Studying Scripture: Bible History
… the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.
… the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.
Second Vatican Council – Dei Verbum (15, 19)
There are signs of impressive civilizations in South America, Africa and Central Asia where we know people lived in complex societies but we have no information about them beyond the stone remains that they left behind. The examples of China, the Mid East, and Greece are the exceptions. In those few cases we have written records as well as archeological remains, and these provide the ability to construct in more detail what the lives of those earlier people were like, and to some degree even to trace the path from them to us.
In the case of the history of the people of Israel we have a well maintained body of written records but no direct link to circumstances in which they were written. In a few cases we have fragments of old manuscripts, but even these speak of times well before their creation[1]. Such societal memories are not uncommon, with most early people having stories regarding their origins, relationships to the world and to other people around them. The stories of the Israelites are more extensive than most and appear to modern eyes more like factual accounts as compared with others that we would categorize as mythic or symbolic (regardless of how their creators might regard them).
For most of Jewish and Christian history there was little thought given to the question of the historicity of the Bible. In the patristic period there were debates about how literally to take the creation stories of Genesis. Augustine for one pointed out that it made little sense to treat it as a literal description of how the world came into existence. But even this degree of discussion disappeared and with few alternative options the Bible accounts were considered ‘factually’ true – insofar as the distinction between fact and fiction in a modern sense existed in such times.
The study of Biblical history really got underway in the early 19th Century as Egyptian archaeology became popular (and well funded by collectors). It was seen at that time as a matter of finding historical and archaeological evidence to support what was stated in the Bible. Every new find was examined to see how it fitted into bible accounts, even in cases where there was no good reason to think it had any relationship to stories in the Bible.
While this naive approach was superseded as archeology itself became more developed and the complexity of the archaeological record was better appreciated, the basis for relating bible accounts to archeological and other historic records remains problematic:
- the Bible is not always consistent in its statements when viewed from a historical/factual perspective (as distinct from a theological perspective) ;
- much of the Bible (certainly in the early periods) contains accounts of a personal nature which are highly unlikely to find any corroboration in the historical or archeological record;
- some of the Bible was never intended to be considered “history” as we recognize it – no serious modern historian or theologian considers the pre-patriarchal (pre-Abraham) narratives to be historical. For example looking for Noah’s ark is equivalent to looking for the remains of a phoenix or unicorn;
- as research has continued into the present day, more and more of what has been discovered in historical archives and from archeology does not appear to support literal interpretation of the Biblical narrative, even in the post-patriarchal period.
A Jewish scholar who worked throughout his life on Genesis and Exodus noted “The biblical writers were not consciously engaged in what we would consider history writing. Their concern was with the didactic use of selected historical traditions for a theological purpose. Exclusive concentration on the criterion of literal historicity tends to obscure the purpose and message of the text. Finally, the miracles – divine intervention – are not the stuff of history, but of faith.”[2]
So where does this leave us? Many historians have rejected the entire concept of ‘Biblical History’ – they believe the Bible has no value as a historical resource. This seems extreme when other sources are accepted, whatever their “factual” limitations. Some view the Bible as just one source, of no special standing. That may be fine for the purposes of “pure” history, but it serves little value for believers in tying together revelation and history – which is a significant problem for those who believe that Christianity is a historically based religion i.e. based on God’s actual intervention in human affairs (unlike say Hinduism which mostly accepts the mythic nature of its foundation and early texts).
Overview of Biblical History
Given these challenges it is nonetheless possible to provide some linkage between the accounts of the Bible and events in human history as understood independent of the Bible. This relationship may be valuable for those who like to have an understanding of how people and their ideas developed over time, and may inform our current perspectives, just as with study of Greek philosophy or Chinese ethics. However those who want to ‘prove’ the Bible is true by reference to history and archaeology are likely to be disappointed.
The biggest impediment to linking the Bible to other sources is that there is almost no reference to the people of Israel outside of the Bible. They simply weren’t very important to other people around. This remains true even in the time of Jesus. There are some passing references to Jesus in the writings of the Josephus, a Jewish chronicler writing in Rome, but these amount to few sentences[3]. The first reference that has been found to Israel outside the Bible is on an Egyptian stone engraving from the 12th Century BC. It is a single word in a list of conquests by the Egyptian ruler Merneptah, and even this is open to interpretation as to whether the Egyptian hieroglyph actually means ‘Israel’, and who exactly would have been referred to by that name at that time. Over the next 500 years there are a handful of other references in lists of campaign victories from Egypt and Assyria.
In this situation most of the focus of Biblical history has therefore been on linking archeological sites to Biblical references and constructing a view of the development of societies in that part of the world and how the Israelites of the Bible might relate to them.
