Most times, I figure it is obvious, why bother responding? Perhaps, though, it would be instructive as to how apologists work…
I wrote a a blog entry stating:
As I deconverted, I would read the non-believer’s position. Then I would read the believer’s position. Time and time again, I found the believer’s position to be based on non-truth.
I heard the statement how skeptics once claimed Hittites didn’t exist, but it turns out they did. Not true—no skeptic said this.
Not exactly “Headline of the Day” material! Christians claim skeptics once said Hittites didn’t exist. Hittites DID exist. Therefore, (the thinking seems to go) we need not trust skeptics because they were wrong once—they will be wrong again.
But…as it turns out…we can never find these supposed skeptics who claimed the Hittites didn’t exist. Where are these alleged skeptics? What are their names; where can we find the quotes? My source for this information is Peter Kirby’s article that likewise demonstrates we cannot find this supposed “skeptic” who stated, “The Hittites didn’t exist.”
Now you may think this a fairly innocuous statement; but not Dave Armstrong! This…THIS…is proof positive I am a liar. Indeed, he notes since I used the unqualified term, “no skeptic” all he has to do is produce one (1) “prominent skeptic (professor, etc.)” [his words] who denied the Hittites’ existence and he has proven my contention incorrect. He has proven me…a liar!
And so…after spending “many hours trying to track some down” [his words], Mr. Armstrong wrote a monster 4,000 word blog entry (that’s 8 pages single-spaced) where all he has to do is produce one (1) prominent skeptic who denied the Hittites’ existence.
Go read it, if you like. I’d only ask one thing after you do so—what is the name of that one (1) prominent skeptic who specifically claimed, “Hittites didn’t exist”? See, after removing all the fluff and bibliographies and muddling about, Dave Armstrong fails to do the one thing he needs to do—produce the skeptic!
Oh, he gives examples of specific people claiming “someone” said Hittites didn’t exist—but those people don’t provide names for those skeptics, either.
Let’s see if I have this straight-- I am stating, “People claim skeptics once said, ‘Hittites didn’t exist’ but do not provide the names of these alleged skeptics.” Dave Armstrong then gives examples of people claiming “Skeptics once said, ‘Hittites don’t exist,’” but do not provide the names of the alleged skeptics.
Yeah…um…probably not the best way to argue against a claim…by solely giving repeated examples of exactly what the claim is saying!
Of course, in the end, Dave Armstrong decides he will believe the Christians who assert “some [unnamed] skeptic once said, ‘Hittites didn’t exist,’” which (to Dave Armstrong) means the Hittite-not-existing skeptic did exist, which means he has produced a prominent skeptic (albeit we don’t know who it is), which makes me a liar.
Thus the reason discussion is no longer fruitful with him.
I'm really astonished at the layers of fallacy and stupidity, starting, of course, with the idea that skeptics didn't believe the Hittites existed (even if it were true) is probative of anything. (And I think they really mean the Assyrians, who were virtually unknown until the discovery of Ninevah in the mid 19th century.)
ReplyDeleteWell, here is another example of the way I observed Armstrong treating you when i made a comment on an earlier post of yours about his tendency to attrbute deception to you. He wanted me to give him an example, so here it is. I'm just surprised that he spends such significant time to discrediting you.
ReplyDeleteI'm just surprised that he spends such significant time trying and failing to discrediting you.
ReplyDeleteFTFY
Isn't Christianity pretty much based on second hand assertions as authoritative? Christians cite people who say they saw or talked to God, but they cannot and do not produce God (and seem to be content with that). Apparently they see no need to substantiate the existence of those they believe in, be they God or skeptic. The fact that Dave "believes" “some skeptic once said, ‘Hittites didn’t exist," is enough for him.
ReplyDeleteDave's MO seems pretty consistent to me.
The Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteHittites and skeptics are not probative of…anything. (We can look at numerous past instances of people being incorrect based upon limited information.) I like to use it as an example of how Christians repeat canards without ever doing the research. I am certain somewhere in my blog writing I was incorrect; I don’t know why Dave Armstrong picked these two or three particular sentences instead.
And then failed to demonstrate they were incorrect!
DoOrDoNot,
*shrug* It appears this is the only way Dave can fathom doing on-line apologetics. He has been arguing with other internet apologists who perform similarly, and apparently thinks this the way it is done. Curiously, in person he is much nicer (you literally would not recognize it was the same person!) Another demonstration of the difference between what is considered courteous in-person as compared to on-line.
Paul,
You are absolutely correct. Of course, to some extent this is a human tendency—we all tend to be more critically astute regarding opposing positions, and more favored toward our own. The question we must face is what method to consistently use in order to avoid the bias, and employ as much criticism to our position as others.
I don’t know why Dave Armstrong picked these two or three particular sentences instead.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he tried to debunk some of the other fables. Perhaps he devoted just as much effort to "apostles died for a lie,” “skeptics denied Pilate,” “Daniel knew the day Jesus would enter Jerusalem,” and “coins prove Quirinius,” but couldn't come up with anything better than a couple 19th century believing Christians who were honest enough to acknowledge that the archeological evidence of the day didn't substantiate the existence of the Hittites.
It could actually be a fun dialogue without the pseudo-paranoid schtick. :-)
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who basically called Christian apologists en masse a pack of liars. But when I turn the tables and call you on it (and this ain't over yet) then it turns into an avalanche of non sequitur nonsense and insult.
I swear at times that you must be merely playing and doing a parody of a caricature of the "angry condescending atheist." But then I keep reading and you appear to be serious.
What a waste of a mind and notable intelligence . . .
In the future, perhaps you'd be well-advised to simply refrain from making the dumb, sweeping statement (thus setting yourself up for a fall). It was the very extremity of the statement that drove my intellectual curiosity, in order to disprove it. This mentality did indeed occur. It's just a matter of documenting it with more specificity. No biggie. I'm gonna go hit some major libraries this very day.
Serious research that investigates the opinion of 150 years ago takes a little time. Or didn't you know that (so you think mocking and waxing ridiculous is in order until I can produce some names)?
Sigh.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong, I wondered how you would respond. You had a few choices--e.g. write another invective-laced blog entry, put a comment on your own, etc.
And one choice you had was to post a comment here. However the one thing you absolutely, positively should not do was come here without that name—the name of this one (1) “prominent skeptic (professor, etc.).” Even if you had to first search 1,000 libraries and wait 20 years—you should never have posted a comment here without that name.
Because the simplest, most prudent response to any possible comment you could make is this: “Who is the ‘prominent skeptic (professor, etc.)’ that stated ‘Hittites didn’t exist’?”
Today we know that the Hittites wrote suzerainity treaties with their vassal states and that those treaties resemble in many ways the Biblical "covenant" between Yahweh and his people in the Old Testament. A Hittite king also wrote some moving prayers to his god to lift a plague that he assumed was sent to his people by their god as punishment. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteHow melodramatic. We do live in an instant culture, don't we?
ReplyDeleteTo recap, DagoodS stated:
ReplyDelete"I heard the statement how skeptics once claimed Hittites didn’t exist, but it turns out they did. Not true—no skeptic said this."
Yesterday, he wrote:
"Even if you had to first search 1,000 libraries and wait 20 years—you should never have posted a comment here without that name."
I'm delighted to report that I now have not but one, but 16 names. DagoodS' wildest fantasies (and fears) have come to pass.
From my intensive research, it has now been determined, I think, that there were a number of people (essentially, adherents of the school of "Higher Criticism") who questioned not only the existence of the Hittites, or at least the biblical accounts of same, but also the bulk of the early narrative histories of the Old Testament (relegated to "mythology," etc.). 27 of the 46 biblical mentions of the Hittites (or 59%) occur in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges. Here they are:
Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826; German)
Johann Severin Vater (1771-1826; German)
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854; German)
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette (1780-1849; German)
Ferdinand Christian Bauer (1792-1860; German)
Wilhelm Vatke (1806-1882; German )
David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874; German) [lengthy quotation]
Hermann Schultz (1836-1903; German) [quotation]
Theodor Noldeke (1836-1930; German)
To a somewhat lesser extent, the following persons were also skeptical of the Hittites, as presented in the Bible:
Francis William Newman (1805-1897; English) [quotation]
Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1841-1915; English) [quotation]
Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge (1857-1934; English)
Moreover, there are several scholars today of the "biblical minimalist" view, who are about as radical, if not more so, than the older German higher critics:
Thomas L. Thompson (b. 1939; American/Danish)
Niels Peter Lemche (b. 1945; Danish)
Philip Davies (b. 1945; English)
Keith W. Whitelam (b. ?; English?) [see his paper, "The Death of Biblical History"]
For details and links, see my (recently expanded) paper:
The Hittites: Atheist "DagoodS" Lies About Christian Apologists Supposedly Lying About How Biblical Critics Once Doubted Their Historical Existence
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would think that in order to qualify as a "skeptic who denied the Hittites," a person would have to cite the non-existence of the Hittites as proof of the inaccuracy of the Old Testament. If everyone who has ever generally questioned the historicity of the Old Testament is a "skeptic who denied the Hittites," then I would qualify as well even though I have never given a moment's thought to whether the Hittites existed or not.
