wavy_wonder1

A response to 'spin' and 'Doug Shaver':

Nonsense. As I already listed a few items, I can't take either the question or the claim that both simply ignore what I've written seriously.

These all have to be interpreted just as the texts of the Old Testament. You talk of 'treaties' and 'records', for example. These are texts. They have to be evaluated as historical sources before they are used as historical evidence for events...just like the textual traditions involved with the exodus. I would argue this literature is history, and I don't know any serious scholar except for the likes of revisionists who would contend otherwise, even if the events in them are discredited in the main; the events don't have to be authentic for them to be examples of ancient historiography, of course. The question is what are they trying to record and what is the reality behind it, if any, and if any, how was it represented in the biblical account? Indirectly with respect to this point I would point to archaeology to show the integrity of the biblical authors in attempting to record past events so that what we have is at least an accurate outline of their history. I think a good accessible argument along these lines is made by William G. Dever in his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk). He states:

I have sought to counter the revisionists' minimalist conclusions by showing how archaeology uniquely provides a context for many of the narratives in the Hebrew Bible. It thus makes them not just 'stories' arising out of later Judaism's identity crisis, but part of the history of a real people of Israel in the Iron Age of ancient Palestine. As the title puts it: 'What did the biblical writers know, and when did they know it?' They knew a lot, and they knew it early.
--[2001] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 295. (original italics)

He surveys plenty of archaeological evidence to back his assertion.

In the case of the exodus we have historical records outside the bible from Egyptian and Semitic sources of Asiatic slaves in Egypt contemporary with the setting of the exodus in the bible (which I would argue is somewhere in latter part of the 2nd millennium under the Ramesside dynasty, likely Rameses II; more below), reliefs depicting these slaves, etc. (this evidence is provided in Redford, who is not at all clement to biblical tradition, cited in my post linked to above; he argues like others that the relegation of the Hyskos is the memory behind the exodus story, and you apparently agree with this towards the end of this post, but more when I get there) Apropos, I don't think anyone can doubt that we have an established connection here.

Are you saying no one knows (or can know) or I don't know? (and you do?) Either way, this is vague and obviously contributes nothing to your argument.

Both of these uncharitable responses entirely ignored how this statement ties in to the rest of what I wrote. The point is not that something is actually history because it is plausible. Assessing a writing's historical plausibility is necessary to evaluating it as a historical source and prerequisite to using it as a historical source. Any charitable persons would at least have acknowledged this as all I possibly meant, especially since I did subsequently provide the reasons for why there is some historical core to the exodus.

The age of the text is irrelevant.

I'd have to consult some sources for an answer if there is a specific one, but the fact itself suffices to support the point I'm making and therefore this is an entirely irrelevant question.

Thank you for pointing out this well-known fact. However, I don't see how it goes against my argument rather than being perfectly consistent with it since the memory of their expulsion as I would argue underlies the exodus story to some degree or another; these elements could possibly have been absorbed into the early Israelite ancestry that formed part of the Israelite confederation. (more below at the end)

By 'early traditions' speaking from the perspective of bible writings I mean early poetry and the earliest prophets. (the range in my view would be the late 12th-8th centuries BC) And it's found virtually everywhere else. This is absurd on any thesis that some one just made it up (relatively early) or that it was merely 'inherited' and shortly afterward inculcated into the nation's consciousness as an accepted credo of their history, and that it's not probably traced back to genuine historical memory.

My comment above has nothing to do with the Merneptah Stele. The original point is that if some leading contingent of early Israel had a history of living in Egypt and migrating to Palestine, the existing tribes already there could have integrated their history into their own so that the credo of Yahweh bringing them out of Egypt became universal to the whole confederation. Preempting any objections this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. As Albright says:

In Semitic tribal genealogies, there is nearly always much shifting of periods and relationships. A once important tribe might decrease drastically in number or might be divided into splinter groups. A group might develop from a small family into a large clan or tribe in the course of a few centuries. A tribe might split into clans which joined different tribes, or it might retain its identity of name and tradition after being separated by considerable distances from its original habitat. Examples of such situations are found in vast numbers in Arab tribal history, and there are many illustrations in genealogies of tribes and clans in the Bible
--Albright [1990] Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (or via: amazon.co.uk), New York: Eisenbrauns, p. 82

