Brent Hoefling, TBS Master of Arts in Biblical History and Archaeology (2024)
While researching and writing for my TBS coursework, I noticed some authors avoid using the Bible as a primary source of information. Whether due to concerns about academic reputation or other reasons, there seem to be far more minimalist scholars than maximalist scholars. Secular archaeologists and minimalist scholars may find the Bible suitable for literature or other purposes, but generally avoid using it in historical context. Meanwhile, many others hold that the Bible contains historical information.
Hershel Shanks, former editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, questioned the use of the Bible in 1976 based on the idea that theological orientation could bias scholarly work. It is true that pursuing archaeology to “prove the Bible” is not an objective approach to scholarly work. I don’t believe the Bible needs to be “proven,” nor am I afraid of scientific endeavors that at some levels may appear to contradict the Bible. Furthermore, I believe that archaeological academics should use biblical citations and allusions as primary research sources.
Historically, the “Copenhagen school” of minimalists seek to eliminate ANY historicity of the Bible based on their opinion that the document is unreliable. Meanwhile, biblical maximalists consider the Bible a unique, historical collection of writings documenting the life and times of ancient Israelites and early Christians, and therefore capable of use as a primary source of information. Thus, minimalists and maximalists continue to emotionally debate the validity and reliability of the Bible as a primary source. While minimalist scholars have dominated the last half-century, maximalists are regaining ground, I believe partly due to the high quality work of archaeologists, authors, researchers, and scholars in places like TBS.
Archaeological academic scholarship should accept biblical citations, just as they utilize citations from other historical manuscripts. Citing the Bible is not exclusively a matter of faith or ideology, but evidence of scholarly rigor and respect for diverse sources. Biblical texts are among the most ancient, documented, and researched literary artifacts in existence. Thus, despite contradictory perspectives, scripture can and should be considered a valuable source for attempted reconstruction of ancient historical chronology. Since bias goes both ways, a more nuanced approach to biblical interpretation is to allow erudite scholarship to uncover the latest information about the ancient world and the people who inhabited it, while also allowing data gleaned from archaeological endeavors to illuminate the Word of God.
Originally published in The Sentinel, Summer 2024, p. 8
Comments