False History—‘out with David and Solomon!’
Archaeological challenges to the historicity of the Bible are the latest ‘fad.’
What are the facts?
by David Down
‘Out with David and Solomon!’ That is the latest
trend in the archaeological world, and the secular world is eager to repeat the
refrain. Even Australia’s The Financial Review1 decided to depart from its mandate and devote several
pages to an article headed ‘False Testament’ in which ‘Daniel
Lazare explains how archaeology has dismantled the Bible’s claim to history.’
And if we are to accept the dates that are usually assigned to the archaeological
eras, the arguments presented seem very strong.
The criticism involves two main claims: First, that there is no archaeological record
to support the stories of David and Solomon, and second, that the archaeological
strata flatly contradict the Biblical records. The first claim, even
if true, would be simply an argument from silence, and thus irrelevant. As
has often been said in archaeology, ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.’ Many aspects of Biblical history were discounted as fictional
because there was ‘no archaeological evidence’—leaving much egg
on face when evidence was later discovered. But actually there is
inscriptional evidence to support the existence of King David—see box below.
The King David artifact
Avraham Biran is an experienced and recognized Israeli archaeologist who excavated
for 27 years in ancient Dan in northern Israel. In his 1994 book Biblical
Dan, he reported finding a broken stela on which was an Aramaic inscription.
The stela had been used simply as filling in a wall which was dated to the third
quarter of the 8th century BC, but the style of writing suggested that
it had been originally written in the 9th century BC.
In this inscription was the expression ‘BTH DWD’ which would be read
as ‘House of David’.1
This was convincing confirmation of the detailed Biblical historical records that
David and his house (family) were known in the 9th century BC.
The critics were disconcerted. At first they said that it was simply the name
of a place like Bethshemesh (House of the Sun) or Bethlehem (House of Bread).
The only catch to that suggestion was that Bethshemesh and Bethlehem are known sites
but there is no known city called Bethdavid. So, in their desperation to discredit
the Bible, some critics accused Biran of forging the stela. However, there
is no evidence to support this claim.
Reference
- Biran, A., Biblical Dan, Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem, pp. 275–278, 1994. Return to text.
|
However, the second claim is more cogent. Let me explain how archaeology works.
In Biblical times people mostly preferred living on hills. Jesus Christ said,
‘A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matthew
5:14). Little by little, the height of these hills rose due to the
occupational debris that accumulated. Storms, earthquakes and invasions brought
destruction to these cities, and subsequent occupants simply levelled off the area
and built on top of it.
Archaeologists are now able to dig down into this occupational debris, which can
be 30 m or more above the original height of the hill (called a ‘tel’).
As they cut into this debris, it is possible to distinguish the layers of successive
occupation that can be identified by the style of pottery they contain. These
layers have been named Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age.
Although no-one disputes these identifications, the dates assigned to these successive
layers are another matter altogether.
Ignoring the Biblical information, archaeologists in their wisdom have assigned
the approximate dates to these eras as shown in the diagram on p. 19. According
to this, David and Solomon would have lived at the beginning of Iron Age II—and
that is where the problem lies, as we shall see.
Facts against the Bible?
Concerning Solomon’s building activities,
1 Kings 9:17–19 says, ‘And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon
the lower, and Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land. And he
built all the store-cities which Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities
for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon,
and in all the land of his dominion.’ Also, the Bible describes Solomon’s
economy as being on an enviable scale. ‘And the king made silver and
gold at Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedar trees as plentiful as the sycamore
trees in the valley’ (2
Chronicles 1:15). But the architectural remains from Iron Age I and
early Iron Age II reveal that this was a period of pitiful poverty, few people and
scant building activity. This is why the critic Lazare could write, ‘Not
one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed.’2
So let’s face it—if the usual archaeological chronology is correct,
we have to abandon confidence in the historical records of the Bible. Incidentally,
all these dates also have a bearing on the date of the Flood and consequently the
creation of the world about 6,000 years ago.3
The Biblical date for the Flood is about 2300 BC but the beginning of the Early
Bronze Period is usually dated to about 3100 BC.
Take another look
Fortunately, there is light through this darkness, though it is going to require
some radical thinking. Actually, when the archaeological ages are correctly
dated, the evidence for Biblical history is quite stunning, but we are talking about
lopping anything up to six centuries off the traditional dates.
Bible history of Israel is divided into four neat eras for which we should expect
solid archaeological evidence. First, the Exodus and military occupation of
Palestine followed by the period of the Judges. There should be evidence of
destruction and fire (of the Canaanite civilization), and above that, the appearance
of a new people (the Israelites) with new pottery styles, different burial practices
and manufacturing skills (Exodus
35:30–35).
This is exactly what we find at the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning
of the Middle Bronze I Period. Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated Jericho, wrote
in her book, ‘The final end of the early Bronze Age civilization came
with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of
Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably
not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside
the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed,
for all the finds show that there was an absolute break, and that a new people took
the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so
far been investigated shows the same break. The newcomers were nomads, not
interested in town life, and they so completely drove out or absorbed the old population,
perhaps already weakened and decadent, that all traces of the Early Bronze Age civilization
disappeared.’4
‘An absolute break … a new people … every town in Palestine
… newcomers were nomads … completely drove out or absorbed the old
population …’.4 Could
we expect to find a more apt description of the Israelite invasion, nomads from
the desert who initially were not interested in living in the cities?
 |
Left: A thick layer of black ash from the end of the Early Bronze period at Jericho.
