Wednesday, February 23, 2011

No, Archaeology is not the Enemy of Faith

This was a spot I did about a month ago on Catholic Answers radio. I'll be doing another show with them next month (March 11, 4pm), when I'll be talking about the Catholic Church's teaching on the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. I am also slated to return on May 20 (4pm) to discuss the "Synoptic Problem," that is, the question of the relationship of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke to one another. I'll just say that Mark Goodacre will be getting some publicity on that one!


5 comments:

Sister Mary Agnes said...

I remember your class with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!" Seems so long ago...

Matthew Kennel said...

Thanks Dr. Barber!

I think that this whole issue (faith & history, faith & archaeology, etc.) is really a sub-division of the entire issue of faith and reason. If I remember anything from my Theological Foundations class with Dr. Hahn it is this: Faith does not destroy reason, but rather takes it up in order to purify, perfect, and elevate it! And a religion, like Christianity, which is rooted in God's actions with Israel and in the Incarnation of the God-man must certainly appeal to history.

Thanks so much for all your work!

James said...

Thanks for this clip. It actually brings up something that I have been thinking about. Not too long ago our church invited a Biblicist to come and give a talk where he spoke of history and how the bible came about and how the bible came form the church and not the other way around.

But then he began to insert a little historical criticism and started to tell us about how that Mark was the first Gospel written and that it was probably used as a guide in writing Mathew and Luke and that there existed another source called “Q” and that John the apostle could not have written the book of Revelation, etc. But what really sent up some red flags for me was when he claimed that some stories, like the Flood or Moses’ escape from harm as a baby, in the Old Testament where probably stories borrowed from the pagan culture during the time of exile.

The question is, how is this type of biblical interpretation seen by the Church?

Nick said...

Faith isn't belief without proof, faith is listening to, obeying, and living by Jesus Christ. That's why history isn't against the Faith.

bbmoe said...

The red flags of lazy scholarship: inventing a mysterious source to tie up all the loose ends and justify otherwise unsupported contentions; saying that "There's no archeological record" to prove that something couldn't have happened (when it's clear from discoveries throughout the last 2 centuries that the archeological record is waiting to be discovered) and the Darwinian corollary, "Keep digging- I know the missing link is in there somewhere!"; and finally, when a scholar's baseline assumption about the Bible (or anything else) is that early=primitive, late= much smarter and more sophisticated.

BTW, Dr. Barber, the camera loves you!