Asha'man

According to modern archeology, the history within the Old Testament is mostly mythological, and has no bearing on actual history. Most of the oldest history was not written by contemporaries, but composed around the 7th century BCE, long after any actual history had faded into legend and myth.

The reason it takes faith to believe is because the facts are otherwise. There is, contrary to your statement, plenty of archeological evidence that contradicts the OT, and little to support its account of history before the 7th century.

From The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, pp 81-82: (emphasis added)
The list goes on and on. Archeology has found no evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, no evidence of a mass exodus, and no evidence that Canaan was conquered. Instead, the archeological evidence points strongly to the fact that the ancient Hebrews were simply natives of Canaan from the beginning. There is no evidence that the unified kingdom of David and Solomon existed, but strong evidence that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah developed separately from the beginning.

chapka

Self-correction: In my last post, I asked, "Do you believe everything you read in the San wei shu wu? Since San wei shu wu (the "Studio of Three Flavors") is a teahouse in Beijing, this is obviously a silly question. I meant to ask, "Do you believe everything you read in the San guo yan yi (Historical romance of the three kingdoms)?" My apologies.

gregor2

I wondered how long it would take Asha'man or Celsus to respond to Abraham's fallacious post - 1 hour and 10 minutes. Surely we can do better than that.

Tytummest

This is simply false. One only needs to read K.A. Kitchen’s On the Reliability of the Old Testament, R.K. Harrison’s Introduction to the Old Testament, or Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old Testament Introduction to realize this.

There are problems in the text, of course, but we are dealing with the ancient past and an incomplete record.

A few examples of the historicity of the OT:

Shishak of Egypt (1Kings 11:40; 14:25; 2Chron 12:1-9) Shoshenq I (Shishak corresponds precisely with the Egyptian spelling) founder of 22nd Dynasty, left records of his foray into Palestine at a time that parallels that of 1King/2Chron.

Mesha king of Moab (2King 3:4) a basalt stela at Dhiban in Transjordan confirms the existence of Mesha and the conflict with Omri of Israel.

Two seals in Jordan attest to Baalis king of Ammon (Jer 40:14).

Hazael (2King: 8,10,12,13) is confirmed by ivory fragments from Syria to Greece.

Benhadad son of Hazael (2King 13) is confirmed via the stlea of Zakkur of Hamath.

Zerah the Kushite (2Chron 14:9ff), Beahadad of Aram-Damascus (1King15:18), Ethbaal king of Sidonians (1King16:31), Rezin (2King 16:9), Evil-Merodach of Babylon (2King 25), Sennacherib (2 King 18) are others whose existence has been confirmed and the list goes on and on and on…

We have foreign rulers in the Hebrew record, Hebrew Kings in foreign records, and local records attesting to and confirming dozens upon dozens of people, places, and events. Confirmation for much of their existence in the proper place and time in history is a fact of archaeology.

Egads! Does anyone still believe this old myth? The books listed above give good reasons (with data not doctrine) why this tired idea of a late date for OT should be relegated to the trash heap of history.

An example: The text concerning the Exodus requires first-hand local knowledge. It accurately records plant-life, animal-life, an written in etc. How could a person writing 500 years later get that local knowledge right?

The Israelites were barred from going north due to an Egyptian military presence there, which we do know was there at that time. How could a person writing 500 years later get that right?

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. How could a person writing 500 years later get that right?

True, there is no Egyptian record of Israelites in Egypt as slaves, no mention of a Moses, no body of an Israelite from that time has been found in Sinai or Qadesh-Barnea.

However, three factors soften this blow. 99% of all New Kingdom papyri have been lost due to environmental factors (i.e. moisture). Slaves in all probability lived in mud and reed huts that tend to be short lasting. And they would not have burdened themselves with tons of items since they expected to be in Canaan shortly.

So, the critics will have to answer the question “What could one reasonably expect to find as evidence under such circumstances?�

On the positive side, Egyptians did use slave labor at that time and they did make bricks. “Exoduses� did happen in the ancient world (King Mari 18th cent, Hittite king in Anatolia 15th cent, Libyan slaves of the 12th and 13th cent, the Sea Peoples of 12th cent, and others). Israelites (as a people) along with Edom and Moab are mentioned in Egyptian records before 1200.

So to use the phrase “no evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt� to controvert the Biblical record is ignorant of logic and the fact of the lack of preservation of the ANE records.

As K.A. Kitchen writes “The book of Joshua does not describe a total Hebrew conquest and occupation of Canaan...it (narrates) an entry (into Canaan), full destruction of two minor centers (Jericho,Ai;burned), then defeat of local kings and raids through south Canaan. Towns are attacked, taken, and damaged (“destroyed�), kings and subjects killed and then left behind, not held on to. The same in north Canaan…� On the Reliability of the Old Testament pp. 134-5

So, in light of the above why would there be any evidence of Canaan being conquered?