But touching on your point anyway, there is no essential connection between the 40 years in the desert mentioned in the bible and the core history I'm arguing for behind the exodus. Your question is just a plain ole' irrelevant and failing attempt at caricature. And if Israel being the only name determined with a gentilic counts for anything significant, I would argue with some that this is evidence that they had no long-standing 'establishment' in Palestine. Their appearance in the archaeological record precisely in the central highlands where Merneptah puts them corroborates this.

'Hyskos' is a meaningless reply to me.

I'll leave it up to the reader to see whether I've provided evidence.

Uh...you'll have to be a little more specific than this...

OK, that's great and all, but I already stated that this has nothing to do with Moses or the exodus...in fact, that's the very point I made against you since you brought up the 'Ajrud inscriptions.

Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide what evidence I've brought to the table. That I've brought none is certainly an opinion you're entitled to, but my position is that this judgment of yours owes more to your misunderstandings and cynicism than it does to there being any basis behind it. If you'll remember, one user invoked the 'fantasy' of the exodus story as an argument against Moses's historicity. I was addressing that specific claim. So again you've entirely missed the boat.

Thank you; so here you admit there is a historical core behind the exodus tradition...which is what I've been arguing all along! (although you anticipated my point about the Hyskos) I now question what you mean by 'inherited', how you would date the literature I would say precedes the Assyrian crisis and on what grounds, and why Israel would incorporate this memory as part of its own tradition if it's not rooted in their own tribal history. Even if you date all bible literature assuming the exodus story to the 8th century BC forward, I would argue it's still presupposed as part of the tribal history. It doesn't appear as a new tradition to the Israelites.


Finis,
ELB

spin

This post was responded to as lacking in content. Perhaps you could elucidate the exact material you believe you have presented as historical?

You simply miss the point. All the items I refer to are contemporary with the people involved. They are not some undatable texts that cannot at least be related to the period.

Your comment about interpretation is again flimsy. Everything must be interpreted, so you are not saying anything meaningful by it.

To be correct, they are epigraphy. Your attempts to cloud the issue is noted.

I also provided materials that were not epigraphic: statues, coins and if you like, bodies. The mummy attributed to Ramses II bears a strong family resemblance to that attributed to be his father, Seti I.

Do you normally give equality to materials that you cannot date with those known to be from the relevant period??

Well, you could try... but you haven't done so.

That's probably because you haven't read any histories on the matter.

True, but of what period?? You are responsible for establishing its relevance to the period under analysis and it can't be that it supposedly talks about the period. Quo Vadis talks about the early christian period but it was written 19 centuries after the fact.

No, that is not the question. The question is whether they represent things that happened or not.

So you believe for example that there was a Davidic kingdom which stretched from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates or that the Philistines were already on the Levantine coast when the Israelites got there or that millions wandered in the desert for forty years. You are not thinking about what you are saying.

You should read a few critiques of Devious Dever. Instead, it would be better if you confronted some evidence for the exodus rather than referring off and passing the buck.

Not one of these points to an Israelite exodus.

It's a precise way of saying that you haven't got any position to argue from. You are not basing your arguments on historical evidence that you can relate to the relevant time. You are just doing text manipulation.

This is not a charitable institution. We are trying to deal with history. This puts constraints on us both. Plausibility is not a sufficient criterion for dealing with materials for history. It is a necessary criterion, so anything that is to be considered for history must be plausible. That said, it needn't have been said by you.

Rubbish. If a text cannot be related to the time it purports to deal with either through being epigraphy or showing that its sources have competent knowledge of the time, how can it be of any use?

Having seen the images firsthand (walls of temples), I can tell you that they are not discernably any specific Semitic group.

History has provided us with one group who had to hightail it out of Egypt with the pharaoh's army on their heels with the expulsion of the Hyksos. Occam says let's leave it that way.

