 |
| Sir Flinders Petrie (1853-1942), one of the chief founders of modern Near Eastern archaeology |
Click here (YouTube) for a reputable introduction to the study of Biblical texts within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern artifacts...
Do you think that the Bible should 'interpret' archaeology? Vice-versa? Can texts and artifacts speak to each other?
5 comments:
Texts can paint a picture of the event that is being described. I'm not sure if the texts can speak to the artifacts unless they are mentioned in the text. Artifacts bring a sense of proof that an event did occur in a time and place. However can artifacts really speak to the text? I mean are we even sure that these artifacts can be tied to the biblical texts?
With the Bible and those events it describes, the burden of proof is upon it and the people who ascribe to the ideologies. The Bible itself is the claim, and outside evidence is required to either refute or support such claims. Artifacts themselves can be tied to Biblical texts; however, it's difficult to say whether claims of the Bible are true based on upon artifacts in which they speak upon.
For example, I could write about the invention of a computer, and say some future civilization finds my works and goes looking for this computer. It can go both ways, I would suppose...
I do not think, however, we should interpret what we find archeologically by what the Bible says, but rather what the Bible says for being true/false if the evidence supports it.
- Eric Dutton
Insightful comments, Eric and Logan. 'Biblical Archaeology' still wrestles with the interpretive tension between text and artifact. Diggers in the early days proverbially (sometimes, almost literally!) had a spade one hand and a Bible in the other, as if the latter were an instruction manuel for the former. Some subsequent archaeologists flipped that dynamic on its head, viewing material evidence as pristine and self-evident, and therefore of greater historical authority than scripture. Others have rightly reminded us, however, that many artifacts ALSO require interpretation. The dance continues...
pdk
There will always be someone trying to attach archaeological and Biblical things together. People who try to interpret the Bible and Archaeology like this or vis versa, will maybe find what they are looking for but their interpretations could be skewed based on what they are looking for or what they want to find. I dont think its bad to compare and contrast in general.
-Taylor E.
I think that archaeology should 'discover' archaeology. It's cool when archaeology and the Bible over lap. The Bible can become more creditable that way. But if it didn't ever happen and there's proof it didn't, I don't think people should try to twist it. Unfortunately, there is always going to be that person who does.
Timi Miner
Post a Comment