Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?

by William G. Dever

Bringing the Bible and ancient Israel into a new and brighter light   In the last several decades, archaeological evidence has dramatically illuminated ancient Israel. However, instead of proving the truth of the Bible—as an earlier generation had confidently predicted—the new discoveries have forced us to revise much of what was thought to be biblical truth, provoking an urgent If the biblical stories are not always true historically, what, if anything, is still salvageable of the Bible’s ethical and moral values?  Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?  simplifies these complex issues and summarizes the new, archaeologically attested ancient Israel, period by period (ca. 1200–600 BCE). But it also explores in detail how a modern, critical reader of the Bible can still find relevant truths by which to live.

Genres: History, Religion, Archaeology, Ancient History, Christianity, Biblical Studies

168 pages, Hardcover

Published August 18, 2020

About the author

William Gwinn Dever is an American archaeologist, scholar, historian, semiticist, and theologian. He is an active scholar of the Old Testament, and historian, specialized in the history of the Ancient Near East and the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah in biblical times. He was Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson from 1975 to 2002. He is a Distinguished Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at Lycoming College in Pennsylvania.

abridged from Wikipedia

Reviews

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book provides an interesting comparison of the Biblical account of ancient Israel with what is known from current archaeological findings. The time period evaluated is circa 1200 to 600 BCE and includes the stories of Abraham and the patriarchs through to the end of the divided kingdoms. This includes Biblical books of Genesis (portions), Exodus, Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, and I & II Kings. Occasional reference is made to some of the books of the Prophets, but no attempt is made to address the garden of Eden story or the flood story. Presumably cosmological and geological sciences can evaluate those early Biblical stories.

So in answer to the book's title, is the Bible buried? Well, if you insist the Biblical accounts to be accurate descriptions of historical events, then modern archaeology has at least half buried it. But this book's author repeatedly reminds the readers of allegorical and metaphorical truths that can be gleaned from the ancient texts. The author says new archaeological knowledge frees us from being captive to the varied interpretations of different denominations and faiths.

For centuries there were no rules for such endeavors (called "hermeneutics") because there was no source of independent information beyond the text itself. The Bible stood in splendid isolation, a unique monument from antiquity. But within the past generation or so we have had, at last, an independent witness to the world within which the Bible first took shape—archaeology. That means that we have an unprecedented opportunity to craft new authentic meanings of the biblical narratives, relevant for our time, with no less authoritative moral imperatives. That is what this book attempts.

There are numerous anachronism in the story of the Patriarchs which indicate that it could not have been written prior to the end of the monarchy. However, the nomadic lifestyle described for the Patriarchs fits well with archaeological findings of the Bronze Age, and it is likely that the stories are based on accounts that were orally passed down many years before being written, and that the final written version is a composite of different earlier written sources.

The Exodus story can't be supported by archaeological findings. Which raises the question of why the oppression of the Egyptian pharaohs became such a vivid myth in the memory of the people of that region. One suggestion of the book that I found plausible is the following:

... the grievous Egyptian bondage that the Israelites suffered did not take place in Egypt at all. It was rather in Canaan, in the Amarna Age ca. 1400-1300 BCE ... when local peoples were sorely oppressed by Egyptian authorities. That was really what was remembered, and it was the real-life context that influenced the story of liberation centuries later.

The above is a reasonable hypothesis because Canaan was under Egyptian control during the late Bronze Age prior to their retreat before the "Sea People" invasion during the Bronze Age Collapse. The Bronze Age Collapse is also a factor to consider when evaluating the stories in Joshua and Judges.

There is no archeological support of the conquering of the land of Canaan as described in Joshua. This book points out that the Bible itself is internally contradictory on some of the stories of Joshua. Some of the cities and enemies that supposedly were destroyed by Joshua continue to exist in the book of Judges. However, there were plenty of ruins remaining from the Bronze Age Collapse that could inspire many folk tales about a heroic conquerer. The Bronze Age Collapse can also help explain the sudden increase in the population of the Canaan highland region that existed during the era of the Judges—they were Canaanite refugees.

Many scholars look elsewhere for the pool from which we must draw, that is, among the settled population of Canaan. The most likely source would have been groups of refugees who were fleeing the decaying Canaanite enclaves along the coast and in the inland river valleys. These would have been urban dropouts; disenfranchised, landless people of all sorts; malcontents and social revolutionaries; adventurers and opportunists. The highland frontier would have been an attractive haven for all these peoples. If they do not seem to have had a lot in common, that should be no surprise.

The description in Judges of generally decentralized small settlements at the beginning of the Iron Age in the highland region is reasonably consistent with archeological findings.