And for some reason you think a discernable Hebrew existed in the 12th century and that there was a literate tradition to preserve it? It's hard enough to view the "Gezer calendar" of the 9th century as Hebrew.

Scratch the stupid "made up" option and let's look at your trivialization of inherited tradition. I did point out to you that traditions are inherited, citing some of the traditions inherited in the Arabian Nights. Is your alternative to propose another expulsion of Semitic foreigners from Egypt that the Egyprian didn't know anything about?

Too bad for at least it could be contemporary evidence.

But ok, I'll accept that you accept this conjecture.

Why do you quote the daddy of christian biblical archaeology (died 1971), whose efforts have quietly been swept under the rug when they are not dealing with hard data? He was big on opinions which were not disguised apologetic. Citing his opinion doesn't help any case you'd like to make.

Other than showing the arbitrary nature of your analysis. Oh, this bit's ok, but that's not retainable. Let's forget it. You can make claims about core history, but they fall apart with your epistemology.

I guess this is a periphrasis for "yes".

Nice try. The gentilic does show that they were a tribal group, but as Merneptah's reign was so short, this group had to have established itself in the area before his time for it to have been perceived as an entity -- and they were worth noting for Merneptah. Then again the archaeology shows no changes in population in the area through the period.

You are suffering from the cut of Occam's Razor. Hyksos supplies "[t]he best explanation for these data". Semitic group expelled from Egypt at about the right historically demonstrated time chased out by the Egyptians ending up in the Levant. OK, if you'd like to say that there were two such occurrences, you might like to do better on the evidence side. Undatable texts don't cut it.

I'm a reader and I can't find any.

See below.

I wasn't the one who went off on the tangent about Asherah: I just responded to your apologetic. (The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions show that there was an Samarian waystation in territory which was ostensibly supposed to be Judah, showing that it wasn't Judahite at the time. They also show that there was a Yahwism in the south (Teiman) that apparently had nothing to do with Judah which might have something to do with a Moses tradition at Midian.)

Again, you know what this reader thinks. Let's see if others are more inclined to your line of thought.

You've shown no reason to think this.

Or this.

Sadly you overachieved in your efforts for you didn't stick to that issue.

The good ole HeyPrestoChangeo! ploy. When you talk about a historical core to a tradition it needs to involve the people the tradition presents at its center. So, no, there doesn't seem to be a historical core at all. It's a tradition which doesn't seem to relate to the Israelites at all. The Hyksos spewed into the Levant around 1500 BCE and they had every opportunity to pass on a tradition to the populations that shared the land they came to live in.

We don't know when the Hebrew population raised its head out of its Canaanite background: clearly Hebrew is a more conservative Canaanite language than Phoenician, indicating a divergence from the Canaanite background later than the Phoenicians.

The passing along of traditions from one culture to another simply happens frequently. Can you explain how the Grail legends incorporate material from mysteric traditions of the Greco-Roman era? What about the Ugaritic literary tradition that lies behind the "fleeing serpent" of Isaiah 27:1? (I've already mentioned tropes moving from Mesopotamia and Greece into the Arabian Nights.)

It's hard to say the earliest the Hebrews could have seen themselves as a separate entity. We know that they were unaware of the arrival of the Philistines in the twelfth century, suggesting a later manifestation for the Hebrew identity. The Hyksos were in Canaan in the 15th c., so there is no problem for their traditions to become part of the undergrowth.


spin

bacht

There was a recent thread here about The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman. Their argument about pre-exilic Israel is based on archeology, specifically the lack of large settlements or large numbers of settlements in Judah between the 12th and 7th C bce.

