Don't hold your breath. You KNOW what it is like trying to have a conversation with Christian apologists. Right?

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
I feel like I am in the middle of an argument between blind people talking about an elephant.

Does this mean you have been spending time talking to individuals who share your beliefs?

Nomad: Sentinel, have you read anything besides The Bible Unearthed, especially something that presents counter arguments to what this book says?

Serious question: Nomad, do you ever read books by scholars whose opinions differ from your own?

Nomad: My experience has been that a book almost always looks compelling until we read some others that offer alternative points of view and interpretations of the data. I do not have sufficient expertise on the Old Testament and ancient Near East history to comment on these findings, but I would be loathe to draw conclusions based on one popular work, no matter who wrote it.

This totally contradicts your position with respect to a person named Young Kyu Kim. Remember? His "work" was not even popular. Few even know who he is. Yet, you jumped on his bandwagon with both feet.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 24, 2001).]

Toto

Already refuted - not published in the 90's.

Carrier discusses the sources in the book in detail. There are enough to give the interested layperson enough to read.

Carrier started this review by showing that Dever must not have actually read the book, since he missed so many points. It appears that Nomad also has not read Carrier's review. Carrier explicitly states that Finkelstein does not ascribe that view to Dever. He does state that some of Dever's research is evidence that supports the peasant revolt model. Dever does not list other misrepresentations, besides his misinterpretation of the reference to his research.

If Nomad thinks Carrier ignores this completely, he must not have read the review.

Actually, Carrier devotes at least a paragraph to this argument. He says that this is a work of archeology, not theology.

Besides, what would you expect an atheist to say of the astounding charge that the Bible might not be a good basis for a moral or ethical system? An atheist who has written against posting the Biblical Ten Commandments in public schools?

Nomad clearly did not read the review.

Well, once again I've wasted some precious time reading a Nomad post and discovering that there was no substance behind it.

Note to self: get a life.

I have been talking with sentinel00, and I do not think that he shares my beliefs. You are free to ask him if you wish however.

First, I will note that sentinel did not answer my question, and is no longer talking with me, so I do not expect to get an answer.

Second, I have read many scholars with whom I disagree. Michael Grant, Bruce Chilton, Donald Akenson, even Raymond Brown and Richard Friedman do not present arguments and opinions that I agree with 100%. Why do you ask?

Well, since he remains unrefuted on paleographical grounds to this day, I do not see any reason to disagree with his conclusions. You have yet to offer a coherent argument against his findings that is actually based on the science of papyrology or paleography. Have you found such an argument published yet? If so, please offer it. The thread on Redating the New Testament is still active.

Just curious, but you aren't an actual masochist are you rodahi? I keep wondering why you want to bring up these past thrashings.

Nomad

Poor Toto

I told you that you were not good at this. Before you post again, please read my posts, and check your facts.

Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, [HarperCollins: New York, 1997]

Try to keep up Toto.

I read that part Toto. Did The Bible Unearthed quote specific passages, and offer page numbers and references that could be checked? You did not answer my question.

Dever tells us that he does not support the model that is being ascribed to him. This is a misrepresentation of his view, and Carrier tries to cover it up. You consider this to be a valid response on Carrier's part, for me, I think he should have simply admitted that Dever's work was used without permission, and in a disingenuous manner. This would have been the honest thing to do, but I guess that is asking a lot.

If you think that defending a lie is somehow addressing an issue, then we have widely divergent standards of how a review should be written.

Umm... this does not answer the question. Every work on the Bible is a work of theology or ideology, so trying to pretend that it is somehow not connected to a philosophical argument is disingenous in the extreme. I seriously doubt that even Carrier is this naive, and we have already seen that Bill isn't.

I already know Carrier's views on such matters. It is more honest to confess one's biases up front, and not try to conceal them in the veneer of "objectivity". Even pretending that such a thing as objectivity exists in Biblical studies is laughable, and the dishonesty of Carrier in this matter is also very telling.

Toto. Read my posts and you will not make silly mistakes.

Sadly, you didn't read it or you would not have asserted that Who Wrote the Bible was not written in the 90's.

My own recommendation would be that you bone up on your ability to present arguments. It would make you much better at this.

But that is only my 2 cents. Do as you wish.

Nomad

Toto

You're right, Nomad, I am not very good at this. I read your post and then Carrier's review, and it was obvious that you had misrepresented everything he said. I should have done a better job of skewering you.

Okay, Who Wrote the Bible was published in 87 and reprinted with revisions in 97.

But otherwise, nothing else that you said was supportable. The Bible Unearthed is not literary criticism, and it does not have the sort of footnotes to specific text that would be appropriate for a work of lit crit or biblical criticism. Carrier discussed in detail the sort of bibliography and sources that it did have, which he considered useful and appropriate for a popular book. You may not like this, but it is hardly a crime of moral turpitude that invalidates the entire worth of the book.

And you repeat the false claim that Dever's views were misrepresented. Go back and read what Carrier wrote. And what is this about Dever's work used without permission? Since when do scholars require permission before another scholar uses their research? Scholars put their research out into the public square for others to review, criticize, and build on.

