This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical minimalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Nice try, but...
For Noah's flood, there are so many theories around that you could devote a whole article to them, and still come to no conclusion; plus, more importantly, the direction of modern biblical studies is to treat the OT as aliterary text, not a historical one, making the identification of"the" flood a non-issue.
For Abraham also, there is so much written about him (what about Abe as Sin the moon-god) that again I doubt you can summarise it all into 50 words or less.
Ans that's only two of the stories in Genesis alone. Are you going to start at the Creation and work your way through to Ezra, to Maccabees?
Pull down thy vanity I say. (Or in plain English, I don't think there's electrons enough in Wikipedia to finish the task you've set yourself in this section) PiCo 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"about 480 years before the supposed building of Solomon's temple". 480 years is 12 generations ( a generation is 40 years), and 12 is a magic number. Do you really need to discuss seriously the historical accuracy of a timeframe built on magic numbers? PiCo 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article on Wikipedia which presents the opposite case to the Copenhagen School? -- Taiwan boi 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a new introduction (there's a lot to be done with this article, but I'm going to start slow):
If that's ok so far, I will develop it a little further with a couple of direct quotes from Thompson which are illustrative of the Copenhagen methodology as he describes it. -- Taiwan boi 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've added that new introduction. At the end of the current section on the 'Origins of Minimalism', I would like to suggest adding the following:
(Undent) I'd be happy if you scrapped the entire article and started again. Don't feel obliged to keep anything that's already there, not even the structure of sections, though by all means use what's been written as a quarry wherever useful (there are good sentences and points). You have the support of Maunus, who has been involved with the article for a long time, and mine for what it's worth. I'll take the first step by deleting the section on dating of events in the Hebrew Bible. PiCo 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Added new material to the origins of Minimalism. -- Taiwan boi 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This section needs serious spelling and grammar correction. In addition, it contains some questionable statements which are unreferenced, such as 'The Minimalist approach attempts to put the archaeology in primary place'. Actually no, that is not at all characteristic of the 'Minimalist approach'. Thompson, for example, has made it clear that there are some conclusions concerning the Biblical text which he is not going to shift from, regardless of the archaeological evidence, and that the archaeological evidence itself needs to be interpreted according to these conclusions. This is hardly surprising, since he is not an archaeologist himself and is not a recognized authority in the relevant fields. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this really scholarship, then, if Thompson has established his pre-set conclusions, and if he is not willing to change his mind, no matter what archeological evidence becomes available? --jcomer2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.111 ( talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
the article is full of misprisions and one-sided, already present in the first line. (controversal -- extreme).
the characterisation of the main characters of the "Copenhagen School" is one-sides and wrong, and very conservative with its insistance on the Ancient Near East, disregarding that the two main members of the school, the two Copenhagen professors have published in the field of ANE studies -- Thompson in major sections of his book about the patriachs (1974), Lemche among other places in a highly technical article in JNES 1979 on andurarum and misharum. He also wrote the historical overview of Syria in Sassoon: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.
Then Marc Bretler is introduced -- a secondary character in this discussion -- showing that the content of this article is related to the articles about Lemche and Thompson, and to the same person(s) who edited them.
The section about archareology and the Bible is sub-standard (the kind version), or simply fundamentalist (the not so kind version). Every single point has been refuted by modern archaeologists.
It total, it seems that this article is one-sided, directed by fundamentalist motivation, and should be entirely rewritten. It does not live up to Wikipedia's demand for non-biased articles.
Some of the points made in the discussion would need a revision, e.g. the postulate that wse disregard inscriptions. If you read some of my books like The Israelites in History and Tradition (WJK, 1998) or The Old Testament Between Theology and History (2008) you will get a totally different impression.
When we have problems with the Tel Dan inscription, it is because of some physical evidence such as a line from one or two of the letters in the first line continuing down the broken side, indicating that the inscriuption was placed on the broken slap and the chisel continued down the broken side by a mishap. People should read my "The 'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s), in T.L. Thompson, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (London, 2003). Sadly the illustrations in the Arab version (published by Ziad Mouna in Damascus) are better, in olour and much clearer.
