The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin

[nadinbrzezinski]

of its Sacred Texts

by Finkelstein and Silberman


fascinating read

The whole Abraham, Isaac, Jacob family lineage is truly not myth but... get ready for this... allegory for the actual people's inhabiting the area... oh in the seventh century B.C.E

Hey it was written by several groups of people and while Isaac and Abraham were popular cultural heroes of the South (Judah), Jacob was far more popular in Israel, up North by the Jasrael Valley... so he became part of the family as the King Josiah meant to get a national identity going and fully jelled. Why Judah is the dominant son of the 12 tribes... it was not about a future role of Judah, but the present role of Judah.

Hell, the thought that Edom was a product of incestuous relationship made me chuckle realizing Judah and Edom didn't get along... at all.. talk of dehumanizing an enemy.

Hell David was probably real... but a small time chieftain... not the powerful king the Bible presents (though that was adequate for King Josiah, a long time descendant of David)

So in case you wonder... no the patriarchs didn't really exist... but were a way to use collective memory to create a history out of whole cloth... not unlike Washington Irving's stories of General Washington, who we all know could not tell a lie. Just about to read on the Exodus, which many experts agree never actually happened, why that special on the History Channel made me chuckle at multiple levels... and I will give them this... the special effects were incredible.

One of those where I am going...once I am done with my copy should I drop it in my brother's house? NAH... he believes too much of this crap... while for me the REAL history is far more fascinating.

Oh and I did get this at a Barnes and Noble really, and I mean this REALLY cheap in the Remnants... Got it to read for research for fantasy novel... and have found this to be more than fascinating. I guess Fundie's heads (regardless of religion) would explode if exposed to this.

[flyingfysh]

1. I have the same book, it's good

For more along these lines, there's a magazine: Biblical Archaeology Review. The ads are a curious mixture of scholarly books and fundamentalist Christian books; sometimes these groups don't get along very well, and somebody or other writes to cancel their subscription because they were offended by the actual scholars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Brother in law used to subscribe to it

they can't afford it any longer. I might buy him a sub once silly season is over

My "impulse buys" have involved donations to candidates and no on 8

Hey I get a T-Shirt out of my last donation for the season

:-)

[zeemike]

3. All I have heard so far is a lot of probably

What is the evidence for this?
So what evidence do they have that it is not myth but allegory?
And what evidence do they have that it was written by a group of people?
And what evidence shows that David was just a chieftain?

Not trying to start an argument or burst your bubble but it seems not to scientific to say "Probably was"

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The theory that it was written by four chief sources is not new

it goes back some years... in fact more than just a decade or two... like to the beginning of last century... read 1910 to 1920s when people TRIED very hard to place the patriarchs in the same life style as beduins, which made sense, except for that little problem with camels and lifes that were impossibly long and things like Moses being a relative of a fourth generation while Joshua was 12 generations removed.. even with a long life... that is too much to marry.

It speaks of P for priestly caste, see deutoromy and any other how you do your religious thing

I for folks from the North, aka Israel

J for Yahveh, the center of government by the time it was written and it was AFTER the northern kingdom of Israel disappeared as an independent nation

Finally E for elohim

This also explains why Genesis one is so different from Genesis two, One is Yahveh and Genesis two is Elohim...

There is more, the mention of camels in the bible and caravans... they started to be used by the eight century BCE... not before

Of course there is more, all the references of the area are contemporary to references in Assyrian and Babylonian texts of the eight to seventh century B.C.E and given we do have a source for Josiah and we KNOW when he was king... see seventh century B.C.E... then it starts to jell that the stories of the patriarchs are allegory to the current people's and cultures of the time... in the form of a family quarrel

I highly recommend the book, unless you truly think that any of this is real history.

Oh and as to David... Lower Iron Age... enough said

[aquart]

7. I think you're being too dismissive of oral history.

Yes, history was retold to give it modern meaning. We do that today. Doesn't mean it was made of whole cloth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. You misunderstand, the oral history was weaved into the story

and helped to create a national identity.

