I’ve been stewing on this one for a few days. Not that you should expect a higher quality OP because of that…
I was watching Good Morning America and getting ready for work when I first heard of the recent discovery of the in Jerusalem of the Pool of Siloam, where Jesus is believed to have performed a miracle, returning sight to a blind man.
Unfortunately, the few days that have passed mean that my memory for details is not quite as sharp, but oh well.
The discovery was discussed for about 5 minutes, with footage of an archeologist on location in Jerusalem pointing out the sewage pipe that was being repaired that led to the discovery, etc.
Aside from the documentation of the discovery itself, all other commentary was in reference to the biblical references involving the pool, most of which alluded to the existence of the pool, mentioned by John, lending further credence to the miracle.
I honestly sat there slack-jawed for a few minutes waiting for something with a bit more objective journalistic integrity to come out of Diane Sawyer’s mouth, but it did not come.
Just out of curiosity, is the label “biblical archeologist” ever used by folks who dig for and study biblical artifacts/places, while not trying to advance the faith angle?
There really is no such thing as Biblical archaeology. Most people who search for Biblical sites or artifacts - or who seek to confirm Biblical events- are not credentialed archaeologists. Disciplined archaeologists do not start with a religious myth and then try to prove the myth is true. Legitimate archaeology is about examining what is found without preconceived assumptions or agendas. So-called “Biblical archaeologists” are considered to be a nuisance by a lot of serious Israeli archaeologists.
As to the finding of this pool…at most, it simply proves that John knew about a real pool in Jerusalem. It proves absolutely zero about Jesus or miracles and it’s completely irresponsible and unjournalistic for anyone to suggest that it does. There would be absolutely nothing extraordinary about a real site being utilized in fiction. The existence of this pool is no more evidence of a miracle than the existence of the Empire State Building proves the existence of King Kong.
Huh. This just happened? I am thinking there was another Pool of Siloam then, because I am almost positive I’ve been there. I took a class entitled Historical Archaeology of Jerusalem and we took a field trip every week to some noteworthy site. When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought “Oh right, I took a field trip there once. What’s GMA?”
You can’t take this kind of stuff too seriously. There are a zillion places in Jerusalem that are supposedly the site of some oscure biblical event, sometimes multiple places claiming certain honors. There are at least two Gardens of Gethsemane that I know about, for instance. I am not sure why this was considered newsworthy at all.
I was confused by that too at first. I could have sworn the pool was already a tourist site, and I’d even seen pictures of it. I thought I might have confused it with a different pool but this Wikipedia article seems to clear things up.
The reconstructed pool must be what the tourists were getting taken to see.
It does add a small amount of credance, as the “Pool of Siloam” had occasionally been pointed out as 'something claimed as real in the Bible but didn’t really exist". Generally, new discoveries tend to support the Bible- in a *rather general sort of way.
*
Let us say that they found archeaological proof of the existance of Jesus or King David. Currently, the hard-core atheists like to try and 'covert" dudes to their way of thinking by arguing that neither really existed. But if they did find proof for both or either- it would not really at they can’t prove either existed is used as a “strong” argument by hard-core atheists that the Xian faith is based upon nothing.
However trust me- if the “anti-bibilicalists” were shown proof of either/both, they’d just say more or less what DtC said “well, that doesn’t prove anything”. :rolleyes: And, yes, in one way they’d be right. But in another, one of their prime arguments would be found to be groundless.
Who ever said the pool didn’t exist? I’m not aware that this was ever a claim made by scholars…at least not by any significant number. It may be that someone has said something like that in writing somewhere, but my reading on this has always indicated that scholars have always taken it for granted that this pool existed.
I can’t speak for “hard-core atheists,” but the conclusions made by such archaeologists as Israel Finkelstein is not that “David didn’t exist,” but simply that we have never found conclusive confirmation that he existed and that even if he did, his “kingdom” was much more modest than what is described in the Bible. Finkelstein is Jewish. The scholars who have come to these conclusions do not have some sort of a priori “atheist” agenda to “disprove” the Bible. The evidence is simply what it is. The existence of a historical David would not be an argument in favor of theism anyway, and the non-existence would not be a proof of atheism.
As to the existence of Jesus- the majority of schoalrs, even the “skeptical” scholars of the Jesus Seminar, believe that Jesus existed. Jesus Mythicists are still a decided minority.
I don’t know who these “hard-core atheists” are, but any of them who would try to stake their case for atheism on the non-existence of David or Jesus are not very smart.
What is an “anti-Biblicalist,” exactly?
I already believe that Jesus existed and I also think that there was probably some sort of Historical David. I just think that both their legends are highly exaggerated.
