Form-critical approach

“Pitfall” of the Gunkel Approach  Gunkel and other “form critics” try to find the early form of the text and identify its development  thus, the historically important features are those that lie behind the text  this method tends to distinct the historical importance of “final stage” of development, i.e., the text we have before us  thus, it is ironic that “form critics often discount the usefulness of archaeology

The “literal” approach  Many hold that the Bible is reliable in every detail, and it is the literal word of God  For these interpretators, history during the biblical period is by definition a matter of paraphrasing the biblical account  For these interpretators, archaeology can only be used to “prove” the reliability of the text that is already presupposed  Thus, archaeology really plays no role

The “essential continuity” approach  “essential continuity” between the actual acts of God described in the Bible and extra-biblical data (incl. archaeology)  as we will discuss in a few minutes, this is the “biblical theology” movement  archaeology is important to this group, but its presuppositions require that the data support their conclusions

Distinction b/n faith & event  biblical narration of Israel’s past is by a faith response to events in the past  the real importance of the Bible is in its faith claims  the validity of these claims does not depend on whether they square with actual events  this group is more open to archaeology

History of “biblical archaeology”  Edward Robinson  Flinders Petrie  Albright  Wright-- “biblical theology”  the “coming of age”  Dever: “New Archaeology” –Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

Placher’s middle of the road  What it means is true  Then the meaning becomes the important thing  The narrative itself is eclipsed  This is the traditional moderate viewpoint 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 material corresponds with historical sources.  2. Stratigraphic evidence used for the correlation must be clear.  3. Chronology of the archaeological and historical data must be well-established.  4. Correlations cannot be based on a single site.  5. Correlations must be based on a number of cultural traits, and not a single trait.

Do we need archaeology?  Can we do biblical studies without archaeology or extra-biblical data?  Sauer: “Unless biblical scholars make use of the archaeological evidence in an effort to understand the ancient world, their scholarship will be locked into modern, western categories of analysis alone.”

Relationship of History and Theology  The approach Sauer is proposing might result in the eclipse of the narrative  Most biblical scholars today thus say you shouldn’t use archaeology or history  If the text is relevant not in its portrayal of actual events but in the faith response to the events of history, then the validity of the text is in its meaning  Thus, we ask if the text is historical and if not, we ask what is the meaning?  In either case, the narrative is “eclipsed”

How to define “biblical archaeology”  What are some things to avoid?  What are some things we want to include?  What are our presuppositions?  I am not proposing a “literal” approach or a “biblical theology”, so what are the ramifications

Right and Wrong Uses of Archaeology  Negative use: disprove or refine a theory of biblical interpretation.  Positive use: support a theory of biblical interpretation.  Positive use: give a general background of the time period in which the texts were written  this gives us a more complete reading of the text  this allow us to understand nuances of the author

How we will try to avoid the “eclipse” of the narrative  What are your ideas  In short, I would propose that the text, that is the narrative is “true” in-and-of itself  What is the difference between the narrative being “true” and the meaning behind the text being the important goal?