Navigating the Field, Its Literature, and Ideological Tensions

Recently, I was asked, “What concerns me about biblical archaeology today?” As someone deeply engaged with Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies and a conservative evangelical perspective, I find this question both timely and complex. Biblical archaeology—the study of material remains to "illuminate" (not prove) the historical and cultural context of the Bible—holds immense potential to affirm Scripture’s reliability and enrich our understanding of its world. However, the field today raises significant concerns, from methodological biases and skewed literature to ideological contentions that challenge evangelical convictions. Below, I address these issues, offering a balanced reflection on the state of biblical archaeology, its literature, and the ideological battles shaping its trajectory.

Methodological Concerns in Biblical Archaeology

Over-Reliance on Minimalist Interpretations:

One of my primary concerns is the methodological bias prevalent in the field, particularly the influence of minimalist interpretations.

• Issue: The minimalist-maximalist debate remains a significant contention in biblical archaeology. Minimalists (e.g., Israel Finkelstein, Thomas L. Thompson) argue that much of the biblical narrative, especially pre-exilic history (e.g., Patriarchs, Exodus, United Monarchy), lacks direct archaeological corroboration and should be treated as late, ideological constructs. This challenges evangelical trust in the Bible’s historicity.

• Concern: Minimalist methodologies often prioritize archaeological data and material evidence over textual evidence, dismissing biblical history unless explicitly confirmed by material remains like artifacts. For example, the suggested lack of direct or definitive evidence for the Exodus, Joshua’s conquest of Jericho or David’s kingdom leads some to question their historicity, despite texts like the Merneptah Stele or the Tel Dan Stele supporting a “House of David.” Evangelicals worry this approach undermines Scripture’s reliability, treating it as myth unless proven otherwise.

• Impact: This can skew the literature toward skepticism, marginalizing evangelical scholars who advocate for a maximalist view (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen, James Hoffmeier) that sees archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, biblical history.

As a conservative evangelical, I find this troubling because it risks treating the Bible as a human document rather than divinely inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet minimalist assumptions can erode confidence in the Bible’s historicity.

Incomplete and Ambiguous Data:

Moreover, archaeological data is inherently fragmentary—sites like Jericho or Ai remain contested due to dating disputes or incomplete excavations—making it premature to reject biblical accounts based on “silence.” Evangelicals must advocate for a maximalist approach, as seen in scholars like Kenneth Kitchen, that views archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, Scripture’s historical claims.

• Issue: Archaeological evidence is fragmentary, and interpretations are often speculative due to the limited nature of finds. For instance, dating disputes over structures like the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem (potentially David’s palace) highlight how ambiguous data can lead to conflicting conclusions.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that the field’s reliance on incomplete evidence leads to premature or biased interpretations that contradict biblical accounts. The absence of evidence is often misconstrued as evidence of absence, especially in popular literature.

• Impact: This can create a perception that archaeology disproves the Bible, challenging evangelical confidence in Scripture’s historical claims.

Influence of ANE Parallels:

Another methodological concern is the over-reliance on ANE parallels, a topic close to my research on covenantal structures in Revelation.

• Issue: Scholars like John Walton emphasize ANE parallels to illuminate biblical texts, such as comparing Genesis 1 to Enuma Elish or Mosaic laws to Hammurabi’s Code. While valuable, this approach risks parallelomania—the uncritical assumption that similarities imply dependence. For instance, equating Genesis with ANE myths might downplay its unique monotheistic theology, challenging evangelical doctrines of inspiration. This can lead to methodological assumptions that the Bible is derivative of ANE culture rather than divinely inspired.

• Concern: Evangelicals may worry that ANE-focused archaeology reduces the Bible’s uniqueness, framing it as one of many ANE texts. For example, Walton’s functional view of Genesis 1, while insightful, might be seen as downplaying its historical claims, raising concerns about prioritizing cultural context over divine revelation.

• Impact: The literature’s focus on ANE parallels can overshadow the Bible’s theological distinctiveness, potentially weakening evangelical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. To counter this, we must follow Jeffrey H. Tigay’s caution, ensuring parallels are supported by cultural contact and complex patterns to avoid reducing Scripture to a cultural artifact.

Concerns in the Literature

The literature of biblical archaeology presents its own challenges.

Bias in Scholarly Narratives:

• Issue: Much of the archaeological literature is written by scholars with secular or critical perspectives, who may approach biblical texts with skepticism. Journals like Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical Archaeology Review often feature debates that lean toward critical reconstructions, such as questioning the historicity of Joshua’s conquests based on sites like Jericho or Ai, often sidelining evangelical voices.