ReplyDeleteIt's simple logic:
ReplyDelete1) Six early books of the Bible contain 27 references to the Hittites.
2) Skeptic denies that these six books are historical, or thinks they are mostly mythical / legendary, etc.
3) Therefore, before the time of the confirming archaeological discoveries (mostly after 1875): when most of the higher critics above lived, to deny the historicity of those accounts, was to deny the historicity of the Hittites, since at that time, only the Bible had any information at all about them.
You virtually equate two propositions that are not the same at all:
A) "skeptic who denied the Hittites,"
B) one who cites the non-existence of the Hittites as proof of the inaccuracy of the Old Testament.
The two are clearly not the same. You say that in order to qualify as A one has to deny B.
But to deny X is different from "asserting X as proof of Y." The second is not necessary in order for the first to be true.
The question at hand was A, not B.
DagoodS claimed that Christian apologists have been lying for years about skeptics in the past having denied the existence of the Hittites.
I showed that these skeptics did indeed do that (mostly before 1875).
Therefore, these apologists were not lying or woefully ignorant. They report a thing that actually happened. Granted, they usually don't document who said this (which made it a lot of work for me to track this stuff down, though if I had thought to search "higher critics" earlier, it would have been a much quicker process), but that is not absolutely essential or necessary to maintain their integrity. Folks say things all the time without documenting them.
I could state, for example, "lots of people used to think that Homer's Troy did not exist."
That would be a true statement. I don't need to document names in order for it to be a true statement. It's true whether it is documented each and every time it is stated or not. It's now common knowledge for anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the history of archeology.
DagoodS, therefore, lied about the Christians who state this. I have defended their integrity and have shown that DagoodS made a false accusation. He did the very thing that he accused others of doing.
A certain historical Personage Who is also doubted by some today would say that is "hypocrisy." So would I.
DagoodS claimed that Christian apologists have been lying for years about skeptics in the past having denied the existence of the Hittites.
ReplyDeleteI showed that these skeptics did indeed do that (mostly before 1875).
Therefore, these apologists were not lying or woefully ignorant. They report a thing that actually happened. Granted, they usually don't document who said this (which made it a lot of work for me to track this stuff down, though if I had thought to search "higher critics" earlier, it would have been a much quicker process), but that is not absolutely essential or necessary to maintain their integrity. Folks say things all the time without documenting them.
I could state, for example, "lots of people used to think that Homer's Troy did not exist."
That would be a true statement. I don't need to document names in order for it to be a true statement. It's true whether it is documented each and every time it is stated or not. It's now common knowledge for anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the history of archeology.
DagoodS, therefore, lied about the Christians who state this. I have defended their integrity and have shown that DagoodS made a false accusation. He did the very thing that he accused others of doing.
A certain historical Personage Who is also doubted by some today would say that is "hypocrisy." So would I.
I'm assuming that the last two posts I made went into Blogger's spam filter. I was replying to Vinny.
ReplyDeleteCurious. It is demanded I grant charity to these Christian apologists for laxity in claims, but the Christian apologists are not required to hold to the same standards. Therefore, I am a “liar”? Ah…the new Golden rule of Christianity—“You must do to me what I want, but I don’t have to.”
ReplyDeleteTo avoid confusion, let’s look at the two claims:
1) Christian apologist state, “Skeptics claim Hitittes did not exist.”
2) I state, “Christians apologists are incorrect when they allege, ‘Skeptics claim Hittites did not exist.’”
At this juncture we have proposed names, but we still do not have a Skeptic quotation specifically stating, “Hittites did not exist.” The first statement’s basis.
What we do have are skeptics who question the historicity of events within the Tanakh—something I long recognize skeptics have done (and have been incorrect as well.) But questioning the events does NOT necessarily equal questioning the existence of specifics within the event.
I am persuaded the Exodus is not historical. This does NOT mean I am therefore claiming Egyptians, Hebrews and Philistines did not exist. This does NOT mean I am therefore claiming the Nile, the Jordan and the Red Sea did not exist. This does NOT mean I am therefore claiming straw, mud and bricks did not exist.
If 150 years from now, someone states, “DagoodS said the Exodus was not historical, which means he is claiming Egyptians did note exist” they would be 100% incorrect.
The skeptics I have reviewed so far have been quote-mined by the Christian apologist, where the Apologist extrapolates out similar unwarranted conclusions. Take the most oft-cited F.W. Newman mentioned in Mr. Armgstrong’s blog entry. Instead of quoting Mr. Newman stating, “the Hitties did not exist” we have a quote from a Christian apologist alleging what Mr. Newman said.
William Wright (the Christian Apologist) states Newman “speaks of the Bible references to the Hittites as 'unhistorical,' and as 'not exhibiting the writer's acquaintance with the times in a very favourable light,'” pg 178-179. BUT, if we look at the actual work, History of the Hebrew Monarchy at pg 178-179, we see Newman is discussing the 1 Kings 7 Syrian invasion of Israel, and how it is unlikely the Hittite King would muster enough forces to be a threat, as compared to the more likely threat of Judah. Go read it!
Do you get that? Newman not only agrees Hittites exist; he makes definitive statements about their existence—they did not have the strength of Judah. If you search the rest of the book, he refers to the Hittites without questioning their existence.
True, Newman states the Tanakh’s account regarding the Hittites as being “unhistorical;” but he is definitely not saying the Hittites themselves are “unhistorical.” (Just like I claim the Exodus’ account regarding Pharaoh is not historical, doesn’t mean I claim Pharaohs are not historical.) Yet ever since Mr. Wright wrote this piece, poor Mr. Newman has been cited over and over as the skeptic claiming, “the Hittites didn’t exist.”
So the Christian apologist is allowed to magnify the claims without question. Yet if I dare…DARE…call the apologist on it, not only am I incorrect, I am “liar” for requesting accuracy. If I say, “the apologist is not quoting accurately,” I am a “liar”; If the apologist fails to quote accurately that is just fine.
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteI freed the comments from spam filter. There were two (2) more that looked duplicative, but if they included additional points you desired, I will happily release them.
Thank you for the names. I ran a quick google search on the names with “Hittite” and could not come up with a single quote associated the two. Can you give a citation with even one (1) name where they said “Hittites did not exist”? (Claiming the broad “Tanakh is mythical” is not what I am looking for. If that is the best you have; okay.)
Context is the key Dave. You have to evaluate the meaning of “skeptics deny Hittites” in light of the refutation offered by the Christian apologist.
ReplyDeleteIf, as I suggest, “skeptics deny Hittites” means “skeptics cite the non-existence of the Hittites as proof of the inaccuracy of the Old Testament,” then the Christian apologists may reasonably claim that proving the Hittites existed refuted the skeptics claim.
On the other hand, if, as you suggest, “skeptics deny Hittites” means “skeptics think that the books that mention Hittites are mostly mythical/legendary, etc,” then the skeptics aren’t refuted by proving the existence of the Hittites any more than they are refuted by proving the existence of the Egyptians.
Can you give a citation with even one (1) name where they said “Hittites did not exist”?
ReplyDeleteThe closest to this specific demand (that I have found or heard about) appears to be the 1881 entry on Hittites in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, by T. K. Cheyne. I have not been able to access that. I may be able to find it in libraries. I went to a seminary library, and that probably didn't have an old set of the Britannica. A more general library might have one or more.
Reference was made to Cheyne having changed his mind (due to archaeological discoveries) by William Wright, in 1885:
"Dr. Cheyne saw reason more than two years ago to modify his views with regard to the 'Hittites of Genesis.' . . . The Saturday Review, referring to the point at issue between Dr. Cheyne and me, fitly sums up the case thus:
'Granting that the sacred writers were unscrupulous, it would still be impossible to imagine why they should fill their early records with the most matter-of-fact references to a purely imaginary people. There is no nonsense that the professors of the Higher Criticism will not talk.'
I have his 1888 entry, but he had already broadened his views by then.
I have also read claims that 1881 and earlier versions of the Britannica refer to the Hittites as a "mythological people of the Bible" or some such.
If this can be proven it is certainly decisive. It would show the general consensus of the period, and would be more than an adequate basis for Christians to then make statements about skeptical denials of the Hittites. It's not based on nothing. Clearly this strain of thought existed; thus, these apologists then and now are not "lying" about it.
