Just recently a friend of mine notified me (Ted W.) of a blog written by biblical scholar, Dr. Peter Enns concerning archaeology and the Bible. The title of the blog post is “3 Things I Would Like to see Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying About Biblical Scholarship”
Here are the three things Enns would like to see Evangelical leaders stop saying: That
1. Historical Criticism is either dying or at least losing momentum in academia
2. Source Criticism of the Pentateuch is in a state of chaos.
3. Biblical archaeology basically supports the historical veracity of the Bible.
Obviously for those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture all three of these is problematic. But point 3 was of particular interest to me, so this is what I responded to.
You can read Dr. Enns original post and my responses to him below here:
Enns doesn’t even follow his own advice:Here is my partial response to Enns main point in number 3:
But, to your original post (point 3) in your Blog – Here you make a sweeping generalization (which I noticed you accused someone else in the post of committing) about archaeology and the Bible.
In the three things you would like to see Evangelical leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship – number 3 – is that “Biblical Archaeology Basically Supports the Historical Veracity of the Bible”
But the very first thing you say is – (and I quote) “Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible” But this is the very thing you said that you would like to see evangelical leaders stop saying!
But then you say – (and again I quote) – “But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites.”
Perhaps what you should have said in your original blog is that you would like to see Evangelical leaders stop claiming that “Archaeology supports the historicity of early Israel, The Exodus and Conquest.”
On that point I gave Enns several examples (in the response) from archaeology and history, but he dismissed the evidence citing that the “consensus of scholars and archaeologists” is that Israel’s early history is highly questionable.
We’ve heard this idea of “consensus ” before – especially when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming debate and the ID (Intelligent Design) debate. I think for a future blog, I am going to do a little background research on “consensus” in scholarship and what this means. One thing is fore sure, and it is that science, history and ethics is not voted on by “consensus.” The eugenics movement in late 19th century – early 20th century America is proof of this (although Eugenics is now making a comeback).
Ted,
I’m a bit disappointed you did not finish our discussion on my blog where this began (by your initiation). I think you were given quite a bit to chew on, but you did not yet respond.
Pete,
The reason I didn’t think it was necessary to continue the conversation is because, like yourself, I didn’t think the conversation was getting anywhere. Besides, the real issues that need to be discussed are not archaeological at all, but philosophical and theological. I didn’t get the impression that you were seriously considering some of the archaeological evidence I was presenting. And it sounds like you too have prior philosophical commitments or some particular view of the natural sciences which affect your view of the evidence.
What I suspect is that you have somehow adopted (either consciously or unconsciously) a Kantian view of the Bible when it comes to faith and history & science. In other words – the words of the Bible don’t have to actually be grounded in history or science in order for us to find meaning in them or for them to have a moral application to our lives. If I am wrong or mistaken then please let me know. I would love to know how you would describe yourself philosophically or theologically. I did look at your blog at Patheos and this is what I surmised from other things you have written.