I very recently came across this book by Robert Price: “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?” I have not ordered (thus have not read) it, but the description seems to cover much of what has been discussed in this blog related to the gospel writers, miracles, the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. It is an older book (2003), but it seems the covered information is still very relevant today.
Added note: I am most certainly not as familiar with the OT as John, Ark, and Arch so I can’t say that they are totally correct in their assertions. HOWEVER, having said that, I do think they have the upper hand in their “discussions” with unkleE. 😉
Added note: I am most certainly not as familiar with the OT as John, Ark, and Arch so I can’t say that they are totally correct in their assertions. HOWEVER, having said that, I do think they have the upper hand in their “discussions” with unkleE.
As much as I appreciate the support, Nan, I want to make this absolutely clear that although I have no respect whatsoever for the views of unklee and his pedantic argument over terminology, it is important that those following this discussion be made aware that
A) there is no evidence whatsoever to support for the biblical events pertaining to this discussion.
And most importantly ,
B) there is evidence which soundly refutes the claims of biblical archaeologists and biblical Egyptologists alike.
What will eventually be at stake here is the credibility of Abrahamic monotheism and this is why it is important that such petty nitpicking as being pushed by unklee needs to be soundly trounced to ensure the belief that there is any serious credibility to his and others who hold similar religiously motivated beliefs is eventually dispelled, showing that it is founded on nothing but myth and spurious nonsense.
And to add to that Ark… The theist must now confront the tremendously awkward fact that Jesus did not know basic regional history, naming both Moses and Abraham as real historical characters.
How does one reconcile this fact with their belief that Jesus was a God? Blundering in history (a history he was allegedly personally involved in) doesn’t ring terribly well for the champions of supernaturalism.
The theist must now confront the tremendously awkward fact that Jesus did not know basic regional history, naming both Moses and Abraham as real historical characters.
Hey John-
I don’t necessarily mean to poke my nose into this discussion, but thought I’d just chime in here. The Gospels make clear that Jesus did not know certain things, and even could not perform miracles in certain places d/t. I know that you, Ark, Arch, etc, don’t see much, if any, of the NT as containing anything historical. However, for Christians, that Jesus didn’t know something isn’t a concern. It’s mentioned right in the texts that he didn’t know certain things. That isn’t a new piece of information.
Gary-
I wasn’t aware of any denomination that did think Jesus was all-knowing. It says right in the Gospel stories he didn’t know when he would return.
It’s mentioned right in the texts that he didn’t know certain things. That isn’t a new piece of information
Yes, another twist to the god man fantasy. Selective ignorance. Truly, you couldn’t write a better piece of literature even if this were a work of fiction.. Oh, wait a moment …
However, he did appear with Moses in the Transfiguration, did he not?
Now as Moses is a fictional character this must have surprised the hell out of the character Yeshua Ben Joseph don’t you think?
I’ll hand it to you, that’s some impressively fine moving of the goal posts there. Congratulations. With that sort of fleet-footed maneuvers, no one on the planet, living or dead, could possibly ever win an argument with you, so i won’t even bother trying to litigate your claim.
“Unklee, I, unlike John and Ark, is not interested in scholars consensus. I want to know what you think. Moses story involves talking to a burning bush, killing an Egyptian and burying him less than a foot deep and a murderous rage. Which part of this story do you accept as part of your belief?”
Hi Makagutu,
I outlined my views on the historicity or otherwise of these matters way back in response to the original questions from Ark and I am reluctant to divert from the present discussion about whether the consensus of scholars is overwhelmingly the consensus position.
Let me just say I haven’t reached a settled position, but I find both the minimalist and the maximalists positions claim too much certainty, granted how little archaeology we have.
Thanks for your comments and question. I’m not going to answer in detail at the moment because I want to try to finalise the discussion of what the experts say. But briefly ….
I am still working out my views. Since I know little to nothing of ANE history and archaeology I must depend on experts for my facts. The relevant experts are mainly archaeologists and historians. Regarding the exodus, the archaeologists have very little and you wouldn’t expect them to (assuming the numbers given in the Bible are highly exaggerated or non-literal). So they have moved on to other things, But the historians are still looking at this, and according to William Dever, Peter Enns, Wikipedia, etc, the middle view of “fictionalised history” is probably the most commonly held – hence my long and drawn out discussion with Ark, who wants to write off most of the scholars who disagree with him.
