Is the Bible a historical document?

[outhouse]

The same thing has been said about minimalists. Not to mention, there are many other views out there as well. Finkelstein, for example, for quite some time, had settled between maximalists and minimalists. I'm not sure where he stands now, as I have heard varying opinions, but there is some middle ground, as well as varying ideas.

And maximalists really aren't a thing of the past. To disregard them simply is foolish, as much of the groundwork that current scholars use, were created by this group. The Albright school of thought (followed later by John Bright, who wrote a classic text on the subject), has deep influences on people. And in fact, there are still those who continue to follow some of the same ideas.

as Finklestein puts it, maximalist are out running around with a spade in one hand and a bible in the other trying to do modern archeology.

 

[outhouse]

:biglaugh:

Am I the only one that finds it both outrageous and hilarious that you actually think yourself qualified to pass judgment on the likes of Mazar and many, many more fine scholars. outhouse, you have every right to your articles of faith. Whether you have the right to presume yourself to be credible is another matter entirely.

Mazar is claiming historicity to the known mythology surrounding David?, or is she saying dont throw the baby out with the bath water? I havnt stated one thing against Mazar's view

lets ask you the serious question, can you give David "any more historicity" then a past leader of israelites who probably existed around 1000 BC ish???

and if so, what would you base that on.?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mazar is claiming historicity to the known mythology surrounding David?, or is he saying dont throw the baby out with the bath water?

An excellent question. Let me suggest an excellent solution. Posture less - read more. You're simply far too unread to responsibly hold definitive positions on any of this stuff. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

as Finklestein puts it,...

Finkelstein has a great deal of respect for Mazar. I wonder what he knows that, in your hubris, escapes you.

 

[outhouse]

Finkelstein has a great deal of respect for Mazar. I wonder what he knows that, in your hubris, escapes you.

This


An Interview With Israel Finkelstein – Creation Revolution

when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings

 

[outhouse]

Finklestein on this

The Middle East and Judaism:1000-400 BCE

In his book, The Quest for the Historic Israel, Finkelstein describes David as ruling the Jerusalem area when it was still sparsely populated. Finkelstein writes of "bandits and rebels" having been attracted to marginal mountainous environments. David, he suggests, may have been a bandit rebel, dominating towns as a protector, as bandit rebels often tried to do. Finkelstein writes:

The evidence clearly suggests that tenth-century Jerusalem was a small highland village that controlled a sparsely settled hinterland. (David and Solomon, p. 95)
The population remained low and the villages modest and few in number throughout the tenth century BCE. (p. 96)
​

Finkelstein contends that here there is no clear archaeological evidence for Jerusalem's emergence at that time as the capital of a powerful empire with elaborate administrative institutions and a scribal tradition capable of composing such an elaborate chronicle of events. (p. 97)

 

[outhouse]

this

Historical David - Faith Futures

For some, including Finkelstein and Silberman, that basic historical question has been answered in the affirmative by the discovery (in 1993) of a fragmentary inscription that refers to the "House of David" and seems to confirm that Jerusalem was associated the dynasty of David from very early times:

Written in Aramaic, the language of the Aramean kingdoms of Syria, it related the details of an invasion of Israel by an Aramean king whose name is not mentioned on the fragments that have so far been discovered. But there is hardly a question that it tells the story of the assault of Hazael, king of Damascus, on the northern kingdom of Israel around 835 BCE. This war took place in the era when Israel and Judah were separate kingdoms, and the outcome was a bitter defeat for both. The most important part of the inscription is Hazael’s boasting description of his enemies:

[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation].

This is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty less than a hundred years after the reign of David’s son Solomon. The fact that Judah (or perhaps its capital, Jerusalem) is referred to with only a mention of its ruling house is clear evidence that the reputation of David was not a literary invention of a much later period.


