To what extent do the questions arising from archaeological research interest someone who believes in the authenticity and reliability of the biblical account?
The relations between Tanakh and archaeology have undergone many changes since the study of the antiquities of Eretz Yisrael began in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, religious scholars introduced what became a central endeavor in the field: they sought, by means of archaeological findings, to demonstrate the authenticity of biblical narratives and thereby to disprove the documentary hypothesis. The assumption guiding these scholars was that the Tanakh should be treated as a historical source which can serve to explain archaeological findings, and whose own authenticity may in turn be demonstrated by the fieldwork.
Towards the end of the 20th century, some new trends appeared which gradually moved themselves further away from the original orientation of biblical archaeology. "New Archaeology" sought to sever itself from the historical context of the Tanakh. Second, some of the "New Archaeologists" adopted a more extreme approach that tended to negate the historical validity of the Tanakh. It argues that the biblical record should not be regarded as historical fact so long as there is no positive archaeological evidence supporting it, since – according to the proponents of this view – the Tanakh was written with a bias, long after the events actually took place.
Clearly, this research must be approached with appropriate reservations and caution. Firstly, it must be remembered that the approach that casts doubt on the reliability of the Tanakh is based on the conclusions prevalent in the world of Bible study – a realm which itself is far from offering unequivocal, decisive proofs. In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the discipline of archaeology may be defined as a "pure" science: many fundamental assumptions in the field, concerning the dating of different findings, as well as the methods of ascertaining their date, etc., have not been conclusively proven. Likewise, the assumptions of the "New Archaeology" are often based on the claim that there have been no findings in support of certain events recorded in Tanakh. However, this argument from absence is a major weakness of the approach.
These arguments and others have led some parts of the religious world to regard any involvement in biblical archaeology as unnecessary. The basic assumption is that the Tanakh describes an absolute material reality, and there is therefore no need to become too excited over findings that sit well with the biblical narrative, and conversely, no need to be overly agitated about findings that contradict the narrative.
However, a scornful attitude towards the study of archaeology does not solve the questions that arise from this area of study, and does not justify the complete rejection of its findings. In addition, a large portion of archaeological discoveries do indeed accord with the biblical narrative, shedding light on our understanding of various stories, and helping to deepen our connection with the world of the Tanakh.
This post is based on an article, To read the full article>>
Edited by the HaTanakh Site team