Talk:The Copenhagen School (theology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dating of events in the OT 2 Minimalist, Maximalist 3 New Introduction 4 The Minimalist Approach

[edit] Dating of events in the OT

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)

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)

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)

"about 480 years before the supposed building of Solomon's temple". 480 years is 12 generations ( a generation is 40 years), and 12 is a magic number. Do you really need to discuss seriously the historical accuracy of a timeframe built on magic numbers? PiCo 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minimalist, Maximalist

Is there an article on Wikipedia which presents the opposite case to the Copenhagen School? --Taiwan boi 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any single opposite case. The argument of the minimalists (Lemche, Thompson, and the others) is simply that the history books of the OT weren't actually written as history in the modern sense, that we're making a category-mistake when we treat them that way, and that we should consequently only accept biblical texts when they're confirmed by extra-biblical evidence. This would mean, for example, that we can accept the historical existence of a David who was regarded as the founder of the royal dynasty of Judah (confirmed by the Tel Dan stele), but not the story of his battle with Goliath (not only not confirmed by another source, but suspect on textual grounds, since it's not present in the LXX text). The gamut of maximalism runs from Dever, who would say we can accept biblical texts which are not suspect on textual or other grounds (meaning he would distrust the Goliath story), to Kitchen, who trusts just about everything the bible says, even to the names of the four rivers which watered Eden.PiCo 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an opposite case. The opposite case is that archaeological evidence should take precedence over literary theories (the Copenhagen School has it the other way around, and that artefacts are able to communicate objective data (the Copenhagen School distrusts this). That case is shared by a range of scholars, from Dever to Hoffmeier (I have read Dever, Kitchen, and Hoffmeier, and would list them in that order in terms of least to most conservative).

The Copenhagen School does not in fact believe that 'we should consequently only accept biblical texts when they're confirmed by extra-biblical evidence'. This is why, contrary to what you and I would both expect, the Copenhagen School typically does not regard the historical existence of David as being confirmed by the Tel Dan stele. On the contrary, the Copenhagen School typically argues that this is a forgery, since it contradicts established literary theories regarding the texts. Far from relying on the archaeological evidence, the Copenhagen School actually distrusts it, especially where it contradicts established literary theories.The following is a list of archaeological finds which are almost unanimously regarded as genuine, but which the Copenhagen School claims are all forgeries:

• The Tell Dan Stele: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson, Lemche, and Cryer. They claim it is a forgery (though it has been confirmed by leading epigraphers).

• The Gezer Gate: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson. He claims that Dever defrauded the site by visiting it in 1969 and deliberately removing stones and pottery which would have confirmed Thompson's theories, despite the fact that there is no academic dispute over the integrity of the Gezer site.

• The Baruch Bullae: Rejection by the Copenhagen School is expressed by Thompson and Lemche. They claim both are forgeries.

Similarly, the Copenhagen School typically interprets even those archaeological finds it acknowledges as genuine in radical ways. It claims:

• The Merneptah Stele makes no mention of Israel

• The text on the Mesha Stele is not a historical text contemporary with the events it describes but a mythical post-mortem 'literary tradition' written after Mesha was dead, and describes events which never took place

• Esarhaddon's descriptions of his palace are completely false

• The Hammurabi Stela is not contemporary with Hammurabi but was a later 'pseudo-Hammurabi' forgery

The description of Copenhagen School methodology in this Wikipedia article requires some additional information which defines the actual methodology more clearly. The Copenhagen School is not simply an attempt to give primacy to archaeological evidence over the Biblical text. It doesn't give primacy to archaeological evidence at all. It interprets archaeological evidence in harmony with established literary theories of history which are based not on archaeology but on form and source criticism. The fundamental principle is the expectation of disagreement between texts and archaeological evidence, so if the archaeological evidence appears to agree with the text, then the archaeological evidence must be interpreted in such a way as that it does not agree. Hence the sweeping claims of forgery, and the repeated arguments that artefacts of previously undisputed meaning (Merneptah Stele, Mesha Stele, Esarhaddon records, Hammurabi Stele), are also either ancient forgeries of an era later than they claim to be, or else simply mythical, religious, or rhetorical literary texts which do not record any historical facts.

In addition, it would be appropriate to present (on a different page), criticism of the Copenhagen School's interpretation of Genesis Abraham, the Exodus, Joshua, the Stables of Solomon. Such criticism finds wide support across the ideological and interpretative spectrum (from Dever to Hoffmeier, including even Kitchen, Finkelstein, and Silberman).

Incidentally, almost the entire Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen School appears to have been lifted straight from here. Shouldn't that be indicated in the text? I know there's a single reference to that page in a footnote, but the material in the Wikipedia article appears to have copied extensively from that page. --Taiwan boi 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I've misunderstood the position of the Copenhageners on the relationship between the bible and archaeology. I would agree with you in having reservations about the article - I think you could gather that from some of my earlier comments above. I'm too busy with my non-computerised life to do anything myself right now, but feel free to re-write it as much as you see fit. Maybe begin by listing here the people you regard as belonging to the group, so that we can see we're agreeing on the funadmentals? PiCo 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The Copehagen School isn't always very easy to understand, especially given that what's online is typically less than 5% of what is actually written in the relevant peer-reviewed academic literature. Many people think that the Copehagen School is simply a 'sensible' approach to archaeology, or just a 'secular' approach to the Bible, but it's neither. It's more complex than that. I'll see what I can do about revising the article. I note that this article is classified under 'Theology'. Strictly speaking, it should be classified under 'Archaeology', since the aim of the Copenhagen School is to evaluate the historicity of the Bible, not its theology.

Recognized members of the Copenhagen School include Thomas L Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R Davies, and Keith W Whitelam (as identified by Thompson himself). These are the big names (with Thompson, Lemche, Davies and Whitelam being described as the 'Gang of Four', a term Thompson has used). Others are sometimes associated with the Copenhagen School, rightly or wrongly. For example, Finkelstein, Silberman and Van Seters are often wrongly assumed to be members of the Copenhagen School. --Taiwan boi 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those four but I think there's someone missing, tho can't think who it is. Silberman and Van Seters definitely are not minimalists. As you imply, the title of this article is misleading: I'd prefer to call it "Biblical minimalism" or "Minimalism (biblical)" - we can't call it "Minimalism" as that's already taken for a movement in art or architecture. As for the structure of the article, I'd suggest using that Athas article that's referenced already as it's quite good, using it to describe the background from which minimalism arose (a reaction against a too-uncritical reliance on the bible to settle questions of archeology, possibly also the zeitgeist of the 60s) and the reasonable and possibly unreasonable proposals it advanced. Then the dispute can be described - but we should be careful to make clear that the "minimalists" don't actually consider themselves a movement, and the "maximalists" are united by nothing except their opposition to the minimalist rejection of the biblical text as a form of history. Anyway, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. PiCo 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a couple missing (there's one on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite get it). I've been through Kitchen and Dever tonight, but didn't find any new names. Thompson himself only mentions the 'Big Four' as definitely members of the School, and lists various others whom he considers sympathetic. I'll see what I can find in my electronic journals. I like your suggestions for a restructuring of the article (and agree that we shouldn't describe 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' in absolute terms). I'm still happy calling the article 'Cophenhagen School', but perhaps 'Copenhagen School (Biblical archaeology)' or 'Cophenhagen School (Biblical minimalism)' would be more useful. I also believe strongly it should be reclassified under 'Archaeology', rather than 'Theology'. Any discussion of ancient Hebrew theology within this field is only from the archaeological and palaeo-sociological point of view of determining what it was, not whether it is correct or whether there is any evidence supporting it. --Taiwan boi 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I created the article as "theology" is that the school is principally based out of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Copenhagen.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains that. However, the Copenhagen School is not defined by theological studies. It is defined by its archaeological studies. --Taiwan boi 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

However Lemche and Thompson are theologians and not archaeologists by education.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but that's not the point. The point is that the Copenhagen School is a group of academics which have produced a certain kind of commentary on archaeology. They are not discussing theology. Their aim is to determine (using archaeology), the extent to which the Bible has an authentic historicity. --Taiwan boi 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless the attitudes to all these things - origins of the OT, relationship of the OT to archaeology, and even their attitudes to OT and NT theology, will need to be discussed. But I think the first step is to come up with a paragraph describing what minimalism is, when/where it arose, and why. Athas's article would seem to be a good starting point - it seems balanced and non-partisan. Taiwanboi, perhaps you'd like to give this a try - you could do it as a new first paragraph. PiCo 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Introduction

Here's a suggestion for a new introduction (there's a lot to be done with this article, but I'm going to start slow):

'The Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, also known as The Minimalist School is a school of biblical exegesis, developing out of Higher Criticism, emphasizing that the bible should be read and analysed primarily as a collection of narratives and not as an accurate historical account of events in the prehistory of the middle east. This means that the theologists of the Copenhagen School read the Bible primarily as a source to the times and circumstances under which it they assume was written. Members of the Copenhagen School are typically theologians or literature specialists, rather than archaeologists or specialists in related fields such as cuneiform, Assyriology or Egyptology. They offer commentary on how they interpret archaeological findings in accordance with their established views on Biblical and other ancient literature. As a result Copenhagen theologists have frequently argued for a later dating of parts of the Bible than archaeologists or specialists in fields related to the study of the Ancient Near East.'

