Talk:Historicity of the Bible/Archive 1

Citation needed
The inserted statement "On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that David and Solomon had any direct administrative control over the region it describes as their empires and is thus not contradicted by the lack of evidence of such administrative structures", sounds like a personal point of view and needs a citation or a source to make it acceptable to Wiki standards. John D. Croft 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Offensive? I think so...Leaves out half the world: Until the 18th century, few if any doubted that the earth was created some 4,000 thousand years before the birth of Christ, and that the Garden of Eden, the Flood and the Tower of Babel, Abraham and the Exodus, and all subsequent narrative, were real history.

Why no mention of Documentary Hypothesis
I would have thought a mention of the documentary hypothesis and its critics was pretty central to establishing the history of the Bible. It needs to be added surely? John D. Croft 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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&#39;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&#39;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)

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)"


 * The following is in reply to the challenge presented directly above. I assume that the verses you are referring to are such:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." -Genesis 1:20 (KJV)

As recorded in Genesis 1:20, we see that the "fowl that may fly above the earth" (a.k.a. 'birds') were created before man, which is presented a few verses later. Formation of the flying fowl occured on the 5th day of creation, while man was created on the 6th day.

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof." -Genesis 2:19 (KJV)

Alright, let's stick to the facts here. Just because God formed the beasts and fowl within the Garden of Eden, AFTER creation was already complete, does not mean that He didn't do so before. When examined properly, these two verses within scripture are in no way contradictory to one another.

Initially, God formed animals on the 5th day, and man on the 6th day. Keep in mind that multiple animals were created to cover the entire earth, while a single man was created within the Garden of Eden. This man did not cover the entire earth, he resided in one place. Genesis tells us that Eve was later formed from Adams ribs (Genesis 2:21-25). Adam was called to name the animals prior to Eve's being brought into existence.

So, how is it contradictory to say that after God had created animal life and Adam, that He then created MORE animals within the Garden itself so that Adam had one animal of every type before him to name? Yes, Genesis 1 tells us that animal (specifically birds, for this argument)came before man. Genesis 2 does not contradict this. It is easily thought of that God simply created more animals within the Garden itself after the formation of them over the span of the entire globe. Majaia 9:20am, 29 July 2008.


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

bhgff

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

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)

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)

John D. Croft (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the need for addiitional citations needed, as I feel 26 citations up to that point is sufficient for that section.

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:, , and. 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".

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)

Minimalism and Abraham
I'm moving this material from the article The Copenhagen School as ity seems to have more to do with the bible and history. I leave it someone else to integrate into the article.


 * In 1975 John Van Seters re-analysed the history portrayed of the patriarchs, particularly the tale of Abraham. He showed that there had been a consistent bias in the archaeology, which had given preference to the earliest appearance of characteristics of the story and against elements of first millennium.  For example, while camels may have been domesticated earlier than the first millennium, their widespread appearance in the Middle East as beasts of burden was with the appearance of Bedouin tribes from about 950 BCE.


 * Again, while the purchase of land was common in ancient Iraq and Egypt, the alienation of land, as described by the Spring of Mamre, and its selling for money is a feature which is only documented from the spread of monetary economies in the Levant during the eighth and at the earliest, the ninth century.


 * Similarly, the appearance of Philistines living in Gerar, with properly Canaanite names, as documented in the story of Abraham, is a late rather than an early feature, as Philistines only arrived in Palestine after the great Sea People's battles with Rameses III, in 1187 BC, and it was only much later that they gave up their Aegean cultural traits to become indistinguishable from their Canaanite neighbours.


 * Van Seters demonstrated to the satisfaction of most Biblical scholars, that the tales of Abraham referred to people and places set within an Iron Age context. From a literary critical point of view, the stories of Abraham seem designed to establish claims from exiles coming from Southern Iraq over lands in the vicinity of Hebron.

PiCo 07:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PiCo, Seters is not of the Copenhagen school. He works independently. John D. Croft (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who are placed in the early 2nd millennium BCE by the dates given in Genesis. There is however no evidence for their historicity." This is an absolutely asinine statement. It is close to impossible to find archeological evidence for specific familes. To say that "there is no evidence" is to imply that the possibility of such evidence is there but that they haven't found it.

It's actually interesting that the oral tradition for Abrahams mother as being named (something like) "Amatlei Bas Karnebo" was for years laughed at as a figment of imagination until record of Sumerian royalty were found with this name. Wolf2191 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"The frequency of Egyptain names in the Bible, (e.g. Moses, Phineas and Hophni)..."
Yes, but...Moses, Phineas and Hophni is about the lot! (although there's also Mereri, Asenath and Potiphar). This hardly adds up to frequency. What's really interesting though is that Moses, Phineas and Hophni are all Levites. What was it that led to a small core of Levites, and no other Israelites, having Egyptian names? Answers on the back of an envelope please, winner gets a two-week vacation with Wilderness Tours. PiCo 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Did a little more research, as one should do before posting, not after. There are more possibly-Egyptian Hebrews. The full list: Moses, Hophni, Merari, Phinehas, Assir, Putiel and Hur. All are Levites. Here's the link. PiCo 03:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabbinic tradition states that the Levites alone did not have to work as slaves "because they studied Torah". The Levites may have deliberately taken Egyptain names to bolster their image as Jewish "priests" in order to get a tax exempt status (The Tax exempt staus of priests are mentioned in the end of Genesis). (I'm a Levite myself so this is all highly interesting for me.)


 * The Egyptian names all seem to have had their greatest frequence during Saite times (Iron Age III), roughly contemporaneous with the reign of Josiah. John D. Croft (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

R' Yaakov Kaminetsky notes that Egyptain names tend to have as their root a hebrew Pay,Reish and Ayin (roughly P,R,and a guttural A) that themselves make up the name Pharaoh. He suggests that Ephraim is an Egyptain style name. He also suggests Shifra and Puah (the midwives) whom Rabbinic tradition identifies with Yocheved and Miriam (Moses Mother and Sister-also Levites) ae also Egyptain. He also suggests Tsofnas Paneach (Joseph's name) is Egyptain. He was no linguist so I don't know if any of this holds water but it's definitely a fascinating amateur attempt.Wolf2191 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record here is the Rabbinic view of the etymology of Putiel- "one of the daughters of Putiel- Of the seed of Jethro, who fattened (פִּטֵּ ם) calves for idolatry (see Rashi on Exod. 2:16) and [who was also] of the seed of Joseph, who defied and fought (פִּטְפֵּט) against his passion [when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife]. — [from B.B. 109b]" Wolf2191 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen it suggested that many of these Egyptian names are of the Late Period Saite times. See Donald Redford for a discussion of this. John D. Croft 11:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to a scholarly source has been added to section on Pontius Pilate
Under the heading "Historicity," subhead "Pontius Pilate," the second paragraph now has a footnote after the word "Tiberium" (currently footnote 10) that cites an excavation report of the American Schools of Oriental Research which was written and edited by several very highly regarded scholars of the ancient Near East. In turn, this book has a long and valuable list of references on the inscription that names Pilate. The warning box that states "This section does not cite any references or sources" should be removed. Lawrencemykytiuk 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestionsfor the structure of the article
I don't think the structure of the article is really the best possible - too much emphasis on individual people (Pontius Pilate? Does anyone really doubt that PP was a real person?) and books (if you try to go through the OT book by book it'll take forever).

