Three debates about Bible and archaeology

Biblica

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-27

  Zevit, Ziony ^a  

^a American Jewish University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 64949147384     PISSN: 00060887     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. M. LIVERANI, "Nuovi sviluppi nello studio della storia dell'Israele biblico", Bib 80 (1999) 490-492, 497-500, 502-505
2. W.G. DEVER, Archaeology and Biblical Studies. Retrospects and Prospects (Archeologia 4.1; Evanston 1974) 17-25, 34-43
3. ID., "Retrospects and Prospects in Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology', BA 45 (1982) 103-107
4. H. SHANKS, "Should the Term 'Biblical Archaeology' Be Abandoned?" BARe 7/3 (1981) 54-57
5. E.F. CAMPBELL, "Letter to Readers", BA 45 (1982) 68
6. H.D. LANCE, "American Biblical Archaeology in Perspective", BA 45 (1982) 97-101
7. Dever first introduced the term as referring to an 'independent, secular discipline ... pursued by cultural historians for its own sake' in the "Introduction" to Biblical Archaeology (ed. S.M. PAUL - W.G. DEVER) (Library of Jewish knowledge; Jerusalem 1973) ix. (I thank Prof. Paul for this reference.)
8. He abridged this publication into a one volume J. JAHN, Archaeologia biblica in Epitomen redacta (Vienna 1814)
9. K.F. KEIL, Handbuch der biblischen Archäologie (Frankfort a. M. - Erlangen 1858-1859) 2
10. KEIL, Handbuch, 1-5
11. J.G. LANSING, Outlines of the Archaeology of the Old Testament (New Brunswick 1896) 4-5
12. P.J. KING, American Archaeology in the Mideast. A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Philadelphia 1983) 3-4
13. C.C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Beyond the Tigris and Euphrates (Beersheba 1996) 26-29. Indeed, most of the travelers published either popular or scientific accounts of their travels, so that information about the Holy Land and the Bible was widely circulated in English, French, and German
14. Cf. E. KALT, Biblische Archäologie (Freiburg 1924), a short volume focusing on political, religious and social institutions in their geographical setting. Although written more than 60 years after Keil - it could be considered an updated abridgement of the earlier work - Kalt did not incorporate findings from dirt archaeology into his discussions
15. Cf. KING, American Archaeology in the Mideast, 83, regarding the approach of M. Kyle, a conservative Biblicist long associated with W.F. Albright and American archaeology in the Holy Land
16. J.C. MEYER - V.H. MATTHEWS, "The Use and Abuse of Archaeology in Current Bible Handbooks", BA 48 (1985) 149-159
17. This description is borrowed from Weaver who used it to suggest how the historical impasse caused by archaeology might be addressed theologically in the 1990's; cf. W.P. WEAVER, "The Archaeology of Palestine and the Archaeology of Faith: Between a Rock and a Hard Place", What has Archaeology to do with Faith? (eds. J.H. CHARLESWORTH - W P. WEAVER) (Faith and Scholarship Colloquies; Philadelphia 1992) 89-105 ("The Failure of Archaeology as an Apologetic Strategy")
18. W.G. DEVER, "What Archaeology Can Contribute to an Understanding of the Bible", BARe 7/5 (1981) 40-41
19. ID., "Archaeology and the Bible. Understanding Their Special Relationship", BARe 16/3 (1990) 52-58, 62
20. P.R. DAVIES, In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSS 266; Sheffield 1992)
21. Actually, Davies was partially anticipated by N.P LEMCHE, Early Israel. Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society Before the Monarchy (VTS 37; Leiden 1985)
22. Lemche's book, however, did not generate the furor and spark the debate. Subsequent to the characterization of these scholars as 'minimalists', he was associated and associated himself with them. G. GARBINI, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (New York 1988) 1-20, 125-126, 132, 154-169, anticipated the minimalists in attacking theological interpretations of history that countenanced the theologizing historiography of the Biblical texts as historical statements and in dating Biblical compositions to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. His pugnacious essays, published in English translation two years after appearing in Italian, have not become part of the minimalist conversation
23. T.L. THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHNE 4; Leiden 1992)
24. P.R. DAVIES, "What Separates a Minimalist from a Maximalist? Not Much", BARe 26/2 (2000) 24-27, 72-73
25. Models of cultural evolution and diffusion became popular in much historical and archaeological explanation during the 1970s and remains so. Their application reflects the trend to reject explanations of change in ancient populations through recourse to theories of invasions and migrations. Scholars felt that the changes might be better explained as due to ordered socio-archaeological processes operating on the indigenous, local population. Cf. J. CHAPMAN - H. HAMEROW, "On the Move Again - Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanations", Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation (eds. J. CHAPMAN - H. HAMEROW) (BAR.IS 664; Oxford 1997) 1
26. N.P. LEMCHE, "On the Problems of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History", Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (http://purl.org/jhs) 3 (2000) pars. 4.2
27. Concerning the conquest and settlement, G.E. WRIGHT, "The Literary and Historical Problem of Josh 10 and Ju 1", JNES 5 (1946) 105-114
28. J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel (Philadelphia 1959) 110-127
29. W.G. DEVER, "Save Us from Postmodern Malarkey", BARe 26/2 (2000) 28-35, 68-69
30. J. HACKETT, "Spelling Differences and Letter Shapes Are Telltale Signs", BARe 23/2 (1997) 42-44
31. R. HENDEL, "The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies", BA 59 (1996) 233-237
32. S. NORIN, "The Age of the Siloam Inscription and Hezekiah's Tunnel", VT 48 (1998) 37-48
33. A. HURVITZ, "The historical quest for 'ancient Israel' and the linguistic evidence of the Hebrew Bible: some methodological considerations", VT 47 (1997) 301-315
34. N.P. LEMCHE, "Ideology and the History of Ancient Israel", SJOT 14 (2000) 169-173, 190-193. The contradiction between his assessment of the Persian period in this statement and that cited in the previous footnote, both published the same year, has not yet been clarified in subsequent publications
35. F. PETRIE, Tell el-Hesy (Lachish) ( London 1891) 40
36. S. BUNIMOVITZ - A. FAUST, "Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology", BASOR 322 (2001) 1-3
37. E.g. A. MAZAR - J. CAMP, "Will Tel Rehov Save the United Monarchy?", BARe 26/2 (2000) 48-50
38. "Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology Perspective", BASOR 314 (1999) 55-70
39. "Hazor XII-XI with an Addendum on Ben-Tor's Dating of Hazor X-VII", TA 27 (2000) 231-247
40. A. BEN-TOR - D. BEN-AMI, "Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.", IEJ 48 (1998) 1-37
41. A. BEN-TOR, "Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein", BASOR 317 (2000) 9-15
42. FINKELSTEIN, "The Archaeology of the United Monarchy", 177