New article from Biblical Archaeology Review called “The Death & Death of Biblical Minimalism” is a must read for readers interested in archaeology.
For centuries, archaeologists were believers who assumed the Old Testament to be essentially accurate. That position has been severely questioned by many. Those who take the most extreme converse position are “biblical minimalists” — arguing that the Bible is only factually true to the extent proven true. It’s never given the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, many ignore its historical claims almost entirely.
For a while, the Bible was considered ahistorical as to all events before the time of Ezra. Since then, archaeological discoveries have pushed such theories further and further back in time.
Thus, there is at least one, and possibly two, clear references to the dynasty of David in the ninth century B.C.E., only 100–120 years after his reign. This is clear evidence that David was indeed a historical figure and the founding father of a dynasty.
This led to the collapse of the minimalist paradigm in which David was little more than a myth. There was a David. He was a king. And he founded a dynasty.
This led to arguments by the minimalists seeking to show that Judah was not a monarchy at around 1000 B.C.E., suggesting that evidence of a monarchy arose only 75 years later, all in an effort to undermine the chronology found in the Bible.
The author of the report gives a detailed explanation of recent archaeological research confirming that Judah was indeed an organized state around 1000 BCE, the time of David.
This hardly ends all such debates, but the controvery has been pushed back about 500 years, from Ezra all the way back to David. The trend is very much in the right (and expected) direction.
It’s a good read, and I’d be interested in your take on it.
Jay,
i wonder if such archaeologists/historians presuppose the same "minimalism" across the spectrum of historical documents. Or at least across the spectrum of historical documents that make religious claims. If not, then why only such skepticism of the OT and not other ancient sources?
–guy
Once upon a time, if it was written on stone in a public place, it was the truth. Therefore everything was dated by Egyptian temple or obelisk writings. We now know that they wrote certain Pharaohs out of history, and definitely gave the home version of the win/loss of battles.
Anyone who wrote in a turbulent land and not on stone, was historically nill, this includes Israel.
The prejudice is silly because if you think about it what remains is logical. Take the exodus. Three Peoples are involved, Egypt, Israel, and the dwellers of the Sinai. There are no remaining writings from the Sinai Peoples, about Exodus or anything else. Since they were tent dwellers, carving and carrying history in stone would be a burden. Same for the Israelites, if there was a record it would be portable (scrolls) and by now no original documents.
Egyptian writing was under state censorship. No headline "Slaves released today" is to become a monument. So guess what the only logical history of the Exodus to survive would be on scroll copied over time by Israel! Elementary my dear Watson.
Guy,
I just can't imagine archeologists trying to find evidence of people or events from the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana. Honestly it seems people view Christian texts as least mythical of sacred text or at least other sacred texts being largely ethical systems rather than narratives. Part of the problem for the OT might lie more on the lack of written records pre-Romans. Oh and are there such things as Islamic archeologists? that somehow seems odd but I'm sure there are.
I'm mainly speaking of religions that at least are still around today.
And I still remember sitting in the Religious Studies lounge on campus and reading in Biblical Archeology about how they think they found Bethsaida after just assuming it never really existed. I was excited at least.
Guy,I’ve read interviews with Minimalists, and they certainly come off as anti-Jewish or anti-Christian bigots, because their reasoning is so circular. The “logic” is there is no evidence the OT is true, and because the OT is false, the evidence is clearly flawed.On the other hand, it’s entirely fair to insist that those who claim veracity for the OT account to prove their case. We can’t just quote a Psalm or Paul and demand that people believe it as a scientific fact.The question thus becomes: how much proof? And the professional skeptic keeps moving the bar so that proof becomes impossible. Of course, this pushes the others to build stronger cases, which, in the long run, is good.The distinction, to me, is between saying “prove your case” vs. saying “the case can’t be proven.” In some circles, minimalism is taken as fact until disproven at a ridiculous level of proof — and that’s bigotry.
Zach,Islam isn’t nearly as old as Christianity, must less Judaism. But geographically, it covers about the same places. Therefore, a dig in, for example, Jerusalem, will uncover Crusader, Islamic, Byzantine, as well as Roman, Christian, and Judaic materials.Because Islam is more recent than Christianity and because there were many Western witnesses to its rise, it doesn’t raise the same level of archaeological interest. And Islam produced its own copious literature (with its own exegetical and hermeneutical problems).So, yes, Islam is the subject of archaeological inquiry, but it’s not as controversial.