A critique of archaeology as a science

"[O]ne of the most interesting things about archaeological material, is you get the same object, you get three archaeologists, you come up with three different interpretations based on that" - Vance Watrous

This essay is a critical evaluation of archaeology as a science.  In what sense is archaeology a science? How does it compare with the other families of sciences?  Is it an empirical science or does it belong to the hermeneutic disciplines?  I look at archaeology as it is practised, with special attention to methodology, interpretation of the archaeological record and the role of historical texts.  Also discussed is its relationship with other hermeneutic disciplines (especially textual studies) and how this impacts on the archaeological endeavour.  The eventual aim is to establish the limits of the archaeological reach.

Archaeology was born during the modern era - just like all the other well-known disciplines.  During the modern epoch, all "disciplines" strove towards respectability - to be recognized as disciplined sciences. The ideal was to be objective, to reach final results, to establish truths. There was an optimism that humans will eventually be able to obtain certain and final knowledge. This perspective has, however, changed. During the last half-century philosophers of science have levelled severe criticism against the possibility of obtaining final results and in our present post-modern era, it is recognized that these goals are for the most part unreachable. Although all sciences will always be "disciplined", using a strict methodology, with various techniques and methods, their ability to obtain final results are limited.  This is also true of archaeology.

Although I am not an archaeologist myself, I have a live interest in this field of study (I come from a philosophy of science background). In my reading, I find that many researchers still operate in the modernist frame of mind - trying to establish certain "truths".  It seems that a debris of positivism is still silently present in their midst. This brings the question to mind: What type of science is archaeology? and what are the limits of its reach?  Although there are many good articles by philosophers of archaeology that focus on these matters, these philosophers can obviously not remove themselves from the scientific "paradigm" of which they are part (Kuhn 1962). This could easily result in a tempered criticism, where the (unconscious) objective is to defend the basic tenability of the status quo. I recognize that my own critique is just another perspective, but I believe that it could be of value as an external critique of archaeology as a science.

In this short essay, I focus on those aspects of archaeology that I see as critical to the evaluation of archaeology as a science.  These include methodology (with special reference to inductive and deductive methods), interpretation of the archaeological record as well as the role of historical texts.  I elucidate my arguments with examples from archaeological experience over the last few decades.  These include material related to various excavations and finds, mostly from the ancient Middle East (since this is where my own interest lies).  Throughout the discussion, I compare archaeology with the various families of sciences, namely the natural and social sciences, as well as hermeneutics.

Methodology

In the effort to establish archaeology as a scientific discipline, archaeologists use the tools that are traditionally associated with both the empiricist and the rationalist approaches to science, namely inductive and deductive methods. Inductive methods start from the empirical data and try to establish generalized laws. Deductive methods start from theoretical hypotheses and test this against the data. Although researchers try to use one or the other method, in practice it is very difficult to keep these methods apart. The one feeds into the other and the other way round.  Data is used to formulate hypothetical models which are tested and then (using the information) revised to establish better models.

The only science that uses purely deductive methods is physics.  In physics, it does happen that the mathematical equations that are deductively derived, produce new insights that do not originate with any data. A good example is the Dirac equation which predicted the existence of antimatter.  Mathematically constructed deductive theories are powerful in the sense that they give precise predictions and allow for the possibility of falsification (which go much further than mere "verification").  The science philosopher Karl Popper recommended this "falsifiability" in physics (Popper 1957).  But most other philosophers of science recognize that this could not be established as a general rule to define a science.

During the modern epoch, and even today, many researchers view deductive and inductive methods as tools that would eventually establish what reality is like. Many researchers held to the correspondence theory of truth and believed that with better and better models, the essence of reality will eventually be laid bare. This optimism was punctured when physicists came up with two different theories describing the same reality, namely Einstein's general gravitational theory and quantum physics.  Although both theories could in a remarkable way predict the correct outcome, they describe reality very differently (Pine 2006). One could view these as complementary theories modelling the same reality. But this implies that, although reality exists, we do not know - and would probably never know - what it truly is like. There is absolutely no way to establish whether any model describes reality as it really is. A similar situation exists in the social sciences, where the two complementary theories of behaviourism and psychoanalysis are used to describe the complex reality of human behaviour.

Although archaeology uses these same methods, there is obviously no corresponding existent (historical) "reality" against which models could be tested. The process of time has destroyed the historical reality that once existed.  Even in cases where a city was suddenly destroyed and the artefacts are well preserved (as in the case of Pompey), the archaeological record is incomplete. All archaeological records are incomplete. What are the implications of this?  It implies that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete "reality" - the historical situation or "reality" does not exist anymore. There is an unbridgeable distance between the historical reality and the archaeological reality which is present in the archaeological record. From this, we can deduce that no historical "reality" exists (comparable to the existent but unknowable reality underlying nature) against which theoretical models could be tested.

Various models could be produced, all of them corresponding to the same archaeological data, but with nobody knowing which model (if any) corresponds to the historical situation. The fact that a model is confirmed by the data says nothing; it only confirms that an archaeological correlate for the model has been found. It does not in any way establish that the model corresponds to the real historical situation on the ground. In this case, the models are not complementary, they are competitive. And it is impossible to decide which one (if any) is correct (We find the same problem in other related disciplines. In textual studies, for example, the real textual histories of many ancient texts are forever lost and no amount of hypotheses and testing could ever reproduce it - see below).

To illustrate this problem I can mention the difficulty of distinguishing between trade, emulation, and migration in the archaeological record. Even with lots of data, it often happens that archaeologists cannot decide among themselves which model (or combinations thereof) is applicable. Archaeologists of different backgrounds adhere to different models to explain the same data. A few examples will suffice. Some believe that there is abundant evidence that people from Mesopotamia migrated to Egypt during the period of the Uruk expansion (Redford 1992:24); others believe the data only shows emulation by a local elite (Wilkinson 2002:241, 245). Some use a model of migration to explain the cultural change at the beginning of the Bronze Age in Cyprus (Frankel 2000), others apply a model of emulation by an emerging elite to the same data (Knapp 1993a).  Some believe that the cultural change in the coastal areas of southern Palestine at the beginning of the Iron Age prove the arrival of the Philistines (Dothan 1995); others believe the change was due to trade (Vanschoonwinkel 1999). The list is endless, so to speak. Bernard Knapp said with reference to the Minoan "colonies": "[T]here is no way to settle it one way or the other" (Knapp 1992).

Some archaeologists are quite straightforward in their assessment of this problem. David Anthony, for example, writes the following about the tendency to prefer models of trade or emulation over migration: "Migration has been demonized and has mystified Western archaeologists since the rise of ‘New Archaeology’ in the late 1960’s… Several writers have noted that the rise and fall of the popularity of migration and diffusion in western archaeology seems closely linked to the prevailing milieu in politics, national interests and intellectual trends” (Anthony 1997:21).  It seems that we can conclude that it is not only "scientific study" that decides which model is accepted; things like political correctness, national interests and what is trending, play an important role. One can hope that the incorporation of other disciplines like genetic studies will eventually lead to more substantial results, but the applicability thereof is often restricted by the lack of relevant data.

One can compare the archaeological study of historical data with the study of the origins of the universe. The universe still exists and scientists study light that originated during the early stages after it came into existence. Although it is impossible to establish exactly how the universe originated, scientists were able to show that the astronomical data corresponds well with the predictions of the Big Bang model - allowing them to eliminate the competing model of a static universe. Although the biological sciences to some extent share the problem of incomplete historical data, it can be assumed that the laws of nature that gave birth to the species are still valid. From this one can propose that eventually, the biological sciences would also be able to "predict" (as we find in physics) and gain a better understanding of the processes involved. At this stage, there are (at least) two competing models of evolution, namely the synthetic model and the punctuated equilibrium model.

Interpreting the archaeological record

As in the case of the empirical sciences, data collection forms a central part of the archaeological endeavour. But does this imply that archaeology is an empirical science? Although archaeologists carefully prepare their digs, using all sorts of techniques to establish a good definition of the excavation, the dice is always loaded against them. Although data constitutes "evidence", one cannot compare it with any experiment in the natural sciences or controlled study in the social sciences.

There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the dig is a non-repeatable experience. Although it could be compared with similar excavations elsewhere, it could never be the same. The fact that it is a one-off experience implies that it is after all also a personal (individually and socially) experience for those involved - it is not necessarily so that other archaeologists would have arrived at the same conclusions. One can mention many examples of different interpretations of the same archaeological excavations and data. Vance Watrous's observation says it all: "[O]ne of the most interesting things about archaeological material, is you get the same object, you get three archaeologists, you come up with three different interpretations based on that" (Watrous 1998).

The other aspect in which archaeological excavation differs from any controlled experiment is that one can never know if the accessible data is a representative sample. In most cases, it obviously is not. Any conclusions drawn from the data are therefore open to criticism. In the days of positivism, it was often assumed that no "evidence" is proof that such evidence does not exist. But this is just plain wrong. Since it can never be shown that archaeological data is representative of any particular historical situation, how can any scientific conclusions be drawn from it?  It is not only possible but inevitable, that evidence has disappeared with time or that it has been severely damaged or reduced.

Many examples could be given to illustrate the non-representative nature of archaeological data.  Giorgio Buchner found one small precision balance in the refuse of a metal workshop, together with a miscast bronze fibula and a few related items, as the only possible evidence for Strabo's statement that goldware production was one of the main activities of the early Iron Age Euboean settlement off the Italian coast (Buchner 1979). A while ago it was reported that the organic layer (probably due to a tsunami) covering archaeological remains from 6000 years ago in the Burren More in North Clare in Ireland, dissipated when exposed to air. The same is true for papyrus and other materials. This again shows what I have demonstrated above (although this time from the inductive side), namely that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete record of historical "reality", which severely restricts their ability to establish which model corresponds to the historical situation.

Although archaeology involves "experience", archaeologists do not conduct "experiments". Excavations are neither repeatable nor representative. Archaeology is therefore not an empirical science. Even if we accept that excavations are empirical in nature, this is not enough to establish archaeology as an empirical science. This was recognized decades ago by philosophers of science. Even when archaeological excavations are conducted in a carefully controlled manner, the archaeological record is always open to different interpretations. Although interpretation cannot be excluded from any data (even in physics there exist various interpretations of quantum physics), in archaeology interpretation is not grounded in empirical experimentation.

What was proposed, is that the archaeological record should be viewed as text (Schiffer 1985) or at least as having symbolic meaning (Guarinello 2005). As with textual studies, archaeology is essentially an interpretative (hermeneutic) discipline. Various interpretations of a "text" are always possible and no single interpretation could be established as the right one. Bernard Knapp wrote in this regard: "Archaeologists of different backgrounds, however, read such 'facts' in different ways and assigned alternative meanings to the same material. In other words, the archaeological record, as 'text', has its own autonomy and is open to multiple interpretations on the part of its readers" (Knapp 1993b). Seen from this angle, it makes sense that theoretical models, which are in fact nothing but sophisticated perspectives, will always be competitive even if it incorporates some complementary aspects.