The reason why I’ve argued “define what you think makes a scholar and show these guys don’t meet those criteria” is because that’s what the present argument is about. I have already answered Ark’s questions about my current assessment of the evidence, and it is only his ambit claim that the scholars overwhelmingly support the minimalist position that is under dispute right now.
Sorry, but I think I won’t divert off any more until the other discussion is finished.
I’m beginning to think you’re being willfully ignorant here, UnkleE.
.Again, there exists a mountain of archaeological and textual evidence, and its all contradictory. All of it. Let me repeat what 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.”
To repeat those last few words: “nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”
I’m sure if either of us searched we could find much more information, but this is enough to show your claim is quite wrong.
“I have shown you, twice. Only one of the names you’ve presented has ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a “real” journal…. and it was on the drainage system at Qumran.”
I have just shown that this is quite factually wrong, but I quote it here as your apparent answer to my question of who you regard as a viable scholar. Can I take it then that your one criterion of a scholar is publications?
I cannot imagine that is truly your view, but that is all you have given. remember John, the argument is whether reputable scholars are “overwhelming” in their support of minimalism, and I have nominated the above three scholars, among others, as examples of those holding non-minimalist views. If you want to support Ark, you need to show why these guys aren’t legitimate scholars, and on the one criterion you have given, they are.
So can you answer my previous question, provide a full list of criteria for scholars, and then show (hopefully accurately this time) that these and other scholars don’t meet those criteria?
Or, more sensibly, are you willing to admit you don’t have any reason to reject these and other scholars, and so give up support for Ark’s obvious overstatement?
“I wasn’t aware of any denomination that did think Jesus was all-knowing. It says right in the Gospel stories he didn’t know when he would return.”
Trinitarian Christians have an explanation/harmonization for that passage. (Don’t they always??) All major Christian denominations that I am aware of believe that Jesus is the Creator, the all-mighty, all-knowing, eternal Creator God.
I would check with your pastor and see if he agrees with you that Jesus was NOT all-knowing.
Gary & John-
Say, for the sake of discussion, you both believe God exists and Jesus was God. Are you saying, in this hypothetical discussion, you would follow the story all the way to the point where God could empty himself of immortality, omnipresence, and omnipotence, but not to the point where he emptied himself of omniscience? If you’re willing, for the sake of discussion, to allow the first 3, why not the 4th?
Once upon a time, in the Aegean Sea (off the coast of Greece), there was (and still is, more or less) an island chain called Thera (aka, Santorini), inhabited by a people known as the Minoans. Deep under the sea, in what would appear to be a natural bay that the islands surround, there was (and still is) an enormous underwater volcano. (See illustration, below)
A close look will reveal a dull gray cone in the center of the bay – that’s the volcano that started it all. Somewhere between the years of 1600 and 1628 BCE, the volcano erupted in what was estimated to be the third largest eruption in the history of eruptions. Ash from the volcano was found in Egypt, the skies above China were reported to have been red for days, and ash of the same composition has been found in ice cores drilled in Iceland. The eruption generated a tsunami, estimated between 115 and 490 feet high, that devastated the north coast of Crete. Unlike Pompeii, there’ve been no bodies found on the island, which implies an early evacuation – possibly earth tremors or rising steam gave the inhabitants a chance to escape.
The volcanic eruption ended some civilizations and totally disrupted others, displacing a great number of people of diverse nationalities, customs and languages, all of whom, due to their lives on the islands of the Mediterranean, were qualified as able seamen. It was about this time, that a horde of mysterious, barbaric, war-like, pirate-esque group of seamen, still to this day known only as the “Sea People,” began attacking the coastal cities of Egypt.
Egypt, despite Hollywood depictions to the contrary, was rarely a united country – it was often divided into two kingdoms, that of the North, and another of the South. There was a time when those Sea People entirely took over and ruled the Northern Kingdom of Egypt, before finally being repelled. These are first mentioned on the c.1275 BCE, Kadesh Inscription, found in Egypt. An inscription carved at Medinet Habu in Egypt, in the eighth year of Ramesses III (1175 BCE), relates that, “No land could stand before their arms.”
