Bible History and Archaeology
capital bible seminary
Homer Heater, Jr.
Revised 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Current Attitudes on Bible History and Archaeology ...... 3
2. Historical Development in Archaeology ...... 7
3. Writinga Permanent System of Communication ...... 11
4. The Settlement of the World ...... 16
5. Mesopotamia to 1600 B.C...... 23
6. Egypt to 1600 B.C...... 27
7. The Patriarchal Era ...... 31
8. Ancient Middle Eastern Culture and the Bible ...... 35
9. Mesopotamia16001000 B.C...... 45
10. Egypt1600-1000 B.C...... 49
11. Egypt1000500 B.C...... 53
12. The Period of the Exodus and Conquest...... 63
13. IsraelEstablishmentJudges...... 69
14. IsraelThe Golden Era ...... 71
15. Israel and Her NeighborsAram...... 74
16. Israel/Judah and Assyria...... 77
17. Small States Surrounding Judah...... 91
18. The Neo-Babylonian Empire...... 95
19. Judah and Persia...... 111
20. The Restoration from the Exile...... 117
21. Jews in Egypt and Persia...... 127
22. Judaism During the Greek Period...... 131
23. Qumran and the Intertestamental Period...... 141
24. New Testament ArchaeologyPalestine and Syria...... 149
25. New Testament ArchaeologyAsia Minor...... 151
26. New Testament ArchaeologyEurope...... 155
Bibliography...... 157
List of Figures
1. Eras and Kings ...... 2
2. Phoenician Alphabet...... 13
3. Greek Alphabet...... 13
4. History of Writing...... 15
5. Custance’s Theory...... 18
6. Cartouche of Cheops...... 27
7. Battle of Eltekah...... 59
8. Aramean Groupings in the Neo-Assyrian Empire...... 96
9. Family of Nebuchadnezzar...... 100
10. Persian Palestine...... 119
1
Bible History and Archaeology--HeaterPage 1
DATEEGYPTMESOPOTAMIAISRAEL
3000 Pre-dynasticSUMERIANS
(3000-2700)(2800-2360)
Old Kingdom
2500(2700-2200)
Pyramids
First Sickness
(2200-2000)Abraham (2083)
Middle KingdomOLD AKKADIAN
2000(2000-1700)(2360-2180)Joseph enters
Sargon IEgypt (1871 for
GUTIAN PERIODJacob)
(2180-2070)
NEO-SUMERIANASSYRIANS
(2070-1960)Early Period
Gudea(2000-1800)
AMORITE PERIOD
(1960-1830)
Isin-LarsaOld Kingdom
Second SicknessOLD BABYLONIAN(1800-1700)
(1700-1600)(1960-1550)Shamshi-Adad HITTITES
HyksosHammurabi Old Kingdom
New-Kingdom(1700-1500)
(1600-1000)
Empire
1500Thutmose IIIKASSITES(1450-1200)
(1490-1436)(1550-1150)MITTANI
Amenhotep II(1500-1350)Exodus
(1436-1410)Middle Kingdom(1441)
Amenhotep IVAmarna Letters(1300-1100)Conquest
(1364-1347)(1400-1393?)
Ramases II(1290-1224)Neo-Hittite
(1200-700)
Twentieth Dyn.
(1200-1069)Sea People Invaded Saul (1051)
David (1011)
1000Egypt weak
Twenty-first Dyn.
(1069-1043)
Siamun (978-959)David, Hadad I
Twenty-second Dyn.Solomon (971)
(945-720)
Sheshonk (Shishak) IRehoboam (931)
(945-924) Lybian
Osorkon I (924-889)Asa (Zerah attacked)
Osorkon IV ( -715) DeltaNew KingdomHoshea sent to “So”
(900-600)Isaiah 19
Twenty-third Dyn.Adad-Nirari III (810-783)Allowed expansion
(838-720)Defeated Damascus (805)under Jero. II/Uzziah 805
Twenty-fourth Dyn. Tiglath-Pileser IIIDefeated Uzziah
(728-716)(744-727)Defeated Damascus/Israel 732
Piankhy (747-716) (Nubian) conquered but did not ruleShalmaneser VDeported Israel 722
Tefnakht (strongest of the weak pharaohs)(727-722)
22nd,23d, and 24th dynasties contemporary, all fade out here.Sargon II (722-705)Finished deportation
Twenty-fifth Dyn.Sennacherib (705-681)Attacked Hezekiah 701
(716-656) NubianDefeated Babylon (689)
Shabako (702-690)
Taharqa (690-664) As son of Shabako, led force againstEsarhaddon (681-559)
Sennacherib and was defeated.Invaded Egypt (674/71)
Assyria ruled Egypt from 674.
