Archaeologica.org

"Rationalist?"

Minimalist wrote:"Rationalist?"

I'd probably be insulted if I knew what it meant.
But it sounds way better than "Rationalizer".

Rationalists are people who dismiss ancient folk lore as a basis for fact.

We prefer actual evidence.

Minimalist wrote:Rationalists are people who dismiss ancient folk lore as a basis for fact.

We prefer actual evidence.

Sometimes it helps to start with the facts, so you can try to understand what the hell they were talking about.

Sometimes really understanding what the hell they were talking about can lead you to facts.

While they're always biased and are stated in a contemporary world view, contemporary documents are actual evidence. A good written document is sometimes worth many excavations.

Note carefully that the data for my Bronze Age chronology is entirely separate from the OT.
The synchronicity of the two (at least my own OT reading) can be taken as an entirely separate issue.

It's also not a very important one for me right now. The moral tales work for people, which is why they have survived, regardless of the times.

Yet, until you overcome the last 35 years of archaeological research which has trashed the OT as any sort of "history" you will have a tough time selling that.

min, you may not have noticed this, but it does not matter.
People believe what they want to believe, and will seldom let facts interfere with those beliefs.

If you don't believe me, talk to a ditto head sometime. Insanity has a logic all its own.

I stated the case for OT source synchronisms, and probably will continue to be unable to take it any further. Just like everyone else, I am hoping for the finds of more good caches of contemporary bronze age documents that will clarify what occurred and when.

All in all, I'd rather be dancing at the disco at a hotel on Crete, followed by a nap on the beach until whenever. But it didn't go that way; instead my path was in another direction.

When someone says people believe what they want to believe, E.P. I think of you and your impact bombardment. You've got an "impact" for everything yet when I seek some backup for it all I ever find are postings from you or replying to you. That does not bode well.

And none of that does anything to save the OT from the scrap heap it so richly deserves.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g ... n28650079/

One theme which Redford has defended over the years and which I have come more and more to appreciate, is that the Egypt reflected in the earlier narratives of the Old Testament is the Egypt of the Saite Period, not before. This theme appears throughout the book (prominently, for example, on p. 408). This is too often overlooked in Biblical studies. Redford's point is not made by mere repetition but by a mass of evidence that proves his case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Saite Period is the 26th Dynasty - Psammetichus and Necho - the late 7th century BC. Coincidentally - or not - this is the precise time frame which Israel Finkelstein, using Canaanite archaeology, geography and inscriptions has determined for the period in which the OT was first written.

Just think....they did it all without an asteroid.

Minimalist wrote: When someone says people believe what they want to believe, E.P. I think of you and your impact bombardment. You've got an "impact" for everything yet when I seek some backup for it all I ever find are postings from you or replying to you. That does not bode well.

Case in point, min. The facts usually get lost amongst the "scepticism".

Minimalist wrote: And none of that does anything to save the OT from the scrap heap it so richly deserves.

min, what if it turns out that the OT does preserve some history?
Whether it does or not, a lot of people find its moral guidance and observations useful in living their lives, whatever its sources, or dates of composition.
You haven't explained yet why you want the OT on a scrap heap, min.
For some reason this is vital to you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g ... n28650079/

Minimalist wrote: One theme which Redford has defended over the years and which I have come more and more to appreciate, is that the Egypt reflected in the earlier narratives of the Old Testament is the Egypt of the Saite Period, not before. This theme appears throughout the book (prominently, for example, on p. 408). This is too often overlooked in Biblical studies. Redford's point is not made by mere repetition but by a mass of evidence that proves his case beyond reasonable doubt.

Haven't read that yet, but in any case it all depends on whose "doubt" you're talking about.
I was impressed by Redford's work on Hyksos chronology. I am pretty busy right now, and even taking a look at that link will have to wait for a while. I am going to eat dinner and go to sleep.

Like I told you before, min, people believe what they want to believe, and will seldom let facts interfere with those beliefs. And that's as true among many academics as it is among the public at large.

Minimalist wrote: The Saite Period is the 26th Dynasty - Psammetichus and Necho - the late 7th century BC. Coincidentally - or not - this is the precise time frame which Israel Finkelstein, using Canaanite archaeology, geography and inscriptions has determined for the period in which the OT was first written.

Just think....they did it all without an asteroid.

its comet fragments, min, with the occasional asteroid thrown in.

Note carefully that my bronze age chronology is independent of the OT, min.
It certainly wasn't developed to justify OT chronology.
That I note the parallels which exist is an entirely separate issue.
While this is vital for you, it's not for me.