The reactions to this stone tablet on which has been inked some interesting stuff does seem to illustrate the uncertain ground of much of our epistemology.

Leaving aside the ‘revelation’ itself, I am rather surprised that the issues raised have taken on a strong political colour, especially given the very many possible textual reconstuctions of the matter of the text itself. Conservatives are very defensive, while scholars in general have reacted with marked caution in the face of lacking provenance and the many critically significant deletions.

The issue has popularly become one of history vs the authority of the bible. One is reminded of the very harsh conservative responses to such theological giants as Bultmann and Barth that were a hallmark of conservative criticism-apologia from the fifties on in the last century.

Archaeology is of course supposed to be somewhat scientific in its approach and here we find a significant echo of the ‘bible vs science’ debates. One major issue that conservative scholars appear to be dodging is the whole question of the formation of the biblical texts and in these areas the ‘minimalist’ scholars like Van Seters, Lemche and Thompson do seem to have made huge strides.

I therefore have a feeling that the reaction to this particular tablet are more of a generic sort of response born of longstanding fears that the epistemological base of conservatism has been/is being all but completely eroded away.

Live to serve : Serve to live