I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
I suspect that still aligns with GP's point -- people are generally partisan on this subject, one way or another.
Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean we're all incapable of feeling or finding truth.
The GP said clearly that the field is broken due to everyone preferring to shore up their worldviews rather than follow the evidence.
People disagreeing with the Biblical narrative sounds like the opposite to me.
I think the claim, and I agree with it, is that partisanship will affect where you look, how you look, and what you do with contradictory information.
Are you suggesting disagreement with 'the biblical narrative' indicates partisanship, or the lack of? (Or, rather, referring back to original wording - an indication of shoring up a worldview?)
Obviously not everyone agrees on the Bible's meaning, source, or value. I'd go so far as to say no two people do (like any large document, it is possible to have an infinite variety of interpretations of it).
I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.
I'd appreciate a clarification.
That doesn’t imply that their shouldn’t be controversy because obviously people have been killing each other over religious disputes for centuries.
It implies that biblical archeology would be an extension of religious holy wars fought on the pages of journals instead of on the battlefield.
When I said "controversy wouldn't exist", I guess that was unclear.
I meant specifically you wouldn't get people from broadly the same cultural and religious background so strongly disagreeing on how to interpret the evidence, if they were all there just to exercise confirmation bias.
Your point is a good one, and very fair. Sorry for the slow reply.