And then you first complained about Carrier's "silence" on both the alleged misrepresentation and the theological implications of the book, but after I point out that he actually addressed the issues (i.e., was not silent at all), you slip into slandering him for defending a lie, or some other dishonesty. (Or is that libel? I always forget.) What a weasel!

You say that "Every work on the Bible is a work of theology or ideology, so trying to pretend that it is somehow not connected to a philosophical argument is disingenous in the extreme." I find this statement quite astounding. I will remember it everytime you or Layman claim that professional historians agree that Jesus really existed.

I think that Carrier has made his philosophical position quite clear, and you have no basis for claiming that he has concealed anything.

I will probably never achieve your level of verbal streetfighting, Nomad. I used to think that Rodahi was a bit impolite to you and should try to be more reasonable, but after reading this reply, I don't think you deserve any amount of consideration.

sentinel00, I didn't mean to ignore any of your points based on Carrier's article. I'm going to have to find both articles and read them closely again for the umpteenth time.

A lot of it comes down to: Who do you believe more?

I believe Carrier's article was a real overreaction and that it was more vitriolic then Dever's review. I will be interested to see if it is even posted in the next issue of BAR. I will also be interested to see Dever's reply, if he is allowed one.

Anyway, Carrier's article has some substance, but I'm not sure that what he addresses are necessarily part of Dever's concerns.

Regardless, sentinel00, you perfectly summed up, in a previous post, my beliefs on reading these kinds of books. I worry that some here might read this one book and think that they know about the true origins of Israel. To be informed, you must read more than one book about an issue and must also recognize that data in books for laypeople are oversimplifications. Oversimplifications can lead to misunderstandings and false assumptions. These are my points, and they seem to be already well taken.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 25, 2001).]

Thank you, Ish. You did catch my meaning... you just didn't feel the need to stroke my ego by announcing it! hehehehe.

Anyway, I thought Dever's criticisms were unwaranted, and were indeed indicative of someone who didn't read the book. As I told Nomad, the book builds a convincing argument, now it just remains to be seen if the evidence does indeed back up their claims.

I'm also interested to see if they print Carrier's letter, and if Dever responds. An ongoing debate is only good for knowledge!

I have to take issue with this. Do you really think that Dever, Finkelstein's peer, would not have read this book, even though he had to do a review on it in a major Archaeological publication? I just don't think that's possible.

I suppose you could say that he was in high gear when he sped-read the book, but I really can't see this happening for a review in a major publication. Afterall, his reputation is at stake.

BAR has featured Dever's and Finkelstein's views before and I imagine they will do so in the future. If you wanted to get a better feel for Dever's positions you could read BAR's July/Aug 1997 issue (vol 23, no 4, p. 26). In this article, he takes on Biblical Minimalists. I just picked this one because Dever is on the cover.

Back to the subject, Dever is a serious scholar who happens to disagree with Finkelstein. Since he disagrees, his review will naturally show this. It is impossible to get into the minute details of the disagreement in a review, so Dever simply states what he does not agree with. I don't see that what Dever says is unwarranted.

Thanks,
Ish

What leads me to believe that he didn't read the book, or at least, the same book that I read, are statements like this:

This opinion may be based upon his knowledge of Finkelstein's work, and prior debates... but the book downplays nothing... it outright states that the United Monarchy was impossible. They take up quite a bit of the book backing this up, and I won't repeat it here. And they don't simply down-date things to make their conclusions fit their theories. This is a remark from either a clearly biased and unprofessional individual, or someone who didn't spend any time reading the relevant chapters. If Finkelstein is wrong, so be it... but this is certainly not the way to critique what was written.

Also, as was brought up in Carrier's response, the book never says Dever "espoused Norman Gottwald’s “peasant revolt” model of ancient Israel’s emergence." It just plain doesn't. It's not the impression I got, and I read that portion of the book before I got to Dever's review. So, what made Dever make the accusation? I can't pretend to know... but when laying out a trend, it fits into the trend of "didn't read the book."

What was "unwaranted?" Well, in many places Dever wants to have it both ways. Take, for example:

After writing that, "The authors recognize that recent archaeological data now constitute our primary source for writing any new history of Israel. They also offer an explicit hypothesis and write admirably." So which is it? When you read the review, which statement did you end up remembering? I feel that statement, given the rest of the review, was unwaranted.

Or, how about this little gem:

Perhaps this is my personal bias showing itself, but I didn't catch any rhetoric in the book at all.

Here's what I found in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary for rhetoric:

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language

This is just an assumption here, but Dever probably meant the very last of those definitions, "insincere or grandiloquent language." However, I never caught any. Not once. When the archeological data for a particular issue is inconclusive, the book says so. As a matter of fact, the book follows a very simple format to follow. They recount the biblical story, and then tell the reader all about what archeology is able to confirm or dispell. If the archeological record is directly at odds with Biblical claims, they spell out very clearly how it does. If the archeological record confirms the Biblical account, they also spell out how it does. I got no ideology in the text.

But, that's just my opinion, and I am certainly not an archeologist or historian. Richard Carrier is an historian, however.