Tytummest

I apologize for not posting sooner but due to work, school, and hurricane clean up (that has in the last day or so turned to preparation) I have not been able to do so until now. It looks like Jeanne will be headed my way and will be kinda like Charlie. I hope not, since I lost power for 184 hours when Charlie rolled over my home. So while I may not be replying to anyone’s posts for a while I will do so eventually.

When dealing with the ANE you must realize that there is no way around the fact that a lot of ANE data that did not survive the ravages of time. Therefore, there will be people, places, events that are not confirmed in the historical record. If something is not confirmed that does not mean it has been controverted.

What can be shown is where there is data that impacts the Old Testament it confirms the historicity rather than controverts it. Demonstrating how history or archaeology controverts the OT is much more difficult if the critic must find evidence that contradicts the OT rather than relying on an argument from silence.

This is simply false. For example:

In 1924, Adam C. Welch of Edinburgh pointed out that a “law of the single sanctuary� would have been quite impractical for the seventh century B.C., for it did not reflect conditions which prevailed at that time. Furthermore he showed that many of the legal regulations in D were much too primitive in character to fit in with the late Jewish monarchy.� Archer, A Survey of Old Testament, p105

“…main features in the much-maligned patriarchal narratives fit so well (and often exclusively) into the framework supplied by the independent, objective data of the early second millennium…Elamite activity in the west, uniquely then; basic price of twenty shekels for Joseph…This is not “conservative salvaging�…�it comes straight form a huge matrix of field produced data.� Kitchen On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p459-60

“The author of Genesis and Exodus shows a thorough acquaintance with Egypt, as one would expect of a participant in the Exodus.� Archer, A Survey of Old Testament, p115

“The origin of Deuteronomy itself cannot be dated to the seventh century. Its format is wholly that of the fourteenth/thirteenth century, on the clear evidence of almost forty comparable documents, in phase V of a two-thousand-year history embracing over ninety documents in a six-phased, closely dated sequence.� K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p464

“ Why, then, do the human and other phenomena at the exodus show clearly Egyptian traits (not Palestinian, not Neo-Babylonian) and especially of the thirteenth century?� Kitchen On the Reliability of the Old Testament p 460

“One of the most ambitious modern works discussing the Egyptian background of the portion of the Pentateuch which deals with Joseph and Moses in Egypt is Abraham S. Yahuda’s Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relationship to Egyptian. Not confining himself to mere loan words, Yahuda discusses a large number of idioms and turns of speech which are characteristically Egyptian in origin, even though translated into Hebrew.� The titles of the court officials, polite language used in the interviews with Pharaoh, and the like, are all shown to be true to Egyptian usage.� Archer, A Survey of Old Testament, p116-7


The author of the Torah shows a consistently foreign or extra-Palestinian viewpoint as far as Canaan is concerned. The seasons and the weather referred to in the narrative are Egyptian, not Palestinian…The flora and fauna referred to are Egyptian or Sinatic, never distinctively Palestinian…the shittim or acacia tree, …tahash skin, …clean and unclean birds and animals, …wild ox or antelope.� Archer, A Survey of Old Testament, p119

“Both Egypt and Sinai are very familiar to the author from the standpoint of geography. The narrative of the Exodus route is filled with authentic local references which have been verified by modern archeology. But the geography of Palestine is comparatively unknown except by patriarchal tradition (in the Genesis narratives). Even in Genesis 13, when the author wishes to convey to his audience some notion of the lush verdure of the Jordan plain, he compares it to “the land of Egypt as thou goest unto Zoar...� Archer, A Survey of Old Testament, p119-20

In light of the above facts it evident to see that there are many good reasons that indicate a composition of much of the OT well before the exile.

This is a Red Herring. I wrote: “The Israelites were barred from going north due to an Egyptian military presence there, which we do know was there at that time.� Your reply diverted the attention from the basic issue: How could someone writing 500 or so years later get a detail like that correct? I will give you another crack at answering that question.

