|
A story in the new issue of The Chronicle describes a debate in Israel about a series of articles and meetings about archaeology. Many scholars argue that archaeology has demonstrated that the Bible has little value as a document of history, and that many of the events described in the Bible did not take place as described. Some scholars suggest that the Bible should not be used as a historical source, that the practice of interpreting archaeological findings in light of the Bible should be abandoned, and that findings should instead be reviewed based on scholarly evidence alone. These scholars have greatly upset many Israelis, as well as archaeologists who dispute the analysis. Has archaeology demonstrated definitively that the Bible is of little value as a document of historical events? Should archaeological findings be interpreted in light of the Bible?
For further information, see this background article:
-
27 RESPONSES (New 3/14)
JOIN THE DEBATE
|