Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-22-2005, 07:14 AM

Message to praxeus et al: The question must also be asked "Does Archaeology Support the Historical Accuracy of books OTHER than the Bible"?

Lunawalk · 12-22-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The short answer is that very little of the historical claims in the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology while much has been refuted. The obligatory book to read in this area is The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstien and Neil Asher Silberman. Finkelstein is one of the leading Middle Eastern archaeologists in the world and is chairman of the archaeology department at Tel Aviv University. The Bible Unearthed presents a lot of information that has long been known to Israeli archaeologists but which had not heretofore been greatly publicized in the US. To summarize some of what is now known, the archaeology shows that the cultural group which became known as the Israelites was an indigenous Canaanite population which did not migrate in from the outside (ala Abraham) and (more controversially) was never enslaved in Egypt, never escaped in an Exodus, never wandered the Sinai, never conquered Canaan and never established a unified Kingdom of David and Solomon. There were no patriarchs, no Moses, no Joshua and possibly no David or Solomon. If either of the latter two figures did exist in some form, they were much less important than the Bible describes them. At best, they would have been minor local chieftains.

Another good book which covers some of this same material is called It Ain't Necessarily So by Matthew Sturgis.

Typically, on the apologetic web you will find spurious conclusions drawn from minimal evidence. William Ramsay, for instance, is a favorite among apologists because he confirmed a few irrelevant geographical claims made in Acts.

If there was no patriarchs, exodus or conquest of Canaan, why would the writers of the bible invent these stories. Where did the Isrealites get the notion that they came from outside Canaan.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-22-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

If there was no patriarchs, Exodus or conquest of Canaan, why would the writers of the Bible invent these stories? Where did the Israelites get the notion that they came from outside Canaan?

The main issue is that even it there was a conquest of Canaan and an Exodus, so what? Anyone can accurately write about the archaeology and geography where they live and travel. What is at all unusual about that?
You should have also asked where the Israelites got the notion that there were plagues in Egypt and that the Red Sea parted. Those events, if true, would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, a number of eyewitnesses without prior precedent or subsequent duplication in the entire Bible, and yet, outside of the Bible, there are not ANY records of the supposed events. The texts say that the Philistines were aware of the miracles, so Christians can't claim that God prevented news of the events from leaving Egypt. The events were THE media story of the millennia, and it is quite suspicious that there are not any records of them outside of the Bible, not in Egyptian history or anyone else's history.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-22-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

If there was no patriarchs, exodus or conquest of Canaan, why would the writers of the bible invent these stories. Where did the Isrealites get the notion that they came from outside Canaan.

The answers to these questions are not known with certainty but the basic theory is that the stories were essentially post-exilic political propaganda designed to create a mythic history for Israel and a unified narrative for its people. It was also partially designed to solidify political and religious power in Jerusalem and at the temple. Some aspects of these narratives may have had their origins in tribal legends or been semi-inspired by other historical events (The Exodus was probably based on the expulsion of the Hyksos, for instance).

That's the summation, anyway. Each of these aspects have comprehensive explanations which would require much longer posts.

Mountain Man · 12-22-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

....The whole thing was a virtually worthless argument (Lowder is right) BEFORE the Caesarea inscription and various archaelogical finds. To see them continue on AFTER the Caesarea inscription should help folks thinking and considering to at least really smell some coffee in the morning.

It seem that all of your arguments have been that way, worthless. ONE little inscription, no matter what it says, proves nothing. I woke up and smelled the coffee long ago and figured out the whole bible and it's gods and such are just myths from a scientifically illiterate society. It's not worth the bother to study in depth.

Steven Avery · 12-22-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

It seem that all of your arguments have been that way, worthless. ONE little inscription, no matter what it says, proves nothing. I woke up and smelled the coffee long ago and figured out the whole bible and it's gods and such are just myths from a scientifically illiterate society. It's not worth the bother to study in depth.

Thanks Mountain for showing your tude. Nonetheless there are some skeptics in here that seem to be capable of a real dialog or a little comprehension savvy.

The point on Nazareth is so simple and clear (you might compare it to a Christian apologist who comes on forum quoting Hershel Shanks on the hope that the James ossuary will be rehabilitated.. putting aside the 1940's ossuary discovery that remain quite interesting) that some here might be like a Jeffrey Lowder -- defacto.. "ok, got it, lets move on and go to the next item" or at least "I won't make an issue about it, doesn't make a lot of sense" .

Yet then we get the Mountain Men and a few others, who can't even see and acknowledge the simplest basics,.

As for "ONE little inscription", in fact it can be a one little inscription virtual refuation of what was a very weak evidence from silence. In this case, it is, whether you understand that or note.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Mountain Man · 12-22-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Thanks Mountain for showing your tude. Nonetheless there are some skeptics in here that seem to be capable of a real dialog or a little comprehension savvy.

I comprehend all your arguments. Just because I'm not naive enough to fall for them doesn't mean I do not understand them.

Quote:

The point on Nazareth is so simple and clear

Yes, it proves nothing. Anyone can write a book years AFTER THE FACT and include names of towns, villages, and whatever.

Quote:

Yet then we get the Mountain Men and a few others, who can't even see and acknowledge the simplest basics,.

Or we just have a bit higher standards when it comes to the credibility of those trying to push religious mythologies.

Quote:

As for "ONE little inscription", in fact it can be a one little inscription virtual refuation of what was a very weak evidence from silence. In this case, it is, whether you understand that or note.

I understand that the "inscription" was not contemporary with the times the bible is claimed to have been talking about. It's useless.

Got anything else?:huh:

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPS

I don't see how his words could be interpreted as saying anything other than that the evidence supports the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus -- there is no qualification in the statements about Nazareth at all.

I suggest you follow the link and read his own explanation in the thread.

Quote:

At issue was the bald assertion that Nazareth didn't exist in the early 1st C. Quite obviously, such claims are false and likely driven by ideology rather than evidence.

That is precisely his position in the linked thread. But I also understand him to consider habitation in the early 1st as not necessarily supported by the evidence. I think he tends toward assuming it did if only because he imagines the c.70CE refugees wouldn't have inhabited ruins or a graveyard.

RPS · 12-22-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I suggest you follow the link and read his own explanation in the thread.

I read a fair amount of the linked thread (admittedly quickly) and got the impression that his argument was that Mark wasn't intended to be literal with respect to an historical Jesus or Nazareth or Jerusalem or whatever. I didn't see him denying the existence of a literal Nazareth. If he were, he'd have to deal with the archeological evidence he had so recently and expressly affirmed; yet he does not.

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPS

I didn't see him denying the existence of a literal Nazareth. If he were, he'd have to deal with the archeological evidence he had so recently and expressly affirmed; yet he does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

As another example (and I am only bringing up two examples here--these same or similar points could be extended to dozens of things said since my last post), it has been argued that Bagatti is incompetent and none of his work can be trusted. Even if that is so, then we have almost no primary sources to rely on at all and therefore nothing useful can be said about ancient Nazareth, pro or con any theory at all. And even if we grant that, I will reiterate what I said about this already: the fact that we have no evidence of X does not permit the conclusion that we know there was no X. This is all the stronger a point if "we have no evidence of X" means "we have no useful evidence pertaining to the question one way or the other because it is all unreliable or inconclusive."

I take this to represent his position regarding the archeological evidence. There is a range of reasonable views of it from "agnostic" to "probably existed" but not "did not exist".

12-22-2005, 07:14 AM	#31
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Does Archaeology Support the Historical Accuracy of the Bible? Message to praxeus et al: The question must also be asked "Does Archaeology Support the Historical Accuracy of books OTHER than the Bible"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.