Among the other things listed, the Baruch seal is now officially called a fake by Israeli antiquities authorities, and may be part of the present trial in Jerusalem on forgeries.
Niels Peter Lemche —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPlemche ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to TaiwanBoy, NPLemche is Niels Peter Lemche (if you want confirmation: use and check my email address at the University of Copenhagen). The issue of "controversal": controversal to whom? Evangelicals -- definitely. Other biblical scholars: if they are real scholars they will prefer "challenging," as conventional ideas are challenged by the Copenhagen School. It is correct that the majority will subscribe to a more conventional view, but certainly not to a maximalist view. I suppose that my recent book The Old Testament Between Theology and History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) should be included in the bibliography, but I am not going to edit the article -- that would be unethical as I am part of this. This book sums up what has happened and also points in new directions. It's logic argument is simply that traditional scholarship is based on circular argumentation, and circular argumentation is false argumentation, and therefore we should not pay attention to it. So the fight is really about logics. Sorry if my Eglish offended TaiwanBoy. If he followed the discussion on the internet lists ANE-2 and Biblical Studies (I'm co-moderator of both lists), he would have a better impression of my coloquial English.
Niels Peter Lemche NPlemche ( talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Pico,
When I have the time for it. It is a major project. By the way, my 1998 book should have its proper article: The Israelites in History and Tradition, not the one given in the article. NPLemche —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPlemche ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article opens with "The Copenhagen School (also known as "biblical minimalism" by detractors[1])"; but the source (footnote 1) only supports the bracket (minimalism as detraction) not the page name. The subheader in the sources summarises: "“Minimalism” is an invention. None of the “minimalist” scholars is aware of being part of a school, or a group." [1]. So what reliable sources are there to justify calling it "the Copenhagen School"? It might be closer to NPOV to call it "Biblical minimalism" and be clear that the name and concept is a pejorative lumping-together of disparate people who aren't a School, than to use a more neutral-sounding term which accepts the detractors' premise. Rd232 talk 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the subject matter of this article is far far more frequently known as "Biblical minimalism" than as the "Copenhagen school"[sic]. Some members of the minimalist cadre don't really like the name "Minimalism", but Wikipedia goes by most frequent usage, rather than technical absolute correctness (and "Copenhagen school" isn't even technically correct, but appears to be the result of some third party officiously attempting to coin a euphemistic neologism to avoid the dreaded word "minimalism"). Also, the qualifier "(theology)" completely fails to capture their main interests and activities, which focus on historical reconstruction and available archaeological evidence than on the internal doctrinal issues which are associated with the word "theology". The current title is completely inadequate and must be changed. AnonMoos ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of debate and conversation here on the talk section whilst the main article is short and doesn't explain much. Biblical hermeneutics perhaps should mention minimalism and point to this page. Material from this talk page needs adding to the article instead of being simply talked about. The Bible's Buried Secrets page contains some information that might also be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottonsocks ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to a criticism section, but at the moment we have an article that states some of what 'minimalists' have written but not the reasons for what they have written, with the only detail being that of their critics. This leaves the article substantially unbalanced. Dougweller ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It's nice that someone finally provided a reference, but unfortunately some of the accompanying changes in wording were rather awkward. In particular, the line about "rejecting the hypothesis that the books of the Hebrew Bible date from before the 4th-century BC" was unfortunate, since even many of those who strongly uphold the historicity of the historical sections of the Bible ("maximalists" if you will) might admit that certain parts of the Bible (such as the Song of Solomon) do not date from before the 4th-century BC, while even minimalists would not deny that the Bible contains factual information derived from before the 4th-century BC... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The article by Davies does not support the statement that "Minimalism has been described as characterized by the views that united Israelite monarchy period of David and Solomon as described in the Bible has no historical basis; and that few if any of the books of the Hebrew Bible date from before the 4th-century BC (while many may be later still)."
