BARlines
The Relationship of Archaeology to the Bible
Leading students of the great William F. Albright reminisced, assessed, analyzed and explained during a full day of lectures and discussions entitled “Homage to Albright,” held on October 21, 1984, in Rockville, Maryland, under the auspices of the American Friends of the Israel Exploration Society.
It was a dazzling display of erudition, interspersed with moments of warmth and charm.
The participants included Frank M. Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University; Samuel Iwry, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University; Gus Van Beek, Curator of Old World Archaeology at the Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; David Noel Freedman, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; and Delbert Hillers, W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University. All were students of Albright at the Johns Hopkins University.
Of special interest to BAR readers were some remarks by Professor Freedman on the relationship of archaeology to the Bible:
“The combination of the Bible and archaeology is somewhat artificial; the two have not really matched up very well. The Biblical scholar deals with one kind of material and the archaeologist with another. On rare but important occasions, there is significant contact, and both disciplines gain from the exchange of data and ideas. Often, however, there is no point of contact and nothing significant happens. On the whole, I believe that results of the interchange between archaeology and the Bible have been somewhat disappointing, though perhaps that was to be expected. Palestinian archaeology has had modest success in turning up monumental remains and inscriptional materials, but nothing like the quantity discovered in Mesopotamia and Egypt. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, it has been possible to reconstruct the history of their imperial nations in considerable measure from the finds, but the same can hardly be said of Israel and Judah, where inscriptions have proved scarce and generally peripheral, with a few notable exceptions. Unwritten materials are extensive in Palestine, to be sure, but not always easy to interpret, and the Biblical connections remain elusive while confirmations are few and far between.
“Albright’s great plan and expectation to set the Bible firmly on the foundation of archaeology buttressed by verifiable data seems to have foundered or at least floundered. After all the digging, done and being done and yet to be done, how much has been accomplished? The fierce debates and arguments about the relevance of archaeology to the Bible and vice versa indicate that many issues remain unresolved. Can anyone say anything with confidence about the patriarchs or the patriarchal age? The fact that skeptical voices now dominate the scene indicates that the Albrightian synthesis has become unglued and we are further from a solution than we ever were. Archaeology has not proved decisive or even greatly helpful in answering the questions most often asked and has failed to prove the historicity of Biblical persons and events, especially in the early periods.
“At the same time, we would be remiss if we dismissed archaeology as another false messiah, which promised much and delivered little. Archaeology always and invariably serves as a permanent reminder that in the Bible and out of it we are dealing with real people in real places, who lived and worked and played and died and left evidence of their presence. Like it or not, the Bible is about particular people and events bound by time and space. There is a historical dimension which we ignore or bypass at great peril to the message and meaning of Biblical religion. With all the problems engendered by the historical ingredient, we cannot avoid it, and we do better to grapple with it head on than to evade it by proclaiming, as the radicals have, that the proclamation or affirmation of the ancient community is all that matters, regardless of the historicity of the proclamation. Nor can we seek refuge in a dogmatic pronouncement affirming historicity by faith, as the ultra-conservatives would have us do. We must affirm the central importance of the historical factor and insist on facing the question.
“Nor should we conclude without reference to the many benefits and contributions made to the elucidation and illumination of the Bible by archaeology. Major manuscript discoveries at Qumran and Ugarit have contributed significantly to our understanding of the Bible and its contents. The Dead Sea Scrolls have contributed the earliest-known copies of books of the Hebrew Bible in whole or in part as well as pieces of a vast contemporary literature mainly reflecting the interests and the library of the people of Qumran. All in all, the Dead Sea Scrolls have illuminated the textual history of the Old Testament far beyond any reasonable expectation. They have provided information about and insights into the process by which the Bible came to be and especially the history of the canon and of the text. What the discoveries at Qumran have done for later Biblical history, the Ugaritic tablets have helped to do for the earlier period. Here are a couple of thousand tablets written in a language quite similar to Biblical Hebrew (not counting the many other tablets written in Akkadian and other languages) and dating roughly to the century preceding the career of Moses. The literary texts from Ugarit, including parts of several epics and mythic pieces, constitute the heart and core of the materials found, and are most important for understanding the linguistic forms and meanings, literary connections and allusions of much Biblical poetry. These tablets have proved invaluable for the study of the Biblical text, especially Biblical poetry.
“We should add here as well the inscriptional discoveries from Palestine and Sinai—at Kuntillet Ajrud (c. 800 B.C.) and at Deir Alla (c. 700 B.C.) and the ostraca from Arad and Beer-Sheva (as well as a few others from various sites), all of which have shed light on the history of the Hebrew language and especially on a number of passages in the Bible. None of these has proved to be the ‘smoking pistol’ or decisive confirmation of or confrontation with specific Biblical people or events, but the illumination and elucidation of difficult passages will place us all under obligation to the discoverers and those who have studied and published the texts.
