A Question Is Always True

Look.  Wisdom calls out, and Discernment lifts her voice.  Proverbs 8:1  Robert Alter

Calls out – Since the discovery of significant archeological artifacts in the late 19^th Century, biblical scholars have had to face the question, “How does archeological evidence impact biblical faith?”  The answers have not been easy.  As Haggai Misgav points out, “The possibility of using external data to verify the authenticity of the Bible also raises the possibility of using external data to disprove its authenticity.”[1]  Few religious communities have embraced the onslaught of the historical evidence unearthed.  In fact, rejection or denial of the archeological finds has typically been the case.  Misgav describes the usual response:

Principles of faith are not factual matters; the conceptual structure of Judaism rests on the authority of rabbinic scholars and their instructions. If we expand our conceptual basis to include new information, what will happen to the ancient, preexisting sources of authority? Who will be able to provide spiritual guidance to a generation for whom the conceptual foundations are completely new?

It appears that in the present generation the prevalent religious approach in both the public and private spheres is one of “simple faith.” The intention is not necessarily to the Breslov understanding of the term, but rather to a belief that is not grounded in theological analysis and does not accept the authority of reason in matters of faith. This approach sanctifies naïveté́ not only with respect to issues of thought and philosophy, but also in literary matters. The Bible is not a subject for research and inquiry. Its words are true and just according to their simple, literal meaning. Even ideas like the position expressed by Maimonides in Guide of the Perplexed (3:3) that certain biblical passages are metaphorical have no place in the intellectual world of those who adhere to this approach. This school of thought perceives the use of new information, especially from external sources, and all the more so from nonreligious and non-Jewish sources, as a danger.[2]

The same approach (and questions) follow those who seek to recognize scientific and historical evidence in their faith, regardless of whether or not they come from Jewish or Christian backgrounds.  Fight or flight seems to be typical.  If the evidence isn’t denied or ignored, then every effort is made to the make the discoveries fit the presumptions of the text.  At one point in my life I thought that faith depended on answers, that having the right answers would ward off doubt and ensure holiness.  I pursued certainty—in an effort to have the right answers, the certain truth.  But what I discovered is faith based on this approach came at the price of rational lobotomy.  I had to stop thinking in order to believe.

My “faith” failed the day I embraced history.  Doctrines and exegetical paradigms fell like Humpty-Dumpty.  I had to learn something much deeper about faith.  A question is always true.  And faith seems to be about questions, not answers.

I want an open-eyed faith.  That statement scares me even now for it reminds me of another passage about opening their eyes.  But perhaps the confrontation with not-being-God, with the frailty and self-deception of my own being, is essential for true faith, and faith that is willing to risk itself in order to find the God revealed in ancient encounters.  Perhaps responding to Wisdom’s call is the risk worth taking.

Topical Index: faith, archeology, answers, certainty, wisdom, Proverbs 8:1

[1] Haggai Misgav, “Archaeology and the Bible,” in The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible (Targum Shlishi, Academic Studies Press, 2019), p. 515.

[2] Ibid., p. 516.