Ashurbanipal (669-631)
Twenty-sixth Dyn.
Saites (Lybian again)Nineveh falls (612)
Assyrians defeated (609)
Necho II (610-593)Final defeat (605)Killed Josiah 609
Nebuchadnezzar invaded 568.NEO-BABYLONIANS
Apries (Hophra) (588-566)(625-539)Jeremiah 44:30
Nabopolassar (625-605)
Defeated Nineveh in 612
Nebuchadnezzar (605-561)J’kim vassal 609
J’chin captivity 597
Judah defeated 586
Evil-Merodach (562-560)J’chin raised 560
Nabonidus (Belshazzar) (556-539)
PERSIANS (550-323)
(Ruled all the above territories)Judah ruled by governors
Cyrus (550-529)Decree to return 538
500Persians conquer in 525Cambyses (529-22)Temple begun
Pseudo-Smerdis (Gaumata) (522)
Darius I (522-486)Temple completed 516
Xerxes (Ahasuerus)(486-465)Ezra 458
Artaxerxes (465-424)Nehemiah 445-432
Darius II (423-404)
Bible History and Archaeology--HeaterPage 1
1. CURRENT ATTITUDES ON BIBLE HISTORY
AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Attitudes between the 20’s and the 30’s toward the Bible in the Ancient Near East, the role of archaeology and its impact on the Bible, as well as questions about whether there is such a thing as biblical archaeology shifted dramatically. The following citations from Glueck and Wright in particular come from the fifties and sixties when there was somewhat of an “Albrightian consensus” that was particularly salutary. Later we will discuss contemporary (1990’s) views, but for now let the men working with the Bible and archaeology speak for themselves.
Nelson Glueck (Rivers in the Desert. p. 30ff) addresses the issue of the place of the Bible in the discussion of archaeology:
A. “The purpose of the biblical historian and archaeologist is, however, not to ‘prove’ the correctness of the Bible. It is primarily a theological document, which can never be ‘proved,’ because it is based on belief in God, whose Being can be scientifically suggested but never scientifically demonstrated.”[1]
B. “Those people are essentially of little faith who seek through archaeological corroboration of historical source materials in the Bible to validate its religious teachings and spiritual insights.”
C. “As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae in the vast mosaic of the Bible’s almost incredibly correct historical memory.”
G. Ernest Wright (“Is Glueck’s aim to Prove that the Bible is True?”Biblical Archaeologist, XXII, December, 1959) defends the “Albrightian consensus” against the charge of holding to a biblical agenda:
A. “J. J. Finkelstein of the University of California presents a review of Rivers in the Desert (Commentary, April, 1959, XXVII No. 4). In actuality the article is not so much a review of Glueck’s discoveries as a critical essay on the question as to whether archaeology proves the historicity of the Bible. He takes #3 above as Glueck’s thesis and debates it.”
B. Finkelstein: “Wright says in his Biblical Archaeology, ‘The most surprising and discouraging result of the work so far has been the discovery that virtually nothing remains at the site between 1500 and 1200 B.C.’” (Jericho). Wright: “Finkelstein asserts that the word ‘virtually’ is simply a scholarly hedge for ‘nothing,’ and that what I am actually saying is that the site was unoccupied in the Late Bronze Age. Furthermore, says Finkelstein, my word ‘discouraging’ in this connection ‘speaks volumes on the subject of scholarly detachment in the area of Biblical studies.’ He continues: ‘The dictates of the new trend, which requires that every contradiction between archaeological evidence and the Biblical text be harmonized to uphold the veracity of Scripture, has apparently driven Dr. Wrightin this case at leastbeyond the reach of common sense.’“
C. The Role of Fundamentalism
Wright: “There are many people both here and abroad who honestly think and frequently assert that Palestinian and biblical archaeology was conceived and reared by conservative Christians who wished to find support for their faith in the accuracy of the Bible. As a matter of actual fact, however, that is not the case at all. In the great fundamentalist-modernist controversy that reached its height before the First World War, archaeology was not a real factor in the discussion. Indeed, the discoveries relating to the antiquity of man and the Babylonian creation and flood stories were usually cited against the fundamentalist position. As for the excavations in Palestine, one need only call the roll of the leading American sponsors and contributors to indicate what the true situation has been: HarvardUniversity (Samaria), University of Pennsylvania (Beth-shan), University of Chicago (Megiddo), YaleUniversity (Jerash), the American Schools of Oriental Research, etc. Palestinian archaeology has been dominated by a general cultural interest, and one can say that ‘fundamentalist’ money has never been a very important factor.[2] Archaeological research by and large has been backed by the humanist opinion that anything having to do with historical research, with the investigation of our past is an obvious ‘good’ which needs no justification.”
