Cardinal Richelieu by Philippe de Champaigne [CC0 – Wikimedia]

In the last few years, archaeologists in Jerusalem have regularly hit the headlines with the discovery of clay bullae — humble clay seal impressions (bulla in Latin, same term is in “Papal Bull”) used to seal letters and documents. Some have been particularly sensational — notably in 2015, when Eilat Mazar announced the discovery of a bulla of King Hezekiah, and in 2018 when she announced the discovery of a bulla probably of Isaiah the Prophet. Other excavators — as if not to be outdone — have drawn attention to their finds, such as a bulla of Natan-Melech (perhaps the one in 2 Kings 23:11), found in the Givati Parking Lot excavations, or Adenyahu “who is over the House” in the excavations beneath Robinson’s Arch, both in 2019.

Having let the dust settle somewhat, it helps to reflect on the significance (and the hype) around these discoveries. My focus here is primarily on the bulla of Isaiah, which has attracted the most attention. I’m well aware of scholarly articles that have contested that reading, but for the sake of argument here, I will presume to accept the reading as proposed by Eilat Mazar, mostly because I would like to shift the argument.

My question is: what difference does such a bulla make? Honestly, I think that such an individual object makes hardly a ripple in our reading of history and of the Biblical texts. I will attempt to reply why.

---

Firstly, we already know, through far more extensive texts in various Assyrian and Babylonian sources, that — for the eighth and seventh centuries BC, the history narrated in the Books of Kings is generally reliable. Of course, it is written from a particular theological and ideological position — but this is true also of the Chronicles of Sennacherib, and other sources. Actually, every history (even modern history books) have a narrator, have some form of position, however objective they may attempt to be.

Moreover, the Hebrew Bible is not a single book, but a very complex collection of books. Before we attempt any question on whether the Bible is historical or not, we need to seriously distinguish between the different parts. I tend towards a middle ground position: yes, the further back we go in historical time, the more we are in the realm of foundational narratives, where history and “myth” are quite freely intertwined. By the way, by “myth” here, I do not mean false. Even in modern histories, figures like Churchill or Garibaldi (feel free to add your own) are highly mythologised.

But, by the time we are dealing with the eighth and seventh centuries BC, and so kings like Hezekiah and prophets like Isaiah, we are actually on reasonably secure historical ground. There is no real reason to deny the existence of Hezekiah or Isaiah, and the biblical authors had no reason to invent these figures.

---

Secondly, proving the existence of a Biblical figure, does not prove — in any way, really — that what the Bible narrates about that figure is therefore historically reliable, or — in the case of Isaiah — that, consequently, all the book attributed to Isaiah must come directly from his mouth. Biblical scholarship on the book of Isaiah, has highlighted its complexity, which is beyond the scope of this post.

Let me take this argument — deliberately — to the extreme. On similar grounds, the evidence to the existence of Cardinal Richelieu, chief minister to Louis XIII of France, would prove that Dumas’ The Three Musketeers is undoubtedly historical. We all recognise this position as nonsense, since we understand the genre of historical novel. Similarly, it does not follow that the proof of the existence of a particular figure proves whatever is said about them in a given text. Perhaps, tongue-in-cheek, we could call it the Richelieu Premise.

Of course, it does not prove the contrary either. But such readings cannot be settled by some token find, some holy relic. They require detailed study, both of the ancient texts, biblical and otherwise, and of the archaeological record. It is the cumulative understanding that helps us build the better picture. Bullae, of course, have their place, but only as part of this bigger picture.

---

So what do we know now that we didn’t know before, say about Isaiah? In reality, hardly anything. Presuming the reading is right, we have an article that can be connected to the particular figure. But that is the ancient equivalent of the signed footballers shirt, framed and hanging in the local pub — providing an immediate connection to a particular modern idol, but hardly proving or challenging what we know.

I also feel that such emphasis and publicity can play a dangerous scientific game. It is aimed deliberately to feed the media frenzy for the sensational, to feed the craving of donors to excavations with the promise of the next big thing. Staying in the headlines is a way of guaranteeing money flowing in, getting leeway against other economic and social pressures ( in the face of rampant development, for example), and remain ahead of the competition. It feeds the popular understanding of archaeology as a glorified form of relic and treasure hunting — and, in fairness to Eilat Mazar, and the other archaeologist, their work is far more scientific and nuanced, and deserves better than this.

Unfortunately, it also feeds a very superficial reading of the Biblical text, often a rather more fundamentalist one that refuses to engage with the complexities of the text, in favour of the promise of “proof” and a superficial understanding of inerrancy. I feel that such readings are a disservice to the biblical texts themselves, and — to those like me who come from a religious perspective — a disservice to our own faith, that can grow by engaging with the texts, rather than withdrawing from them.