First Person: Set Apart from the Nations?

004

I wonder how many readers noticed it: This is the third consecutive issue of BAR in which a major article draws a historical analogy from another culture and applies it to the Bible or Biblical times. To put it another way: In these non-Biblical cultures, history was uncovered and interpreted in a way that could be applied to the Bible and Biblical culture.

In the November/December 2006 issue, Jeremy McInerney examined the ancient myth of Theseus and the Minotaur and found buried within it reflections of actual history concerning the conflict between the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations and the former’s dominance over the latter in the Late Bronze Age. At the end of his article, the author asked: Could Biblical myths reflect actual history in this same way?

In the first issue of the new year, Bill Arnold looked at the emergence of the neo-Babylonian empire and how some tribal pastoralists (like the emerging Israelites) overcame an established culture (like the Canaanites) to become rulers of the land. The disparate elements of the then-emerging neo-Babylonian empire were compelled by an Assyrian threat to unite under King Nebuchadnezzar, just as the Israelites were prodded to unite against the Philistines under King David. I do not do justice to the detailed comparison in Bill Arnold’s article, but ultimately he asked: If the neo-Babylonian empire emerged in this way, why not the United Monarchy under David and Solomon?

In this issue, Edwin Yamauchi considers the case of Homer. Homer is generally considered to have written his epics in the eighth century B.C. However, he wrote about events that supposedly occurred in the 12th century B.C. For a long time scholars have been skeptical about the mis-en-scene of Homer’s epics. They described the reality of the eighth century, it was said, not that of the 12th century. Now with new archaeological discoveries, however, Homer’s 12th-century setting looks more and more plausible (see “Historic Homer”).

The broader point is that, if we listen to some detractors, what seem like legitimate means of uncovering history are okay when we’re considering other cultures, but not when we’re considering the Bible. With these three articles, we want to counter this attitude.

Archaeologists from an earlier generation have rightly been called to task for trying to use archaeology to prove the Bible. It can’t be done, and it shouldn’t be tried.

But neither, except in the rarest cases, can archaeology be used to disprove the Bible.

Take the case of the patriarchs. At one time, the great Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright and others thought that they could identify the archaeological age that provided the setting for the patriarchal narratives. They were wrong. Many archaeologists today, however, jump from this error to the conclusion that the patriarchal narratives are not historical at all—just legends or fairy tales.

The fact is that the relationship of the patriarchal narratives to history is an open question, open to discussion and debate (just as it is in the case of Homer), but archaeology cannot contribute much to this discussion and debate. As with Homer, there is no archaeological evidence that can prove or disprove the historicity of the patriarchal narratives.

Moreover, what do we mean by “history” in the patriarchal narratives? Do we mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real historical figures, rather than eponyms? Or do we mean that the earliest Israelites came from the east, as the patriarchal narratives say, rather than from within Canaan?

In short, many archaeologists are, in my view, too ready to dismiss any claim 079to historicity in the patriarchal narratives (and in other Biblical narratives, such as the Exodus from Egypt).

My good friend Bill Dever does just that, IMHO (as we say on the Internet),^a in this very issue of BAR. Quoting Dever: “The call of Abraham, the Promise of the Land, the Exodus … Archaeology throws all of these into great doubt” (see “Losing Faith”). But in fact archaeology does not indicate that they are not true. I believe archaeology has very little to say about these things, except that it makes a plausible case for what the Bible says in some cases (like the Exodus). Perhaps there are other reasons to doubt the historicity of some or all aspects of these events, but archaeology per se has little to contribute.

What archaeology can do is provide a historical context by showing how people lived at that time, and that is much of what we strive to do here at BAR.

I wonder how many readers noticed it: This is the third consecutive issue of BAR in which a major article draws a historical analogy from another culture and applies it to the Bible or Biblical times. To put it another way: In these non-Biblical cultures, history was uncovered and interpreted in a way that could be applied to the Bible and Biblical culture. In the November/December 2006 issue, Jeremy McInerney examined the ancient myth of Theseus and the Minotaur and found buried within it reflections of actual history concerning the conflict between the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations and the […]