You still haven't provided any sort of evidence that he taught anthropology and biology (it was something along those lines, I forget the actual courses you named though).

I think it might be beneficial to re-hash where we are in this to understand the claims.

You put forward Mr. Wright's book as an example of research towards the Israelite faith moving from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism.

I countered that by arguing that Mr. Wright's work had some problems and that he was not an expert in the field, but rather a journalist.

You rebutted that he was a college professor in relevant areas.

I pointed out that the only classes I could find him teaching were very specialized and not related to the fields necessary for that work.

Continuing to dig into the two classes referenced above I cannot find any real evidence that he is a professor at all beyond a visiting fellow who has taught a seminar or two at Princeton and a single undergrad class at UPenn.

So in the end we are left with the idea that we can at least say he is primarily a journalist (not a researcher) and it seems probable that he is entirely a journalist that has guest lectured.

Yes... but that is more experience than none, which is what it seems like you're implying...He's labeled as a "visiting scholar" in the web page you provided...The amount of research that went into his book is impressive and whether he is a journalist or not, shouldn't discredit the argument he put forth.

I don't see any reason to give that too much credit though. I've guest lectured at the University of Washington and George Mason, those were more a matter of convenience for the universities than a recognition that I was a pioneer or in depth researcher in a field. Universities often bestow honorary degrees or invite people to lecture because they are popular or interesting, not necessarily because their work is recognized as conclusive or even well done. Not that I'm knocking Mr. Wright's achievement, he is a good writer and the fact that they sought him out says a good deal to his credit. But it doesn't offer the kind of academic support for his research that I think was being implied earlier.

And I will agree with you that his being a journalist (or heck even if he were a homeless person) that position does not discredit his argument necessarily. I was only clarifying his credentials to prevent an appeal to authority. I offered other critiques of his argument earlier in this thread that were more germane to the actual premises.

UPenn describes him as a "visiting scholar", which is a much more impressive title than "fellow" lol.

Maybe ;-) Fellow implies a habitual relationship or inclusion in a group. Scholar is often bandied about by universities. Heck they called us all scholars when I was in undergrad and I remember quite a few people who certainly weren't adding prestige to that title. Either way, I think we can agree it doesn't appear that he is a professor there either teaching or research wise. But that he is certainly well thought of enough to earn himself two guest invitations to lecture from good universities.

LOL! It looks like someone can't keep their facts straight. I can't figure out which school he taught what at!

Anyways, I'm pretty sure he wasn't a full-time religion professor, but the guy knows his stuff... it's hard to deny that.

Here's a little bit of information I thought was interesting, by the way: " In 2009 Wright was named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 global thinkers."

Come on... that's got to be a little bit impressive, right?

Funny that it changes from site to site. I think we agree more or less. Mr. Wright is not a full time professor, but is prestigious enough to have earned invitations from good schools.

Bottom line: He doesn't warrant an appeal to authority (ie he is an expert in the field so your arguments are meaningless type of thing), but his arguments do warrant responses since they are researched and well written. Totally agree there.

All of that had to do with the journalism category. Isn't there different criteria for books?

The Journalism category includes books as well. Part of the problem is that the non-fiction area isn't a formal category, it is one that kind of comes and goes when the judges want one. The criteria for a Pulitzer are really just that enough people nominate you for one. The guidelines I linked were things that have been common to past winners. Sufficed to say the Pulitzer is more of a writing prize than an academic research prize.

There were three jury members for the category of General Nonfiction:

Excellent find, I totally missed that there were sub-judging panels.

So for this panel there were three judges. 2 were journalists (one has some experience in modern Israel, though I'm not sure he speaks Hebrew, certainly not Biblical Hebrew. The other is a science writer specializing in genetics) the other was a historian who focused on Modern Germany, especially political and military changes.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a peer-review quality panel of experts on the underlying argument.

Well, that's how monolatry is. It's usually a transition phase. That's what I've been arguing regarding Judaism! LOL

But that isn't really the case with Judaism. The only other case of Monolatry on record only lasts about 10 years. The Jewish experience (if we buy that timeline) is something more like 500-750 years. That is a massive difference in time scale that doesn't really comport with a general cultural shift in understanding or a cultural meme.

I would argue the lack of comparable is a good argument against it as well. We have tons of examples of polytheism, a few examples of monotheism, but no examples (outside of one) of monolatry. The fact that it is so rare in so many different observations indicates to me that more conventional explanations are more likely correct.

How is that a mistake? It's widely accepted among most Biblical scholars that the Bible is not in the order that it was originally written... it's also widely accepted that the texts from the Bible (specifically New Testament) weren't written by the disciples/authors themselves.

Two separate arguments here.

First, you are arguing that the OT is not fully chronological, that is correct and not really an issues (Christians and Jews have said the same thing for generations), for example Job, which occurs later in the book, takes place much earlier, contemporary with Abraham. Because there are two levels of organizations (history/prophetic/poetry then chronological) does not mean that pointing out that the book of Song of Solomon occurs following discussions of his descendents is some kind of revelation.

What I think you are confusing is that level of scholarly consensus with a much more controversial and not accepted idea that the book of Deuteronomy is written well after the books of Judges and Kings. That type of reorganization has virtually no support in the mainstream field.

