The Naked Archaeologist

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I thought the Septuagint predated our earliest Masoretic texts.

Wouldn't know exactly. I'm simply posting about a fun television show on the history channel.

It's fascinating to me that this rather inconsiquential diversion can examine and to a degree dismantle the Documentary Hypothesis with realative ease and nothing more than an agenda to entertain.

It makes one wonder about how much faith one should place in academia and the things they pass for knowledge in the hallowed halls of schools of history.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I thought the Septuagint predated our earliest Masoretic texts.

This is true, but we do have Hebrew texts that predate Masoretic texts. As for what this documentary is claiming, it sounds very much on the fringe of scholarship. I've been amazed at some of the claims made on cable about religious scholarship. You'll find some of these very fringe claims being presented on networks like History Channel, A&E, etc, as though they were being seriously debated among scholars, when in reality, they are not (no serious scholar thinks Moses wrote the Pentateuch---zero, zilch, nada). Much like the shows you see on these networks about crop circles, things like that. Two sides are often presented in a very unequal light.

About the argument that Israelites were literate at the time of Moses....most scholars think that at the time Moses was written, a large majority of the forebears of the Israelites were Canaanites, polytheistic, syncretistic both relitiously and politically, and that it wasn't until much later that there was a split in which a group of Canaanites rejected the Canaanite god El in favor of Yahweh, perhaps incorporating in small part the beliefs/practices of a group of immigrants which may have had something to do with Egypt (again, this represents the small possible kernel of truth in the Exodus narrative). But by and large the archaeological record does NOT jive with Exodus' description of what happened. [this is a somewhat simplistic summary and doesn't do complete justice to the debates taking place about the *details*, but essentially this is what scholars think based on plenty of discovered evidence]. I'll never forget when I was first introduced to biblical archaeology, I was excited to hear a lecture in which a famous archaologist, Bill Dever, was going to represent a "maximalist" view of biblical archaeology, which means the school of thought that maximalized the connection between biblical history as it is portrayed in the pentateuch and historical narratives and the archaeological record. I was very shocked to find that the maximalists see very little connection between the two. There is some, but not much. Very eye opening.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Wouldn't know exactly. I'm simply posting about a fun television show on the history channel.

It's fascinating to me that this rather inconsiquential diversion can examine and to a degree dismantle the Documentary Hypothesis with realative ease and nothing more than an agenda to entertain.

It makes one wonder about how much faith one should place in academia and the things they pass for knowledge in the hallowed halls of schools of history.

No scholar has been successful for 150 years in dismantling that theory. If you think a TV show has done it, then it has misrepresented the debate, plain and simple. Of course this is not surprising. Like I said below they do this all the time. Wait for the shows to start coming out on how Jesus' grave has been found, and you'll see them present it as a very serious scholarly possibility, when it is nothing more than showmanship and salesmanship.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

This is true, but we do have Hebrew texts that predate Masoretic texts. As for what this documentary is claiming, it sounds very much on the fringe of scholarship. I've been amazed at some of the claims made on cable about religious scholarship. You'll find some of these very fringe claims being presented on networks like History Channel, A&E, etc, as though they were being seriously debated among scholars, when in reality, they are not (no serious scholar thinks Moses wrote the Pentateuch---zero, zilch, nada). Much like the shows you see on these networks about crop circles, things like that. Two sides are often presented in a very unequal light.

About the argument that Israelites were literate at the time of Moses....most scholars think that at the time Moses was written, a large majority of the forebears of the Israelites were Canaanites, polytheistic, syncretistic both relitiously and politically, and that it wasn't until much later that there was a split in which a group of Canaanites rejected the Canaanite god El in favor of Yahweh, perhaps incorporating in small part the beliefs/practices of a group of immigrants which may have had something to do with Egypt (again, this represents the small possible kernel of truth in the Exodus narrative). But by and large the archaeological record does NOT jive with Exodus' description of what happened. [this is a somewhat simplistic summary and doesn't do complete justice to the debates taking place about the *details*, but essentially this is what scholars think based on plenty of discovered evidence]. I'll never forget when I was first introduced to biblical archaeology, I was excited to hear a lecture in which a famous archaologist, Bill Dever, was going to represent a "maximalist" view of biblical archaeology, which means the school of thought that maximalized the connection between biblical history as it is portrayed in the pentateuch and historical narratives and the archaeological record. I was very shocked to find that the maximalists see very little connection between the two. There is some, but not much. Very eye opening.

