The following table provides a non-exhaustive list of leading writers (referred to by their commonly used name), who comment frequently on archaeology as it relates to the Bible. The ‘minimalist’ view is that archaeology provides little or no support for the Biblical history, the ‘maximalist’ view is that archaeology overwhelmingly supports the Biblical history, and the moderate view is that archaeology substantially supports the Biblical history but that not all of the history can be supported directly from archaeology.
| Identifying Scholarly Views on Archaeology | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Profession | Position |
| Aharoni, Yisrael | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Ahlström, Gösta | Historian | Minimalist |
| Albright, William F | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Ben Tor, Amnon | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Davies, Philip R | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Day, John | Biblical scholar | Maximalist |
| Dever, William | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Finkelstein, Israel | Archaeologist | Weak moderate |
| Freedman, David Noel | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Garfinkel, Yosef | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Garstang, John | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Gottwald, Norman | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Grabbe, Lester | Historian | Minimalist |
| Halpern, Baruch | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Hayes, John | Archaeologist | Minimalist |
| Hoffmeier, James K | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Kenyon, Katherine | Archaeologist | Minimalist |
| Kitchen, Kenneth | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Lambert, Wilfred G | Archaeologist, epigrapher | Moderate |
| Lemche, Niels | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Long, V Philips | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Longman III, Tremper | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Malamat, Abraham | Biblical scholar | Moderate |
| Mazar, Eliat | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| McCarter Jr., P. Kyle | Epigrapher | Moderate |
| Millard, Alan | Linguist | Maximalist |
| Miller, James | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Na’aman, Nadav | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Provan, Iain | Biblical scholar | Maximalist |
| Redford, Donald | Archaeologist | Weak moderate |
| Rainey, Anson | Epigrapher, archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Shanks, Hershel | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Silberman, Neil Asher | Archaeologist | Minimalist |
| Stager, Lawrence | Archaeologist | Moderate |
| Thompson, Thomas | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Whitelam, Keith | Biblical scholar | Minimalist |
| Wright, G Ernest | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Yadin, Yigael | Archaeologist | Maximalist |
| Yamauchi, Edwin | Biblical scholar | Maximalist |
| Younger Jr., K Lawson | Biblical scholar | Moderate |
When assessing the value of comments made by these writers, a general hierarchy of authority should be understood: Biblical archaeologists are typically most authoritative on archaeological matters; linguists and epigraphers are typically most authoritative on the topic of inscriptions and other forms of written records; Biblical scholars, (since they interact closely with the archaeological sources), are typically more authoritative than historians in their reconstruction of history from archaeology, but less authoritative than archaeologists, especially in their interpretation of archaeological data.
In addition, specializations within specific fields are also important; the views of world renowned Assyriologists such as Kenneth Kitchen and Wilfred Lambert on the subject of Assyrian history, archaeology, and texts, are of far greater weight than those of non-specialists commenting on the same subject, but Lambert’s views on Egyptian history would be of less value than Kitchen’s, since Kitchen is also a recognized authority on Egyptology. Identification of authority on the basis of specific expertise is a critical issue in the study of the archaeology and history of the Bible, and is sometimes contested hotly by experts in the relevant fields.
For example, when Biblical scholars John Rogerson and Philip Davies claimed the ‘Siloam Inscription’ dated to the Hasmonean era, Frank Cross, (Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University), observed that they were unqualified to make judgments on the text,[1] and professional epigrapher P. Kyle McCarter Jr. made a similar statement.[2]
Epigrapher, Anson Rainey, was criticized by archaeologist William Dever, who contested Rainey’s claims concerning the origin of Israel, asserting Rainy ‘is no archaeologist and has no first-hand acquaintance with pottery’.[3] Rainey responded to Dever by citing his own archaeological competence, citing years of operating in positions of responsibility during the excavation of Tel Beersheba in the early 1970s.[4] Such disputes demonstrate how seriously the lines of professional demarcation are drawn between specialists in closely related fields, and how even such specialists themselves may contest each other’s authority.
Additionally, these are fields in which the scholarly consensus on specific topics is often contested by specialists (due occasionally to the discovery of new evidence), and in which the scholarly consensus can shift rapidly over time. Sometimes the percentage of scholars who are of the consensus view is only slightly higher than the percentage which does not.