Kitchen rebuts the above:

“If 200 years of erosion sufficed to remove most of later Middle Bronze Jericho, it is almost a miracle that anything on the ground has survived at all from the 400 years of erosion between 1275 and the time of Ahab (875-853), when we hear report of Jericho’s rebuilding (1 Kings 16:34) in Iron II – double the length of the time that largely cleared the away the Middle Bronze town. It is for this reason, and not mere harmonization, that this factor must be given its due weight. The slope of Jericho is such that most erosion would be eastward, and under the modern road, toward where now are found the spring, pools, and long standing more modern occupation. There may well have been a Jericho during 1275-1220, but above the tiny remains of that of 1400-1275, so to speak, and all of this has long, long since gone away. We may never find “Joshua‘s Jericho� for that simple reason.�


“The walls of Jericho would certainly have been like those of most other LB II towns of that period: the edge-to-edge circuit of the outer walls of the houses, etc., that ringed the little settlement. Rahab’s house on the wall (Josh 2:15) suggests as much. This ring would have butted onto the old Middle Bronze age walling, but its upper portions (and most of it anyway) were eroded along with the Late Bronze abutments.�



“The whole correlation of the archaeological record for the eleventh to the early eighth centuries is based upon Finkelstien’s arbitrary, idiosyncratic, and isolated attempt to lower the dates of tenth-century strata by up to a century if need be to rid himself of the united monarchy as a major phenomenon. His re-evaluation of the realm of Omri and Ahab is refreshing but wildly exaggerated, especially in archaeological terms. As others have shown amply, the redating will not work. (cf. chap 4 sec 3)�

“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.�


“The idea that YHWH-alone monotheism began only in the seventh (or even eighth) century is a grotesque non-starter. An absolute monotheism was clearly established by Akhenaten of Egypt in the fourteenth century (not the seventh!), drawing on older roots, and the impact of his ideas (even after his fall) echoed into the thirteenth century before being absorbed into the reassertion of the preeminence of Amun. In this climate, a Moses would have no conceptual difficulty in proclaiming YHWH as sole deity for his group, and enforcing that status by declaring YHWH as the group’s sole suzerain via a covenant in royal treaty format of precisely that period (chap 6)�

“On the patriarchal and exodus periods our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading.�

“Camels are not anachronistic in the early second millennium, and never were (cf. in chap 7), nor are the stories of the patriarchs “packed with camels� a wild exaggeration. They suppress the fact that Gerar (if at Tel Haror) was a major metropolis (of over forty acres!) in the early second millennium (Middle Bronze Age). The Philistines of Gerar (not those of the Pentapolis) are a very different lot from the Iron Age group of the same name�

On the Reliability of the Old Testament pp. 464-8

Kitchen continues to present the data that shows The Bible Unearthed is replete with errors of logic and archaeology including their views on the patriarchs, the exodus, the Israelite entry into Canaan, the unified kingdom of David and Solomon and the Edomites.

This whole OT=myth idea is not based on the evidence.

CX

Hmmm...not to besmirch Mr. Sturgis, but perhaps William Dever would be a better place to start. Possibly Israel Finkelstein as well. By the way don't apologize for your English it's far better than my written French and, now that I think about it, better than many native speakers I know.

spin

Utter balderdash. The Hebrew language didn't even separate from its Canaanite neighbours until the end of the 2nd millennium BCE according to most scholarly analyses (it is closer to the Canaanite languages than it is to Phoenician which ultimately came from the same source, so Phoenician is older than Hebrew), so if the speculation you report were correct, then it would have had to have been recorded in some other language. Who translated it into Hebrew??

The oldest texts we have from the Hebrew bible are from the second century BCE, found at Qumran. Whoever wants to claim that "Israel was one of the earliest and most accurate record keepers on Earth" would have to show that the texts actually existed not just before the Qumran period, but well before Hebrew even existed. This, of course, isn't possible because the evidence doesn't exist and the position you support is merely conjecture. Just read what evidence they really have and then cite it here. I'm eager to see!


spin

spin

Saying so doesn't make it so.

I guess you believe that Robin Hood and his merry men were real as well because King Richard is historically verifiable? The man in the iron mask as well? Judith? -- there was after all a King Nebuchadnezzar.

You can't show that the Hebrew bible was historically correct by avoiding talking about its principle characters.

Israel comes into sight historically with the house of Omri. Judah with Ahaz. Before them there is nothing. Zilch. It is mere guesswork from documents whose earliest exemplars are from the 2nd c. BCE.

