Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9440Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment

Expand Messages
  • Christian Bogh
    Dec 1, 2008
      > I suppose the extreme minimist position would claim the Bible is 100%
      > false, and the extreme maximist would claim that it is 100% true, the
      > inspired word of God.

      I don't believe that's accurate at all. There is no such differantiation
      (true/false). Either I have misunderstood the Copenhagen School and "its
      project" or you have (hence the differantiation). If say Genesis 1 is
      claimed to be void of actual history it doesn't follow that its then 100%
      false. Why was it written? For what purpose then? etc. instead of "when was
      it written", "who wrote it?" etc.. Those questions I believe are what
      concern minimalists (among other things).

      best regards,
      Christian Bogh
      stud. teol
      Copenhagen, Uni. of

      2008/12/1 David Hall <dqhall59@...>

      > Of Contradictions and Extremes:
      > With the various destruction scenarios of the book of Joshua, including
      > Arad ("the Great"?) that was not occupied between the EB and the beginning
      > of the Iron Age but was mentioned as a place Joshua had contact with; there
      > were complex models claiming to eliminate contradictions between the
      > archaeological record and the account of Joshua. There have been many
      > theories to try to prove Joshua. One theory was that there were two Ai's
      > and we do not know where the other one was (not Et Tell), or it might have
      > been Bethel and we do not know where Bethel was. There was also the theory
      > that Garstang and Kenyon did not know what they were doing. Sometimes such
      > objections were brought by people who could not instantly identify the
      > differences between an EB saucer lamp and a LB saucer lamp, nor had ever
      > seen a drawing of a Hyksos seal.
      > If you read the works of David Rohl, fluent in the ancient
      > Egyptian language and capable of page layout with photos and
      > maps, eventually you might suspect the guy had trusted too much in the text
      > of the Biblical works if you do not recognize it immediately. At one point
      > he indicated that Joshua was Labayu of the Amarna tablets and that the
      > existing published chronologies were wrong. He moved dates at will to try
      > to fit his theories into his book. He was not able to eliminate the
      > contradictions between the destruction of Hazor and the destruction of
      > Jericho not to mention numerous other apparent contradictions.
      > Some of the theories of archaeologists in the 1960's cannot be easily
      > negated. People have moved datelines to the left or right yet usually
      > within a hundred years, although sometimes wanting to move them further like
      > 150 years. Some new pottery classifications were described such
      > as Intermediate EB-MB based on a few unique finds.
      > An archaeologist working on one site described a certain style of glass
      > perfume bottle such as was left in tombs after the anointing of the dead for
      > burial as 150-300 A.D. at Pella whereas someone working in Jerusalem
      > described the style of perfume bottle with the flared rim as first century
      > C.E. Neither one did fraud, yet there are limits to one's ability to
      > discern based on one's experience.
      > I suppose the extreme minimist position would claim the Bible is 100%
      > false, and the extreme maximist would claim that it is 100% true, the
      > inspired word of God. It was also writted in the Bible that God desired
      > mercy and not sacrifice after the altars of Israel had been drenched with
      > the blood of sacrifices for a long time. Did God change or was it the
      > writters' words about God that differed?
      > To be able to recognize a contradiction is useful. To find the truth of
      > the matter is wiser.
      > Sincerely:
      > David Q. Hall
      > dqhall59@... <dqhall59%40yahoo.com>
      > --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...<npl%40teol.ku.dk>>
      > wrote:
      > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol.ku.dk>>
      > Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 1:08 PM
      > Dear David,
      > You should not be afraid of the extremes. I follow old Hegel here, that
      > thesis and antithesis produce a new synthesis, etc etc. So if we have
      > something from both sides, the synthesis might be somewhere between.
      > To stay on safe ground means to move little or nothing (had a discussion
      > with Na'aman last Thuesday in Boston about this. We were absolutely in
      > agreement).
      > Niels Peter Lemche
      > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af
      > David Hall
      > Sendt: den 30 november 2008 15:41
      > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > I think it fair to avoid the extremes. Scientific criticism may bring
      > healthy interpretation and the ability to divide fact from superstition.
      > Extremely complex models designed to try to eliminate contridictions found
      > in religious texts sometimes ignored the possibility that there may have
      > been an error in the text.
      > David Q. Hall
      > --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol.ku>. dk>
      > wrote:
      > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol.ku>. dk>
      > Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      > Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 4:07 PM
      > Dear K.L.,
      > Thank you for the comment. Only saw it now. Back from Boston I had 300
      > mails waiting. Mr. Pride's comment is of course extremely badly informed,
      > from a person who seems to appropriate what is religion from his own
      > observation. A hardly a comment that should have passed here (maybe I passed
      > it? I was back on the 28th and there were several mails for ANE waiting to
      > moderate.
      > After all, "minimalism" is an ethic term placed on the minimalists by other
      > people. It only says what somebody else thinks. It is no reflection of what
      > the group itself represents but typical of the discourse within certain
      > circles of biblical scholarship.
      > And now, I suppose we can get on to something more relevant than Mr.
      > Pride's misrepresentations (misprisions) .
      > Niels Peter Lemche
      > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af K
      > L Noll
      > Sendt: den 29 november 2008 19:17
      > Til: ANE-2
      > Emne: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > With the annual SBL meeting, as well as the marking of exams and term
      > papers, I have only just today begun to read a backlog of listserv digests.
      > I came across this very bizarre little comment and cannot resist responding
      > to it...
      > Dan Pride wrote, in part: "Minimalism has been rooted far more in
      > antagonism to religion and its excesses than in the facts, which is why it
      > goes down so hard,... screaming and scratching at every turn."
      > My guess is that Dan Pride has never actually held a conversation with a
      > so-called Minimalist. As I understand the term, it is a method of research
      > (defined quite succinctly by Axel Knauf back in the early 1990s, in an essay
      > on Solomon's Copper Mines). For me, the attractive aspect of Minimalism as a
      > research method is that it matches the method in which I was trained by a
      > medievalist when I was an undergraduate history major. The polemics that
      > emerged around the term Minimalism during the mid-1990s came as quite a
      > shock to me and, so far as I can tell, derived almost entirely from a
      > religiously motivated faction, so it seems bizarre to characterize the
      > Minimalists as antagonistic to religion (as though "religion" were one
      > undifferentiated phenomenon).
      > Now, the central point I want to make is this: As a professor of Religious
      > Studies, I have grown weary of people who obviously know (and care) nothing
      > for our academic discipline constantly describing us as "antagonistic to
      > religion" (as Dan Pride does in this snip). We are no more antagonistic to
      > religion than a biologist is antagonistic to a frog. But the biologist kills
      > more than a few frogs so that he/she can cut them open and see how they
      > work. What appears to the religious participant as hostility is really
      > nothing more than the routine (and rather messy) activities of dissection
      > taking place in the lab. Sure it kills some of the magic of religious
      > experience, but it enhances our understanding of why humans are religious.
      > It seems to me that our research offends only those who harbor unrealistic
      > notions about the potential for "truth" within their own religious
      > traditions. My experience is that the fuss over so-called Minimalism never
      > occurs when
      > secular so-call!
      > ed Maximalists interact with the equally secular so-called Minimalists.
      > Ok, back to marking term papers...
      > Shalom,
      > K. L. Noll
      > Brandon University
      > Brandon, Manitoba
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg com
      > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1820 - Release Date: 2008-11-29
      > 18:52
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic