Are you going to address my questions, or is your continued evasion (and silence) an admission that your beliefs are based on nothing actually tangible?
Hi Ark, I have said already that I see no point in going around the same circles again and again. You have quotes from minimalists, I have quotes from non-minimalists. But nothing you say alters the fact that contrary to your statement, I have named about 10 non-minimalists scholars, and could easily name more – so showing that minimalists are not the overwhelming majority. So there is no point going on and on, and I have no intention of doing so.
But having answered your original questions and posted perhaps a dozen responses since (I haven’t counted), I have asked you one question and I wondered whether you were going to answer that please. Here it is again:
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?
“Are you going to address my questions, or is your continued evasion (and silence) an admission that your beliefs are based on nothing actually tangible?”
Hi John, no I am not going to address any more of your questions just now, I’m sorry. I have already explained why, and your words here just illustrate why again.
Firstly, the discussion isn’t about my beliefs but about Ark’s statement about minimalism. I have explained that to you several times now, so I don’t understand why you keep trying to change the subject until that matter is finalised.
Secondly, I don’t believe discussion with you is achieving anything as you don’t respond to strong criticisms of what you say. Here’s three such criticisms that I would have thought deserved a response, but you didn’t make any. I wonder if you’d care to now please:
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.
I have spent quite a while responding to you, so I have also asked you one further question which I hope you are willing to answer please. Here it is again.
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?
Since I have gone to a lot of trouble to respond to you, I’m hoping you will return the compliment this time please. Thanks.
“Unklee, I also have some unanswered questions. Should I still wait for answers?”
Hi Makagutu, I don’t know if I’d be holding my breath if I were you. 🙂
As I recall, you have asked me quite a few questions and I have answered quite a few. I’m sure you are right that there are some I haven’t answered, but I don’t recall now, and searching through what has become a very slow-moving page on my computer is a bit of a drag. Also, I feel I’ve done enough commenting for now.
So I’m not inclined to keep going forever and now seems like a good time to stop. But if there is a pressing issue that you really want to hear my opinion on, and if you could explain how my response will make a difference to you, I would be happy to respond before I shuffle off stage left.
Actually, I have already qualified the ”overwhelming” statement by explaining to you that this is not my word usage, I am merely quoting what the experts say.
And you have not addressed the issue as to why an expert of Broshi’s standing would use such a phrase as ”in the world” if he were not referring to an overwhelming majority.
Not that the ignorant cat calls from the unwashed rabble on this blog are any recommendation in academic circles, but it is plain to see that most, if not all here consider your position untenable and that you are merely blowing smoke.
I’ll take the nod from the plebs, thank you, and I am pretty sure so would the scholars and archaeologists in Israel and in the world.
As for your question re: the character Jesus of Nazareth. I was hoping you would have directed the question re Nazareth at me, but no matter. John can hold his own, I’m sure 😉
Well, now.. Yeshua Ben Joseph.
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.
Yes, your website that you have now banned me from. Rude to you was I? Swear at you?
Yes I prefer the view of Bob Price and Richard Carrier. But what I believe.
is this:
That there may well have been a smelly little eschatological prophet named Yeshua Ben Josef running around Galilee at the beginning of the first century who was crucified for sedition by the Romans is eminently possible; Josephus mentions a few with this name – or similar.
However, if you are asking if I believe in the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth?
No. I consider this character a narrative construct.
.
Hi Dave, I am interested in your comment here, because I see it quite differently.
Actually we look at it quite similarly (I think a middle view is fair). But you did not address how the evidence for a middle view affects your doctrine. I was referring to Christians who believe the Bible is special and inspired by God. If you don’t hold this view then my comment can be ignored.
“Some would say that such texts as we have in the OT don’t arise out of nothing and generally have a historical core somewhere”, “The Exodus story is part way into this process, and it makes sense that it would be a mixture of history and legend.” This is how I feel as well, but we probably have a different opinion on which parts are real and which parts are embellishments.
I observe that God tends to use natural laws most of the time.
Since your god has been very subtle and has revealed himself slowly through nature, legends and history, hopefully he will not be too upset if some of us are confused and uncertain of his existence.
Firstly, we should determine our beliefs by the evidence, and then consider how our faith (or our unfaith!) fits in later
I agree about evidence, but shouldn’t we only believe to the extent that the evidence allows? Using words like faith or unfaith does not make much sense to me.
