Doug Weller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some do indeed, others don't care about religion.
> But you can be sure that every Evangelist
> Christian for instance has a great deal of
> religious baggage and has a natural inclination to
> look for proof that helps support that baggage,
> and a similarly natural inclination not to look
> for things and indeed to ignore things that
> undermine it.


Not sure I ever imagined I'd find myself defending evangelical Christian scholarship, but what the hell?


From "Queries & Comments: Evangelicals as Archaeologists" (Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2006, vol. 32, no. 6, p. 86):

James K. Hoffmeier writes:

"Professor Ronald Hendel ('Is There a Biblical Archaeology?' July/August 2006) opines 'that Biblical archaeology has been mostly abandoned' because 'archaeology did not illumine the times and events of Abraham, Moses and Joshua. Rather, it helped to show that these times and events are largely unhistorical'. Hendel claims that the only ones engaged in 'Biblical Archaeology in the Albrightian style are fundamentalist and evangelical Biblical scholars.'

"Professionally I am an Egyptologist who also teaches Hebrew exegesis and Biblical archaeology. Confessionally I am an evangelical.

"I believe Professor Hendel is wrong.

"To his critics, Albright's transgression was to assume that the Biblical period from Abraham through Solomon was historically verifiable by archaeology. Apparently this is Hendel's idea of Albrightian Biblical archaeology. In other words, Albright presumed the Bible to be innocent (historical) until proven guilty (unhistorical).

"Critics like Hendel are themselves doing Albrightian Biblical archaeology but with a twist: They treat the Bible as guilty until proven innocent, that is, unhistorical unless confirmed by archaeology. Scholars in the Copenhagen-Sheffield-Tel Aviv (and now Berkeley?) minimalist axis have been using Biblical archaeology to dismantle the Bible's historicity. William Dever has called this 'anti-Biblical archaeology'. He right criticizes these ideologues for using 'archaeological data selectively and cavalierly'.

"Ironically, two items in the same issue of BAR as Hendel's column demonstrate that Biblical archaeology is not just the purview of conservative Biblical scholars like myself.

"Michael Coogan (no evangelical he) provides a critical review of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman's new book David and Solomon ('Assessing David and Solomon', July/August), which is a good example of 'anti-Biblical archaeology'. Coogan, like Dever, summaries their treatment of archaeological data as 'highly selective and tendentious' [...].

"The brilliant contribution in the same issue of Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar ('Edom and Copper') - names that will hardly be mistaken for fundamentalist Christians - reflects a balanced approach to Biblical archaeology. Their excavations and Carbon-14 dating demonstrate that Edom was indeed a complex society (or state) in Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC) and that copper production was the catalyst for the formation of that society. This conclusion is contrary to the prevailing theory - incidentally, held by Finkelstein and Silberman - that Edom did not become a state until the Iron Age IIB (eighth century BC). The late-developing-state theorists, of course, used this erroneous conclusion against the Bible [...].

"In the 25 years since William Dever ignited the fruitful debate about Biblical archaeology, we old school Albrightians have moved on, adopted a professional and interdisciplinary approach to field work and have become more cautious in our conclusions and self-critical about our assumptions. Dever concurs with this assessment, declaring 'We (Americans) have survived the generation-long crisis over "Biblical archaeology", and we have now moved beyond it to our own style of professionalism, in the process placing our own new generation of outstanding younger archaeologists (many of them, I'm proud to say, my students)' [...]. Some of the more outstanding ones I know to be evangelical!

"I believe Levy and Najjar's work in Jordan reflects the state of the art and the direction the discipline is going. I am following this paradigm in my work in Egypt. I don't know anyone currently engaged in fieldwork in the Near East who is doing the kind of Biblical archaeology that fits the mold into which Hendel wants to squeeze us."



