Talk:The Bible and history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Point of View Error 2 Non-Creationists 3 Myth 4 Favorable to the resurrection? 5 Mid-Eastern Analogies 6 Removed 7 Patriarchs 8 The Poor Treatment given to Minimalism

[edit] Point of View Error

This article has been written largely by Maximalists, and gives a very weak analysis of the Minimalist point of view (for example, it did not even present a list of principle Minimalists, despite the fact that Maximalists are all listed and cross referenced. It is a thoroughly biased and unbalanced article. I have attempted to put a context and a greater balance to the article. It does not examine differences between various maximalist or minimalist perspectives, despite the fact that these differences within the various groups are often as deep and acrimonious as those between the various schools. John D. Croft 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Maximalism and Minimalism are not two equal opinions, Maximalism is the mainstream view, Minimalism is a noisy minority view, trying to portray minority opinions as equal to majority would unbalanced. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maximalism is not the mainstream scholarly view. Nor is minimalism. The middle ground is the mainstream. Both maximalism and minimalism are the extremist possitions on either side of this middle ground. John D. Croft 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Innerancy is the polar opposite of Minimalism, Maximalism is itself a middle ground, the name Maximalism being a sad misnomer. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maximalism is not the middle ground. The Middle Ground is occupied by scholars who accept that the period of Samuel is accurate but question the historicity of the Patriarchs, Exodus and Joshua. John D. Croft 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Creationists

I changed The Biblical creation story, up to and including the deluge, is generally regarded as a myth by most scientists and many religious believers (i.e. non-creationists) to ... (i.e. those who reject literalistic Creationism), since Creationism by itself is just the idea that God created the Universe and everything in it, in whichever way. Many of these Creationists think that science tells us more about this process than a literal understanding of the Bible. Literalistic Creationism, on the other hand, insists that Genesis is the only trustworthy account of the creation process.

PS: If you want to have some fun, ask a literalistic Creationist which came first: birds (as in Gen 1) or people (as in Gen 2). Aragorn2 21:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to look at Creation (theology). KHM03 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

bhgff

[edit] Myth

See The Bible as myth. Clinkophonist 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favorable to the resurrection?

At the other end of the spectrum are Christian historians who have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection - scholars such as Thomas Arnold [8], A. N. Sherwin-White [9][10], and Michael Grant. [11][12][13]

The links provided for Sherwin-White and Michael Grant do not say what the sentence claims about these scholars. I would move to not only remove these links, but also these two names. Normally, when I think of Christian biblical scholars who support the resurrection, I think of people like Tom Wright, Ben Witherington, etc, not Michael Grant. --Andrew c 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Id definitely say that Grant is really not notable compared with Tom Wright. Clinkophonist 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Grant is a big name in classics (but less of a name to strictly NT studies). His view is relevent. However, my point simply was that the claim that Grant finds the resurrection historically probable is flat out false. The 3 cites quote-mine things out of his historical review of Jesus book that make it seem like he supports a historical, physical resurrection when that isn't the conclusion that Grant draws. It's been a few weeks since I brought this up. Can we go with my proposal to remove at least those two names? And hopefully someone with library access can eventually come up with better citations from Wright and others?--Andrew c 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-Eastern Analogies

The "Mid-Eastern Analogies" section seems weak. I do not see what it has to do with the topic, and there are many gramatical errors. Also the format of starting every sentence with "Both..." seem unencyclopedic. I do not feel that this section should be in the article, but I want to hear other's opinions, and would like to hear a justification for including it. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not edit the English to make it clearer, rather than blow it away. One has to admit, whether one likes it or not, they have interesting similarites and differences that are not usually known, or pointed out. The possible link to the Book of Esther, makes the analogy, as suggested in the Jewish Encyclopedia, even more fascinating. Certainly this information pertains to the Bible and history, and especially to the use of literary forms in the Middle East. User:Kazuba 6 Jun 06

I'll try to revise the grammar and wording issues that I find, but first, what is the source of this information. How can we verify it per WP:V? We don't want to go into the real of OR just because the analogy is fascinating.--Andrew c 17:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The source for the Esther connection is in the Jewish Encyclopedia as stated under the Arabian Nights. (If it seems unclear perhaps I can cite this in more detail). I could make a list citing an Arabian Night's story and its common whatever in the Bible by book and chapter. Something like: A.N., The Fisherman and the Genii-Demon-Bible, book and chapter (where Jesus speaks to demon). Something like I did with the unique things in the Gospel of Mark. But this will get quite lengthy and almost overkill. How is that? This is strange to me because I am familar with both collections of stories, but I could do that for those who are new to this material. Whatda ya think? I don't know what WP:V means.User:Kazuba 6 Jun 06

Sorry, WP:V and WP:OR. You cannot compare two pieces of literature without it being original research unless you have a cited source to back up your claims, WP:CITE. You still have no explained how Arabian Nights has anything to do with "The Bible and history". Read the opening paragraph to this article, and please explain how another work of literature relates. Thanks! --Andrew c 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting to hear from on another on this entry. Let's see what he has to say.User:Kazuba 6 Jun 06 He told me it is over the head of the incurious, like comparing the writings of pagans to the writings of early Christians. The incurious just don't get it. Do your thing and be happy. User:Kazuba 6 Jun 06

