¹ See Wright, G. E., “The Present State of Biblical Archaeology,” in The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow (Willoughby, H. R., ed.; Chicago, 1947) 76, 95–97Google Scholar; idem, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, 1957) 17Google Scholar; idem, “Biblical Archaeology Today,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Freedman, D. N. and Greenfield, J., eds.; Garden City, 1969) 152, 160.Google Scholar

² Wright, “Present State,” 74. Note virtually the same definition in Wright's 1957 Biblical Archaeology, 17.

³ On the above, cf. K.Elliger, Review of Wright, G. E., Biblische Archäologie, ThLZ 84 (1959) 94–98Google Scholar; Noth, M., “Hat die Bibel doch Recht?” in Festschrift für Gunther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag (Neukirchen, 1957) 7–22Google Scholar; idem, “Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur Geschichte Israels,” VTSup 7 (1960) 262–82Google Scholar (=Aufsätze 1. 34–52); Wright, “Archaeology and Old Testament Studies,” JBL 77 (1958) 39–51Google Scholar; idem, “Modern Issues in Biblical Studies: History and the Patriarchs,” ExpTim 71 (1960) 3–7Google Scholar; Rad, G. von, “History of the Patriarchs,” ExpTim 72 (1960/1961) 213–16Google Scholar; idem, “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament,” in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics (Westermann, C., ed.; Richmond, 1963) 17–39.Google Scholar

⁴ That these were perceived as the issues, see esp. Noth, “Der Beitrag,” 262–63; and cf. the Wright-von Rad exchange of 1960 (n. 3); and, finally, the convenient summary of views in Soggin, J. A., “Ancient Traditions and Modern Archaeological Discoveries,” BA 23 (1960) 95–100.Google Scholar

⁵ Noth, M., The History of Israel (New York, 1958Google Scholar; trans, from the 1st German ed., 1950); Bright, J., A History of Israel (Philadelphia, 1959)Google Scholar. See also the somewhat polemical juxtapostion of the two “schools” in Bright's Early Israel in Recent History Writing (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar, with reference to the 1st German ed. of Noth's history and his own history, forthcoming at that time.

⁶ Rad, G. von, Das erste Bitch Mose, Genesis (Göttingen, 1956Google Scholar; ET as Genesis [Philadelphia, 1961]); idem, Theologie des Alten Testaments, I. Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich, 1957Google Scholar; ET as Old Testament Theology, Vol. I [New York, 1962]).Google Scholar

⁷ For the latest discussion of the issues and a résumé of previous literature, see Dever, W. G., “The Patriarchal Traditions. Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: The Archaeological Picture,” in Israelite and Judaean History (Hayes, J. H. and Miller, J. M., eds.; Philadelphia, 1977) 70–120Google Scholar. Here we cannot take account of the enormous popular literature of the 1950s, even though it is of interest, such as Werner Keller's Und die Bibel hat doch Recht: Forscher beweisen die historische Wahrheit (1955; ET as The Bible as History, a best-seller). To this category also belongs the popular work of Albright's protege (and Wright's colleague) Nelson Glueck, whose account of the “Age of Abraham in the Negev” (1955) was questioned by Noth (“Der Beitrag,” 265), vigorously attacked by J. J. Finkelstein in an issue of Commentary (1959), and equally vigorously defended by Wright in a minor classic entitled “Is Nelson Glueck's Aim to Prove that the Bible is True?”, BA 12/4 (1959).Google Scholar

⁸ iGod Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London, 1952).

⁹ Wright, , “Neo-Orthodoxy and the Bible,” JBR 14 (1946) 87.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wright, God Who Acts, 126–27; Wright goes on immediately to stress the “greater confidence in the basic reliability of Biblical history” brought about by recent critical and archaeological research. We may observe that here, as with Albright, Wright's basic “conservatism” (in the etymological sense) was easily subject to misunderstanding, especially by European scholars unfamiliar with the religious scene in America.

