Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 03-02-2002, 02:51 PM

As for the second half, I do not think that there is *any* serious scholar that denies that David existed at all. If there any such individuals, I would like to know who they are.

There are several. T. Thompson, a well-known archaeologist, explains why he is one of many scholars who holds this position in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465006493/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel</a>. See especially the introduction, where Thompson sketches out the evolution of his views and recent Bib Arch in general, starting with Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition in 1975.

There are many other "minimalists." Thompson himself, in this review here, discusses some of them.
<a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm</a>
It's clear that Thompson's position is part of a spectrum of thinking on the OT, not an outlier or something. Even the term "minimalism" is derogatory and incorrect. It's not like Thompson thinks Israel had no history. Rather, he just thinks that it is not faithfully reflected in the Hebrew holy works.

Thompson's own conclusions about conservative scholarship, whether in its Christian or Jewish incarnation, are sad. From the site above:

Slander and libel have displaced the academic interests of history and theology with a purpose that is far from innocent and unreflective.

This unhappy conclusion was forced on me as I read a review of my book published on December 24th, 1999 in The Jerusalem Post by Magen Broshi, the former director of the Israel Department of Antiquities. As I had expected, the review was negative. However, the very last statement of the review caught my attention: "Is it possible he does not believe in anything? Apparently there is a certain book that he does take seriously. A mutual acquaintance told me that Thompson confided in him that he is a staunch believer in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This open and unabashed accusation still takes my breath away. I do realize that it follows well-established rules of propaganda: The more outrageous the lie the better and, if repeated often enough, it becomes fact. The irony of such a writer creating a past is not lost on me.

I searched for the Broshi review that Thompson references above, available at the Jerusalem Post website, but you have to pay. Judging from the opening paragraphy, it seems to say what Thompson says it does. It's sad, the lengths people will go to.

Michael

hezekiah jones · 03-02-2002, 06:14 PM

Thompson is mentioned in Lazare's piece as well. In fact, several "minimalists" are identified in the following address by Gary A. Rendsburg, the gentleman to whose article Nomad offered a link:

Quote:

To answer my second question, who are these people, these revisionists, these nihilists? What drives them? To give you the names of the four best known among them, they are Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies, Niels Lemche, and Keith Whitelam. Some of them are driven, as I indicated above, by Marxism and leftist politics. Some of them are former evangelical Christians who now see the evils of their former ways. Some of them are counterculture people, left over from the 60s and 70s, whose personality includes the questioning of authority in all aspects of their lives.

He almost sounds like Cal Thomas jabbering about the Clintons.

Quote:

But the two most important elements in the profile of these scholars are the following. First, almost without exception, these individuals have no expertise in the larger world of ancient Near Eastern studies.

<edit>

Second, as you may have gathered, almost without exception, the scholars of this group are not Jewish. (Note that I do not call them Christians either, for most of them, I believe, would not classify themselves as such. Rather, they are part of the general secular world.) Now, at first glance, one might think that one’s religious or ideological identification would have no effect on one’s scholarship, and I too once naively thought this to be true. Frankly, I feel a bit of discomfort even mentioning the religious affiliations of individual scholars. For one would have hoped that such issues no longer mattered. But with the current group of revisionists, as I intimated earlier, ideology, not objective scholarship, governs. If it is not actual Marxism, it is leftist politics in general. If it is not revolution against the sins of one’s youth, the sin being once having identified as an evangelical Christian, then the issue is anti-authority culture in general. Furthermore, and I do not hesitate to use the terms, these scholars are driven by anti-Zionism approaching anti-Semitism. By denuding Israel of any ethnic identity, and by denying the existence of Israel in the land at an early time, and by reading the Bible as a Zionist plot by 6th century Jews in Babylonia, the picture is very clear. Ironically, the world has shown signs of progressing away from the anti-Zionism ideology that dominated U.N. politics in the 1970s, but these scholars are stuck in that several-decades-old mud.

Interesting observations, to say the least. What this gratuitous politicking has to do with the quality of the "nihilist" arguments, I'm not entirely sure. Here is the entire address:

<a href="http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/jewish/30yrs/rendsburg/#_edn1" target="_blank">Down with History, Up with Reading</a>

isaac42 · 03-03-2002, 07:44 AM

Simple. It's easier to discredit someone you disagree with by using a quick ad hominem than by addressing their points. I'd say he doesn't have a good refutation, but cannot accept their conclusions for ideological reasons.

Isaac

aikido7 · 03-03-2002, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
Some questions:

1) Who, exactly, is Daniel Lazare? All I can find is that he is a "writer from New York" with some books (none about the Bible mind you) he has written.

