King Arthur

Israel was not myth. David and Saul really existed.

Davies, Lemche, Thompson, and Finkelstien are a bunch of idiots who just want to deny any veracity to the Bible. With the possible exception of Finkelstien, their scholarship is junk.

All atheists should quit trying to find the easiest way to bash Christians heads in and maybe find some common ground. I suggest that all atheists should read William Dever's What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2001).

Dever's book is filled with more archaeological detail than the puny "Bible Unearthed" and more scholarly notes (if you can handle that) than that work or Tompson's Israel's Mythic Past (or whatever that piece of junk is called).
Enjoy! It's far better reading than that other crap! And Dever lets those ignorant mythicists have it, too! Of course, I like Dever's style! He gets your attention!

Toto

Maybe David existed, maybe he didn't, and maybe he was just a minor chieftan of an insignificant political entity. It's still not productive to call people idiots. And the issue here isn't bashing Christians. It's different Jewish factions arguing over whether there is any good historical basis for the state of Israel, an issue many of us try to avoid.

What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel

King Arthur

The evidence seems to be more in favor of his existence than any of the other sources say. And I see those sources presented here all the time. I don't see Dever presented very often. Why? He's an atheist. He still denies the patriarchs among other things.

Why? It gets their attention. It makes them think a little harder.

It's not all about politics. There is archaeological evidence that Thompson and the others completely ignore or dismiss. It's all in the book.

I'll be kind for a change. Thanks for the link.

Vorkosigan

Davies, Lemche, Thompson, and Finkelstien are a bunch of idiots who just want to deny any veracity to the Bible.

That's a deep comment. Perspicacious; pregnant with possible avenues for spurring thinking in others, yet restrained, even conservative.

All atheists should quit trying to find the easiest way to bash Christians heads in ....

Do "all atheists" do this?

Dever's book is filled with more archaeological detail than the puny "Bible Unearthed" and more scholarly notes (if you can handle that) than that work or Tompson's Israel's Mythic Past (or whatever that piece of junk is called).

You mean that piece of junk you've never read?

Vorkosigan

Toto

Calling people idiots does not "get their attention." It is a fighting word, and just builds resistance. It makes you look foolish, as if you cannot come up with a substantive argument.

Now would you like to expound on the "evidence" for the existence of David or Saul?

King Arthur

They're agenda-driven and dumb, too.

Yes. Like the one whom I told one time that I was thinking about going to seminary. He said he'd have to "disown" me like his parents did him for marrying a Catholic when he was Baptist!

That's fine if you want to assume that. I don't care. Tell me though, do you see any substantive footnotes (which are in most truly scholarly books) in Mythic Past? Do you see any in "Bible Unearthed"? No. Do you see these authors present challenges and complications to their viewpoints as most scholars do? No. They don't want you to know how weak their case really is.

Finkelstien has been taken in by their crap and is now spouting similar stuff, though he doesn't seem to want to be publicly be associated with them.

I like Dever. He's more like me. When they insulted him, he let them have it. He's got copious footnotes, refers to the best scholarly works on archaeology, and even presents views that don't jive with his own. Give me a hard-hitting atheist who wants to get at the truth like Dever anyday!

King Arthur

Seems to work pretty well to me. I get people responding. It's kinda fun, too. You just can't take this 13 year old too seriously.

Yeah, for starters, how about the Tell Dan stele and the Mesha stone? Both of which the revisionists like to attempt to explain away, call forgeries, or what-have-you because they screw up their theories.

BTW, Vorkosigan. I don't know if you have any idea what the periodical Near Eastern Archaeology is (used to be Biblical Archaeology), but it is a well respected archaeological journal (for real scholars - you probably won't find it in a bookstore). The latest issue (which you might be able to find a synopsis for on the web somewhere), has the Tell Dan stele slapped right on the front page. Internally, it talks about how important the Tell Dan stele is and how ridiculous it is that some consider it a forgery. I'm thinking about ordering a copy and framing it! This is straight from the mouths of the big league heavy-hitters!

King Arthur

Oh well. Toto was nice for providing a link earlier, so I'll try this time.

Here:

<a href="http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/index.html</a>

Look particularly at "Stones for Bread".

I may be a 13 year old poopy mouth, but I know what I'm talking about! ROTFL!

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Needs a password. The piece was originally presented a symposium in 2000, BTW, and is based on earlier pieces he did back in the 1970s. His CV is <a href="http://www.tau.ac.il/~archpubs/faculty/raineypubs.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Vorkosigan

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

King Arthur

Of course. You have to have a subscription. I was merely pointing out the exact article if anyone decided to get smart and look it up.

And? There has been a raging feud between the minimalists and mainstream archaeology going on in BAR for several years now. Do you really think there's been some major discovery in the past year or so to change everyone's mind? Thompson's book "The Mythic Past" which I've seen you use in your posts was written in 1999. "The Bible Unearthed" was written (without footnotes to check the claims) only early last year (not incredibly long after this symposium). Dever's book was also written last year (with plenty of footnotes to check his claims). The article in NEA would obviously have been updated for publication. It would be boneheaded to put an article in a scholarly journal that was not up-to-date.

Finally, every scholar bases his work on writings from the past (like the 1970's and forward that you mention). This is what scholars do. As a matter of fact Finkelstien's Bible Unearthed was based on his work from the 1980's. Dever says this of him, which I find interesting and telling:

[nice mode]Thanks for the link which shows Rainey's expertise and long career in archaeology. Look at all those articles written for scholarly journals![/nice mode]