I'd keep the three section titles, but adopt quite a different approach to what goes inside each. Like this: 1 Introduction At present this has the following subsections: * 1.1 Conservative religious views * 1.2 Liberal/Progressive religious views and secular views * 1.3 Overview of academic views * 1.4 Critique of the Maximalist - Minimalist Dichotomy The problem with this is that it frames the debate in terms of dichotamies - conservatives vs liberals, maximalists vs minimalists. The reality is much more nuanced: William Dever has a lot of time for Israel Finkelstein but not much for either Niels Peter Lemche or Kenneth Kitchen, KK regards Dever as half-ok and the rest as an assortment of knaves and barbarians, and so on - in other words, they don't fall neatly into two camps. What the section needs is an overview of the history of biblical historicity (archaeology, critical frameworks), followed by a brief exposition of current thinking and debates (I'd cover here maximalism/minimalism and what's at stake in terms of the usefulness of the bible to constructing a history of Israel, and Finkelstein's 10th century dating).

2 Old Testament/Hebrew Bible This is divided as follows at present: * 2.1 Genesis * 2.2 Problems with conventional Biblical chronology * 2.3 Exodus * 2.4 Joshua * 2.5 United Monarchy * 2.6 Later kings o 2.6.1 Nebuchadnezzar II's eunuch, Nabusharrussu-ukin * 2.7 The Exile and after I'd prefer a discussion of the process of composition and canonisation (bearing in mind that the term "canonisation" has very little meaning in this context) - the various theories and their implications for historicity. We must also note the modern trend in biblical scholarship to ignore issues of textual history and treat instead the meaning of the final text. What I'm eally missing from the article is the names and ideas of major scholars, whether dead or contemporary - something tracing the developments from Wellhausen to Van Seters, from Petrie to Finkelstein, ideas of documentary sources, oral traditions, redactors and authors, etc.

3 New Testament/Greek Bible I know nothing about the NT and so won't touch this. But as I mentioned above, I really don't think there;'s a need to waste time on proving the historicity of Pontius Pilate - far more useful would be a discussion of such things as the historical setting of the emergence of Christianity, concepts of the messiah, and so on.

Any views? PiCo 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a reasonable proposal, and you bring up some good points. As for the NT stuff, the Pilate section was only added in the middle of July by SimonATL, and I thought it was problematic back then. As for the historical setting of the NT, we have an article related to that already, see Cultural and historical background of Jesus.-Andrew c [talk] 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchs
"There is no record of these characters or their deeds in any historic or archaelogical source. "

I removed this statement because as mentioned above, there is very little evidence (certainly very little archeological evidence) for any individual people. The statement needs to be rephrased.

I also added in a pragraph to the exodus section that was removed withou explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"The narratives in Genesis are the only record available that mentions the patriarchs; like a myriad other private individuals in antiquity, they are not so far attested in any other ancient document." (emphasis mine) See | Here at length.Wolf2191 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism: Nebuchadnezzar II's eunuch, Nabusharrussu-ukin
This section is partly or entirely lifted from online news articles. It needs to be rewritten and referenced, wikipedia is not a copy-paste compendium of the internet. 121.45.26.16 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great catch! I have deleted the offending section. If someone would like to summarize the contents and restore a reference, that could work as well.-Andrew c [talk] 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Site Inclusion?
Can my site http://bibleresources.blogspot.com/ be considered to be added to this page and the page 'the Bible and archaeology'? It is from a Christian, but it has likely the greatest amount of primary resource material on the internet for both the old and new testament

Mackstar1 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to talk to discuss the inclusion of your own site. I do not believe this link meets WP:EL, because under "Links normally to be avoided" we have Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. -Andrew c [talk] 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Genesis
I re-wrote the subsection on Genesis - made it a bit more succinct and tried to get the scholarly history across. Comments? PiCo 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Revising Old Testament section
I've given this section a nwe structure, basing it on the Pentateuchal history/DtrHist/others plan normally seen in OT scholarship. Also deleted a lot of material that was rather dubious and/or overdetailed. I'll come back to add details and references. Other people's input welcome (wonder if I'll just get reverted?) PiCo 09:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My problems with the structure of this article
As anyone who looks at my recent edits will see, I have some problems with the structure of this article. I don't think that going through the bible book by book is a very fruitful way to approach the historicity of the bible. Anything said about Genesis will also apply to Exodus, anything said about the Pentateuch will also apply to the Deuteronomic History, and so on. Also, it runs the risk of becoming obsessed with incident - shall we talk about the historicity of Genesis 1, followed by the historicity of Genesis 2, and so on and on? A book by book approach will quickly bog down in repetition and detail. Instead, we should be looking at it in terms of who wrote its component parts, when, and why.

We also need to look at more than the history books, and more than just narrative/political history. A great deal has been learnt - or at least written - about the history of Israelite religion and society, for example - this is quite distinct from such matters as whether an exodus ever occurred, or whether the Gospels got Jesus's birth year right. And I sould add, it's the former class of question, and not the latter, which concern modern scholars.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the views of other editors. PiCo 05:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, the focal point of ths article is to discuss the historicity of several major events described in the Bible. I suspect the readers of this page are more interested in brief (as opposed to the longer more involved articles on these subjects) summaries on the questions of the historicity of the flood, exodus, Jesus,etc.


 * Perhaps we can create a seperate article on the question of "who wrote its component parts, when, and why". The most recent popular source on this subject is James Kugel's new book . What would we call such an article Historical background of the Bible, Views on Authorship?? BestWolf2191 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we've certainly identified the area of difference: you want a discussion of incidents, I want a more general discussion of the issues surrounding the bible as a whole as a historical source. My answer to your argument would be that Wiki has articles on practically every person and incident in the bible, and that almost every one of these contains a discussion of the historicity of that particular person or incident - see, for example, the article on David, and even the discussion of Goliath, who has own separate article. As I said above, if we discuss incidents, we'll get hopelessly bogged down in detail; better therefore to discuss the general issues surrounding the bible and its relations to history. PiCo 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion section
Is the conclusion section really necessary? Is it even part of the WP:MOS? It also seems to violate NPOV policy to have someone tell me what my conclusions about the article should be. ''"They give us a chance to see..." "It's impossible to ignore..." "Such a valuable source of information..."'' -- MacAddct &#xF8FF; 1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion, rather than a violation of NPOV policy, is in fact a fair summary of the findings of 150-200 years of archaeological discovery. I will provide references to substantiate this conclusion when I am back with my Library. John D. Croft (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I think you know where I stand on issues of this kind, but I have to say that the "conclusion" section was indeed tendentious and irrelevant. If these are the conclusions of archaeologists, they should be clearly identified as such - but when they're just presented as "conclusions", User talk:Macaddct1984 can justifiably ask, whose conclusions?PiCo (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am deleting this section entirely per the WP manual of style. It is tantamount to original research and reflects poorly on WP as a whole. • Freechild   'sup?   21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction to "Hebrew Bible" section
I've written a new introduction - more accurately, I've taken the old section heading "Introduction", put new text under it, and given the old Introduction a new title.

