squiz

Has anyone read this criticism of "The Bible Unearthed"?
http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...ble-unearthed/

Any comments?

bacht

The critic Hess seems to be speaking to Jewish and Christian believers who want the old stories to be true. I'd put more trust in Finkelstein and Silberman (I believe others here have read and endorsed their work).

The whole history of the Jews before the Exile is fuzzy, especially the Patriarchal, Exodus and Conquest periods. Whether the biblical reports are historically verifiable is relevant mainly for theological reasons. Compared to other ANE peoples the Jews are of secondary interest. If their history hadn't been grafted onto Christianity I doubt many would care about their pre-Roman experiences.

semiopen

Hess is a maximalist, and as Bacht mentions assumes the stories are true.

His crticism is not difficult to reply to, but he is a respected scholar, so I'd be afraid to debate him for money.

A few points:

The bible says 600,000 men of military age which would be between 2 and 3 million people. Only crazy people believe this and he is probably saying there was a smaller number. The question is what the smaller number is that would show no archeological traces, he doesn't give a number here, is it 50 people? If it was say 500, traces would probably be found.

His arguments about Joshua are also unconvincing and confusing. There is no evidence of an invasion of Canaan from the West.

Archeology suggests that Israelite settlements in the hill country show exactly the same culture as other Canaanite sites, such that there is no easy way to even identify a site as Israelite. This is compelling. Further, assuming there was an exodus why would the Israelites enter from the west?

I don't find his arguments very convincing.

Diogenes the Cynic

Pretty facile to call the Bible "textual evidence." Kind of assuming one's own conclusion there.

Does Homer provide textual evidence the travels of Oddyseus, the existence of harpies and cannabalistic cyclopes?

The claims of the Bible are not entitled to any default presumption of history just because they are written down. This attempt to shift the burden of proof (hopefully without the audience realizing what's being done) is fallacious from the start, does not represent an actual defense for historicity, and really only serves to soothe believers.

Celsus

I've made this point before but I love going over it anyway: Just thinking of the logistics of clearing 2 million people's worth of shit over 40 years in the desert floors me :P

I've personally visited a refugee camp with "only" 40,000 people without adequate sanitation (by 21st century standards, it'd be damned good by 1400 BCE standards), and the place was overflowing with shit everywhere, and on the days it rained you couldn't get away from the smell. Those people have been in that camp for about 10 years, it will leave evidence that archaeologists 3000 years from now will be able to find. Now just imagine Israelites picking up manna off the ground...

As for the article... meh, it had no enthusiasm or energy in it, it felt like the guy was writing it because he had to. Is OT apologetics really this dead now?

semiopen

The standard argument is that eleph (Hebrew for "thousand") could mean something else, like tent-groups. As IAJ once brilliantly pointed out, this interpretation runs into the census where the large numbers are clear. One guy I know who is knowledgeable says that the 600,000 was written as tent groups as part of the original text and the census, etc. was added in a, say, 700 BCE redaction.

This could be explored in a scholarly article, analyzing linguistics, etc. but so far as I know the tent-group theory is not really taken too seriously. This is easy for a layman to judge just by looking at the pasages in Numbers and Exodus dealing with population.

This is a huge problem for someone who supports a literal interpretation and/or Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Of course, those poor souls have other problems as well.

atimetorend

From the linked article: The authors always present their interpretation of the archaeological data but do not mention or interact with contemporary alternative approaches. Thus the book is ideologically driven and controlled.

I generally disagree with this statement. Just because someone is presenting their interpretation of the facts as they see them doesn't mean it is ideologically driven and controlled. That's a strong statement, saying the outcome of the studies were predetermined by the author's bias. Certainly presenting opposing viewpoints can demonstrate objectivity, but lack of it does not prove hopeless bias. It sounds to me like a canned apologetics statement, and likely more indicative of apologetics than scholarly study.

semiopen

Quite right. Ironically here is a guy who teaches religion at a seminary accusing a secular scholar of being too ideological. Too bad there is no commandment prohibitting the pot from calling the kettle black.

credoconsolans

Archaeologists have uncovered traces of seasonal camps from stone-age hunter-gatherer groups that probably didn't exceed more than 100 people and probably less. A simple firepit with charcoal will last forever in the right environment, so it would seem that SOME evidence should be found, especially in a dry desert environment.

Anat

One could argue that people have been looking in the wrong places, but at least Kadesh Barnea should show something - the Israelites supposedly camped there for 38 years.

Now if we take the view that the biblical account as we have it is a much blown up result of a multistage game of telephone we are stuck with how small (in population and duration of travel) the original should have been to leave no evidence (or evidence that could so easily be missed), and if so, why would the story of a band of travelers that crossed the desert in a few days/weeks/months be of any significance to the population of Canaan (or a part of that population) that they would get the retelling ball rolling.

But whether the account had a much smaller 'historical kernel' or not at all, what made the account what it is were the versions of it told at various times. So I'd say the more interesting questions are how did the various groups in the hill country see themselves and their own origins at various times. When did they gain an identity as Israelites or Judahites? What were they before that? How and when did they come to attribute their origins to a group of conquerors from the outside? How and when did they come to view their origins in slaves that escaped from Egypt?