Pondering the Spade: A Conversation with Dave Schreiner

In my last post (May 13), I invited Lawson Stone to help us understand the value of archaeology study Bibles, as well as provide an overview of the whole archaeological enterprise. That brief foray into the field, got me thinking about digging a little deeper (get it? dig. archaeology.) into the topic.

Last month, my good friend Dave Schreiner, published Ponderingthe Spade: Discussing Important Convergences between Archaeology and Old TestamentStudies (Wipf & Stock). I had the honor of reading a pre-publication copy of the manuscript. Apparently, Wipf & Stock liked what I had to say about the book since my endorsement is right there on the back cover (and website). Here’s what I had to say about it:

In a masterful elucidation of the complexities surrounding ‘biblical archaeology,’ Schreiner invites us on a journey, from pickaxe to publication. Using nine distinct examples as test cases, Schreiner helps the uninitiated not only discover some of the most impressive archaeological finds pertinent to Old Testament studies, but he also permits his readers to eavesdrop on the oft-lengthy process of evaluating its implications for the biblical text.

Although Dave and I are both alumni from Asbury Theological Seminary, we didn’t meet until 2017 when we both presented papers related to the book of 1 Kings in the Early Historical Books session for the Institute for Biblical Research. Dave is an assistant professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary.

Kyleinschriften: That’s enough from me. Dave, why don’t you introduce yourself to those who don’t already know you.

DBS: Well, I grew up the son of a United Methodist minister, along with a mom and two brothers. Dad pastored in the West-Ohio conference, and so that environment really shaped me. Mom was an OB nurse who worked consistently throughout my life. All things considered, it was a great life. I was very fortunate.

After switching my major in college from Criminal Justice to Bible, I eventually got a degree from Indiana Wesleyan University in Biblical Literature. From there, I was off to Asbury Theological Seminary to figure out exactly what the Lord had begun doing in my life during college. There, a Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies allowed me to efficiently move into ATS’s Ph. D. program in Biblical Studies. I finally finished all my formal education in 2012 after writing my dissertation on a particular theological theme that took me through Kings, Deuteronomy, Haggai/Zechariah, and Luke.

Kyleinschriften: Neither Asbury Seminary, where you earned your PhD, nor Wesley Biblical Seminary, where you teach, are especially known for their archaeology programs. So, how did you get interested in the “dirty” side of biblical history?

DBS: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark….of course!

But seriously, I have always been attracted to history, particularly ancient history. And, you know this, if you spend enough time in ancient history you will hear people talk about archaeology. However, I really got interested in its importance during my graduate work. I remember hearing my professors talk about archaeology. But the way they were able to synthesize it with the content of the Old Testament was something to behold. Then I had an opportunity to take a formal class and go on a dig. Once I spent time at Tel Rehov and was able to experience the daily grind of archaeology, I was hooked.

Kyleinschriften: Why did you decide to write the book? Were you bored? Didn’t have enough to do with 2 small daughters, a newborn, and multiple jobs?

DBS: Yeah…I was getting too much sleep. I figured trying to put a book together would bring me down to about 4 hours a sleep a night, which is ideal, right?

But it was a practical concern more than anything. I always ask my students to consider general issues of archaeology and specific cases in the Old Testament courses I teach. However, to accomplish this, I would have to pull from several resources. For example, to discuss Kuntillet Ajrud I would send them over here, but to discuss Mari or the Gilgamesh Epic I would have to send them over there. It was annoying. Moreover, there was always the problem of accessibility. Many of the articles would get too technical too quickly.

So, I wanted to put them in one location, in an accessible manner, many of the most important finds unearthed by archaeology and discuss why it was important to consider them in a pursuit of understanding the Old Testament. You know, a one-stop-shop for really getting an understanding of this convergence.

Kyleinschriften: We'll get to this idea of convergences shortly, but first I want to tell me about what it was like to find inscribed potsherd while you were washing pottery!

DBS: Yeah…and if there is one thing that I could point to that represents my interest in archaeology, it’s this find.

