MTEL-Step 1: Underline the Main Points and Circle Key Terms

Colleges of the Fenway
Massachusetts Tests for
Educator Licensure (MTEL)¹

Information, Interactive Practice Exercises, and Practice Tests

Note: This page is best viewed with Internet Explorer 4.0 or Netscape 4.0 and above.

Step Two: Note Main Points in the Margins of the Text

After you finish underlining phrases and circling words for two to three paragraphs of text, write short sentences or phrases in the margins listing the main points, then go on to the next few paragraphs. Alternatively, you could mark the entire text, then go back and list the main points in the margin.

Debate between Biblical minimalists and other scholars: How accurate is Bible as a history?	Is the Bible an accurate historical account or a telling of legends? In the last decade, a group of scholars known as Biblical minimalists have aggressively debunked the Bible as a reliable history. The stories of the Old Testament, they argue, are just that—stories, in fact a mythology contrived and promoted by Israeli priests sometime in the eighth century B.C. in order to enhance the power and reputation of Judah, a minor kingdom. Other scholars believe that the Old Testament can be accepted as a relatively reliable, though not perfectly accurate, historical record. However, both groups base their arguments upon inconclusive evidence turned up in archeological excavations in the Holy Land. Barring a miraculous new discovery of ruins or artifacts, the debate will no doubt rage on.
Minimalists argue: Biblical patriarchs did not exist; events described in O.T. did not really happen. Moderate scholars say lack of evidence does not rule out possibility for existence of patriarchs.	Were Kings David and Solomon people who actually existed? Can we ascertain that the Jews endured a period of time as slaves under the lash in Egypt? Is there any reliable evidence to confirm that Israelites made a dramatic escape from enslavement under the pharaohs? Were the Israelites really fierce warriors who laid claim on Holy Land by vanquishing city after city? No, no, no, and no, assert Biblical minimalists, who contend that there is little or no evidence to confirm the events of the Old Testament or to prove the existence of the Biblical patriarchs. More moderate scholars, however, respond to such skepticism by pointing out that a lack of available evidence cannot disprove the Bible's historical validity. They suggest that minimalists, motivated by personal beliefs, merely seek to nullify the authority of the Bible rather than to gain an objective perspective on available data.
No archeological evidence to confirm existence or achievements of Abraham, David, Solomon (minimalists say).	As minimalists contend, the Biblical patriarchs are mythical figures. Modern archaeology, for example, has turned up no evidence pointing to the existence of Abraham, who, according to the Bible, sired the twelve tribes of Israel sometime in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1500 B.C.). In addition, no archaeological findings substantiate the existence or achievements of Abraham's great descendants, David and Solomon, who in the Bible establish a mighty empire in Palestine. The military triumphs of King David have no record. Of the grand palace in Jerusalem built by wise King Solomon, David's son, not a wall has been recovered. Minimalists take this lack of evidence to certify that the greatest achievements of the ancient Israelis, as recorded in the Bible, are mere fabrications.
A lack of evidence in the archeological record does not mean a city did not exist. Moreover, some evidence verifies presence of Solomon's military garrisons.	Other scholars point out that the archeological record sometimes yields no evidence of civilizations that we know, from textual evidence, once flourished. While the city of Jerusalem certainly throve during Byzantine era, not a shard of pottery has been recovered from that time, a span of nearly 1,200 years. These scholars also point to evidence that minimalists choose to ignore. For example, there is evidence that seems to corroborate the existence of Solomon's garrisons, built in strategic cities throughout what would have been the Kingdom of Israel. Fortifications of design and material like those mentioned in Biblical verse have been discovered at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. These structures date from the time of Solomon's reign in the Bible – 10^th century B.C.
Some evidence points to possibility that events in Exodus occurred. Example: documentation of slave labor in Egypt during time Exodus is supposed to have occurred.	On another front, archeological evidence of Exodus remains inconclusive. True, forced labor in Egypt is documented for the period from 1450 to 1200 B.C. This period of time coincides with the time that some historians assert that Exodus occurred- sometime in the thirteenth century B.C. , probably by 1225 B.C. The mere presence of slaves in Egypt, however, does not mean that somebody named Moses led any of these people to freedom. Granted, ancient Egyptian papyri contain reports about small groups of runaway slaves. A negligible group of slaves, however, is certainly not the group of Jews that the Bible portrays in Exodus.
