Hi guys, you can quote minimalists until the cows come home, I don’t dispute that minimalists exist.
So those quotes are irrelevant.
The problem for your view is that there are indeed non-minimalist scholars too, and you say they barely exist. So I’ll match your quotes with the ones I have given before:
William Dever is not a theist (so you can’t pin that rap on him!): “the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information”
From a review of one of Dever’s books: “Dever has cogently described five approaches in use today for reconstructing the history of Israel (p. x). These fall into a continuum, and are so useful in understanding where scholarship is today that they are worth repeating. There are those who assume the Bible is literally true. Second, there are those who hold the Bible as probably true. Third, those who seek out “convergences”between the text and archaeology, without assuming the Bible to be true or false. Fourth are those who assume the Bible is false unless proven otherwise. And fifth are those who reject the Bible and also any other data that agrees with it, since the biblical account is inherently false. Dever himself holds to the third, “convergence” model, and is certainly the best example of its application. In spite of his vociferous opposition to the “Minimalists,” Dever decries the continual production of “rational paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible” (p. 224) and himself considers the Bible to be “historicized myth” (p. 226)”
Old Testament scholar Peter Enns (this one’s a christian so you can sharpen your axe if you like! 🙂 ) sums up: “Many – I would say most – biblical scholars and historians would say that the biblical narrative echoes real, though distant, historical events.”
Wikipedia says quite clearly that there is a range of views, much argued over: “most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically, and since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship”
On top of that we have the publication records of Dever, Enns, Hoffmeier and Kitchen and all the rest.
So I say again, the fact that there are minimalists scholars is not disputed. The fact that they are the overwhelming majority is clearly an overstatement. I have invited you to show why these four, and a bunch of other scholars, should be discounted and you haven’t done so. It is safe to assume you cannot.
I don’t expect you to admit the statement was an overstatement, but I think we can safely put all this to bed with your inability to dismiss these scholars. Besides, I have another related issue to take up with you in my next comment.
I understand where you are coming from. Your position is definitely reasonable, as I believe that it is natural for a believer to read Peter Enns and James Hoffmeier and regard them as experts in the fields.
Not saying you’re biased. But rather, similarly, atheists like myself would naturally regard them as less than reliable – which is what this discussion is about.
I’m just wondering if there is any possibility for you Ark to see past this difference and move on to the meat of the discussion? I can see John trying to move on to proper evidences (albeit with some snide remarks), Similarly, lets assume that Ark concedes the point, then naturally we’ll be talking about evidences about why your experts/yourself think that the “fictionalized history” or middle-ground is correct.
Sounds unfair to you, I agree, as it puts the onus for you to defend your position. However, hope you will show grace with regards to this as what it appears to me is similar to this:
Non-vaccers experts vs doctors saying – hence lets take the middle moderate view – e.g. vaccine sometimes causes autism and may contain mercury some of the time.
I’m not entirely sure middle ground is the default position, so it’ll be great if you could, perhaps in a later setting, link me to some specific reading that agrees with your position.
Ark, Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not an archaeologist. He’s never dug in Israeli, or the Sinai. He’s never published a paper on any digs. I doubt he owns a spade. He reviews texts, that’s all, and his wild claims about re-dating Exodus are not taken seriously in genuine department. That’s why he’s never published a genuine paper on it. Plenty of books, written for evangelicals, sure, but no peer-reviewed papers. He’ll never get a paper through peer-review because he knows the argument collapses, creating even more historical blunders than with the 13th Century dating, which is what the bible clearly states.
You name 4 people, one is dead wrong (Dever), another is a theologian, another is an Egyptologist, and one is an archaeologist who is employed by an American bible school and has one peer-reviewed paper on a preliminary findings of a garrison outpost.
UnckleE, are you seriously saying this amounts to something? Do you have any idea how many archaeology departments there are in “real” universities? Can you name a single Israeli archaeologist who you might feel comfortable with?
Bart Ehrman answered my question (very succinctly) regarding the timing of the arrival of the Roman guards to the tomb of Jesus.
