First Person: The Big Debate

006

The hottest issue today in the study of Biblical history and archaeology is the question of the Bible’s essential historicity: How true is the Bible? Unfortunately, the issues are hideously complicated.^a

Every time I try to write a summary sentence about the controversy, I find that it is wrong or at least needs qualification. For example, in an early draft of this piece, the following sentence appeared: “For those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, the issue is simple: The Bible says it; therefore it must be true.”

Well, that’s not exactly true. Evangelicals and even fundamentalists have sometimes widely varied views about what they mean by the literal truth of the Bible. What one believer means by literal is symbolic or metaphorical to another. And there’s something else: I talk to many evangelicals about the historicity of various Biblical episodes. I know they are evangelical and I am not, but that doesn’t even come up in the conversation—and is, in fact, irrelevant, because we talk on the basis of scholarly and rational arguments. They defend their position not on faith grounds, but on scholarly materials that we share but may (or may not) interpret differently.

At the other end of the spectrum are the extreme minimalists—some call them nihilists—who deny the essential historicity of the Bible. Some observers see a whiff of anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism underlying this extreme position. It’s a charge vehemently denied by even the most extreme minimalists, who demand that the charges be withdrawn unless hard evidence can be produced to back up the charges. (It can’t.)

So the question of the historicity of the Bible has many aspects—archaeological, Biblical, linguistic, historical, theological and, unfortunately, political—and even personal.

Two of the world’s most prominent archaeologists of the Near East, Israel Finkelstein, director of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, and William Dever, for many years director of the William F. Albright School of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem who recently retired from the University of Arizona, are both leading figures in the debate. They are not speaking to one another (although their views, ironically, are not far apart^b). Each has written a best-selling book. Finkelstein’s The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, (written with Neil A. Silberman), was first on a recent list of the top 10 best selling books on “general biblical studies—biblical archaeology.”¹ Right behind it was Dever’s What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Dever’s book also recently won the Irene Levi-Sala prize for the best popular book on the archaeology of Israel.^c

The trouble between Finkelstein and Dever started in BAR—or at least surfaced in BAR. (I can hear someone saying, “Wouldn’t you know it?”) I asked Dever to review Finkelstein’s book. It wasn’t a bad review, but it didn’t give the book great marks, either.^d Finkelstein took it very badly, 071however. (Dever later wrote a much more extensive and more critical review of the book in BASOR—the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.) Finkelstein was furious not only at Dever, but at me—for assigning the review to Dever. (You will see hints of that anger in “A ‘Centrist’ at the Center of Controversy: BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein,” in this issue.) Finkelstein and I are again on reasonably friendly terms, but he is still bitterly irate at Dever and is out to “destroy” him (Finkelstein’s word). Finkelstein regards the BAR (and BASOR) review as “a brutal, hysterical personal attack … This kind of writing discloses [Dever’s] own character and record: a terribly jealous academic parasite.”

Philip Davies, one of the extreme minimalists (King David is about as real as King Arthur, he contends;^e he also dates the famous Hezekiah’s Tunnel inscription not to the eighth century B.C., as universally accepted, but to the Hasmonean period^f), urged me to have a debate in BAR about whether anti-Semitism motivates the minimalists, an invitation I declined. (Davies vehemently denies that it does and regards the charge as libelous.)

This is enough to illustrate the intensity and the complexity of the debate. It is not about one thing, pro or con. It is about many things; and the debate is not simply “yes” or “no,” but about points on a continuum—which explains why the subject is a matter of continuing discussion in BAR (and, sometimes, in our sister magazine, Bible Review.^g) We hope you will find it as fascinating to read about as we find it to cover. You will be exposed to a variety of views, as the Finkelstein interview in this issue illustrates. As you will see, some of these views we agree with. Some of them we don’t. You will make up your own mind.

As you read more about the debate, you will respond to more of the details. For example, you will hear Finkelstein say that, while older sources were indeed used by the writer of the Bible’s Patriarchal Narratives, the historical memories embedded in these sources cannot be recovered; they are not reachable. Remember this. It is an important point. Compare it with a discussion that will appear in the next issue of BAR in an interview with Biblical scholar Avraham Malamat of Hebrew University. He holds a different view and explains why.

Or notice Finkelstein’s answer to my question as to whether archaeology is relevant in determining whether the earliest Israelites came from the east (Mesopotamia). Finkelstein is not sure. Malamat will give a different answer.

There are many other aspects to the debate and we hope to keep you au courant. Regardless of the outcome, your Biblical and archaeological knowledge will be expanded and enriched.

The hottest issue today in the study of Biblical history and archaeology is the question of the Bible’s essential historicity: How true is the Bible? Unfortunately, the issues are hideously complicated.a Every time I try to write a summary sentence about the controversy, I find that it is wrong or at least needs qualification. For example, in an early draft of this piece, the following sentence appeared: “For those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, the issue is simple: The Bible says it; therefore it must be true.” Well, that’s not exactly true. Evangelicals and even […]