David Bowden

The current <a href="http://www.harpers.org" target="_blank">Harpers</a> magazine, on newstands now, features an article summarizing how Middle East archaeology not only doesn't support, but flatly contradicts the historical claims of the Old Testament, undermining scriptural stories about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah along with the Exodus itself.

Edited to add:
"If the historical faith of Israel is not founded in history, such faith is erroneous, and therefore, our faith is also."
- Roland de Vaux, Roman Catholic archaeologist and Bible scholar


[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Vorkosigan

That was the guy who originally excavated at Qumran. Lots of irregularities. Now I know why.

Kosh

Elaborate?

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 ]</p>

Toto

Daniel Lazare is a leftist writer (one of the plaintiffs in the recent copyright case, Tasini v. New York Times), and he is presumably reporting on the same material that has been the subject of recent books discussed here in this forum, and the television show on the history channel. I would not expect him to be writing as an expert, but as a journalist. I would also not expect to find much that is new in the article, but I haven't read it yet.

Don't assume that just because the article is referenced here, that we will read it uncritically. Indeed, I find from <a href="http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue30/lazare30.htm" target="_blank">this interview</a> that Lazare voted for the Socialist Workers Party candidate in the last election. I will try not to let that prejudice me against him.

David Bowden

I dunno, frankly. Why are some believers (in Christ, in UFOs, in crystal healing, in Krishna, whatever) so credulous about claims made that agree with their a priori biases?

hezekiah jones

He's a writer from New York. This is Harper's Magazine, not a refereed journal. As Toto suggested, Lazare often writes on constitutional issues (very well, I might add).

He makes several claims. For example, in Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews, Johnson writes, "We can be reasonably sure that the Exodus occurred in the thirteenth century B.C. and had been completed by about 1225 B.C."

Lazare says this is "Bosh ... A growing volume of evidence concerning Egyptian border defenses, desert sites where the fleeing Israelites supposedly camped, etc., indicates that the flight from Egypt did not occur in the thirteenth century before Christ; it never occurred at all."

Of course this is not Lazare's own claim. Neither are the other "claims" Lazare makes. For example:

Lazare's "authorities" include Julius Wellhausen, Edward Robinson, William F. Albright, John Bright, Kathleen Kenyon, and, of course, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed.

See above. This is a piece of reporting, not a deep critical evaluation. Lazare is not in a position to accept or reject any of it.

Again, Lazare is reporting on the "momentous discoveries." Assumedly the individuals mentioned above are familiar to the denizens of the Bible Archaeology Review. Are Finkelstein and Silberman renegades? Is it all that astonishing that recent archaeological finds (and non-finds) conform to the critical methods initiated by Wellhausen that led him to surmise far more recent dates for the OT's assemblage?

Credulous? Since when is "credulity" inspired by the examination of scholarly and scientific pursuits that have been ongoing for centuries, as opposed to accepting ancient folktales as literal truth?

There's nothing particularly earth shattering in Lazare's article. It's an examination of current archaeological discoveries for a relatively mainstream audience.

A better question might be, "What are your objections to the the Wellhausen school and The Bible Unearthed?"

Jayhawker Soule

Well said!

Nomad

Well, I do know that this is a hotly disputed topic, but it is hardly one that is settled amongst critical scholars. In fact, all Lazare has offered is gratuitous assertion. Gratuitous assertions, of course, are worthy of nothing more than gratuitous denials. Perhaps Lazare should read more.

If his support comes from The Bible Unearthed, then he needs to read more.

The first half of this quote is laughable. Which archaeologists? Silverberg? I really do think that Lazare (and his fans) need to read more, and try to think critically.

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. Most minimalists hold the view that David was a bandit king, or hilltop thug, or whatever. They do not deny his existence. Suffice to say, even this latter view is a very distinct minority position.

Yeah, I thought so. It's funny how one can come to one's conclusions when the only book one has read on the topic comes from a single school of thought.

Of course, in true critical thinking, people try to read all sides of the issue, then draw conclusions. But I don't have to remind y'all of that, do I?

When he wrote:

(quoting from your post now) "Indeed, the chief disagreement among scholars nowadays is between those who hold that David was a petty hilltop chieftain whose writ extended no more than a few miles in any direction and a small but vociferous band of "biblical minimalists" who maintain that he never existed at all."

