What do you think?
Rate this book
Archaeology and the Old Testament
This book is a vital and valuable work that Bible institutes and seminaries as well as Christian colleges will find up-to-date and pertinent to the times--generously illustrated with charts, diagrams, detailed maps, and pictures of the Holy Land and its environs.
- GenresHistory
339 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1983
3 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
About the author
Merrill F. Unger
82 books19 followersMerrill Frederick Unger, author of Demons in the World Today, earned his A.B and Ph.D. degrees at Dallas Theological Seminary. He held pastorates in New York, Texas, and Maryland. He taught at Gordon College and Gordon Divinity School, and from 1948 to 1967 he was professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 5, 2024
THE PREDECESSOR TO UNGER’S BOOK ON NEW TESTAMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
Merrill Unger (1909-1980) was a Bible commentator (see his Unger's Bible Dictionary, for example), archaeologist, and theologian. He was professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years. This 1954 book is a "companion volume" to his 1962 book, 'Archaeology and the New Testament.'
He wrote in the first chapter, “Biblical archaeology is attracting the attention of larger and larger numbers of enthusiastic investigators, students and Bible readers in general… Biblical archaeology, shedding light upon the historical background and the contemporary life out of which the Holy Scriptures came… of necessity borrows much of the interest that attaches to it from its connection with the Bible… No field of research has offered greater challenge and promise than that of Old Testament archaeology.
"Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century exceedingly little was known of Biblical times except what appeared on the pages of the Scriptures themselves… The result was that before the advent of modern archaeology there was practically nothing available to illustrate Old Testament history and literature. One can imagine the fervor aroused among serious students of the Bible by illuminating discoveries in Biblical lands… many of the most notable discoveries affecting the Bible and particularly the Old Testament were not made until … the last half century…” (Pg. 9-10)
He suggests, “Archaeology Authenticates the Bible. The study of the material remains of the ancient past is often useful in ‘proving’ the Bible to be true and accurate… But it is a mistake to view this as the most important use of archaeology… the Bible, when legitimately approached, does not need to be ‘proved’ either by archaeology, geology of any other science… its own claims of inspiration and internal evidence… are its best proof of authenticity… whatever contributions archaeology or any other science might make toward corroborating the reliability of the Bible can never take the place of faith…
"Nevertheless archaeology in confirming the Bible has performed an important function in dealing a fatal blow to die-hard radical higher critical theories, which have especially plagued Old Testament study.” (Pg. 14-15) He adds, “It is no exaggeration to say that on the human side… the Old Testament has become a new book as archaeology has made it more understandable by … correlating it with the life and customs out of which it sprang.” (Pg. 25)
He acknowledges, “The use of oral or written sources is not at variance with Biblical inspiration as is evident from the prologue to the third Gospel (Luke 1:1-3). Moreover, some Old Testament writers were acquainted with the literature of surrounding nations and modeled some of their inspired compositions after their literary masterpieces… Accordingly, it is not impossible from a historical and archaeological point of view or from the standpoint of Biblical inspiration to assume that Genesis might in a measure be dependent upon [the Babylonian] Enuma elish…
"[H]owever… while the doctrine of Biblical inspiration does not rule out the possibility of the dependence of the Genesis account, it renders such dependence totally unnecessary. It seems inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would have used an epic so contaminated with heathen philosophy as a source of spiritual truth. The employment of a poetical form or a certain type of meter as a vehicle for the expression of spiritual truth, of which there are clear Old Testament examples taken from contemporary literature, is an entirely different matter.” (Pg. 36)
Of the Garden of Eden, he advises, “it is futile to try to determine the exact site now. Shifting river beds and the changing configuration of the country in the course of millenniums… render such a task virtually impossible.” (Pg. 40) Of the possibility that the account of the Genesis Flood was “borrowed from the Babylonian Account,” he argues, “This… has little attraction for the conservative Bible student… although confessedly plausible, the theory cannot be proved… Both the Hebrew and the Babylonian Account Go Back to a Common Source of Fact, Which Originated in an Actual Occurrence. This view seems clearly the correct explanation of the genetic affiliations between them… Archaeological excavations have … revealed that Mesopotamia had well-known traditions of a universal flood… The Hebrews scarcely lived an isolated life, and it would be strange indeed if they did not possess similar traditions as other Semitic nations. These common traditions among the Hebrews re reflected in the true and authentic facts given them by divine inspiration in their sacred writings. Moses very likely was conversant with these traditions. If he was, inspiration enabled him to record them accurately…” (Pg. 69-71)
Of the Tower of Babel, he argues, “Chapter 10, dealing with diversity of races, cannot be separated from Chapter 11. The events of Chapter 11:1-9 are VERY MUCH EARLIER than critics commonly suppose and go back … far beyond 2501 B.C…. which Driver alleges is the Biblical date of the Floor and rightly protests that pre-Semitic Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian are three distinct languages that antedate this period. But does the Hebrew Bible place the Flood at 2501 B.C. or thereabouts? Only if the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are used unwarrantedly for chronological purposes. These genealogies are obviously abbreviated and cannot be used to calculate either the age of the human race or the time of the Flood.
"The Deluge took place long before 4,000 B.C., and the ancient scene depicted in Genesis 11:1-9 doubtlessly belongs to a period not more than a century and a half after that world-engulfing event.” (Pg. 101-102) He also contends, “it is quite clear from a careful survey of all the scriptural evidence … that the Old Testament places Moses and the period of the Exodus around the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. rather than a full century and a half later in the first half of the thirteenth century.” (Pg. 141)
Later, he says, “Abraham… entered Canaan 645 years before the Exodus… the date 2086 B.C. marks Abraham’s entrance into Canaan, and 2161 B.C. the date of his birth… The patriarchal period, then, would extend from 2086 B.C. to 1871 B.C. and the Egyptian sojourn from 1871 to 1441 B.C.” (Pg. 106-107) He points out, “Although die-hard radical theories echoing Wellhausen’s skepticism have persisted till quite recently, discoveries… have dealt a fatal blow to extreme views… Today archaeology compels a more general respect for the historical quality of the patriarchal stories.” (Pg. 120)
He cautions, however, that “investigators must be extremely careful of the ever-present temptation to misuse archaeological evidence to support a theory. Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archaeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archaeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.” (Pg. 164)
Unger’s book is seventy years old, and thus is somewhat “dated.” Nevertheless, it will still be of interest to many students of biblical archaeology (particularly if supplemented by more recent books).
Merrill Unger (1909-1980) was a Bible commentator (see his Unger's Bible Dictionary, for example), archaeologist, and theologian. He was professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years. This 1954 book is a "companion volume" to his 1962 book, 'Archaeology and the New Testament.'
He wrote in the first chapter, “Biblical archaeology is attracting the attention of larger and larger numbers of enthusiastic investigators, students and Bible readers in general… Biblical archaeology, shedding light upon the historical background and the contemporary life out of which the Holy Scriptures came… of necessity borrows much of the interest that attaches to it from its connection with the Bible… No field of research has offered greater challenge and promise than that of Old Testament archaeology.
"Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century exceedingly little was known of Biblical times except what appeared on the pages of the Scriptures themselves… The result was that before the advent of modern archaeology there was practically nothing available to illustrate Old Testament history and literature. One can imagine the fervor aroused among serious students of the Bible by illuminating discoveries in Biblical lands… many of the most notable discoveries affecting the Bible and particularly the Old Testament were not made until … the last half century…” (Pg. 9-10)
He suggests, “Archaeology Authenticates the Bible. The study of the material remains of the ancient past is often useful in ‘proving’ the Bible to be true and accurate… But it is a mistake to view this as the most important use of archaeology… the Bible, when legitimately approached, does not need to be ‘proved’ either by archaeology, geology of any other science… its own claims of inspiration and internal evidence… are its best proof of authenticity… whatever contributions archaeology or any other science might make toward corroborating the reliability of the Bible can never take the place of faith…
"Nevertheless archaeology in confirming the Bible has performed an important function in dealing a fatal blow to die-hard radical higher critical theories, which have especially plagued Old Testament study.” (Pg. 14-15) He adds, “It is no exaggeration to say that on the human side… the Old Testament has become a new book as archaeology has made it more understandable by … correlating it with the life and customs out of which it sprang.” (Pg. 25)
He acknowledges, “The use of oral or written sources is not at variance with Biblical inspiration as is evident from the prologue to the third Gospel (Luke 1:1-3). Moreover, some Old Testament writers were acquainted with the literature of surrounding nations and modeled some of their inspired compositions after their literary masterpieces… Accordingly, it is not impossible from a historical and archaeological point of view or from the standpoint of Biblical inspiration to assume that Genesis might in a measure be dependent upon [the Babylonian] Enuma elish…
"[H]owever… while the doctrine of Biblical inspiration does not rule out the possibility of the dependence of the Genesis account, it renders such dependence totally unnecessary. It seems inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would have used an epic so contaminated with heathen philosophy as a source of spiritual truth. The employment of a poetical form or a certain type of meter as a vehicle for the expression of spiritual truth, of which there are clear Old Testament examples taken from contemporary literature, is an entirely different matter.” (Pg. 36)
Of the Garden of Eden, he advises, “it is futile to try to determine the exact site now. Shifting river beds and the changing configuration of the country in the course of millenniums… render such a task virtually impossible.” (Pg. 40) Of the possibility that the account of the Genesis Flood was “borrowed from the Babylonian Account,” he argues, “This… has little attraction for the conservative Bible student… although confessedly plausible, the theory cannot be proved… Both the Hebrew and the Babylonian Account Go Back to a Common Source of Fact, Which Originated in an Actual Occurrence. This view seems clearly the correct explanation of the genetic affiliations between them… Archaeological excavations have … revealed that Mesopotamia had well-known traditions of a universal flood… The Hebrews scarcely lived an isolated life, and it would be strange indeed if they did not possess similar traditions as other Semitic nations. These common traditions among the Hebrews re reflected in the true and authentic facts given them by divine inspiration in their sacred writings. Moses very likely was conversant with these traditions. If he was, inspiration enabled him to record them accurately…” (Pg. 69-71)
Of the Tower of Babel, he argues, “Chapter 10, dealing with diversity of races, cannot be separated from Chapter 11. The events of Chapter 11:1-9 are VERY MUCH EARLIER than critics commonly suppose and go back … far beyond 2501 B.C…. which Driver alleges is the Biblical date of the Floor and rightly protests that pre-Semitic Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian are three distinct languages that antedate this period. But does the Hebrew Bible place the Flood at 2501 B.C. or thereabouts? Only if the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are used unwarrantedly for chronological purposes. These genealogies are obviously abbreviated and cannot be used to calculate either the age of the human race or the time of the Flood.
"The Deluge took place long before 4,000 B.C., and the ancient scene depicted in Genesis 11:1-9 doubtlessly belongs to a period not more than a century and a half after that world-engulfing event.” (Pg. 101-102) He also contends, “it is quite clear from a careful survey of all the scriptural evidence … that the Old Testament places Moses and the period of the Exodus around the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. rather than a full century and a half later in the first half of the thirteenth century.” (Pg. 141)
Later, he says, “Abraham… entered Canaan 645 years before the Exodus… the date 2086 B.C. marks Abraham’s entrance into Canaan, and 2161 B.C. the date of his birth… The patriarchal period, then, would extend from 2086 B.C. to 1871 B.C. and the Egyptian sojourn from 1871 to 1441 B.C.” (Pg. 106-107) He points out, “Although die-hard radical theories echoing Wellhausen’s skepticism have persisted till quite recently, discoveries… have dealt a fatal blow to extreme views… Today archaeology compels a more general respect for the historical quality of the patriarchal stories.” (Pg. 120)
He cautions, however, that “investigators must be extremely careful of the ever-present temptation to misuse archaeological evidence to support a theory. Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archaeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archaeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.” (Pg. 164)
Unger’s book is seventy years old, and thus is somewhat “dated.” Nevertheless, it will still be of interest to many students of biblical archaeology (particularly if supplemented by more recent books).
August 14, 2025
It’s a good book with a good chronological structure and provides good sources on the archaeological evidence of the Old Testament. The writer is fairly traditional and believes in the truth of the scriptures so he often defends scriptural passages against the liberal modern critics.
The book is generally quite boring and academically written, I would enjoy a bit more faithful and spiritual commentary. Maybe if a Catholic priest wrote a book like this it would be much more enjoyable.
I noticed the writer loves to use the word “furnish”, try and count how many times he uses it in the whole book, it must be over 20.
The writer tends to avoid questions of race and doesn’t delve into controversial theories which is understandable.
The book is generally quite boring and academically written, I would enjoy a bit more faithful and spiritual commentary. Maybe if a Catholic priest wrote a book like this it would be much more enjoyable.
I noticed the writer loves to use the word “furnish”, try and count how many times he uses it in the whole book, it must be over 20.
The writer tends to avoid questions of race and doesn’t delve into controversial theories which is understandable.
May 17, 2017
This is a fascinating book even though it's dated. It reads like reading an encyclopedia, but I enjoy reading such work! This book is a nice addition to the biblical student's libray, one that I know I will reference again and again.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews