gnosis92

bible minimalist: which OT figure do you think existed and why?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

Historicity of the Old Testament
See also: Biblical archaeology and The Bible and history

The historicity of the Old Testament has been a matter of debate, particularly since the 19th century. For a time during that era, one group of scholars claimed that most of the societies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians, were allegedly fictional due to a (then) lack of archaeological evidence. This view had to be abandoned when the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, Ashur, and other cities were found, complete with extant tablets describing many of the same events mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib during the reign of Hezekiah.

Later on, Julius Wellhausen, using source criticism, claimed to have isolated four strands of tradition behind the Pentateuch (JEDP)(see the documentary hypothesis). The Wellhausen School assigned dates for these strands (and their later editing) from the 10th–5th centuries BCE. Because the composition of the Pentateuch according to Wellhausen was so much later than the events it described, some who accept Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis tend to regard the narratives of the Pentateuch as largely fictional, while others argue that Wellhausen's method is not valid given that so many of our surviving copies of historical documents date from a much later time period: e.g., the earliest extant copies of Julius Caesar's famous "Commentaries on the Gallic War" are medieval copies dating from the 9th century, nearly a thousand years after Caesar wrote the original.

Current debate concerning the historicity of the Old Testament can be divided into several camps. One group has been labeled "biblical minimalists" by its critics. Minimalists (e.g., Philip Davies, Thompson, Seters) see very little reliable history in any of the Old Testament. Conservative Old Testament scholars, "biblical maximalists," generally accept the historicity of most Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Gen 1–11) on confessional grounds, and noted Egyptologists (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen) argue that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidence. Other scholars (e.g., William Dever) are somewhere in between: they see clear signs of evidence for the monarchy and much of Israel's later history, though they doubt the Exodus and Conquest. The vast majority of scholars at American universities are somewhere between biblical minimalism and maximalism; there are still many maximalists at conservative/evangelical seminaries, while there are very few biblical minimalists at any American universities. Interestingly, both Kitchen and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University are probably the only scholars from the maximalist and minimalist camps who are sufficiently trained to address these questions with the necessary sophistication—both are giants in their fields—and both come to different conclusions.

Some contemporary Israeli archaeologists have now rejected much of the Deuteronomistic history of the Old Testament. Notably, Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman have written popular books detailing their view that many of the most well known Biblical stories are incompatible with the archaeology of the region. Conversely, in 2003 Kenneth A. Kitchen published the 662 page book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, which defended the Bible's reliability throughout. Although some archeologists have argued that many Biblical accounts should be rejected due to a lack of corroborating archaeological evidence, opponents point out that this is a return to the 19th century idea that anything not confirmed by current archaeology should be dismissed, a methodology which had once led some to question the existence of major empires such as Assyria.

Schools of archaeological and historical thought

There are two loosely defined historical schools of thought with regard to the historicity of the Bible, biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism, as well as a non-historical method of reading the Bible, the traditional religious reading of the Bible.

Note that historical opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two tightly defined camps. Since there is a wide range of opinions regarding the historicity of the Bible, it should not be surprising that any given scholar may have views that fall anywhere between these two loosely defined camps.
[edit]

Biblical minimalism

"It is hard to pinpoint when the movement started, but 1968 seems to be a reasonable date. During this year, two prize winning essays were written in Copenhagen, one by [Niels Peter] Lemche, the other by [Heike] Friis, which advocated a complete rethinking of the way we approach the Bible and attempt to draw historical conclusions from it" (George Athas, "'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies," edited transcript of lecture, 3rd ed., University of Sydney, April 29, 1999; see link below).

In published books, one of the early advocates of the current school of thought known as Biblical minimalism is Giovanni Garbini, Storia e ideologia nell’Israele antico (1986), translated into English as History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (1988). In his footsteps followed Thomas L. Thompson with his lengthy Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources (1992) and, building explicitly on Thompson's book, P. R. Davies' shorter work, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (1992). In the latter, Davies finds historical Israel only in archaeological remains, Biblical Israel only in Scripture, and "ancient Israel" to be an unacceptable amalgam of the two. Thompson and Davies see the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as the imaginative creation of a small community of Jews at Jerusalem during the period which the Bible assigns to after the return from the Babylonian exile, 539 BCE onward. Niels Peter Lemche, Thompson's fellow faculty member at the University of Copenhagen, also followed with several titles that show Thompson's influence, including The Israelites in history and tradition (1998). The presence of both Thompson and Lemche at the same institution has led to the use of the term "Copenhagen school" as a designation for those who advocate their radical version of Biblical minimalism.

