I'm the anon earlier who criticized Finkelstein, but this other topic of faith/not needing archaeology is interesting as well. I don't think you need archaeology to replace faith, for sure, but archaeology still has worth for filling gaps and painting a more colorful picture. It's like the difference between a short film and a long TV series, if you will.
Take Moses and the Exodus for example. The pozzed/scholarly consensus is that the Exodus was in the 13th century BC (if it happened at all, in their minds). The 1200s BC, that is.. which is extremely late and doesn't line up with scripture's own testimony. It practically paints no "color" to the story, for it offers nothing about the surrounding world of that time that makes sense to the Exodus narrative. So I'm not going to bother with it.
But the conservative and biblical estimate (and the Rabbinic one, somewhat in a similar era) is the 15th century BC. Possibly even very early 16th century. The current consensus is around 1446BC. Here, we have an interesting story on the backdrop of the Exodus world. If it's true, you get a clearer picture of the Pharaohs back then and why this date might make sense.
From 1700BC to mid 1500s BC, Egypt was actually taken over by Semitic rulers called the Hyksos. This already makes Joseph's story interesting, since he rose up to the highest rank at this time. It makes more sense that a fellow Semitic would value him so much, rather than a Egyptian pharaoh would. Secondly, the Egyptians finally ousted the Hyksos around 1550 BC after a long series of campaigns, and when the dust was settled, the people who once benefited under Hyksos rule suffered under Egyptian rule. This also lines up with scripture, where Exodus starts with a king "who knew not Joseph" and proceeded to enslave them. If the 1446 BC date is true, then it's possible that Moses was born around 1526BC. This puts him smack in the middle of Thutmoses I as Pharaoh. And lo and behold, Thutmoses did indeed have a daughter: Hatshepsut. She would have been a young girl around 1526BC, not much older than the baby Moses. Maybe 7 years old. That already paints a different picture of "pharoah's daughter" in the Exodus, because sometimes she's displayed as a young woman bathing in the Nile. If this theory is true, she was a little girl.. powerful though she was, and plucked the baby Moses out of the water as her own, despite being a young girl itself. It actually lines up with the later passages though, where it says she sent the baby Moses to be watched by one of the Israelite women (who happened to be Moses' real mother). If Pharaoh's daughter was a young girl, it kind of makes sense that she outsourced the job. Maybe she just thought he was cute or she wanted a "toy", but none of the responsibility.
I could keep going on, but Hatshepsut in later life provides a lot of color to the story as well. She eventually became queen and one of the most celebrated Pharaohs of all time. But in her own time, was hated somehow. Her statues are vandalized by her successor. Historians are confused as to why. They've never provided an answer, since they also see that she accomplished great things. But the Bible may provide the answer: Moses. She brought Moses into the Pharoah's household eventually, and after his murder of the Egyptian and the Exodus, Hatshepsut became an embarassment to her successor and ruling elite. They tried blotting her out of history for an inexplicable reason, but the Bible may provide the reason.
Anyways, the point I just want to make is it can make the Bible even more interesting than it is at face value, once we imagine how the surrounding world might have lined up. It's not really about faith.. but a love for detail and a clearer story (or at least imagining this could be the story).