Unk: “It is hard to believe the disciples would have suffered persecution and even martyrdom for something they knew to be a lie.”
Dear Nate et al:
Haven’t you let UnkleE in on the secret that there is zero evidence of any of the disciples being executed for refusing to recant their testimony that they ate broiled fish…or did anything else… with a walking/talking/eating zombie??
Please give us some examples, Unk. And don’t include James, the Brother of Jesus. Yes, he was executed, but many members of a religious minority have been executed. We have no proof he was given the chance tor recant his eyewitness testimony as a means to spare his life.
If anyone is unable to understand the point I am putting across please, I would sincerely appreciate that you say so
I get the impression that unklee believes I do not think that any other archaeologist or scholar holds the view that the Pentateuch is nothing but fiction.
I wish to state that I know there are other views but the overwhelming view is minimalist and my previous comment which included (again) the 1999 statement from Ze’ev Herzog and confirmed by Magen Broshi that almost the entirety of serious scholarship and archaeologists hold the view that the story of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Moses and conquest of Canaan is all fiction.
If anyone else on this thread, besides unklee, disagrees with my statement concerning the overwhelming view please speak up.
Just stating “that there is a wider range of scholarly view than what Ark claims” means very little, I’m afraid, unless you can actually back that statement up.
I’ve scrolled through the comments and can’t see where you’ve provided anything to support your claim. Of course, I might have missed something, and if so, would you be so kind to re-post it for me.
Thanks.
But seriously, I would truly like you to list the evidences you think exist, and the arguments you think are valid, so I can get a feel for where you’re coming from… Because right now, I’m baffled by your position.
What are you basing your claim on, UnkleE?
You see, the thing is, there isn’t really a “wider scholarly view.” The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth nearly two generations ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:
“Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”
So overwhelming is the evidence, UnkleE, that in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.
So, if you could please detail the evidences you believe exist, and who unearthed these evidences (and please name their institutions), and point me to the peer-reviewed papers they’ve published (and the journals these papers have published in) it would be greatly appreciated.
Just to clarify something, and explain why I’m baffled by your claims, the only area where there is still a live debate regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to the narrative concerning the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The origin narrative is essentially dead in the field of serious archaeology as a completely alternative (entirely contradictory) early history of the Jews has been well established for quite some time now, which is why I’m very keen to see what information you have which has lead you to believe there is still a live debate going on.
Ark, I can’t disagree but I will say this. People believe what they want to believe. That means you, Nate, Arch, Gary, Dave, Matt, Peter, Mak, uncleE … and anyone else who has commented on this blog.
The so-called “evidence” that one person claims will be contradicted by “evidence” from someone who believes the opposite. And rarely do the twain ever meet.
IMO, the “evidence” presented by the non-believers simply makes more sense. But maybe that’s because I was able to shed the (majority of) indoctrination that led me to believe otherwise.
For me, it’s been interesting to see opinions/claims/”evidence” offered by both sides that I hadn’t really considered before, but I still stand by my assertion that we each believe what we want to believe, i.e., what makes the most sense to us.
Hi Ark, yes I think we are indeed. But for the opposite reason you think because your “killer quote” is a little selective. You quote from the webpage “Herzog is Almost in the Consensus” but you quote selectively. But that page contains a discussion that demonstrates what I have said – the minimalists say most serious scholars agree with them but other apparently serious scholars disagree.
So we have some clear statements by Wikipedia and Dever that I quoted earlier, that there is a range of views. I have mentioned several competent scholars who have a non-minimalist view (Dever, Enns, Kitchen, Hoffmeier). You have visited Aron Wall’s blog and some commenter there has given you another list of non-minimalist names – Hoerth, Hyer, Kaiser, Kitchen, Waltke, Wenham, Wikipedia & Wolf. To them I could add Provan, Long & Longman (who I know nothing about, just digging up names).
So the only way you can support your original statement is either by selectively quoting only minimalists in support of their own position, or eliminating all these other scholars from the list by some means. Which of course you can do by saying all of them are christians (which isn’t true of Dever) or something similar. And I suppose a maximalist could slur Finkelstein, Davies and co in a similar but opposite way.
I think the more intellectually honest approach is to stop making ambit claims, admit there is a range of opinion, and then argue for why you prefer the minimalist position. If I had a firm view I could argue for that.
Before I finish, I wonder whether I can offer a possible way towards a better understanding for both of us.
I think few would argue with the facts that (1) the numbers of people supposedly involved in the exodus are unrealistic, (2) there is very little if no archaeological evidence for the exodus, and (3) the accounts are written way after the date and intended as aetiological stories and not just factual history. The question is what people do with those facts.
There are two main sources of ancient history – documents and artefacts/archaeology. Apart from the Tanakh, we have very little other documents to throw a light on this, but there are a few which have indirect information. We have few if any artefacts that are relevant to the exodus, nor would we expect to have much with nomadic people, but there is a little more archaeology relevant to the supposed conquest, and most but not all of it arguably tells against the stories we have.
An archaeologist will likely conclude negatively if they are disposed against the stories, or neutrally if they base solely on the fact that we have little or no evidence. Those who investigate and analyse documents may see more history there, or they may not – if they judge the stories handed down to have some historical basis, they will refuse to be minimalists because the archeology is pretty neutral and the text is meaningful to them.
