Scholars Speak Out

024

What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement? What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure? What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest challenge?

BAR asked a wide variety of scholars to answer these three questions. Their replies appear below.

When we made this request, we worried that there would be too much repetition. But, as readers will discover, there is little duplication.

The respondents are a diverse lot of scholars—at all stages of their careers, women and men, New Testament and Hebrew Bible experts, field archaeologists and Bible scholars, Americans and Israelis, some who accept the Bible literally and most who do not. Not surprising, then, that they provide a variety of answers.

The reader will notice a distinct divergence in judgments regarding the extent to which archaeology has illuminated the Bible and the extent to which it should be used for this purpose. Some answers directly contradict others—for instance, David Ussishkin questions the very evidence that Bryant Wood relies on.

Moreover, some scholars say we should keep looking for more evidence of the pre-monarchic period, for example, or of an inscriptional archive; others say we should stop digging because we already have more data than we can absorb, especially because so much of it remains unpublished.

Some are obviously happy with the way we accumulate data. Others are dissatisfied and want archaeology to change direction and concentrate on new and different perspectives.

In short, these answers reflect much of the turmoil of our field but also articulate its accomplishments and hopes for the future. All in all, they provide a remarkable window on where the profession stands at the moment and where it is likely to go in the future.

As usual, however, our readers will have the last word. I suspect that Queries & Comments, BAR 21:05, will include penetrating observations on the “answers” published here.

025

Bernhard W. Anderson

Adjunct Professor of Old Testament at Boston University’s School of Teology, Bernhard Anderson has previously taught at Colgate University, the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the author of the best-selling text Understanding the Old Testament (Prentice Hall, 1986, fourth edition).

In a period of great change, when some have even suggested abandoning Biblical archaeology in favor of more general archaeology of the ancient Near East, this magazine has demonstrated the importance of the enterprise and has taken the lead in bringing archaeological issues before a vast readership. Biblical archaeology’s greatest contribution has been to show that Biblical writings presuppose, and are illuminated by, the world of the ancient Near East, which is open to scientific study.

Biblical writers appeal to the imagination through their use of literary forms, images and patterns of symbolism; but they do not create a world of fiction and fancy. When they speak of or to God, as happens on almost every page, they do so in the context of a real world, where people build cities, fight wars, and experience suffering and dislocation as the tides of history roll on. The question, “What do these stones mean?” (Joshua 4:22) leads to the larger question of the meaning of the Israelite story and of God’s involvement in the unfolding human drama.

The immense archaeological achievement, which is largely the work of the 20th century, has also shown the weakness—some would say the failure—of Biblical archaeology. It has sometimes been supposed that archaeology is a supporter of faith or even that it shows that “the Bible is really true,” to quote the title of a popular book. In an earlier period, back in the days of William F. Albright (1891–1971) and George Ernest Wright (1909–1974), some scholars maintained too enthusiastically that in the Bible faith is a subjective response to objective historical events. But sometimes archaeology challenges the Biblical record (for example, the account of the fall of Jericho and the Israelite conquest of Canaan). Archaeology, which endeavors to pursue scientific method and to follow evidence wherever it leads, cannot—and should not—be expected to support the Biblical record in every respect or to bolster religious faith.

Biblical archaeology’s greatest challenge is to keep the historical, sociological and cultural realism of the Biblical record before the Biblical interpreter, in season and out. Literary critics are tempted to run away from history into “the world of the text,” while theologians are tempted to set forth ideas or doctrines that are timelessly true and universally valid. The archaeologist, without claiming to have theological answers or solutions to literary problems, has the modest—but extremely important—task of keeping the Biblical interpreter in touch with the social, historical and cultural world of the past, which demands consideration by those of us who want to hear what the Biblical texts say to us today.

Joseph Aviram

Joseph Aviram is the long-time director of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Previously also the director of Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology, Aviram serves on the editorial board of Qadmoniot and the Israel Exploration Journal.

I have chosen to focus on the achievements of the Biblical Archaeology Review, rather than Biblical archaeology in general.

It is difficult to believe that 20 years have passed since Biblical Archaeology Review first appeared. The major changes in form, content and scope have transformed it from a modest, small-format, black-and-white-illustrated pamphlet into a full-color magazine with a host of advertisers.

BAR’s greatest achievement is presenting the results of archaeological activity in Israel and making its important accomplishments, projects and major actors known to a very large audience in a lively, popular, readable form. The large number of subscribers shows that BAR is the kind of publication in which the general public takes genuine interest. The exposure and publicity that Israel’s important archaeological activity receives from the circulation of BAR to hundreds of thousands of subscribers throughout the world could hardly be achieved in any other way.

BAR contributes much to building interest in Biblical archaeology. The concept of Biblical archaeology has lately been questioned by some archaeologists. BAR has remained faithful to Biblical archaeology as a valid area of scholarly research.

The color photographs, illustrations and plans presented in BAR are of the highest quality and aid considerably in understanding the texts, as well as provide visual delight.

The information concerning archaeological excavations in Israel publicized in BAR brings many volunteers from all over the world to Israel each year. Their participation in archaeological excavations is an additional contribution to furthering archaeological research in Israel. Each volunteer, in turn, spreads the news of the work of Israel’s archaeologists.

BAR has made a major contribution in publicizing and distributing publications of the Israel Exploration Society, both as co-publisher and as distributer and promoter, thus bringing our publications to the attention of large numbers of people outside of Israel. The Biblical Archaeology Society and the Israel Exploration Society have enjoyed excellent relations over the years, from which both have benefited. The Biblical Archaeology Society was involved in and brought a sizeable group to both the First (1985) and Second (1990) 026International Congress on Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem.

I offer you my congratulations on your 20th anniversary, and express the hope that our cooperation may continue and expand in the future.

Claire Epstein

A leading authority on the Chalcolithic Period, Claire Epstein is preparing the final report on this period in the Golan, which she excavated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s on behalf of Israel’s Department of Antiquities and Museums.

The last 20 years have seen a change of emphasis—from the study of and search for evidence relating to kings and rulers to a study of the lifestyle of the common man, from David and Solomon to the simple ivri (Hebrew), from uncovering public buildings and palaces, or “four-roomed” residences of the well-to-do, as at Hazor, to peasant structures like those found at Hirbet Rosh Zayit and elsewhere.