Davies argues that there is no such thing as minimalism and that the viewpoints that has been described as "Minimalism" by the Albrightians are in fact shared by many non-minimalist scholars. "Even the anti-“minimalist” Halpern, in true “minimalist” fashion, finds the historical David quite unlike the biblical one, whether or not he would call the biblical David a “fiction”"
The use of the source as it is currently used misrepresents Davies by having him say the opposite of what he is actually saying. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My recent deletion of the "crtiticism" section has had attentrion from two editors, both of whom I respect, one reverting my edit and the other reverting the reversion. I should therefore give a more detailed explanation of the removal.
I'm against "criticism" sections as a general rule for all articles. The reader comes here hoping to learn more about the subject of the article, and so the most important thing to do is to explain what Biblical minimalism is, how and why it arose, who the main proponents are, and such things. Since the ideas of minimalism were certainly controversial in the 80s and 90s this should also be mentioned. But a "criticism" section is little more than an invitation for editors to air their personal animosity. That's why I don't feel we should have such a section.
Here is the removed section:
Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has raised numerous objections to minimalist claims, rejecting Thompson’s assertion that the Hebrew Tabernacle is a literary fiction,[3] that the Merneptah Stele is not reliable evidence for a people named ‘Israel’ in early 13th century Canaan,[4] that the Tel Dan Stele does not refer to a Hebrew ‘House of David’,[5] that the description of Solomon’s wealth is legendary,[6] and that the use of the first person perspective in the Mesha Stele indicates a post-mortem or legendary account.[7][8] Kitchen has also criticized Finkelstein[9] and Silberman.[10] Archaeologist William Dever has opposed minimalism vigorously, declaring himself the opponent of what he refers to as "minimalist" or "revisionist" views.[11] He has criticized Davies for lack of familiarity with standard literature,[12] accused Whitelam of "caricatures of modern archaeological theory and results",[13] and dismissed one of Thompson's works as having "next to nothing to do with real archaeology".[14]
Despite sympathies with some minimalist views, Israel Finkelstein has rejected strongly the minimalist claims concerning Persian era Hebrew scribes,[15] that the "lists and details of royal administrative organization in the kingdom of Judah" are fictional,[16] and that the Hebrew King David never existed.[17] He has also acknowledged strong archaeological support for certain parts of the Biblical record.
This is not very good work - it's all Kitchen and Finkelstein, and it's nothing but a list of individual points that never addresses the central ideas behind minimalism. [18] PiCo ( talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, it was highly off-putting that Pico performed extreme radical surgery on the article with no supporting talk page discussion, while the only "explanation" he condescended to offer in his edit summary was garbled gibberish which made absolutely no sense whatsoever ("the article should simply summarise the maximalist movement and its ideas"[sic] -- maybe you can derive some meaning from that, because I sure can't).
However, looking beyond this highly unfortunate and inauspicious beginning, the fact remains that when something has been highly disputed and has generated controversies, it's legitimate to include some mention of them in the Wikipedia article, if notable and sourced. If criticism is notable enough to be relevant for Wikipedia, then the only alternatives are to include a criticisms in the main article on the topic (whether in a separate section or not), or to establish a separate "Criticism of X" article -- and the practice of the past few years has been to discourage separate "Criticism of X" articles, unless they are of a length comparable to Criticism of the BBC etc.
I don't know who Kitchen is, but he provides a convenient list of some of the main points at issue between non-minimalists and minimalists over the last 10-15 years, so I don't really see why there should be any rush to expunge him from the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
--- AnonMoos, I apologise for offending you, especially as I've always respected you as an editor.
Kitchen is Kenneth Kitchen, an eminent Egyptologist. His main claim to fame is his role in establishing Egyptian chronology. A large part of this - his life's crowning achievement - depends on identifying the biblical Sheshak with Sheshonk I, a pharaoh known from Egyptian inscriptions, and he dates Sheshonq via the chronology given in the bible. If the biblical record is fictional, then Kitchen's Egyptian chronology is in serious trouble. Plus he's a devout evangelical Christian, and evangelical Christians have a theology which holds, roughly, that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is true history because the bible is true history - put crudely (as some in America do indeed put it), once one incident in the bible, such as the Exodus, or the life of Abraham, or the Flood, is admitted to be non-historical, then there's no place to stop until you arrive at the Resurrection.
