Biblical Archaeology Review

John Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, second edition, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), pp. 186–187, 431.

See plate I in Richard D. Barnett, “Ezekiel and Tyre,” Eretz Israel vol. 9 (1969), pp. 6–13.

Some suggest that to “save” the “Palestinian” terminology, we might specify “the archaeology of ancient Palestine.” Yet the region was not called “Palestine” before the Roman period. Similarly, the name “Israel” is much too restrictive in time and space. Alternatively, the designation “Canaan” is both too broad and at the same time so ill-defined that some scholars suggest that it be abandoned altogether.

“Eretz-yisrael” has long since become a political slogan, as for instance in the “Israel-shlemah” or “Greater Israel” movement, whose aim is to restore to the modern State all of the territories claimed by ancient/Biblical Israel. The same political ambitions attach to the term “Greater Syria”.

(New York: Free Press, 2001) and compare with Finkelstein and Silberman’s response in “The Bible Unearthed: A Rejoinder,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 327 (2002), pp. 63–73.

Levant 30 (1998), pp. 167–174.

Mazar, “Israeli Archaeologists,” p. 127.

Amihai Mazar, “Israeli Archaeologists,” in J.F. Drinkard, G.L. Mattingly and J.M. Miller, eds., Benchmarks in Time and Culture: An Introduction to Palestinian Archaeology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 122.

Stern, “The Bible and Israeli Archaeology,” p. 35.

Stern, “The Bible and Israeli Archaeology,” pp. 32 and 35.