MiddleMan

Great! I'll look forward to it!

Jayhawker Soule

A fate I narrowly escaped when reading Mazar!

I'd still appreciate more specificity here.

Doctor X

What? You want facts?!!!!

Anyways, when I go back to check out the summary, I will check out what they wrote on Tel Dan.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Why No Exodus or Conquest:

First of all, let me identify the text properly: Archaeology and the Bible These are direct quotes from the text.

The Problem of "Exodus" Out of Egypt

In fact, this story (or stories) is so essential to the Bible's self-understanding that biblical scholars, and especially "biblical" archaeologists, until recently took for granted that at its core there must have been some "historical" event, however, much it might have been embellished by later generations of Israelites. . . . However, in the past ten to fifteen years there have been a steady increase of the archaeological data that have raised very serious doubts about the historicity of this story, as well as that of Joshua's "conquest" of Canaan. . . .

Literary Evidence:

Except for the biblical story there is no literary evidence that there was ever an Egyptian Sojourn and Exodus as described in the Bible. This is true regardless of the date one assumes for the event, if there as such an "event" at all. [He then discusses the Mernaptah Stela.--Ed.]

Dated to the fifth year of Mernapthah's reign (ca. 1208-7, according to the low chronology), the stela contains a hymn or a series of hymns celebrating the pharaoh's victory over his enemies. . . . . . . This is the earliest reference to "Israel" as a community known from any ancient text. . . . [He gives a reference for "Israel" as a personal name.--Ed.]

Without assuming the biblical story in advance, there is absolutely nothing in the stela inscription itself to suggest to anyone that this "Israel" was ever in Egypt. All that can be reasonably inferred from it is that an Egyptian scribe at the end of the thirteenth century BC could list among the enemies defeated by the pharaoh a group of people living in Canaan known collectively as "Israel" . . . . . . . Papyrus Anastasi V (Wilson, ANET: 259), might allow one to hypothesize that a few Egyptian slaves could have slipped out of Egypt from time to time, but all of the known Egyptian texts put together do not even remotely hint at an "Exodus". . . .

The Archaeological Evidence (see Dever 1997b; Weinstein 1997b):

[He notes some attempts to defend the biblical story and then quotes.--Ed.], "were it not for the Bible, anyone looking at the Palestinian archaeological data today would conclude that whatever the origin of the Israelites, it was not Egypt" (Weinstein 1997b: 98). . . . Any serious doubts regarding the historicity of the "Exodus" also impact upon an understanding of the "Conquest."

Any effort to support the biblical story . . . will have to explain the following: first, if the inhabitants of the Central Highlands of Palestine in the Iron Age I period came from a people who had an extended sojourn (over 400 years according to the Bible, I Kings 6:1) in Egypt, why have excavations and surveys of these villages yielded so little evidence of Egyptian influence. . . ? . . . according to biblical tradition, several million people (cf. Exod. 12:37; Num. 1:45-6) wandered around the Sinai Peninsula for "forty" years. Yet not a single trace of such a group has ever been recovered.

Most telling in this regard is the archaeological history of Tell el-Qudeirat, identified as ancient Kadesh-Barnea. The excavations . . . locate in the northern Sinai . . . have recovered nothing pre-dating the tenth-ninth centuries BC. . . . Kadesh-Barnea played a major role in the biblical traditions of the Exodus and wilderness wanderings (Num 13:26; 20:1,14). . . . Surly, if this event as described in the Bible actually happened, something of the presence of so many people would have turned up by now, if nothing more than camp sites with datable pottery.

[He notes the connection between problems with the Conquest and Exodus dovetail. The discussion also deals with the Tel-Dan findings and the historicity of David and Solomon--Ed.]

The Emergence of Early "Israel":

[Summarizes the biblical story.--Ed.] The clear impression one gets from this story is that a united Israel attacked Canaan from the east and that the defeat of its inhabitants, at least in the Central Highlands, was sudden, swift and complete. That something is seriously wrong with this picture is an understatement. [He then summarizes previous models for interpreting the occupation.--Ed.]