The early stories of Saul, David, and Solomon are not well attested by archeology. But it is likely there would have been early kingships forming at that time. There is some archeological evidence of the "house of David," but it is clear that the Biblical account of Solomon's glory is greatly exaggerated. This book acknowledges that his United Kingdom may have existed, but within modest proportions.

In summing up, what did the kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon in the tenth century BCE actually look like? First, it was relatively small, about the size of New Jersey. It comprised approximately the area of modern Israel and the West Bank, excluding the Philistine coastal plain south of Tel Aviv and the Phoenician coast north all the way to Haifa and the Lebanon border.

The period of the divided monarchy is well attested in the archaeological record. There are indications that the writers of the history were obviously writing from the perspective of the Southern Kingdom and were more accurate in their description of details relating to that region. They were obviously advocates for a religion centered on the temple in Jerusalem. Nevertheless they continued to have trouble with the folk religion of the surrounding population.

But in fact, that Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count. This was not syncretistic (borrowed from and mixed with Canaanite religion), this was the real stuff. And ideal or not, it is unlikely that Josiah's reforms actually changed much. Folk customs die hard.

There's archaeological evidence of continued practice of folk religion and altars at the "high places" which didn't comply with what was advocated by the elites in charge of the Jerusalem temple. Archaeological evidence gives evidence that Monotheism was not widely practice in Judah until the exiles returned from Babylon. The demands on the people described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah apparently had the desired effect.

I found the following excerpt interesting:

Another cave, a burial in the Valley of Hinnom, produced two tiny rolled-up silver amulets, designed to be worn around the neck, no doubt as good-luck charms. When carefully unrolled, one had the name of Yahweh in an inscription that reads almost identically to the famous priestly blessing in Numbers 6:24: "May Yahweh bless you and keep you . . .” Here we have preserved for us the oldest surviving fragment of biblical text, at least five centuries older than the oldest Dead Sea scrolls. And Scripture is not being read; in effect it is worn as magic. That is "folk religion.”

Note:
I am unable to provide page numbers to my selected excerpts because I read an ebook format that did not provide page numbers that correlate with the hardback edition.

[Craig Cowled · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author is quick to answer the question, "No, archaeology has not buried the Bible, so long as you are willing to adopt a liberal approach to reading the Scriptures." Bill Dever is perhaps the greatest living archaeologist of the Holy Lands. In this small book written for a popular audience, he presents a synthesis of archaeological findings and the Hebrew Bible.

Before delving into the archaeology, Dever tells us of his time as a member of the clergy and builds on this background to raise theological issues for the reader to consider. He notes that the church has a longstanding tradition of interpreting the Scriptures. It's simply not possible to honestly claim that there is only one 'correct' reading of the biblical text. After all, the people who follow the text (i.e., Jews and Christians) have split into countless denominations, all with their own peculiar interpretations of the text. This fact is evidence that believers have always 'interpreted' the Bible. Dever suggests that the Bible really ought to be interpreted within the context of archaeology to obtain, perhaps, the most reliable understanding of what really happened. He calls archaeology, "an independent witness to the world within which the Bible first took shape."

Each chapter in the book progresses in chronological alignment with the events described in the Hebrew Bible: the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the period of the Judges, the rise of kings, the divided monarchy, and the Babylonian exile. Finally, Dever circles back to the theological issue of the emergence of monotheism.

Dever begins with the Bronze Age story of Abraham, who travelled from Mesopotamia to the Promised Land. This story is a perfect place for Dever to start since his very first archaeological dig was at Shechem, where Abraham reportedly erected his first altar in the Promised Land. Dever points out several anachronisms in the Abraham story. Camels feature prominently in the story whereas archaeology shows that camels were not domesticated until the Iron Age. The story also mentions several ethnic groups which did not exist in the Bronze Age: Philistines, Arameans, Moabites, and Edomites. In fact, Abraham's own people, the Chaldeans, did not exist under that name until the 7th century BCE. Dever says that the text of the Abraham stories could not have been written before the end of the monarchy. Even though there are obvious problems with the text, Dever nevertheless evaluates the plausibility of the patriarchal narrative from an archaeological perspective. He accepts that the nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs fits quite well with archaeological findings of the Bronze Age, although he points out that such stories would fit equally well in modern times as the Bedouin of that region continue to live a nomadic pastoralist lifestyle. Dever concludes that the stories of the patriarchs are mythology with, perhaps, some ancient memories captured in a grand narrative of His-story; that is, the story of how their god, Yahweh, intervened in the distant past to establish a unique relationship with a specific people.