“In the end, the archaeological materials help to illuminate and illustrate, and always to remind us that behind and beyond the pages of scripture, the history of Israel was lived out by real people in real situations and that events took place under specified circumstances. Except in unusual and extraordinary cases, archaeology will provide only representative artifacts and peripheral data.
“But even when there are specific points of contact and direct confirmation, the heart and core of the Biblical narrative will remain inaccessible to archaeology. The central and decisive components of the Biblical account are unique and unrepeatable occurrences inextricably bound up with the divine initiative and action. This dimension of ultimate reality inevitably transcends ordinary historical experience, which limits and defines the boundary of archaeological data. Whatever archaeology can and does contribute to the Biblical picture, it is no substitute for faith, no alternative to belief, only a possible help along the way.”
Schaeffer’s View of Velikovsky
We have received considerable correspondence—some of it quite polemical—regarding the relationship between Claude Schaeffer and Immanuel Velikovsky—more specifically about Schaeffer’s views of Velikovsky’s ideas. Since both men are dead, we especially wish to avoid polemics; therefore we have attempted to assess the material and report as follows. We thank Shulamit F. Kogan, Velikovsky’s daughter, for supplying us with the correspondence we quote below.
1. Schaeffer, like Velikovsky, believed that widespread natural catastrophes had occurred in the ancient world.
On April 4, 1964, Schaeffer wrote Velikovsky “I am in full agreement with your theories of catastrophes caused by extraterrestrial and terrestrial agents in prehistoric and early historical times.”
On April 12, 1974, Schaeffer wrote Velikovsky: “ … how right you have been to date some of the great natural catastrophes in the early historic periods.”
2. Schaeffer did not accept Velikovsky’s reconstructed chronology. This is confirmed by several people who knew Schaeffer well. Velikovsky’s daughter also acknowledges that “Schaeffer did not agree with Velikovsky’s reduction of circa 600 years of Egyptian chronology.”
Archaeologists Organize New Professional Society in Israel
A new organization of archaeologists has been formed in Israel. The Association of Archaeologists in Israel (AAI) already has 130 members, according to Aharon Kempinski, one of the group’s founders.
The purpose of the organization is to raise the technical and scientific standards of archaeology in Israel and also to protect its members’ professional rights.
The affairs of the AAI are run by an elected executive committee, that will serve for a year The chairperson is Ze’ev Meshel of Tel Aviv University. Other members are O. Bar-Yosef, Sh. Bonimovitz, Y. Gilead, R. Hachlili, M. Heimann, A. Kempinski, A. Mazar and R. Reich.
Feldman Leads Seminar on the Greek Encounter with Judaism
The National Endowment for the Humanities has selected Dr. Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University to lead a seminar entitled “The Greek Encounter with Judaism in the Hellenistic Period.” The course will be conducted at Yeshiva University in New York City from June 17 to August 9, 1985.
The seminar will evaluate the cultural and religious contacts between Greeks and Jews both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. It will isolate elements of content and style that are distinctively Jewish and distinctively Greek. The seminar will look at Hellenistic Jewish art, the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, the Talmud and the New Testament in order to understand how each work accommodated, synthesized or rejected Greek and Jewish elements.
The program, which includes a stipend of $3,000, is intended for part- or full-time teachers of undergraduate courses at two- or four-year colleges or universities, but any qualified applicants will be considered.
For more information, write to Dr. Louis Feldman, Yeshiva University, 500 West 185 Street, New York, New York 10033.
Atlanta Israel Expo Features Archaeological Events
The Atlanta, Georgia, Jewish Community Center will present Israel Expo International ’85, from March 23 to 30, 1985, highlighting all aspects of Israeli life, from archaeology to medicine, from fashions to computers, from food to crafts, and from authors to dancers.
The Expo is organized by the Atlanta Jewish Community Center in conjunction with the Israeli Consul and other community agencies. Archaeological events will include a simulated dig; an exhibit at the High Museum of Art entitled, “Crossroad of the Ancient World”; a lecture series featuring archaeologists Yigal Shiloh, Robert Hohlfelder, Robert Stieglitz and Oded Borowski; and, at Emory University, an exhibit, “Digging for Biblical Roots,” complemented by a symposium, “Biblical Archaeology in the 1980s.” For information, write Israel Expo International ’85, 1745 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30309 or call (404) 875–7881.
Correction
In the November/December BAR the beautiful photographs of Hammat Gader provided by Yizhar Hirschfeld are all the work of Zev Radovan.