From Bart Ehrman’s blog:
Me: …would you agree that, due to the wording, it is POSSIBLE, that even if Matthew’s detail of guards at the tomb is historical, it is possible that there was a period of time, even if brief, that the tomb was not guarded?
“Can we say now, by a vote of those who consent, there is consensus among scholars that the empty tomb doesn’t qualify as evidence of a resurrection?”
Sorry, Mak, but the only evidence anyone has for an empty tomb, comes from four anonymous authors who weren’t there and have only multiple-hand information that there even was a tomb, much less that it was empty.
Perhaps unkleE would like to reference Bishop John Shelby Spong as a Scholar ?
A prominent theme in Spong’s writing is that the popular and literal interpretations of Christian scripture are not sustainable and do not speak honestly to the situation of modern Christian communities. He believes in a more nuanced approach to scripture, informed by scholarship and compassion, which can be consistent with both Christian tradition and contemporary understandings of the universe. He believes that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God’s nature. He states that he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus Christ fully expressed the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love and that this is the meaning of the early Christian proclamation, “Jesus is Lord” (Spong, 1994 and Spong, 1991). Elaborating on this last idea he affirms that Jesus was adopted by God as his son, (Born of a Woman 1992), and he says that this would be the way God was fully incarnated in Jesus Christ.[1] He rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994). In 2000, Spong was a critic of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church’s declaration Dominus Iesus, because it reaffirmed the Catholic doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and, perhaps even more importantly, that Jesus Christ is the one and only savior for humanity.[7]
“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.“- How about walking on water and floating up into the air, Josh? Know anybody else who did that?
Hi Powell, that is a most gracious response, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately you have misunderstood my position. Perhaps being brief I didn’t explain it well, so let me reiterate.
I don’t have a firm opinion about the historicity of the first half of the OT, I haven’t read enough to know. Ark asked my opinion of the Pentateuch, and I told him. He didn’t dispute further any of what I said about my own views. The only matter which he and I pursued from then was his claim that virtually all scholars (the overwhelming majority) were minimalists. I took that to mean something like 90% of scholars, and he hasn’t offered a different percentage.
I have heard this said before and I knew it to be wrong, so I gave references to some assessments that there were other views, plus, most importantly, I named about 6-10 scholars who were not minimalists. This makes his claim demonstrably wrong unless he can either (1) show there are 9 times as many minimalists as the non-minialists that I have mentioned, or (2) show why the scholars I have mentioned shouldn’t be counted as scholars. He hasn’t attempted (1) and he has offered nothing of substance towards (2).
But my listing of maximalist and middle ground scholars doesn’t indicate I support their views, as you seem to think. I haven’t read much of these scholars apart from Enns, and I certainly don’t support the views of Hoffmeier and Kitchen. I included them simply to demonstrate that there are reputable non-minimalist scholars and Ark’s statement was demonstrably wrong. In fact, if you look back you’ll find I said that I was least in favour of the maximalist position, and preferred the middle ground as exemplified by Enns.
I have pursued the claim Ark made because (i) such claims are often made and repeated by people who have never looked at the evidence, (ii) evidence claims are foundational, and (iii) it is easily refuted and difficult to defend, so had more chance of reaching a conclusion than many arguments here.
If we could settle that matter we could discuss the more substantial matters, though I don’t have that much to say on the broader subject. Thanks.
Arch, we are in agreement. That was my attempt at a jest following the several scenarios guys have come up with in this thread for why a tomb could be empty
There is no reason, John, for Abe to know anything about Edom, because “Edom” means “red,” and biblically-speaking, pertains to Abe’s great-grandson, Esau, brother of Jacob/Israel, who had red hair, according to the Bible (interesting also, the “pottage” for which Esau sold his birthright, was also red). The REAL truth was that Edom was so called, not because of Esau’s hair color, but because the dirt in the area occupied by the Edomites was composed largely of iron-rich red soil, and the entire adversarial relationship between Jacob/Israel and Esau personified the adversarial relationship between the tribes of the Israelites and the Edomites.
