MP, Thanks for the links. I will, over the next few days, digest them. The Arizona link looks interesting and a great resource.
MP - Or my post apparently.
AA - No need to get nasty right away. I read and understood your post. You are claiming that not ALL the details are correct, but, the bible is reasonably accurate, and can be shown to be reasonably accurate.
MP - I think the sites I posted are quite good actually and certainly show the methodology in general use in ancient near east studies.
AA - Is the methodology to insert the biblical account into the record at their convenience? Sorry, if that seems a bit sarcastic, but that seems to be what you are saying here. I am only questioning the chronology here, and the chronology is wrong based on my current understanding. If the chronology is wrong, why is this a good site? I am more than willing to have you correct me.
MP - I think your comment that the first one "inserts" the Biblical account into "actual verifiable history" is a bit odd to say the least. One has to wonder "actual verifiable history" means. A historian who did not take account of the laws, genealogies and legends compiled by the Hebrews would be very foolish indeed. The Bible at the least is a rich source of historical discourse - from it can be gleaned much of what the Hebrews "thought" their history was and this is of enormous value.
AA - I don't think it odd at all. I read through the chronology, which seems to follow what is generally known and can be verified, perhaps a poor choice of words above, but the idea stands. But then they simply insert the biblical account at the points where the biblical interpretation says they should be located in time. That is fine, if the evidence shows this to be true. But the evidence does not. Even if we assume the genealogies of the bible are correct, starting with Abraham ~1000 BC, that information alone destroys the chronology presented in the first site. That make the chronology as posited in the first site, incorrect, and apologetic to boot.
Just because the Hebrews "thought" their history was, as represented in the bible. Doesn't make it of "enormous value" in a historic sense. Especially if the evidence will not verify the account.
MP - I love getting into specifics, but I'm not sure why you are asking me this?
AA - I thought you might like to discuss the issue? You seemed to have a bit of knowledge in the area. I am not interested in a fight, you can whip up on the creationists all you want (like shooting fish in a barrel), but I would like to discuss this issue. I'm not an expert, but it has been a bit of a hobby for the past couple of years. Something to read on those long cold winter nights.
MP - I have no idea whether there was a David or Solomon. I think it most likely that there was, but whether David was a great king or a tribal guerilla leader from a rich traditional music background (like Radovan Karadic in Bosnia) I have no idea. I suspect the latter. Solomon, I imagine was a legendary king with his roots in a real character or a melding of characters: like King Arthur.
AA - From what I know, you are pretty close on David. Solomon, no. I am leaning toward the idea that the Hebrews took the David story from the Babylonian God, David. Great kingdom, chronology, and sketchy evidence.
MP - You're right, I'm devastated!
AA - That sarcastic side again? LOL. I wasn't trying to devastate you, but the chronology presented in the first site. In this case, I'm glad I was helpful!
MP - BTW, when you are "refuting" references and posts you should take some care to be accurate in your criticisms: the site I quoted does not mention camels in association with Abraham. Neither I nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details.
AA - I think it is accurate to present evidence in support of assertions. The camel reference, was another piece of evidence against the chronology you presented in the first link. I introduced it as an additional source of data.
MP - I certainly would not claim that Abraham as a historical figure can be pinned down with the accuracy of, say, Herod Agrippa. But I do say that the Bible is reasonably correct as historical documents of its age and nature go. Your example was merely devastating to any facade of care, accuracy or objectivity you were attempting to erect.
AA - You just said above that neither you "nor the site in question is attempting to claim that the Bible is right in its details", but are now saying it is reasonably accurate for its age and nature. Are you saying that the details may not be accurate but the overall account is accurate? If so, then I have to disagree. First, because we have far more accurate histories available, the Egyptians for one, and second, because at this point in my knowledge, neither the details or the overall account is accurate. I will read your links to expand my knowledge.
If the bible is reasonably accurate, as is your contention, then it is incumbant upon you to show the evidence in support of that contention. My contention is that the chronology, you presented as evidence for accuracy, is incorrect (with the supporting "ameteurish" evidence).
MP - Oh by the way I looked at your sites from the other topic. One (at bidstrup.com) was amateurish and jumped to conclusions far too readily: the identification of the Hyksos with the Hebrews is an example of wishful thinking leaping over patchy evidence.
AA - Yes, it is amateurish, and far to brief to cover all the history. Although from what I have read, it is reasonably accurate. Which is why I said it was a good place to start.
Is there anything about the bible that is not patchy evidence?
We know from the evidence that the Hyksos were in Egypt. We are reasonably sure, from the lack of any evidence, that the Hebrews were never in Egypt in any numbers. It would seem reasonable to use a known event, to verify the biblical account. Whether it is true or not, is up to the reader to explore. There are several possibilities as to who exactly are the Hebrews. The Hyksos are as good a possibility as any others I have seen. Bibleorigins.net presents another possibility. Do you have another suggestion?
MP - I am however a great admirer of Ze'ev Herzog, though the web site you list is a somewhat polemical review of his work rather than a sound intruduction to near east history in context: he deserves much better representation than that. Visit his faculty site at Tel Aviv University for better links:
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/
AA - I will. But, doesn't Finkelstein's work give additional credence to the ideas presented? I don't see the polemic you see, could you explain?
MP - And your other site at BibleOrigins.net ... o dear! Clearly written by someone who thinks he's a very clever fellow to discover that an ancient document isn't accurate about what was already rather old history when it was compiled.
AA - If you were taught that the bible was a literal/accurate history, then this clearly would be NEWS to you. If you are inclined to dismiss the bible as myth, then your view of his work is correct. But, we are not discussing the Greek gods and their mythology, we are talking about the bible, a book presented as literal and accurate history. In that context, it has a great deal of useful information in this discussion.
And as the "polemic" article discusses, this knowledge is already ancient history, yet people are still touting creationism based solely on the accuracy of the bible! Go figure!
MP - I'm no fundamentalist - read my posts if you like to find out. But I do take the Bible seriously and I don't think polemics get you anywhere. The sites you quote all look at history in a very old fashioned way as if dates and personalities were all that mattered. No discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research.
AA - I have no interest in your religious convictions. They are not an issue in a historical discussion unless they bend your perceptions of the data.
These sites take the literal/accurate interpretation of the bible to task. They are beginning level material, not intended to be the end all. Just a start. There is plenty of other information to be read. Yet, I have not found any information that supports anything in the biblical account, outside a few place names. If you have that information, for I find it hard to believe that none exists, Please let me know.
Could you explain how "discussion of the Bible as text or as discourse or with any of the modern techniques of historical research" would improve the accuracy of the dating and chronology you presented? While those technigues can help us understand the thinking of the Hebrews, unless we first define some historical parameters (from that old fashioned history) is seems rather meaningless to discuss the more refined aspects. Can't build a house by shingling the roof first.
I fail to see the polemics, that you seem to see so clearly. Maybe an example would help. We are talking history here, not religion? I am not interested in the spiritual "sense" of the bible, which I assume you are "taking seriously", just the history surrounding the mythology.
™ Version 4.2