Thou art Peter and upon this rock

[neilgodfrey]

But I do believe that under Josiah we did have monotheistic reforms to loyalty to Yahweh alone, as he is said to be a loyal Yahwist and there is little reason to doubt this.

The only evidence we have that Josiah was a "Yahwist" is his name with its reference to Yah (iah). The worship of Yah was not a monotheistic belief as we know from the archaeological record. There is no reason to believe Josiah was a monotheist and no reason at all to believe he was a reformer. We have no evidence for either claims.

I am amazed at the number of times I read someone saying "there is no reason to doubt" such and such a statement in the Bible. If there is no reason to doubt there is equally no reason to believe, either. There is no evidence either way. We just don't know.

But we do know the stories in the Bible are theological tracts advocating a particular religious belief so we would expect scholars to be a little wary about believing any of their claims without supporting evidence.

But it seems the fear of not knowing either way is intolerable for some of us and so the default is "there is no reason to doubt".

A genuine scholarly method would be to ask what a certain claim would lead us to expect to find in the "hard evidence" of archaeological remains or other independent sources. If we find it then we may have some reason to believe; if we don't then we have every right to doubt.

Doubting doesn't mean outright rejection. It means simply not knowing. Blank. Black hole. Bottomless pit. Nothing either way.

It means we can't study or use the claim as a historical source and do history with it. It means the source is good for many things but not for the real history of Josiah.

[outhouse]

But I do believe that under Josiah we did have monotheistic reforms to loyalty to Yahweh alone, as he is said to be a loyal Yahwist and there is little reason to doubt this.

The only evidence we have that Josiah was a "Yahwist" is his name with its reference to Yah (iah). The worship of Yah was not a monotheistic belief as we know from the archaeological record. There is no reason to believe Josiah was a monotheist and no reason at all to believe he was a reformer. We have no evidence for either claims.

I am amazed at the number of times I read someone saying "there is no reason to doubt" such and such a statement in the Bible. If there is no reason to doubt there is equally no reason to believe, either. There is no evidence either way. We just don't know.

But we do know the stories in the Bible are theological tracts advocating a particular religious belief so we would expect scholars to be a little wary about believing any of their claims without supporting evidence.

But it seems the fear of not knowing either way is intolerable for some of us and so the default is "there is no reason to doubt".

A genuine scholarly method would be to ask what a certain claim would lead us to expect to find in the "hard evidence" of archaeological remains or other independent sources. If we find it then we may have some reason to believe; if we don't then we have every right to doubt.

Doubting doesn't mean outright rejection. It means simply not knowing. Blank. Black hole. Bottomless pit. Nothing either way.

It means we can't study or use the claim as a historical source and do history with it. It means the source is good for many things but not for the real history of Josiah.

It was all in he context of "I do believe" but I also have sources. I also think our differences lie in the definition of healthy criticism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah


Josiah is credited by most historians with having established or compiled important Hebrew Scriptures during the Deuteronomic reform that occurred during his rule.


And I like Karen Armstrong's take on it.

[neilgodfrey]

Josiah is credited by most historians with having established or compiled important Hebrew Scriptures during the Deuteronomic reform that occurred during his rule.

I like to read carefully what "most historians" (really?) cite as their evidence for their claims. They tells us that the Bible says it and they see "no reason to doubt" it. Full stop. End of story. That's shite. It's not scholarship.

We are a supposedly literate and educated society and we should not let these "public intellectuals" get away with such bull shit. We should hold them to account. Ask them the hard questions. Pull them up in their tracks. Many of them are making a living on this nonsense with our tax money.

Just because a few theologians and a handful who have built their careers and reputations on the cultural belief in the Bible's basic claims to be a historical source does not mean we should just go ooh and ahh every time they publish this unsupportable tripe.

I think Finkelstein and Silberman give some reasons for their belief in the Josiah story but they don't argue on the basis of "no reason to doubt" from what I recall (or do they? I need to check again) and they have not persuaded all of their peers. Some question their thesis and ask critical questions of it concerning the evidence.

Why do you always just fall back on "most scholars" say it therefore "I believe it" or "have no reason to doubt it"? That's intellectual laziness and irresponsibility.

[outhouse]

They tells us that the Bible says it and they see "no reason to doubt" it. Full stop. End of story. That's shite. It's not scholarship.


.

You and I both know it has never EVER been that simple for academia.


Please don't add apologetic garbage as scholarship, your better then that.

[neilgodfrey]

They tells us that the Bible says it and they see "no reason to doubt" it. Full stop. End of story. That's shite. It's not scholarship.


.

You and I both know it has never EVER been that simple for academia.


Please don't add apologetic garbage as scholarship, your better then that.

Of course you read so many times in the scholarly literature the very reasoning that you yourself blindly repeated when you said "there is no reason to doubt X". That's EXACTLY what MANY of those in biblical studies/theology DO argue.

You have absorbed this and repeat it yourself and believe it.

Then you try to deny/justify it just as some of them do when the invalidity of their "method" is pointed out.

Much of the method of biblical scholarship really is logically invalid. Deal with it.

Of course there are other arguments, too -- as I said. But without the bits that are accepted because "there is no reason do doubt X" then the whole edifice collapses. All the other complex arguments are irrelevant.

[outhouse]

What im seeing take place here, more often then not, is those who claim to be the most critical and defenders of the truth take the biggest and farthest flying leaps of faith beyond the actual evidence. The hard landing when they are wrong seems not to phase that methodology either.

Its rather hypocritical actually when one looks at the big picture here.


I have no problem taking academic leaps so to speak and building my personal interpretation close to that line as rarely can I find faults in that position that would make me change belief Neil.

[outhouse]

Much of the method of biblical scholarship really is logically invalid. Deal with it.

.

I don't trust it Neil. It is not a solid line I know I can accept from all facets. It is not a safety net either one can stand behind in comfort.


But as I stated quite clearly, my personal findings have shown academia to be a good middle ground to work from.

[neilgodfrey]

But as I stated quite clearly, my personal findings have shown academia to be a good middle ground to work from.

I try not to rely on my personal feelings and rather look for the scholar to point to the evidence (not rationale, but the actual evidence) for claims of what is a fact.

I would have lots of spare cash if I had a dollar for every time I read time a scholar treated a biblical statement as a fact for no reason other than "there is no reason to doubt"!

You know that, too -- that's why you routinely repeat the phrase as if it is quite a valid and scholarly reason for accepting something as a fact.

Many scholars themselves enter the academy reading it as an honourable phrase and also believe it is a quite valid reason for treating certain data as factual.

Any scenario that includes a "fact" that is there because "there is no reason not to believe" is a house of cards.

(Don't stand behind the safety net. Make sure it is beneath you if you want it to do any good.)

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Neil

Just to clarify.

Are you saying that you doubt any historical core to Josiah and the book of the law because you think the account may be very late ? If so this becomes an argument about the evidence for the dates of the Hebrew Scriptures which is not something I want to pursue in this thread.

Or are you saying that even if the account goes back to within a hundred years of the supposed events it might still be entirely fictional ?

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

Hi Neil

Just to clarify.

Are you saying that you doubt any historical core to Josiah and the book of the law because you think the account may be very late ? If so this becomes an argument about the evidence for the dates of the Hebrew Scriptures which is not something I want to pursue in this thread.

Or are you saying that even if the account goes back to within a hundred years of the supposed events it might still be entirely fictional ?

Andrew Criddle

My point is that very often we read in serious work that a narrative detail in the Bible should be accepted as true because "we have no reason to doubt" it. If we have no evidence to support a claim that a narrative is historical then we have no evidence to support that claim. Dates are irrelevant.