More important is what I've written. I've tried to make the treatment of the Hebrew Bible manageable. It's a huge boiok, and the material has to be grouped somhow, as a book-by-book treatment will bog the article down in detail. So I'm suggesting we use these three sets of books which are widely used by biblical scholars - the Deuteronomic History, the Chronicler's History, and the Torah/Pentateuch. I realise these terms (apart from Torah) will probably not be familiar, but they are academically widely used, and will serve to make the subject more manageable.

I'm interested in your comments. I anticipate there mauy be some questions and even objections, and will be happy to try and answer. PiCo (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about prophetic works? Are these not also useful for historical studies?  John D. Croft (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, every single book is useful for historical studies - just think of all that can be learned from Psalms about early Israelite ideas of the Heavenly Council. But I'm trying to isolate and identfy the books that are overtly "historical", in the sense of presenting a narrative of events. I also want to get past the idea of regarding each book as standing alone - there are in fact 3 historical narratives, the DtrH, the Chronicler's History, and the Torah, overlapping in the events they tell about, and inter-related in their composition (in ther sense, for example, that Chronicles relies on the DtrH for a lot of its narrative). A great deal can be learnt/said about the bible and the history of Israel by comparing these three narratives - think of the differing attitudes to David in the DtrH and in Chronicles, or the differing emphases of the P and D sources (and the Dtr can be regarded as a D history mof Israel and the Chronicler's as a P history, although the terms P and D can't be used in quite the same sense as used in Wellhausen - but this is the contemporary way the terms tend to be used, as schools rather than as sources). But you make a good point - the bible can tell a lot about Israel's history, even outside the history narratives. And then of course there's the archaeology.PiCo (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Exodus" sub-sub-section and references to non-history books
I deleted the long sub-sub section on the book of Exodus. Reasons: first, if we start going through the bible book by book, this article mwill become impossibly long. Second, there's an article called The Exodus which is devoted to exactly this subject.

I also deleted the section "Middle-Eastern Analogies" - I just can't see how tyhis was relevant to the subject of the bible and history.

I also deleted references to the books of Daniel and Judith. These are not history books. PiCo (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the books are "history" books, in the modern usage. But Daniel and Judith relate historical events, just as other biblical books do.  I'm not sure why you single them out as non-historical.  Isn't that a little POV/OR? -LisaLiel (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in line with the genre classifications used by biblical scholars - Daniel is regarded as belonging to the genre of prophetic literature, for example. The fact that it's set in a real historical period and uses a narrative form is secondary to its genre. I'm not singling these books out - i.e., it's not my invention - I'm using the classifications used in the scholarly literature. But as I think I said in another post, something about the history of Israel can be leared from every single book of the bible, it's a matter of organising the material and making it manageable. Perhaps the fist sub-section, "The history books of the Hebrew bible", should discuss the question of genre? PiCo (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * LisaLiel, I took your reference to Daniel out again, because despite what you say about none of the books being history in the modern sense -and that's true - they are "history" in the sense of the author(s) - or if Kings isn't history, then what is it? The point is, of course, that the ancient conception of history isn't the same as ours - this is true as much for Herodotus as it is for the Hebrew writers. But back to Daniel and Judith: many books of the bible contain material of use to historians, even the Psalms - they contain information about ancient Hebrew attitudes to their God, which is certainly history, even if it wasn't written as such.So I do intend to get around to mentioning this, but in a more appropriate place within the article. First, we ned to haver a more in-depth treatment of the truly "history" books. PiCo (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?
This article says, in part, "The historical value of the primeval history (Genesis 1-12, taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the Tower of Babel), has long been abandoned by modern biblical scholars." Would someone please tell me what that means? It's probably obvious to you, but I don't understand it!

Thanks in advance,

207.118.176.70 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, the first twelve chapters of Genesis are considered to be a sort of myth (allegory if you like) and do not represent accurate or even inaccurate history. Wolf2191 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And who exactly considers those chapters to be myths? Certainly not bible scholars, if that's what your trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.224.130 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mainstream biblical scholars regard Genesis 1-11 as theology. It draws extensively on Mesopotamian myths, but reworks those myths to tell its own story. There are allegorical elements (the Eden narrative is clearly allegorical), but they narrative as a whole doesn't make up a single unified allegory. The starting points for the scholarly treatment are Gunkel's commentary on Genesis (1901) and Noth's analysis of the Primary History (1943).PiCo (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Allegory? For what? Cush (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo in Finkelstein reference
There is a typo in the following paragraph that changes the sense of it in a way that is critical to the ongoing controversy about the dating of earlier texts:

My bolding

The recently published work, "The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel by Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian B. Schmidt[2], argues that Post-processual archaeology enables us to recognise the existence of a middle ground between Minimalism and Maximalism, and that both these extremes need to be rejected. Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the Biblical record and also poses challenges to the naive interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah and that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. The authors claim that this would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date. This is not to claim that there are now earlier survivals drawn either from oral traditions or earlier archives, but that the accuracy of these earlier materials is less and less accurate the earlier the period that is examined

Surely it should be "This is not to claim that there are not earlier survivals drawn either from the oral tradition......" Otherwise, the qualifying clause: "but that the accuracy of these earlier materials...." does not make sense.

Gill (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Gillharley


 * Thanks Gill, as the person who posted the reference, I believe you are correct. John D. Croft (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did he really write "the accuracy of these earlier materials is less and less accurate"? It's a rather bad sentence. It's clear what he means, but how can accuracy be less accurate? Paul B (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

English is not Finkelstein's first language. Still, he should have had editors who would pick this up. And surely the original stories are more 'accurate' or at least 'reliable' than the newer ones which are reworkings? Gill (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)gillharley

I've found the relevant quote in the book, page 30. It is just a matter of perception: "I imagine the historical perspective in the Hebrew Bible as a telescope looking back in time: the farther in time we go back the more dim the picture becomes.  Considering that the supposed telescope stood somewhere in the late-eighth or seventh centuries BCE it gives us a more accurate picture when we look at the 9th century than when we view the tenth century, and so forth." Amihai Mazar. Finkelstein agrees further on, but his quote is much more long-winded.

The records of Pilate's court
What on earth is this talking about? ""The nineteenth century eminent scholar, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise examined the records of Pilate’s court, still extant and concluded that there's no evidence for Jesus' trial." Records of Pilate's court???? (ref quoted is Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343 - the title sounds fishy to me.) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. If someone can verify the claim from a NPOV source perhaps it could be put back. I would also like the claim to be verified from a few more historians as well.--itpastorn (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Primeval History
In point of fact, most historians don't even address the question of whether the "Primeval History" is historical or theological. Here's the text as I had it: "Many biblical scholars believe that the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11, taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the 'generations of Terah') is a highly schematic literary work representing theology rather than history." And here's the text as you want it: "The Primeval History (Genesis 1-11, taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the 'generations of Terah') has long been regarded as theology rather than history." The version I prefer is correct. It doesn't make claims that can't be substantiated. Your version uses the phrase "has long been regarded", which is basically weasel words. Don't use passive voice like that; attribute the view to "many biblical scholars", which is correct. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Still, I think we need to make clear that it's more than biblical scholars who don't regard such notions as the creation account in Genesis 1-2, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of babel, the Table of Nations, the pre-Flood patriarchs and all the rest of it as historical. How about this:

"Modern biblical scholars regard the 'primeval history (Genesis 1-11) as essentially theology, taking Babylonian myths such as Adapa, Utnapishtim, and the Enuma Elish and re-telling them to serve the theology of the Yahwistic cult of the 5th century BC'."