This is another Red Herring. I wrote: “If Moses did not exist, he would have need to be invented since the Sinai convent has a particular form and content, which fits only the second millennium and would need to be written by one who is familiar with court matters at the time�. Again, you divert attention away from damaging facts to your position. Care to share a response to the above question

One can only suppose they were employed in the same fashion as other slaves: “For over 350 years (ca. 1540-1170), from their conquest and repeated campaigns in Canaan and Syria, Egypt’s kings brought back batches of prisoners regularly, sometimes in considerable numbers. Besides domestic, cultic, and artisanal duties as before, the new accessions of manpower were employed to cultivate the land, and could be used in building projects.� K.A. Kitchen On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p247

Knowing what one could reasonably expect to find as evidence under such circumstances is a problem for any one delving into this subject, whether their aim is to confirm or controvert the history of the O.T. The fact that you do not think it is a problem for those who wish to controvert it is very telling indeed.

It isn’t that there must be history in the texts, it is just the simply a fact that there is evidence for the historicity of the OT. It is not a bald assumption. It is fact. Whether you chose to examine the data or not is your business.

Yes, he does have to say that since that is what the text says. Critics see the word conquest an extrapolate it to mean total, absolute destruction to all people and places. However the text does not say that. Kitchen’s analysis is correct.

And, of course, one could simply turn your assertion on it’s head by saying that you have to say that because an examination of the text reveals that the text does not fit your presuppositions and you are simply shaping the data to fit it into your view.

It is difficult to say whether Kitchen had access to the data to which you refer since you do not reference it. Can you give a little more detail on that Italian archaeological team?

Oh, Kitchen deals with Finkelstein. See his On the Reliability of the Old Testament p464-8

“Why, then, does Merenptah (in his year 5,1209/1208) report a people Israel, a foreign tribal grouping by the very accurate determinative signs (in a very accurately written text) who are west of Ascalon and Gezer, and south of Yenoam, and hence in the central Canaanite hill counry, if no such named people existed? How curious that we have, in Canaan for 200 years directly following this episode, a clear and massive rise in population that installed themselves in a rash of fresh, new villages the length of the land. It’s either due to a sex orgy or immigrants? No escape from those options. The hill culture develops away from the coastal cultures, it eschews any pronounced taste for pigs or imaged based worship, with no stone/brick-built temples, but only scattered high places.� Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p460

And your area of expertise is computer programming. If you are going to be consistent in your line of argument, please explain how that qualifies you to critique Kitchen? Furthermore, this is akin to saying a person with a doctorate in American History wouldn’t be able to speak intelligently on Mexico, Canada, or Great Britain etc. Such a person should be able to do so especially if those countries influenced, dealt with, or affected the U.S. In the same manner, Kitchen should know of and be able to speak on any country or people that influenced, dealt with, or affected Egypt.

That is incorrect. Archer is a specialists in the field of biblical research
As is Harrison. They agree with Kitchen’s analysis as do others.

As one can understand you rushing to the defense of yours.

I suppose it would have been a safe bet to think it would not take long before the No True Scotsman fallacy reared its ugly head. Kitchen is a scholar but not a true scholar, so we should not trust him. Forget facts, data, analysis, and reason, I have a logical fallacy that trumps all that!

I wonder if you could cite a written reference to Kitchen “waffling� on that issue. Can you give a reference to the “few old miserable pieces of correspondence with known history� that Kitchen “trotted out’? Or must we rely on your recollections?

To try to paint Kitchen as a UFO nut is an unconscionable yet not unexpected tactic. Oh, the lengths they will go to discredit any and all who would have the temerity to disagree with them. It is obvious you have never read a word from any of Kitchens works.

If you think for a second that Kitchen has been “deconstructed� then you are merely deluding yourself. Don’t read Kitchen. Don’t examine the data he puts forth. Don’t evaluate the arguments he presents. Keep your head firmly in the sand.

Yes, folks, Archer’s 40 years of scholarship are down the drain because he declines to debate someone.

If Kitchen, Archer, or anyone else on either side of the debate is incorrect it would be better to show that via a presentation of the facts then with logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

Joshua Adams

As should be obvious, people here do not respect the authority of your choice of scholars, so be so kind as to provide their arguments instead of their conclusions. Do Kitchen and Archer bother to give any examples of all this in their books? If so, please present them, as it sounds like a string of unsupported assertions as is. Please provide quotations from contemporary Egyptian documents and compare their style and vocabulary to the Old Testament. Also, a representative sampling of later documents that are very different from the OT books would bolster your argument.