D. Place of Albright
“The introduction of the theme, ‘archaeology confirms biblical history,’ into the discussion of scientific archaeological matters is a comparatively recent phenomenon. And it is to be credited to the pen of William Foxwell Albright more than to any other one person. Since the 1920’s, Albright has towered over the field of biblical archaeology as the greatest giant it has produced, and more than any other single person he has influenced younger scholars, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, to take the subject seriously as a primary tool of historical research. At the same time, he has been a most important encouragement to young conservative scholars. Through his writings, they have come to realize that if they but master the tools of research, there is indeed a positive contribution that they can make to biblical research, and that the radical views which they could not accept do not necessarily find support in recent research.”
“Yet Albright has often been misunderstood at this point. He has never been a ‘fundamentalist’ (Note, for example, the robust attack on him as an old-fashioned liberal at heart by O. T. Allis, “Albright’s Thrust for the Bible View,”CT, May 25, 1959, Vol. III. 17, pp. 7-9), and the encouragement of that movement could scarcely be farther from his center of interest . . . At the same time Albright’s deep interest in ancient history and his mastery of several disciplines within it brought him to the conviction that a whole new environment for biblical study was emerging of which the 19th century knew nothing.”
“Consequently, at first in his popular writings and finally in his scholarly synthesis of the evidence (From the Stone Age to Christianity), he led the attack in the English-speaking world on the unexamined presuppositions of ‘Wellhausenism’ from the standpoint of ancient history and particularly archaeology. The early historical traditions of Israel cannot be easily dismissed as data for history when such a variety of archaeological facts and hints make a different view far more reasonable, at least as a working hypothesis, namely, that the traditions derive from an orally transmitted epic which has preserved historical memories in a remarkable way, that ‘pious fraud’ was not a real factor in the production or refraction of the traditions, and that in Israel aetiology was a secondary, never a primary, factor in the creation of the epic.”[3]
E. Conservative Archaeology
“This information from Jericho was said to be ‘disappointing,’ and the reason is this: not only is it now difficult to interpret the biblical narrative of the fall of Jericho, but it is impossible to trace the history of the tradition. For my part, I do not believe that it can any longer be thought ‘scientific’ simply to consider stories such as this one either as pure fabrications or as ‘aetiologies.’ They have a long history of transmission, oral before written, and they derive from something real in history, no matter how far removed they may now be. In a number of instances, both the origin and history of a given tradition can be made out by historical, form-critical, and other methods of study. But the problem of Jericho is more of a problem than ever, precisely because the history of the tradition about it seems impossible to penetrate.”
F. The Differences between the Continental and AmericanSchools
Scoggin, J. Alberto, BA, XXIII, No. 3, September, 1960. Qin’at sofrim tarbeh hokma. (The jealousy of scholars increases wisdom.) He presents the views of Albrecht Alt and his younger contemporary Martin Noth as opposed to the Albright school represented by John Bright, A History of Israel. The former argues for complete dismissal of the historicity of anything before the constitution of the Twelve-tribe League (Amphictyony) on Palestinian soil. Whereas the latter holds the essential historicity of the traditions underlying the sources. For a more detailed discussion of this cleavage and subsequent modifications, see DeVaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 111-122.
G. Attitudes in the nineties
W. F. Albright died in 1971. A recent issue of the Biblical Archaeologist was devoted to “celebrating and examining” his legacy. The editor says, “W. F. Albright represents, as it were, an Atlantis of biblical and Near Eastern studies, lingering in memory and story long after slipping beneath the sea.”[4] Devers is particularly devastating in his evaluation of Albright’s work.[5] He says, “The fact is the ‘Biblical archaeology’ of the classic Albright-Wright style is dead, either as a serious intellectual enterprise, or as an effective force in American academic or religious life.” He goes on to say, in spite of Albright’s arguments that there was a 13th century Moses who was a monotheist, “the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure, that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel’s history, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art studies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and McBride 1987).” Thus we have come full circle: Albright rejected the excessive higher critical claims for the non-historicity of the Bible, but now his position has been rejected. We must now speak of the new archaeology not Biblical archaeology.[6] Kitchen argues that Albright’s views were good based on Mari (18th century) and Nuzi (15th century). There was wide travel, semi nomadism, West-Semitic personal names, legal/social usage. This data has been clouded by later treatments. Gordon dated Abraham at 14th c and identified him as a merchant prince. Others identified him as a warrier hero. Albright himself identified him as a donkey caravaneer, a traveling trader rather than a pastoralist. Speiser gave a Hurrian interpretation based primarily on Nuzi. The Patriarchs began to look more like Hurrians than Hebrews! There was a reaction, he says, against Albright’s views in the 1970’s encouraged by old style “die hards” in Germany and America. It is nothing but old German rationalism. Those who are trying to “debunk” Albright include T. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974; J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975; and D. B. Redford, “A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph,”VTSup 20 (1970).[7] Albright’s views will continue to be presented in this syllabus for the simple reason that I believe many of his historical conclusions are correct even if some of his methodology may have been incorrect.