 * I don't see why that's an improvement. Without citations, it sounds like a lot of original research.  Not to mention that you'd have to modify "Modern biblical scholars" with "many", because there are exceptions.  Also, when you say that "it's more than biblical scholars who don't regard" the material as historical, what do you mean? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello PiCo. Good to see you maintaining your typical standard.  Do you want me to find you a citation and correct your spelling?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is that a whole host of sciences have ruled out the stories in the History as literally true. The universe took more than 6 days to create, humans don't descend from Adam and Eve, there was no flood, no Tower of Babel, etc etc. These things come from science, not biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars also explain the first 11 chapters of genesis as something other than hiostory. This is just fact. If you dispute this, please give me some refs that I can check out. PiCo (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PiCo, as usual you are trying to make your own point without reading what anyone else has to day. The point you are trying to make is not only wrong, but is being made in the wrong way, as usual.  And as usual you are trying to include original research, without a single citation.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, some biblical scholars explain the first 11 chapters of Genesis as something other than history. All I have to do is pull out one who says it's history, and your claim falls.  Why not restrain yourself to saying "many".  As far as the 6 days, I'll point you to a source that claims the 6 days weren't literal "days", and that therefore, the narrative isn't necessarily non-historical.  As far as your statement about Adam and Eve, I'm not sure what your source is for the claim.  Nor is it true that "there was no flood".


 * Even if the text of those chapters doesn't recount history the way a modern history book would, that doesn't mean they aren't historical. I think you're trying to push an agenda here, and that's not really what Wikipedia is for. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The agenda I'm pushing is called "science" :). If you can name any genuine biblical scholars who say the first 11 chapters of Genesis are history I'd like to hear of them - but please, no Creationists, they/re not genuine biblical scholars.PiCo (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean 'history' as in 'a genuine historical account', or 'history' as in 'intentional historiographical writing'? Do you understand the difference?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And you don't see that as an agenda? -LisaLiel (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it as reality :)PiCo (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

After all this, you still haven't provided a citation PiCo, and you still haven't amended your statement so that it's more accurate. I could find you a citation myself, but I'm a little tired of cleaning up after you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A citation for what exactly?PiCo (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A citation for the statement you made. What else?  Are you going to leave it up to me to find one, yet again?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * About modern theologians taking Genesis 1-11 as essentially a theologically motivated retelling of babylonian myths? Would Wenham do? PiCo (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Wenham would do. Any reliable source would do, and Wenham is a reliable source (I'm glad to see you've promoted him to WP:RS again, after earlier telling me he wasn't even a notable scholar).  But please, include reliable sources when you edit.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this paragraph from the section Pentateuchal history:


 * Religious studies courses at most universities teach that the Pentateuch is a composite work consisting of four literary strands. The four strands have been assigned the letters J, E, D, and P; each representing a different document or source that was woven into the fabric of the Bible. This set of assumptions has gone by a number of names including the documentary theory and the Graf-Wellhausen theory. According to this view, the letter "J" stands for the Yahwist ("J" from the German Jahweh) narrative, coming from the period of the early Jewish monarchy, about 950 B.C. "E" stands for the Elohist narrative from the region of the Northern Kingdom dating from about 750 B.C. "D" is best represented by the book of Deuteronomy and is said to have originated in the Southern Kingdom about 650 B.C. or later. And finally, "P" is the priestly document that comes from the period after the fall of Israel in 587 B.C. According to the theory, the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of Ezra or about 400 B.C. 

This reads as if the documentary hypothesis were the very last word in theories on the composition of the Torah. In fact it isn't - the whole field is open to discussion these days, and I doubt that many universities would teach the DH in quite this way. I also doubt that this whole subject (i.e., the historical origins of the Torah) really is all that closely connected to our topic, which is the value of the bible as history. A very brief mention can be made, but we don't need a whole para. PiCo (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Minimalism and Maximalism
These are mentioned both in sections 1.2, "Overview of academic views" and 5, "Schools of archaeological and historical thought". Could the sections be merged somehow? If this were to happen, the current section 1.3, "Critique of the Maximalist - Minimalist Dichotomy" should probably still follow on from the merged sections in my opinion. Robin S (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Date Ambiguity
In the "Hebrew Bible" section, the "Pentateuch" section ends with the following: "Today, while a minority of ultra-conservative scholars continue to work within the old framework, the mainstream sees the Pentateuch as a product of the latter half of the 1st millennium." Does the "1st millennium" mentioned refer to BCE or CE? I unfortunately do not have access to the cited source and don't want to guess :)

