Dilettantism Supreme With Extra Cheese, Extra Meat, and The Need For Coronary Bypass

Amidst a rather weird essay covering everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the ‘Conquest’ of Canaan, appears this little gem…

Geologists and archaeologists have interpreted that a strong earthquake occurred about the time of Joshua’s attack, about 7,000 years ago. The tumbling of the wall may have been due to the earthquake and simply been coincidental with the blast by the ram horn trumpeters.

Who doesn’t love it when ‘geologists and archaeologists have interpreted that…’   But that’s not the bad part.  The bad, dilettantish, artery choking bit is the 7000 years ago segment.  Let’s see now, that put’s the conquest at 5000 BCE!  Fantastical!!!!!  This chap is a maximalist of the maximalists.  He even has the ‘conquest’ predate Bishop Usher’s date of creation by 1000 years!!!!

Oh that gives me an idea.  This guy can hook up with Shanks and they can go loot Jericho and sell whatever it is they find, dating any artifact to 5000 BCE…

[N.B.- You can't see it, but the vein in my neck is throbbing and my eyes are squinted and my jaw is clenched and I want to throw something, which explains why I refused to link directly to it.  For that, you'll have to go to Antonio.  But I warn you, he also has an opinion about Sodom].

Via Antonio ‘The Mythbuster’ Lombatti.

Only Four Days Left…

To get your recommendations for the December ‘Biblical Studies Carnival’ to me.  Pay no mind to the TBD bit on the Carnival page- it has in fact BD.

Is It a ‘Radical Proposal’ Or Simple Surrender to Thievery?

Hershel Shanks writes in his editorial for the Nov/Dec issue of Biblical Archaeology Review

Why don’t the archaeologists join the looters?

For the same reason that bank depositors don’t join the bank robbers and archaeologists don’t join the forgers: because it’s unethical. Shanks continues

The archaeological establishment’s principal suggestion that will supposedly stop the looting is—well, not to put too fine a point on it—stupid. “Don’t buy looted antiquities” is the strategy. Admittedly, if there were no market for looted antiquities, looting would stop. If the looters could not sell their loot, they would discontinue looting. But the only effect of this policy is to send the looted objects to buyers who will put the loot in their living rooms instead of in museums—so we, the public, will never see it.

Perhaps it would work if certain magazines didn’t place advertisements for looted antiquities in their pages for their readers to purchase? Then he takes aim at ASOR

The second strategy adopted by the archaeological establishment is even stupider: Forbid study by scholars of looted objects. This policy is not enunciated directly, but is carried out by scholarly organizations that will not allow articles about looted objects in their publications and will not allow papers on looted objects to be presented at their scholarly conferences.

‘Stupider’? That’s ’stupidest’. The fact is, ASOR was very careful in its evaluation of the problem and in the implementation of its policy. A magazine editor without training in the field has as much business advising the guild as, well, a magazine editor who has no training in archaeology has the right to give advice to a panel of archaeologists.

Shanks’ solution?

Compete with the looters. Professional archaeologists should professionally excavate areas subject to looting—and fund their excavations by selling the “loot.” After all, we are assured by Giorgio Gligoris, “profits are phenomenal.” The “loot” from these professional excavations must, of course, be available for study and publication. And we will always know where they are in an open market—just as we know about the location of a Renoir painting.

Um, I know this will sound strange, but archaeologists already excavate sites. And they don’t sell the booty to do it. This advice is simply appalling and it will not solve the problem- it will only create more looters. Which may be the goal after all. Since, as one and all know, the more looters, the more loot and the more loot, the more advertisement for loot and the more advertising dollars for magazines offering looted antiquities. Maybe he’s onto something after all… His advice, if followed, sure will be of aid to BAR.

Invincible ‘Shroud of Turin’ Ignorance

They just won’t stop, even though the piece has been shown over and over again to date centuries after the First CE.  ‘They’ being relic hunters and hype-sters who still, because of the gullibility and silliness of the mob, are able to peddle their nonsense even on ‘respectable’ television although they more properly belong on the likes of Jerry Springer.

Antonio informs us that

The Orlando Sentinel reports: Shroud of Turin astonishes chemist in a new test, inspires a Discovery Channel special… A dying chemist took another look at the Shroud of Turin — and came to surprising conclusions. His story will be detailed in a new Discovery Channel special with the working title “Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence.” The program will premiere at 10 p.m. Dec. 14.

And then Tony (because that’s what I call him when he’s not around) remarks

When journalists deal with (presumed) Jesus’ relics, 99% of what is written/produced/aired is utter rubbish. These “new tests” were performed almost 4 years ago, published in 2005 (here), and debunked here and by me here. Those tests didn’t prove anything. C14 dating and historical evidence have placed the relic among the other medieval forgeries.

But, alas, Tony, the folk at Discovery can’t sell advertising space for intelligent discourse; ignorance sells. Then Lombatti (which I also call him when he’s not around) remarks further

But it’s almost Christmas: the right time for a documentary on the Turin Shroud. The last one by BBC was at Easter. Despite what Eric Meyers said the Archaeology session during the SBL meeting, it’s hard for professional scholars to face all these popular quackery and poor media reports. He said that SBL, AIA, and ASOR are setting up a website to publish official press releases when such articles or documentaries misrepresent the historical truth on biblical archaeology.

Now that’s a website worth linking to (to which to link). I am hopeful that as soon as Tony L. (which is the other thing I call him) will inform us right away when it goes live.

Happy News From Australia

Roland Boer will, in what promises to be a fun series, post over the next several days summaries of his many forthcoming volumes and this one in particular doth interest me greatly:

Political Grace: The Revolutionary Theology of John Calvin (Westminster John Knox)

The 500th Anniversary of Calvin’s birth is right around the corner, so this will be a great addition to a spate of stuff coming out.  [And, as an aside, Witherington is wrong about Calvin and his students- they aren't hateful or mean, they are honest and intelligent and do not fear to call a thing what it is].

He’s Right. What’s The Point?

Pope Ratzinger

In comments on Sunday that could have broad implications in a period of intense religious conflict, … cast doubt on the possibility of interfaith dialogue but called for more discussion of the practical consequences of religious differences.

He’s right you know. Interfaith dialogue is useful insofar as it promotes mutual respect but beyond that it really can’t accomplish anything. It’s not as though the Pope will convert to Islam because of the persuasion of the Imam at a 3 day conference. Or vice versa. And it certainly isn’t the case that there will result from such dialogue a sort of ‘religion’ based on all the best parts of every faith perspective.

The pope’s comments came in a letter he wrote to Marcello Pera, an Italian center-right politician and scholar whose forthcoming book, “Why We Must Call Ourselves Christian,” argues that Europe should stay true to its Christian roots. A central theme of Benedict’s papacy has been to focus attention on the Christian roots of an increasingly secular Europe.

I concur. There’s something sinister in fearing to speak plainly about what one believes and, I have to admit, acting as though everyone else has the truth as well. In fact, if I might put it bluntly, it’s just plain stupid to do so. If your belief system is so weak that you believe it just one notion among 5000 equals, that belief system simply isn’t important to you or worth anything at all.

…the pope said the book “explained with great clarity” that “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.” In theological terms, added the pope, “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.”

In what is sure to get me booted out of the Guild of Biblical Minimalists, I agree with the Pontiff on this completely.

But Benedict added that “intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas” was important. He called for confronting “in a public forum the cultural consequences of basic religious decisions.”

Oh Benedict, you’re making me admire you.