Talk:Biblical minimalism

Dating of events in the OT

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)

I agree that the sections entered by User:John D Croft does not seem to have any relation to the description of the Copenhagen or minimalist school of theology, which is the topic of the article. The article shouldn't be about corelations betweenb biblical exegesis and middleeastern archeology - but should only describe the theoretic basis for the Copenhgane School of theology.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article 'should only describe the theoretic basis for the Copenhagen School', shouldn't it have a lot more 'scholars of the Copenhagen School have claimed', and a lot less 'scholars of the Cophenhagen School have proved'? And shouldn't there be a section presenting the opposite view, or perhaps more appropriately a link to such an article? --Taiwan boi 15:12, 21 September 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)

Minimalist, Maximalist

Is there an article on Wikipedia which presents the opposite case to the Copenhagen School? --Taiwan boi 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any single opposite case. The argument of the minimalists (Lemche, Thompson, and the others) is simply that the history books of the OT weren't actually written as history in the modern sense, that we're making a category-mistake when we treat them that way, and that we should consequently only accept biblical texts when they're confirmed by extra-biblical evidence. This would mean, for example, that we can accept the historical existence of a David who was regarded as the founder of the royal dynasty of Judah (confirmed by the Tel Dan stele), but not the story of his battle with Goliath (not only not confirmed by another source, but suspect on textual grounds, since it's not present in the LXX text). The gamut of maximalism runs from Dever, who would say we can accept biblical texts which are not suspect on textual or other grounds (meaning he would distrust the Goliath story), to Kitchen, who trusts just about everything the bible says, even to the names of the four rivers which watered Eden.PiCo 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an opposite case. The opposite case is that archaeological evidence should take precedence over literary theories (the Copenhagen School has it the other way around, and that artefacts are able to communicate objective data (the Copenhagen School distrusts this). That case is shared by a range of scholars, from Dever to Hoffmeier (I have read Dever, Kitchen, and Hoffmeier, and would list them in that order in terms of least to most conservative).

The Copenhagen School does not in fact believe that 'we should consequently only accept biblical texts when they're confirmed by extra-biblical evidence'. This is why, contrary to what you and I would both expect, the Copenhagen School typically does not regard the historical existence of David as being confirmed by the Tel Dan stele. On the contrary, the Copenhagen School typically argues that this is a forgery, since it contradicts established literary theories regarding the texts. Far from relying on the archaeological evidence, the Copenhagen School actually distrusts it, especially where it contradicts established literary theories.The following is a list of archaeological finds which are almost unanimously regarded as genuine, but which the Copenhagen School claims are all forgeries:

• The Tell Dan Stele: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson, Lemche, and Cryer. They claim it is a forgery (though it has been confirmed by leading epigraphers).

• The Gezer Gate: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson. He claims that Dever defrauded the site by visiting it in 1969 and deliberately removing stones and pottery which would have confirmed Thompson's theories, despite the fact that there is no academic dispute over the integrity of the Gezer site.

• The Baruch Bullae: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson and Lemche. They claim both are forgeries.

Similarly, the Copenhagen School typically interprets even those archaeological finds it acknowledges as genuine in radical ways. It claims:

• The Merneptah Stele makes no mention of Israel

• The text on the Mesha Stele is not a historical text contemporary with the events it describes but a mythical post-mortem 'literary tradition' written after Mesha was dead, and describes events which never took place

• Esarhaddon's descriptions of his palace are completely false

• The Hammurabi Stela is not contemporary with Hammurabi but was a later 'pseudo-Hammurabi' forgery

The description of Copenhagen School methodology in this Wikipedia article requires some additional information which defines the actual methodology more clearly. The Copenhagen School is not simply an attempt to give primacy to archaeological evidence over the Biblical text. It doesn't give primacy to archaeological evidence at all. It interprets archaeological evidence in harmony with established literary theories of history which are based not on archaeology but on form and source criticism. The fundamental principle is the expectation of disagreement between texts and archaeological evidence, so if the archaeological evidence appears to agree with the text, then the archaeological evidence must be interpreted in such a way as that it does not agree. Hence the sweeping claims of forgery, and the repeated arguments that artefacts of previously undisputed meaning (Merneptah Stele, Mesha Stele, Esarhaddon records, Hammurabi Stele), are also either ancient forgeries of an era later than they claim to be, or else simply mythical, religious, or rhetorical literary texts which do not record any historical facts.

In addition, it would be appropriate to present (on a different page), criticism of the Copenhagen School's interpretation of Genesis Abraham, the Exodus, Joshua, the Stables of Solomon. Such criticism finds wide support across the ideological and interpretative spectrum (from Dever to Hoffmeier, including even Kitchen, Finkelstein, and Silberman).