But is the analogy of the archaeological record with texts really a good one? Although it captures the fact that the interpretation of archaeological data is unequivocally perspectivist, it does place that record on the same level as texts. Is that really the case? What distinguishes texts is the information contained therein - information about historical events and situations. This is exactly what non-textual archaeological data lacks. Although such data could give some basic information, for example of catastrophic events (both natural and human-produced), this information is severely restricted because its relation to known history is not explicitly given. For the most part, non-textual data merely gives partial access to background information, for example about material culture.

The enormous difference between texts and non-textual data in its ability to provide information could be easily illustrated. The presence of foreign communities, for example, is very difficult to establish solely from the archaeological data. The Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia would have been "invisible", had it not been for the discovered tablets. Malcolm Weiner said in this regard: “As Machfeld Mellink, James Mellaart and others have observed, had the tablets not survived little else would suggest the existence of an Assyrian colony since the colonists adopted local architecture and pottery. The situation with regard to Karum Kanesh is not unique. Tablets tell us of many Assyrian trading colonies in Anatolia. At other major excavated sites as Bögazkoy and Alishar, again only the tablets give any clear indication of the presence of an Assyrian trading colony… It is clear that there are differing views among specialists as to whether an Assyrian custom can be detected at Kültepe… I think it would be very difficult to identify something which is specifically Assyrian without the tablets” (Weiner 1984:17, 26). The same can be said about the Ugarit tablets which changed the whole academic perspective on Canaanite culture.

There is, however, a certain type of information that only archaeological data, and more specifically organic material, could provide. This is information about the age of the data. For many archaeologists, this unique ability of archaeological data to accurately date structures and catastrophic events provide the scientific respectability that the data could otherwise lack. For this, they are dependent on other disciplines, for example, dendrochronology. But how scientific are the statistical techniques used for this dating? Contra the general opinion among archaeologists, this is not a rigid statistical science.

In his book A Slice through Time the dendrochronologist M.G.L. Baillie acknowledges that the master chronologies "are not 100% matches" and that the application of the technique is based on subjective judgement: “The practised dendrochronologist is looking for matches that he/she is willing to accept, based on experience, as correct matches between long ring patterns”. In his review of this book, Ron Tappy wrote: "This subjective intuitive aspect of dendrochronology might easily fail to satisfy the tolerances and significance levels expected by statisticians... Recognition of this subjective human element and the inconclusiveness of many of the case studies introduced in the course of the book dampen somewhat one’s appreciation for the purportedly absolute precision of the science. Various factors, such as the loss of the outermost layers of unconsolidated sapwood from a collective sample, seem to compromise the accuracy of the overall method” (Tappy 2001:215). Clearly, dendrochronology is not as "scientific" as is often assumed.

Dating archaeological layers have other problems as well. Sometimes the dendrochronologically derived dates for samples from the same archaeological layer differ substantially. So, for example, the grain and charcoal samples taken under well-controlled circumstances from the destruction signifying the end of layer 6 at Tell Brak (this is the period just before the Naram-Sin palace) gave dates of 2023 BC and 2662 BC respectively (Oates 1985:144)  Archaeologists normally assign the reign of the Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin somewhere in the middle between these dates.

Another problem is that the presence of organic material does not necessarily determine the age of the structures in which it is found. The structures could have been in use for long periods before the people used those products. Even when organic materials form part of the structures, it could have been incorporated during repairs or rebuilding. Pottery does provide a basis for relative dating, but in many cases, such finds are insufficient to clearly establish the period to which the associated structures date.

The role of historical texts

Archaeology shows the most promise when artefacts and texts are found together. When texts are inscribed on structures, as is often found in Egypt, the possibility of obtaining substantial information about historical events is the best. This is probably one of the most important reasons why Egyptian archaeology is generally viewed as secure (if only for the main dynastic periods). When the texts are found in well-preserved layers, the prospects are also good. When the provenance of the texts is, however, unknown or when other historical texts are used in the interpretation of the archaeological data, the situation is much more complicated. But even in the best of cases, both the archaeological artefacts and the texts (or the combination thereof) are open to various interpretations.

Furthermore, the overall interpretation of the situation involves other archaeological data and historical texts. Although archaeology has considerably enlarged our knowledge of the past through the continuous production of new artefacts, the practice of archaeology always includes historical texts, except for the early periods. This implies that archaeology is an empiric-hermeneutic discipline which is (as far as texts are involved) very much dependent on other hermeneutic disciplines.

The historical texts used in archaeology are also studied in disciplines like philology, history, literature, religious and textual studies etc. These fields have their own particular ways in which they deal with texts. Of special importance is the reliability of the historical information contained in these texts. This depends on many factors, one of which is the textual history of the texts. All historical texts have a certain textual history, how it came into being. Texts like the Bible are typically compiled from other older texts and traditions and then edited and copied in the process of being handed down.

So how is this textual history determined? Theoretical models are constructed, using methods typical of these fields of study, like source criticism. These disciplines, however, face the same barrier found in archaeological excavation - the real textual history is lost. Given the impossibility of substantially (empirically) verifying many of the assumptions used and the fact that new information could always upset the carefully constructed models, there is no hope of ever arriving at the real textual history. The data used to test such hypotheses is always provisional; their verification does not establish facts. Even if one allows for the possibility that the real textual history could be reconstructed (which I do not), it is still impossible to know if it has been achieved. This implies that many possible interpretations present themselves, resulting in the formulation of various perspectives. The hermeneutic disciplines can therefore also do no better than developing (ever) competing perspectives.

In their effort (especially during the modern epoch) to get these disciplines recognized as sciences, scholars have historically adopted a "critical" approach towards the information in historical texts. This included the use of the rationality criterion, assuming that we can rationally determine the likelihood that historical events have taken place. But this assumes that human behaviour is always rational, which it is not. Some confirmed historical events are very unlikely to have happened - but it did. There is absolutely no way to rationally determine the historicity of events.

Furthermore, this approach assumes that without supporting evidence, the information could not be trusted.  In practice, this often leads to a positivist rejection of textual information that has not been verified. But on what basis is this verification done? On the basis that archaeology provides sufficient evidence to decide what should be accepted as reliable information. But archaeology is not an empirical science, dendrochronology is not a rigid statistical science and all archaeological data is provisional in the sense that there is always the possibility that new data will be found that could (even dramatically) alter the picture.

There are many examples where textual information that was at some stage distrusted, was later confirmed by new evidence. A few will do. There was a time when the historicity of the "Great Rebellion" against Naram-Sin (and even his foreign conquests) was doubted (Cooper 1993). The discovery of a school text from the period of Naram-Sin himself, however, confirmed that this event did in fact happen. Joan Westenholz commented: “This fragment of a student’s poor exercise is the only extant proof that literary works were composed on the theme of contemporary historical events. The triumph of Naram-Sin over the rebellious city states was probably celebrated in pomp and circumstance… In the city of Esnunna… a teacher made this subject the topic of an assignment of a written composition for a student” (Westenholz 1997:223).

Another example concerns the Biblical figure of David, whose historicity was widely dismissed in scholarly circles before the discovery of the ninth century Tell Dan Stella on which his name appears. In this case, some scholars were so convinced of their case, that they initially rejected the discovery as fraudulent. It is interesting to note that both the Akkadian Empire (which was remembered as the greatest empire ever to have ruled over Mesopotamia) and the Davidic kingdom share the same lack of physical evidence from the original period. Mario Liverani writes the following about the Akkadian Empire: "If we didn't know from the texts that the Akkad empire really existed, we would not be able to postulate it from the changes in settlement pattern, nor from the evolution of material culture" (Liverani 1993). The opposite is also true - in traditional circles (which are largely excluded from the "scientific" endeavour) the information in the texts is often accepted too uncritically.

The fact that disciplines like textual studies are grounded in the modernist-positivist methodologies of the past, which had and still have a great impact on the development of thereof, seriously undermines its credibility. The use of such approaches in the practice of those disciplines (which in my experience is very much alive, for example, in textual studies) is a matter of serious concern. This is all the more problematic since archaeology has a relationship of reciprocal dependence on those disciplines. These disciplines are dependent on archaeology to interpret the archaeological data that is used in the interpretation of texts; archaeology is dependent on their analysis of historical texts to interpret the data.

Clearly, both the archaeological data as well as the texts are open to widely different and conflicting interpretations. No wonder that the formulation of coherent narratives using the interpretations developed in the various disciplines has in the past lead to heated debates. In this regard, the different views on the destruction of Ebla (during the Akkadian period), on the Troyan War, on various Biblical traditions and on many other issues can be called to mind. Scholars who give more credence to the archaeological data, typically follow a "minimalist" approach, whereas scholars who give more credence to the texts, typically follow a maximalist approach. Between these, many approaches are possible. The simple fact is, however, that none of these will ever be able to arrive at any final conclusions. In most cases, one cannot even accept that the narratives proposed by the academic community are a "true" approximation to the historical events.

Conclusion

In this essay, I posited a critique of archaeology as a science. Archaeology is not an empirical science similar to the natural and social sciences. Although there are some researchers - especially those who were educated during the final days of the modernist epoch - who are deeply influenced by positivist ideas and who sometimes give the impression that they regard archaeology in those terms, this is obviously not the case. Although archaeology mine and analyze data under controlled circumstances, this could not be compared with repeatable experiments in the natural sciences or controlled studies in the social sciences.  Archaeology is much more restricted in its reach.

One can never go beyond a perspectivist view on any historical situation.  Archaeology could be described as an empiric-hermeneutic discipline. A distinction should, however, be made between hermeneutics as the interpretation of texts in combination with other data, and hermeneutics as the interpretation of non-textual artefacts. The archaeology of the pre-textual age is not "hermeneutic" in the traditional sense. I have shown that non-textual data should not be given the same status as texts.

Although archaeology is primarily concerned with physical excavation, it involves many other disciplines. Many of those disciplines are concerned with texts and are also open to widely different interpretations. The process of determining the trustworthiness of information in texts is fraught with problems. When one comes to the eventual formulation of coherent narratives that incorporate both archaeological data and texts, one could never go beyond the practical limits of incomplete and under-represented data and information.

The result is a range of ever competing narratives, which can never arrive at the "truth". So, of what use is archaeology then? Although archaeology cannot provide final answers, it does increase our knowledge. Its ability to produce new data allows us to construct more sophisticated narratives than ever before - but nothing beyond narratives. In the final instance, archaeology contributes to our enjoyment of life in the same way that literature, art and religion does. It enables us to live the "good life".

