Abnormal Interests

I continue to prefer "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" for the reasons given by Zevit and for an additional reaso. The phrase "Biblical archaeology" may be find if one is talking a set of specific archaeological finds or theories (yes, there are theories in archaeology) that relate to an historical or theological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament or related works like the inter-testimonial writings. But the vast amount of work in the field does not relate to these matters in any clear way. For example, some of the most interesting work focuses on the Neolithic period. No one could reasonable claim that that has anything to do with the Bible. On a somewhat grander scale, one of the risks of using a phrase like "Biblical archaeology" to describe work in this field is that every rock and sherd might come to be thought of somehow informing Biblical interpretation. A kind of archeology isogesis can easily follow. This does not mean that Syro-Palestinian archaeology does not or can not inform the interpretation of the Bible? Of course not, just as Anglo-Saxon archeology may inform our understanding of Beowulf Syro-Palestinian archaeology may inform of understanding of the Bible. But, it need not. Likewise one need not seek an archaeological explanation or, worse, proof of everything one finds in the Bible. That is a recipe for failure but only after frustration.