FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-01-2001, 06:10 AM   #71
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I just got my new Biblical Archaeology Review in the mail.

No letter from Carrier. Perhaps in the next issue.

Ish
 
Old 05-23-2001, 05:11 PM   #72
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by offa:
I read Carrier's review with interest. It sounds like The Bible Unearthed agrees with what I have been saying. There never was a united kingdom. When I get home this evening I will go to www.amazon.com and send for the book. Thanks for the reference. (If the authors are too fundamental for my taste I will let you know.)

Thanks, Offa
</font>
Definitely too fundamental. I do not think the book has any pertinent information. It says nothing!

thanks,
offa

 
Old 06-04-2001, 06:51 AM   #73
Richard Carrier
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California, USA
Posts: 338
Arrow

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian Trafford:
You mean the Review of the Bible Unearthed thread in which I exposed the laughable claim by Carrier that "First, Dever attacks the book for saying nothing new, yet he cites not even a single book aimed at "general readers" that advances a complete synthetic history of Israel based on key archaeology completed since the 1990's. There is none."

Worse yet, you challenged me when I offered the title of one such book Who Wrote the Bible? (1997) and Ish offered another Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth (1998). You even had to retract your statement that I was wrong on my claim, so I would have thought that you would have remembered it.
</font>
I will resolve at least this one matter: I said no book since 1990 had provided “a complete synthetic history of Israel” for laymen that incorporates archaeological finds of that decade. Neither book you cite above does this. Who Wrote the Bible? was written in 1987, and thus does not cover 1990’s discoveries. Moreover, it is about textual criticism and, to put it bluntly, the Bible. It is not a history of Israel. Likewise, Archaeology and the Old Testament is a textbook for college students of Evangelical Biblical Literalism, not a lay book, and argues for how the Bible can be read literally in light of archaeology. It is not much of a synthetic history of Israel, certainly not a complete one, and indeed talks about the Biblical narrative far more than archaeology. When it deviates from that plan it spends entire chapters on Mesopotamia and Egypt (and despite the title, a chapter on the new testament). Finally, Hoerth rejects all archaeological evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible, rather than incorporating it. It is thus not even an honest work of history.

It seems apparent that if this is the sort of dispute you have with my review of Bible Unearthed, you are indeed misrepresenting what I said. I looked over the thread and I will add the following (since I cross posted the above to another thread where I was attacked):

1) If Who Wrote was revised in the 1997 reprint, I can't find anything different in the main text, but perhaps I missed something. Certainly, it does not say "2nd edition" or "new addition" on my copy--just "reprint." And the copyright still says 1987.

2) I carefully noted that Dever's accusation that the authors attributed a theory to him was false and was a mistake only a careless reader could make.

3) The appendices list specific sources, many actual archaeological reports, with page numbers and everything. Again, Dever should not criticise a book for being less than it even aspires to be: it is a book for laymen, and it is an established fact in publishing today that publishers prefer books without footnotes or even endnotes. What authors of lay books these days put in endnotes is little more than appendix-worthy asides and argument, which these authors put in actual appendices. Again, there is no ground for attacking them on this score: all their sources are provided for further reading, all their arguments are based on evidence that they themselves lay out and describe.

Though I sent my critique to BAR, I doubt they will publish it. They never wrote back to me about publishing it anywhere, even their website. To be fair, they may be waiting for a response from Dever. Or they may simply be brushing it under the carpet.

[Respond to this in this other thread]

[This message has been edited by Richard Carrier (edited June 04, 2001).]
Richard Carrier is offline  
Old 06-04-2001, 10:01 AM   #74
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Carrier:

I will resolve at least this one matter: I said no book since 1990 had provided “a complete synthetic history of Israel” for laymen that incorporates archaeological finds of that decade. Neither book you cite above does this. Who Wrote the Bible? was written in 1987, and thus does not cover 1990’s discoveries. Moreover, it is about textual criticism and, to put it bluntly, the Bible. It is not a history of Israel.</font>
First, Who Wrote the Bible was reworked and new material added to the 1997 edition. I will quote from the preface when I get home and can access the book directly. Have you read either version Richard?

Second, the OT Bible IS the history of ancient Israel. It is our source from the ancients themselves, so to talk about it is to talk about ancient Israel.

Third it is far more than a mere textual criticism book. IF you have not read the book, then I can understand your error in assuming that it was, but then I am wondering how you knew it did not talk about Israel, especially since it does.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Likewise, Archaeology and the Old Testament is a textbook for college students of Evangelical Biblical Literalism, not a lay book, and argues for how the Bible can be read literally in light of archaeology.</font>
I listed four books all together, including two more on the thread here (see the bottom of the page). My comments from that thread:

Additional reading:
Commentary on the Torah : With a New English Translation by Richard Elliott Friedman released February 2001.

Editorial Review from Amazon.com: This new commentary draws on recent archeological discoveries, medieval commentaries, and modern textual scholarship "to shed new light on the Torah, and, more important, to open windows through which it sheds its light on us." The book also continues Friedman's ongoing project of making serious religious scholarship accessible to the general reader (as did his previous works, including Who Wrote the Bible and The Hidden Face of God).

What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel by William G. Dever. Since this book was written by the very scholar that Carrier was attacking, and it was released in March 2001, perhaps Carrier can explain why he did not know that this book existed when he wrote his review.


Brian (Nomad)

[This message has been edited by Brian Trafford (edited June 04, 2001).]
 
Old 06-04-2001, 11:47 AM   #75
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ah, the old bulletin-board-as-hydra problem. To reiterate points made on other threads:

1. Carrier's remarks about other books was in the context of whether there was a purpose to be served by publishing the book under review.

2. General interest is a recognized publishing segment with different conventions. Ken Davis' Don't Know Much About The Bible and Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties are better examples of bible scholarship aimed at laymen. Neither, of course, has footnotes.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.