Dappawit (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BCE. I doubt anyone thinks the Pentateuch was written after the NT. -Andrew c [talk] 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course... I misread it on first pass (and was hoping to change my comment here before someone else noticed). But if nothing else, it says write as clearly as possible... and that I should read more carefully.  Plus, someone who doesn't know the Bible at all may truly not know.  Dappawit (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Undid Edit
The point raised was about Albright's superceded theories, not about Alt and Noth. If you wish to make these points please do so in a new sentence, and reference your conclusions. John D. Croft (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a better reference than Finkelstein regarding Albright? Finkelstein has little standing amongst Bible scholars from theological institutions. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think an article on this subject is futile. Just googling I can find articles going on about how the Bible is the most reliable historical book blah blah Of course people with the opposite view would dismiss these as "not reliable sources" despite the authors having academic degrees ... and the same applies vice versa. Trying to get a good source that summarizes the different views and indicates truthfully how representative each view also seems hopeless and of course even when being truthful everyone has a different view of whose opinions should be taken into consideration in determining representativeness. One book on my shelf that I just paged through sums up the situation quite well - "a cacophany of voices." Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Finkelstein's standing in theological institutions is not the issue here, as this is an article about the Bible and history, not the Bible and theology. There are other sources I could add here. for example I have added J. Alberto Soggin, William Devers and Amihai Mazar to the list of references here, since you feel that Finkelstein's critique of Albright is questionable.  I know of no reputable archaeologist since John Bright who accepts Albright's views uncritically.  Processual and Post Processual archaeology of Israel have moved on considerably since Albrights day.John D. Croft (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hegelianism
When writing about historicity in general, and about the Bible in particular, isn't there a certain risk for intellectuals to get caught in the nets of hegelian philosophy, which goes to great lenghts in asserting the value of historical matters over actual and real matters ? Hegel's thought is sometimes called historicism, a philosophy which had a great deal of influence on 20th-century marxism. This is in part why many biblical scholars have gone to great pains in reminding their more secular colleagues that Jesus was a real and living person and not just a mere historical person. ADM (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul needed?
Anyone think, like me, that this article needs a complete averhaul, top to bottom? Starting with the basic plan? Needs a brief discussion of historiography, for example (how can you discuss the bible and history without discussing the idea of what history itself is?) PiCo (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I review the article I find more of an apologetic style rather one that focuses simply on history and the Bible. It does not really address how the scripture measures up to what is supported by archeologists, historians, and other scholars.
 * What kind of definition of history are you proposing? -- Storm  Rider  15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the definition of "history", I'd like to make the point that the 19th century definition of history as the collection of facts was replaced in the 20th by view of history as argument and opinion - biblical history is one of the few areas where the first definition still has followers, and as a result those followers are predisposed to treat the bible less critically than other historians treat their sources. Your point about the role of archaeology comes in at that point - historians in every other area would have no qualms about giving archaeological evidence priority, but in biblical studies it's often the other way round.
 * I also think we need to spell out a few of the major movements in biblical history in recent times - the way that belief in the accuracy of the OT has progressively shifted over the last 200 years, first the belief in the historical accuracy of the Creation story and Tower of Babel being dropped, then belief in Moses and the Exodus, then Joshua and the Conquest, until now the debate is over whether the bible's picture of David and Solomon is of any worth at all. We don't have to argue any case, just outline the movements. For the NT, we really need to touch on the "historical Jesus" movement of the 19th century, and 20th century moves to recognise Jesus's Jewish nature. I repeat, the aim should be to outline these shifts, not argue a case. PiCo (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is an appropriate direction to take and it would improve the article. I also agree that the presentation should be neutral in tone and strictly supported by references. There has been an evolution in critical evaluation among biblical scholars where reading has moved from a devotional position to an actual critical review in a scholarly sense. I support your proposal; but it might go easier to give an actual outline here so that editors can review and comment to achieve consensus. -- Storm  Rider  00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Whole section on Minimalism and Maximalism needs rewriting. It is repetitive, poorly organised and confusing. Can someone who is of neither "camp" assist with the reorganisation please.John D. Croft (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
Since there's already a whole article about this, it seems pointless to have a section about it here - it could all go in the See Also section. PiCo (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note from an uninvolved editor, there's nothing stopping you from having a section AND an article on the same subject, but you shouldn't keep too much duplicate material. If the section here about the historicity of Jesus is almost like the lede to the Historicity of Jesus article, I think you're on the right track. / PerEdman  20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Change
no consensus to move. What Dampinograaf says below makes sense and I'm closing this as no consensus (while alternative titles - or not - are explored). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bible and history → Historicity of the Bible &mdash; This article has always been about the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Bible. Due to the ambiguity present in the current title ("The Bible and history"), some editors, acting in good faith, have inserted content which has no bearing on the issue of biblical historicity, but rather on current events which are claimed to stem from the question of biblical historicity. Since Historicity of the Bible already redirects here, I would like to propose that it become the title of the article. Lisa (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, a religious article, Fun! The proposal makes sense, and seems to be supported by the article content, so Support. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lisa only suggests this name change to keep out material she does not like due to her religionist disposition. Cush (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move and rename. Changing the title of an article does not keep material out, it even leaves an article name free. Agree that the title is ambiguous and the new title is an improvement. See WP:NOT for notes on how to handle current events. / PerEdman  20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush thinks that my "religionist disposition" (a term suggesting an anti-religious bias on the part of the one using it) is why I want to keep the scope of this article the way it has been. However, I don't see how "religionism" (is there such a thing) has any relation to leaving out current political debates.  I don't know what the protocol is for this, and whether it's appropriate for me to state what's obviously my opinion, given that I initiated the move discussion, but Strong Support. -Lisa (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Lisa is indeed motivated mainly/exclusively by a wish to root out some content she doesn't like, but she can be right despite her motives. A move would also, as PerEdman, points out, free up an article title. So I support the redirect and will create a new article with a better title for the modern material. PiCo (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Loving the WP:AGF, here, guys. -Lisa (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I came because you asked for comments and have no preconceptions about you. But: Assuming that others are not assuming good faith is in itself assuming bad faith in these others. There's a passage in the bible about that, too. / PerEdman  23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand me - I don't think Lisa is acting in bad faith, I simply think she's very emotional about this issue. I also think she makes a good case regardless of her motives.PiCo (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PerEdman, I appreciate your involvement. I was referring to Cush's comment that "Lisa only suggests this name change to keep out material she does not like due to her religionist disposition" and PiCo's comment that "I think Lisa is indeed motivated mainly/exclusively by a wish to root out some content she doesn't like".  I'm not assuming that they aren't assuming good faith, I'm simply calling them on explicitly saying that they are not assuming good faith on my part.  In fact, my reasons are as stated in the first paragraph of this section, and it's improper for anyone else to question that these are, in fact, my reasons.  Note that I'd written "some editors, acting in good faith, have inserted content which has no bearing on the issue of biblical historicity".  I explicitly attributed good faith motives to Cush and PiCo.  Perhaps I was wrong; I suppose a glance at their history on other articles might suffice to answer that question, but I made a conscious decision to take the high road.  I only wish that they had seen fit to do the same. -Lisa (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we just let this drop? It's not relevant to the article or this movereq. If this is actually an important conversation to have (which, really, it isn't), why not move it to your respective talk pages? — V = I * R  (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AFG? Lisa is widely known to manipulate articles to render a religion-friendly POV. She has been warned about that so many times it ain't even funny anymore. This is just another case of her wanting to eliminate material that might be received as casting a negative light on Israel or Judaism. Cush (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, I think. The current title is unclear. john k (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)  Oppose, per Dampinograaf below.  I do think that we need a title change. john k (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite the place to mention this but I don't know where is: Just to note that I've moved the section on achaeology and the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Syro-Palestinian archaeology, where there's already similar content. PiCo (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move and rename. I think that it will clear up what the topic as it is clearly confusing now. Reargun (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a consensus for the name change so far, though it's been less than 24 hours. What's a reasonable amount of time to wait? -Lisa (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:RM: "Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs of a few days develop occasionally. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'." / PerEdman  19:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the proposed name change. It is based on a confusion — that seems rather widespread! — between historicity and historical accuracy. Unfortunately, the two concepts come up in this article. Indeed, historicity has a clear meaning: it regards the actual existence of a person or an event of the past; see historicity or the entry in the Wiktionary.


 * If the present name seems confusing, it might be changed to something like Historical Information in the Bible, although I would rather keep the present name.


 * --Dampinograaf (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...this is a good point. "Historicity of the Bible" isn't quite what we're looking for - the Bible's historicity is not what is in question, but the historicity of the events depicted within it.  I'm not sure how that would be best expressed.  "Historical Information in the Bible" is rather awkward. john k (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Historical accuracy of the Bible" is OK. "Historical Information in the Bible" is too vague as it again opens the door to all kinds of pseudoscience.Cush (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature of the article
Just one hint: if the title is changed to "Historicity of the Bible" then the demand for reliable sources will changes. Historicity is established solely by archaeologists and historians, not by biblical scholars and theologians. Tha means that all the references to religiously motivated publications become invalid. Cush (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one view. Another is that you can't arbitrarily exclude "religiously motivated publications" simply because you have a personal dislike of religion (and "religionists"). -Lisa (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Cush here, from the stance of "What would I expect as a new reader to find in this article?". But Cush, please do not exclude the possibility that bible scholars can very well be comparative historians as well. Whether they are in a conflict of interest can be discovered by seeing if their conclusions are supported by their evidence or if there is unreasonable bias in their conclusions. In such cases, it may be better to reference the body of the study rather than the conclusion, if it is at all usable. / PerEdman  19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The point is that when it comes to historicity religiously motivated publishers are in a COI. If you ask the Vatican for something on the historicity of Jesus you know you will get a response that is not reliable. Same goes for any other Jewish or Christian "source". Cush (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So are publishers and scholars who are motivated by a desire to "debunk" religion. You're seriously suggesting that we start an inquisition here where you get to determine which sources are being honest and which aren't on the basis of their religious identity or lack thereof?
 * Fact: someone can be religious and still look at the facts objectively. I know that idea goes against your bias against "religionists", but it's true nonetheless.  And someone can be non- or anti-religious and still slant their work.  The two things are entirely distinct, and Wikipedia does not work according to ad hominem criteria of the sort you want.
 * Are you going to exclude all editors who are Jewish from editing articles that refer to Jewish subjects? After all, they might have a conflict of interest.  How about all Muslims or Arabs from editing articles that pertain to them?  Maybe as a fan of David Rohl's New Chronology, you should be prevented from editing any articles on Rohl, chronology, ancient history, or archaeology because you have a conflict of interest.  How can we know that your edits are honest ones and aren't stemming from an emotional need to support Rohl's theories?
 * Of course, that would be infantile. Your edits, like everyone elses, and your sources, like everyone else's, need to be taken at face value.  That's what WP:AGF means.  You assume that there isn't an ulterious motive.  That there isn't some sort of conspiracy on the part of those who disagree with you to warp the minds of Wikipedia readers and conquer the soul of teh interwebs. -Lisa (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would a historian be "motivated by a desire" to debunk religion? (And why would you follow up such a statement with another reminder that others need to AGF?) That religious folk may have a biased view of their own religion is obvious, but who are these other scholars you mention? How do you distinguish them from, say, a neutral scholar who finds very little to no evidence of a historical Moses? From a neutrality standpoint it would be best if you mixed your editors and sources so that you found those who are "for", those who are "against" and those who are "neutral" and use all of them. Balance one bias out with another. / PerEdman  19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, PerEdman. My problem is with those who insist that all bias is only one one side.  That it's only those who are religious that can't be trusted.  That attitude is unacceptable on Wikipedia. -Lisa (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether religious people can be trusted, it's about a WP:COI and a natural tendency in humans to assume that their own current ideals are more correct than others. / PerEdman  23:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what, anybody who believes in God can't be a reliable source about the historicity of the Bible? That's ridiculous and outrageous.  Most mainline Protestant, Catholic, and non-Orthodox Jewish seminaries are going to teach pretty much exactly the same stuff about the bible as secular universities - hell, the whole notion of higher criticism goes back to some German protestant theologians in the nineteenth century.  Fundamentalist "scholarship" is certainly largely an exercise in question-begging to get to preordained conclusions.  But the idea that anybody religious can't be trusted on this subject is ridiculous.  It was religious people who basically started the whole business of discovering that lots of stuff in the bible doesn't seem to match up with what we know about history from other sources, or that the textual history of the Bible has problems that cast doubt on its veracity in some parts. john k (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly are we discussing here? It is one thing to exclude fundamentalist apologetics. It is quite another thing to say that any book written by a Catholic, or by someone at a Catholic university, is not a good source? This seems clearly wrong. And of course bible scholars are perfectly legitimate sources on the historicity of the Bible. Regular historians and archaeologists deal with history and archaeology, but might not make explicit connections to the Bible. Biblical scholars will be much more likely to make the explicit connections, even if the expertise of many of them is largely literary. This seems like an effort to exclude material you don't like. john k (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for the historicity of anything are scientific sources. That excludes all publications by religious institutions or religiously motivated individuals. The likelihood that these sources have construed the historicity for the purpose of solidifying the doctrines of their faiths is just too great. And since the establishment of historicity (or lack thereof) for biblical stories relies exclusively on non-biblical sources, biblical scholars, religious institutions, and theologians are no help anyways. Cush (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Says who? That's your personal bias talking, Cush.  You can't expect your personal feelings to constitute rules/policy on Wikipedia. -Lisa (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think you two need to go to Dispute resolution. At the very least, take your interpersonal crap to your respective talk pages. Neither one of you is helping this article significantly, right now. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is totally ridiculous. The establishment of historicity for biblical stories does not rely exclusively on non-biblical sources at all.  How can you possibly justify such a statement?  There's all kind of internal evidence which is used in that pursuit as well.  john k (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Says who what? If you want accuracy in the article you need to refer to what scientific archaeological and historical research has dug up. If you want to find out whether Moses had really lived, you need to dig into Egyptian soil and Egyptian texts. Historicity means there has to be solid evidence. No evidence, no historicity. And by just reading the bible evidence cannot be discovered. It is a simple as that. So after the name change the reliability of the referred sources needs to be greater than before.
 * Oh, and stop your personal attacks. Cush (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no more personal attacks it is then :). I've started adding some links that might be useful for a revision of the article - as it stands it's pretty disorganised and doesn't really do justice to the subject. If you have suggestions please add them, but try to put things available on-line in the External Links section and books etc not so available in the References section. Any external links should include a brief description of what the source covers (probably the title will do). PiCo (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC) A little later: I've tried to clean the structure of the article up, without deleting anything vital. I hope I've started it in a direction where it can become more useful to readers seeking an insight into different scholarly approaches to the question of the historical reliability of the bible, including a discussion of some of the major debates. One major innovation has been the addition of summaries of the historical narratives of both OT and NT - I think you can hardly discuss historicity if you don't first give an idea of the history itself. (I've also perfected the art of baking chocolate puddings, but that was in between wasting time on Wikipedia)PiCo (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
I've just tagged "Until the 18th century, among both scholars and laypeople, few if any doubted that the earth was created some 4,000 thousand years before the birth of Christ, and that the Garden of Eden, the Flood and the Tower of Babel, Abraham and the Exodus, and all subsequent narrative, were real history." as dubious. As written, I'm certain that its dead wrong - it ignores the vast majority of people with no or no significant knowledge of the Christian story, and many who know it, but reject it from Socrates via Julian the Apostate to Atahualpa. Can we reframe this to refer to post-medieval educated western society (which I take as the implicit context here)? It also needs a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the statement ignores (among other) most Asian, African and pre-Columbian American societies, as well as pre-Christian Europe. I've rewritten the statement to refer to the Western world, but improvements are welcome, as well as a source.
 * I've also tagged the statement immediately following this, which says :"... and by the end of the 19th century few scientists, and not many lay-people, saw the first eleven chapters of Genesis as representing real events." This is also quite dubious for several reasons. First, as far as I know, evolution was not universally accepted even among scholars at the beginning of the 20th century, and "not many lay-people" is not even true today, while hundreds of millions around the world still believe in the biblical account. Lindert (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at least in US popular opinion, evolution was probably more accepted (or less rejected - many probably had no explicit opinion either way) at the end of the 19th century than today. Anti-scientific biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That may well be true (I don't live in the US), but still, I would think that at that time a majority or at least a significant part of both the Christian and the Muslim world would have considered this creation account historical. Lindert (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for that claim? An how does the "Christian and the Muslim world" reflect the overall perception of the Genesis story? Even prior to the mentioned 18th century Chinese made up the bulk of the world's population and they certainly never believed in any of the weird biblical stuff. Cush (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At that time (late 19th century) a majority of the world's Muslims would not have considered the Genesis Creation account historical. Nor would a minority of them. In fact they wouldn't have considered it at all, since they didn't then, and don't now, read Genesis. They read the Koran, and it's not in there. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point. I'd also doubt that many people even among nominal Christians dealt with the details, like e.g. the Ussher chronology and the 4004 BC baggage, which seems to be mostly restricted to the English-speaking protestant churches. I dislike these sweeping statements that are, at best, "correct" under a large number of unstated assumptions that are certainly not obvious for the large variety of readers with different cultural background that we have in Wikipedia - especially not if they are not clearly referenced to a good source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though I still think Muslims considered and consider the Genesis account historical, though inaccurate. The Koran contains a very similar account of the creation and of the flood among other things. The books of Moses are also considered in Islam to be divinely inspired (but corrupted). (I'm not a Muslim though, so in fact I can't speak for them).
 * I think the whole point of the two first sentences was to express a great constrast between 1800 and 1900, from few unbelievers to few believers in the Genesis story. That ignores most of the world of course, but apart from that, I think it is also greatly exaggerated. Maybe the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. Lindert (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rewrite the entire article, with my blessings.PiCo (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete overhaul required
It is clear that this important article is need of major reworking. Among the most obvious problems: It may be best to start by removing unsourced and blatantly OR material and properly referencing what remains. I will give the matter some further thought and do some preliminary drafting Johncoz (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead does not conform with guidelines.
 * 2) Huge slabs of text are completely unsourced and clearly contain OR and synthesis
 * 3) Much of what sourcing there is inadequate. Dead links, books without required publication details, incorrect formatting.
 * 4) Arbitrary judgements eg referring to scholars as "liberal" and "conservative", which may make sense in American politics but is highly questionable here.
 * 5) Over-emphasis on maximalist/minimalist division, when many of the scholars so described deny the label, and the article itself points out that most scholars do not fit into either camp (eg Davies eschews the label, while Devers now says he's effectively a minimalist!).
 * 6) Poor organisation of material. For instance, we have the max/min division introduced early on with an OR discussion about archeological material (hanging off two dead links, a 40yo book and an anonymous egyptologist), only to return to the max/min division later in the article.
 * etc, etc