The discussion is about what is real, what is factual, and you evading my remarkably straightforward question to substantiate your position (to show me what your position is actually based on) is evidence that your position is not based on anything.
If you actually had something tangible to point to, to present, then UnkleE you would have happily divulged it.
Of course, I knew you wouldn’t present anything, because you can’t.
You have nothing, and you know it. There is nothing to support your position, and you have just proved it to everyone.
Thank you.
To recap: I (and Ark) have presented just some of the evidences which support the position held by the overwhelming majorly of archaeologists, scholars and Jewish rabbis.
You have presented nothing.
Your entire argument has centered not on evidence, not on anything real, but rather some quotes from a handful (4) of people who you call scholars, although one is simply a theologian, the rest evangelical Christians, one of which is employed at an American bible school.
ASOR, UnkleE, has over 15,000 members alone. That is 15,000 (from one professional archaeological association) who all fall within the overwhelming consensus that the Jewish origin narrative is a piece of 7th and 6th century geopolitical fiction.
None of it happened. It is a myth, from beginning to end.
And to remind you, UnkleE, in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East (15,000+ professional members), 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, in the future, I would suggest you avoid making yourself look like a fool in public by not trying to claim there is a debate ongoing concerning the historical validity of the Pentateuch.
unkleE, “Yet Wikipedia says Kenneth Kitchen alone has produced over 250 books and peer reviewed papers”
I googled some reviews of Kitchen’s work on the OT. I intentionally decided to paste 2 of Kitchen’s supporter’s reviews. Let’s examine a review from Eugene H. Merrill who at the end of his review obviously is in Kitchen’s corner as a fellow OT Scholar and Professor at a Dallas Theological Seminary and yet has these things to say of Kitchen.
“More serious, however, is his attempt to support a late date for the Exodus—a position for which he is well known—in light of evidence to the contrary.He then ignores the three-hundred-year period from the beginning of the Conquest to the judgeship of Jephthah by deriding Jephthah as “a roughneck, an outcast” whose words are “nothing more than a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people” (p. 209). Kitchen has no grounds for such an assertion, but he must in some way rid himself of the three hundred years that anchor the Conquest (and hence the Exodus) in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Resort to begging the question in this way does not help his case. ”
“This leaves only Amenhotep II (ca. 1427–1400) of Dynasty 18 as the pharaoh of the Exodus, for only he followed a king (Thutmose III) who reigned for at least forty years. The only way to discount this evidence is to deny the forty-year duration of Moses’ Midianite sojourn and thus to violate Kitchen’s own general method of taking the biblical historical data at face value.”
Charles David Isbell Director of Jewish Studies Louisiana State University is also a supporter of Kitchen’s work but has this to say of Kitchen, ” However, while Kitchen has performed a valuable service to OT scholarship in general, there are two things that detract from his otherwise magisterial work. First, it is to be regretted that Kitchen takes the low road of name calling and negativism against all with whom he disagrees. In this, he is no worse than many others who have entered the minimalist/maximalist debate, but he is clearly no better either. Thus an opponent is not only incorrect to Kitchen, but “ignorant.” Others whose views he opposes “have not done their homework,” or are “factually disadvantaged.” Kitchen’s venom is aimed particularly at recent minimalist scholars, as will be seen in more detail below.
Second, Kitchen’s own ideology is betrayed in numerous places throughout, beginning with his choice of the word “Reliability” in the title. What Kitchen means by “reliable” is instructive, for in brief, Kitchen always thinks the Old Testament means what he thinks it means. (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.shtml)
Just did a quick search on what peer-reviewed papers Kitchen has ever published. Yes, there are many (he’s been around for many decades, after all), but none concern his re-dating of Exodus. All that “theory” seems to be limited to his books, where his opinions can take precedence. His published papers have nothing to even do with the biblical narrative, focusing on things like Egyptian chronology, and methods of printing in ancient Egypt. Good stuff, useful to those interested, can be peer-reviewed with some confidence, but hardly any professional base for his wild biblical claims.
That stuff would never pass peer-review, as you have so beautifully demonstrated above. Other professionals, even those who support him, can’t accept his position because it can’t be substantiated. in fact, the can’t accept it because its contradictory to other solid evidences.
