Tweet
[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;5651765]
This is where our starting points diverge. The Jewish tribe can be identified in archeological sites. The original inhabitants of Palestine were predominantly Canaan, until Jewish or Israelites or whatever you like to call them entered the lands and mixed with the local Canaan population. Mixed as in living in different sites, but in close proximity of other Canaan sites for example. I speak of Jews as a cultural rather than religious denominator, much like today many Jews are not bonded by religion but rather by 'Jewish' ancestry and culture which is definately not limited to its religion.
Archaeologically both groups could be seen as very much alike, apart from a few differences, one of which is very conspicuous. I'm afraid I forgot what it was though, should check my course notes for that.
What I'm trying to say though that what you describe as Jewish culture came into existence from the times Abraham onwards; while (non-religious) and in my eyes neutral researchers would discard that claim and say that the Jewish tribe existed before that too, when it was certainly not monotheistic (cf. my referral to Yahweh as a desert god - Jews entered Canaan probably originating from the desert).
This also bears on what I just said. You could take scripture and use as a guide in your archaeological excavations, as many (particularly 19th-early 20th century) archaeologists have done, much like Schliemann used Homer's Iliad to uncover Ilion. That however is a dangerous practice and is no longer accepted in widely acknowledged archaeology circles.
Point is that being unprejudiced is essential for proper scientific scrutiny, and you can't do that if you're working with one eye on the bible and the other on your dig. Same goes for textual criticism. You claim it's no better, but it's essential to put texts into context - unbelievable you discard it btw.
Oh and about Biale's work: it's exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. Contrary to many traditional and mostly exhaustive studies of Jewish history that purport to be 'neutral' it uncovers that neutrality, pointing out that the way we see Jewish history today is different from the point of view 10 years from now or 10 years back. That is why holding into account such prejudices and great attention to its culture and its context is seen as essential to understand traditional 'grand storytelling' history.
This is why history as a discipline is losing much of its credit, as it needs to be supplemented by other disciplines, most notably archaeology, exact sciences, art history etc.
I'm not sure we are referring to the same thing. Prior to Abraham, there were no 'Jews'. There were semitic peoples throughout the near east. The submission of Abraham to YHWH is the origin of both the Jewish people and Judaism.
They weren't Jews then, they were not a distinct tribe prior to Abraham leaving the place of his birth from Mesopotamia to Israel. I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. The tribe of the Jews were formed by Abraham who submitted himself to YHWH.
They weren't Jews then, they were not a distinct tribe prior to Abraham leaving the place of his birth from Mesopotamia to Israel. I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. The tribe of the Jews were formed by Abraham who submitted himself to YHWH.
Archaeologically both groups could be seen as very much alike, apart from a few differences, one of which is very conspicuous. I'm afraid I forgot what it was though, should check my course notes for that.
What I'm trying to say though that what you describe as Jewish culture came into existence from the times Abraham onwards; while (non-religious) and in my eyes neutral researchers would discard that claim and say that the Jewish tribe existed before that too, when it was certainly not monotheistic (cf. my referral to Yahweh as a desert god - Jews entered Canaan probably originating from the desert).
I'm saying that textual criticism is a relic of the Victorian era. I am not arguing that scripture is inerrant, I am simply arguing that scripture is the best source we have. If we want to know where the history of the Jews begins, we must first examine scripture, and then work outwards. The alternative is to dig through the sites we know about to find more direct evidence which isn't tainted by the distortions of time and opinion. Textual criticism is no better then the sources that they rely upon.
Point is that being unprejudiced is essential for proper scientific scrutiny, and you can't do that if you're working with one eye on the bible and the other on your dig. Same goes for textual criticism. You claim it's no better, but it's essential to put texts into context - unbelievable you discard it btw.
Oh and about Biale's work: it's exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. Contrary to many traditional and mostly exhaustive studies of Jewish history that purport to be 'neutral' it uncovers that neutrality, pointing out that the way we see Jewish history today is different from the point of view 10 years from now or 10 years back. That is why holding into account such prejudices and great attention to its culture and its context is seen as essential to understand traditional 'grand storytelling' history.
This is why history as a discipline is losing much of its credit, as it needs to be supplemented by other disciplines, most notably archaeology, exact sciences, art history etc.
Comment