In that era cultural heroes were seen as historical actors... but I doubt Gilgamesh was anything like advertised.... nor did he go to the underworld to fight things What he was, from waht we suspect, is a cultural hero and early Iron Age leader... best case

Gilgamesh stands for many things... and so does Abraham... in fact Abraham is more important since the story in the bible does not stop at the national creation myth.

That said the story of Noah... we KNOW who Noah was... and that he was indeed thrown out to sea by a flood. Just not a world wide flood that lasted forty days and forty nights.

We know Odisseus and the rest of the crew were also real... but not exactly how it was described in the Odissey... though we know the war actually happened

I care more for the actual history and am awed at the survival of these documents... but cannot see them in the fantastic way many folks see them

It is a wonderful exercise to see how Noah, the historical one, in cuneiform, was later weaved into the story in Genesis...

Now if you can prove that Abraham actually exist... well many folks will love it, but scholars have gone from trying to prove this, like Fullbright, to realizing what it really is.. allegory and that does not diminish oral history. IN fact, it is this oral history and stories that got weaved all over the place

[bean fidhleir]

37. Ha'aretz.com Friday, October 29, 1999

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

By Ze'ev Herzog (Prof. of Archaeology, U/Tel Aviv)

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it.

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

the rest can be read here: http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?p=2617681

[zeemike]

10. I don't think you get my point.

For instance;

"the mention of camels in the bible and caravans... they started to be used by the eight century BCE... not before"

What evidence is there that camels was not used before the 8th cen.BC?


And this;

"all the references of the area are contemporary to references in Assyrian and Babylonian texts of the eight to seventh century B.C.E?

If the biblical text is suspect of not being accurate or made up why would you assume the Babylonian texts was not also made up or an analogical story?

What I am saying is that none of this is science but noting but speculation, based on little or no factual evidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. We know Camels were not used before from ahem archeology

that pesky science

And as to ancient texts we now look into concurrence or close matches from several sources

We know Josiah was mentioned in both Assyrian and Babylonian texts, as well as Egyptian texts

So it would take a hell of a conspiracy to mention Josiah, a ruler of a relatively small and less than powerful kingdom, mostly seen as a province or place to get tribute, to be mentioned by sources of three empires... dated to the same time.

If you want to believe that the bible is for real... go for it. I could not have this conversation with my brother either... he is proof positive the Exodus actually happened, and he is proof positive the History Channel special proves it. After all the fundies told him this so it must be so.

As to Babylonian texts it is believed that if Gilgamesh was real, he was a small time king... but mostly it is seen as a piece of literature and ahem allegory

History and what passes for history today is a little more strict than it was oh even in the 18th century where legends were seen as primary sources.

[zeemike]

16. I don't make any assumptions about history

Because I know that history is long and very complex.
And for one to say that they know that camels were never used before a date is pure speculation and the science of archeology uses the slightest of evidence to make those assumptions.
If 5000 years from now the dug up a page out of the book "Another Roadside Attraction" that described a woman with large thumbs who was a professional hitchhiker would they conclude that all people in this time had large thumbs?
Or would they conclude that all literature was based on myth and legend and so conclude the text of "The Grapes of Wrath" was mythical because the story seems too unbelievable to be true.
My problem here is not with science but with people that make far reaching assumptions based on an extremely small armoumt of evidence.
And it is one thing to speculate and another to present that speculation as fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. You are also assuming that bitter enemies would have

a Judah King in their records to confuse us.... millenia after they were around...this makes perfect sense, NOT...

Now as a trained historian I cannot take the bible as history... sorry...

Nor the Story of Gilgamesh... or the Illiand or Oddisey. Never mind that yes we have evidence that the Trojan War did happen...but you truly think an arrow went through achilles, or that Hector acted as described, or Prince Priam?

And to despise science in this way is the height of ahem magical thinking

Have a good day

PS... you are telling me the grapes of wrath is history? Most place it as a novel... do you even know the difference between history and novels? (which to use a pesky historical term are considered SECONDARY SOURCES)...