From "The North Sinai Archaeological Project's Excavations at Tell el-Borg (Sinai): An Example of the 'New' Biblical Archaeology?" by James K. Hoffmeier (in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. 2004. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company):

"[...] We [ie. the co-ordinators of the North Sinai Archaeological Project, sponsored by Trinity International University] take seriously Dever's call for an interdisciplinary approach; that goes without saying. A team of experienced specialists and professionals make up our staff, including geologists, Egyptologists, biblical scholars, Syro-Palestinian archaeologists, an architect-draftsman, a physical anthropologist, conservators, computer data managers, ceramicists, photographers, and paleo-zoologists. Each discipline is vital to our investigation, and each member's contribution is valued [...].

"We are not, however, driven by a particular theory about the exodus, nor do we have a predetermined 'route' that we are trying to prove, and no firm exodus date (eg., early or late) we are trying to substantiate (although the New Kingdom is the most likely time period). We are committed to going where the evidence leads us.

"We welcome staff members with differing views on the Bible, as well as those who have no particular interest in the Bible whatsoever. For example, Benjamin Scolnic and I entered the project with differing views about the geography described in Exodus. However, in the course of our work we have both adjusted our views in the light of new evidence and thoroughly hearing each other's ideas. Simply put, people are free to challenge and question each other. Having key team members who have no particular interest in the current debates in biblical archaeology, and no predisposition towards or bias against the Bible, is perhaps the best way of keeping honest of those of us who might prematurely assign biblical significance that is unwarranted.

"[...] TO a degree, I am sympathetic with those who want to dissassociate 'biblical archaeology' from 'Syro-Palestinian'. Because I am an Egyptologist, I do not want to be known as a 'biblical Egyptologist', that is, one who studies Egyptology purely as a tool for answering biblical questions and disregards other periods and areas that might not have any direct bearing on the Bible. Egyptology, like Syro-Palestinian archaeology, must operate as an independent discipline. However, when these disciplines, be it Egyptology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology, converge with the Hebrew Scriptures, then 'biblical archaeology' comes into play. Biblical archaeology must be viewed as an interdisciplinary science that integrates biblical studies with all facets of the archaeology of the ancient Near East (not just that of ancient Israel). In my view, for biblical archaeology to work effectively and receive the respect it deserves in the 21st century, it will require teams of experts working together to investigate all the dimensions of the subject under study. Rigorous archaeological investigation techniques must be pursued along with study of the paleo-environment of the area. The concerns raised by sociology and anthropology must be considered, and all pertinent texts must be seriously and critical evaluated and used where appropriate.

"Earlier generations of Egyptologists such as W.M. Flinders Petrie, Archibald H. Sayce, Edouard Naville, and Alan Gardiner were scholars who worked in Egypt and were interested in investigating problems of biblical history. In the past 30-40 years, Egyptology has developed as an independent discipline resulting in Egyptologists having little or no interest whatsoever in biblical literature, even when it relates to Egypt. Egyptologists interested in integrating their discipline with biblical studies are few in number.

"I was trained as an Egyptologist at the University of Toronto and in the field with the Akhenaten Temple Project at East Karnak with Donald Redford. I value Egyptology for its own sake. I am an active member of the International Association of Egyptologists, and have presented papers at the last six congresses over the past 20 years, and hold memberships in other Egyptological organizations (eg., Egypt Exploration Society, Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and the American Research Center in Egypt). At the same time, I have an abiding interest in the Old Testament, so I studied Hebrew and biblical studies in graduate school, am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Institute for Biblical Research, and have taught a wide range of Hebrew Bible courses over the past 25 years.

"I believe strongly that Egyptology ought to be studied as a cognate discipline along with biblical studies. Ronald Williams, my doktorvater, was a first-rate Egyptologist who also worked in the fields of Assyriology and Biblical Hebrew. He modeled for me how an Egyptologist should integrate Egyptology and biblical studies in a responsible manner.

"Consequently, I believe it is imperative for the NSAP [North Sinai Archaeological Project] to operate on two tracks, first as a project working with Egyptological goals (namely, understanding Egypt's east frontier defense system during the New Kingdom). Personally, I am delighted that our discoveries have already contributed new information about 'the Ways of Horus', Egypt's military road of the New Kingdom. For over 75 years, Egyptologists have pondered the exact route of this road, and after three seasons of excavations we have made a significant contribution, in fact, forcing me to change my own views published as recently as 1999.