In essence, then, KC, Spong endorsed the view of the first century Adoptionists, who believed that Yeshua was adopted by his god at his baptism. That view wasn’t really popular at the Council of Nicea —
“He is famous for walking on water and floating in the air while meditating. Chinese folk painters have tons and tons of paintings of him doing that.” – Oh, well, paintings – why didn’t you say so? I guess that makes it real!
Guess what I have a painting of –?
The shadow of a unicorn! Confirmed at last! They’re real!!!
Do you believe that UnkleE has refuted Ark’s claim that the overwhelming (a very high percentage, > 85-90%) majority of archeologists deny the historicity of the Exodus, the Sojourn in the Sinai, the Conquest, and the united kingdoms of David and Solomon or do you believe that UnkleE is refusing to accept the “majority scholarly opinion” on this issue but insisting that we accept the “majority scholarly opinion” on the Empty Tomb?
Unklee, in this post, all you have given is what experts say. Now maybe, you had written something specifically about what you believe and I missed it. We are down 500+ comments. Wouldn’t you be gracious to just repeat and it doesn’t have to be long. My question was quite specific and quite easy, I think. I don’t want to know what scholars say. You have been doing this for 50 years, what are your thoughts on burning bushes, murder and murderous rage? That is all am asking.
Hi John, I’m sorry to have to be critical, but you keep on making statements that are missing the point, inaccurate, and in some cases total howlers. This will be my last comment to you on this topic unless something changes (but fear not, I have another challenge for you, coming next!), so let me outline a few of them so you and others can know why I cannot take a lot of notice of your very confident statements.
1. You said on several occasions that there was only one peer-reviewed paper that has been published by any one of my “experts. Yet Wikipedia says Kenneth Kitchen alone has produced over 250 books and peer reviewed papers, and I have referenced how Enns, Hoffmeier and Dever have also produced many, many peer reviewed papers. That is a monumental error, and yet you didn’t even acknowledge it. But to think that major figures like Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Dever hadn’t even published a single paper shows an amazing lack of understanding of academic study.
2. Then there is your statement “Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not an archaeologist. He’s never dug in Israeli, or the Sinai. He’s never published a paper on any digs. I doubt he owns a spade. He reviews texts, that’s all” We are talking about scholars, and that includes historians. Not all historians get involved in digs – the two areas are related but not the same. Historians do indeed review texts, nothing to denigrate there. On some matters more related to the actual dig, an archaeologist will be most expert, but on matters relating to how to fit the evidence into the broader picture, a historian may be the more expert. Your comment is equivalent to suggesting that because Stephen Hawking rarely if ever looks through a telescope he can’t have credibility as a cosmologist!
3. Then you think that calling Peter Enns a “theologian” you have dismissed him. This a favourite meme among atheists but it is largely built on ignorance. A scholar is not so much judged by a label you might like to stick on him or her, but by his or her qualifications, experience, publications etc. Enns did a B.A. in behavioral science, an M Div, then an MA & PhD from Harvard University (Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations). That latter sounds like quite a relevant qualification wouldn’t you say? His academic positions have been in the field of Old Testament and Biblical Studies, and his listed interests, books and publications include historical, literature and theological areas. Calling him a theologian and thinking that alone dismisses him reveals more about you than him, I’m sorry.
4. Finally, you keep referring to matters that are irrelevant to the matter in hand. I reference Dever, not because I necessarily agree with him or disagree with him, but because he is a non-minimalist scholar and that is the question we are discussing.
So John, with that many mistakes in the things you say, I hope you will pardon me from answering you further. It really seems to be a waste of your time and mine.
But I do appreciate the fact that you have been polite all the way through, as I have tried to be. I am sorry I had to be rougher on you in this comment, but those errors needed to be corrected. I wasn’t going to dwell on your first bad mistake about the number of publications, but I had no alternative in the end.
But please don’t go away, I have a new question to ask you, if you are willing to answer it please (next comment). Thanks.