About the same time, roughly 1200 BCE, a group of people of Greek, or at least of Aegean origin, who may have been the remnants of the routed Sea Peoples, arrived on the coast of what is modern Israel, drove out the Canaanites who inhabited the area, called their territory, Philistia, and became the Philistines of Biblical fame, or infamy, depending on which side of the Torah you’re on.
You really need a scorecard, or at least a Map to the Movie Stars’ Homes, if you hope to navigate the Bible, and I’m trying as best I can, to give you one. Above is the area settled by the Philistines, and on the eastern edge of that, is the city of Gerar, meaning “lodging-place.” Archaeological evidence points to the town having come into existence with the arrival of the Philistines at around 1200 BCE and having been little more than a village until 800-700 BCE. This alone should be sufficient to dispel any validity to the story of Abraham visiting King Abimilech of Gerar, as Abe’s birthdate ranges anywhere from 2350 – 1813 BCE, but to the Elohist Source, who provided us with this scintillating information regarding Abe’s and later Isaac’s lend-lease deals regarding their wives, writing in 850 BCE, the Philistines were firmly in place and had been forever, not knowing, as they relied of hand-me-down legends for their story material, that that “forever consisted of only 400 years.
Gary-
I’ve been to many Lutheran (all growing up years) and evangelical nondenominational (recent years) churches. I’ve never once, in any sermon or bible study, heard it said that Jesus was all-knowing. Christians believe that God condescended to become completely human. This includes lack of many pieces of knowledge, just as it includes aging, sickness and death. Jesus healed people, but scripture records that others healed in his name. Jesus prophesied, but so did many others. Jesus was raised from the dead, but his friend Lazarus was raised even before he was. Other than being “sinless”, off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything Jesus is recorded to have done or said in the gospels that is any different than things recorded of other humans throughout scripture.
I’m still utterly baffled why you keep tossing out Dever’s name. Although once a student in a seminary school (yes, he was training to be a priest) he was one of the main voices in dismissing the origin narrative as myth in the 80’s and 90’s. You are merely shooting yourself in the face every time you mention him… and yes, of course he would have peer-reviewed papers. He’s a real archaeologist!
Peter Eric Enns is a theologian and therefore will be ignored for obvious reasons.
Honestly, UnkleE, we show you Professors, Heads of Archaeological Departments, Doctors, Chiefs of Museums, and you show us a theologian. Please, do try and keep it real.
James Hoffmeier, the evangelical Christian employed by Trinity College, an American “bible school,” does have a paper i see: A preliminary report on a possible military site on the way to El-Borg, 1999, published in the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. That journal has nothing to do with archaeology, but does this “preliminary report” support the Exodus narrative, UnkleE? Could you please detail how this paper supports your position? If you think Hoffmeir has any other valid work which has produced evidence to support the historical validity of the origin narrative could you detail what those evidences are, and give me the publication date so I can review his papers.
And do note: Hoffmeier’s books (opinion pieces, at best) are not peer-reviewed papers.
But let’s forget all this. All you will do is continue to throw out evangelical Christians (who have led no digs or published anything on the subject we’re actually dealing with), while we present real professionals and leaders in biblical archaeology. It seems you can’t quite make that distinction out, and it also seems that you are utterly determined to not deal with facts, such as the settlement period and population maps which completely ruin the narrative.
Let’s instead get real and focus on the evidences. I want to know what you’re basing your beliefs on, and so far you have presented nothing. Nothing at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to present your information, but you have evaded answering every single time.
I hope you won’t evade it again.
UnkleE, what are you basing your claims on? Your position is based on something, isn’t it?
What is it?
What makes you think the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars are wrong?
Ark, I have been through what you have written on the question under discussion, namely, your claim that an overwhelming proportion of scholars support the minimalist view of the exodus. The only response I can see to my question about how you dismiss a bunch of non-minimalist scholars, is your mention of publications and a few vague jibes at Kitchen. So let’s examine the little evidence you have offered,
I have already shown (see comment above) that John is significantly mistaken in his claim that the scholars I had referenced had published only one paper between them by providing references to some of their many publications. So those links show your unspecific denigration of these scholars to be unfounded.