So the disagreements among scholars probably come down to whether they are hard core archaeologists who don’t accept anything from the text vs whether they are historians who take a broader view that encompasses text and archeology. The prior beliefs of all sides will of course have an influence, though the scientific process is supposed to limit this.
Anyway, like Nate hinted, I think I’m done with this. I’ve made my point, and I don’t want to keep making the same point. Thanks for the discussion.
“You quote from the webpage “Herzog is Almost in the Consensus” but you quote selectively”
I’m not sure what you meant by this so I tried googling selective quotes . As far as I can tell, a selective quote is when one selects only a portion of a quote in order to skew its meaning. Is this what you are accusing Ark of ?
You have charged Ark with quoting selectively. Can you explain so the rest of us can understand your charge ?
Nan, I agree, with a modification though, people believe as they are convicted. Unklee tells us he has studied for 50 yrs and still believes some virgin born, water walking, wine making and demon casting demigod visited our planet. In this case, I have feeling the scholars have let unklee down.
Gary, kindly list more examples. I was asleep. Couldn’t have asked for more then.
William, now I have an answer for missing dead bodies. They undied.
I can’t begin to wrap my head around what unklee refers to as strong evidence for the resurrection. Couldn’t we better start of with strong evidence for the existence? Resurrection appears to me to be jumping the gun.
“I have feeling the scholars have let unklee down.” – No, Mak, Unk has let himself down. It’s one thing to have intellect, which I agree Unk has, it’s another entirely not to use it.
Ok, Maka, here is another option for the empty tomb story:
Mary Magdalene was a very rich woman. The Gospels say that she anointed the feet of Jesus with a pound of Nard, a very expensive perfume. Twelve ounces of Nard cost ONE YEAR’S worth of wages! If Mary M. was willing to spend that much money anointing Jesus feet in a symbolic pre-death burial ritual, how much more would she have paid to obtain his dead body?
Mary goes to the guards at the tomb on Saturday night and offers them more money than they have ever seen in their entire lives. Even the most devoted and disciplined of soldiers are vulnerable to two temptations: women, and , lots and lots of money.
The guards take the money and go to the Sanhedrin telling them that an angel had overpowered them and taken the body. This story scares the holy crap out of the Sanhedrin. If this angel story gets out to the public, Judaism is finished. They tell the soldiers they will make up an alibi to Pilate to protect them if they promise not to say anything about angels. “Tell the people that the disciples stole the body.”
While all this is happening, the servants of Mary M. take Jesus’ body to her secret Mausoleum where she immerses his body in expense oils…to preserve him for all time.
“I’ve scrolled through the comments and can’t see where you’ve provided anything to support your claim.”
Hi John, I posted some references on April 30, 2015 at 8:18 am, so you should be able to find it there.
It is also worth reading the link Ark gave, because looking at the whole page, not just the quote he gave, shows vigorous discussion from several viewpoints – exactly what I was saying and he was denying.
“The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology.”
I think I see whether the problem lies. Ark’s original statement referred to “scholars” and that is what I have been referring to. Now in studies of antiquity, several disciplines are important – archaeologists, scientists (e.g. doing radiocarbon or other dating), textual and cultural experts, and anyone we might describe as a historian. Archaeologists are only one part of the field.
I understand as you do that “serious” archaeology has generally given up on finding traces of the exodus, after all, nomadic peoples don’t carry much and don’t leave much behind. (I am assuming here that if the exodus occurred, it involved far less that the 2 million people sometimes suggested.) This isn’t true for Egyptian and Canaanite archaeology, and the supposed conquest of Canaan is still very much under investigation as far as I can see, both with digs and discussions of the results, e.g. at Jericho and other “cities”.
So an archaeologist may give up on finding anything, but that doesn’t mean nothing happened, only that they can’t find anything. With a city, absence of evidence would be evidence of absence, but that wouldn’t be so for nomadic people. So my limited understanding is that many, maybe most archaeologists are not actively investigating the exodus, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen, although many do think that.
But the other disciplines are not bound by archaeology at all. there is the textual evidence of the Tanakh, plus documents from other ANE cultures, and on the basis of what is there, many historians are not minimalists. Some are maximalists, some such as Dever and Enns are somewhere in the middle.
These are all facts, and can only be denied by relegating such historians to the dustbin.
So I conclude that most archaeologists are not actively investigation the exodus through Sinai, many don’t believe anything happened at all (though even Finkelstein says Moses could be a historical character but he doesn’t think we can know much about him) but scholars as a whole are not “overwhelmingly” minimalist. That is all I am arguing, and I think it is important because large general ambit claim like statements that are not supported by the evidence should be shown to be overstatements.
Summary: “No point in doing archaeology” doesn’t equal “no archaeologist thinks there is any historical basis for the story”, and even less equals “no scholar thinks there is no historical basis at all for the story”.
Does that explain my view better? I hope so. Thanks.
“You have charged Ark with quoting selectively. Can you explain so the rest of us can understand your charge ?”
Hi Ken, glad you asked. Ark didn’t give a URL, but this page is a source for the quote, and since it appears to be the summary of a discussion, it looks like the original source.
