ARCANE DISCIPLINE, DISCIPLINE OF THE. — The expression "discipline of the arcane" (*disciplina arcani*), first used by the Protestant theologian Jean Daillé (Dallaens, in the work *De scriptis... Dionysii Areopagitae*, I, Geneva 1666, p. 142), has been employed since the 17th century to designate a practice observed in the ancient Church, especially from the 3rd to the 5th century, of not speaking to outsiders about sacred rites and the dogmas of the faith.
1. Influenced by controversies and spurred by growing historical research into the doctrine and worship of the early Christian period, it was noted as early as the 16th century that for various dogmas and sacred rites, ancient testimonies were either lacking or extremely scarce. Some Catholic writers explained this fact by appealing to oral tradition, which in the Church, particularly regarding sacred rites, has always coexisted alongside written tradition. Others sought to explain it by invoking an explicit law of silence, already declared by St. Basil (*De Spiritu Sancto*, 66) to be an "apostolic tradition," by which the faithful were obliged to refrain from speaking, especially about the Eucharist and transubstantiation (cf. *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique*, I, cols. 1738-43). According to Melchior Cano (*De locis theologicis*, Salamanca 1563, book III, 3), the Apostles would have "given what is holy to the dogs," if they had indiscriminately revealed the forms by which sacraments were to be confected, the rites by which they were to be administered, and other such secrets of religion. According to St. Robert Bellarmine (*De controversiis christianae fidei*, Lyon 1599, I, 8 and II, 29), the Fathers "did not speak of it (the sacrament of the Eucharist) in the presence of pagans and catechumens except in veiled terms, as in the words: 'The faithful know'" and he refers to Tertullian, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and Theodore. C. Estius (*In lib. IV Sententiarum*, Paris 1680, dist. 1 and 19) extended the law of silence to the entire theology of the sacraments. Others exaggerated the matter, as often happens, so that the Anglican J. Bingham (*Origines sive antiquitatum ecclesiasticarum*, IV, Halle 1727, p. 121) could ironically write: "By this new and admirable instrument, which they call the discipline of the arcane... all dissimilarity and contradiction that appears between the ancient doctrines and customs of the Catholic Church and the modern corruptions of the present Roman Church immediately vanish and are blown away."
Protestants reacted: I. Casaubon (*De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI*, London 1614, 4th ed., Geneva 1663) saw in it the influence of the law of silence prevailing in ancient pagan cults; Jean Daillé (*De Patrum...*, Geneva 1686) precisely noted the relatively late age (4th-5th centuries) of the alleged institution. Thus arose a violent controversy between the canon E. de Schelstrate (*Antiquitas illustrata circa concilia generalia et provincialia...*, Antwerp 1678; *Commentatio de s. Antonio Chemico concilio*, ibid. 1681) and the Protestant W. Ern. Tentzel (*Exercitationes selectae in duas partes distributae*, part II of which deals with the discipline of the arcane, Leipzig-Frankfurt 1692, containing: Tentzel, *Dissert. ad discip. arcani*, Wittenberg 1683; Schelstrate, *Dissert. apologetica: De disc. arc. contra disput. E. Tentzel*, 1685, and Tentzel’s reply: *Animadversiones...*), which has not yet subsided (cf. *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique*, I, cols. 1741 with bibliography; H. Gravel, *V. infra*).
In the course of the 19th century, it was thought that the discipline of the arcane did indeed exist, but in a form similar to the secrecy surrounding the pagan "mystery" cults, to which only initiates had access and whose rites and myths were forbidden to reveal (cf. N. Bonwetsch, *Wesen, Entstehung und Fortgang der Arkandisziplin*, in *Zeitschrift für historische Theologie*, 43 (1873), pp. 203-99; E. Hatch, *Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church*, London 1890; G. Anrich, *Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum*, Göttingen 1894; G. Wobbermin, *Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das Mysterienwesen*, Berlin 1896; O. Casel, *Antike und christliche Mysten*, in *Bayerische Blätter für das Gymnasialschulwesen*, 63 (1927), pp. 329-40; and *Altchristlicher Kult und Antike*, in *Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft*, 3 (1923), p. 1 ff.). This occurred in parallel with attempts to place Christianity historically within the religious currents contemporary with its origins. However, these are merely external similarities: a direct and immediate adoption of pagan usage cannot be documented or even supposed, given the aversion of early Christians to pagan practices. Frommann (*De disciplina arcani quae in vetere Ecclesia christiana obtinuisse fertur*, Jena 1833) suggested an imitation of Jewish practices toward proselytes and the secrecy observed by Alexandrian Gnosticism.
