Talk:Biblical minimalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dating of events in the OT 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New material for article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The current wording is not supported by any source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Passage with disputed tagging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  removal of "criticism" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New lead 

message: 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.Some scholars argue that the Tel Dan and Mesha stelae may include mention of the name David. E.g. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2004). "Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E." (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), pp. 265–279. 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.Finkelstein, Israel & Amihai Mazar. The Quest for the Historical Israel. Brill. p. 14
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I'll get back to this. See you later :) PiCo (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tel Dan stele 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cannan v Palestine 

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

text: "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)
thread_title:  Euphemisms 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How Come 85% of the sources are the same two people?