Stepping back from specifics we can divide the historical references of the Bible into a number of categories / periods:
- Prehistory (before 2000 BC) – in the Bible this relates to the stories from the Creation through to the Patriarchs (i.e up to Abraham). There is no reason to interpret these as representing historical events and no way to link them with any historical events that may have occurred. From a historical perspective there is no record of any specific events from these early times (anywhere or for any peoples) – hence the term “pre-history”. Our historical understanding is limited to a general view of how early societies evolved and some early remains from Egypt and Mesopotamia.[4] Our dating of the Patriarchs is based on comparison of social structures described in the biblical accounts and what is surmised of ancient societies in the Middle East from the archeological record.
- Early History (2000-1000) – for this time more records are available from Egypt (the pharaohs), Crete (Minoan civilization), Mesopotamia and the Hittite empire. In the Bible this period takes us from the Patriarchs though to the establishment of the settlement of Canaan following the time spent in Egypt and the Exodus. Since there is nothing in the historical record outside the Bible that makes any mention of the people of Israel the best we can do for this time is see to what extent we can relate the various Bible accounts about the evolution of Israelite society to general patterns of social development in that area. The Exodus and settlement of Canaan are considered in more detail below.
- Middle history (1000-500) – In Biblical terms this covers the time from the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel under Saul and David through to the various conquests of Israel and Judah by Assyrians and Babylonians. The external historical record becomes more more substantial, although there is little that references the earlier part of this period (see below)
- Late history (500-70AD) – This period is well documented from the Persian and Greek perspective, covering the rein of Cyrus, through Alexander the Great, and the development of Roman civilization. There is less material of a directly historical style in the Bible covering this period. The prophesies include many references to places and events, but most of these cannot be linked to known historical places or events, beyond the major ones involving Babylon and a few other military episodes. The references to the Maccabean revolt at the beginning of the 2nd Century can be linked to other historical references, but the Biblical focus here is clearly spiritual (as in the Book of Daniel) rather than historical.
It may seem that this is slim pickings from an awful lot of effort on the part of archeologists, linguists, and other historians. However what may be more interesting to inform our faith is to step away completely from events and individuals, chronology, and a diary mentality and look at the larger “sweep of history” as it applies to the evolution of Judaism and Christianity.
In this context we can see that the story takes us from the earliest stirring of civilization (i.e. settled life, with cities, farms, writing, social organization) through the understanding of monotheism (there is only one God who is over all), the battles of an early people to create a just society where even the poor were treated with dignity, to the recognition that this worldview was not the exclusive property of a single group of humans. This much is historically incontrovertible and represents an extraordinary evolution in human thinking. The idea of monotheism was not generally accepted even by the time of Christ, the idea that a society should care for all was largely ignored until the 19th Century,[5] and commonality of humanity is still a challenge for the many who would prefer to describe their interests in terms of a a more limited group (whether defined by color, class, language, nationality, or whatever).
Two examples of biblical history
The Exodus and settlement of Canaan.
When was the Exodus? Sarna notes: “It is extremely difficult to fit the narrative of the first 15 chapters of Exodus into the framework of known history”[6]
So, is the Exodus ‘just’ a mythical event, like many stories ancient people had to explain their origins? It seems unlikely people would invent a national history which started with enslavement! There is plenty of evidence of slave labor being used in the Nile delta in 15th-13th Centuries BC. Being more specific is difficult. The Bible itself gives different durations for the sojourn in Egypt (4 generations, Genesis 15:16; 400 years Gen 15:13, 430 years Exodus 12:40). There is only one chronological reference (in 1 Kings 1:6) which states Solomon began to build the Temple 480 years after the Exodus – but that is more likely to be a symbolic number than a reference to actual dates.
An Exodus as early as 15th Century BC is unlikely. Egypt was very strong at this time and controlled Canaan. The archeological evidence doesn’t show new settlement in Canaan in 15th Century – but it does in 13th Century.[7] A city built by Israelites was called Raamses (Ex 1:11) and is likely connected with Pharaoh Ramesses II (1279-1213). Also, at the end of his reign, Egyptian power diminished – making the freeing/escaping of slaves into the desert more plausible.
Where did the Israelites cross the sea? Not at the Red Sea – that is a mistranslation in the Septuagint. The correct translation is Sea of Reeds – but we can’t determine where that was. Similarly we can’t locate Mount Sinai with any certainty.
How did the Israelites settle Canaan? The account in the Book of Joshua recounts a quick military conquest and an apportionment of land between the tribes. However the Book of Judges reflects a completely different tradition of slower conquest, continuing after the death of Joshua, with the tribes acting largely independently. Both accounts were written hundreds of years after the events. The archeological evidence shows evidence of migration into the hill country inland from the Mediterranean in 13th Century, but not of warfare and destruction of cities (specifically there is no evidence that Jericho was destroyed in this period). Current theories tend to prefer a gradual infiltration of displaced Israelites and substantial assimilation into Canaanite society (also since there was no significant racial or linguistic difference). This is reflected in various references in Judges to local Canaanite religious practices. It may even have been that there was no significant migration at all and that ‘Israelite’ society evolved within the existing Canaanite population.[8] The later idealized view of Yahwism as immediately becoming the common practice of all the tribes doesn’t reflect the much more gradual historical process of the Israelites acceptance of Yahweh – which probably continued until the time of the united kingdom (under David).
