Jayhawker Soule

And your evidence for the Exodus would be what?

Nomad

Sorry RD, this is not how this is done. The thread is predicated on the thesis that the OT is false. On this basis the burden of proof rests on those making such a claim.

Make the case, then we go from there.

Nomad

Kosh

Yes RD, didn't you know that? When someone makes
a claim, if you first say "prove it" to them,
then they must prove it.

If however, you say "it's not true", then you
must now prove that what they said is false.

Didn't you know that? It's called Argumentum
ad Dogma...

Jayhawker Soule

Sorry. I clearly have a poor grasp of protocol. Had I only stopped to consider that "[t]he thread is predicated on the thesis ...".

By the way, I wonder what evidence leads nomad to assert the Exodus as history.

Kosh

1. The Bible says so!
2. The preachers says so!
3. Cecil B. DeMille made like a whole movie about it!
4. Charleton Heston would never play Moses if it
wasn't true.

hezekiah jones

You have? In which parallel universe was this request made?

You asked about the article, I responded. Since then you've made various sarcastic, patronizing, and demeaning statements about "credulity" and so forth. None of which is particularly suprising, or novel, much like the contents of Lazare's article - which you obviously haven't read, otherwise you wouldn't have been making inquiries in the first place.

Oh really. Then I suggest you engage Oolon Colluphid, ps418, or any of the other estimable contributors to the Evolution/Creation Forum in a debate concerning the veracity of either the Noachean Deluge or the spontaneous appearance of phylogenetically unprecedented "kinds" in the fossil record. Me, I'm not quite up to that sort of public embarrassment.

In the face of these demonstrable mythologies, is there any compelling reason why a critical mind should not continue to examine, as such, the balance of the folklore contained in the Pentateuch, a compilation allegedly composed by a genuine folkloric hero that actually records the circumstances of his own death?

Suit yourself. My sole intent was addressing your initial queries, which appears to have immediately degenerated into being labelled "credulous," for no reason whatsoever, other than to satisfy your own idiosyncratic peccadilloes.

At this point I am far more interested in the outrageous accusations one of your sources has made against his cadre of adversaries.

Well, isn't that exactly the whole bloody point?

Are we not allowed to inquire as to how much less than 100% the Bible is literally true, and indeed, which non-literal components comprise the remaining percentage, without being labelled "credulous" and unaware of conservative scholarship? Talk about a blinding glimpse of the obvious!

Probably none. I think this has been mentioned several times now, to the point of tedium, in my opinion.

You are a quick study, especially given the fact that you haven't even read the article. Further, has it not (also to the point of tedium) been noted that Harper's is a magazine for a relatively mainstream audience?

That's hardly the point. Wellhausen et al engaged in critical work that sought not only to extricate the various threads of authorship, but also attempted to fix dates to the numerous traditions. These efforts quite obviously complement the investigations of archaeologists.

It sure is.

So are Charles Darwin's.

I don't know. The Leafs' playoff chances? Or maybe Egyptian border defenses, desert sites where the fleeing Israelites supposedly camped, etc.

David Bowden

Nomad has said, "The thread is predicated on the thesis that the OT is false."

In fact, this thread was intended:

1) As a head's-up. Recent archaelogical work, in an area relevant to this forum, is getting wider attention in popular media. Check it out; see what you think.

2) As a small celebration of this wider attention to questions regarding the Jewish Bible as history, questions which could, as de Vaux sees it, undermine the validity of Christian and (as the article points out) Muslim faith. I was happy to see the article, and hope it's widely read and discussed.

And so I am glad that this thread has provoked this much interest and activity. Hopefully by now, everyone posting has had a chance to look at the article and evaluate it for him- or herself.

-Wanderer

Toto

I did go out and get a copy of that issue of Harper's. There is a bonus article on a born-again Christian brothel owner in Nevada.

I thought Lazare's article was a well written general discussion of the whole question of archeology and politics, obviously intended for the educated but non-specialist reader. Lazare, however, still holds to the idea that the Jews are responsible for monotheism, and that monotheism was a good thing, a vast improvement over the polytheistic pagans around them. I have my doubts about that, but I don't see much that could be objected to in the rest of the article.

Jayhawker Soule

... and here I thought you were suggesting that Harpers was hosting original archaeological scholarship discrediting the Torah. Does this mean I get to ask my question about the Exodus?

BTW, nomad would do well to read Redford and other Egyptologists but, since he apparently prefers to be somewhat more selective, may I recommend that he add Amihai Mazar's Archaeology of the land of the Bible; 10,000-586 B.C.E. to his list. Mazar would probably fall in the maximalist camp, and his comments should be read with that in mind -- comments such as:

The silence is deafening.

Sauron

Yes. However, Redford is an expert in the area, with extensive credentials and world reknown.

You are not.

Given the above, what can you offer to persuade us that we should treat your view with equal gravity as Redford's?

What about the scandalous allegations made by one of your sources (Rendsberg) and the attempt to impugn their scholarship because they don't share the same religious or political views?

Given all the above, can you explain why you offered this author as a credible source? You said:

Do you still stand by that evaluation? Do you share the views of this author? Or were you just a little careless in offering up this link as a source?

On the contrary. This thread (and the Harper's article that spurred this discussion) are a response to the affirmative claim that the OT is true.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the affirmative claim. In this case, upon you - or anyone else claiming that the OT is true.

If you want to see what "Lazare and others have", perhaps a good first step would be to actually read the article in question.

Hmm?

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>