LeeBuhrul

I would think... nay... suggest the bible is the quintessential case of ulterior motive

n'est ce pas?

Chris Weimer

Zeichman - The Bible Unearthed is a good place to start.

spin - Thanks, at the moment I couldn't remember if it were the Habiru or the Hyksos. Thanks for the correction.

Vorkosigan

The Canaanite peoples absorbed the Hyksos experience into their own myths, or the hyksos established themselves in Canaan, or what?

spin

That's part of the story. It got clarified when Jews went to Egypt during the exile. The Egyptians projected the Hyksos stories onto the Jews (there are various indications in Contra Apion) confusing the Hyksos with the Jews -- well, they came from the same place didn't they? and they were all bloody Asiatics, weren't they? --, as anti-Jewish propaganda, and the mixture with the originally absorbed Hyksos traditions fleshed the story out.


spin

French Prometheus

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

I think the terms used are sufficiently vague that the proposition offered is nonsensical. The words "trustworthy" and "controverted" are highly interpretive, especially as used in this context.

Perhaps the best response is to agree with the main statement, as solid historical evidence can only controvert facts of history, it cannot controvert fairy tales or tales of angels and talking donkeys. The statement belongs in the same category as a statement such as "Peter Pan has never been controverted by solid historical data." It is common sense, not solid historical data that controverts such fantastic productions.


Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

Zeichman

I certainly think that much (most? almost all?) of the Bible has good reason to have been fictionalized, but it seems that few scholars believe that all of the Gospel material was fictionalized. Or that there isn't some truth behind the story of the Maccabees, or that the Assyrians, among others conquered Palestine, etc.

Sensei Meela

True, but then again, most scholars have a creedal committment to such a position. Or, at the very least, they are committed to an HJ (Historical Jesus), so they would certainly not find "that all of the Gospel material was fictionalized."

And, by the way, welcome to IIDB!

Chris Weimer

Oh wow, Zeichman, I didn't realize that you were new here.

Welcome!

And about Gospel fiction, I think most generally agree that although there is a kernel of truth within the gospel accounts, what is written is so far removed from the truth it is pure fiction. Like Historical Fiction genre...

Zeichman

I think that's where the differences between your John P. Meiers and your John Crossans come in. While it has a basis in logic, it seems to be pretty subjective in the long-term.

I think for the most part, though, the degree to which the Gospels are believed to be reliable is proportionate to how sympathetic that individual is to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And thanks for the greetings, folks.