Second argument, the NT. Again, there are two different arguments nested as one here. The first, which is well accepted is that the Gospels underwent progressive elaboration in the first century of their existence (from around 40AD to 120AD), that is widely accepted and accurate. The fact that you can date most of the core chronology and sections of each gospel back to around 40-60AD is also widely accepted). But again, relatively small linguistic changes to the text and re-writes to conform to Greek and Latin are not the same thing as the more controversial (and virtually universally dismissed) idea that the Gospels were written, in their entirety, more than 150 years after the events.

Most Biblical scholars and archaeologists believe that the Book of Exodus IS a myth.

Same argument here as above. You are confusing two levels of criticism as if they are the same thing.

It is largely accepted that the Exodus story contains elements that were likely added later, especially direct conversations between individuals (Joshua/Moses being a good example of this). But that does not mean that the whole story is a myth. Very few scholars outside of the fringe hold that the entire Exodus did not happen. PBS did a pretty good job of cutting together various theories to appear as one.

In fact, most scholars hold that there was likely a single, large scale exodus that occurred as part of social upheaval in Egypt or that this story represents a longer trend of emigration that occurred over a generation.

There are some basic facts that archeology and virtually all Biblical scholars agree upon.

1)Semites, almost certainly Hebrews existed in Egypt in large numbers.

We have strong evidence of several Semite cultures in Egypt pre-Exodus time period. Not only the Hyksos, but other groups with undeniably Hebrew names reside in store cities throughout NE Egypt. Names like Yakubher which contains the Hebrew Jacob (though the idea that this is the Jacob is far less accepted) and a transliteration of the phrase "el."

Further references to the Semites in Egypt called the "Abiru" or sometimes "habiru." Both are attempts to anglicize the same cuniform linguistic word that is pronounced "habrew." This word represents a group of semites used primarily as manual labor in Egypt and are referenced on several surviving glyph mosaics.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/ancient-egyptian-literature.html

2)Those Semites left or were expelled following internal unrest.

Ipwur Papyrus, which discusses internal unrest and a series of plagues on the land (though the exact timing of those is uncertain, they might well be from a far earlier time). The Papyrus does, however, discuss internal unrest and the subjugation of semites within Egypt. There is pretty strong consensus that this subjugation took the form of a change in dynasty and that the Pharaohs that had built the storehouse cities originally were replaced with a new lineage that was noted for its dislike of outsiders. http://www.archive.org/stream/admonitionsofegy00gard/admonitionsofegy00gard djvu.txt

It is likely that this change in position triggered a gradual emigration or possibly a large scale expulsion within Egypt. We know the Egyptians expelled large numbers of Hyksos during this period as well as other semitic groups, http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

3)The Egyptians recognize an ethnic shift in Canaan following this expelling.

Sashu of yhwh, a phrase meaning "the wanderers of Yahweh" is an interesting term in that it is far more specific than when Egyptians refer to other nomadic groups in Canaan who they label the generic "Shasu." This indicates two things. We can place the followers of Yahweh to this period, though they are not mentioned in any of the earlier conquest documentation (meaning they are new, one way or another) and that the Egyptians were familiar enough with the concept of Yahweh for that phrase to have meaning. This is not the case with other local dieties during this period and speaks to a closer relationship or familiarity with Hebrew religion. http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display art.html?ID=7493

Not too long after that, the Egyptians conduct yet another campaign in the area and note that they have obliterated an army of Israelites. The linguistics indicate they are not referring to a people of the region or a kingdom, but a group of people. This is a dramatic change in names from the groups attacked in the same area two hundred years earlier. Further, their being named indicates they were not a dominant group rather than just regional nomads. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

The fact that the Egyptians reference these groups as different indicates a far greater distinction than the small differences indicated in some of the "cultural evolution" hypotheses. The Egyptians would probably not have noted a slave revolt or other type of class change as warranting the use of another name.

The Amarna Letters are a series of clay tablets discovered that document a Canannite queen's request for assistance from the invading "Abiru" (mentioned earlier). She pleads for the Egyptian king (of whom she was a client state) to come rescue her, to no effect. The place names and style of warfare are remarkably similar to those described by the Joshua story. http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/amarna-letters.html

4)Archeological sites undergo a large scale change around this time as well.

There are two major changes that are undertaken around this time period. First, is a change in architecture. Styles of buildings more closely resemble NE egyptian wall styles and home designs (with sleeping quarters on the roof and walled courtyards, for example).

The second is the decrease in pottery production and quality that occurs. This is certainly indicative of a population change in the region that went from more skilled peoples to less skilled peoples. The quality change could fit the pastoral revolt theory, however the quantity change is more indicative of a nomadic group settling in the area. A group whose dietary (especially cooking and serving style), storage and production habits were developed with carrying rather than sedentary life in mind. This is also a pattern seen quite frequently in other excavations of nomadic groups surpassing existing sedentary populations, the visigoths in northern africa and the Arabs in southern Iraq are notable parallels here.

Well, I wasn't unconvinced my entire life. I grew up a Christian. So... sure, I have some bias... but it's not too difficult for me to see it from the other side's perspective.

The Dever link wasn't what I was looking for. I wanted to know how you determined that his books deal mainly with the Apocrypha.

Interesting, I grew up secular and later converted, so we appear to be more or less mirror images in that respect.

The Dever link offered discusses the nature of the works published right? (Did I link the right page?) It is from those discussions that the nature of his work is pretty clear.