Riverwind

Amaleq, it is quite clear that the OP makes accusations against Christians in general due to their faith, as if one cannot separate their faith from their study and must do so to avoid incorrect interpretations of data.

I would argue that, although Biblical studies have been dominated by Christians (gee, I wonder why that would be), there is also a great bias among many non-Christians that cannot be overcome. It is certainly a matter of perspective whether Christians are more guilty as a whole than non-Christians in bringing their own pre-conceptions to the scholarly table of inquiry.

What some Christians need to grasp is that you can accept the fact that Kathleen Kenyon could not seem to find evidence of the walls mentioned by the Bible. That they did not exist at all, ever, is an interpretation of that data. One must also differentiate between the data itself and its interpretation. There can be both a liberal and a conservative interpretation and explanatio of it. There is little good way to say who is ultimately correct...that fuzzy history thing, ya know...

Roger Pearse

Keeping clear the difference between data and deduction is critical in any field of study, I would have thought.

I am somewhat reminded of Julian the Apostate, who banned Christians from education and then sneered that Christians were uneducated; and of the Soviets, who did exactly the same. Enough of this sort of nastiness. Let whoever choses learn whatever he will, and study whatever he will.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dreadnought

I'm sympathetic to the OP, but not entirely convinced. I came and stay here in the conviction that if anyone can find the truths in the tangled maze that is the NT it is those using the scientific method. Hence I'm disappointed that so many here seem more interested in apologetics and muddying the water than uncovering the essence. This is one place that should be free of such nonsense.

Having said that I do think there are christians who are able and willing to go where the evidence leads them instead of looking for evidence for preconceived notions. They are not many, but they exist and some of them are here. And yes, I've also seen atheists who seem unwilling to look objectively at the evidence. It saddens me, but I still maintain that those are of the rarer breed.

Respectfully yours.

Layman

Places at the table are not given. Not by Infidels nor even by Peter Kirby. They are earned. And they are earned by arguments, whether made by reactionary fundamentalists or reactionary skeptics. By good Christian scholars and good secular ones.

On the other hand, you appear to have come up with a good reason to ignore those with whom you disagree instead of engaging them.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure why you think I don't understand this. I'm suggesting that the same can be said of some non-Christian scholars though, to avoid confusion, you might change "faith" to "over-confidence". Either way, whenever it is the personal preference of the scholar that is guiding conclusions rather than the evidence, the conclusion simply cannot trusted because it does not result from their expertise in the field.

The field is dominated by Christians but you can't say whether there are more biased Christians than biased non-Christians? You really think the number of biased Christian scholars is equal to or smaller than the number of biased non-Christian scholars? That hasn't been my impression.

Yes, the unbiased interpretation is to simply acknowledge there is currently no archeological evidence supporting the existence off the walls.

"We" have insufficient reason to believe it.

"They" have insufficient reason to stop believing it.

Peter Kirby

Try to understand what is meant by shedding doctrinal commitments. Doctrinal Christians--every last one--have a commitment to apologetics when it comes to Christian origins. The negation of such malfeasance is not "doctrinaire non-Christian" but rather non-doctrinal historian, no matter what religious tag she wears.

I notice that the doctrinal Christians who have responded want to make it a parity game of apologetics gone wild on all corners. It is not, but it is nice to have the confession on hand that they are not engaged in doing history properly when approaching Christian origins. They try to say the same of everyone else, because it is the only defense they can muster for themselves.

Sauron

That's because there is zero reason to look in Arabia, for an event that allegedly happened in Sinai. You left that thread when your arguments got shot down; did you think we forgot so quickly?

You also got shot down on that bogus strawman as well. And, predictably, exited that thread with your tail between your legs.

I'm sure you could - you're quite prolific at generating errors.

Peter Kirby

They can--at the very moment that they remove every doctrinal statement that intersects with history from their dogmatics. Then they are no longer doctrinal Christians, and can separate their faith from historical inquiries into it.

Consider Gould's NOMA principle, that religion and science are "non-overlapping magesteria" that address different areas of study. The position of the doctrinal Christian is that NOMA is false, that there is overlap between the magisterium of religion and the magisterium of science. The position of the doctrinal Christian is further that (1) the magisterium of religion, properly interpreted, is always correct; and (2) the magisterium of science, when correct, agrees with the magisterium of religion.

The very real and apparent danger here is that those beholden to the magisterium of religion in those areas where they believe there is overlap will not be able to evaluate the evidence of science and history in a way that takes away one jot or tittle of the religious dogma, and as such, they are not engaged in evaluating the evidence on such points of overlap fairly, but rather, they are abusing science to the extent that they engage in it in the areas of overlap because they are not committed to the results of science, wherever they may lead.

