From Australia's Financial Review

By David Down, field archaeologist who excavates in Israel every year, and is editor of Australia's top-selling archaeology magazine Archaeological Diggings.

Out with David and Solomon is the latest trend in the archaeological world; and the journalistic world, which feels uncomfortable with the idea of God and a judgment day, is eager to repeat the refrain. An article in The Financial Review 28 March/1 April 2002 is headed "False Testament, Daniel Lazare explains how archaeology has dismantled the Bible's claim to history." And if we accept the dates that are usually assigned to the archaeological eras his arguments are absolutely valid.

The criticism follows two lines: First, there is no archaeological evidence to support the stories of David and Solomon, and second, the archaeological strata flatly contradict the biblical records. The first argument is rather irrelevant. It is simply an argument from silence. There is no inscriptional evidence to prove the existence of dinosaurs but scientists see no problem with that. The second argument, however, is more valid. Let me explain how archaeology works.

In Biblical times people mostly preferred to live on hills. That is why 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 often destroyed part or all of these cities and subsequent occupants simply levelled off the area and built on top of it.

As time went by most of these hill cities were abandoned, people preferring to live at lower levels. Archaeologists are now able to dig down into this occupational debris, which can be up to thirty metres or more above the original height of the hill. As they cut into this debris it is possible to distinguish the successive layers of occupation by the style of identifiable pottery they contain. These layers have been named Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age. No one will dispute these identifications. What they do not tell us, however, are the dates of these successive layers.

Ignoring the biblical information, the archaeologists in their wisdom have assigned approximate dates to these eras which mean that David and Solomon would have lived at the beginning of Iron Age II and that is where the problem lies.

Concerning Solomon's building activities, 1 Kings 9:17-19 says, "Solomon built Gezer, Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness (Palmyra in Syria), in the land of Judah, all the storage cities that Solomon had, cities for his chariots and cities for his cavalry, and whatever Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion." But the architectural remains from Iron Age I and early Iron Age II reveal that this was a period of poverty and scant building activity, enabling Lazare to write, "Not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed."

Solomon's economy was also on an enviable scale. "The king made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as abundant as the sycamores which are in the lowland," 2 Chronicles 1:15, but the artifacts and pottery from this Iron Age indicate pitiful poverty and few people. Jerusalem was scarcely a city. So let's face it - if the archaeological chronology is correct we have to abandon confidence in the historical records of the Bible

However, there is light through this darkness, though it is going to require some radical thinking. Actually, when the archaeological eras are correctly dated the evidence for biblical history is overwhelming - but it necessitates 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, fire, and the appearance of a new people with new pottery styles, different burial practises and manufacturing skills. After all, they had come from the advanced civilization of Egypt, and "He (God) has filled them (the artisans who built the intricate and costly sanctuary) with skill to do all manner of work of the engraver and the designer and the tapestry maker." Exodus 35:35.

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, Archaeology in the Holy Land, page 134,

"The final end of the early Bronze Age civilisation 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."

"An absolute break . . . a new people . . . every town in Palestine . . . newcomers were nomads . . . completely drove out or absorbed the old population . . . " 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?

James Pritchard, who excavated in Gibeon in 1956, found the same types of evidence. Writing of his own discoveries at Gibeon he stated,

"These relics of the Middle Bronze l people seem to indicate a fresh migration into the town of a nomadic people who brought with them an entirely new tradition in pottery forms and new customs in burial practices. They may have come into Palestine from the desert at the crossing of the Jordan near Jericho and may then have pushed on to settle eventually at places such as Gibeon, Tel el-Ajjul and Lachish, where tombs of this distinctive type have been found."
Gibeon, Where the Sun Stood Still page 153.

Nothing could more aptly fit the Biblical record of the Israelites coming in from their desert wanderings, crossing the Jordan at Jericho and occupying the Promised Land.

Second came the period of affluence and power during the centuries of the Israelite monarchy when King David and his son Solomon, under the direction of God, enlarged and enriched the nation. (as mentioned earlier in the article) 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."
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible page 213. (Double Day 1990)

Third came the exile into Assyria and Babylon when large portions of the population were despatched into captivity. Writing soon after the Assyrian conquest of Israel in 722 BC the prophet said: "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers." Isaiah 1:7. We should find in this next layer, the Late Bronze Age, evidence of a depleted population, and we do.

Israeli archaeologist Israel Finklestein wrote,

"The entire country flourished in MBIIB - 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."
The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement page 339-341. (Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem 1988)

Fourth came the return from exile when many of the Israelites migrated back to their original lands. "The whole congregation (which returned under Ezra) together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty." Ezra 2:64. Finklestein wrote,

"The Iron I period again witnessed a dramatic swing in the population of the hill country, this time in the opposite direction."

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, 'vanish'? From where did the people who settled the hundreds of sites in Iron I 'materialise'?"

If Israel Finklestein changed his dates he would soon have the answers. It was a period of danger and hardship. Building activity was slow. "Those who built the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other 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 correct it perfectly fits the return from exile.

But how can we justify this revision of dates? Can we fiddle the figures just to make them fit the Bible records? Yes we can, when we consider that the 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, and it is these dates that some scholars are now challenging.

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."
pages XIV, XVI.

In 1995 David Rohl published his book A Test of Time. A series of programmes based on the book was also aired on prime time TV by the BBC in UK. He wrote,

"The new chronology has determined that Rameses II should be dated to the tenth century BC - some three hundred and fifty years later than the date which had been assigned to him in the orthodox chronology."
Page 143.

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.

