Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains
of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the
procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and
interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and
historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and
unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains
(inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject
of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is
responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the
available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the
ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such
as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.
Biblical
archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel
and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and
narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as
Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical
record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East.
Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating
archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the
Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even
though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines,
they are certainly interrelated.
The
History of Biblical Archaeology
To
understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is
necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was
known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in
the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the
primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its
neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians
could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of
Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and
Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major
players” of history.
The
discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its
decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors
to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the
decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the
world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets
and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the
land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices
from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged
historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data
coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these
developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern
cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind,
coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.
Initial
excavations of biblical sites.
The
beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to
1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by
the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and
succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively
laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This
led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in
1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and
scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western
Palestine and Transjordan.
The
beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind,
and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then)
initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological
excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi
(identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work
underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More
specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by
his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.
Stratigraphy
is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains
the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of
time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the
contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle
these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are
always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct
the history of a site period by period.
Typology
is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external
characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered
an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and
ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery
styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at
Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework
for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the
researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier
periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from
neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are
available written records and astronomically fixed dates.
Before
World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine
that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect
Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical
Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure
hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in
Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more
comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved
Palestinian archaeology.
The
first golden age.
The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine
followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and
1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the
following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh,
Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and
others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the
work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity
still disputed, but perhaps Debir).
It
was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the
Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these
formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and
integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near
Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian)
archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an
“archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands,
peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible
would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He
certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile
debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the
skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American
liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that
archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible
true.”
The
second golden age.
A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually
considered to have arrived after World War II when various
foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with
local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology
of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the
techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on
archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon
(English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose
stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used
even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important
archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical
archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright
of the United States.
During
the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became
an important component for the biblical theology movement and also
for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free
of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the
biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s
student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical
Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery
chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important,
Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where
Wright created a new school of field archaeology.
The
new archaeology.
In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences,
the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on
the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical
issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E.
Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and
successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern
archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent
today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.”
Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most
American universities offer classes in the archaeology of
Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate
term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name
of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to
Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its
readers.
The
new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much
data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even
vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods
developed from the frustration that old questions have not been
answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of
the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period
(c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention
is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early
Christianity.
More
important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to
include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the
new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides
historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by
geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists,
climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently,
statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new
archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban
and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of
this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other
organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address
questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation,
diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken,
extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and
material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for
sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this
new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more
autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical
studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.
The
new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have
advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who
are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who
usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their
conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more
scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field
schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973),
which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and
useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to
significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical
six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred
thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a
“secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and
seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the
funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources
of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private
donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.
Approaches
to the Bible in Modern Archaeology
There
is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful
scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific
improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian
archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two
groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it
has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in
Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and
should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for
reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other
archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more
negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized
that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the
archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the
Bible should be used.
Maximalist
and minimalist approaches.
The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among
biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled
“maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these
Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.”
According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is
neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early
history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data
speak for itself.)
The
maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of
Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical
studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and
an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to
communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F.
Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT
speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the
history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the
biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research.
They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical
history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close
correspondence with the real history of Israel.
The
minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical
reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach
argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period
(it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it
claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the
traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves
and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to
this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the
archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are
tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including
archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as
evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine
the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.
The
minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago
there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters
of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the
patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan
by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the
OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has
been cast on all of these events.
The
stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled)
controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the
house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in
1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron.
32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of
Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the
existence of these two kings.
A
fresh approach.
Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some
believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical
archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and
Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel ).
This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply
illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the
ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and
its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology,
and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a
historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them
through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical
archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening
back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with
vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology”
should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to
“prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more
modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of
archaeology (see below).
Evangelical
archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand
by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should
have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its
geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use
archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient
artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical
setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence
should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive
quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability
vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori
with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.
This
new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious
assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some
conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism
on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the
minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the
literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the
fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.
These
new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the
Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in
their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how
awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the
Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of
Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the
limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its
considerable refinement in the recent decades.
The
Limitations of Archaeology
Archaeology
has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be
covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood,
leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals
(especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also
important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely
excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention
to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the
homes of the general population.
Only
in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording
enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of
some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned
by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor
are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised
by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because
most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have
access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and
scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and
especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier
excavations.
In
general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been
disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common
for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to
be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or
even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are
most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and
pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the
earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and
more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and
realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological
information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add
to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g.,
Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in
the world of their time, and that some important sites have never
been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that
there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest
expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.
The
role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological
remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since
there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the
excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated
Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer).
Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led
by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took
place among these experts, not only about the dating of various
pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined
and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and
desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of
unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty
inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead
civilization far removed from our times and settings.
Material
Remains and Written Sources
It
is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for
history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their
impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of
destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art.
Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts,
motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times
largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II
could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical
report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times
recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and
kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in
literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated,
that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones”
archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).
On
the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry,
tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered
through archaeology can bring color to the textual references.
Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most
valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any
ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and
archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from
Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning
the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and
extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and
history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the
context of Scripture.
There
is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable
potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any
person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly
changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new
data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into
biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological
revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over;
it probably has only begun.
The
evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in
various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective
archaeological data that helps define the context and that
complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their
reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The
data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the
geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient
writer.
The
Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)
Early
Bronze Age.
Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early
Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the
third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem,
Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference
between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south,
while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet
Kerak” ware.
Middle
Bronze Age.
About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive
nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29;
Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and
weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is
most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign
Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century
BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It
seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups
(including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in
the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It
is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who
infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is
demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts
from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of
Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than
later periods.
The
towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in
the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled
the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the
eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of
Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This
situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the
kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many
of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.
Late
Bronze Age.
It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the
biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological
discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that
Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign
(see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both
Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely
believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls
once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by
Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is
even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his
identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.
Based
on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late
Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the
Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.
Although
it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the
Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the
outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its
own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills,
characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many
collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig
bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the
hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the
Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth
century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan
(as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal
names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are
almost exclusively Yahwistic.
Another
very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of
the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which
worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it
seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the
area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites
who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned
their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing
the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely
that people who had come from different towns with different deities
would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure
provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was
to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should
not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut.
6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God
of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the
Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the
Israelites were not really Canaanites.
The
Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)
By
the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is
attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities.
This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the
Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed
Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean,
Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the
small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee.
Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their
four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large
storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing
hillsides for farming.
Archaeologically,
it is very difficult to attribute the construction of
cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent
discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl),
and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It
shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall,
characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found
at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A
small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the
perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.
Though
1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and
Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these
sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more
recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found
industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that
correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings
7:46).
Another
very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most
likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron.
4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high
Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel
and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four
burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated
this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the
massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred
thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized
political organization, a state—a conclusion that has
far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA
(1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription,
indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription
is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite
inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to
date.
The
Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)
Herod
the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through
most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land
today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive
walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible
today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with
Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near
Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.
One
of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the
Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These
excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate,
prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are
connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters.
Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the
Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts
18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a
benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra
inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by
some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes.
This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and
Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.
It
is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the
field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and
understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent
excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects
to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.