[zeemike]

18. No the Grapes Of Wrath was a story about history

Just as the Iliad and the Oddesy was a story about history.
But just because it was written as fiction based on history does not mean that the history never happened. Or that because one part of it is made up the rest is also not true.
That was the mistake scholars made about the Trojan war. and it took someone that understood storytelling like Shulman (or whatever his name was, can't recall) to dig up Troy and prove them wrong.
I do ont despise science, but I do despise scientist that make assumptions based on there own bias instead of hard evidence.

And using the text of ancient literature as you have stated is not reliable evidence for anything...Right?...so why is it selectively used to show a negative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. This is why the Grapes is considered a SECONDARY SOURCE

not a primary source.

If it was a news paper, a diary or letters...or guv'ment documents it becomes a primary source.

See the difference?

The Iliad and the Odisey are considered IN SECTIONS secondary sources...

You could make the SAME argument for many ancient texts.. but they are also full of myth and stories of the moral kind.

There are "hard Histories" written back then... see Guv'ment archives in oh Babylon, detailing things like oh army lists, harvest, taxes... the same kind of crap that today is considered a primary source. Thyey are fun to read for the working historian... but not for most other folks.

The same goes for Egypt, the Greek City States, Asyria and even the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel,but Gilgamesh is LITERATURE... and so is the bible and MOST of those wonderful Homeric texts.

And as literature they have a solid place in the canon, but not as primary sources... at all.And as secondary sources...sections of them perhaps, and only when enough archeology, and concordance of outside records has happened.

[zeemike]

24. Well then having said that

What is your primary source for the conclusion that camels were not used before 800BC?
And what primary source is there for the conclusion that Abraham did not exist, at least as a major leader, and the Exodus never happened?

Is there enough primary sources to reach these conclusions or you just speculating on what might have been?

And by the way I happen to love those boring documents...I learned how much fun it can be when I was checking my gemology. It is amazing how much you can learn from those old documents.

But as to my take on history it is different than most...I start from the standpoint that it is true, and if they say it happened that way then I will accept that until I discover the real facts...and then I modify my view accordingly.
That is what Shulman did and it led him to Troy, and the treasure of Priam.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Camels archeology... you don't like that, but archeology is the source

The exodus... the dates don't jibe... archeology doesn't jibe. Contemporary records don't jibe. The closest to striking gold were the Hyksos and even that one has lost all kinds of air.

Now that said, there WAS immigration into Egypt from Canaa'an not once, but many times... for good reasons. Egypt had a more or less reliable water source (the nile) and Ca'naan to this day really doesn't... and droughts are bad when they occur. Hell there was immigrating from Greece as well. for the same reasons.

Gilgal is the name for a fort, as in any Egyptian fort... there were many of them.

The places mentioned are real... but archeology has not revealed anything happening in them in the late Iron age... when this exodus should have happened.

The dates for when the Israelites should have been in Egypt per Genesis and Exodus have no evidence in records, or archeology, the centuries difference is kind of impressive... not that there were not groups there on and off... since there were.

Oh and Ramses did exist... and his palaces might have been built by Ca'anites but that coincides with a later period than what we believed to be the case...and that is where you actually have some archeology to back it up, as well as guv'ment records and the Egyptians were quite annal by the way...

Oh and the first mention in outside sources of the People of Israel is in a Stella in Egypt, problem is, it is far after the accepted chronology for the Exodus.

There are other problems... like escaping Egypt when this supposedly happened has one serious problem. Not only was the Egypt of the era in charge of Ca'naan, but it was the superpower of the era. So you can almost guarantee being chased by troops and intercepted by troops. Oh and the accepted place for the encampment of 38 years has yielded exactly zero archeological evidence that a small group of people was there, let alone the multitudes mentioned in the Bible.

Now it is a wonderful story... the whole thing. The laws were given, by Priests who were indeed fighting polytheistic believes that were quite wide spread... So as a secondary source describing life in the Kingdom of Judah and the land under Josiah... there is evidence for this and the geography matches, as well as the archeology...