These difficulties are compounded by the highly emotionally, politically, and religiously charged nature of the subject in question, and claims of personal bias are frequently made by professionals against their own peers; accusations of fraudulent evidence or falsification of data, are also not uncommon, and lengthy, heated arguments in public (using deeply personal language and open insults), are frequent.[5],[6]
Consequently, identifying established facts, or even identifying the scholarly consensus, can be very difficult for the untrained amateur reading the professional literature in the fields of Biblical history and archaeology. An additional tension is introduced when scholarly commentary on archaeology conflicts directly and explicitly with the Biblical text.
Most mainstream archaeologists do not believe there is sufficient historical data to establish the historicity of the patriarchs, the captivity of the Hebrew people in Egypt, the Exodus, and the entry of Israel as a people, into the land of Canaan. This represents a significant challenge to Bibles students with faith in Scripture.
Nevertheless, on all of these issues there exists a minority report. For example, although there is a broad consensus that the Biblical account of the Exodus has no indisputable support from direct archaeological evidence, a significant number of highly qualified scholars make the case that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to make the account plausible. Additionally, some scholars who dispute the Biblical account of the Exodus still acknowledge their position is largely an argument from silence, and that the account is based on certain historical events. Bible students with a faith commitment to the Biblical text can appeal to this minority report, though it should not be overstated.
Maintaining an intellectually honest and balanced view of both scholarly archaeological commentary and the Biblical text can be difficult. The following principles provide guidance.[7]
- Scholarly consensus should generally be accepted, except when there exists significant scholarly dissent from the consensus, or when agreement is marginal.
- Although scholarly consensus should not be accepted without question, non-scholars should take scholarly commentary and consensus seriously, and where an overwhelming scholarly consensus exists.
- Non-scholars wishing to dispute an existing consensus should seek a significant minority report from within the relevant scholarly literature, rather than simply contradicting it from their own personal point of view. The uninformed opinion of unqualified non-professionals on complex issues such as these is worthless, and it is intellectually dishonest to represent such opinions as valuable in comparison with scholarly commentary.
- Bible students must be sufficiently honest either to re-assess their interpretation of the text or to acknowledge they are holding a view on the basis of personal faith rather than on demonstrable evidence.
[1] “The list of significant features differentiating Old Hebrew from paleo-Hebrew can be extended to most, if not all, letters of the alphabet. To identify them requires an eye and memory for form, gifts that make the paleographer. Without such gifts, a scholar is in the same straits as the tone-deaf musician who wishes to conduct an orchestra”, F. M. Cross, “Because They Can’t See a Difference, They Assert No One Can” Biblical Archaeology Review 23/02 (1997). [All emphasis in quotes is mine.]
[2] “No epigraphist trained in the scripts of these periods would confuse second-century B.C.E. paleo-Hebrew with sixth-century B.C.E. Hebrew, much less with eighth-century B.C.E. Hebrew”, J. McCarter Jr., “No Trained Epigraphist Would Confuse the Two”, Biblical Archaeology Review 23/02 (1997).
[3] W. G. Dever, quoted by H. Shanks in “Verbal Fisticuffs over Early Israelite Origins” Biblical Archaeology Review 36/04 (2010).
[4] A. F. Rainey, “Rainey Defends Archaeologist Credentials” Biblical Archaeology Review 36/04 (2010).
[5] Commenting on the work of Biblical scholar P. Davies, archaeologist W. G. Dever says, “The casual, off-hand, sometimes outrageous style of Davies’ book tempts one to dismiss it as either an example of British eccentricity, or perhaps intended only as a tongue-in-cheek piece for our amusement” in What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did they Know it? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 29.
[6] Commenting on the work of Biblical scholar Thomas Thompson, archaeologist, K. Kitchen says, “I hardly know where to begin with all this rollicking, silly nonsense!” in On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 456.
[7] [Ed AP]: See the article P. Wyns and A. Perry “Consensus” in this issue of the EJournal for a statement of the view that scholarly consensus should be appraised according to its arguments. Different groupings within the academy constitute different kinds of consensus—conservative, critical, near-eastern archaeologists, linguistics, evangelical, etc. An individual who accepts the evidential witness of Scripture should take the challenge of a contrary critical consensus seriously and the challenge should be met with informed argument.
A Perspective on how Archaeology can help us understand the Bible