Archaeology to the Rescue of the Bible?

[_Philo Sofee]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... tions.html

Names found do nothing to confirm the story as the Bible tells it, and Dr Peterson is well enough read to know this. William G. Dever's materials are the antidote to this myopic naïvété.
Dr. Peterson wrote "The Old Testament is deeply rooted in history, and archaeology is helping to demonstrate that. Two recent articles summarize the evidence that ancient inscriptions provide in support of biblical stories." and this is patently overstated as Dever has shown in his book "Who were the Early Israelites?.........
Dr. Peterson also chimes "None of this proves the Bible’s supernatural claims true," I actually would say none of this proves any of the historical claims, conversations or occurrences with all those names being found prove it historically valid either. The mere mention of a name is not proof it is the BIBLICAL person. Surely Dr. Peterson is aware of that at least? The name Abraham being found or someone else does not necessarily mean the Biblical patriarch, even if in an ancient inscription. Again, much material by William G. Dever demonstrates conclusively that MUCH of the Bible did not happen as it is written, though there may be.....MAY be a smidgin of history behind SOME of it, a very little of it.

and then there is the complete lack of archaeological evidence for Book of Mormon names in Mesoamerica, but I digress......

And I know, I come across as picking on Dr. Peterson, I don't see that. I am not picking on him, I am practicing my critical thinking skills on his claims. If I didn't respect him, I would ignore him all together. But his claims are just outlandishly way out there on so much, and I am learning how to realistically analyze them as well as the assumptions behind them, so I share my new critical thinking attitude here amongst you all. Sorry for the bother.

And one more thing. His overall carry away with this is to show that once lost and forgotten folks are being discovered in the Bible, the same will happen with the Book of Mormon, so hang in there with your faith. There ain't much yet, but it's on the way! THAT is the entire point of this article of his, reading between the lines. He doesn't fool me at all.

[_Aristotle Smith]

William G. Dever's materials are the antidote to this myopic naïveté.

Dr. Peterson wrote "The Old Testament is deeply rooted in history, and archaeology is helping to demonstrate that. Two recent articles summarize the evidence that ancient inscriptions provide in support of biblical stories." and this is patently overstated as Dever has shown in his book "Who were the Early Israelites?

Again, much material by William G. Dever demonstrates conclusively that MUCH of the Bible did not happen as it is written, though there may be.....MAY be a smidgin of history behind SOME of it, a very little of it.

I am practicing my critical thinking skills on his claims....so I share my new critical thinking attitude here amongst you all. Sorry for the bother.

So two things, you like Dever and you want to practice your critical thinking skills. My suggestion would be to re-read Dever to see what he is saying. I suggest starting with his book What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Or if that is too much, just re-read chapter 6. Or if that is still too much read, read pp 267-274.

Suffice it to say, I don't think you correctly summarize Dever's position. Certainly from an ex-Mormon who has largely interpreted the Bible from a Mormon-centric viewpoint I can understand why you would make that summary. The problem for most Mormons is that archaeology provides the least support to parts of the Bible that Mormons find most interesting and important. So from that viewpoint any support archaeology can provide will be largely useless to Mormon reading and interpretation.

There is a historical core to the Bible, however it's in the parts that Mormons don't care much about. For example, Dever rightly points out that 11th - 10th century Israel shows the beginning of a state in the Judean highlands with a unified culture and government. This parallels the story of 1-2 Samuel. Does archaeology "prove" the stories of Saul and David? No, but archaeology can't even do that in theory. It can show that the context is right, that the conditions are right, that some of the names are right, etc. But it can't "prove" stories because bones, stones, and casemate walls don't speak.

But the real problem for Mormonism is that it really doesn't give a crap about Saul or David. D&C 132 puts David in hell, so who really cares what he did? Putting some flesh on David's story is interesting to academics, Jews, and Christians, but probably doesn't interest many Mormons because they aren't interested in David.

I do think that archaeology does support parts of the Bible, large chunks actually. Unfortunately, those large chunks are generally ignored by Mormons and contain little if anything Mormons actually care about.

[_aussieguy55]

Does that mean that the claim in The Bible Unearthed by Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein that the exodus and conquest did not happen is wrong?

[_Philo Sofee]

William G. Dever's materials are the antidote to this myopic naïveté.

Dr. Peterson wrote "The Old Testament is deeply rooted in history, and archaeology is helping to demonstrate that. Two recent articles summarize the evidence that ancient inscriptions provide in support of biblical stories." and this is patently overstated as Dever has shown in his book "Who were the Early Israelites?

Again, much material by William G. Dever demonstrates conclusively that MUCH of the Bible did not happen as it is written, though there may be.....MAY be a smidgin of history behind SOME of it, a very little of it.

