Chapter 2 of Provan, Long, and Longman’s book, A Biblical History of Israel, is entitled “Knowing and Believing—Faith in the Past.” As the title suggests, it focuses on the question of just how do we really know anything about past history? He begins the chapter with a quote from minimalist scholar Thomas Thompson: “There is no more ‘ancient Israel.’ History no longer has room for it. This we do know. And, now, as one of the first conclusions of this new knowledge, ‘biblical Israel’ was in its origin a Jewish concept” (38).
Yet, how does Thompson really “know” that the ancient Israel depicted in the Old Testament never existed? Simple, he has come to that conclusion by doing two things: (1) Dismissing the written texts as invalid (on the grounds that they are biased, creatively shaped, and written fairly well after the events themselves), and (2) Claiming that archeology tells a different story. Indeed, as Provan states, this is the precise tendency over the last century in Biblical Studies: to downplay the importance of claims via a chain of human carriers of tradition, and to rather emphasize the importance of empirical research that is focused on other kinds of data.
Provan takes issue with this tendency on the grounds that the so-called empirical research isn’t as objective as scholars like Thompson claim. Indeed, it can’t be, for empirical research like archeology provides nothing more that data, and that data has to be interpreted, and since the person interpreting the data is inevitably a human being, his/her interpretation is going to be affected by his/her ideas and beliefs that go far beyond what science can embrace. That being said, how can we know anything at all about the past?
Historical Knowledge is Rooted in Faith Commitments
When it comes right down to it Provan puts it this way, “What is commonly referred to as ‘knowledge of the past’ is more accurately described as faith (or trust) in the testimony, in the interpretations, of the past, which is offered to us by other people” (39). Indeed, we need to realize that our knowledge of human history is entirely dependent on the written testimony of other people. Even with archeology, we put our trust in what experts say about a certain archeological discovery. If we find a writer or scholar credible, we will trust what he says about a historical event or person. We thus are exercising faith/trust in the interpretation and testimony of someone we find credible. Our knowledge of the past is tied to that testimony of it.
That is why the idea that the historian can be some kind of “objective observer” is a canard. As Provan argues, we need to realize how “the myth of ‘the neutral, uninvolved observer’ has functioned and continues to function as an ideological tool in the hands of those who political and economic interests it serves” (40). In other words, anyone claims that you can’t trust “religious accounts” of history because those people are “biased,” and that one can only trust “non-religious, secular scholars” because they are being “objective”—that person is pushing an ideological belief of his/her own.
The fact is that it is impossible to be a completely objective, unbiased and uninvolved observer. Everyone has a worldview, point of view, and bias that will affect the way he interprets testimony and evidence. Therefore, to appeal to “science” in one’s interpretation of history is actually deceptive. The person who doubts the credibility of the OT texts because they are “ideological and biased,” then turns around and says, “Oh, but I don’t have an agenda—I’m just being objective,” is simply lying to others and to himself. We need to all admit that no one is totally objective, and everyone has biases—only then can we begin to critically assess all the evidence available to us, as well as our own points of view, and we will be able to at least come to a more probable understanding of history.
The Parameters of Investigating History
That being said, Provan then reiterates something he pointed out in Chapter 1. When one looks at the history of biblical interpretation, the major shift happened during the Enlightenment, when scholars and philosophers argued that Church tradition (particularly in regard to the biblical texts) had to be thrown out on the grounds that, since it was a religious point of view, it was therefore not “objective” and thus couldn’t be trusted to be saying anything true about history. Instead, the only way to “do history” was by science. Yet throughout the 20th century, there has been a shift in Biblical Studies away from view “history as science” and more to “history as art.”
What that ultimately means is that there has been a realization that when it comes to human history, it doesn’t involve unalterable scientific laws. It involves real people freely making real choices and decisions, and then telling about those events. Simply put, human beings tell stories about the past and they use creativity and art to talk about past human events. Archeologists go to the Holy Land to do digs because we already have the tradition/testimony of the biblical stories that alert us to that history. Thus, not only do we need to become good readers of the biblical texts, knowing that the history is being conveyed creatively, but we also have to acknowledge that the motivating factor to even do things like biblical archeology is because we are taking our cue from the tradition and testimony. Archeologists are always looking at a ruin or discovery, and then are trying to fit it into some kind of story of the past that has been told to us by other human beings already. And that is why we need to realize that written testimony almost always sets the parameters by which we even begin to investigate things of the past. Without the texts, we wouldn’t know where to even begin.