That said, you think Jewish (read Israeli historians and archeologists) are happy about this? After all Igdal Yavin was known to go to sites with a spade in one hand and a copy of the bible in the other. And in the early years he made critical discoveries that backed up the stories... except that they were off... by some centuries... aka the stables of King David are actually those of Josiah some years later... centuries later

Why don't you read this book, and get a copy of Biblical Archeology. To me the REAL history is as fascinating as those in the Bible, and they do not diminish the work in any way shape or form... but it is time that we, as a species, use the science that we have and stop believing in myths... as fascinating as they are. In fact, the real history proves to me that people who called themselves Israel inhabited the region starting around the ninth century B.C.E and there has been a constant habitation of people until oh today...

As to Abraham and the rest of the crew... they do not loose their value as patriarchs in the role of myth... but the whole thing also explains the political situation of the seventh century B.C.E very well. That said, next time I read the books of Genesis and Exodus... and the rest... I will have a very different take on what I am readying... and tempted to reach for a map of the ancient world.

Now if you are a practicing (insert member of either of the three major western religions) this could be a problem. As a Jew I understand that... what do you mean Sarah is not a real person? But rather an allegory... (And by the way pregnancy at 100+ years falls in the category of the virgin birth knowing a little medicine as well)

At one time The Illiad was thought to be 100% history, and if you read even Jefferson, he'd tell you this. These days we know it is only partly history... and at least to me this has not diminished the power of the story told to us by Homer. I suspect something similar will happen to the bible at least amongst experts and lay people interested in the actual history.

And every so often you do find a story that is actually based on an actual event... see Noah... we know who he was... name Noah is accurate, and we also know that he was a merchant king. He was thrown out to sea by a great flood, a five hundred year event. There is archeology about it, and documentary evidence. He ended up in modern day Bahrain... and his boat did hold a bunch of animals... so when I read Noah and the flood and realize this is based on an actual event that was probably remembered by many folks of the ancient Levant... kind of gives me a chuckle... as there you have it, the power of oral history in a story that we have actually managed to sort of confirm. Now the details in the bible are a tad exaggerated to teach a morality tale... but you can see that from the archeology at Troy... and especially the Illiad. That was the way ancient stories were written... many a times..

[zeemike]

29. The absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

With respect to the exodus they did not find evidence of many people in the desert so they concluded that it never happened.
But when logic is used how much evidence would you expect to find of a nomadic people who kept herds of animals?
Their encampments would not ben all concentrated in one place like you would find in a city.most likely they would be camped in small family groups spread out over a large area because of the need for grazing which is sparse in the desert lands.
So the likely hood of finding remnants of a nomadic people are slim, unless you are able to dig up hundreds of square miles. And if you did find something it would be from a small family group.

I looked up the history of camels and it said that they were domesticated about 3000 BC. So then what is the problem with references to the camel in the bible?
It also says that they did not use camels for pack animals until after 500 AD because it took them 3500 years to invent the saddle for the camel. I suppose because archeology did not find camel saddles in their digs before that date.
But again lack of evidence is not evidence, and one would not expect a saddle made of wood or other organic material to survive that long. And if the saddle was no longer used then it would have been used in other ways like fire wood and probably destroyed by the user.

The problem with starting with a preconceived notion is that you tend to reject evidence that does not agree with that conclusion and focus on the evidence that does.
I could give you many examples of this but I am sure you would not like to read such a long post. And besides I am not trying to convince you of anything...I am only saying that there is another way to think of things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. It is you who is starting with the preconceived notion that it happened

since it is in the bible so it must be so... which is the premise researches started with back in the day. They wanted to PROVE it happened... so they spent in some cases, professional lives going around looking for that evidence... see Fullbright for example. Since they believed they needed to find this evidence to confirm events as portrayed. Over the decades the thinking has changed, since guess what... they found no evidence, or what they found matched the place, but was off by centuries... so it was from a latter era.

Why do you think the Religious RIght WING created that wonderful special for the history channel? They are getting desperate since the consensus among specialists is that it didn't happen... much of the stories didn't happen as advertised... and people are aware of the consequences.