I am practicing my critical thinking skills on his claims....so I share my new critical thinking attitude here amongst you all. Sorry for the bother.

So two things, you like Dever and you want to practice your critical thinking skills. My suggestion would be to re-read Dever to see what he is saying. I suggest starting with his book What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Or if that is too much, just re-read chapter 6. Or if that is still too much read, read pp 267-274.

Suffice it to say, I don't think you correctly summarize Dever's position. Certainly from an ex-Mormon who has largely interpreted the Bible from a Mormon-centric viewpoint I can understand why you would make that summary. The problem for most Mormons is that archaeology provides the least support to parts of the Bible that Mormons find most interesting and important. So from that viewpoint any support archaeology can provide will be largely useless to Mormon reading and interpretation.

There is a historical core to the Bible, however it's in the parts that Mormons don't care much about. For example, Dever rightly points out that 11th - 10th century Israel shows the beginning of a state in the Judean highlands with a unified culture and government. This parallels the story of 1-2 Samuel. Does archaeology "prove" the stories of Saul and David? No, but archaeology can't even do that in theory. It can show that the context is right, that the conditions are right, that some of the names are right, etc. But it can't "prove" stories because bones, stones, and casemate walls don't speak.

But the real problem for Mormonism is that it really doesn't give a crap about Saul or David. D&C 132 puts David in hell, so who really cares what he did? Putting some flesh on David's story is interesting to academics, Jews, and Christians, but probably doesn't interest many Mormons because they aren't interested in David.

I do think that archaeology does support parts of the Bible, large chunks actually. Unfortunately, those large chunks are generally ignored by Mormons and contain little if anything Mormons actually care about.

I just finished that book by Dever this last week, as well as his second book along the lines of that book "Who Were the Ancient Israelites and Where Were They From?" In BOTH books, he does acknowledge there may very well be some kind of historical core to the Israelites, but not as it is propounded by the biblical record. Archaeology does *not* support what the Bible says about the Israelites, their power, their influence, their travels, and accomplishments. That there was an ancient Israel is what Dever is saying (Patriarchs are not part of that historic picture, they are myth), but we don't learn about the real Israel from the Bible, rather from the archaeology. He is a buzzing bee of fomenting anger against the minimalists such as Lemche, Thompson, and and several others. I find the minimalists fascinating as well, but for now see Dever as having the more realistic approach.

That said, yes, the historical aspects of the Old Testament certainly do not give Mormonism a warm fuzzy feeling in their breasts, no doubt. But Peterson leaves it in the air that the suggestion is oh we have the NAMES of people with the same names in the Bible, therefore the Bible is historical, is utterly wrong headed. Just having a name does nothing to verify anything or anyone, since the names were cross culturally used in many other outside areas other than in Israel and the Bible.

Thompson discussions against Albright is partly what undid Albright's method from the 1940's - 1970's. Thompson infused a much more real reality into the discussion, along with Van Seters on just how truly mythological the Patriarchal era is. It is the later era, the middle and late Bronze Age that Dever says the archaeology in a loose sort of way can begin being fit into a genuine historical Israel, and I think he's onto something. But at the same time, he most definitely says that Israel is NOT described at all, properly, in the Bible. You don't find real history in the Exodus stories of myth of the conquest stories of myth in Joshua or Numbers.

That is what I was trying to say. And Dever says it so much better...LOL! It just appears to me Dr. Peterson leaves far too much hanging up in the air as if oh you find a few names, you get to believe the entire history as it is written. This is what Dever has thoroughly and soundly refuted. At least so far as I can fathom in reading his materials. I mean, for instance, the folk religion of Israel, the stuff that wasn't written, as found in his book "Does God Have a Wife?" That has NOTHING to do with having an early version of Mormonism as Mormons love to imagine and I used to think as an apologist. No, the actual religion and practice of it was vastly different than anything we have in the written records that remain, archaeology has shown that. Mormonism would call the "Folk-Religion" of early Israel as pure apostate, ugly, and very necessary of repenting of and getting rid of, but it was THE MAIN RELIGION of the majority of people. That is what Dever is so very good at showing.

[_Philo Sofee]

Does that mean that the claim in The Bible Unearthed by Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein that the exodus and conquest did not happen is wrong?

