Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 09-08-2003, 01:29 PM

Small quotation from the article, to get things started.

Any comments or thoughts?

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2905f3.html

Quote:

How old are the Bible�s narratives of the Exodus from Egypt? Can we really date the texts that preserve those narratives? And if so, what is the oldest Biblical text that discusses the Exodus?

To start with the answer, we can date Biblical texts. And the oldest text attesting the Exodus dates to sometime between 1125 and 1000 B.C.E.

The Exodus occurred, according to the previous article in this issue by the distinguished archaeologist of Egypt, Manfred Bietak, in about 1150 B.C.E. Most scholars have followed the lead of the Bible in placing the Exodus itself in the late 13th century B.C.E. Bietak�s date is somewhat arbitrary, but the formation of an �Exodus tradition� (as he designates it) probably does roughly belong to the 12th century B.C.E. So, unlike much other Biblical material, the earliest attestation of the Exodus in the Bible is almost contemporaneous with the very origin of the tradition! This means that when the Exodus texts were composed, some people were probably still alive who participated in the event or remembered it�whatever it may have been. (Bietak also thinks that King David began his reign around 1020 B.C.E., while others place the start of that reign around 1000, but the variation in chronology here is small.)

Doctor X · 09-08-2003, 01:44 PM

Since archaelogical and textual evidence argues strongly against an exodus ever happening, methinks such speculation proves a bit of a waste of time.

Good references are contained in the Recommended Reading list.

--J.D.

DrJim · 09-08-2003, 03:43 PM

Halpern has written a kind of weird article.
He comments on the "earliest attestation of the Exodus in the Bible" without mentioning that the earliest attestation of the Bible itself is Hellenistic. He builds some of his case on comparing some linguistic features to unspecified "pre-exilic" texts. But how does he know THOSE texts are pre-exilic???

I do not think there are any lenghty Hebrew literary texts of the pre-exilic period to give us such a firm chronology of the language to be certain of the age of biblical texts. There is, of course, the Siloam Tunnel inscription and a wide assortment of letters and seals. But can the spelling conventions of these writings (different contexts, materials) provide a sure-fire way of dating the language of lengthy scribal productions in scrolls? I agree they may go a long way, but I'm less confident than Halpern seems to be.

Halpern claims there was an incomplete correction of older forms to new, allowing him to date some passages. Davies in "In Search of Ancient Israel" advises that one has to differentiate between typological age and actual age of any example of writing: that is, a writer may use antiquated forms. So do we have a scribe inconsistenly updating texts or a scribe employing anachronisms for whatever reason? I think it needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

There is also something rather circular to the way many biblical texts are slotted into monarchic events through claiming that the contents "fit" the period. Halpern relies on this too. His claims about "Amos 1-2 and much of the rest of the book" (notice not ALL) as mid 8th century strike me as rather subjective, and raises the question of the bit of the book he would date to a different time! To make the book "fit" the time it claims to be describing, Halpern implies that part of it has to be excised. But if one can cut out what does not seem to fit, then the whole process is rather gratuitous.
To borrow Davies' terms again, scholarship often constructs an model of "ancient Israel" based on the "biblical Israel", only to use that model to date biblical texts! This is a major complaint of the minimalists. I think archaelogy can break this logical circle in many respects, but I don't think there is enough to fully grant confidence in determining exactly what could or couldn't have been written at any given time. =

Halpern's paper strikes me as pretty shaky, even if he can prove some of the texts may be much older than the extant MSS (in this he has no objection from me at all). But finding purported old linguistic forms in a Hellenistic text is not the same thing as finding 1200-1300 bce Hebrew graffiti on an unfinished wall in Egypt saying, "So long and thanks for all the fallafels, signed, Moses".

JRLinville

Kosh · 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

The Exodus occurred, according to the previous article in this issue by the distinguished archaeologist of Egypt, Manfred Bietak, in about 1150 B.C.E. Most scholars have followed the lead of the Bible in placing the Exodus itself in the late 13th century B.C.E. Bietak�s date is somewhat arbitrary, but the formation of an �Exodus tradition� (as he designates it) probably does roughly belong to the 12th century B.C.E. So, unlike much other Biblical material, the earliest attestation of the Exodus in the Bible is almost contemporaneous with the very origin of the tradition! This means that when the Exodus texts were composed, some people were probably still alive who participated in the event or remembered it�whatever it may have been. (Bietak also thinks that King David began his reign around 1020 B.C.E., while others place the start of that reign around 1000, but the variation in chronology here is small.)

Emphasis added to highlight unsupported speculation and weasel words in a complex paragraph designed to confuse Fundies....

Magus55 · 09-08-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Since archaelogical and textual evidence argues strongly against an exodus ever happening, methinks such speculation proves a bit of a waste of time.

Good references are contained in the Recommended Reading list.

--J.D.

I saw on a documentary that Archaeologists think they know where Mount Sinai is. A site they found in Arabia that fit the description in the Bible had pictures and enscriptions on the wall, including a golden calf, and 12 pillars ( probably the 12 Israelite tribes). Only problem is the Saudi government put armed guard up at the site so no more archaeologists can investigate there right now. Its hardly conclusive I agree, but isn't that what science does, it learns more and more? I think we'll eventually find the remains that prove the Exodus.

