A Summary and Critique of the article “Archaeology and the Old Testament” by Donald J. Wiseman
It was said that every little archeological artifact is like a day or week of an ancient man’s life, and by looking into his work, we can enter into his mind or feelings by what he had done with it. So it is understandable that Christians are keenly interested in archeological findings which shed light into the life and thought of OT patriarchs and Israel. Each discovery is a clearer glimpse into a people whose history was interwoven with God’s revelation. This article provides an introduction into the limitations of archeology, its methods, dating evidence and a sweeping survey of findings which relate to OT records from prehistoric times to the Iron Age.
The author defined biblical archeology as “the selection of the evidence for those regions, places, and periods in which the people of OT times lived”. Since the 18th century, many notable discoveries had provided explanations to biblical customs, extra-biblical confirmation of OT historical narratives and even correction to anachronistic interpretations. However, we need to be aware that only a fraction of artifacts or documents from antiquity survived the ravages of time, only a fraction of Palestine sites were excavated and only a fraction of retrieved objects were published.
Wiseman went on to discuss the various ways in which archeological findings correspond to the patriarchal age, the Exodus, monarchy period, exile and the Hellenistic age. A particular example is the ancient custom for a barren couple to adopt an heir and then displace him if a son was born to them later as documented in Assyrian texts. According to the marriage contract, a barren woman was to provide her husband a slave girl to bear a son. If the first wife could not conceive within 7 years, the husband was allowed to take a second wife. This background information provides us with a glimpse into the cultural context in which Abraham’s relationship with Hagar and Jacob’s wait for Rachel were to be understood. They were men of their times, living according to the acceptable customs in their culture. While we should not be influenced by moral relativism and uncritical of cultural norms, it is anachronistic to read back our modern sensibilities into the text and perhaps, perceived the patriarchs as particularly wicked folks. Perhaps, if they had the chance to judge modern man, we would not appear too flattering by their standards either. In any case, biblical narratives do not always approve of an action which was recorded as didactic passages elsewhere should provide a clue.
Conclusion
Based on significant findings like the Code of Hammurabi (1901) to the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) in the twentieth century alone, we could anticipate expectantly further discoveries that help us understand the ancient world of OT better. Instead of being reactionary, the Church could be confident that the veracity of Scripture will be vindicated by such knowledge while cautious about the limitations of archeology as an inexact science. Being well-informed about these developments would be an antidote to the many misleading, conspiracy theories published at a popular level about ecclesiastical cover-up of controversial archeological discoveries.
It was said that every little archeological artifact is like a day or week of an ancient man’s life, and by looking into his work, we can enter into his mind or feelings by what he had done with it. So it is understandable that Christians are keenly interested in archeological findings which shed light into the life and thought of OT patriarchs and Israel. Each discovery is a clearer glimpse into a people whose history was interwoven with God’s revelation. This article provides an introduction into the limitations of archeology, its methods, dating evidence and a sweeping survey of findings which relate to OT records from prehistoric times to the Iron Age. The author defined biblical archeology as “the selection of the evidence for those regions, places, and periods in which the people of OT times lived”. Since the 18th century, many notable discoveries had provided explanations to biblical customs, extra-biblical confirmation of OT historical narratives and even correction to anachronistic interpretations. However, we need to be aware that only a fraction of artifacts or documents from antiquity survived the ravages of time, only a fraction of Palestine sites were excavated and only a fraction of retrieved objects were published.
Wiseman went on to discuss the various ways in which archeological findings correspond to the patriarchal age, the Exodus, monarchy period, exile and the Hellenistic age. A particular example is the ancient custom for a barren couple to adopt an heir and then displace him if a son was born to them later as documented in Assyrian texts. According to the marriage contract, a barren woman was to provide her husband a slave girl to bear a son. If the first wife could not conceive within 7 years, the husband was allowed to take a second wife. This background information provides us with a glimpse into the cultural context in which Abraham’s relationship with Hagar and Jacob’s wait for Rachel were to be understood. They were men of their times, living according to the acceptable customs in their culture. While we should not be influenced by moral relativism and uncritical of cultural norms, it is anachronistic to read back our modern sensibilities into the text and perhaps, perceived the patriarchs as particularly wicked folks. Perhaps, if they had the chance to judge modern man, we would not appear too flattering by their standards either. In any case, biblical narratives do not always approve of an action which was recorded as didactic passages elsewhere should provide a clue.
Conclusion
Based on significant findings like the Code of Hammurabi (1901) to the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) in the twentieth century alone, we could anticipate expectantly further discoveries that help us understand the ancient world of OT better. Instead of being reactionary, the Church could be confident that the veracity of Scripture will be vindicated by such knowledge while cautious about the limitations of archeology as an inexact science. Being well-informed about these developments would be an antidote to the many misleading, conspiracy theories published at a popular level about ecclesiastical cover-up of controversial archeological discoveries.
Comments