"The second track brings the biblical record to the Egyptian archaeological and textual data, treating them as one would other ancient Near Eastern written sources. Consequently, I maintain that if Exodus 13 and 14 and Numbers 33 provide real information about the route traveled by the Israelites, then one might expect that Hebrew toponymy in some way to be reflected in the archaeology and topography of the region of the eastern Delta and North Sinai. As a consequence of this two-track approach, Egyptologists and biblical scholars can work together with both disciplines reaping the benefits.

"How do we read ancient texts? Since texts, be they Hebrew or Egyptian, play such a key role in our work, our approach to them must be disclosed. We fully agree with William Hallo's maxim to 'treat the ancient sources critically but without condescension'. Careful reading of texts and consideration of genre and form are essential. Texts that appear to be making factual statements or historical observations should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, or accurate until proven erroneous. What historical minimalists have done over the past 25 years is to shift the burden of proof from their provocative views to the text. This approach constitutes a methodological fallacy. It is what historian David Hackett Fischer calls 'the fallacy of presumptive proof' that 'consists of advancing a proposition and shifting the burden of proof or disproof to others' [...].

"Our approach to texs, then, be they Hebrew or Egyptian, is to treat them with equal respect rather than with condescension. Furthermore, we assume that when they offer what appear to be factual data, such as toponyms, trace routes, and describe geographical features, archaeological and paleo-environmental research may uncover evidence that corresponds to the textual materials [...].

"These are some of the methodological concerns that guide the North Sinai Archaeological Project's work [...]" (pp. 56-60).

*********

For anyone interested, here's a link to the official website of the North Sinai Archaeological Project:

[www.tellelborg.org]



From "Conservative Scholarship-Critical Scholarship: Can We Talk?" by V. Philips Long, Professor of Old Testament,Regent College, Vancouver (March 2005):

[www.bibleinterp.com]

"[...] Barr’s (and Lemche’s) indictment of conservatives and fundamentalists as obscurantist may well be true of some conservatives, but it is hardly true of the vast majority of established evangelical scholars. In fact, if citation rate in publications be any guide, evangelical writers read more widely outside their particular camp than do many (though not all) non-evangelicals. To Barr’s charge that evangelicals tend to read secondary literature as a short-cut to gain perspective in lieu of the much more demanding task of reading primary literature in order to develop perspective, I would ask what scholar does not do this on some occasions? [...] I would also contend that inspecting course syllabi (such as Provan’s, mentioned in endnote 4) or published works (such as the recently released Biblical History of Israel by Provan, Long, and Longman) shows how wide of the mark the obscurantist charge is nowadays. In the latter, a wide variety of scholarship is discussed, ranging from Davies to Donner to Dever to Deist, and including numerous works by Lemche, Thompson, and many others of various persuasions [...].

"At the heart of Lemche’s complaint seems to be a sense that the minimalists have simply been labeled and dismissed. If the refusal of scholars of various stripes to endorse minimalist conclusions leaves some feeling labeled and dismissed, then this is regrettable. I believe, however, that many scholars of various persuasions have in fact engaged seriously with minimalist writings, even if there may have been little initial or, indeed, final inclination to agree with them. My own situation is this: while I have not read all the prodigious output from Copenhagen, Sheffield, and other centers of minimalism, I have thoroughly read books by Davies, Thompson, Lemche, Garbini, Van Seters (though he occupies somewhat different scholarly space) and others; I have read collected volumes such as Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? and a wide array of articles. Further, I included essays or excerpts from Davies, Thompson, and Lemche in a volume I edited on the topic of ancient Israelite historiography. Thus, in our current environment of over-publication, I feel that I have engaged seriously if not exhaustively with minimalist writings, even if I have not found them generally convincing. I also wonder—and I mean this as an honest question, not an accusing one—how much contemporary evangelical scholarship the minimalists have seriously read and engaged with. Judging from the wistful tone of Lemche’s recollection of a time when "the historical-critical scholar would never have accepted the conservative as his equal and never have allowed him into his company" (p. 7) and when "No conservative, i.e., evangelical scholar would ever be allowed to contribute" (p. 8), I cannot imagine that the engagement has been large [...].