Given this realization that written texts of history are conveyed artistically, Provan says that there have essentially been three reactions by scholars to this. First, there is the intellectual ostrich who simply sticks his head in the sand to the past 100 years of scholarly work and who is still trying to “do history” with the old Enlightenment assumption that “true history” can be ascertained by “objective scholars” just “knowing” what the archeological finds say. Second, there is the postmodernist who concludes that it is impossible that any kind of history can be known at all, and who thus feel like they can ignore authorial intent of any text and just make the text mean whatever they want it to mean. Third, there is the view that Provan espouses that says maybe we should rethink our assumptions of epistemology in regard to knowing anything about the past. Maybe we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand by continuing to think that archeology alone is the only “objective” means to knowing history, and maybe we shouldn’t give up any hope of knowing anything at all about history. Maybe we should simply ask, “How do human beings really know anything in the first place?”
Testimony, Knowledge, and False Testimony
When it comes right down to it, therefore, the only way we truly know anything about history is that we rely on the testimony of others. We are dependent upon it. Provan puts it this way: “History…fundamentally involved ‘the believing of someone else when that person says that he remembers something,’ as well as the trusting of accounts from the past that enshrine such people’s memories—whether they are the memories of an individual, a group, or a whole community or culture” (49). That is the simple fact of the matter. We can’t get around it, no matter how much some might try to say otherwise.
This is particularly important to realize when it comes to assessing archeology. As Provan says, the fact is that archeological remains are ultimately mute and do not speak for themselves. “They have no story to tell, and no truth to communicate. It is archeologists who speak about them, testifying to what they have found and placing the finds within an interpretive framework that bestows on them meaning and significance” (50). That doesn’t mean what archeologists tells is automatically false, obviously. But it does mean we would be wrong to automatically assume that what they are telling us is some sort of “detached, unfiltered, and objective truth.” There simply is no such thing as “objective knowledge” that is completely independent of some kind of testimony about the past. Provan points to G.E. Wright who said, “archeology, dealing with the wreckage of antiquity, proves nothing in itself” (52).
That is why “archeology cannot function as a ‘high court’ in historical research, pronouncing upon the truth of the past independently of testimony” (53). Yes, it can certainly provide general historical and cultural clues about the past; yes, it can raise questions about written testimony and accounts of the past, but ultimately, archeology is supplemental to written testimony. It is a valuable tool that contributes to debate and deliberation by unearthing incomplete and fragmentary evidence of the past, but it is not the high court—it isn’t the Supreme Court Justice.
To set it up in that way, and to thus rule out any historical claims in written texts a priori is to make a huge mistake that will ultimately lead to false knowledge. Instead, Provan argues that scholars and historians must maintain a certain amount of epistemological openness when it comes to assessing written biblical texts about history. What is needed is critical assessment of the claims in the texts on a case by case basis. And that means not being overly and unrealistically suspicious. It means exercising critical thinking.
Narnia’s Dwarves
To illustrate just what the unrealistic suspicion by minimalist scholars looks like, Provan hearkens to a scene in the last book of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. In the book The Last Battle, the dwarves who had been fooled by the donkey who had dressed up in a lion’s skin and claimed to have been Aslan, find themselves in a certain stable. Even though the real Aslan has won the battle and has, in fact, recreated Narnia, the dwarves refuse to come out of their stable because they refuse to be fooled a second time. As Provan writes, “As their disappointment gives way to self-interest and to a self-protective skepticism, they huddle together in a stable that no longer really exists, in a new world around them that really does exist but that they refuse to acknowledge. Not even the real Aslan can unsettle their skepticism” (55).
That, Provan argues, is what the minimalist scholars are like. Upon realizing that the Old Testament texts are not “objective history” (indeed, they were never meant to be), instead of trying to understand precisely how the Old Testament is bearing witness to real history, they choose to stay within their stable of Enlightenment skepticism and refuse to accept anything but their own delusion that they alone are the objective ones, still not realizing that pure objectivity isn’t real.
Conclusion
When it comes right down to it, Provan’s argument in Chapter 2 is that testimony (i.e. tradition) is an inevitable part of the way we know anything about history. To throw out testimony because it isn’t “objective” is to throw out the possibility of knowing anything at all. In that respect, as Provan states, “All ‘knowledge’ of the past is more accurately described as faith or trust in the interpretations of the past offered by others” (57). The sooner we realize this, the better off we will be.