	There is yet another piece of evidence that can be used to make the case that Exodus recounts an actual event in history. In an ancient Egyptian temple, archeologists have discovered an inscription declaring, “Israel is laid waste.” Hieroglyphics in the temple, a monument constructed to celebrate military conquests made by one Pharaoh Merneptah, also say that his battles were supposedly won during a 1207 B.C. campaign. The inscription could therefore refer to fleeing or newly settled Israelites pursed by a pharaoh seeking to exact revenge on a group of escaped slaves. On the other hand, this military victory certainly does not confirm the Jews' escape from slavery, nor does it confirm their successful transplantation to the Holy Land.
The debate = battle between skepticism vs. faith.	Biblical minimalists construe this lack of definitive evidence to be proof that Exodus did not occur at all. Their scholarly critics, on the other hand, seem to be more willing to entertain the historical veracity of Biblical accounts: if we can affirm the presence of slaves in Egypt during the approximate time that Moses supposedly led his people out into the desert, then this fact would seem to put that event within the realm of possibility. The clash between these groups of historians is thus, at a certain level, a battle between skepticism and faith.
The debate = clash between two ways of reading Bible. Bible as biased narrative, and Bible as framework for discovery of past.	It is also a clash between two different ways of interpreting history as recorded in texts. The minimalists tend to regard a historical account as a biased narrative, a story that necessarily serves the ends of its tellers. In their view, the Bible is a grand public relations effort put forth by Jerusalem priests seeking to strengthen their authority as spokespeople for a supreme deity who championed their people, their nation. In assembling the text of the Bible, these authors had little concern for keeping their facts straight and every concern for gaining and consolidating political power. Scholars more willing to find historical value in the Bible grant that the written text of history is something subject to human error, but they regard the textual artifact as a blueprint for constructing an accurate record of the past. A Biblical minimalist, on the other hand, might respond to this approach by commenting that the Bible's status as a sacred text has engendered an over-reliance on its power to explain the meaning of archeological findings.
Political implications for debate: Who has rightful claim to Holy Land? Jews or Palestinians?	Political struggle taking place outside the walls of academia creates broader implications for this scholarly debate. After World War II, the establishment of a Jewish state in the Middle East triggered bitter contest over ownership of the Holy Land. The Bible portrays that place as the birthright of the Jews, who in ancient times gained dominion over the region through military conquest and God's will. Those who argue for the Palestinian cause assert that the land marked off to form the state of Israel was in fact unjustly taken from peoples who have occupied it for centuries, people who also have an ancient claim to the land, albeit a claim not consecrated in the text of the Bible. If archeology cannot serve to affirm the legitimacy of Israel's claim to the land, then modern day Israelis would seem to have shakey moral authority in their occupation of the territory that Palestinians also claim as their homeland.
For Christians, the Bible's historical truth certifies Christ as the one true savior in the history of humankind.	The outcome of the debate over the historical accuracy of the Bible has great consequence for Christians, as well. If the Bible is not a reliable record of past events, if it is merely a series of stories meant to convey moral wisdom, then Christianity is not the one true path to salvation, and Christ is not the one true savior. As a divinely inspired text, the Bible represents God's intervention in history; it consecrates his law and delivers his moral precepts. The Bible establishes Jesus as the ultimate moral authority on earth by tracing his lineage back in history. But if history did not play out as it the Bible relates, then Christianity itself loses its foundation in truth.
The debate illustrates how political and social forces shape the quest for truth and knowledge.	In debates over the significance of archeological findings in the Holy Land, it is possible to find arguments that claim to prove the opposition dead wrong. Each bit of evidence inspires extensive debate. The complex lines of reasoning in the debate about the Bible's historical accuracy imply moral claims about the value of the Bible and also political claims about land ownership in the Middle East. Perhaps no academic debate so aptly demonstrates how social and political forces shape the quest for truth and knowledge.