Read an Excerpt
INTRODUCTION ? 27
? Show the basic differences between the 'traditional'
and 'modern' ways of understanding the Bible.
? Propose the method of understanding that will be used in this book.
? Give a brief overview of the value and limitations of archaeology.
? Show the importance of written records.
This introductory chapter describes the two basic schools of biblical interpretation. We then examine what our approach should be and address the role of archaeology in our understanding of biblical history.
There are a number of ways to study the Bible. We could work our way through it book by book.We could take a thematic approach by following key themes, such as prophecy or salvation or love, through both the OT and the NT.We could look at major sections, such as the Pentateuch or the prophetic literature or the Gospels. Each of these approaches is profitable.
In this book, which presents an overview, we will take a historical approach.
That is, we will follow the sequence of historical events portrayed in the Bible,
looking at the various biblical books within that context. In the process, we will try to understand each book as it may have been understood by its original audience.
We use this method for several reasons. The Bible was certainly written within a historical context as God dealt with individuals and groups. Some books are records of events written shortly after the events occurred; Joshua and Philemon,
for example, seem to fit into this category.Other books, such as 1--2 Chronicles,
cover longer periods of time, even drawing on a number of sources. Still others are not historical at all, such as Psalms and Proverbs; however, even though these works are collections of material written at various stages, we can find convenient slots in our survey to pause and note how that material fits in the historical sequence.
HOW SHOULD I INTERPRET THE BIBLE?
There are two basic approaches to understanding the Bible that divide the entire field. Because these approaches differ drastically, we need to describe them briefly before beginning our study. The major distinction between the two is how they view the origin and nature of the biblical text.
The Traditional View
The first school of thought in biblical interpretation may be labeled the traditional view, often known as the conservative view. This has been the dominant position held throughout the history of the church, at least up to the last century or so. Basically, this school accepts the biblical documents at face value.1 Since the biblical documents claim to record history, this view begins by accepting that claim as a working hypothesis. It assumes that the documents are indeed historical,
even while carefully assessing that claim. It then tries to correlate how the various historical materials (biblical and extrabiblical) fit together, recognizing that there are gaps in our understanding. In the process, the biblical documents are weighed and evaluated, keeping in mind that they have been critically appraised continually since their composition. Aware that there are problems in the text we presently have, this view asserts that when we look at various periods of history, we must include all the evidence before we come to a conclusion. If there are conflicts in evidence (and our biggest problem is lack of evidence, not conflicting evidence), we must weigh it and gauge the alternatives as in any other area of history. Moreover, if there are records of divine intervention in human history,
these are viewed soberly as plausible, true accounts.
The Modern View
In distinction, the second school of interpretation is often called the modern view,
also known as the liberal or critical view (the latter term is unhelpful because it could imply that the traditional view does not analyze issues critically).3 The modern view approaches the biblical documents as suspect at best.While these documents claim to be history, they are assumed to be late forgeries until conclusively proven otherwise. This view gained dominance in scholarly circles during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Its supporters continue to label the bulk of the Bible as
'myth,'4 though their position on certain matters has often changed as a result of corroborating evidence. The real issue underlying the thinking of these scholars is a set of philosophical assumptions rather than conflicting evidence. In general,
these conjectures reflect a spirit of naturalism, which can be simplistically reduced to the idea that miracles cannot happen. The miraculous accounts that appear in the Bible must therefore be regarded as, at best, 'embellishments' of the text.
These two views actually represent a rather wide spectrum of interpretive thought. There is also a problem in using labels not only because doing so immediately seems to attach emotional nuances to the discussion, but also because individuals will differ on particular issues while agreeing on broader principles.
Therefore, I will use these labels merely for convenience' sake, recognizing the risk of oversimplification. They should be understood as reflecting general trends.
INTRODUCTION ? 29
THE BASIC ISSUE IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
When we speak of the two major approaches to biblical interpretation, we are talking about the very basic issue of understanding what the Bible is. This fundamental question regarding the nature of the Bible builds on the role of what I call supernormal (in preference to the standard term, supernatural).2 Is there supernormal intervention into space-time history or not? As we get into the actual study of the Bible, we find that there are also a number of specific ways of interpreting the text. We call the process of interpretation hermeneutics. However, particular methods of interpretation are subordinate to the more basic issue we are addressing here.
30 ? INTRODUCTION
Three examples of historical realities once thought mythical by liberal scholars:
* Nineveh: Nineveh is mentioned a number of times in the OT, and its destruction and loss are foretold. After the city was destroyed, its location was forgotten. Consequently, its existence was questioned by modern scholars until archaeologists uncovered it in the 1840s. (See Arnold C. Brackman, The Luck of Nineveh [New York: Van
Nostrand, Reinhold, 1981], 11--14.)
* Belshazzar and his position: Daniel 5 tells of a Babylonian ruler named Belshazzar. When excavation of Babylon began, it was determined that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus, with no place for Belshazzar. Scholars asserted that Daniel was in error, but later discoveries showed that Nabonidus had a son (named Belshazzar),
who shared the throne with his father but apparently died with the overthrow of Babylon before he could exercise sole kingship (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 378--82).
* The Hittites: Although they are mentioned in eleven books of the OT (notably Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua), the
Hittites were long viewed as a nonexistent people. Then the excavation of an ancient site in Turkey called
Bogaskoy in 1906--7 proved the existence of the Hittites. Suddenly an entire civilization was opened to archaeology.