So, as I describe in my book, I pulled it out of a wash bucket on one of the final afternoons. Now what I don’t really describe too much is the hoopla that surrounds the finding of the inscription. People are yelling, scrambling to find a camera and data logs. It’s really kind of funny. You don’t realize just how important writing is for archaeology—how rare it was in antiquity—until you see what happens after someone finds an inscription. But then you get your picture taken with it and that’s really it. It’s gone. The dig directors scoop it up, catalog it, and then lock it up for storage.

But I have to say that there is a certain level of irony here. I don’t agree with Mazar and Ahituv’s reading of it, and I may be in the minority. I’ve exchanged emails with them on the subject. I’ve even given a paper on my reading of the ostracon. I did that a few years back, making a typological argument with the Samaria Ostraca.

Kyleinschriften: Your book is organized around the topic of convergences, either broad or narrow. What do you mean by “convergence” with respect to archaeology?

DBS: As I explain, the notion of convergence is something I picked up from William Dever. I have always appreciated his candid methodological discussions, particularly his willingness to call out any sort of short-sided invocation of archaeology for any apologetic purpose. According to Dever, essentially, Archaeology and Biblical Studies should be understood as distinct disciplines that move to intersect with each other when certain variables are present. The phenomenon when Archaeology and Biblical Studies move toward each other and inform the conclusions of each other is what he calls a “convergence.”

My contribution to the discussion, at least as far as I am aware, is to categorize the phenomenon through two types of convergences: broad and narrow. Narrow convergences refer to those instances when the results of archaeology come to bear on a specific topic or passage. Conversely, broad convergences don’t speak to a specific text, word, or issue. Rather, broad convergences speak to macro-level social, historical, or theological issues, issues that appear in multiple contexts.

For example, a broad convergence is how the textual archives at Mari have illuminated the prophetic institution. A narrow convergence would be the silver amulets of Ketef Hinnom or the Taylor Prism.

Kyleinschriften: In your humble opinion, what do you think has been the most significant archaeological discovery with respect to Biblical Studies? Why?

DBS: Gosh man…I knew you were gonna ask that….

So, if you put me in a corner—and this is gonna speak to my personal interests as a lover of Israelite history—it’s got to be a combination of the Tel Dan Stele and the Taylor Prism. In fact, this is really why I placed my discussion of these two finds back-to-back in my book.

I think that Christians generally have a poor understanding of what history writing is. As a genre, what are its characteristics, what is it trying to do, and how is it accomplishing that goal? What makes this particularly troublesome is that so much of God’s revelation is tied up with Israel’s historical experiences and historical reflections. In other words, a predominant percentage of Scripture is associated with a genre that is—again generally speaking—poorly understood. And when you throw in the differences between ancient and modern history writing, it’s an even more pressing issue.

Combined, these two finds force Christians to wrestle with the nature of history writing in an ancient context. If we don’t, then a situation is created that implies the need to make a hard decision between two pools of data. As if it’s either “Team Bible” or “Team Archaeology.” I just think that such a stark dichotomy is neither necessary nor healthy. 

Kyleinschriften: What I found to be especially helpful in Pondering the Spade is that you invite your readers to join the process of interpretation. You help us realize that artifacts don’t often tell us why—or how—they deserve our attention. Why did you think it was important to take us through that process?

DBS: If the goal of the project was to enlighten people to the nuanced relationship between Archaeology and Biblical Studies, then it stands to reason that walking the reader through the process of figuring it all out was the best way. Archaeological data has to be interpreted, and its importance isn’t just gonna smack us in the face or become immediately obvious.

For example, I talk about the Tel Dan Stele. If there’s a textbook case of a find’s importance evolving through time, it’s this one. At first it was trumpeted as a silver bullet to loud statements that David was essentially a mythical figure. However, through time it’s become clear that the importance of this find is more than answering the question of whether or not David existed. While it verifies that David was a historical figure and founder of a formidable dynasty in Iron Age Judah, its importance is historiographical. It forces us to wrestle with the dynamics of ancient history writing and consider whether or not the Old Testament’s historical books can be trusted as legitimate historical resources. I’ve already mentioned this.

Kyleinschriften: Why do you think a book like yours is needed, and who do you think would most benefit from reading it?