Incidentally, almost the entire Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen School appears to have been lifted straight from here. Shouldn't that be indicated in the text? I know there's a single reference to that page in a footnote, but the material in the Wikipedia article appears to have copied extensively from that page. --Taiwan boi 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I've misunderstood the position of the Copenhageners on the relationship between the bible and archaeology. I would agree with you in having reservations about the article - I think you could gather that from some of my earlier comments above. I'm too busy with my non-computerised life to do anything myself right now, but feel free to re-write it as much as you see fit. Maybe begin by listing here the people you regard as belonging to the group, so that we can see we're agreeing on the funadmentals? PiCo 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The Copehagen School isn't always very easy to understand, especially given that what's online is typically less than 5% of what is actually written in the relevant peer-reviewed academic literature. Many people think that the Copehagen School is simply a 'sensible' approach to archaeology, or just a 'secular' approach to the Bible, but it's neither. It's more complex than that. I'll see what I can do about revising the article. I note that this article is classified under 'Theology'. Strictly speaking, it should be classified under 'Archaeology', since the aim of the Copenhagen School is to evaluate the historicity of the Bible, not its theology.

Recognized members of the Copenhagen School include Thomas L Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R Davies, and Keith W Whitelam (as identified by Thompson himself). These are the big names (with Thompson, Lemche, Davies and Whitelam being described as the 'Gang of Four', a term Thompson has used). Others are sometimes associated with the Copenhagen School, rightly or wrongly. For example, Finkelstein, Silberman and Van Seters are often wrongly assumed to be members of the Copenhagen School. --Taiwan boi 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those four but I think there's someone missing, tho can't think who it is. Silberman and Van Seters definitely are not minimalists. As you imply, the title of this article is misleading: I'd prefer to call it "Biblical minimalism" or "Minimalism (biblical)" - we can't call it "Minimalism" as that's already taken for a movement in art or architecture. As for the structure of the article, I'd suggest using that Athas article that's referenced already as it's quite good, using it to describe the background from which minimalism arose (a reaction against a too-uncritical reliance on the bible to settle questions of archeology, possibly also the zeitgeist of the 60s) and the reasonable and possibly unreasonable proposals it advanced. Then the dispute can be described - but we should be careful to make clear that the "minimalists" don't actually consider themselves a movement, and the "maximalists" are united by nothing except their opposition to the minimalist rejection of the biblical text as a form of history. Anyway, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. PiCo 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a couple missing (there's one on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite get it). I've been through Kitchen and Dever tonight, but didn't find any new names. Thompson himself only mentions the 'Big Four' as definitely members of the School, and lists various others whom he considers sympathetic. I'll see what I can find in my electronic journals. I like your suggestions for a restructuring of the article (and agree that we shouldn't describe 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' in absolute terms). I'm still happy calling the article 'Cophenhagen School', but perhaps 'Copenhagen School (Biblical archaeology)' or 'Cophenhagen School (Biblical minimalism)' would be more useful. I also believe strongly it should be reclassified under 'Archaeology', rather than 'Theology'. Any discussion of ancient Hebrew theology within this field is only from the archaeological and palaeo-sociological point of view of determining what it was, not whether it is correct or whether there is any evidence supporting it. --Taiwan boi 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I created the article as "theology" is that the school is principally based out of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Copenhagen.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains that. However, the Copenhagen School is not defined by theological studies. It is defined by its archaeological studies. --Taiwan boi 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

However Lemche and Thompson are theologians and not archaeologists by education.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but that's not the point. The point is that the Copenhagen School is a group of academics which have produced a certain kind of commentary on archaeology. They are not discussing theology. Their aim is to determine (using archaeology), the extent to which the Bible has an authentic historicity. --Taiwan boi 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless the attitudes to all these things - origins of the OT, relationship of the OT to archaeology, and even their attitudes to OT and NT theology, will need to be discussed. But I think the first step is to come up with a paragraph describing what minimalism is, when/where it arose, and why. Athas's article would seem to be a good starting point - it seems balanced and non-partisan. Taiwanboi, perhaps you'd like to give this a try - you could do it as a new first paragraph. PiCo 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Introduction

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):

'The Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, also known as The Minimalist School is a school of biblical exegesis, developing out of Higher Criticism, emphasizing that the bible should be read and analysed primarily as a collection of narratives and not as an accurate historical account of events in the prehistory of the middle east. This means that the theologists of the Copenhagen School read the Bible primarily as a source to the times and circumstances under which it they assume was written. Members of the Copenhagen School are typically theologians or literature specialists, rather than archaeologists or specialists in related fields such as cuneiform, Assyriology or Egyptology. They offer commentary on how they interpret archaeological findings in accordance with their established views on Biblical and other ancient literature. As a result Copenhagen theologists have frequently argued for a later dating of parts of the Bible than archaeologists or specialists in fields related to the study of the Ancient Near East.'