It appears that the discussion is more about the monarchy than the exodus, but anyway Ark quoted from it. And you can see that several people on the page, some of them clearly scholars, and at least one of them an archaeologist, contest minimalism. That doesn’t prove the minimalists wrong, but it is more evidence that Ark’s statement of “overwhelming” support for the minimalist position is an overstatement. And he quoted from the page without mentioning the other opinions.
Gary, all the scenarios you present make more sense than a dead man walking. Thank you very much.
And some other thing, a Marcionite wouldn’t rely on the gospels either. Marcion didn’t make any reference to them. It seems he didn’t know they existed. He used the epistles of Paul only and not all of them. If I recall correctly, he only referred to 10 of them.
The problem you seem unable to grasp is with the term ”overwhelming”.
You also seem to be suggesting that I have not mentioned that there are other opinions -from scholars and archaeologists. I have made abundantly clear the position on this.
Furthermore, if you are suggesting there is any reason to consider an evangelical Christian such as Kitchen, in this regard, then your standards for scholarly relevance differ enormously to what any serious individual would believe worthy of consideration.
I did mention up front Davies’ view that with the exception of fundamentalists, the scientific and scholarly community pretty much considers itself entirely minimalist regarding this issue.
In other words, the view of biblical scholars and other fundamentalist is not held in any serious regard. by their peers.
It appears that the discussion is more about the monarchy than the exodus,
Really?
The quote from Herzog is specific and clearly refers to the Captivity, Exodus, Moses and the Conquest, all of which are regarded as fictional by the overwhelming majority of scholars and archaeologists and Megan Broshi’s ringing endorsement could not be clearer
But let me repeat it for you once more.
“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus.
Is there anything about this particular statement that you do not understand, unklee?
I acknowledge there are different opinions on this issue. I have never suggested for one second there were not.
However, once again,the overwhelming view of archaeologists and scholars – not all – but the overwhelming majority are minimalist with regard to this issue and the testimonials show this.
“The problem you seem unable to grasp is with the term ”overwhelming””
Hi Ark. If I don’t understand you, it is because you haven’t been specific. Perhaps you’d like to give your definition of “overwhelming” please? I suggested 90% might be the right order, would you agree?
“You also seem to be suggesting that I have not mentioned that there are other opinions -from scholars and archaeologists. I have made abundantly clear the position on this.”
OK, so if they are the other side of overwhelming, then they make up, in your view, only about 10% of the total scholarly community? Split them among the maximalists and the others, that’s 5% each. is that what you are saying?
“if you are suggesting there is any reason to consider an evangelical Christian such as Kitchen, in this regard, then your standards for scholarly relevance differ enormously to what any serious individual would believe worthy of consideration.”
So let’s clarify this too then please. Are you saying that if a person is an evangelical christian then, regardless of their qualifications, publications and current academic position, their work in this area is totally without professional value? And that if a person is an atheist, that doesn’t compromise their professional work in a similar way? Is that what you are saying?
And if you are, you know what I’m going to ask next – can you please share your evidence for that view?
“I did mention up front Davies’ view that with the exception of fundamentalists, the scientific and scholarly community pretty much considers itself entirely minimalist regarding this issue.”
Yes you did mention that. But since it comes from a minimalist and it is contradicted by other references I gave, it may be true but it may also be simply beating the drum. And remember the page that you appear to have quoted from before also shows there are other views.
“I hope this finally clarifies the issue for you.”
So a reference on a page that is contradicted by other quotes from the same page clears things up? And negates the references I gave from Wikipedia and Dever and Enns and others?
We are talking primarily about the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis ( which some of the evangelical scholars you list quite likely also believe in), and in particular the Patriarchs the Egyptian Captivity, Moses Exodus, and conquest.
I did not bring up the monarchy;you did.
The link is also quite specific in this regard.
Let me offer this once again.
“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus.
Did you note the words, ”no serious scholar in the world” ? Is there truly anything about this statement that you are unsure of?
Do you feel in any way it contains a single word of ambiguity?
Does ”no serious scholar in the world” in any way not convey an overwhelming majority?
In the world, unklee. You do understand this term, yes?
And the word consensus is also featured.
Now Davies’ quote once more:
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
Emeritus Professor.
Again, he is specific
Is there anything you are still struggling to understand with these two quotes?
Therefore, is there really any need to include the opinion of Kitchen and his ilk who’s evangelic
presuppositional approach has offered nothing to the advancement of science or archaeology with regard the specific events under discussion?
Furthermore, Finkelstein’s video explains and offers evidence concerning these issues.
If you are upset that I have not included the evangelical perspective then I really do not know how to answer you?
I would have thought even you would not be so pedantic as to expect such a perspective to be included in, what is primarily, a scientific perspective. If this is the case then in future I might have to be concerned with the opinion of my local Church of Christ minister and his article in his church’s newsletter.
And thus I reiterate my original claim, and fully concur with Magen Broshi.
This snippet of a fuller review of one of Hoerth’s book’s may be be interest to some readers.
”Hoerth is clearly presupposing a strongly evangelical position that places the Old Testament text as primary and uses archaeology only as it illuminates or illustrates the biblical text. If there are tensions between the text and archaeological evidence ( as he readily and correctly admits there are) Hoerth will always maintain the integrity of the Old Testament.
