Archaeology versus the Biblical Account

Found 18 Search results

  1. But WHY didn't Ahab kill Ben-Haddad?

    Rabbi Gad Dishi

    תאריך פרסום: תשע"ג | | Hour and 5 minutes

    Why is Chapter 20 of Melakhim located where it is? It appears to be a battle narrative that is out of place with the surrounding chapters. And why is there such an emphasis on Ahav building up Yeriho (Jericho)? Why is God displeased by the end of the story in Chapter 20?


    Rabbi Gad Dishi brings the perakim to life through an interdisciplinary approach. Literary and linguistic tools, Ancient Near East studies, and archeological findings all enhance our understanding of Tanakh and of the important theological message within. Linguistic and thematic parallels to other parts of Tanakh and to other texts call into question whether these stories are meant to be read as battle narratives -or whether they are a different genre: a satirical polemic with an important message.

  2. Israel's First Setback

    Rabbi Michael Hattin

    This lesson compares the biblical text with the archeological findings in Jericho, and then proceeds to explore the story of Akhan and his trespass, and Yehoshua’s response. This story is the background for the initial failure at the Ai, a sharp contrast with the initial success in Jericho. God stresses that  the destiny of Israel as a people is bound to their moral and ritual conduct.

  3. The Battle at River Kishon - Part 1

    Rabbi Michael Hattin

    A careful and precise read of the text reconciles the apparent contradiction between the Biblical account regarding Hatzor and the archaeological evidence. This method can be used in many apparent discrepancies between the Biblical account and archaeological evidence.

    Barak gathers his men at Mount Tavor, located at the confluence of the tribal boundaries of Zevulun, Naftali and Yissachar and at River Kishon, a watercourse that begins its route near the feet of the mountain and flows along the floor of the Yizrael Valley. Barak descended with his men at Devora's behest to battle Sisera, just as an unexpected cloudburst appeared and turned the fertile plain into an impassable mudflat, a topographic trap that abruptly rendered the Canaanite chariots useless.

  4. Rehavam: Three Sources - Three Perspectives

    Rabbi Alex Israel

    The description of Rehavam in Melakhim focuses on the sin of idolatry and on the Mikdash in Jerusalem. In Divrei Hayamim the focus is on the sin of pride and has a broader regional focus. Archaeological evidence testifies that Shishak attacked Yerovam in the North. This is not mentioned in either of the bibical accounts. What is the relationship between the various accounts and what is the relationship between the biblkical account and history?

  5. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 1 - Introduction

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    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.

    To what extent do the questions arising from archaeological research interest someone who believes in the authenticity and reliability of the biblical account?

  6. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 3 - The Era of the Forefathers

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The stories of the forefathers in and of themselves cannot be proved or disproved from an archaeological point of view. The main discussion in this regard therefore centers on the surrounding reality depicted in these narratives. The theme common to those who deny the reliability of the Torah's account of the era of the forefathers is that the Torah's description displays elements of anachronism, the projection of various phenomena dating from a later period to the period of the forefathers. Their claim is that these accounts in the Torah use facts and information which do not belong to the era that is described.

    Anachronistic claims regarding the domestication of camels, names of locations in the narratives and the appearance of ethnic groups are examined and refuted.

  7. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 4 - The Era of the Forefathers (continued)

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Many social and legal phenomena described in Sefer Bereishit conform to what we know today about the laws and practices of various peoples in the ancient Near East – even though the Torah, given at a later time, explicitly forbade some of these practices. The presentation of the forefathers as people who were active within a socio-legal framework that partly contravened the Torah, proves the familiarity of Sefer Bereishit with the world within which its characters functioned. It is also testimony to the authenticity and honesty of the biblical account, which makes no pretense of presenting the forefathers as operating in accordance with the laws of the Torah, which came later.

  8. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 5 - The Exodus

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Until recently, doubts as to the veracity of the story of the exodus were rejected out of hand by most biblical scholars in Israel for two reasons:

    1. The unlikeliness that a people would invent a tradition of subjugation at the very outset of their existence.
    2. The many mentions of the Exodus from Egypt in the Bible as a central event in the life of the nation.

    Nevertheless, the arguments that are raised against the veracity of the Biblical story of the Exodus and deny the servitude in Egypt are based on various claims of lack of evidence and instances of anachronism.

    It must be emphasized that theories based on a lack of evidence must be treated with much reservation. As to the absence of any mention of the exodus in Egyptian records, we must take into account that kings of the ancient world, including the pharaohs, used to construct monuments glorifying their victories and achievements, not their defeats and failures.

    In the case of the exodus there is proof that the narrator possesses extensive knowledge about the details of the period in question, and especially the sort of details that changed in later times. Had the biblical account indeed been written only in the 7th century B.C.E, it hardly seems likely that the narrator could integrate such precise details of Egyptian reality some six hundred years prior to his or her own time.

  9. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 6 - Yehoshua and the Conquest of the Land of Israel

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The conquest of the land of Israel is described at length in Sefer Yehoshua, and the conventional view, based on a superficial reading of the text, is that the process was completed in a short time, as was the subsequent process of the settlement of the tribes of Israel. This view was accepted among archaeologists of the previous generation. However, more recent developments have made clear that the approach that treats the conquest and settlement of the land as a uniform, quick phenomenon, contradicts the archaeological findings in several respects.

    These more recent findings offer support for the picture created by a more comprehensive and careful reading of the biblical account of the settlement of the land in which while there is a literary aim to describe a short process attributed entirely to Yehoshua, but in fact other descriptions in the Bible show that it was a lengthy process.

    The archeological theories surrounding Jericho and Ai are examined.

  10. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 7 - The Era of Settlement

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    All scholars working in the field of biblical archaeology recognize the existence of a significant process of settlement in the central mountainous region of Eretz Yisrael, starting from the 13th century B.C.E., as manifest in the establishment of hundreds of small points of settlement bearing a unique character. The main controversy among archaeologists concerns the question of the identity of these new settlers. The minimalist school maintains that what became known as Am Yisrael was actually formed out of a collection of local nomadic groups who abandoned their villages on the coastal plain or in the Negev, and settled in these new areas.

  11. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 8 - The Unified Kingdom

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    All agree that in Eretz Yisrael during the period of the monarchy (referred to by archaeologists as the Iron Age II), there was a real upheaval, with a new culture growing upon the ruins of the Canaanite cities. The classic view of biblical archaeology connected this phenomenon with David and Shlomo, whose political and economic power is attested to in Tanakh. However, in recent years this evidence has been rejected by some scholars from the “Lox Chronolgy” school of thought.

  12. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Part 9 - The Unified Kingdom (continued)

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Between 2007 and 2012, excavations were undertaken at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Ela Valley, discovering the ruins of a large fortified city surrounded by an impressive casemate wall. Burned pits of olives discovered on-site and sent for carbon 14-testing led to the dating of the city to the early 10th century B.C.E. – the period of David. In addition, further discoveries have shown that the city was unquestionably an Israelite – not Philistine – habitation.

    The existence of a Judean city of this size attests to the fact that the wave of urbanization characterizing the transition to the Iron Age II did in fact occur at the beginning of the unified kingdom, and that at the time of David's monarchy, fortified cities already existed in Judea.

    These new findings have had a significant impact, and the supporters of the "low chronology" have been hard-pressed to explain them.

    At the same time, the question of why more artifacts from the period of the unified kingdom have not been discovered to date in Jerusalem must be addressed. It is reasonable to assume that this phenomenon is the result of Jerusalem having undergone continuous construction from the Middle Bronze Age up until modern times, such that it is difficult to find artifacts from the Bronze and Iron Ages. It is relatively easy to find artifacts from destroyed layers of cities, and this explains why findings testifying to the destruction of the Second Temple have been discovered. By contrast, no buildings whatsoever have been found from the Persian or early Hellenistic periods, even though no-one questions the existence of the city during these times.

    Throughout Sefer Shmuel, we find many descriptions of wars, including their geographical and strategic aspects, attesting to a high level of proficiency in this material on the part of the author. It is very difficult to propose that an author during a later period could have provided these descriptions of events, field conditions, and roads which were sometimes far removed from the areas where these books are assumed to have been written.

    The fundamental argument of adherents of the "low chronology" is that the narratives about David were created at a later time, with a view to glorifying the founder of the dynasty. This approach utterly ignores the simple fact that there is no character who is criticized so closely and sharply in Tanakh as David. Why would anyone seeking to glorify the royal house of David and Shlomo want to describe all the difficult and complex episodes involving its first two kings? To date, no satisfactory explanation has been offered for this phenomenon.

  13. Tanakh and Archaeology

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

  14. Archaeology and the Era of the Forefathers

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

  15. Archaeology and the Exodus from Egypt

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

  16. Archaeology and the Era of Settlement

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

  17. Archaeology and United Kingdom of David and Shlomo

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

  18. Archaeology and David

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak