What is the importance of archaeology to Old Testament history?

Answer 1

A:Archaeology has shone an entirely new light on the stories of the Old Testament. A 'Biblical Archaeology' mode of operation dominated the archaeology of Palestine up to the death of Albright, who was its foremost practitioner, and still has considerable influence. For some at least, The Bible still seems to play a central role in the interpretation of Palestinian archaeology. However, more recent archaeology continues to provide evidence against a literal reading of the Bible.

The Amarna tablets have proven conclusively that the 'Promised Land' was still occupied by Canaanites and under Egyptian control long after the Bible tells us that it was conquered and the Canaanites anhilated. Further archaeological evidence shows that there never was a military conquest of Canaan as described in the Bible. Everyday items such as pottery and texts show that when they finally emerged, the Hebrew people had come from a Canaanite milieu and were not outsiders.

Keel and Uehlinger (Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel) describe hundreds of artefacts found in Israel and Judah throughout the entire monarchical period, showing that polytheism was ubiquitous in the region throughout the period. Monotheism was a notion completely foreign to the Hebrews until the time of King Josiah and probably even until the Babylonian Exile. This was summarised very cogently by Lang, whom I will quote from a citation in Keel and Uehlinger, as the original quote was in German:

"In the four and a half centuries during which there were one or two Israelite monarchies (ca. 1020-586 B.C.), there was a dominant, polytheistic religion that was indistinguishable from that of neighboring peoples. Insofar as there were differences between the Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Tyrian, etc. versions of religion, these beliefs stayed within the framework of Near Eastern polytheism, and each should be interpreted as a local variant of the same basic pattern. The Israelites . . . venerated their own protector god who was there to provide for health and family. But they venerated Yahweh [God] as well, the regional and national god, whose special domain dealt with war and peace issues."

One of the most controversial but also potentially important developments is Israel Finkelstein's 'Low Chronology'. Advanced in its first full form in the mid-1990s, it dated most of the events and finds of the Iron I and Iron IIA about a century later than had been common among archaeologists. the 'low chronology' is that it changes the entire understanding of the emergence of the Israelite state. The monuments previously associated with the united monarchy are redated from the second half of the tenth century to the early ninth. Traditional dating leaves a strange gap in the ninth century in the dating of archaeological remains. The low chronology fits better with the dating of Mycenaean IIIC Early to Middle at other sites in the eastern Mediterranean and closes the 'dark age' of the ninth century, but forces reconsideration of several issues relating to the archaeology of proto-Israel.

Regardless of low chronology or traditional chronology, the archaeology in Jerusalem so far does not corroborate a massive capital city of a United Monarchy, with monumental architecture. There is still hope on the part of some that such will be discovered, but it seems unlikely that anything like the city envisaged in the Bible is going to be found. Those who maintain that Jerusalem did not develop into a substantial city until the later period of the biblical divided monarchy have current archaeology on their side. Those who maintain an earlier development must argue on the basis of what is presumed to have disappeared or might be found in the future.

Another Answer:

It is of great importance and a vital tool for mankind to put the pieces of the puzzle together in order to better understand the past. But as with any endeavor of men, you will always have the very liberal to very conservative interpretations of the evidence. This has been said of the Tell el-Armarna letters (sometimes called tablets). It is a series of letters, many destroyed when collecting in the 1890s, between Egypt and other 'residents' in the greater area of Syria, Babylon and coastal lands between.

The main thrust IMO rest upon the identity of the Habiri peoples mentioned. If one believes them to be the Hebrews of Joshua, then there are dating problems in other resources and the Bible account. If you believe they are other than the Hebrews, perhaps Amorites, then the biblical account is better verified. So it is with the sciences as there are no eye witnesses to speak to.

Here is an interesting find by a noted archaeologist:

In the excavation of Megiddo in 1993, archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin report, "The grandeur of Solomon's Megiddo is clearly evident in the archaeological finds at Megiddo-in large palaces, with fine, smooth-faced ashlar masonry and in elaborate decorative stonework" ("Back to Megiddo," Biblical Archaeology Review , January/February 1994, p. 36).

Lastly, those interpreting the Armarni letters have difficulty with the Jerusalem letter mentioning 'Melchizedek.' They reason as men do that it is the way 'authority' was passed onward by the Pharoah. But the Bible is quite clear, King Melchizedek was the one who would become the Christ, the then Word of God and true King of all mankind.

A complete understanding of finds in science will probably remain not fully understood IMO due to a prejudice of using/relying upon the biblical accounts as a guide or 'eye-witness' of the events/findings in question.