References

Anthony, David W. 1997. Prehistoric Migration as Social Process. In Chapman, J. and Hamerow, H. (eds.), Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation, BAR International Series 664.  Oxford: Archaeopress, Oxford.
Buchner, G. 1979. Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection. In Ridgway, D and Ridgeway, F.R. (eds.), Italy before the Romans, The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan periods.  London: Academic Press.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1993. Paradigm and propaganda. The dynasty of Akkade in the 21st Century. In Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Dothan, Trude. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples’ (Philistines’) Settlement in Canaan in Iron Age I. In Gitin, S. (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel.  Archaeological Institute of America.
Frankel, David. 2000. Migration and ethnicity in prehistoric Cyprus: Technological Proof of Migration. European Journal of Archaeology 3:167-187.
Guarinello, N. L. 2005. Archaeology and the Meanings of Material Culture. In Pedro Paulo Funari, Andres Zarankin and Emily Stovel (eds.). Global Archaeological Theory. Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1992. Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist 55(3):112-128.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993a. Social complexity: incipience, emergence and development on pre-historic Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292:85-106.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993b. Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth. World Archaeology 24(3):332-347.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Liverani, M. 1993. Akkad: An Introduction, in Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Oates, Joan. 1985.  Tell Brak and Chronology: The Third Millennium. Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4:137-144.
Patrik, Linda E. 1985. Is There an Archaeological Record?  In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory.  New York: Academic, New York.
Pine, R.C. 2006.  Science and the human prospect.  Internet: http//home. Honolulu.Hawaii.edu/pine/book1-2.htm/
Popper, K. 1957. Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report, in C. A. Mace (ed.). British in Mid-Century. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Redford, Donald B.  1992.  Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.  Princeton: Princeton University.
Tappy, Ron E.  2001.  Book Reviews: A Slice through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M. G. L. Baillie.  Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60(3):215-218.
Wilkinson, Toby A. H.  2002.  Uruk into Egypt: imports and imitations.  In J. N. Posgate (ed.). Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East.  Wiltshire: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1999. Between the Aegean and the Levant: the Philistines. In Tsetskhladze, G. R. (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East.  Leiden: Brill, Leiden.
Watrous, L. Vance. 1998. Egypt and Crete in the Early Middle Bronze Age: A Case of Trade and Cultural Diffusion. In Cline, E. H. and Harris-Cline, D. (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Liège: Université de Liège.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1997.  Legends of the Kings of Akkade.  Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wiener, Malcolm H. 1984. Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The tale of the conical cups. In Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth and Reality.  Stockholm.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

Read also: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline 
Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective

Abraham en sy God - Inleiding

Hierdie is die inleiding van die boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n Studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale.


“[Sumer] for all practical purposes lies within and, in fact,
chronologically and literarily, at the beginning of the historical
stream of biblical Israel” – Richard Averbeck

Kan ons vandag nog die Genesis-verhale ernstig opneem? Kan ons dit as geskiedenis beskou? Vir baie Christene is dit nie belangrike vrae nie. Hulle glo gewoon dat daardie verhale korrek is. Daar is egter baie ander wat oor hierdie saak nadink. As die Bybelse verhale wel geskiedkundig is, dan verwag ’n mens dat sommige van daardie gebeure ook in ander buite-Bybelse bronne sal voorkom. Is daar enige bewyse dat hierdie verhale nie net in die Bybel voorkom nie, maar ook in die verhale van ander antieke volkere soos die Sumeriërs? Volgens Genesis speel sommige van die verhale juis in vroeë Mesopotamië af.

In hierdie boek fokus ek op die verhale van Genesis 2-14. Dit is die verhale oor die vroegste geskiedenis van die Abrahamse familie [1] – van lank voordat hulle in Kanaän gaan woon het. Hiervolgens het Abraham aanvanklik in antieke Mesopotamië (in hedendaagse Irak) gewoon en speel ’n groot deel van die vroeë verhaal daar af. Dit is waar die vlakte van Sinear (Gen. 11: 2) asook Abraham se geboortestad, “Ur van die Chaldeërs” (Gen. 11: 28) geleë was.

Alhoewel dit nie duidelik is hoe lank Abraham se voorsate daar vertoef het nie, is daar geen twyfel dat sommige van hulle volgens Genesis 2-14 op ’n stadium daar gewoon het nie. Daar is dan ook ’n goeie rede waarom hulle daar sou wou woon: van ten minste sesduisend jaar gelede tot vierduisend jaar gelede het een van die mees besondere antieke beskawings, dié van die Sumeriërs, in die suidelike Mesopotamiese vlaktes floreer. As ons meer omtrent die oorspronge en tradisies van die Abrahamse familie wil verstaan, is dit sekerlik sinvol om die Sumeriese literatuur te ondersoek. Dit kan belangrike lig op daardie tradisies werp.

In hierdie boek ondersoek ek die Sumeriese wortels van die vroegste Bybelse tradisies. Ek toon aan dat daardie vroeë verhale waaronder dié van Henog, Nimrod, die vloed en die toring van Babel ook in die Sumeriese bronne vermeld word. Maar is daar enige buite-Bybelse bewys dat hierdie dinge regtig gebeur het? Om hierdie vraag te beantwoord, ondersoek ek die argeologiese getuienis wat daarmee verband hou. As ons in die regte periode soek, vind ons getuienis wat daarop dui dat die Genesis-verhaal wel breedweg bevestig kan word. Die Sumeriese literatuur help ons ook om ander temas in Genesis 2-14 – soos die boom, Adam asook die Bybelse wêreldbeskouing – beter te verstaan.

Dit is egter nie net die vroeë verhale wat na Sumerië teruggaan nie; daar is rede om te glo dat die vroegste vorm van die Israelitiese godsdiens – soos die verering van die God El as beide die Allerhoogste en die Almagtige deur Abraham – ook na daardie wêrelddeel teruggevoer kan word. Dit is vanuit daardie Sumeriese fondasies dat die latere Israelitiese godsdiens in die Kanaänitiese milieu verder gegroei het.

Daar is geleerdes wat reken dat die vroeë Genesis-verhale [2] eerder tydens die Babiloniese ballingskap uit Babilonië ontleen is omdat daar ’n mate van ooreenstemming tussen die Bybelse en Babiloniese tradisies is. Hierdie boek daag daardie siening uit. Na my mening is die verskille tussen die Babiloniese en Hebreeuse tradisies net te groot om direkte ontlening ernstig te oorweeg. Dit is verder ook uiters onwaarskynlik dat Joodse skrywers hul eie volk se geskiedenis sou versin en dat hul volksgenote, wat met die oeroue oorgelewerde tradisies bekend was, dit sonder meer sou aanvaar. Ek stel dus voor dat die ooreenstemming eerder toon dat beide tradisies na ’n baie vroeër gemene tradisie uit die Sumeriese tyd teruggaan, toe Abraham se familie nog in Sumerië gewoon het.

Geleerdes beweer ook dat die vroeë Israelitiese tradisies baie uit die Kanaänitiese milieu ontleen het. Veral wat die Israelitiese godsdiens betref, lyk dit of El se rol as “vader van die gode” in daardie wêreld tuis hoort. Ook Jahweh se rol as koning in die goderaad is volgens Bybelse geleerdes uit daardie wêreld ontleen. Volgens sommige was die eerste millenniumse (v.C.) Siries-Kanaänitiese godsdiens die model vir hierdie ontwikkeling in die Israelitiese godsdiens. Ek wil egter voorstel dat daardie model eerder in vroeë Sumerië te vinde is, waar El al vroeg aanbid is.

Dit bring my by die vraag: Hoe het dit gebeur dat daardie Sumeriese tradisies in Israelitiese kringe bly voortleef het? Die antwoord hierop lê in die Abrahamse verhaal opgesluit. Volgens die Bybelse verhaal het Abraham van Sumerië gekom – sy koms na Kanaän gee duidelik ’n baie sinvolle verduideliking oor hoe sulke Sumeriese tradisies later deel van Israel se erfenis kon word. Alhoewel baie geleerdes skepties staan oor die geskiedkundigheid van die Abrahamse verhaal, is daar nou meer as ooit tevore rede om te glo dat dié verhaal
’n betroubare weergawe van gebeure is.

Na my mening het hierdie tradisies saam met die Abrahamse familie na Kanaän gekom. Daarna is dit vir geslagte mondeling onder sy nasate oorgedra, alhoewel vroeë skriftelike bronne (wat in die mis van die verlede verlore geraak het) nie uitgesluit kan word nie. Diegene wat hierdie tradisies getrou van geslag tot geslag oorgedra en bewaar het, was die profete. Onder diegene wat dit aanvanklik opgeskryf het, word Moses as ’n belangrike skakel vermeld (Eks. 17: 14; 24: 7).[3]

Profete het oënskynlik van die vroegste tyd onder die Israeliete voorgekom. Ons vind dat Abraham reeds ’n profeet genoem word (Gen. 20: 7). Moses was ’n profeet (Deut. 18: 15; 34: 10); so ook Aäron (Eks. 7: 1) en sy suster Miriam (Eks. 15: 20). In hulle tyd sou daar ook ander profete soos Eldad en Medad opereer (Num. 11: 26). Later kom Deborah en Samuel. In die tyd van Saul was daar ook groepe profete bedrywig (1 Sam. 10: 5). Die Israelitiese profete was regdeur Israel se geskiedenis tot ná die ballingskap aktief.

Dit lyk of die Israelitiese profete baie soos die digters en sjamane van ander antieke volke geopereer het, wat die bewakers van daardie volke se tradisies was en dit van geslag na geslag oorgedra het. Profesieë is dan ook tipies in digterlike vorm uitgespreek. Ons lees in baie gevalle dat die profete nie alleen in hul geestelike ervarings die Oppergod gesien het nie, maar dat hulle selfs toegang tot die goderaad (’n baie belangrike konsep in die Bybel) gehad het – wat daarop dui dat hierdie raad deel van ’n lewende tradisie was, wat deur die eeue in hul midde bly voortleef het.

Dit is opvallend dat hulle ook diegene was wat die “Jahweh-alleen”- tradisie in stand gehou het.[4] Aangesien hulle die oudste tradisies in stand gehou het, kan dit daarop dui dat daardie tradisie baie oud was. Volgens die Bybel het dié tradisie by Moses ontstaan aan wie God Hom vir die eerste maal as Jahweh geopenbaar het
(Eks. 6: 2).

Ek gaan nie in hierdie boek die Genesis-verhale volledig behandel nie. Hierdie is nie as ’n volledige werk oor die onderwerp bedoel nie. Ek gaan gewoon enkele aspekte aanspreek. Ek begin met Abraham (Hoofstuk 1). As sy verhaal as geskiedenis geneem kan word, is hy ’n belangrike skakel tussen die Sumeriese en Israelitiese wêrelde.

