Utilizing Biblical Archaeology to date the composition of the Biblical Texts
17 December 2000
Revisions through 15 June 2002
Note: By clicking on the blue underlined urls in this text, one is taken to maps or other related articles at this website.
Evaluating Internet Research Sources by Robert Harris should be read by everyone, click here.
Please click here for this website's most important article: Why the Bible Cannot be the Word of God.
For Christians visiting this website my most important article is: The Reception of God's Holy Spirit: How the Hebrew Prophets _contradict_ Christianity's Teachings. Please click here.
Biblical Archaeology has established the occupational parameters of various cities, towns, villages and hamlets of some of the places mentioned in the biblical texts. The archaeological findings indicate in some situations that certain places were either abandoned or had not yet come into being, contra the historical presentation in Holy Writ. These anomalies have been used by scholars to date the composition of the biblical texts.
The audience as well as the narrator had to have been unaware of these anomalies, so the biblical scenarios had to have been composed AFTER these places had come into being. Several centuries would have needed to have elapsed for the national memory to forget just when these places were founded or occupied, such that there would be no objection to the biblical scenarios.
The following articles, utilize in part, the findings of Biblical Archaeology to establish not only the "Historicty" of the biblical texts, but also THE DATE of their composition. I am not attempting a comprehensive survey of all the sites appearing in the biblical narratives and establishing their archaeological parameters, I am keying in on just a few sites whose archaeological anomalies are useful in dating the texts.
Finkelstein and Silberman have noted that some sites appearing in the Book of Joshua came into existence only in the final decades of the 7th century BC, suggesting that the Primary History (Genesis- 2 Kings) is no older:
"This basic picture of the gradual accumulation of legends and stories- and their eventual incorporation into a single coherent saga with a definite theological outlook- was a product of that astonishingly creative period of literary production in the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BCE. Perhaps most telling of all the clues that the book of Joshua was written at this time is the list of towns in the territory of the tribe of Judah, given in detail, in Joshua 15:21-62. The list precisely corresponds to the borders of the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Josiah. Moreover, the placenames mentioned in the list closely correspond to the 7th century BCE settlement
pattern in the same region. And some of the sites were occupied ONLY IN THE FINAL DECADES OF THE 7TH CENTURY BCE."
(p. 92. "The Conquest of Canaan." . Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. The Free Press. 2001)
A SERIOUS METHODOLOGICAL ERROR EXISTS IN BIBLICAL RESEARCH:
It has been my experience in reading and studying various proposals for an Exodus and Conquest by others, that there is a serious methodological error which is repeated over and over again by many scholars in attempting to substantiate the biblical Exodus by identifying an archaeological context for this event (the gamut of proposals by amateurs as well as professionals runs from the Early Bronze to Early Iron Ages).
For any time period, Early Bronze through Iron Age, one can find cities, towns and hamlets that were not existence or were abandoned in contradiction to biblical Exodus and Conquest scenarios. Until a proposal can successfully account for ALL these archaeological anomalies (the non-existent or abandoned sites), the quest to find a time period to substantiate *IN TOTO* Holy Writ's presentation of an Exodus and Conquest is doomed to failure.
07 April 2002 Update:
Over a year ago, 17 December 2000, I noted that as my Exodus research had revealed that NO time period, Early Bronze II through Iron I, were ALL the sites mentioned in the Exodus narratives in existence at the same time, consequently, it was my conclusion that the biblical account was fantasy.
Just a few days ago, 05 April 2002, I was musing upon this, when a thought struck me, what if there is a period in which ALL the sites are in existence at the same time? This time period might date the Exodus narratives! The ONLY time period that I hadn't investigated was the Late Iron II, ca. 640-562 BC.
Just yesterday I had another re-read of Finkelstein and Silberman's book The Bible Unearthed (2001) and discovered to my delight that they had evidently wondered the same thoughts and stated that the Exodus narratives were written IN the late 7th century BCE because this was the ONLY time period that witnessed "all the major sites" being in existence at the same time!
