Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 04-29-2002, 03:23 AM

Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR) had an <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbBARfp.html" target="_blank">article</a> criticizing the Harper's article.

No, this is not a Christian or Jewish magazine!

This is a respected archaeological journal in which many of the best scholars publish articles.

Seems that the author of the Harper's article was being a little one-sided.

Here are a few quotes for those who won't read the site:

Quote:

"False Testament" blares the headline on the cover of the March issue of Harper's Magazine. The subhead continues, "Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History."

This is about as close to a screaming, supermarket tabloid headline as we are ever likely to get from the venerable Harper's (the magazine began publishing a decade before Abraham Lincoln was first elected president).

Quote:

Lazare is a good writer, and he does an admirable job of laying out the case against the Bible as a historically reliable book. However, he seems not to have any particular expertise in archaeology (his listed publications are on urban problems and on constitutional law), and the case he presents is only one side of a very hot debate in the field. Nowhere does he try to evaluate the merits of the other side's case. In fact he gives no indication that he's even aware there is another side.

Oh well, I really wish people could have less of an agenda in trying to destroy peoples religious faith and try to present an unbiased case.

Haran

hezekiah jones · 04-29-2002, 03:37 AM

Remember those crazy conservative Jews?

Quote:

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions — the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years — have gained wide acceptance among non- Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity — until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/arts/09BIBL.html?todaysheadlines" target="_blank">As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting</a>

(The New York Times requires free registration.)

Jayhawker Soule · 04-29-2002, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
Remember those crazy conservative Jews?

Actually, the commentary is more "balanced" than the quote would suggest: one of those 'on the one hand ..., but on the other ...' dissertations. As for the Harpers magazine, though I greatly enjoyed The Bible Unearthed, I have no issue with the BAR criticism.

hezekiah jones · 04-29-2002, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
... I have no issue with the BAR criticism.

It's to be expected. The best part is this:

Quote:

The [Harper's]article has touched a nerve. I've received calls from clergy telling me that congregants have had their faith shaken by it.

Oh dear!

Haran · 04-29-2002, 05:10 AM

Quote:

BAR article:
The [Harper's]article has touched a nerve. I've received calls from clergy telling me that congregants have had their faith shaken by it.

hezekiahjones:
Oh dear!

I know! It's pretty despicable to present such a one-sided and biased case in order simply to destroy peoples' faith, huh?

At least, I find it so...

Haran

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]

Jayhawker Soule · 04-29-2002, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
It's pretty despicable to present such a one-sided and biased case ...

Shucks. That's darn near the definition of religion.

CX · 04-29-2002, 06:20 AM

Good article, Haran. I don't know anything about BAR as far as sectarian biases, but the brief article is well-balanced and a good criticism of the Harper's article which was of an appallingly low quality for that publication. It seems that no media outlet is safe anymore from the the grip of sensationalism.

Toto · 04-29-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:


I know! It's pretty despicable to present such a one-sided and biased case in order simply to destroy peoples' faith, huh?

At least, I find it so...

Haran

I sincerely doubt that the author intended to destroy anyone's faith. Being a New York leftist intellectual, he probably thought no one who could read without moving their lips actually believed those old fables to be literal truth.

And this is hardly balm to the ears of literalists:

"Take the Exodus, for example. I doubt you'd find many scholars, once they leave aside any religious convictions they might have, who'd accept the Biblical account at face value. We have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai. . . complex . . . historically accurate details. . ." A lot of fast footwork there.

Haran · 04-29-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I sincerely doubt that the author intended to destroy anyone's faith. Being a New York leftist intellectual, he probably thought no one who could read without moving their lips actually believed those old fables to be literal truth.

Please, Toto, I don't buy it for a minute. He knew exactly what he was doing and who his article would reach. I rather think he had one of two goals in mind: to bolster the faith of his like-minded, fellow "intellectuals", or to put as big a dent as possible in the faith of those who believe in the Bible. Christians are not all country bumpkin, half-intellectuals as you seem to imply, Toto.

Quote:

And this is hardly balm to the ears of literalists:

"Take the Exodus, for example. I doubt you'd find many scholars, once they leave aside any religious convictions they might have, who'd accept the Biblical account at face value. We have no archaeological evidence of a man named Moses, of Israelites wandering in the desert or of the events at Mount Sinai. . . complex . . . historically accurate details. . ." A lot of fast footwork there.

However, you left out the end of this paragraph:

Quote:

But many of the details in the Bible's account do mesh with what we know historically. As Baruch Halpern, of Pennsylvania State University, told U.S. News, "There were Semites there [in Egypt], there was forced labor, there was brick making, there was intense building activity under Ramses II." There were also, as Egyptian papyri record, runaway slaves who fled into the Sinai desert.

If Lazare had any noble intentions in writing his article, they were lost in the "tabloid"-style, attention grabbing heading and the sadly biased and one-sided reporting unworthy of Harper's...

Haran

Toto · 04-29-2002, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:

Christians are not all country bumpkin, half-intellectuals as you seem to imply, Toto.

Of course, I did not mean to imply that Christians are all yokels - just that New York intellectuals might assume that. But I knew you would recognize it as a joke.

I don't think that a few details that mesh with history is worth very much in bolstering the case for the accuracy of the Bible.

It's been a while since I read the article, but I had the impression that it was not aimed at deconverting Christians. It was just an entertaining article aimed at a secular audience, with no attempt to soft pedal its conclusions for religious believers.

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

04-29-2002, 06:20 AM	#7
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Good article, Haran. I don't know anything about BAR as far as sectarian biases, but the brief article is well-balanced and a good criticism of the Harper's article which was of an appallingly low quality for that publication. It seems that no media outlet is safe anymore from the the grip of sensationalism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.