Solitary Man

Distraction? How did I mischaracterize Dever's endorsement? Dever himself has contributed to the Exodus discussion, specifically in that book which I listed he himself evaluated the evidence of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus.

Edited: Thanks to Amaleq13, I removed a portion that was now unnecessary.

juergen

A question related to the Exodus - How large is the Sinai desert, or at least the strip that the Israelites are written to have walked around in?

Isn't that exactly what happened? The Bible was treated just like that in the first place - accepting it as a witness in good standing, for about 1800 years. After more and more archeological and historical evidence was found that contradicted the Bible's account of history, it was found to not be as reliable as had been held to. The witness in good standing was shown he had not been in such good standing. This has started to point to the conclusion that the Bible has less merit as a witness than previously thought.

Or is God just continually erasing all kinds of historical records for all the claims that can only be believed if one believed that God said/did them? Why is this such a common recurrence with all faith-based stories in the Bible? Doesn't that just hint at something?

spin

Dever's name would hardly have been attached to the book if he had rejected the book outright, so your reaction is ingenuous.

There is nothing of the sort in his words. Here are his words (as per Amazon):

"The best and most good-spirited defense yet of the conservative position that takes the Biblical "Exodus-Conquest" narratives literally as history."

This is a strategic line of argument. The book is totally against historical minimalism, as is Dever. There is no sense of "read this book" in what he says. There is no sense of inherent significance in the book. It is merely "the best and most good-spirited defense" of literal bible history, a position that is not his. He is aligning himself to a position, which he doesn't actually follow, in order to be able to espouse his own biblical views with relative safety. Dever is the champion of the maximalist camp -- funny that, when his espoused views are closer to minimalist than maximalist, but he has eked out a niche for himself there. He has attacked minimalism at every opportunity. Having his name on this book needs to be seen in this context. Dever is a bible and spade man in the post bible-and-spade era, so you have to be careful about interpreting Devious Dever.


spin

Amaleq13

Do play obtuse, spin, it doesn't suit you.

He describes it as "the best" "defense yet of the conservative position".

What book to you think Dever would recommend to someone interested in understanding the "conservative position"? What book do you think Dever would recommend to someone interested in arguing against the "conservative position"?

If you can't answer those questions from his review, you simply are not thinking because it is rather obvious.

spin

I think "naive" trumps "obtuse".

Uh-huh. I seem to recall having read it. What follows he bit you just quoted is just as illuminating.

"We're playing those mind games forever, pushing the barriers in space and time..."

As you aren't up with this stuff, a scholar often gets his/her name attached to a book for self-publicity, keeping a name in the public eye. Dever's lips moved, but he didn't necessarily say anything about reading the book. He just said it was the best something. If I said that Ted Bundy was the most intelligent and best behaved of serial killers, would you take it to mean that I endorsed Ted Bundy? And just in case you can't answer that, I don't. (Oh and if you are thinking of forcing the analogy, don't waste our time.)

The publishers felt happy with his words. That's sufficient.


spin

Solitary Man

Who said the Dever agreed with the book? He already made clear in the earlier book I linked to that he disagrees with the position. Just because people disagree with a position doesn't mean that they have to think anything supporting the position is shit, naive, stupid, biased, ignorant, or stubborn, regardless of how spin or Sheshonq characterize that position.

Minimalist

William Dever spent 50 years studying archaeology in Palestine. He began as a Congregationalist minister and ended up, after those 50 years, as an agnostic.

Unlike believers, Dever was willing to evaluate the evidence and conclude that he had been fed a line of Holy Shit all his life.

Solitary Man

Yes, and this has led me to respect Dever enormously, despite me disagreeing with him. I find that I respect those who evaluate the evidence honestly and thoroughly instead of those who are out there for one purpose and one purpose only. Sitting down and actually talking to people face to face who actually worked under Dever has even increased my respect for him further than merely just reading his works, even if they disagree with him to some extent.

spin

:notworthy:

Perhaps Solitary Man thinks its ok to misspell people's names or put them in quotes, but beside that what does he say? As usual, nothing. My misspelt name is attached to the sort of erroneous crap that we must be used to from Solitary Man. My original complaint with him was over his claims about the book being readable because of what a reviewer said. He seems to have forgotten that and is now apparently accusing me of characterizing the position of the book as "shit, naive, stupid, biased, ignorant, [and] stubborn" (maybe some of that regards Sheshonq in Solitary Man's brain -- who knows?), though I haven't commented on the book per se throughout the thread. I have mainly talked about Dever. You wouldn't know it if you'd only read Solitary Man's misrepresentation. Silly of me not to have lived down to his expectations.


spin

Solitary Man

Still having problems reading, spin? I never said you that you said the book was any number of adjectives. Yet undoubtedly that's how you characterize your "opponents" here. You've been doing it for years, and thus you've been kicked off a good many lists for it. You don't have to mention any book. It's your natural disposition.

I must say, though, that I don't entirely blame spin for misreading this post. After all, by "[j]ust because people disagree with a position doesn't mean that they have to think anything supporting the position is shit, naive, stupid, biased, ignorant, or stubborn," I actually meant "anyone", not "anything". Mea culpa.