At the same time, more attention is focused on the effect of the environment on settlement growth and on the impact of contemporary neighboring autochthonous groups on the Israelite population. This tendency has changed the approach of Biblical archaeology. In the days of Sir Flinders Petrie and even later, of William Foxwell Albright, archaeologists stressed every possible link to the Biblical record. More recently, our professional horizons have been considerably broadened, not only by expanding the overall time frame (so as to include much earlier periods) but also by placing Israel in a wider geographical framework. In short, ancient Israel is to be evaluated against a background of the development and achievements of civilization throughout the ancient Near East.

A new generation of archaeologists using sophisticated modern methods in the field, combined with the expertise of specialists in related scientific research, has likewise contributed to advancing our interpretation of excavated data.

The outstanding lacuna is the failure to expedite the decipherment, the publication of and the writing of commentaries on a larger body of material from the great treasure of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is to be regretted that owing to interminable scholarly wrangling and prestige considerations, relatively little of this mine of information has been published to date.

Future challenges for Biblical archaeology may be summarized: We need to implement into Biblical studies existing knowledge concerning the common man during the Biblical and proto-Biblical periods. We are learning more and more of his way of life and his status vis-à-vis urban and rural cultures. We must explore how secular authority relates to sacerdotal authority. We need to investigate the influence of surrounding cults on the beliefs and practices of ancient Israel. Above all, we need to discover additional written Hebrew documents and extra-Biblical epigraphical material that could throw additional light on political, economic and administrative developments during the Iron Age (the period of the Israelite monarchy). The paucity of texts from this period—when writing was not restricted to an educated elite, but was widely used—is somewhat surprising. It is to be hoped that as we approach the 2000s, many more documents will come to light.

Israel Finkelstein

Co-director of excavations at Tel Megiddo, Israel Finkelstein is professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. Former director of excavations at Shiloh, Finkelstein has also dug at Tell Aphek, in southern Sinai and Izbet Sartah.

Before answering the three questions we must first answer: “What is Biblical archaeology?” My approach is to take the term “Biblical archaeology” in its broadest sense.

From the geographical viewpoint, Biblical archaeology covers the lands of the Bible: Canaan/Israel, or Palestine, and the neighboring regions; in other words, the southern Levant. However, excavations at sites beyond these boundaries such as Mari on the Euphrates, which revealed the renowned early second millennium B.C.E. archive that sheds light on the world of the Bible, should be considered no less Biblical archaeology than excavations in the City of David in Jerusalem.

From the chronological point of view, Biblical archaeology deals, first and foremost, with the Biblical period, that is, with the Iron Age (1200–586 B.C.E.), mainly Iron Age II (1000–586 B.C.E.) and the Babylonian and Persian Period (586–332 B.C.E.). But it also deals with earlier times, which provide the social, political and cultural background to the Biblical periods proper. I refer at least to the second millennium B.C.E.; excavating Middle Bronze Age Shiloh, for example, is no less Biblical archaeology than digging the Iron Age I remains of the same site.

From the thematic point of view, Biblical archaeology includes all forms of archaeological research related to the chronological and geographic frameworks set forth above. I called the final report of my Shiloh excavations Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Yet the Biblical treatment in this book is minimal and is concentrated in the concluding chapter. But for me the faunal and botanical remains, the geomorphology of the 027Middle Bronze glacis and the petrographic studies of the pottery all contribute to an understanding of the world of the Bible and the nature of Biblical Shiloh. All this is therefore no less Biblical archaeology than the architecture of tenth-century B.C.E. Megiddo.

Now that the stage is set, I can answer the three questions presented to me by the editor of BAR:

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

The history of archaeological research must be divided into two phases: the formative period (until the 1960s) and our own day.

The greatest achievement of the formative period of Biblical archaeology was to demonstrate the power of archaeology for reconstructing the Biblical scene. Scholars such as William Foxwell Albright and George Ernest Wright in the United States and Yigael Yadin in Israel, in their excavations at sites like Bethel, Shechem and Hazor, caught the imagination of both scholars and laymen and helped put archaeology in a pivotal point of historical and Biblical scholarship. The success of Biblical Archaeology Review is a result of their achievements. Another achievement of this formative period was the establishment of a chronological and terminological framework for Palestinian archaeology.

The greatest achievement of Biblical archaeology in the post-formative period is the demise of the “old Biblical archaeology” and the rise of a “new Biblical archaeology.” The new Biblical archaeology, as described in my introduction to the three questions, can be defined as free of “text-bias”; it has been liberated from text (Biblical) abuse. Yet it does not ignore the text. It realizes that both text and archaeology are open to interpretation in more than one way, and acknowledges the division of the Biblical text into pseudo-history and genuine history. Indeed, it helps to delineate the line between the two. It deals with the material culture of the people of the Biblical lands, draws their settlement maps and investigates their economy, society and political formations.

Finally, the demise of the “old Biblical archaeology” made the debate over the importance and meaning of the “New Archaeology” obsolete. In that sense, most of us today are both “new Biblical archaeologists” and “post New archaeologists.”

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

There are two ways to look at this question: what has been done wrong and what has not been achieved. I wish to deal only with the former. The most obvious failure has been the abuse of the “old Biblical archaeology” by semi-amateur archaeologists. I refer to the romantic days when a special breed of archaeologists roamed the Middle East with a spade in one hand and the Scriptures in the other. These were the times of desperate attempts to prove that the Bible was correct; to reconstruct a cultural and historical background for every Biblical narrative and each Biblical period; to form, with the help of archaeology, a clear logical sequence in the Biblical stories. The most celebrated case during that phase was the quest for Joshua’s conquest. This conservative Biblical archaeology hindered research for half a century. It pushed aside the correct notions of great German Biblical scholars—such as Julius Wellhausen, Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth regarding Biblical history. It derailed research by putting the wrong issues at the center of the scholarly agenda. It also detached the archaeology of the Levant from the great achievements of world archaeology, especially new methods of anthropological archaeology, which were introduced mainly by American prehistorians and archaeologists working in Meso-America and South America.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

Here one could point to methodological refinements needed in our discipline, or to field necessities. But I have chosen to go in a different direction. I believe that today we know quite a lot about the material culture of the people of the Bible; most of us use modern methods of field research; and we are coming close to being able to draw the settlement history of the southern Levant. But there is one great challenge still to be accomplished. That is to uncover an archive in one of the main Biblical sites. Because of the nature of the ancient scripts and the writing material, this will probably be a cuneiform archive of either the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1550 B.C.E.) or the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.E.).