This is where evangelicals like UnkleE are incredibly disingenuous. They take something like the wiki, “many published papers,” and attach all sorts of extra-meaning to the statement without actually looking at what those papers are.
Unklee, if it will help you rest at ease, I wasn’t holding my breath a moment. You see, the questions I asked you were simple common sense questions, questions that you do well to avoid and instead tell me you are waiting in scholars to decide.
I am curious, do you think you’d believe in anything else of equal supernatural claims, with equal amount of evidence as the bible?
Hey william-
I actually think there is a lot of good truth to be found in many places – not just places that claim supernatural occurrences. If we’re talking about looking for hope, or looking for things that can help to pull the human race out of the muck we seem to have gotten ourselves in, there is more than even just “religious” texts to look at. There are pieces of all of it, religious and non-religious, including Jewish and Christian scripture, that I find don’t fit within the way I believe God operates. There are also a lot of all of those places that I think fit very well with the way I believe God operates. Believe it or not, I find a lot of truth and reason to hope in discussing with people on this site! Conversing with others, especially those who don’t believe all the same things I do (does anyone?), helps me to get a clearer idea of how we all see the world. It’s kind of a mess of beliefs, if I’m totally honest. I feel Jesus, as he is represented more often than not in the gospels, fits fairly well as a representative of what most people feel is the ideal way to interact with the world. Granted, there is a lot of crap to wade through if you believe Jesus is God’s representative. But, it seems to me there’s just as much muck to wade through in most every other view of the world, natural or supernatural. Just, some people don’t have anyone to yell at and blame it on but humans 🙂
appreciate the response, and i agree, truth and goodness can be found in many places. I even still read the bible on occasion and especially like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew 5-7. Some of paul’s stuff is good too, in my opinion.
but if we’re looking for good or profound things, they can be found in fiction as well as non-fiction. even silly cartoons have their moments, whether intentional or not, right?
but what i mean is, do you place jesus and the bible on a lone pedestal, or do you think you treat it as fairly as you treat anything else.
thinking the bible contains profound truths is different than believing in jesus the literal, miracle working son of god.
if we’re looking for good or profound things, they can be found in fiction as well as non-fiction. even silly cartoons have their moments, whether intentional or not, right?
Agreed.
what i mean is, do you place jesus and the bible on a lone pedestal, or do you think you treat it as fairly as you treat anything else.
It’s been on a pedestal my whole life. I think that pedestal is lowering and I am beginning to treat it more fairly. I can’t say with any certainty that I will every treat it just as fairly as anything else. I definitely have a bias that leans toward Jesus as the manifestation of God’s revelation and reconciliation. That being said, it’s clear to me that those who do not believe in Jesus as God’s representative, or in no supernatural being at all, can do as much good, and often much more, than those who claim to be speaking or acting in his name. I’m becoming less and less interested in trying to convince people that verbally assenting that “Jesus is savior” is the important piece. I’m becoming more and more interested in simply talking with people about what they believe about the world, and working with them as best I can to “show the world what it can be”, as Joss Whedon’s Angel would say. If they want to know what I believe, great. If they want to know why I believe, I’m willing to share that, too. But, the powerful reasons that I believe are personal, and would not convince anyone but me.
The Christian tale is not impossible, allowing for the supernatural, of course. It is just that it is very improbable. There are many natural explanations for why early Christians came to believe what they did.
If you wake up and can’t find your keys, is your first thought that a goblin stole them? If your spouse is late coming home from work, is your first thought that a demon has abducted him or her? If a storm ravages a city, is your first thought that a god acted in a fit of rage?
So if while you are visiting the local cemetery you happen upon an open grave, with the casket lid ajar, and the corpse missing, is your first thought that a zombie is somewhere loose nearby, eating a broiled fish sandwich with his former fishing buddies??
It’s possible, friends, but its just not probable.
Skeptics will never prove the Christian tale to be false, but we can very easily demonstrate its improbability.
I want to know the scholars whose fields of study are the following
1. Virgin births
2. Talking snakes, bushes and donkeys
3. Transporter fish
4. Static suns
5. Zombie apocalypse.
This is going to be important in my discussion with UnkleE on what overwhelming majority of scholars says on such issues.
Thank you all in advance.
I’m still way behind in these comments and trying to catch up, but I wanted to weigh in on something Josh said yesterday. I apologize in advance if something like this has already been said.
