” Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. At the site of Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai, which dates to this same period, there are numerous “Yahweh and Asherah” inscriptions. While God’s consort Asherah was expelled from the written traditions, archaeological evidence supports belief of her existence and importance.
Since Egypt is mentioned in some Biblical stories, some people feel that there should be archaeological evidence in Egypt to support the veracity of the Bible. Egyptologist Ian Shaw, in his book Ancient Egypt: A Very Short History, reports:
“There can be no doubting the presence of Greeks and Romans in Egypt, but attempts to correlate biblical narratives with the Egyptian textual and archaeological record have always been distinctly problematic.”
Shaw goes on to say:
“Since most of the events described in the Bible occurred several hundred years before the time that they were written down, it is extremely difficult to know when they are factual historical accounts and when they are purely allegorical or rhetorical in nature.”
The Exodus account, for example, appears to be a mishmash of stories that probably originated in the expulsion of the Hyksos (the Asiatic kings who ruled Lower Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period). Many archaeologists have concluded that the Exodus story was simply a convenient use of folk tales to allow the Israelites to define themselves as a distinct nation. The story is mythical rather than historical. Ian Shaw reports:
“It is an irony of biblical archaeology that the more we investigate the texts and archaeological remains that link Egypt with the Bible, the less substantial and less convincing these kinds of connections appear to be.”
The goal of archaeology is not only to seek to understand the past and the changes which human societies have undergone, but to correct misconceptions about the past. While the Bible, like oral traditions in other regions, can provide some broad guidelines for research, the stories from the oral traditions are often very different from those told by the material remains. It should be kept in mind that the Bible was written by an elite, and that today’s archaeology focuses on the lives of ordinary people.
With regard to early Christianity, John Lanci, in his entry on Early Christianity in The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, writes:
“Direct archaeological evidence for the early development of Christianity is scant and difficult to interpret.”
Many of the artifacts, such as the cross, which are distinctly Christian, do not appear in the archaeological record until the second century C.E. According to Lanci:
“As a result, archaeological study cannot confirm the historical accuracy of biblical texts, and rarely sheds light on important early Christian figures, including Jesus and his first followers.”
One of the other controversies has involved the Shroud of Turin which some people claimed was used for wrapping the body of Jesus. Archaeologists uncovered a sealed tomb in Jerusalem in which the remains had not been transferred to an ossuary a year after death, as was customary 2,000 years ago. In the tomb they found a preserved shroud. Writing in
Archaeology, Mati Milstein reports:
“The researchers also announced that the shroud, radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1-50, supports the idea that the Shroud of Turin had not been used to wrap the body of Jesus after his crucifixion. The Jerusalem shroud is made of simply-woven linen and wool, while the Shroud of Turin is made of a complex twill weave, a fabric not thought to have been available in the region until the Middle Ages.”