Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 05-01-2002, 07:11 PM

Spin! Good to hear that ol' familiar rhetorical twist you put on things.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
BAR is a rag, run by a religiously conservative money maker, who given the opportunity can be very nasty, as in the case of a letter sent to Ha-Aretz in Jerusalem by Ze'ev Herzog, which SHanks responded to in an ignominious manner, using dirty rhetorical trick after dirty rhetorical trick. The guy has little scholarship in his approach.

While I am not always impressed with Hershal Shanks, BAR is a respected, though popular, archaeological journal. Many esteemed archaeologists have had their views in the magazine - including the Biblical Minimalists like Herzog, Finkelstein, and others. You probably know BAR is respected. One can look in almost any scholarly archaeological or historical book and find it in the list of acronyms and somewhere in the footnotes...

Quote:

The articles that get published are usually too short for any serious matters to be clearly put forward. It all works out fine, so as not to keep his reading audience too bewildered, get controversial opinions stated so as to have them shot down by the conservative establishment, and the reader feels happy.

Granted the articles are short, but most scholars will make their full case in a book or more hard-to-find scholarly journal. It is definitely a forum for new and controversial opinions, and so I would venture it is unbiased. However, I doubt it would ever be quoted in scholarly books if, as your "spin" suggests, it is a rag (whatever that implies).

Quote:

It's very hard for a religionist to understand what an unbiased case is when the subject is religion. There is no way for the religionist to step outside and get any perspective.

What can I say to that? You have your own set of biases. I have mine.

Quote:

Obviously, anyone who gives analyses from outside will appear to have "an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith".

Especially when they present such a one-sided case from the Biblical minimalist camp. I doubt that all readership of the New Yorker were thrilled with Lazare's biased report. "Spin" may be fine for you Spin, but not for me.

Haran

boneyard bill · 05-01-2002, 07:30 PM

But is Lazare really trying to destroy some people's religious faith? Given the likely Harper's readership profile, I'd suggest that he's trying to bolster the irreligious faith of this audience. The pity of it is that, in presenting a one-sided case, that's all he's doing, bolstering their "faith" not their knowledge.

spin · 05-02-2002, 12:38 PM

Umm, hi, Haran!.

Haran:
-----------
While I am not always impressed with Hershal Shanks, BAR is a respected, though popular, archaeological journal. Many esteemed archaeologists have had their views in the magazine - including the Biblical Minimalists like Herzog, Finkelstein, and others.
-----------

Neither of these two archaeologists are in the camp of minimalism. It is simply an error -- an error also stimulate by Shanks. With regard to the literary aspects, which is where minimalism is supposed to be oriented, I don't see that Finkelstein holds any of the views. His opinions seem to be fairly mainstream scholarly. It is his archaeology (as with Herzog) which doesn't accept the a priori correctness of the biblical data.

So, you are merely spreading misinformation about both these Israeli archaeologists.

Haran:
-----------
You probably know BAR is respected. One can look in almost any scholarly archaeological or historical book and find it in the list of acronyms and somewhere in the footnotes...
-----------

While I have several articles by Finkelstein for example, they are substantial and give him the room to make his discussion. What you get in BAR is a long summary of these people. You won't find many people citing the stuff for the obvious reason that it's not worth citing. People like Davies might stir shit in BAR, but they do nothing serious, because they know that it is not the correct venue. Davies himself is now the head of Sheffield Press, so he can publish his serious work unhindered. I don't remember Thompson doing anything in BAR recently nor Lemche. I don't think they want to contribute any more to Shanks's income.