As dougweller (almost) says, there's a separate article on the minimalist/maximalist dispute, and I don't think we should be going over it in this one. Plus, of course, Kitchen's book "On the Reliability" is not a major one - it's rarely if ever quoted in current scholarship, although it's popular with non-academic evangelicals who feel that their faith is threatened by modern scholarlship.
Incidentally, I'd havce no objection to restoring the article to what it was before I deleted the section - in fact I think the regular approach is to "edit boldly" (which I did), and then, if there's an objection (which there is), to revert until things are argued out. PiCo ( talk) 06:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I deleted material that wasn't sourced, or didn't check out against the sources given, or that I couldn't check, and the result was that there was almost nothing left. I replaced with a gloss taken from a book which is a good source - a very recent (2011) College entry-level text. Please check this for me and see if you agree that I've summarised it fairly. Then perhaps we can go on to some more detail. PiCo ( talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed this on the Tel Dan stele:
Some of the specific claims of the minimalists concern the historicity of the Biblical rulers of Israel David and Solomon. Minimalists have argued that like the patriarchs, David and Solomon are primarily to be understood as mythical figures, since the only undisputed mentions occur in the Biblical literature. [1] When the Tel Dan stele with its description of the Biblical king Hazael , was uncovered in the mid 1990s many considered this to be evidence in favor of the Bible's reliability as an historical source regarding that period. [2]
I think this is misplaced in our article because it advances the idea that minimalism is simply a set of claims about the historical/real existence of various people and events - David, Solomon, various wars, etc. In fact it began, and largely remained, a questioning of the basis of the profession of history-writing as applied to ancient Israel - in other words, minimalism is about historiography, not history. It follows, and in contradiction to what Finkelstein says, that the historical mexistence or non-exuistence of David, or anyone else, is not central to the minimalist argument - the existence of a man named David as founder of a 9th century dynasty called the House of David would not be a reason to accept in toto the story of David as told in the Book of Samuel. The story of God's election of David as rightful king through the prophet Samuel, the words David speaks to Goliath, even the unification of Israel under his rule, none of these follow ineluctably from the mention of the name David on the Tel Dan stele or the Mesha stele. So Finkelstein's criticism misses the point being made by the minimalists: it's not David that's at issue, it's the larger picture of the early formation of historic Israel and Judah, and whether the bible contains any useful information regarding it.
I'm afraid, in short, that by concentrating on details such as the historical existence of David, we distract the reader fromk the real issues. PiCo ( talk) 01:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
References
I think that even if it is no longer considered controversial it certainly was when it came out and it has the distinction of being specifically condemed by Joseph Ratzinger. I also think it clearly sets out the trajectory of literary deconstruction that Thompson and later minimalists followed so it has some historical interest. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not clear: "Philip Davies points out that while he argues that the bulk of the Bible can be dated to the Persian period (the 5th century BCE), Niels Peter Lemche prefers the Hellenistic period (3rd to 2nd centuries BCE), while Whitelam has not given any opinion at all. Similarly, while Lemche holds that the Tel Dan stele (an inscription from the mid 9th century BCE which seems to mention the name of David) is probably a forgery, he and Whitelam do not."
Lemche holds that the Tel Dan Stele is a forgery but "he" and Whitelam do not? Who is this "he"? Davies? If so, please amend the text to read "Davies and Whitelam do not". Smeat75 ( talk) 02:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense to use the POV biblical term Cannan when BM use the term Syria-Palestine or Israel Palestine. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.shtml
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/9246.htm s-p
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_history_reid.html
http://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/questioning-the-integrity-of-biblical-archaeology/
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/dav358019.shtml 86.174.5.65 ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like "minimalism" in this context is merely a cute euphemism for "historical irrelevance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.118.208 ( talk) 11:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical minimalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty weird this whole page is citing essentially the same source for a so called "diverse field" with a range of opinions. Why is this so poorly done? This is terribly cited, and there are dozens of other authors on the subject not a single book from an obscure university. 2601:4A:700:3D80:316E:77CB:84A0:3E0E ( talk) 05:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical minimalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Nice try, but...