Lazare also takes a swipe at the record of the Israelite slavery in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus. He wrote, "There was no migration from Mesopotamia, no sojourn in Egypt and no Exodus . . . The slate was blank concerning the nearly five centuries that the Israelites had supposedly lived in Egypt prior to the exodus as well as the forty years that they supposedly spent wandering in the Sinai. Not so much as a skeleton, campsite or cooking pot has turned up."

Wrong, Mr Lazare, though I excuse you on the grounds that you are correctly reflecting the opinions of the main body of archaeologists who still cling to the traditional chronology. But Dr Rudolph Cohen, recently retired Deputy Director of the Israel Antiquities Service has excavated for twenty five years in the Negev (southern Israel) including Kadesh Barnea where the Israelites stayed for 40 days while the twelve spies searched the promised land. He claims there is so much evidence for the presence of a large number of people there at the beginning of the MBI period that he is of the firm conviction that these were the migrating Israelites.

In the July 1983 edition of Biblical Archaeology Review he wrote an article entitled "The Mysterious MBI People, he stated,

"In fact, these MBI people may be the Israelites whose famous journey from Egypt to Canaan is called the Exodus."
Page 16.

He even claims that, from the pottery they left behind, he could trace the route the Israelites took. He wrote,

"It is interesting, however, to note that this migratory drift, as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking similarity to that of the Israelite's flight from Egypt to the Promised Land, as recorded in the book of Exodus."
Page 28.

In 1993, I and my Australian group worked with Dr Cohen in his excavations at Ein Hatzeva, south of the Dead Sea. During the course of the excavations site supervisor Egal Israel came by to see what we were finding. I asked him whether he agreed with Dr Cohen's views identifying the MBI people with the Israelite migration. Without hesitation he replied, "Of course I do, and so do all the archaeologists down here." I said, "The archaeologists in the north do not accept it." He replied, "They do not know what they are talking about."

Later that year I was talking with Dr Ami Mazar and asked him what he thought of Dr Cohen's views. "They are a lot of rubbish," he snapped. So there is this conflict of opinions in Israel. The majority hold to the traditional chronology but it would not be the first time in history that a minority were right. At least readers should be aware that there are alternative views.

But what about carbon dating? Does not that establish the traditional chronology? I do not know of any archaeologist who has ever altered his dates from the results of carbon 14 testing. Dates are assigned on pottery styles. Samples of organic material may be sent for testing but the results will not influence the conclusions already reached. As David Rohl says in his book,

"All too often a dozen or so radiocarbon dates are included in an archaeological site report merely as scientific window dressing. This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectation of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether . . . As the senior radiocarbon scientist Professor Ingrid Olsson frankly concluded at the Gothenburg conference: 'Honestly, I would say that I feel that most of the dates from the Bronze Age are dubious. The manner in which they have been made . . . forces me to be critical.'"
page XIX

As for the evidence from Egypt, it is strikingly supportive if you look in the right place. The Biblical date for the Exodus, based on the figures in 1 Kings 6:1, is approximately 1445 BC. By the usual chronology this would be during the powerful and well-recorded eighteenth dynasty which ruled from Luxor rather than Memphis or the Delta where the Israelites were concentrated. There is no trace of Israelite slaves during this dynasty, nor of the disaster that befell Egypt as the result of the ten devastating plagues and the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea.

However, a revised chronology would locate the Israelite slavery during the late twelfth dynasty and the Exodus at the beginning of the thirteenth dynasty. Dr Rosalie David, Curator of the Manchester Museum wrote a book in 1986 entitled, The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt. Sir Flinders Petrie excavated in the Faiyyum and sent many of his finds back to the Manchester Museum. He excavated a city called Kahun where he found evidence for many Semitic slaves. Because he had the wrong chronology neither he nor Dr David identified them as the Israelite slaves, but their presence there and subsequent disappearance puzzled them..

Dr David wrote,

"It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt . . . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined . . . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear."
Page 191.
"It is apparent that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses." Page 197. "There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close . . . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated."
Page 199.

Slaves cannot say to their masters, "OK boss, sorry to leave you, but we are all going tomorrow." Yet this is about what happened at Kahun. The only plausible explanation is that these were the Israelites who packed up and left in a hurry.

Curiously enough, Josephus, the Jewish historian from the first century AD, records a tradition that his ancestors in Egypt built pyramids. This has usually been dismissed with scorn, for by the conventional chronology, all the pyramids were built centuries before the first Israelite arrived in Egypt. If we accept a revised chronology, however, the oppression of the Israelites occured during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties, when rather impoverished pyramids were still being built. The pyramid at Lahun on which the slaves from Kahun were working was made of millions of bricks made of mud mixed with straw - the very building material the Bible specifies as used by the Israelites in Egypt.

As for the devastating plagues and the destruction of the Egyptian army; there is in the Leiden Museum in Holland a papyrus written by a scribe named Ipuwer. It's time of origin is not known for sure but it could have been written after the Exodus. It says in part,

"Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere . . . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water . . . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire . . . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere . . . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognised . . . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt . . . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says 'there is no more'. The storehouse is bare . . . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men."
Ipuwer Papyrus. Leiden Museum. Quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings pages 94-101.

These "stranger people" were the mysterious Hyksos who invaded Egypt during the thirteenth dynasty. Concerning them the Egyptian historian Manetho, quoted by Josephus, wrote,

"There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them."
Josephus against Apion 1:14.

Without a battle? Where was the well-trained Egyptian army? Maybe it was at the bottom of the Red Sea. Exodus 14:22-28

So, yes, there are arguments against the reliability of the historical records of the Bible, but there are also some powerful arguments supporting them.