Haran:
-----------
Granted the articles are short, but most scholars will make their full case in a book or more hard-to-find scholarly journal. It is definitely a forum for new and controversial opinions, and so I would venture it is unbiased. However, I doubt it would ever be quoted in scholarly books if, as your "spin" suggests, it is a rag (whatever that implies).
-----------

Serious scholars don't. HAve a look in the footnotes of a JNES or Tel Aviv article and see how often BAR gets cited.

spin:
--------
It's very hard for a religionist to understand what an unbiased case is when the subject is religion. There is no way for the religionist to step outside and get any perspective.
--------

Haran:
--------
What can I say to that? You have your own set of biases. I have mine.
--------

However, this doesn't change what I said at all. You were mumbling something about attempting to destroy people's faith, which I took to be a straight ad hominem.

spin:
--------
Obviously, anyone who gives analyses from outside will appear to have "an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith".
--------

Haran:
--------
Especially when they present such a one-sided case from the Biblical minimalist camp.
--------

What is "one-sided" about what you are shooting at? I think you are misguided.

Haran:
--------
I doubt that all readership of the New Yorker were thrilled with Lazare's biased report.
--------

I haven't read the article, so I have not supported or rejected it. My comment was made in passing about your views on BAR and bias.

Haran:
--------
"Spin" may be fine for you Spin, but not for me.
--------

That's just spin, Haran. Sound and fury.

Jayhawker Soule · 05-02-2002, 02:32 PM

To label Finkelstein a minimalist is simply silly. To presume Lazare's intent is no less so. But, if we can agree not to "accept the Biblical account at face value" and concur that we "have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai", that would be a good start.

Haran · 05-02-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Neither of these two archaeologists are in the camp of minimalism. It is simply an error -- an error also stimulate by Shanks. With regard to the literary aspects, which is where minimalism is supposed to be oriented, I don't see that Finkelstein holds any of the views. His opinions seem to be fairly mainstream scholarly. It is his archaeology (as with Herzog) which doesn't accept the a priori correctness of the biblical data. So, you are merely spreading misinformation about both these Israeli archaeologists.

Am I?

I think, perhaps, we simply have our definitions crossed. He is not an "extreme minimalist", but he does seem to be considered in terms of minimalism by many.

<a href="http://www.furman.edu/~bbibb/projects/united_monarchy/minimalists.htm" target="_blank">Minimalists</a> (Man! Whose big picture is that right up top?

)
<a href="http://www.furman.edu/~bbibb/projects/united_monarchy/maximalists.htm" target="_blank">Maximalists</a>

Obviously definitions of these type are rather loose. So, to say that I am spreading misinformation is disingenuous.

Quote:

While I have several articles by Finkelstein for example, they are substantial and give him the room to make his discussion. What you get in BAR is a long summary of these people. You won't find many people citing the stuff for the obvious reason that it's not worth citing.

Spin, I've seen BAR represented in many scholarly books. If I had the time, I'd list them. I doubt that it is quoted as much as other journals because it is more of a popular archaeological journal, but it is none-the-less quoted quite often.

Quote:

People like Davies might stir shit in BAR, but they do nothing serious, because they know that it is not the correct venue. Davies himself is now the head of Sheffield Press, so he can publish his serious work unhindered. I don't remember Thompson doing anything in BAR recently nor Lemche. I don't think they want to contribute any more to Shanks's income.

I'm not sure how recent is recent to you, but I remember a head-butting set of articles between Dever and Lemche/Davies. Wish I could remember the issue. Perhaps it was longer ago than I thought. Time flies...

Quote:

Serious scholars don't. HAve a look in the footnotes of a JNES or Tel Aviv article and see how often BAR gets cited.

I'm not sure I would expect them to quote other journals as much in another journal... Tel Aviv (of which Finkelstein happens to be on the editorial board anyway) and JNES are definitely more scholarly than BAR, if that admission makes you happy.

Quote:

However, this doesn't change what I said at all. You were mumbling something about attempting to destroy people's faith, which I took to be a straight ad hominem.

That "mumbling" was in reference to the Harper's article and its author. As I said above, I don't understand why the author would have presented such a one-sided case unless (1) he was simply bolstering the "faith" of like-minded individuals (of which I doubt includes all the readership of the New Yorker) or (2) he wrote his article in a famous magazine with the knowledge that it would receive a lot of attention and hopefully make a big dent in the "faith" of believers. Both of these are admittedly my own speculation, but I'm not sure I see other alternatives for such a one-sided presentation of the facts, Spin.

Quote:

What is "one-sided" about what you are shooting at? I think you are misguided.

As BAR pointed out, Lazare conveniently leaves out the conclusions of those who do not agree with his own.

Quote:

That's just spin, Haran. Sound and fury.

Just pokin' a little fun, no true offense meant... Missed ya at the end of the MSS/p52 thread, btw...

Haran

Haran · 05-02-2002, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
To label Finkelstein a minimalist is simply silly.

As you can see from the above website I linked to, it is not silly.

Quote:

To presume Lazare's intent is no less so.

I presented two cases for what I saw as the possible intent of Lazare in presenting such a one-sided case (which can be very misleading, btw, even for "New Yorker intellectuals"). Any alternatives?

Quote:

But, if we can agree not to "accept the Biblical account at face value" and concur that we "have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai", that would be a good start.

I can agree that little archaeological evidence has been found. However, arguments from silence don't always mean much considering the amount of time since the events in question. Archaeology, unfortunately, cannot write history. Good archaeologists will tell you this.

Haran

Toto · 05-02-2002, 03:53 PM

It's Harpers, not The New Yorker.

The article was only "one-sided" because it did not give a platform to the Maximalists who insist on the accuracy of the Bible, based on their own ideology.

The website that you cited is apparently an undergraduate student project at Furman College, South Carolina, which describes itself as "founded in 1826 and rooted in Judeo-Christian values".

It defines Finkelstein as promoting a "softened" version of minimalism, while Deaver is listed as presenting a "softer" maximalist position. Finkelstein does not describe himself as a minimalist, and Dever does not defend the accuracy of the Bible.

I think this website is just trying to classify scholars for its own purposes, and I see no reason to treat it as an authority on the definition of "minimalists".

Haran · 05-02-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
It's Harpers, not The New Yorker.

Slip...

Quote:

The article was only "one-sided" because it did not give a platform to the Maximalists who insist on the accuracy of the Bible, based on their own ideology.

Exactly. It did not present all sides of the issue and this is my complaint. I don't remember if they presented Dever (who is non-religious, as far as I know). Whatever the case, you make it sound as if anyone who believes that there is some accuracy to the Biblical account of things doesn't deserve to be heard.

Quote:

The website that you cited is apparently an undergraduate student project at Furman College, South Carolina, which describes itself as "founded in 1826 and rooted in Judeo-Christian values".

And? Oh...they must be biased.

Toto, many major colleges were "rooted" in Judeo-Christian values, at least originally. Note that even this "biased" school "rooted" in Judeo-Christian values can present a relatively unbiased <a href="http://www.furman.edu/~bbibb/rel21.htm" target="_blank">list of class texts</a> (which include Hershal Shanks/William Dever/Israel Finkelstein/etc.). Ha! At least one of the project groups even used articles off the SecWeb in their Bibliography (look at the Exile project)! What happened to Lazare?

Quote:

It defines Finkelstein as promoting a "softened" version of minimalism, while Deaver is listed as presenting a "softer" maximalist position. Finkelstein does not describe himself as a minimalist, and Dever does not defend the accuracy of the Bible.

I have no problem with either of these statements.

Quote:

I think this website is just trying to classify scholars for its own purposes, and I see no reason to treat it as an authority on the definition of "minimalists".

I'm sure I could find other examples... I did not refer to this website as an "authority" but as an example of the fine line between the definitions. As far as I know, there is no set definition for Biblical minimalist and maximalist. Perhaps we should use different and/or more precise terms?

Haran

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]

Jayhawker Soule · 05-03-2002, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
As you can see from the above website I linked to, it is not silly.

I stand corrected.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2002, 07:30 PM	#22
boneyard bill Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 15,796	But is Lazare really trying to destroy some people's religious faith? Given the likely Harper's readership profile, I'd suggest that he's trying to bolster the irreligious faith of this audience. The pity of it is that, in presenting a one-sided case, that's all he's doing, bolstering their "faith" not their knowledge.

05-02-2002, 12:38 PM	#23
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Umm, hi, Haran!. Haran: ----------- While I am not always impressed with Hershal Shanks, BAR is a respected, though popular, archaeological journal. Many esteemed archaeologists have had their views in the magazine - including the Biblical Minimalists like Herzog, Finkelstein, and others. ----------- Neither of these two archaeologists are in the camp of minimalism. It is simply an error -- an error also stimulate by Shanks. With regard to the literary aspects, which is where minimalism is supposed to be oriented, I don't see that Finkelstein holds any of the views. His opinions seem to be fairly mainstream scholarly. It is his archaeology (as with Herzog) which doesn't accept the a priori correctness of the biblical data. So, you are merely spreading misinformation about both these Israeli archaeologists. Haran: ----------- You probably know BAR is respected. One can look in almost any scholarly archaeological or historical book and find it in the list of acronyms and somewhere in the footnotes... ----------- While I have several articles by Finkelstein for example, they are substantial and give him the room to make his discussion. What you get in BAR is a long summary of these people. You won't find many people citing the stuff for the obvious reason that it's not worth citing. People like Davies might stir shit in BAR, but they do nothing serious, because they know that it is not the correct venue. Davies himself is now the head of Sheffield Press, so he can publish his serious work unhindered. I don't remember Thompson doing anything in BAR recently nor Lemche. I don't think they want to contribute any more to Shanks's income. Haran: ----------- Granted the articles are short, but most scholars will make their full case in a book or more hard-to-find scholarly journal. It is definitely a forum for new and controversial opinions, and so I would venture it is unbiased. However, I doubt it would ever be quoted in scholarly books if, as your "spin" suggests, it is a rag (whatever that implies). ----------- Serious scholars don't. HAve a look in the footnotes of a JNES or Tel Aviv article and see how often BAR gets cited. spin: -------- It's very hard for a religionist to understand what an unbiased case is when the subject is religion. There is no way for the religionist to step outside and get any perspective. -------- Haran: -------- What can I say to that? You have your own set of biases. I have mine. -------- However, this doesn't change what I said at all. You were mumbling something about attempting to destroy people's faith, which I took to be a straight ad hominem. spin: -------- Obviously, anyone who gives analyses from outside will appear to have "an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith". -------- Haran: -------- Especially when they present such a one-sided case from the Biblical minimalist camp. -------- What is "one-sided" about what you are shooting at? I think you are misguided. Haran: -------- I doubt that all readership of the New Yorker were thrilled with Lazare's biased report. -------- I haven't read the article, so I have not supported or rejected it. My comment was made in passing about your views on BAR and bias. Haran: -------- "Spin" may be fine for you Spin, but not for me. -------- That's just spin, Haran. Sound and fury.

05-02-2002, 02:32 PM	#24
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	To label Finkelstein a minimalist is simply silly. To presume Lazare's intent is no less so. But, if we can agree not to "accept the Biblical account at face value" and concur that we "have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai", that would be a good start.

05-02-2002, 03:53 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It's Harpers, not The New Yorker. The article was only "one-sided" because it did not give a platform to the Maximalists who insist on the accuracy of the Bible, based on their own ideology. The website that you cited is apparently an undergraduate student project at Furman College, South Carolina, which describes itself as "founded in 1826 and rooted in Judeo-Christian values". It defines Finkelstein as promoting a "softened" version of minimalism, while Deaver is listed as presenting a "softer" maximalist position. Finkelstein does not describe himself as a minimalist, and Dever does not defend the accuracy of the Bible. I think this website is just trying to classify scholars for its own purposes, and I see no reason to treat it as an authority on the definition of "minimalists".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.