"At the end of the day, I believe that just as there are no 'bad questions', provided that they are sincerely and respectfully posed, there are no 'bogus conversations', provided they are sincerely and respectfully joined. Lemche is quite correct to decry situations in which scholars of other viewpoints are simply labeled and dismissed. This should not be done to today’s minimalist scholars, nor indeed to today’s more conservative scholars. Respect should not and cannot require that one read everything another scholar has written, but it does require that a representative sampling be read, and read well, before judgments are made. Further - and this is important - if our conversations are to be not only genial but also profitable, we must begin to explore more openly the deeper levels at which some of our disagreements exist. In other words, we must become more open to discussing the 'other issues' that we all bring to the table. Only then will we be in a position to work upward from the fundamental differences to the resulting disagreements at the surface level of particular judgments on specific points [...].

"In short, there are indeed 'other issues' involved in all our scholarly practice, and the sooner we recognize them ourselves and disclose them to others, the sooner we may get to the heart of some of our academic disagreements. But here a word of caution: to attempt to divine the 'intentions, ... hopes and fears, ... beliefs, ... methodological, even metaphysical, principles' of other scholars is a dangerous business and one that can all too easily lead to a kind of labeling—even name-calling—that, as Philip Davies fears, could 'bring scholarship as a whole into disrepute' [...]."



From A Biblical History of Israel by Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III (2003. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press):

"We are Old Testament scholars [...] who are interested in the history of Israel and operate out of the context of Christian theism; and it is we who are writing this book, not some other people possessing a different set of core beliefs and convictions. Do we have 'theological motivations' in what we do? Absolutely. Our interest in the history of Israel is bound up with our interest in the Old Testament not only as literature, but also as part of Christian Scripture, and in writing about the history of Israel we hope to produce a volume that is not only interesting to those who do not share our religious convictions but also useful to those who do. Our intended audience is large, and it certainly includes Christian.

"[...] Our theistic convictions and theological motivations do make some difference in the way in which [this] book is written. They do not make so much difference, however, that it cannot be read with profit or interest by those who flatly reject or dislike them. At least, so we believe. One reason is that what we have to say about the history of Israel is not determined by those beliefs, even though it is bound up with them. That is, we are not writing religious propaganda, inwhich the content of the writing is entirely determined by the prior beliefs and desired outcomes of the exercise, with little attention given to evidence or the kind of argument that counts as public discourse. On the contrary, we are writing history; all genuine history, while it no doubt does tell us something about the context and the beliefs of its author, is nonetheless interested in evidence and argument and can be read with profit by open-minded people who do not necessarily share the author's presuppositions. Indeed, if we were never able to read books with profit unless we shared the presuppositions of their authors, we should read very few books with profit at all. A second reason is that in the interests of communicating to a wide audience, we have not in any case allowed our core convictions and motivations, whether theistic and theological or not, entirely to surface in the way in which the volume is written [...].

"A good example of our partial suppression of core conviction lies in our common refusal in this volume to draw explicit lessons from the history that we are writing. The reasons for not doing so are twofold. First, the volume is already long enough without further additions. Second, we recognize that it has become unfashionable in modern times to include within historiographical works, along with 'facts', moral exhortations and warnings; this book will be read (or not read) in modern times, by readers whom we want to engage rather than irritate [...]" (p. 102-103).


**********


Personally, I much prefer to judge people on the merits of their respective arguments, rather than making prejudgements based on my own prejudices. Maybe that's just me?

Damian





_______________

My dear sir, in this world it is not so easy to settle these plain things. I have ever found your plain things the knottiest of all.

- Moby-Dick by Herman Melville

________

'I am beginning to believe that nothing is quite so uncertain as facts.

- Edward S. Curtis

________

'We are coming now rather into the region of guesswork', said Dr Mortimer.
'Say, rather, into the region where we balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination, but we have always some material basis on which to start our speculation', [replied Holmes].

- The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

________

'It never does to be too sure, you know, in these matters. Coincidence killed the professor.'

- "Novel of the Black Seal" by Arthur Machen