Archaeology today
I went to a lecture at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem on "Archaeology Today" given by Prof. Amnon Ben-Tor, Head of the Archaeology School at the Hebrew University. It was the annual Elie Borowski memorial lecture given in memory of the founder of the Museum. Prof. Ben-Tor used the occasion to bemoan the status of archaeology today, particularly the use of technobabble in place of straightforward analysis.
However, he kept his most stern words of criticism for the "new" archaeology that questions everything that we thought was known. In the new "minimalist" approach, there are no facts, but interpretations, and all interpretations are suspect because of the bias of the interpreters. This approach has lead to the conclusion that David and Solomon never existed, that the descriptions of ancient kingdoms and cities in the Bible are either grossly exaggerated or untrue, and that all those who wrote the Bible did so with an obvious partiality.
Prof. Ben-Tor described himself as a"maximalist", who believes that there are definite facts, and that some of what the minimalists describe as criticism of the established opinion is obvious.
For example, all archaelologists accept that the Bible was written by men and therefore contains mistakes, exaggerations, and biased opinions. It has been argued recently that since there is no clear evidence of the existence of someone named David, that he is a figure of imagination. Even the discovery of the City of David, that resembles that described in the Bible, is dismissed. It has been stated that there is no evidence linking this City, and particularly the huge rock edifice that has been discovered there (see my previous article on the "Tunnel tour"), with the 10th century bce. However, Ben-Tor stated that fragements of pottery of that era were discovered in the houses that are part of the construction, and that in the Amarna tablets there is a contemporary reference to the "family of David." So he thinks that the minimalists are determined to strike down what we know, in pursuance of a predetermined stance. This stance minimalizes or ignores the evidence found, and deliberately opposes all prior conclusions.
I must confess to being confused by this conflict in contemporary archaeology of the Bible. On the one hand I am not a believer, so I certainly accept that the Bible was the work of men, and as such is neither an accurate nor a reliable historic record. But, as a Jewish nationalist, I accept that the Bible portrays in broad outline the relationship of the Jewish people with this Land, and from the many extant place names and detailed descriptions, it cannot be wholly inaccurate. Also, I see a political bias in the left wing opinions of many of those archaeologists (both Israeli and foreign), who deliberately downgrade the Jewish relationship to the Land in order to upgrade the Palestinian relationship. This is totally unacceptable and is clearly more biased and slanted than any original Biblical bias might have been. Only in Israel can biblical archaeology have such an immediacy and relevance.
However, he kept his most stern words of criticism for the "new" archaeology that questions everything that we thought was known. In the new "minimalist" approach, there are no facts, but interpretations, and all interpretations are suspect because of the bias of the interpreters. This approach has lead to the conclusion that David and Solomon never existed, that the descriptions of ancient kingdoms and cities in the Bible are either grossly exaggerated or untrue, and that all those who wrote the Bible did so with an obvious partiality.
Prof. Ben-Tor described himself as a"maximalist", who believes that there are definite facts, and that some of what the minimalists describe as criticism of the established opinion is obvious.
For example, all archaelologists accept that the Bible was written by men and therefore contains mistakes, exaggerations, and biased opinions. It has been argued recently that since there is no clear evidence of the existence of someone named David, that he is a figure of imagination. Even the discovery of the City of David, that resembles that described in the Bible, is dismissed. It has been stated that there is no evidence linking this City, and particularly the huge rock edifice that has been discovered there (see my previous article on the "Tunnel tour"), with the 10th century bce. However, Ben-Tor stated that fragements of pottery of that era were discovered in the houses that are part of the construction, and that in the Amarna tablets there is a contemporary reference to the "family of David." So he thinks that the minimalists are determined to strike down what we know, in pursuance of a predetermined stance. This stance minimalizes or ignores the evidence found, and deliberately opposes all prior conclusions.
I must confess to being confused by this conflict in contemporary archaeology of the Bible. On the one hand I am not a believer, so I certainly accept that the Bible was the work of men, and as such is neither an accurate nor a reliable historic record. But, as a Jewish nationalist, I accept that the Bible portrays in broad outline the relationship of the Jewish people with this Land, and from the many extant place names and detailed descriptions, it cannot be wholly inaccurate. Also, I see a political bias in the left wing opinions of many of those archaeologists (both Israeli and foreign), who deliberately downgrade the Jewish relationship to the Land in order to upgrade the Palestinian relationship. This is totally unacceptable and is clearly more biased and slanted than any original Biblical bias might have been. Only in Israel can biblical archaeology have such an immediacy and relevance.
posted by Jack Cohen at 1:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home