If its over people's heads then rewrite it so that it isn't. But at all times you must be able to back up your claims with sources that meet wikipedia's official verifiability criteria. Clinkophonist 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion most readers here have some familiarity with the identities of the Bible, the Arabian Nights and the Jewish Encyclopedia. If not, this information is readily available in this encyclopedia. I even added the links. User:Kazuba26 Jun 06

Two things. You have yet to make a case why comparative literature has a place in an article about history. Secondly, according to WP:CITE, whenever you add new information you are supposed to cite a source, especially if it is a controversial edit. Saying "It's all in the Jewish Encyclopedia, check for your self" is not the same thing as citing a source. You may want to review the wikipedia policy on how to cite a source. If you have any questions about citing a source, please feel free to ask, and we can try to help you. And besides, to my knowledge, the Jewish Encyclopdia only applies to the last sentence, not the whole preceding paragraph. --Andrew c 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can compare the so-called Jesus prophecies in the Old Testament to the New Testament, compare the Gnostic writings to the New Testament Gospels, compare the Biblical creation story to the discoveries of modern science, compare Egyptian inscriptions to Exodus, compare the Books of Kings to the Books of Chronicles, compare the Gospels to each other, etc. it seems only fair to me you can compare the unquestionable so-called historic mid-eastern traditions in the Bible to the mid-eastern fantasies contained in the Arabian Nights and wonder about their similarities. I never said "its all in the Jewish Encyclopedia". I wrote the connection that there was a scholar who suspected The Biblical Book of Ester's earlier form came from the story of Shahrazad in the Arabian Nights was in The Jewish Encyclopedia. This would be an indication my comparison may be far from being new research. User:Kazuba 26 Jun 06

Please review Wikipedia:No original research. It sounds like you are saying that the comparison is your own work, but you have suspicions that others (who you cannot or refuse to cite) have presented similar ideas. Please review the policy and supply a source that makes this comparison. BUT more importantly, can you explain to me why comparative literature has anything to do with the Bible and history?--Andrew c 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As previously mentioned Michael Jan de Goeje compared Bible stories to those of the Arabian Nights. Common elements of fantasy reside in both works. This reinforces that folklore or fantasy was contained in the Bible and was mistaken for history for hundreds of years. Hermann Gunkel's famous studies in 19th century began to point this out. This was not welcomed news to the clergy and Christian laymen. The Bible was looked at as a very serious history book. The recognition of fantasy, folklore, legend, myth, what have you, in the Bible has been an uphill battle. There is a large gap between the Bible scholar (even between themselves) and the average layman as to "what is history" in the Bible. I am not very good at explaining things. I am no master of words, but I hope you will get my drift. The last thing I heard from professional ancient historians was there was great disappointment with the boundaries of archaeology. I was taught critical history is the record of things said and done. I agree that there seems to be history here in the Bible, but there are stories in the Bible that look suspiciously like fantasy. (Fantasy seems to be a dirty word). I am far from alone. For some reason this material seems to be a big deal. When I pointed out the "about 2,000 possessed swine" in Mark it wasn't. (No one else had). I prefer edit to deletion. It would be nice to see the opinions of others, more than just you. Let's see what makes everybody happy, Andrew. You cats have the last word and I will abide by it. Whatever pleases you tickles me to death. I refuse to let others push my buttons, especially when it comes to silly things that do not affect my family. User:Kazuba 01 Jul 06

Think you better look up shekel and study it a little bit more. Values of (shekels) coins were determined by weight. Read my entry slowly, pointed out the Bible's use of "money" ,noted passages. It was not determined to be shekel by me. Bible identified money was shekels. Go back and read my entry. User:Kazuba13 July 06

My mistake, shekel not stamped to certify its weight. You win some you lose some. Tried to correct by editing. I think the shekel coin problem should be pointed out.User:Kazuba 14 Jun 06

[edit] Removed

removed this:

• and Kitchen are Christians that believe in biblical inerrancy

Kitchen makes no effort to disguise his conservative Christian beliefs, but he hardly believes in biblical inerrancy. He in fact quite often shows 'mistakes' in the Bible. What he argues for is that the Bible, like any other ancient text, must be placed in context of the ancient world, in comparision with similar texts from Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. He concludes that when this is done, it is broadly similar to other ancient texts describing divine intervention in human affairs, etc. It can therefore be used for reconstructions of history in the same manner that Egyptian texts mentioning the intervention Amen-Re may be Klompje7 08:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarchs

This section needs references. There was some doubt at Talk:Abraham about whether the historic status of that figure is disputed. A quick Google search turns up numerous references to controversy: [1], [2], and [3]. I'm sure there are oodles of actual scholarly books written on the subject; hopefully someone familar with the field will be able to point us to them more directly, or someone will take an interest in chasing down sources. -- Beland 04:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One of te best is John Van Seters "Abraham in Tradition and History".

[edit] The Poor Treatment given to Minimalism

I have edited the article on Minimalism, as it is clearly written by someone who as read very little of the minimalist literature, and has an anti-minimalist POV. There are also errors. Niels Peter Lemche was not a convert to Thompson's point of view, but independently came to similar conclusions. There also are significant differences in their points of view. John D. Croft 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)