And I will take the evidence we have so far that tells me that the story is the exodus is more about the conflict of Hosiah and Pharaoh (aka the 7th century BCE) than it was about a myth, probably loosely based on a distant event that didn't go exactly as the bible described. See Noah, see Hycksos, the only possible match... to the actual expulsion of a group of people of Canaan from the land of Goshen... one that like Noah might be there, in the oral histories of the land. But the Hyksus were NOT the Hibaru. THey were ANOTHER group.

It does not diminish the value of passover, or the message... it is after all a message of freedom... and nobody said that the message is wrong, or wrong headed. On the contrary the message of freedom is as valid for Hosiah's contemporaries who had a national consciousness, as it is to us TODAY...

Why the problem?

Me, far more fascinating by the actual history... don't need the security blanket given by myth.

What is amazing is that people have no problem when told you know the Iliad is partly history, but mostly myth... nobody has a problem with the story of Gilgamesh being called a myth... but lord help us if we even suggest the same about the bible...

And sadly we have far more evidence for the Iliad ever happening the way Homer described (see encampments of an army around troy.. yes that pesky archeology) than we have of the exodus every happening. There have been many a digs on all sites mentioned in the bible... not a shard of pottery found... not a shard of evidence of the late iron age... so sorry if the evidence tells me that no... it did not happen.

Realty is I have provided evidence, but that is all I can do. You are not willing to look at it... so that's it.

Have a good day.

I have even suggested you read some material, more than that I cannot do

[zeemike]

38. The problem here is that the fundies get the attention.

They make outrageous claims and as a response the other side takes the exact opposite side.
It is a case of waring ideology. Which leaves the rest of us cold and unwilling to take sides in this dispute.

It is a real shame that we can't get beyond this and have a real scientific approach to history, but dogmas on both sides do not allow for it.
As you say, so much is at stake.

And it would do no good to present an other side to this story that is somewhat reasoned because of the "you are ether with us or against us" mentality on both sides. The truth is that you would not look at any evidence I presented ether, and if I mentioned it here I know what you would say....That has been debunked, or that is from a fundie source....and on and on.

So I end this conversation with no hope of ever solving this war of dogma...it simply can't be done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. If you feel threatened by this not being literally history

then it is dogma not science

And you are right... we will not agree... as I look at the possibility of this being the case, given concordance of sources, geography and other factors.

If you wish to dismiss all this that has emerged over the last 120 years or so... then so be it

[zeemike]

46. What you don't understand is that I don't dismiss anything.

I just question things that are based on the slimiest of evidence, and the lack of evidence being used as evidence.
History does not threaten me. I will accept any historical event when their is sufficient evidence to show it happened or not. I assume noting about the past because I was not their to witness it except what has happened in the last 60 years or so.

I don't make assumptions about history based on speculation, although they are interesting to read.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. The exodus as written in the Bible has no evidence

There is no evidence that the patriarchs existed

But we have quite a bit of evidence (emerging over the last 120 years) that it speaks of something else, a nation... a national identiy... of the Kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BCE

I have presented mine... I have even suggested you read the damn book.

But to you this book (and many others, some FAR MORE TECHNICAL) are slim

Okay

You are right.

We will not agree

After all them pointy headed SCHOLLARS are challenging the bible as a literal source... not that they started that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Actually, I remember reading that years ago,

that when an early Biblical story refers to camels (as in the story of Abraham sending his servant to find a wife for Isaac), the "camels" were most likely donkeys.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. These days they no longer think it even happened

and think of the consequences for three MAJOR Western Religions

[zeemike]

25. And just imagine the consequences when

we all think what "they" think.
No more need to even try to think for yourself...what a relief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Who is they?

[zeemike]

30. Well I don't know

It was you that said they did not believe it ever happened,

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. You mean specialists? People with spades, and carbon testing units

and ahem professional degrees? why ahem use them?


I guess we should do the same with medicine... after all why trust those pointy headed intellectuals?

