It's nice to get the other perspective

Everything "academic" today is viewed through naturalistic, secular lenses. A priori, anything "religious" is debunked and rejected. This isn't fair to the evidence--to approach that evidence with the conclusion that a naturalistic explanation is the ONLY explanation possible. A naturalistic explanation may be the correct one, and usually is--even believers insist upon an economy of miracles in human history. But it still isn't scholarly to assume naturalism to the exclusion of supernaturalism. Let the evidence speak and only draw conclusions warranted by such. The left believes that--until the evidence contradicts its assumptions. Forced naturalism is just as wrong as forced supernaturalism. The secular left is every bit as "religious" as the religious right, but there is nothing that makes them foam at the mouth any faster than that truth. But I learned it a long time ago, and I think for myself, something that, frankly, neither left nor right seems capable of doing very much any more. Just throw the opposing view in the trash, because we don't want our cosy little world view challenged by facts and reasoning.

Morality, since the Enlightenment, has become a matter of left vs. right, rather than eternal truth, and that can be even be seen from the division over the "helpful/unhelpful" review votes of this journal. Truth is irrelevant any more; we threw our brains in the trash long before we tossed any disagreeable magazines there.

The field of archeology hasn't escaped the exclusionary bias. If we think scientists are wholly objective, then we have been taken in by the greatest swindle in history (and we have). A naturalistic explanation must be found for everything so, again, a priori, the Biblical text has to largely be rejected if it contradicts "received" secular "wisdom". The Bible is always wrong if it contradicts a secular archeologist's "interpretation" of his data. And believe me, archeology is very little without the human interpretations. Archeologists will insist upon their "objectivity," but that's intellectual arrogance gone to seed. They have to interpret their data and make great leaps with those interpretations. The BAR, nicely, puts some balance back into the field. It doesn't, a priori, excluded opposing views. There are secular archeological journals that will interpret everything from a naturalistic perspective. The BAR interprets from a Biblical perspective. It doesn't assume, automatically, that the Bible isn't to be believed. And that's the only fair approach.

If you're tired of having atheism rammed down your throat and would at least like to hear the other side, then here's a good magazine to get.

Scholarship Deconstructed

There was a time when biblical archeology was a pleasant way to spend an afternoon or a life, when the Biblical Archaeology Review was a part of that pleasant dalliance. Unfortunately, lines have been drawn in the sand, and the armies marshaled into the fray. Somehow everything has become a religious matter, and BAR, rather than playing the part of impartial presenter of the issues has let itself become a part of the problem.

I really don't have a set opinion on the over-arching veracity of the Bible. It simply isn't a necessary part of my religious beliefs that the Bible be absolutely and perfectly factual. So in a discussion about the authenticity of a particular artifact what I want is science and corroboration. Unfortunately BAR has gotten embroiled in the controversy over the James Ossuary and has moved well past the point of scholarly return.

Nor is this the only conflict where they have taken sides. The dating and significance of the Ahwat ruins is another sore point. And they seem to be at war with the Israel Antiquities Authority. This simply does not make for the kind of solid journalism that should mark a field of study that is important to many people of dramatically different faiths. The sad thing is that there are no alternatives that can claim the broad coverage the BAR once provided.

Once the writers veer off from the agruments and vitriol, they manage some interesting discussions, but personally, I would hold off from a subscription. Use the money to do a bit of research and find books and academic materials that may be a bit less exciting to read, but will be much more informative.

Just read the first issue!

All I can think of is how great this journal is. BAR pulls no punches, and the articles are very well written. Biblical discoveries are analyzed from different angles, with contributions coming from a diverse base of experts. Certainly worth every penny!