Dan kyk ek na die ooreenkoms tussen die Bybelse en Sumeriese weergawes van die na-vloedse periode, die identifisering van enkele Bybelpersone soos Nimrod, Henog en Adam in die raamwerk van die Sumeriese geskiedenis, die aanbidding van die Hebreeuse God El in Sumerië, die Sumeriese verstaan van die “drieverdieping” wêreldbeskouing wat ons in die Bybel vind asook die vroeë voorkoms van sjamanisme en die profetiese tradisie. Ek het die onderwerpe gekies op grond van my eie belangstelling.

Hierdie boek is die vrug van jare se studie in die vroeë Bybelse en Sumeriese geskiedenis en tradisies. In die proses het ek die vroeë Sumeriese literatuur deeglik deurgelees en verskeie navorsingstoere saam met ’n paar vriende na sommige van die wêrelddele waarin die verhale afspeel onderneem.Verskeie foto’s, wat deur skrywer se reisgenoot Evert Buurman geneem is tydens hul reise, is in hierdie boek opgeneem. Ek het ook ’n wye studie van die akademiese materiaal oor die onderwerp gedoen. Verder was ek bevoorreg om vir ’n paar jaar deel van ’n Sumeriese leesgroep te wees waar ek ’n liefde vir die Sumeriese wigskrif en taal ontwikkel het. Dit is egter belangrik om te onthou dat hierdie nie ’n literêre of teologiese studie is nie, maar ’n
studie oor die geskiedkundigheid van die Genesis-verhale.

Die boek is gewoon as ’n inleiding tot die onderwerp bedoel. Dit is op die gemiddelde leser gerig wat geen agtergrond oor die Sumeriese wêreld het nie. Die boek is so geskryf dat hulle dit stimulerend en interessant sal vind. Tog is dit ook so dat die kwessies wat ek in hierdie boek aanspreek, allermins eenvoudig is. Sommige daarvan is werklik moeilike sake. In ons tyd is daar baie Afrikaanse mense wat vir die eerste keer werklik vir hulleself oor dinge begin nadink (en hopelik nie maar net weer andere in die stroom van skeptisisme naloop
nie). Ek vertrou dat hulle by hierdie boek, waarin sulke sake ook vanuit ’n behoudende Christenperspektief onder die soeklig kom, sal baat vind.

Ek glo dat daar in die huidige intellektuele klimaat in Suid-Afrika ’n behoefte aan ’n boek soos hierdie is, wat op die vroegste wortels van Israel (en in effek die Christentradisie) fokus. As denker en skrywer is ek verplig om die kernvrae wat in ons tyd rondom hierdie kwessies gevra word, aan te spreek en vir die gewone denkende Christen sinvolle voorstelle op die tafel te plaas – wat hopelik verdere debat daaroor sal stimuleer. Ek beskou dit gewoon as ’n inleidende gesprek oor daardie dinge. Die boek is hoofsaaklik gerig op persone
wat dink, wat wonder en wat selfs twyfel.

Alhoewel sommige van die dinge wat ek in hierdie boek bespreek vir die gemiddelde Christen vreemd sal voorkom omdat hulle dalk nie die Bybel so versigtig vir leidrade fynkam, wat lig op die heel vroegste sieninge kan werp nie (die Bybel werp ’n sluier oor baie van daardie vroeë sieninge; dit is die “verborge dinge” – Deut. 29: 29), glo ek dat die nuutste argeologiese en literêre data juis aantoon dat die Bybelse verhale – en meer spesifiek die verhale van Genesis 2-14 – as betroubaar aanvaar kan word. Alhoewel daar steeds baie
gebreke in ons kennis is, het ons vandag ’n uitgebreide argeologiese kennis oor die totale periode waaroor die Bybel handel. Soos ons in die boek Daniël lees, word dinge al duideliker soos wat die “kennis vermeerder” (Dan. 12: 4). Om onduidelikhede te help opklaar, het ek verskeie notas in die teks ingevoeg.

Diegene wat ná die lees van hierdie boek uitsien na ’n meer indiepte bespreking van die vroeë tradisies, kan my komende boek omtrent die vroegste buite-Bybelse tradisies oor die Gevalle Engele aanskaf. Ek skryf ook van tyd tot tyd relevante artikels op my blog, http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/. Lesers kan daarop inskryf.

Willie Mc Loud
Januarie 2012
Die Strand


Notas
1. By Abrahamse familie bedoel ek nie net Abraham se nasate nie, maar ook diegene wat saam met hom in Ur gewoon het.
 2. Hulle reken veral dat die pre-patriargale verhale uit Babiloniese (en Griekse) bronne saamgeflans is.
 3. Volgens die Hebreeuse tradisie het die profete (en ander Bybelskrywers) onder die inspirasie van God se Gees geopereer (2 Sam. 23: 2; 2 Tim. 3: 16; 1 Pet. 1: 11; 2 Pet. 1: 21). Hul geskrifte word dus deur behoudende Christene, waaronder ek myself reken, as Goddelik geïnspireerd beskou. Sien Bylaag 1 vir my siening oor Bybelse inspirasie.
 4. Dit is die tradisie waarvolgens Jahweh die enigste God is wat aanbid mag word.

Op soek na Abraham en sy God

Dr Willie Mc Loud se nuwe boek het pas verskyn. Die titel is Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n Studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale. Hier is die teks op die agterblad asook die Inhoudsopgawe.


Teks op die agterblad

Op soek na Abraham en sy God is ’n tydige boek oor ’n uiters relevante onderwerp. Dit lewer ’n baie belangrike bydrae tot die kontemporêre gesprek oor die betroubaarheid van die Bybelse verhale. Daar is vandag al meer mense wat wonder of ons nog die Genesis-verhale kan glo? Of Abraham regtig gelewe het? Of ons die verhale oor die “toring van Babel”, die taleverwarring, die vloed en die tuin van Eden nog ernstig kan opneem? Vir sommige is die tradisionele antwoorde net nie meer aanvaarbaar nie. Sekere dinge word net nie meer geglo nie. Maar beteken dit dat die Genesis-verhale maar net stories is wat in latere tye meestal uit Babiloniese bronne saamgestel is? Beteken dit dat ons daardie verhale maar as onbetroubaar kan afskryf?

In hierdie boek toon die skrywer dat dit nié so is nie. Hy formuleer ’n grondige kritiek op sommige geleerde opinies hieroor. Hy verbreed die gesprek oor die Genesis-verhale deurdat hy, anders as baie ander geleerdes, die antieke Sumeriese bronne raadpleeg. Hy toon dat onlangse argeologiese ontdekkings daarop dui dat ons alle rede het om in ’n historiese Abraham te glo. Verder het ons goeie rede om te dink dat die vroegste verhale in Genesis saam met die Abrahamse familie uit Mesopotamië na Kanaän saamgebring is.

Die boek fokus ook op die God van Abraham. Was Hy maar net ’n vroeë stamgod? Of is daar rede om te glo dat Hy sedert die vroegste tye in Mesopotamië vereer is soos die Genesis-verhale impliseer? Die skrywer bespreek ook ander antieke konsepte soos die “Seuns van God”, die goderaad, die godeberg in die uithoeke van die noorde, die drieverdiepingkosmos, die “hemel” en die “doderyk”, Satan, die boom van die lewe, die slang en die gerubs wat die boom bewaak het.

Die inhoud is aktueel, stimulerend en bied beslis stof tot nadenke. Die boek is ’n goeie belegging vir elkeen wat belangstel in die betroubaarheid van die Bybelse verhale. 

 Inhoudsopgawe
 
1. Abraham is die skakel - 13
2. Die vlakte van Sinear - 19
3. Die toring van Babel - 27
4. Wie was Henog? - 37
5. Die goderaad - 47
6. Die “God van julle vaders” - 57
7. Die drieverdiepingkosmos - 71
8. Sjamane en profete - 83
9. Slotgedagtes - 93
 

Die kerk is by 'n kruispad: 'n ope brief aan die kerk

"As die fondamente omgegooi word, wat kan die regverdige doen?" (Ps. 11:3)
 
Die kerk in Suid-Afrika staar 'n krisis in die oë.  Die kerk se reaksie gaan bepaal of sy in die volgende geslag nog relevant sal wees en of sy ook soos in Europa bykans irrelevant gaan word.  In hierdie ope brief maak ek praktiese voorstelle oor hoe die kerk relevant kan bly.  Lesers is welkom om dit aan hul eie geestelike leiers aan te stuur. 

Daar is 'n roering in Afrikaanse geledere. Ander opinies en denke as die waaraan ons gewoond is, is aan die orde van die dag.  Ons hoor gereeld van teoloë, predikante en gewone mense wat sê dat hulle aan die Bybelse boodskap twyfel.  In radio gesprekke, koerant artikels en briewe, op internet gespreksforums, in boeke, op blogs, om die kampvuur en oral vind gesprekke plaas waarin mense oor hierdie dinge praat. Oral op die intellektuele markplein word kompeterende idees bespreek en gedebatteer.  En dit lyk of baie mense deur die stroom van twyfel meegevoer word. Al meer mense raak los van die kerk.  Lidmaat getalle neem af.  In baie gemeentes is dit meestal ou mense wat kom.  Jong mense bly weg.  Die vraag is: wat moet die kerk in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?  In hierdie ope brief maak ek 'n paar voorstelle oor wat gemeentes kan doen om vandag steeds relevant te bly.


Relevant

Alhoewel die kerk nie altyd daarop ag slaan nie, is die omringende samelewing besig om baie vinnig te verander.  Ons hele kultuur is besig om te verander.  Waardes wat vroeër hoog aangeslaan is, verval in onguns - ander waardes kom in hulle plek.  Ek praat nou nie net van morele waardes nie; ek praat van kultuurwaardes.  Waar die Afrikaanse kultuur vroeër baie op gesag klem gelê het, is dit vandag in om gesag te betwyfel.  Die outokratiese posisie van die pa in die gesin, die onderwyser by die skool en die dominee in die gemeenskap het plek gemaak vir 'n meer demokratiese styl waarin verskillende opinies en insigte binne die raamwerk van 'n oop gesprek hoog aangeslaan word.  Vaste oortuigings en sieninge maak plek vir meer genuanseerde perspektiewe.  Oorgelewerde beginsels word bevraagteken; dit word opsy gesit as oorlewering van die ou mense. 