Josh said:
Whether faith is a problem or not, I don’t think I’d categorize it as a virtue. I would tend to categorize more as a necessity for me. Many of you here see reason for doing good in the natural world, and I think that is to be commended. I don’t have that same perspective. My perspective of the natural world leads me to despair and hopelessness. What of my actions in my lifetime will not be relegated completely pointless by the inevitability of my death and the eventual end of the universe and life?
I don’t really buy that Josh. I mean, I do think you mean what you’re saying, but I doubt that you actually require faith as much as you think. Do you play video games, watch movies, read books? If so, why? All of them come to an end. None of them really matter in any ultimate sense of the word. So why bother? Do you eat cake? Why should you, when it will only be fat and poop in a matter of hours?
When I was 4 or 5, my parents took me and my brother to Disney World (he was even younger). I don’t remember any of it, though I’ve seen the pictures. I know I had a great time. But since I don’t remember it now, was it a waste of time for them to take me? Should they have just locked me up in a closet until I was old enough to form and retain memories? Or did those moments have value, even if I don’t completely remember them now?
An experience doesn’t have to last forever for it to have value. If that were the case, none of us would bother having sex. 😉
Look, I won’t lie to you and say that I’m happy knowing my consciousness will one day end. But when that moment comes, I won’t be around to experience any sadness about it, you know? And that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy my life now. It doesn’t mean I can’t do things for others to bring joy into their lives.
Time is a relative thing. Compared to the sun’s life span, we’re less than a blink. Compared to mayflies (which live about 24 hours), we’re immortal. All that really matters is what we fill our time with. You don’t need to believe in something that has so many logical holes in it, just because it claims there’s a reason for existence. Make your own reason. And don’t waste your (limited) time on a bunch of claims that you acknowledge don’t make a lot of sense. Instead, pursue something you already know exists, like truth. Even if you never find it, chasing after something real is much better than clinging to something false.
But hey, be just as skeptical of me and my opinion as you should be about Christianity. 🙂
Finding Truth 
UnkleE
Are you going to address my questions, or is your continued evasion (and silence) an admission that your beliefs are based on nothing actually tangible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unklee, I also have some unanswered questions. Should I still wait for answers?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Ark, I have said already that I see no point in going around the same circles again and again. You have quotes from minimalists, I have quotes from non-minimalists. But nothing you say alters the fact that contrary to your statement, I have named about 10 non-minimalists scholars, and could easily name more – so showing that minimalists are not the overwhelming majority. So there is no point going on and on, and I have no intention of doing so.
But having answered your original questions and posted perhaps a dozen responses since (I haven’t counted), I have asked you one question and I wondered whether you were going to answer that please. Here it is again:
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.
LikeLike
“Are you going to address my questions, or is your continued evasion (and silence) an admission that your beliefs are based on nothing actually tangible?”
Hi John, no I am not going to address any more of your questions just now, I’m sorry. I have already explained why, and your words here just illustrate why again.
Firstly, the discussion isn’t about my beliefs but about Ark’s statement about minimalism. I have explained that to you several times now, so I don’t understand why you keep trying to change the subject until that matter is finalised.
Secondly, I don’t believe discussion with you is achieving anything as you don’t respond to strong criticisms of what you say. Here’s three such criticisms that I would have thought deserved a response, but you didn’t make any. I wonder if you’d care to now please:
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.
I have spent quite a while responding to you, so I have also asked you one further question which I hope you are willing to answer please. Here it is again.
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?
Since I have gone to a lot of trouble to respond to you, I’m hoping you will return the compliment this time please. Thanks.
LikeLike
“Unklee, I also have some unanswered questions. Should I still wait for answers?”
Hi Makagutu, I don’t know if I’d be holding my breath if I were you. 🙂
As I recall, you have asked me quite a few questions and I have answered quite a few. I’m sure you are right that there are some I haven’t answered, but I don’t recall now, and searching through what has become a very slow-moving page on my computer is a bit of a drag. Also, I feel I’ve done enough commenting for now.
So I’m not inclined to keep going forever and now seems like a good time to stop. But if there is a pressing issue that you really want to hear my opinion on, and if you could explain how my response will make a difference to you, I would be happy to respond before I shuffle off stage left.
Thanks for your patience.
