The Bible unearthed

[deacon blues]

I am just finishing "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein, and my biggest take is that Biblical archaeology is fascinating! For one thing, there are real archaeological sites, where the the cities of Megiddo, Sumeria, Hazor, and Jerusalem, actually existed. Dr. Finkelstein's hypotheses may or may not be true (he believes that much of the history of the Old Testament was political and/or religious propaganda) but there is real evidence to discuss here, not just Mormon wishful thinking. I would recommend the book and another one: "Who were the Ancient Israelites and Where did They Come From" by William Deaver. Even if these people are wrong (their research seems solid) there is some fascinating information one can really sink one's teeth into.

[dogbite]

I'm reading it too. I wonder how differently he'd write it today with the collapse of the documentary hypothesis. I mean I liked how he called out the J and E sources that showed particular bias and most agree the books are written when he says, but the source material is now thought to be younger than he thinks it was at the time of his writing this, copyright 2001.

https://vridar.org/2012/11/06/collapse- ... iterature/

[deacon blues]

I'm just getting my feet wet in all this, but it seems to me that rumors of a "collapse" of the documentary hypothesis could be greatly exaggerated. Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out.

[achilles]

I'm just getting my feet wet in all this, but it seems to me that rumors of a "collapse" of the documentary hypothesis could be greatly exaggerated. Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out.

Exactly...has it really collapsed? Or are we just finding that it was on the right track but off on some details?

I get the impression that in the first half of the twentieth century, there were many theologian CES folks that could talk about the D hypothesis, and actually have a conversation with kids and adults about how literal the bible actually is. But that stuff got promptly whipped out of CES (I think E. Packer was involved...) in favor of a carefully crafted narrative. No more higher criticism for us, Job was actually a real person and Satan really did make a deal with God over Job's faithfulness.

It amazes me just how long my 6000 year old earth/human race paradigm persisted in the face of overwhelming scientific and archaeological evidence to the contrary. Well into my 30s...

[dogbite]

The argument in simple terms is stated in the start of the Bible Unearthed. To create the religious literature (propaganda} like the books of the Bible requires a certain socioeconomic structure and centralized power.

Those are also lacking at the times the J and E source documents would have to have been crafted. Indeed the archaeology doesn't support earlier J and E belief and practices as claimed in the bible; a requisite of the J and E doctrines. The doublets are not directly explained except to say that there is broad disagreement about what constitutes J and E in many of those cases.

There are strong arguments the Noah story for example is from the exile which wouldn't warrant a J And E version though there seems to be. Similarly for parts of the creation story, there are Exile elements for both of J and E stories.

DH originally assumes J And E are monotheistic duplicates which we now know they're not. They are pagan references. And later D H theories adapt to that evidence. but their Pagan roles don't support the roles that they take in the biblical narrative. So they're being duplicates is not so supportable. Indeed some of the j and e sources are thought to change within the same verse. That sort of melding is a lot of editing work and not well supported by the roughness of other duplicates.

the documentary hypothesis is strictly a textual analysis. it wasn't based in archaeology originally and the archaeology is diverging from its premises and arguments.

Indeed The Bible Unearthed directly says the existing narrative we have is a late Judah construct. It doesn't require Jand E forerunners is an implication of that claim though not where he goes as he references J and E sources. Israel Finkelstein explicitly notes that the Judah centric narrative gets the North kingdom stories wrong based on the archaeology. This casts doubt that they would also preserve the E story as it would be against their beliefs and goals of what they were writing. At the time of writing they set out to destroy the northern religious shrine in Bethel in competition with the Jerusalem shrine after the North is conquered. Finkelstein notes that there never was a unified north and south kingdom. so where would these unified stories have come together? The history necessary to generate the J and E stories of the DH and bring them together is not present in the soil.

The US and Israel are the holdouts for the DH support. I wonder if the higher religiosity of those countries in spite of their strong modernity is one of those reasons. there's similar support for Q in those countries where the other nations tend to be more markan priority. There seems to be some religious conservatism in play at some level.

