dangerous idea: Kenneth Kitchen supports the conservative view of the OT

Friday, January 14, 2011

Kenneth Kitchen supports the conservative view of the OT

Labels: Old Testament

13 Comments:

At January 14, 2011 6:46 PM , John W. Loftus said...

Do you realize that in the face of arguments by Dawkins and others about genocide in the OT that in order to argue against them evangelicals are now biting the bullet by admitting the conquest accounts in Joshua never occurred as written? This is a new era baby. It took Dawkins to highlight this problem before evangelicals admitted these events did not occur as written.

Kitchens is the last of the old school archaeologists. Sometimes old ideas die hard. He's still in defensive mode not realizing the new set of problems on the horizon.

Hey, where's the link to Behe or Dembski about creation to rebut my claim that evolution is a fact?

Sure there are always people you can link to. The consensus is quite the opposite and in both of these cases the consensus is overwhelmingly against you.
At January 14, 2011 7:06 PM , Victor Reppert said...

I'm not endorsing Kitchen's position. It is just that there are arguments to be considered.

Uh, I remember reading about the problems with the Amalekite massacres even before I went to seminary, long before Dawkins. I read about the problems with the Cursing Psalms in C. S. Lewis, before any atheist pointed them out to me. I think you're giving Dawkins too much credit in this.
At January 14, 2011 7:08 PM , steve said...

Notice that when Loftus looses the game, he changes the rules.

Also notice that Loftus isn't offering a factual rebuttal.

"Consensus" is not an argument.

Moreover, there is no "consensus." Loftus simply redefines "consensus" as all and only those who agree with him.

He is also distorting the position of evangelicals like Lawson Younger and Richard Hess. They interpret Joshua according to original intent (as they construe it).
At January 15, 2011 1:18 AM , vocab malone/jm rieser said...

Anyone who thinks that a zoologist from England forced OT scholars to re-evaluate their ideas about ancient Caana is suffering from two things (at least):

1. The Dawkins Delusion
2. A serious lack of reading in the relevant journals (even just the lay ones) or books that are from people in the field.

As far as Kitchen being the last ... I encourage you to peep out fellows such as James Hoffmeier, Steve Collins, or Bryant Wood.

Even reading a liberal in the field such as Bill Dever would be an improvement for John if he thinks Dawkins has something important to say about the ANE.
At January 15, 2011 3:21 AM , cl said...

Victor,

You've definitely led Loftus to water, but, can you make him think?

John W. Loftus,

Do you realize that in the face of arguments by Dawkins and others about genocide in the OT that in order to argue against them evangelicals are now biting the bullet by admitting the conquest accounts in Joshua never occurred as written?

Are you changing the subject to the Canaanite genocide, now that your claim, "Archaeology has also shown us there was no Exodus" has been exposed as the fraudulent propaganda it is?

Kitchens is the last of the old school archaeologists. Sometimes old ideas die hard. He's still in defensive mode not realizing the new set of problems on the horizon.

I don't suppose you have any... you know... evidence for these assertions, do you? Or, are you simply hoping readers will swallow your ad hominem whole?

The consensus is quite the opposite and in both of these cases the consensus is overwhelmingly against you.

Ah, yes... "the consensus," forever akin to "they" as extolled by the most rabid conspiracy theorist. You've been linking to the same handful of people for days now, John. How is that consensus?

steve,

Moreover, there is no "consensus." Loftus simply redefines "consensus" as all and only those who agree with him.

And yet, he rants against Christians as being masters of wordplay!

vocab malone/jm rieser,

Even reading a liberal in the field such as Bill Dever would be an improvement for John if he thinks Dawkins has something important to say about the ANE.

Oh, John's familiar with Dever, I assure you. It's one of the 4-6 names he's been repeating for the past 4-6 days. Nevermind that we provided him with just as many experts who drew opposing inferences! What's that saying? Heads John wins, tails we lose? Funny thing is that elsewhere, John writes:

After all Dever became an agnostic because of archaeology.

Yet, Frank Tipler became a Christian because of physics. If John's not a Christian despite Tipler, why does he imply that we should reject the Exodus on behalf of Dever? Is that consistent with approaching one's own position with the scrutiny of an outsider?
At January 15, 2011 3:22 AM , cl said...

Victor,

You've definitely led Loftus to water, but, can you make him think?

John W. Loftus,

Do you realize that in the face of arguments by Dawkins and others about genocide in the OT that in order to argue against them evangelicals are now biting the bullet by admitting the conquest accounts in Joshua never occurred as written?

Are you changing the subject to the Canaanite genocide, now that your claim, "Archaeology has also shown us there was no Exodus" has been exposed as the fraudulent propaganda it is?