I have no doubt that such an archive will be found. And it will revolutionize Biblical research. It will probably shed direct light on the social, economic and political affairs of the land of the Bible on the eve of the Biblical period. It will also help us understand the religion and rituals of the people in Biblical lands. When unearthed, this archive will be the most important, most spectacular single find in the history of Biblical archaeology.

Philip J. King

Professor of Biblical studies at Boston College, Philip J. King has presided over the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Catholic Biblical Association and the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. He is the author of Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary (Westminster, 1988) and Jeremiah—An Archaeological Companion (Westminster/John Knox, 1993).

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

The development of archaeological method from a treasure hunt to multidisciplinary archaeology.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

The dismal record of archaeological publication.

Archaeologists move from site to site without completing final reports.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

To complete reports on the large number of important digs still unpublished.

I predict that in the next decade there will be much less digging, and much more 028study of remains already excavated.

At the same time, greater effort will be made to synthesize the findings of the same period from many sites. Because this coordination did not occur when sites were being excavated, this must happen when final reports are written.

Fewer young people will do graduate work (at the Ph.D. level) in archaeology, both because the job prospects will not be inviting, and because many fewer graduate departments offering the doctorate will exist.

The day of digging large sites is fast coming to a close. It’s too expensive, for one thing. Digging will be concentrated on one-period sites to solve specific problems. Archaeological surveys will continue to be done, as will salvage excavations.

An incredible amount of undigested material must be studied, synthesized and published before further digging takes place.

Helmut Koester

Helmut Koester is John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University’s Divinity School. He is the author of Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Trinity/SCM, 1992) and Introduction to the New Testament (de Gruyter, 1980; Fortress, 1982).

As a New Testament scholar, I consider Biblical archaeology to be primarily the art of interpreting non-literary materials from the world of the New Testament and ancient Christianity.

One of the great failures of Biblical archaeology, as far as the New Testament is concerned, is its focus on Palestine, in particular Jerusalem and Galilee. Geographically, the area in which most early Christian writings were produced includes preeminently Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, but also Italy and Rome, as well as Syria with its capital at Antioch. The result of the focus on Palestine has been the pursuit of what one of my Marburg teachers called the “archaeology of the empty tomb”; that is, the inordinate concentration on the “places and paths of Jesus” in a misguided attempt to identify the house of Peter, the Pool of Bethzatha or the location of Golgotha.

To be sure, the archaeological exploration of the Holy Land can contribute to the study of the Gospels, but only if the search for monuments related to Jesus is abandoned and replaced by an investigation of the culture, society and religion of Palestine in the first century C.E. Even then, only limited questions regarding the development of the gospel tradition can be located in Palestine. Matthew, Mark and Luke, for example, were composed in a different geographical location and cultural milieu.

Another failure of New Testament archaeology has been the transfer of the approach that searched for monuments related to Jesus to the travels and cities of the apostle Paul. Scholars in early Christian studies rarely attempt to interpret archaeological data for their own sake. Instead, they simply use—often uncritically—archaeological monuments to illustrate Paul’s ministry.

This creates prejudice against New Testament scholars among professional archaeologists in countries like Greece and Turkey. It is assumed that New Testament scholars are interested primarily in scriptural apologetics. As a result professional archaeologists in countries like Greece and Turkey sometimes simply tailor their findings to fulfill these expectations. When I began studying archaeological materials in these countries, I was repeatedly pointed to completely irrelevant monuments, supposedly related to the travels of Paul.

With the exception of a very few scholars excavating in Palestine, New Testament scholarship has for more than half a century lost touch with archaeology and its methods.

What is the greatest achievement of Biblical archaeology in my field of studies? Some may point to the excavation of synagogues in Delos, Sardis, Ostia and Stobae, or to the Jewish and Christian catacomb inscriptions in Rome. Yet all this may just lead us back into the old trap; these materials are not illuminating; instead, they are extremely problematic. The Delos synagogue—Hellenistic, to be sure—has recently turned out to be not “Jewish,” but Samaritan. The synagogue of Sardis can hardly be dated before the middle of the third century C.E. and says nothing about the Jewish community of Sardis at the time of Paul, or even at the time of the second-century Christian bishop Melito of Sardis. Neither the synagogue of Stobae nor that of Ostia can be dated earlier than the beginning of the third century C.E. It is also doubtful whether any of the Jewish catacomb inscriptions can be dated earlier than the third century.

The archaeological evidence for Christian monuments is even worse. Except for the house-church of Dura-Europos, a Christian monument that can be dated with certainty as early as the beginning of the third century C.E. has yet to be found—pace Peter’s tomb in Rome under the Vatican.

The fact is that there are no great achievements. And such achievements will certainly not come from the excavation of Christian or Jewish monuments from an earlier period.

The beginning of a fresh understanding can be discerned, however. We are slowly beginning to learn that the archaeology of early Christianity is closely related to the study of society, culture and religion of the Roman imperial period. Instead of moving from the literature of Hellenistic and Roman times to the literature of early Christianity, and then illustrating the results with archaeological materials, we are beginning to understand that the task is more complex. Both literary and non-literary data from the world of the early Christians are merely raw materials that can help us understand the culture of the time—that is, the Greco-Roman culture, with its religions (including the imperial cult), associations, benefactor inscriptions, living quarters, public baths and aqueducts, merchant records and market regulations, imports and exports, female cultic officials, manumissions of slaves and burials of freedmen and freedwomen.

Archaeological materials allow us to consider how common people understood the honorary inscription for the patron Plancia 029Magna of Perge, or the reliefs depicting the battle between divine and evil forces on the famous Altar of Zeus at Pergamon, or the wall paintings of the synagogue at Dura-Europos. Rather than interpreting early Christian literature in the limited context of the Hellenistic and Roman literary traditions, it is possible to view early Christian history and writings in the wider context of the city cultures of the Greco-Roman world.