2. The discipline of the arcane, which at a certain time did exist in practice, developed from: 1) a natural tendency toward reserve that prevented the disclosure of the most sublime and noble rites and beliefs of the religion; 2) the institution of the catechumenate: catechumens were to be initiated, for pedagogical reasons, gradually into the truths of Christian revelation, thereby arousing their curiosity and desire to know what was kept secret. Although Christians, especially during persecutions, generally did not like to openly proclaim themselves as such before everyone, no document has yet been found from the first two centuries that proves the existence of the discipline of the arcane: the confessions of Christians interrogated by Pliny (*Epist.*, 10, 96) and the frankness with which St. Justin and other apologists speak in their works addressed to the emperor and the senate about Christian worship demonstrate its non-existence. The pagan Celsus, who wrote against Christians, was well acquainted with their sacred books. The *Didachē*, a manual of catechetical instruction and the first ritual, is in no way a secret book. Even the symbols used in Paleo-Christian art served no other purpose than to represent graphically, i.e., concretely, abstract concepts such as the sacraments, the immortality of the soul, and eternal life. Indeed, orthodox writers reproached, and sometimes harshly, the silence and mystery of heretical groups. It can be concluded that the Church in the first two centuries did not know the discipline of the arcane, although, due to persecutions, it sometimes lived clandestinely.
There was, however, a period between the 3rd and 5th centuries in which this discipline flourished, demanded by the needs of the catechumenate, established to prepare and better instruct catechumens for Baptism. At that time, a distinction was made in preaching and in participation in the Mass between catechumens and the baptized: to the former, only Baptism and the principal dogmas were spoken of, reserving complete instruction, especially regarding the Eucharist, until after they had received Baptism. Thus, there was the Missa catechumenorum, i.e., the first part of the Mass up to the Offertory, and the Missa fidelium, to which the unbaptized did not participate. The Fathers of this period often repeat that the sacred mysteries should not be explained to catechumens; but it seems this was more a measure of prudence than a matter of strict law. The earliest testimonies date to the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd, with the inscription of Abercius (v.) and Tertullian (Ad uxorem, 2, 5): «non sciet maritus [paganus] quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes [sc. s. Eucharistiam].» At the same time, in Rome, another clear testimony is offered by St. Hippolytus (Traditio Apostolica, 16, 28-31), though it is supposed that these words are not a later addition: «ne sinas vero infideles scire, nisi prius baptismum acceperint»; less clear is the testimony of the Didascalia (3, 10, 7) for Syria. Origen, in several of his homilies (In Lev. hom., 9, 10; cf. In Num. hom., 5, 3; In Lev. hom., 13, 3; In Iud. hom., 5, 6; In Gen. hom., 17, 8; PG, 12, 523. 605. 547. 973. 260), speaks of the blood of the Lord as a means of our redemption and adds: «Novit qui mysteriis imbutus est et carnem et sanguinem Verbi Dei: non immoremur in his quae scientibus nota sunt et ignorantibus patere non possunt.»
The high point of the discipline of the *arcana* was reached during the 4th century and the first part of the 5th. Thus, for Egypt, it is attested by St. Athanasius (Apol. sec., 11, 2; 44, 4; 72, 6: he reproaches the Arians and the Meletians for having brought before a tribunal a case concerning a profanation that occurred in church during Mass, for which the priests had to give explanations to the unbaptized lay judge, which were then recorded in the minutes) and, though less clearly, by the Euchology of Serapion (3, 3; 4, 2; 20, 1); for Palestine, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procatechesis, 4-6, 12; Catech., 6, 29; 18, 32 sg.; 19-23), Egeria (Peregrinatio, 46 sg.); for Syria, by St. John Chrysostom (In I Cor. hom., 40, 1: «I would like to speak clearly, but I dare not because of the uninitiated»; cf. ibid., 27, 3; 28, 1; In Matth. hom., 23, 3), Theodore (Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 165-68; Haer. fab. compendium, 5, 18); for Cyprus, by St. Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6); for Cappadocia, by St. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto, 66), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio, 45, 16), St. Gregory of Nyssa (De bapt.: PG 46, 421 C); for Constantinople, by St. John Chrysostom (Epist. ad Innocentium, 1, 3: PG 52, 533), Sozomen (Hist. eccl., I, 20). An excellent source for demonstrating the influence of the discipline of the *arcana* on the liturgy is the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 5-7; VIII, 6, 2-12).