Dever and Finkelstein knock heads quite often, and it is fascinating reading to see their different points of view, and where they agree. Overall, Dever appears to me to be more of a polemicist, but that is because Finkelstein has almost come out as being a so-called "Minimalist," that is, one who thinks there is no history anywhere in the Old Testament. Dever says a lot of what is written is bunk, or propaganda, to be sure, but that doesn't mean Israel were not historical people. FInkelstein's earlier work was fine with Dever, it was in his later years that he fell off the boat, according to Dever. He says much the same about Thompson's materials. He has nothing but disdain for other "Minimalists." Dever is one of the most complete informed archaeologists however, and one cannot dimply dismiss his views. However, so far as I read him, he simply does not in any way imaginable say archaeology proves let alone even supports much of the Biblical version of events. THAT, (in other words what we read today in the Bible pages) is more or less truly just propaganda written from a later era about what they wanted the earlier Israelites to be. Propaganda that was very useful to the writers in the 700-600 B.C. range. Interestingly enough the literacy of ancient Israel has been shown to be just in this era, according to William M. Schniedewind "How the Bible Became a Book," a truly magnificent read!

All that being said I found Thompson's "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives," utterly convincing! It isn't this text (actually his doctoral dissertation that was rejected originally!) that Dever is so much against, as his other book "The Mythic Past," But I found that profoundly insightful as well, but I also acknowledge that a lot of what Dever critiques about it is spot on.

I rather enjoyed Van Seters book "Abraham in History and Tradition" as well, which helped outdate the Albright school of Biblical Archaeology (a misnomer, to be quite sure). His new book "The Edited Bible" I have just started.

Philip R. Davies, "Memories of Ancient Israel" I thought provocative, but ultimately his idea that the narratives came about in the later Hellenistic times around 400-200 B.C. really appears to me to be stretching it. Of course, Schniedewind's analysis makes far more sense to me, based on the archaeological data. I have just recently begun to read "The Quest for the Historical Israel," by Finkelstein and Mazar which I am very interested in as well.

I have had to get into all of this because of Nibley (whom Peterson emulates) and his views on ancient Israel, which I think are grossly distorted carrying a lot of assumptional baggage that cannot be supported. So I have had to begin wading in the deep waters of the Minimalists vs. the maximalists, and find it incredibly entertaining, fun, and thoroughly showing me how my Mormon assumptions are all just garbage and wishful thinking. More later......

[_Yahoo Bot]

I don't think I the backyard professor gets Dever. May I call him Johnny Fever? Fever is beloved by various LDS revisionists, including and especially Kevin Christensen, Daniel Peterson and others. They use Fever to legitimize the Bible by reading out of the Old Testament its patriarchy and to some extent its violence. I think Fever is just a panderer or else can't get beyond political correctness.

[_Philo Sofee]

I don't think I the backyard professor gets Dever. May I call him Johnny Fever? Fever is beloved by various LDS revisionists, including and especially Kevin Christensen, Daniel Peterson and others. They use Fever to legitimize the Bible by reading out of the Old Testament its patriarchy and to some extent its violence. I think Fever is just a panderer or else can't get beyond political correctness.

In other words you don't have a clue...... thanks for letting us in on that little window of your soul....
Edited to add:
That you think Dever is into political correctness is utterly hilarious!!! If there is one person on this planet who doesn't give a flying damn about political correctness it's Dever. Perhaps it might help you out if you actually read something he has written before trying to stupidly pigeon hole him so wrongly? Just a thought is all.......

[_Yahoo Bot]

I don't think I the backyard professor gets Dever. May I call him Johnny Fever? Fever is beloved by various LDS revisionists, including and especially Kevin Christensen, Daniel Peterson and others. They use Fever to legitimize the Bible by reading out of the Old Testament its patriarchy and to some extent its violence. I think Fever is just a panderer or else can't get beyond political correctness.

In other words you don't have a clue...... thanks for letting us in on that little window of your soul....
Edited to add:
That you think Dever is into political correctness is utterly hilarious!!! If there is one person on this planet who doesn't give a flying damn about political correctness it's Dever. Perhaps it might help you out if you actually read something he has written before trying to stupidly pigeon hole him so wrongly? Just a thought is all.......

The book that had LDS liberal Old Testament scholars all agog (Peterson, Christensen) was Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2852-3, wherein he says he is a feminist and Canaanite history should be viewed that way. Lots of peer criticism of that approach.

I think it is dangerous to latch on to somebody like Dever, accept him as gospel, without recognizing the weaknesses others have pointed out.

[_aussieguy55]

From Finkelstein

Chapter Did the Exodus Happen?

"The conclusion - that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible - seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) and where some archaeological indication would almost certainly be found. According to the biblical narrative the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. ... yet repeated excavations a d surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees" p.61

In those forty years a lot of them would have died. Where were they buried? People produce things , nothing like pottery etc What did they eat?

[Guest]

Yahoo Bot
I think it is dangerous to latch on to somebody like Dever, accept him as gospel, without recognizing the weaknesses others have pointed out.

Agreed, that's why I don't do that. I do however read him seriously and see his points and give him credit for them when they are supported with the evidence.