Minimalist

I would also recommend Bill Dever's "Who Were The Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From." This preview, from Google.Books gives a fairly complete readout of the Exodus discussion and the beginning of the Conquest phase before ending. On pages 56-57, Dever gives a summary of the conquest sites indicating that most of them were either not occupied in the late bronze age or not destroyed at the end of the LBA or are simply unidentifiable in spite of 150 years of looking for them. Unfortunately, those pages do not make the preview but the book is well worth reading.

http://books.google.com/books?id=A_B...Iawi0#PPA11,M1

Darklighter

As everyone has indicated above (and we're just scratching the surface), there is just too much disproving evidence out there to let fundies get away with making that claim. All archeology has proved is that the Bible reflects a 7th century perspective and that certain cities and individuals mentioned after the time period of the Judges, did in fact exist. Anyone before that period is likely mythological, as there is no evidence of historicity before that point. However, a few simple historical points of accuracy (there's shockingly few), do NOT in any way point to the reliability of the supernatural aspects of the story. There's simply no getting around that... one would think.

Unfortunately such details usually don't matter to the devout. They're more likely to accuse you of being decieved and used by the devil to test their faith...

gnosis92

Is the Bible unearthed though the only source for these bible minimalist views?

Minimalist

Finkelstein is not a 'minimalist.' Lemche, Thompson, Davies, Whitelam, etc are minimalists. Finkelstein, occupies a centrist position, along with Dever and now, apparently, Amihai Mazar, etc., etc.

He does not consider the OT to have been written in toto at the end of the Babylonian Exile. Finkelstein holds that the OT was cobbled together in the 7th century BC (significantly, at the time that literacy became widespread in Judaea). Certainly, it was added to and edited further during and after the Exile but unlike the Minimalist school, he thinks there was something there to form a base for subsequent writings.

Baalazel

Mythic Past, Biblical archeology and the myth of Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Thomas L. Thompson is a good place to start a study of Biblical history. He makes good the case that there was no historical, political, or economic entity comparable to the Biblical Israel of the Old Testament.

Baal

Darklighter

Far from it. But that book is probably the most mainstrem and easily accessible of the many available. I say that based on it's popularity. But there are a ton of others.

There's a whole bunch of recommendations HERE. Minimalist also recommended another one from Dever in post #11. I havn't read it, but I'll get to it eventually.

mountainman

One of the essential first steps is to understand that -- as you clearly mention above -- the "Bible" has two separate sections which are by most accounts (OT and NT) believed to have been separately authored and which are separated by a chronology of at least a few hundred years.

This implied each set of accounts need to be separately examined: the new and the old, and that they need to be treated quite separately. If you are looking for a treatment of the NT related archaeological evidence there is an index of citations collated here

So your question involves two separate projects: two separate time epochs - and thus two separate sets of archaeological citations.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

brettpalmer

May I shamelessly plug my own humble contribution to the discussion?

http://bibleskeptic.googlepages.com

:blush:

Minimalist

You reminded me of a recent quote I saw from William Dever....in BAR, I think.

The man has undertaken a 50 year personal journey of discovery and he began as a Congregationalist Minister. As late as 2001 in "What Did The Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It" he was lashing Thompson and Davies for their opinions and now, as he has said, he has become an agnostic and a Minimalist. Well, I salute him for having the courage to change his opinions in the face of evidence. The world could use a lot more of that sort of reasoning ability.

littlepecan

As usual, you are all so wonderful for your input. Thank you!!

---------------------------------------------


answersingenesis

It's like Westoboro, for science!