Crucifiction

How about the fact that, in Joshua 8, Ai was destroyed; but archaeological findings reveals that Ai was a long-abandoned city by the time that the Israelites supposedly moved into the region? Or that 1 Chronicles 21:5 says Israel raised an army of almost 1,600,000, when the U.S. army has only 1,370,000 soldiers and that the Roman Empire never managed to raise an army with more than 1,500,000 soldiers in it? Or that 2 Chronicles 14:8-14 says that God helped Asa kill a million Ethiopians, when a massacre of such huge proportions has NEVER been recorded in Ethiopian history? Or that is was Nabodinus, not Belshazzar, who was the last Babylonian king? Or that King David collects 10,000 darics for the construction of the Temple, when darics were named for King Darius who lived several hundred years after David supposedly did?

LeeBuhrul

for that word salad?

and word salad is all you ever get from those who suggest any intelectual depth to the folk tales collect in what is commonly known as bible.

You can't just pick and choose what is literal, what is metaphorical and what is metaphysical to suit the trend of the day...

where's the beef?

Spare me and the board the patronizing "give it time and you'll see the light" crap... I have given it time.. I have forced myself to read the entire bible not once, not twice... not even three times (are you keeping up) and my verdict is out... Genesis is without a doubt simplistic childish superstition not unlike anything found in any other nomadic tribe in africa in that time period... it's embarrassingly simplistic and incoherent and what's more... it is dead wrong!

By comparison with other civilizations of the time it was and remains to this day... barbarian

Chili

I think that Gen 1-3 is the nicest piece of poetry ever written and I do not agree with you at all. But then, I never read the rest of the story so we are both right.

Zeichman

In regards to the alleged conquest(s) of Joshua, I was under the impression that there was evidence that some of the cities were destoyed around the time of Joshua (assuming he existed) which were named in the book, others were not (Ai, Jericho), and some were destroyed around the time of Joshua that were not named in the book.

I guess my personal view is that the Bible can be trusted inasfar as it has no ulterior motive for telling things the way that they are told. This, of course, lends to minimalism. However, my view can be pretty problematic, since one can not know the exact context in which everything in the Bible was written, and thus not fully know the reasons for the ahistorical events being portrayed as real. (Whether it would be embarassing, for example, to say that Joshua had destroyed cities that his clan actually had, and thus have it left out of the Biblical books).

Sensei Meela

Interesting point; but surely, you're aware of midrash, no? [That is, an known 'ahistorical' account certainly could serve other purposes]

Chris Weimer

Well, like the Iliad, the Bible is partly a collection of memories of real events, such as the destruction of many cities, but with a theological twist that applauds the writers. The destruction was from the Sea Peoples, am I not correct? So they take real life events (as many, MANY authors did back then) and write a tale out of it.

Zeichman

I can't say that I am very familiar with midrash, other than the basic definition. If I recall, books like "The Apocalypse of Abraham" would be considered a midrash of events in Genesis, or 1 Enoch is a book written to explain why Enoch is not said to have died like other people.

And Chris W. said what I was trying to pretty well. Though you lost me on the "Sea People" thing. If you're referring to Homeric works, I'm none too familar with those, unfortunately.

Chris Weimer

IIRC, Finkelstein argues (and I presume this is the status quo at the moment) that is was the Sea People (Habiru?) who ravished the Canaanite coastline, not a militaristic win from Joshua. But the memory was kept so that when it came time to canonisation the legend was distorted into its current theological shape.

Zeichman

Gotcha, makes sense, I guess. In my Understanding the Bible course the professor said that she personally thought that it was kind of a haphazard revolutionary conquest by the early Hebrews, though didn't give much of a reason for it.

Is there a particular book that Finkelstein explains his thoughts in? I'd be interested in reading it.

spin

The Habiru were not sea people. The Habiru were mentioned in -- amongst other places -- the Amarna letters, circa 1340 BCE. The Philistines and other peoples hit Palestine around 1170 BCE.

The earlier destruction of Jericho and other places was probably the work of the Hyksos on their expulsion from Egypt. In fact, it is the Hyksos who I see as the historical kernel behind the exodus/conquest traditions.


spin