¹¹ Von Rad, Genesis 39; idem, Old Testament Theology, 1. 4. A recent article of one of von Rad's students, Frank Crüsemann, reviews later developments in archaeology, basing his discussion on a contrast of the methods of the Israelis at Beersheba and our American excavations at Gezer. Crüsemann concludes with von Rad, however, that “Die Kerygmatic Intention alttestamentlicher Geschichtsdarstellungen steht und fällt keineswegs mit der historischen Richtigheit ihrer Aussagen. Die Bestätigung oder Widerlegung derartiger Inhalte durch archäologische oder andersartige Nachprüfung ist fur die Geschichtsschreibung wichtig—und damit natürlich auch fur die Theologie, aber keine theologische Kernfrage”; cf. Crüsemann, , “Altestamentliche Exegese und Archäologie,” ZAW 91 (1979) 189–90.Google Scholar

¹² Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970) 87Google Scholar. See the review of Childs by M. Barth, “Whither Biblical Theology,” 25 (1971) 350–54.

¹³ Cf. Gilkey, L., “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” JR 41 (1961) 194–205.Google Scholar

¹⁴ K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” in IDB 1. 424; cf. Child's comment in Biblical Theology, 79.

¹⁵ Barr, J., “Story and History in Biblical Theology,” JR 66 (1976) 3Google Scholar. See also his critiques of “biblical theology” (and of Wright in particular) in Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar; idem, Biblical Words for Time (Napierville, 1962)Google Scholar; idem, “Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” Int 17 (1963) 193–205Google Scholar; idem, “Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology,” JTS 25 (1974) 265–82Google Scholar; idem, “Biblical Theology,” in lDBSup 104–11.

¹⁶ Wright, , The Old Testament and Theology (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; see also “History and Reality: The Importance of Israel's ‘Historical’ Symbols for the Christian Faith,” in The Old Testament and Christian Faith (Anderson, B. W., ed.; New York, 1963) 176–99Google Scholar; idem, “Reflections Concerning Old Testament Theology,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica Th. C. Vriezen (Wageningen, 1966)Google Scholar; idem, Review of Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation, Int 22 (1968) 83–89.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Jacob, E., Grundfragen alttestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart, 1970)Google Scholar; Krauss, H. J., Die biblische Theologie, ihre Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970)Google Scholar; G. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, 1975). Hasel informs me that the 3d ed. of his work, now in progress, will discuss no less than a dozen substantial works on OT theology published in the last decade, such as Fohrer, G., Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments (Berlin, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Zimmerli, W., Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart, 1972)Google Scholar. And Smart, James D., whose essay “The Death and Rebirth of Old Testament Theology” UR 23 [1943] 124–36)Google Scholar. presaged the modern revival of the movement, has a new book entitled The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, 1979)Google Scholar. What is clear, however, is that Childs is correct in observing the passing of the style of “biblical theology” done in the 1950s, so prominently associated with the name of G. E. Wright.

¹⁸ (London, 1971). See also Weippert's more recent treatment, “The Israelite ‘Conquest’ and the Evidence from Transjordan,” in Symposia. Celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975) (Cross, F. M., ed; Cambridge, MA, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Thompson, , The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (New York, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Seters', J. vanAbraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, 1975) reaches conclusions similar to Thompson's but is based more on a form-critical approach and makes far less use of archaeology, Albrightian or otherwise. Whatever one makes of Thompson as a biblical historian, his attempts at archaeological critique and synthesis are dangerously misleading, as 1 intend to show in a forthcoming review-article on his several publications.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. de Vaux, R., “Method in the Study of Early Hebrew History,” in The Bible and Modern Scholarship (Hyatt, J. P., ed.; Nashville, 1965) 15–29Google Scholar; idem, “On Right and Wrong Uses of Archaeology,” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (Sanders, J. A., ed.; Garden City, 1970Google Scholar; the Nelson Glueck Festschrift); J. B. Pritchard, “Culture and History,” in Hyatt, Bible and Modern Scholarship (above), 313–24; Lapp, P. W., Biblical Archaeology and History (Cleveland, 1969).Google Scholar

²¹ On these developments, see Dever, W. G., Archaeology and Biblical Studies: Retrospects and Prospects (Evanston, 1974; the Winslow Lectures at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary); idem, “Archaeology,” in IDBSup 44–52; and see particularly my chapter, “Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology 1945–79: Portrait of Two Disciplines,” in the forthcoming SBL Centennial volume The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters (G. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker, eds., 1980).Google Scholar

²² Cf. Albright, “The Impact of Archaeology on Biblical Research —1966,” in New Directions (n. 1), 1–14; Wright, “Present State” (n. 1), 149–65.