I just added (right before my conclusion in my paper) a further 1888 letter that I found, of Wm. Wright discussing T. K. Cheyne's views on the Hittites. Cheyne (based on Wright's repeated references) had obviously retreated quite a bit from his original hyper-skeptical views, expressed in 1881, and it was because of archaeological discoveries.
ReplyDeleteGood for him, that he could admit he was wrong and bow to new discovery and fact, but that doesn't change the fact that his earlier views were quite different, and that is what this controversy is about: whether there ever was such a skeptical view expressed: some memory of real, actual skeptical views that apologists are reflecting today.
It looks (from what I have learned) that perhaps the locus of this skeptical view (in the English language) is found in Cheyne's article in the 1881 Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 12).
I will try to locate and view this old set myself, as soon as possible.
Hal Flemings, Examining Criticisms of the Bible (AuthorHouse: 2008, p. 101):
ReplyDelete"Up until the late 1870s, critics argued loudly that the Hittites were a myth, that the Bible's references to them were inaccurate and non-historical. Even early editions of the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica referred to the Hittites as 'a mythological civilization mentioned only in the Bible.' All that changed when archaeological discoveries produced startling evidence of a thriving Hittite civilization."
Hot off the press:
ReplyDeleteHabitually "Lying" Christian Apologists?: 19th Century "Hittites Didn't Exist" Radical Skepticism & Examination of Atheist DagoodS' Replies & Charges
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteAs I said to you before--while I enjoy theistic discussion, our interaction is anything but. Feel free to continue the misrepresentation of my position, avoiding my questions, and making up whatever strawpeople you find necessary to entertain yourself.
I wrote this blog entry for a particular reason; the reason is fulfilled.
If you ever do find a quote from a skeptic who stated, “the Hittites did not exist” I would appreciate the information (although I don’t think wild elephants could hold you back if you ever find it! *grin*)
If I am incorrect about this situation regarding Skeptics & Hittites, I would like to know.
Excellent. I plan on searching for old Britannicas today or in the next few days. I shall look forward to your retraction (in the eventuality that I do locate what I think is likely that I will find). That would be a breath of fresh air, given the extremity of the charges you have made.
ReplyDeleteBut we all learn and fall on our faces. I don't begrudge anyone that shortcoming, since I share in it too often myself: as long as they make it right once they have been corrected.
Research update:
ReplyDeleteI cannot access any old set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1800 to 1881) in the Detroit area (based on what I was told by a high-ranking librarian), so I have written to 100 of my friends, asking if anyone has access in their area.
There is a 1797 set at one of the U of M libraries, but I'm pretty sure that would be too early, since it was before higher criticism really took hold, with its wholesale skepticism. What we need is probably likely to be found in the 1830s to 1860s-70s period.
ReplyDeleteLatest find:
ReplyDeleteWilliam Graham Sumner, c. 1879:
"The mention of the king of the Hittites is very strange. No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed, and the kings of Egypt did not interfere in Asiatic affairs throughout this entire period."
I have shown that he was wrong about both the continued existence of the (neo-) Hittites in the 9th century BC and even about Egyptian history.
See my 3rd paper in the series.
Wow, Dave. I've played Dungeons and Dragons, I've been into computers since I was 12, and I know a lot of 2nd and 3rd rate musicians. But I've never seen a more pathetic, obsessed loser than you. You're digging into 200 year old references to try to justify calling lie an offhand comment that is obviously true in the general case. To be honest, even if all the evidence weren't against you, I'd be embarrassed to be a Christian just because you're one.
ReplyDeleteAnd the funniest thing is... you'll might really dig up some 3rd rate academic from the 1630s or something who really did say "The Hittites never existed." And Dagood will laugh and say, "I stand corrected," and move on with his life. And all anyone will remember is that Dave Armstrong is this weird, obsessed little troll and never remember that wow, you were actually right, in your weird, pathetic, loser, living-in-mom's-basement way.
I did the whole "philosophical discussion" thing with Christians about ten years ago. I lasted about a year. But in the end, what's going to doom Christianity is not the enormous philosophical flaws, not the absurd theology, not even the hatefulness and contemptible morals of Christians. What's really going to doom Christianity is that everyone who really takes it seriously becomes a grotesque, obsessed, scrofulous little gnome that no ordinary person with a job, a mortgage, and a bowling team with a shot at the playoffs really wants to have as a friend.
Bitterness and hostility will make you miserable, Larry, whether you're an atheist or a Christian or a Hindu. It'll eat you (and kill you) from the inside out. You desperately need God's love to transform you. Your mindless insults don't and won't stop me from doing what I do (defending Christianity).
ReplyDeleteYou sure don't make atheism appealing to anyone with this sort of pathetic derision towards someone, simply because he is defending with facts a group of people who have been accused of being a pack of inveterate liars. You long ago decided that Christians are a bunch of contemptible liars (I've seen other comments of yours), so you were nowhere near ready to change your mind on that, no matter what I came up with.
It was quite likely that this thing would get increasingly insulting from the atheist end, in direct proportion to counter-evidence that I managed to come up with. That's just how it goes (sadly) in most atheist-Christian interaction.
I told my wife yesterday that if I came up with something indisputable, that simply an exponential increase of insults would occur (rather than than accepting any correction). You made me a prophet once again. What DagoodS does remains to be seen, but we have observed your reaction (and it will be recorded in all its glory on my post.
Lastly, I must say that I admire the imaginative eloquence of "grotesque, obsessed, scrofulous little gnome." That goes right near the top of some of my favorite all-time insults. :-) Thanks for the laugh there!
Bitterness and hostility will make you miserable, Larry
ReplyDeleteHuh... And here I am actually thinking that I'm happy and fulfilled.
Lastly, I must say that I admire the imaginative eloquence of "grotesque, obsessed, scrofulous little gnome." That goes right near the top of some of my favorite all-time insults. :-) Thanks for the laugh there!
<bows> Thanks. I practice.
Dave,
ReplyDelete"No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed" is not the same thing as "the Hittites never existed."
At least you seem to have abandoned the absurd notion that anyone who doubts the historicity of the Old Testament generally can be counted as a skeptic who denies the Hittites.
Am I being punk’d? Is this some trap or trick I cannot fathom?
ReplyDeleteWhy cite a person who repeatedly treats the Hittites as historical for a skeptic who ”made the bald statement of denial of existence“? Why claim the exact opposite of the author’s statements?
I first planned to write a blistering comment regarding the insufficiency of research (or worse—attribute nefarious motives) but nobody can be this inept. No one would claim this author was stating, “Hittites didn’t exist,” realizing I would look up the work, discovering the polar opposite. (In fact, the quote itself indicates Hittites existed!)
What am I missing here…is it some other citation? Is this a clever plot?
For the quick version—Dr. Karl Bahr (German) wrote a two volume commentary on 1 & 2 Kings (books in the Tanakh.) called The Books of the Kings. It was translated, enlarged and edited—the First Book (1 Kings) by Edwin Harwood [except one chapter]; the Second Book (2 Kings) by William Sumner. It is not precisely clear what was translated and what was enlarged; it possible this is Bahr’s work and not Sumner’s. To keep convention, I will use Sumner’s name.
If unfamiliar with Commentaries—they are exactly what it sounds like. The verses are quoted and the author makes “comments” providing additional information. 1 & 2 Kings contains statements regarding Hittites, and every single time this Commentary makes comments (whether Bahr or Harwood or Sumner), Hittites are treated as historical. They are treated just as historical, without qualification, as the Egyptians, or Israelites or Assyrians or Syrians.
Simple to determine; download the pdf, and search “Hittite.” (Since both books are in a single pdf, the number in parenthesis is the pdf page number.)
Vol. 1. Pg 123 (123) notes same Hittites in 1 Kings 10 as 2 Kings 7 (important!).
Vol. 1. Pg 126 (126) refers to Hittites without qualification.
Vol. 2. pg 74 (348) refers to Hittites without qualification.
Vol. 2. pg 186 (460) Notes Hittite god names and Assyrian god names. Treats both nationalities as historical, without qualification.
2 Kings 7:6 indicates the Syrian army withdrew from a siege, thinking the Israelites had hired the Hittites kings. Sumner comments, “The mention of the king of the Hittites is very strange. No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed…” Vo. 2. pg 72 (346)
Oddly, it appears this statement is what is relied upon for the allegation Sumner “made the bald statement of denial of existence.” What am I misunderstanding here? Look at these statements:
S1: At this time, the Confederacy no longer existed.
S2: The Confederacy never existed.
S1: As this time, the Roman Empire no longer existed.
S2: The Roman Empire never existed.
S1 and S2 are clearly not saying the same thing! What I am looking for—a skeptic who said, “Hittites never existed”—is akin to S2. What Sumner said is akin to S1; at the time of 2 Kings 7:6 the Hittites no longer existed as a nation. Not that they never existed!