The idea that the Pentateuch was created in the 7th C is not illogical, it fits the known facts quite well, including a relatively low rate of literacy in the southern kingdom. All the action politically and culturally was in the north, in Samaria, until their conquest by Assyria. As you say, the early Torah may have incorporated real tribal traditions, but it's not impossible that Judah was mostly tribal until the 8th C. (there's little evidence for a significant settlement in Jerusalem for example, hence the idea of a united monarchy under David and Solomon could be wild exaggeration if not complete fiction).

wavy_wonder1

This 'missing the point' exchange thing is getting tiresome, so I'll just go over what I'm getting at. You point out that examples of the sources you listed are contemporary with the people involved. Being contemporary with the alleged events isn't necessarily a proof of the events something attests to, although it makes a reasonably strong probabilistic case. I have no problem with that. The point is this is satisfying a presupposed theoretical condition in favor of historicity, viz. contemporariness. Now we're getting somewhere. Contemporariness is only one of many conditions. Sources don't have to be necessarily contemporary with the events they are describing to determine their reliability. (this obviously goes without saying to anyone with any education) Still, this is the point I was making about being 'interpreted', which I admit was little vague. But I did further clarify: 'They have to be evaluated as historical sources before they are used as historical evidence for events'

I believe the exodus traditions satisfy certain conditions that evince a historical reality standing behind the purpose of their composition. They are first of all examples of ancient historiography. Not only in the accounts in the Tetrateuch but independently in the Deuteronomistic history as well (I know of no one who disputes this particularly as a historical work) and in reminiscing snippets in poetry and the prophets. And I think this literature can be dated. For the early poetic pieces (e.g. Exo xv, Ps lxviii, etc.) I refer to the studies of Cross and Freedman, et al. These dates range from the 11th-9th centuries BC. For the early prophets, any standard study placing the earliest prophets (Amos, Hosea, First Isaiah, et al) in the 8th-7th centuries BC. For the prose literature I would agree with the user 'bacht' above me citing Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed acknowledging the growing consensus of dating the sources of the Pentateuch in the 9th-8th (Elohist, pp. 12, 39) and 7th centuries (Yahwist, pp. 22, 46) BC.¹ For the Deuteronomistic history I follow Cross's double redaction theory which is widely accepted.² So put simplistically 7th-6th centuries BC. We have a variety of independent sources from early to later dates. For many aspects of Deuteronomistic history we have plenty of archaeological evidence too authenticating events, places, etc., that prove these authors were working in several instances from earlier reliable, contemporary sources and supporting the Deuteronomistic history's general credibility, allowing for distortions of Judahite bias that are well-known. I feel no need to go over them. So we meet at least two criteria with this evidence: early sources, independent traditions. I don't see why this is not evidence.

I'm not interested in your loaded questions.

And you would know this how? What is the genre of the literature of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history relevant to the discussion? Is it pure mythology? Based on absolutely nothing? I'm certainly not as widely read on these matters as I'd like to be, but I can cite a number of reputable studies, among them the works of scholars like Halpern, for example.³ What is it that you're arguing exactly and what studies can you cite?

I'll continue later. It won't take me too long to get back to this and I'd appreciate your deference if you let me finish.


Finis,
ELB


¹ Dever also acknowledges this in [2003] Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from? (or via: amazon.co.uk) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 8: 'Nowadays, however, there is a tendency to see the Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch) as a more unified work, although dated somewhat later, toward the end of the Monarchy in the 8th or 7th century B.C. Part of the reason for lowering the date is that archaeologists have recently shown that literacy was not widespread in ancient Israel until the 8th century B.C. at the earliest.'

² [1973] 'The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History', Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk), Cambridge: HUP, pp. 274-89.

³ [1992] The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (or via: amazon.co.uk), PSP.

Celsus

:eating_popcorn::eating_popcorn: hi spun!

spin

Let's find other ways of saying it.

In an area where there are no historical foundations established, it is a necessary condition, though not sufficient, as you basically know.

I can't agree with this claim. What follows provides not a skerrick of evidence to support it.

As I have said m any times, history is not democratic. Collective opinions, no matter how many support them, are still only opinions.

Hasn't Cross been put down yet? Cross and Freedman are both ex-acolytes of Albright and I have seen nothing that Cross has ever written that is trustworthy. He fouled up analysis of the palaeography of the context of the Hyram inscription. He fouled up, probably irreparably, DSS palaeography, he subserviently mouthed the Essene rubbish about the DSS. He is as trustworthy as a bible basher.