Dit is binne hierdie veranderende klimaat dat die kerk haarself vandag bevind.  Omdat die kerk uit die tyd van outokraties-vaste oortuigings kom, is dit vir baie Christene moeilik om aan te pas en te verander. In baie gemeentes toon die manier van kerk hou, die kleredrag (dink aan die swart pakke en wit dasse), die samesang en die liturgie dat hulle tot 'n vorige era behoort.  Soms lyk dit soos 'n toneel wat 'n mens aan die Amerikaanse Amish laat dink.  Hierdie manier van doen maak nie meer vir die hedendaagse mens sin nie.  Dit is dan ook verblydend dat baie gemeentes vernuwe - gesonde maar tog ingrypende vernuwing, nie net kosmetiese veranderinge wat aangebring word nie.  As die kerk vandag steeds relevant wil bly, sal gemeentes oor hierdie dinge moet saampraat, saamdink en saamdoen.  As die verskeidenheid gawes van die gemeentelede nie werklik in die gemeente tot hul reg kom nie, sal mense mettertyd belang in die kerk begin verloor.  Ons hoef nie aan die voorpunt van verandering te wees nie, maar ons moet ook nie agter die tyd wees nie.

Die samelewing verander egter ook in ander opsigte.  Wat vir die kerk van belang is, is die wyse waarop die wetenskap deel van die Afrikaanse lewens- en wêreldbeskouing geraak het.  Die oorgrote meerderheid Afrikaanse mense dink nie meer aan die wetenskap as ondergeskik aan geloof nie.  Hulle aanvaar die wetenskaplike uitsprake en baie stoei om dit met hul geloof te versoen.  Weereens is daar sekere vaste oortuigings wat dele van die kerk kenmerk.  Daar is diegene wat hul interpretasie van Bybelse gedeeltes tot onaantasbare waarhede verhef - terwyl daar regoor die wêreld baie ander Christene in hul eie teologiese stroom is (hetsy gereformeerd, evangelies, pinkster of charismaties) wat ander interpretasies voorstaan wat makliker met die wetenskap versoenbaar is.

Dit wat die kerk sê moet (soos dit wat die kerk doen) vir die gemiddelde persoon in die samelewing sin maak.  Dit help nie om die wetenskaplike verstaan van ons kosmos as onsin af te maak nie - die gewone persoon kan dit net nie meer aanvaar nie.  Die wetenskap ondersoek immers God se openbaring in die natuur - wat sekerlik nie in stryd met God se openbaring in die Skrif sal wees nie.  Die fout lê nie noodwendig by die wetenskap nie; dit kan ook by ons simplistiese interpretasie van die Bybelse teks lê.  Ek bepleit nie dat Christene die wetenskap klakkeloos napraat nie.  Daar is sekere dinge soos die oorsprong van lewe waarvoor die wetenskap nog nie antwoorde het nie.  Sommige wetenskaplike teorieë soos die neo-Darwinistiese teorie van evolusie is na my mening ook nog problematies (sien my artikel "Wetenskap en Geloof").

Tog is dit ook so dat daar ander dinge is waaroor daar al lankal konsensus bereik is soos dat die aarde baie oud is.  Wetenskaplike dissiplines soos astronomie, geologie en argeologie toon onomwonde dat die aarde oud is. Dit help nie dat ons die wetenskap feitlik in totaliteit verwerp net omdat dit met ons interpretasie van gedeeltes soos Genesis 1 (wat verskillend verstaan kan word) verskil nie.  Op grond van hierdie beskouing dink die gemiddelde persoon in die samelewing dat die Bybel totaal onvanpas vir vandag is.  Hulle dink dat die Bybel - en dus ook die kerk - nie meer relevant vir ons tyd is nie.  Hoe kan hulle in die Bybelse God glo, as hulle nie vertroue in die Bybelse boodskap het nie?

Eietydse impak


As dit wat die kerk doen en sê vir die gemiddelde persoon sin maak, dan is daar altyd iewers 'n geleentheid waar gemeentes 'n impak op so iemand se lewe kan maak. Dit beteken dat die kerk ook vandag - en juis vandag - dinge moet doen wat 'n verskil in mense se lewens maak.  Die vraag is: waar maak ons daardie verskil?  Baie kerke is so na binne gerig en hul lidmate lewe in so 'n gemaksone, dat hulle geen impak op die wêreld daarbuite het nie. Die bedoeling is sekerlik nie dat die kerk net 'n sosiale klub moet wees nie; sy moet 'n boodskap vir die mense van haar tyd hê.  Die kerk moet 'n vars boodskap hê wat toon dat en hoe die Bybelse boodskap in hul eie tyd relevant is (dit sal voortspruit uit 'n verhouding met die hoof van die kerk, naamlik Jesus Christus).  Die vraag is of die kerk dit regkry om daardie boodskap prakties uit te dra en uiteindelik vrug op hul arbeid het.

Die kerk het geen ander alternatief as om op 'n wye front aktief aan die kontemporêre gesprek deel te neem nie.  Dit sal nie help om maar net vir die beste te hoop nie.  Soos in die bekende lese "ora et labora" (bid en werk) genoem word, sal die kerk ook moet werk.  Geestelike leiers, gemeentelede en andere behoort oor kontemporêre kwessies saam te praat - hulle behoort die inisiatief te neem om toepaslike gesprekke op 'n relevante wyse binne die raamwerk van die sosiale markplein van denke te voer.  Om sinvol aan hierdie gesprek te kan deelneem, sal al die media benut moet word - veral ook die elektroniese media.  Dit is immers waar 'n baie groot deel van die gesprek plaasvind.

Alhoewel daar baie kerke is wat webtuistes het, is daar baie min mense buite hul kerk wat dit besoek. Sommige het groepe op Facebook - maar dit is weereens tot gemeentelede beperk wat daar saampraat.  Dink net daaraan: bykans een uit elke sewe mense op die aarde gebruik Facebook en internetgebruikers spandeer omtrent een uit elke sewe minute op Facebook!  Dit is nie alleen 'n geweldige groot gespreksruimte nie, dit bied 'n enorme geleentheid vir die kerk om sy boodskap in die wêreld uit te dra.  Om 'n groter impak te hê, moet verskillende benaderings op die internet gekombineer word, naamlik webtuistes, Facebook profiele en groepe, blogs, links asook gespreksforums.

Die kerk het in die verlede foute gemaak.  Baie van die mense wat vandag erg krities teenoor die kerk staan, het op 'n stadium binne die raamwerk van die kerk seer gekry.  Sommige van hulle het met 'n harde, ongenaakbare, liefdelose kerkstruktuur te doen gekry.  Die kerk het haarself ook baie maal in die verlede (ook in Suid Afrika tydens die Apartheidsjare) gekompromitteer deur met die heersende politieke gesag hande te vat.  Dit is egter ook so dat daar menigtes is wat deur die eeue die liefde van Christus in die kerk se ontferming en ondersteuning beleef het.  Christenstemme was deur die eeue die gewete van die samelewing (al het die kerk ook baie maal daarin misluk) en het 'n groot bydrae gelewer tot die uitroeiing van euwels soos slawerny.  Die kerk moet nie dat gebeure uit die verlede haar vrymoedigheid wegneem om as morele stem in die samelewing op te tree nie.  Maar dan sal die kerk ook prakties 'n voorbeeld moet stel.

'n Besondere boodskap

Ons lewe in 'n postmoderne wêreld waarin verskillende narratiewe (maniere om die wêreld te verstaan) met mekaar meeding.  (Dit beteken nie dat 'n mens by post-modernisme as filosofie en ideologie inkoop nie). Ons almal is bekend met die wetenskaplike narratief wat fokus op daardie deel van die wêreld wat vir ons instrumenteel toeganklik is.  Die wetenskap ondersoek die sigbare, tasbare wêreld van die sintuie en maak uitsprake oor hoe daardie wêreld werk.  Ons weet egter ook dat die kosmos baie meer kompleks is as wat wetenskaplikes ooit sou kon droom -  daar is vandag sprake van 'n hoër dimensionele struktuur van die kosmos en deeltjies wat nie waargeneem kan word nie. Die Scientistiese beskouing wat die omvang van die kosmos tot hierdie instrumenteel-waarneembare aspek reduseer, is duidelik baie simplisties - al is daar sommige in Afrikaanse kringe wat vandag nog hieroor opgewonde raak (sien my artikel "Om te glo of nie te glo nie...").

Die Christelike narratief sê dat die kosmos uit baie meer as net atome en molekules bestaan. Dit glo in die bestaan van 'n groter werklikheid - dat daar meer is as net die koue materiële wat in die wetenskap ondersoek word.  Christene sien in hul daaglikse lewe die wonder van God se hand.  Dat God lewe, dat Hy in ons lewens betrokke is, dat Hy vandag nog wonders doen.  Dat Christenwees 'n besondere ervaring is.  In 'n wêreld waar koue materialisme die wonder van hoop uitdoof, sal daar altyd 'n plek vir die Christelike boodskap wees - om soos lig in die wêreld te skyn.

Slot

Die kerk in Suid-Afrika staan voor 'n baie belangrike kruispad - gaan sy maar op die ou manier voortgaan en al meer irrelevant word?  Gaan sy vasstaan by uitgediende metodes en sieninge? Gaan sy al meer op die rand van die samelewing uitgestoot word?  Of gaan sy aanpas?  Gaan sy pragmaties die uitdaging in die oë kyk en vra: hoe kan ons, sonder om die kernwaarhede prys te gee, verander sodat dit wat ons doen en sê vir die mense van ons tyd sin maak? Meer nog: hoe kan ons boodskap vandag relevant wees? Die kerk het 'n besondere boodskap van hoop - maar hulle sal dit op 'n geloofwaardige wyse moet oordra. Ek glo dat die mense van ons tyd in afwagting na die kerk kyk om te sien of sy gaan opleef tot die oomblik. Die groot vraag is: gaan sy?

Hierdie artikel is gebaseer op praatjies wat die skrywer oor dieselfde onderwerp in gemeentes gee.
Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (ws.mcloud@gmail.com)

Verdere artikels deur Dr Willie Mc Loud:

Wetenskap en Geloof
Om te glo of nie te glo nie...  

Sy nuutste boek is Op Soek na Abraham en sy God. Dit handel oor die betroubaarheid van die vroeë Genesis verhale.

Is Bybelse wetenskap 'n pseudo-wetenskap?

In 'n brief in die Maart uitgawe van die tydskrif Markplein het ek genoem dat Bybelse "wetenskaplikes" hulle na my mening met 'n pseudo-wetenskap besig hou. Daar was heelwat reaksie op die brief en die hoofartikel in die Mei uitgawe het spesifiek op wetenskap vs pseudo-wetenskap gefokus. Na aanleiding van daardie artikel het ek my probleem met die Bybelse "wetenskaplikes" verder uitgelig in 'n brief wat pas in die Junie uitgawe verskyn het. Ek plaas die brief hier.


Dit lyk of my verwysing na "pseudo-wetenskaplike" metodiek asook na "sogenaamde Bybelse 'wetenskaplikes' wat hulle na my mening met 'n pseudo-wetenskap besig hou", in Markplein (Maart 2012), behoorlik die tonge aan die gons het. Soveel so dat Diek dit goedgedink het om met die hoofartikel in die Mei uitgawe daarop te reageer. Ek wil graag op my opmerkings uitbrei en sommer op my beurt op sy artikel reageer.

