This exchange is from July of this year. For those who are not involved in these dicussions, I want to point out that these are not real time debates or formal in structure or time limits. In some cases several days or even weeks between replies due to many factors affecting the forum (ie spammers) or just time constraints on the participants.
This first comment by another, and my reply, set off a several round debate with Nietzsche's Antichrist on the issue of archeology and the Old Testament. I'll just bold the notation of who is replying as the comments in this round didnt involve being interspersed within previous replies.
HaleWrote:
Science and the bible are totally diffrent things. You see One of those two changes over time, where the other dosent
My reply to that:
Not the Bible but our understanding of the Bible has changed over time. As archeology has made more discoveries we have been able to have more confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible. Advances in understanding of that culture have helped us in textual criticism and in gaining more accurate and deeper understanding.
Not that your comment was all the relevant anyway. It should hardly be surprising that science changes as it is dependent on our limited knowledge and ability to study nature. The Bible, if indeed it is recounting man's interaction with the transcendent and unchanging creator, would necessarily be more certain than knowledge contingent on our limited abilities.
Nietzsche's Antichrist wrote in reply:
Actually, Mark, "Biblical Archaeology" (now called 'Syro-Palestinian archaeology' because of its lack of adherence to the Biblical accounts) has shifted drastically in thinking and discoveries. the bible is no longer regarded as an accurate field guide but is summized as a simple collection of disproportionate legends and embellished fairy tales.
The BBC journalist Matthew Sturgis account in his book It Ain't Necessarily So (2001) summarizes the current situation nicely:
A new generation of archaeologists has emerged...they are challenging the intellectual assumptions of their predecessors...During the years since World War II it has become harder and harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts and buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable and harder to ignore...Rather than using the Old Testament as a field guide, the current crop of archaeologists is increasingly putting the Bible aside...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, and is now rejected by many academics...The old quest to confirm the historical truths of the events in the Bible has been replaced by a new agenda: to build a full and detailed picture of life in the ancient Near East. If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.
Over even this past decade, there have been several books who touched on the issues descibed in the quote:
* T.W. Davis, Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology, Oxford 2004
* I. Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, Free Press 2001
* A.D. Marcus, The View from Nebo, Little, Brown & Co 2000
* M. Sturgis, It Aint Necessarily So, Headline 2001
* T.L. Thompson, The Mythic Past, Basic Books 1999
* T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, Trinity 2002
The main thesis of these books is simply that which was considered to be historical past, such as the Abraham patriarchal narratives, Moses and the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan have largely been shown to be mythical- non-existent in the archaelogical record. Finkelstein goes further out of all these men by asserting that historical evidence is even lacking for the kingdom of David and Solomon to the described Biblical proportions.
So, to essentially conclude and make my point, your statement that archaelogical evidence has strengthened the Bible is simply incorrect from the standpoint of the field of archaeology itself.
My reply:
First of all, you seem to think I am a 100% literalist type, but that simply is not the case. However, that you would see these people as mainstream and free from their own bias is rather humorous.
The Bible Undug - Some Observations on Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed
We will close this review with an observation from William Dever, a more moderate critic/archaeologist, who notes in his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? [42-3] that although he does not go to the same extreme, Finkelstein's work has been abused by biblical minimalists who regard the Biblical record as almost entirely fictional. Dever also notes that Finkelstein's conclusion about Israelite chronology is "idiosyncratic" and "scarcely accepted by any other archaeologist." Of particular note is the specific disagreement with the mainstream Finkelstein has on the cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (discussed in TBU Appendix B). As a whole, TBU is not the threat it's title portends. It is merely a case of FS presenting a point of view unilaterally as if no informed opposition exists, and based on these conclusions, erecting a psychological edifice to explain the Biblical text. It sounds fine in theory -- especially when the dead are not around to defend themselves from psycho-probing!
I see not reason to be impressed with Thompson when he writes something like The Messiah Myth.
review
It takes little discernment to see where Thompson comes from. Anyone who decries the Jesus Seminar as too conservative [11!] obviously lives in a tree and has hit his head one too many times climbing down. Though he is a credentialed scholar, he is on the utmost fringe as one of the so-called radical minimalists (the sort of person saner minds like Dever disdain and Kitchen pummels) who regard even the most basic accounts of the books of Kings and Chronicles as pious fiction. Give this one a pass and a laugh.
Marcus is not an archeologist but a journalist and considering the extreme minimalism that you characterize these people as presenting, I see no reason to be impressed. You seem to think extremism only goes one way and are quite happy to accept your favored brand of extreme positions.
Bias should of course not taint interpretation but that cuts both ways and you've shown that you only like that to work in one direction only.
Archeology has verified many things in the Bible, despite controversy over the Exodus and other matters. Names, places, customs for the OT. The NT is quite reliable regarding historical data for an ancient source.
If you think that just because something is published recently, that automatically makes it more accurate, you need to do some better thinking.
---
Filed under: Apologetics -- Christainity -- Religion
Blogs with open posts: Jo's Cafe -- Is It Just Me? -- third world county -- Pursuing Holiness -- The Clash of Civilizations -- The Right Nation -- Adam's Blog -- TMH's Bacon Bits -- Stuck On Stupid -- The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns -- Blue Star Chronicles
Technorati Tags: Apologetics -- Christianity -- Religion -- Archeology -- Old Testament
Now, if actual data clearly indicates views should change, then we must do so, but interpretations are not so persuasive simply because they're thrown out there and claimed to be settled fact and the only accepted view within archeology. However, it isn't really even that simple. What might actually be the source of contradiction is our understanding of chronology from archeology or that in scripture or even both! Interpretations of data in both sources may be incorrect and require better understanding that can come with more discoveries. The Exodus and conquest of Canaan would be matters tending to pivot on such issues.