Indeed, if one looked at the paragraph above, Sumner states explicitly the Hittites existed, and describes his position on them!
“The slight remains of the nations of the Hittites having been subjugated by Solomon (1 Kings ix.20) we have to understand that reference is made here, not as Thenius thinks to “an independent remnant of this people, living near their ancient home (Gen. xv.20; Numb. xiii.29) towards the river of Egypt,” but to an independent Canaanite tribe which had withdrawn into the northern part of Palestine.” Vo. 2. pg 72 (346)
There must be some other link, or some earlier edition, or this was some artifice I am missing. How could this remotely qualify for a skeptic who said, “Hittites never existed”?
And here I am actually thinking that I'm happy and fulfilled.
ReplyDeleteSurely, the joy and peace that you feel within yourself jumps out of every paragraph that you write. That's why almost everyone you interact with (according to your own report) thinks you are a "jackass." That's why you classify virtually everyone who disagrees with you as "retards" and "liars."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see that you (DagoodS) chose not to go down the road of mere vacuous insults. I commend you for that and it's heartening to see. But you seem to not have any problem with other cohorts on your blog getting down into the mud and slinging horse manure at those they disagree with.
ReplyDeleteTypo . . .
ReplyDeleteHi DagoodS,
You took exactly the approach (in argument) that I knew you would take. I don't blame you. You're holding on to whatever you got left, trying to assure all your followers that you are still on the right side of this.
This is why I don't think the quotation I have from Sumner is conclusive (and said as much to a friend last night). The really conclusive one would be like the reputed words of the mid-19th c. Encyclopaedia Britannica: "a mythological people."
I see now that you have absolutely no ethical standards on your blog, since you won't speak out against Bum's vapid, rank insults, whereas when a friend of mine referred to the "stupidity of atheism" on my blog I immediately distanced myself from it and made it clear that it was not my view. Thanks for the clarification.
Now we know that if a theist or Christian dares set foot in this venue, he or she is open to almost every imaginable insult. It doesn't bother me personally (I'm used to it as an apologist), but it is an important matter of principle where it seems to me that Christians and atheists could easily agree. The same debate is taking place on the national political scene: how do we approach our opponents?
It is not precisely clear what was translated and what was enlarged; it possible this is Bahr’s work and not Sumner’s. To keep convention, I will use Sumner’s name.
The citation in question is clearly from Sumner, since it is bracketed and followed by his initials. That can be seen in the Internet Archive link I provided. For my purposes, that is all we need to know; it's unquestionably his writing and his opinion.
Many (if not all the rest of the) references to the Hittites in the work are (it seems clear to me) from Bahr and not Sumner, since Sumner is merely the translator, editor, and "enlarger." And they don't agree on everything. Sumner is more skeptical. So the other references are neither here nor there.
You took exactly the approach (in argument) that I knew you would take. I don't blame you. You're holding on to whatever you got left, trying to assure all your followers that you are still on the right side of this.
ReplyDeleteDave,
If all you have left is to congratulate yourself on knowing that Dagoods would point out that you cited material which did not support the proposition for which you cited it, perhaps you should cut your losses and find some more constructive use of your time.
You would love that! Then for sure (if I gave up now) I wouldn't find the quotations that would put a decisive end to this controversy. If I pursue it it'll take a lot more work, and I'll be accused of being obsessed and not having a life, etc. (and far worse, from Bare-Brained Bum) LOL.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the life of an apologist wonderful? I'm given two choices in this venue, courtesy of my esteemed atheist admirers:
1) Pursue and research the topic for many more hours on end, and then get accused of obsessions and agendas and trolling and nefarious motivations and quixotic pursuits (granted, I did post a picture of Don Quixote on one of my papers LOL) and overall weirdness for having the gall to take up a challenge and make a defense in the first place. That seems to be a big thing here: mock the people who are doing the research.
2) Stop, in which case we get the triumphant gloating of Dagoods and further mocking that Christians don't do their research when they make claims and that I momentously failed in my task.
Which do you think is the preferable option? #1 means (according to the mentality displayed here) I am a "loser" in the general sense. #2 means I am automatically a loser in the debate (in DagoodS' eyes; I don't think it is that clear-cut myself).
Which would you choose if you were in my shoes, Vinny?
My main motivation has been my own intellectual curiosity (that often drives me in my major research projects). I believe that this opinion existed, because time and again I've seen reference made to it, and I don't think that comes out of nowhere. Many reputable archaeologists and other scholars refer to it. There was such a thing as higher criticism and radical skepticism and arguably its heyday was 1770-1870 (roughly speaking).
But documentation has taken a lot more work than I ever thought, in the age of Google Reader and Internet Archive. DagoodS thinks that is because the reputed opinions don't exist. I think it is because they are difficult to access, being so old, and because those who believe it wouldn't necessarily have to always say "the Hittites didn't exist" because it would be assumed within a larger paradigm of extreme skepticism of OT historical claims.
Tell me (I'm curious): if we did find the alleged Encycl. Brit. quote that Hittites were "a mythological people" do you think that would that settle the issue in my favor? What would be the comeback to that (if any)?
We may still find it. Something of relevance is in those old encyclopaedia entries on the Hittites, and the significance of them (if they are anything like I suspect) won't be able to be dismissed because it would be proof of the opinions existing in influential scholarly places. We just have to access them somehow, somewhere.
I would hope this unnecessary, but since I feel compelled to address it, apparently I am concerned enough to post this comment. (I really only wanted to address one (1) thing with Dave Armstrong—find the skeptic who said “Hittites never existed.” Alas, must momentarily branch out.)
ReplyDeleteEach blog is different. Each blog owner has the privilege to determine their own comment policy. They can only include comments from Christians or from red-headed people or no comments at all. They can bar swearing; they can require it. Their choice.
I favor a wide-open policy. I allow just about anything. (Please don’t test this—I really don’t want to start some monitoring system!) This comes partly from my distaste for censorship; partly from my belief allowing people to say what they want is illuminating.
If someone doesn’t like it, they are free to complain on their own blog, or comments here. But I am not going to do anything about it.
Larry a.k.a. The Barefoot Bum – you are more than welcome to post comments on my blog.
Dave Armstrong – you are more than welcome to post comments on my blog.
DoOrDoNot, Vinny, HeisSailing, Like a Child, Zoe, Rambling Taoist, atimetorend, D’Ma, Jon, Geds, paul, martin, Clay Jones, Cory Tucholski, Jim Jordan, Stan, OneSmallStep…and all the others who will lambaste me for forgetting their name or not including them – you are more than welcome to post comments on my blog.
Feel free to complain about what the other person said and to complain about my not deleting what the other person said.
But I won’t do anything about it.
Dave Armstrong: …if we did find the alleged Encycl. Brit. quote that Hittites were "a mythological people" do you think that would that settle the issue in my favor?
ReplyDelete.
I best cover this now.
After your citing of The Books of Kings turned out to be….incomplete…shall we say?--I would anticipate your providing a photocopy or picture of the actual full and complete article. Not a paraphrase. Not a quote. Not a typewritten blog entry.
Something to verify what the original article says. That, to me, would be the easiest way to settle this issue. I’m giving you full and fair warning now, so when you are able to obtain a copy, you understand what we are looking for.
Remember we are skeptics, after all. Like you said—you know the approach I would take. Which means looking at the original article itself, rather than what someone else says the article contains.
Okay; I like free speech, too. That's why I have over 650 debates posted on my blog. Both sides are fully presented. But what do you think about the value and utility of Bum's remarks at my expense? Allowing free speech and one's opinions of certain sentiments expressed are two different things.
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen to have no standards of conduct at all on your blog. I do have a requirement (at least in the long run) of rudimentary courtesy of mine, because I want to maintain a venue where people feel free to speak without being trashed and pilloried, sans any rational argument. Thus, I will ban folks who do nothing but insult (extreme cases). Bum wouldn't be banned as long as he made substantive remarks (as he does here too). But if all he did was insult, he would be, because that insults the intelligence of my readers and cheapens my blog, which is trying to do something different.
The free speech is not absolute on my blog. It's not here, either, really. I may be allowed to speak (which is elementary) but the more I render my opinions, the more insults come (including from you) and I am accused of being a troll, etc. (which means precisely that I am improperly speaking -- being out of line -- on this blog).
That's the double standard. Yes, I am allowed to have my say, but it has to co-exist with a ton of horse manure being dropped on my head, whereas people like you and Bum don't have the distraction of being buried in manure because your opinions are disagreed with.
Along with the "right" to free speech comes (I submit) a right to being allowed to speak without the incessant insulting, which is an insult to the intelligence of all who truly value the exchange of ideas (as I believe you do, as much as I do). This is the demands of routine, rudimentary charity, that atheists and Christians alike value.
