The Bible Unearthed (full documentary)

tat tvam asi · Thu May 26, 2011 2:32 pm

The 'minority' of archaeologists refers to the new school, those who are rising up from the ranks of the biblical archaeologists who have been gradually loosing ground to the new school of thought. Finkelstein is new school in other words, of the growing minority which will someday become the new majority as time rolls on. But let's look at a quotation to a link current to this year:
http://www.forward.com/articles/137273/


	Quote: But is the ridge south of the Temple Mount the location of the actual city of King David? This is one of the most excavated spots on the face of the earth, but so far fieldwork has not yielded any monuments from the 10th century BCE, the time of King David. Recent claims by an archaeologist working at the site regarding the supposed discovery of the palace of King David and the city-wall built by King Solomon are based on literal, simplistic readings of the biblical text and are not supported by archaeological facts. The supposed “palace” features walls from different periods, none dating — as far as I can judge — from the 10th century BCE. And the “wall” of Solomon cannot be considered a true fortification and cannot be dated as early as the 10th century BCE. Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/137273/#ixzz1NUZqxOWo

stahrwe · Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:23 am

With respect to the book, The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Ahser Silberman.


	Quote: "Little, however is new here, certainly not enough to justify the rather graniose title and the revolutionary rhetoric throughout. They mention few scholars by name and include not a single footnote or specific reference that leads the reader ot the relevant literature or, especially, to the archaeological evidence that is so crucial (there is only a general reading list at the end). What we have in The Bible Unearthed is an ideological manifesto, not judicious, well-balanced scholarship. Even the non-specialist deserves better. Even the discussion of exceedingly complex matters is often simplistic and therefore misleading, even contradictory. For example, the authors' insistent downplaying of the United Monarchy depends largely upon their down-dating of key archaeological data (Such as the city walls and gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer; see 1 Kings 9:15-17) from the tenth to the ninth century BC. Yet nowhere do they inform the reader that Finkelstein's indiosyncratic "low chronology" is not supported in print by a single other ranking archaeologist. Nor do they note the contradiction between their concession that the Biblical lists of Judean kings of the ninth to eighth centuries B.C. are historically reliable and their claim that there was no real kingdom of Judah until after 700 B.C." Biblical Archaeoloy Review, The Bible Unearthed Israel Finkelstein and Neil Ahser Silberman (New York: Free Press, 2000) 304 pp. Reviewed by William G. Dever. March/April 2001 Vol 27 No. 2, p. 60

I will leave off here. There is much more to the review but I think this is sufficient to call the work into question. No doubt there will be a response that Dever has since changed flags and is now a minimalist, to which I answer perhaps, but the criticisms as reported above are empirical and not subjective. Further, in the review Dever is not critical of the minimalist position taken by the authors, that is not the issue so a change in his philosophical bend or perhaps leaning is irrelvant.

tat tvam asi · Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:32 pm

And as you dig further and further back in time, and then start at the beginning of Dever's career and follow it's evolution forward through time, you'll find a man who has bumped up against many issues only to cower down and back way off after having been proven wrong again and again. He's not opposed to growth. As the evidence has poored in Dever has changed, as you know. So why pull up one of his knee jerk reactions from 2001? Finkelstein has far more support than you realize yet at this point of your own learning curve Stahrwe.

stahrwe · Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:13 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: And as you dig further and further back in time, and then start at the beginning of Dever's career and follow it's evolution forward through time, you'll find a man who has bumped up against many issues only to cower down and back way off after having been proven wrong again and again. He's not opposed to growth. As the evidence has poored in Dever has changed, as you know. So why pull up one of his knee jerk reactions from 2001? Finkelstein has far more support than you realize yet at this point of your own learning curve Stahrwe.

No he doesn't. I have several of Dever's books and he always evinced a minimalist slant. His current inclinations do not change the faults he found with Finkelstein, and the Nova special was produced in 2007. I predicted your objection but it is toothless as usual, so go ahead and gum all you want.

tat tvam asi · Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:33 pm

Dever started out trying his best to justify believer positions Stahrwe, and then slowly got backed down more and more. All of the progression of quotes from Dever's career were listed in the Hector Avalos lecture. Dever, essentially, has been called the arch enemy of Finkelstein only to have come closer and closer to Finkelstein with time.

stahrwe · Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:03 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: Dever started out trying his best to justify believer positions Stahrwe, and then slowly got backed down more and more. All of the progression of quotes from Dever's career were listed in the Hector Avalos lecture. Dever, essentially, has been called the arch enemy of Finkelstein only to have come closer and closer to Finkelstein with time.

Where's the transcript fom Avalos lecture?

Forum rules

The Bible Unearthed (full documentary) Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!