I'm imminently going to be reunited with a book I lost years ago on the homeward bound plane from Australia. I'd placed it down by the side of the seat as I spread myself around but forgot to check there when deplaning. It was a fascinating text book on bible archaeology by John R. Bartlett called "Bible: Faith and Evidence - A Critical Enquiry into the Nature of Biblical History" that I'd snapped up at the British Museum bookshop and it became a favourite for "dipping" into. It covered the area of textual criticism rather than "dig the dirt" archaeology and I was, for instance, for the first time alerted to the idea that Moses may not have actually authored (i.e actually written down) all of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) but it seemingly was assembled later by editors compiling aural and written records. I was happy that some stewardess or aeroplane cleaner was making use of the book and wanted to replace it but my problem was that I couldn't remember the title! Yesterday morning (while reading Psalm 98) it came to me in a flash as I once again tried to visualise the writing on it's red cover - "faith and evidence". Bingo! Amazon found it straight away and it will arrive shortly.
In an attempt to get myself back into a similar area I recently aquired two books, William G. Dever's "What did the Biblical writers know?" (William B. Eerdmans 2001) and "Scriptures and other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Phillip J. King" ed. Michael D. Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum, and Lawrence E. Stager (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Dever confesses to be a "secular humanist" and very fair-mindedly points out the large acrimonious clash in his world between believers keen to prove Biblical historicity, plain scientists seeking data and others pushing hard to discredit the Bible as anything but fiction. He impressively occupies the middle ground.
My interested had became reactivated at the beginning of the year when Alan and Chris told us of a TV programme over Christmas which, according to them, rubbished the idea that the the Scriptures weren't fiction. This is one thing about the Wednesday night sessions (and Alpha) that I love! It really keeps one on one's toes.
Adam compared fact with truth last Wednesday when I was relating my historical quest. I've since been fascinated with trying to work out what he meant! Now I find the following...
By "fact" (derived from Latin factum, past participle of the verb facere, "to do") we usually mean those discrete, irreducible, empirically observable things or events whose existence cannot be doubted by reasonable persons. That is, facts are theoretically provable and correspond to reality. In practice, however, facts are merely inferences that each person draws, based not only on observations, but also on our own social conditioning and the intent of out investigation. Even in the natural sciences this is true and is increasingly recognized, and in all the social sciences such as archaeology and history, the factor of individual bias is even more operative. Thus, while in theory archaeology does recover objective "facts" from the past - for example, a pot, a stone tool, a figurine, the foundations of a building, perhaps the entire plan of a village, or even a written text - the apprehension of reality of any of these is always dependent on present, subjective human interpretation. Facts do not speak directly. They may in principle have a concrete existence of their own; but they come to life, empowered to speak to me of the past, only as I am able to incorporate them into my consciousness. This process is obviously an extraordinarily complex matter. ("What did the Biblical writers know?" by William G. Dever).
Recent Comments