SaintCog

I thought I'd introduce a topic that's been bugging me for the last couple of years or so about many of my fellow secularist/ atheist/ agnostic/ humanist/ non-theist, or whatever it is we like to call ourselves.

It's this incessant need to insist that the Bible is shit - this notion that if the Bible is not historically accurate in the modern sense of the term "history," then it is completely worthless and should be verbally pissed upon every chance we get.

To my knowledge, no other historically dubious ancient document has received this kind of disrespectful treatment from those who are apparently concerned about historical truth and accuracy. And I understand that much of the reason for this is that no other ancient document has shaped the culture in which we live the same way Biblical literature has. Homer's Odyssey simply does not threaten people the same way, so nobody is going to bother to disparage it. But then, nobody ever would disparage the Odyssey because it is regarded as an important piece of our literary heritage.

The Bible is also a very important piece of our literary and cultural heritage. And for my money, it should be respected as such. Yes, I think it should be critically examined and held to the highest standard of scientific scrutiny. Yes, I think we should argue that it is not an accurate literal record of historical events. Yes, I think we should resist those who would thrust it into the public sector and use it as the basis for legislation. But I also think it is unnecessary, counterproductive, and just plain idiotic to beat up on the literature itself.

Cheers,
SC

Peter Watts

Whenever I'd made the same argument in the circles I frequent, people reject that idea in the angriest terms possible. It's like it's not enough not to believe in God. They don't WANT there to be a God, so they attack everything about the Bible for lack of a better punching bag.

SaintCog

I think you're overstepping your authority here. You just can't know what other people want. You know what you want, because you are inside your own head. It seems that you'd like to believe that skeptics don't want there to be a God, because this offers a psychologically comfortable way to dismiss all those people who don't believe in God.

And now I'm overstepping my authority.

Cheers,
SC

NOGO

I can only speak for myself.

As a literary work I have no problem with the bible.

My problem is what faith does to people.
Faith is like a cage and people are in prison.
They want to be there.
Faith thrives on people's fears and weaknesses.

Part of this cage is the Bible.

The Odyssey, to my knowledge, does not nor has ever held a similar role in any society.

PopeInTheWoods

Would you care to provide examples or context?

The Bible is extremely useful if you're studying Jewish or early xian mythology or theology, but as a historical or scientific authority it simply is shit. Some of the stories and themes are wonderful, but like many compilations a good portion of it is shit even as literature. After the third barren wife is made fetile, or the fifth neighboring tribe is put to the sword, WE GET THE DAMN POINT ALREADY! MOVE ON!

Andy

Andy

rob117

This sort of "secular fundamentalism" is represented by the Copenhagen school of biblical criticism, although their views come more from politics than anything else. What they do is project the current political situation of the Middle East onto the past, claiming that the Bible was forged during the Persian or Hellenistic era by "The Jews" in order to justify taking territory. While this might not be "classical" anti-Semitism, at times it seems awfully close, regardless of how it is intended.

No serious scholar claims the Bible is an accurate historical document (Kenneth Kitchen doesn't count ). It certainly contains myths and legends. The Patriarchs are almost certainly mythological, and probably the Exodus as well. But the Israelite monarchies, at least from the Omrides on, and, in my view, back to Saul and David, were certainly historical political entities. The biblical tales about them are embellished and exaggerated, yes. But denying them any historicity in face of archaeological evidence such as the Mesha Stele and Tel Dan Inscription, just because later mythographers' stories about them became considered to be "the Word of God" by even later generations, is simply backlash from our side.

My interest in the Bible comes from my interest in ancient cultures in general. Mythology is a universal aspect of every human culture, whether you believe in it or not. Christianity is simply is simply our own culture's mythology. As an atheist, I obviously don't believe in it, but myths and legends are often based on folk memories of real history, which is what the book of Kings appears to be. A good analogy would be Homer's Iliad- it's obviously embellished and exaggerated, but archaeological excavations at Hissarlik in Turkey, as well as Hittite inscriptions from the around 1300 BC, do support the theory that there was continuous conflict between Bronze Age Greeks and Trojans, ending in a major war and destruction of Troy around 1190 BC, perhaps preceded by a smaller, earlier war around 1300 BC.

Amaleq13

It is an inverse reaction to the assertion from religious fundamentalists that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God.

Both positions are flawed by too much feeling and not enough thinking.

Vorkosigan

That's a gigantic oversimplification. It seems like you, not the Copenhagen school, is the one doing the projecting.

Since Philip Davies once sent me a very nice note, on his slandered behalf I will ask what evidence there is for their existence.

I will bet you one bottle of Harvey's Bristol Cream, against alcohol of similar value, that within exactly 15 years of this post, both of these will be demonstrated to be fakes.

In any case, neither mentions David or Saul.

Yes, and analysis of other data suggests the Trojan War did not take place there, and in fact never occurred. Start here.

Vorkosigan

spin

I think it verges on libel, Vork. It actually calls the efforts of the relevant scholars of the university of Copenhagen "anti-semitism" and, while not ""classical"", it seems "awfully close". This of course is while Lemche for example has relatives in Israel and close connections with numerous important Israeli archaeologists. It would seem that Rob117 is simply following the line of Bill Dever, who in order to justify his own wayward stance has attempted to vilify some a group of disparate scholars from various universities under the name "the Copenhagen school". Besides Dever, their's Schanks who sees opportunity for stimulating further sales by provoking tension, such as against Zeev Herzog, who put forward a relatively standard scholarly position in an Israeli newspaper, only to be branded a "minimalist" by Schanks, but as you can imagine, Herzog just happens to be Jewish, so it's very hard to accuse him of being anti-Semitic.

It's interesting to see scholars getting into trouble for using good scholarly techniques used in other fields of historical research because they are not sticking to the rules and regurgitating the biblical account.

A number of Assyrian inscriptions talk about bit-Khumri (the house of Omri), monarchs such as Ahab and Jehu, and various names for the realm itself. Davies is quite aware of this information. He dealt with Israel in three stages, first the Israel of Merneptah (a tribal group in the north), then second (some 300 years later), the historical Israel/Samaria of the house of Omri, and finally a third Israel of tradition, unified Israel that links the kingdom of Judah into it.


You certainly get a quibble on the last statement, for the Tel Dan rock mentions a bytdwd, which everyone is quick to point out is "house of David", but the normal scholarly interpretation these days is that it is a place name for a town with a shrine, a house of a god, such as Beth-el, Beth-Shamash and Beth-Anat.


Nobody knows what Heinrich Schliemann found. There are parts of Turkey where ruins simply stuck out of the ground they were so profuse, yet there was nothing of note at the site where Schliemann first tried, so he eventually tried Hissarlik. The tourist trade though doesn't mind calling it Troy and erecting a wooden horse nearby. They should know.


spin

pharoah

Here's a short list of historical events that can be traced directly or indirectly to the Bible:

• The Dark Ages.
• The Crusades.
• The destruction of numerous invaluable antique documents, impeding the advance of knowledge for hundreds of years.
• The Inquisition, pograms, etc.
• The Holocaust.
• Modern day fundamentalism in the US that threatens to throw scientific advancement back to the Dark Ages.
• Modern day fundamentalism in the US and Middle East that threatens to expand into an apocalyptic Crusade.

Given this history, why does it amaze you that some people feel nothing but contempt for the Bible?