I think it is time to pull the plug. I don’t see any serious attempt to show that all the non-minimalist scholars are either incompetent or forming only about 10% of the field. I have asked several times, but I don’t see any serious answers. You both raise many other matters, but they aren’t relevant to this topic.
So I’m going to ask you both a different question and see how you respond to that, if you wish to respond.
One of the pleasing features of this discussion we’ve been having is your strong concern for scholarship and determining what the best scholars say. That is something we apparently agree on.
So do you both have the same concern for good scholarship when it comes to the New Testament?
Let me make that question a little more specific.
John, on my website a while back, you will recall that we discussed whether Nazareth existed at the time of jesus, a fact apparently confirmed by archaeology and accepted by every scholar I have heard discuss the matter. Yet you took the view that the scholars were wrong and Nazareth didn’t exist in the first half of the first century. In view of your endorsement of scholarship on the OT, do you now accept that Nazareth did exist back then. Or do you take a different view of the value of scholarship and archaeology in the NT than you do in the OT?
Ark, you too will doubtless recall discussion we had on my website about whether jesus existed, and you said you preferred the views of Richard carrier and Robert Price on this matter, even though they disagreed with almost every other scholar on whether Jesus did exist on the basis of scholarship. Or do you take a different view of the value of scholarship in the NT than you do in the OT?
Unklee, I know your question is specifically to John and Ark but I would like to interject. When you say scholars agree on the existence of Jesus, which Jesus have you in mind? An itinerant preacher man who got himself hanged for religious intolerance or a virgin born, water walking and wonder making dude? I am interested in the Jesus of the scholars, very interested.
The issue concerning the term overwhelming seems to be giving you so much grief I am concerned this discussion may induce an infarction and I would not want this on my conscience.
So let’s look at the source of where I derived it shall we?
Neither of us are archaeologists and I don’t know about your experience with digging in the dirt but mind extends to a bit of weekend gardening and planting a few seedlings.
So when I use the term overwhelming it is not my term.
Do you understand this fully?
I did not suddenly sit down and think what could I possibly write that would tick off unklee the most. Ooh! I know I will seriously exaggerate a claim to the point where his bloody fillings drop out!
No. Of course not
My source of this term is the same place of reference that we both likely utilize: The Internet.
And as I have illustrated from the two quotes on numerous occasions, the terms, overwhelming and overwhelming majority are the words used by the experts from whom I nicked
Not my term. Theirs. And it is important that you recognise this and not be under any misconception that it is me pushing this term off my own bat. I am not.
Now, for at least two people to make such an utterance, and another to use the term ”in the world”, in reference to scholarly opinion one must suppose that these people are either highly regarded experts in the field, bloody idiots or damn liars.
And as they are referring to the stories of the Patriarchs, Egyptian Captivity, the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan, and nothing else regarding our discussion, I am inclined to accept their expert pronunciation on this matter.
As to numbers: 80% , 90% …..seriously? I could not give a damn. Such stats are like Stats for washing powder for silly housewives or credulous shoppers.
But for Broshi to use the phrase ”in the world” it is a safe bet to conclude he means more than a half dozen and also includes more than those professional archaeologists digging in his back yard.
So, if you want to continue the futility of trying to convince anyone that the experts are not in the overwhelming majority in this regard, feel free. Knock yourself out.
But the experts whose quotes I have nicked would likely beg to differ, if they gave a damn at all about either of our opinions.
So, while I fully acknowledge there is most certainly other opinion, the overwhelming view – as stated by at least two experts – is minimalist.
Right. This is now finished.
There was another topic you wanted to raise I believe?
Finding Truth 
Hi guys, you can quote minimalists until the cows come home, I don’t dispute that minimalists exist.
So those quotes are irrelevant.