You yourself like to point out that I am supposedly so vastly different in person, and that people change online. I can't imagine (having met you now, twice) you and other atheists standing by and saying and doing nothing if Bum launched into his tirade against me in person, that we saw above. That wouldn't happen. He would be told to shut up or leave the room.
That's more than just a "right of free speech" issue: it is the commonly agreed norms of charity in discourse and human relations.
I try to further those ends online as well as in person. I don't make a radical distinction between the two. If someone had started blasting your friend Jon when he was at my house presenting his view that Jesus didn't exist (saying about him what Bum said about me), I would have promptly escorted him to the door. Why should it be any different online than it would be in person?
I would anticipate your providing a photocopy or picture of the actual full and complete article.
ReplyDeleteSo let me understand you correctly. If we produce that (complete with photocopy or sworn testimony of the librarian at the Library of Congress or British Museum or something), and it says "mythological people" then you would concede the point and this would be settled? That would be sufficient to prove what I have been contending?
I wanted to add above, also, that another factor in making it difficult to find the sort of skeptical statement I seek, is the fact that higher criticism was almost entirely German in the period we are talking about. Nowhere near all of that material would be translated into English. And so likely statements that might be found are in German only.
ReplyDeleteThe English scholars who are skeptical to whatever extent always seem to go back to the Germans (e.g., Cheyne, Sumner). That's where all this started. It was the seedbed of the larger theological liberalism as well.
After your citing of The Books of Kings turned out to be….incomplete…shall we say?
ReplyDeleteIt was not "incomplete" in the sense you are speaking now: providing undeniable proof of sources. The issue, rather, was about historically finite denial vs. an absolute denial of Hittites never existing at any time.
I knew that already (and highly suspected that was the line of attack you would take), which is why I wrote on my blog last night before you replied: "I think it is pretty good, but I still want to find the Britannica statement, if it exists. That one would blow the opposing opinion out of the water for good."
--I would anticipate your providing a photocopy or picture of the actual full and complete article. Not a paraphrase. Not a quote. Not a typewritten blog entry.
Whatever. If we're able to do that, we will. If we can't (not always possible with books that old) then you'll have to decide if you want to continue to deny the existence of a quote that we have verified and seen with our own eyes (i.e., myself or -- more likely at this point -- one of my friends: one who is looking is an attorney like yourself; another a professor of mathematics; another a [non-Catholic] OT professor). Your choice.
But in the previous case, a photocopy was indeed available off of the link I provided to Internet Archive. You can choose "read online" which leads you to a photocopy (well, jpgs or some other sort of visual file). I verified the page number myself by looking at that.
So you have no grounds for charging "incomplete documentation" there. The beef had to do with partial, timebound "Hittite skepticism" vs. absolute skepticism. By 1879 no one could be expected to be foolish enough to believe the latter any longer; it was far too late.
The radical skepticism can be expected to have occurred 10-70 or so years earlier, precisely because the Bible was the only evidence available, prior to modern archaeology. Therefore the Hittites were "dissed" because the Bible was not considered by the higher critics to be trustworthy enough on its own, to be relied upon as the sole source. We Christians got the last laugh there . . .
It's like the similar example of Belshazzar. Some radical skeptics even to this day want to deny the existence of King David (just as others are so foolish and out to sea as to question Jesus' existence).
But I never thought for a second that this quote found by Steve Ray yesterday was or would be decisive in and of itself. It's further down the road, and the best we have so far (in terms of specifically mentioning the Hittites), but we still have work to do to fully document this.
The more we are mocked and called names the more motivated that will make us, to find further proofs. Keep mocking, then, if you like. I enjoy being motivated, and I am not averse to prevailing in disputes, either. :-) If it takes a lot more time, I have plenty of that. The final result (as I fully expect to accomplish in due course) will be well worth it, and we'll see who has egg on his face at the end of all this.
Stop, in which case we get the triumphant gloating of Dagoods and further mocking that Christians don't do their research when they make claims and that I momentously failed in my task.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that there is any way for you to overcome the charge that Christians don’t do their research. If even a small fraction of the Christians who have repeated the “skeptics-deny-Hittites” claim had the slightest interest in verifying the truth of the claim or the slightest curiosity about the sources on which the claim was based, it wouldn’t have taken you all this effort to verify it. I think the difficulty you are having shows how happy so many Christians are to uncritically repeat any apologetic argument they hear.
This is a phenomenon I have observed when discussing whether the apostles died for their beliefs or how long it takes for legends to grow. Christians repeat arguments that they read in Evidence that Demands a Verdict or The Case for Christ, but they are usually ignorant of the sources on which these arguments are based.
All I have seen so far is that scholars in the nineteenth century expressed legitimate reservations about details in the biblical accounts of the Hittites given the state of archeological knowledge at the time. I would expect them to express similar reservations about any other ancient stories that could not be corroborated by archeological evidence. So while you may ultimately succeed in showing that there was in fact one scholar who categorically denied the existence of the Hittites, I don’t think it would justify the hubbub that apologists have made about the question even if Dagoods was compelled to admit that you were right.
I think the difficulty you are having shows how happy so many Christians are to uncritically repeat any apologetic argument they hear.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a great degree of sloppiness -- especially on the popular lay level. But that is by no means confined to Christians. I think it is a general trait that flows from bias and shared assumptions.
Hence, atheists are every bit as prone to sharing undocumented wives' tales that flow from their own anti-Christian bias, as we are, within our Christian bias.
An example would be the "common knowledge" among atheists that science / reason and faith / religion are somehow inexorably opposed, by their very nature. I just wrote an entire book about that, showing that it is a complete myth and that science was almost completely developed and maintained within a Christian (not an atheist worldview) and that even today a large proportion of scientists proclaim theistic or Christian religious views. That's only one example of many.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that all such broad statements need to be thoroughly documented. It would be better if they were, but it's not always strictly necessary. I gave as an analogy earlier, the example of Troy. Because it is more or less common knowledge among, say, the college-educated, that the existence of Troy was once widely questioned and denied, no one feels a particular need to prove that any longer. And so we can simply say, "there used to be many skeptics who completely denied the existence of Troy." Then archaeology verified it.
I don't see that that is vastly different from the case at hand regarding the Hittites.
On the other hand, and even given the above statement, I freely grant you that there is sloppiness and too often a lack of solidity and completeness in documentation. We are one in decrying that. I don't think you and I are all that different. I care just as much about documenting things as you do, and I do so in my writing.
I wrote the following today in a private letter to fellow Catholic apologist and good friend Steve Ray. If we get beyond the polemics (and Bum's juvenile insults) for a moment, I think we'd find considerable common ground:
"I would still love to find an absolutely decisive reference of utter nonexistence, mythical status, etc.
"If Christians claim over and over that this was the case, I don't think it is unfair or objectionable at all to request that we produce hard proof and documentation. This is what is so immensely frustrating to me. I don't doubt that the opinions did exist (since so much reference is made to them), but no one ever documents them, so here we are doing this work because no one (that I can find, anyway) seems to have bothered, or thought it was important enough to actually document.
"I think it is a lesson to apologists: not to make striking assertions minus any hard proof or evidence of same. When we don't, it can come back to haunt us, . . ."
I believe in documenting things. I've been doing it for 30 years in Christian apologetics. This is why I'm working so hard on finding this information now. It's important; it's required in good research, and it is a matter of intellectual curiosity.
So you guys can't have it both ways: you can't demand documentation and then mock a person because he is working very hard (in agreement with the goal that it is important to document) to accomplish that end.
Each Christian apologist stand responsible for his own conduct and competence. It's not nearly as bad as atheists make out, but it's often also not nearly as good or unanswerable as Christians make out.
Apologetics is hard work, without a doubt. I'm in a position to know that!
And so we can simply say, "there used to be many skeptics who completely denied the existence of Troy."
ReplyDeleteI don't think we would say that. I think we would say "At one time archeology couldn't establish that Troy existed, but now it can." By the same token, we might say "Archeology cannot establish that Camelot or King Arthur existed, but some day it might." Until it does, it is entirely reasonable to entertain the possibility that Camelot and King Arthur are mythical or legendary, just as it was once within the realm of legitimate scholarship to infer from the available evidence that Troy may have been mythical or legendary.
If the general scholarly consensus is that there is no good reason to believe that Camelot or King Arthur existed (and I am not sure whether there is or not), then it would be inaccurate to say "skeptics completely deny the existence of Camelot" because it implies that there is some non-skeptical group of scholars that has a reasonable basis for believing that Camelot exists.
I don't think we would say that. I think we would say "At one time archeology couldn't establish that Troy existed, but now it can."
ReplyDeleteOf course we can say it. It's apples and oranges. We can say that there used to be a class of folks who denied that Troy was historical. Or we can make a statement (as you did) that considers the question primarily from the standpoint of archaeology. The way you put it is not dealing with the historical fact of claimed non-existence (especially since there really wasn't any field of archaeology to speak of in the early 19th century). Your statement reflects a more modern perspective that wasn't present before.