Finkelstein & Silberman:
"Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical
narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were UNOCCUPIED precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness...Lastly, ALL the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabitated in the 7th century; in some cases they were occupied ONLY at that time."
(pp. 64, 67, "Did the Exodus Happen ?" Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. 2001)
I have studied the Bible seeking the answers to its origins for some 30 years and have read many books and articles in Professional Journals, without a doubt, if I had to reccomend the single most important book on how
MacDonald, an archaeologist, with extensive experience in Transjordan, echos Finkelstein and Silberman's observations about the sites mentioned in the Exodus scenarios being mostly occupied ca. 640-562 BC, and thus dating the Primary History to this era:
"On the basis of textual and literary study of these texts plus archaeological evidence from biblical sites identified with confidence, we may conclude that the passages in question probably date to the end of the Iron II period. Only then were most of the identified sites occupied; there is little or no evidence of their occupation during either the Iron I or early Iron II Age."
These various and conflicting proposals whether they be from amateurs or professionals, do not account for ALL the archeological anomalies and their authors frequently appear to be UNAWARE of ALL the anomalies; if they deal successfully with even a few archaeological anomalies, THEY CANNOT AND WILL NEVER ACCOUNT FOR *ALL* THE ANOMALIES.
When I have bothered to take the time to point out to some of the proponents of an archaeological context for the Exodus and Conquest, enumerating the full range of ALL the Archaeological anomalies and the impossibility of reconciliation, their universal response is that it is "unrealistic"on my part to expect them to account for ALL the anomalies; the fact that they feel that they have accounted for SOME of the anomalies convinces them they have the "correct interpretation" and reconciliation of the archaeological data and the biblical scenarios. Dever has rightly pointed out that any attempt to verify the historicity of the biblical scenarios must take archaeological findings into account. He has noted that Albright and Wright both recognized the important role archaeology would play in casting a light on the historicity of the scriptures.
Dever:
"Albright's original intuition- that nothing except the "external" evidence from archaeology could throw new light on the tradition as received- was sound; he erred only in assuming that archaeology would always confirm, never challenge, the "historical" reconstruction presented in the Hebrew Bible. Archaeology, in particular, allows us to get at the "history behind the history." At the same time, it broadens the picture by supplementing political history with socio-economic and cultural history...insofar as we are historians, it really is important to ascertain "what happened in history," as nearly as possible. Obviously, this historical inquiry must proceed independent of any theological presuppositions or biases, but the inquiry is not thereby irrelevant to questions of belief, as several current schools of biblical interpretation seem to imply. History cannot be allowed to be merely hermeneutics...Archaeology can illuminate historical events, but it cannot confirm the theological inferences drawn from those events, past or present."
(pp. 556-7, Vol. 3. William G. Dever, "Israel, History of (Archaeology and the Conquest)." David Noel Freedman. Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. New York. Doubleday. 1992)
In my various articles on this website, I have attempted to offer proposals that do not contradict the archaeological data, in presenting my understanding of ancient Israel's "true" origins. I realize that for those not familiar with archaeology's discoveries, that many of my proposals will be greeted with profound skepticism and disbelief. Without an understanding of archaeology's importance and its findings, and bearings on Israel's origins, the reader is at the mercy of many misinformed attempts to confirm Holy Writ by correlating an Exodus and Conquest within a given archaeological period.
Although archaeology has revealed that an Exodus and Conquest did not happen as portrayed in scripture, it has cast a light upon the events which occured in Egypt and Canaan in the course of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, which were transformed by the Pentateuchal writers into the story we have today (Please see my article on
10 Dec. 2001 Update:
I want to advise the reader that it is no longer my understanding that Ezra wrote the Primary History ca. 458 BCE. In a recent article I explain why I now understand that the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) was written in the Exile, ca. 560 BCE, for the new arguments cf. my article titled
Using findings from Biblical Archaeology, the various books of the "Primary History" (Genesis-2 Kings) are dated by archaeologists.The biblical texts mention various cities, towns, villages and hamlets, some of which have been archaeologically identified and excavated, their occupational parameters being established. As explained in some of my articles, some sites reveal that some places were not in existence or were abandoned when certain events occurred according to Holy Writ. The non-existence of these places reveals that certain elements within the biblical stories had to have been composed centuries after these places came into existence, such that the audience had no knowledge that these places didn't exist within the historical time frames they are portrayed as appearing in.