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)

To me it looks very good as a beginning.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd drop the phrase "developing out of Higher Criticism", not that this is untrue, but it would be meaningless to the average reader. Otherwise fine. Do you have a reference to cite?PiCo 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'developing out of Higher Criticism' wasn't mine (that was already in the introduction, which I didn't want to depart from drastically), but I agree with dropping it for the reason you give. It would be appropriate to mention (and explain), later in the article. I have an article by Thompson to cite ('A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine'). --Taiwan boi 14:58, 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:

'The discrepancies between the archaeological record and traditional interpretations of the Biblical record as represented by Petrie, Woolley, and Albright led to a number of different conclusions within the academic community. These conclusions may be broadly summarized as follows:

• The Biblical record is historically inaccurate
• The Biblical record may be historically accurate, but the archaeological evidence is currently insufficient to substantiated it - more digging may bring such evidence to light
• The Biblical record is being misinterpreted - the 'literalist' hermeneutic used by conservative Christians such as Albright results in an unhistorical reading of the text which the authors did not intend
• The Biblical record was never intended to be read historically in the first place, and thus such discrepancies are to be expected

The first conclusion is typically held by non-theistic and extremely liberal Christian commentators. The second conclusion is typically held by conservative Christians and some commentators identified as 'Maximalists' (though all commentators agree that there is some truth in this position, as the archaeological record of the Ancient Near East is very far from complete or even representative. The third conclusion is typically held by a range of commentators, from conservative Christians to secular commentators, and is commonly found among those identified as 'Maximalists'. The fourth conclusion is typically held by those identified as 'Minimalists', and is an identifying feature of the Copenhagen School.'

I would then go on to describe how the Copenhagen School views the Biblical record as non-historical on the basis of the view that it was never intended to be read historically in the first place. --Taiwan boi 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Petrie and Woolley aren't all that important in biblical archaeology (in archaeology, yes, but biblical archaeology is another matter). Albright is the towering figure, and by the early 60s the consensus was: "Archaeology has proven the OT historically accurate in its essentials for every book, with the exception of the first 12 chapters of Genesis" (my words, not an actual quote). The other conclusions you mention simply didn't exist in a meaningful way at that time. Thompson's 1974 book The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives was one of a wave of books and articles in the late 60s and early 70s which demolished the Albrightean "archaeology has proven the bible" consensus. (Van Seters and William Dever also published works at this time pointing out the weaknesses in Albright's conclusions). So I'd adopt a more historical approach, aiming to show how minimalism arose as a reaction to the consensus dominant at mid-century. We could perhaps aim to show how minimalism is part of a spectrum of modern, post-Albrightean views, which I think is what you're getting at here, but base it first in its own ontology. Have a look also at the last para of The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past.PiCo 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The time I'm actually talking about is the post-Albright era, in which Thompson, Van Seters, Kitchen and Dever's works were coming out. The conclusions I've listed are the conclusions which these men were drawing in the post-Albright age. The Minimalist school derived from this, it didn't appear overnight (Thompson explains his own process of change as taking place over time), and as you've pointed out Thompson (arguably one of the first of the Copenhagen School), was himself a relative latecomer to the challenging of Albright. I listed Woolley because he drew conclusions from his archaeological investigations which were explicit interpretations of the Biblical record, and which remained highly influential for almost 50 years (specifically his 'flood layer' conclusions). I cited Petrie and Albright because the article specifically says 'The first generations of Biblical archaeologists from Flinders Petrie to William Albright and John Bright, seemed to find confirmation of the Bible in their work', identifying them as typical (and formative), adherents to 'traditional interpretations of the Biblical record'. That the Biblical record was being misrepresented by a 'literalist' hermeneutic actually preceded the development of the 'Minimalist' school. Albright's views were confronted first by equally conservative 'Maximalists' before they were confronted by the later 'Minimalists'. --Taiwan boi 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(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)

Ok, I'll see what I can hack out today. I'll keep the introduction, which seems firm right now. --Taiwan boi 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some external (i.e. internet) references that might be useful - I'll add more as I come across them.PiCo 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. With a full time job, a part time job, three tutorial jobs, and studying for a Masters degree, I'm rather pinned down right now. I'll have to find some time for this at some point. --Taiwan boi 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Added new material to the origins of Minimalism. --Taiwan boi 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Minimalist Approach