For Noah's flood, there are so many theories around that you could devote a whole article to them, and still come to no conclusion; plus, more importantly, the direction of modern biblical studies is to treat the OT as aliterary text, not a historical one, making the identification of"the" flood a non-issue.
For Abraham also, there is so much written about him (what about Abe as Sin the moon-god) that again I doubt you can summarise it all into 50 words or less.
Ans that's only two of the stories in Genesis alone. Are you going to start at the Creation and work your way through to Ezra, to Maccabees?
Pull down thy vanity I say. (Or in plain English, I don't think there's electrons enough in Wikipedia to finish the task you've set yourself in this section) PiCo 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"about 480 years before the supposed building of Solomon's temple". 480 years is 12 generations ( a generation is 40 years), and 12 is a magic number. Do you really need to discuss seriously the historical accuracy of a timeframe built on magic numbers? PiCo 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article on Wikipedia which presents the opposite case to the Copenhagen School? -- Taiwan boi 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a new introduction (there's a lot to be done with this article, but I'm going to start slow):
If that's ok so far, I will develop it a little further with a couple of direct quotes from Thompson which are illustrative of the Copenhagen methodology as he describes it. -- Taiwan boi 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've added that new introduction. At the end of the current section on the 'Origins of Minimalism', I would like to suggest adding the following:
(Undent) I'd be happy if you scrapped the entire article and started again. Don't feel obliged to keep anything that's already there, not even the structure of sections, though by all means use what's been written as a quarry wherever useful (there are good sentences and points). You have the support of Maunus, who has been involved with the article for a long time, and mine for what it's worth. I'll take the first step by deleting the section on dating of events in the Hebrew Bible. PiCo 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Added new material to the origins of Minimalism. -- Taiwan boi 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This section needs serious spelling and grammar correction. In addition, it contains some questionable statements which are unreferenced, such as 'The Minimalist approach attempts to put the archaeology in primary place'. Actually no, that is not at all characteristic of the 'Minimalist approach'. Thompson, for example, has made it clear that there are some conclusions concerning the Biblical text which he is not going to shift from, regardless of the archaeological evidence, and that the archaeological evidence itself needs to be interpreted according to these conclusions. This is hardly surprising, since he is not an archaeologist himself and is not a recognized authority in the relevant fields. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this really scholarship, then, if Thompson has established his pre-set conclusions, and if he is not willing to change his mind, no matter what archeological evidence becomes available? --jcomer2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.111 ( talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
the article is full of misprisions and one-sided, already present in the first line. (controversal -- extreme).
the characterisation of the main characters of the "Copenhagen School" is one-sides and wrong, and very conservative with its insistance on the Ancient Near East, disregarding that the two main members of the school, the two Copenhagen professors have published in the field of ANE studies -- Thompson in major sections of his book about the patriachs (1974), Lemche among other places in a highly technical article in JNES 1979 on andurarum and misharum. He also wrote the historical overview of Syria in Sassoon: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.
Then Marc Bretler is introduced -- a secondary character in this discussion -- showing that the content of this article is related to the articles about Lemche and Thompson, and to the same person(s) who edited them.
The section about archareology and the Bible is sub-standard (the kind version), or simply fundamentalist (the not so kind version). Every single point has been refuted by modern archaeologists.
It total, it seems that this article is one-sided, directed by fundamentalist motivation, and should be entirely rewritten. It does not live up to Wikipedia's demand for non-biased articles.
Some of the points made in the discussion would need a revision, e.g. the postulate that wse disregard inscriptions. If you read some of my books like The Israelites in History and Tradition (WJK, 1998) or The Old Testament Between Theology and History (2008) you will get a totally different impression.
When we have problems with the Tel Dan inscription, it is because of some physical evidence such as a line from one or two of the letters in the first line continuing down the broken side, indicating that the inscriuption was placed on the broken slap and the chisel continued down the broken side by a mishap. People should read my "The 'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s), in T.L. Thompson, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (London, 2003). Sadly the illustrations in the Arab version (published by Ziad Mouna in Damascus) are better, in olour and much clearer.