Finkelstein and Silberman have noted that some sites appearing in the Book of Joshua did not come into being until the final decades of the 7th century BC, suggesting that the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) is no earlier:
"This basic picture of the gradual accumulation of legends and stories- and their eventual incorporation into a single coherent saga with a definite theological outlook- was a product of that astonishingly creative period of literary production in the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BCE. Perhaps most telling of all the clues that the book of Joshua was written at this time is the list of towns in the territory of the tribe of Judah, given in detail, in Joshua 15:21-62. The list precisely corresponds to the borders of the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Josiah. Moreover, the placenames mentioned in the list closely correspond to the 7th century BCE settlement pattern in the same region. And some of the sites were occupied ONLY IN THE FINAL DECADES OF THE 7TH CENTURY BCE."
(p. 92. "The Conquest of Canaan." Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. The Free Press. 2001)
Finkelstein and Silberman have suggested that the Pentateuch and Torah as presented in the Hebrew Bible, are compositions no earlier than the late seventh century BC based upon the archaeological evidence:
"Until recently both textual scholars and archaeologists have assumed that ancient Israel reached the stage of full state formation at the time of the united monarchy of David and Solomon. Indeed, many biblical specialists continue to believe that the earliest source of the Pentateuch is the J, or Yahwist, document- and that it was compiled in Judah in the era of David and Solomon, in the tenth century BCE. We will argue in this book that such a conclusion is highly unlikely. From an analysis of the archaeological evidence, there is no sign whatsoever of extensive literacy or any other attributes of full statehood in Judah - in particular, in Jerusalem- until two and a half centuries later, toward the end of the eighth century BCE. Of course no archaeologist can deny that the Bible contains legends, characters, and story fragments that reach far back in time. But archaeology can show that the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History bear unmistakable hallmarks of their initial compilation in the seventh century BCE. Why this is so and what it means for our understanding of the great biblical saga is the main subject of this book.
We will see how much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears, and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah, culminating in the reign of King Josiah at the end of the seventh century BCE. We will argue that the historical core of the Bible arose from clear political, social, and spiritual conditions and was shaped by the creativity and vision of extraordinary women and men. Much of what is commonly taken for granted as accurate histroy -the stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and even the saga of the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon- are, rather, the creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement that flourished in the Kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age. Although these stories may have been based on certain historical kernels, they primarily reflect the ideology and the world-view of the writer. We will show how the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah during the momentuous concluding decades of the seventh century BCE.
But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history. In the following chapters we will reconstruct the history of ancient Israel on the basis of archaeolgical evidence- the only source of information on the biblical period that was not extensively emended, edited, or censored by many generations of biblical scribes."
(pp. 22-23, "Introduction." Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. The Free Press [Simon & Schuster Inc.]. 2001)
In concluding their research on the Exodus from an archaeological perspective, Finkelstein and Silberman suggest the Exodus narratives are of the late 7th or early 6th centuries BC:
"All these indications suggest that the Exodus narrative reached its final form during the time of the 26th Dynasty, in the second half of the seventh and first half of the sixth century BCE."
(p.68, "Did the Exodus Happen ?" Finkelstein & Silberman)
Secular humanist scholars have determined that contrary to the traditional understanding of Moses having written the Pentateuch, internal clues suggest it is a creation of ca. 562-560 BC on the basis of 2 Kings 25:27, which mentions the Babylonian king Evil Merodach, who reigned during the aforementioned years (allowing that endings in a composition date the work).
Other clues from archaeology have caused many scholars to realize the composition is quite late, no earlier than LATE IRON II TIMES, as noted by MacDonald.