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 response to Professor Lemche's comments, I've removed as much biased wording as I can find and shortened the entire article. While still not perfect, it now presents the reader with brief overview of what biblical minimalism stands for, without trying to argue a case either pro or con. PiCo (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can well understand that Lemche wishes all criticism of the Copenhagen School removed from this article, and for the content to give the impression that it is uncontested, but facts are facts and we have to abide by Wikipedia policy. Contrary to Lemche's claim, I see no statement in the discussion to the effect that Minimalists 'disregard inscriptions'. Furthermore, when Lemche says 'the Baruch seal is now officially called a fake by Israeli antiquities authorities', is he referring to the 'Baruch seal' discovered in 1973, or the 'Baruch seal' revealed much later in the 1990s? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that we shouldn't have criticism sections. As for your question abt the Baruch seal, I have no idea - ask Lemche. PiCo (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about a criticism section. Wikipedia policy is that all notable views on the subject be presented, including notable opposing views. But thanks for making clear that you wish to exclude any criticism of Minimalism from this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My own reading of the policy is that it's intended to prevent pov-pushing - it's too easy for people who dislike subject or person X to cherry-pick arguments and comments by sources who also dislike X and turn them into a "Criticisms" section that unbalances an entire article. This happened, for example, to the article on Robert Fisk, who is undeniably a controversial figure, but the article was turning into an anti-Fisk-fest, to the detriment of any material on what Fisk had actually done with his life and career. With regard to this article, it's undeniable that the conclusions of the minimalists have stirred controversy - some of the battles in print have been extremely vituperative. I think the way to handle that is to have a paragraph (not section) mentioning and charting these actual controversies. But the very first step in writing the article is to make sure it accurately describes what minimalism is. At present it doesn't really do that. PiCo (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, we are surprisingly agreed. Note that 'Lemche' wished to have the word 'controversial' removed from the article, despite the fact that you yourself acknowledge that the Copenhagen School is exactly that. If anybody is pushing a POV here, it's 'Lemche'. Incidentally I strongly doubt that is the real Niels Peter Lemche. I have read a number of his works, and he is articulate in English. That stuff written up there is ungrammatical, and contains various typographical errors which I would not expect from the real Lemche. Not only that, it tellingly switches between referring to Lemche in the first person, and referring to Lemche in the third person. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NPLemche and with PiCo - I do think there is a noticeable anti-minimalist viewpoint throughout the article. While all viewpoints should be presented they should be presented in an objective non-biased fashion not siding with either of the sides in the discussion. The word "controversial" is generally not a good to use as a description in an article because it is not really informative but just serves to put a subject in a certain light. A better description would be to state that some of the ideas of the school have been met with disgreement from X school or that some of they points are contested or some such - making sure to attribute the views to their owners. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:27, 11 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 LemcheNPlemche (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My dear Professor Lemche, may I express my gratitude (and surprise) that you have joined us here. Wikipedia professes to be scholarly, but is not - how can it be, when anyone can edit? On the other hand, it is truly democratic, for that same reason. Should there be a separation between the demosand the professional world? Of course there should - would you want you surgery done by a collective of interested laypersons? But this is the Internat, and democracy rules.

Not only does democracy rule on the Internet, but it has immense influence. People come here in search of information. What they get, I fear, is not always what they seek, but nevertheless I'm biased in favour of democracy as a principle. And certainly Wikipedia isn't going to just go away. Disengage at one's peril.

So about this article: Can you suggest a broad outline of how it should be written? - What subjects should it address, what points would it cover? What, in short, is Biblical minimalism? (And, incidentally, who are the minimalists? - what names matter?)

Your English, by the way, while not perfect, is fine.

PiCo (talk) 09:20, 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)

I've drastically shortened the article - not that I think it's now complete, but I believe we should begin with a basic article which states the essence of the subject - what biblical minimalism is, its origins, and some of its major hallmarks. Unfortunately I have no references to cite - I wrote this partly from George Athas' article (or lecture notes), and partly from my own understanding of the subject. Others may be able to supply the deficiency. Note again that I don't regard the subject as closed - there's certainly room for a paragraph about the history of minimalism, including the unfortunate controversies that arose, and there's also a need to note who the main figures in the movement are. PiCo (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name