Now let’s look at Kitchen. Wikipedia says: “He is one of the leading experts on the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, having written over 250 books and journal articles on this and other subjects since the mid-1950s. He has been described by The Times as “the very architect of Egyptian chronology” So I guess he cannot be written off either. And while his main expertise is Egypt, he has written extensively on the OT generally and the exodus too.
I think I need to be like an auctioneer who calls for last bids. You have written dozens of posts and have still been unable to show that scholars like the ones I have referenced shouldn’t be respected. The reality is they ARE respected and cannot be dismissed. Your ambit statement was overstatement.
Can I ask please that you make your final attempt to show why these scholars shouldn’t be counted, or you give up trying and we give up discussing? Thanks.
Would you please address these three very specific statements. Each one is referenced (Wiki- if you care to go look) and two use the word overwhelming. .
This of course is the specific word you seem to be having an awful lot of trouble with, for some reason.
The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is * “overwhelming,” and leaves “no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.”[3]
the opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,[7]
And Magen Broshi’s statement:
“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.
My strong emphasis: in case you missed the specific word/s
Now, seriously, unklee, is there any particular reason, besides a touch of bloody-mindedness perhaps, that you persist with your standpoint that there is not an overwhelming minimalist view?
You’re exactly right, the sea people’s “actual history” ruins the origin narrative. There are a slew of potent nuggets like that, like Edom, which we’re told Abraham knew of, yet Edom wouldn’t actually be “Edom” until 800 BCE, about 1,000 years later. Ooops.
John, I wonder if you draw unklee’s attention to the fact that while Kitchen is a well respected archaeologist in several fields his involvement regarding evidence for the Exodus amounts to nothing.
Unklee continues to miss the specifics of the discussion and either he is genuinely confused or simply is not quite following.
I really cannot tell any more.
It is rather late over here and I am off to bed so, I would appreciate if you or Arch or anyone else who has bothered to actually read KItchen’s view – but no evidence – would clarify this point for me.
Finding Truth 
…the red planet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the Pentateuch debate: Isn’t it a sin to refuse to admit you are wrong?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I very recently came across this book by Robert Price: “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?” I have not ordered (thus have not read) it, but the description seems to cover much of what has been discussed in this blog related to the gospel writers, miracles, the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. It is an older book (2003), but it seems the covered information is still very relevant today.
Added note: I am most certainly not as familiar with the OT as John, Ark, and Arch so I can’t say that they are totally correct in their assertions. HOWEVER, having said that, I do think they have the upper hand in their “discussions” with unkleE. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Nan
As much as I appreciate the support, Nan, I want to make this absolutely clear that although I have no respect whatsoever for the views of unklee and his pedantic argument over terminology, it is important that those following this discussion be made aware that
A) there is no evidence whatsoever to support for the biblical events pertaining to this discussion.
And most importantly ,
B) there is evidence which soundly refutes the claims of biblical archaeologists and biblical Egyptologists alike.
What will eventually be at stake here is the credibility of Abrahamic monotheism and this is why it is important that such petty nitpicking as being pushed by unklee needs to be soundly trounced to ensure the belief that there is any serious credibility to his and others who hold similar religiously motivated beliefs is eventually dispelled, showing that it is founded on nothing but myth and spurious nonsense.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And to add to that Ark… The theist must now confront the tremendously awkward fact that Jesus did not know basic regional history, naming both Moses and Abraham as real historical characters.
How does one reconcile this fact with their belief that Jesus was a God? Blundering in history (a history he was allegedly personally involved in) doesn’t ring terribly well for the champions of supernaturalism.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hey John-
I don’t necessarily mean to poke my nose into this discussion, but thought I’d just chime in here. The Gospels make clear that Jesus did not know certain things, and even could not perform miracles in certain places d/t. I know that you, Ark, Arch, etc, don’t see much, if any, of the NT as containing anything historical. However, for Christians, that Jesus didn’t know something isn’t a concern. It’s mentioned right in the texts that he didn’t know certain things. That isn’t a new piece of information.
LikeLike
Wow, Josh. What denomination of Christians do you belong to? What Christian denomination on the planet believes that Jesus was not All-Knowing?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary-
I wasn’t aware of any denomination that did think Jesus was all-knowing. It says right in the Gospel stories he didn’t know when he would return.
