Bib. Arch.: is it still neccessary?

[archaeologist2]

there are those, like william dever, who want to remove biblical archaeology from the arena. dever wants to re-name it syrio/palestinian arch. and i forget what others would like.

dever's idea fails in so many ways and is just the next step inthe unbeliever's attempt to change what the truth is. i believe biblical archaeology is very neccessary and i agree with bryant wood when he said - we need to keep the unbelieveing scholars honest {lecture on Jericho}

your thoughts.

 

[mjintellichristian]

It's definitely a beneficial thing. We should be able to provide an answer to whomever asks. But archaeological facts only help those who want to believe. You could bring up all the evidence you could find, but if a person doesn't want to hear it, they'll find a way to explain it away. Science vs. religion is a heart thing first and foremost.

The educational value of it, is of course worth all the effort too. Helps us understand the cultures, people, and events of the Bible much better.

 

[parsley]

The two titles should co-exist and overlap.
Biblical is a very specific range of topics and locations, and as said above, objectives. It's not just about proving, but understanding the context of historical reports.

When much work is based on funding, it is important that findings end up in the hands of people who will use them and spread the information.

Say, for example, an oil company hires archaeologists to establish the boundaries of a protected landmark. They might lay claim to all findings, but put these in storage because their goal is to keep the public out of the landmark, rather than draw attention to it.

That might not pertain often to the distinction between titles, but it probably would make a difference in how archaeologists promote themselves and take on projects.

 

[straykat]

Devers and Finkelstein annoy me to no end. Not simply for being unbelievers.. but to lay hold to the claim of "science" yet thinking everything is settled. Is that not the opposite of science? They're no less dogmatic than the people they criticize. I've seen an interview where Finkelstein thought he was beyond even asking questions about the Exodus anymore.

 

[JackRT]

we need to keep the unbelieveing scholars honest

A very sly innuendo. As an aside, do we also need to keep the believing scholars honest as well?

 

[straykat]

A very sly innuendo. As an aside, do we also need to keep the believing scholars honest as well?

Indeed we do. Although I don't have anyone in particular in mind. I've yet to be exposed to it. But I am familiar with a lot of strange Antedeluvian/ancient civilizations type of "specialists", and if biblical archaeologists can be hacks like them, then they need to be kept in check.

 

[JackRT]

Indeed we do. Although I don't have anyone in particular in mind. I've yet to be exposed to it. But I am familiar with a lot of strange Antedeluvian/ancient civilizations type of "specialists", and if biblical archaeologists can be hacks like them, then they need to be kept in check.

I was thinking of the rediscovery of Noah's Ark every few years and similar sensationalism.

 

[1 John 4:1]

I think it doesn't matter what you call it as long as people are made aware of scholar's assumptions. I don't know much about archaeology but I do know that modern bible scholars tend to come at things with certain assumptions (from a modern bible scholar himself) lecture "Reading the Bible" he starts talking about it at 11:10 The Hebrew Bible In his notes he says: "Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: . . . Ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters, and their medieval and modern continuators, have an opposite set of assumptions according to which the Bible is . . . "


Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings;
• The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered;
• The Bible is to be interpreted in its context:
✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time;
✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context;
✦ The “original” or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others;
• The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not “objective” or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not “historical” in our sense.
✦ “hermeneutics of suspicion”;
✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged “facts” of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);
✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective;
★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

A very sly innuendo. As an aside, do we also need to keep the believing scholars honest as well?

Has anyone been able to,
since Jesus Praised His Father in heaven for hiding the truth of Salvation from the scholars ?