Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology

J. Randall Price, H. Wayne House

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780310527640
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Reference

Explore significant archaeological discoveries pertaining to every book of the Bible.

Laypersons, pastors, students, academics, and anyone looking for a current and comprehensive biblical archaeology resource need look no further. The Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology provides a wealth of information that supplements the historical context of the Bible, providing a window into the past that will enhance your understanding and enjoyment of biblical text.

Immerse yourself in the world of the Bible and the intertestamental period with these special features:

• Introduction to the field of archaeology
• Archaeological discoveries in canonical order
• The latest photos and information from new discoveries
• Aerial photos of excavation sites
• Photos of artifacts and historic structures
• Sidebars and study helps
• Robust glossary
• Detailed maps
• Bibliography

The Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology gives readers the opportunity to visit ancient sites and historical places while remaining in the comfort of their own home.

1
Introduction to Archaeology and the Old Testament

Archaeology supports historical study by the discovery and interpretation of artifacts in situ. This is to say that the focus is on finding things in their original contexts and then explaining them in terms of their functions and roles in antiquity. For the Old Testament, the original context is the ancient Near East—its geography, languages, culture, and customs, not to mention its own accounts of history and the factors (religious and political) that affected how it told and what it preserved of that history. In understanding the difficulties facing modernity and trying to discover and interpret the earliest archaeological history of the Bible, two factors must be taken into account.

First, the further back in history one goes, the less archaeological information one has available. The ravages of time, successive occupation that destroyed the foundations of previous occupations, lack of enduring writing materials or means of preservation, and other causes reduce the chance of recoverability. It is estimated that at least 96 percent of this information from the ancient world is lost to us and can never be recovered. For this reason we should not necessarily expect to find direct archaeological evidence of and correlation with the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest, or even the early monarchy under Kings David and Solomon. That we do find information that can help us in confirming the historicity of these people and the reliability of the recorded events is remarkable and should be treated as such and interpreted as evidence of the larger historical context now unrecoverable. This data permits us to see that the biblical events, which took place within a chronologically conditioned geography, reflect accurately the terminology, places, and customs unique to their time and place in history. This is precisely what we see as we move forward in time with the later periods that are more recoverable. Kenneth Kitchen underscores this point in the conclusion of his magisterial defense of Old Testament historical reliability:

The periods most in the glare of contemporary documents—the divided monarchy and the exile and return—show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exist) and of reliability. That fact should be graciously accepted by all . . . When we go back (before ca. 1000) to periods when inscriptional mentions of a then-obscure tribal community and its antecedent families (and founding family) simply cannot be expected a priori, then chronologically typological comparisons of the biblical and external phenomena show clearly that the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period. The same applies to the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt and appearance in Canaan . . . The Sinai covenant (all three versions Deuteronomy included) has to have originated within a close-set period (1400–1200)—likewise other features. The phenomena of the united monarchy fit well into what we know of the period and of ancient royal usages. The primeval protohistory embodies early popular tradition going very far back, and is set in an early format. Thus we have a consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa 2000 BC (with earlier roots) down to 400 BC. In terms of general reliability . . . the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as the writings are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all.¹

Kitchen’s closing remarks make a bridge to our second factor: one must recognize that the biblical authors, who lived in the world of the ancient Near East and, though superintended by God, did not approach history (or chronology) as we do, especially in the Western world. We come to history with the goal to establish objectively a complete and precise order of events and to validate them historically (such that any gaps, omissions, or unexplainable inconsistencies are deemed unacceptable). However, the biblical writers were selective of events and their order, and interpretation was subject to their particular perspective and authorial intent.

