1 / 17

SUMMARY

This article discusses the relationship between the Bible and archaeology, highlighting that while archaeology provides objective evidence of the past, it is also influenced by modern biases. It emphasizes the need to study archaeology independently of the biblical text and to question the harmony between the two sources of evidence. The article also explores how the biblical text was written from an ideological perspective, selectively portraying historical events. Ultimately, it argues against harmonizing faith and historical research.

rcolbert
Download Presentation

SUMMARY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SUMMARY BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY: CurrentIssues in Bible and Archaeology

  2. Finkelstein: (Textbook, pp. 183-88) • The Bible/Hebrew Scripture is not a historical record in the modern sense; • It isa sacred text written by authors who had strong theological and ideological convictions; • much of it set in writing in the 7th-5th centuries BC; • thus, it does not provide a direct, real-time testimony of many of the events narrated in it; • also, the Assyrian texts from the 9th-7th centuries are not free of ideological inclinations; • every historical description is bound to be influenced by the realities of the time of its compilation.

  3. Finkelstein: • Archaeology: provides “objective” testimony to what happened in the past; • deals with the materials of the past; • thus, an “eye-witness” to what happened in the past; • it provides us with the material culture of ancient peoples; • sheds light on long-term social, economic, and demographic processes (as opposed to short-term events); • but archaeological interpretation is not free from modern trends and biases.

  4. Finkelstein: - Material and Text; • material remains are mute; • as such, they can be interpreted in many ways; • almost every find is subject to more than one historical reconstruction; • archaeology needs the text; • without the text, archaeology can only give us general information about what happened in their time; • without the text, many essential questions remain unanswered;

  5. Finkelstein: • For a reasonable reconstruction of the early history of Israel, one needs: • the archaeological finds; • the biblical text; and • other ancient Near Eastern records.

  6. Finkelstein: • Traditional biblical archaeology has been dominated by the biblical story; • very often, histories of Ancient Israel have done nothing more than repeat the biblical story; • the text was put in the spotlight; • archaeology played a minor role; • it was not considered as an independent tool for historical research;

  7. Finkelstein: • Archaeology must be studied independently of the biblical text; • then one checks the biblical text; • do the two types of evidence accord with each other? • if not, why not? • Why did the author portray history in this way?

  8. Finkelstein: • Most scholars have studied early-Israelite history from early to late; a chronological study: Patriarchs; Exodus; Conquest; Period of the Judges; the Kingdoms of David and Solomon, that is, the United Monarchy – the 10th century; the Divided Monarchy – the late 10th – late 8th centuries, etc. • what should be done is the opposite; • one needs to establish the period when the traditions were put down in writing; • this is the point of departure for the study of Ancient Israel: to verify if the text and archaeology are harmonious; • If not, why not?

  9. Finkelstein: • histoire regressive: starting from a secure point and then reconstructing history step-by-step further back and deeper into the past; • one should investigate from late to early.

  10. Finkelstein: - This means that the early chapters in Israel’s history cannot be understood as portraying straightforward historical realities; • But it is inconceivable that the authors invented stories – “made up history”; • biblical history written to serve an ideological platform; • it was written in a way that would seem reliable to the reader and/or listener; • it was written on the basis of tales, myths, traditions, and ancient memories; • the stories belong more to the world of the authors than to our world.

  11. Finkelstein: • Much of the biblical description of Ancient Israel was written from an ideology that prevailed in Judah between the 7th-5th centuries BC, e.g., the time of Josiah (640-609 BC); • The authors decided what ought to be in the text and what ought to be left out; • thus, we are reading a selective history; • The Bible does not represent all groups in Judah; • it certainly does not represent the world of the Northern Kingdom; • how different biblical history would be if it were written by someone from Samaria or even from Bethel or a rival of the “Deuteronomistic” camp in Judah.

  12. Finkelstein: • Layers of tradition that gradually accumulated over centuries of oral transmission; • then redaction; • until the text reached its present state; • e.g., David and Solomon (Textbook, p. 186); • Text and Archaeology: view events from two different perspectives, namely, theology versus daily reality; • the scholar needs to be conscious of which is which.

  13. Finkelstein: - faith, and historical research should not be harmonized or compromised.

  14. Mazar: (Textbook, pp. 189-95) - Archaeology’s role: to attempt to determine the historical background to the stories in the Bible; • To determine whether or not those stories preserve valuable data on the ancient history of Israel; • Mazar refers to Finkelstein’s approach as “reflective historiography”, that is, that many of the stories in the Bible are intended to justify and glorify Josiah’s political and ideological goals; • this is a narrow and one-sided view of biblical historiography;

  15. Mazar: • Many of the biblical stories are rooted in realities that precede their compilation by hundreds of years; • e.g., the conquest story of Hazor and the conquest of `Ai (Textbook, p. 191); • nevertheless, many of the stories are to be explained as folk stories and traditions compiled, edited, and rewritten by later authors … with literary skill and theological motivation;

  16. Mazar: • in many cases, the stories can be linked to archaeological evidence; • at the same time, archaeology has the ability to render improbable the historicity of some biblical stories, e.g., Conquest.

  17. Mazar: • Archaeology does not “prove the Bible”; • it increases understanding and reconstructs aspects of life in Israel and among its neighbours including social structures, economy, technology, warfare, religious practices, etc.

More Related