I’m sorry, but you haven’t advanced your position one millimeter. Evidently you don’t know much about Dever, or you wouldn’t keep throwing his name out. And I’m afraid, tossing out evangelical Christians who’ve never even lead digs in Israel, or published a single peer-reviewed paper on the subjects we’re discussing is just ludicrous. It actually highlights how weak your position is. Of all the names you’ve presented only one has a peer-reviewed paper which has been published in a “real” journal, and you know what that is? It’s a paper on the cisterns and drainage at Qumran, 1,000 years after the alleged Exodus.
Now, this entire passage is wrong:
There are two main sources of ancient history – documents and artefacts/archaeology. Apart from the Tanakh, we have very little other documents to throw a light on this, but there are a few which have indirect information. We have few if any artefacts that are relevant to the exodus, nor would we expect to have much with nomadic people, but there is a little more archaeology relevant to the supposed conquest, and most but not all of it arguably tells against the stories we have.
You are simply making things up here to suit your needs. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus. None. Zero. Nothing. There are no artefacts, no extra-biblical documents, or references, anywhere. Yes, 2 million people camped in one place for 30 years would leave evidence, not least of all the trade that would have been established with southern Canaan, 40 kilomtres up the road. There is no evidence of conquest, and it flatly contradicts the geopolitical reality of the day, namely that the whole region was under Egyptian military rule, and the Amarna letters.
What you are simply refusing to accept is that there exists a completely different, entirely contradictory history that has been uncovered of the early Jews. This has been verified through settlement patterns and population maps. It’s fact. Fact: the hills began to be settled in 1100 BCE, 50 years after the arrival of the Sea People (the Philistines) on the Levant.
Yes Ark, you have quoted Davies et al several times now. Problem is, I have named a bunch of scholars who are not minimalists. They are living refutation of your statement.
It’s like a person arguing that scientifically there can be no black swans. It sounds impressive …. until someone actually produces a black swan and the theory is useless.
So you can keep quoting Davies and the others, but I have named scholars who are not minimalists and you haven’t shown that they are not a refutation of your statement.
There are two ways I can see you may attempt this, and you’ve actually hinted at both of these without coming up with anything convincing.
1. If we assume “overwhelming” means 90% (you haven’t disagreed), for every one non-minimalist I have named, you could name 9 minimalist scholars. But then I could name a few more non-minimalists and you’d have to name 9 more for each one I named. I reckon that could become pretty tedious for you, slightly less tedious for me. So I think you are probably wise not to pursue that line.
2. You can try to show these are not “real” scholars. You have hinted at that too with your occasional slur on “evangelical christian” scholars but (1) that doesn’t cover the non-christian non-minimalists, and (2) you declined to answer my question about how you would eliminate them from the equation.
So we are still in the position where I have named a bunch of non-minimalist scholars, and they stand as refutation of your claim, until and if you are able to actually address the question.
I don’t think you can do it, but perhaps I will dig up a few more non-minimalist scholars just in case.
Or do you think it is time to stop this discussion?
“I’m sorry, but you haven’t advanced your position one millimeter. Evidently you don’t know much about Dever, or you wouldn’t keep throwing his name out. “
Hi John, it seems you are not addressing the question I am debating. You said before you hadn’t read the thread thoroughly (how could you, it is rather long!?), and so you are still making points that are irrelevant to what I am saying.
I am simply scontesting Ark’s statement that the overwhelming consensus is the minimalist position. Whatever I may or may not think about Dever, he is a non-minimalist (so he is one example of a reputable scholar who isn’t covered by Ark’s claim) and he states quite clearly that there are many other positions that minimalism. So he is a good reference for what I am saying, though perhaps a bad reference to what you presumably think I am saying.
“There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus. None. Zero. Nothing. There are no artefacts, no extra-biblical documents, or references, anywhere.”
I don’t think tis statement is correct at all, but even if it was, it is irrelevant. We are not talking about the archaeological evidence, we are talking about the positions held by scholars.
“What you are simply refusing to accept is that there exists a completely different, entirely contradictory history that has been uncovered of the early Jews.”
And I’m sorry John, but this is entirely wrong, and can only be explained by the fact that you are unfortunately late on this discussion. I don’t think an entirely new history has been “uncovered” (that implies archaeological evidence, and you have just said there is none!), but I don’t refuse to accept that the exodus etc is not strictly historical and much, maybe even all of it, is in doubt. But doubt is the important word, not certainty.
But remember the topic. It is the position held by scholars. If you wish to support Ark, can I encourage you to address the question and not these other topics? Thanks.
Yes Ark, you have quoted Davies et al several times now. Problem is, I have named a bunch of scholars who are not minimalists. They are living refutation of your statement.
Yes, Unklee, you have mentioned these, and I reiterate, I have not denied there are other opinions so where is there any refutation?
If you need an understanding of the word overwhelming, then simply Google it?
Do you have a problem with this?
If so ask and I will try to find a link for you. Or maybe you have a dictionary on your bookshelf?
I have named a bunch of non-minimalist scholars,
You have indeed and good for you! Yet my research plainly suggests the majority of the bunch of non minimalists you named are evangelical. Certainly Kitchen, Hoerth, Kaiser etc are. The snippet from his book review rather says it all I think, don’t you?
Dever isn’t a Christian any longer, of course. I’m pretty sure we are all aware of this. So this is one .
I am in fact struggling to find any reference to any secular scholar/ archaeologist that does not hold with the overwhelming majority view on this subject.
Maybe you could also find a whole bunch?