Right: Tel Dothan, typical of the mounds containing the ruins of Old Testment cities.
|
 |
Still more correlation
Next came the period of affluence and power during the centuries of the Israelite
monarchy. Concerning the Middle Bronze IIB Period, prominent Israeli archaeologist
Dr Amihai Mazar wrote, ‘The Middle Bronze Age architecture was to a large
extent innovative and original. Together with the massive fortifications of
this period, it evidences a thriving, prosperous urban culture. The magnitude
of the palaces and temples manifests the wealth and power concentrated in the hands
of the autocracy and theocracy of the period.’5
Then came the exile into Assyria and Babylon when large portions of the population
were despatched into captivity. Soon after the Assyrian conquest of Israel,
the prophet Isaiah wrote, ‘Your land is wasted, your cities burned with fire.
Strangers devour your land right before your eyes, and it is wasted, as overthrown
by strangers’ (Isaiah
1:7). We should find in the next layer, the Late Bronze Age, evidence
of a depleted population, and we do.
Israeli archaeologist Israel Finklestein wrote, ‘The entire country flourished
in MB IIB … fortified cities, villages, and individual farms—were founded
throughout the region … . In contrast to the extraordinary prosperity
of MB II, the Late Bronze period was characterized by a severe crisis in settlement
… . Moreover, those sites where occupation did continue, frequently
shrank in size.’6
Fourth came the return from exile, when many of the Israelites migrated back to
their original lands. ‘The whole congregation together was forty-two
thousand, three hundred and sixty’ (Ezra
2:64). Finklestein says, ‘The Iron I period again witnessed
a dramatic swing in the population of the hill country, this time in the opposite
direction.’7 And then
he voices the dilemma that faces archaeologists because of their wrong dates: ‘…
MB II, Late Bronze and Iron I periods … leave two critical questions for
which satisfactory answers must be found: Why and to where did over half of the
MB II population, i.e., virtually all the inhabitants of the hill country, “vanished”?
From where did the people who settled the hundreds of sites in Iron I “materialized”?’7 If Israel Finklestein changed his dates, he would
soon have the answers.
It was a period of danger and hardship. Building activity was slow.
‘The ones who built on the wall, and the ones who carried burdens; with those
who were lifting, one a worker in the work, and one held a weapon’ (Nehemiah
4:17). This then is the early Iron Age, which Mr Lazare so loudly
trumpets to be a period of poverty, which cannot fit the reign of Solomon. You are
right, Mr Lazare. It does not fit the reign of Solomon, but if you get your
dates right, it perfectly fits the return from exile.
The way it works
The Bible is a historical document containing detailed chronologies. When
such a document is ‘out of synch’ with another source of chronological
information in, say, four separate areas, then if making one adjustment
to the other chronology causes all four of these areas to be reconciled
simultaneously, this is powerful evidence in favour of the validity of the adjustment.
To match Event 1 to Circumstance 1, Chronology 2 needs to be brought forward by
‘x’ years (see below)
Since there are now three additional match-ups, and no remaining contradictions,
this is powerful independent evidence confirming the need for the revision.
|
Getting it right
It is of course appropriate to modify the fallible opinions of man to fit the infallible
Word of God. But this revision of dates can be independently justified, and
an answer given to the challenge that it is some arbitrary ‘fiddle’.
Consider these three points:
- The revised chronology gives a remarkable consistency with the Bible record in a
number of separate areas, which further confirms the appropriateness of the revision.
See The way it works, box at right.
- The ‘standard’ dates for the archaeological strata have been assigned,
not on information that comes from the strata themselves, but simply by their correlation
with the dynasties of Egypt.
- Some scholars are now challenging these dates.
In the introduction to Peter James’ book Centuries of Darkness, the
highly regarded Cambridge Professor Colin Renfrew wrote, ‘The revolutionary
suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in
human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history
will have to be rewritten …. I feel that their critical analysis is
right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way.’8
Let the archaeological history be rewritten, then, and it will be found to give
remarkable support to the Biblical records. David and Solomon did exist and
were the triumphant builders of a great nation that dominated Palestine and the
surrounding areas.
References
- Lazare, D., The Financial Review, 28 March–1 April
2002, pp. 1–2, 8. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 8. Return to text.
- Pierce, L., The forgotten Archbishop, Creation20(2):42–43,
1998; In the days of Peleg, Creation22(1):46–49,
1999. Return to text.
- Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land, Ernest Benn
Limited, London, p. 134, 1965. Return to text.
- Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Double
Day, New York, p. 213, 1990. Return to text.
- Finklestein, I., The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement,
Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 339–341, 1988. Return
to text.
- Ref. 6, p. 341. Return to text.
- James, P., Centuries of Darkness, Pimlico, London, pp.
XIV, XVI, 1992. Return to text.
| Creation.com reaches millions of people each year–many of these aren’t believers in our Creator and Savior Jesus Christ. How will we reach them without your support? Please consider a small gift today.  | | |
|
