What are Minimalists and Maximalists?

[shunyadragon]

I have seen a few threads with these labels pitched around to justify ones own worldview. Various references that define these terms fail because scholars vary and many do not fit the definitions. Many if not most of those that are called Minimalists or Maximalists don't acknowledge the terms. Fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is literal must realize that most if not all historians and archeologists that fit the description of Maximalist, would not likely support a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The common reference to Minimalists in a derogatory way it usually occurs when a archeological discovery verifies a element of history in the Bible.

A. An archeological discovery of a tablet or what ever verifies a person or event as recorded in the Bible.
B. Fundimentalists claim that this find makes the Minimalists fools, ignoramous, idiots or whatever, proving them wrong.
C. Both Minimalists and Maximalists will accept a particular event or person in the Bible as historical when it is verified by archeology, so what's the problem? At best it may be said that Minmalists are more skeptical

The historians and archeologists that may be described as Maximalists are than portrayed as heroes saving the day, they to most often deny the label, and many may not support the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I do feel that a better terminology is in order when describing how different archeologists and historians view the historicity of the Bible, or at least avoid the name calling game. The use of Minimalist and Maximalist appears to be more a 'third party' use of terminology in publications like 'Time' and not a scholarly use of any value.

I looked up the wikipedia definitions and found them wanting and not clear. I will post something of definitions later and comments by scholars themselves concerning the use of these and other terms to classify Biblical scholars.

I think one important distinction be tween Biblical scholars is whether they consider the each book of the Bible a 'First-person' historical or literary narrative or not.



.

[FreezBee]

Good initiative, shunyadragon :thumb:

Let me first say that maximalist/minimalist usually refers to different attitudes concerning the Bibles rôle in ANE (Ancient Near East) archaeology, which some maximalists still prefer to call 'biblical archaeology'.

The maximalist attitude says that the Bible should be used as much as possible. For instance, some ten years ago, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar based a dig for King David's palace on the Books of Samuel saying that King David went down to the stronghold after having been annointed. So she started digging higher than the current city. And she indeed did find some layers of building, the lowest of which she declared to be King David's palace.

(See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_King_David%27s_Palace_site))

This is a typical maximalist approach.

Minimalists, in return, don't recommend the use of the Bible, since it can lead to wrong interpretations. For instance, whence large buildings were dug out in Megiddo, they were claimed to be the horse stalls of King Solomon. Later they were, however, found to be later than Solomon's time and to have been warehouses or a market place.


A. An archeological discovery of a tablet or what ever verifies a person or event as recorded in the Bible.
B. Fundimentalists claim that this find makes the Minimalists fools, ignoramous, idiots or whatever, proving them wrong.
C. Both Minimalists and Maximalists will accept a particular event or person in the Bible as historical when it is verified by archeology, so what's the problem? At best it may be said that Minmalists are more skeptical

But what event and which person? Was there a high-ranking Babylonian official of Judean royal descent by the name of Daniel? That the book that carries his name mentions Belshazzar, which no extant Ancient Greek historian does, has been touted as confirmation of the entire book.

But apart froom that, you are right: minimalist/maximalist are extremes on a scale.


I do feel that a better terminology is in order when describing how different archeologists and historians view the historicity of the Bible, or at least avoid the name calling game. The use of Minimalist and Maximalist appears to be more a 'third party' use of terminology in publications like 'Time' and not a scholarly use of any value.

Quite correct :thumb:


- FreezBee

[Zeluvia]

Gee, and i thought Minimalists drove hybrids and Maximalists drove SUVs....

= )

[FreezBee]

Gee, and i thought Minimalists drove hybrids and Maximalists drove SUVs....

= )

They do that as well :smile:

- FreezBee

[shunyadragon]

They do that as well :smile:

- FreezBee

I will comment more shortly, waiting for others to respond. 'One Bad Pig' appears to be confused in the other thread,

[technomage]

OBP will be gone for a few days, so may not be able to respond right now.