So, regarding the subject under discussion, the evangelical crowd have contributed nothing of substance to alter the overwhelming view of serious scholars and archaeologists regarding the Patriarchs, Egyptian Captivity, Exodus or the Conquest, all of which are considered myth.
Well, except by the evangelical Christians and other biblical fundamentalists of course.
Feel free to continue digging as much as you wish.
Finding Truth 
Unk: “It is hard to believe the disciples would have suffered persecution and even martyrdom for something they knew to be a lie.”
Dear Nate et al:
Haven’t you let UnkleE in on the secret that there is zero evidence of any of the disciples being executed for refusing to recant their testimony that they ate broiled fish…or did anything else… with a walking/talking/eating zombie??
Please give us some examples, Unk. And don’t include James, the Brother of Jesus. Yes, he was executed, but many members of a religious minority have been executed. We have no proof he was given the chance tor recant his eyewitness testimony as a means to spare his life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s it, Unk? THAT is your “strong” evidence??
Very weak, my friend. Very, very weak. You need to hit the books and dig up some better evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To all other readers on this thread.
If anyone is unable to understand the point I am putting across please, I would sincerely appreciate that you say so
I get the impression that unklee believes I do not think that any other archaeologist or scholar holds the view that the Pentateuch is nothing but fiction.
I wish to state that I know there are other views but the overwhelming view is minimalist and my previous comment which included (again) the 1999 statement from Ze’ev Herzog and confirmed by Magen Broshi that almost the entirety of serious scholarship and archaeologists hold the view that the story of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Moses and conquest of Canaan is all fiction.
If anyone else on this thread, besides unklee, disagrees with my statement concerning the overwhelming view please speak up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Please.
LikeLike
UnkleE
Hi
Just stating “that there is a wider range of scholarly view than what Ark claims” means very little, I’m afraid, unless you can actually back that statement up.
I’ve scrolled through the comments and can’t see where you’ve provided anything to support your claim. Of course, I might have missed something, and if so, would you be so kind to re-post it for me.
Thanks.
But seriously, I would truly like you to list the evidences you think exist, and the arguments you think are valid, so I can get a feel for where you’re coming from… Because right now, I’m baffled by your position.
What are you basing your claim on, UnkleE?
You see, the thing is, there isn’t really a “wider scholarly view.” The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth nearly two generations ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:
So overwhelming is the evidence, UnkleE, that in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.
So, if you could please detail the evidences you believe exist, and who unearthed these evidences (and please name their institutions), and point me to the peer-reviewed papers they’ve published (and the journals these papers have published in) it would be greatly appreciated.
I look forward to your reply.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE
Just to clarify something, and explain why I’m baffled by your claims, the only area where there is still a live debate regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to the narrative concerning the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The origin narrative is essentially dead in the field of serious archaeology as a completely alternative (entirely contradictory) early history of the Jews has been well established for quite some time now, which is why I’m very keen to see what information you have which has lead you to believe there is still a live debate going on.
Again, I look forward to your reply.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, I can’t disagree but I will say this. People believe what they want to believe. That means you, Nate, Arch, Gary, Dave, Matt, Peter, Mak, uncleE … and anyone else who has commented on this blog.
The so-called “evidence” that one person claims will be contradicted by “evidence” from someone who believes the opposite. And rarely do the twain ever meet.
IMO, the “evidence” presented by the non-believers simply makes more sense. But maybe that’s because I was able to shed the (majority of) indoctrination that led me to believe otherwise.
For me, it’s been interesting to see opinions/claims/”evidence” offered by both sides that I hadn’t really considered before, but I still stand by my assertion that we each believe what we want to believe, i.e., what makes the most sense to us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Are we done, unklee?”
Hi Ark, yes I think we are indeed. But for the opposite reason you think because your “killer quote” is a little selective. You quote from the webpage “Herzog is Almost in the Consensus” but you quote selectively. But that page contains a discussion that demonstrates what I have said – the minimalists say most serious scholars agree with them but other apparently serious scholars disagree.
So we have some clear statements by Wikipedia and Dever that I quoted earlier, that there is a range of views. I have mentioned several competent scholars who have a non-minimalist view (Dever, Enns, Kitchen, Hoffmeier). You have visited Aron Wall’s blog and some commenter there has given you another list of non-minimalist names – Hoerth, Hyer, Kaiser, Kitchen, Waltke, Wenham, Wikipedia & Wolf. To them I could add Provan, Long & Longman (who I know nothing about, just digging up names).
So the only way you can support your original statement is either by selectively quoting only minimalists in support of their own position, or eliminating all these other scholars from the list by some means. Which of course you can do by saying all of them are christians (which isn’t true of Dever) or something similar. And I suppose a maximalist could slur Finkelstein, Davies and co in a similar but opposite way.
I think the more intellectually honest approach is to stop making ambit claims, admit there is a range of opinion, and then argue for why you prefer the minimalist position. If I had a firm view I could argue for that.
Before I finish, I wonder whether I can offer a possible way towards a better understanding for both of us.
I think few would argue with the facts that (1) the numbers of people supposedly involved in the exodus are unrealistic, (2) there is very little if no archaeological evidence for the exodus, and (3) the accounts are written way after the date and intended as aetiological stories and not just factual history. The question is what people do with those facts.
