« Early Reports from Gezer Excavation
Main
A Short Break »
July 20, 2006
Confusing a Theological Argument with an Archaeological Argument
I've been watching an ongoing discussion, that on the surface of it is about archaeology. Some of you will know what discussion I'm referring to. I even made a couple of remarks on it the other day. While I link to the two principle participants, I worry that the following remarks will target straw men rather than the two that triggered these thoughts.
First, let me explain my worry. I never understand theological arguments. There are a couple of reasons for this but the principle reason is that I have no idea what they are about. For what it is worth, I had the same problem when I was in seminary and that is likely part of the reason I eventually became a marketing person rather than a clergyperson. There were other, perhaps more important, reasons, but my failure to understand the subject of theological arguments was certainly part of it. So any time there is a possibility that the theological argument is underway, there is a good chance I will misunderstand it or not get any part of it. For that reason, there is a good chance that my following comments are directed at straw men.
Anyway, I often see learned people of faith, not all of them to be sure, but many of them, divide into one of two camps over archaeology. One camp believes that the Bible is true and that archaeology, properly applied and understood will show that to be the case. I think the argument goes something like this, if it is shown that the historical content of the Bible is true in every particular or in most particulars then it is also shown, QED, that the theological and/or moral content of the Bible is also true. And so the role of archaeology is to demonstrate that the history is essentially correct. The other school worries that this view is idolatrous or potentially idolatrous and, I think, wants to claim that some essential theology is true independent of the accuracy of the vehicle by which it is transmitted and or received.
Very often, this discussion between these two camps takes on the form of debating this or that archaeological find in an effort to show either that the Bible is correct or to show that being incorrect it can remain a source to theological knowledge. Whatever that is.
But I think the real problem is that both camps start from theological positions that are rather hard to agree with. On the one hand, it is easy to conceive of a theologically laden document that is correct in every historical detail and yet highly heterodox with regard to the theological positions of a large group of readers. In other words, there need not be any connection between the historical record and the theology wrapped around it. This problem may be confused by biblical claims of a god who acts through the vehicle of history, but I think that confusion is easy to sort out.
On the other hand, what is the basis of those who worry about this particular species of idolatry? For all I know this kind of idolatry may be just fine. Something like it is sure okay for a large portion of religious people in more than one religion. As a secular humanist with an abnormal interest in both the Hebrew Bible and archaeology, I am baffled by this discussion. It seems intramural and only for the initiates. And I just don't get either position.
I should add that secular archeologists are not immune to an analogues debate but that is the subject of another post.
Posted by DuaneSmith at July 20, 2006 09:20 PM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/759
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.