Among the other things listed, the Baruch seal is now officially called a fake by Israeli antiquities authorities, and may be part of the present trial in Jerusalem on forgeries.
Niels Peter Lemche —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPlemche ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In contrast to TaiwanBoy, NPLemche is Niels Peter Lemche (if you want confirmation: use and check my email address at the University of Copenhagen). The issue of "controversal": controversal to whom? Evangelicals -- definitely. Other biblical scholars: if they are real scholars they will prefer "challenging," as conventional ideas are challenged by the Copenhagen School. It is correct that the majority will subscribe to a more conventional view, but certainly not to a maximalist view. I suppose that my recent book The Old Testament Between Theology and History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) should be included in the bibliography, but I am not going to edit the article -- that would be unethical as I am part of this. This book sums up what has happened and also points in new directions. It's logic argument is simply that traditional scholarship is based on circular argumentation, and circular argumentation is false argumentation, and therefore we should not pay attention to it. So the fight is really about logics. Sorry if my Eglish offended TaiwanBoy. If he followed the discussion on the internet lists ANE-2 and Biblical Studies (I'm co-moderator of both lists), he would have a better impression of my coloquial English.
Niels Peter Lemche NPlemche ( talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Pico,
When I have the time for it. It is a major project. By the way, my 1998 book should have its proper article: The Israelites in History and Tradition, not the one given in the article. NPLemche —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPlemche ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article opens with "The Copenhagen School (also known as "biblical minimalism" by detractors[1])"; but the source (footnote 1) only supports the bracket (minimalism as detraction) not the page name. The subheader in the sources summarises: "“Minimalism” is an invention. None of the “minimalist” scholars is aware of being part of a school, or a group." [1]. So what reliable sources are there to justify calling it "the Copenhagen School"? It might be closer to NPOV to call it "Biblical minimalism" and be clear that the name and concept is a pejorative lumping-together of disparate people who aren't a School, than to use a more neutral-sounding term which accepts the detractors' premise. Rd232 talk 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the subject matter of this article is far far more frequently known as "Biblical minimalism" than as the "Copenhagen school"[sic]. Some members of the minimalist cadre don't really like the name "Minimalism", but Wikipedia goes by most frequent usage, rather than technical absolute correctness (and "Copenhagen school" isn't even technically correct, but appears to be the result of some third party officiously attempting to coin a euphemistic neologism to avoid the dreaded word "minimalism"). Also, the qualifier "(theology)" completely fails to capture their main interests and activities, which focus on historical reconstruction and available archaeological evidence than on the internal doctrinal issues which are associated with the word "theology". The current title is completely inadequate and must be changed. AnonMoos ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of debate and conversation here on the talk section whilst the main article is short and doesn't explain much. Biblical hermeneutics perhaps should mention minimalism and point to this page. Material from this talk page needs adding to the article instead of being simply talked about. The Bible's Buried Secrets page contains some information that might also be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottonsocks ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to a criticism section, but at the moment we have an article that states some of what 'minimalists' have written but not the reasons for what they have written, with the only detail being that of their critics. This leaves the article substantially unbalanced. Dougweller ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It's nice that someone finally provided a reference, but unfortunately some of the accompanying changes in wording were rather awkward. In particular, the line about "rejecting the hypothesis that the books of the Hebrew Bible date from before the 4th-century BC" was unfortunate, since even many of those who strongly uphold the historicity of the historical sections of the Bible ("maximalists" if you will) might admit that certain parts of the Bible (such as the Song of Solomon) do not date from before the 4th-century BC, while even minimalists would not deny that the Bible contains factual information derived from before the 4th-century BC... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The article by Davies does not support the statement that "Minimalism has been described as characterized by the views that united Israelite monarchy period of David and Solomon as described in the Bible has no historical basis; and that few if any of the books of the Hebrew Bible date from before the 4th-century BC (while many may be later still)."