In the West, it is attested by St. Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 4; 11, 32), St. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 1, 2; 9, 55; Expositio in Evang. Lucae, 7, 43; De excessu fratris sui Satyri, 1, 43), St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermo 161 fin.) and others. The utmost caution is shown by Pope Innocent I (Epist. ad Decentium, 25, 3, 12): he alludes to considerations and reticences regarding the Eucharist, speaks of «those things which I ought not to reveal» and concludes, «other things it is not lawful to write; I shall explain them to you when you come to Rome.» St. Augustine also observes the law of silence several times (Serm. 4, 28. 31; 5, 7; 132, 1; 232, 7; 234, 2; 272; In Io. tract., 22, 5; 45, 9, etc.); in other places, he manifests greater freedom, which already indicates a development in the discipline that would soon disappear.
The discipline of the *arcana* comprised, in particular, the following elements:
a) The rites and formulas relating to Baptism and Confirmation or connected with them, such as the text of the baptismal symbol containing the profession of faith in the Holy Trinity, the Pater Noster, the prayer of the Christian family, and in general the principal dogmas of the faith (cf. Trad. Apost., 16, 23; 28 sg.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 18, 32 sg.; 19-23; Ambrose, De myst., 1, 2; 9, 55; Epiphanius, Ancor., 57, 3-6, etc. For the symbol: Cyril, Catech., 1-18; 6, 29; Egeria, Peregr., 46, 2-6; Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, 1, 9; Augustine, Serm. 212-15; 228, 3; Gelasian Sacramentary, 1, 35, etc.; cf. F. Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol, etc., I, Leipzig 1894, pp. 39-55. For the Pater Noster: Tertullian, De baptismo, 20; Cyprian, De oratione dominica, 10; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 23, 11-18; Const. Apost., VII, 44, 45; John Chrysostom, In Col. hom., 6, 4; Augustine, Serm. 56-59; Ildefonsus of Toledo, De cognitione Baptismi, 132; cf. F. J. Dölger, Das erste Gebet der Gläubigen in der Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen, in Antike und Christentum, 2 [1930], pp. 142-55).
b) The rites and formulas relating to the Eucharist (Tertullian, Ad uxorem, 2, 5; Cyprian, De lapsis, 26; better Ambrose, De excessu fr. Sat., 1, 43).
c) The books containing the sacred mysteries (Cyril, Procatech. fin.).
d) The place: during the explanation of the symbol, during the administration of Baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist, the doors were to be closed to the unbaptized (John Chrysostom, In Matth. hom., 23, 3; Egeria, Peregr., 47, 2; cf. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 2, 5), indeed guarded (Didascalia, II, 57, 6; Const. Apost., VIII, 11, 11).
e) The time: solemn initiation took place, as often among pagans, in the silence of the night (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Protrept., 2, 22, 1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., 15; Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, 22; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39, 4).
It was forbidden for the initiated to speak of these things, even in judicial inquiries (Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 44, 72), and for the uninitiated to listen to them (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., I, 20); only obscure allusions were permitted, which «are a kind of silence» (Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 66; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 6, 29; John Chrysostom, In I Cor. hom., 40, 1); in cases of the gravest necessity, one could even speak of them (John Chrysostom, In I Cor. hom., 27, 3; 28, 1; Athanasius, Apol. sec., 11, 2; Trad. apost., 16, 31); often, to avoid treating the subject, authors interrupt it with a «norunt fideles» and similar expressions (Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10; 13, 3; Augustine, In Io. tract., 22, 5; 45, 9; Serm. 4, 28.31; 5, 7; 132, 1; 232, 7; 234, 2, etc.). The law of silence, however, was observed differently, as is shown, for example, with regard to the Eucharist, by Epiphanius (Ancor., 57, 3-6), in contrast to Theodore (Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 165-68); of the symbol, by Sozomen (Hist. eccl., I, 20); in contrast to Socrates (Hist. eccl., I, 8, 21 sg.). Access to the sacred mysteries and even seeing them was also prohibited (Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 66; Zeno, Tract., 1, 5, 8; Ambrose, De excessu fratr. Satyri, 1, 43); likewise the handing over of sacred and liturgical books (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., fin. ad lectorem); Basil (loc. cit.) forbids any description of them (cf. Gelasian Sacramentary, 1, 35).