By contrast, we should also realize that the extreme skepticism by minimalist scholars toward the biblical texts comes, not from a place of objectivity, or really of a desire to know the truth about history. Rather, it “has all too often proved to be only a mixture of blind faith in relation to the writer’s own intellectual tradition, and arbitrary, selective skepticism in relation to everything else” (58).
In Chapter 3, Provan will specifically address the issue of how we can know anything about the history of Biblical Israel.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
I definitely want to read this book.
Provan’s point is well-taken: “objective” and “true” are not always the same thing. Just because a historian writes with a bias and/or agenda (something every historian does, like it or not) doesn’t mean what they wrote isn’t true.
Pax.
Lee.
While archaeology is open to interpretation where specific biblical claims are made it should be able to support or refute said claims.
Example: Like many bible scholars and academics, you have gone to great lengths to demonstrate why the claims of Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham are fallacious and completely without any sort of foundation, specifically the claim of a 6000 year old earth and the biblical tale of Noah and the global flood. You are a PHD,therefore I am pretty confident you know where the story derived and why, more or less, the tale was told/written.
By following similar lines of archaeological/scientific evidence/ methodology archaeologists and scholars know that the Exodus tale as presented in the bible is nothing more that a geopolitical foundation myth.
Even by taking the middle road, ( Friedman’s view for example) scholars and archaeologists know that there is simply no evidence to support the flight from Egypt and the genocidal campaign as described in the bible.
This has nothing to do with not accepting miracles, but simply following the evidence and accepting the reality of what it has revealed.
This is the consensus view and is accepted or at least gaining acceptance among the majority of the Jewish people.
As Provan said, archeology should not act as the “high court.” Much more complicated than that.
I have no doubt it is complicated. After all the tradition of the Jewish people might seem to be at stake.
However, by all accounts, other than ultra orthodox Jews, the majority seem to have accepted the evidence.
I suppose the question then arises , why do so many Christians seem to fight tooth and nail to establish veracity to the biblical tale of captivity, exodus and conquest when it is quite obvious that no such veracity exists.
You are so insulated within your Enlightenment bubble, it is both shocking and amusing. Apparently, you’ve read these first two posts, but clearly nothing registered. I can’t help you.
You seem to think that Provan has sort of methodology that vindicates the biblical texts in question, yet when I raised two key points, Kadesh and the internal settlement pattern you and Lee seem t steadfastly avoid tackling these issues?
In the past, the Exodus tale has traditionally been central to the Jewish heritage, yet evidence has revealed it is not crucial to their beliefs or the notion of a Promised Land.
He is just laying out the argumentation regarding HOW we know anything about history, let alone biblical history. He is laying out the epistemological case, but you clearly have little need for that because you want to jump ahead to your conclusions you’ve already determined based on the flawed Enlightenment methodology to which you clearly owe a blind allegiance–the very thing Provan is pointing out is highly problematic and uncritical in its approach.
Provan isn’t tackling any specific issues (like Kadesh Barnea) yet because he is a real scholar and he’s laying the groundwork for being able to discuss the specific issues intelligently. Only an ideologue wants to forgo that and jump to the end result.
My view is merely reflecting that of the scholarly and archaeological consensus.
I am only taking into consideration the archaeological aspects – and it is this that not only refutes the biblical tale of the Exodus but provides an entirely different history altogether.
What I can’t get my head around is you being a PHD in Old Testament, and knowing when the texts were written,what it is about the Exodus tale you are trying to hold onto?
Good lord…have a nice day.
Exactly! Which is why when the opportunity presented itself archaeologists poured into the desert looking for the ”title deeds” as it were for their Promised Land.
As would be expected they headed for Kadesh.
But nothing has ever been found to support the biblical tale, and this is why archaeologists and scholars know the Exodus tale is little more than a geopolitical foundation myth.
I am convinced the extent of your “expertise” amounts to about 2-3 articles you’ve read by minimalist schoalars about Kadesh Barnea, the Exodus, and the Conquest. That is why you can’t move off from any of those topics and show yourself to be wholly incapable of understanding the more fundamental epistemological issues that come into play.
Again, you are focusing solely on textual issues, naturally as this is your strong suit, whereas I, as a mere interested amateur am looking at the archaeological side.
This is why I raised the issue of Kadesh.
You being the OT PHD you’ll know and understand all the references and nuances in the bible regarding this settlement.
So what is your take on the complete lack of evidence at Kadesh to support the bible account?