If you have evidence provide it and save your breath with opinions that will not be appreciated.

Uh-huh. Dated how?? The earliest texts we have are from the DSS.

Dever, another, albeit late, Albright ex-acolyte, who in his old age has put on the cloak of defender of conservatism. We have no tangible evidence that any of the Hebrew bible was written before the arrival from Babylon. ("By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept...")

Opinions simply aren't evidence.

I know Finkelstein and Silberman are the darlings of the infidel, but I didn't see them offering any tangible evidence for their textual datings. They were just being less conservative than some with their opinions.

Yeah, I already knew what those opinions were.

Umm, pardon me, but did you say sources?

I'm sorry, I missed that. You have archaeological evidence for the reign of Solomon? Or Rehoboam? Or maybe Jehoshephat? or any of the line down to the father of Ahaz? Or even David? (Yes, yes, we've all seen the abuse of the Tel Dan Stela, which talks about the "house of the beloved" BYTDWD, which is strictly analogous in form with Beth Shamash, Beth-El and Beth-Anat, all town with temples.)

Just loaded opinions.

You ran my two comments together as though they continued, giving a inaccurate representation of the conversation.

The first, that you would argue this literature is history is the crux of your position. You simply haven't argued that it is.

Your no true Scotsman blather (" don't know any serious scholar") deserves what it gets. History is the issue and the opinions you serve up never get to the raw material. If you had read some histories on the matter, youmight be forthcoming with evidence.

These are some of the questions you should have been asking yourself, though be careful with the term "mythology" as it gets overused and tends to confuse much discussion. But let me ask you, "What is the genre of the literature of the Robin Hood tradition relevant to the discussion? Is it pure mythology? Based on absolutely nothing?"

I'm arguing that you have no evidence for your stated opinions making them of no direct relevance to any hoped for history and I've cited you.

I've argued that historical research is based on evidential foundations and the only relevant starting material are indications directly from the times involved. Unless you have them, it is extremely hard to build history using literary materials that cannot be founded on any solid evidence.

Consider a text such as the Travels of Sir John Mandeville, published in the late 14th century, a rather complex work, whose existence needs clarification, despite the fact that it knows trade routes and rulers of countries. Columbus, for example, trusted it as veracious, but modern scholars are not so happy with it. I'm sure there are people who are willing to jettison the unpalatable parts and claim that there is a historical core, but how would one know?

The historian's task is to start with what they know directly from the period and build from there using literary sources that reflect what has been established (and any other materials), not start with a text of unknown veracity and cut out the bits that don't seem kosher.

To me the people whose opinions you've been citing are not doing history. The task is no longer about plausibility, but what can actually be established. We must be cautious of interpretations of the past based on modern notions of plausibility. Painting the past as we see it is not the task of the historian.


spin

spin

Yo, Seltzer! :wave:

What are you letting me do this for? I woulda thought you'da whipped in and set us straight.


spin

Celsus

alas I'm thousands of miles away from my copies of Dever and no chance of getting my hands on Albright from here. Who the heck cites Albright except to laugh at him these days anyway?

I'm not sure I could argue for an exilic J and post-exilic D,P with no references though What was it Davies said about Judahite priests carrying donkeyloads of scrolls with them espousing separatist nationalism into Babylon and back? "Over Nebuchadrezza's dead body" or something? ok ok I might have made that up

spin

Gosh, you can answer that without the books.

Too bad.

You could always flog the parallel between the Hebrews going off to Canaan to meet all those naughty Canaanites and the returnees who go off to Judah to meet all those naughty am haaretz who missed out on the Babylonian experience. Both were galvanized as singular entities in foreign lands to come and take over their own.

I used a similar tack a decade ago: "alright you, you're off to exile." "Hang on a second -- let me grab a few dozen scrolls." (Slash, stab.) "And you, do you want to bring any scrolls, hmm?... Good. Off to exile."

The willing soul will not see the irony. It's so hard to convey. :wave:


spin

Doug Shaver

What mistake, or mistakes, do you think the revisionists are making? Please be as specific as you can.