On Werner Keller

This post will take a bit to get going before I reach my primary point which happens to be a serious disagreement with the philosophy behind a book you would think I would like. The book I am currently reading with interest is The Bible as History by Werner Keller. It is not exactly a new book...it was first published in I believe 1956 and slightly revised in about 1980. It is taking me longer to read than most books because I am taking the time to do some independent research. It is important on books of this nature to find out how accurate and informed the author is on their subject.

Some things it is hard to verify. For example, not too long ago I read and reviewed No More Broken Eggs.
Since the subject matter there is theory and, by definition, subjective, looking into the accuracy of the author is neither helpful nor even possible. In the case of Keller, however, it is to a great extent both possible and I would argue necessary.

The necessity arises because Keller is reviewing the archaeological record and discussing how it relates to the historical accuracy of the Bible. This, of course, is a hotly debated topic. If the Bible is historically accurate it testifies to the reliability of the authors and can then be tendered as one bit of evidence that the Bible is, in fact, what it claims to be. Conversely, of the Bible is inaccurate in its history then all credibility is at best called into question and more probably destroyed entirely.

I find that Keller took a curious approach to it. He approaches it from a more or less linear fashion...not chronological but in the order the books are placed in the Bible itself. This ordering of the books within the Bible is itself little understood by many critics of the Bible. The books are not intended to be taken as being in chronological order, nor is the order they are placed in Inspired. In fact, there are cases when concurrent writers have their books separated by entire sections! Keller took the logical step of simply working through the books in the order they are traditionally arranged in by Western tradition rather than the older Jewish arrangement.

As he works through the narrative he will relate a bit of Scripture, then talk about archaeological finds that relate to it and how it relates to the historicity of the Bible. For example, for a long time one common critique of Scriptural accuracy was that no such place as "Ur" existed for Abraham of Ur of the Chaldees to have come from. That criticism was exploded when archaeologists discovered Ur. Then he presents an alternative view which sometimes seems to contradict what he wrote immediately preceding. The tension between these alternate interpretations is nowhere relieved which is a curious bit of writing. I respect that he wants to leave it to the reader to make up their own mind but he does not present sufficient evidence to tip the scales in either direction. Many readers are either A) too intellectually lazy to do the research or B) inadequately educated in how and where to look to ascertain which interpretation has the better body of evidence behind it and is more likely to be accurate.

Nor are we talking about small details. One interpretation would agree with the Biblical timeline...the other would be 2,3 or even 400 years or more removed. That is a pretty serious discrepancy. It is one that can make or break the argument as to Biblical historical accuracy.

There is a great deal of value to some of his work. Keller brings to light example after example where Bible critics accused the Scripture of error only to be proven wrong as places, events, individuals, and even in some cases entire nations are discovered, perhaps the most famous being the Hittites, a people long claimed by Bible skeptics to never have existed until they were revealed in archaeological finds in Egypt to not just have existed but to have been where and when the Bible said they were, doing the things the Scripture said they were. Or maybe they were 300 years later...I do not believe the evidence supports this but Keller presents it as an option.

Yet Keller badly misses the mark in one specific particular. Or maybe I just miss his intent. Either way, I find his efforts quite regressive and harmful. That is in his continued attempts to render the Divine into a natural event. Keller falls into the trap of many other unbelievers to render all actual Divine action in the history of Israel into "natural" events...thus the crossing of the Red Sea is no longer a miraculous parting of the water but instead a mundane crossing of the Reed Sea, a glorified creek, and so forth.

Take the story of Moses bringing forth water from a rock when Israel is wandering in the wilderness. This is a seminal event. It is important because this is the moment, the specific, destiny altering moment, when the misdeed of Moses results in him not being allowed to enter the Promised Land of Canaan.



Keller goes to great lengths to provide "rationale" explanations of it. He demonstrates how a particular sort of limestone crusts over and on at least 2 occasions people have struck these rocks to release streams of water. This happens in the area where the Israelites were meandering. Thus Keller would have us believe the Bible is relating a natural event and claiming it was turned into a pious tale that needed the touch of the miraculous.

Lest it be thought I do not understand what Keller is attempting, I should reiterate his premise: The Bible is historically accurate in principle if not in actual events related and was a series of events that did occurred that were spruced up into pious tales.

Let me state my position as clearly as I can. Keller is dead wrong. The Old Testament is the relation of God's Hand creating the world, establishing mankind upon it, interacting directly with individuals in a variety of means throughout the patriarchal age, and guiding His Chosen People, sometimes directly, sometimes through miraculous intervention, and sometimes through the artifices of historical development to achieve His goals.

Yes, I positively do believe the miraculous was not just part but was a necessary part. The burning bush was not gases rising from a bush as Keller argues it may have been. Balaam was not a sorcerer, he was a prophet who went astray. The Red Sea was indeed where the Israelites cross (and later archaeology has demonstrated this conclusively; how else to explain the inexplicable presence of chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea than for God to have released the walls of water upon them?

One key to the Bible is indeed the miraculous. It demonstrates the power of God, His care for a particular people, and His hand in their history. Gideon's defeat of the Mideonites makes sense only if God worked to control the outcome. The same is true of later escapes from disaster experienced by the Divided Kingdom. I have not reached that point in his book yet, but if Keller holds true to form he will try to explain away the slaying of 185,000 Assyrians overnight (II Kings 19:35) as some deadly disease, thus disavowing the Hand of God physically acting within history to alter the destiny of His Chosen People.

I understand Keller wished to show historical accuracy...okay, then stick to that which is claimed to have occurred according to natural physical law. Do not try to reduce the supernatural to the mundane. It is an indisputable fact that, at least at this point in our knowledge, there are certain events which remain outside the realm of science to explore and explain. Events have occurred which seem to controvert all natural law. At times, one must simply accept that there are forces at work of which we have no understanding.

There is a great deal of value to exploring the accuracy of Scripture where it is check able...natural history (times, places, names, events), things of science...and remember, thousands of years before anything was known of ocean currents, the Bible spoke of the "paths of the sea"..., things of medicine (the Proverb "the life is in the blood" was around long before man figured out leeching blood killed people), and so forth. But where the Scripture claims the supernatural has occurred it is not, in fact, check able as to the means used, nor is it necessary. That is, in fact, one area that must be taken on faith, whichever way a person chooses. Those who believe that God Is, and the He Works in our lives, will believe it happened as related and those who do not believe in God will not believe it and both will take it as an article of faith that they are correct because, like it or not, these supernatural events cannot be proven to have occurred as claimed and you cannot disprove a negative.

Sadly, that hesitancy to believe the internal claims of Scripture is a great failing in the value of Keller's book...though to be fair, I am as yet just over 200 pages into it and the thing runs to over 400 pages, so we will see what else I find.