There are archaeological discoveries and then there are biblical archaeological discoveries. The former rarely raise the temperature as much as the latter do. After the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, they were mired in controversy for nearly 50 years. At first there were accusations that they were forgeries, later that the Catholic Church or a clique of scholars was trying to suppress publication.
A perfectly good explanation for this difference in the response to biblical and non-biblical finds emerged in the early 1960s, coincidentally at the time when accusations were flying around the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1962, a book written by the American philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn was published, called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn’s thesis was that science did not progress in a linear and continuous way but rather in “paradigm shifts”. Central to this new approach was the idea that there was no objective criterion for determining scientific truth. Truth was largely defined by a consensus of the scientific community.
Kuhn was writing about the history of science but he might just as well have been thinking about biblical studies. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they not only challenged scholars’ intellectual understanding of the emergence of Judaism and Christianity, they also risked challenging Christian and Jewish religious understanding of the origins of their respective faiths. It’s painful enough having one’s intellectual foundations shaken, but having one’s religious foundation undermined as well is unbearable. Because the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are Christians or Jews, the consequences of a discovery that disturbs the prevailing paradigm in biblical studies are more keenly felt than in physics or chemistry.
It’s early days, but the course of the Lead Codices affair so far is beginning to bear out Kuhn’s analysis. We have a hoard of unprovenanced artefacts, castigated because they were not found in the idealized setting of the current paradigm, namely a controlled excavation. We also have a type of artefact for which there is no known precedent. Finally, the artefacts are giving rise to theories about early Christianity, which differ from the dominant paradigm.
Instead of working to the principles that underpin the ethos of scientific inquiry – that is, welcoming the find and supporting efforts to study it – biblical scholars are jumping to conclusions about the find before any systematic studies have been conducted. In some cases, scholars that should know better are blatantly urging academic, publishing and media institutions to have nothing to do with the codices.
Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions helps us understand this apparently “unscientific” reaction. The reaction to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and now to the Lead Codices, is exactly what to expect when the prevailing paradigm – intellectual and religious – is challenged. There’s simply too much at stake – not only one’s writings, career and reputation, but maybe even one’s spiritual world view. Much better to ignore the find, dismiss it as a forgery, or attempt to discredit those who made the discovery. If science has a Hippocratic Oath it is an openness of mind, but the threat apparently posed by the Lead Codices is such that biblical scholars feel entitled to breach that principle too. It would certainly explain why the most vehement reactions to the codices have come from Evangelical Christian scholars and Bibliobloggers.
Kuhn’s analysis of the way science progresses also helps us see how the Lead Codices affair might unfold. No scholar or academic institution upholding the current paradigm is going to be interested in making waves. Any shift in the paradigm is more likely to come from scholars with much looser ties to academia, or perhaps from up-and-coming scholars tired of writing footnotes for their mentors.
What Kuhn was unable to foresee is the role the Internet would play in the history of scientific revolutions. Today, anyone can – and does – post a blog about the Lead Codices. An army of zealous Bibliobloggers has taken upon itself to write about the Lead Codices. The majority are not academics, so perhaps it’s no surprise to find that the currency of their postings is neither peer-reviewed articles nor scientific tests but recycled announcements, media reports, personal gossip, opinions, insults and half-baked theories. Before the Internet, wannabe biblical scholars who couldn’t get an academic position had no choice but to forego their chosen profession. Now they can share their amateur opinions on the democratic Internet with millions of other amateurs and enjoy their 15 minutes of fame.
For all their impact in the short term, history is not on the side of the Bibliobloggers. As the Dead Sea Scrolls saga demonstrated, while it could be decades before the affair of the Lead Codices is fully played out, play itself out it will. The Dead Sea Scrolls did lead to a profound paradigm shift – 60 years on, we now understand and build into our study of Christian origins the Jewish context into which Jesus was born.
The Lead Codices too may shine a light … on a different but perhaps equally relevant context. Once again a Bedouin claims to have made an archaeological discovery, which may have biblical significance. This time the site of the discovery is a cave east of the Jordan. It’s not where convention sites Jesus’ ministry, but Jesus is known to have spent time there. It’s also an area north of Jordan where early Christians are known to have settled, but unlike Palestine it is a region hardly excavated by modern archaeology. A priori, all that sounds intriguing. You’d have be paranoid not to think it was worthy of further investigation …