You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
<b><font color="ff0000">Religion and "Secular" History</font></b> <BR> <BR>It has been suggested that Religion and Science should be kept in separate spheres. Well, what about Religion and History? Certainly the concepts of sin, salvation, love, forgiveness, etc. can be promoted without historical reference up to a point, but Judaism and Christianity eventually have historical things to say. In many ways the Bible is part of the historical record. <BR> <BR>The Grade 10 teachers' resource material provides this chart. Look it over. If you are acquainted at all with the discussions on these things, you will note the "conservative" dates applied. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/1768/2117.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Don on October 27, 2009)
Offline
Don, that is clearly the dates chosen by the publishers of the textbook. Who is the publisher? <BR> <BR>All the major Bible historians do not agree with those dates; i.e. the dates for Daniel are given by practically all scholars as between 167-164 B.C. during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes band before the Maccabean revolt. <BR> <BR>Also, the Septuagint was given much earlier dates, approx. a hundred years earlier. As for Hellenism and Legalism, where did that date come from? What specific evidence points to that date? <BR> <BR>Also, Esther has no specific date assigned, but the Jerusalem Bible says: "it was probably written about 300 B .C. in the Hebrew version." <BR> <BR> <BR>From the Jerusalem Bible: <BR> <BR>"The likeliest time for the Exodus is the reign of Meneptah (1224-1214) and from this point the history begins to be much more circumstantial." <BR> <BR>As a teacher, it would seem best to state that these are the approximate dates furnished by the textbook writers, but they should not be confused with agreeing with all other scholars. Students should be allowed to grapple and study on their own and arrive at personal decisions.
Offline
We should also remember that before the times of king Omri and King Ahab (roughly speaking), everything else is speculation in biblical history. <BR> <BR>When the biblical writers mention any earlier events and figures, they clearly rely on much older oral tradition rather than any written chronicles. And oral traditions tend to change a lot over time (and depending on the speaker!). How can we set any dates to Abraham or Moses if we can't be even sure whether they really existed? They may well be theological creations, used to introduce certain concepts. Real Moses and Abraham may never have existed, or may have been quite different to what the biblical record presents. As of now, there is hardly any evidence for existence of much later figures, such as David and Solomon. And if Solomon did exist, he would at best have been a tribal village chief of a small, unfortified settlement, and not a world-famous ruler of an empire. Of course, same can be said about the Daniel of history - if he had existed, he was not what his pseudoepigraphical book says he was. After all, it's a religious historical novel written much later.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">king Omri and King Ahab</font></b> <BR> <BR>Why do you use these two as your "cut off" point? <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
I can't speak for Jag, but unless you have read Finklestein' <i>The Bible Unearthed,</i> you would not be familiar with the most recent archaelogical discoveries (or maybe, "un"discoveries." <BR> <BR>When anyone goes back beyond the first millenium B.C., it is most difficult to ascertain a particular person or persons as having actually lived then. <BR> <BR>Some, like the pharoahs, Hammurabi, and others have left records that can be verified by several sources; there are no records that can be cross-checked for verification of the ancient Bible patriarchs. Adam can abe equated with Gilgamesh as for as validation of either.
Offline
<b><font color="ff0000">"Modern" Compared to "Conservative" Bible Chronology</font></b> <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/1768/2135.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>The right hand chart is the same as shown earlier. It is a North American Division teacher's resource page. (The Chronology presented by NAD reflects other conservative scholarship. I will try to present some of the main scholars of that stance later.) <BR> <BR>The Modern Chronology is from John J. Collins' book, <b><i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/yglvyq4" target="_blank">A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible</a></i> (2007)</b>. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/1768/2136.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">Notes</font></b><ol><li>Notice the date given by Collins for the capture of Jerusalem by Babylon, 597 rather than 605. <LI>The "Emergence of Israel in the Highlands of Canaan" is an interesting phrase to describe the beginning of Israel. <LI>The Exodus dates proposed defines whether one is "Modern" or "Conservative"; i.e. 1250 or 1445. </li></ol> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Don on October 28, 2009)
Offline
Don, <BR> <BR>Elaine already answered your question... thanks, Elaine! <BR> <BR>Your "modern" chronology looks to me like it should really be called only slightly less "conservative". It's good to see that some disputed events and figures are noted, but it mentions the 922 BCE division of kingdoms as if it were a proven fact. Finkelstein argues that there is absolutely no evidence that there ever was a united kingdom, and it is rather a mythical "golden age" construct created by later propagandists. Guess I need to add that Finkelstein is by no means a biblical minimalist, and he does give the biblical sources a lot more credit than many other scholars. He's just not one of those will bend available data just to try to prove the Bible, even when it obviously appears to be incorrect.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Finkelstein argues that there is absolutely no evidence that there ever was a united kingdom, and it is rather a mythical "golden age" construct created by later propagandists.</font></b> <BR> <BR>This is not the first time that lack of extra-Biblical evidence has been cited to proclaim a supposed myth. It is far more accurate to say, "There is no extra-Biblical evidence for a division of the kingdoms and that some argue that there never was a division of the kingdoms." <BR> <BR>The "mythical golden age" is no more proven than the division of the kingdom. In fact, it has less support because the division of the kingdom at least has the "written tradition" for its support. In the world of chance possibilities, both a divided kingdom and an undivided kingdom are equally plausible. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
If the "kingdoms" were divided, how does one explain the glorious hyperbole of Solomon's kingdom when no such evidence can be found? Tribes can separate, but where is the evidence for such great palaces the Bible writes about?