DBS: I hope that whoever reads it will begin to understand the nuanced relationship between Archaeology and Biblical Studies. Archaeology is not some magical key that presents answers to the historical difficulties of Scripture. I mean, it can identify the necessary roads to travel, and it can even verify a few things along the way. But we must understand the intentions of Archaeology as a discipline and let it speak into the conversation in a way that does not compromise it as a discipline. This is an important discussion for any serious student of Scripture, and I wrote it as such. However, seminary students and any student serious about the history of Israel will get a fair amount of mileage out of it. 

Kyleinschriften: Thanks, Dave. Great stuff! If you any interest in archaeology, the world around the Old Testament, or you want to better understand the ranges of significance of archaeology on Old Testament studies, be sure to pick up a copy of Pondering the Spade. It’s an accessible book, and even the more technical aspects of the book are recounted in conversational tone.  

What's all the Fuss About Archaeological Study Bibles?

Christianity Today recently released their 2019 Book Award winners. I rarely get very excited about the winners—or the finalists. Mainly because they usually aren’t the kinds of books I’ll find at the Society of Biblical Literature mega-book display, which means they usually are of limited valued for my research interests. But, that’s OK, because the readers of Christianity Today aren’t the readers of Vetus Testamentum or the Journal of Biblical Literature. So, CT’s annual Book Awards provide an authoritative stamp of approval, giving its readership a perceived confidence in their Christian book selections.

But, this year’s winner in the Bibles category really caught my attention. The ESV Archaeological Study Bible piqued my interest because I understand how archaeology is often used and abused in evangelicalism. It is used to provide irrefutable evidence for the biblical account, often ignoring places where archaeology actually raises questions or even poses challenges to our understanding of the biblical narratives.

So, what value do archaeological study Bibles have for the average layperson? To help us understand the issues and provide some expert insight, I’ve asked one of my former seminary professors, Lawson Stone, to join me in a conversation on the matter.[1]

Lawson (PhD, Yale), is professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, where he has served since 1987. He is a specialist on the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age in ancient Israel, having written several commentaries on Joshua and Judges. He has led numerous groups of Asbury Seminary students on excavations in Israel, established the G. Herbert Livingston Archaeology and Israel Studies Learning Lab at ATS, and coordinates Asbury’s Israel Summer Studies program.

So, let’s get started!

Kyleinschriften: Tell me a little bit about how you got interested in archaeology.

While I always thought it was important, an early disappointment in my teen years in which I thought Jericho’s destruction had been “proven” by archaeology, per Halley’s Bible Handbook, and which I later found to be a discredited finding, left me a little suspicious of the claims made by many for archaeology. But obviously to be a fully competent interpreter one has to be conversant with archaeology. So in 2006 I joined the Asbury crew excavating at Tel Dan. Then in 2008 I went to Tel Rehov and there is where the fire really got lit for me. In the meantime, also starting in 2006, I starting going with students to Israel to study historical geography, which naturally involves archaeology. When we launched the Livingston Archaeology and Israel Studies Learning Lab at Asbury, we had a nice, but small collection of artifacts about which I knew very little. I spent about 18 months intensively studying archaeology and pottery in order to put those items in some kind of context. The result has been gratifying.

Kyleinschriften: So, how much time have you spent on digs? Where all have you excavated?

I worked at Tel Dan for almost 3 weeks in 2006 but the war with Lebanon, which involved artillery firing literally over the tel, cut that short. Then in 2008 I joined the ATS group at Tel Rehov, which was a fantastic experience. My next excavation was in 2015 when I took a few students to dig with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavation at Tel Abel Beth Ma’acah. We went back in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and in June this year (2019) 14 students will make up our ATS team there. We plan to return to TABM every year for a 3 week experience for as long as they are working the site. The leadership is excellent, the site is incredible, the working environment is great. I’ve also visited many sites, having spent a semester on sabbatical in Israel in 2012. I think the people at Tel Es Sultan (Jericho) are going to start charging me rent. I like to take a bag of books and just park on that site trying to figure out what I’m seeing.