• Concern: Evangelicals may find the literature dismissive of biblical accounts, favoring naturalistic explanations over supernatural ones (e.g., explaining the Red Sea crossing as a natural phenomenon). This can make it challenging to find resources that align with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s truthfulness.

• Impact: The dominance of critical perspectives in mainstream publications can marginalize evangelical scholars, limiting their influence and creating a perception that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible.

Popular Misrepresentation:

Popular misrepresentation exacerbates this issue.

• Issue: Popular media and books often sensationalize or misrepresent archaeological findings, either exaggerating their significance (e.g., claims of finding Noah’s Ark) or using them to debunk biblical accounts—without nuance. Such distortions, whether from fringe enthusiasts or skeptical critics, undermine the field’s credibility and obscure its value for illuminating Scripture. For instance, the hype around the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem as David’s palace often overshadows careful archaeological debates, leaving believers wary of archaeology’s reliability. For example, media coverage of Israel Finkelstein’s The Bible Unearthed often amplifies its minimalist conclusions questioning the historicity of David or the Exodus, without nuance, while evangelical scholars like Bryant Wood (Associates for Biblical Research), who propose alternative datings for Jericho’s fall, struggle for mainstream traction.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that such misrepresentations confuse lay believers, leading to distrust in archaeology or uncritical acceptance of dubious claims (e.g., unverified artifacts promoted by fringe groups).

• Impact: This distorts the field’s credibility, making it harder for evangelicals to engage archaeology as a legitimate tool for understanding Scripture. This imbalance creates a narrative that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible, which can confuse lay believers seeking to affirm Scripture’s reliability. As a member of the Associates for Biblical Research I can recommend the Bible and Spade magazine as I have published many articles.

Lack of Evangelical Representation:

Additionally, the underrepresentation of evangelical scholarship limits the field’s accessibility to conservative audiences.

• Issue: While evangelical archaeologists like Bryant Wood or Steven Collins contribute to the field, their work is often underrepresented in mainstream academic literature compared to secular or critical scholars. While organizations like Associates for Biblical Research produce faith-affirming resources, their work is rarely featured in mainstream publications, leaving evangelicals to navigate a literature that feels hostile to their convictions.

• Concern: This imbalance can create a one-sided narrative that sidelines evangelical perspectives, particularly those affirming biblical historicity. For instance, Wood’s redating of Jericho’s destruction to align with Joshua’s conquest is often dismissed by mainstream scholars.

• Impact: The literature may lack robust defences of biblical reliability, leaving evangelical readers to navigate a field that feels hostile to their convictions. This gap calls for more evangelical scholars to engage rigorously with the field, producing accessible works that bridge academic archaeology and church communities.

Ideological Contentions

Perhaps the most pressing concern is the ideological battles shaping biblical archaeology.

Secular vs. Theological Agendas:

• Issue: Biblical archaeology operates in a tension between secular academic standards and theological agendas. Secular scholars approach the Bible as a human document, subjecting it to the same scrutiny as ANE texts, often rejecting supernatural elements like miracles (e.g., Jericho’s walls, Josh. 6). This naturalistic bias clashes with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s divine inspiration and historical accuracy, creating a sense that archaeology is inherently skeptical of faith.

• Concern: Evangelicals may see an ideological bias in biblical archaeology, where secular assumptions—such as rejecting miracles or prioritizing material evidence—marginalize faith-based views. For instance, dismissing the fall of Jericho’s walls (Josh. 6) as “mythological” reflects a naturalistic worldview that conflicts with evangelical theology. Conversely, the archaeological evidence at Tall el-Hammam, likely biblical Sodom, suggesting destruction by an airburst, does not rule out divine intervention but may clarify the mechanism described in Scripture, enhancing our understanding of the biblical account.

• Impact: This tension can alienate evangelical scholars and believers, who may feel pressured to compromise their view of Scripture’s authority to gain academic credibility.

Politicization of Archaeology:

Politicization further complicates the field with modern geopolitical debates.

• Issue: Biblical archaeology is often entangled with modern political and cultural debates, particularly in the Middle East. For example, excavations in Israel, such as in Jerusalem (e.g., the City of David) are sometimes used to support or challenge claims about Israel’s historical presence, influencing contemporary geopolitical narratives.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be cautious about ideological agendas—Zionist, Palestinian, or secular—influencing archaeological interpretations. For example, minimalist claims that David’s kingdom was minor may stem from political motives to diminish Israel’s historical roots. Conversely, assertions linking archaeological finds to the Davidic period may be exaggerated to advance a political agenda. Such biases can distort objective analysis. Evangelicals should approach these interpretations critically, ensuring archaeology pursues truth rather than serving ideological goals.

