Is the Bible a historical document?

[outhouse]

I think you overemphasize the conflict between the two.

wrong, you havnt looked at the facts then. You try and talk down to me, but really your in no position to at all.


Amihai Mazar « Vridar


but I will highlight a few of its points here.

1. When Eilat Mazar pointed to 11th/10th century foundational layers to the edifice, Finkelstein et al pointed out that the dating was only valid if the soil was originally “in situ” and not a fill for construction brought in from elsewhere. They give reasons for observing that the latter is more likely the case.
2. When Mazar drew attention to a particular form of pottery that was known to have been found at earlier sites, Finkelstein et al pointed out that the accompanying picture also showed that later forms of pottery were found with that earlier type.
3. Finkelstein et al point out that some of Mazar’s finds — including Herodian pottery between and under the spaces in the “Davidic” walls! — point to the “palace” being built in post-Iron Age times.
4. Finkelstein et al further remark on the walls of a Hasmonaean ritual bath being built in the same orientation and at the same elevation (strata) as the “palace of David”.
5. Finkelstein et al finally note that a Byzantine wall was built directly on a flattened part of the wall of “David’s palace”.
6. Finkelstein et al conclude that the best explanation for all the evidence is that the “palace” was not built as a single unit, but was begun in the late Hellenistic (Hasmonaean) time, and later added to in Roman times.

So much for the evidence that Jerusalem was a monumental city in the tenth century.

 

[fallingblood]

wrong, you havnt looked at the facts then. You try and talk down to me, but really your in no position to at all.


Amihai Mazar « Vridar


but I will highlight a few of its points here.

1. When Eilat Mazar pointed to 11th/10th century foundational layers to the edifice, Finkelstein et al pointed out that the dating was only valid if the soil was originally “in situ” and not a fill for construction brought in from elsewhere. They give reasons for observing that the latter is more likely the case.
2. When Mazar drew attention to a particular form of pottery that was known to have been found at earlier sites, Finkelstein et al pointed out that the accompanying picture also showed that later forms of pottery were found with that earlier type.
3. Finkelstein et al point out that some of Mazar’s finds — including Herodian pottery between and under the spaces in the “Davidic” walls! — point to the “palace” being built in post-Iron Age times.
4. Finkelstein et al further remark on the walls of a Hasmonaean ritual bath being built in the same orientation and at the same elevation (strata) as the “palace of David”.
5. Finkelstein et al finally note that a Byzantine wall was built directly on a flattened part of the wall of “David’s palace”.
6. Finkelstein et al conclude that the best explanation for all the evidence is that the “palace” was not built as a single unit, but was begun in the late Hellenistic (Hasmonaean) time, and later added to in Roman times.

So much for the evidence that Jerusalem was a monumental city in the tenth century.

You are only citing one person who disagrees. And really, just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean that both don't add to the conversation. You're siding with one side simply because it is the side you already have a loyalty too.

And that really isn't much of a conflict. Like I said, there has been a decrease in the conflict regarding the two sides. Not to mention, there are other positions as well.

Basically, what you have shown is that there are two opposing views on one issue. When isn't there?

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

You only call it pathetic because it disagrees with the position you are loyal to. I really doubt you have actually read his work.

why this simply isnt true.

So you have chatted with a few historians. That doesn't mean you actually know what credible historians are saying, or that you have had a lot of exposure to credible historians. When you refuse to actually look at certain historians because they disagree with you, or show a complete lack of knowledge on the current issues being talked about by many different credible historians, it appears that you have only been exposed to few historians.

Even the links you provided generally suggest that most of your information isn't even coming from credible historians, but various websites that support your position (or in some cases, websites you didn't really read, and oppose your position).

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The historical parts of the Bible are mostly historical revisionism. Some of it is true but alot has been augmented by the imaginations of the authors.

 

[outhouse]

You are only citing one person who disagrees.

NO, I am citing one of the formost authorities on the subject who has completely refuted all claims against his view, And who doesnt follow extreme minimalist.

Basically, what you have shown is that there are two opposing views on one issue.

there are not two credible views.

there is one biased view from a archeologist holding a bible in one hand and a spade in the other, who admits his biblical biases.

You only call it pathetic because it disagrees with the position you are loyal to.

I call it patheitic because it is. by that methodology noah rowed his boat on the high seas

your making excuses for a bad biased statement

I really doubt you have actually read his work

false, I know his conclusions which have all been refuted.

That doesn't mean you actually know what credible historians are saying,

You would do yourself more justice if you quit talking down to me from a point of following a minority view based on admitted biblical bias

 

[outhouse]

The historical parts of the Bible are mostly historical revisionism. Some of it is true but alot has been augmented by the imaginations of the authors.

And I have stated this from the beginning of this post

even given David historicity as a leader of early Israelites

We know all the scripture was written in the 7th through the 5th century describing events in detail that carry no historicty what so ever to 1000 BC by a monotheistic regime, that bear no resemblance to the cultures they are describing

 

[waitasec]

According to most historians, people like Adam, King David or Moses never existed. However, they all agree that Jesus was probably a real person.

As we all know, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of different books, written at different times, and with different genres. You can find documents that claim to be historical, documents that are apparently myths, poetry, prose... What is real and what not? Do you consider that the entire Bible should be taken literally as a strictly historical text? Do you think that only one part is real and the rest is fiction? Or perhaps you think that it is entirely a work of fiction set in a real time and real geographic place? And what are your bases to separate fact from fiction?

Comment!

i think the bible is a (an :shrug) historical document much like a michael moore documentary which reflects the social climate of the time

 

[outhouse]

I have asked nicely for what Jay gives historcity to the Davidic legends.

All I hear is crickets, and complaints about what I find credible, despite following the utmost authority on the subject


and nothing at all to do with debating particular evidence pointing to historicity to David in one shape or another.

FB your welcome to attribute your version of Davidic historicity

 

[Awoon]

i think the bible is a (an :shrug) historical document much like a michael moore documentary which reflects the social climate of the time

And it was written to the people in those societies.

The bible is an adopted book of literature used by the west for whatever reasons.

 

[waitasec]

And it was written to the people in those societies.

The bible is an adopted book of literature used by the west for whatever reasons.

:yes: indeed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And I have stated this from the beginning of this post

even given David historicity as a leader of early Israelites

We know all the scripture was written in the 7th through the 5th century describing events in detail that carry no historicty what so ever to 1000 BC by a monotheistic regime, that bear no resemblance to the cultures they are describing

David is probably an amalgamation of various tribal chieftains. After all that is what the name means.

 

[outhouse]

David is probably an amalgamation of various tribal chieftains. After all that is what the name means.

it is possible I suppose, that it describes a culture instead of a man.

I would need more evidence to point me in that direction from a early leader though.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

it is possible I suppose, that it describes a culture instead of a man.

I would need more evidence to point me in that direction from a early leader though.

I think David is an amalgamation like King Arthur and Robin Hood. The name literally means chieftain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tel Dan.