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.
No comments:
Post a Comment