LikeLike
@Josh
Yes, another twist to the god man fantasy. Selective ignorance. Truly, you couldn’t write a better piece of literature even if this were a work of fiction.. Oh, wait a moment …
However, he did appear with Moses in the Transfiguration, did he not?
Now as Moses is a fictional character this must have surprised the hell out of the character Yeshua Ben Joseph don’t you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I could not.
LikeLike
Hi Josh
I’ll hand it to you, that’s some impressively fine moving of the goal posts there. Congratulations. With that sort of fleet-footed maneuvers, no one on the planet, living or dead, could possibly ever win an argument with you, so i won’t even bother trying to litigate your claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you don’t believe Jesus was god, then?
Interesting…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Unklee, I, unlike John and Ark, is not interested in scholars consensus. I want to know what you think. Moses story involves talking to a burning bush, killing an Egyptian and burying him less than a foot deep and a murderous rage. Which part of this story do you accept as part of your belief?”
Hi Makagutu,
I outlined my views on the historicity or otherwise of these matters way back in response to the original questions from Ark and I am reluctant to divert from the present discussion about whether the consensus of scholars is overwhelmingly the consensus position.
Let me just say I haven’t reached a settled position, but I find both the minimalist and the maximalists positions claim too much certainty, granted how little archaeology we have.
LikeLike
Hi Powell,
Thanks for your comments and question. I’m not going to answer in detail at the moment because I want to try to finalise the discussion of what the experts say. But briefly ….
I am still working out my views. Since I know little to nothing of ANE history and archaeology I must depend on experts for my facts. The relevant experts are mainly archaeologists and historians. Regarding the exodus, the archaeologists have very little and you wouldn’t expect them to (assuming the numbers given in the Bible are highly exaggerated or non-literal). So they have moved on to other things, But the historians are still looking at this, and according to William Dever, Peter Enns, Wikipedia, etc, the middle view of “fictionalised history” is probably the most commonly held – hence my long and drawn out discussion with Ark, who wants to write off most of the scholars who disagree with him.
The reason why I’ve argued “define what you think makes a scholar and show these guys don’t meet those criteria” is because that’s what the present argument is about. I have already answered Ark’s questions about my current assessment of the evidence, and it is only his ambit claim that the scholars overwhelmingly support the minimalist position that is under dispute right now.
Sorry, but I think I won’t divert off any more until the other discussion is finished.
LikeLike
granted how little archaeology we have
I’m beginning to think you’re being willfully ignorant here, UnkleE.
.Again, there exists a mountain of archaeological and textual evidence, and its all contradictory. All of it. Let me repeat what Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:
To repeat those last few words: “nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In case you don’t believe me, here is the link to the only peer-reviewed paper that has been published by any one of your “experts.””
Hi John, let’s dispose of this first. It is quite inaccurate. I did a quick search and found these lists of references:
William Dever
Peter Enns
James Hoffmeier
I’m sure if either of us searched we could find much more information, but this is enough to show your claim is quite wrong.
“I have shown you, twice. Only one of the names you’ve presented has ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a “real” journal…. and it was on the drainage system at Qumran.”
I have just shown that this is quite factually wrong, but I quote it here as your apparent answer to my question of who you regard as a viable scholar. Can I take it then that your one criterion of a scholar is publications?
I cannot imagine that is truly your view, but that is all you have given. remember John, the argument is whether reputable scholars are “overwhelming” in their support of minimalism, and I have nominated the above three scholars, among others, as examples of those holding non-minimalist views. If you want to support Ark, you need to show why these guys aren’t legitimate scholars, and on the one criterion you have given, they are.
So can you answer my previous question, provide a full list of criteria for scholars, and then show (hopefully accurately this time) that these and other scholars don’t meet those criteria?
Or, more sensibly, are you willing to admit you don’t have any reason to reject these and other scholars, and so give up support for Ark’s obvious overstatement?
LikeLike
“I wasn’t aware of any denomination that did think Jesus was all-knowing. It says right in the Gospel stories he didn’t know when he would return.”
Trinitarian Christians have an explanation/harmonization for that passage. (Don’t they always??) All major Christian denominations that I am aware of believe that Jesus is the Creator, the all-mighty, all-knowing, eternal Creator God.
