I read The Bible Unearthed more than a year ago but haven’t had the time to sit down and type out my notes and important quotes from it until this month (see my previous post). That I’m finishing now, and I’ve decided to include one section of my thoughts here. On the last page of the book, Finkelstein and Silberman write:
“Yet the Bible’s integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical ‘proof ‘ of any of its particular events or personalities, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the trumpet blasts that toppled the walls of Jericho, or David’s slaying of Goliath with a single shot of his sling. The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people’s liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive” (2001: 318).
1. The “real story” of course has nothing to do with God.
2. Alert: Historicity doesn’t depend on actual historical events, and integrity doesn’t depend on truth. a) Thanks for teaching us that words mean nothing; b) Thanks too for completely destroying the historicity of the Bible but then telling us that it doesn’t matter and we can still have warm fuzzies nonetheless.
3. On this we agree: the Bible is “a compelling and coherent narrative” and it certainly “eloquently expresses” its content. On this I disagree: that the authors of this book have enough historical data and have interpreted it correctly to make the assertions that they have.
Ultimately, this is a book of faith, and not archaeology. There are archaeological “facts” to be sure, but there is much speculation, and the conclusions are founded mostly upon preconceived ideas and questionable interpretation. The reality is that archaeology cannot tell us what these authors purport that it does. Perhaps earlier generations were guilty of the opposite fault: insisting that the Bible was “proved correct” by archaeological findings, but this does not permit the present generation to make the same error with a different conclusion.
I ‘ll let the authors have the final word; this is the last sentence of the book:
“Such a realization is crucial, for it is only when we recognize when and why the ideas, images, and events described in the Bible came to be so skillfully woven together that we can at last begin to appreciate the true genius and continuing power of this single most influential literary and spiritual creation in the history of humanity” (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 318).
I vacillated before placing this comment, then I thought why not! While you may have read Finkelstein and Silberman you clearly did not understand the message. Why can’t you accept the evidence of archaeology? It is impossible to deny the historical importance of the Bible but that does not make it historical fact. Its main value to mankind is as a book of legend and myth that guides us all to a better way of living? Surely that’s more important than historical accuracy?
Somehow, I think you will say that its not.