Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[Minimalist]

I think the xtian/pharisee enmity which is written into the bible is simpler. The Sadducees disappeared with the destruction of the temple in 70 while the pharisees morphed into the rabbinic school. When xtian doctrine developed later there simply were no sadducees left to make a useful target. It became a literary device to give Jesus an opponent....much as the "apostles" were written in to give him a Greek chorus of 'Yes Men.'

I recall that in Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle," the discussion is undertaken about how Hellenistic ideas crept into Jewish thinking. I wasn't particularly interested in that stuff at the time but I may go back and read it more carefully.

[kbs2244]

Wow, this is far from archeology, but I love it anyway.
A discussion of possible histories of the OT.
I will be following this.

[Ishtar]

I don't think it's that far from archaeology, KB. It's mainly archaeology that's enabling us to view the land of the Hebrews in a different light other than what we've been told by the OT.

[Minimalist]

The problem is "archaeology." In the early part of the 20th century when preachers pretending to be archaeologists went digging in Palestine they set out with a mindset to "prove" the bible true and, as often happens when you are determined to find something, they found exactly what they wanted to find.

Later, as archaeology matured as a science and C14 dating became available it fell to archaeology to burst their little bubble. That's the problem that people like Arch have. He continually harkens back to a time when archaeology told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Now that the facts have changed he can't handle it.

And here we now sit!

[kbs2244]

Yes:
But as we have discussed in other places, C14 has it's problems.
Still, for example, the other forms of dating, in other parts of the planet, is one of the reasons I have come to modify my understanding of the Flood story.
The whole 2000 BC stuff in SA, for example.
And thus, my whole concept of the literality of the OT.
For instance, I am now open to the concept that the Genealogies as recorded in the OT may not be listing direct father son relationships.
The “son of” may be 2, 3 or more generations apart.
That would push back the Creation timetable quite a bit.
In short, I am open to the idea that humans have been around more than 6000 years.
And, in my case, that is a big change.

[Minimalist]

Well, good for you. It's a start, bro!

[kbs2244]

It is a crack.
But it is a thick dam.

[Minimalist]

Arch, and not to pick on him but he is representative of literalist fundies, maintains that every word in the OT is literally true....even though he is working from the King James Version which is derived from horribly flawed translations, as Bart Ehrman tells us.

He will admit to no possiblity of any error. Nonetheless, even he doesn't accept the 6,000 year time frame....(he says 12,000!) like its a big improvement.

[seeker]

I think the xtian/pharisee enmity which is written into the bible is simpler. The Sadducees disappeared with the destruction of the temple in 70 while the pharisees morphed into the rabbinic school. When xtian doctrine developed later there simply were no sadducees left to make a useful target. It became a literary device to give Jesus an opponent....much as the "apostles" were written in to give him a Greek chorus of 'Yes Men.'

That's kind of what I was saying. After the final destruction of the temple in 70AD Pharisees were pretty much all that was left. Of course that has implications for dating NT books doesn't it

I recall that in Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle," the discussion is undertaken about how Hellenistic ideas crept into Jewish thinking. I wasn't particularly interested in that stuff at the time but I may go back and read it more carefully.

Of course that also brings up a discussion of Hellenism and what it really was. Greece was a part of the Persian Empire too.

[seeker]

Yes:
But as we have discussed in other places, C14 has it's problems.
Still, for example, the other forms of dating, in other parts of the planet, is one of the reasons I have come to modify my understanding of the Flood story.
The whole 2000 BC stuff in SA, for example.
And thus, my whole concept of the literality of the OT.
For instance, I am now open to the concept that the Genealogies as recorded in the OT may not be listing direct father son relationships.
The “son of” may be 2, 3 or more generations apart.
That would push back the Creation timetable quite a bit.
In short, I am open to the idea that humans have been around more than 6000 years.
And, in my case, that is a big change.

There are problems with telescoping the geneology that way though because it does still have to match up with recorded history. If you start playing with adding years in arbitrarily you end up basically invalidating the literacy arguement anyway.

[seeker]

Wow, this is far from archeology, but I love it anyway.
A discussion of possible histories of the OT.
I will be following this.

Unfortunately there are too many archaeologists still holding up chronologies in Egypt, Greece etc because of their reluctance to give up on the biblical template

[Minimalist]

Of course that has implications for dating NT books doesn't it

Amen to that!

Greece was a part of the Persian Empire too.

Of course the Greeks see it as Persia being part of the Hellenistic Empire. In fact, they would probably still be willing to kill each other over that distinction!

[Minimalist]

Wow, this is far from archeology, but I love it anyway.
A discussion of possible histories of the OT.
I will be following this.

Unfortunately there are too many archaeologists still holding up chronologies in Egypt, Greece etc because of their reluctance to give up on the biblical template

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/e ... n-evidence


Although note the straw grasping at the end by the reviewer who is, after all, an employee of the Denver Seminary!

[Forum Monk]

Unfortunately there are too many archaeologists still holding up chronologies in Egypt, Greece etc because of their reluctance to give up on the biblical template

Can you clarify this statement?
As I see it, the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies have been problematic for those who tend to hold to an Ussherian view of biblical chronolgy.

[Forum Monk]

To further clarify my own thoughts, I find the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies, much more so than the biblical chronology, tend to be the standard to which all other chronologies are measured and squashed to fit. This, inspite of inconsistencies, problems with known synchronisms, and attempts to resolve chronological gaps.

The existing chronologies are protected with far greater fervency and "religious" zeal than any shown by a biblical fundamentalist. Dr. Hawass is a perfect example of a zealot, imo.