Academic Hoops

This morning I read the current issue of Biblical Archaeology that included a number of articles on the latest information related to a number of topics.  Some of the main ones included: 1- an article on whether or not the evidence proved Rahab a harlot or an innkeeper, and how she assisted the spies from Israel; 2- an article on Hezekiah’s tunnel, and whether or not it was Hezekiah’s or that of some other; and, 3- an article on the identity of the Kings of Israel, and whether or not they were genuine renditions.  There was much else – including book reviews, a section always of interest to me in any publication.  The reviews here were not so much reviews as the recital of differences among the scholars about whatever evidence has been verified or presumed verified.  For example a book entitled: The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: Where Archaeology and the Bible Intersect, by William G. Dever, was offered.  It was not really a review but an illustration of the differences between the specialists and the general audience; between this group and that group among the scholars; and, nothing about the lives of the people.  (I was hopeful for a review, and expected something helpful in that the book was published by Eerdmans, a publisher of materials quite helpful to persons engaged in the communication of the meaning and application of biblical texts.)  Some of the books in the ads would not be recommended by the editors of the journal, but that is common in any publication that is dependent upon advertisements to continue its purpose to publish.  As is often the case in my ranging in reading, both agreeable and disagreeable materials appear.  Over the decades I have detected less and less of vituperative responses from writers, and a greater realization of the difficulty in finding common agreement about this or that belief or action.  One of the writers in this issue implied that in closing his contribution: I would like to offer some encouragement and resources . . . for the many BAR readers, who, like me, believe that scholarly and religious approaches to the Bible may be complementary. (Biblical Archaeology, September/October, 2013. Vol.39, No. 5) In 1965 I was asked to chair the 75^th Anniversary celebration of Whitworth College (now University) in Spokane, Washington, where I served on the faculty.  (That was, at this editing, fifty years ago.)  One of our guests was William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University.  As his host, I spent a number of hours with him talking about scholarship and archaeology.  He deplored the unnecessary contradictions of the scholars, and feared the negative influence and distraction of the increased funding in the field that seemed to invite for some an extravagance, even a skewing or faking of evidence, for purpose either for or against religious views.  He seemed to feel the greatest deviation was from those who were secularist in their orientation.  In reading another journal in Archaeology that tends to evade biblical archaeology and has a broad readership, I tend to agree that there is some tension between those who have no religious faith and those that do.  The answer in Albright’s mind was to have high respect for the facts, and have a sound way of interpreting those facts.  No matter what the orientation of editors may be, I find universal appreciation for the work of Albright, and can usually find his name somewhere in the various publications where his name is honored even when not relevant to the reporting at hand.

Reviewing what is available in the general publications of findings, I have no problem affirming the faith I follow, in the veracity of Scripture, and in the concern of God for the good of mankind.  I find both light and dark in the scholarly work we pursue.  My solution is found in the serenity offered by my faith.  In the course of life there is change, and that can be interpreted and managed in a faith context.  I have been struck on how an orderly system, usually labeled scientific (concept, theory, research, conclusion), offers one conclusion, and a few years later offers a different one.  This seems sensible in that the conclusion is based on what is known, and must be changed when formerly unknown evidence is discovered.  We are not so formed that our faith can wait until all the evidence is in and agreed upon.  God is quite able to see us through, and it is with his grace we leap over some unknowns to faith and life.