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)

point-of-view isn't really involved, just common usage. The normal word is minimalism - very rarely do you come across references to "the Copenhagen school." Nor do I think that it's regarded as derogatory now, though I gather it was initially. PiCo (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Google hits aren't great as a measure, but it gives some clues: "Copenhagen+school"+bible+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta= ("Copenhagen school" + bible -wikipedia) Copenhagen school 1520 vs Biblical minimalism "Biblical+minimalism"+bible+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta= 653. But many of the people associated with it either aren't at Copenhagen or worked on it before they went there (Thompson). Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a hard one, but to my mind "Copenhagen school" is too limiting - it's not as if only people from Copenhagen hold these views. PiCo (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the article with this title because I was making a disambiguation for the four different copenhagen schools (physics, linguistics, theology, secutiry studies). I think there should be an article called Copenhagen school of theology - it could possibly be small and call the school a part of the larger trend of "minimalism". But the problem with minimalism is that the scholars who are supposedly minimalist do not agree with this view - but instead call the albrightian school for maximalists.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say this a question that keeps me up nights. I guess the only point I want to make is that if I, a reader, was looking for information on this topic, I'd type "minimalism", not "Copenhagen", which is a city in Denmark. But there's a disambig page, so I guess I'm easy with whatever is decided. PiCo (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a point I suppose. But Copenhagen school is synonymous with minimalism AFAIK, not a subset. (Sources to the contrary?) And since the lumping together of people into a "school" is done by its opponents, it might make more sense to use their term as well, and be clear about what's going on (who uses the term, who puts people into that box). Make it an article about the term and its use, if you like, rather than about the work of the "minimalists". Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That would amount to little more than an attack page against a grop of named scholars.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new article. I can't say I really care what we call it - I'm mildly inclined to "Minimalsim" for several reasons (some I've given above, and another is that I'm currently working on streamlining the article The Bible and History, and it's just more convenient to talk about "minimalists"). And I would never wish to attack a grope of scholars, Maunus - how painful! :) PiCo (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I point is that if we intend to write a page about how and why certain scholars have been labelled minimalists that would hardly be in line with NPOV - it would give carte blanche for the "maximalists" to continue the slander campaing against the "minimalists" on wikipedia's pages.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No at all. An NPOV examination of that topic ("minimalism the term" not "the work of people labelled minimalists") would do quite the opposite. Sources to back that up might be a problem, but the Davies article is a good start. Rd232 ^talk 14:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems with the article title

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)

I thought the rule was what word a group uses to describe itself, not frequency of usage. Especially if the most frequently used name is considered derogatory. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What they call themselves can be given due consideration (among other factors), but by no means does it automatically override what the most commonly-occurring term is. Furthermore, I don't know that many of the most prominent minimalists even consider themselves to be part of any "school" at all, so that the previous article title "Copenhagen school (theology)" was the worst of all worlds -- any alternative title to "Biblical minimalism" will have to be much better than that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see more evidence that Biblical Minimalism is a movement deserving a WP page of that title. It seems to me that it is a pejorative term invented by people who hold to what might be called Biblical Maximalism to describe people they disagree with. This is similar to use of the word statist to describe people libertarians oppose, imperialist as used by communists, Allopathic medicine by believers in homeopathy. I know the term is now used more widely (Price uses it), but the article should contain some evidence and explain to what degree it is pejorative. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Being named by your opponents or detractors is actually a fairly common phenomenon -- there are many examples in history, from civil war "Copperheads" to the artistic Ashcan School etc. etc. Jews who were opposed to Hasidism in eastern Europe received the name Mitnagdim, which actually and literally means "opponents" in Hebrew!

