Archaeologica.org

I concur with hallo, levenson and provan that there has been too much condescension and suspicion of biblical documents by historians and biblical scholars during the past couple decades

Don't you think that the reason for that is the complete lack of non-biblical support for bible stories

archaeologist wrote:from the same book, chapter 1:

"for centuries the israelite exodus from egypt has been considered to be a historical event central to the formation of ancient Israel as a nation and its faith. the hsitoricity of this event was affirmed by John Bright as recently as 1981 in the 3rd edition of A History of Israel."

From a review at Amazon: "Lastly, some of this information is out of date (the core of the book was written in the 1950s, and most recently updated in 1981). " It was originally published in 1959. What 'evidence' does he claim then that does not exist today....because as of right now, there is none, outside of the bible itself, and the whole point of looking for corroborating evidence is to show that there is some truth to the bible texts.

"Alt and Noth rached these conclusions based on thier reconstruction of the Hexateuch and by largely ignoring or triviallizing the archaeologically based approach of the albright-wright school."

And Albright and Wright have now been superceded by Finkelstein and his many cohorts. That is the way it is with science.....new discoveries cause reinterpretation of theories. Unlike the bible which claims to be unchanging truth because 'it was written by god' but for which there is nothing to support its foundation.

"...Kathleen Kenyon...because of her stature and reputatio, kenyon's conclusions were accepted immmediately by biblical scholars and archaeologists alike... thus, Jericho became a liability to the conquest theory. recently, however, Bryant g. Wood has reassessed the jericho material by comparing Garstang's publication, the material in Excavations at Jericho volumes 3 to 5, and unpublished jericho ceramics. he argues for a return to Garstang's original dating and suggests attributing the destruction tothe israelites."

We've been through this. Kenyon's 1550 BC date has been confirmed by carbon 14 dating. I know you don't like C-14 because it upsets your little biblical applecart but the rest of us are fine with it.

"While investigating the tradition history of biblical texts has some merit, the degree of subjectivity in this method remains a problem. and, like wellhausen's source-critical method, certain historical, social and religious assumptians are made that just cannot be substantiated convincingly."

Julius Wellhausen died in 1918. A lot has changed since then.

"Many historians and biblical scholars now maintain that a text's claims must be corroborated before they can be considered historical" (now you know where minimalist comes up with that idea--it is a slanting of the playing field in favor of non-believers)

Ah, but taking biblical fairy tales at face value is okay because...... why? Because they are from 'the bible.' You continually revert to the magical formula that the bible is somehow inviolable and not to be questioned. Tough shit, arch. Science questions. That what it is for. Your bible cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny so you want to make it exempt. NFW.

"Since van seters embraces the conclusions of earlier german historians, such as ernst troeltsch and hugo gressmann, who rejected the historical trustworthiness of a text when it reports divine intervention in human affairs...there is a built-in bias against ancient writers for whom there was no church-state, religion-history separation or dichotomy beteen secular and secular worlds."

Damn straight.....just as when Titus Livius reports that the Romans noted some omen and took some devotional activity to counteract the 'will of the gods.' The Jews were certainly not the only ancient sect to impute everything that happened to divine intervention. Their's is no more believable than anyone else's. BTW, Troeltsch and Gressman were both publishing in 1913....they probably had Wellhausen over for tea! I'm starting to detect a pattern in your sources.

" it defies logic to believe that joshua and judges originated in the very period the qumran scribes were already copying the same documents because they were deemed to be canonical."

I can't pull a source out of this. Perhaps it is Thompson or one of the other true Minimalist School that they are talking about. It certainly does not reflect either Dever or Finkelstein's views on the matter. Finkelstein equates the Joshua story to the time of King Josiah (c 640 BC) as a reflection of Judahite imperial goals as the Assyrian Empire collapsed. Both Dever and Finkelstein seem to think that Judges is a relatively accurate portrayal of the early years of Israelite/Judahite existence in the early Iron Age which was maintained as oral legend for centuries before being written down (and embellished) later on.

"Alan Millard points out the accidents of surviuval and discovery are partly responsible for that. Jerusalem has been so long occupied, destroyed and rebuilt that the lackof monumnets of her hebrew kings, early or late is no surprise. concerning the absence of archival materials for the davidic-solomonic period, millard adds: archives from the 10th century b.c. will probably never be unearthed in palestine because the normal writing material was papyrus, which only lasts when buried in unusually dry places."