You can’t neglect or ignore either. I’m going through the entire book and will address the specific issues when I get to them.
Fair enough. But you have a PHD in OT so I am assuming you could give as good an account of yourself as Provan in this regard. And this must have been covered at some point during your PHD and as a central part of the Exodus tale no doubt you have studied it extensively.
What is your personal take about the lack of evidence and how this reflects on the bible account?
ARK: I suppose the question then arises , why do so many Christians seem to fight tooth and nail to establish veracity to the biblical tale of captivity, exodus and conquest when it is quite obvious that no such veracity exists.
LEE: Reverse this. Why do so many skeptics waste an incredible amount of time “fighting tooth and nail” trying to convince Christians that we’re believing in a fairy tale? Why can’t you just leave us to our delusions as long as we’re not hurting anyone?
Why do so many atheists, such self-described objective, critical thinkers, with no dog in this fight, seem bothered by the mere *possibility* that the Exodus might’ve been an actual historical event?
Could it be that if something as foundational to the Judaeo-Christian worldview as the Exodus is validated, then that opens up the Pandora’s box that other stuff, such as God, sin, heaven and hell might also be real? If the Exodus turns out to be real, WHAT ELSE in the Bible that skeptics simply sloughed off as myth might also be real?
If it were any other ethnic/religious group which claimed such an Exodus, no atheist save professional archaeologists and historians would pay any attention to it. But because the Exodus is foundational to the Judaeo-Christian worldview which lots of atheists apparently feel threatened by, then it HAS to be just a myth.
But the whole point of Provan’s book is that this issue IS NOT as “obvious” nor as cut and dried as skeptics wanna portray it. Again, Troy.
ARK: In the past, the Exodus tale has traditionally been central to the Jewish heritage, yet evidence has revealed it is not crucial to their beliefs or the notion of a Promised Land.
LEE: Most Reformed Jews see most of the OT as mythic, so seeing the Exodus as also mythic wouldn’t bother them. Only Orthodox and Conservative Jews would be bothered by the idea of the Exodus as nothing more than a “geopolitical foundation myth.”
.
ARK: This is the consensus view and is accepted or at least gaining acceptance among the majority of the Jewish people.
LEE: As I keep saying, consensuses have often been wrong.
Pax.
Lee.
Well this one should be fairly obvious. For a similar reason why Joel wrote a book taking Ken Ham to task for the nonsense of YEC. Because truth is important!
For a similar reason why Joel wrote a book taking Ken Ham to task for the nonsense of YEC. Because truth is important!
One must always be prepared to go where the evidence leads.
I think this is a question you truly need to ask yourself, as to date, the evidence has not vindicated your position.
Indeed they have!
But my question is, why are you afraid that THIS particular consensus is right?
I’m not afraid of anything. You’re the one who seems obsessed with proving the Exodus didn’t happen.
I made a vow 30 years ago to follow the evidence trail. I also know that historians and archaeologists are continually revising their views as more evidence comes in. Remember Troy? Had Schliemann accepted the consensus view, where would we be?
You said it: “To date” the archaelogical evidence hasn’t conclusively supported the historicity of the Exodus. But the main point of Provan’s argument is that too many scholars uncriticaly put all their eggs in archaeology’s basket. And they (conveniently?) forget that all evidence, including archaeological evidence has to be interpreted in light of other evidence, including literary evidence.
So if the Exodus is merely a “geopolitical foundational myth,” how do you account for it taking the shape it did? And how do you explain the total absense of any other roval stories?
Nor can the tenacious presence of skeptics like yourself who lurk in believer’s forums be chalked up to an altrustic love of truth. You guys show up on our sites (you often come off as stalkers) and basically start arguments and pick fights, insult degreed academic scholars who happen to be conservative, refuse to look at the evidence we provide (all the while demanding we provide evidence), or if you do, you cherry-pick which points you’ll address, thenn ignore ths rest, you cherry-pick internet articles and scholars to prove your preconceived ideas, and redefine technical terms you obviously don’t understand. All the while ridiculously insisting that merely being an atheist magically protects you from the same bias or fuzzy thinking you accuse us of. As if at the end of the day atheism isn’t also predicated on a large measure of faith.
No, you guys don’t lurk on Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. sites arguing with believers of those particular faith traditions. Why don’t you spend as much time debunking Wicca for example? Or Urantia. You claim to be equal opportunity debunkers only interested in “truth” and yet you only go after Christianity.