The fact remains that there's a certain tendency or trend in thought (though not a cohesive organized movement with formal membership) which is definitely notable enough to have a Wikipedia article devoted to it, and this Wikipedia article needs a name. The previous title, "Copenhagen school (theology)" contained three words -- and each single word was highly problematic in one or more respects, and furthermore the overall three-word phrase is not really a standard or commonly-accepted name for this tendency or trend of thought. That being the case, the main feasible alternative is "Biblical minimalism"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an "etymology" section perhaps. I'm not sure why "minimalist" is considered derogatory in academic circles, though I can see why it would be perceived that way in religious circles. The fact that it is considered by some as derogatory can be mentioned as well. All with good refs, I would imagine. As usual. "Copenhagen" seems obscure in an article title IMO. "Minimalist" is clear for those of trying to edit. Student7 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, apart from being derogative it imputes motives (falsely imo) to a group of people who do not even see themselves as a group. The name minimalist suggests its adherents want to believe as little in the Bible as possible. In my opinion this is just projection on the part of "maximalists" who want to engage in apologetics disguised as scientific study. Just my opinion of course, but WP should not take sides, neither in the name of an article nor in the main text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "believing in the Bible" has to do with anything (it's actually rather irrelevant, as is also "theology" in the former title). The thing about Minimalists/Copenhagenists (whatever you want to call them) is that they take a zero-based approach toward using the Bible as a basis for historical reconstruction -- anything in the Bible which cannot be corroborated in some way by external archaeological evidence or quasi-contemporary inscriptions is treated as basically useless and irrelevant for reconstructing the timeline of historical events. (This actually has relatively little to do with the essentials of religion or theology.) The word "minimalism", even if not the formally self-adopted title of any organized group, is a convenient rough-and-ready designation of this overall zero-based approach towards dealing with the Bible. I really don't think that the minimalists have much to complain of compared to Copperheads, artists of the Ashcan School, or 18th-century Whigs and Tories (both of which were originally insulting words). Even "Quaker" was originally a derogatory term (and never what Quakers have called themselves)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have worded that better. I meant the term minimalist suggests a desire to accept as few of the people / things / events described in the Bible as historical. Or to disprove as much of the Bible as possible. In other words it suggests an anti-Biblical point of view. But I see what you mean by zero-based, so saying minimalism suggests the point of view I described is putting it too strongly, it would be better to say that it may suggest that or that it can be construed that way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the concept of minimalism implies the view that "minimalists" are a single group, which they aren't. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a section on "zero based" approaches in the article on Biblical archaeology. But this article was originally written about the Copenhagen school (which is one group designated as minimalist). And that school is notable enough to have an article, it selfidentifies as a school and has a somewhat coherent set of ideas and approaches. That is something to write an article about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to specifically explain what the claimed difference between specific Copenhagenites and broader Minimalists is if you want to introduce such a distinction into Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No I don't. I just have to provide sources about the copenhagen school that uses that terminology and which defines it as a valid group. Then others may provide sources from "maximalists" who suggest that they are similar to non-coenhagen minimalists - but as long as there are sufficient sources describing the copenhagen school as such it is a topic for an article regardless of how maximalists like to classify them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If the rest of us (other than you) don't understand what the difference between specific Copenhagen-schoolers and broader Minimalists is claimed to be, then we'll find it difficult to evaluate proposed changes to the Wikipedia article structure in this area... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to imagine a related scenario. Imagine we're editing a hypothetical article called "Infidels" about everybody who is not a Muslim, or "Book of Mormon minimalist" for everyone who is not a member of a LDS church, or "Goy philosophy". Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it much more parallel to Copperheads, Ashcan-Schoolers, Whigs, Tories, and Quakers -- appellations which were originally given to a group by its opponents or detractors, sometimes with derogatory intent, but have become the standard (or certainly by far most-commonly used) names of those particular groups. Comparisons to "infidel", "gentile", or "goy" are not too useful, since the main opponents of the Minimalists are NOT in fact fundamentalists or Biblical literalists, or a tightly-organized group with a fixed creed which they use to distinguished the saved from doomed heretics --- but rather a loose aggregation of scholars with various views who (in different individual ways) view the historical sections of the Bible as having some degree of usefulness for reconstructing the history of the ca. 1000 BC to 500 BC period at least (even when all details cannot be externally corroborated), and so reject the zero-based approach to treating the Bible as history explained above. AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Copenhagen school is an actual group of scholars who think and approach the topic in a similar way and teach a relatively coherent set of ideas. Biblical Minimalism is just how proponents of Biblical Archaeology lump everybody who is critical of their ideas into a single category, which includes the Copenhagen school and a number of other unrelated scholars who have other background and theoretical frameworks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we generally try to call groups what they want to be called. But I would like to argue that in this case, it is much easier to understand and edit when you know a side is minimalist or (I suppose) maximalist. And the terms are not obviously derogatory outside of academic circles. If you had told me that "Copenhagen School" was derogatory, I would believe it more readily!  :)

Would this mean that we would have to discard all other opinions not belonging to the Copenhagen school but which happened to agree with it? This seems editorially annoying IMO.

What if we forked all material relating to the Copenhagen school, but summarized it here? Minimalist is just too simple and easy to discard so readily, just because a few academics find it pejorative. We can explain in both articles that it is considered a pejorative by academics. What do you think?

I will concede up front, that having an article "n-lovers" and forking "abolitionists" from it might not solve a problem to everyone's satisfaction! But it's not really that bad, is it? Student7 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

POV forks are not a good idea. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither are POV topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, and that argues for condensing the text and moving it to the page on biblical archeology, perhaps with a redirect on this page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And to have an article on the Copenhagen school which is an actual selfidentified group. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

New material for article

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)

Neutrality

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)