And yet, archaeology has been able to find artifacts and settlement patterns from periods prior to and after the 10th century. IT is a recurrent theme of Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed. Why is it that we have proof of Jerusalem's expansion in the Bronze Age but can't seem to find anything from the 10th century? Because, Jerusalem at the time was nothing more than an insignificant village. The bible-thumpers invent all sorts of ad hoc explanations about why their precious bible can't be proved but science is always around to point out that they are wrong. Second, papyrii manage to survive in Egypt but that's almost irrelevant. We have plenty of examples of potsherds and ostraca written on by scribes in Judah....none of them mention any great empire of David. In all of that supposed area that was conquered not one statue or inscription has been found except the Tel Dan stelae which proves that there was a Davidic line....maybe. Recent scholarship has suggested that the "House of David" rendering of the inscription may be incorrect because of the way that the fragments of the stelae have been put back together. If so, it will make Professor Thompson very happy because it is the existence of the Tel Dan inscription which causes Finkelstein to dismiss his entire theory.

"with the exception of the phoenicians and aramaeans, there is a dearth of texts among neighbors cited. one has to wonder to which philistine texts Garbini is referring. I am unaware that any have survived nor is it even known what script the philistines employed."

Again, no source. Clearly, he cannot be referring to the Amarna library which, by archaeological standards is immense. Recent discoveries have shown Philistine scripts...not the least of which was the so-called Goliath Inscription of just last year. I suspect that once again you are using dated material to support your position.

"..there are very few extant documents from Israel's immediate neighbors. when those sources mention israel, however, they describe events or figures found in the Bible."

One can only assume that whoever this is is referring to Assyrian and Babylonian conquest records which is completely in keeping with Finkelstein's (though not Thompson's) theory. BTW, the previously discussed Tel Dan stelae, while it apparently mentions the House of David (until proven otherwise) does NOT support the bible story. The bible claims that someone named Jehu rebelled against the Omrides and killed the King of Israel in the process.....Tel Dan gives the victory to Hazael, King of Aram Damascus who campaigned in the area and very probably kicked the crap out of lots of people while he was expanding.

"when we move to mesopotamia, we find assyrian and neo-babylonian texts concurring with the political history preserved in the old testament."

Ah....so now that evidence supports your bible, you are willing to use it. Again, completely in agreement with Finkelstein's observations of the growth to statehood of Israel in the 8th century and Judah in the 7th century BC.

"Thomas Thompson well illustrates this climate of skepticism when he says, 'a valid historyof israel's origins must be written within a historical geography of Palestine, based primarily on palestinian archaeology and and ancient near east studies...Israel's own origin tradition is radically irreleventto writing such a history."

I haven't read any of Thompson's books but, Dever and Finkelstein dismiss his theories, too. Should Tel Dan subsequently be overthrown, tha could change but right now those scholars consider Thompson to be as erroneous as the fundamentalists.

"by minimizing or dismissing the Bible as a source for israel's early history, revisionist istories can be written without constraint of any controls."

True enough....and with no evidence to support it the bible should be dismissed as accurate history for the most part.

"hence there is a tendency to revise history to reflect the author's concerns and agenda."

And, of course, the priests and scribes who concocted the bible were exempt from that tendency, right? Again, in the world of ideas the bible gets no special consideration because it is 'the bible.' It has to swim or sink on its own.

"all history is necessarily written from the standpoint of the present, and is, in an inescapablesense, the history not only of the present but of that which is contemporaneously judged to be important to the present."

Probably true but essentially meaningless to the current discussion.

"Levenson believs the time has come to suspect the hermaneuts of suspicion."

Hermaneuts? Whoever Levenson is he can suspect them all he wants. Where is the evidence that they are wrong.

"In response to the speculation that the biblical writers were writing ideological works and not history, Provan charges that these minimalists scholars too have ieologies and agendas."

Yes they do and both Finkelstein and Dever torch them for that agenda because Thompson and the others DO NOT give proper weight to archaeological finds when they propose their theories. However, those same archaeological finds Do NOT support the wishful thinking of you bible-thumpers, either. You can't have it both ways. You can't use archaeology when it suits your purpose and deny it when it doesn't. Facts are hard things to avoid.

"the ability of the ancient scribes to record history must not be diminished by modern notions of historiography or by the current proclivity to give late dates to the Hebrew narratives based on the groundless assumption that the israelites were unable to write history until the middle third of the first millenium."

Herodotus, Thyucidides and Polybius are not diminished as sources by modern notions of history, either....but neither are their claims accepted at face value. Livy, in particular, is famous for writing something and then adding in a line like "other sources say that the above never happened" without mentioning which other sources he considered. By modern historical ideas that is an unpardonable sin but with the ancients you take what you get. That does not mean that no efforts are made to find corroboration. As for the above nameless and sourceless quote (which makes you as guilty as Livy, btw,) the simple fact remains that there is no evidence of writing in Judah prior to the reign of King Hezekiah who presided over a period of great growth in Judah after the collapse of Israel. Did he benefit from the sudden influx of northern refugees who had already attained statehood and had a literary tendency? Doubtlessly.

James Hoffmeier is professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

"But finkelstein is unable to offer any archaeological evidence for identifying shiloh as an israelite site during the settlement period, other than the prominence given to shiloh in the text of joshua and judges. thus, he is forced to rely on the very biblical text that he eschews on methodological grounds."