Freethought & Rationalism Archive

King Arthur · 07-26-2002, 12:11 PM

The following article from the newest issue of the scholarly Biblica journal is an excellent and balanced overview of the major debates taking place about the Bible and Archaeology (including, inter alia, information on Davies, Thompson, Finkelstein, and Dever).

<a href="http://www.bsw.org/?l=71831&a=Comm01.html" target="_blank">Three Debates about Bible and Archaeology</a> by Ziony Zevit

Quote:

I. FINKELSTEIN � N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology�s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Texts (New York 2001) 45, 65, 68, 92-96, 284, 301-305. The book presents Finkelstein�s positions � the �New Vision� of the title � on a number of key and minor issues in Israelite history, not only the tenth century debate, but it does so without comment as to their status in the field (ibid., 114-118, 141,142). In doing so, it misleads its intended audience which will include Biblicists unfamiliar with details of the archaeological debate. The book presents hypotheses as facts, not informing readers what is disputed and why, and it does not indicate that there are difficulties or uncertainties about the new vision, not of �archaeology�, but of a single archaeologist.

From this footnote, one can plainly see that what I said in another thread about Finkelstein's book not having footnotes with which to check his claims is bad.

Though it has some strong words for them, this article treats "minimalists" much better than I would have. But then everyone already knew that, right?

Happy readin'!

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

Daniel_AnglumTM · 07-26-2002, 12:26 PM

To be honest even if the events in the Bible happened Archaeology is too much of a blunt tool to find them.

King Arthur · 07-26-2002, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moriarty:
To be honest even if the events in the Bible happened Archaeology is too much of a blunt tool to find them.

Bingo! Hit the nail on the head!

Vorkosigan · 07-26-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moriarty:
To be honest even if the events in the Bible happened Archaeology is too much of a blunt tool to find them.

Nonsense. There are many events in the OT that are potentially confirmable by archaeology.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 07-26-2002, 02:29 PM

From this footnote, one can plainly see that what I said in another thread about Finkelstein's book not having footnotes with which to check his claims is bad.

Finkelstein didn't write for academic audience, so not a big deal.

Though it has some strong words for them, this article treats "minimalists" much better than I would have.

Yes, it refers to them as "competent scholars" and says "Contrary to what their detractors believe, minimalists take the historical writings seriously."

I assume we'll hear no further crap from you on that score.

As the article says:

"Lending credulity to minimalists is a broad consensus among liberal students of the Bible and archaeologists that no archaeological data or any data external to the Bible itself confirm the patriarchal or exodus stories as narrated in Genesis and Exodus. The same consensus recognizes that only with some fine tweaking and very qualified explanations can archaeological data be drafted to support some elements in the Joshua-Judges narratives. Finally, the consensus maintains that the proto-historical and the epic exodus-conquest narratives, whether truthful or not, were first set down in writing between the ninth and sixth centuries BCE on the basis of oral traditions, ancient but unverifiable."

Zevit, in Religions of Ancient Israelhowever, believes:

"...the dominant ethnic group in Cisjordan, Iron Age Palestine was not descended from its Late Bronze inhabitants. Arguments that Iron Age Israelites derived from the Late Bronze Age, Cisjordanian Canaanite population as ideological rebels or as semi-nomadicized peasants are not supported by available archaeological evidence (p. 85)."

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 07-26-2002, 02:30 PM

In any case I do not understand why you are so moved by the debates between minimalists and their opponents.

King Arthur · 07-26-2002, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Finkelstein didn't write for academic audience, so not a big deal.

It is a big deal. Did you read the footnote I quoted above? The book misleads the very people it is directed toward. Do you enjoy being mislead, Vorkosigan? I do not. I want truth.

Quote:

Yes, it refers to them as "competent scholars" and says "Contrary to what their detractors believe, minimalists take the historical writings seriously."

Where exactly are they called "competent scholars"? I can't find it. The following is the only remotely close thing I could find to this statement:

Quote:

Much maligned by Biblicists and historians, I consider minimalists to be engaged in a legitimate historical undertaking up to a point.

Id est, up to a point!!

Just in case you didn't read "the fine print":

Quote:

No minimalist has appropriated what little is known about the Persian period from archaeological excavation and archaeological surveys conducted in Israel since the late 1960s to support any of its particular arguments.

