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 Birans 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 Thompsons 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 Birans 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...…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.

Biblical scholarship is even more contentious than other areas of academic inquiry because it comes dangerously close to peoples biases and beliefs. People want to confirm their own worldviews, and may be using scholarship as a means to do that at the expense of academic integrity. It is surprising how catty scholars can be when engaging each other in dialogue, but refreshing to know that they do not need to hold back their emotions. It is also surprising to see that the determination to refute the Bible is as vehement as the determination to prove its accuracy.

Works Cited

Kitchen, KA. 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.

Lemche, Niels Peter 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…