1.    Soos Diek tereg noem, moet ons eerstens oor die uitdrukking "wetenskap" besin. Hoe moet ons die term "Bybelse wetenskaplikes" verstaan wat deesdae gereeld in die media vir mense soos Sakkie Spangenberg gebruik word? Daar kan na my mening geen twyfel bestaan dat hierdie geleerdes (hoofsaaklik in navolging van die Duitse positivistiese tradisie) 'n modernistiese aanslag tot die ontleding van die Bybelse teks volg waarvolgens daar gepoog word om hierdie vakdissipline op 'n empiries-wetenskaplike basis te plaas nie. Dit is waarom hulle byvoorbeeld nie wonderwerke - wat 'n groter werklikheid as die wetenskaplik-toeganklike aspek van die kosmos veronderstel - in hul perspektief kan akkommodeer nie. Daarom glo daardie geleerdes nie in die maagdelike geboorte of die opstanding nie. Ek wil hierdie vertrekpunt ten sterkste kritiseer - ek dink nie ons moet enigsins so met die Bybelse teks omgaan nie. As ons "wetenskap" eerder as "sistematiese studieveld" (Diek se "kennis-paradigma") definieer, kan ons altyd 'n groter werklikheid veronderstel en op 'n sistematiese wyse van byvoorbeeld Kant se "praktiese rede" in ons hermeneutiese studie van die teks gebruik maak. Op hierdie wyse kan ons vir wonderwerke ruimte maak (sien in hierdie verband my artikel in Pomp.
 

2.    Indien die empiriese wetenskap (implisiet of eksplisiet) as vertrekpunt tot die studie van die Bybelse teks geneem word, dan moet die maatstaf van empiriese toetsing en verifikasie onderskryf word soos in die natuur- en sosiale wetenskappe. En hier lê die probleem. Ten spyte van die ensemble van geleerde opinies, is daar geen manier waarop hierdie "wetenskaplikes" hul teoretiese modelle aan gekontroleerde empiriese toetsing kan onderwerp en dus enige wesentlike kennis-uitsprake kan maak nie. Die ontstaansgeskiedenis van die Bybelse teks is vir altyd verlore wat impliseer dat geen van hul hipoteses hieromtrent sinvol getoets kan word nie - die JEPD hipotese oor die bronne vir die Ou Testament wat vir lank aanvaar is, het byvoorbeeld in die laaste tyd heeltemal verkrummel. Voorts is die argeologiese data feitlik nooit genoegsaam verteenwoordigend nie (dit is nie 'n gekontroleerde steekproef nie!) en ook nooit sonder interpretasie nie (wat soms wyd uiteenlopend is). Ons kan niks anders doen as om ruimte te maak vir verskeie narratiewe nie. Ek bring juis binnekort 'n boek uit waarin ek 'n totaal ander narratief as die heersende "wetenskaplike" beskouing omtrent die vroeë Genesis-verhale verdedig, naamlik dat ons met baie ou Israelitiese tradisies te doen het wat deur die Abrahamse familie uit Sumerië saamgebring is (Op soek na Abraham en sy God. 'n Studie oor die historisiteit van die vroeë Genesis verhale, Griffel). Dit beteken dat Abraham 'n historiese figuur was - ek toon dan ook dat daar goeie argeologiese getuienis is wat so 'n siening ondersteun. Verder is daar Sumeriese bronne en argeologiese data wat die historisiteit van die pre-patriargale verhale breedweg ondersteun.
 

3.    My grootste probleem met die gebruik van die benaming "Bybelse wetenskaplikes", is dat daardie geleerdes hierdie term gebruik om gewig aan hul uitsprake te gee. Hulle probeer daardeur hul narratief teenoor ander narratiewe as die "wetenskaplike" narratief voorhou - waarby hulle na my mening 'n empiriese wetenskap bedoel (dit is ook hoe die term in die volksmond verstaan word). Dit is nie alleen onwaar nie (hul studieveld voldoen glad nie aan die vereistes daarvoor nie), dit is inderwaarheid misleidend. Dit mislei die publiek wat dink dat hulle "wetenskaplikes" in die empiries-wetenskaplike sin is en wat op grond daarvan hulle uitsprake hoog aanslaan. Hierdie is tipies die situasie wanneer ons met 'n pseudo-wetenskap te doen het. Alhoewel daar 'n voortdurend-veranderende grys area tussen wetenskap en pseudo-wetenskap bestaan, vereis wetenskapsfilosowe tipies dat toetsbaarheid in die afbakeningskriteria wat tussen die twee onderskei, ingesluit word. Die wiki-definisie vir pseudo-wetenskap wat Diek aanhaal beklemtoon ook dat dit nie "betroubaar getoets" kan word nie. Hyself lê klem op "bewyse". Dit is ongelukkig presies wat in die "Bybelse wetenskap" ontbreek - daar is geen manier waarop hul hipoteses op 'n empiries-betroubare wyse getoets kan word nie. 

Ek is dankbaar dat Markplein vir ander opinies ruimte maak. Alhoewel Coenie in die laaste uitgawe van Markplein wonder of godsdienstige gesprek oor uiteenlopende standpunte heen sinvol kan plaasvind, wil ek hom bemoedig: Markplein skep so 'n gespreksruimte en ek is seker dat ons mettertyd 'n ware "oop gesprek" hier sal sien.

Klik by "onderwerpe" (regs op die blog) op die woord "Markplein" om die ander brief ook te lees.

Die stilte voor die storm?

Die verwysings in die media na 'n moontlike oorlog teen Iran het die laaste tyd ietwat afgeneem. Beteken dit dat die waarskynlikheid van so 'n oorlog ook afgeneem het, of is dit net die stilte voor die storm? In hierdie essay wys ek daarop dat daar 'n hele paar dinge is wat eers in plek moet wees voordat die Weste by so 'n oorlog betrokke sal raak.  Maar wanneer dit gebeur, kan ons verwag dat dit maklik tot 'n wye Midde-Oosterse oorlog kan uitkring.  

Daar was momente in die geskiedenis wat altyd onthou sal word omdat dit so ironies was.  Een daarvan is die verwysing van die destydse Britse eerste minister Neville Chamberlain op 30 September 1938 na "vrede vir ons tyd". Dit was kort nadat die belangrikste Europese moondhede en Nazi Duitsland die Munich Ooreenkoms gesluit het, waarvolgens hulle die Nazi's tegemoet gekom het met hul instemming tot die anneksasie van Sudetenland in Tsjeggo-Slowakye. Binne 'n jaar daarna het die Tweede Wêreldoorlog uitgebreek.

Daar geld vandag 'n baie soortgelyke situasie. Nadat die spanning met Iran in die eerste paar maande van 2012 aansienlik toegeneem het, het die groot moondhede (Ses Nasies) intussen hul gesprek met Iran rondom die land se atoom verrykingsprogram hervat. Die eerste gesprek het op 14 April in Istanbul in Turkye plaasgevind en die volgende byeenkoms is op 23 Mei in Bagdad in Irak. Dit lyk of hulle die Irannese op 'n manier probeer tegemoet kom - soos die Europese moondhede destyds met die Nazi's.  Barak Obama is gewoon die hedendaagse Chamberlain wat agteroor buig om 'n oorlog te probeer vermy.  Die kaarte is egter baie swaar teen enige vreedsame oplossing gelaai. Die kans dat so 'n oorlog gaan uitbreek is baie groot - al wat dit teëhou is die feit dat die wêreldsituasie (vanuit 'n Westerse perspektief) nog nie heeltemal vir so 'n oorlog gereed is nie.

Waarom is so 'n oorlog bykans onafwendbaar?

Die enkele belangrikste rede vir so 'n oorlog is seker dat Israel die Irannese verrykingsprogram as 'n eksistensiële bedreiging beskou.  Dit beteken dat die Israeli's van mening is dat hierdie program tot die kernbewapening van Iran kan lei, wat die toekomstige voortbestaan van Israel sal bedreig.  Die Israeli's verwys in hierdie verband na die Nazi holokarst - die eerste minister Benjamin Netanyahu het reeds genoem dat hy sal toesien dat so iets nie weer gebeur nie. Die Israeli's sal nie enige kanse met hul eie voortbestaan as 'n volk in die land Israel neem nie.

Die Israeli's wys daarop dat die Irannese leiers al verskeie dreigemente in hierdie verband gemaak het - op Sondag 20 Mei het die militêre stafhoof, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, weer tydens 'n toespraak aan 'n verdedigingsbyeenkoms gesê: “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel".  Die Irannese het ook 'n tyd gelede dit reggekry om 'n verrykkingsgraad van 20% te bereik (wat beteken dat verryking vir wapendoeleindes binne hul bereik is). Voorts is hulle baie sku om met die Internasionale Atoomenergie Agentskap (IAEA) saam te werk - veral wat hul ondergrondse fasiliteit by Parchin betref. Die Israeli's is van mening dat die Irannese vir tyd speel in 'n poging om alle bewyse van  kern-verwante ploftoetse daar te verwyder. Verder is hulle bekommerd oor die ander ondergrondse fasiliteit by Dasht e-Kavir (Groot Sout Woestyn). Die Irannese bedreiging het oor die jare toegeneem en is nou op 'n stadium waar dit 'n wesentlike gevaar vir Israel kan inhou.

Ons moet egter nie die Israelse bedreiging los van die groter prentjie sien nie. Israel se belange is ten nouste met die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange verweef.  Ons kan eintlik van die Anglo-Amerika-Israel belange praat.  Die belangrikste rede waarom die Engelse destyds tot die Israeli's se vestiging in die land Israel toegestem het (die Balfour Verklaring), was omdat dit 'n eenvoudige manier was om 'n permanente vastrap plek vir hul eie belange in die Midde-Ooste te verseker.  Vanuit 'n geopolitieke perspektief was dit 'n briljante skuif.

Die Anglo-Amerikaners het deur die eeue hul belange deur vrede sowel as oorlog bevorder. Hulle werk volgens 'n langtermyn plan waarvolgens hulle hul finansiële belange deur opeenvolgende oorlog en vredesiklusse bevorder (sien die artikel wat ek op 8 Januarie 2012 op hierdie blog gepos het, "Is 'n Irannese Oorlog op hande? - 'n ondersoek na oorlog en vredesiklusse"). My studie van historiese oorlog en vredesiklusse dui daarop dat ons rondom die jaar 2014 'n baie groot oorlog teen Iran kan verwag (Hierdie datum is op die 4 oorlog en vredesiklusse van die vorige 100 jaar gebaseer). Die rede waarom Iran (saam met Sirië) vir hierdie oorlog op gelyn word, is nie net omdat hulle 'n eksistensiële bedreiging vir Israel inhou nie, maar ook omdat hulle 'n kritiese bedreiging vir die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange in die Islamitiese Midde-Ooste inhou.  Sulke oorloë volg tipies wanneer daar 'n kompeterende moondheid is wat die Anglo-Amerikaanse belange ernstig bedreig.

