Form-critical approach

“Pitfall” of the Gunkel Approach Gunkel and other “form critics” try to find Gunkel and other “form critics” try to find

the early form of the text and identify its the early form of the text and identify its developmentdevelopment

thus, the historically important features are thus, the historically important features are those that lie behind the textthose that lie behind the text

this method tends to distinct the historical this method tends to distinct the historical importance of “final stage” of development, importance of “final stage” of development, i.e., the text we have before usi.e., the text we have before us

thus, it is ironic that “form critics often thus, it is ironic that “form critics often discount the usefulness of archaeologydiscount the usefulness of archaeology

The “literal” approach Many hold that the Bible is reliable in every Many hold that the Bible is reliable in every

detail, and it is the literal word of Goddetail, and it is the literal word of God For these interpretators, history during the For these interpretators, history during the

biblical period is by definition a matter of biblical period is by definition a matter of paraphrasing the biblical accountparaphrasing the biblical account

For these interpretators, archaeology can only be For these interpretators, archaeology can only be used to “prove” the reliability of the text that is used to “prove” the reliability of the text that is already presupposedalready presupposed

Thus, archaeology really plays no roleThus, archaeology really plays no role

The “essential continuity” approach

““essential continuity” between the actual essential continuity” between the actual acts of God described in the Bible and acts of God described in the Bible and extra-biblical data (incl. archaeology)extra-biblical data (incl. archaeology)

as we will discuss in a few minutes, this is as we will discuss in a few minutes, this is the “biblical theology” movementthe “biblical theology” movement

archaeology is important to this group, but archaeology is important to this group, but its presuppositions require that the data its presuppositions require that the data support their conclusionssupport their conclusions

Distinction b/n faith & event

biblical narration of Israel’s past is by a biblical narration of Israel’s past is by a faith response to events in the pastfaith response to events in the past

the real importance of the Bible is in its the real importance of the Bible is in its faith claimsfaith claims

the validity of these claims does not depend the validity of these claims does not depend on whether they square with actual eventson whether they square with actual events

this group is more open to archaeologythis group is more open to archaeology

History of “biblical archaeology” Edward RobinsonEdward Robinson Flinders PetrieFlinders Petrie AlbrightAlbright Wright-- “biblical theology”Wright-- “biblical theology” the “coming of age”the “coming of age” Dever: “New Archaeology”Dever: “New Archaeology”

– Syro-Palestinian ArchaeologySyro-Palestinian Archaeology

Placher’s middle of the road

What it means is trueWhat it means is true Then the meaning becomes the important Then the meaning becomes the important

thingthing The narrative itself is eclipsedThe narrative itself is eclipsed This is the traditional moderate viewpoint This is the traditional moderate viewpoint

of how to read and use the Bible though!of how to read and use the Bible though!

Sauer’s Article: a proper relationship

Sauer’s criteria for relationship with history

1. Geographical location of archaeological 1. Geographical location of archaeological material corresponds with historical sources.material corresponds with historical sources.

2. Stratigraphic evidence used for the correlation 2. Stratigraphic evidence used for the correlation must be clear.must be clear.

3. Chronology of the archaeological and historical 3. Chronology of the archaeological and historical data must be well-established.data must be well-established.

4. Correlations cannot be based on a single site.4. Correlations cannot be based on a single site. 5. Correlations must be based on a number of 5. Correlations must be based on a number of

cultural traits, and not a single trait.cultural traits, and not a single trait.

Do we need archaeology?

Can we do biblical studies without Can we do biblical studies without archaeology or extra-biblical data?archaeology or extra-biblical data?

Sauer: “Unless biblical scholars make use Sauer: “Unless biblical scholars make use of the archaeological evidence in an effort of the archaeological evidence in an effort to understand the ancient world, their to understand the ancient world, their scholarship will be locked into modern, scholarship will be locked into modern, western categories of analysis alone.”western categories of analysis alone.”

Relationship of History and Theology

The approach Sauer is proposing might result in The approach Sauer is proposing might result in the eclipse of the narrativethe eclipse of the narrative

Most biblical scholars today thus say you Most biblical scholars today thus say you shouldn’t use archaeology or historyshouldn’t use archaeology or history

If the text is relevant not in its portrayal of actual If the text is relevant not in its portrayal of actual events but in the faith response to the events of events but in the faith response to the events of history, then the validity of the text is in its history, then the validity of the text is in its meaningmeaning

Thus, we ask if the text is historical and if not, we Thus, we ask if the text is historical and if not, we ask what is the meaning?ask what is the meaning?

In either case, the narrative is “eclipsed”In either case, the narrative is “eclipsed”

How to define “biblical archaeology”

What are some things to avoid?What are some things to avoid? What are some things we want to include?What are some things we want to include? What are our presuppositions?What are our presuppositions? I am I am notnot proposing a “literal” approach or a proposing a “literal” approach or a

“biblical theology”, so what are the “biblical theology”, so what are the ramificationsramifications

Right and Wrong Usesof Archaeology

Negative use: disprove or refine a theory of Negative use: disprove or refine a theory of biblical interpretation.biblical interpretation.

Positive use: support a theory of biblical Positive use: support a theory of biblical interpretation.interpretation.

Positive use: give a general background of the Positive use: give a general background of the time period in which the texts were writtentime period in which the texts were written

this gives us a more complete reading of the textthis gives us a more complete reading of the text this allow us to understand nuances of the authorthis allow us to understand nuances of the author

How we will try to avoid the “eclipse” of the narrative

What are your ideasWhat are your ideas In short, I would propose that the text, that is the In short, I would propose that the text, that is the

narrative is “true” in-and-of itselfnarrative is “true” in-and-of itself What is the difference between the narrative being What is the difference between the narrative being

“true” and the meaning behind the text being the “true” and the meaning behind the text being the important goal?important goal?