Minimalist

Irrelevant. He has an agenda which Finkelstein threatens. If the bible is bullshit who needs "Professors in the Old Testament."

Finkelstein depends on archaeological artifacts to draw his conclusions. Bible scholars depend on reading and re-reading the same old shit.

semiopen

Just pointed out that the guy is an authority on archaeology.

You stated:

This is not correct.

You made a little mistake, no big deal.

semiopen

I know some knowledgeable people that will say 1300 BCE. This seems really dubious because there is an excellent chance that the Hebrew language didn't exist then. Conservatives reply that's no problem, but it seems like one to me.

Other than reactionaries, the earliest dates are mid 11th century BCE or later. Key old passages are the song of Deborah Deborah and song of the Sea Song_of_the_sea. Most scholars place those at mid 9th century BCE or later. There is also some controversy over the Song of Moses Song_of_Moses , here the Hebrew doesn't seem to be much different than the rest of Deuteronomy to me.

Linguistic analysis is important. I'd tend to agree with your late origin of the bible except the Hebrew for much of it is Monarchic according to Finkelstein. This is hard to argue with.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Interestingly, wiki on the Copenhagen School doesn't say this apecifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism

andrewcriddle

Some scholars would argue that there were 12 generations of high priests before the temple using passages such as the list of twelve priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz in in 1 Chronicles 6 50-53. However there are several genealogies of the early high priests (see 1 Chronicles 6 6-13 and Ezra 7 1-5) and they are difficult to exactly reconcile.

The fact that the Septuagint of Kings gives 440 years rather than 480 years suggests that the multiple of 40 is highly significant. The idea that the figure in years in Kings is based on an earlier tradition of 11 or 12 generations between Exodus and Temple converted into supposed years by multiplying by 40 is widely held, not only by conservative scholars but by scholars who doubt the historical basis of any such tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

I don't know what you are talking about...do you?

Here is Mr. Hess' bio from Denver Seminary.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/about-...ichard-s-hess/

A BA from Wheaton College - which self-identifies itself on its home page as:
"Wheaton College is a four year, residential, academically rigorous Christian liberal arts college whose historic motto is, “Christo et Regno Ejus,” or “For Christ and His Kingdom.”

A "Master of Theology" (ThM) from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which on its parent web site (Trinity University) states:
"About Trinity International University
With nearly 100 faculty and 3,000 students, we at Trinity International University (TIU) are committed to the same vision with which we were founded in 1897 and determined to follow in the footsteps of the great universities that were founded on the cornerstone belief that all wisdom lies in Jesus Christ. Our task, if we are to be salt in the world of our day, is to build institutions where we can think like Christians and learn to live as Christians in a culture in which both have become equally hard. Whether preparing to be pastors or missionaries or attorneys, teachers, counselors, scientists, corporate leaders, homemakers or public servants, whatever our calling under God, we need excellence in education, grounded in the lordship of Jesus Christ. That is the goal and task of Trinity."

and a PhD (presumably in "theology") from Hebrew Union College which notes "Welcome! Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion is the intellectual, academic, spiritual, and professional leadership development center of Reform Judaism."


The guy is a bible thumper.

semiopen

I don't why I always get into the position of defending guys I don't agree with, and, you are correct, he is quite conservative, but from the same reference...

In my late middle age, I have no books published, no scholarly articles, and no published book reviews and dictionary articles. His output is impressive. We're not talking about someone dubious here like "Dr." Gary Parker, who IBIH tried to use as a reference.

Sorry for bringing this up, didn't want to offend you. As I mentioned previously I was quite disturbed to see Dr. Friedman insulted on Amazon where an actual bible thumper claimed that he didn't know Hebrew, so I felt a moral obligation to question your original statement. Frankly, the insult to Dr. Friedman was much worse than your comment, which has some merit.

Some of my views on Hess' article are the third post in this thread. If you read this, I think you will see that we have similar opinions on this subject.

bacht

Right, under the New Kingdom pharaohs Canaan was administered and taxed by Egypt. Also you would think the Hebrews would've noticed the dealings between Ramses III and the Sea Peoples, some of whom became the hated Philistines on their border. There's no mention of interference from Egypt until after Solomon, when Shishak/Sheshonq invaded.

lpetrich

This does cause trouble for the Hyksos / "Brother of Moses" hypothesis.

However, the New Kingdom's Levantine empire could have been remembered as a time of subjection to Egypt, and some storyteller could have rearranged the order of events.

We escaped from Egypt, then the Egyptians enslaved us.

does not make much sense on the face of it, but

The Egyptians enslaved us, then we escaped from Egypt.

makes more sense.

Much of this history was likely passed down orally for some centuries, making it easier for such rearrangement to happen. That may also explain the parting of the Red Sea / Reed Sea and the drowning of the Egyptian Army. More dramatic than that army losing interest and deciding to return home, I'm sure.

Clivedurdle

Isn't Egypt code for someone else?