Finkelstein and Silberman continue to make their point absolutely clear:

The material culture of the highlands in the time of David remained simple. The land was overwhelmingly rural—with no trace of written documents, inscriptions, or even signs of the kind of widespread literacy that would be necessary for the functioning of a proper monarchy. From a demographic point of view, the area of the Israelite settlement was hardly homogeneous. It is hard to see any evidence of a unified culture or centrally administered state. The area from Jerusalem to the north was quite densely settled, while the area from Jerusalem to the south—the hub of the future kingdom of Judah—was still very sparsely settled. Jerusalem itself was, at best, no more than a typical highland village. We can say no more than that.

The population estimates for the later phases of the Israelite settlement period apply also to the tenth century BCE. They give an idea of the scale of historical possibilities. Out of a total of approximately forty five thousand people living in the hill country, a full 90 percent would have inhabited the villages of the north. That would have left about five thousand people scattered among Jerusalem, Hebron, and about twenty small villages in Judah, with additional groups probably continuing as pastoralists. Such a small and isolated society like this would have been likely to cherish the memory of an extraordinary leader like David as his descendants continued to rule in Jerusalem over the next four hundred years. At first, in the tenth century, their rule extended over no empire, no palatial cities, no spectacular capital. Archeologically we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed—and that their legend endured. [Finkelstein and Silberman, 142f]​

​

 

[outhouse]

An excellent question. Let me suggest an excellent solution. Posture less - read more. You're simply far too unread to responsibly hold definitive positions on any of this stuff. :yes:

really, I know better then to follow mazar

National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com


And they scoff at Mazar's allegiance to the antiquated methods of her archaeological forebears, such as her grandfather, who unapologetically worked with a trowel in one hand and the Bible in the other.

During David's time, as Finkelstein casts it, Jerusalem was little more than a "hill-country village," David himself a raggedy upstart akin to Pancho Villa, and his legion of followers more like "500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting—not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text.
"Of course we're not looking at the palace of David!" Finkelstein roars at the very mention of Mazar's discovery. "I mean, come on. I respect her efforts. I like her—very nice lady. But this interpretation is—how to say it?—a bit naive."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings

Actually, I'm not a big fan of her findings. But

• She remains a well respected archaeologist and I know of no one who would simple dismiss her out of hand, and
• I've made it abundantly clear in a number of posts that I was referring to Amihai Mazar.

Anyone reasonably well read in the field would know the difference.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way: you really would benefit from reading books on the topic at hand ... including those by Finkelstein.

 

[fallingblood]

This


An Interview With Israel Finkelstein – Creation Revolution

when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings

That article argues against Finkelstein and actually celebrates maximalists. It is an apologetic site.

Really though, one can find dirt and praise on both sides. I personally choose to read a little bit on both sides and I have settled more in the middle. Many are actually doing this as well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is not the issue. Anyone, anyone, even marginally read on the matter understands that there are extreme positions found at both ends of the spectrum and that the consensus lies nowhere near either extreme.

The issue here is the absurd fallacy that argues: the extreme maximalists are extremely wrong, therefore extreme minimalism is certainly right. This has nothing to do with understanding 'biblical archaeology' and everything to do with promoting dogma. That this is done by people who do not seem to know the difference between Amihai Mazar and Eilat Mazar speaks volumes.

 

[outhouse]

By the way: you really would benefit from reading books on the topic at hand ... including those by Finkelstein.

now that I agree.

I have read chapters that intrest my current research

 

[outhouse]

This is not the issue. Anyone, anyone, even marginally read on the matter understands that there are extreme positions found at both ends of the spectrum and that the consensus lies nowhere near either extreme.

The issue here is the absurd fallacy that argues: the extreme maximalists are extremely wrong, therefore extreme minimalism is certainly right. This has nothing to do with understanding 'biblical archaeology' and everything to do with promoting dogma. That this is done by people who do not seem to know the difference between Amihai Mazar and Eilat Mazar speaks volumes.

first lets be clear, I think your taking me the wrong way.

Ive never stated maximalist have nothing to offer.

and im not behind extreme minimalist either.