The establishment of a monarchy.
The establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, initially under Saul and then consolidated by David and Solomon (before it fell apart again), takes us closer to the period of established historical records. However even this period is complex and controversial to analyze. Although the Bible includes extensive accounts of this period, they are often conflicting in detail, and there are almost no other historical sources for this period. It was very important to Israel but of no significance to other peoples.
As with other accounts of early Israelite history, the Books of Samuel and Kings were written well after the events they portray and reflect multiple traditions and views – for example whether the monarchy was a good or a bad thing for Israel. Some historians now discount the Biblical accounts of this period as completely non-historical and essentially a fictional product of the post-Exilic or even Hellenistic Period. This seems extreme and while it may be difficult to recover historical detail from such sources, we have to recognize there was an important evolution of Israelite society and (more importantly for our purposes) faith, during this time.
Our best attempt to reconstruct the history of this period from biblical and other sources is roughly as follows. All of this is open to scholarly debate, even whether there was actually a unified kingdom under David.
In the 12th Century BC the Philistines (and other “Sea-people”, as described by the Egyptians) had settled the eastern Mediterranean coastal area. They were sufficiently strong to challenge the Egyptians but lost in a major battle in c. 1177. However they continued to expand locally and came into collision with the Israelites living in the inland hill country. After two initial battles between them the Israelites were soundly defeated and the Ark of the Covenant was captured (according to the Biblical account). This was the background to the creation of a monarchy and the selection of Saul as king. Saul maintained a guerilla campaign against the Philistines, but when he chose to fight a battle on the plains he was defeated and killed. Saul’s “kingdom” lacked any substantial central structure and was tiny in extent. Recent estimates suggest there were about 50,000 people living in Israelite territory at that time.
David then took over as leader, and initially continued a guerilla campaign. David was from the southern tribe of Judah and thus not part of the dominant northern tribal faction. He and Saul had fought both against and with each other. Following Saul’s death there was considerable fighting between his family and David. Having established his position, David was able to unite the forces of the northern and southern tribes and defeat the Philistines. He then captured Jerusalem, which until that time had been under control of another Canaanite tribe. Jerusalem became both the administrative and religious capital once David brought the Ark of the Covenant there (following its return from the Philistines). David was a major force in ensuring Yahwism became the Israelite religion.
David captured a number of surrounding territories and Israel/Judah became an important trading crossroads around 1000 BC. Solomon then used this trading wealth as a basis for major construction (including the Temple) and the establishment of central state administration.
Immediately after Solomon’s death and the accession of his son Rehoboam, the united kingdom divided between northern tribes (Israel) and southern (Judah). Despite the tradition of Solomon as a wise and peaceful king, there was clearly considerable internal dissent and external threats towards the end of his reign. The unified kingdom existed for less than 100 years. The successor northern kingdom of Israel continued for a further 200 years or so until conquered by the Assyrians. The southern kingdom of Judah survived for about 350 years before being conquered by the Babylonians.
What is most striking about this narrative from our perspective is that such a minor group of people, who were nonentities in the geopolitics of their time, founded one of the great religions in human society which continues to this day, in its Jewish, Christian, and Islamic forms[9].
Questions for Consideration
Footnotes (Click footnote number to return to text.)
[1] This is true even of early Christian documents
[2] Nahum M. Sarna in “Ancient Israel”
[3] This late (in the context of biblical history) example illustrates the difficulties of using such material. Josephus wrote these works about 60 years after the death of Jesus, for a Roman audience. So we have no clear idea as to how accurate he may have been in his reporting. Perhaps more significant, the earliest manuscripts we have of his writing date from the 11th Century. In copying of manuscripts there was ample opportunity for alterations to be made, either intentionally or not. So while most scholars agree that the references to Jesus were in the original versions there is no way to be certain of this.
[4] We ignore China for the purpose of this discussion.
[5] Despite the claims of the French and American Revolutions the equality they asserted was still very circumscribed by gender, color, wealth, etc.
[6] Sarna op. cit.
[7] Although more recent research has cast doubt on how much new settlement of a migrant population occurred and how much of the change in Canaan at that time was within the pre-existing population.
[8] “No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel” Robert Karl Gnuse
[9] These three religions are known in Islam as the the People of the Book, reflecting their common heritage in God’s revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures. They are also known as Abrahamic religions in recognition of the original revelation of ‘the one God’ to Abraham – an unusual monotheistic concept in human civilization.