Approaching Biblical Archaeology

Anthony J. Frendo

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780567701558
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Anthony J. Frendo introduces biblical students and scholars alike to the discipline of archaeology by explaining how the minds of professional archaeologists work, explaining what archaeologists seek, how they go about doing so, and how they interpret their data. Frendo shows those engaged in biblical scholarship how they can properly integrate biblical research with archaeological discoveries in a way that allows the bible and archaeology to be viewed and kept as distinct disciplines, the respective results of which, where relevant, may be integrated in productive discussion. Frendo also examines how the archaeology of the ancient Near East (particularly that of the southern Levant) has an essential bearing on how scholars can better appreciate the text of the bible, including its religious message. Frendo examines such matters as artefacts, stratigraphy and chronology, and archaeological reasoning. He also demonstrates that, whilst generally it is archaeology that casts light on the biblical text, at points biblical interpretation can help archaeologists to understand certain data.

1

Introduction

As already mentioned in the Preface, there are many publications dealing with the topic of “The Bible and Archaeology”. However, within this popular genre there are hardly any works that aim to introduce students of the Bible to the discipline of archaeology, with the primary aim of showing them how to integrate the results of archaeology with those of biblical scholarship. As all students and scholars of the Bible worth their salt know, relating the results of biblical scholarship with those of archaeology is a sine qua non and not a luxury. However, the problem is to ensure that this is done in a proper way. This book aims precisely at helping those engaged with the biblical text to ask the right sort of questions when reading about the results that archaeologists of the ancient Near East (especially of the southern Levant) pass on to them.

Students of the Bible need to know not only the basics of their scholarly field, but also those of archaeology. Yet, engaging with the archaeological data should not be attempted in an unrestrained fashion—it is for this reason that the present work is titled Approaching Biblical Archaeology. Students of the Bible are introduced to how the minds of archaeologists work, giving them insight into what mental processes are involved in the interpretation of retrieved data, so that one can then compare and contrast these activities with those of biblical scholars. Biblical Archaeology is legitimate as long as it tackles the Bible according to the rules of biblical scholarship, and archaeology according to the methods of archaeological research, and only thereafter compares and contrasts any interpretation of the biblical data with that of the archaeological data.¹ In general, archaeology throws a great deal of light on the cultural background and customs that we find in the pages of the Bible. However, there are times when archaeology can also make a contribution to the central message of the Bible when it happens to illuminate the background context of certain texts, the core statements of which are of a religious nature.

Chapter 2 presents a very basic overview of archaeology, one that underscores the distinction between the data that archaeologists retrieve and their interpretation of those data. It aims to show how archaeologists reach their conclusions and that it is only via correct interpretation of the data that they are able to say what was really found on a site. This process, however, is cumulative. It is seldom the case that we reach a correct conclusion at the first attempt, simply by attending to the details of the data. It is a process that takes time and which involves a good deal of reflection as we pass through various, different, and often conflicting interpretations. However, neither does this mean that all interpretations are correct or equally probable. It happens that the data retrieved in an excavation do not always warrant the conclusions that certain archaeologists reach and which they promote in the popular media. Biblical scholars would do well to always ask the question: What did the excavators actually find?

In the following chapter it will be shown that writing itself is a technology and that consequently all written products are also to be viewed as artefacts since they are not the result of natural processes but of man-made ones. This chapter will thus take into consideration the fact that all artefacts, both those we use in daily life as well as those found in archaeological investigations, can be broadly divided into written and unwritten; indeed, the Bible itself is an artefact. We should aim at integrating the results of the analyses of all types of artefacts, whether they are unearthed in archaeological excavations or not and whether they happen to be inscribed or not. We need to make use of all available data, since this will help us to better understand all types of artefacts from antiquity. An integrated approach is the only way for us to obtain a more secure gateway into the past.

In Chapter 4, I shall discuss two essential hallmarks of archaeological research, namely stratigraphic excavation and ceramic studies. These will be shown to be particularly important for their bearing on chronological problems. The peeling off of the layers on a site in the reverse order to that in which they were laid down is precisely what ensures the validity of a relative chronology, which when pegged to data yielding chronometric dates is extremely useful for interpreting the past. Students of the Bible need to be aware of the distinction between reliable and unreliable findspots since this allows them to appreciate critically whether certain archaeological finds can be reliably linked with the pertinent information found in the Bible. As a case study for this chapter, I shall take the current debate on the chronology of the transition from the Early Iron Age to Iron Age II in ancient Israel. The results of this chronological debate will determine whether we can view the kingdom of Israel in Solomon’s time as something to be reckoned with or simply as a virtually insignificant entity.

