Jedi Mind Trick

I think a lot of what the OP is describing comes from the fact that quite a few skeptics of the bible were at one time fervent believers. Once they become non-believers there seems to be a need among some to purge.

One doctrine I was taught as a Christian was called “Iconoclastic Arrogance.� The doctrine was prompted by how people put a pastor or teacher on a pedestal, but once the pastor or teacher’s clay feet are discovered the idolater becomes and iconoclast and lashes out.

I think it was a perceptive teaching… It also applies to the bible, IMO. You have to admit that the pedestal that the bible is put on is quite high… in most Christian circles, that is.

EverLastingGodStopper

I haven't noticed the readers of Homer's Odyssey picketing abortion clinics or trying to pass legislation preventing same-sex couples from marrying. Although I for one am "all done with God," and am not a biblical scholar or critic, I do think that biblical criticism is important, given the fact that many religious people cite the Bible as the source for their ideas about laws that govern people who don't follow the Bible.

JamesBannon

The reason I get so pissed off with the bible (and I have an NIV translation) is that so many people believe that it is absolute truth and want to apply it all to our world. This from so-called "modern" people justifying a book which says that genocide is right if it ordered by god. We ought to have grown out of this bronze and iron-age belief by now and it should go the way of Zeus etc. Historically interesting but certainly not relevant to the modern world.

rob117

I see what I see in their statements. I even said that they probably don't mean anything by it, but it comes off that way.

And that is the mentality. You don't want there to have been a real ancient Israel, and so any discovery that goes against your preconceptions must be a fake. Yes, there have been a lot of fakes in this field. The Jehoash inscription and the James Ossuary, for example. But these were discovered and discounted relatively quickly. The Mesha stele has been out of the ground since the 19th century. The Tel Dan inscription has been widely accepted by mainstream scholars; only the Copenhagen school has insisted on it being a fake.

That's not what they're doing. The mainstream of biblical archaeology, people like Dever, Mazar, Levy, and Finkelstein, are not "regurgitating the biblical account." Dever does anything but "regurgitate" the biblical account; he heavily questions it, even calling Deuteronomy propoganda, which it is. He does not accept the Patriarchs, Exodus, or "Conquest" as historical. I disagree with his model of Israelite origins (he's pretty close to a heavily modified "peasant revolt" model; I subscribe to Levy's "Shasu" model). Mazar and Levy are a bit more conservative, yes, and I personally do not agree with their acceptance of the exodus, and will not unless more data is found. I also think Mazar's acceptance of the Patriarchs as historical is a bit naive. But the fact remains that Mazar wrote the standard reference work for the archaeology of Palestine, a 1992 book that is still used today. Levy's essay on Israelite ethnogenesis, along with Finkelstein's chapter in The Bible Unearthed on how the Israelites seem to be of pastoral origin, have caused me to lean towards the "Shasu" model of Israelite origins.
I include Finkelstein in the same category as these other three. He has his own ideas as to the stratigraphy of the region; time will see whether they pan out or not. I do think that Dever and others like him have some unwarranted bitterness towards Finkelstein.
The views of Thomson, Lemche, and Davies, however, are not like these mainstream figures. I have read some of their stuff, and I just don't buy it. The Persian and Hellenistic dating of the entire body of Hebrew scriptures simply ignores 300 years of biblical criticism, Hebrew linguistics, Levantine archaeology, and general anthropological principles. Their writing gives off the impression of being overtly ideological. I have no clue if its meant that way, but that's the impression it gives off.

On the other hand, I do apologize for the anti-Semitism statement. I never said they were anti-Semitic, just that their writing can be taken that way, as some of it (at least to my eye) assumes the presence of a Jewish conspiracy, 2500 years ago.

That is not the normal scholarly interpretation. That is a minority position. The stele reads:


1'. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................]
2'. [.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....]
3'. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4'. rael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king.
5'. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................]
6'. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
7'. riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab]
8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram king]
9'. of the House of David. And I set [.................................................. .....]
10'. their land ...[.................................................. .....................................]
11'. other ...[.................................................. ....................... and Jehu ru-]
12'. led over Is[rael.............................................. .....................................]
13'. siege upon [.................................................. ..........]

Lines 8-9 state, "...and I killed [...]yahu son of [...] king of the House of Dwd." The claim that Dwd refers to the Egyptian god Thoth, or to some hitherto unknown deity named Da'ud, simply doesn't make sense in context. The line right above it says he killed the king of Israel; given the context, "King of the House of Dwd" would most likely refer to the king of Judah. In context, whoever's "house" it is would be most likely be the founder of the dynasty.

I agree. It's true nobody kills for Homer. The bible has some brutal tribal law in it. But the real problem is that people today still follow it. Other than that, biblical law is really no different than any other ancient Near Eastern code of law.

S.C.Carlson

For background on Vork's comment, readers should see this thread: Is Tel Dan a plant.

The Tel Dan Inscription has bytdwd, and Lemaire thinks he can reconstruct the same phrase in the Mesha Stele (in a lacuna where the artifact was unfortunately broken). It could mean any number of things, "house of David," "house of Dod," etc.

However, if you're proven right about the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Inscription, then I'll bet you that bottle that the bytdwd was intended by its forger(s) to be a mention of the historical David (TM).

Stephen

Vorkosigan

Lemaire thinks that? Now why would he think that? <g>

...and you're just the man to do it!

Vorkosigan

SaintCog

Of those who have decided to defend the "the Bible is shit" position, I've noticed that most have nothing or almost nothing to say about the Bible itself. The criticism almost completely centers around the people who read and apply the Bible to intellectualy absurd and morally deplorable ends. But, as some have already pointed out on this thread, this is not a valid criticism of the Bible itself. It is a criticism of those who abuse Biblical literature.

Also, if we are going to measure the value of the Bible by the deeds it has inspired, I think it is revealing that certain people choose only to discuss the atrocities and absurdities that have resulted from it, and freely ignore the numerous charities and acts of compassion that have resulted from people applying Biblical ethics.

Personally, I neither blame the inquisition, the holocaust, the crusades, or any other number of religiously based atrocities on the Bible. By the same token, I don't credit acts of compassion or religious charities to the Bible. I believe these are all things that more or less would have occurred irrespective of whether or not the books of the Bible were ever written and compiled. The Bible didn't invent greed. It didn't invent land grabbing. It didn't invent racism. All of these things simply would have developed and fostered under some different banner. Conversely, the Bible didn't invent charity, nor did it invent altruism.

Two responses that went beyond merely lambasting fundamentalists were from Pope in the Woods (which I think is an hysterical monicker) and Skeptic Boy Lee (whose anagram, ironically, is "SBL").

Your response to the Bible as literature is much like my response to James Joyce. I can't stand anything written by him. I find his works to be mind numbingly boring. Yet, he is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant authors of the twentieth century. The reason, apparently, is that he didn't write to relate an entertaining story, but to say something profound and meaningful about life (or whatever the hell he's talking about) through the medium of fictional narrative. And although I find nothing personally edifying from any of the works of Joyce, I will not disparage them because of how many well-read, educated and intelligent people are personally edified by Joyce's works. In a field such as literature where there is no objective measure, concensus simply can't be seriously dismissed with such broad sweeping statements as "The Bible is shit."

I don't equate refraining from disparaging the Bible with giving it verbal kudos. I'm not saying we should all walk around carrying Bibles, telling people what a wonderful piece of literature it is. I'm simply suggesting that the vitriolic tone that has been adapted by most atheists, etc. when referring to the Bible is unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the secular image. The vast majority of people in the western world regard the Bible in a positive light, even though just as many have never read it. When atheists go around disparaging the Bible all it does is cast a negative light on atheism. This is the same problem I have with secular organizations like American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism. They often have cogent arguments to make. But the tenor of the message is usually so vitriolic against what most people intuitively hold so dear that nobody hears the message, only the contemptuous tone.

Cheers,
SC

spin

Patriarchs, judges, unified kingdom, etc. Fitting archaeology around the bible, breaking the archaeology up into periods related to biblical "ages". That's regurgitating the bible.