2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Based on Wright, Biblical Archaeology
A. What Is Archaeology?
Biblical Archaeology is a special arm chair variety of general archaeology. The archaeologist’s chief concern is not with methods or pots or weapons alone. His central and absorbing interest is the understanding and exposition of Scripture. The biblical student must be a student of ancient life, and archeology is his aid in recovering the nature of a period long past. We cannot, therefore, assume the knowledge of biblical history is unessential to faith. Biblical theology and biblical archeology must go hand in hand if we are to comprehend the Bible’s meaning. Many facets of biblical teaching cannot be buttressed or enlightened by archaeology, e.g., the resurrection of Christ. So for this reason many will part ways in interpreting the data because of their frame of reference.
B. Developing Sciences.
1.William Smith, “Father of English Geology”1799 stratification of rock.
2.Principles of Geology (1830) Sir Charles Lyelluniformitarianism.
3.Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature (1863); Darwin’s Descent of Man.
4.Criticism of the Bible began here and peaked in the early 1900’s.
C. Recovery of Lost Civilizations.
Ideas of the east were poorly preserved by Greek and Latin authors. There was a dim understanding of the east. In the 17th-18th centuries, travelers began to return with reports of ancient cities. The first cuneiform writing was brought to Europe just after 1600.
1. Egypt.
Napoleon set off for Egypt in 1798 with an army of soldiers and scholars. Description de l’Egypt (1809-13) caused Europe to become acquainted with the dazzling empire of Egypt. The Rosetta Stone was discovered by a soldier. It contains hieroglyphics, demotic and Greek and dates from about 195 B.C. The triple text was a decree issued by a king giving exemption to priests from taxes. The Rosetta Stone provided the key to hieroglyphics. ANE #72.
2. Mesopotamia.
Old Persian had been deciphered but Akkadian was a puzzle. Behistun Inscription: a steep rock face in Iran bearing a triple text inscription of Darius the Great (522-486 B.C.) in Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian, (see Kramer, The Sumerians, pp. 12ff). Work had been done on tri-lingual inscription before the Behistun inscription but through Rawlinson, definitive results came about. Old Persian had been learned from India. Rawlinson copied the first and third texts in 1843-47 (see National Geographic, December, 1950). The inscription was 345 feet above a spring and 100 feet above where man can climb. There was much early skepticism of the decipherment, but proof was given when a recently excavated tablet was copied and sent to four different Assyrian scholars. The translations were substantially the same, and by 1880 all were convinced.
French and British excavators were at work in the Assyrian ruins of Khorsabad and Calah where there were great palaces of Assyrian kings (see atlas). The most important single discovery was the library of Ashurbanipal (669-633 B.C.). Thousands of documents of all sorts had been copied. History, chronological lists, astronomy, math, religion, prayers, cuneiform sign lists, texts in two languages, were among the works. G. Smith discovered an account of the flood epic while working on these.[8]
3. Palestine.
Moabite stone1868ANE #74.
Work at ByblosPhoenicians. 1860’s.
Ugaritalphabet1930’sANE #63.
Lachish letters1930’sANE #80.
Gezer CalendarANE #65.
SiloamANE #73.
MegiddorecentANE #181.
Dead Sea Scrolls.
Proto-Sinai alphabet.
Arad OstracaBulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 197, February, 1970, p. 16ff. An important publication on the materials found in Palestine is H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften, Vol. I = Text; Vol. II = Commentary; Vol. III = Glossary.
Ebla1975-
D.Archaeological Method.
Bible History and Archaeology--HeaterPage 1
Heinrich Schliemann was an amateur archaeologist who excavated Troy in the 1870’s. He discovered the importance of mounds (see Joshua 11:13; 8:28). It was easy to date monuments, but there are few in Palestine. Flinders Petrie found the clue in pottery in 1890 in the dig at Tell el-Hesi which is perhaps Eglon (ANE #27). In the earlier days excavation was merely a treasure hunt. Now it is highly scientific. See picture of a Tell in Wright, Biblical Archaeology, p. 23, 26. Note the stratigraphic typology. See step trench in Ed Chiera, They Wrote on Clay, p. 34.