No author, however, reports that there was a special law imposing such silence on the neophytes; no one forced them with an oath or sworn promise to observe the law of the *arcana*. St. Ambrose (De mysteriis, 9, 55) imposes it along with the preservation of faith and purity of morals («silenti integritas»); according to Zeno of Verona (Tract., 1, 5, 8), the violation of secrecy is a sacrilege; according to the Constitutiones Apostolorum (VII, 25, 6), it is a crime that merits punishment.
Initiation took place gradually: first came the explanation of the Creed, then the actual initiation, and finally, during the octave of Baptism, the explanation of the rites (cf. Egeria, Peregr., 46 ff.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses; Ambrose, De mysteriis; De sacramentis; Zeno, Tract., 2, 30-77; Augustine, Serm. 212-60).
After the fifth century, the Fathers only make brief mention of the secrecy or silence surrounding the dogmas. Some traces of this practice, however, remained in various liturgies; thus, among the Eastern rites, the deacon’s admonition to the catechumens to depart before the Offertory, and the veiling of the altar during the Canon of the Mass; in the Latin liturgy, for example, the custom of reciting the Canon of the Mass in a low voice, and of not translating the words of the Eucharistic consecration into the vernacular, which persisted until our own day.
and connected with them, illustrating them by means of the material remains ("monuments") that have come to light either naturally or through excavation.
2. In the narrower sense used by modern scholars, biblical archaeology is the science of biblical antiquities insofar as these are revealed by ancient Palestinian "monuments."
By "monuments" here are meant all material remains of Israelite-Jewish culture: buildings and other structures, works of art (statues, paintings, music), inscriptions, utensils of daily life (clothing, tools, ornaments, vessels, especially pottery), tombs, and coins. First and foremost, the monuments of Palestine itself from the Israelite-Jewish period are in question; but since this culture was in close contact with neighboring lands (Egypt, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia), biblical archaeology must also take into account research conducted in those regions, as well as the pre-Israelite culture of Palestine itself. By investigating and analyzing all these elements, biblical archaeology provides a new source for the description of biblical life and civilization, one that, being independent of Sacred Scripture, constitutes a valuable aid to the exegesis of the sacred books and to biblical history.
II. HISTORY OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY — I. Since Palestine has suffered repeated and severe devastations throughout its history, nearly all monuments of Israelite-Jewish culture have disappeared. Therefore, before scientific excavations began, the description of ancient Palestinian culture could only be based on literary sources from authors who knew it firsthand before it was definitively destroyed by the Arab invasion (636). These sources include, in addition to Sacred Scripture, the commentaries of the Mishnah and Talmud, the works of Philo (ca. 25 B.C.–A.D. 42) and Flavius Josephus (ca. 37–103), Eusebius’s *Onomasticon* (ca. 325), translated into Latin and supplemented by St. Jerome (ca. 390), the itineraries of pilgrims, particularly the *Burdigalense* (333), the *Peregrinatio Aetheriae* (of Silvia; ca. 394), the anonymous account of the Piacenza Pilgrim (ca. 570), the *Breviarius de Hierosolyma* (5th or 6th century), Adamnan (Arculf; see *v.*), *De locis sanctis* (ca. 670), and finally the works of St. Jerome, especially *Epistula ad Marcellam* (no. 46) and *Epitaphium s. Paulae* (no. 108). However, apart from Sacred Scripture, these works almost exclusively illustrate the final (Roman-Byzantine) cultural period of Palestine; for earlier periods, until the time of excavations, the Bible remained nearly the sole source to which "biblical antiquities" and "biblical dictionaries" of past centuries could turn.
The oldest works on biblical antiquities were collected by B. Ugolini (*see v.*) in the *Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum*, in 34 volumes (1744–69). Among Catholic works, notable are C. Signorio, *De Republica Hebraeorum* (1593); G. St. Menocchio, *De Republica Hebraeorum* (1648); among Protestants: H. Relandus, *Antiquitates sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum* (1708); id., *Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata*, in 2 volumes (1714). In the 19th century, numerous manuals were published by both Catholic (e.g., J. M. A. Scholz, D. B. Haneberg, P. J. Schegg, A. Schäfer) and Protestant (W. M. L. de Wette, H. Ewald, C. F. Keil, W. Nowack) authors.