I wouldn't say that this is a settled argument but I find it interesting how it evolves.

[moksha]

It is interesting how old stories from the past have some actual archeological evidence. The Sumerian city-state of Uruk actually existed and there is evidence that Gilgamesh was a historical king. But did he aid the goddess Ianna or hang around with his buddy Enkidu?

The city of Troy was discovered by 19th Century archeologist Heinrich Schliemann. So Homer had that part down (more or less), but what of Paris, Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse. The horse is believable because I could see apologists conceiving of it and even building it with some help. What of Oddyseus? Oddyseus was hindered in his voyage home by the harpies, which represented hurricane force winds causing a tempest-tossed sea. But what evidence is there for the harpies beyond the present day existence of the moderators for the Mormon D&D forum?

Anyway, speculating on the stories surrounding actual archeological evidence is fun.

[deacon blues]

The thing about all this is it takes a lot of time and work sorting through all the scholarly stuff. "The Bible Unearthed" gives us just a fraction of the research that has been done archaeologists, and its relation to the Bible text.Google Documentary Hypothesis and or search on Amazon and you will find dozens of books, papers, essays, etc., both recent and old about it. Dogbite has given me an interesting perspective to explore, but exploring it will take some time. I have great admiration for people that can edit and consolidate research and make it intelligible to ordinary blokes like me. The evidence seems to lead to a largely mythical Pentateuch and Old Testament history, that was written centuries after oral traditions they were based on originated. Not entirely unlike the BOM.

But there are books or essays that will say that the debunking of the DocHyp means that the bible is inerrant and/or produced literally by God. It's a jungle out there boys and girls. I am impressed that evangelical apologetics seems a a lot like Mormon apologetics.

[deacon blues]

After reading two books and several articles on archaeology in the lands of Israel and Palestine, it seems that, at some point, Christian and/or Jewish Apologetics will begin to follow the stance of Book of Mormon apologists when confronted by new World Archaeology. Archaeology may confirm a few historical facts of the Old Testament, but much of the current Mid-East Archaeology reveals a different world than the one found on Joshua/Judges/1st and 2nd Samuel, and 1st Kings. It would seem more likely that the Old Testament Pentateuch and History was written by somebody like Jeremiah or Ezra, than Moses. Of course, I (or the books) could be wrong.

[deacon blues]

https://www.jweekly.com/2001/05/04/l-a- ... dus-story/ Sometimes the truth takes a while to gain traction.

[deacon blues]

https://rationalfaiths.com/the-weird-an ... de-12-277/ Here's a 46:00 minute podcast that deals with the topic as well. The opening movie trailer is pretty funny.

[Palerider]

It would seem more likely that the Old Testament Pentateuch and History was written by somebody like Jeremiah or Ezra, than Moses.

With the Jews having such a strong oral tradition, my thinking has been that initially the oral tradition was the only one to exist.

Later, the written tradition or scriptures were produced and actually lived along side the oral. Both had great significance and apparently varied only moderately from each other. When the written scripture was actually accomplished, you may know better than I.

I can't imagine the efforts to memorize an oral history the size of the Torah...

Jeremiah lived around the 6th century BC, right?

The Septuagint or LXX was translated around 300 BC, so the basic written Torah would have had to have been well established by then.

I know the archeology isn't currently supportive. I guess I'm one of those types that are happy to read the latest info available and yet cling to a hope that the history in the rocks doesn't tell us everything.

I know, I know....sounds almost like a Moron, er Mormon apologist.

[Emower]

The argument in simple terms is stated in the start of the Bible Unearthed. To create the religious literature (propaganda} like the books of the Bible requires a certain socioeconomic structure and centralized power.

Those are also lacking at the times the J and E source documents would have to have been crafted. Indeed the archaeology doesn't support earlier J and E belief and practices as claimed in the bible; a requisite of the J and E doctrines. The doublets are not directly explained except to say that there is broad disagreement about what constitutes J and E in many of those cases.