Davies argues that there is no such thing as minimalism and that the viewpoints that has been described as "Minimalism" by the Albrightians are in fact shared by many non-minimalist scholars. "Even the anti-“minimalist” Halpern, in true “minimalist” fashion, finds the historical David quite unlike the biblical one, whether or not he would call the biblical David a “fiction”"
The use of the source as it is currently used misrepresents Davies by having him say the opposite of what he is actually saying. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My recent deletion of the "crtiticism" section has had attentrion from two editors, both of whom I respect, one reverting my edit and the other reverting the reversion. I should therefore give a more detailed explanation of the removal.
I'm against "criticism" sections as a general rule for all articles. The reader comes here hoping to learn more about the subject of the article, and so the most important thing to do is to explain what Biblical minimalism is, how and why it arose, who the main proponents are, and such things. Since the ideas of minimalism were certainly controversial in the 80s and 90s this should also be mentioned. But a "criticism" section is little more than an invitation for editors to air their personal animosity. That's why I don't feel we should have such a section.
Here is the removed section:
Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has raised numerous objections to minimalist claims, rejecting Thompson’s assertion that the Hebrew Tabernacle is a literary fiction,[3] that the Merneptah Stele is not reliable evidence for a people named ‘Israel’ in early 13th century Canaan,[4] that the Tel Dan Stele does not refer to a Hebrew ‘House of David’,[5] that the description of Solomon’s wealth is legendary,[6] and that the use of the first person perspective in the Mesha Stele indicates a post-mortem or legendary account.[7][8] Kitchen has also criticized Finkelstein[9] and Silberman.[10] Archaeologist William Dever has opposed minimalism vigorously, declaring himself the opponent of what he refers to as "minimalist" or "revisionist" views.[11] He has criticized Davies for lack of familiarity with standard literature,[12] accused Whitelam of "caricatures of modern archaeological theory and results",[13] and dismissed one of Thompson's works as having "next to nothing to do with real archaeology".[14]
Despite sympathies with some minimalist views, Israel Finkelstein has rejected strongly the minimalist claims concerning Persian era Hebrew scribes,[15] that the "lists and details of royal administrative organization in the kingdom of Judah" are fictional,[16] and that the Hebrew King David never existed.[17] He has also acknowledged strong archaeological support for certain parts of the Biblical record.
This is not very good work - it's all Kitchen and Finkelstein, and it's nothing but a list of individual points that never addresses the central ideas behind minimalism. [18] PiCo ( talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, it was highly off-putting that Pico performed extreme radical surgery on the article with no supporting talk page discussion, while the only "explanation" he condescended to offer in his edit summary was garbled gibberish which made absolutely no sense whatsoever ("the article should simply summarise the maximalist movement and its ideas"[sic] -- maybe you can derive some meaning from that, because I sure can't).
However, looking beyond this highly unfortunate and inauspicious beginning, the fact remains that when something has been highly disputed and has generated controversies, it's legitimate to include some mention of them in the Wikipedia article, if notable and sourced. If criticism is notable enough to be relevant for Wikipedia, then the only alternatives are to include a criticisms in the main article on the topic (whether in a separate section or not), or to establish a separate "Criticism of X" article -- and the practice of the past few years has been to discourage separate "Criticism of X" articles, unless they are of a length comparable to Criticism of the BBC etc.
I don't know who Kitchen is, but he provides a convenient list of some of the main points at issue between non-minimalists and minimalists over the last 10-15 years, so I don't really see why there should be any rush to expunge him from the article... AnonMoos ( talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
--- AnonMoos, I apologise for offending you, especially as I've always respected you as an editor.
Kitchen is Kenneth Kitchen, an eminent Egyptologist. His main claim to fame is his role in establishing Egyptian chronology. A large part of this - his life's crowning achievement - depends on identifying the biblical Sheshak with Sheshonk I, a pharaoh known from Egyptian inscriptions, and he dates Sheshonq via the chronology given in the bible. If the biblical record is fictional, then Kitchen's Egyptian chronology is in serious trouble. Plus he's a devout evangelical Christian, and evangelical Christians have a theology which holds, roughly, that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is true history because the bible is true history - put crudely (as some in America do indeed put it), once one incident in the bible, such as the Exodus, or the life of Abraham, or the Flood, is admitted to be non-historical, then there's no place to stop until you arrive at the Resurrection.