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">where is the evidence for such great palaces the Bible writes about?</font></b> <BR> <BR>As in most ancient assertions, historical understanding moves forward by hypothesis after hypothesis. It has been proposed that King Solomon's palace was located somewhere on the temple mount. This makes it hard to verify; especially because Herod revamped everything for his building enterprises. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
From Finklestein's book: <BR> <BR>"For all their reported wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. And the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth-and early twentieth-century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex....The grandeur of the Solomonic palaces, rests on <b>one verse in the Bible---1 Kings 9:15. The entire traditional reconstruction of the nature of the united monarchy of Israel--its territorial expansion, its material culture, its relationship with the neighboring countries--depends on the interpretaion of a single biblical verse!" <BR> <BR></b>Only documented evidence, not rationalization can effectively refute such professional evaluation.
Offline
Don, <BR> <BR>Biblical sources, according to a scholarly consensus written centuries later, are the <u>only</u> sources to speak of the united kingdom. Given that we know for a fact that the Bible becomes historically reliable only from about the times of the Babylonian exile, it is reasonable to accept that there was probably never a united kingdom. Finkelstein presents convincing arguments why later Jerusalem rulers and priests would be interested in creating such a "golden era" legend. <BR> <BR>If there was a united kingdom, then why its most famous ruler, Solomon, remains the most elusive monarch in history? Where is the evidence of his power, wealth and wisdom, his empire reaching the Euphrates? Have those who were supposedly ruled by him never heard of him and thus left no contemporary written records? Where is the magnificent palace, temple, countless forts and so on? We have so far found not even a single seal or potsherd with his name... it seems reasonable to me that the legend in time blew things out of proportion. The real Solomon would have most probably been illiterate after all.
Offline
Don, <BR> <BR>The Temple Mount was excavated in places. No results. It is unlikely that Herod would have removed every single stone; it is just unlikley that we would find nothing even though evidence for much lesser rulers (according to the Bible) has been uncovered. <BR>The fact that the Temple Mount is largely inaccessible to excavations is convenient to biblical literalists, yet Solomon is claimed to have built countless forts, cities and palaces outside Jerusalem too... so where are they?
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">The real Solomon would have most probably been illiterate after all.</font></b> <BR> <BR>We travel different roads of thought, obviously. Perhaps as we share our views, we can enrich each other's lives. (This sentiment can easily be applied to all who grace atomorrow with their ideas.) <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
I guess that's the idea behind forums like this...
Offline
anybody wanna go back to school? Yale? for free? <BR>on your laptop? <BR> <BR>this is one of many college or University courses put online by an MIT program.... <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/bible-parts-of-the-whole" target=_top>http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/bible-parts- of-the-whole</a> <BR> <BR>Lecture Description <BR> <BR>This lecture provides an introduction to the literature of the Hebrew Bible and its structure and contents. Common misconceptions about the Bible are dispelled: the Bible is a library of books from diverse times and places rather than a single, unified book; biblical narratives contain complex themes and realistic characters and are not "pious parables" about saintly persons; the Bible is a literarily sophisticated narrative not for children; the Bible is an account of the odyssey of a people rather than a book of theology; and finally, the Bible was written by many human contributors with diverse perspectives and viewpoints. <BR>Course Description <BR> <BR>This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, I listened to the first lecture of this series. Excellent! The information is most similar to my readings, and yours too, I imagine.
Offline
Pages: 1