We see the problems with literal YEC beliefs interfering with biology, and likewise we must see the problems with literal HJ beliefs interfering with the history of Christian origins. Even as they may be true scientifically, the believer will never be able to assure himself or anyone else that they have evaluated the scientific or historical evidence in reaching the conclusion they do. Indeed, they are lying if they say so: they reached all their major conclusions before they were 21 and before they embarked on their professional career of studying the evidence; I mean such major conclusions such as the historical person of Jesus being accurately represented by the Gospels, and other doctrines of faith claimed to intersect with history.

People underestimate how fragile the historical enterprise really is, and how easily it falters under various pressures, to appreciate how grave the threat to history is the presence of doctrinal Christians at the table of study for Christian origins. What makes you think that the knowledge of cross-cultural anthropology or the reversion of Greek into Aramaic, or any of the (yes, tenuous) threads of thought that go into history, will ever mean anything to a doctrinal Christian if they might disturb one of his doctrines? The doctrinal Christian cannot have a proper sensitivity to evidence that offends his doctrine's sensibility. He proceeds to poison the discussion with "refutations" of historical criticism that pretend to be using the tools of history while indeed being based on a deep-seated need to defend the faith. This state of affairs is not tolerable for the lover of history.

Sauron

You have people who have staked their immortal souls on certain beliefs and doctrines, and have also decided that faith -- not evidence -- is how they will navigate the difficult parts.

In what way is that a good basis for doing biblical research?

No. I disagree that this is just two sides of the same coin, and people who make that claim are short-sighted.

Situation A:
1. If someone were a hard-nosed agnostic, it would do them no harm to admit that there was a Hebrew presence in Egypt (for example). The jump may be uncomfortable, but since the agnostic has signed up for evidence as the final arbitrator of such questions, he's on the hook and can't get off it. He will be roasted by his own professed standard, if he ignores any (alleged) evidence supporting a Hebrew presence in Egypt.

2. Moreover, his position is not absolutist: he can admit the existence of many things alleged in the bible, without giving up his agnostic viewpoint. He may be reluctant to do so, but in the end he can make that jump without doing too much damage to his overall position.

Situation B:
1. However, under no conditions can a biblical believer admit the opposite (no evidence for Hebrews in Egypt), regardless of how airtight the archaeological evidence is. To do so would lead to a cascade failure of the entire belief system:

There were no Hebrews in Egypt-->
The bible isn't 100% inerrant -->
There are mistakes in the bible -->
But I'm basing my life on the bible -->
Maybe there are mistakes in the gospels -->
What if the gospels aren't correct -->
What if Jesus' words aren't properly transmitted -->
What if I'm believing a mistake -->
What if I'm believing a LOT of mistakes -->
How can I trust anything anymore?

2. Moreover, the believer has already stated a priori that evidence is not going to be the deciding factor in their life, so they don't perceive themselves to be under any obligation to reconcile their beliefs with the evidence. At best, it's a secondary concern that can be suspended if it's inconvenient.

The distance of the jump the agnostic has to make is a lot shorter than the jump that the bible believer would have to make. In fact, the agnostic's jump could be classified as "uncomfortable", while the bible believer's jump could be classified as "damn near impossible." That's why the scenarios aren't the same.

Well, no. The evidence allows you to draw boundaries around possible explanations or groups of explanations, to rule some in, while ruling others out. Even with uncertainties about individual items, these broad circles can be drawn in archaeology, just like they are in evolution. We may not know the exact predecessor of a particular bird, but the evidence that birds evolved after amphibians is irrefutible. The same kinds of circles can be drawn with history and archaeology.

Peter Kirby

The last sentence suggests that we need doctrinal Christians and their input in order to do investigation into Christian origins; that not to engage them would be a loss, or otherwise abrogate historical protocol and be a failure of nerve for historians. As I said before, any suggestion that doctrinal Christians are needed for the task is absurd; the saying goes that "the laborers are few" but in fact they are legion. There is nothing, no good argument or piece of evidence, that could not be discovered by someone without irrational commitments in the field, and certainly there is nothing that is not best evaluated by those without the irrational commitments.

As I said in my last post, people such as Chris Price underestimate the fragility of the historical enterprise. They pretend that we are in a rarefied world of arguments without arguers, and that the truth will seek the best argument to prevail at the table. Yes, if the table is not overrun with corruption. But to permit the doctrinal Christian to the table is to permit an inherent corruption of historical process in the study of Christian orgins. Let them stay in the brothel of belief, and come out only when they've gotten the dogmas out of their system.

Really, it is absurd to sit at the same table scholars such as Burton Mack and Michael Goulder with those such as W. L. Craig and N. T. Wright. Once the latter have outgrown their taken-for-granted faith commitments to particular propositions concerning Christian origins, they can be taken seriously as engaging the evidence for Christian origins through historical inquiry, and historical inquiry alone.