Queries & Comments

010

The Bible vs. Archaeology—Colliding Viewpoints: The Backstory

This issue of BAR contains an extraordinary exchange of letters among giants of the profession that may have no precedent.

It all began quite innocently. In each issue of BAR, we publish a short quotation from the work of a major archaeological or Biblical scholar in a department called “In Their Own Words.” In the January/February 2016 issue, this department consisted of six lines by Peter Machinist of Harvard University. In his quotation, Machinist examines whether the Bible should be considered in a search for Israel’s origins in Palestine. His answer is yes.

This evoked a heated response from the famed excavator of Gezer, William G. Dever. Peter is a “friend and colleague” of nearly 50 years, wrote Dever, but “absolutely no archaeologist today” regards the Bible as historically valuable in understanding Israel’s emergence in Canaan. “Precisely the opposite” is the case.

Dever bolstered his case by citing the work of several leading archaeologists, including Ann Killebrew, Ami Mazar and Larry Stager.

But Dever did not get much comfort from the scholars he cites, to whom we sent Dever’s response. For example, Harvard’s Larry Stager wrote us, “My view on the relationship of the Bible and archaeology is much closer to Machinist’s than to Dever’s, as anyone would know who has read my articles and books over the last 45 years.”

Ami Mazar writes, “Basically I agree with Peter’s statement. If we would have to rely on archaeology alone, we would not be able to say anything about Israel until the ninth century B.C.E.”

Ann Killebrew edges a bit closer to Dever. “Both Machinist and Dever are correct in their own way … I have no problem with Bill [Dever] referring to me, but I also understand where Peter Machinist is coming from.”

Below we print William Dever’s reply to Peter Machinist’s “In Their Own Words” and the responses by Killebrew, Mazar and Stager.—Ed.

Dever’s Fiery Response

In response to Peter Machinist (BAR 42:01)—a close friend and colleague for nearly 50 years—I must point out that absolutely no archaeologist today views the Biblical narrative of Israel’s origins in Canaan as “the arena within which the nonbiblical data have finally to make sense” or within which they “finally … acquire a specific, concrete historical identity.”

The fact is precisely the opposite case for writing any new history of ancient Israel in any era. In view of the progress of our two disciplines (archaeology and Bible), the archaeological data more often illumine the Biblical text, rarely the other way around.

I could give you hundreds of case studies to show that (1) these two sources for history writing are independent and must be kept so in the initial inquiry in the interest of honest scholarship; (2) the key is the comparison of the two classes of data in order to establish “convergences,” if any; and (3) in many cases it is the new archaeological data that will prove primary, not the textual data.

If there is any doubt, read the Book of Joshua; then read any recent archaeological discussion of Israelite origins; then decide which offers the more believable, more reliable “historical identity.” That would include books authored by me, Ann Killebrew and Avi Faust—as well as many publications by Israel Finkelstein, Ami Mazar, Larry Stager and others.

The Hebrew Bible may sometimes help to determine how Israel “remembered” its origins, but often the Bible has “invented” these origins (or created its “cultural memory” to use the term now in vogue). Israel’s “experiences,” even if often imaginary, were indeed formative for the later tradition preserved in the Bible, but that is more theology than history.

Until we all understand our two disciplines more clearly—and courageously—there will be little progress toward a useful 011 012 dialogue. And that is a desideratum on which I think that Peter and I will agree.

Sincerely yours,

Killebrew: Text and Archaeology Complement Each Other

In my opinion, they (Machinist and Dever) are both correct in their own way. In any attempt to reconstruct the early Iron Age of the southern Levant and questions regarding the emergence of Israel, both the textual (Biblical and non-Biblical) and archaeological evidence are all part of the primary data and complement each other, even though at times they may appear to be somewhat contradictory. I have no problem with Bill Dever referring to me, but I also understand where Peter Machinist is coming from.

Mazar: We Cannot Rely on Archaeology Alone

Basically I agree with Peter Machinist’s statement. If we would have to rely on archaeology alone, we would not be able to say anything about Israel until the ninth century B.C.E., except the one mention in the Merneptah Stele in the late 13th century.^a The Iron I settlement wave in the highland would be silent and no more meaningful than the similar settlement wave of the Middle Bronze Age 500 years earlier. It is only the Biblical tradition that provides clues to the identity and context of these archaeological phenomena. But whether they arrived from outside or were insiders, I still cannot say for sure. Most of them were probably insiders.

Stager: Closer to Machinist’s Viewpoint than to Dever’s

My view on the relationship of Bible and archaeology is much closer to Machinist’s than to Dever’s, as anyone would know who has read my articles and books over the last 45 years. One of the most popular books expressing the importance of texts, including the Bible, and archaeology is Life in Biblical Israel by Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011).

Baculum

Happy to Think for Myself

I have neither a Rev. at the beginning of my name, nor an M.D. or Ph.D. following it. I am a simple layman. But I grew up enjoying and appreciating science. Evolution was drilled into me for such a long time that I once considered it fact. When I saw it conflicted with my adult-found Christianity and Bible knowledge, there was conflict. I believe in the Bible because a few decades of study and research have convinced me of its truth. I feel the same way about science. Science actually enhances my Bible study. That is why I enjoy BAR so much. It makes me think. It makes me research. It makes me challenge my beliefs. Do I believe everything in BAR? No. But I appreciate the opportunity to think for myself. Such articles as Ziony Zevit’s “Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?” (BAR 41:05) do not hinder my faith; they strengthen it.

The Final Straw

We are absolutely dumbfounded that you have decided to continue to defend Ziony Zevit’s fallacy! This is the final straw.

065

Conflicting Aspects of Human Nature

Shawna Dolansky (“The Multiple Truths of Myths,” BAR 42:01) sees the conflicting descriptions of creation in the Book of Genesis as attempts by the Biblical writers to explain various aspects of their own lives, thus 066 presenting the modern reader with “many truths about the cultures that composed and disseminated them.” The famed rabbinic scholar and philosopher, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in his essay, “The Lonely Man of Faith,” sees the two parallel Biblical accounts of man’s creation as describing two conflicting aspects of man’s nature. In Genesis 1, man is majestic and creative, seeking control of his environment, while in Genesis 2 and 3, man is humble, lonely and submissive, seeking redemption and a relationship with God and his fellow man. The Torah thus explains for us the complexity in the human condition—portraying man as both thinker and creator, servant and master.

Loved All the Brouhaha

I loved all of the brouhaha about whether it could be possible that Eve might have been created from Adam’s penis bone.

Keep it Up!

Please keep challenging our thinking and printing both sides in Q&C.

Correction

Manicheans

The reference to Manchurians in “Monastic Views of Work” (BAR 42:01) is a clerical error and should refer to Manicheans, instead. Manicheans are followers of Manichaeism, a religion founded by the Persian Mani, who sought to reform Christianity, in the latter half of the third century.

The Bible vs. Archaeology—Colliding Viewpoints: The Backstory
This issue of BAR contains an extraordinary exchange of letters among giants of the profession that may have no precedent.