In the beautiful 50th anniversary issue of Archaeology magazine, published by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), my friend, contributing editor Neil Asher Silberman, wrote an article entitled “Digging in the Land of the Bible.” It is a workmanlike, at times elegant, piece, well suited to an archaeological audience that alights once or twice a year on a subject of Biblical interest. Silberman is both knowledgeable in the field and an excellent writer.
Yet there is enough in the piece to raise my hackles that I am forced to take pen in hand, so to speak. (Actually, I write with a computer.) In short, Silberman’s piece leaves the impression that archaeology, during the last 50 years, has left the Bible in tatters. Much of what Silberman says is accurate, but much of it lacks balance.
For instance, he claims that “archaeological evidence in some cases flatly contradicts biblical assertions” and then gives as an example “the common occurrence of female fertility figurines and private offering altars at sites throughout the area of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.” This, he says, “indicates the existence of a popular cult of healing and fertility alongside the official, royal cult of the Temple of Jerusalem.” He’s right, but he’s also wrong! Flatly wrong! He’s right that the archaeological evidence indicates the existence of considerable non-Yahwistic worship in ancient Israel. But he’s wrong when he says that this “flatly contradicts” the Bible. The Bible never asserts that all Israelites were monotheistic worshipers of Yahweh; on the contrary, from Rachel’s teraphim to the worship of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai, to the golden calves set up by Jeroboam in the northern kingdom of Israel, to the Horses of the Sun placed at the entrance to the Temple itself (2 Kings 23:11), to the inveighing of the great prophets of Israel, the Bible recognizes, as the archaeological evidence confirms, that non-Yahwistic worship was fairly common in ancient Israel. Indeed, the archaeological evidence is just what we might have expected. Silberman has not mischaracterized the archaeological evidence, but he has mischaracterized the Bible.
Take another example. Silberman mentions the stunning ninth-century B.C. inscription, found in the excavation at Tel Dan, that records an Aramaic king’s boast that he has triumphed over a “king of Israel” and the “House of David”—the first time the name David has been found outside the Bible. About the inscription Silberman writes: “Almost immediately a bitter scholarly debate erupted, with those who dispute the validity of biblical history translating the Dan inscription in various ways that would eliminate the reference to David.” “The scholarly infighting [on this issue] continues,” he says. End of that story. He’s right, of course. But he leaves the impression that the two scholarly positions are equally balanced: The name David may be there, but, then again, it is equally likely that it is not there, he suggests. He doesn’t tell us, however, that the majority of qualified epigraphers and archaeologists has rejected the attack on the name David; that the attackers have taken to charging that the inscription is a forgery; that these same attackers have failed to come up with promised evidence that it 062was a forgery; and that the attackers are three or four mavericks who are now largely ignored on the issue by the bulk of the scholarly community.
It is often the case that some lonely scholar or group of scholars will come up with an oddball theory, and on occasion the theory will prove right. But that doesn’t mean that before it is proved right (which rarely happens) it should be given the same credence as more mainstream theories—which is what Silberman does, even though he knows better, just so he can’t be accused of being politically incorrect for supporting the Bible. One scholar contends that Jesus was crucified, not in Jerusalem, but in Qumran—and that he survived, went on to marry and to father children, and ultimately died a natural death in Rome. It would be wrong to suggest, based upon this claim, that scholars disagree as to where Jesus was crucified and whether he survived the agonizing experience. But that is the equivalent of what Silberman does in the case of the “House of David” inscription.
Similarly, he asserts that “the first people of Israel were not some phantom band of desert nomads but participants in a profound social transformation within Canaan itself.” What Silberman is saying is that many, if not most, early Israelites were Canaanites. Not a bad theory, based on the archaeological evidence. But Silberman’s presentation is wrong in two respects. First, it fails to acknowledge that the Bible itself, when 063read carefully, does not disagree. Ezekiel quite explicitly tells us, “Your origins and your birth were in the land of the Canaanites” (Ezekiel 16:3). As archaeologist William Dever has remarked, “Israelites knew their own origins.” One of the tribes of Israel, Dan, was involved with the sea (Judges 5:17); the Danites hardly came from Egypt. It is therefore not surprising to an informed student of the Bible that large segments of Israelites had been Canaanites.
But more important is Silberman’s disparaging reference to a “phantom band of desert nomads.” This slur implies that there was no Exodus and no Egyptian sojourn. I think most Biblical scholars and historians recognize that there must have been some Egyptian experience and some Exodus from Egypt. Its magnitude was doubtless smaller than the numbers given in the Bible. But the Egyptian sojourn and the Exodus did become the foundation story of the Israelites. Why would a people invent for themselves a history of slavery if it did not have some grounding in history? For a balanced treatment, Silberman should at least have mentioned this while at the same time informing his readers that many early Israelites had their roots in Canaanite society.
Finally, Silberman includes the de rigeur condemnation of antiquities dealers; as if putting them out of business would solve the problem of site looting, when in fact it would only send the antiquities market underground. Here is what Silberman says: “As long as common antiquities can be bought and sold as souvenirs and more precious pieces fetch astronomical prices in the auction houses of London, New York, and Geneva, the long chain of plunderers, middlemen, dealers, and collectors stretching from the poor villages of Jordan and the West Bank to the penthouses of Manhattan will continue to eat away at the region’s finite archaeological resources.” Instead of confronting the problem in all its complexity and considering (or at least referring to) other ways of dealing with the problem,a Silberman simply intones the AIA mantra: Put the antiquities dealers out of business, and that will take care of everything.
It’s too bad that such a knowledgeable commentator has produced such a flawed commentary, which will, in important respects, misinform the large international audience that Archaeology magazine reaches.
In the beautiful 50th anniversary issue of Archaeology magazine, published by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), my friend, contributing editor Neil Asher Silberman, wrote an article entitled “Digging in the Land of the Bible.” It is a workmanlike, at times elegant, piece, well suited to an archaeological audience that alights once or twice a year on a subject of Biblical interest. Silberman is both knowledgeable in the field and an excellent writer. Yet there is enough in the piece to raise my hackles that I am forced to take pen in hand, so to speak. (Actually, I write […]
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.