What is the greatest challenge that faces New Testament scholars engaged in the investigation of archaeological materials? The two most important tasks might seem to be the application of social and anthropological methods to the study of archaeological data and the excavation of new sites. Although the refining of interpretive methods is always desirable, it must be done with a view to both the possibilities and the limitations of an enterprise. Some studies are overburdened with theoretical conclusions and work with insufficient data. As long as not a single Jewish artifact from the first two centuries C.E. has been uncovered from Corinth or Thessalonike, for example, it makes little sense to talk about the social composition of the Jewish communities of these cities. On the other hand, archaeological studies rarely include religious and theological concerns. One reads much about social classes and status, but little about piety or worship.

Plenty of materials have been excavated. Expert archaeologists, epigraphers, art historians, numismatists and other specialists are available to interpret the material. There is little discourse, however, between these experts and New Testament scholars. Thus the greatest challenge for Biblical archaeology in the field of early Christian studies is to understand and interpret the excavated material from the perspective of New Testament scholarship.

It is of the utmost importance that New Testament scholars participate in the interpretation of archaeological materials. No one in our field would uncritically rely on results provided by philological experts when dealing with ancient literature. Similarly, we cannot blindly adopt the conclusions presented to us by our archaeological colleagues, however significant their interpretation might be. Archaeology is a field in which results are constantly adjusted according to new discoveries in ongoing excavations. Unfortunately, New Testament scholars are often 20, sometimes 50, years behind the times. For example, commentaries on the Revelation of John still refer to the “Temple of Domitian” in Ephesus. New interpretations of the inscriptions relating to the dedication of this temple, as recently confirmed by New Testament scholar Steven Friesen, have shown that it was not a temple of Domitian but of all three Flavian emperors.^a This may well be relevant for the interpretation of Revelation.

New Testament scholars simply do not have sufficient knowledge about the primary archaeological data—their provenance, date, context and the often hypothetical character of their interpretation. On the other hand, archaeologists often lack the required sophistication in the critical interpretation of early Christian literature—for example, whether the Book of Acts is an accurate historical account of Paul’s missionary activity.

Moreover, materials of interest to scholars of religion are not necessarily the most important data for an art historian or an architect. If we New Testament scholars do not make known our interest in the materials concerning religious developments of the Roman period, such materials may be ignored or forgotten. New Testament scholars should not pretend to be miniature experts in archaeology; our business is understanding the literature and its theology. But our questions to archaeologists must at least be informed. And not a few archaeological discoveries call for a joint effort of interpretation: For example, a complex religious building may need the judgment of an expert architect as well as a scholar of religion. Because of the amount of material discovered and the slow pace of publication, we need more opportunities to collaborate in the publication of this material, especially to indicate what value it may have for New Testament scholarship.

Menahem Mansoor

Menahem Mansoor is professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he founded the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies and the Madison Biblical Archaeological Society. He is the author of The Thanksgiving Hymns (Brill/Eerdmans, 1961).

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

Biblical archaeology has recovered from the sands and caves of the Near East some exciting discoveries such as Jericho, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugarit, Ebla, Akkadian texts and more. The past 100 years have added quite a few centuries to the story of the growth of mankind’s Western culture and the Judeo-Christian religious heritage.

Biblical archaeology has greatly enhanced the study of the Biblical texts and its history. Accuracy has been assured by the thorough way in which the natural and physical sciences have become essential partners in the excavations and in the interpretation of the finds. Biblical archaeology’s greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

Biblical archaeology has failed to deter people who seek to validate religious concepts by archaeological finds. These people should not confuse fact with faith, history with tradition, or science with religion. As American archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it, “Faith is a personal matter and not subject to scientific inquiry.”

Some archaeologists attempt to identify what they find with what they want to find. Take the case of Sir Leonard Wooley who, excavating in Mesopotamia in 1929, declared about his findings: “I have found the Flood!”

Biblical archaeology has not restrained some “scholars” approaching the interpretation of texts and artifacts with deliberate and intentional religious or political bias, resulting in chaotic and dangerous conclusions, such as the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, “Noah’s 030Ark,” the “Jerusalem and Bethlehem in Saudi Arabia” theory, and more.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

1. To discourage “phony” archaeologists and others who misuse Biblical archaeology to promote their own religious beliefs, concepts and rituals. Ron Rosenbaum described them as “scholars, mystics and Messiah freaks who have been driven mad searching for fingerprints of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have generated conspiracy theories and religious fantasies.” (Vanity Fair, November 1992)

2. To introduce the science of archaeology—a technical subject—to a non-technical audience, without sacrificing either objective scholarship or clarity, as in Biblical Archaeology Review.

3. To formulate a code of professional ethics for Biblical archaeology to be adopted by professional archaeological societies associated with Biblical studies.

Amihai Mazar

Amihai Mazar is professor of archaeology at Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology. Director of excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, Mazar has also led digs at Tell Qasile, Tel Batash and Giloh. He is the author of Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (Doubleday, 1990) and Excavations at Tell Qasile, Qedem 12 and 20 (1981, 1985).

The scope of “Biblical archaeology” must first be determined. Does it mean the archaeology of the Land of the Bible, the modern states of Israel and Jordan? Or does it mean the archaeology of the entire ancient Near East? Assuming that the first definition is used here, my answer to BAR’s question would be as follows:

1. Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement cannot be defined as a single great discovery, though there have been incredible discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. My viewpoint may appear quite provincial, but I believe Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement is the extent to which it has flourished in Israel. In three generations of research, Israeli archaeology has grown to an impressive accomplishment. I know of no other country in the world where, relative to the size of the population, there are as many archaeologists, archaeological projects, academic departments of archaeology, students of archaeology and archaeological museums. The Israel Antiquities Authority has become a thriving center of activity and study, using modern research techniques, with numerous publications. This wide-scale activity has yielded a rich and varied harvest of new discoveries and new conclusions concerning many subjects and problems in Biblical archaeology, including the archaeology of Jerusalem, the Israelite settlement in Canaan and the development of Israelite religion and theology.

2. The greatest failure of Biblical archaeology is the lack of sufficient final reports of excavations. Many excavations carried out in the Near East, including many in Israel, remain unpublished. Since archaeological activity is destructive by nature, final reports are essential in order for scholars to check and study the results of their colleagues. The publication of such meticulous reports is not a simple matter and it takes years of technical work. Yet it must be considered a basic component of all archaeological activity.