Kosh · 09-08-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I saw on a documentary that Archaeologists think they know where Mount Sinai is. A site they found in Arabia that fit the description in the Bible had pictures and enscriptions on the wall, including a golden calf, and 12 pillars ( probably the 12 Israelite tribes). Only problem is the Saudi government put armed guard up at the site so no more archaeologists can investigate there right now. Its hardly conclusive I agree, but isn't that what science does, it learns more and more? I think we'll eventually find the remains that prove the Exodus.

Unlikely, since all the evidence we HAVE found CONTRADICTS the Exodus....

"You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what yer good at!" - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Sauron · 09-08-2003, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I saw on a documentary that Archaeologists think they know where Mount Sinai is. A site they found in Arabia that fit the description in the Bible had pictures and enscriptions on the wall, including a golden calf, and 12 pillars ( probably the 12 Israelite tribes). Only problem is the Saudi government put armed guard up at the site so no more archaeologists can investigate there right now.

That old wives' tale again? I'm guessing you're talking about Wadi al-Mukatteb. That's been bouncing around for years. Discussed in this thread.

http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...c&f=6&t=000320

Quote:

Its hardly conclusive I agree, but isn't that what science does, it learns more and more? I think we'll eventually find the remains that prove the Exodus.

You'd think that after 3200 years of looking, that *someone* would have found *something* by now.

never been there · 09-08-2003, 07:22 PM

I wouldn't say that contemporaneity contributes much to the reliability of the information. "Spin" isn't new, WMDs are just the latest.

Jayhawker Soule · 09-08-2003, 07:23 PM

If I recall correctly, the Manfred Bietak article dealt with the discovery of a (i.e., one) four-room house.

Quote:

It is at present impossible to establish, on the basis of archaeological information, distinctions between Israelites abs Canaanites in the Iron I period. The archaeological evidence does not provide a clear set of criteria fir distinguishing an Israelite site from a Canaanite one, although a collocation of features (e.g., four-room houses, collared-rim store jars, hewn cisterns) in an Iron I site in the central highlands continues to be taken as a sign of an Israelite settlement.

- see The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

It seems to me that perhaps too much is being extrapolated from a single West Semitic dwelling.

Edited to change Amazon link --Celsus

Magus55 · 09-09-2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
That old wives' tale again? I'm guessing you're talking about Wadi al-Mukatteb. That's been bouncing around for years. Discussed in this thread.

No i'm not talking about Wadi al-Mukatteb

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2003, 01:44 PM	#2
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Since archaelogical and textual evidence argues strongly against an exodus ever happening, methinks such speculation proves a bit of a waste of time. Good references are contained in the Recommended Reading list. --J.D.

09-08-2003, 03:43 PM	#3
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Halpern has written a kind of weird article. He comments on the "earliest attestation of the Exodus in the Bible" without mentioning that the earliest attestation of the Bible itself is Hellenistic. He builds some of his case on comparing some linguistic features to unspecified "pre-exilic" texts. But how does he know THOSE texts are pre-exilic??? I do not think there are any lenghty Hebrew literary texts of the pre-exilic period to give us such a firm chronology of the language to be certain of the age of biblical texts. There is, of course, the Siloam Tunnel inscription and a wide assortment of letters and seals. But can the spelling conventions of these writings (different contexts, materials) provide a sure-fire way of dating the language of lengthy scribal productions in scrolls? I agree they may go a long way, but I'm less confident than Halpern seems to be. Halpern claims there was an incomplete correction of older forms to new, allowing him to date some passages. Davies in "In Search of Ancient Israel" advises that one has to differentiate between typological age and actual age of any example of writing: that is, a writer may use antiquated forms. So do we have a scribe inconsistenly updating texts or a scribe employing anachronisms for whatever reason? I think it needs to be examined on a case by case basis. There is also something rather circular to the way many biblical texts are slotted into monarchic events through claiming that the contents "fit" the period. Halpern relies on this too. His claims about "Amos 1-2 and much of the rest of the book" (notice not ALL) as mid 8th century strike me as rather subjective, and raises the question of the bit of the book he would date to a different time! To make the book "fit" the time it claims to be describing, Halpern implies that part of it has to be excised. But if one can cut out what does not seem to fit, then the whole process is rather gratuitous. To borrow Davies' terms again, scholarship often constructs an model of "ancient Israel" based on the "biblical Israel", only to use that model to date biblical texts! This is a major complaint of the minimalists. I think archaelogy can break this logical circle in many respects, but I don't think there is enough to fully grant confidence in determining exactly what could or couldn't have been written at any given time. = Halpern's paper strikes me as pretty shaky, even if he can prove some of the texts may be much older than the extant MSS (in this he has no objection from me at all). But finding purported old linguistic forms in a Hellenistic text is not the same thing as finding 1200-1300 bce Hebrew graffiti on an unfinished wall in Egypt saying, "So long and thanks for all the fallafels, signed, Moses". JRLinville

09-08-2003, 07:22 PM	#8
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	I wouldn't say that contemporaneity contributes much to the reliability of the information. "Spin" isn't new, WMDs are just the latest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.