This tendency to deny contradictory evidence reached a sour-noted crescendo when archaeologists were accused of manufacturing inscriptions whose contents undermined minimalist assertions. At Tel Dan, fragments of a ninth century BCE Aramaic victory inscription were discovered that mentioned the ?House of David?. The find embarrassed minimalists because of their claim that David and Solomon most likely never existed, but in the event that they had indeed existed, could not have been much more than a local tribal chiefs in Jerusalem. Reference to the ?House of David? in the Dan inscription suggested that the Davidic dynasty was so well known and powerful that an Aramean king considered bragging about his success against its army worthwhile. Some minimalists accused A. Biran, director of the Hebrew Union College excavations at Dan, of having forged and planted the inscription.

Likewise, an inscription found in the Philistine city, Ekron, mentioned the names Achish, a Philistine name, Padi, a name uniquely associated with Ekron in the Bible, and the name Ekron itself. This inscription was awkward for the minimalist narrative because it supported the historical connectedness between these three names as reported in biblical historiography. Since it was hardly likely that people concocting a fictional history during the Persian period, as maintained by most minimalists, could have been aware of this trivial onomastic information, the existence of the inscription undermined minimalist claims about the absence of facticity in historical narratives. This time, the accusation of forgery was hurled at the two directors of the Ekron expedition: S. Gitin of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeology and T. Dothan of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University.

Perhaps we will hear no further crap on the forging of archaeological finds, especially the Tel Dan fragments?

Another fun tidbit:

Quote:

No Syro-Palestinian archaeologist espouses a historical position vis-�-vis the origins of Biblical literature faintly resembling that of the minimalists ? a position which, in any event, would have nothing to do with archaeology per se ? and none have supported their particular interpretations for the absence of archaeological data.

Quote:

I assume we'll hear no further crap from you on that score.

-----CRAP-----
-THAT SCORE-

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

King Arthur · 07-26-2002, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
In any case I do not understand why you are so moved by the debates between minimalists and their opponents.

I am mainly moved here on this website because it seems to cherish it's nut scholars. The books I have seen recommended by this website have been, by and large, way out in the left field of scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, the laymen here eat it up and spit it back out at everyone they come across.

Well, I'm here to say that sucks. I just wish that people who want to debate and complain about religious texts would learn what they are talking about first and talk second. Lots of people are filled with misinformation because of this kind of stuff.

Vorkosigan · 07-26-2002, 06:57 PM

Where exactly are they called "competent scholars"? I can't find it. The following is the only remotely close thing I could find to this statement:

You must have missed the second paragraph, where Davies is labeled "..as a competent scholar, an energetic and voluminous writer, an engaging speaker, and a skillful rhetorician" along with Dever and Finkelstein.

Perhaps we will hear no further crap on the forging of archaeological finds, especially the Tel Dan fragments?

Soon as I hear a defense other than "they couldn't have done it." Can you direct me to a well-written defense of the Tel Dan stele's authenticity?

Let's put up that quote that you think annihilates the minimalists:
No Syro-Palestinian archaeologist espouses a historical position vis-�-vis the origins of Biblical literature faintly resembling that of the minimalists ? a position which, in any event, would have nothing to do with archaeology per se ? and none have supported their particular interpretations for the absence of archaeological data.

Re-read that last sentence again, King Arthur. Zevit is so hard at work grinding his axe that he cut his finger off. The last sentence says clearly that the archaeological data is absent. So we are not arguing about the data -- all agree on that. We are only arguing about how the absence is to be interpreted.

As for Finkelstein, he is clearly not misleading his public. As I recall from the book, which I read last year, he makes it clear that his ideas on the Tenth Century Controversy are not mainstream, while his comments on Genesis and Exodus are. As the footnote notes:

"[C-14]Dates provided by samples from Dor reportedly support some of Finkelstein's low chronology dates while those from Bethsaida contradict them completely."

Hiding evidence that supports Finkelstein in a footnote....hmmm

I am mainly moved here on this website because it seems to cherish it's nut scholars. The books I have seen recommended by this website have been, by and large, way out in the left field of scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, the laymen here eat it up and spit it back out at everyone they come across.

You mean Udo Schnelle? Bart Ehrman? Burton Mack? Dom Crossan? GA Wells? Gerd Ludemann? Out in the left field? Your field must be very Right indeed.

If there are scholars whose work you consider flawed, start a thread and point it out. Instead of blanket attacks that do nothing but cause your already low reputation to deteriorate further, pick an author or two whom you dislike, and write a concrete and specific piece on why you think they are wrong. Such a piece might even be able to find a home in the Secular Web Library, if it were well-written enough.

Well, I'm here to say that sucks.

We've noticed. Problem is, you have said nothing else. If you have constructive things to add, why don't you? There are several threads going on, on the Test. Flav., on 1 Clement, on Mythicism, on John 2, which you appear to have avoided. Out of your league? Or congenitally unable to do or say anything postive?