The basic methodological principle is that they give the Bible no historical weight whatsoever concerning anything which isn't supported or attested by (near-)contemporary material or inscriptional evidence. Unfortunately, not all of them consistently stick to this principle, and some of them sometimes seem to go out of their way to cast doubt on the Merneptah Stele, Tel Dan Stele, etc. because it would be simpler for their theories if such evidence could be ignored -- and that's where the real controversy begins... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fair description of the views of these scholars. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a lengthy and detailed section explaining the history of minimalism, its development, rise, and criticism. It was removed wholesale by someone who agrees with the minimalist position. If you have an objection to the article being unbalanced, I suggest you find some material which balances it. When I came along the article had been carefully neutered so that it simply described minimalism and referred to only two scholars who oppose it, without any details whatsoever, and without identifying it as a fringe view within archaeology. That was unbalanced. I added the relevant criticism section. I am loathe to re-add the previous description of the development of minimalism, because a minimalist fan will simply delete it again.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The material that was removed was entirely unsourced and violated WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This article does a really poor job reflecting the reception of these scholars' work in the context of current archaeology in general. The bulk of the article reads a bit tendentious, and then you have a short criticism section that basically nets in favor of the "movement". As you all know, it's an awkward and scarcely unified label in the view of both these scholars and their opponents, but to say that the average of these scholars' views is anything other than fringe is disingenuous. I see a couple of people on this talk page who seem to be attached to maintaining the current angle. I know this stuff is contentious, but can't Wikipedia be the one place where we accurately reflect the current state of the collective understanding? -- 03:32, 14 June 2014‎ 173.48.139.124

The "summing up" seemed a little sloppy and drifting. I've tried to tighten it somewhat.

I don't perceive the minimalists as fringe. As someone asked me, would I expect The Diary of Anne Frank to discuss, in detail, the storming of the beachhead at Normandy? Does that make Anne Frank's diary any less useful? Or false? The Old Testament is a book of faith. The chronology in which it was written makes it less credible as a historical tome, but credible as a book of faith. Student7 (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the summing up section needs copy-editing, but you didn't simply tighten up, you toned down the text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance of the Anne Frank diary analogy. The Bible has contains several listings of the kings of Israel and Judah and the lengths of their reigns. Either those kings reigned for those lengths of years or they didn't. Your argument could apply to the Book of Psalms etc., but not the Bible as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Passage with disputed tagging

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)

It was worse before because it stated that minimalists posited a hypothesis that David and Salomen (et al.) were fictional. That is of course not a hypothesis, but a rejection of the hypothesis that they are historical.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The current wording is better at summarizing the conclusions of one particular source, but not as good at stating what some of the prominent general positions often associated with "minimalism" are; however, I'm not going to try to further edit it right now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is not supported by any source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Davies

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)

"The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape."

"And the historicity of David is rightly questioned." Ergo, Solomon, his supposed son, is also "rightly questioned". And, therefore, if David and Solomon are "rightly questioned", then so is the existence of their united kingdom.

In fact, there is no independent evidence that the kingdom of Israel ever existed as anything other than a tribal entity. Sargon's inscription referring to his conquest of the rebellious subjects in the Southern Levant calls the inhabitants "Samarians" rather than "Israelites". There is likewise no evidence that "Judah" existed prior to Assyria's conquest of the central Levant in 722.

You are misreading Davies comments about "minimalism". The point he is making is that no one in that school of thought, which he takes pains to demonstrate is not monolithic, calls themselves a "minimalist". That is not the same thing as what you are implying. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No - he is saying that there is no "school of thought" but that so called minimalism is simply a number of critical biblical scholars who have no particular status as a group at all. Not just that they don't call themselves minimalists but that the label itself is meaningless slur used by albrightians to identify those they disagree with. And in any case the text doesn't support the material quoted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Cyrus the Great allowed those exiled from their lands by the Assyrians and Chaldeans whose territories he had conquered to return to their homes, but he never mentioned "Jews" specifically, or any other people by name for that matter. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But Maunus is correct in his interpretation - Davies says there is no school of thought and that "minimalist" which he says he always puts in quotation marks is an inappropriate label. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts. One is that there could be nothing to research/compare it with, if there were no bible to start with. It would be like Schliemann discovering Troy without the Iliad and trying to make people excited/identify with it. Without the Iliad, which probably does contain some misinformation, no one would have cared about the discovery of some ruin in Anatolia. Nor supporting follow-up archaeology, which, BTW, does not really "pay for itself." This, too, is the case with the historical bible. Odd that the Iliad, comprised from a lot of oral tradition doesn't come in for more criticism. I guess the Greeks were a lot less inventive than the Hebrews.

The other is a potential name change, in which we apparently are intending to do away with the easily understood "minimalist" label because various historians find it offensive that we would even stoop to think that they ever took the bible seriously without first digging down (at somebody's expense) and finding rocks somewhere. We will then need a "FAQ" on the discussion page to explain why the term can't be used in the article.

