Clivedurdle

Is this an acceptable terminology?

We are talking about literate people from the Middle East, an area where Empires had been around for thousands of years.

Ok, they were priests, into religion, superstitious. But does "BAG" denigrate what might actually be quite sophisticated ideas?

braces_for_impact

Denigrating? Perhaps. They had some ideas of merit, but compared to the Greeks, the Egyptians, or the Romans they didn't seem that advanced to me. :huh:

Toto

If you think that those BAG's came up with sophisticated ideas, you should be able to tell by examining them. Do you think that the Hebrew Scriptures contain sophisticated ideas? In what way? Can you identify one?

The laws appear to be based on sympathetic magic and the special chosen nature of the writer's tribe of goatherders and bronze age warriors. Some of the prophets write some great poetry, but it is based on the idea that there is a giant in the sky who controls their destiny. We now know that to be false.

patchy

I'll give you my take on it, since I assume I'm the subject of your question; apologies if it was just an "undirected" shot aimed at the whole board collectively.

I've used the phrase a number of times, most recently here.

When I do use it, I consciously choose to both because of and despite its perjorative connotation.

"Because of" meaning that here we are in the year 2005, when our scientific gains have overwhelmingly surpassed the knowledge of those tribal nomads--who, through abosolutely no fault of their own were ignorant of so much of the earth and galaxy's history and inner workings--yet literally millions of my countrymen steadfastly insist on letting these two-thousand year old voices trump what "science" is telling us...showing us.

The source of stories like the global flood, the Exodus, the Garden of Eden and other such whimsy is very deserving of being mocked or denigrated, in my opinion, when it is held up to be superior to knowledge we've gained empirically--the hard way--over the last few centuries.

The term is MEANT to be dismissive of the source...to undercut its authority...especially in the context of comparing it to real-world evidence collected in modern times.

I don't think for a moment that "the ancients couldn't have gotten anything right"--far from it. I don't remember his name, but I'm still in awe of the guy (ancient Greek, maybe?) who calculated the circumference of the earth using a frigging stick in the ground and measuring the shadows in different cities at the same time--and came damn close to the real answer.

That's what I mean by using the term "Bronze Age goatherders" DESPITE it sounding dismissive. I don't think I've ever used it as a blanket indictment of any hypothesis just because it sprang from ancient minds--many of which I have a very deep respect for. All the MORE so, in fact, since they didn't have at their disposal such things as the telescopes, microscopes, and measuring devices that we take for granted today.

I don't, and won't, hesitate for a second to apply it to "primary source material" from 2,000 years ago that is held to be more reliable or trustworthy than that which is generated scientifically today.

Hope this helps--

Julian

A few corrections. Most of the OT takes place in the Iron Age. Secondly, there was quite a bit of difference between the sophisticated Israel in the north and the less advanced Judah to the south. The OT was certainly not written by goatherders, although one might wish that it had been. Would be more fun to read about the vindictive politics of goats rather than the struggle of priests and kings for the 'souls' of their paltry little realm.

There were, of course, many goatherders around at the time.

Julian

patchy

Sorry, I also meant to address this bit: We most assuredly are NOT talking about literate people here. To what degree that matters as to your question, I don't know--but in fact only a tiny fraction of them were indeed literate.

One of the main things screwing up the continuity and, well...credibility, of a lot of these ancient tales is the fact that they passed from generation to generation orally, as was the tradition. They weren't written down until much later on, and even then had few "readers" available, yet alone extant texts to even be read--by anyone.

Clivedurdle

Not aiming at anyone, saw it used in a recent thread and thought hmm!

So it should be Iron Age what?

I meant by literate the ones who wrote it down!

Aspirin99

Something that I think is interesting is that the Philistines, who were a bronze age people, never brought a written language into the Iron Age.

patchy

"Iron Age tribesmen?" <shrug>

I don't quite like the sound of that--I'll stick with Bronze Age goatherders for now. ..and for the reasons stated.

Remember, too, that there's no such thing as "THE" Bronze Age, (or Iron Age, or Copper Age.) It's a relative term, that follows a particular culture through its own unique development cycle. In other words, China's Bronze Age is not the same period as the Middle East's, and Pre-Columbian America's Iron Age doesn't correlate with Asia Minor's.

Julian

My reference to the Iron Age was according to the current reference years for biblical archaeology, thus relevant for the area in question.

BTW, I have no problem with 'bronze age goatherders.'

Julian