5 ms·

yawn Choose your opinions, present them as fact. Back them up with nothing. I worked on a dig in Israel. It was interesting. Among other things I learnt abo

yawn Choose your opinions, present them as fact. Back them up with nothing. I worked on a dig in Israel. It was interesting. Among other things I learnt about archeology, history, facts, opinions, and bias, is that that most what is in popular press is grounded in belief, not fact. And that Finklestein is not respected by his peers. This article doesn't make me think any higher of him.

mxcrossb 6y ago
It almost seems like every one of the personalities mentioned in the article are disrespected by their peers! As an outsider I found it very fun, but I suspect that someone with inside experience like yourself would find it quite tedious.
mcphage 6y ago
What is the current archaeological consensus about David and his kingdom?
- simonh 6y ago
  I think the article explains this quite well. There is no consensus.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    That is what the article explains, but I was responding to someone who was dismissing the article, so I was wondering if they had a different take.
- InfiniteRand 6y ago
  In my educated layman guage of the field, I think midway between the minimalist and maximalists is still most respected with recent findings giving momentum to the maximalists but the maximalists are getting more inclined to over reaching claims which will likely undermine their position in the next generation or two
bobthechef 6y ago
So a case of "I am not in acquainted with this field, so I'll believe it, but boy did that other journalist completely mischaracterize MY field"? Based on what I hear, many biblical scholars (like many in other fields) are looking to be "edgy" by denying this or that claim and then build entire stories out of thin air based on the consequences of that denial. Meaning, a lot of the biblical scholarship that tries to be "original" ends up suppressing the best explanations in some way simply to get proverbial clicks. Like Reza Aslan.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Gell-Mann Amnesia effect?
coliveira 6y ago
Finklestein's peers are mostly paid to establish the truth of biblical stories. That's why they don't like him.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  If you look at all the religious megaliths we have today, like the Vatican or whatever, the reasons those exist is because they were built using several hundred or even thousand years of accrued wealth. (And a significant amount of 'reappropriated' building materials.) If the second temple really was built in 586 BCE, does it make any sense whatsoever that that could have been built with only 3 generations or so of accrued intergenerational wealth? That just doesn't seem plausible. Even assuming the bible is 100% made up, common sense suggests the longer biblical timeline is probably closer to the truth. If they'd instead stumbled into Dubai-style wealth from these copper mines or whatever only a few decades earlier, surely that would have been written down somewhere.
  - bjourne 6y ago
    But to be fair, the Second temple wasn't that impressive until Herod expanded it in the 1st century bc.
    - Alex3917 6y ago
      Good point, forgot about that heh.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. There is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a fantastic, wealthy temple built by Solomon. If there was one, it could have been a simple temple fit to a small town built by the new rulers of the Israelite tribes.
    - Alex3917 6y ago
      > You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. I was talking about the temple mount, which you can still visit today. Didn't realize it wasn't finished until 500 years later though, so not sure to what extent my argument still holds.
wl 6y ago
Levantine archeologists and philologists have recommended many of Finklestein's works to me. Some adopt his low chronology while others don't. But he seems to be respected enough—even among those who disagree with him—in that sliver of academia I'm familiar with. I'd imagine the situation may be different in environments where the the historicity of the Biblical account concerning the United Monarchy is of political or religious importance.

mxcrossb 6y ago

It almost seems like every one of the personalities mentioned in the article are disrespected by their peers! As an outsider I found it very fun, but I suspect that someone with inside experience like yourself would find it quite tedious.

mcphage 6y ago

What is the current archaeological consensus about David and his kingdom?

simonh 6y ago
I think the article explains this quite well. There is no consensus.
- mcphage 6y ago
  That is what the article explains, but I was responding to someone who was dismissing the article, so I was wondering if they had a different take.
InfiniteRand 6y ago
In my educated layman guage of the field, I think midway between the minimalist and maximalists is still most respected with recent findings giving momentum to the maximalists but the maximalists are getting more inclined to over reaching claims which will likely undermine their position in the next generation or two

bobthechef 6y ago

So a case of "I am not in acquainted with this field, so I'll believe it, but boy did that other journalist completely mischaracterize MY field"? Based on what I hear, many biblical scholars (like many in other fields) are looking to be "edgy" by denying this or that claim and then build entire stories out of thin air based on the consequences of that denial. Meaning, a lot of the biblical scholarship that tries to be "original" ends up suppressing the best explanations in some way simply to get proverbial clicks. Like Reza Aslan.

ithkuil 6y ago
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect?

coliveira 6y ago

Finklestein's peers are mostly paid to establish the truth of biblical stories. That's why they don't like him.

Alex3917 6y ago
If you look at all the religious megaliths we have today, like the Vatican or whatever, the reasons those exist is because they were built using several hundred or even thousand years of accrued wealth. (And a significant amount of 'reappropriated' building materials.) If the second temple really was built in 586 BCE, does it make any sense whatsoever that that could have been built with only 3 generations or so of accrued intergenerational wealth? That just doesn't seem plausible. Even assuming the bible is 100% made up, common sense suggests the longer biblical timeline is probably closer to the truth. If they'd instead stumbled into Dubai-style wealth from these copper mines or whatever only a few decades earlier, surely that would have been written down somewhere.
- bjourne 6y ago
  But to be fair, the Second temple wasn't that impressive until Herod expanded it in the 1st century bc.
  - Alex3917 6y ago
    Good point, forgot about that heh.
- coliveira 6y ago
  You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. There is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a fantastic, wealthy temple built by Solomon. If there was one, it could have been a simple temple fit to a small town built by the new rulers of the Israelite tribes.
  - Alex3917 6y ago
    > You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. I was talking about the temple mount, which you can still visit today. Didn't realize it wasn't finished until 500 years later though, so not sure to what extent my argument still holds.

wl 6y ago

Levantine archeologists and philologists have recommended many of Finklestein's works to me. Some adopt his low chronology while others don't. But he seems to be respected enough—even among those who disagree with him—in that sliver of academia I'm familiar with. I'd imagine the situation may be different in environments where the the historicity of the Biblical account concerning the United Monarchy is of political or religious importance.