Was he forming conclusions, and accepting or rejecting anything? It sounds like it to me.

I do not know if I would call them "renegades," but their views are far from a "consensus" opinion, or even a substantial minority view amongst scholars.

Julius Wellhausen (assuming that is who you are talking about) is way out of date, and most of his views have been rejected or modified in recent year. He lived from 1844—1918 and his introduction of the JEPD Theory revolutionized ancient studies of the Torah, but his belief that the OT was largely written after the Exile (c. 587BC) is not widely accepted any longer, and far from having archaeology "prove" his theories about dating the OT, quite the opposite has been taking place.

Where do you get this stuff? Harper's Magazine? I will give you a list of books and articles to read at the end of this post. Perhaps then you can come to some more informed opinions.

If you were willing to examine all sides, and read from more than one scholar (as well as scholars that have not been dead for over 75 years), then perhaps you would be less credulous on this point. Is this how you study all questions about which you are interested?

Here are some books you may wish to read in order to gain some perspective:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802847943/ref=pd_bxgy_text_2/102-6401852-1556911" target="_blank">What Did the Bible Authors Know, and When Did They Know It?</a> by William Dever, an atheist, and vocal critic of the minimalists like Silberman and Finklestein.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0139483993/qid=1015104480/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-6401852-1556911" target="_blank">Understanding the Old Testament</a> by Berhard Anderson and K.P. Darr. Probably the best single volume book about the Old Testament available to date. A bit pricy, but should be in most university libraries.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0500050821/qid=1015104599/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-6401852-1556911" target="_blank">The Israelites</a> by B.S.J. Isserlin. A comprehensive look at the people of ancient Israel, and very readable.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1015104819/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6401852-1556911" target="_blank">Who Wrote the Bible?</a> by Richard Elliot Friedman. Make sure you get the 1997 edition of this book. The most enjoyable, and shortest of the books on this list. It is also reasonablly inexpensive (only $12.00 U.S.). Some of Friedman's speculations go beyond the evidence in my view, but it was a very good read.

Finally, if you do not wish to read these books, then at least read an article on the topic. You can start with <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/brf01reading_david.html" target="_blank">Reading David in Genesis</a> by Gary A. Rendsburg (Bible Review: February 2001). It is a good synopsis of when the book of Genesis was most probably written, and why much (if not all) of it is dated to the period of the Monarchy of David and Solomon.

I hope this list helps. If nothing else, I hope it opens your mind to possibilities that rest outside of your already held prejudices.

Nomad

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Why wouldn't I be?

How do you know I haven't? What's the problem with Julius Wellhausen? He can't help it if he's dead. (Of course he wouldn't be dead had Eve not eaten of the fruit.) His Prolegomena is an extremely important book, despite its vintage. Have you read it? I have it right here. Fascinating observation about the passage of time: it tends to make things get older.

It's kind of comical; you make it sound as if the documentary hypothesis has all but been abandoned. AFAIK, this is hardly the case.

There is no need to be patronizing, Nomad. Where exactly have I proven to be "credulous," aside from wondering if these ancient folktales must be taken literally?

What are you talking about? You asked about the Harper's article, and I attempted to give you a flavor of it, since I subscribe to the magazine, and have read the article. Yet you feel compelled to make this vaguely insulting statement. However, there was little question you would mock the contents of the article, once apprised of it.

Why don't you read the article yourself before making all these assertions with respect to others' "credulity"? Here you are, drawing all these patronizing conclusions, without actually having read the article yourself! Needless to say, this situation is not terribly becoming to your own position.

&lt;list snipped&gt;

Thank you. I am familiar with most of those, and (I hope you're sitting down) I have actually read a couple of them.

Thanks, Dad. For the record, my so-called "prejudices" are non-supernatural, and not especially conducive to the uncritical acceptance of the literal truth of ancient folktales compiled by wandering goatherders.

[By the way, what do you mean, Wellhausen believed that the Torah was "written" largely after the Exile? Perhaps you mean "redacted" largely after the Exile? There's a big difference, as I'm sure you're aware.]

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>