2) What specific claims does he make in his story, and what is his authority?

3) What evidence does he offer that supports the Biblical claim? (Or does he reject everything found in the Bible as being non-historical).

4) Why hasn't this momentous discovery made it into <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/BSWB/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html" target="_blank">Bible Archaeology Review</a> and othe critical journals?

5) Why are some sceptics so credulous about claims made that agree with their a priori biases?

Just curious.

Nomad

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Grasping at the straws of specificity, authority and evidence often prevents us from seeing the bigger picture. The brain is a reducing valve, shutting out most of what the world offers just so we can focus on and micro-manage our own mundane reality.

Like ants crawling across Picasso's "Guernica," we can sense a succession of color but don't see the whole painting.

Those who do are our prophets, artists and mystics. Like Jesus the speaker of parables, they are open to a wider view.

The information in "Harper's" is not new. It has been "out there" for at least five years in print. If the facts are indeed "true" they may spell the end of one paradigm but will actually open up another vista. Strident defenders of the old paradigm are not to be unexpected.

When Lewis and Clark finally reached the top of what they thought was the fabled "Continental
Divide," they saw not a downward slope to the Pacific Ocean but only more mountains.

And they had to scale them.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

Vorkosigan · 03-03-2002, 05:26 PM

First, almost without exception, these individuals have no expertise in the larger world of ancient Near Eastern studies.

You know, sometimes I feel that when atheists say "How do you know when an apologist is lying? His lips are moving" they've gone too far. But the you see fucking lying like this, you just think: how can these people live with themselves?
Do Christians have any integrity at all in matters affecting their faith? Apparently not.

Michael

Haran · 03-03-2002, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
First, almost without exception, these individuals have no expertise in the larger world of ancient Near Eastern studies.

You know, sometimes I feel that when atheists say "How do you know when an apologist is lying? His lips are moving" they've gone too far. But the you see fucking lying like this, you just think: how can these people live with themselves?
Do Christians have any integrity at all in matters affecting their faith? Apparently not.

Michael

That was somewhat severe and uncalled for, dontcha think?

Especially considering that Rendsburg (whom I assume you are referring to) is a well-known and reputable scholar (not an "apologist") and more than likely Jewish (not Christian).

<a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/nes/rendsburg.html" target="_blank">Gary Rendsburg's Resume</a>
<a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/nes/rendsburgpub4.htm" target="_blank">His publications</a>

Seems that Rendsburg is more than qualified to make the statement that you derided with such vulgar style...

<a href="http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/korach/ren.html" target="_blank">Evidence for Rendsburg's possible Jewishness</a>
<a href="http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/naso/ren.html" target="_blank">More evidence</a>
<a href="http://www.reporternews.com/religion/debate0404.html" target="_blank">Yet more...</a>

Need some soap for your mouth or would you prefer something to extract your foot from your mouth?

Frankly, I had come to expect slightly more intellectual posts from you...

Haran

Nomad · 03-03-2002, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:

hezekiah

I have asked you to make a case that the Bible has been proven to be false based on archaeological finds. Either you will do this, or you will not. But the idea that the claims of the Old Testament have been proven to be false is, itself, false.

Now, are we going to exchange assertions here, or do you have something to put forward? The fact that the vast majority of scholarship does not see the Bible as 100% literally true, nor 100% completely false is pretty much a truism (and so much for the naive and patently untrue title of Lazare's article). So what new elements does Lazare add to the equation? We already know that he is not an expert. Further, he appears to be relying upon some ideas that have been around a long time (like the JEPD theory, which, BTW, proves nothing about the authenticity of the Bible), plus what he has read in the Bible Unearthed. Is that all he has? If so, then this thread is already old news.

As for Wellhausen's specific ideas, I assume, if you are well read, that you know his ideas are dated. What would you like to talk about?

Nomad

Jayhawker Soule · 03-04-2002, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
... The fact that the vast majority of scholarship does not see the Bible as 100% literally true, nor 100% completely false is pretty much a truism ( ... ).

This is pretty much a non-statement; it's equally true of the Encyclopedia Britannica, many comic books, and the bulk of the available folklore. I'd be more interested in learning what you classify as true or false in the Finkelstein/Silberman book.

Specifically, what is your analysis of their views on the Exodus and the United Monarchy?

By the way, for those seeking additional input from someone with credentials in Near Eastern Sudies, you might wish to pick up "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" by Egyptologist Donald B. Redford, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto. He writes, in part: "... the standard scholarly approach to the history of Israel during the United Monarchy amounts to nothing more than a bad attack of academic 'wishful thinking'."

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Nomad · 03-04-2002, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

Specifically, what is your analysis of their views on the Exodus and the United Monarchy?

Is this like the essay question, "What is the meaning of life? Offer two examples. One hour to complete.

Both of these are huge topics. What would specifically like to address? For me, the Exodus probably happened (c. 1250 BC), and was considerably smaller than the 600,000 men given in Exodus (a number probably derived from a later census). Saul, David and Solomon were historical persons, and 2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings are reasonably historical in discussing this period (as well as its aftermath when the kingdom divided. Since all of this is pretty broad brush stuff, do you wish to get into an in depth discussion?

Quote:

By the way, for those seeking additional input from someone with credentials in Near Eastern Sudies, you might wish to pick up "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" by Egyptologist Donald B. Redford, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto. He writes, in part: [b]"... the standard scholarly approach to the history of Israel during the United Monarchy amounts to nothing more than a bad attack of academic 'wishful thinking'

I am going to assume that you know the difference between opinion and evidence. Both Redford and I have expressed opinions, obviously disagreeing broadly in our conclusions. I have no idea what evidence you think Redford (or any other minimalist) has to support his assertion(s), but I am willing to listen, then compare it to counter evidence and arguments. What I am not interested in doing, however, is arguing assertions.

The contention in this thread is that the claims (presumably all of them) made in the OT are false, and have been proven to be false through archaeological evidence. I would like to see what Lazare and others have, then we can talk.

Nomad

Toto · 03-04-2002, 10:37 AM

Nomad - we discussed this in some previous (now closed) threads:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000397" target="_blank">A New Consensus: Exodus Is Myth</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000428" target="_blank">Review of "The Bible Unearthed" </a>

You seemed to have participated there. Are there some new points you need to make? Have you read the Harper's article?

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

03-02-2002, 02:51 PM	#11
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	*As for the second half, I do not think that there is any* serious scholar that denies that David existed at all. If there any such individuals, I would like to know who they are.** There are several. T. Thompson, a well-known archaeologist, explains why he is one of many scholars who holds this position in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465006493/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel</a>. See especially the introduction, where Thompson sketches out the evolution of his views and recent Bib Arch in general, starting with Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition in 1975. There are many other "minimalists." Thompson himself, in this review here, discusses some of them. <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm</a> It's clear that Thompson's position is part of a spectrum of thinking on the OT, not an outlier or something. Even the term "minimalism" is derogatory and incorrect. It's not like Thompson thinks Israel had no history. Rather, he just thinks that it is not faithfully reflected in the Hebrew holy works. Thompson's own conclusions about conservative scholarship, whether in its Christian or Jewish incarnation, are sad. From the site above: Slander and libel have displaced the academic interests of history and theology with a purpose that is far from innocent and unreflective. This unhappy conclusion was forced on me as I read a review of my book published on December 24th, 1999 in The Jerusalem Post by Magen Broshi, the former director of the Israel Department of Antiquities. As I had expected, the review was negative. However, the very last statement of the review caught my attention: "Is it possible he does not believe in anything? Apparently there is a certain book that he does take seriously. A mutual acquaintance told me that Thompson confided in him that he is a staunch believer in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This open and unabashed accusation still takes my breath away. I do realize that it follows well-established rules of propaganda: The more outrageous the lie the better and, if repeated often enough, it becomes fact. The irony of such a writer creating a past is not lost on me. I searched for the Broshi review that Thompson references above, available at the Jerusalem Post website, but you have to pay. Judging from the opening paragraphy, it seems to say what Thompson says it does. It's sad, the lengths people will go to. Michael

03-03-2002, 07:44 AM	#13
isaac42 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Corvallis, OR USA Posts: 216	Simple. It's easier to discredit someone you disagree with by using a quick ad hominem than by addressing their points. I'd say he doesn't have a good refutation, but cannot accept their conclusions for ideological reasons. Isaac

03-03-2002, 05:26 PM	#15
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	First, almost without exception, these individuals have no expertise in the larger world of ancient Near Eastern studies. You know, sometimes I feel that when atheists say "How do you know when an apologist is lying? His lips are moving" they've gone too far. But the you see fucking lying like this, you just think: how can these people live with themselves? Do Christians have any integrity at all in matters affecting their faith? Apparently not. Michael

03-04-2002, 10:37 AM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Nomad - we discussed this in some previous (now closed) threads: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000397" target="_blank">A New Consensus: Exodus Is Myth</a> <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000428" target="_blank">Review of "The Bible Unearthed" </a> You seemed to have participated there. Are there some new points you need to make? Have you read the Harper's article?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.