Sunday, November 16, 2008

Another Historic Figure Bites the Dust

OK, we all know that
But now they've gone too far. A frum Muslim says that Mohammed never existed!


J. said...

Come on, those minimalists are crazy. I'm not one to usually cite, and certainly not for archeological system, but here is a (decently footnoted) article about the direct evidence found for over 60 characters, many of them minor, from the biblical narrative. This doesn't prove any religious points, a history book does not a theology make, but it at least proves that the bible (from Kings onward) is slightly more historically accurate than Alice in Wonderland.

J. said...

Sorry, here is the link:

Frum Heretic said...

Even though the Bible cannot be relied on for accurate historical accounts, nor do I think that the writers ever intended it be history as we use the term today, I also think that the minimalists go way overboard with their claims of ahistoricity. One may doubt the conquest as described in Sefer Yehoshua without claiming that Yehoshua never existed. One can claim that the Exodus story is largely mythological without needing to posit that Moses never existed.

The Aish article is interesting but sacrifices accuracy for its need to find archaeological evidence. Example: "Independent sources confirm" says the title, but then it says "David (Davidic Dynasty)" rather than just "Davidic Dynasty". This is not mere quibbling, for one would leave with the impression that there are clear cut references to King David in the archaeological record, which there is not (yet. I have no reason to believe that he is fictional.) And how is this for a bogus argument: "When outside confirmation of the minor characters surfaces, it lends great strength to those who firmly believe in the veracity and accuracy of the Biblical narrative." No, it says nothing about the accuracy of the narrative any more than evidence that George Washington existed means that he chopped down a cherry tree.

jewish philosopher said...

Richard Dawkins doesn't exist.