The problem for your view is that there are indeed non-minimalist scholars too, and you say they barely exist. So I’ll match your quotes with the ones I have given before:
William Dever is not a theist (so you can’t pin that rap on him!): “the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information”
From a review of one of Dever’s books: “Dever has cogently described five approaches in use today for reconstructing the history of Israel (p. x). These fall into a continuum, and are so useful in understanding where scholarship is today that they are worth repeating. There are those who assume the Bible is literally true. Second, there are those who hold the Bible as probably true. Third, those who seek out “convergences”between the text and archaeology, without assuming the Bible to be true or false. Fourth are those who assume the Bible is false unless proven otherwise. And fifth are those who reject the Bible and also any other data that agrees with it, since the biblical account is inherently false. Dever himself holds to the third, “convergence” model, and is certainly the best example of its application. In spite of his vociferous opposition to the “Minimalists,” Dever decries the continual production of “rational paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible” (p. 224) and himself considers the Bible to be “historicized myth” (p. 226)”
Old Testament scholar Peter Enns (this one’s a christian so you can sharpen your axe if you like! 🙂 ) sums up: “Many – I would say most – biblical scholars and historians would say that the biblical narrative echoes real, though distant, historical events.”
Wikipedia says quite clearly that there is a range of views, much argued over: “most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically, and since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship”
On top of that we have the publication records of Dever, Enns, Hoffmeier and Kitchen and all the rest.
So I say again, the fact that there are minimalists scholars is not disputed. The fact that they are the overwhelming majority is clearly an overstatement. I have invited you to show why these four, and a bunch of other scholars, should be discounted and you haven’t done so. It is safe to assume you cannot.
I don’t expect you to admit the statement was an overstatement, but I think we can safely put all this to bed with your inability to dismiss these scholars. Besides, I have another related issue to take up with you in my next comment.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.
LikeLike
@unklee
Thanks for the reply.
I understand where you are coming from. Your position is definitely reasonable, as I believe that it is natural for a believer to read Peter Enns and James Hoffmeier and regard them as experts in the fields.
Not saying you’re biased. But rather, similarly, atheists like myself would naturally regard them as less than reliable – which is what this discussion is about.
I’m just wondering if there is any possibility for you Ark to see past this difference and move on to the meat of the discussion? I can see John trying to move on to proper evidences (albeit with some snide remarks), Similarly, lets assume that Ark concedes the point, then naturally we’ll be talking about evidences about why your experts/yourself think that the “fictionalized history” or middle-ground is correct.
Sounds unfair to you, I agree, as it puts the onus for you to defend your position. However, hope you will show grace with regards to this as what it appears to me is similar to this:
Non-vaccers experts vs doctors saying – hence lets take the middle moderate view – e.g. vaccine sometimes causes autism and may contain mercury some of the time.
I’m not entirely sure middle ground is the default position, so it’ll be great if you could, perhaps in a later setting, link me to some specific reading that agrees with your position.
Thank you
LikeLike
Ark, Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not an archaeologist. He’s never dug in Israeli, or the Sinai. He’s never published a paper on any digs. I doubt he owns a spade. He reviews texts, that’s all, and his wild claims about re-dating Exodus are not taken seriously in genuine department. That’s why he’s never published a genuine paper on it. Plenty of books, written for evangelicals, sure, but no peer-reviewed papers. He’ll never get a paper through peer-review because he knows the argument collapses, creating even more historical blunders than with the 13th Century dating, which is what the bible clearly states.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You name 4 people, one is dead wrong (Dever), another is a theologian, another is an Egyptologist, and one is an archaeologist who is employed by an American bible school and has one peer-reviewed paper on a preliminary findings of a garrison outpost.
UnckleE, are you seriously saying this amounts to something? Do you have any idea how many archaeology departments there are in “real” universities? Can you name a single Israeli archaeologist who you might feel comfortable with?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bart Ehrman answered my question (very succinctly) regarding the timing of the arrival of the Roman guards to the tomb of Jesus.
From Bart Ehrman’s blog:
Me: …would you agree that, due to the wording, it is POSSIBLE, that even if Matthew’s detail of guards at the tomb is historical, it is possible that there was a period of time, even if brief, that the tomb was not guarded?
Bart
Bart May 6, 2015
Yes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Can we say now, by a vote of those who consent, there is consensus among scholars that the empty tomb doesn’t qualify as evidence of a resurrection?”