There are two main sources of ancient history – documents and artefacts/archaeology. Apart from the Tanakh, we have very little other documents to throw a light on this, but there are a few which have indirect information. We have few if any artefacts that are relevant to the exodus, nor would we expect to have much with nomadic people, but there is a little more archaeology relevant to the supposed conquest, and most but not all of it arguably tells against the stories we have.
An archaeologist will likely conclude negatively if they are disposed against the stories, or neutrally if they base solely on the fact that we have little or no evidence. Those who investigate and analyse documents may see more history there, or they may not – if they judge the stories handed down to have some historical basis, they will refuse to be minimalists because the archeology is pretty neutral and the text is meaningful to them.
So the disagreements among scholars probably come down to whether they are hard core archaeologists who don’t accept anything from the text vs whether they are historians who take a broader view that encompasses text and archeology. The prior beliefs of all sides will of course have an influence, though the scientific process is supposed to limit this.
Anyway, like Nate hinted, I think I’m done with this. I’ve made my point, and I don’t want to keep making the same point. Thanks for the discussion.
LikeLike
RE, “Mythology” – Gary, I think he’s referring to your statement about the mythical dying and rising gods that you said influenced Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You quote from the webpage “Herzog is Almost in the Consensus” but you quote selectively”
I’m not sure what you meant by this so I tried googling selective quotes . As far as I can tell, a selective quote is when one selects only a portion of a quote in order to skew its meaning. Is this what you are accusing Ark of ?
You have charged Ark with quoting selectively. Can you explain so the rest of us can understand your charge ?
Thanks !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, you are understood loud and clear.
Nan, I agree, with a modification though, people believe as they are convicted. Unklee tells us he has studied for 50 yrs and still believes some virgin born, water walking, wine making and demon casting demigod visited our planet. In this case, I have feeling the scholars have let unklee down.
Gary, kindly list more examples. I was asleep. Couldn’t have asked for more then.
William, now I have an answer for missing dead bodies. They undied.
I can’t begin to wrap my head around what unklee refers to as strong evidence for the resurrection. Couldn’t we better start of with strong evidence for the existence? Resurrection appears to me to be jumping the gun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I have feeling the scholars have let unklee down.” – No, Mak, Unk has let himself down. It’s one thing to have intellect, which I agree Unk has, it’s another entirely not to use it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, Maka, here is another option for the empty tomb story:
Mary Magdalene was a very rich woman. The Gospels say that she anointed the feet of Jesus with a pound of Nard, a very expensive perfume. Twelve ounces of Nard cost ONE YEAR’S worth of wages! If Mary M. was willing to spend that much money anointing Jesus feet in a symbolic pre-death burial ritual, how much more would she have paid to obtain his dead body?
Mary goes to the guards at the tomb on Saturday night and offers them more money than they have ever seen in their entire lives. Even the most devoted and disciplined of soldiers are vulnerable to two temptations: women, and , lots and lots of money.
The guards take the money and go to the Sanhedrin telling them that an angel had overpowered them and taken the body. This story scares the holy crap out of the Sanhedrin. If this angel story gets out to the public, Judaism is finished. They tell the soldiers they will make up an alibi to Pilate to protect them if they promise not to say anything about angels. “Tell the people that the disciples stole the body.”
While all this is happening, the servants of Mary M. take Jesus’ body to her secret Mausoleum where she immerses his body in expense oils…to preserve him for all time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’ve scrolled through the comments and can’t see where you’ve provided anything to support your claim.”
Hi John, I posted some references on April 30, 2015 at 8:18 am, so you should be able to find it there.
It is also worth reading the link Ark gave, because looking at the whole page, not just the quote he gave, shows vigorous discussion from several viewpoints – exactly what I was saying and he was denying.
“The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology.”
I think I see whether the problem lies. Ark’s original statement referred to “scholars” and that is what I have been referring to. Now in studies of antiquity, several disciplines are important – archaeologists, scientists (e.g. doing radiocarbon or other dating), textual and cultural experts, and anyone we might describe as a historian. Archaeologists are only one part of the field.
I understand as you do that “serious” archaeology has generally given up on finding traces of the exodus, after all, nomadic peoples don’t carry much and don’t leave much behind. (I am assuming here that if the exodus occurred, it involved far less that the 2 million people sometimes suggested.) This isn’t true for Egyptian and Canaanite archaeology, and the supposed conquest of Canaan is still very much under investigation as far as I can see, both with digs and discussions of the results, e.g. at Jericho and other “cities”.
So an archaeologist may give up on finding anything, but that doesn’t mean nothing happened, only that they can’t find anything. With a city, absence of evidence would be evidence of absence, but that wouldn’t be so for nomadic people. So my limited understanding is that many, maybe most archaeologists are not actively investigating the exodus, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen, although many do think that.
But the other disciplines are not bound by archaeology at all. there is the textual evidence of the Tanakh, plus documents from other ANE cultures, and on the basis of what is there, many historians are not minimalists. Some are maximalists, some such as Dever and Enns are somewhere in the middle.
These are all facts, and can only be denied by relegating such historians to the dustbin.
So I conclude that most archaeologists are not actively investigation the exodus through Sinai, many don’t believe anything happened at all (though even Finkelstein says Moses could be a historical character but he doesn’t think we can know much about him) but scholars as a whole are not “overwhelmingly” minimalist. That is all I am arguing, and I think it is important because large general ambit claim like statements that are not supported by the evidence should be shown to be overstatements.
