For more than 40 years, I have been studying the ancient Near East and its cultures through archaeology. I have been especially interested in the documents that have been uncovered—mostly cuneiform tablets. My aim has been to make the results known both for their own sake and for their relation to the Bible.
A continuing flood of archaeological evidence now illustrates the world of the Bible—its history, languages, religions, traditions and customs. Sometimes, as a result of this archaeological evidence, the Biblical narrative is confirmed; in other instances, its interpretation is controlled by the new archaeological information.a
There has recently been considerable discussion as to what to call the effort to study the archaeological materials insofar as they relate to the Bible.b I prefer the designation “Biblical archaeology”; it is an honest description of an integrated study of both archaeology and the Bible. The close interrelation of the two disciplines is essential and should not mean any undue selection of evidence as may occur in “Syro-Palestinian” or “Israelite” archaeology.
In times past, it was considerably more difficult to enter the world of the Bible than it is now. Today, the effort is facilitated by a number of reliable and readable English translations of the Bible.
Archaeology also makes it much easier today to enter the world of the Bible. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of the archaeological discoveries and still bring to their consideration of the Bible presuppositions that it may not be authoritative, trustworthy or relevant.
This leads to my concern at some of the barriers that prevent wide dissemination of this new archaeological knowledge, despite the welcome progress of journals like BAR, Bible Review and Biblical Archaeologist.
The first and perhaps most important barrier is the bottleneck of publication—the failure promptly to make available the information as it comes out of the ground.
The problem is not so simple, however. Despite the clamor that every find should be published fully and without delay, this is not always feasible. The amount of material is too great. When faced with such a mass of material, it is necessary to give priority treatment to some categories and to let other categories sit on the shelf, at least for a while. Difficult decisions must be made on the basis of incomplete knowledge. Let me give one example, based on personal experience.
In 1956 I published nine cuneiform texts that had lain unrecorded in the British Museum since sometime between 1872 and 1889.1 These clay tablets were among some 90,000 such tablets received in the museum at a time when there was not sufficient trained staff even to catalogue them. The texts I published were in fact part of the Babylonian Chronicles that give precise and accurate information on such matters as the Battle of Carchemish, between the Babylonians and the Egyptians in 605 B.C.; the hitherto unknown major clash four years later between the same world powers, which 062resulted in stalemate and in Jehoiakim of Judah switching his allegiance to Egypt; the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians under the onslaught of Nebuchadnezzar on March 15/16, 591 B.C.;c the replacement of Jehoiachin by Zedekiah/Mattaniah as ruler of Judah in that same year; and the beginning of the Jewish Exile in Babylon.
If these texts had been published earlier, they would have saved much erroneous speculation about these events. Yet all 90,000 unpublished tablets could not have been published promptly. But these particular tablets—in a good state of preservation and limited in number—should have been given priority treatment.
The tardiness of some scholars assigned certain categories of texts for study is another barrier to knowledge. It is currently being widely discussed in connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls.d
Aside from the problems of priority and tardiness, we must also face the question of selectivity. We cannot publish every detail that comes out of a dig. Modern excavation methods have produced ever more careful—and voluminous—records. The “new archaeology,” with its emphasis on specialization and on the use of ever wider types of scientific data in evaluating a site, has resulted in a mass of new details. Selectivity in publication is thus being forced upon us; it is simply not practical or economical to present all this material in detail, even though meticulous records of everything should be kept for future reference and made publicly accessible.
In 1953 I published the texts found by Sir Leonard Woolley at his last dig—at ancient Alalakh (‘Atshanah), now in Syria. But it was not a complete publication. Instead it consisted of a catalogue of 456 texts with translations of typical texts, as well as a number of cuneiform copies and transcriptions.2 This method seemed justified in the light of the limited two years allowed for production of the volume. My idea was to give sufficient detail of the many legal and administrative lists to enable others with special interests to build on this foundation.
I was severely criticized for publishing the texts in this limited way, but I still feel I made the right decision. The texts provide details of a local culture (much as the Ebla tablets do) and give some background for the language and customs of the patriarchal age in Syria in the mid-second millennium B.C. Woolley’s professed aim was always to “dig to fill a gap in history”; he had chosen this site in the hope of finding links to the west (the eastern Mediterranean) and the north (Greece). In 063this he was largely unsuccessful. It was therefore important to show that this aim had not been realized, as he was among the first to acknowledge. A reorientation toward the excavated material was required. To accomplish this, a prompt but limited publication seemed the most practical course.