[shunyadragon]

Good initiative, shunyadragon :thumb:

Let me first say that maximalist/minimalist usually refers to different attitudes concerning the Bibles rôle in ANE (Ancient Near East) archaeology, which some maximalists still prefer to call 'biblical archaeology'.

True, but it is more than attitudes, and names do not really reflect the differences between historians.


The maximalist attitude says that the Bible should be used as much as possible. For instance, some ten years ago, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar based a dig for King David's palace on the Books of Samuel saying that King David went down to the stronghold after having been annointed. So she started digging higher than the current city. And she indeed did find some layers of building, the lowest of which she declared to be King David's palace.

(See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_King_David%27s_Palace_site))

This is a typical maximalist approach.

Minimalists, in return, don't recommend the use of the Bible, since it can lead to wrong interpretations. For instance, whence large buildings were dug out in Megiddo, they were claimed to be the horse stalls of King Solomon. Later they were, however, found to be later than Solomon's time and to have been warehouses or a market place.

But what event and which person? Was there a high-ranking Babylonian official of Judean royal descent by the name of Daniel? That the book that carries his name mentions Belshazzar, which no extant Ancient Greek historian does, has been touted as confirmation of the entire book.

The problem with even this example is that it probably only reflects the view of a few scholars view on this example.


But apart from that, you are right: minimalist/maximalist are extremes on a scale.
Critique of the Maximalist - Minimalist Dichotomy [/quote]

The splitting of Biblical Scholarship into two opposing schools is strongly resisted by non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars, as being an attempt by so-called "conservative" Christians to portray the field as a bipolar argument, of which only one side is correct[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#_note-0). Examination of the so-called "liberal/secular" views in detail shows many differences of opinion, clearly demonstrating that to portray Biblical scholarship in such "us" against "them" terms reflects a particular sectarian point of view, not supported by the evidence.



The most 'radical minimalist' may represent the extreme position, but not maximalists.The definition demonstrates a significant gray area betweeen minimalists and maximalists, with the exception of the most 'radical minimalists.' It is generally believed that minimalists are considered synonomous with the "Copenhagen school", which again can only be associated with a few of the many scholars called minimalist.



The term "maximalism" is something of a misnomer, and many people incorrectly relate this to Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy). Most maximalists, however, are not Biblical inerrantists. Most Biblical maximalists accept many findings of modern historical studies and archaeology and agree that one needs to be cautious in teasing out the true from the false in the Bible. However, maximalists hold that the core stories of the Bible indeed tell us about actual historical events, and that the later books of the Bible are more historically based than the earlier books.


Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs. As such, Biblical maximalists are divided on this issue. Some hold that many or all of these patriarchs were real historical figures, but that we should not take the Bible's stories about them as historically accurate, even in broad strokes. Others hold that it is likely that some or all of these patriarchs are better classified as fictional creations, with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.

[FreezBee]

True, but it is more than attitudes, and names do not really reflect the differences between historians.

Could be that different people use these words differently? As mentioned, I have talked with Thomas Thompson (of the 'Copenhagen School'), and I use him as prototype of a minimalist.

- FreezBee

[shunyadragon]

Could be that different people use these words differently? As mentioned, I have talked with Thomas Thompson (of the 'Copenhagen School'), and I use him as prototype of a minimalist.

- FreezBee

True, this is one of the reasons why the labels fail. Yes, Thompson may fit the prototype of the minmalist, but the word is most often used as lumping weapon in an .
'us' versus 'them' conflict on the historical accuracy of the Bible. By far most scholars do no like the labels, and as a matter of fact many just do not fit.

By the way, I love your picture in the upper right.:thumb:

[FreezBee]

True, this is one of the reasons why the labels fail. Yes, Thompson may fit the prototype of the minmalist, but the word is most often used as lumping weapon in an .
'us' versus 'them' conflict on the historical accuracy of the Bible. By far most scholars do no like the labels, and as a matter of fact many just do not fit.

Quite true, the words 'minimalist' and 'maximalist' are used as labels, to get rid other the arguments of someone by calling him names.

Yet, there is some justification for the words. And it's not just the Bible.

According to the Islandic sagas, the royal hall in Lejre of the Danish king Hrolf (= Hrodulf) Krake was burned down by Swedes. In the Anlo-Saxon poem Beowulf, it is Heorot, the hall of King Hrothgar, that is burned down, by Hrothgar's nephew Hrodulf who was in liege with the Heathobards, the enemies of the Danes. Add to that that Beowulf mentions the Herul king Hrodulf, whose royal hall had been been burned down by the Langobards, who incidentally are supposed to have come from Sweden.

A few years ago the pole holes of a large woodden building, apparently burnt down, were discovered in the archaeological dig in Lejre. The remains of Heorot, the hall of Hrolf Krake, were found, the newspapers could tell.

But really, all that was found was pole holes of a large woodden building with remains of burned wood. What, if anything, linked this to any king? And even if it was the remains of a burnt down royal hall, whjat does that prove?

Read about archaeological finds in the newspapers, and there's always some archaeologist that says that this find is something exciting from some moldy old tome (the Bible, the Homeric epics, the Scyldingas saga, ...), but wait a year or two, and things may look different as sober investigations show the find to be something else -- that may happen to be just as exciting :smile:


- FreezBee

[shunyadragon]

Quite true, the words 'minimalist' and 'maximalist' are used as labels, to get rid other the arguments of someone by calling him names.

Yet, there is some justification for the words. And it's not just the Bible.

According to the Islandic sagas, the royal hall in Lejre of the Danish king Hrolf (= Hrodulf) Krake was burned down by Swedes. In the Anlo-Saxon poem Beowulf, it is Heorot, the hall of King Hrothgar, that is burned down, by Hrothgar's nephew Hrodulf who was in liege with the Heathobards, the enemies of the Danes. Add to that that Beowulf mentions the Herul king Hrodulf, whose royal hall had been been burned down by the Langobards, who incidentally are supposed to have come from Sweden.

A few years ago the pole holes of a large woodden building, apparently burnt down, were discovered in the archaeological dig in Lejre. The remains of Heorot, the hall of Hrolf Krake, were found, the newspapers could tell.

But really, all that was found was pole holes of a large woodden building with remains of burned wood. What, if anything, linked this to any king? And even if it was the remains of a burnt down royal hall, whjat does that prove?

Read about archaeological finds in the newspapers, and there's always some archaeologist that says that this find is something exciting from some moldy old tome (the Bible, the Homeric epics, the Scyldingas saga, ...), but wait a year or two, and things may look different as sober investigations show the find to be something else -- that may happen to be just as exciting :smile:


- FreezBee

Good example of overstating archeological evidence which is common throughout the history of archeology, paleontology, and for that matter other sciences. I do not consider these labels legitimate because they encourage anonomous labeling, which is an attempt to free one from the responsibility of documenting one's argument or disagreement against a specific academic or published literature. This the lazy, generic layman's Time magazine level of debate and disagreement.

It reminds me of growing up on the farm. When my parent's came home and found a problem or a mess they would ask, "Who did this?"

The generic answer, "The dog did it." We had five dogs.

[FreezBee]

Good example of overstating archeological evidence which is common throughout the history of archeology, paleontology, and for that matter other sciences.

Yeah, it happens all the time, and minimalists simply claim that something can be done about it.


I do not consider these labels legitimate because they encourage anonomous labeling, which is an attempt to free one from the responsibility of documenting one's argument or disagreement against a specific academic or published literature. This the lazy, generic layman's Time magazine level of debate and disagreement.

I agree with you here -- throwing labels isn't proper argumentation. Saying that X claims something simply because X is a maximalist/minimalist isn't really helping the case.

Still, it's a relevant discussion to what extent and in what phase books like the Bible, the Homeric epics, and so on sjould be used in interpreting archaeological finds.

Throwing all books away is clearly too much, because there is much we simply cannot have archaeological evidence of.


- FreezBee

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you here -- throwing labels isn't proper argumentation. Saying that X claims something simply because X is a maximalist/minimalist isn't really helping the case.

Still, it's a relevant discussion to what extent and in what phase books like the Bible, the Homeric epics, and so on sjould be used in interpreting archaeological finds.

Throwing all books away is clearly too much, because there is much we simply cannot have archaeological evidence of.


- FreezBee

I doubt seriously if there is a scholar out there that does not have a copy of the Bible in some form or another including the Dead Sea scroll texts, the Nag Hammirabi (sp) and a collection of all the possible NT gospels, and letters.

I think it is not a question of 'Throwing all books away,' but how the books are taken into consideration as to what degree of historicity and accuracy of defining the authorship, ie first, second or third person that they represent. Do we consider ancient texts as primary, secondary or terciary references for history?

This problem is further compounded in archeology by the problems of prioritizing archeological discoveries and evidence. Objectivity is a serious issue on all counts. Using labels like these just muddies the water.

[FreezBee]

I doubt seriously if there is a scholar out there that does not have a copy of the Bible in some form or another including the Dead Sea scroll texts, the Nag Hammirabi (sp) and a collection of all the possible NT gospels, and letters.

I think it is not a question of 'Throwing all books away,' but how the books are taken into consideration as to what degree of historicity and accuracy of defining the authorship, ie first, second or third person that they represent. Do we consider ancient texts as primary, secondary or terciary references for history?

This problem is further compounded in archeology by the problems of prioritizing archeological discoveries and evidence. Objectivity is a serious issue on all counts. Using labels like these just muddies the water.

If you say that X claims Y because X is a minimalist/maximalist, then clearly we are into muddy waters. Whether Y is true or not should not depend on who says it.

But the main point is that maximalism/minimalism are not in the first round a quetion of the historicity of the Bible (or some other book, but let's stick with the Bible here), but of whether archaeological finds should be interpreted using the Bible (and of course with the most interesting things on the top of the check list), or whether the Bible is just one among many interpretive means.

Returning a bit to Thomas Thompson, then he advocates for a different way of reading the Bible, as a literary work -- without being tied to being a history book. More specifically, he says that a text should first be interpreted on its own, then in relation to other texts, and first then for a historical, sociological, psychological, and-so-on-ical point of view. He considers historicism (which in this case means treating the Bible as a collection of historical source texts) to be a reductionism that actually reduces the literary value of the texts.

So we could say that minimalism is all about letting achaeological finds be archaeological finds and the Bible be a collection of texts without forcing any of them onto the other.


- FreezBee

[shunyadragon]

If you say that X claims Y because X is a minimalist/maximalist, then clearly we are into muddy waters. Whether Y is true or not should not depend on who says it.

But the main point is that maximalism/minimalism are not in the first round a quetion of the historicity of the Bible (or some other book, but let's stick with the Bible here), but of whether archaeological finds should be interpreted using the Bible (and of course with the most interesting things on the top of the check list), or whether the Bible is just one among many interpretive means.

Returning a bit to Thomas Thompson, then he advocates for a different way of reading the Bible, as a literary work -- without being tied to being a history book. More specifically, he says that a text should first be interpreted on its own, then in relation to other texts, and first then for a historical, sociological, psychological, and-so-on-ical point of view. He considers historicism (which in this case means treating the Bible as a collection of historical source texts) to be a reductionism that actually reduces the literary value of the texts.

So we could say that minimalism is all about letting achaeological finds be archaeological finds and the Bible be a collection of texts without forcing any of them onto the other.


- FreezBee

The interpretation of archeology has another interesting twist concerning whether undocumented discoveries are doctored forgeries. In recent times a number of controversial undocumented discoveries have come under scrutiny as to whether they have been doctoredto be a more significant historical find. The spectrum of authorities appear to be divided along the spectrum of the lines of the topic of this thread. The following assessment of the controversial Ivory Pomegranite bears witness to this problem.

http://bib-arch.org/pomegranate/bswbPomContext.asp

The more skeptical scholars, Demsky and Goren, hold to it being a forgery despite reservations concerning a new assessment to the evidence, but the less skeptical scholar, Hershel Shanks, supports the belief that it is genuine.

The problem of undocumented finds in the market will always bred this controversy, but they will often divide the herd of the experts along some interesting spread of opinions.