The latest bombshell from the world of biblical archeology hit the headlines about two weeks ago: A stone – the size of a coffee table, with neat Hebrew writing from a few decades before Jesus’ birth – may refer to an anointed one, or messiah, who would rise from the dead after three days.
The find would rattle Christianity to the core, some scholars exclaimed, since it pre-dates Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
But as quick as you can say “apocalyptic Jewish literature,” other scholars challenged that conclusion, including Christopher Rollston, professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Emmanuel School of Religion in Johnson City.
As Rollston points out, the writing (dubbed the “Gabriel vision text” because the message claims to be sent through the angel Gabriel) is very fragmentary: many letters, words and entire lines of text are missing. Also, the possible messianic references – and those are questionable – run parallel to other writings from the same era.
“There’s nothing significant” religiously in the finding, Rollston concludes. “It’s interesting and important, but doesn’t impact any modern faith, be it Judaism or Christianity. This interpretation will not stand the test of time.”
Rollston regards this sensational story as the latest example of how easy it is to misinterpret, exaggerate or, in some cases, even mislead about archeological findings and their importance.
Biblical archeology is a complex discipline, with scholars working on expeditions and painstaking analysis for years, even decades. Research can focus on minuscule details, such as subtle differences in tool marks or letter forms, and even microscopic traces of materials remaining after thousands of years.
But archeology is also shadowed by seedy antiquities markets, dubious artifacts and outright forgeries, not to mention occasional rogue scholars who publish breathtaking theories often based on slim evidence.
So while scholars can uncover and decipher astounding finds that can reshape our understanding of a culture, a historical era or a sacred text – the Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind – they also endure overblown claims, public feuds and even law suits. Rollston has seen it all.
In 2007 he was called to Israel to testify as an expert witness in the trial of five individuals accused by the Israeli Antiquities Authority of forgery of antiquities.
Now he is in the middle of another debate, this one over a small stone seal (pictured above) that a few scholars say belonged to Queen Jezebel, the notorious wife of King Ahab described in the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Kings. Rollston has challenged that conclusion on several grounds – that the theory is largely based on imaginatively “restoring” unknown missing letters, that the seal lacks any title or family reference, that it uses a style of writing that didn’t exist in Jezebel’s time, and more. This is a scholarly dispute, not a legal one, but it’s heated up the pages of academic journals for months.
Ironically, Rollston said he doesn’t care whether the seal belonged to the biblical Jezebel – a detachment he maintains when studying any artifact or ancient inscription.
“Whether there’s a possible relevance to a biblical text is a non-issue for me,” said Rollston, who earned his doctorate and taught at Johns Hopkins University before coming to Emmanuel in 2001. “I think that gives me an edge. Verifying a biblical text should never be the goal of a historian, because if it is, people can strain to find things they desperately want to be true, and that affects their judgment in a negative way.”
Forgers and publicity seekers are more than happy to exploit the desire to connect artifacts with the Bible. Most fakes contain references to famous biblical characters, according to Rollston.
He advises people to “let the dust settle” when some scholarly commotion makes headlines. Rather than accept sensational stories at face value, we should look at the credentials of people making the claims – as well as their critics – and find out what reputable, “methodical and cautious” scholars say before reaching any conclusions.
Rollston said his goal is “knowledge for the sake of knowledge,” which, he hopes, will increase understanding of a text or its setting. Good scholarship can inform faith, but it can’t substitute for it.
“Having good data is never a problem for people of faith. We’re created in the image of God, with intellectual capabilities, and he expects us to use that,” Rollston said. “People have nothing to fear from knowledge. It may transform their faith.”
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 12 July 2008.