Sorry, Mak, but the only evidence anyone has for an empty tomb, comes from four anonymous authors who weren’t there and have only multiple-hand information that there even was a tomb, much less that it was empty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unk is cornered, and is trying to shift the burden of proof, Powell, that should be blatantly obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps unkleE would like to reference Bishop John Shelby Spong as a Scholar ?
A prominent theme in Spong’s writing is that the popular and literal interpretations of Christian scripture are not sustainable and do not speak honestly to the situation of modern Christian communities. He believes in a more nuanced approach to scripture, informed by scholarship and compassion, which can be consistent with both Christian tradition and contemporary understandings of the universe. He believes that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God’s nature. He states that he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus Christ fully expressed the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love and that this is the meaning of the early Christian proclamation, “Jesus is Lord” (Spong, 1994 and Spong, 1991). Elaborating on this last idea he affirms that Jesus was adopted by God as his son, (Born of a Woman 1992), and he says that this would be the way God was fully incarnated in Jesus Christ.[1] He rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994). In 2000, Spong was a critic of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church’s declaration Dominus Iesus, because it reaffirmed the Catholic doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and, perhaps even more importantly, that Jesus Christ is the one and only savior for humanity.[7]
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.“- How about walking on water and floating up into the air, Josh? Know anybody else who did that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Powell, that is a most gracious response, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately you have misunderstood my position. Perhaps being brief I didn’t explain it well, so let me reiterate.
I don’t have a firm opinion about the historicity of the first half of the OT, I haven’t read enough to know. Ark asked my opinion of the Pentateuch, and I told him. He didn’t dispute further any of what I said about my own views. The only matter which he and I pursued from then was his claim that virtually all scholars (the overwhelming majority) were minimalists. I took that to mean something like 90% of scholars, and he hasn’t offered a different percentage.
I have heard this said before and I knew it to be wrong, so I gave references to some assessments that there were other views, plus, most importantly, I named about 6-10 scholars who were not minimalists. This makes his claim demonstrably wrong unless he can either (1) show there are 9 times as many minimalists as the non-minialists that I have mentioned, or (2) show why the scholars I have mentioned shouldn’t be counted as scholars. He hasn’t attempted (1) and he has offered nothing of substance towards (2).
But my listing of maximalist and middle ground scholars doesn’t indicate I support their views, as you seem to think. I haven’t read much of these scholars apart from Enns, and I certainly don’t support the views of Hoffmeier and Kitchen. I included them simply to demonstrate that there are reputable non-minimalist scholars and Ark’s statement was demonstrably wrong. In fact, if you look back you’ll find I said that I was least in favour of the maximalist position, and preferred the middle ground as exemplified by Enns.
I have pursued the claim Ark made because (i) such claims are often made and repeated by people who have never looked at the evidence, (ii) evidence claims are foundational, and (iii) it is easily refuted and difficult to defend, so had more chance of reaching a conclusion than many arguments here.
If we could settle that matter we could discuss the more substantial matters, though I don’t have that much to say on the broader subject. Thanks.
LikeLike
@arch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma
He is famous for walking on water and floating in the air while meditating.
Chinese folk painters have tons and tons of paintings of him doing that.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9rc_b6dGOg8HG7BFHcG3WybvmPLX-qIYNdmDYui4GC1ZC0Ogr
LikeLike
Arch, we are in agreement. That was my attempt at a jest following the several scenarios guys have come up with in this thread for why a tomb could be empty
LikeLike
There is no reason, John, for Abe to know anything about Edom, because “Edom” means “red,” and biblically-speaking, pertains to Abe’s great-grandson, Esau, brother of Jacob/Israel, who had red hair, according to the Bible (interesting also, the “pottage” for which Esau sold his birthright, was also red). The REAL truth was that Edom was so called, not because of Esau’s hair color, but because the dirt in the area occupied by the Edomites was composed largely of iron-rich red soil, and the entire adversarial relationship between Jacob/Israel and Esau personified the adversarial relationship between the tribes of the Israelites and the Edomites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Review of William G. Dever, “Who were the early Israelites and where did they come from?” – So you’re referencing an opinion Dever held 12 years ago?