Burton MacDonald, a professional scholar and archaeologist makes the following observations from his many years of experience in surveys of sites in Transjordan, ancient Edom, Moab and Ammon (emphasis is mine):
"My experience in the field of Near Eastern archaeology has led me to the general conclusion that the biblical stories about Transjordanian places and events best fit into the Iron II period and later. This conclusion comes from a general knowledge of the results of current archaeological work throughout Jordan and specifically from my archaeological survey work south of Wadi al-Hasa, in the Southern Ghors and Northeast `Arabah, and in the Tafila-Busayra region (beginning 1999). The findings of the above-listed surveys indicate there are few, if any, Late Bronze Age materials and a paucity of Iron I Age materials in the areas being surveyed. On the other hand, the Iron II Age is well represented in all of these areas. I WAS THUS FORCED TO QUESTION THE TRADITIONALLY HELD OPINION THAT THE MOSES-LED GROUP, ON ITS WAY FROM EGYPT TO THE LAND OF CANAAN, PASSED THROUGH/AROUND EDOM (AND MOAB) DURING THE LATE BRONZE-IRON I PERIODS. On the basis of recent archaeological work, I concluded that a Moses-led group would have encountered little, if any, opposition if it had passed through the territories in question during the periods traditionally associated with this event. However, recent archaeological evidence indicates that opposition to such a passage would be understandable during the Iron II period. Thus, the narratives relative to the Exodus best fit the settlement history of the area during the Iron II rather than the previous two archaeological periods. Similarly, the narrative of Israel's defeat of Sihon and the capture of his capital city of Heshbon would fit better the archaeological history of this site during the Iron II rather than the Late Bronze-Iron I period. This does not mean that the present writer denies that there are older traditions behind the biblical narratives. However, THE TEXTS IN QUESTION WERE MOST PROBABLY WRITTEN IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVAILED IN THE IRON II PERIOD AND PROBABLY TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PERIOD. Thus, the assumption here is that although the biblical writer may have used material that predates his time, he set that material into a context, namely, the Iron II AND LATER PERIODS, that would be meaningful to his readers."
(pp. 4-5, "Introduction." Burton MacDonald. "East of the Jordan" Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scripture. Boston. American Schools of Oriental Research. 2000)
MacDonald, speaking of Kadesh-Barnea being portrayed as a town in Edom's border (Nu 20:16), it being identified with either Ain el Qudeirat or Ain Qadeis in the Negev:
"The text probably reflects the situation at the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century when Edom moved, at a time when Judah was weak, into the eastern Negeb. This would have led to hostility, or perhaps increased hostility, between Judah and Edom at the end of the monarchial period (Briend 1987: 42).Thus the text describes a particular geographical and cultural situation, rather than an historical condition at the end of the Late Bronze or beginning of the Iron Age."
(p. 68, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald. "East of the Jordan," Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston, Massachusetts. American Schools of Oriental Research. 2000)
In speaking of Mt. Hor's location, MacDonald again stresses that the text is probably of the 7th or 6th century BC:
"The difficulty in accepting a mountain in the neighborhood of Petra as the location of Mount Hor is that Petra is not on the 'edge/border' of Edom but in Edom. Petra and vicinity would have been at the western edge of Edomite territory only in the city's formative years. The text, however, appears to be late and dated to a time, possibly the seventh or sixth century, when the Edomites had expanded westward into the central Negeb."
(p.70, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald. "East of the Jordan," Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston, Massachusetts. American Schools of Oriental Research. 2000)
In his conclusions on the Exodus Itineraries, MacDonald notes that most of the sites that can be identified, appear in Late Iron II, suggesting the narratives are very late:
"On the basis of textual and literary study of these texts plus archaeological evidence from biblical sites identified with confidence, we may conclude that the passages in question probably date to the end of the Iron II period. Only then were most of the identified sites occupied; there is little or no evidence of their occupation during either the Iron I or early Iron II Age."
(p.98, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald. "East of the Jordan," Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston, Massachusetts. American Schools of Oriental Research. 2000)