In every way we’d be right. I’ve never tried to argue against the existence of either (and observing that there is no conclusive evidence for them is not the same as denying the possibility or even probability of their existence). Confirmation for the existence of either would be welcomed with great enthusiasm and interest on my part, but it still wouldn’t prove a thing about the existence of God or any of the supernatural claims in the Bible.
It’s not one of MY prime arguments, or anyone else with any brains. I don’t know of anyone of any intellectual substance who tries to argue that the historical validity of the Bible (or the existence of God) hinges in any significant way on the existence or non-existence of either David or Jesus. Even if somebody does try to make that kind of hare-brained argument, proving them wrong about reckless assertions of the non-existence of those figures is not, in any way, a point in favor of miraculous Biblical claims.
All that has been found is a building which dates to the tenth century BCE- the alleged time of David. There is yet no evidence that it was a palace or that it had anything to do with David. This dig is being sponsored by the chairman of a conservative Jewish think tank called the Shalem Center. The press release suggesting that it might be David’s palace is basically pure speculation. So far, all it proves is that there was a building in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE. Whoop-dee-doo.
I’m also of the view that most of the people (including Jesus) and places mentioned in the Bible may have very well existed, but that the miraculous and divine claims made in the Bible about them were fiction. I apply the same general principle to writtings concerning Buddha and Mohammed, and any other theological texts.
Usage of the term “archeologist” in the piece also irked me. ABC did not qualify any part of the story in the studio as being the work of “biblical archeologists”, though I believe that term may have used in the footage on location.
[tangent] Alessan, was Tigana the inspiration for your screenname by any chance? I’m currently 2/3 through reading it, and liking it very much. Do you happen to know if Guy Gavriel Kay’s use of the name was nod to Tolkien’s Elessar?[/tangent]
Sure is. Kay’s my favorite fantasy writer (although Martin comes very close), and Tigana is one of his best books.
Could be, although I suspect he managed to write all of the Tolkien out of his system with the Fionavar Tapestry. Seems to me that “Alessan” is just a variation on the Italian “Alessandro” - a version of Alexander - which fits with the book’s pseudo-Italian theme.
By “Davidic in nature”, I meant “Apparently having something to do with the time period of King David and/or his kingdom. Suggested to be a palace, further developments may place it better.”
The Merc news article mentioned that the absence of a real Pool has fed claims by
hard-core atheists.
Twice here you mentioned 'scholars"- and please note that I never mentioned Archeaologists or scholars. I mentioned “hard-core Atheists”- some few of which have pretensions of being Scholars, sure. (And there are hard-core Atheists who are scholars of course- just like there are hard-core Faithful who are equally Scholarly. But once you allow your personal belief to cloud your vision and conclusions, you lose some -if not all- of your credability). I wasn’t talking about Scholars.
However- you’ve been around here as long as I have. How many threads have been started where the OP (or some other poster) has claimed that Jesus never really existed and thus ipso facto- the Xian faith is based upon fantasy? True, sometimes the “ipso facto” is not specifically mentioned, but it’s there. Dozens* I *can remember, and maybe even a hundred or more. That’s whom I was talking about.
I am quite aware that the general consensus amoung legit scholars- including Cecil- is that Jesus was a real man, and that there was a “King David”- even though his deeds and Kingdom may well have been Mythologized. That doesn’t stop the hard core atheists from claiming that “since there is no proof, they didn’t really exist”. :dubious:
I have no doubts as to a “historical Jesus” either.
DrDeth – as others have said, I’ve never seen an atheist (“hard-core” or otherwise) base his argument on an assertion of Biblical historical inaccuracies. We already know there are quite a few of those; that’s got nothing to do with the essential principles of the Christian faith (unless one is such a fundamentalist that every word of the Bible has to be literally true). Even if one were able to somehow discredit everything in the New Testament, and prove definitively that there was no Jesus, that would only be one religion among hundreds.
All the atheists of any intelligence I’ve known of tend to reject all faiths equally, based on elements that are inherent to religion. I know I do.
Specifically, I haven’t seen anybody make this claim; it’s just bad logic.
I really think you’re just presenting a big straw man here.
Even if I were a Christian, I think I’d feel that it doesn’t matter what is and isn’t literally factual in the Bible; that the ideas of Resurrection and redemption are important enough to embrace as faith regardless of whether they’re based on a specific factual event.
Some legends are great even if they couldn’t be true. Isn’t there a bit of folklore in Jerusalem about a street corner where Jesus and Mohammed met and talked?
And just out of curiosity – did the Pool of Siloam have a sign saying “NO HORSEPLAY” in Aramaic?