In these same years, we were also working at Nimrud (ancient Calah) in modern Iraq. We were overwhelmed by the find of more than 5,000 carved ivories, mostly in fragments. These ivories have proved to be of cardinal importance for our understanding not only of native Assyrian art styles of the first millennium B.C., but also of Phoenician, Syrian and Egyptian art styles of this same period. These ivories are also critical to our understanding of ancient ivory-working techniques. Yet the pressure to publish these ivories in toto—with illustrations and after full study—meant that the project is still unfulfilled nearly 40 years later.3 Would some form of prompt, selective publication have been better? I think so.4
Another barrier to better understanding and appreciation of archaeological finds is the reluctance of some scholars to look beyond the details. We need boldness in presenting synopses of new material. We scholars should not leave this just to journalists or amateurs. That is why at Nimrud, in most categories of finds, we decided not only to publish preliminary reports, but to give full descriptions even though we knew that subsequent research might challenge and change some of our interpretations. Thus, when we found fragments of nine copies of an ancient loyalty-treaty text issued by Esarhaddon in May 672 B.C., we decided to publish the texts separately and promptly—and with interpretations.5 These texts were unique and furthered our understanding not only of the Assyrian dialect, but also of interstate and interpersonal relations relevant to the important Biblical concept of covenant. In going out on a limb, so to speak, with this publication, I was personally much encouraged by the great American archaeologist William F. Albright of the Johns Hopkins University; as editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Albright himself never hesitated to comment on any discovery which he sought to make widely known. Nor was he averse to changing his mind and interpretation in subsequent articles as soon as new evidence appeared.
Most branches of study benefit from the presentation of reasoned hypotheses, which may then be openly contested; Biblical archaeology is certainly no exception. Unfortunately, since Albright’s time many scholars seem reluctant to present an overall view of their work suitable for the general reader until their final thesis is published. Bible teaching, study and interpretation are among the losers.
This leads me to the need for an increasing awareness of the fragile and tentative nature of many of our hypotheses. We need to have open minds. We need to reevaluate theories that have been long established.
Let me share an instance of my own change of mind. Within six months of its discovery, I translated and published the stela of King Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria commemorating the opening of his new city, Calah (modern Nimrud), in 869 B.C. In this publication, I accepted the figure the Assyrians gave for the total number of Ashurnasirpal’s guests (69,572) as the population of the city.6 Then I compared this with the figure of 120,000 of those who lived in Nineveh (Jonah 4:11), a city twice as large lying 22 miles north of Calah. The number of Ashurnasirpal’s guests on the stela, I suggested, confirmed the Biblical figures for Nineveh. This may well be a valid comparison in terms of urban capacity, but the number of permanent residents at Calah/Nimrud would actually have been far fewer, for the total guests included 5,000 foreign emissaries and 1,500 officials from other Assyrian palaces present for the celebrations, much as there were when Solomon dedicated his Temple and palaces (1 Kings 8:65). I should not have used the Calah/Nimrud figure to substantiate Jonah 4:11. I also suggested that Calah/Nimrud and Nineveh could well be part of an extended metropolitan area that would have required three days to traverse. You will recall that the Bible tells us that Nineveh was so large it took three days to cross (Jonah 3:3). This formed the basis for my suggesting that Calah and Nineveh together may have been the conurbation to which the Bible was referring. Many commentators still follow this suggestion unquestioningly. But other archaeological and textual evidence indicates that the three days referred to in Jonah 3:3 has nothing to do with the size of the city but is a reference to the time usually taken for an official delegation to visit an important city.7 So here too I have changed my mind. But I have no regrets at having made the initial, and now it seems, possibly erroneous suggestion. We need greater boldness in making hypotheses even though we realize that more mature consideration may prove them wrong. Indeed, it is by this process that we arrive at a better and fuller understanding of our subject.
For more than 40 years, I have been studying the ancient Near East and its cultures through archaeology. I have been especially interested in the documents that have been uncovered—mostly cuneiform tablets. My aim has been to make the results known both for their own sake and for their relation to the Bible. A continuing flood of archaeological evidence now illustrates the world of the Bible—its history, languages, religions, traditions and customs. Sometimes, as a result of this archaeological evidence, the Biblical narrative is confirmed; in other instances, its interpretation is controlled by the new archaeological information.a There […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in The British Museum (London: British Museum, 1956).
2.
Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953).
3.
Georgina Hermann, Ivories from Nimrud (1949–1963), IV (London: Brirish School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1986). Further volumes in this series, however, are planned.
4.
M. E. L. Mallowan, in Nimrud and Its Remains, 2 vol. (London: Collins, 1966) included descriptions and photos of more than 200 ivories (eight in color) making knowledge of the finer restored pieces available.
5.
Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958).
6.
Wiseman, “A New Stela of Assur-nasir-pal II,” Iraq 14 (1952), pp. 22–44.
7.
Wiseman, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979), pp. 29–51. Hence Jonah 3:3 should now read (as in the New International Version) “… Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days.”
