Dennis method of dating
It is this approach in dealing with ancient texts as only possible sources of historical information awaiting verification from other sources that has led to some of the conflict over historical questions in Scriptures.
Certain perspectives on the nature of Scripture contend that the Bible is simply an exact unbiased account of what happened, the essence of historical reporting, and is to be believed as totally accurate in all historical details simply because it is Scripture.
The particular ways of examining ancient documents that came to be called historical-critical investigation and the emergence of archaeology and related fields shifted the historical questions into a new arena.
In terms of the Bible, prior to the 19th century, Scripture was basically accepted for what it appeared to say without careful examination of the details of how things were said, or how the biblical recounting of history related to historical sources outside the Bible.
This simply meant that historical questions could no longer be answered by simply quoting a passage from Scripture.
Also, a great deal of extra-biblical historical information in the form of ancient documents and inscriptions, as well as a whole range of artifacts and other physical remains of ancient civilizations began to be available during the 19th century as archaeology emerged as a tool of historical investigation.
There is also consideration of differing worldviews, of different cultural perspectives, and of different ways of describing the world that may not correspond to our modern assumptions and categories.
It is this difference in perspectives that continues to mark the two opposing poles in several historical questions in Scripture, including the date of the exodus.
This concern with objectivity leads historians to focus on data that can be verified, and not simply to assume that whatever is said in ancient texts, including Scripture, is exactly what happened from some supposed objective point of view.However, in other cases the biblical accounts simply could not be reconciled with the historical evidence that came to light, as we shall see later concerning the exodus.Some still contend that the Bible is absolutely inerrant in all matters, and therefore must be absolutely accurate in all aspects of historical accounts (see The Modern Inerrancy Debate).As with many biblical historical issues, the two views are more a clash of how people view Scripture and differing methods of study based on those views than they are a result of conflicting interpretation of the historical evidence.Historical questions about the Bible first came to the forefront of biblical study as a distinct field for research in the 19th century as part of the development of modern historical investigation.