Summary: “No point in doing archaeology” doesn’t equal “no archaeologist thinks there is any historical basis for the story”, and even less equals “no scholar thinks there is no historical basis at all for the story”.
Does that explain my view better? I hope so. Thanks.
LikeLike
I think you are entirely right
LikeLike
“You have charged Ark with quoting selectively. Can you explain so the rest of us can understand your charge ?”
Hi Ken, glad you asked. Ark didn’t give a URL, but this page is a source for the quote, and since it appears to be the summary of a discussion, it looks like the original source.
It appears that the discussion is more about the monarchy than the exodus, but anyway Ark quoted from it. And you can see that several people on the page, some of them clearly scholars, and at least one of them an archaeologist, contest minimalism. That doesn’t prove the minimalists wrong, but it is more evidence that Ark’s statement of “overwhelming” support for the minimalist position is an overstatement. And he quoted from the page without mentioning the other opinions.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Gary, all the scenarios you present make more sense than a dead man walking. Thank you very much.
And some other thing, a Marcionite wouldn’t rely on the gospels either. Marcion didn’t make any reference to them. It seems he didn’t know they existed. He used the epistles of Paul only and not all of them. If I recall correctly, he only referred to 10 of them.
LikeLike
@Unklee
The problem you seem unable to grasp is with the term ”overwhelming”.
You also seem to be suggesting that I have not mentioned that there are other opinions -from scholars and archaeologists. I have made abundantly clear the position on this.
Furthermore, if you are suggesting there is any reason to consider an evangelical Christian such as Kitchen, in this regard, then your standards for scholarly relevance differ enormously to what any serious individual would believe worthy of consideration.
I did mention up front Davies’ view that with the exception of fundamentalists, the scientific and scholarly community pretty much considers itself entirely minimalist regarding this issue.
In other words, the view of biblical scholars and other fundamentalist is not held in any serious regard. by their peers.
“The problem you seem unable to grasp is with the term ”overwhelming””
Hi Ark. If I don’t understand you, it is because you haven’t been specific. Perhaps you’d like to give your definition of “overwhelming” please? I suggested 90% might be the right order, would you agree?
“You also seem to be suggesting that I have not mentioned that there are other opinions -from scholars and archaeologists. I have made abundantly clear the position on this.”
OK, so if they are the other side of overwhelming, then they make up, in your view, only about 10% of the total scholarly community? Split them among the maximalists and the others, that’s 5% each. is that what you are saying?
“if you are suggesting there is any reason to consider an evangelical Christian such as Kitchen, in this regard, then your standards for scholarly relevance differ enormously to what any serious individual would believe worthy of consideration.”
So let’s clarify this too then please. Are you saying that if a person is an evangelical christian then, regardless of their qualifications, publications and current academic position, their work in this area is totally without professional value? And that if a person is an atheist, that doesn’t compromise their professional work in a similar way? Is that what you are saying?
And if you are, you know what I’m going to ask next – can you please share your evidence for that view?
“I did mention up front Davies’ view that with the exception of fundamentalists, the scientific and scholarly community pretty much considers itself entirely minimalist regarding this issue.”
Yes you did mention that. But since it comes from a minimalist and it is contradicted by other references I gave, it may be true but it may also be simply beating the drum. And remember the page that you appear to have quoted from before also shows there are other views.
“I hope this finally clarifies the issue for you.”
So a reference on a page that is contradicted by other quotes from the same page clears things up? And negates the references I gave from Wikipedia and Dever and Enns and others?
LikeLike
We are talking primarily about the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis ( which some of the evangelical scholars you list quite likely also believe in), and in particular the Patriarchs the Egyptian Captivity, Moses Exodus, and conquest.
I did not bring up the monarchy;you did.
The link is also quite specific in this regard.
Let me offer this once again.
“There is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus.
Did you note the words, ”no serious scholar in the world” ? Is there truly anything about this statement that you are unsure of?
Do you feel in any way it contains a single word of ambiguity?
Does ”no serious scholar in the world” in any way not convey an overwhelming majority?
In the world, unklee. You do understand this term, yes?
And the word consensus is also featured.
Now Davies’ quote once more:
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
Emeritus Professor.
Again, he is specific
Is there anything you are still struggling to understand with these two quotes?
Therefore, is there really any need to include the opinion of Kitchen and his ilk who’s evangelic
presuppositional approach has offered nothing to the advancement of science or archaeology with regard the specific events under discussion?
Furthermore, Finkelstein’s video explains and offers evidence concerning these issues.
If you are upset that I have not included the evangelical perspective then I really do not know how to answer you?
I would have thought even you would not be so pedantic as to expect such a perspective to be included in, what is primarily, a scientific perspective. If this is the case then in future I might have to be concerned with the opinion of my local Church of Christ minister and his article in his church’s newsletter.
And thus I reiterate my original claim, and fully concur with Magen Broshi.
Anything else?
