Contours of Old Testament Theology

Appendix 2. The Relevance of Biblical Archaeology to Biblical Theology: A Tribute to George Ernest Wright

A P P E N D I X 2 T H E R E L E V A N C E OF ARCHAEOLOGY TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY A T R I B U T E TO G E O R G E E R N E S T W R I G H T One way to sharpen our understanding of the task and method of Old Testament theology is to consider the relation of this discipline to so-called bibli­ cal archaeology. At one time the two disciplines, biblical archaeology and biblical theology, were held to be essentially related. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the days of the biblical theology movement, they were united in one person, George Ernest Wright, to whom this book is dedicated. Wright was a unique figure in the history of twentieth-century scholarship: he was both a leading archaeologist and a rec­ ognized biblical theologian.1 In the latter part of the century, however, this union dissolved, to be super­ seded by a nonbiblical enterprise, broadly called Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Indeed, "biblical archaeology" has been pronounced dead, although perhaps, as in the case of Mark Twain, the death notice may have been exaggerated. The inter­ est in biblical archaeology still survives, for instance, in the Biblical Archaeology Society founded by Hershel Shanks.2 Today, however, the two disciplines— Palestinian archaeology and Old Testament theology—are absolutely separate. The most recent book on Old Testament theology, the magnum opus by Walter Brueggemann, "brackets out" all historical issues, a far cry from the heyday of the biblical theology movement.3 I am neither an archaeologist nor the "son" of an archaeologist (i.e., member of the Albright school), but rather a disciple of James Muilenburg, a gifted scholar who displayed a deep interest in the historical situation of ancient Israel and even was involved in the archaeology of the Israelite center at Gilgal, but who, under the influence of Hermann Gunkel, moved more toward the poetic, stylistic criti­ cism now called rhetorical criticism. In the early part of my career, however, I was influenced by Wright's work, beginning with his little book The Challenge of Israel's Faith (1944),- then in the 1950s I joined with him in directing the Drew1 . See the essay by one of his students, William G. Dever, "Biblical Theology and Biblical Archaeology: An Appreciation of G. Ernest Wright," HTR 73, nos. 1-2 (1980) 1-15,- also his his­ tory and critique of biblical archaeology in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modem Interpreters, ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 31-74. 2. This essay is substantially a lecture given under the auspices of the Biblical Archaeology Society, Orlando, Fla., November 1998. 3. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997); see the long footnote, 118-20. 345 3 4 6 Contours of Old Testament Theology McCormick reexcavation of the biblical city Shechem.4 In those summers "on the dig," while bearing "the burden and heat of the day" as a trench supervisor, 1 began to reflect on archaeological method and the relevance of archaeology to biblical theology. That question has haunted me down through the years. In this essay I continue those reflections, speaking primarily as a biblical theologian. Biblical Theology and Historicity First, it is clear to me that biblical archaeology forces upon the biblical theologian willy-nilly the problem of historicity, that is, the rootage of biblical texts in the historical experiences of ancient Israel. From the very first, Israel was inescapably involved in world politics. Significantly, the earliest reference to this people is found outside the Bible, in a stele set up by Pharaoh Merneptah in about 1207 B.C., celebrating his victories in Syria and Canaan, including defeat of the people Israel.5 That inscription anchors the Israelite story firmly in history. To be sure, Israel's wit­ ness to the presence and activity of God in the world is written in such a manner as to appeal to our poetic sense and religious imagination,- but the Israelite story is not a poetic construct or fictitious account. In many down-to-earth ways, archae­ ology has demonstrated that, as William Dever says in a helpful discussion, The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place, whose actual historical experience led them irrevocably to a vision of the human condition and promise that transcended anything yet conceived in...