gnosis92

What does Biblical Archaeology Review & Hershel Shanks think about Bible Unearthed/Bible minimalism in general?

I've seen his magazines at the local bookstore, and it seems to defend the basic historicity of the Old Testament. :huh:

Toto

Hershel Shanks (trained as a lawyer, not as an archaeologist) is running a commercial enterprise, and his marketing base consists of people with an interest in archeaology, many of whom happen to be committed Christians who expect archaeology to confirm the Bible. So he's not going to insult his readership, but he still needs the professional archaeologists to provide content. Keep that in mind.

BAR seems to be putting its issues online now: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.asp

gnosis92

Thanks
I have paged through his magazine at Barnes and Borders and it seems like the credentialed archaelogists defend the historicity of the OT, referencing archaelogical facts and diggs, but of course, I've heard of Bible Unearthed as well. I wonder what the mainstream consensus is on various stories of the OT.

Minimalist

Shanks was also an early supporter of the James Ossuary....since declared a forgery.

gnosis92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary#Aftermath

"Different parts of the text in different styles had been copied from a catalog of Jewish ossuaries and possibly carved by the aid of scanning software."

For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, saying “the ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made."[4]

In February, 2007, at the trial of Oded Golan, the defense produced photographs taken in Golan's home that were dated to 1976. In these photographs, the ossuary is shown on a shelf. In an enlargement, the whole inscription can be seen. The photographs were printed on 1970s photographic paper and stamped March 1976. The photo was examined by Gerald Richard, a former FBI agent and an expert for the defense. Richard testified that nothing about the photographs suggested that they were produced other than in 1976 as the stamps and paper indicated. These photographs significantly undermined the prosecution's theory that the ossuary was a recent forgery by Golan intended to be sold for profit. As Golan's attorney, Lior Beringer, explained to Haaretz, "The prosecution claims that Golan forged the inscription after the beginning of 2000. But here is a detailed report from an FBI photo lab that states that the inscription existed at least since the 70s. It is unreasonable that someone would forge an inscription like this in the 70s and suddenly decide to come out with it in 2002." [6]

badger3k

Actually, he still is.

I picked up the latest (I think) issue, dealing with Jezebel's Seal. There was an article in it on unprovenenced (hope I spelled that correctly) - ie stolen - artifacts. There was also an editorial, by I am not sure, dealing with a huge ad hominem style personal attack on one scholar, which basically made it look like I was reading one of my high school students essays. Reading that snapped my irony meter. Reminds me that I need to find that issue - it's around here somewhere.

To me, the effort that BAR seems to put into proving that the bible is historically accurate is stunning, although they do seem to make concessions when forced to (when even they cannot deny the evidence). I pretty much try to stick to the journals and other archaeology magazines (like Archaeology) when I want to read something interesting. I think BAR is way too biased (kind of like watching "The Naked Archaeologist" - itself an ironic name since he is neither naked (luckily) or an archaeologist) to give more than fluff and maybe some pointers (names, etc) towards some real scientific material.

mens_sana

I have subscribed to BAR for 2-3 years now. The magazine is definitely not run by minimalists, yet I don't see a whole lot of "See the Bible was right" either. If you do see something that appears in that light, try reading between the lines. The audience consists of amateur archaeologists with a genuine interest in the field and of the committed "Faithful." Articles are sometimes phrased to get by the Faithful, while maintaining professional objectivity. The article last year about a location where John did his baptizing was a very good example of that.