The tone of this show is quite different than many others, it is NOT Art Bell and Coast to Coast (which I sometimes listen to for fun) ... it never ends with sensationalist pontification on the part of the host who I am pretty certain is Jewish. He has a very understated common guy feel to him that's fun to watch. In fact many times he fails to fully answer most of his questions.

And that's the point of the show -he appears to struggle, as does much of his audience like me, to understand the dogmatic focus of academics who instantly qualify thoughts that question the established reality as on the fringe and not serious history or science. When in fact all current knowledge is fluid and constantly changing as new evidence is unearthed.

Such an attitude is so counterintuitive to the pursuit of knowledge it’s unfathomable. And in the same breath to defend the investment the academic has made in his/her education and the fluid knowledge he/she pedestals as reality, the academic will marginalize the education and intelligence of the challenger.

Give the show and people who question reality a chance -it's a fun diversion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The tone of this show is quite different than many others, it is Art Bell and Coast to Coast (which I sometimes listen to for fun) ... it never ends with sensationalist pontification on the part of the host who I am pretty certain is Jewish. He has a very understated common guy feel to him that's fun to watch. In fact many times he fails to fully answer most of his questions.

And that's the point of the show -he appears to struggle, as does much of his audience like me, to understand the dogmatic focus of academics who instantly qualify thoughts that question the established reality as on the fringe and not serious history or science. When in fact all current knowledge is fluid and constantly changing as new evidence is unearthed.

Such an attitude is so counterintuitive to the pursuit of knowledge it’s unfathomable. And in the same breath to defend the investment the academic has made in his/her education and the fluid knowledge he/she pedestals as reality, the academic will marginalize the education and intelligence of the challenger.

Give the show and people who question reality a chance -it's a fun diversion.

I doubt Chapel would describe our knowledge as anything but fluid, but the current state of knowledge regarding verification of the Exodus in the form recorded in Moses does not appear to be justified. Are you saying there is new, non-absorbed evidence suggesting otherwise?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

No scholar has been successful for 150 years in dismantling that theory. If you think a TV show has done it, then it has misrepresented the debate, plain and simple. Of course this is not surprising. Like I said below they do this all the time. Wait for the shows to start coming out on how Jesus' grave has been found, and you'll see them present it as a very serious scholarly possibility, when it is nothing more than showmanship and salesmanship.

Oh, I'm speaking in extremes -as are you. You mean to tell me that because an academic has not dismantled it, it cannot be dismantled or will not be dismantled. You or I are not that naive -at least I hope ...

What you and I espouse now as truth and reality will change in the next 10, even 5 years with regards to History ... that is the only unasailable truth.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Oh, I'm speaking in extremes -as are you. You mean to tell me that because an academic has not dismantled it, it cannot be dismantled or will not be dismantled. You or I are not that naive -at least I hope ...

What you and I espouse now as truth and reality will change in the next 10, even 5 years with regards to History ... that is the only unasailable truth.

I guess what he might be saying, is it hasn't been dismantled by scholars, and if a nonscholar successfully dismantled it, scholars would try to duplicate the dismantling, in order to achieve fame and honor.

How did they present the theory and how did they "dismantle" it? My experience in shows such as that is a misrepresentation of what scholars claim, in effect establishing a red herring which is easily discarded.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I doubt Chapel would describe our knowledge as anything but fluid, but the current state of knowledge regarding verification of the Exodus in the form recorded in Moses does not appear to be justified. Are you saying there is new, non-absorbed evidence suggesting otherwise?

I'm suggesting we do not (and may never have) all of the evidence.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm suggesting we do not (and may never have) all of the evidence.

Nobody sane would disagree with that. That is why we have disagreement, because our evidence will forever be partial.

However, what evidence do we have that Moses wrote the first five books, other than tradition?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I guess what he might be saying, is it hasn't been dismantled by scholars, and if a nonscholar successfully dismantled it, scholars would try to duplicate the dismantling, in order to achieve fame and honor.

How did they present the theory and how did they "dismantle" it? My experience in shows such as that is a misrepresentation of what scholars claim, in effect establishing a red herring which is easily discarded.

You have to watch the show to understand the humor in it. As I have stated he more often fails at challenging the established reality. Sometimes he is merely trying to verify the established reality and not challenge anything.

However, the show did point to archaeological evidence that pokes serious holes, not merely pin pricks, in the hypothesis.