The exodus story poses major problems for biblical literalists. The first major problem is the date. A literal reading of the Bible places the exodus in the 15th century BCE; however, the archaeological record only begins to show hints of occupation in the hill country of Canaan in the 13th century BCE. Either way, there is no evidence in the Egyptian archaeological record of a great exodus of Semitic slaves. The earliest extrabiblical mention of the Israelites is found in a victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah (late 13th century BCE) in which he boasts of having defeated several nations and ethnic groups in Canaan, including the people of Israel, which Merneptah claims to have wiped out completely. The text of the stele presumes a knowledge that the people of Israel were indigenous to Canaan. Dever spends some time demonstrating that the exodus narrative does not match with archaeological studies. There is, quite simply, no evidence that a large group of people traversed the Sinai desert. He points out that Kadesh Barnea, where the Bible claims the Israelites camped for 38 years, dates to the 10th century BCE at its oldest archaeological layer. Dever concludes that the exodus story is not only unsupported by the evidence, but evidently did not happen at all. A population of thousands, let alone the millions claimed in the Bible, would have left a wealth of evidence behind. At best, 'an' exodus could have happened provided it was a small group that left no trace of their escape from Egypt. Such a small group could have assimilated with rural Canaanite culture and transmitted the cultural memory of the exodus through oral tradition and cultic practice. This is perhaps the only way to reconcile the Bible story with the facts on the ground.


Knowing that the exodus could not have happened as described, it seems redundant to look for evidence of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and the Israelite army. But, Dever dutifully details the efforts of archaeologists to 'find' evidence of Joshua's army laying waste to the towns and fortifications of the Canaanites. As an example, he cites the work of Seventh Day Adventist archaeologists at Heshbon who were disappointed to discover that the site was not inhabited before the 12th century BCE and was too small to be a capital city of the king of the Amorites as the Bible claims. Dibon, excavated by devout Baptists, turned out to be dated no earlier than the 9th century BCE. Jericho was destroyed, not by Israelites, but by Egyptians in the late 16th century BCE and was only rebuilt as a small town and occupied in the 7th century BCE by Israelites. Ai, excavated by Baptist scholar Joseph Calloway, was destroyed circa 2500 BCE and later occupied by a small Israelite village in the 12th century BCE. No evidence could be found of an Israelite conquest at Ai and Calloway retired early from his seminary post. Of the 38 sites the Bible claims to have been conquered, only one has a destruction layer dated to the 13th century BCE: Hazor. Hazor was utterly destroyed by someone "taking it out on the inhabitants." But who? The most likely explanation is a rival Canaanite city state. Dever points out that the worst destruction layers in Canaan at this time can confidently be attributed to the Philistines who invaded from the coast. Dever turns back to the Hebrew Bible and highlights the contradiction between the conquest narrative in the books of Numbers and Joshua with the much more bucolic book of Judges which portrays several cultures coexisting in Canaan at the same time: Canaanite, Phillistine, Egyptian, and Israelite. Dever argues that Judges depicts a much more realistic image of everyday life in the region as the Bronze Age city states of Canaan collapsed and new peoples coalesced again at the beginning of the Iron Age. Dever suggests that Judges fits much better with the findings of archaeology than Joshua. "Why?" he asks, would the Bible writers provide us with two conflicting accounts of the origins of the Israelites in the high country of Canaan? Perhaps they had conflicting information in earlier documents and wanted to merely pass on the conflict to future generations to worry over. Whatever the case, the archaeological record supports the view that the Israelites were indigenous to the land of Canaan. Archaeologists no longer entertain the conquest model but, instead, argue whether the Israelites were urban Canaanites returning to a simpler lifestyle following the collapse of the city states (Dever's preferred model), nomadic pastoralists who settled down and took up agriculture (Finkelstein's model), an uprising of the working class, or some other blended model. George Mendenhall made a claim in the 1960s that has been consistently confirmed as more archaeological data becomes available: that there had been no statistically significant invasion of Canaan by Israelites. For certain, the Israelite material culture in the early Iron Age is a natural continuation of Canaanite culture from the late Bronze Age with pottery being the same (albeit simpler), language being the same and cultic practice being the same. The Israelites even continue the Canaanite practice of not eating pigs, a practice that distinguishes them from the Philistine invaders.

