tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post1925425129214947474..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: Reflections on The Bible UnearthedDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-1377020291752042012009-06-11T12:51:41.540-07:002009-06-11T12:51:41.540-07:00Jim, I'll try to track down a copy of the docu...Jim, I'll try to track down a copy of the documentary. Thanks.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-14940805129488145152009-06-11T12:46:28.178-07:002009-06-11T12:46:28.178-07:00Hebrew Student,
I think the historical accuracy ...Hebrew Student, <br /><br />I think the historical accuracy of the chronology is a different thing from the historical perspective of the writers/editors. Many people tend to confuse the historical setting of the biblical account with its time of composition. Why do they have to be the same? If Moses wrote Genesis, then he's recording things much later. The Books of Kings constantly refer to other works that can be consulted for further information. It seems they may have had sources for some of their information.<br /><br />Finkelstein has pushed for a revised chronology in other publications, but here he mostly just works with the standard accepted chronology. <br /><br />I'd never heard of Thiele's work, but very few scholars challenge the fact that starting with the period of Kings, the Bible provides externally verifiable historical data. The arguments about the historical and archaeological evidence vs. the biblical account focus more on the period before Iron II about which we know very little.<br /><br />I happen to think that the Bible is valuable as a historical source, too. I don't see the conclusion that much of it was written between 722-586 BCE necessarily undermining its historicity. <br /><br />Just to be clear, I don't buy into Finkelstein's whole argument or the minimalist approach to biblical history in general for that matter.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-87004341022342292312009-06-11T12:41:54.194-07:002009-06-11T12:41:54.194-07:00you should try to get hold of the film which was m...you should try to get hold of the film which was made along the lines of the book. it's fantastic.<br /><br />a bit of info here if you like-<br /><br />http://jwest.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/the-bible-unearthed-the-dvd-reviewed-a-recovered-post/Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698562143972216357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-74718127282714008492009-06-11T11:59:58.618-07:002009-06-11T11:59:58.618-07:00Respectfully, I can't agree at all with the re...Respectfully, I can't agree at all with the revisionist thesis of this book. Carefully (painfully) researched books like Edwin Thiele's Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings contains a wealth of evidence as to just how historically accurate the Hebrew Scriptures are. There is so much recent historical and archaeological evidence now for the historicity of the Hebrew Bible, that it is painful to see another attempt to rewrite Bible history.Hebrew Studenthttp://allthingshebrew.com/noreply@blogger.com