Biblical Views: Is There a Biblical Archaeology?

020

In a famous editorial in The New York Sun in 1897, often reprinted since, eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon asked a sensitive question: “Is there a Santa Claus?” The editor—aptly named Francis Church—replied with gentle eloquence:

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus!

I suspect that Virginia later learned the truth about Santa Claus when she was emotionally ready, and I’m sure that she—and many people since—benefited from Church’s wise treatment of this thorny issue. Santa Claus exists for children, and that is as it should be. But adults have to tread more gingerly around such issues.

The topic of Biblical Archaeology makes me ponder Virginia’s (and Church’s) dilemma. Is there a Biblical Archaeology? Or is it a fictional creation of overactive minds? Is it something that was once alive and is now dead? Is it a vanished dream? The answer—if there is one—should illuminate the situation of Biblical studies and archaeology in modern times.

If one looks around today, it seems that Biblical Archaeology has been mostly abandoned. The historical and intellectual structure that William Foxwell Albright and others once constructed has been shaken and lies mostly in ruins. Archaeology did not illumine the times and events of Abraham, Moses and Joshua. Rather, it helped to show that these times and events are largely unhistorical. The more we know about the Bronze and early Iron Ages, the more the Biblical portrayals of events in this era appear to be a blend of folklore and cultural memory, in which the details of historical events have either disappeared or been radically reshaped. The stories are deeply meaningful, but only occasionally historical. Archaeological research has—against the intentions of most of its practitioners—secured the non-historicity of much of the Bible before the era of the kings.

As a result of this unraveling, most Biblical scholars nowadays do not seek training as archaeologists, and most Levantine archaeologists (note the strictly geographical moniker) do not seek training as Biblical scholars. The two fields—yes, Virginia, they are two fields now—have grown apart and show little interest in each other. To give a pertinent example, the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research (which specializes in Levantine archaeology) now hold separate meetings, after decades of meeting together. Biblical studies and archaeology have had a divorce.

The only children of this divorce who are still doing Biblical Archaeology in the Albrightian style are fundamentalist and evangelical Biblical scholars. But these scholars often eschew the critical methods of Biblical scholarship and historiography, and so relegate themselves to the margins of scholarship. They are like the advocates of creationism or “intelligent design” in the field of biology—they adopt critical methods when the results do not conflict with their theology. As a result, their Biblical Archaeology is a curious blend of scholarship and theology, while not resting comfortably in either domain.

I would like to see Biblical studies and Levantine archaeology resume a dialogue, one that is respectful of difference, but eager to learn the other’s views. Biblical scholarship is concerned with the meaning of the Biblical texts, which necessarily involves inquiry into the language, culture and history of ancient Israel. Similarly, Levantine archaeology is concerned with the cultural meanings that are encoded and expressed in material culture. Archaeologists are trying to “read the past” through the data of material culture, while Biblical scholars are trying to read the Biblical text within the horizons of its ancient cultural context. There is much overlap in these two quests. Even after the divorce, it makes sense that the two fields should be attentive to each other. We should share our different strengths and skills.

Biblical Archaeology doesn’t really exist today in the way it once did. Albright held the Bible and archaeology together by the strength of his intellect and will, but his historical theories have not stood the test of time. However, his deeper impulse was correct—the study of texts and the study of material culture are logically interconnected. We need to renew this impulse and wake up from our self-induced overspecializations. The Bible and archaeology are meant for each other—even if they can’t always be together. There is no Biblical Archaeology, but if we can learn to respect our differences, the Bible and archaeology ought to do just fine.

In a famous editorial in The New York Sun in 1897, often reprinted since, eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon asked a sensitive question: “Is there a Santa Claus?” The editor—aptly named Francis Church—replied with gentle eloquence: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! I suspect that Virginia later learned the truth about Santa Claus when she was emotionally ready, and I’m […]