LikeLike
This snippet of a fuller review of one of Hoerth’s book’s may be be interest to some readers.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1357651?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106278965291
LikeLike
UnkleE
I’m sorry, but you haven’t advanced your position one millimeter. Evidently you don’t know much about Dever, or you wouldn’t keep throwing his name out. And I’m afraid, tossing out evangelical Christians who’ve never even lead digs in Israel, or published a single peer-reviewed paper on the subjects we’re discussing is just ludicrous. It actually highlights how weak your position is. Of all the names you’ve presented only one has a peer-reviewed paper which has been published in a “real” journal, and you know what that is? It’s a paper on the cisterns and drainage at Qumran, 1,000 years after the alleged Exodus.
Now, this entire passage is wrong:
You are simply making things up here to suit your needs. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus. None. Zero. Nothing. There are no artefacts, no extra-biblical documents, or references, anywhere. Yes, 2 million people camped in one place for 30 years would leave evidence, not least of all the trade that would have been established with southern Canaan, 40 kilomtres up the road. There is no evidence of conquest, and it flatly contradicts the geopolitical reality of the day, namely that the whole region was under Egyptian military rule, and the Amarna letters.
What you are simply refusing to accept is that there exists a completely different, entirely contradictory history that has been uncovered of the early Jews. This has been verified through settlement patterns and population maps. It’s fact. Fact: the hills began to be settled in 1100 BCE, 50 years after the arrival of the Sea People (the Philistines) on the Levant.
LikeLike
“The Territories of Science and Religion”
Yes Ark, you have quoted Davies et al several times now. Problem is, I have named a bunch of scholars who are not minimalists. They are living refutation of your statement.
It’s like a person arguing that scientifically there can be no black swans. It sounds impressive …. until someone actually produces a black swan and the theory is useless.
So you can keep quoting Davies and the others, but I have named scholars who are not minimalists and you haven’t shown that they are not a refutation of your statement.
There are two ways I can see you may attempt this, and you’ve actually hinted at both of these without coming up with anything convincing.
1. If we assume “overwhelming” means 90% (you haven’t disagreed), for every one non-minimalist I have named, you could name 9 minimalist scholars. But then I could name a few more non-minimalists and you’d have to name 9 more for each one I named. I reckon that could become pretty tedious for you, slightly less tedious for me. So I think you are probably wise not to pursue that line.
2. You can try to show these are not “real” scholars. You have hinted at that too with your occasional slur on “evangelical christian” scholars but (1) that doesn’t cover the non-christian non-minimalists, and (2) you declined to answer my question about how you would eliminate them from the equation.
So we are still in the position where I have named a bunch of non-minimalist scholars, and they stand as refutation of your claim, until and if you are able to actually address the question.
I don’t think you can do it, but perhaps I will dig up a few more non-minimalist scholars just in case.
Or do you think it is time to stop this discussion?
LikeLike
“I’m sorry, but you haven’t advanced your position one millimeter. Evidently you don’t know much about Dever, or you wouldn’t keep throwing his name out. “
Hi John, it seems you are not addressing the question I am debating. You said before you hadn’t read the thread thoroughly (how could you, it is rather long!?), and so you are still making points that are irrelevant to what I am saying.
I am simply scontesting Ark’s statement that the overwhelming consensus is the minimalist position. Whatever I may or may not think about Dever, he is a non-minimalist (so he is one example of a reputable scholar who isn’t covered by Ark’s claim) and he states quite clearly that there are many other positions that minimalism. So he is a good reference for what I am saying, though perhaps a bad reference to what you presumably think I am saying.
“There is no extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus. None. Zero. Nothing. There are no artefacts, no extra-biblical documents, or references, anywhere.”
I don’t think tis statement is correct at all, but even if it was, it is irrelevant. We are not talking about the archaeological evidence, we are talking about the positions held by scholars.
“What you are simply refusing to accept is that there exists a completely different, entirely contradictory history that has been uncovered of the early Jews.”
And I’m sorry John, but this is entirely wrong, and can only be explained by the fact that you are unfortunately late on this discussion. I don’t think an entirely new history has been “uncovered” (that implies archaeological evidence, and you have just said there is none!), but I don’t refuse to accept that the exodus etc is not strictly historical and much, maybe even all of it, is in doubt. But doubt is the important word, not certainty.
But remember the topic. It is the position held by scholars. If you wish to support Ark, can I encourage you to address the question and not these other topics? Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Unklee, you have mentioned these, and I reiterate, I have not denied there are other opinions so where is there any refutation?
If you need an understanding of the word overwhelming, then simply Google it?
Do you have a problem with this?
If so ask and I will try to find a link for you. Or maybe you have a dictionary on your bookshelf?
You have indeed and good for you! Yet my research plainly suggests the majority of the bunch of non minimalists you named are evangelical. Certainly Kitchen, Hoerth, Kaiser etc are. The snippet from his book review rather says it all I think, don’t you?
Dever isn’t a Christian any longer, of course. I’m pretty sure we are all aware of this. So this is one .
I am in fact struggling to find any reference to any secular scholar/ archaeologist that does not hold with the overwhelming majority view on this subject.
Maybe you could also find a whole bunch?
So, regarding the subject under discussion, the evangelical crowd have contributed nothing of substance to alter the overwhelming view of serious scholars and archaeologists regarding the Patriarchs, Egyptian Captivity, Exodus or the Conquest, all of which are considered myth.
Well, except by the evangelical Christians and other biblical fundamentalists of course.
Feel free to continue digging as much as you wish.
Thanks
Ark
LikeLiked by 1 person