Kitchens is the last of the old school archaeologists. Sometimes old ideas die hard. He's still in defensive mode not realizing the new set of problems on the horizon.

I don't suppose you have any... you know... evidence for these assertions, do you? Or, are you simply hoping readers will swallow your ad hominem whole?

The consensus is quite the opposite and in both of these cases the consensus is overwhelmingly against you.

Ah, yes... "the consensus," forever akin to "they" as extolled by the most rabid conspiracy theorist. You've been linking to the same handful of people for days now, John. How is that consensus?

steve,

Moreover, there is no "consensus." Loftus simply redefines "consensus" as all and only those who agree with him.

And yet, he rants against Christians as being masters of wordplay!

vocab malone/jm rieser,

Even reading a liberal in the field such as Bill Dever would be an improvement for John if he thinks Dawkins has something important to say about the ANE.

Oh, John's familiar with Dever, I assure you. It's one of the 4-6 names he's been repeating for the past 4-6 days. Nevermind that we provided him with just as many experts who drew opposing inferences! What's that saying? Heads John wins, tails we lose? Funny thing is that elsewhere, John writes:

After all Dever became an agnostic because of archaeology.

Yet, Frank Tipler became a Christian because of physics. If John's not a Christian despite Tipler, why does he imply that we should reject the Exodus on behalf of Dever? Is that consistent with approaching one's own position with the scrutiny of an outsider?
At January 15, 2011 9:55 AM , Nick said...

A reference to Dawkins. That someone thinks he's authoritative in this area should leave us laughing for a week at least.
At January 15, 2011 12:08 PM , John W. Loftus said...

In the Journal of the American Oriental Society biblical minimalist Niels Peter Lemche states that Kitchen's "contempt for critical biblical scholarship will undoubtedly provoke biblical scholars simply to ignore his book."[3]

Link.

Kitchen is ignored by real scholars and you think he knows what he's talking about?

lol
At January 15, 2011 1:21 PM , steve said...

John W. Loftus said...

"Kitchen is ignored by real scholars and you think he knows what he's talking about?"

What makes Lemche the "real" scholar, while Kitchen is not? Where's the argument for treating Lemche as the standard of comparison?

What we're getting from Loftus is just another one of his viciously circular appeals. "Real" scholars are scholars who agree with Loftus. If you disagree with Loftus, you're not a "real" scholar.

Richard Hess, who wrote the review article that Reppert links to, clearly thinks that Kitchen is a "real" scholar.

Loftus uses his fallacious argument from authority to evade dealing with Kitchen's evidence.
At January 15, 2011 3:47 PM , Tim said...

Niels Peter Lemche -- the spokesman for the Copenhagen minimalists -- is supposed to be an authority with the heft to displace Kenneth Kitchen?

I hear that the Answers in Genesis guys don't think too highly of Owen Gingerich, either.

Sheesh
At January 15, 2011 11:56 PM , Victor Reppert said...

Simply asserting that Kitchen shows contempt for critical biblical scholarship is different from actually showing that he has such contempt, and the problem of coming up with an applicable and non-question-begging conception of what a "critical Bible scholar" is rears its ugly head. Does Lemche confront Kitchen's arguments, or does he Bulverize them away. If the latter, we have another example of the arbitrary disenfranchisement of conservative scholarship.
At January 17, 2011 12:24 AM , Alex Dalton said...

After years of witnessing Lemche "argue" against conservative viewpoints on Jim West's Biblical Studies list, I consider him to be one of the most unreasonable and dogmatic people in the field. Frankly, he is the worst kind of atheist fundy and his opinions need to be sheilded from critical response by the doting and dictatorial moderator, Jim West . If Lemche has anything of value to say, please bring it forth. But citing him as if his mere opinion carries any weight, on this particular issue, is laughable.
At March 31, 2012 4:08 AM , ds said...

John Loftus wrote

“Do you realize that in the face of arguments by Dawkins and others about genocide in the OT that in order to argue against them evangelicals are now biting the bullet by admitting the conquest accounts in Joshua never occurred as written? This is a new era baby. It took Dawkins to highlight this problem before evangelicals admitted these events did not occur as written.”
Actually, Kitchen addresses arguments about the Conquest not happening in a chapter in the book in question. Kitchen actually agrees that there was no sweeping Genocidal conquest, but argues a close reading of Joshua with background knowledge of the kind of rhetoric used in ancient conquest accounts of this Genre suggests Joshua does not actually affirm a conquest occurred, but rather is using standard ANE rhetoric to describe disabling raids. He has a long section rebutting archeological claims about the conquest.

Whats particular odd about this is Loftus appears to have read Kitchen because he cites from the book in question in his own work. So Loftus presumably knows that Kitchen address these issues, why does he come in here and say otherwise.