But you seem to miss my larger point, which was to say that people commonly make undocumented references of this nature without feeling the need (much less requirement) to document to a tee. I think Troy was a pretty good analogy to the Hittites issue. No one demands that it is documented.
Likewise, we know that extreme biblical skepticism existed, that relegated large portions of the Bible to mythology. There is no doubt about that. I deny that it is even necessary for my argument to prevail, to have a statement mentioning the Hittites in particular, if it is clear that a person thinks several early biblical books are more or less complete mythology. The Hittites are part of the larger category. I have already provided those quotes, from Schultz and David Strauss (and Strauss mentions many others of like mind).
In the same way, one could say, "the accounts of the Arthurian era in England are entirely mythical and non-historical." It would follow that in their opinion King Arthur was mythical as well, no?
So why wouldn't it follow if someone said that the biblical books up through Joshua are mythical and legendary and not historical (i.e., prior to archaeology and the knowledge acquired therein), that this incorporates within itself a denial of the Hittites?
DagoodS demands that the word "Hittites" has to appear in my proofs. But I'm not at all convinced that this is logically necessary. It's ideal, but not intrinsically required for me to prove what we have been contending.
And, by the way, I believe most historians hold that Arthur was historical, but that many myths and legends were built up around him. The question is not whether he existed, but how much (if any) of the myth can also be substantiated from what we are able to know from historiography, archaeology, etc. The real person was probably unrecognizable as the figure in the colorful legends later built up and romanticized to the max (since much of that stemmed from the much later medieval ideal of the chivalrous knight, as it was).
Thanks for the cordial and substantive discourse. I am enjoying it.
The difference is that nobody would talk about "extreme Troy skepticism" because nobody thinks that a scholar (whether archeologist or historian) who doubted the historicity of the Iliad was driven by some sort of methodological or epistemological bias towards Homer rather than a reasonable analysis of the available evidence. On the other hand, the whole point of the "skeptics deny Hittites" claim is to cast doubt on any scholar who holds the Bible to the same standard as other ancient works.
ReplyDeleteIf I say that Gone with the Wind is a work of fiction, that doesn't mean that I think the Confederate Army was a fictional body of people. I can say that the stories about King Arthur are legends without denying the existence of England or Englishmen. Similarly, I can say that the first five books of the Bible are unhistorical without denying the existence of every place and group of people mentioned therein.
I do not deny that "extreme biblical skepticism" did exist or that it still does exist, however, I hardly think it can be applied to every scholar who ever questioned the historicity of anything in the Old Testament.
I ran across another interesting citation. This person, Claude Reignier Conder, denies that there was such a thing as the "Hittite Empire" and also that the Hittites were a "distinct race":
ReplyDelete---------------
I have always felt that the theory of a 'Hittite Empire' rested on no very secure base. If we had found the Hittites to belong to some distinct race, the theory might be still necessary, but it is so no longer. On the monuments we hear of the Hittites only as a powerful and civilized tribe of Syria. The tribes of Asia Minor did not bear the name. In the Bible we have no notice of a Hittite Empire, but only of the chiefs of the Hittite country—which was Northern Syria. Herodotus could not have had any personal objection to the Hittites, but he certainly never tells us of a Hittite Empire, nor does any other ancient writer. This empire was not, I think, 'forgotten,' for it never existed. The point may seem very unimportant, but I think one reason why the texts have never been previously read is because they were not recognised as Altaic, and because the Hittites were regarded as a distinct stock.
(Altaic Hieroglyphs and Hittite Inscriptions, London [?]: Richard Bentley and Son, 1887, pp. 138-140)
The difference is that nobody would talk about "extreme Troy skepticism" because nobody thinks that a scholar (whether archeologist or historian) who doubted the historicity of the Iliad was driven by some sort of methodological or epistemological bias towards Homer rather than a reasonable analysis of the available evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat's correct, but not for the reasons you suppose (I submit). There is no antipathy to Homer, or secondarily, to the existence of Troy, because Homer is harmless fantasy that has no bearing on anyone's life. It doesn't claim to be revelation. No one is obliged to follow any moral commands in the book. Therefore there is no reason to have a strong hostility against it.
My specific analogy has not been overturned:
A) Many people used to deny that Troy existed because only Homer mentioned it.
B) Many people used to deny that the Hittites existed because only the Bible mentioned them.
A2) No one feels any particular need to document the former skepticism about Troy, because it is so widely understood to have occurred.
B2) Therefore, by analogy, no one necessarily feels any particular need to document the former skepticism about the Hittites, because it is so widely understood (at least by the archaeologists who first challenged it) to have occurred.
C) But the history of pre-archaeological biblical skepticism is not as widely known as the history of the view of Troy and the beginnings of archaeology; therefore, it is demanded that defenders of the Bible have to document to a tee, since the history is more unknown.
D) But none of this proves that the Hittite skepticism didn't exist. Many reputable, credentialed scholars say that it did, and there is no good reason to doubt their professional opinion about the history of their own field.
In any event, my analogy was not to some imagined "extreme Troy skepticism" but merely to the analogous claim of nonexistence.
On the other hand, the whole point of the "skeptics deny Hittites" claim is to cast doubt on any scholar who holds the Bible to the same standard as other ancient works.
I am generally critical of biblical higher criticism but that is not my immediate aim: which is to simply prove the existence of such skeptics, so as to remove a polemic used to discredit Christian apologetics. If I show it existed, then the canard that apologists have been lying about this is shown to be a sham and ought to be withdrawn in honesty.
Secondly, the problem is not holding the Bible to the same standard; it is the opposite: holding it to a far different standard than other works. The Bible is not taken at face value when it presents history, even though it has been corroborated by outside evidence again and again. There is exponentially greater skepticism brought to it by the skeptical mentality: that nothing else is subjected to.
[cont.]
ReplyDeleteThe prior bias, I believe worked in the following way: "if only the Bible mentions the Hittites, then I cannot trust it, because it is a religious document." But the Bible is also historical, and presents accurate history. This was denied by some simply because it was also religious, and claimed to be revelation.
In terms of archaeology and historiography, all we're asking for is that the Bible is treated like any other document, and not approached with extreme hostility (as in DagoodS' and most atheists' method) before any particular question is even considered.
If I say that Gone with the Wind is a work of fiction, that doesn't mean that I think the Confederate Army was a fictional body of people. I can say that the stories about King Arthur are legends without denying the existence of England or Englishmen.
Fiction, even historical fiction, is understood to be just that. I grant that one could still hold that there was a Moses and an Abraham and Hittites, while claiming that the accounts are essentially mythological. But archaeology has shown that the Bible is far more than myth, which is the point.
Similarly, I can say that the first five books of the Bible are unhistorical without denying the existence of every place and group of people mentioned therein.
Okay. But a person could also think the books and everything in them are pure myth, too. It cold go either way. I'm exploring logical necessities and possibilities. I think DagoodS' skepticism defies even basic logic at times, as we saw in his treatment of Joseph of Arimathea.
I do not deny that "extreme biblical skepticism" did exist or that it still does exist, however, I hardly think it can be applied to every scholar who ever questioned the historicity of anything in the Old Testament.
I never said it did. My quotes that allude to this consistently state that it was a small group of radical, extreme skeptics.
I believe I have now come up with exactly what DagoodS requires: a blanket denial of the Hittites ever having existed. It comes from one of the leading archaeologists of his time, Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge (1857-1934), in a 1904 statement to fellow Egyptologist M. G. Kyle. Budge stated:
ReplyDelete"I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites."
He is also reported by Kyle to have said:
"No such people as the Hittites ever existed."
Kyle was charitable enough to not name him outright (being a colleague and probably a friend). But by comparing the "clues" of three similar statements made by Kyle in print, in three different works (one being the ISBE), I think it is undeniable that Budge was the man he was talking about. A second piece of information (of an oral statement) that Kyle offered, is almost identical in substance to what Budge stated in print. That was the strongest clue.
DagoodS will, of course, dismiss it on the grounds of being a secondhand report and hearsay, but for anyone who is inclined to take the word of an academic, speaking of his own field and reporting a remark made by another in his own field, it is sufficient proof. We can always keep looking for more proof, in print, from someone asserting the same.
As far as I am concerned, the question is settled already. But we can make it even more unarguable by finding more proofs.
For the details of my reasoning on this, see the end of my third paper on the Hittites.
I was told by Vinny today that I "should cut [my] losses and find some more constructive use of [my] time." I think the time has come for DagoodS to do that, but I highly doubt that he will do that, due to the category of information that I have discovered (report of an oral communication).