I have stated from the onset that there are different levels of historical cores to these legends as a foundation that expanded in mythology. Some of these legends are fictional legends written in allegory and metaphor for theology not history, however we know Israelites writing in 500 BC did not have a clue about what happened 500 years before


I also understand Finklestein is the "Gorilla on the hill" the maximalist are trying to knock off and so far not gaining any conclusive ground. Whats funny is I do see Dever in opposition yet claiming the Canaanite origin of Israelites. Ill have to reasearch more

Amihai Mazar and Eilat Mazar

there cousins LOL

And yes Amihai is highly respected

 

[outhouse]

Amihai Mazar does not impress me, or many credible historians with comments like this

Amihai Mazar « Vridar

evidence for Solomon’s temple? Mazar does not shrink from declaring that he believes it for no reason other than that the Bible says it:

 

[fallingblood]

first lets be clear, I think your taking me the wrong way.

Ive never stated maximalist have nothing to offer.

and im not behind extreme minimalist either.


I have stated from the onset that there are different levels of historical cores to these legends as a foundation that expanded in mythology. Some of these legends are fictional legends written in allegory and metaphor for theology not history, however we know Israelites writing in 500 BC did not have a clue about what happened 500 years before


I also understand Finklestein is the "Gorilla on the hill" the maximalist are trying to knock off and so far not gaining any conclusive ground. Whats funny is I do see Dever in opposition yet claiming the Canaanite origin of Israelites. Ill have to reasearch more

I think you overemphasize the conflict between the two. Really, there is a decrease in the conflict. Yes, there are some on either side that make a lot of noise, and such. However, in general, the conflict you are referring to really isn't as bad as you claim. And in fact, seeing Finkelstein and Mazar, and their relationship should tell most that there isn't necessarily a solid line in the sand.


Also, the fact that Dever also agrees with some positions such as Canaanite origin shows that the differences are not that different. When it comes down to it, most fall in the middle. And each group does benefit from the other. Finkelstein is hardly a "Gorilla on a hill" that is trying to be knocked down. He isn't the end all.

 

[fallingblood]

Amihai Mazar does not impress me, or many credible historians with comments like this

Amihai Mazar « Vridar

evidence for Solomon’s temple? Mazar does not shrink from declaring that he believes it for no reason other than that the Bible says it:

The problem is that you have a very little exposure to credible historians. And I think that is primarily because you are really looking for sources that back your idea. The the apologetic link you showcased really suggests this.

Mazar is quite respected. Finkelstein has enough respect for him and has worked with him. Among other archeologists, his work is cited quite often as it is valuable. Sure, maybe not everything he says is agreed upon, but to claim that he doesn't impress many credible historians only suggests that you are only reading biased reports.

 

[fallingblood]

He's unread and absolutely certain. Where have we seen that before?

Must be a lot easier then actually spending the time at a library and reading actual sources. Or heaven forbid, buying a book. On a side note, for a class of mine, I have been given an excuse to expand my library again because I have to do a research paper. That always makes me happy.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is that you have a very little exposure to credible historians.

why this simply isnt true.

Carrier was involved in one of my threads dealing with the possible 400,000 people at passover. Thats direct exposure.

Been chatting with Tom Verenna recently who despite past issues, has come along way and in direct connection with very credible historians.


Ive also been in debates with a quite a few biblical authors that I will admit are not credible, but have specialties in which there is knowledge to be learned.

And I read much more then you known.


It doesnt take a brain surgeon to understand the early OT was written as mythology and theology not straight history, as well as legends written for a specific time period using legends 300-500 years in the past that carry no historicity if not outright fiction.

there is no debate at all! that early Israelites created their own history through mythology and theology that has no historicity in cultural anthropology

Finklestein has refuted Mazar and Mazar wont even comment on certain issues as he knows his view is up against a wall.

I never stated there is nothing to learn from such a respectable man, but i wouldnt waiste my money on a book of his knowing his conclusions dont add up

 

[outhouse]

Mazar is quite respected.

and yet that quote of his is really pathetic coming from a historian with such credibility