And Finkelstein is slowly becoming more accepted because they cannot get away from the fact that a lot of his wayward positions are based on such solid archaeological evidence. He's only relatively recently had the minimalist slur revoked.

Serious reanalysis of the archaeology such as Finkelstein has gone part the way of doing could not have been possible had people not challenged the whole ediface of unscholarly kowtowing to literature.

They are not archaeologists; they are historians, using historical methodologies aimed at being coherent and scholarly with their conclusions. Thompson's non-popular works are extremely heavily documented. Lemche is mainly a student of emerging Hebrew ethnography and culture, taking a position saying that one cannot rule out late datings solely based on the bible because one cannot show when those works were written -- and of course he is correct. Davies' main effort in the field -- he deals with many other aspects, from the DSS to non-biblical historiographical concerns relating to the period from Shalmaneser to Ashurbanipal, and he's even put out works on the Persian period -- was a singular volume looking at what evidence there is for the notion of "ancient Israel".

The only thing that you are correct about here is the 300 years of biblical criticism. Beside that you are totally off the mark, indicating that you probably haven't read much of their diverse output at all. All the scholars you have mentioned have been teachers of Semitic languages and linguistics. They have all been involved in archaeology. And the claim that they ignore "general anthropological principles" is ridiculous. I'd recommend you read more.

The main ideological issue their efforts give off to me is that there is a modern scientifically based range of methodological concerns that should be followed when dealing with the history of the Levant, methodological concerns which should be in harmony with historical pursuits in other areas. This has led Lemche to wonder if one can write a history of ancient Israel and Judah without simply trying to salvage as much as they can from the bible.

On the ideological front, it's interesting to note that one person labeled minimalist, Keith Whitelam, attempted to show that modern analysis was itself ideologically biased. This attempt is what got him labeled minimalist. And to be labeled minimalist can mean being threatened, insulted, and disturbed in various ways -- all because one attempts to take as scholarly an approach as possible, a task which is never fully possible because there are always concerns which interfere.

Actually you did, though it might not have been your intention.

That is, their type of anti-Semitism is not "classical", an unavoidable conclusion from your qualification 'not "classical"', just as someone who is not extremely tall, is nevertheless tall.

Ancient political literature is full of self-justification -- just as modern is. As an alternative explanation of the data regarding the "return from exile" it is viable and not yet demonstrated to be in any way erroneous.

One needs to explain why despite the fact that only the nobility was taken into exile, the returnees came back to an empty land. This notion of an empty land is a fabrication to disinherit the Jews who weren't hauled off into exile on the various occasions by Nebuchadnezzar. and who stayed where they were born and continued their daily lives as best as they could.


spin

rob117

:huh:
Archaeology is broken up into the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. These are not biblical periods. The entire history of Israel takes place in the Iron Age and the very late Bronze Age. The Patriarchs, exodus, etc. that I referred to are biblical stories. They have nothing to do with archaeological periods.

The Jahwist and Elohist sources were dated to the 9th-8th centuries BC based on linguistics. The form of Hebrew used was compared to inscriptions uncovered from various time periods, and the 9th-8th centuries BC matched better than any other period. The same goes for P and D, fitting best for the late 8th-6th centuries BC.

We know what Hebrew sounded like in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. It was a lot more Aramaized than Iron Age Hebrew. It was more distinct than Iron Age Hebrew. The Hebrew used in Genesis could easily be considered a dialect of Phoenician. The Hebrew used in Ezra could not. The term "Biblical Hebrew" refers to the language used in most of Genesis throughout most of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History. The language in Ezra and Chronicles is known as Second Temple Hebrew. They are different stages of the language. It would be like comparing our English to Shakespeare's English. And what you are saying is that assigning an approximate date based on this is not valid.