I would check with your pastor and see if he agrees with you that Jesus was NOT all-knowing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary & John-
Say, for the sake of discussion, you both believe God exists and Jesus was God. Are you saying, in this hypothetical discussion, you would follow the story all the way to the point where God could empty himself of immortality, omnipresence, and omnipotence, but not to the point where he emptied himself of omniscience? If you’re willing, for the sake of discussion, to allow the first 3, why not the 4th?
LikeLike
@John Zande – re: the Sea Peoples
Once upon a time, in the Aegean Sea (off the coast of Greece), there was (and still is, more or less) an island chain called Thera (aka, Santorini), inhabited by a people known as the Minoans. Deep under the sea, in what would appear to be a natural bay that the islands surround, there was (and still is) an enormous underwater volcano. (See illustration, below)
A close look will reveal a dull gray cone in the center of the bay – that’s the volcano that started it all. Somewhere between the years of 1600 and 1628 BCE, the volcano erupted in what was estimated to be the third largest eruption in the history of eruptions. Ash from the volcano was found in Egypt, the skies above China were reported to have been red for days, and ash of the same composition has been found in ice cores drilled in Iceland. The eruption generated a tsunami, estimated between 115 and 490 feet high, that devastated the north coast of Crete. Unlike Pompeii, there’ve been no bodies found on the island, which implies an early evacuation – possibly earth tremors or rising steam gave the inhabitants a chance to escape.
The volcanic eruption ended some civilizations and totally disrupted others, displacing a great number of people of diverse nationalities, customs and languages, all of whom, due to their lives on the islands of the Mediterranean, were qualified as able seamen. It was about this time, that a horde of mysterious, barbaric, war-like, pirate-esque group of seamen, still to this day known only as the “Sea People,” began attacking the coastal cities of Egypt.
Egypt, despite Hollywood depictions to the contrary, was rarely a united country – it was often divided into two kingdoms, that of the North, and another of the South. There was a time when those Sea People entirely took over and ruled the Northern Kingdom of Egypt, before finally being repelled. These are first mentioned on the c.1275 BCE, Kadesh Inscription, found in Egypt. An inscription carved at Medinet Habu in Egypt, in the eighth year of Ramesses III (1175 BCE), relates that, “No land could stand before their arms.”
About the same time, roughly 1200 BCE, a group of people of Greek, or at least of Aegean origin, who may have been the remnants of the routed Sea Peoples, arrived on the coast of what is modern Israel, drove out the Canaanites who inhabited the area, called their territory, Philistia, and became the Philistines of Biblical fame, or infamy, depending on which side of the Torah you’re on.
You really need a scorecard, or at least a Map to the Movie Stars’ Homes, if you hope to navigate the Bible, and I’m trying as best I can, to give you one. Above is the area settled by the Philistines, and on the eastern edge of that, is the city of Gerar, meaning “lodging-place.” Archaeological evidence points to the town having come into existence with the arrival of the Philistines at around 1200 BCE and having been little more than a village until 800-700 BCE. This alone should be sufficient to dispel any validity to the story of Abraham visiting King Abimilech of Gerar, as Abe’s birthdate ranges anywhere from 2350 – 1813 BCE, but to the Elohist Source, who provided us with this scintillating information regarding Abe’s and later Isaac’s lend-lease deals regarding their wives, writing in 850 BCE, the Philistines were firmly in place and had been forever, not knowing, as they relied of hand-me-down legends for their story material, that that “forever consisted of only 400 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary-
I’ve been to many Lutheran (all growing up years) and evangelical nondenominational (recent years) churches. I’ve never once, in any sermon or bible study, heard it said that Jesus was all-knowing. Christians believe that God condescended to become completely human. This includes lack of many pieces of knowledge, just as it includes aging, sickness and death. Jesus healed people, but scripture records that others healed in his name. Jesus prophesied, but so did many others. Jesus was raised from the dead, but his friend Lazarus was raised even before he was. Other than being “sinless”, off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything Jesus is recorded to have done or said in the gospels that is any different than things recorded of other humans throughout scripture.