It's not just that Archer declined to debate Till, but that Till can argue circles around him on Biblical inerrancy. He's disposed of many apologetics (found in e.g. Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) throughout the years in TSR. As quoted here, Archer says to "[b]e fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists [for an alleged contradiction or error in the Bible], even though you have not found it..." In other words, his presuppositions color his evaluation of the evidence. What does this say about his rationality and trustworthiness as an objective scholar? Should we assume his methodology is significantly different in archaelogical arguments? The fact that he defends the indefensible position of the 100% literal inerrancy of every word of the Bible, which even few Christians would do, is a huge part of the reason why nobody here trusts his scholarship.

You may call this well poisoning, but if given authorities hold some unreasonable opinions, we shouldn't trust them prima facie. So provide their specific arguments and references to back up their claims. If they have none in their books, you should probably find an acceptable (to all parties) source that agrees with them.

Steven Carr

Yes, you must. I do.

I was at the lecture , and I remember how Kitchen responded when he was asked how the Kings chronology tied up with any reasonable dating of the Exodus and the Temple.

Have you personally spoken to Kitchen on the subject, as I have?

More important than my recollections and personal opinions are the facts.

Facts are what count, my opinions do not.

1 Kings 6:1 'In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.'

Take a reasonable dating of Solomon's reign, take Kitchen's dating of the Exodus and tell us why they are 480 years apart.

By doing that , you will eliminate any possible bias I might have.

rlogan

Would it not be true that a document parading as history would find it necessary to incorporate historical elements?

Should I accept that the world was created in six days based on the evidence you provided too?



Do you not find it curious that camps occasionally visited by a handful of hunters would leave evidence found ten thousand years later in one of the most inaccessible and inhospitable places on earth (north of Anaktuvik Pass in the Brooks Range of Alaska) - whereas a million-plus people can camp in the exodus without a trace being found in the balmy environs of the middle east?

I would not characterize this lack of evidence as an "argument from silence". Technically, this argument pertains to a speaker being silent on an issue, and that his silence is evidence of ignorance.

But even taking what I think to be your intention, one must explain why archaeological finds abound in the middle east, contempraneous with the exodus and for sites with vastly fewer people.

We must advance alternative explanatory arguments. For example, that the elements acted upon the exodus sites and not upon others. Were they the first zero-impact campers? Otherwise, the "argument from silence" stands as the best explanation. It didn't happen.




Although I've been working too much to do adequate research to participate in the threads here at BC&H, I drop by occasionally and read the wonderful stuff by all the regulars.

-rlogan

Chuck Rightmire

The most interesting thing about the posts here is that they are all irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference whether Moses existed or whether his origin was based on the story of Sargon and moved to Egypt rather than Mesopotamia. After all, Sargon was also found in a river in a basket by a princess and grew up in the palace to become a great ruler and a lawgiver. And in Mesopotamia the Abel character slew the Cain character.

The bible can be read as a history of the god belief of one small group and it can also be read as the history and culture of those same people. But what it is used for in this day is as proof of the existence of that god and no amount of archeological proof of the truth or lack of evidence for the Hebrew bible can prove that.

Even if the history and the archeological evidence were true right down to the crossed t on temple, it only proves that those who wrote the bible believed in a god at the time they wrote it. They interpreted events as the Europeans did in the 18th (?) Century when the great earthquake of Lisbon was seen as the hand of god. But archeological evidence or lack of it does not prove or disprove a god.

spin

Could I not have expected this? Especially when followed by this:

80 years later, you still parade this assumption stuff? Evidence is necessary for your assertions not antique opinions.

Kitchen fantasticating. Please, be serious. We get no tangible indications of Egypt whatsoever. No signs in the text of an understanding of a Ramessid Egypt. It gets called Egypt but any exotic name would have done just as well for the amount of knowledge the writer evinces.

Yeah, sure. Got any tangible examples?

Ground control to major Ken. There's something wrong.

Tytummest, instead of trotting out Tom, Dick and Harry's opinions, how about giving the necessary evidence to suggest that texts were written before the exile??

Doh, Ken. Palestine in the Egyptian sphere on and off from Tuthmosis II to Necho II. Hundreds of locally produced scarabs are to be found in Israeli museums for all periods down to the Persian era. You cannot but expect to see Egyptian influence. There was a clear Egyptian dominance down to the Philistine invasion. Once the Philistines settled down the Egyptians came back under Shoshenq I. No sign here of an invasion of the exodus type. Ken doesn't tell you that, now does he? He ignores the vital signs that the population in the Iron Age shows a continuation from the Bronze Age. Ken should stick to Egyptology where he has no hidden agenda.