• Impact: This politicization can undermine the field’s objectivity, making it difficult for evangelicals to trust findings that appear influenced by non-scholarly agendas.

Postmodern and Revisionist Trends:

Finally, postmodern and revisionist trends pose a challenge.

• Issue: Postmodern approaches in archaeology question traditional historical narratives, including biblical ones, favoring deconstructionist or revisionist readings that view biblical stories as “constructed” rather than revealed.

• Concern: Evangelicals, who affirm the Bible’s objective truth, may see these trends as undermining Scripture’s authority. For example, reinterpreting ANE parallels to emphasize cultural relativity might weaken confidence in the Bible’s unique authority as God’s Word. The emphasis on subjective interpretations (e.g., viewing biblical stories as “constructed” narratives) conflicts with evangelical convictions about divine revelation.

• Impact: These ideological shifts can make the field feel inhospitable to evangelicals, who may struggle to find common ground with scholars prioritizing cultural or ideological lenses over historical accuracy.

Specific Concerns for Conservative Evangelicals

Challenge to Inerrancy:

• Minimalist interpretations that deny the historicity of biblical events (e.g., the Patriarchs, Exodus) directly challenge evangelical doctrines of inerrancy, which hold that the Bible is true in all it affirms, including historical details.

• Concern: Evangelicals may fear that the field’s skepticism erodes confidence in Scripture, especially when archaeological “silence” (e.g., lack of evidence for the conquest of Canaan) is used to dismiss biblical accounts.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can counter this by emphasizing that archaeology is a developing field and absence of evidence does not disprove biblical claims, citing finds like the Merneptah Stele or Tel Dan Stele as partial corroborations.

Overemphasis on ANE Context:

• As noted previously, ANE studies can illuminate biblical texts but risk reducing the Bible to a product of its cultural milieu. For example, Walton’s view of Genesis as a functional cosmology may align too closely with ANE myths for some evangelicals, who prioritize the Bible’s unique inspiration.

• Concern: Over-reliance on ANE parallels may lead to interpretations that downplay the Bible’s divine origin, challenging evangelical theology.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can use ANE studies selectively, affirming parallels that clarify context (e.g., covenant structures) while upholding Scripture’s distinct theological message.

Accessibility for Lay Believers:

• The technical nature of archaeological literature and its often skeptical tone can make it inaccessible or discouraging for lay evangelicals seeking to understand the Bible’s historical context.

• Concern: This creates a gap between academic archaeology and church communities, limiting its apologetic value for reinforcing faith.

• Mitigation: Evangelical scholars can produce accessible resources (e.g., books, lectures) that highlight archaeology’s support for Scripture, such as the work of organizations like Associates for Biblical Research, Trowling Down, our Biblical Archaeology from the Ground Down and Explorers of the Lost Vaults Podcasts all operated by professional evangelical archaeologists.

A Path Forward for Evangelicals

Despite THESE concerns, biblical archaeology remains a powerful tool for affirming Scripture’s historical and cultural context. To engage the field effectively, evangelicals should:

Adopt Methodological Rigor: Use the above criteria to identify legitimate ANE parallels, avoiding parallelomania while leveraging cultural insights, as demonstrated in my dissertation on Revelation’s covenantal structure.

Amplify Evangelical Voices: Produce scholarship that counters minimalist narratives, highlighting finds like the Tel Dan Stele or Siloam Inscription that support biblical history.

Affirm Scripture’s Authority: Use archaeology to illuminate, not dictate, biblical interpretation, ensuring ANE parallels enhance rather than undermine the Bible’s theological distinctiveness.

Bridge Church and Academy: Create accessible resources that equip believers to engage archaeology confidently, reinforcing faith in Scripture’s reliability .

Conclusion

Biblical archaeology is a field of both promise and peril for conservative evangelicals. Methodological biases, critical literature, and ideological tensions challenge doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration, yet they need not deter us. By engaging archaeology with discernment, grounding interpretations in Scripture’s authority, and advocating for faith-affirming scholarship, we can uncover insights that deepen our understanding of God’s Word. As my work on Revelation’s covenantal structure shows, ANE studies can enhance our grasp of biblical truth without compromising its divine origin, paving a path to affirm both faith and reason in the pursuit of biblical understanding and faith-affirming scholarship.

_________