Biblical minimalists generally hold that the Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a mythic character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the Biblical patriarchs are mythical, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, Biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
[edit]

Biblical maximalism

The term "maximalism" is something of a misnomer, and many people incorrectly relate this to Biblical inerrancy. Most maximalists, however, are not Biblical inerrantists.

Most Biblical maximalists accept many findings of modern historical studies and archaeology and agree that one needs to be cautious in teasing out fact from myth in the Bible. However, maximalists hold that the core stories of the Bible indeed tell us about actual historical events, and that the later books of the Bible are more historically based than the earlier books.

Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs. As such, Biblical maximalists are divided on this issue. Some hold that many or all of these patriarchs were real historical figures, but that we should not take the Bible's stories about them as historically accurate, even in broad strokes. Others hold that it is likely that some or all of these patriarchs are better classified as purely mythical creations, with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past, much like the British legends of King Arthur.

Biblical maximalists agree that the twelve tribes of Israel did indeed exist, even though they do not necessarily believe the Biblical description of their origin. Biblical maximalists are in agreement that important biblical figures, such as King David and King Saul did exist, that the Biblical kingdoms of Israel also existed, and that Jesus was a historical figure.

Note, however, there is a wide array of positions that one can hold within this school, and some in this school overlap with biblical minimalists. As noted above, historical opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two tightly defined camps.
[edit]

Increasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools

In 2001, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published the book The Bible Unearthed : Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts which advocated a view midway toward Biblical minimalism and caused an uproar among many conservatives. However, the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review (March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanks quoted several mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism is now dying. [9] In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a staunch maximalist (and Egyptologist, rather than Biblical scholar), authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament . Kitchen advocated the reliability of the Old Testament and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman. In the short term, there are no signs the intensity of the debate between the minimalist and maximalist scholars will diminish.
[edit]

Archaeology and modern Israeli politics

Biblical archaeology is sometimes politically controversial, especially when it touches on the United Monarchy period, as some Israelis seek to use the existence of the Kingdom as support for a Greater Israel today. Arguments against the historicity of the Kingdom (or perhaps an existence in a smaller and less impressive form), or against the historicity of a recognisable Exodus, can lead to charges of anti-Semitism, for example from Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Ratel

I find it hard to believe that any scholars doubted the existence of Babylonians, since Babylon is mentioned by classical writers, if I am not mistaken.

I have heard the business of Assyria being thought mythical also, but I've never seen a source for this belief. Does anyone know which 19th century scholars declared Assyria mythical, and in what writings?

jeffevnz

I don't find it so hard to believe. Before modern archaeology, did we have any more reason to believe in Babylon than Atlantis?

Kosh

I don't quite understand the question raised by the OT.

However, one should be cautious when using the wiki as a source of authority. It is afterall, editable by anyone. And in fact I think it was this very entry that our own Vorkosokian was having problems with. Theists (namely our own Layman, IIRC) were going in there daily and re-editing the rhetoric to try to weaken the case for minimalism.

gnosis92

If we take middle of the road scholarly consensus, what aspects of the OT can we safely say is historical either through independent attestation or archelogical support?

Kosh

I'm sure others who keep on it better (and have a better memory than I) will post,
however I seem to recall that King Josiah isn't disputed. Or the claim that Egypt was a country, or that there is a desert in the Sanai.

Anat

We have evidence for the existence of quite a few kings, but it is not at all clear if their deeds and the status of their respective kingdoms match the biblical narrative. The Mesha stele is evidence that at some point Israel under the Omride kings had conquered (parts of) Moab for a while, but Mesha was able to put an end to the conquest (roughly in agreement with biblical account, especially if one considers the difference in perspective). The Tel Dan inscription is evidence for an ongoing conflict with Aram (consistent with biblical account). It is not clear why the Assyrians considered Jehu to be of the House of Humri(=Omri) - I have seen it suggested that Jehu's grandfather had been an illegitimate son of Omri. Ahab may have been a more impressive military man than the Bible lets us know. So far no evidence for any of Elijah and Elisha's miracles.

As for Judah - ahem, until the fall of Samaria the place had a rather sparse population. Jerusalem until Hezekiah's times was just a hill or two, just a few acres. There is evidence for the Senaherib campaign, the conquest of Lachish, a threat of some sort to Jerusalem. Hezekiah's water system exists.

Shishak's campaign is considered the earliest event described in the Bible for which external evidence exists, however there is controversy regarding details (which cities were attacked). And in 'David and Solomon' Finkelstein seeks to redate the Shishak campaign to an earlier time and identify it with Saul's last battle.

Diogenes the Cynic

No one ever claimed the Babylonians or the Assyrians never existed. Maybe the author was thinking of the Hittites, since there is popular apologist meme that scholars once deinied their existence. That's also a claim without any merit, though.