Then why is Hebrew closer to the other Canaanite languages than it is to Phoenician? Get it? Hebrew is from the local Canaanite undergrowth. Find anyone today who would support the proposition that Hebrew is not a local occurrence, that it is younger than Phoenician, younger than about 1300 BCE. And do you expect a language which has been under the influence of Egypt so long not to have Egyptian influence? Think of Norway which was under Danish control for several hundred years and developed a daily language which was closer to Danish than to the local surviving dialects. Linguistic influence is only to be expected from Egyptian dominance of Palestine.

Doh. Jews were in Egypt from the time of Cambyses and in contact with Palestine.

Oh, rubbish. The writer knows very little about the Sinai. And what extra about Egypt than the anachronously mentioned Ramesses and Pithom??

Oh for even a few relevant facts.


You still haven't responded sensibly. The whole border was controlled after the expulsion of the Hyksos. Try again.

I tell you what, justify what you assume with some hard evidence to make it even a little bit tangible and then I'll consider it.

If you read Redford and others you'll find the opposite information, ie that from the hyksos expulsion there were no foreign slaves for quite a while, through Egyptian xenophobia.

Citing opinions is no substitute for evidence. History requires evidence. Without it you have assumption.


This is the bit I had specifically in mind:

Towns are attacked, taken, and damaged ("destroyed"), kings and subjects killed and then left behind, not held on to.

"destroyed" suddenly becomes "damaged". He sweeps the farcical Jos 12:9-24 aside with the understated "kings and subjects killed". Kitchen is not dealing with the text. There is a wholesale conquest with the defeat of the kings of Lachish, Gezer, Arad, Aphek, Hazor, Taanach and Megiddo, to name just the major ones. None of these cities evince such conquest.

I deal with the evidence, but try.

Nigro L., and Marchetti N., eds Quaderno di Gerico, Vol 1., Uni. di Roma "La Sapienza"

In four pages. Impressive. Get serious.

Whoever made such a claim about Israel? This is what I said:

the people in Israel were not new, or reintroduced, stock, but were a continuation of the culture of the middle and late bronze periods

After the region-wide drought which brought about the reduction of the major civilisations of the near east, yes there was a region-wide decline, things started to pick up in the Iron Age. No more stagnation. There are no introduced cultures in Palestine, no archaeological evidence of different technologies, ceramics, architectures. Just a population expansion for known reasons.


Straight Israeli archaeology. And therefore reflective of the evidence.

You wouldn't know what my expertise are. But then you rely solely on your apologetic sources and show no indication of getting evidence for yourself, or what that evidence might look like if you fell over it. You have so far simply copied out of books.

Kitchen falls into the category of layman in the field he is dabbling in. Even you could crittique him.

You need the equivalent of an evangelical (near) inerrantist to make your analogy relevant.

I would prefer to deal with the nitty-gritty of clear sourceable evidence for your positions rather than your apologetics for your apologetic sources.


spin

spin

What I found interesting on the not leaving evidence line of thought is something I said in an earlier thread. Imagine that our average exodist produced only 200 grams of faeces a day; this would mean that a million exodists (600,000 men plus a few others) would produce on average 200,000 kilograms of faeces each day (or 2,920,000,000 kilograms in 40 years). Now a city needs a very complex sanitary system to deal with that much faeces, a system unavailable to our simple desert exodists. Forty years of unprocessed faeces over such a small area as the Sinai would turn the area into mountains, though perhaps they each went off and dug their own little hole and covered it up. Let's say they were compact in their toilet habits and buried their stuff a metre away from everyone else's, so that we have an area of one square kilometre of used land each day that would mean, with zero growth, 14600 square kilometres of fertilized ground in 40 years of wanderings. I wonder why nothing growns in the Sinai?


spin

gregor2

That's truly a load of s&*t. (The Exodus story, I mean)

rlogan

Apparently one of the properties of Manna from Heaven is that it is 100% energy efficient as a food source. Zero discharge.

Amlodhi

Hello Tytummest,

Although I agree that the use of the determinative designating Israel as a people in the Mer-ne-Ptah stela is important, I was somewhat surprised by your description of it as a "very accurately written text".


For what it's worth then, apparently it is not very accurate to describe this stela as a "very accurately written text".


Amlodhi