We begin to see a better correlation between the Bible and archaeology with the rise of the kingship at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 10th century BCE. King Saul's reign is not well attested in the archaeological record other than a rude fortress at Gibeah dating to the right time. King David is attested indirectly with an inscription at Tel Dan mentioning, "Ahaziah son of Jehoram, king of the house of David." Dever finds early evidence of centralised planning and infrastructure building in the region from the 10th century BCE, which would be consistent with a kingship. Dever tells of a large fortified site, likely the biblical Shaarayim, confidently dated to the time of David, in which an inscription is found: "Ishbaal" which means "Man of [the god] Baal." Evidently, Baal worship continued at this time otherwise why name your child Ishbaal? Dever also finds evidence of continued infrastructure building consistent with Solomon's reign. It should be noted that the community of archaeologists is not entirely with Dever on the early monarchy. Finkelstein dates much of the finds from these strata about a century later. Dever acknowledges Finkelstein's dissent but argues that it should be ignored. If we do take Finkelstein seriously, however, we are left with little evidence of an early monarchy. Finkelstein is known to argue that, if David and Solomon were real people, they would be little more than tribal chieftains. According to him, much of the architecture attributed to Solomon should actually be attributed to King Omri. Whatever the case, it is clear from archaeological surveys that the population in the south was much lower than the population in the north. This does beg the question whether the south of Israel (i.e, what became Judah) could have hosted a monarchy that ruled the north. On this, I prefer to let the archaeologists argue and withhold judgement until a consensus is reached.

The Bible tells us that, after Solomon, the kingdom split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The period of the divided monarchy is well attested in the archaeological record. For example, King Omri relocated the capital from Tirzah to Samaria. Both sites have been excavated and reveal flourishing cities with elaborate architecture and furnishings. Omri's son, King Ahab is mentioned by the Assyrian emperor Shalmaneser III as having a formidable army. Dever notes that the extrabiblical Assyrian and Aramean sources cannot be reconciled with the Bible. It appears the Bible accounts of the Aramean wars were written at a later time and arbitrarily synchronised different sources. Ahab is also mentioned in a stele at Meshe in Moab. The prosperous northern kingdom was eventually invaded by the Assyrians in the late 8th century BCE. Many cities in Israel and Judah were destroyed by the Assyrians on their way south over the course of several campaigns (i.e., Gezer, Lachish, etc.). King Hezekiah was besieged by Sennacherib at Jerusalem but survived the experience. This event is documented in the Hebrew Bible as well as in the Assyrian annals. King Josiah is credited in the Bible with introducing religious reforms which Dever indicates is well attested in the archaeological record. Dever concludes this chapter with an interesting diversion on the prophets.

The final chapter circles back to a discussion of religion and cult in Israel and Judah. Dever highlights the relatively uncontroversial view that the Bible was written by an elite minority in the temple of Jerusalem. As such, the authors are preoccupied with 'correct' worship of their preferred deity, Yahweh. They constantly bemoan the people who stray from Yahweh and worship other gods such as Baal (the storm god) and Asherah (the mother goddess and consort of the supreme Canaanite deity, El). And yet, Dever points out that everyday practice of religion seems to have always included multiple gods. The earliest Israelite sites have bull shrines, commemorating El. Most people had shrines in their own homes and goddess figurines are plentiful in the archaeological record. Dever highlights two inscriptions that explicitly join Yahweh with Asherah. One inscription reads, "I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah." The other reads, "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh. From his enemies he has been saved by his Asherah." Worship of the goddess was happening within the shadow of the Temple mount at Jerusalem as attested by the discovery of a cave filled with dozens of figurines of the goddess and several other sites with goddess figurines. Evidently, the Bible writers were in the minority. They insisted that worshippers have 'no other gods' but it was a wish that few paid any heed to. Monotheism would not rise in Judah until the exiles eventually returned from Babylon.

Having read Dever's earlier scholarly tome, "Beyond the Text," I am struck by his apparent desire in this popular book to reconcile the Bible with the findings of archaeology. Those who want every word of the Bible to be true will be disappointed as will those who want to believe it is a work of fiction. Dever convincingly shows that the Bible can be partially reconciled with archaeology. He even superficially tackles some theological questions in a manner that others might choose to model in seeking to understand what parts of the Bible narrative have a firm foundation and what parts must be seen as allegory.

[Zachary Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice synthesis of Dever’s work for a popular audience.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought-provoking book that attempts to separate myths from facts in the Old Testament, using archaeological finds.

Recommended.

[stephen laing · Rating 2 out of 5]

Again we see believers use archaeology to confirm the bible,but it doesn’t

This book just demonstrates that believers will again use archaeology to confirm the bible. They stopped short of actually saying that it was invented, especially the exodus, and other post-invading books, that was found to have no archaeological proof. Again, none for the David and Solomon ‘’empires’’. So if those were invented, what else was. All of it I say.

[Brandon Rivello · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic, easy to read (without being overly simplistic) survey of what archeology tells us about ancient Israel. Also includes a great bibliography for further reading.

[Ronald J. Pauleus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very insightful!

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a long time to get through this book. It's packed with good information, but definitely above my pay grade!