Moses wrote from his unique perspective and experience as an educated Egyptian, Levitical priest, pastoralist, and national legislator—as the other biblical writers wrote from theirs. This did not affect the historicity or accuracy of their accounts, but it may affect our understanding of them as we try to reconcile them with the limited context gleaned from the archaeological record. Moreover, after the biblical authors wrote to their generation, God used those in later generations (such as Ezra) to collect, order, and sometimes contemporize language and references in their writings, all the while preserving their historical accuracy and theological integrity. For this reason we should not expect to always find a neat fit with archaeological data, even when and where it is available. Still, the Israel presented in the Old Testament did exist, and to the extent it is able, archaeology can recover it and reveals that it conforms to known history. As William G. Dever has noted:

Ancient Israel is there, a reality perhaps often hidden in the idealistic portraits of the Hebrew Bible or obscured by its overriding theocratic version of history, and also hidden in the dirt awaiting the discoveries of the archaeologist. It is archaeology, and only archaeology, that gives back to all those ordinary, anonymous folk of the past . . . their long-lost voice, allowing them to speak to us today.²

We should add to this that archaeological interpretation is also affected by factors (religious and political) and older interpretations of previous data. Its connection, then, with the biblical text needs to be carefully evaluated. Some older interpretations of particular sites and artifacts, especially under pressure from religious sponsors, that once “fit” with the Bible have been amended and even changed in light of new information from later excavations. On the other hand, modern religious and political pressures to disavow any connection with the Bible have in some cases caused neglect or reinterpretation of older data to conform to acceptable standards.³ This opinion is, of course, controversial but cannot be discounted if an accurate interpretation of all of the available data is the goal. These factors should caution us to not assume that everything in the Bible, especially the earlier chapters of the Bible, can be verified in a scientific manner or that the archaeological data is out there waiting to be discovered. However, as has been repeatedly stated, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” We may have only a little evidence, but a little tells us a lot. What we can and have verified concerning the reliability of the Old Testament should be sufficient to allow us to accept what we cannot verify.

2
The Pentateuch

GENESIS

Genesis 1–2

Ancient Near Eastern Creation Accounts

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. (Gen 1:1; 2:4)

The account of creation in the book of Genesis takes center stage in the Bible and is recorded as a matter of proto-history. Similar accounts of creation, though without the central position given in the Bible, were also recorded by other ancient Near Eastern civilizations. The oldest creation account is the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, discovered in Nippur. Recorded on a single fragmentary tablet, it states that the gods An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursanga made black-headed people and created conditions suitable for animals to live and reproduce. Afterward, kingship (government) was lowered from heaven, and the first cities, Eridu, Bad-Tibira, Larsa, Sippar, and Shuruppak, were founded.

A more complete Sumerian creation account is contained in five tablets from the early second millennium BC, also discovered at Nippur and now housed in the Musée du Louvre (Paris). Each tablet contains different details of creation. However, the Sumerian god Enki is the unifying figure in all of the accounts, creating the world and appointing lesser gods over his creative order, with the sun god Utu over the cosmos. Enki as creator brings fertility to the world by filling the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers with his semen, stocking the marshland with fish, bringing forth rain clouds to water the earth, and creating everything necessary for human life (animals, crops, houses, and industry). In other tablets a similar watering of the world is seen, but with a focus on the sexual prowess of Enki and the resulting birth of gods and goddesses. In one particular text there is a more thorough account of the creation of mankind in which the opening lines reflect the opening lines of Genesis: “In those days, in the days when the heaven and earth were [created] . . .”¹

Another Babylonian account of creation is found in the seventeenth-century-BC Epic of Atrahasis, discovered in Sippar (in modern Iraq). It explains the creation of mankind as a response to a revolt by the lower gods, who were forced to do heavy labor for the chief god Enlil and the Anunna-gods (higher gods). The birth goddess Mami/Nintu, with the aid of the god Enki, was called to create mankind as a work force to relieve the lower gods. The stuff of human creation was the blood of the slaughtered god Aw-ilu mixed with clay that was spat upon by the god Igigi. This story is quite unlike the creation of man in Genesis who is considered a representative of God to rule over his creative order (Gen 1:27–28) and to cultivate the garden in which he was placed (Gen 2:8, 16).

Enuma Elish Tablet

© 2013 by Zondervan

An ancient Mesopotamian account called Enuma Elish was recovered in the form of fragmented Akkadian tablets found in the remains of the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. The original date of composition was probably between the fourteenth and eleventh centuries BC. It gives another Babylonian version of creation by the chief god Marduk and, like the Epic of Atrahasis, explains the purpose of cre...