Page 430 of the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (NETDV) says Schultz denied there was any "knowledge of writing" in the pre-Mosaic period of Israel and that in "civilized countries writing was only beginning to be used for important matters of state" (this is untrue and Albright and Cyrus Gorden explain why on page 432 of NETDV. For example, the excavations at Ugarit show Canaan was a highly cultural area and prose and poetry existed prior to the emergence of the Hebrews). If you want another example in 1862 Sir George Cornwall Lewis denied there was writing in Moses' day as per 433 NETDV. Albright on page 432 of NETDV refers to a "linear aphabet of Sinai" during the Patriarchal age plus other forms of writing in the general area (Canaanites, Phoenicia, etc).
Here is what a Encyclopedia says regarding Lewis:
"Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet (1806-1863), British statesman and man of letters, was born in London on 21 April 1806. His father, Thomas F. Lewis, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, after holding subordinate office in various administrations, became a poor-law commissioner, and was made a baronet in 1846.
Lewis was educated at Eton College and at Christ Church, Oxford, where in 1828 he earned a first-class in classics and a second-class in mathematics."
I hope my revised last posting clarifies things. If you want further examples, if memory serves, McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict has other examples. The skeptics certainly are not infallible in their pronouncements regarding Christianity and I am sure you could find many other examples via other sources.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-22-2004]
I will respond as soon as Asgara gives the go-ahead.
Needless to say that MacDowell's pathetic scholarship shines through yet again
In 1929 tablets were found at Ugarit and Ras Shamra on the Syrian north coast. These tablets are from the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., the very age of Moses. These tablets are from the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., the very age of Moses.
MacDowell misses out arguably the most famous find relating to this period, namely Tel El Amarna, excavated in 1887, and containing hundreds of tablets that were decyphered very soon after they were found.
The Amarna tablets are named after the site Tell el-Amarna (in middle Egypt) where they were discovered. The first Amarna tablets were found by local inhabitants in 1887. They form the majority of the corpus. Subsequent excavations at the site have yielded less than 50 out of the 382 itemized tablets and fragments which form the Amarna corpus known to date.
The majority of the Amarna tablets are letters. These letters were sent to the Egyptian Pharaohs Amenophis III and his son Akhenaten around the middle of the 14th century B.C. The correspondents were kings of Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti and Mitanni, minor kings and rulers of the Near East at that time, and vassals of the Egyptian Empire.
Almost immediately following their discovery, the Amarna tablets were deciphered, studied and published.
There are a great many more texts that refute Macdowell, he seems oblivous to the well established schools of Egyptology and Assyriology from the mid 19th century onwards.
Once the Queen gives the go-ahead, I can give you many references to disprove this joke of an argument.
I am fairly familiar with Wellhausen, and I think he is beng taken out of context, but we will look into it once we get permission. So please do not reply to this until the Queen says you can.
I believe there is excellent evidence that Lewis was wrong. I also believe that Schultz was wrong regarding writing being used so sparingly (government) during the period he wrote about.
I am related to General Douglas MacArthur and can appreciate the fact that it appears you are writing from Scotland due to information which is provided by EVC Forum. On the other hand, I am almost 25% Irish too. As a consequence, I want to correct your misspelling of Josh's last name. It is spelled McDowell. I am not using a style over substance logical fallacy. It is just that the fighting Irish in me would like to see McDowell's name spelled correctly.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-23-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-27-2004]
Here is another example of an errant skeptic I found at a website:
" "I am not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur" (Philip R. Davies, Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August, 1994, p. 55). Recently, however, archaeological discoveries have verified that David, king of Israel, was indeed a real historical figure.
In 1993 a fragment of a monument was found at the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan that mentioned David and his dynasty dating to about 100 years after David's death. As Biblical Archaeology Review reports: "Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists found a remarkable inscription from the 9th century (B.C.) that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel.' This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible. That the inscription refers not simply to a 'David' but to the House of David, the dynasty of the great Israelite king, is even more remarkable" (March-April, 1994, p. 26).
Then another mention of King David was found in a monument of about the same time. It is called the Moabite Stone or the Mesha Stela. Discovered in 1868, unfortunately it was broken into pieces and it has taken much time and effort to piece together the original words. In 1995 scholar Andre Lemaire finally put it all together and discovered the words "House of David." In line 31 of the Moabite Stone are the words "... the sheep of the land. And the house (of Da)vid dwelt in Horonen" (Biblical Archaeology Review, May-June, 1994, p. 33).
The article continues: "The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the 'House of David' (that is, the dynasty of David) is indeed sensational and deserves all the publicity it has received. The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century (B.C.), was originally part of a victory monument erected at Dan, apparently by an enemy of both the 'King of Israel' (also referred to in the fragment) and the '(King of the) House of David.' The inscription easily establishes the importance of Israel and Judah on the international scene at this time-no doubt to the chagrin of those modern scholars who maintain that nothing in the Bible before the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy ... Nearly two years before the discovery of the Tel Dan fragment, I (Lemaire) concluded that the Mesha stela contains a reference to the 'House of David.' Now the Tel Dan fragment tends to support this conclusion" (ibid., pp. 31, 32)."
Ok, I got one for ya. Not really an error that is on a lot of "bible errancy lists" out there, but it still manages to puzzle skeptics and believers alike.
According to Matthew 2:1 the wise men came from the east, and in Matth.2:2 (and later in 2:9) it is said that they followed a star that was in the east.
So how does this resolve? Well, the Hebrew expression en tei anatolei in verses 2 and 9 is mistranslated. It can mean "in the east", but can also be translated as "rising" or even "following the same path in the sky as the sun". So verses 2 & 9 were better translated as "we have seen his star rising"
Several later Bible translations do not have this contradiction, but both KJV and NIV do.
And I still would like to point out that I do not understand how you can follow a star that keeps moving around from east to west. Literally following such an object would in my opinion result in an uneconomical way of travelling south. But then astrology (and astrologers is what they were) never was my thing.