As dougweller (almost) says, there's a separate article on the minimalist/maximalist dispute, and I don't think we should be going over it in this one. Plus, of course, Kitchen's book "On the Reliability" is not a major one - it's rarely if ever quoted in current scholarship, although it's popular with non-academic evangelicals who feel that their faith is threatened by modern scholarlship.
Incidentally, I'd havce no objection to restoring the article to what it was before I deleted the section - in fact I think the regular approach is to "edit boldly" (which I did), and then, if there's an objection (which there is), to revert until things are argued out. PiCo ( talk) 06:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I deleted material that wasn't sourced, or didn't check out against the sources given, or that I couldn't check, and the result was that there was almost nothing left. I replaced with a gloss taken from a book which is a good source - a very recent (2011) College entry-level text. Please check this for me and see if you agree that I've summarised it fairly. Then perhaps we can go on to some more detail. PiCo ( talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed this on the Tel Dan stele:
Some of the specific claims of the minimalists concern the historicity of the Biblical rulers of Israel David and Solomon. Minimalists have argued that like the patriarchs, David and Solomon are primarily to be understood as mythical figures, since the only undisputed mentions occur in the Biblical literature. [1] When the Tel Dan stele with its description of the Biblical king Hazael , was uncovered in the mid 1990s many considered this to be evidence in favor of the Bible's reliability as an historical source regarding that period. [2]
I think this is misplaced in our article because it advances the idea that minimalism is simply a set of claims about the historical/real existence of various people and events - David, Solomon, various wars, etc. In fact it began, and largely remained, a questioning of the basis of the profession of history-writing as applied to ancient Israel - in other words, minimalism is about historiography, not history. It follows, and in contradiction to what Finkelstein says, that the historical mexistence or non-exuistence of David, or anyone else, is not central to the minimalist argument - the existence of a man named David as founder of a 9th century dynasty called the House of David would not be a reason to accept in toto the story of David as told in the Book of Samuel. The story of God's election of David as rightful king through the prophet Samuel, the words David speaks to Goliath, even the unification of Israel under his rule, none of these follow ineluctably from the mention of the name David on the Tel Dan stele or the Mesha stele. So Finkelstein's criticism misses the point being made by the minimalists: it's not David that's at issue, it's the larger picture of the early formation of historic Israel and Judah, and whether the bible contains any useful information regarding it.
I'm afraid, in short, that by concentrating on details such as the historical existence of David, we distract the reader fromk the real issues. PiCo ( talk) 01:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
References
I think that even if it is no longer considered controversial it certainly was when it came out and it has the distinction of being specifically condemed by Joseph Ratzinger. I also think it clearly sets out the trajectory of literary deconstruction that Thompson and later minimalists followed so it has some historical interest. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not clear: "Philip Davies points out that while he argues that the bulk of the Bible can be dated to the Persian period (the 5th century BCE), Niels Peter Lemche prefers the Hellenistic period (3rd to 2nd centuries BCE), while Whitelam has not given any opinion at all. Similarly, while Lemche holds that the Tel Dan stele (an inscription from the mid 9th century BCE which seems to mention the name of David) is probably a forgery, he and Whitelam do not."
Lemche holds that the Tel Dan Stele is a forgery but "he" and Whitelam do not? Who is this "he"? Davies? If so, please amend the text to read "Davies and Whitelam do not". Smeat75 ( talk) 02:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense to use the POV biblical term Cannan when BM use the term Syria-Palestine or Israel Palestine. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.shtml
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/9246.htm s-p
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_history_reid.html
http://northstatescience.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/questioning-the-integrity-of-biblical-archaeology/
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/dav358019.shtml 86.174.5.65 ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like "minimalism" in this context is merely a cute euphemism for "historical irrelevance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.118.208 ( talk) 11:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical minimalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty weird this whole page is citing essentially the same source for a so called "diverse field" with a range of opinions. Why is this so poorly done? This is terribly cited, and there are dozens of other authors on the subject not a single book from an obscure university. 2601:4A:700:3D80:316E:77CB:84A0:3E0E ( talk) 05:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)