Interesting source concerning Finkelstein. I did mention his extremism, though I admit it was ambiguous and subtle. I'll give the article a closer look another time.
Fair enough.
However, with the Thompson article. It's funny you harp on his view of Jesus being a mythical character, but don't even analyze his claims in the books I listed. What happens when we characterize your source and compare it to mine?
First off, Thompson is a professor of the Old Testament at the University of Coppenhagen since '93, where his concentration is mostly on Biblical exegesis. Earning is BA at Duquesne in '62, he studied at Oxford, Tubingen, and Temple U from '62 to '76. He earned his PhD at
Temple U. He is comprehensively published and generally well-respected in the fields of higher academia. His books are not written in mainstream fashion, and oftentimes one finds himself/herself contantly looking up the source material to get to the meat of the argument and evidence.
The reviewer, J.P. Holding, is a pseudonymn for Robert Turkel. He is the President of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. On his website, he claims to hold a Masters Degree in Library Sciences and to have been published in Journal of Creation and Christian Research Journal, both journals which have come under fire for academic credibility by higher levels of academia.
I find if funny, as does Holding and according to him, intelligent atheists, that people focus on his pseudonym as if it matters. You really think I was unaware of that before you came along? Your focus on him is rather irrelevant as I didn't make an appeal to authority. My point, which you miss, is that Thompson is trafficking in foolishness with the Jesus myth crowd. Having credentials does not make one infallible and immune to bias or poor scholarship as arguing the Jesus myth view clearly shows. That he wrote such a book would be true, if even Crusty the Clown pointed it out.
Holding has also dealt with Jesus myth twaddle in detail before and his review of the book did mention specific issues. Is your reading comprehension still a problem or were you too lazy to click on the link and read all of the review? It's rather informative that you looked up information about him, that isn't even relevant to my point, rather than study his arguments.
So who wins the battle royale? The PhD professor who has been studying this material for years, backing his assertions with credible data from independent sources, or a man who is self-proclaimed "good at looking things up"? I know which way I lean toward. Afterall, the review hardly touches on the book, and appears to be a half-assed attempt at an ad-hominem.
Funny you say this and then next say you never made a claim of authoritativeness. You might want to pay attention before you hit that submit button. Just in case you missed it in my last reply (likely), I'll repeat, Holding listed specifics in his review.
If you noticed, the words above the list were "books who touched on the issues described in the quote". I never made the claim of authoritativeness. Thanks for putting more words in my mouth.
See previous reply
I'll address the other material later, since it's bedtime.
Ah, I should address this before go...
The argument that because it was recent was not that it was 'correct', but the fact that it is recent reflects the change in opinion of archaeology and its relationship with the Biblical accounts. Again, you like to put words in people's mouths.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You might want to get over this accusatory rut you're in. You made much of this material being recent and had previously criticized the Biblical authors as having a "general lack of worldly knowledge". I think it's reasonable to take that as meaning you consider more recent information as being more valid simply because it's new, especially considering the information you presented and the manner in which you did so.
That's a bad habit and if you wish to aspire to be a good apologist and defend your faith, then I recommend you stick to what is said and not attempt to manifest that which is not present. It not only diverts the conversation away from the original topic but shows either a lack of interest on your part to address the meat and bones or simply unable to, so you skirt the main issue and concoct the 'conspiracy' and some bigger picture argument.
Sorry, I don't respond well to orders, nor do I believe I put words in your mouth, but that I drew reasonable conclusions from your comments, here and elsewhere. I also haven't said anything about conspiracy or implied it. I've said people have used poor scholarship and bias, rather than objectivity. Perhaps you should look up Freudian projection and get some help with that.
But anyways, carry on...it is amusing everytime you do it, and it never ceases to amaze me how many times people do it on these internet boards, their blogs and mainstream apologetic writings. Fight the conspiracy and some underlying cause, but not the actual argument. Yep, great tactic...
Every time? That's rather funny as this is our only extended discussion. It's also a rather familiar ad hom and I have to wonder why your profile is private. Joking aside, I obviously did respond to the argument. I showed that your sources weren't all that great on the issue, nor were they mainstream. You also presented your sources as authoritative, while now denying you did. Even funnier, that denial was directly preceded by an appeal to authority.
But I can go even further. You list several extreme minimalists and you (or your source) imply this is the totality of accepted and authoritative archaeological opinion on the Bible. This ignores the range of views in that discipline.
William G. Dever, is certainly not an ultra-maximalist but he has no patience with extreme minimalism either.
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did
They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel
Since you like crendentials Kenneth_Kitchen
Perhaps you'll find his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament interesting.
This rather long review here includes:
I think you'll recognize a few names that he takes on.
Holding has a much smaller review here that also lists several specifics regarding the skeptics. Perhaps you wont miss them this time as they're in bullet point fashion.
A decent listing of milestones and what is still controversial here
To conclude, you ignore that Biblical authority does not require an ultra maximalist or extreme fundie view. You seem to be completely unable to grasp that beyond the disagreements between extreme minimalists and ultra-maximalists and all those in between, there is still much that has been proven. It is simply not as you state, that the Bible is known to be completely unreliable. Culture, legal codes, names and places have found confirmation to various degrees and even more so for the New Testament.
roll it up