Vorkosigan

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

King Arthur · 07-26-2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
If you have constructive things to add, why don't you? There are several threads going on, on the Test. Flav., on 1 Clement, on Mythicism, on John 2, which you appear to have avoided. Out of your league? Or congenitally unable to do or say anything postive?

You just don't like it when I'm right, do you?

07-26-2002, 06:57 PM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Where exactly are they called "competent scholars"? I can't find it. The following is the only remotely close thing I could find to this statement: You must have missed the second paragraph, where Davies is labeled "..as a competent scholar, an energetic and voluminous writer, an engaging speaker, and a skillful rhetorician" along with Dever and Finkelstein. Perhaps we will hear no further crap on the forging of archaeological finds, especially the Tel Dan fragments? Soon as I hear a defense other than "they couldn't have done it." Can you direct me to a well-written defense of the Tel Dan stele's authenticity? Let's put up that quote that you think annihilates the minimalists: No Syro-Palestinian archaeologist espouses a historical position vis-�-vis the origins of Biblical literature faintly resembling that of the minimalists ? a position which, in any event, would have nothing to do with archaeology per se ? and none have supported their particular interpretations for the absence of archaeological data. Re-read that last sentence again, King Arthur. Zevit is so hard at work grinding his axe that he cut his finger off. The last sentence says clearly that the archaeological data is absent. So we are not arguing about the data -- all agree on that. We are only arguing about how the absence is to be interpreted. As for Finkelstein, he is clearly not misleading his public. As I recall from the book, which I read last year, he makes it clear that his ideas on the Tenth Century Controversy are not mainstream, while his comments on Genesis and Exodus are. As the footnote notes: "[C-14]Dates provided by samples from Dor reportedly support some of Finkelstein's low chronology dates while those from Bethsaida contradict them completely." Hiding evidence that supports Finkelstein in a footnote....hmmm I am mainly moved here on this website because it seems to cherish it's nut scholars. The books I have seen recommended by this website have been, by and large, way out in the left field of scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, the laymen here eat it up and spit it back out at everyone they come across. You mean Udo Schnelle? Bart Ehrman? Burton Mack? Dom Crossan? GA Wells? Gerd Ludemann? Out in the left field? Your field must be very Right indeed. If there are scholars whose work you consider flawed, start a thread and point it out. Instead of blanket attacks that do nothing but cause your already low reputation to deteriorate further, pick an author or two whom you dislike, and write a concrete and specific piece on why you think they are wrong. Such a piece might even be able to find a home in the Secular Web Library, if it were well-written enough. Well, I'm here to say that sucks. We've noticed. Problem is, you have said nothing else. If you have constructive things to add, why don't you? There are several threads going on, on the Test. Flav., on 1 Clement, on Mythicism, on John 2, which you appear to have avoided. Out of your league? Or congenitally unable to do or say anything postive? Vorkosigan [ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

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

07-26-2002, 12:26 PM	#2
Daniel_AnglumTM Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere in the Suburban Jungle of London Posts: 34	To be honest even if the events in the Bible happened Archaeology is too much of a blunt tool to find them.

07-26-2002, 02:29 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	From this footnote, one can plainly see that what I said in another thread about Finkelstein's book not having footnotes with which to check his claims is bad. Finkelstein didn't write for academic audience, so not a big deal. Though it has some strong words for them, this article treats "minimalists" much better than I would have. Yes, it refers to them as "competent scholars" and says "Contrary to what their detractors believe, minimalists take the historical writings seriously." I assume we'll hear no further crap from you on that score. As the article says: "Lending credulity to minimalists is a broad consensus among liberal students of the Bible and archaeologists that no archaeological data or any data external to the Bible itself confirm the patriarchal or exodus stories as narrated in Genesis and Exodus. The same consensus recognizes that only with some fine tweaking and very qualified explanations can archaeological data be drafted to support some elements in the Joshua-Judges narratives. Finally, the consensus maintains that the proto-historical and the epic exodus-conquest narratives, whether truthful or not, were first set down in writing between the ninth and sixth centuries BCE on the basis of oral traditions, ancient but unverifiable." Zevit, in Religions of Ancient Israelhowever, believes: "...the dominant ethnic group in Cisjordan, Iron Age Palestine was not descended from its Late Bronze inhabitants. Arguments that Iron Age Israelites derived from the Late Bronze Age, Cisjordanian Canaanite population as ideological rebels or as semi-nomadicized peasants are not supported by available archaeological evidence (p. 85)." Vorkosigan

07-26-2002, 02:30 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In any case I do not understand why you are so moved by the debates between minimalists and their opponents.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.