 * Have replaced the section of Manuscripts and canons that properly deals with that topic. As per WP:NPOV I haven't referenced anything that is not reasonably in dispute. Poorly sourced (one ref was to a PBS blurb), unsourced and OR material has been deleted. New and existing references have been formatted in a standard template style. Worthwhile material that can be sourced I'm noting in the next section in the hope of getting some assistance. I will do another chunk of this as I get time. Johncoz (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done a first reordering of sections to provide the broad framework. Moved plot summaries of the old and new testaments to follow manuscripts. And moved academic overview to the discussion about scholarly disputes. Wrote linking section on historiography, which now leads into the yet-untouched sections on historicity. Deleted obviously more redundant and spurious material (unsourced or OR). Removed OR template and added Under Construction template. Johncoz (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced the first paragraph of the historicity section with a fuller treatment . This is slow work, given the thinness of what was there, since good quality sources need to bebfound and properly assembled Johncoz (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]I will be out of wiki action for 10 days or so. I have added a refimprove template at the point where I got to. Note what sits below that template in that section is completely unreferenced, although most of it is kosher and citations should not be hard to find. Guidelines I've used for citations are: 1. all books must have full pub details, including ISBN or full online text for historic books 2. all journal articles should have full reference details correctly formatted 3. self-published web sources are not acceptable, unless they are sites of convenience for scholarly material. Obvious topics not covered at all yet include Moses, and the depiction-reality of the Kingdom of Israel and its dissolution.

Looking ahead, the New Testament section is pathetically thin given the amount of literature available -- where are the early christology debates, the heresies, the Qur'an, the deists (Thomas Jefferson, anyone?), the Jesus seminar, Spong, etc etc.

Johncoz (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also dating (ie untenable 2nd millennium dates) and Babylonian influence on the final redactions also need coverage in the Hebrew bible section Johncoz (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation help required
Okay, let's make a start:

1. '''Anyone have a citation for this par. Probably worth preserving if we can locate the reference:''' The archaeologist William Dever, discussing the role of his discipline in interpreting the biblical record, has pointed out that there are in fact multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of "Great Men"), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artefacts as correlates of changes in human behaviour). Dever notes that the role of archaeology increases as one goes down this list, and that archaeologist's interpretations of the written record can differ markedly from the record itself.

2. This can be rewritten, with appropriate source, unless someone is attached to this formulation, in which case a source is required: Most importantly for the historian, the authors were not engaged in writing what we would now recognise as an objective and balanced history, but rather they were engaged in writing subjective accounts in awe of a personal experience, though often of the view held by a literate group of followers of Judaism. Within these documents, the history of humankind is seen as an ongoing relationship of humans in the Middle East to the God of the Hebrew tradition, known as Yahweh.

3. This is pure OR and Synth and POV with no source, and probably wrong to boot: Many—though not all—of the events, names of monarchs, and identification of places can be found confirmed by non biblical Iron Age sources, texts found through archaeological excavations in neighbouring states, and by archaeological surveys and excavations within the area of historic Judah and Israel, though materials dating to the previous Bronze Age are very few. But there have been, even within this material, major discussions, debates and arguments. Conservative religious historians, as seen below, are accused by liberal religious historians, of pressing the interpretation of historical facts to fit specific biblical interpretation, while liberal historians are criticised by conservative historians for not placing greater trust in the biblical record as a reliable source for history.