LikeLike
UnkleE
I’m still utterly baffled why you keep tossing out Dever’s name. Although once a student in a seminary school (yes, he was training to be a priest) he was one of the main voices in dismissing the origin narrative as myth in the 80’s and 90’s. You are merely shooting yourself in the face every time you mention him… and yes, of course he would have peer-reviewed papers. He’s a real archaeologist!
Peter Eric Enns is a theologian and therefore will be ignored for obvious reasons.
Honestly, UnkleE, we show you Professors, Heads of Archaeological Departments, Doctors, Chiefs of Museums, and you show us a theologian. Please, do try and keep it real.
James Hoffmeier, the evangelical Christian employed by Trinity College, an American “bible school,” does have a paper i see: A preliminary report on a possible military site on the way to El-Borg, 1999, published in the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. That journal has nothing to do with archaeology, but does this “preliminary report” support the Exodus narrative, UnkleE? Could you please detail how this paper supports your position? If you think Hoffmeir has any other valid work which has produced evidence to support the historical validity of the origin narrative could you detail what those evidences are, and give me the publication date so I can review his papers.
And do note: Hoffmeier’s books (opinion pieces, at best) are not peer-reviewed papers.
But let’s forget all this. All you will do is continue to throw out evangelical Christians (who have led no digs or published anything on the subject we’re actually dealing with), while we present real professionals and leaders in biblical archaeology. It seems you can’t quite make that distinction out, and it also seems that you are utterly determined to not deal with facts, such as the settlement period and population maps which completely ruin the narrative.
Let’s instead get real and focus on the evidences. I want to know what you’re basing your beliefs on, and so far you have presented nothing. Nothing at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to present your information, but you have evaded answering every single time.
I hope you won’t evade it again.
UnkleE, what are you basing your claims on? Your position is based on something, isn’t it?
What is it?
What makes you think the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars are wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, I have been through what you have written on the question under discussion, namely, your claim that an overwhelming proportion of scholars support the minimalist view of the exodus. The only response I can see to my question about how you dismiss a bunch of non-minimalist scholars, is your mention of publications and a few vague jibes at Kitchen. So let’s examine the little evidence you have offered,
I have already shown (see comment above) that John is significantly mistaken in his claim that the scholars I had referenced had published only one paper between them by providing references to some of their many publications. So those links show your unspecific denigration of these scholars to be unfounded.
Now let’s look at Kitchen. Wikipedia says: “He is one of the leading experts on the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, having written over 250 books and journal articles on this and other subjects since the mid-1950s. He has been described by The Times as “the very architect of Egyptian chronology” So I guess he cannot be written off either. And while his main expertise is Egypt, he has written extensively on the OT generally and the exodus too.
I think I need to be like an auctioneer who calls for last bids. You have written dozens of posts and have still been unable to show that scholars like the ones I have referenced shouldn’t be respected. The reality is they ARE respected and cannot be dismissed. Your ambit statement was overstatement.
Can I ask please that you make your final attempt to show why these scholars shouldn’t be counted, or you give up trying and we give up discussing? Thanks.
LikeLike
@unklee
Would you please address these three very specific statements. Each one is referenced (Wiki- if you care to go look) and two use the word overwhelming. .
This of course is the specific word you seem to be having an awful lot of trouble with, for some reason.
And Magen Broshi’s statement:
My strong emphasis: in case you missed the specific word/s
Now, seriously, unklee, is there any particular reason, besides a touch of bloody-mindedness perhaps, that you persist with your standpoint that there is not an overwhelming minimalist view?
Thanks
LikeLike
You’re exactly right, the sea people’s “actual history” ruins the origin narrative. There are a slew of potent nuggets like that, like Edom, which we’re told Abraham knew of, yet Edom wouldn’t actually be “Edom” until 800 BCE, about 1,000 years later. Ooops.
LikeLike
John, I wonder if you draw unklee’s attention to the fact that while Kitchen is a well respected archaeologist in several fields his involvement regarding evidence for the Exodus amounts to nothing.
Unklee continues to miss the specifics of the discussion and either he is genuinely confused or simply is not quite following.
I really cannot tell any more.
It is rather late over here and I am off to bed so, I would appreciate if you or Arch or anyone else who has bothered to actually read KItchen’s view – but no evidence – would clarify this point for me.
Appreciate it.
T’ra.
LikeLike