For many years traditional biblical scholars rearranged archaeological findings based on the needs of their read of the Bible. While ridiculed by critical scholars, later archaeological evidence sometimes became available showing their understanding to be correct. Nevertheless, critical scholars feel justified in criticizing evangelicals and others, who believe in the inspiration of the Bible, for rearranging the evidence based alone on their interpretation of the Bible. They consistently point out the bias. The traditionalists readily admit they accept the Bible as correct, that it is their bias, and as men and women of faith do not believe they have any reason to be defensive about their bias.
Critical scholars remain unconvinced.
The writers are from the critical and liberal camps. In his article William Dever, who certainly is not known as a leading advocate of biblical inspiration, shows the failings of postmodernism in the archaeological endeavor. Absent, of course, was any material from the conservatives. We assume the BAR considers itself above the rhetoric of those traditional biblical scholars for their opinions do not seem to appear in the BAR and they bring little if any new arguments, thinking, or scholarly material to the debate. There are fatal flaws in their archaeological methodology, data, and interpretation.