LikeLike
I’ve read some of Kitchens’ opinions, he tries to manipulate the Egyptian timeline, so as to make Joseph and Moses real, historical characters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In essence, then, KC, Spong endorsed the view of the first century Adoptionists, who believed that Yeshua was adopted by his god at his baptism. That view wasn’t really popular at the Council of Nicea —
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Know anybody else who did that?” – I meant, Josh, without dipping into the Justice League and referencing Aquaman and Superman —
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He is famous for walking on water and floating in the air while meditating. Chinese folk painters have tons and tons of paintings of him doing that.” – Oh, well, paintings – why didn’t you say so? I guess that makes it real!
Guess what I have a painting of –?
The shadow of a unicorn! Confirmed at last! They’re real!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate,
Do you believe that UnkleE has refuted Ark’s claim that the overwhelming (a very high percentage, > 85-90%) majority of archeologists deny the historicity of the Exodus, the Sojourn in the Sinai, the Conquest, and the united kingdoms of David and Solomon or do you believe that UnkleE is refusing to accept the “majority scholarly opinion” on this issue but insisting that we accept the “majority scholarly opinion” on the Empty Tomb?
LikeLike
Unklee, in this post, all you have given is what experts say. Now maybe, you had written something specifically about what you believe and I missed it. We are down 500+ comments. Wouldn’t you be gracious to just repeat and it doesn’t have to be long. My question was quite specific and quite easy, I think. I don’t want to know what scholars say. You have been doing this for 50 years, what are your thoughts on burning bushes, murder and murderous rage? That is all am asking.
LikeLike
Hi John, I’m sorry to have to be critical, but you keep on making statements that are missing the point, inaccurate, and in some cases total howlers. This will be my last comment to you on this topic unless something changes (but fear not, I have another challenge for you, coming next!), so let me outline a few of them so you and others can know why I cannot take a lot of notice of your very confident statements.
1. You said on several occasions that there was only one peer-reviewed paper that has been published by any one of my “experts. Yet Wikipedia says Kenneth Kitchen alone has produced over 250 books and peer reviewed papers, and I have referenced how Enns, Hoffmeier and Dever have also produced many, many peer reviewed papers. That is a monumental error, and yet you didn’t even acknowledge it. But to think that major figures like Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Dever hadn’t even published a single paper shows an amazing lack of understanding of academic study.
2. Then there is your statement “Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not an archaeologist. He’s never dug in Israeli, or the Sinai. He’s never published a paper on any digs. I doubt he owns a spade. He reviews texts, that’s all” We are talking about scholars, and that includes historians. Not all historians get involved in digs – the two areas are related but not the same. Historians do indeed review texts, nothing to denigrate there. On some matters more related to the actual dig, an archaeologist will be most expert, but on matters relating to how to fit the evidence into the broader picture, a historian may be the more expert. Your comment is equivalent to suggesting that because Stephen Hawking rarely if ever looks through a telescope he can’t have credibility as a cosmologist!
3. Then you think that calling Peter Enns a “theologian” you have dismissed him. This a favourite meme among atheists but it is largely built on ignorance. A scholar is not so much judged by a label you might like to stick on him or her, but by his or her qualifications, experience, publications etc. Enns did a B.A. in behavioral science, an M Div, then an MA & PhD from Harvard University (Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations). That latter sounds like quite a relevant qualification wouldn’t you say? His academic positions have been in the field of Old Testament and Biblical Studies, and his listed interests, books and publications include historical, literature and theological areas. Calling him a theologian and thinking that alone dismisses him reveals more about you than him, I’m sorry.
4. Finally, you keep referring to matters that are irrelevant to the matter in hand. I reference Dever, not because I necessarily agree with him or disagree with him, but because he is a non-minimalist scholar and that is the question we are discussing.
So John, with that many mistakes in the things you say, I hope you will pardon me from answering you further. It really seems to be a waste of your time and mine.