If that's ok so far, I will develop it a little further with a couple of direct quotes from Thompson which are illustrative of the Copenhagen methodology as he describes it. --Taiwan boi 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks very good as a beginning.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd drop the phrase "developing out of Higher Criticism", not that this is untrue, but it would be meaningless to the average reader. Otherwise fine. Do you have a reference to cite?PiCo 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'developing out of Higher Criticism' wasn't mine (that was already in the introduction, which I didn't want to depart from drastically), but I agree with dropping it for the reason you give. It would be appropriate to mention (and explain), later in the article. I have an article by Thompson to cite ('A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine'). --Taiwan boi 14:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added that new introduction. At the end of the current section on the 'Origins of Minimalism', I would like to suggest adding the following:

'The discrepancies between the archaeological record and traditional interpretations of the Biblical record as represented by Petrie, Woolley, and Albright led to a number of different conclusions within the academic community. These conclusions may be broadly summarized as follows:

• The Biblical record is historically inaccurate
• The Biblical record may be historically accurate, but the archaeological evidence is currently insufficient to substantiated it - more digging may bring such evidence to light
• The Biblical record is being misinterpreted - the 'literalist' hermeneutic used by conservative Christians such as Albright results in an unhistorical reading of the text which the authors did not intend
• The Biblical record was never intended to be read historically in the first place, and thus such discrepancies are to be expected

The first conclusion is typically held by non-theistic and extremely liberal Christian commentators. The second conclusion is typically held by conservative Christians and some commentators identified as 'Maximalists' (though all commentators agree that there is some truth in this position, as the archaeological record of the Ancient Near East is very far from complete or even representative. The third conclusion is typically held by a range of commentators, from conservative Christians to secular commentators, and is commonly found among those identified as 'Maximalists'. The fourth conclusion is typically held by those identified as 'Minimalists', and is an identifying feature of the Copenhagen School.'

I would then go on to describe how the Copenhagen School views the Biblical record as non-historical on the basis of the view that it was never intended to be read historically in the first place. --Taiwan boi 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Petrie and Woolley aren't all that important in biblical archaeology (in archaeology, yes, but biblical archaeology is another matter). Albright is the towering figure, and by the early 60s the consensus was: "Archaeology has proven the OT historically accurate in its essentials for every book, with the exception of the first 12 chapters of Genesis" (my words, not an actual quote). The other conclusions you mention simply didn't exist in a meaningful way at that time. Thompson's 1974 book The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives was one of a wave of books and articles in the late 60s and early 70s which demolished the Albrightean "archaeology has proven the bible" consensus. (Van Seters and William Dever also published works at this time pointing out the weaknesses in Albright's conclusions). So I'd adopt a more historical approach, aiming to show how minimalism arose as a reaction to the consensus dominant at mid-century. We could perhaps aim to show how minimalism is part of a spectrum of modern, post-Albrightean views, which I think is what you're getting at here, but base it first in its own ontology. Have a look also at the last para of The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past.PiCo 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The time I'm actually talking about is the post-Albright era, in which Thompson, Van Seters, Kitchen and Dever's works were coming out. The conclusions I've listed are the conclusions which these men were drawing in the post-Albright age. The Minimalist school derived from this, it didn't appear overnight (Thompson explains his own process of change as taking place over time), and as you've pointed out Thompson (arguably one of the first of the Copenhagen School), was himself a relative latecomer to the challenging of Albright. I listed Woolley because he drew conclusions from his archaeological investigations which were explicit interpretations of the Biblical record, and which remained highly influential for almost 50 years (specifically his 'flood layer' conclusions). I cited Petrie and Albright because the article specifically says 'The first generations of Biblical archaeologists from Flinders Petrie to William Albright and John Bright, seemed to find confirmation of the Bible in their work', identifying them as typical (and formative), adherents to 'traditional interpretations of the Biblical record'. That the Biblical record was being misrepresented by a 'literalist' hermeneutic actually preceded the development of the 'Minimalist' school. Albright's views were confronted first by equally conservative 'Maximalists' before they were confronted by the later 'Minimalists'. --Taiwan boi 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I'd be happy if you scrapped the entire article and started again. Don't feel obliged to keep anything that's already there, not even the structure of sections, though by all means use what's been written as a quarry wherever useful (there are good sentences and points). You have the support of Maunus, who has been involved with the article for a long time, and mine for what it's worth. I'll take the first step by deleting the section on dating of events in the Hebrew Bible. PiCo 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can hack out today. I'll keep the introduction, which seems firm right now. --Taiwan boi 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some external (i.e. internet) references that might be useful - I'll add more as I come across them.PiCo 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. With a full time job, a part time job, three tutorial jobs, and studying for a Masters degree, I'm rather pinned down right now. I'll have to find some time for this at some point. --Taiwan boi 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Added new material to the origins of Minimalism. --Taiwan boi 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Minimalist Approach

This section needs serious spelling and grammar correction. In addition, it contains some questionable statements which are unreferenced, such as 'The Minimalist approach attempts to put the archaeology in primary place'. Actually no, that is not at all characteristic of the 'Minimalist approach'. Thompson, for example, has made it clear that there are some conclusions concerning the Biblical text which he is not going to shift from, regardless of the archaeological evidence, and that the archaeological evidence itself needs to be interpreted according to these conclusions. This is hardly surprising, since he is not an archaeologist himself and is not a recognized authority in the relevant fields. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)