[zeemike]

39. Yes that is the they of which you speak

But sorry if i don't let them do my thinking for me as smart and educated as they may be.
I prefer to use my own mind and form my own conclusions, and I feel adequate to the task.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yet you refuse to read the evidence that is emerging

that is the most anti intellectual post I have read in my years at DU

What is worst, this is not about a war of ideology... but rather a... drum roll... emerging consensus after 120 years of biblical archeology which started with the premise that the bible was literal history.

It is the SCIENCE that has advanced this knowledge

Oh and one more clue... the era of scientific history as you might understand it died a couple generations ago... and Toynbee was its best practitioner

[zeemike]

45. So now I am anti intellectual because I don't just accept it all

Without question.
And for your information I have read a lot of books in my life and most of them have been non fiction dealing with science.
But the difference is that I have also read many books that you would never read because of the bias you feel against anything out of the ordanary....not approved by the "they" you quote.

I simply do not just accept anything just because an educated person has written it...And if that is anti intellectual than so be it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. No , because you even refuse to consider it

since it is so ahem "slim"

Read the book

That is all I have to say to you at this point

[zeemike]

50. Well I have considered it....and have read some of the literature on it

So the problem is that I do not ancient it as fact.

But how about this, would you ever consider reading a book called "Worlds in Collision"
Here is the Wikipedia intro for it.

Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published on April 3, 1950, by Macmillan Publishers.<1> The book, Velikovsky's most criticized and controversial, was an instant New York Times bestseller, topping the charts for eleven weeks while being in the top ten for twenty-seven straight weeks.<2> Despite this popularity, overwhelming rejection of its thesis by the scientific community led Macmillan to stop publishing it and to transfer the book to Doubleday within two months (Friedlander 1995:14).

It is revel ant to this conversation because he did the opposite of what you are doing and assumed that the myths and legends had meaning and applied them to cosmology of the universe...He even used it to explain the plagues of Egypt and the manna in the desert.
And he was ridiculed for it and had the scientific community in an uproar...But some of his predictions were true, like the temperature of Venus and it;s atmosphere, long before we new much about the planet.
So he used all the secondary sources in the world to construct his theroy...

Would you read this? I think not because it is not approved by "they" and they have said it is bunk.

My own opinion of it is that he only got it partly right, just like the majority of theory's with little hard evidence.
My way of thinking is like that old saying
Don't say why say why not

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. You 'd be shocked but I read it YEARS ago, decades ago

I also read Eric Von Daniken's works.

Shocked?

I am sure you are

I will take the learned studies of them pointy headed intellectuals that have given plenty of evidence rather than the wild speculation of either Vesilovsky or Daniken

[zeemike]

52. So did I...in fact I had to look up who wrote it.

Cause my memory is weak over a 40 year span.
And I did also read Chariots of The Gods, and The Teachings of Don Juan, and so many that I don't remember the title of.
But the difference is that I do not dismiss anything. Even if I think it is far fetched.

And I do not call them pointy headed liberals or say anything disparaging their intelligence even thou many of them say that if you believe X or Y your are an idiot...

This life is a learning experience and I leave no idea behind.

[Lyric]

35. Actually, you aren't technically correct.

Speaking as someone who learned about science and "proof" directly from a biological scientist, there really is no such thing as "100% absolute "proof" in science. There are theories and laws that are accepted as being proven for practical reasons, but they are not 100% utterly "proven" because proof on that level is virtually impossible. For example, consider Cell Theory--the scientific theory that all living things are composed of cells. For all practical purposes, this is accepted as fact--but because it is impossible to literally test EVERY biological organism that has ever existed to see if it is comprised of cells, this can never be 100% proven.

This is what fundamentalist religious folks fail to understand about evolution as a "theory." In science, a theory is the closest thing to "proof" that exists, but because we cannot test every single living thing that has ever existed to see where it came from and how it came to be the way that it is, evolution can never be said to be "proven" in the scientific sense. The same goes for Gravity, Cell Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and every other scientific theory or law that has ever existed.