Johncoz (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. Anyone have a reference for Peters or the sentence in parenthesis that follows (both worthy): Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity". (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire).Johncoz (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Dever text is also in History of ancient Israel and Judah with a cite to his book but no page number. It's also found on Amazon and in an article at this  site:  I'll look for references for Dever and Peters hopefully sometime today Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might like to look at the Further Reading section of History of Ancient Israel and Judah - links to several titles that are relevant to this article. As for the requests above, I've taken the liberty of numbering them to make them easier to refer to. Dougweller has already begun to deal with (1). I have no idea where (2) is from, but there's nice stuff on the same subject on p.138-9 of Brettler, Marc Zvi, "The Creation of History in Ancient Israel" (Routledge, 1995). If you want to replace that material with a sourceable quote, there's this from Alberto Soggin: "It is recognised that these [i.e., the OT history books] are not historical texts in the modern sense of the word, but testimonies of faith. Their interest for history lies solely in the fact that their authors see the hand of God in this history. That such a criterion cannot be used for writing a history of Israel and Judah (or of any other people) should be obvious." (J. Alberto Soggin, "An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah" (Paideia, 1998), p.xiii) Directly relevant is Lester Grabbe (ed), "Can a History of Israel be Written?" - that one's not on the History of Israel and Judah article, and it might help the issues in (3). Still on (3), Kitchen ("On the Reliability etc") devotes ch.2 to marshaling all (and I do mean all!) the archaeological evidence for monarchs and places during the divided kingdoms, and ch. 4-5-6 do the same for the Bronze Ages, so that could be used as a ref for that sentence. The rest of the paragraph seems self-evident to me. PiCo (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think I really should read Kitchen and a couple of others before I proceed much further to assist with NPOV :-) Johncoz (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence from (3), although probably correct in essence, is off-beam in the terminology it uses: "Many—though not all—of the events, names of monarchs, and identification of places can be found confirmed by non biblical Iron Age sources, texts found through archaeological excavations in neighbouring states, and by archaeological surveys and excavations within the area of historic Judah and Israel." I think this would express the meaning in a way less likely to cause cringing-reflexes among archaeologists: "Many—though not all—of the events, monarchs, and places mentioned in 1-2 Kings have been identified in the archaeological record", with a ref to Kitchen's lists. PiCo (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, what exactly of 1 Kings has been identified in the archaeological record?
 * And please don't use Kitchen as a source, he's a Christian fundamentalist who will say anything to make the biblical story appear true. CUSH 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kitchen certainly has to be used with great care, as he puts forward only the evidence that supports his cause, ignores anything that doesn't, and never considers alternative explanations (I'm speaking here of "On the Reliability"). But he can be used with those caveats.PiCo (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is where we are at. (1 and 4) Still need refs (with page no) for Dever and Peters (have put in fact tags). (2) I've dealt with this point in the new text. (3) This specific text has gone, but this discussion will mainly belong in a (radical) redraft of the academic views section. To the extent we can say anything sensible in the historicity section, Abraham is already dealt with, even Kitchen admits there's ultimately no evidence for Moses or exodus, and we have the Merneptah and the Tel Dan stela (with associated controversies). And we have a number of paragraphs after the refimprove template that need sourcing. Johncoz (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kitchen-Finkelstein clash
The article contains a fragment: "Kitchen advocated the reliability of many (though not all) parts of the Torah and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman, to which Finkelstein has since responded.". Could somebody please add a source containing Finkelstein's response to Kitchen? Thank you Kkrystian (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New Lead
I added a lead for this article, attempting to provide an alternative to wikipedia's automatic insertion of a random lead. Elliot Svensson mr.svensson@gmail.com 11/8/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.67.200 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This messy article needs to be cleaned up. Portillo (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Westminister
The link to Westminister is fallacious. Should it be deleted?John D. Croft (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Westminster? Place in London? PiCo (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Three schools?
I'm not sure about this. Finkelstein for instance denies being either a minimalist or a maximalist and says he's in the center. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad re-direct: "History of bible" will soon lead elsewhere.
As I understand it, this page is about history and the bible, i.e. the parts of the bible that can or cannot be historically verified. It's not about the history of the book *per se*. The re-direct from "History of bible" should rather lead to the history of the book itself, its development and how the book came together from vastly separate sources. Yay or nay? Pär Larsson (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle. "History of (the) bible" is quite different from the topic of this article, (although of course it is related, because the books of the bible were influenced by their historical settings). However, to my knowledge, there is no page on Wikipedia with this topic. The reasons for this are I think, mostly practical. There are seperate articles for the developments of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and the New Testament Canons. The topic is vast and concerns dozens of books that are written over more than a millenium by widely different authors, in different places, for various reasons. Even what books the bible contains is disputed. Maybe History of bible, as well as History of the bible should lead to a disambiguation page, where readers can choose more specific topics, including this one. Just my thoughts. --Lindert (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts - exaggerated importance?
Is this really an important book, or does this article exaggerate it's importance? I am concerned it is the latter, but am no expert.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article exist, exactly?
Which is to say, why is it different from Historical criticism of the Bible?--Tznkai (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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&#39;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 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


 * Shekel comes from Babylonian Akkadian. It was originally a volume of barley.  It was picked up by the Jews during the Babylonian captivity.  John D. Croft (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the Jews did adopt the Babylonian shekel during the captivity, they used shekels long before that. Shekel (שֶׁקֶל) is simply the Hebrew word for 'weight', derived from the verb shakal (שָׁקַל) 'to weigh'. The ancient Jewish shekel is attested not only in the Hebrew Bible, but also in archaeological finds, e.g. a Hebrew ostracon from Tel Aviv from the 8th century BC mentioning "Gold of Ophir, for Beth-Horon [...] 30 shekels" (source) - Lindert (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Archaeology and modern Israeli politics
One user wrote the following: ''Biblical archaeology is sometimes politically controversial, especially when it touches on the United Monarchy period, as some Israelis seek to use the existence of the Kingdom as support for a Greater Israel today. Arguments against the historicity of the Kingdom (or perhaps an existence in a smaller and less impressive form), or against the historicity of a recognisable Exodus, has led to charges of anti-Semitism from Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.'' I think there is some value to that. Of course a couple of publications maintaining this position would be required as sources.
 * I agree. The reference to Shanks in the last line is presumably to the article he wrote in Hh-aretz in 1999 attacking various scholars for suggesting that the Exodus and Conquest might not be historical - this, he said, undermined the reason for the existence of Israel (the return of the Jewish people to their homeland) by suggesting that it was based on a concocted history. Shank's argument is confused/confusing - he simultaneously seems to accept that Genesis/Judges (and maybe Samuel) are fictional, yet sees them as real: one gets the impression that the article was written under the influence of emotion (it was a response to someone else's earlier article debunking the Bible), and not revised much before publication. On other fields, the para (our article) does say that this anti-Semitism charge is made by proponents of Greater Israel, and Greater Israel is not mainstream thinking in Israel today (or at least I get that impression). PiCo (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (This next bit is little off the topic, but I was amused by the way Ha'aretz introduced Shanks' article (these words are from the editor of Ha-aretz, not from Shanks): "The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not make an exodus and did not conquer the land; so said Professor Ze'ev Herzog in these pages last week. Not so, responds an American Jewish author and archaelogist ; just because we have not yet found hard evidence to support the veracity of the biblical narrative does not make it untrue." On that argument we'd have to accept the existence of pink elephants as well, since there's no hard evidence that they don't.) PiCo (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence for an alternative is evidence of absence. There is simply no room for the biblical tale in egyptian history. And please do not refer to Zionism and the creation of Israel as "the return of the Jewish people to their homeland", because there are many things wrong with that phrase. Cush (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is untrue. The Bible states the numbers of Israelites exiting Egypt.  To have this number exiting certainly would have been recorded in Egyptian history.  It simply is not there.  The best we can come up with is a certain number of Levites (possibly associated with the Mushite legacy in the tribe of Dan) who exited Egypt.  Personally for me this fits best in Rameses III's settlement of Peleset and Tekrur along the Palestinian coast.  But that is POV and cannot be asserted> John D. Croft (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources:, , , , (you might have to search on ant-Semitism), (I think, I haven't read it but Google suggests it's relevant), and perhaps most important, . This took me no more than 10 minutes including this edit, and I thought I'd actually added a reference, obviously not. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the para has been changed entirely but seems to have an old fact tag, have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You may have been caught in an edit conflict - have a look now. I've tried to be as balanced as I can.PiCo (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the run, took a quick look and didn't read it carefully, references need page numbers I think which should be easy to get. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)