²³ Wright, “Present State,” 152; the rationale, a reference to Albright, states that “this is precisely the all-inclusive view which he espoused.”

²⁴ Wright, , “What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do,” BA 34 (1971) 73–74; for de Vaux's statement, see “Right and Wrong Uses” (n. 20).Google Scholar

²⁵ Wright, , “The ‘New Archaeology,’” BA 38 (1975) 104–15.Google Scholar

²⁶ In Wright's earlier God Who Acts he had admittedly overstated his case, in part by begging this question; see Wright, Old Testament and Theology, 11; and cf. the perceptive remarks of Freedman, D. N., “William Foxwell Albright in Memoriam,” BASOR 205 (1972) 3; note also the sharp critique of Barr in “Story and History” (n. 15), 4–5. In later works, Wright softened the argument by speaking not of God's “action in history” but rather of “historical symbols,” declaring that “the great events known as God's ‘mighty acts’ … are all interpretations of historical memories and data”; “History and Reality” (n. 16), 191.Google Scholar

²⁷ Barr, “Story and History,” 9. Elsewhere Barr observed of this school that “exegetically it was not very productive”; “Biblical Theology,” 108.

²⁸ See especially the strictures, not entirely unwarranted, of M. Noth, “Der Beitrag,” 271–72; and of M. Weippert, “Settlement,” 127–30.

²⁹ On the patriarchal era, see the works of Thompson and van Seters noted above (n. 19) and the résumé of other recent literature, with full references, in Dever, “Patriarchal Traditions” (n. 7). On the “conquest-settlement” issue, see Weippert, “Settlement” (n. 18), supplemented now by J. M. Miller, “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan,” in Israelite and Judean History, 213–84; and esp. the recent magnum opus of N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, NY, 1979), which to many scholars, even before the first reviews, already signals a basic shift in the study of Israelite origins away from archaeology and history, toward sociology and anthropology.

³⁰ Wright, , Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York, 1965)Google Scholar. See the latest reaction from the German school, in Otto, E., Jakob in Sichem. Überlieferungeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschkhtliche Studien zur Enlslehungsgeschichte Israels (Stuttgart, 1979)Google Scholar; and Jaroš, K., Sichem: Ein archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Sludie mil besonderer Berüecksichtigung von Jos. 24 (Göttingen, 1976)Google Scholar; and the answering review of the latter by Campbell, E. F., JBL 98 (1979) 420–22.Google Scholar

³¹ See n. 1 above.

³² See, for instance, “‘New’ Archaeology” (n. 25), 105.

³³ Thus we may explain the “biblical justification” often noted in his writings; cf. “History and Reality,” 180–81; “Biblical Archaeology Today,” 160, 165.

³⁴ For an exposition and defense of this view, see the works cited in n. 21 above. In the latter, forthcoming work, I shall argue that “Biblical Archaeology” was a uniquely American phenomenon, a reactionary movement growing out of the theological climate of the 1930s and reaching its climax by the end of the 1960s in the work of Albright and Wright. The movement made use of the results of archaeology in the “Lands of the Bible,” but it really represents a chapter in the history of American biblical studies. Meanwhile, parallel to it, Syro-Palestinian archaeology had also been developing during this period as a “secular” branch of Near Eastern archaeology, and by the early 1970s it had emerged to dominate the field as an academic discipline. “Bibilical archaeology”—or, more accurately, “the archaeology of Syria-Palestine in the biblical period”—may indeed survive (though not in the classic 1950s sense). But it is not a surrogate for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, or even a discipline at all in the academic sense; it is a sub-branch of biblical studies, an interdisciplinary pursuit which seeks to utilize the pertinent results of archaeological research to elucidate the historical and cultural setting of the Bible.