Kyle had noted that such radical skepticism was expressed, but not often in print. These guys were afraid of the reaction they would receive. so they kept it private, in their ivory towers. That got me started on my little adventure in "literary archaeology" today and it bore great fruit when I stumbled across the many clues as to the identity of the person in question.
Bum's juvenile insults
ReplyDeleteI must protest! I pride myself on the adult and erudite quality of my insults. What juvenile would use "scrofulous"?
That's correct, but not for the reasons you suppose (I submit).
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I think that is exactly the reason I supposed that you made a distinction between those who questioned the existence of Troy and those who questioned the existence of Hittites. You have a faith based commitment to the Bible whereas you are indifferent to The Iliad. Therefore, you have no need to discredit scholars who apply critical methods to Homer whereas you must attack those who apply the same methods to the Bible.
I think it is you who wants to treat the Bible differently from other ancient documents. You are perfectly willing to accept the intellectual integrity of those scholars who doubted the existence of Troy absent historical/archeological confirmation; however, if similar logic is applied to the Bible, you deride the scholars as “extreme Bible skeptics.” The only double standard I see here is yours.
If I read your latest findings correctly, even one of the authors of the work that gave “fundamentalism” is unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague. I think you are right to anticipate that Dagoods is not going to admit defeat on that.
BTW, I will be on the road for the next three days and unable to respond to comments.
Thanks for your thoughts. We'll have to agree to disagree on these secondary matters.
ReplyDeleteLast paragraph should have read:
ReplyDeleteIf I read your latest findings correctly, even one of the authors of the work that gave “fundamentalism” its name is unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague. I think you are right to anticipate that Dagoods is not going to admit defeat on that.
. . . unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like you didn't read what I wrote above or the latest section of my paper.
Kyle was (it seems pretty evident to me) being charitable to a very eminent fellow Egyptologist (Sir A. E. Wallis Budge) who had been shown to be dead wrong (two years after he made his statement), based on the seminal Hittite archaeological finds of 1906-1907, under Winckler.
Secondly, as he noted, Budge did not state this in print (he stated in print the lesser claim that the "Kheta" were not the same as the Hittites). He was apparently afraid to do so. Therefore, he expressed it privately. So Kyle honored the confidentiality by not naming him; yet he left so many obvious clues as to his identity, that I could figure it out 100 years later by a textual comparison and a fun bit of "literary archaeology."
Thus, not naming him didn't have to do with lack of evidence, but with the demands of charity towards a colleague, and the reluctance of the latter to publish his true opinion.
In his article "Archaeology" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Kyle names many higher critics who question everything under the sun in the Bible. He didn't name Budge there as the person who made the denial, but he left a clue in context (see all the clues in my paper):
"Occasionally it has been boldly said that 'no such people ever existed' (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136)."
The use of "compare" means that he wasn't claiming that these two works made the claim. They didn't. Budge said it privately to Kyle in 1904, as Kyle noted (not naming him) in The Fundamentals (1909). Since Newman died in 1897, this clue narrows it down to Budge.
Newman's Hebrew Monarchy, incidentally, was initially published anonymously, so again we see a reluctance of the higher critics to openly state their more radical claims (in this case, in print, but without a name attached; in Budge's case, in conversation only).
ReplyDeleteThe same dynamic applied to Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger's works Letters of Janus and Letters of Quirinus, that dissented from the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council. They were anonymous. So this practice of anonymous dissent was not an unknown phenomenon at all.
ReplyDeleteBudge would have been all the more reticent in 1904, with over 20 years of archaeological findings already having occurred. Like many scholars who have been proven wrong over the course of time, he held on to his outmoded beliefs in the face of manifest evidence.
Archaeology is no different from natural science in that respect (see Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions), since human nature is the same and pride is a huge factor working against the granting of concessions and admitting error.
The First Vatican Council was in 1870. I meant to note the date above.
ReplyDelete(1) Scholars bounce theories ideas off their colleagues all the time. Then they do research. If the evidence directly supports the theory or directly refutes it, they may publish something. If the evidence isn't is inconclusive, they don't make a claim about it. Sounds to me like Budge didn't make a claim.
ReplyDelete(2) Maybe, Kyle didn't identify Budge because he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites. Maybe Kyle is just like all the other Christian apologists who have claimed that skeptics denied the Hittites without having the evidence to support their claim.
Right. So you think the most plausible explanation is to simply call Kyle a liar regarding his report of what was said, huh? He completely fabricated a remark made by a very reputable archaeologist? Budge would categorically deny saying what Kyle reports him to be saying (if Budge is the guy)?
ReplyDeleteI thought DagoodS might pull a stunt like that (since he thinks many many Christian apologists are in the habit of deliberately lying or being utterly incompetent in research); I didn't realize you were as hyper-skeptical.
It's true that if one holds (like Bareknuckles Bum and to a lesser extent DagoodS) that those of a different persuasion are clearly a pack of liars and incompetents; intellectually dishonest through and through, that almost anything can be explained. You can do that; you can take a quasi-conspiratorial view of things.
I approach things vastly differently: I take people (ALL people) at their word unless there is very strong, compelling evidence to doubt their individual honesty. I don't regard atheists en masse as a bunch of liars or evil people. Nope. I approach each one as a person with presumed integrity; as a seeker of truth and the good, as he or she deems it to be.
The demonization of opponents is the primary cause of dialogues being impossible from the outset. Atheists and agnostics too often demonize Christians as dishonest liars or clueless dumbbells.
We all have to get past that and regard those who differ from us as people with an honest disagreement: seekers of truth just as we are. We can dispute and dialogue and debate about what these truths are or might be, minus all the derogatory opinions and cynicism. But we must presume good faith and honesty in our opponent.
At least that is what I will continue to do. I'll continue to seek atheists who don't start with an assumption that virtually all Christians are idiots or liars or "retards" (the Bareknuckles Bum mentality).
Had to write a longer response for this one.
ReplyDeleteP.S. “Compare” means in support of the proposition. “Contra” would mean against. See compare vs contra. If Kyle wasn’t claiming the citations were supporting the claim “Occasionally it has boldly been said, ‘No such people existed,’” then what WAS he citing them for?
. . . he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites.
ReplyDeleteI have already argued that this is implausible, because Budge would have known full well that he was the one being referred to, and that folks could figure it out without too much trouble, since so many clues were left, that I discovered myself.
Therefore, if it were a complete falsehood that he had made such a denial, he would have surely renounced the misrepresentation. The fact that he was not named is overcome by the fact of obvious clues left, where readers can put two and two together.
If Kyle were truly interested in lying and fabricating for mere polemical purposes, then he wouldn't have left so many clues to identity, precisely because it would backfire and become ugly with a strong rebuttal. It wouldn't be in his interest to do so; it would be counter-productive to his purpose. He would just say "so-and-so stated they didn't exist" without all the clues.
So I find your take quite implausible on these grounds and on the basis of not being in the habit of regarding eminent scholars as bald-faced liars: especially regarding aspects of their own field.
They may be wrong; stubbornly wrong, of course. They may be reluctant to change their mind when evidence warrants it, but they (atheist and Christian alike) don't usually lie and fudge the facts (i.e., unless they are in certain corners of the global warming PC crowd, where data manipulation is the norm).
Read Dave Armstrong’s response to my question as to why Kyle was citing Newman and Budge. He indicates “compare” means “concepts similar in some respect only.”
ReplyDeleteHe mocks me; calling me “foolish” for allegedly claiming Kyle’s use of compare means “without a doubt that he [Kyle] is claiming that his two similar citations are absolutely identical to the alleged oral statement of Budge.” [emphasis in the original] (Note I did not say they were absolutely identical. Example 17,233 of Dave Armstrong misrepresenting my position.)
Interesting. So Kyle says “it has been boldly said that ‘no such people exist’ (compare Newman and Budge)” and Dave Armstrong insists this means the citations are NOT “absolutely identical” to the statement.
So Newman and Budge did NOT say “Hittites didn’t exist” just “concepts similar in some respect only.”
QED
So Newman and Budge did NOT say “Hittites didn’t exist” just “concepts similar in some respect only.”
ReplyDeleteYeah? So what? As I have now stated three times, and again now, I haven't argued otherwise. I stated as much in my first paper. Maybe you'll get it now.
In other words, in what was cited from Budge's writing, he didn't outright deny their existence. That's because he didn't wanna say it in writing.
ReplyDelete"Then grave doubts in the past have been raised concerning the Hittites Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136)"
ReplyDeleteI've been reading the back and forth between you guys as this has unfolded. I really don't have a dog in this fight and am unprepared from a research stand point to argue for or against. Thus what I am offering is an observation and not an argument.
It seems to me, and as one who has typically been on the side of Christian apologist, that the arguments put forth by the Christian apologist in this case are a massive fail. This, again, is just an outside observation of facts.
The key words in this are "Occasionally it has been boldly said". Just from the outside looking in, if the best as a Christian apologist, you have is that Sir Budge didn't outright deny the existence of the Hittites "because he didn't wanna do it in writing" it can hardly be called bold.
It is my observation that apologists on both sides of any issue(I'm not speaking of anyone in particular here - so don't think I'm attacking anyone in this debate)tend to latch onto ideas and quote mine to support their own agenda.
I think at the very least maybe some agreement could be had that if the support for said argument is not strong, and holes have been shot through and through, that maybe it's just not a good argument and drop it.
It is hard to believe that apologists have clung to such a vague quote. But it does happen on both sides.
Furthermore, I'd be interested to know, did the Christian apologist correct his statement later? Even if Sir Budge did make the statement at some point, it appears that he later corrected his views "in writing" when new information came to light. Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they recant the use of this denial of the existence of Hittites as an apologetic when the person in question changed his views on the subject?
Again, please do not take offense to my questions. I'm only offering an observation, and some honest questions.
Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they recant the use of this denial of the existence of Hittites as an apologetic when the person in question changed his views on the subject?
ReplyDeleteIn effect, yes. Kyle noted that no one argued like that anymore, in the same context, and I would contend that his not naming Budge was a charitable act, because the man no longer believed it; therefore shouldn't be named. But it was important to note that skeptics once argued in such a fashion and that archaeology had corrected them. Kyle took a middle road by not naming him, yet leaving clues for those really interested in who it might be.
I think it is important to understand that skepticism in certain areas (basically from the school of higher criticism) was much greater in the past, before the advent of biblical archaeology, because we should learn from our mistakes. It's always good to know where we have come from. This is why history in general is a good and constructive field of study.
That said, I think that when this is done, it should be properly documented. I'm as disgusted as atheists, at the use of some "proverbial"-sort of accepted wisdom, minus any documentation and hard evidence presented. This is why I have had to work so hard looking up things, because so many Christian apologists (even scholars) were too lazy to do so and contented themselves with simply parroting "commonly known" knowledge (i.e., within their own circles) that something or other was the case. That doesn't cut it. It's never been how I do my apologetics.
But there are some reasons I have suggested, why it is so difficult to find documentation of this: it's very old (pre-1880), a lot is in German; skeptics were reluctant to put it in print (Budge), or to publish such radical opinions with their name attached (F. W. Newman).
But there were such opinions. My research has shown that. It doesn't convince DagoodS, but nothing ever does: he is beyond all rational argument on some things. I write for others, not him. His was simply the extreme opinion that needed to be refuted. He doesn't dialogue (at least not with me). And that is what I am about. I seek dialogue, not mutual monologue (mixed in with a bunch of insults that have nothing to do with the topic).
Another reason it is difficult to find is, as I have noted, because the word "Hittites" doesn't necessarily have to be used, if a person is so skeptical that he would relegate most of the early books of the Bible to mythology and legend. This definitely happened (I produced documentation). Such a position (such as held by Schultz or David Strauss or any number of higher critics) entails by its very nature a questioning of the Hittites' existence, along with that of many other figures involved.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily do so (one could hold that there were real people who were distantly and initially connected to the later massive accretion of legend and myth: such as King Arthur or Robin Hood, etc,), but such a position might very well involve that premise (non-existence) within itself. And it could be expressed without ever saying the word "Hittite," so that Google Book searches, etc., would not locate it.
But DagoodS has already stated that documentation of that sort is not good enough for him. Very convenient isn't it: if we irrationally rule out legitimate evidence and documentation for a position because it doesn't conform to a tee to what we say it should conform to? I have maintained that this is not the ideal evidence that could be found, but it is evidence, and relevant.
But this is part and parcel of the frequently illogical nature of DagoodS' argumentation: that I have objected to. His thinking is thoroughly irrational and confused.
Of course, you would expect me to say that, as a Christian. I say this is a key reason why he is an atheist, because of his disturbed, irrational thinking, that led him to atheism, by means of many false premises.
This is how I generally approach atheists and atheism: the problem is not usually a matter of being immoral, but rather, of being irrational and improperly grounded in or informed of Christianity and its rationale. That's why I always go in my analyses and apologetics right to one's premises (a thing that DagoodS detests and despises).
I have to say that in reading the posts and the comments I haven't found DagoodS to be inflammatory. He is simply using a blog to flesh out ideas and beliefs, the same as you. I certainly did not intend for my questions and observations to be used as a platform to denigrate the man on his own blog. Having said that I should come clean and say that I am having my own doubts so I am scoping out thoughts and criticisms on both sides. I still identify myself as a Christian, still in my heart of hearts believe in Christ at the moment, but as I said am having some doubts.
ReplyDeleteI find it disingenuous to use quotes from people who whispered their thoughts in the ear of someone else because they wanted to distance themselves from the ideology. It is hearsay, and as much as we'd like to attribute intent, we simply can't. When it is said that there was a BOLD denial of the existence of the Hittites, it seems to me to be more of an idea bounced off of a colleague. People do that all the time. We have hypothesis about things that we later discover additional information to that causes us to change direction. I certainly would not want my feet held to the fire for every hypothesis I've ever had.
You say that DagoodS is irrational and disturbed and that's what led him to atheism. However as a Christian I realize that to believe in this God or any other takes some belief in supernatural occurrences that we do not observe today. One might argue that a belief in a God is irrational and disturbed.
I say DagoodS is irrational and uninformed about Christianity, so that he rejected it. Anyone would expect me to have some theory about atheists who once were Christians. I'm not gonna say his reasons for rejecting Christianity were perfectly good ones! I would be a pretty lousy Christian apologist if I thought that. :-)
ReplyDeleteI don't say he is immoral and evil. But DagoodS generally says about Christians that they are profoundly stupid and also a pack of liars. Which is worse? I haven't attached moral judgment; he has.
I can only do so much discussion about discussion. DagoodS refuses to actually talk about the thing itself in any comprehensive, normal fashion. He doesn't dialogue with me. That gets old. I will continue to seek an atheist who has the courage of his convictions and can defend them against honest criticisms.
Thanks for the comment, D’Ma,
ReplyDeleteI hesitate to explain my researching skills. Like the magician, I fear once explained the magic becomes mundane, and the magician considered nothing more than a skilled laborer. All I did was two (2) things:
1) Find the Google Book of the source cited;
2) Search “Hittite” or “Hittites.”
The first step took a googlewhack. The second, typing in the single word in the “Find” box. I then found other instances where the same author referred to Hittites as existing.
Not particularly impressive, eh? *grin*
I personally find it very disingenuous to cut out a sentence…especially when the cut-out portion starts with “on the other hand” indicating a differing position than the first quote-mined part of the sentence.
By the way, does anyone (this isn’t directed at D’Ma) think I need to explain why I don’t dialogue with Dave Armstrong? It seems like petty internet feuding to do so.
And the curtain is torn down, oh wizard. *grin*
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really asking for an explanation of either one of your researching skills. The point I was more making is that even with the research done some people(and I'm not naming names) seem to still have to make a lot of presumptions to tease out their argument. I'm not saying those presumptions are wrong, but I think the question I have is the same ones you may have. How can we know? So while we're going right to someone's premises, maybe we should look at our own (especially my own).
In the few interactions I have had with you I have found you to be both humble and careful. You've answered my questions with humility and encouraged me to think critically for myself, not steering me in any particular direction. I appreciate that more than you know.
Yes, I'd agree that it appears to be "petty internet feuding" to me. However, it's quite likely that I'm also illogical and confused as well.
ReplyDeleteYou cry foul Dave when Bum gets in your face yet somehow seem to think that you have not been insulting here at all. Is it because you are a "Christian apologist" that you get to insinuate DagoodS lacks "the courage of his convictions"?
By the way, does anyone (this isn’t directed at D’Ma) think I need to explain why I don’t dialogue with Dave Armstrong? It seems like petty internet feuding to do so.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the confirmation and clarification (lest anyone mistakenly think you have actually been attempting dialogue).
Again, I'm not the one calling you an immoral or dishonest person. At worst, I use a few pointed terms for what I consider weak arguments. But we can expect those on your side to take your side, no matter what happens. Nothing new there.
Since I am interested in dialogue and you clearly are not (with me) by your own admission, then obviously we are at an impasse. I have no interest in mutual monologue, so we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.
I thank you for the time you did put into this, and opportunity for me to clarify (and I think, considerably strengthen) my argument.
wow. i actually just read all that.
ReplyDeleteAre you still a happy boy?
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteon a different note but still related to the Hittites, what does it mean or imply when someone calls me "a Hittite."
ReplyDeleteNow I believe I was friendly with this person, so I assume they weren't insulting me but...
this person was a little odd but not seemingly in a bad way. Any constructive comments?