Because most of the internet atheists I’ve encountered have an emotional, almost visceral dislike bodering on paranoia, of organized Christianity. So regarding your claim that you are prepared to go where the evidence leads, I haven’t really seen much of that openness here, of on any of the other forums I’ve posted in over the past fifteen years.
It makes me miss Antony Flew. But alas, he’s no longer with us, not to mention his breaking the code and becoming persuaded by the evidence to become a Deist. I’d settle for a modern-day Isaac Asimov (faith aside, def. one of the greatest Sci-Fi authors).
Pax.
Lee.
I have no interest in …. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. sites. And neither do you I expect, so that is a rather silly and pointless attempt at slurring.
I also read and interact with nature sites, and photography sites and regularly chat with bloggers across the globe who I have known for years. And vice versa. We don’t consider we are stalking each other.
Then why are you so reliant on faith?
You believe a man called Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and you ask me why such a story took shape? Are you serious?
”Our sites”? I wasn’t aware that you had a site?
If you miss dear old Anthony so much and claim to follow the evidence like he is supposed to have done, then why aren’t you a deist?
ARK: I have no interest in …. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, etc. sites. And neither do you I expect, so that is a rather silly and pointless attempt at slurring.
LEE: Why? You claim to be spurred by nothing but a desire for truth. Aren’t Buddhists and Wiccans as deluded as Christians are? Shouldn’t you share the truth with them, too?
ARK: I also read and interact with nature sites, and photography sites and regularly chat with bloggers across the globe who I have known for years. And vice versa. We don’t consider we are stalking each other.
LEE: My point is that an inordinate number of atheists frequent Christian internet sites with the purpose of convincing Christians that our faith is an irrational myth. I find that curious seeing as how you don’t see large numbers of Christians posting on atheist sites trying to convert atheists.No,m I’m sorry my friend.A dispassionate interest in the truth? I don’t buy that for a second. It’s like atheists feel an almost visceral need to proselytize.
And nobody interested in the truth would quote sources out of context as you have, cherry-pick evidence as you have, ignore inconvenient facts that don’t fit into your preconceived ideas as you have, refuse to read books in favor of internet sites and You Tube videos, etc.
ARK: Then why are you so reliant on faith?
LEE: Because reason can only take you so far. I can’t prove with 100% certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. Ultimately it’s a matter of faith, but again, faith buttressed by REASON. Please pay attention here: REASON LEADS ME TO FAITH. There is nothing irrational about this statement.
As I said a couple weeks ago, me, you and everyone else on the planet make decisions based upon faith every day of our lives, but those decisions aren’t based on blind faith. Nothing is 100% certain.
ARK: You believe a man called Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and you ask me why such a story took shape? Are you serious?
LEE: Yes! If you deny the resurrection then you have to provide an alternate explanation for why the evangelists invented such an unlikely story for an event which wasn’t on anyone’s radar, a story which only got them persecution and finally death. All of the alternate theories I’ve ever heard take more faith than believing the gospel accounts. Who would die for a story they *knew* was a lie? Why not just recant and say they made the whole thing up?
Where’s the body? Give me *evidence* for what happened to the body.
ARK: If you miss dear old Anthony so much and claim to follow the evidence like he is supposed to have done, then why aren’t you a deist?
LEE: Because of Jesus. The evidence for Jesus compels me to be a Christian. I couldn’t walk that back now, not after everything I’ve read. Deism is definitely a step in the right direction, but it isn’t going far enough..
Pax.
Lee.
False. Where did I assert I was ”spurred by nothing but a desire for truth” ?
I see. And precisely which evangelists would these be?
And precisely what evidence for Jesus would this be?
ARK: False. Where did I assert I was ”spurred by nothing but a desire for truth” ?
LEE: Exactly! You’re here to debunk Christianity and proselytize for atheism.
ARK: I see. And precisely which evangelists would these be?
LEE: The Big Four? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? The Four Evangelists?
ARK: And precisely what evidence for Jesus would this be?
LEE: Go back and read the comments in the Michael Heiser thread, part 5.
Pax.
Lee.
Hilarious! You really can’t be serious? You do know these are fictitious names tagged onto the gospels, probably in the 2nd century?
I see … so we are back to semantics and unsubstantiated claims are we?
Lee, for the sake of my sanity, let’s refrain from feeding thr troll for awhile.
You’re right. He isn’t interested in a serious discussion.
Talk about “semantics and unsubstantiated claims” . . . Hoo boy!
Pax.
Lee.