Apologetics
"Expunging Ancient Israel’s Past"
The title was actually a subtitle of an article written by Hershel Shanks in Bible Review (July 25, 1997). The article is called "The Biblical Minimalists." In this article, I would like to review some of the points.
"Biblical Minimalists" is a phrase used to describe a school of thought which believes that the Bible is useless for reconstructing any history, particularly that of ancient Israel. Rather, Israel’s history must be reconstructed solely on archaeological finds as interpreted by anthropological models. They believe that ancient Israel (with the Davidic dynasty) is just an invention of the Jewish nation.
Now before this is laughed off, we should keep in mind that this is becoming a serious position for many who teach in prestigious universities. It will be a view that many students will hear as they go through their schooling. So it will be something with which to contend. It is still not "mainstream," but these "biblical minimalists" are gaining an acceptance. And they are outspoken.
We should understand how serious this issue really is. Note what Shanks says in the following:
"For thousands of years most people (at least most Christians and Jews) accepted the Bible literally. In the past 200 years or so, this has changed considerably. The historicity of the Bible has taken some serious hits, and the trend even of mainstream biblical scholarship for the past two centuries has been to diminish the reliability of the history recounted in the Bible, from Creation to the Flood to the patriarchs to the Exodus to the conquest to the Promised Land. So the attack of the biblical minimalists often might seem nothing more than a sophisticated extension of this mainstream scholarship. Where, if at all, do the biblical minimalists veer off track?"
"Mainstream scholarship" has gone in the direction of thinking that the Bible is a theological book primarily, and that the history recounted in the Bible is flavored by the theological biases. However, most still recognize that there is reliable history in the pages of the Bible. The biblical minimalists say there is none at all. And this is where the debate is engaged.
Though Shanks is not, by any means, a conservative in his approach to the Bible (rejecting some of the history in it), he actually defends the Bible by pointing out that there is "new evidence of a quite remarkable historical memory reflected in biblical texts." He admits that the Bible should not be denigrated as being "historically valueless." The Bible does have much historical value.
However, according to Shanks, all the stories in the first eleven chapters of Genesis are "univerally recognized by modern critical scholars as myth, not history, with many similarities to the creation myths of other societies." The seven-day creation, the fall, the separate formation of different kinds, etc. are all said to be myth. It is because of this that the biblical minimalists feel that they have a backdrop for calling the rest of the Old Testament stories myth, also. As one said, "Where does myth end and history begin?" This should serve as a cautionary note to those of us who still accept the historical nature of the first few chapters of Genesis. Once we give up the foundation, the rest will soon fall.
The article focuses more upon the question of whether or not the biblical Israel of old really existed. Not only do the minimalists deny that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real, they also deny the Davidic dynasty of the tenth century B.C. They argue that "If David and Solomon ruled vast empires, we would expect evidence of this in the archaeological record." They argue that archaeology provides no such evidence of this empire.
But not so fast. There are some archaeological treasures pointing to the existence and importance of early Israel. The minimalists try to find ways around this evidence, but even the mainstream critics (like Shanks) regard these finds as authentic. What are some of these archaeological treasures?
1. An old Aramaic fragment from Tel Dan (northern Galilee) was found under the rubble of an eighth-century B.C. destruction. It was dated to the ninth-century B.C. The Stela, which appears to have been set up by the king of Damascus, tells of victories over "[Jeho]ram son of Ahab, King of Israel" and "[Ahaz]iah son of [Jehoram, ki]ng of the House of David." This betrays the biblical minimalists’ claim that the kingdom of Judah had no importance, and may not have even existed, until the eight century B.C. Further, the king of Damascus boasting about defeating the Israelites and Judahites suggests that Judah was a significant power at that time. It further supports the fact that David was an earlier figure, generally dated to about a century before. In other words, all of this fits well within the biblical text.
2. Another stela set up by Mesha King of Moab (ninth century B.C.) celebrates triumphs by Moab over the northern kingdom of Israel after Ahab died (2 Kings 3:4-5). Recently, another reference has been found (as interpreted by Andre Lemaire) on this stela to the "House of David." Again, this stela shows that the Israelite nation was a significant one by the ninth century.
3. An even earlier stela, known as the Merneptah or Israel Stela, was recovered last century from the funerary temple of the Egyptian Pharoah Merneptah (1213-1203 B.C.). This stela lists the pharoah’s triumphs in Libya and Canaan, where he defeated the cities of Ashkelon and Gezer. But he also boasted of defeating Israel in Canaan’s central highlands. This is the earliest outside reference to Israel, and it squarely places them in Canaan during the 13th century B.C. Again, this is in complete harmony with the Bible.
Treasures such as these lessen the credibility of the minimalists. Shanks concludes:
"The minimalists" rejection of the Bible’s historicity, and their denial that ancient Israel even existed, would seem extremely naive or extremely disingenuous. Scholars will disagree over the historical reliability of certain facts in the Bible. But the demonstrated historical memories embedded in the Bible -- that is, historical data verified by independent sources -- strongly indicate that it must be treated seriously as a historical source."
As Christians, we cannot afford to capitulate to the skepticism of our day. We still must fight for the historicity of the Bible. If we can’t trust the history of the Bible, then our own salvation will ultimately become suspect. Remember that the resurrection of Jesus, which is fundamental to our hope of heaven, is an historical event. If it is not, then our faith is vain (1 Cor. 15:17). Let not our faith be undermined by the attempts to deny the historical credibility of the Bible.
Doy Moyer