LikeLike
Actually, I have already qualified the ”overwhelming” statement by explaining to you that this is not my word usage, I am merely quoting what the experts say.
And you have not addressed the issue as to why an expert of Broshi’s standing would use such a phrase as ”in the world” if he were not referring to an overwhelming majority.
Not that the ignorant cat calls from the unwashed rabble on this blog are any recommendation in academic circles, but it is plain to see that most, if not all here consider your position untenable and that you are merely blowing smoke.
I’ll take the nod from the plebs, thank you, and I am pretty sure so would the scholars and archaeologists in Israel and in the world.
As for your question re: the character Jesus of Nazareth. I was hoping you would have directed the question re Nazareth at me, but no matter. John can hold his own, I’m sure 😉
Well, now.. Yeshua Ben Joseph.
Yes, your website that you have now banned me from. Rude to you was I? Swear at you?
Yes I prefer the view of Bob Price and Richard Carrier. But what I believe.
is this:
That there may well have been a smelly little eschatological prophet named Yeshua Ben Josef running around Galilee at the beginning of the first century who was crucified for sedition by the Romans is eminently possible; Josephus mentions a few with this name – or similar.
However, if you are asking if I believe in the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth?
No. I consider this character a narrative construct.
.
LikeLike
Actually we look at it quite similarly (I think a middle view is fair). But you did not address how the evidence for a middle view affects your doctrine. I was referring to Christians who believe the Bible is special and inspired by God. If you don’t hold this view then my comment can be ignored.
“Some would say that such texts as we have in the OT don’t arise out of nothing and generally have a historical core somewhere”, “The Exodus story is part way into this process, and it makes sense that it would be a mixture of history and legend.” This is how I feel as well, but we probably have a different opinion on which parts are real and which parts are embellishments.
Since your god has been very subtle and has revealed himself slowly through nature, legends and history, hopefully he will not be too upset if some of us are confused and uncertain of his existence.
I agree about evidence, but shouldn’t we only believe to the extent that the evidence allows? Using words like faith or unfaith does not make much sense to me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The discussion is about what is real, what is factual, and you evading my remarkably straightforward question to substantiate your position (to show me what your position is actually based on) is evidence that your position is not based on anything.
If you actually had something tangible to point to, to present, then UnkleE you would have happily divulged it.
Of course, I knew you wouldn’t present anything, because you can’t.
You have nothing, and you know it. There is nothing to support your position, and you have just proved it to everyone.
Thank you.
To recap: I (and Ark) have presented just some of the evidences which support the position held by the overwhelming majorly of archaeologists, scholars and Jewish rabbis.
You have presented nothing.
Your entire argument has centered not on evidence, not on anything real, but rather some quotes from a handful (4) of people who you call scholars, although one is simply a theologian, the rest evangelical Christians, one of which is employed at an American bible school.
ASOR, UnkleE, has over 15,000 members alone. That is 15,000 (from one professional archaeological association) who all fall within the overwhelming consensus that the Jewish origin narrative is a piece of 7th and 6th century geopolitical fiction.
None of it happened. It is a myth, from beginning to end.
And to remind you, UnkleE, in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East (15,000+ professional members), 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, in the future, I would suggest you avoid making yourself look like a fool in public by not trying to claim there is a debate ongoing concerning the historical validity of the Pentateuch.
There isn’t.
But thank you, again, for proving this point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
well, i certainly feel better about all of this
LikeLiked by 2 people
unkleE, “Yet Wikipedia says Kenneth Kitchen alone has produced over 250 books and peer reviewed papers”
I googled some reviews of Kitchen’s work on the OT. I intentionally decided to paste 2 of Kitchen’s supporter’s reviews. Let’s examine a review from Eugene H. Merrill who at the end of his review obviously is in Kitchen’s corner as a fellow OT Scholar and Professor at a Dallas Theological Seminary and yet has these things to say of Kitchen.
(http://www.dts.edu/reviews/kenneth-a-kitchen-on-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament)
“On the whole, Kitchen makes a good case for his thesis, but sometimes he does so at the expense of self-consistency or even by fudging on matters of historical event, especially where the supernatural is involved. ”
“More serious, however, is his attempt to support a late date for the Exodus—a position for which he is well known—in light of evidence to the contrary.He then ignores the three-hundred-year period from the beginning of the Conquest to the judgeship of Jephthah by deriding Jephthah as “a roughneck, an outcast” whose words are “nothing more than a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people” (p. 209). Kitchen has no grounds for such an assertion, but he must in some way rid himself of the three hundred years that anchor the Conquest (and hence the Exodus) in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Resort to begging the question in this way does not help his case. ”
“This leaves only Amenhotep II (ca. 1427–1400) of Dynasty 18 as the pharaoh of the Exodus, for only he followed a king (Thutmose III) who reigned for at least forty years. The only way to discount this evidence is to deny the forty-year duration of Moses’ Midianite sojourn and thus to violate Kitchen’s own general method of taking the biblical historical data at face value.”
Charles David Isbell Director of Jewish Studies Louisiana State University is also a supporter of Kitchen’s work but has this to say of Kitchen, ” However, while Kitchen has performed a valuable service to OT scholarship in general, there are two things that detract from his otherwise magisterial work. First, it is to be regretted that Kitchen takes the low road of name calling and negativism against all with whom he disagrees. In this, he is no worse than many others who have entered the minimalist/maximalist debate, but he is clearly no better either. Thus an opponent is not only incorrect to Kitchen, but “ignorant.” Others whose views he opposes “have not done their homework,” or are “factually disadvantaged.” Kitchen’s venom is aimed particularly at recent minimalist scholars, as will be seen in more detail below.
Second, Kitchen’s own ideology is betrayed in numerous places throughout, beginning with his choice of the word “Reliability” in the title. What Kitchen means by “reliable” is instructive, for in brief, Kitchen always thinks the Old Testament means what he thinks it means. (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Isbell-Kitchen_and_Minimalism.shtml)
LikeLiked by 5 people
Josh,
you believe in jesus as the savior and son of god.
I am curious, do you think you’d believe in anything else of equal supernatural claims, with equal amount of evidence as the bible?
LikeLike
Ken
Just did a quick search on what peer-reviewed papers Kitchen has ever published. Yes, there are many (he’s been around for many decades, after all), but none concern his re-dating of Exodus. All that “theory” seems to be limited to his books, where his opinions can take precedence. His published papers have nothing to even do with the biblical narrative, focusing on things like Egyptian chronology, and methods of printing in ancient Egypt. Good stuff, useful to those interested, can be peer-reviewed with some confidence, but hardly any professional base for his wild biblical claims.
That stuff would never pass peer-review, as you have so beautifully demonstrated above. Other professionals, even those who support him, can’t accept his position because it can’t be substantiated. in fact, the can’t accept it because its contradictory to other solid evidences.
This is where evangelicals like UnkleE are incredibly disingenuous. They take something like the wiki, “many published papers,” and attach all sorts of extra-meaning to the statement without actually looking at what those papers are.
Lying for Jesus is a business, I guess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unklee, if it will help you rest at ease, I wasn’t holding my breath a moment. You see, the questions I asked you were simple common sense questions, questions that you do well to avoid and instead tell me you are waiting in scholars to decide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Idealogues never admit they are wrong. Surrender is not in their vocabulary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey william-
I actually think there is a lot of good truth to be found in many places – not just places that claim supernatural occurrences. If we’re talking about looking for hope, or looking for things that can help to pull the human race out of the muck we seem to have gotten ourselves in, there is more than even just “religious” texts to look at. There are pieces of all of it, religious and non-religious, including Jewish and Christian scripture, that I find don’t fit within the way I believe God operates. There are also a lot of all of those places that I think fit very well with the way I believe God operates. Believe it or not, I find a lot of truth and reason to hope in discussing with people on this site! Conversing with others, especially those who don’t believe all the same things I do (does anyone?), helps me to get a clearer idea of how we all see the world. It’s kind of a mess of beliefs, if I’m totally honest. I feel Jesus, as he is represented more often than not in the gospels, fits fairly well as a representative of what most people feel is the ideal way to interact with the world. Granted, there is a lot of crap to wade through if you believe Jesus is God’s representative. But, it seems to me there’s just as much muck to wade through in most every other view of the world, natural or supernatural. Just, some people don’t have anyone to yell at and blame it on but humans 🙂
LikeLike
appreciate the response, and i agree, truth and goodness can be found in many places. I even still read the bible on occasion and especially like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew 5-7. Some of paul’s stuff is good too, in my opinion.
but if we’re looking for good or profound things, they can be found in fiction as well as non-fiction. even silly cartoons have their moments, whether intentional or not, right?
but what i mean is, do you place jesus and the bible on a lone pedestal, or do you think you treat it as fairly as you treat anything else.
thinking the bible contains profound truths is different than believing in jesus the literal, miracle working son of god.
know what i’m saying?