As dit sou gebeur dat Islamitiese groepe regdeur die gebied waar die Arabiese Lente voorgekom het met Iran affilieer, sal hulle die Weste effektief uit daardie gebied kan uitsluit. Maar nou word die hele Sunni-groepering onder die Moslems (die Moslembroeder-groepe ingesluit) in effek in 'n losse alliansie teen die Iran-Sirië-Hezbollah groepering betrek (sien die artikel wat ek op 27 Februarie 2012 op hierdie blog gepos het: "Die Siriese konflik verdeel Israel se vyande"). Dit beteken dat bykans die hele Moslem wêreld (die Midde-Oosterse Sunni groepering) gedwing word om met die Weste saam te werk omdat hulle Iran as 'n vyand beskou - hoofsaaklik omdat Iran die Siriese regering teen die rebelle ondersteun. Dit is waarom dit so belangrik is dat die aanloop tot so 'n oorlog reg "bestuur" word om te verseker dat die Weste nie net as beskermers van Israel optree nie, maar ook van die Sunni Moslems (soos hulle in Libië gedoen het). So 'n oorlog sal baie van die lande waar die Arabiese Lente plaasgevind het, in 'n meer permanente alliansie met die Weste betrek.

Daar is ook ekonomiese redes vir so 'n oorlog. Soos ek in die genoemde artikel oor oorlog en vredesiklusse aantoon, het al die groot oorloë oor die afgelope eeu groei in die Westerse ekonomieë gestimuleer.  Al hierdie oorloë het dan ook op 'n periode van ernstige ekonomiese insinking gevolg.  Die oorlogsfase begin met 'n groot finansiële krisis en gepaardgaande resessie/depressie (oor die afgelope eeu: 1907-8, 1929-33, 1957-58, 1980-82), gevolg deur 'n periode van ekonomiese stagnasie en 'n verdere resessie, waarna die oorlog uitbreek. Die mees onlangse siklus het duidelik met die ekonomiese krisis en "groot resessie" van 2008-9 begin.  Verskeie Europese ekonomieë is tans besig om 'n verdere resessie in te gaan (sommige is al lankal daarin) en die kans is goed dat dit die VSA ekonomie kan aftrek. Dit is tipies wanneer ons die volgende oorlog kan verwag.  

Wat moet eers in gereedheid gebring word?

Daar is egter baie dinge wat eers in gereedheid gebring moet word voordat die Weste met so 'n oorlog gemaklik sal wees. Ek gaan gewoon 'n aantal daarvan kortliks toelig:

1. Die belangrikste gevaar vir die Westerse belange is dat 'n Israeliese aanval teen Iran die Moslem wêreld teen Israel sal verenig. Dit is waarom die VSA baie sterk daaroor voel dat so 'n aanval binne die raamwerk van breër alliansie plaasvind wat nie alleen NAVO nie, maar ook belangrike Moslem lande soos Katar, die Verenigde Emirate en selfs Saoedi-Arabië insluit.  Dit is ook die rede waarom die VSA so by Israel aanhou om die vredesproses met die Palestyne aan die gang te kry - al bereik hulle nie enige resultate nie. Dit temper die negatiewe sentiment jeens Israel. Dit is dan ook opvallend dat Benjamin Netanyahu vroeg in Mei die Kadima party by sy regerende alliansie ingesluit het (nadat Kadima net twee weke te vore van leierskap verwissel het). Sy vorige alliansie vennote het nie aan hom veel ruimte vir sulke onderhandelinge gegee nie - die Kadima party daarenteen, is sterk op vrede met die Palestyne gefokus.

Die nuwe alliansie plaas Israel in 'n uitstekende posisie om 'n aanval op Iran te loods. Dit is nie alleen die breedste regerende alliansie in Israel se geskiedenis nie (wat 'n baie stabiele regering beteken), dit sluit ook drie vorige stafhoofde van die Israeli weermag in, naamlik Ehud Barak (minister van verdediging), Shaul Mofaz (visie eerste minister - die Kadima leier) en Moshe Yaalon (minister van strategiese belange).  Shaul Mofaz is nou verantwoordelik om die Palestynse weerstand teen die vredesproses af te breek en dit weer aan die gang te kry.  

2. Dit is belangrik dat Hamas, die Moslem groep wat die Gaza gebied (direk suid van Israel) regeer, verder van die Iran alliansie vervreemd raak.  Alhoewel Hamas hulleself tot onlangs nog primêr ten opsigte van hul vyandskap met Israel gedefinieer het, het die Siriese konflik hulle gedwing om van posisie te verander.  Hulle steun nou die Siriese opposisie teenoor die regering wat op hul beurt deur die Irannese ondersteun word. Die rede vir hierdie verandering is dat die Siriese opposisie die Siriese Moslembroeders insluit wat soos Hamas 'n uitvloeisel van die Egiptiese Moslembroeders is.  Daar is selfs berigte dat die Moslembroeders, wat 'n groot invloed in die Siriese Nasionale Raad het (wat as 'n buitelandse spreekbuis vir die opposisie optree), nou aktief met die bewapening van die Vrye Siriese Weermag begin het.

Daar is verskillende dinge wat Hamas na die middelgrond dwing.  Nadat die verhouding tussen Iran en Hamas onlangs begin agteruit gaan het, het die Irannese begin om die Islamitiese Jihad, 'n ander groep in die Gaza gebied, van wapens te voorsien. Hamas bevind hulle dus nie meer aan die ekstreme end van die spektrum nie. Die pragmatisme van die ander Broeders groepe (veral die in Egipte, Tunisië en Sirië), dien ook as voorbeeld vir Hamas. Verder begin Hamas en Fatah, die ander Palestynse groep wat oor die Wesbank heers, ook al nouer saamwerk en daar is 'n moontlikheid dat hulle ooreenkoms om voor die einde van die jaar 'n verkiesing te hou, sal realiseer. Dan sal Hamas nie meer die absolute heerser in die Gaza gebied wees nie.  Dit beteken dat Hamas, soos die ander Broeders groepe in die lande waar die Arabiese opstande suksesvol was, as 'n normale politieke party binne 'n demokratiese bestel sal begin funksioneer.

3. Die lande waar die Arabiese opstande plaasgevind het, moet stabiele regerings hê. Stabiele regerings sal verseker dat daar nie groepe in daardie lande is wat vryelik opereer en in staat sal wees om die anti-Iran alliansie te destabiliseer nie. Dit is veral waar van Libië waar daar in Junie 'n verkiesing gehou word.  Verkiesings is egter nie genoeg nie; dit moet regerings wees wat 'n demokratiese bestel onderskryf, wat in staat is om daardie lande effektiewelik te beheer en bereid is om (vanuit 'n Westerse perspektief) met Westerse lande saam te werk. In Tunisië is daar reeds 'n stabiele regering wat grotendeels pro-Westers is. In Egipte is daar al parlementêre verkiesings gehou. Alhoewel die Islamiete omtrent 70% van die setels gewen het, het die parlement nie veel uitvoerende mag nie.  Die presidensiële verkiesings is op 23 en 24 Mei, met die tweede rondte op 16 en 17 Junie.

4. Die Siriese konflik polariseer die Moslem wêreld.  Hoe langer dit voortduur, hoe meer sal die Moslem lande waar die Arabiese opstande plaasgevind het - waar die Islamitiese partye (en veral die Moslembroeder groepe) oor die algemeen baie steun geniet - in 'n anti-Iran groepering gekonsolideer word.  Dit beteken dat dit in die Westerse belang is dat die konflik solank moontlik uitgerek word.  Sodra die omringende lande uiteindelik wel direk by die konflik betrokke raak (deur bv. buffersones), is die moontlikheid groot dat dit in 'n wyer Midde-Oosterse oorlog kan uitkring waarin lande soos Iran, Turkye, Katar, Saoedi-Arabië (en dalk Egipte, Tunisië en Libië) asook NAVO betrokke is. Selfs Rusland kan indirek (selfs direk?) daarby betrokke raak. So 'n oorlog sal die anti-Iran groepering redelik suksesvol binne 'n permanente alliansie met die Weste kan intrek.

Soos die Siriese konflik voortsleep, sal die twee opponerende Siriese groepe - wat hulle by die rebelle of die regering skaar - ook al duideliker uitkristaliseer. Die Siriese opposisie, wat redelik verdeeld is, sal moet begin saamwerk om 'n meer verteenwoordigende liggaam daar te stel met wie die "Vriende van Sirië" kan saamwerk. Daar is sommige onder die opposisie wat van mening is dat die invloed van die Moslembroeders in die Siriese Nasionale Raad te groot is en dat hulle Sirië op 'n ondemokratiese wyse sal regeer as hulle aan bewind kom.  Hulle is ook bang dat die Sunni's wraak op die regerende Alawiete sal neem. Hoe dit ook al sy, dit lyk of die Vrye Siriese Weermag die afname in geweld tydens die pogings om die VN-plan van Kofi Annan te implementeer, gebruik om beter te organiseer en te bewapen. Die Internasionale Rooi Kruis is van mening dat die konflik in dele van Sirië reeds as 'n burgeroorlog geklassifiseer moet word. Dit beteken dat die Siriese konflik waarskynlik nog lank sal voortduur - tot die Weste gereed is om betrokke te raak.  

5. Daar is verskeie algemene dinge wat hierby gevoeg kan word. So is daar die Israelse en NAVO se missielskilde wat al funksioneer, maar nog nie ten volle operasioneel is nie. Die Israeli's het hul nuut opgerigte skild 'n paar weke gelede getoets toe die Islamitiese Jihad Israel met missiele bestook het en dit was besonder suksesvol. Die VSA sal verder ook graag hul betrokkenheid in Afganistan wil afskaal voordat so 'n oorlog uitbreek (hul huidige betrokkenheid duur tot 2014). Op die afgelope NAVO vergadering is daar dan ook besluit dat die Afgaanse troepe vanaf mid-2013 die leiding in alle operasies sal begin neem.

En dan is daar natuurlik die VSA presidentsverkiesing in November. Dit is baie onwaarskynlik dat president Obama, wat homself as iemand voorhou wat vrede eerder as oorlog voorstaan, voor die verkiesing by 'n oorlog teen Iran betrokke sal raak. Alhoewel hy daarna meer gewillig sal wees, is die waarskynlikheid vir 'n oorlog baie groter as die Republikeinse kandidaat (waarskynlik Mitt Romney) die verkiesing in November wen.  Laastens is daar die Westerse olieboikot teen Iran waarvolgens lande wat Irannese olie invoer tot 28 Junie tyd het om ander verskaffers te vind. Dit sal hopenlik die impak van so 'n oorlog op die olieprys verminder.