The aforementioned case study also shows how important it is to relate in a proper manner the results of biblical research with those of archaeology. Hence in Chapter 5 I shall argue that in the first instance the biblical data and the archaeological data have to be studied separately according to their respective methods of research. It is only thereafter that our biblical interpretation can be compared and contrasted with our archaeological one relative to the same problem under investigation. When the two interpretations are brought together, they help to offer us a more complete gateway to the past, and hence to our understanding of the Bible itself. Notwithstanding this, however, at times it is inevitable for students of the Bible to use the results of archaeology before they have independently given the biblical “answer” to a question and vice versa. This can clearly lead to a circular argument, that is, reading the Bible in the light of archaeology and then proceeding to read the latter in the light of the Bible. This is a classic example of the hermeneutic circle that can only be broken if time and time again we seek to verify our claims in the light of a fresh analysis of the data. I shall illustrate these points by showing how biblical scholars have been influenced by archaeologists in their understanding of the Hebrew term bāmāh (commonly rendered as “high place”) and how, in turn, archaeologists were influenced by biblical scholars when pinning down “high places” in their excavations. Only a re-reading of the data can show us the way out of this impasse. However, I shall also look at one clear example of how archaeological and biblical evidence can be brought to bear on each other without the use of any circular arguments. I am referring to the analysis of the faecal remains from a sixth-century BCE toilet in Jerusalem that shows clearly how dire the situation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem must have been during the siege of the Babylonians—just as described in Lamentations.

In the sixth chapter I shall argue that the points discussed in the previous chapters help students of the Bible to understand it better. Yet I shall also proceed to show that, when it comes to Biblical Archaeology, in practice we are dealing with a two-way flow of traffic, namely with archaeology throwing light on the Bible but also with cases when the latter helps us to solve conundrums arising from certain data retrieved in archaeological excavations. I shall first adduce other instances of how archaeology can throw light on the Bible, specifically on how it can contribute to our better grasping the semantics of the biblical text in view of the fact that meaning involves matters other than those that are purely language bound. Then I shall discuss an example of how the Bible (in this case Deut. 33:2) can help us to untangle certain difficulties that the archaeological data pose. I specifically tackle at length the problems raised by the phrase “Yahweh and ’šrth” present in some of the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. It will be shown that in reality it is highly probable that ’šrth is in fact referring to the goddess Asherah herself, and that the pronominal suffix with a divine name should cause no grammatical problem, for various reasons including the highly interesting results of a very recent work in comparative Semitic studies.²

Finally, in the concluding chapter I shall highlight three main conclusions reached in this book: (1) that knowledge of the archaeology of the Levant (indeed possibly of the ancient Near East in general) and knowing how to integrate it properly with biblical studies is a must for the student of the Bible; (2) that archaeology can help the student of the Bible not only to understand the background of the Bible better but to get a better grasp of the biblical text itself; and (3) that the priority for students of the Bible vis-à-vis archaeology is to grasp how they can (in an independent and critical manner) decide whether or not the claims made in archaeological reports and in books on the Bible and Archaeology are trustworthy.

In order to discuss properly all the topics mentioned above, I would like to first highlight in a summary fashion some examples of Biblical Archaeology that go to show the crucial things that biblical scholars would do well to be on the lookout for when it comes to incorporating the results of archaeological research in their interpretation of the biblical text. This will help the readers of this monograph to see for themselves what Biblical Archaeology really involves and at the same time to appreciate that this field is not a luxury for biblical scholars but an essential part of their quest to interpret the biblical texts.

First of all, we should remind ourselves that archaeologists are not simply technicians; indeed, first and foremost they should know how to interpret their finds. As J.A. Wilson wrote: “Mere measurement is not enough; he [the archaeologist] must bring to his excavation a keen sense of values”.³ In this sense it is preferable to have “a properly evaluated dig than one in which every object is precisely weighed and measured but stands isolated in mere bulk”.⁴ Archaeologists should—just like all scholars worthy of the name—first and foremost be dedicated to understanding their data and to verifying their insights rather than to perceiving themselves as belonging to some debating society. They do not seek to defend any bias or predetermined thesis that they might have, but to earnestly look for meaning in the data that they unearth; indeed, “one ascertained fact outweighs a thousand unsupported doubts of the hypercritic”.⁵ A.T. Olmstead had reminded us that the Greek words historeo and skeptomai, which provide the origins of the English words “historian” and “sceptic” respectively, have in essence one and the same basic meaning, namely “to inquire/examine”.⁶ I am pointing this out because of the current intellectual climate that is at times unduly hypercritical and sceptical (in the sense of the contemporary meaning of this word) when it comes to biblical texts. It is a commonplace that at times too much is asked of the biblical text; as such, there is a demand for empirical proof that, many think, archaeology should provide. In the event that archaeology is not in a position to provide such proof, there follows a suspicion that we should doubt the text. Such a stance is not warranted, since no matter how limited our textual documentation may be, on condition that we sift all the data carefully, minutely, and critically, “the only limits it [the textual documentation] imposes on us are to set reasonable limits to our own skeptici...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 What did the excavators actually find? The archaeological data and their interpretation
• 3 Artefacts: Inscribed and uninscribed
• 4 Earlier, concurrent, or later? Stratigraphy as the backbone of archaeology
• 5 Adducing the evidence: Without going round in circles
• 6 In practice: A two-way flow of traffic—archaeology⇌Bible
• 7 Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index of references
• Index of authors
• Copyright