This doesn't have much to do with the OP--I just wanted to clarify that "probably" is actually very scientific, while "proven" is not. That is the difference between science and religion--science is ALL about "probably," whereas religion claims universal truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. The same goes in History by the way

especially ancient history were you need to rely on archeology, and sources

100% certainty is not something we can look for since that is impossible.

Now in modern history that is far more possible, due to sources and witnesses... but also the standards of what passes for history and sources, have changed dramatically....

But we are also aware that in the human "sciences" (there is a reason for the quotation marks), there is a certain bias... even in history where objectivity is the gold standard, but one almost impossible to achieve

[semillama]

49. Actually, it's VERY scientific to say "probably was"

Since in science, nothing is 100% verifiable. And especially with archaeology, where you are basically dealing with a puzzle that is missing 98% of its pieces. It's a tribute to the good science that gets done by archaeologists that we know anything at all about prehistoric peoples - and we know an awful lot!

[aquart]

5. You really are starting from scratch, aren't you?

Friedman: Who Wrote the Bible

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060630353/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link>

Graves and Patai: Hebrew Myths

<http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Myths-Robert-Graves/dp/0385263309>

And then, if you're prepared to deal with speculation about serious questions in Egyptian chronology, go to Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos. He may not have answers you accept, but he asks killer questions.

<http://www.amazon.com/Ages-Chaos-Immanuel-Velikovsky/dp/0848814975>

<http://www.google.com/search?q=Velikovsky+%22Ages+in+Chaos%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2>

The Velikovsky Archive offers his unpublished work, including his correspondence with Einstein.

<http://www.varchive.org/>

Don't accept the first half-assed theory you read. Sometimes books are remaindered for a reason.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Nah, just found a cheap book at B&N the other big buy was the history of the

Peloponnesian war, with some Asimov

I knew a lot of this already...

But I could not pass a four dollar book that usually goes for 15... the book on the peloponnesian war goes for 50 or so, and it was also in the remnants

I wanted to share it... that is all

(and for source on the creation of religion it is a GOOD book)

By the way the Peloponnesian one was remaindered since they could not move it, classic in the field

:-)

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Used this story as Headline News in my W. Civ high school class today

It's a combo W. Civ/World Geography class grade 9. (SpEd) I condense the articles to the main facts, and include a picture and a map.

We're currently studying the Middle East, so the news stories I use usually relate to the chapter being taught.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm

'Oldest Hebrew script' is found

Five lines of ancient script on a shard of pottery could be the oldest example of Hebrew writing ever discovered, an archaeologist in Israel says.

The shard was found by a teenage volunteer during a dig about 20km (12 miles) south-west of Jerusalem.

Experts at Hebrew University said dating showed it was written 3,000 years ago - about 1,000 years earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Other scientists cautioned that further study was needed to understand it.

more at link...

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Thanks, that places it around the ninth century B.C.E...

about 200 years before Josiah and the first time we heard a thing about "the people's of the sea," which are believed to have come from the Aegean region... due to a bad drought. Yes the Philistines were greeks... in a manner of speaking

The Scrolls have been dated to circa 70 C.E

As to the language... fascinating... we had the chance to see the scrolls during their world tour... and it was amazing... how much the script has changed, even from 70 C.E. I mean some I could read... some ... no way, no how.

[Elidor]

13. I'll have to add that to my reading list

And in a similar vein:

God: a Biography
by Jack Miles

He treats the entire bible as a fictional narrative, with God as the protagonist of the greatest story ever told. The dual-personality disconnect between God, the loving father, and The LORD, a stern authoritarian. Written by a former Jesuit. I didn't quite finish it, but it was quite good at times, very dry and scholarly at others. A little too exhaustive and comprehensive, perhaps, but full of astounding insights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Will have to go into my readying list

and that matches the elohim school the loving father, and the Yahveh group, the Stern father.