My thought is that these historians/archeologists/philologists ought to research some unknown group in Siberia and see how much money they can raise for that! "Let them eat sand tundra!" :) Student7 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of "criticism" section

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)

• I think that 1. The article should firstly describe the arguments by minimalist scholars in order to actually describe its topic. 2. secondarily describe neutrally the criticism by maximalists and especially by neutral-middle of the road historians. Criticism should be proportional to the description and not be phrased as rebuttals but simply as evaluations of the relative strength of the claims. Ideally the article should be organized around the central claims by minimalists scholars and criticism should be integrated and objectively described - preferably based on (non-denominational) textbooks or other tertiary sources or review articles. This is a lot of work, and I doubt anyone is going to do it anytime soon. Meanwhile what is important is to not just turn the article into a coatrack of maximalist dismissals of minimalist arguments.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 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)

But he refutes arguments that have not been previously mentioned in the article, that means that the reader's only introduction to the movement's arguments comes from one of its primary detractors. What we should do would be to verify that those points that he refutes are indeed considered important by minimalists, then we should find out what their arguments supporting those points are then' we should introduce Kitchen's criticisms.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're essentially correct, but I can't agree that Kitchen is a primary figure - his book was pretty comprehensively rejected by the scholarly body, and in any case it never addressed the essential arguments of the minimalists. It can be mentioned, but only as a book that was written, together with others - the point I'm trying to make is that "Reliability" simply isn't a major work. PiCo (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that may be true, but my methodological point stands - we should present the arguments first and then the critiques weighed according to degree of acceptance in mainstream (non-maximalist) scholarship. (Note that I locate the mainstream somewhat short of Neo-Albrightean Maximalism). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus makes good points. This is not an article about the maximalist-minimalist debate, and all we need is a short mention of the debate with links to whatever articles are relevant. 05:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

--- 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)

New lead

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)

That was really well done. Great text to use. We need a few more of those. I've added some wikification and names of scholars. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the maximalist/minimalist dichotomy: I think people like Kitchen and Provan can be called maximalist, but Halpern and Dever and Finkelstein are much more moderate. I also think it's important that the controversy over minimalism is really done now, except in the minds of some conservatives who are well outside the mainstream - and, of course, many wikipedia editors:). Thompson and Lemche and the nother minimalists are old now, retired or on the point of retirement, as indeed Kitchen and Dever and all those other names we associuate with minimalism/maximalism. The younger generation of scholars, like Grabbe and Edelman, have moved beyond the debate. I've tried to reflect this in the new section I just wrote. PiCo (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Tel Dan stele

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. 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.

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)

I am sympathetic to the reasoning, but I think that there is a good chance that the reader comes here alreayd distracted form the real issue and wants to know what minimalists think about Tel Dan. Secondly sources such as Finkelstein certainly see the question of the historicity of David as something that divides his own views from those of the minimalists even though he agrees with many of the cautions against reliance on textual evidence in interpreting archeology so in that sense it become something of a litmus test for being minimalist. Thirdly I think that we do have a responsibility for covering the controversies from both sides (although in a way that doesn't become simply he said she said - he was wrong) - and I also think we have a responsibility to follow the sources. Several of the sources I have looked at do treat this as an important question on which "minimalists" differ from most other scholars.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get back to this. See you later :) PiCo (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Partiarchal narratives

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)

I have no deep objection to reinserting the book. With na link to ggogle-books if possible. I'll do it later, but I have to leave my computer for a few hours now - hey, the SUN is shining outside! There's an OUTside! PiCo (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not really objecting to removing it - but maybe just suggesting whether it wouldn't be interesting to single our for discussion - exactly because it has gone on to become widely accepted?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Very nicely done with the background section! (I am wondering if we should mention the opposition to van Seters and Thompson, and the "demise of the Albrightean school"[2][3])·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid straying too far into the area that belongs to Historicity of the Bible. If I still have the energy later I might take that article on :). PiCo (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should probably work a link to that page in to the text somehow. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

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)

Cannan v Palestine

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)

The proper usage of terms for the region depends on the timeframe. Palestine is correct between the years 133 and 1948 AD. Before 133 under the Roman Empire it was Iudaea, in that year the name became changed to Palestine. Canaan is appropriate for the time when it was known by that name, and at various other times it was Coelo-Syria, Israel, Judah, etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Euphemisms

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)

It's less a euphemism than a reclaimed insult. Darth Viller (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Harry Potter is not a work of history!" Hope you don't feel insulted now. --2A01:C22:3544:CC00:C44F:32C:D3CD:4054 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021140010/http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528230034/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

How Come 85% of the sources are the same two people?

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)