Kyleinschriften: You’ve been busy! I’ve heard some Christians, even professors at Christian institutions say that the primary tool for Levantine archaeology is the Bible. They also tend to call this type of work “biblical archaeology.” First, what do you make of the term “biblical archaeology”, and what about the idea that an archaeologist begins with the Bible, rather than a trowel?

There are two sides to this. No archaeologist would wisely choose to ignore any documentary material about a site being excavated. That would involve choosing to be ignorant, which is just silly. But all documentary sources, the Bible and otherwise, involve perceptions, interpretations by the authors, and the framing of material toward whatever purpose the writer has. Even for evangelicals who affirm the trustworthiness and reliability of the biblical narrative, we still shouldn’t use the Bible as a filter or grid to sift the evidence of excavation. We have to interpret material culture as disclosed by archaeology in a manner consistent with the material culture record. Likewise, filtering or judging the Bible in light of the limited results of archaeology is not fair to the Bible. We need to study both on their own terms and then seek legitimate points where each discourse can enrich the other. “Enrich” can mean everything from reinforce to challenge. So I see a place for “biblical archaeology” meaning simply the study of archaeology that is pertinent to the interpretation of the Bible. I don’t see that as a search for confirmation, but simply information. 

Kyleinschriften: Another sentiment I’ve heard expressed is that if archaeology hasn’t yet confirmed something in the Bible, “keep digging.” Is this an accurate assessment, is it simply naïve, or is it something far worse?

I tend to think the biblical narrative is more often right than wrong, but I don’t hunt for confirmation of the Bible in archaeology. I just want to learn about the cultures and history, the actual life and experience, of the ancient people whose lives were swept up in the biblical story. So it’s possible, for example, that if the narrative isn’t “confirmed” by archaeology, it might be that we’ve misread the Bible. Or we could misunderstand the genre and intention of the text so that we’re looking for something that even the biblical authors didn’t assume would be there. We have to get free of agendas to prove or disprove, confirm or debunk, and engage both archaeology and biblical study for the learning and insight they offer on their own terms. Convergences certainly happen, but so do divergences and sometimes just “skew lines” where both discourses are just going their own way. It’s out of our control, and as scholars our first obligation is to fit our mode of inquiry to the contours of our subject matter. I don’t consider that “objectivity” in the sterile sense, but something more like “justice” and fairness. We have to be fair to each discipline.

Kyleinschriften: OK, let’s get into the main topic of conversation here—archaeological study Bibles. I imagine that for some lay people this type of tool can help bring the Bible to life and help them see just how much information has been gleaned through archaeological excavations. Would you agree with that assessment? What do you see as some of the benefits an archaeological study Bible can offer?

First of all… I absolutely hate the phrase “bring the Bible to life.” The Bible is plenty alive enough already. It is we who are dead, dull, ignorant, and insensitive. We are the ones who need to be brought to life so we can discern the life that has always been present in the Bible.

Okay. I feel better now.

To your point: sure, a handy source of information that is keyed to the canonical flow of the biblical material is very helpful. I am not sure a “Bible” is the best approach. The Zondervan set of commentaries focused on biblical backgrounds is, to my mind, a better format. The study Bible format seems to demand comment and notes for passages that might not need it, and at the same time requires a brevity that makes weighing alternative views hard. I find the discussion of Jericho in Joshua, for example, very thin because it simply side-steps the whole debate and reproduces several common misunderstandings about the Jericho evidence, generally reproducing the views of Bryant Wood which have only found acceptance in a very small circle and have never been presented in a peer-reviewed, general scholarly setting. So that’s a danger: we pick the most congenial view and then boil it down to a couple hundred words for a side-bar or note. Then when the user of this Bible hits the differing views of Jericho even by solid, reliable conservative writers like Richard Hess, they are confused and discouraged. Such a source is at its best in bringing depth to the text by illuminating everyday life, such as how altars looked and were used, the peculiar types of houses in Israel, etc. 

Kyleinschriften: I love what say about the Bible already being plenty alive, and I gladly accept your rebuke! One of the problems I see in study Bibles in general is that the editors only tell you what they want you to know. I know you’ve touched on this already, but how is this especially true with archaeological study Bibles, and what are the hazards in that?

I probably hit that above, but I’d say you’re right. First of all, we can’t cover all the legitimate diverse points of view emerging from archaeological study in the format of a study Bible’s notes and sidebars. Second, yes, the editorial perspective will color things and I fear editors might skew the content to match what they think their audience will want—that goes for the “left” as well, of course. Another point, though, is that a study Bible format does not allow us to ask the exegetical questions. In my work on the Joshua volume for the NICOT series, I am constantly realizing my archaeological opinions had assumed a certain reading of the text, but when I actually drill down into the text, that reading begins to be questionable just on exegetical grounds. So a study Bible format does not really do that part very well.

Another issue I have with the Zondervan effort, which is actually the finest and best-executed example of this type of work I’ve ever seen, is that I can’t find who wrote each section. That’s essential to me, to know who wrote the relevant material for each section. Related to that is that a study Bible format doesn’t allow you to point to reference literature, even very basic stuff.

Kyleinschriften: Can you think of any egregious errors or overstatements you’ve encountered in an archaeological study Bible? What made it so problematic?

Just at random, in the Discussion of the walls of Jericho in the Zondervan volume, they list all the comparisons between the urban destruction at Jericho and the Bible, but do not clarify that many of these comparisons come from widely different periods on the site, some early bronze, some middle bronze, and none viewed by any consensus as deriving from the Late Bronze Age (Joshua’s era). It’s all captured by the comment “Dating issues aside, much of the archaeological data corresponds with the Biblical account.” Dating issues aside? Seriously, an Early Bronze Age destruction that corresponds in every detail to the Joshua narrative means nothing with regard to the Joshua story. The dating is everything when we are talking about historical study. Another example of perpetuating a confused and inaccurate view is the discussion of Rahab’s house. By contrast, the discussion of the possible dates for the “Conquest of Canaan” is quite even-handed, though more critical scholars might scorn the entire topic and some options they list there are only held by a tiny sliver of scholars.

Kyleinschriften: I think it’s fair to say that both of us want to help our students and parishioners better understand the world of the Bible. If archaeological study Bibles aren’t the best option to that end, what are some tools you would recommend, especially for the lay person.

I wouldn’t scorn a tool like the archaeological study Bible as long as its limitations are understood. For lay people, they need to realize you aren’t going to just read a half-page note or a paragraph of a commentary and be up to speed on archaeology. This is a large enterprise and it’s full of all kinds of different people and its glory is it’s multiplication of approaches and possibilities. Archaeology does not tend to narrow down the possibilities, but to open up all kinds of new ones.

So first I’d suggest reading a solid, brief introduction to how archaeology in the biblical lands actually works. I like Mattiew Richelle’s The Bible and Archaeology (Hendrickson, 2018). It’s clear, well informed, and the endnotes have a lot of resources. Another resource is Eric Cline’s Three Stones Make a Wall and a lot of Christian college and seminary teachers like John Currid’s Doing Archaeology in the Land of theBible. The point is to know how archaeology works and how archaeologists think. Second, the lay person needs a solid grasp of the basic biblical story in the context of world history. The volume you and I contributed to [Ancient Israel’s History; Baker, 2014] might be too technical on that point. We are needful of a nice 250 page solid volume on biblical history aimed at the folks you and I serve. With a solid sense of archaeological process, and a good sense of the biblical history in context, people would be better prepared to use specific archaeological resources. I like James Hoffmeier’s The Archaeology of the Bible for a nice overview that is lavishly illustrated with high-quality photographs. Hoffmeier is a reliable scholar with a good sense of what matters. Of course, our friend David Schreiner’s new book Pondering the Spade is another source for looking at specific examples of the interaction between biblical interpretation and the interpretation of archaeological findings.

The key here is simply to start envisioning the biblical events as involving actual people living very concrete lives. In biblical study, context is king. And in the realm of context, archaeology is certain a powerful resource.

Kyleinschriften: Thanks so much for taking the time to “sit down” with me and share your expert thoughts on archaeology and the Bible!

---

[1] Lawson does not comment directly on the ESV Archaeological Study Bible. Rather, his comments are directed at the genre more broadly, with some references made to the NIV Archaeological Study Bible.