2. A new period in biblical archaeology began with scientific excavations, which in Palestine only commenced in 1867, whereas in Egypt and Mesopotamia they had already been undertaken with notable results several decades earlier. After initial attempts in Jerusalem yielded little, more solid results were achieved after 1880, when F. Petrie (d. 1942) introduced the stratigraphic method and chronological dating through pottery. From that time onward, archaeological research was increasingly promoted by scientific associations founded in various nations.
The principal associations that have made significant contributions to archaeological research in Palestine are: the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865), the Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas (1877), the American School of Oriental Research (1900, reorganized in 1921), the Deutsches Evangelisches Institut für Altertumskunde des Hl. Landes (1900), the British School of Archaeology (1919–20), the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (1919), the Palestine Oriental Society (1920), and the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (1920). Catholic contributions to archaeological exploration include: the Biblical School of St. Stephen of the Dominicans (1892), the Oriental Institute of the Görres Society (1908), the Pontifical Biblical Institute (1927), the Biblical School of the College of the Flagellation of the Franciscans, and the Custody of the Holy Land, as well as various religious orders and congregations resident in Palestine, such as the Assumptionists, the White Fathers, the Fathers of the Sacred Heart of Bétharram, the Salesians, the Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, and the Dames of Nazareth. Italy is represented by an archaeological mission first directed by Giacomo Guidi and later by R. Bartocini, which has excavated the acropolis of Amman (Philadelphia) since 1927.
After the war of 1914–18, excavations in Palestine expanded greatly. Almost all the most important sites west of the Jordan and many in Transjordan were investigated.
Of particular importance for the results achieved are: Gezer (R. A. St. Macalister, 1902–1905; 1907–1909), Megiddo (G. Schumacher, 1903–1905; Oriental Institute, 1925–1926), Jericho (E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, 1907–1909; J. Garstang, 1930–36), Samaria (G. Reisner et al., 1900–1907; J. W. Crowfoot, 1931–1934), Shechem (E. Sellin, 1913–1914; 1926–1928; 1934), Beisan (Pennsylvania University Museum, 1921–1931), Tell Beit Mirsim = Qirjath Sepher [7] (W. F. Albright and Kyle, 1926–1931), Tell en-Nasbeh (W. F. Bade, 1926–1931), Tell el-Far'a = Saruhen [7] (F. Petrie, 1927–1929), Tell ed-Duweir = Lachish (J. L. Starkey, 1933–1939), Et-Tell = Hai (J. I. Marquet-K. Krause, 1933–1939). Excavations have also been repeatedly conducted beneath Jerusalem, especially on the southeastern hill (Ophel).
The investigation of Christian monuments has been particularly advanced by the Dominicans of St. Stephen in Jerusalem (L. H. Vincent, F.-M. Abel). Excavations of special importance in Transjordan have been conducted at Gerasa (since 1928) and at Teleilât Gassul (Pontifical Biblical Institute, since 1929).
3. The method of Palestinian excavations has been refined, especially with regard to more careful observation of stratigraphy and thus relative chronology, the precise description of discovered objects, the techniques of preserving them (through photography, models and casts, and grouping in specialized museums), and their interpretation by comparing different excavations with one another and with analogous extra-Palestinian excavations. Finally, improvements have been made in the keeping of excavation journals and in the manner of reporting findings in publications. Therefore, the results obtained from excavations conducted with such rigorous methods can be accepted with confidence and serve as a basis for chronological and historical discussions.
III. RESULTS AND VALUE — I. Recent excavations first and foremost provide a concrete picture of the cultural phases through which Palestine passed and show how it fits into the broader framework of human culture.