There are strong arguments the Noah story for example is from the exile which wouldn't warrant a J And E version though there seems to be. Similarly for parts of the creation story, there are Exile elements for both of J and E stories.

DH originally assumes J And E are monotheistic duplicates which we now know they're not. They are pagan references. And later D H theories adapt to that evidence. but their Pagan roles don't support the roles that they take in the biblical narrative. So they're being duplicates is not so supportable. Indeed some of the j and e sources are thought to change within the same verse. That sort of melding is a lot of editing work and not well supported by the roughness of other duplicates.

the documentary hypothesis is strictly a textual analysis. it wasn't based in archaeology originally and the archaeology is diverging from its premises and arguments.

Indeed The Bible Unearthed directly says the existing narrative we have is a late Judah construct. It doesn't require Jand E forerunners is an implication of that claim though not where he goes as he references J and E sources. Israel Finkelstein explicitly notes that the Judah centric narrative gets the North kingdom stories wrong based on the archaeology. This casts doubt that they would also preserve the E story as it would be against their beliefs and goals of what they were writing. At the time of writing they set out to destroy the northern religious shrine in Bethel in competition with the Jerusalem shrine after the North is conquered. Finkelstein notes that there never was a unified north and south kingdom. so where would these unified stories have come together? The history necessary to generate the J and E stories of the DH and bring them together is not present in the soil.

The US and Israel are the holdouts for the DH support. I wonder if the higher religiosity of those countries in spite of their strong modernity is one of those reasons. there's similar support for Q in those countries where the other nations tend to be more markan priority. There seems to be some religious conservatism in play at some level.

I wouldn't say that this is a settled argument but I find it interesting how it evolves.

So, its late, and I have a ton of stuff I want to read, but is the competing hypothesis to the DH that most/all was post-exilic?

[dogbite]

There are people who think that. What I've seen is that rather than JEDP, the first 7 books are D. And P revisions for the next 4-500 years as monotheism is developed in exile.

[deacon blues]

It would seem more likely that the Old Testament Pentateuch and History was written by somebody like Jeremiah or Ezra, than Moses.

With the Jews having such a strong oral tradition, my thinking has been that initially the oral tradition was the only one to exist.

Later, the written tradition or scriptures were produced and actually lived along side the oral. Both had great significance and apparently varied only moderately from each other. When the written scripture was actually accomplished, you may know better than I.

I can't imagine the efforts to memorize an oral history the size of the Torah...

Jeremiah lived around the 6th century BC, right?

The Septuagint or LXX was translated around 300 BC, so the basic written Torah would have had to have been well established by then.

I know the archeology isn't currently supportive. I guess I'm one of those types that are happy to read the latest info available and yet cling to a hope that the history in the rocks doesn't tell us everything.

I know, I know....sounds almost like a Moron, er Mormon apologist.

Thanks for your candid thoughts Pale. The history in rocks will only give us a few pieces of the puzzle. There seems to be a spectrum of views ranging from %100 literal believers, to those who find evidence that supports some O.T. history, to minimalists who believe it was all made up as religious propaganda. It's been interesting to explore, but I'm constantly reminded that no one knows more than a minute fraction of what's going on in the current world, let alone the ancient one. Trust in a God of Truth and Love, and seek that God: That's my ideal.

[Emower]

There seems to be a spectrum of views ranging from %100 literal believers, to those who find evidence that supports some O.T. history, to minimalists who believe it was all made up as religious propaganda. It's been interesting to explore, but I'm constantly reminded that no one knows more than a minute fraction of what's going on in the current world, let alone the ancient one. Trust in a God of Truth and Love, and seek that God: That's my ideal.

The religious propaganda view is interesting to me, not that I believe that angle. One of my friends sent me a youtube presentation where the gist was that Christianity was invented by the Flavian Roman emperors. It was a little crackpotish, but there were some things that made me sit back and say "hmmm."