1. SUMMARY BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY: Current Issues in Biblical Archaeology

2. Finkelstein: (Textbook, pp. 183-88) - The Bible/Hebrew Scripture is not a historical record in the modern sense; - It is a sacred text written by authors who had strong theological and ideological convictions; - much of it set in writing in the 7 th -5 th centuries BC; - thus, it does not provide a direct, real-time testimony of many of the events narrated in it; - also, the Assyrian texts from the 9 th -7 th centuries are not free of ideological inclinations; - every historical description is bound to be influenced by the realities of the time of its compilation.

3. Finkelstein: - Archaeology: provides “objective” testimony to what happened in the past; - deals with the materials of the past; - thus, an “eye-witness” to what happened in the past; - it provides us with the material culture of ancient peoples; - sheds light on long-term social, economic, and demographic processes (as opposed to short-term events); - but archaeological interpretation is not free from modern trends and biases.

4. Finkelstein: - Material and Text; - Material remains are mute; - as such, they can be interpreted in many ways; - almost every find is subject to more than one historical reconstruction; - archaeology needs the text; - without the text, archaeology can only give us general information about what happened in their time; - without the text, many essential questions remain unanswered;

5. Finkelstein: - For a reasonable reconstruction of the early history of Israel, one needs: - the archaeological finds; - the biblical text; and - other ancient Near Eastern records.

6. Finkelstein: - Traditional biblical archaeology has been dominated by the biblical story; - very often, histories of Ancient Israel have done nothing more than repeat the biblical story; - the text was put in the spotlight; - archaeology played a minor role; - it was not considered as an independent tool for historical research;

7. Finkelstein: - Archaeology must be studied independently of the biblical text; - then one checks the biblical text; - do the two types of evidence accord with each other? - if not, why not? - Why did the author portray history in this way?

8. Finkelstein: - Most scholars have studied early-Israelite history from early to late; a chronological study: Patriarchs; Exodus; Conquest; Period of the Judges; etc. - what should be done is the opposite; - one needs to establish the period when the traditions were put down in writing; - this is the point of departure for the study of Ancient Israel: to verify if the text and archaeology are harmonious; - If not, why not? - histoire regressive: starting from a secure point and then reconstructing history step-by-step further back and deeper into the past; - one should investigate from late to early.

9. Finkelstein: - This means that the early chapters in Israel’s history cannot be understood as portraying straightforward historical realities; - But it is inconceivable that the authors invented stories – “made up history”; - biblical history written to serve an ideological platform; - it was written in a way that would seem reliable to the reader and/or listener; - it was written on the basis of tales, myths, traditions, and ancient memories; - the stories belong more to the world of the authors than to our world.

10. Finkelstein: - Much of the biblical description of Ancient Israel was written from an ideology that prevailed in Judah between the 7 th -5 th centuries BC; - The authors decided what ought to be in the text and what ought to be left out; - thus, we are reading a selective history; - The Bible does not represent all groups in Judah; - it certainly does not represent the world of the Northern Kingdom; - how different biblical history would be if it were written by someone from Samaria or even from Bethel or a rival of the “Deuteronomistic” camp in Judah.

11. Finkelstein: - Layers of tradition that gradually accumulated over centuries of oral transmission; - then redaction; - until the text reached its present state; - e.g., David and Solomon (Textbook, p. 186); - Text and Archaeology: view events from two different perspectives, namely, theology versus daily reality; - the scholar needs to be conscious of which is which.

12. Finkelstein: - faith, and historical research should not be harmonized or compromised.

13. Mazar: (Textbook, pp. 189-95) - Archaeology’s role: to attempt to determine the historical background to the stories in the Bible; - To determine whether or not those stories preserve valuable data on the ancient history of Israel; - Mazar refers to Finkelstein’s approach as “reflective historiography”, that is, that many of the stories in the Bible are intended to justify and glorify Josiah’s political and ideological goals; - this is a narrow and one-sided view of biblical historiography;

14. Mazar: - Many of the biblical stories are rooted in realities that precede their compilation by hundreds of years; - e.g., the conquest story of Hazor and the conquest of `Ai (Textbook, p. 191); - nevertheless, many of the stories are to be explained as folk stories and traditions compiled, edited, and rewritten by later authors … with literary skill and theological motivation; - archaeologists can dig into the layers of these stories and uncover realities which the stories reflect; - in many cases, the stories can be linked to archaeological evidence; - at the same time, archaeology has the ability to render improbable the historicity of some biblical stories, e.g., Conquest.

15. Mazar: - Archaeology does not “prove the Bible”; - it increases understanding and reconstructs aspects of life in Israel and among its neighbours including social structures, economy, technology, warfare, religious practices, etc.