Human remains found in Wadi el-'Amud (F. Turville-Petre, 1925–26), in the Shuqba cave near Ramleh (D. Garrod, 1928), in the Carmel caves near 'Attit (D. Garrod, 1928–34), and in a cave on Mount Qafzeh (near Nazareth; R. Neuville, 1934) prove that Palestine was already inhabited by Paleolithic man (Palaeanthropus palestinensis, of the Neanderthal type). A more recent Paleolithic race has been found in various locations in Palestine. The Mesolithic period, represented by the "Natufian" culture (found in a cave in Wadi Natuf near Lydda), is encountered
In various caves. Whether one can speak of a Neolithic period in Palestine is controversial; some scholars believe that the transition from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic (Eneolithic) occurred directly. The latter is particularly found at Teleilat Gassul (Gassulian), in layer VIII of Jericho, and, in a slightly more recent form, at Beisân and Megiddo. Comparison with analogous cultures in Egypt and Mesopotamia allows the Palestinian Chalcolithic to be dated to the 5th and 4th millennia down to c. 3200 BC.
The subsequent cultural phases of the Bronze and Iron Ages, distinguished primarily by the technique and morphology of pottery, are found in many sites. The Bronze Age in Palestine is divided into three periods, chronologically determined as follows: Bronze I (Early): c. 3200–2000; Bronze II (Middle): 2000–1600; Bronze III (Late): 1600–1200. Similarly, the Iron Age (1200–300 BC) is divided into: Iron I (1200–900), Iron II (900–600), and Iron III or Persian period (600–300). In the upper layers of many ancient cities, the Hellenistic (300–50 BC), Roman (50 BC–350 AD), and Byzantine (350–636) cultures are also represented. The invasion of the Muslim Arabs (636) marks the beginning of a new era that no longer pertains to biblical archaeology.
The different archaeological layers also reveal foreign influences on Palestine and the succession of new populations (races). During the Bronze I period, the dominant ethnic element was that of the "Canaanites," who were later overwhelmed around 1900 BC by a more powerful new layer (called "Western Semites" or, commonly, "Amorites"). During the Bronze II period, an influx of Hurrians, Arameans, and "Hyksos" is noted; in the Bronze III period, Egyptian domination, re-established in Palestine after the defeat of the Hyksos, was disrupted by invasions of nomadic peoples (Habiru), followed by the Israelites. The beginning of the Iron I period (c. 1200) is marked by a notable cultural decline, undoubtedly due to the occupation of the land by the Israelites, who only gradually assimilated the cultural elements they found in their new homeland and later underwent new influences, particularly from Phoenicia (architecture), Egypt (artifacts of art, ivory, pottery), and, later, from conquering nations (Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Hellenized Syrians, Romans).
2. This overview demonstrates the importance of recent archaeological research, first and foremost for the history of the people of Israel and their ancestors. The biblical narratives fit seamlessly into the broader cultural and ethnic framework now known through excavations; only in a few cases do doubts and difficulties remain (e.g., regarding the date of the fall of Canaanite Jericho and the capture of Ai [A]j; cf. Josh. 8). Recent archaeological discoveries thus provide impressive confirmation of the historical truth of the Bible when considered in its broad outlines. As for individual historical events, excavations confirm their possibility rather than their actual occurrence, since almost no inscriptions have yet been found in Palestine that would allow the precise dating of the monuments uncovered. Nevertheless, a certain number of biblical facts have been confirmed by excavations: for example, the excavations at Tell el-Heleifi (v. ASIONGABER) near the Gulf of Aqabah show Solomon’s efforts to establish a commercial port (1 Kgs. 9:26); ivory objects found in Samaria confirm 1 Kgs. 22:39 and Amos 3:15; 6:4; the Lachish letters (18 documents, mostly fragments, written on potsherds) illustrate certain narratives from the book of Jeremiah. The archaeological confirmation of such secondary elements is particularly important for the reliability of Israelite historiography. All in all, recent discoveries have effectively contributed to overcoming the historical skepticism of modern rationalistic criticism.
Biblical exegesis also benefits greatly from excavations. Since many of the most important sites mentioned in the Bible are now known through excavations—not only in general but in their various historical periods—the interpretation of the relevant biblical texts is facilitated or sometimes corrected. The numerous objects and tools of daily life uncovered by excavations concretely illustrate what the Bible says about the customs, traditions, crafts, utensils, and writing of the Israelites, enriching biblical archaeology with valuable material independent of literary sources and thus of the highest confirmatory value. For the history of Israelite religion, excavations provide rich material that illustrates the nature and extent of foreign cults practiced in Palestine, the idolatrous and superstitious practices of the Israelites themselves, and the religious prescriptions of Mosaic law.