3. The greatest challenge of Biblical archaeology is continually to improve professional standards and research methods, to increase involvement of international archaeological teams, and to obtain more research funding. If political conditions change, I would like to see Israeli archaeology integrated with the archaeology of neighboring countries, thus creating a wider contextual background for understanding the world of the Bible.

Ya’akov Meshorer

Chief curator of archaeology at the Israel Museum, in Jerusalem, Ya’akov Meshorer is also associate professor of archaeology at Hebrew University. He is the world’s leading authority on ancient Jewish coins.

It seems to me that in recent decades Biblical research has become totally dependent on archaeological finds. These finds, from pottery sherds to written documents, are the only objective material for academic research.

In most sciences today, especially natural sciences, work is done by a team, and results are published by more than just one person, sometimes even by a whole group. Biblical archaeology can no longer be considered a one-man show. It is high time that Biblical archaeology, or any kind of archaeology, be more teamwork oriented. The study of archaeology involves the knowledge and understanding of ancient 031civilizations, which sometimes differ tremendously from each other. Every discipline demands its own unique research, and it is no longer accepted that an archaeologist can combine the knowledge of all these various civilizations. Therefore, experts must be consulted for each of the finds unearthed by a given archaeologist.

The sensitive science of Biblical archaeology should be free of politics and should not be used to further political aims, either by individual scholars or by countries. There should be more cooperation, despite the fact that Bible Lands are in a region of dispute between nations and religions. I wish to see the day when pure research will be carried out by those individuals in the Middle East whose only concern now is adjusting archaeological finds to political ideas or concealing important evidence from their political enemies.

Keith N. Schoville

Keith Schoville is professor of Hebrew and Semitic studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Author of Bible Review’s Hebrew for Bible Readers column, Schoville wrote Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Baker, 1979).

I will celebrate the 20th anniversary of BAR as enthusiastically as anyone, because it has been a source of information, intellectual stimulation, aesthetic appreciation and much, much more to me over the years. You have done more than most of your critics to arouse interest in archaeology in the Lands of the Bible and (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra’s song) “not in a shy way, you’ve done it your way.”

Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement has been to bring the past into the present, to clothe the imaginary with robes of reality. Under the stimulus of Biblical accounts most of us imagine the individuals and events of its world. Archaeology recovers bits and pieces of a world that we can see, touch, feel and even taste (some of my field archaeologist friends when “reading” pottery touch it to their tongues!). The sensual connection with the remnants of the past—be it experienced in the field on a dig, in a museum or exhibit, or through graphic representation as in BAR—grips skeptic and saint alike with a sense of historical reality.

Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure? The failure to publish results in a timely manner. We experience irretrievable losses when the archaeologists most intimately involved in excavations die with their intuitive interpretations still in their minds and not on paper.

Biblical archaeology’s greatest challenge is twofold: first, to attempt to publish results in a timely manner; second, to give the Bible greater historical credibility in interpretation. Why should we be severely skeptical of the human events recorded in the Bible? Let the art of archaeological interpretation be balanced by an appreciation of our greatest literary artifact—the Bible, a work written by honest, God-fearing authors.

Paula Wapnish

Paula Wapnish is a research associate in the Anthropology Department of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. A zooarchaeologist, Wapnish has worked at Ashkelon, Tell Jemmeh and Megiddo.

Biblical archaeology’s achievements have been both physical and cerebral. The volunteer system developed for digging in Israel has provided a wonderful means for introducing thousands to the excitement of the field and the provocative mystique of the Middle East. This has no parallel elsewhere in the world.

The primary intellectual achievements of Biblical archaeology, especially in the last two decades, have been to detach interpretation from claims of faith and to recognize that artifacts don’t just “flesh out the skeleton” provided by written accounts, but constitute an independent historical record. Paradoxically, this still remains Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure. There is still too great a dependence on the Biblical text for defining research problems and structuring methodology, which in turn constrains interpretation.

Biblical archaeology continues to operate in a culture-historical mode that emphasizes typological and stratigraphic details without a parallel theoretical structure for establishing meaning in the materials described. Biblical archaeologists never fully adopted the research program of the New Archaeology, despite the appearance of monographs that included specialists’ reports (botanical, zoological, geological, geochemical/physical, materials science, and so forth). Specialists were never called on to define research objectives, and their results ultimately contributed little to the overall interpretation of a site’s history. The whole approach idled at the near-useless level of “Appendix Archaeology,” in which the specialists’ reports were included in appendices.

Today the “New Archaeology” is very definitely the OLD “New Archaeology.” It has been seriously challenged by post-processual archaeology, a reaction to the positivist excesses that “New Archaeology” eventually spawned. Post-processualism emphasizes such issues as gender, class hegemony, ethnicity and the relativity of knowledge in a 032more historical framework. Although some of these approaches and issues have been addressed by Biblical text historians, for the most part they have not yet percolated through to the archaeologists. Since post-processual archaeology addresses problems of intentionality and meaning that Biblical archaeology has also engaged but has only nibbled at for decades, post-processual archaeology can potentially provide a new direction in which to better define and address these problems.

The city-state model of archaeological research, in which each site with its dig director becomes the primary focus of research, has hampered understanding. This research design places regional integration at the synthetic rather than the analytic level and precludes the application of our most powerful quantitative models for the comparison of assemblages. In a world where research funds are shrinking and expeditions halfway around the world are growing costlier by the year, there is a desperate need for wider cooperation between teams investigating regional problems, for example the Madaba Plains project.

Several recommendations can be offered. Greater emphasis should be placed on the excavation of the smaller settlements that supported large cities, something the Israel Antiquities Authority has been pursuing. Teams investigating regional problems need to coordinate excavation procedures and typological structures to make possible the reliable comparison of the artifacts excavated. Specialists need to be brought onto the teams at the beginning of project planning, so that full advantage can be taken of their increasingly sophisticated technical skills. The success of prehistoric projects such as Kebara Cave, located in the Carmel Range, and Hayonim Cave, in the Lower Galilee, with their international, interdisciplinary teams, could serve as a model.

David Ussishkin

A professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, David Ussishkin has chaired that university’s archaeology and ancient Near Eastern studies department and has headed its Institute of Archaeology. He is co-director of excavations at Megiddo and directed the major excavations at Lachish. He is the author of The Village of Silwan (Israel Exploration Society/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1993) and The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv Univ. Institute of Archaeology, 1982).

