Interpretive Challenges

The use of epigraphic evidence from ancient periods is not as straightforward as one might think. Most finds of this nature are fragmentary or otherwise damaged beyond reconstruction, with letters worn by time and the elements in addition to damage incurred by the material upon which such evidence is recorded (e.g., clay, pottery, stone). Although developments in conservation sciences and digital photography can sometimes help clarify faded or partial letters, and specialists in epigraphy can make educated proposals as to what the text might say, there is still no way to confirm how missing sections of the text ought to be read.

Furthermore, alphabetic writing was still developing in the early centuries that the Bible describes. Depending on the nature of the artifact, it is often contested which language, dialect, or alphabet the writing represents. Even where this is agreed upon, scholars are not always in accord as to how to translate and interpret the material. For finds originating in Egypt or Mesopotamia, many more examples of writing exist with which to compare new findings; therefore, issues of language and translation are not as pronounced with these finds as with those discovered in the Levant.