biblical scholarship and interpreting archaeological evidence

Article : Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L Thompson, “Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64 (1994) pp 3-22.

Lemche and Thompson establish themselves as minimalsts, and offer a harsh critique of the methods used by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran upon presenting his findings of the Tel Dan “bytdwd” inscription. According to Lemche and Thompson, Biran leapt to conclusions about the connection between the inscription and the Bible and “distorted” its significance in order to promote a “fundamentalist reading of the Bible,” (5). Moreover, the authors claim that Biran manipulated both the scholarly and the popular media into buying into his assertion that the inscription proved that David was a historical figure and that the Bible was therefore substantiated as historical fact.

The first claim Lemche and Thompson make is that the inscription is “far removed both chronologically and geographically” from the presumably corresponding Bible stories (5). Second, Lemche and Thompson show how Biran and his supporters base their entire argument on “just three letters,” (6). Biran also uses “circular argumentation,” (Lemche and Thompson 7). The authors also critique the archaeological methods used by other scholars who supported Biran’s conclusions, such as the dating of pottery at the Tel Dan site. Generally, the authors accuse Biran and other maximalists of bad scholarship and “pseudo-scholarship,” (8). To make their case, Lemche and Thompson outline their position carefully and logically, beginning with the original discovery by Biran at Tel Dan. Then, the authors explain the order in which Biran published different articles in the scholarly and popular press about the conclusions that he spuriously drew. Finally, the authors refer to several other maximalists who had jumped on the Biran theory. Essentially, the archaeological record is not definitive enough in terms of offering “absolute” dating potential to prove in any way that the inscription does directly refer to King David (Lemche and Thompson 7). The authors also refer to archaeologists and historians who have systematically critiqued the Biran theory, such as the work of Cryer. Summarizing the scholarly critiques of Biran substantiates Lenche and Thompson’s claim that Biran jumped to conclusions. However, the authors are clear that they are not discounting the importance of the inscription itself. They are simply saying that Biran’s conclusions about its implications are inaccurate, sensationalist, and also lack empirical grounding.

While it seems unnecessary for the authors to go so far and accuse Biran of falsifying data (Lemche and Thompson write, “one must ask whether the inscription was found in situ at all,” 8), the points they make about logical fallacies in Biran’s work are valid. It is important to approach Biblical archaeology and history with scientific objectivity, and to avoid trying to squeeze evidence into a Biblical worldview. Granted, Lemche and Thompson assume almost the opposite stance: claiming that the Bible lacks historicity or historiographical validity at all (“the Bible’s stories of Saul, David, and Solomon are not about history at all,” 18). Even if they are correct, such a hard-lined stance raises the same concerns about scholarship and academic bias as for Biran: when analyzing the historical and archaeological record, it may be better to draw conclusions after analyzing the data and not trying to make the data fit prejudices and assumptions.

Article 2: KA Kitchen, “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997) pp 29-44. 

Kitchen claims that the “byt-dwd” inscription definitively refers to the “house of David,” and that controversy over the inscription at Tel Dan is “needless,” (30). To support his position, Kitchen discusses the two different fragments that were found, and using Biran’s original research claim that the two fragments indeed belong to the same integral piece. Kitchen then reproduces what is left of the inscription, Romanizing it but also clearly explaining its historical and semantic implications. Using the linguistic-historical approach is effective in explaining to the reader what the inscription actually says and what the scribe would have intended to say when writing it. Kitchen also offers a reasonable date range for the inscription, placing it most generally between 1000-700 BCE, but more reasonably between 850-800 BCE. The reason for this is given in the footnote referring to the style of writing. Because the writing appears to have been more rapidly cut than a ceremonial inscription, paleographers have concluded that it is an “immediate victory inscription,” relatively hastily and excitedly carved (Kitchen 35). The author draws from several academic disciplines to make his argument, and divides the article into sections that focus on one issue at a time.

Although choppy and tangential at times, and also laden with linguistic jargon, Kitchen does a fairly good job of laying out the evidence in a logical way. The author first analyzes the Tel Dan “House of David” or “byt-dwd” inscription line by line, discussing what the words would have meant in context. Then, Kitchen draws parallels to other texts that further contextualize the inscription. For example, the author focuses on the use of the “House of...” designation in different areas, to denote dynastic leadership such as that of David. These are “bayt-names,” which were used throughout the Levant and into Mesopotamia (Kitchen 38). The author also offers some concessions, noting when the historical record is inconclusive.

The main points Kitchen makes about the Tel Dan stele is that the inscription is indisputably referring to the site as the actual “house of David.” In other words, King David was one of many such regional rulers. Kitchen is perplexed by the antagonistic reactions to the Tel Dan inscription. In fact, Kitchen accuses Lemche and Thompson, and other minimalists, of “anti-Davidic ‘scholarship,’” deliberately placing the word “scholarship” in quotation marks to denigrate their position (33). Then, Kitchen refutes the claim that dwd refers to “Dod,” and not to David. To refute this claim, Kitchen simply states, “there is not one scintilla of respectable, explicit evidence for his/her/its existence anywhere,” (41). Essentially, Kitchen states that the inscription at Tel Dan is consistent with other inscriptions found throughout the region referring to David.

Final Question (1-2 paragraphs): What does this whole exercise tell you about “scholarship”?

Scholarship is about dialogue and discourse. The scholars in these examples are engaging in heated debates with one another, attempting to promote their own personal views and interpretations of evidence. Unfortunately, archaeology is unlike the hard sciences whereby measurements are absolute and methodologies are more straightforward. In the case of Biblical archaeology, one inscription can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. According to their areas of specialization, whether it be archaeology, linguistics, or history, scholars will gather evidence and then present that evidence to their peers. It is always important to pay attention to both methodology and also to the scholars’ conclusions and analysis.