Anyways... below is a response article that I wrote about a reading we had in class by Frank S. Frick called "An Illuminating Side Trip." The idea of the article... well first off, let me say that this is my class on The Emergence of Biblical Israel ;-)... so the idea of the article is trying to depict whether or not biblical archaeology should be something that we put our effort towards or not. Considering there has been "very little evidence" in comparison to archaeology, let's say, from Egypt. So the article, trying to remain as unbiased as possible continues on talking about the methods of archeology and how we use those methods to determine the historical information hidden within the artifacts. Unfortunately, I believe it is unfair to say that we should study and support data collected such as "when" something was created when the percentage of accuracy fluctuates so excessively. Anyways, in the end, I appreciated the author wrapping up with the fact that, “Ultimately the belief that God exists, or the belief that God does not exist, is a matter of faith and not subject to proof of any kind, archaeological or otherwise.”
But now I am just giving away the article... here it is. ;-)
Response to “An
Illuminating Side Trip”
Question…
or Answer. Which comes first? For many scholars, such a ridiculous statement
would neither be admired nor thought about. Obviously the question is the cause
and the answer is the effect. But in some worlds, asking whether the one comes
before the other, it is as complex as whether the chicken came before the egg,
or likewise. Such is the case for modern Palestinian Archeology.
Upon
looking at our past, we can see many great efforts in Palestine of attempted
coalition between archaeology and the Bible. This biblical archaeology can be
seen starting with the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 as well as the
American Palestine Exploration Society of 1870.
The latter, being from the U.S., wanted to go further than it’s prior
British counterpart in declaring their research as “For the illustration and defense of the Bible,” rather than just
the illustration. But what did it come to?
Although
almost every effort to unify a biblical archaeology proved mostly unsuccessful,
leading to the separation of the two, we are left with a few highlights. One of
those we find in the contributions of Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. In such
archaeology, we find evidence that supports the Bible, but does not prove it. A
few examples would be: the unknown Hebrew word “pim” which was found in the
Bible as well as on various small stone balance weights, the evidence of the
fall of King Lachish and his city, and finally the material environment that is
displayed equally in the two. Beyond subtle anomalies such as these, biblical
archaeology dwindled due to it’s inability to neither prove nor deny the
contents of the Bible.
As years
have passed, archaeology itself has gone through an extensive development. From
the new excavation ideas such as the “architectural” approach and the
“Wheeler-Kenyon” method to analyzing the data using everyone from statisticians
and ceramicists to architects and paleographers, whatever information an
artifact will give us, we will find. Except for one very large question…time.
In modern
times we have three techniques of dating an object: Radiocarbon Dating,
Tree-Ring Dating, and Thermoluminescence Dating. The problem, however, is that
each of these can have quite a bit of room for error, sometimes being hundreds
of years. So the question is… If in biblical archaeology we cannot find
exact answers, is it okay to establish answers for dates of artifacts when any
number of the samples could be contaminated?
Which
brings us back to the question of the chicken or the egg. Should we also drop modern archaeology? How do we support something when we have no concrete
answers? Should we continue biblical archaeology? I believe yes, but not in the same way as it was previously performed. I believe that the addition of a Biblical Scholar to the already combined teams of Palestinian Archaeologists
would allow us to stop asking the questions… and start finding the answers.
Just as we don’t deny any artifact’s existence due to its undeterminable date
of creation, we should equally not discount biblical archeology due to its
inability to answer the questions that we ask. Because questions assume.
Questions can form bias. And bias can sway you from seeing what the artifact is
truly saying.
So in the
end, I would say that yes, sometimes it is better for the answer to come before
the question. When speaking about religion, it must be simply that, something
we believe, not something we prove. We can be involved in archaeology, but we
cannot drive it. Because, “Ultimately
the belief that God exists, or the belief that God does not exist, is a matter
of faith and not subject to proof of any kind, archaeological or otherwise.”
And there you are! ;-) Hope you all are doing great, I start spring break on Wednesday!;-)
Blessings,
לוק
No comments:
Post a Comment