Slot

Alhoewel die konflik met Iran die laaste tyd al minder in die nuus was, is die Weste onverpoosd besig om hulle op so 'n moontlike oorlog voor te berei. Die VSA het die laaste tyd aan verskeie oorlogsoefeninge in die Middellandse See, Jordanië (langs die Siriese grens) en elders deelgeneem. Daar is ook baie ander dinge wat stadig maar seker in plek skuif sodat die Westerse belange deur so 'n oorlog bevorder kan word.  Die heel belangrikste is seker om te verseker dat 'n wye Sunni-Moslem groepering van regoor die Midde-Ooste (en Noord-Afrika) by so 'n alliansie teen Iran ingesluit word.

Die hernude pogings om 'n ooreenkoms met Iran oor hul atoom verrykingsprogram te bereik, het wel die situasie ietwat getemper, maar ons moet dit waarskynlik in dieselfde lig sien as die destydse pogings om 'n kompromis met Nazi Duitsland te bereik. Dit is onwaarskynlik dat daar "vrede vir ons leeftyd" sal wees. Alhoewel niemand die toekoms kan voorspel nie, lyk dit so al of daar 'n baie groot oorlog op pad is.

 Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (http://www.wmcloud.blogspot.com/)

Faith and reason - finding the balance.

God laid a great task upon humans -
to integrate the practical experience of their faith
with the prevalent intellectual perspective of the world. 

Since the early days of Christianity, there were two clearly identifiable streams present, namely those who practised an essentially existentialist faith and those who accentuated the reasonable aspect of their belief.  The first group had their roots in the early Jewish church and accentuated a practical intimate experience with God. The second had its roots in the Greek, especially Platonic, philosophy and used a more rational approach towards believing. To this day these currents are visible in Christianity. Today, more than before, it is a great challenge for Christians to integrate their faith with reason. How could they accomplish this? In this essay, I discuss the possibilities for doing so.

An existentialist faith

What is existentialist faith? It a trust in God which is practised and experienced in all aspects of daily life. This faith normally flows from a particular commitment to God. For such believers, this is a way of life - spirituality is at the centre of their whole existence. For them, it makes little sense to speak about spirituality if you do not experience it. The heart of spirituality is experience - the experience of God and his presence in a very intimate, intuitive way.  This practical experience of Christian living is described by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1955), who accentuated his existential faith - at a time when rationality was overshadowing all other aspects of human life.  From an existentialist point of view, science will never be able to give final answers. All knowledge is provisional - but faith is grounded in God.

This existential faith includes the desire to make a difference (it is, in fact, a very basic human desire). In a Christian context, this manifests itself primarily as the desire to bring others to faith in Christ. To share one's experience and motivate others to also commit themselves to God. Although there is a way in which this could be done on a purely existential level, these believers typically find themselves confronted by a barrier - most people do not easily believe if they are not convinced. They must believe that the Biblical message is trustworthy (see Paul's writings in this regard in Romans 10:14; 1 Tim. 1:15; also Mark 4:12). And to be convinced - especially in the present scientific era that we live in - these Christians need to argue, to use reason, to convince others. Although they ground their faith in an existential relation with God, they need reason to bring others to a similar faith. Like Paul, when he argued with the Greek philosophers in Athens.

Since most of these existential believers do not accentuate reason - for them it is not really important what science thinks - this aspect of their humanness is not very well developed. Having feelings of uncertainty result in them seeing the world around them, which operates for the most part according to reason, as a threat - even as a danger.  To reinforce their faith, to guard their views against arguments that they are not able to answer, these believers use all sorts of rules and laws to protect themselves and their community against the outside world - which often results in them leading very legalistic lives. And this strategy is indeed very effective in protecting them against arguments from atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins - they do not read such books or watch movies [1].

But this strategy is not particularly successful in convincing other people to commit to such an existential faith. For outsiders, their arguments are typically not convincing enough and the legalistic practice of their faith pushes them away.  For these reasons such groups normally decline numerically in a scientifically oriented world.  In those parts of society where people are not really well educated, a strategy of promoting existential faith through, for example, "signs and wonders", could still yield good results. But this is becoming an ever smaller part of society. Another strategy, one born of desperation, is to work and pray for a religious revival which is probably the most dramatic expression of existential faith. This is surely a good ideal, but these are very scarce nowadays.

An intellectual belief 

What is "intellectual belief"? This is a set of religious convictions which grow out of intellectual reasoning.  During earlier epochs, when the ancient worldview was still prevalent, intellectual Christians used reason not only to formulate their belief but also to argue for it against the prevalent non-Christian views of the time. Many of the early Christian fathers were educated in Greek philosophy. This led to the rise of Christian philosophy - especially of the Augustinian (derived from Platonic philosophy) and Thomist (referring to Thomas Aquinas and derived from Aristotelian philosophy) varieties. With the rise of science - the rational-empirical study of things which requires physical proof - it became clear that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. But the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), himself a Christian, argued that there are certain limits to pure reason - that is, to what extent pure reason can arrive at real (empirical) knowledge [2]. And this allows for faith to exist next to reason. Although we could rationally argue for our faith, we will never be able to prove it in any scientific sense.

For the intellectual Christian, it is nonetheless important to find a rational basis for his or her faith. They do not have a problem to accept the basic scientific views about the world, although they reject the view that science has (or will ever have) all the answers. We find these Christians - mostly Christian philosophers and theologians - often in debates with atheists. They try to show that Christianity is compatible with the scientific worldview. They try to convince people in the wider public space about the viability of present-day Christianity. And we do find that some intellectuals, struggling to reconcile the Christian belief in which they were brought up with the scientific worldview (or post-modern worldview for that matter), eventually settles for some form of that belief to which they can adhere to.

Since "belief" is in some sense the balance between faith and reason, these Christians end up with a form of intellectual belief. They are able to reconcile their Christian views with the current scientific worldview, but their focus on reason often draw them away from any true experimental faith. In this regard they experience a problem in their desire to make a difference, namely that convincing people intellectually is not enough to bring them to faith in God; if people do not see the practical experience of Christian living, they will not easily commit to it. Although the reasonableness of the Christian faith is important to bring people to that faith, it is not enough - what is also needed is the experience of faith in a personal and powerful way.

A reasonable faith

It seems that the most rewarding form of Christian life is when faith and reason are both fully part of our lives. It is not only rewarding in the sense that such a person can experience the joy of practical faith in the framework of intellectual integrity but also in the sense that such a person could be successful in his or her existential desire to make a difference. Although we understand that all human knowledge is partial and temporary, we also know that people's intellect requires convincing them of the trustworthiness of the Christian faith. At the same time, their spiritual needs require a grounding in practical faith. But how is this balance accomplished in us?

During the modernist epoch, some thinkers not only expressed dismay at the over-accentuation of reason but also argued for some synthesis between opposites. One can think of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who expressed his rejection of the non-existentialist reason-dominated state-Christianity of his time in a powerful way. He proposed a synthesis of the "Apollonian" (rational) and "Dionysian" (non-rational, unconscious, including intuition). Nietzsche accentuated the instinctive drives within the framework of the "Dionysian"; it is passion that drives this synthesis. Later Carl Jung (1875-1961) also formulated his theories on the synthesis of "consciousness" (rational) and "unconsciousness" (non-rational, including intuition). It is interesting that these men saw themselves as philosopher/scientist-psychologists. This shows their deep conviction that the intellect should be integrated with the more basic aspects of our existence, leading to "wisdom" (Nietzsche) or a "deeper consciousness"/an integrated self (Jung) [3].

These insights are valuable to Christian living. Both the intellect and the deeper non-rational faculties should be integrated to form a "complete" person. Reason and intuition (faith is intuitive trust) are not disconnected faculties - they are interconnected in a fundamental way so that their development and integration into a balanced harmony forms part of the process of spiritual growth. Their interconnectedness is clearly manifested in Christian life - our rational arguments about God are grounded in the intuitive trust in God's supernatural revelation in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, whereas our intuitive experience of God is grounded in our rational notions about God's existence and His workings in humans. It is only when both the intellect and the inner intuitive experience of God are synthesized, that the ideal of the Christian who is both "wise" and "spiritual" could be realized. It is only when the church accentuate both the practical experience of existential faith as well as intellectual excellence that it will have a real and lasting impact on society.

The desire to make a difference, the passion to be useful to God, should be present if we want to grow towards wholeness - this brings value and meaning to our lives.  In each of us, this passion manifests itself in a different vocation, leading us along different routes. The details of the route to wholeness differ for everyone - no two persons follow the same route. It is a lifelong journey, which is never fully accomplished. There could be times when the apparent conflict between faith and reason will lead one into the dark valley of doubt. It is important, however, to keep the practical experience of faith alive. It implies that one should keep praying - even when one feels no desire to do so. This kindles the flame of faith - even in the darkest hours of the intellectual struggle about one's faith. During this time we gain insights (maybe some metaphor that comes to mind will be of value) that enable us to overcome. With these insights we can sensibly integrate our faith with our reasoning, allowing the process of growth to proceed.

With intellectual growth comes freedom from all the many rules and regulations of legalistic faith, but this freedom is contained within the boundaries of a spiritual relationship with God. With spiritual growth comes the deeply personal intuitive knowledge of God that enables us to overcome and be victorious in all circumstances. As we develop our own perspectives, the potential for conflict with long-held communal views will force us to involve others in our own process of growth - some will resist change, but others will accompany us on the journey.

With time each one of us should develop into "spiritual-wise" persons who could contribute in a unique and special way to the growth of the Christian community where we are active. In this way, we would follow in the footsteps of many others whose lives and wisdom had an impact on our own.  Eventually, we will come to enjoy the pure experience of the Christ-like life in the fullest sense of the word.

Sources

[1] Pardi, Paul F. 2010. "Kierkegaard and the Modern Religious Mind". On the internet: http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2010/12/29/Kierkegaard-and-the-Modern-Religious-Mind.aspx. This essay forms part of a series on faith and reason, focusing on the existentialist perspective.

[2] Ward, A. 2006. Kant. The Three Critiques. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ward gives a good overview of the Kantian perspective - if one does not want to read Kant himself, which is of course preferable.

[3] Nietzsche and Jung. 1999. Sailing a Deeper Night. Contemporary Existentialism, Vol 3. New York: Peter Lang. p 50. This is one of the best books that I have read on Nietzsche and his influence on Jung.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud
 www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

This article was followed by a debate between Willie Mc Loud and Cornelis Malan (MA Philosophy) from Southern Evangelical Seminary in the US) on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com.