As Nadav Na’aman put it in a recent BAR article, “the Amarna
letters . . . provide a critical corrective to the archaeological picture”
excavations offer (“The Trowel vs. the Text: How the Amarna Letters Challenge Archaeology,”
BAR 35/1 [Jan/Feb 2009] 52-56, 70). As Na’aman also points out, the
converse is likewise true: archaeological data, soberly interpreted, allow text
scholars to better understand the texts they study.
The title of this post is a take-off on a journalistic phrase –
that of Werner Keller: Und die Bibel
hat doch recht. “The Bible is right after all.” Keller was correct to give
the ancient texts the benefit of the doubt, though not in the sense people often
imagine. For example, it is not the case that the Flood Narrative in Genesis
6-9 should be read in the same way we might a news report about the flooding of
New Orleans after a hurricane. Scholars who do so, or egg on those who do, are
doing a disservice to the texts themselves.
Rather, ancient texts, including the Bible, are “right” almost by
definition, so long as we interpret them in accordance with the genre
expectations, sociolinguistic register, and rhetorical strategy they
instantiate. To be sure, it’s always possible to quarrel with the ultimate
truth claims of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Bible, and the Aeneid. If you
quarrel with one, you will probably quarrel with all the others. The alternative:
take them all seriously, on the model of Amos 9:7.
Recent Comments