What is meant by Biblical archaeology and what are its aims? It seems to me that Biblical archaeology deals with the archaeology of Palestine during the Biblical period and aims at providing information on the material culture of that period. This information is used to elucidate our understanding of the Biblical world, its history, its culture and its written texts. Palestine is an integral part of the Near East. Just as Biblical history focuses on the study of Palestine against the background of the entire region, Biblical archaeology does likewise. As the discipline of archaeology should properly study all material remains of all periods in a given country, Biblical archaeology certainly deals also with remains that are not directly associated with Biblical history. Nevertheless, Biblical history provides the “inspiration” for all those who study the material culture of that general period in Palestine.

Biblical archaeology is a technical, subsidiary discipline: Its duty is to find factual data and to provide their immediate interpretation, but no more. Once the archaeological data have been uncovered and studied in an unbiased manner, they should be presented as “raw material” to the Biblical scholar, the historian, the sociologist or the art historian for integration and broader interpretation in their own studies. Hence, the archaeologist should concentrate on the objective study of the material culture, but should refrain from becoming involved in other disciplines. He should act as an unbiased police detective whose aim is to uncover all the data concerning a given problem and to provide initial interpretation of the data.

In my own work, I am inspired by the spirit of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot (invented by Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie), who sought to conduct their investigations in a scientific, systematic, meticulous, scrupulous and—most important—objective manner. The Biblical archaeologist should aim to elucidate the data and should refrain from turning himself into a historian or theologian. Ideally, the data provided by the Biblical archaeologist will be sufficient to solve the problems, but if the data are insufficient, the archaeologist should present results in an objective manner, leave the problem unsolved or indicate a number of alternative solutions and rack his brains for how to find additional data that will help narrow the gap in our knowledge.

Based on these views, I will try to answer the three questions.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

A fundamental question asked all over the world during the last two centuries is, Is the Bible true? Do the narratives related in it represent real events and are the figures mentioned there real people who lived and acted as the Biblical text tells us they did?

Archaeological data provide clear indications relevant to certain Biblical accounts. In general, the evidence of material culture fits the Biblical account beginning with the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. Hence, archaeological data are consistent with the view that at least this part of the Biblical account is, in general, true and historically based. On the other hand, the archaeological data hardly fit—or even contradict—the earlier stories of the Bible, such as the stories of the Flood, the patriarchs, the sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus, and Joshua’s military conquest of Canaan in a single campaign. In other words, archaeological data do not support the historicity of the earlier part of the Biblical story.

As explained above, the discipline of archaeology can provide the data but must leave the other issues to others. Therefore, archaeology cannot—and should not—answer whether the Bible is “true” or not. Nevertheless, the ability to present the above data, to be used by historians, Biblical scholars and theologians in their evaluations and interpretations, is to my mind Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement.

033

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure is the continuous attempt in the last 150 years to provide answers that it is unable to supply, instead of presenting objective data in the manner related above. As a result, all kinds of inaccurate solutions are given to problems by archaeologists and then accepted by Biblical scholars and the public. The damage is obvious: When biased concepts are accepted and presented as facts, the true picture is distorted and the credibility of the discipline of Biblical archaeology is damaged. Let me cite three recent examples:

1. It is generally accepted that King Solomon erected a large four-entryway city-gate at Megiddo. The attribution of the gateway—popularly known as “the Solomonic Gate”—to Solomon is based on a (subjective!) interpretation of a Biblical verse (1 Kings 9:15: Solomon “fortified” Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer). Some archaeologists have given that verse priority over the stratigraphic evidence uncovered at Tel Megiddo. But, as clearly indicated by the stratigraphy of Tel Megiddo, this gateway is later than the time of Solomon. In my view, poor old King Solomon must be turning in his grave whenever this gatehouse is attributed to him.^b

2. Recent scholarly discussions concerning the walls of Jericho and the supposed Israelite conquest of the city are another example. A massive Middle Bronze Age stone rampart, popularly known as the “Cyclopaean Wall,” was uncovered at that site. Recently, BAR published a beautiful reconstruction of these walls showing them under attack (“Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?” BAR 16:02). The truth, however, is that the huge stone ramparts were merely foundation walls that were hidden from view since their construction. Middle Bronze Age Jericho was in fact protected by a very modest mudbrick city wall. However, the rather problematic, but true, technical facts were forgotten in the enthusiastic efforts by archaeologists to make use of the archaeological data to interpret a Biblical text.

3. Recently, a large site from the period of Israelite settlement was excavated on the summit of Mt. Ebal. This is undoubtedly a key site for the study of the period, and apparently was also associated with cult practices. At this point archaeological interpretation should have stopped; however, a stone structure has been identified by archaeologists as an “altar.” A stone fence was turned into an access “ramp” for the priests, and the newly created central Israelite altar was connected with Joshua and even with rules of the Mishnah! All by archaeologists! See the beautiful reconstruction of the “altar” published in “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found On Mt. Ebal?” BAR 11:01.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

The archaeological data regarding the Biblical period uncovered since the 19th century fill thousands of books and articles. Most Biblical archaeologists today consider the vast volume of material sufficient to carry out additional, broader research in other directions, such as political history, social history, Biblical texts, theology, history of religions, etc. But the basic archaeological picture is still obscure. In many, if not most, cardinal subjects, the archaeological evidence is partial, ambiguous or even nil. Furthermore, much data already excavated have not yet been published and thus can hardly be of any use. In many cases, conclusions are based on concepts rather than facts and proofs. Let me cite two examples:

1. The archaeological data uncovered in various sites, such as Beth-Shean, Megiddo and Lachish, indicate a strong Egyptian influence in Canaan during the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses III in the 12th century B.C.E. Our knowledge of the nature of the Egyptian influence is not clear due to the partial and ambiguous character of the data. While many scholars believe that Egypt dominated Canaan at that time, others interpret the evidence merely as indications of cultural influence. Hardly any evidence is available regarding the relationship between the “Sea Peoples” (Philistines) and the Egyptians. Did the Egyptian pharaoh settle the “Sea Peoples” in Canaan as most scholars believe? Or did the “Sea Peoples” force the Egyptians out of Canaan and then settle there themselves? This is only one example.