But I do appreciate the fact that you have been polite all the way through, as I have tried to be. I am sorry I had to be rougher on you in this comment, but those errors needed to be corrected. I wasn’t going to dwell on your first bad mistake about the number of publications, but I had no alternative in the end.
But please don’t go away, I have a new question to ask you, if you are willing to answer it please (next comment). Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Ark and John,
I think it is time to pull the plug. I don’t see any serious attempt to show that all the non-minimalist scholars are either incompetent or forming only about 10% of the field. I have asked several times, but I don’t see any serious answers. You both raise many other matters, but they aren’t relevant to this topic.
So I’m going to ask you both a different question and see how you respond to that, if you wish to respond.
One of the pleasing features of this discussion we’ve been having is your strong concern for scholarship and determining what the best scholars say. That is something we apparently agree on.
So do you both have the same concern for good scholarship when it comes to the New Testament?
Let me make that question a little more specific.
John, on my website a while back, you will recall that we discussed whether Nazareth existed at the time of jesus, a fact apparently confirmed by archaeology and accepted by every scholar I have heard discuss the matter. Yet you took the view that the scholars were wrong and Nazareth didn’t exist in the first half of the first century. In view of your endorsement of scholarship on the OT, do you now accept that Nazareth did exist back then. Or do you take a different view of the value of scholarship and archaeology in the NT than you do in the OT?
Ark, you too will doubtless recall discussion we had on my website about whether jesus existed, and you said you preferred the views of Richard carrier and Robert Price on this matter, even though they disagreed with almost every other scholar on whether Jesus did exist on the basis of scholarship. Or do you take a different view of the value of scholarship in the NT than you do in the OT?
Thanks to both of you.
LikeLike
Unklee, I know your question is specifically to John and Ark but I would like to interject. When you say scholars agree on the existence of Jesus, which Jesus have you in mind? An itinerant preacher man who got himself hanged for religious intolerance or a virgin born, water walking and wonder making dude? I am interested in the Jesus of the scholars, very interested.
LikeLike
Ah … thank you.
LikeLike
@Unklee.
The issue concerning the term overwhelming seems to be giving you so much grief I am concerned this discussion may induce an infarction and I would not want this on my conscience.
So let’s look at the source of where I derived it shall we?
Neither of us are archaeologists and I don’t know about your experience with digging in the dirt but mind extends to a bit of weekend gardening and planting a few seedlings.
So when I use the term overwhelming it is not my term.
Do you understand this fully?
I did not suddenly sit down and think what could I possibly write that would tick off unklee the most. Ooh! I know I will seriously exaggerate a claim to the point where his bloody fillings drop out!
No. Of course not
My source of this term is the same place of reference that we both likely utilize: The Internet.
And as I have illustrated from the two quotes on numerous occasions, the terms, overwhelming and overwhelming majority are the words used by the experts from whom I nicked
Not my term. Theirs. And it is important that you recognise this and not be under any misconception that it is me pushing this term off my own bat. I am not.
Now, for at least two people to make such an utterance, and another to use the term ”in the world”, in reference to scholarly opinion one must suppose that these people are either highly regarded experts in the field, bloody idiots or damn liars.
And as they are referring to the stories of the Patriarchs, Egyptian Captivity, the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan, and nothing else regarding our discussion, I am inclined to accept their expert pronunciation on this matter.
As to numbers: 80% , 90% …..seriously? I could not give a damn. Such stats are like Stats for washing powder for silly housewives or credulous shoppers.
But for Broshi to use the phrase ”in the world” it is a safe bet to conclude he means more than a half dozen and also includes more than those professional archaeologists digging in his back yard.
So, if you want to continue the futility of trying to convince anyone that the experts are not in the overwhelming majority in this regard, feel free. Knock yourself out.
But the experts whose quotes I have nicked would likely beg to differ, if they gave a damn at all about either of our opinions.
So, while I fully acknowledge there is most certainly other opinion, the overwhelming view – as stated by at least two experts – is minimalist.
Right. This is now finished.
There was another topic you wanted to raise I believe?
LikeLike