**5. Comparing the Biblical Ideal with the Archaeological Reality**

From the foregoing summary of Iron Age material culture remains, we have drawn a portrait, if not of ancient Israel religious beliefs, then of actual practices throughout Israel's 600-year history. The question is how does that portrait compare with the biblical portrait—that is, what if anything does the archaeological evidence add to our understanding?

The answer may lie in certain disconnects, places where the archaeological evidence, taken as primary here, is at variance with the biblical portrait, or it even flatly contradicts it. One instance is obvious. In the Hebrew Bible, monotheism is the norm, the only approved practice of worship, and said to have been already ordained with the Mosaic covenant with Yahweh at Sinai. However, the archaeological data now accepted by most scholars makes it clear that, in practice, most of the Israelite population practiced polytheism (or monolatry) from the settlement horizon to the exile. Only during the return of the survivors to Judah in the late 6th cent. BCE, the Persian era, did monotheism finally triumph—and that to be a disaster for the lesson to be learned. The old gods had finally failed; but, for centuries they had been adequate.

When the prophet Jeremiah rebuked the exiles in Egypt for "baking cakes for the Queen of Heaven", they replied that it was working just fine for them (Jer. 44:15–23). Additionally, most scholars now identify the Queen of Heaven as Asherah (not "Astarte", as previously).

Another tacit recognition of non-Yahwistic practices is seen in a protest of the prophet Ezekiel, who declares: "Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite" (Ezek. 16).

There are other biblical passages that acknowledge the plurality of deities. In Genesis chapter 1, it said that the gods (plural in the Hebrew) declare: "Let us make mankind in our image, male and female". In the Ten Commandments, Yahweh says: "Do not have any other gods before me"; but the Hebrew text reads 'al pen˘ ay, literally "in my face". There are other gods; but, you should not insult ¯ Yahweh by throwing them up in his face. In these and other biblical passages where we see "feminine" aspects of Yahweh, there may be a way of reconciling the apparent contradictions of text and artifact, that is, a way of deconstructing the biblical narrative.

In several cases, our archaeological data compliment rather than contradict the biblical portrait. The various animal, food, drink, and incense offerings that we see all comport well with biblical injunctions; but, they should only be practiced in Jerusalem under priestly supervision.

Does the more fully fleshed out portrait here, based on archaeological data, mean that we no longer need the biblical text? That is not the case. For one thing, while archaeology enables us to perform some forms of history-writing, such as socio-economic, cultural, and technological history, it is poorly equipped to undertake most intellectual history, since we typically lack texts. (That does not mean, as some sceptics maintain, that archaeology is "mute"). For a history of many of the main ideas about religion, we will always need the biblical texts, however limited. Fortunately, we are now discovering more and more non-biblical texts (for the non-biblical texts, see Ahituv 2008; Rollston 2010).

It must also be acknowledged that, while archaeology illuminates many religious practices more effectively than the Bible, there are often commonplace practices that we may assume, but that are not reflected in the archaeological record and not likely to be. These would include: circumcision; other rites of passage; prayers, songs, incantations, and other sayings; and, perhaps many rituals that we may imagine, whether attested in the Hebrew Bible or not.

These caveats lead us to the conclusion that, while the newer and more accurate information provided by archaeology could be helpful, it may not be essential, at least for many believers. They may sometimes seek "proofs", as were expected in the early days of the "Biblical archaeology" movement. However, in the end, literalists will manage without hard evidence by viewing the Bible through the eyes of faith. After all, many religions, for which we have no archaeological (that is, truly historical) data, do survive, and flourish. However, despite its limitations, archaeology is of some value, for many archaeologists do not hesitate to reconstruct prehistoric religion, even though we have no textual evidence.
