Part 3 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT RECORD RELIABLE HISTORY? How do critical methodologies explain the historical reliability of the OT? Biblical scholarship offers five answers to this question that can be charted chronologically by tracing the history of consensus positions. At times these methods have coexisted to some extent and all three are embraced across the spectrum of biblical scholarship in modern times as well.
First, during the first 17 centuries of the Christian era, the vast majority of biblical scholars accepted the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They viewed the Bible's descriptions of various events as reliable, actual history and regarded the biblical text as divinely given. Of course there were a few detractors along the way, but even they did not abandon wholesale the general reliability of the biblical tradition. Modern biblical critics regard (and generally discount) this era as a "precritical" period of biblical scholarship.
Second, the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods fostered a significant degree of skepticism toward beliefs and practices that had been the consensus for centuries.1 A growing number of scholars sought to explain God, the Bible, and science primarily through the perspective of a man-centered rationalism. The idea of the Bible being divinely revealed and authoritative became much less acceptable. By the end of the eighteenth century, Jewish and Christian scholars began to subject the OT to wholesale critical analysis. This led to a broad consensus in Europe and then America that viewed the OT as a written work that drew on various sources and demonstrated, in general, sloppy editing. The events and truths presented by the OT were considered untrustworthy and therefore not historical. Rather than granting divine revelation as the basis of Israel's function as a holy nation, these scholars viewed OT religion as the product of a long period of evolution from primitive paganism to monotheism (by the postexilic period).
Third, as scholars at the end of the nineteenth century began to discover and study literary and nonliterary artifacts from the ANE world, they began to realize that the world described by the Bible was not totally out of touch with the world depicted by the recently unearthed artifactual evidence. W. F. Albright and his protégés introduced an understanding of the OT that viewed the biblical text as generally reliable. Rather than creating fictional traditions, they suggested that the Bible preserved believable historical events and traditions. They may not have believed the Bible to be divinely inspired and authoritative, but they did conclude that it was a credible and reasonably accurate tool for reconstructing the history it described.
Fourth, the consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the Bible is unreliable as a source for reconstructing the history of the events and characters it describes, especially when there is the absence of abundant archaeological evidence.2 Since the amount of archaeological evidence significantly increases from Israel's divided monarchy period, critics are much more willing to view the biblical narratives from that period as having greater potential historicity. However, even when understood in conjunction with compelling archaeological evidence, most scholars still do not view the OT with much credence. To them it came into existence through a long oral prehistory, during which time various "communities" changed and reshaped the message of the OT to fit the needs and challenges of their own historical setting. A more radical subcategory of this last broad perspective on the OT (known as minimalism) dates the OT to the Persian or Hellenistic periods and rejects any thought of the OT having historical credibility.
Fifth, the evangelical wing of scholarship (like the authors of this volume and scores of others) regard the Bible as God's Word, divinely revealed and inspired, presenting its readers with an inerrant and authoritative message. The Bible gives an authoritative redemptive message, and also delineates credible and reliable history. Although it does not "prove" anything in the Bible, archaeology illuminates, illustrates, supplements, and confirms the biblical record. The following section offers a few examples of recent discoveries that demonstrate that the historical context presented by the OT matches that suggested by artifactual evidence.
DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT RECORD RELIABLE HISTORY? How do critical methodologies explain the historical reliability of the OT? Biblical scholarship offers five answers to this question that can be charted chronologically by tracing the history of consensus positions. At times these methods have coexisted to some extent and all three are embraced across the spectrum of biblical scholarship in modern times as well.
First, during the first 17 centuries of the Christian era, the vast majority of biblical scholars accepted the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They viewed the Bible's descriptions of various events as reliable, actual history and regarded the biblical text as divinely given. Of course there were a few detractors along the way, but even they did not abandon wholesale the general reliability of the biblical tradition. Modern biblical critics regard (and generally discount) this era as a "precritical" period of biblical scholarship.
Second, the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods fostered a significant degree of skepticism toward beliefs and practices that had been the consensus for centuries.1 A growing number of scholars sought to explain God, the Bible, and science primarily through the perspective of a man-centered rationalism. The idea of the Bible being divinely revealed and authoritative became much less acceptable. By the end of the eighteenth century, Jewish and Christian scholars began to subject the OT to wholesale critical analysis. This led to a broad consensus in Europe and then America that viewed the OT as a written work that drew on various sources and demonstrated, in general, sloppy editing. The events and truths presented by the OT were considered untrustworthy and therefore not historical. Rather than granting divine revelation as the basis of Israel's function as a holy nation, these scholars viewed OT religion as the product of a long period of evolution from primitive paganism to monotheism (by the postexilic period).
Third, as scholars at the end of the nineteenth century began to discover and study literary and nonliterary artifacts from the ANE world, they began to realize that the world described by the Bible was not totally out of touch with the world depicted by the recently unearthed artifactual evidence. W. F. Albright and his protégés introduced an understanding of the OT that viewed the biblical text as generally reliable. Rather than creating fictional traditions, they suggested that the Bible preserved believable historical events and traditions. They may not have believed the Bible to be divinely inspired and authoritative, but they did conclude that it was a credible and reasonably accurate tool for reconstructing the history it described.
Fourth, the consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the Bible is unreliable as a source for reconstructing the history of the events and characters it describes, especially when there is the absence of abundant archaeological evidence.2 Since the amount of archaeological evidence significantly increases from Israel's divided monarchy period, critics are much more willing to view the biblical narratives from that period as having greater potential historicity. However, even when understood in conjunction with compelling archaeological evidence, most scholars still do not view the OT with much credence. To them it came into existence through a long oral prehistory, during which time various "communities" changed and reshaped the message of the OT to fit the needs and challenges of their own historical setting. A more radical subcategory of this last broad perspective on the OT (known as minimalism) dates the OT to the Persian or Hellenistic periods and rejects any thought of the OT having historical credibility.
Fifth, the evangelical wing of scholarship (like the authors of this volume and scores of others) regard the Bible as God's Word, divinely revealed and inspired, presenting its readers with an inerrant and authoritative message. The Bible gives an authoritative redemptive message, and also delineates credible and reliable history. Although it does not "prove" anything in the Bible, archaeology illuminates, illustrates, supplements, and confirms the biblical record. The following section offers a few examples of recent discoveries that demonstrate that the historical context presented by the OT matches that suggested by artifactual evidence.
