History, Archaeology, and Biblical Reliability

"Because of the temporary nature of their buildings and towns, no major archaeological trace of the Hunnish empire has been found." -Jesse L. Byock

I recently read the Penguin edition of the Saga of the Volsungs. In the introduction I was surprised to read the above quote. The Huns controlled a tremendous amount of territory. Their domains began east of the Volga and ran as far west as the borders of modern-day France while encompassing all the land between the Baltic and Black seas. What is more, the Huns wreaked havoc far beyond their borders. They ruled in a period that is firmly historical (the 5^th century AD), a period of which we have fairly extensive records. And yet there is no major archaeological trace of their empire. Despite this lack of evidence, no serious scholar doubts their existence.

Now consider for a moment the case of the Exodus. There are a number of scholars, like my old Biblical Studies professor, that argue that the Exodus is complete fiction. One of the main arguments he and others deploy against it is that despite the fact that the Hebrews wandered in the Sinai desert for forty years, there has been no archaeological evidence found of their presence there. (Note: we don’t have any evidence for the Hunnish Empire and yet we expect to find evidence of a wandering, nomadic people? What on earth does anyone think they would leave behind that we could reasonably expect to find?)

Consider the two cases for a moment: there is no archaeology evidence for either and yet the Hunnish Empire is universally accepted and the Exodus is largely doubted. This begs the question: how do we know about either? We know about both because they were recorded; we learn about both through historical study. Why is one accepted while the other is often doubted? That is a question I don’t know enough to fully answer, but I reckon that it has something to do with the fact that we have one source for the Exodus and multiple sources for the Huns; it also undoubtedly has something to do with the propensity of man in his sinful condition to doubt the word of God.

Instead of trying to answer this specific question I think it is better to step back and ask the broader question: why do we accept some historical accounts and reject others? The short answer is that if we think an author is honest and informed we accept his account; if we think he is dishonest (i.e. biased or self-interested) or ignorant (i.e. he wasn’t an eyewitness, he only saw part of an event, or he lacked access to specific information) then we reject his historical claims.

Many parts of the Bible give historical accounts. By that I mean that many sections like Exodus and Nehemiah and Acts claim to give factual accounts of certain periods and people (other sections, like the Psalms or the Epistles make historical references, but their main purpose is to communicate truth poetically or indicatively, respectively). As historical accounts we should examine the reliability of the authors: if the authors are reliable they should be accepted and believed; if the authors are unreliable they should be rejected. But to reject a historical claim because of a lack of archaeological evidence is preposterous! That is not how either archaeology or history operates—they ask different questions and use different methods to answer them.

Let me give one more, related, example. I have a study Bible written from a theologically liberal perspective. It argues that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles because the Gospels portray the Pharisees as the main opponents of Jesus when the Pharisees only rose to prominence after the destruction of the temple at the end of the first century. These “scholars” argue that since the Pharisees were the main opponents of the (unknown) authors of the Gospels these Gospel authors anachronistically made the Pharisees the opponents of Jesus to legitimize their own position against them. This is a specious claim for a couple of reasons.

First, just because the Pharisees were not dominant or prominent until later in the century does not mean they did not exist at the time of Jesus (they did and no one doubts this). They could have been Jesus’s opponents even if they were more of a minor sect and it is illogical to conclude they weren’t His opponents simply because they came to greater influence later.

Second, on what basis do these scholars think the Pharisees came to prominence later? Archaeology is silent—we can’t dig up pottery shards and figure out which ones were used by Pharisees and compare them with the ones that were used by Sadducees. No, this is a historical question. How many historical sources do we have from first century Israel? Not a whole lot!

Again we are left with a question of history and questions of history are solved by determining the reliability of the author. Questions of history must be answered historically. Can we prove the Exodus happened or that the Pharisees were outspoken opponents of Jesus? Not scientifically or mathematically, but these are not questions of science or math! To apply non-historical criteria (like archaeology) to (most) historical questions is like asking for scientific proof that I like ice-cream. You can’t “prove” it, but it is obviously true that I like ice-cream! In fact, there is a lot that we know that we cannot scientifically prove (e.g. Beijing is the capital of China, Augustus was a Roman emperor, my parents love me, etc.). To reduce all knowledge to what can be proved scientifically, which is what people are doing when they look to archaeology to validate history, is to destroy most of what we know. Instead, we judge the reliability of our knowledge based on its type: we answer historical questions historically, subjective questions subjectively and so on. 

Questions like the actuality of the Exodus are questions of history, and though I don’t have time to go into this further, I firmly believe the evidence clearly points towards the reliability and truth of the Biblical account.