godfry n. glad

Then, try Keith Whitelam's strident _Inventing Ancient Israel_ and you'll get an idea as to how "moderate" even Thomas Thompson is...

That "mimimalist" is (or has become) a general term to describe those who would consider that much, if not most, of the Tanakh material is mythic and ahistorical. The complementary term for those who would consider even the patriarchs and the creation stories to have been historical is "maximalist". I'm not sure as to how these terms came to be assigned, but I'm now assuming that they refer to how much of the ancient sacred scriptures the particular scholar holds to be accurate historical chronicles; "minimalists" holding to the absolute minimum, while the "maximalists" hold to the maximum. Of course, the degraded dialogue and attendant acrimonious exchanges has forced most of the high profile participants into a faux dichotomy of either/or, when, I suspect, many, if not most, participants would array themselves along a gradiated spectrum from one extreme to the other.

I'd place Finkelstein closer to the "minimalists" largely because he is challenging the prevailing paradigm established by the European Christian archeologists who scrabbled so hard to find material evidence to support their confessional interests. By refusing to do his digging with scriptures in hand, Finkelstein (and others) are coming up with new interpretations and upsetting the theological apple cart because it makes so much of what has gone before look exactly like it really was, archeology in service of religious dogma...thus he and his cohorts have become branded with the "minimalist" tag because they have dared to think for themselves....

As Tommy Thompson has pointed out in the article I referenced earlier, I could see why wearing the tag that has been applied by their detractors has become a point of honor amongst "minimalists".

godfry n. glad

CX

I'm about half way through Finkelstein's book as it is an extremely easy read. Given my relative lack of knowledge regarding Judaica I appreciate the general overviews of the biblical accounts he provides at the beginning of each section (I have read the NT nearly in its entirety several times including portions in the original Greek and read commentaries, monographs etc. but ahve read only a handful of the stories in the Tanakh which I find inelegant, brutal and/or tedious).

All that being said Finkelstein seems to me to present a middle ground between the "true minimalists" and biblical literalists. I'm curious how much support his archaeological conclusions have in the academic community. It is near impossible to find commentary on the issues that is not filled with theological bias and/or polemical rhetoric.

godfry n. glad

delete duplicate post

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

godfry n. glad

Yeah, I know what you mean. I agree as to the "middle ground" typification, but his findings still provide grist for the mill of the "minimalists" and thus the "maximalists" condemn him. From my meanderings through the National Museum of Israel and the Museum of the Book, both in Jerusalem, the findings of working archeologists which are more in line with works like Finkelstein and less in line with the traditionalists, seem to predominate; in Israel, anyway. But, from what I can tell, acceptance within the academic community seems to vary considerably across the spectrum, based upon academic field, confessional interests, funding sources and to a certain extent, geographic location. Some leading archeologists in the U.S. are highly critical of the findings and lean toward a more traditionalist corpus, but then one needs to take into consideration who has been, and will probably continue to be, the major funding sources for such archeological ventures in the "holy land". The whole issue is now a cause celebre amongst the international archeology community, as the article by Thompson which I referenced earlier in this thread alluded. The Frank Cross mentioned in the article as being aligned with Hershel Shanks in the unseemly wielding of slanderous claims, is an high-profile American archeologist, from Harvard, I believe. They have certainly upped the ante as far as polemical rhetoric is concerned.

godfry n. glad

P.S. - Not to disparage Dr. Finkelstein's writing skills, but I think the easy readability of TBU may be attributed to the presence of Neil Asher Silberman as his co-author. Silberman is an editor of _Archeology_ magazine and has edited several other books, including co-authoring with Richard Horsley on _The Message and the Kingdom_, and is the sole author of another book I'd highly recommend, _The Hidden Scrolls_. This last book is a narrative of the history of the discovery, scholastic analysis and publishing of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written for the intelligent lay reader. It was NOT a pretty business.

cloudyphiz

just bumping this one up.

i bought the book two days ago, and i'm only 130 pages in so far but it's going quick. CX, your comments are spot-on i'd say.

anyone finish the book and have more to add?
any comments from our friendly neighborhood christians?

-gary

King Arthur

I can't believe you people are bringing this up again. Don't you read anything I write?? You'll continue in your silly superstitions no matter what!


As I have stated over and over again. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802847943/qid=1028723211/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0393488-7299064" target="_blank">READ DEVER</a>, another atheist, for a more balanced accounting of the evidence and/or lack thereof (with copious footnotes to check his claims). Do a search on Dever on amazon and you'll find some more good archaeological books.

Hope my fellow atheists can drop their own silly superstitions - especially those who liked The Mythic Past by Thompson.

Vorkosigan

Earth to Camelot:

One can enjoy and be stimulated by a book without buying even a single one of its conclusions.

King Arthur

Why read something worthless when there are so many books out there that will stimulate your thinking with correct information?

Vorkosigan

You're right. It is silly of me to try and understand the issues and arguments of the various participants in a broad and ongoing debate, when I could save myself so much time and effort by adopting your more narrow-minded approach and insulting everyone who thought differently than I did.



[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

cloudyphiz

originally posted by KA:
no. not any more, anyway. your attitude makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously, and i decided long ago that you were most likely a troll. at this point, i (like most readers of the forum i would surmise) pretty much ignore your posts entirely.

-gary