LikeLike
Agreed.
It’s been on a pedestal my whole life. I think that pedestal is lowering and I am beginning to treat it more fairly. I can’t say with any certainty that I will every treat it just as fairly as anything else. I definitely have a bias that leans toward Jesus as the manifestation of God’s revelation and reconciliation. That being said, it’s clear to me that those who do not believe in Jesus as God’s representative, or in no supernatural being at all, can do as much good, and often much more, than those who claim to be speaking or acting in his name. I’m becoming less and less interested in trying to convince people that verbally assenting that “Jesus is savior” is the important piece. I’m becoming more and more interested in simply talking with people about what they believe about the world, and working with them as best I can to “show the world what it can be”, as Joss Whedon’s Angel would say. If they want to know what I believe, great. If they want to know why I believe, I’m willing to share that, too. But, the powerful reasons that I believe are personal, and would not convince anyone but me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can dig it, william.
LikeLike
The Christian tale is not impossible, allowing for the supernatural, of course. It is just that it is very improbable. There are many natural explanations for why early Christians came to believe what they did.
If you wake up and can’t find your keys, is your first thought that a goblin stole them? If your spouse is late coming home from work, is your first thought that a demon has abducted him or her? If a storm ravages a city, is your first thought that a god acted in a fit of rage?
So if while you are visiting the local cemetery you happen upon an open grave, with the casket lid ajar, and the corpse missing, is your first thought that a zombie is somewhere loose nearby, eating a broiled fish sandwich with his former fishing buddies??
It’s possible, friends, but its just not probable.
Skeptics will never prove the Christian tale to be false, but we can very easily demonstrate its improbability.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I want to know the scholars whose fields of study are the following
1. Virgin births
2. Talking snakes, bushes and donkeys
3. Transporter fish
4. Static suns
5. Zombie apocalypse.
This is going to be important in my discussion with UnkleE on what overwhelming majority of scholars says on such issues.
Thank you all in advance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Josh, thanks for the response.
LikeLike
I’m still way behind in these comments and trying to catch up, but I wanted to weigh in on something Josh said yesterday. I apologize in advance if something like this has already been said.
Josh said:
I don’t really buy that Josh. I mean, I do think you mean what you’re saying, but I doubt that you actually require faith as much as you think. Do you play video games, watch movies, read books? If so, why? All of them come to an end. None of them really matter in any ultimate sense of the word. So why bother? Do you eat cake? Why should you, when it will only be fat and poop in a matter of hours?
When I was 4 or 5, my parents took me and my brother to Disney World (he was even younger). I don’t remember any of it, though I’ve seen the pictures. I know I had a great time. But since I don’t remember it now, was it a waste of time for them to take me? Should they have just locked me up in a closet until I was old enough to form and retain memories? Or did those moments have value, even if I don’t completely remember them now?
An experience doesn’t have to last forever for it to have value. If that were the case, none of us would bother having sex. 😉
Look, I won’t lie to you and say that I’m happy knowing my consciousness will one day end. But when that moment comes, I won’t be around to experience any sadness about it, you know? And that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy my life now. It doesn’t mean I can’t do things for others to bring joy into their lives.
Time is a relative thing. Compared to the sun’s life span, we’re less than a blink. Compared to mayflies (which live about 24 hours), we’re immortal. All that really matters is what we fill our time with. You don’t need to believe in something that has so many logical holes in it, just because it claims there’s a reason for existence. Make your own reason. And don’t waste your (limited) time on a bunch of claims that you acknowledge don’t make a lot of sense. Instead, pursue something you already know exists, like truth. Even if you never find it, chasing after something real is much better than clinging to something false.
But hey, be just as skeptical of me and my opinion as you should be about Christianity. 🙂
LikeLiked by 5 people
I’ve never had any trouble finding SOMEone to yell at Josh – if all else fails, I yell at Ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes , he does!
LikeLike
And deservedly so —
LikeLike