Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

STAllBUCK;WilYDECt.AIlETHE11HNGSFOllllIDDEN? 103

Easternarchaeology.Formuchofthelastcenturyarchaeologyhasbeen
viewed as an aide-de-campfor biblicalstudies. The BiblicalTheology
movementinparticularlookedfOthedisciplineofarchaeologyfOconfirm
thelikelihoodofsegmentsofthebiblicalrecord.Archaeologicalpossibility
turned,asa matterofcourse,totheologicalprobability.Remainsofthe
earthprovidedintellectualbedrockforbiblicaltheologicaldiscourseina
positivisticclimate.
Understandably,whenWilliamDeverproposedinthe1970sthatthe
rubricknownas "biblicalarchaeology" shouldbecorrectedto "Syro-
Palestinianarchaeology,"afirestormofcontroversyerupted.Atheart,as
Zevitobserves,wasthestruggleoverinterprelationofarchaeologicaldata
anditsrelation,ifany,totheologicalcontex!;

Therearemanymorete:lchersoftheBibleinthe worldthan thereare

archeologistsworkingintheIronAgepericxl,andtheoverwhelmingmajor-

ityoftheseteachersworkindenominationalseuingswhichareexplicitand

implicittheologiGl1progmmsthatareaprioritowhateverarcheologists

mightdiscover."111ecallfor:1changeinterminologywasintended 10 sever

theconnectionberweenthearcheologicalandthetheologiC".1I, 10 disallow

anyclaimsthaIarcheologyofthephysicalhadimplicltionsforthemCla-

physicoll,andtodelegitimizeanyinterpretiveauthoritythatIheologiC:llly

drivenBibliciSlSmightclaimoverarcheologiC".11dala.^7

Despiteinitialrejections,Dever'scallforadistinctionbetweenthedisci-
plinesofarchaeologyandbiblicalstudieswontheday.Themodifying
adjective"biblical"increasinglywasshowntobeillusive.No!onlywas
archaeologicalpraxisfar-extendedbeyondSyro-Palestine,butthepracti-
tioners themselves were experts in excavating, cataloguing, and
profferinginterpretation,butnotnecessarilyinthedisciplinesofbiblical
scholarship. Notably, in itsSixty-first year ofpublication (998), the
AmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearchrenameditsflagshipjournal,Bib-
licalArchaeologist,asNearEasternArchaeology.Thechangeinmasthead
issignificantnotonlyintermsofscopebutevenmoreindemarcatinga
separationofmethodologies.
Theinsistenceuponmethodologicaldifferentiationbyarchaeologists
has,unfortunately,encouragedbiblicaltheologianstoreadtheDiblesyn-
chronicallyasnonhistoricliterature.Thisishardlya satisfactorypedagogy
withinthebiblicalstudiesclassroomintheologicalcontexts,particularly
giventhereasonableexpectationamongmoststudentsthattheGoelof
thebiblicaltex!wouldbereflectedinactualhistory.Thequestionisnot

7 Zevit,• ThreeDcbalCSaboulBibleandArch.t(,-'OJogy.-8.