I must admit Asha'man is a little too optimistic. The seventh century seems arbitrary and too early. What literature existed before the return from exile? One has to posit that Hebrews taken away from Jerusalem were permitted to take literature with them. Even if they were permitted, scrolls don't carry well and tablets weigh too much. There is nothing to suggest that any texts were written before the exile. One has a fairly good oral tradition relating to four figures, David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah. The last two are because they were relatively recent. There first two because of legend. In fact, Solomon only did two things: he built the temple and the palace, oh and there was a nice party piece to show his wisdom. Then there's the Queen of Sheba story. When was most of the Solomon stuff actually written? Well, Solomon was rather popular in late second temple times, Wisdom of Solomon, Psalms of Solomon, etc.

As there were Jews in Egypt from the sixth century BCE, can you tell me when the stuff you're referring to was written and how you know? Didn't think so.

When you think of the sizes of the armies recorded in contemporary texts such as those from Egyptian temples, if they were faced with a million people, they probably would have run away. Oh, perhaps there weren't so many people. Well, how would you know? If you are willing to discard one bit, how do you know which bit?

There are errors in the accounts which indicate they were written after the times. When was the city called Raamses in use? Yes, during the reign of Ramses II. Pithom was much later (Redford, "Egypt, Israel & Canaan", somewhere, I don't have access to it, but the index will get you there).

As a matter of fact, the Egyptians had such a fright with the Hyksos, that they made it so the experience wouldn't happen again. For a century or so after the Hyksos they were totally xenophobic. They tended to have an incredibly tight control over their borders and didn't let anyone in or out.

Did they lose the temple inscriptions the same way?? They were keen on reporting most things on temple walls with one proviso: if it was a defeat, they tarted it up to look like a victory. They couldn't hide the campaign but they could hide the result.

What did these slaves do? Egypt had lots and lots of native labour. Even the pyramids were built by local labour.

That is the problem for the person trying to turn the exodus tradition into history.

The other leg plays jingle bells.

The Egyptian exodus was the Hyksos, driven out by Ahmose. The Jewish exodus was probably modelled on that.

It certainly controverts the bald assumption that there must be history in the texts. If you'd like to give positive evidence for the central events in the biblical tradition, I'll listen, but until you can, you are simply being wishful.


He has to say this because reading the text literally, shows that the text doesn't fit the evidence. This is called shaping the data to suit ones presuppositions. Ken Kitchen is an evangelical Liverpuddlean, who should stick to Egyptology.

Your rhetorical question implies its conclusion sorrectly, but helps you not one whit.

The most recent excavations at Jericho by an Italian archaeological team showed that there were no late bronze age walls at Jericho. So, there was no reason to think they had been eroded. Kitchen didn't have all the data.

It's a shame that Kitchen doesn't deal with the facts provided by Finkelstein (from data collected by numerous archaeologists) about the fact that the people in Israel were not new, or reintroduced, stock, but were a continuation of the culture of the middle and late bronze periods, ie there was no conquest at all in the archaeological record. That record totally contradicts the idea of a conquest.

Kitchen, as I've indicated, is not a biblical specialist, but an Egyptologist. His opinion here doesn't match many of those who are specialists in the field of biblical research.

He's right. There was polytheism in Israel until after that time. There was a high place just outside Jerusalem at Malhah. There were mother goddess statuettes in a Jerusalem favissa. Ezekiel and Jeremiah keep talking about ilicit acts "under every green tree", ie worshipping Asherah.

He's right again. It died with Akhenaten as well.

He doesn't seem interested in the fact that Joshua didn't mind the symbols of polytheism, the pillar and the tree within the sanctuary of the Lord, Josh 24:26.

One can understand Kitchen rushing to defend the faith. Don't expect too many to take him seriously.


spin

Steven Carr

I spoke to Kenneth Kitchen in a public lecture he gave after he had trotted out the few old miserable pieces of correspondence with known history, and after he explained how unreasonable it was to expect to find things like Jericho.

I asked him why the Bible said it was 480 years from the Exodus to the Temple, when it couldn't possibly have been that long.

His waffling was amusing to hear, and I still can't understand how he could claim there were no errors in the Bible yet this Biblical time span was not totally accurate.

Casper

If this is from Kitchen, then I have to wonder if he is one of those "Egyptologists" who try and show how Atlanteans built the pyramids before leaving in their UFOs.

Where on earth would they get the raw papyri? Slave wages just ain't what they used to be. Of course, preparing to go to Canaan for several generations means keeping that tent rolled up and tucked away inside your mud hut. With your papyri. That's an impressive structure. I suppose they rebuilt annually after the flood. But I would suspect as much from a brickmaker who built a mud hut every year to keep his tent and papyri dry, ROFLOL!

gregor2

Spin

Tremendous job deconstructing the apologist/historist Kitchens.

Also, for folks who don't know the other reference given by Tytummest, Gleason Archer, a seach on infidels will demostrate his bias. He is an inerrantist. In response to a request by Farrell Till to debate, he declined and responded:

"But as it is, in view of the fact that you have already been confronted with the many infallible proofs of the truth of Scripture [I won't debate]. . ."

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../3corre93.html