The catalyst for starting much of this discussion [Revolution in understanding of emergence of early "Israel."--Ed.] was the publication of I. Finkelstein's book, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, in 1988. . . . . . . Finkelstein showed that there were hundreds (more than 300, p. 333) of new villages or hamlets that had sprung up in the Central Hill Country of Canaan during the Iron Age I. . . . . . . Finkelstein estimated the entire population of the Hill Country peoples to be no more than 50,000, if not fewer . . . a remarkably small number when compared with the millios who supposedly left Egypt with Moses only "forty" years earlier. . . .

Other studies . . . have also argued that the people who moved into the highlands were farmers and horticulturists, not nomadic raiders from the east. . . . These, and other archaeological data, have led Dever to conclude that the Iron I inhabitants of these Central Hill villages were anything but invading nomads from the desert as portrayed in the Bible. Rather, they "appear to be skilled and well-adapted peasant farmers, long familiar with local conditions in Canaan" (Dever 1992c: 549-50).
Until recently it was assumed by most scholars that the Iron I inhabitants were Israelites. . . . . . . thanks to the pioneering efforts of archaeologists such as Dever and Finkelstein, this is no longer acceptable.

Although Dever . . . has agreed with Finkelstein that the Iron I village people were not nomads invading from the east, he has disagreed with Finkelstein completely on the question of their origins. For Dever, most of the Iron I Central Hill villagers came from the already sedentary Canaanite population . . . not from non-sedentarized pastoralists. [In a funny footnote, Laughlin notes the "disagreement" between Dever and Finkelstein extends to the highly specialized field of ceramics and advises to "Stay tuned!"--Ed.]

Problems with Tel-Dan and David:

Introduction: Archaeology and the Bible:

If there is an archaeolological period deserving of the description "biblical," it is Iron Age II. This is the time of David and Solomon (at least for those who still believe that they existed as more than figments of some post-exilic writer's imagination). [He quotes J. M. Miller.--Ed.]

Iron Age IIa--the United Monarchy (ca. 1000-923 BC)

The difficulty of relating archaeological data to biblical traditions is clearly apparent when studying the Iron Age IIa period. Biblically speaking, this is the time assigned to David and Solomon and the United Monarchy. . . .

. . . until the remarkable discovery of the so-called "Tel Dan Stela" . . . no reference to "David" was known outside of the Bible, with the possible exception of the Meshe Inscription ("Moabite Stone"). The Tel Dan inscription, as well as the Meshe Stela, are both dated to the end of the ninth century BC. Here I would simply point out that while the translation, "House of David," on the Dan stela has been hotly disputed by a few scholars, the majority of experts who have examined this inscription have confirmed this reading. However, even assuming that the authenticity of this reading proves nothing about a supposedly tenth-century BC monarch, its date (late ninth century) provides what, in archaeology, is known as a terminus post quem. . . . What it does prove is that by the end of the ninth century BC, a political entity known as the "House of David" could be referred to in a public inscription and its referent be expected to be understood by passers-by. However, the connection of the "David" on this stela with the "David" in the Bible is a matter of interpretation, not archaeology. . . . Furthermore, this reference to "David" proves nothing about a "Solomon."

In fact, there is very little in the overall archaeological picture of the tenth century BC that can be connected with David. . . .

[Laughlin does note later that it does "lend considerable weight to those who argue that he did, after all, exist." The author of this post, who is currently consuming a fine merlot whilst watching Family Guy, considers this part of his reticence to accept Tel Dan as "proof" of an historical "David." "He" may very well share the same problem as a "historical Jesus"--we can, perhaps, assume "someone" was behind the stories, but since the stories are unhistorical we can say nothing definite about such figures.--Ed.]

Right . . . now something about Lucifer. . . .

--J.D.

References:

Laughlin JCH. Archaeology and the Bible. Routledge: 2000

Dever WG. "Israel, History of (Archaeology and the 'Conquest')," ABD, vol. 3, 1992

Dever WG. "Qom, Kirbet El-," OEANE, vol. 4, 1997

Finkelstein I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration Society: 1988.

Miller JM. "Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without Relying on the Hebrew Bible?" in: D.V. Edelman (ed.) The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: 1991

Weinstein JM. "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," in E. Frerichs and L. Lesko (eds) Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Eisenbrauns: 1997