Anthropological principles refer to the processes of cultural evolution. The Hebrew of the Pentateuch is primarily earlier than the Hebrew of Ezra. To Lemche, this apparently means nothing. Oral tradition apparently means nothing; it is no longer valid for the Bible to be a collection of myths, stories, and laws; now it has to be political propoganda by the Persian-period version of Zionists. Parsimony in evaluating archaeological evidence means nothing; an inscription that refers to btdwd can't possibly refer to a David, because we don't want it to. It has to refer to Thoth or some deity named Da'ud. Never mind that there is no known temple to Thoth in the area, and that there is no known deity named Da'ud anywhere. And anyway, if it does refer to David, it's automatically a fake, since we've decided that David was invented by the returning Jews in order to justify taking the land.

I'm sorry. Nobody's asking you to believe the Bible is accurate history. But you're going out of your way to make the origin of the Bible as late and shady as possible.

You're right about that. But (I presume you refer to Ezra-Nehemiah) this is from a later book of the Second Temple period, written by the priesthood at a time the priesthood was in power and was stressing orthodoxy. You cannot simply extend this back to the entire biblical corpus. There was a culture here before the return from exile. Like any other culture, they had myths, stories, poetry, and history. They were literate; it is therefore probable that they wrote these things down. Literature from this culture that has been assigned to the Iron Age based on language and theme also exhibits cultural traits indicative of the Iron Age Semitic world. The afterlife of Sheol in this literature is as a shady continuation of earthly life, the standard view of the afterlife that was present from Babylon to Nineveh to Sidon in this period. If this were written in the Persian or Greek periods, we would see influences from Zoroastrian dualism. We do not see this in Genesis or Samuel; we do see it in late literature like Daniel and Zechariah. No, the cultural background of the Pentateuch is primarily of Iron Age Canaanite affinities.

spin

Well, why don't you bloody well tell Amihai Mazar (whose book I was referring to) of your discovery??

There are no archaeological analyses which do not pay some lipservice to a literary work of unknown dating.

Crap.

Try and make a case, please.

My god, this is inventive. How about some scholarly evidence for this stuff.

Have you ever heard the notion of dialect? People were crapping on that Mishnaic Hebrew was a later form of the language which didn't exist before the 2nd c. CE, yet Qumran proved such recourse to silence wrong. Qumran showed there could be at least three dialects of Hebrew in use through literary texts, that's not including the effects of Aramaic. If there were three in the Qumran era, where did they come from?

Actually it's known as Late Biblical Hebrew, for tendentious reasons. One takes the literature as a continuously produced effort, places Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah at the end of the process and calls it late, notwithstanding the fact that many scholars today talk of the Joseph material in Genesis as the "Joseph Novella" with reference to a Greek literary development.

Rubbish.

As your comment is based on conjecture, I'm sure Lemche should be impressed.

Especially when you only have a complex literary tradition based on literary tradition.

Let's have something tangible instead of this rehearsal of skimmed literature.

The analysis didn't stem from the Copenhagen "school".

dwd simply means "beloved", so bytdwd, unlike byt dwd, is at home with byt)d and byt$m$ as being a place name with a temple of some sort. byt dwd would be treated like byt xmry.

As dwd is not a name, your comment is irrelevant.

So, you can have your cake and eat it too with this style of "criticism".

As you don't know the formative context of the bible, you can't comment.

Yup.

(But Ezra and Nehemiah were originally two separate books. Both written much later than you muse. Josephus, while having access to a vast assortment of books, only knew Nehemiah's memoir and the version was very different from that found in the canonical book. Josephus also knew the Vorlage to 1 Esdras before it was changed to Ezra and a part removed from there and included in the newly formed canonical Nehemiah. Despite the claims for the importance of Ezra earlier than the Pharisaic period, that importance is not recognized by anyone as it isn't acknowledged by anyone.)

But what makes you think that any of this happened before the exile? Do you imagine that the Babylonians gave them time to collect their belongings, let alone their hypothetical documents, before they were hauled off to Babylon? In the one piece that makes you think of stuff even written in Babylon,

"by the waters of Babylon there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion"

Even that was written in Yehud. Note the word "there" $m distances the writer from Babylon.

The iron age stretches down to the fall of the temple. Claims for the language are misguided.

Like you would see massive Greek influence in the DSS???

When you start off with your conclusions you eventually get there.


spin