:-) and a former jesuit wrote that ... not surprising it was dry and ahem scholarly. This was has plenty of footnotes too.. but it has been an easy read so far

[Elidor]

15. He also gets into a whole thing about the Tetragrammaton

But his main point is that when the bible says anything about "God," it tends to be softer and more understanding. Any mention of "the Lord" is almost always harsh and domineering and cruel. That doesn't do justice to the scope of his writing and scholarship, but it's a good enough hook that most of what follows is very rewarding.

It occurs to me that I'm writing a review, heh. I should stop.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Edan was in Iran!

they have done research on this. Fascinating!

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Indeed... at times it seems the current conflict

had very ... VERY deep roots

[alfredo]

21. Biblical Archeology Review.

http://www.bib-arch.org/

[immoderate]

33. Isaac Asimov described this is his books on the bible decades ago.

He mentioned that these biblical patriarchs represented tribes of people.

--IMM

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Asimov was a very well read man

this idea that they were tribes is decades old

I'm not surprised.

The book I am readying right now is not written for the specialist though, why I brought it out to people's attention

And I am having quite a bit of fun readying it.

I am far from a specialist by the way... in ancient history that is... but I also remember my instructors of Western Civ 101 actually going into this back in the day... to the horror of the couple fundies in the class.

But I am a trained historian and I always appreciate a book written for the laity in the field that goes into things like source concordance without making it sound too complicated. (It can be)

[immoderate]

36. It's on my reading list. I hope I can get to it.

And thank you for spreading the word.

--IMM

[noel711]

40. This is not 'news...'

Sadly, the barely literate use the Hebrew Bible, and the
subsequent post-Jesus writings as a 'how to' book.

But many who have studied this scripture, and how it
unfurled throughout history, know most of this, and more.

I'm glad you found this; I wish more folks would read it.

I'm clergy in a liberal denomination
(I kind of wince when I say that here...
I usually get bashed as a fundie, which I am not,
or I get told I need to straighten out all the
leftie religious.. I wish I could)...

When I attempt to have serious biblical study
in my parish, most folks don't have time.

I think they'd rather believe the crap out there
than really engage scholarship, which says
much about the state of the faithful.
"Just tell me what to believe, pastor,
and tell me how to get rich quick,
and beat up on all those folks I can't stand."

I do get discouraged.

Real faith means reading between the lines,
living lives of compassion and justice,
and being kind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I know it is not news, just approachable

read above and the exchange I had with a fellow DU'er

People are threatened by the idea that this may not be literal history

Never mind that these facts in no way diminish the messages... for example the Exodus... aka freedom

By the way the best theological discussions I ever had were with a Jesuit Father... oh at dark hundred... during a Christmas when I was working as a medic down in Tijuana.

Didn't start too well... what do you mean you are not going to mass?

Forgive me father, I am Jewish, my partner is agnostic... and the radio man got the short stick... we are IT for the city while you do your service unless all hell breaks loose.

He chuckled, smiled blessed us and moved on

After mass we had a very quiet night... they are either hell on earth, or quiet... and we talked until the sun rose about these things, including biblical archeology and how it was changing the way at least the Jesuit order was treating the old testament.

Come Passover I brought them boxes of unleavened bread for the seder they held every year... which they could not get in Tijuana. Border control had many a questions as I crossed with a car with the back seat full to the window with boxes. And did the same for two more years... hell one of those was one day I had duty, so they invited me and my partner... and that was a very different Passover dinner than anything we do at home.

I no longer volunteer and I doubt the Father is still working down there... I miss those discussions

And yes I know... the Jesuits are quite liberal... and learned

[Le Taz Hot]

53. Fascinating.

The entire thread so far. Thanks.

[paparush]

54. Bumpersticker I saw the other day - "If its not King James, its not the BIBLE!"

*choke* *sputter*

I'm always amazed at these working poor Christo-Taliban types who base their entire faith on a book that was edited by a rich, fat, white, English king. The same kind of rich, fat, white English king we fought a Revolution to get away from.


"Religion is for people afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for people who've already been there."

[MANative]

55. Thanks for posting about this. I'm fascinated by

true origins history. A trip to B&N seems in order! I'm also going to pass this along to my BIL, who is a minister and scholar of early texts.

:hi: