Thursday, January 27, 2005
Maxi-minimalists again ::
Just when one thought that the kerfuffle over all the (possibly/probably) forged artifacts would quieten at least the maximalist side of the running debate while they assessed the damage, up pop another bunch of "Archaeology Proves the Bible" addicts.
Actually, since the Globe and Mail article claims: "Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament." my comment might seem unfair. On the other hand, he and others did title their paper in the current Antiquity "Reassessing the chronology of Biblical Edom: new excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan)" which makes the Globe and Mail remark somewhat disingenuous.
Now, why can't archaeologists just get on with archaeology, and biblical scholars with reading the Bible... I always liked David Clines reaction to discovering (while at the 1986 ISOT) that the last piece of "authentic" archaeological contact with Jesus in Jerusalem (a "1st Century" pavement he may have walked) had been redated. "It's like the ascension." He said.
PS ::
Ooops, people that was a rant, it does NOT (of course) reflect my considered view and balanced reflection on the topic. But it might reflect my attitude. Archaeology is fascinating, helpful and informative, but it is unlikely in any useful way to either "prove" or "disprove" the Bible!
¶ 11:57 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Just when one thought that the kerfuffle over all the (possibly/probably) forged artifacts would quieten at least the maximalist side of the running debate while they assessed the damage, up pop another bunch of "Archaeology Proves the Bible" addicts.
Actually, since the Globe and Mail article claims: "Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament." my comment might seem unfair. On the other hand, he and others did title their paper in the current Antiquity "Reassessing the chronology of Biblical Edom: new excavations and 14C dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan)" which makes the Globe and Mail remark somewhat disingenuous.
Now, why can't archaeologists just get on with archaeology, and biblical scholars with reading the Bible... I always liked David Clines reaction to discovering (while at the 1986 ISOT) that the last piece of "authentic" archaeological contact with Jesus in Jerusalem (a "1st Century" pavement he may have walked) had been redated. "It's like the ascension." He said.
PS ::
Ooops, people that was a rant, it does NOT (of course) reflect my considered view and balanced reflection on the topic. But it might reflect my attitude. Archaeology is fascinating, helpful and informative, but it is unlikely in any useful way to either "prove" or "disprove" the Bible!
¶ 11:57 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