2. Fortification systems uncovered in a number of Iron Age settlements in southern Palestine, such as Tel Gezer, Tell Beit Mirsim and Tel Beersheba were dated by their excavators to the tenth century B.C.E., the period of the United Monarchy. These fortifications were dated conceptually, rather than on the basis of sound proof; possibly they are later in date. Whether those towns were fortified before or after the end of the United Monarchy is a question with far-reaching historical implications.

Biblical archaeology’s most important challenge is to concentrate on elucidation of basic archaeological data: To discover new data, to evaluate afresh data uncovered long ago and to analyze and publish the data that have not yet been published. This is the challenge, rather than focusing on Biblical and social interpretations. Once a detailed stratigraphical picture and an accurate chronological scheme for Palestine in the Biblical period are established, and a sufficiently large corpus of sound data is available for further research, this challenge will be met. So much basic work still needs to be done that I doubt the present generation of archaeologists will be able to complete it.

Bryant G. Wood

Bryant Wood is director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. He has taught at Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College, the University of Toronto and Faith Theological Seminary. He co-directed the Northern Jordan Dam Survey Project and was field supervisor at Khirbet Nisya.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

The purpose of Biblical archaeology is to enhance our comprehension of the Bible, and so its greatest achievement, in my view, has been the extraordinary illumination of the Iron Age II period, that is, the time of the Israelite monarchy, c. 1000–586 B.C.E. So rich are the discoveries that Philip King has written archaeological commentaries on the eighth-century prophets Amos, Hosea and Micah^c and the late-seventh-early-sixth-century prophet Jeremiah.^d We have epigraphic, architectural and artifactual discoveries that illuminate Biblical history, culture and life.

Two adjacent late 11th-century temples at Beth-Shean have been associated with the two temples where Saul’s armor and head were placed following his death at the hands of the Philistines on Mt. Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:10; 1 Chronicles 10:6–10).

A large pool at Gibeon is no doubt the pool where the forces of Israel’s second king, David, fought under Joab against the forces of Saul’s son Ishbosheth under Abner (2 Samuel 2:12–17).

Some believe that the Jebusite water system in the City of David in Jerusalem is the tsinnor by which Joab was able to wrest the city from the Jebusites in about 1003 B.C.E. 034(2 Samuel 5:6–10; 1 Chronicles 11:4–9).^e

A recently discovered inscription at Tel Dan from the mid-ninth century mentions the “House of David,” a reference to the dynasty that lasted from David (c. 1010–970 B.C.E.) until the end of the Judahite monarchy in the early sixth century.^f

Probably the most famous of the architectural finds related to the kingdom period are the early tenth-century “Solomonic gates” at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer, built by David’s son Solomon (1 Kings 9:15–17). Other structures uncovered at all three sites are attributed to Solomon’s engineers as well. The gate at Gezer was preceded by a destruction thought to be that of the pharaoh who gave the city to his daughter, Solomon’s wife, as a wedding gift (1 Kings 9:16).

Following Solomon’s death, the monarchy split into a Northern Kingdom (Israel) under Jeroboam and a Southern Kingdom (Judah) under Solomon’s son Rehoboam. One of Jeroboam’s first acts as king was to establish cult centers at Dan and Bethel, the northern and southern extremes of his territory (1 Kings 12:28–30). At the site of Dan, Jeroboam’s high place and cult center from the late tenth century have been found.^g

Following the Solomonic phase at Gezer, another destruction overtook the city, apparently that of Pharaoh Shishak in c. 925 (1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chronicles 12:2–9). Destructions at other sites also have been ascribed to this pharaoh. On the epigraphic side, we have an Egyptian record of Shishak’s Palestinian campaign, as well as a fragment of a memorial stela set up by Shishak at Megiddo. An early ninth-century palace-fort at Lachish is believed to be the work of Rehoboam, just after Shishak’s raid (2 Chronicles 11:5–12).

Tell el-Farah North, identified by most scholars as Tirzeh, capital of the Northern Kingdom for a time, was destroyed in the early ninth century, probably the result of Zimri (who ruled for only seven days) setting fire to his palace when attacked by Omri (1 Kings 16:15–18). A rebuild of the city was started, but left unfinished, evidently when Omri decided to move his capital to Samaria (1 Kings 16:23–24).

At Samaria, the early ninth-century royal buildings of both Omri (1 Kings 16:23–24) and his son Ahab (1 Kings 16:29–32, 22:39) have been brought to light. Even some of the ivory inlay from Ahab’s palace has been found (1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15, 6:4). The royal city of Jezreel, built by Ahab (1 Kings 18:45, 21:1) and destroyed by Jehu in c. 841 (2 Kings 9:14–10:11) is now being excavated by Israeli and British archaeologists.

From Dhibon in Jordan comes the Mesha Stele, dating to c. 850 B.C.E., which records Moab’s revolt against Israel (2 Kings 3:4); Omri, king of Israel (1 Kings 16:16–28); the tribe of Gad (“men of Gad”); Chemosh, god of the Moabites (Numbers 21:29; Judges 11:24; 1 Kings 11:7, 33; 2 Kings 23:13; Jeremiah 48:7, 13, 46); and Yahweh, God of the Israelites.

A group of ostraca from the early eighth century found in Samaria record the receipt of oil and wine coming from the region around Samaria. Many of the ostraca (those dated “year 15”) include the name of the clan in the district where the commodity was produced. A total of seven clan names are preserved (Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, Noah and Hoglah), all known from the list of clans in the tribe of Manasseh recorded in Numbers 26:29–34 and Joshua 17:2–3. This indicates that customs from Israel’s earlier tribal history survived well into the kingdom period.

Cracked stones and fallen and leaning walls found at Gezer and other eighth-century sites bring us face-to-face with the stark reality of the words of the prophet Amos: “The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—what he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel” (Amos 1:1).

An inscription on a small ivory pomegranate from the mid-eighth century, purchased on the antiquities market, mentions the “house of Yahweh,” a reference to Solomon’s Temple.^h

A plaster text found at Deir Alla in Jordan, also from the mid-eighth century, records a vision of Balaam, son of Beor, apparently the same Balaam who was hired to curse the Israelites (Numbers 22–24).ⁱ There are a number of similarities between the two accounts: The events described in Numbers 22–24 took place on the Plains of Moab, only 25 miles south of Deir Alla; in the inscription, the same name for God, Shadday, is used as is found in Numbers 24:4 and 16. The wording in the two texts is similar.

From Assyria, we have Tiglath-Pileser III’s record of his campaign against Israel in 732, mentioning the taking of captives and the fact that Hoshea replaced Pekah as king of Israel (2 Kings 15:29–30, 16:7–9).

Sargon II recorded the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians in 722/721 B.C.E. after a three-year siege, apparently carried out by his predecessor Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:3–6, 24; 18:9–11). Sargon’s inscriptions also mention his conquest of Ashdod about a decade later in 712 B.C.E., alluded to by the prophet Isaiah (20:1). Fragments of a victory stela erected by Sargon in Ashdod have also been recovered.

Destruction layers have been found that can be correlated with these campaigns. The archaeological evidence suggests that toward the end of the eighth century Jerusalem expanded westward, apparently to accommodate refugees fleeing from the north.

Both the Taylor Prism and the Oriental Institute Prism (hexagonal clay figures bearing inscriptions) record Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah in 701 B.C.E. during Hezekiah’s reign (1 Kings 18:13–16; Isaiah 36:1). Hezekiah is mentioned by name in these inscriptions. They say that 46 fortified cities of Judah were destroyed; Hezekiah was confined in Jerusalem.

An undated sculptured relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh depicts the siege of Lachish, undoubtedly the event referred to in 2 Chronicles 32:9 and Isaiah 36:2.^j Burn layers at many sites seem to be related to Sennacherib’s campaign. The Siloam Inscription, found inside the southern end of Hezekiah’s Tunnel under the city of David, describes the construction of the tunnel. Hezekiah commissioned the construction of this engineering feat in conjunction with his preparations for Sennacherib’s attack 035(2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:3–4, 30).^k

Among the “Babylonian Chronicles” we have a record of the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E. (2 Kings 24:10–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10). Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, the young king who was on the throne in 597 B.C.E. was taken captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24:15; 2 Chronicles 36:10). Ration records discovered at Babylon list provisions given to “Jehoiachin, king of Judah,” “the five sons of the king of Judah” and the “men from Judah.”

A letter from a fortress at Arad in the Negev dating to the early sixth century B.C.E. mentions the “Temple of Yahweh,” an apparent reference to Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.^l Letters found at Lachish reflect conditions during the last days of the Judahite monarchy. From the early sixth century B.C.E., ash levels at Lachish and Jerusalem give witness to the Babylonian onslaught of 587 B.C.E.

Other inscriptions, seals and seal impressions document Biblical personalities. All told, some two-score Biblical personalities from the kingdom period are known from contemporary epigraphic sources outside the Bible. Additional architectural discoveries have provided information on the homes, religious structures, public buildings and fortifications of the kingdom period. Small finds add to our knowledge of the utensils of everyday life such as cooking and eating implements, jewelry, weapons and religious items. Burials give us a glimpse into funerary practices and preparation for the afterlife.

All in all, the discoveries of archaeology have given us an extensive and detailed picture of the kingdom period of Biblical history.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure has been the inability to unlock the pre-monarchic period of Biblical history. Although great strides have been made in recent years in understanding the so-called “settlement period,” the time of Israel’s sedentarization in the 12th century B.C.E., little headway has been made in illuminating Israel’s history prior to this time, the nation’s prehistory, if you will. Many scholars evade this issue simply by denying the existence of Israel before the 12th century. But that is not the answer—archaeological evidence and the Biblical tradition strongly suggest that Israel indeed had a prehistory. Exploring that prehistory is challenging: It requires tracing the archaeological record of a pastoral community, rather than an agrarian-based political entity that built cities and made contacts with surrounding nations.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

Our greatest challenge is to address our greatest failure. To allow a greater understanding of the Bronze Age in Palestine, we need to develop more sophisticated techniques for collecting and analyzing data. Such insight, I believe, will illuminate the prehistory of the people of Israel.

Edwin Yamauchi

Edwin Yamauchi is professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. A former senior editor of Christianity Today, Yamauchi wrote The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Baker, 1980) and The World of the First Christians (Lions, 1981).

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Achievement

As a historian, I am especially interested in the recovery of ancient texts. Many of the great text discoveries, such as the Amarna tablets, the Nag Hammadi Codices in Egypt, and the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, were not made by professional archaeologists. Some discoveries were even made by scholars in museum storerooms, such as Alan Millard’s finding of the Atrahasis Epic in the British Museum.

In a few cases, specific texts have been recovered by archaeologists. Some of these helped to confirm Biblical passages that had been questioned by critics. For example, the Yaukin tablet recovered in the excavations of Babylon by Robert Koldewey (1899–1917), which was not published until 1932 by Ernst Weidner, explicitly confirms 2 Kings 25:27–30, which speaks about the exiled Jehoiachin’s rations, a situation previously questioned by C. C. Torrey.

More recently (1981–1986), A. Thomas Kraabel questioned the references to “God-fearers” in the Book of Acts.^m In 1976, an important inscription was discovered at Aphrodisias, in southwestern Turkey, which, however, was not fully published until 1987. This text offers indirect evidence for Luke’s references to “God-fearers.”

Though there was no reason to doubt David’s existence, there were some who did so. Avraham Biran’s discovery of the “David” inscription at Dan in 1993 is a welcome confirmation.ⁿ

The fact is that the first inscriptional evidence for Pontius Pilate was only discovered in 1961 at Caesarea.^o

All this should remind us of the extremely fragmentary nature of archaeological evidence.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Failure

Neither Egyptian nor Israelite data have been able to settle the issue of the date, route and nature of the Exodus. It is rather disappointing, but not entirely unexpected, that archaeological surveys andexcavations have been unable to provide a more clear-cut picture of the emergence of Israel in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age that could be correlated with the Biblical texts. This is a major failure.

Biblical Archaeology’s Greatest Challenge

Numerous large sites, such as Megiddo and Hazor, have much yet to reveal. Some sites, such as Philistine Gath, have not been conclusively identified. Many important archives await fuller publication, such as most of the 25,000 texts from Mari. These are far more important for the background they provide for the Biblical patriarchs than are the recently touted Ebla texts.

What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievement? What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure? What is Biblical archaeology’s greatest challenge?

BAR asked a wide variety of scholars to answer these three questions. Their replies appear below.