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 04-18-2001, 11:55 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up Review of "The Bible Unearthed"

From the "Denver Journal" Vol. 4, 2001:

http://www.gospelcom.net/densem/dj/a...0100/0104.html

Concludes that: "This book must be used with caution because it pretends to describe what we now really know about archaeology and how it contradicts various biblical claims; however, it does so in a biased and non-objective manner. Contrary opinions in interpreting the new evidence are not discussed, much less given a fair hearing. The book is ideologically driven and should be treated that way by any one who reads it."

SecWebLurker

 
Old 04-18-2001, 12:54 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The New Testament:

These books must be used with caution because they pretend to describe what really happened 2000 years ago concerning a man called Jesus, including all kinds of fantastic claims that should be viewed as no more than myths. They do so in a biased and non-objective manner. Contrary opinions in interpreting the supposed events are not discussed, much less given a fair hearing. These writings are ideologically driven and should be treated that way by any one who reads them."
 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:02 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi madmax,

Now if only you were an authority on the NT, we might have reason to take your claims seriously.

Are you madmax from Yahoo: Religion, btw? If so, I'm Enoch. Long time no see...

SecWebLurker

 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:28 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Thanks for the review SWL, very interesting. I have just finished reading Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman, and I found it to be a tremendous help in understanding modern scholastic views on the dating and authorship of the Pentateuch and history books (Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2Kings and 1&2 Chronicles), as well as the prophet Jeremiah. While he agrees with most scholars (including those in "The Bible Unearthed") that most of the OT was written during the period of the divided Kingdom (722BC and after the fall of Samaria (587BC), some of his conclusions are quite remarkable and compelling. I am hoping to put together a post on the subject as soon as I am able. Do you have any experience in studying the books of the Old Testament? This is still pretty new ground for me.

Thanks again,

Nomad
 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:59 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hey Nomad,

The OT is new ground for me too. I just picked up Victor H. Matthews' "The Social World of Ancient Israel" which gives a lot of good background info. I think I have Friedman's book at my library so I'll check it out.

SecWebLurker

 
Old 04-18-2001, 09:28 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
Hi madmax,

Now if only you were an authority on the NT, we might have reason to take your claims seriously.

Are you madmax from Yahoo: Religion, btw? If so, I'm Enoch. Long time no see...

SecWebLurker
</font>
Actually if you read my post carefully my "claims" are not all that dramatic. I hold to being skeptical of miraculous claims which is hardly a big deal. I stated that the NT writings aren't objective or unbiased and I don't know of any scholars that would disagree with that assessment. I alluded to the lack of external criticisms (contemporaneous) of Christian claims and that these writings are ideologically driven.

What part of those do you object to?

Oh, BTW, I am that same madmax. Its been a very long time since I visited that Yahoo site. Wow - seems like years actually, but I am sure its only been months. Time flies.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 09:40 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

SecWebLurker, or Nomad or Anyone:

I have read in several places that "Job" was actually one of the earliest written books of the OT.

Now I am not aware on the existence of any documentation on this, or if "written" as opposed to "oral" transmission was the intended context.

If anyone has or knows a source of discussion on this "theory", I would be very interested to see it, because I have seen the argument of Job as very early used in discussion and it does interest me.

Thanks

Norm
 
Old 04-19-2001, 03:54 AM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

madmax: Actually if you read my post carefully my "claims" are not all that dramatic. I hold to being skeptical of miraculous claims which is hardly a big deal.

SWL: That's fine and dandy, but really, I don't see what that has to do with the topic of the thread. I posted a scholarly review of a book that is often under discussion here. Can you see how annoying it might be for skeptics to jump all over every thread, and rant about what we already know (i.e., that they "ain't got none belief in duh Bahble" and "mirkles can't not happnin"), no matter how unrelated to the topic that rant might be? You're a resonable guy. I think you can.

madmax: I stated that the NT writings aren't objective or unbiased and I don't know of any scholars that would disagree with that assessment.

SWL: That's not a controversial claim, as there's really hardly a piece of ancient history that scholars would say is 'objective and unbiased'. But you referred to 'scholars'. May I ask what scholarly works you have read?

madmax: I alluded to the lack of external criticisms (contemporaneous) of Christian claims and that these writings are ideologically driven.

SWL: Actually there is external criticism recorded in the Gospels - for instance the charge that Jesus works miracles by the power of the prince of demons, or Matthew's recorded charge that the disciple's stole Jesus' body from the tomb, or the charge that Jesus made physical threats against the Temple.

You also wrote: "[these writings] pretend to describe what really happened 2000 years ago concerning a man called Jesus, including all kinds of fantastic claims that should be viewed as no more than myths."

Would you care to show us what claims you're talking about and why they should be viewed as no more than myths.

madmax: Oh, BTW, I am that same madmax. Its been a very long time since I visited that Yahoo site. Wow - seems like years actually, but I am sure its only been months. Time flies.

SWL: Good to see you, max.

Enoch
 
Old 04-19-2001, 04:39 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Two more good books dealing with the OT & ancient times:
Canaantie Myth & Hebrew Epic- Frank Moore Cross
Egypt, Canaan & Israel in Ancient Times-Donald Redford
 
Old 04-19-2001, 05:30 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fromdownunder:
SecWebLurker, or Nomad or Anyone:

I have read in several places that "Job" was actually one of the earliest written books of the OT.

Now I am not aware on the existence of any documentation on this, or if "written" as opposed to "oral" transmission was the intended context.

If anyone has or knows a source of discussion on this "theory", I would be very interested to see it, because I have seen the argument of Job as very early used in discussion and it does interest me.

Thanks

Norm
</font>
Job is cobbled together over several centuries, like most of the OT.

From Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=44691&tocid=0

The Book of Job may be divided into two sections of prose narrative, consisting of a prologue (chapters 12) and an epilogue (chapter 42:717), and intervening poetic disputation (chapters 342:6). The
prose narratives date to before the 6th century BCE, and the poetry has been dated between the 6th and the 4th century BCE. Chapters 28 and 3237 were probably later additions.

Seems like no one has mentioned Robin Lane Fox The Unauthorized Version

Michael
 
 

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.