spin

<comment withdrawn>

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin

spin:
------------
The exodus is a dead letter historically. One can only live on hope of some miracle being unveiled, but they hope in vain.
------------

boneyard bill:
------------
A hope for what? To prove that the Exodus is literally true? Of course that would be extremely unlikely if not impossible. But was the Exodus based on some kind of historical fact?
------------

I have already pointed to a plausible fact, the Hyksos expulsion, which the Egyptians connected to the Jews in the post-exilic period.

boneyard bill:
------------
Since, even according to the Harper's article, it was common for semitic groups to enter the Land of Goshen and to leave; why should we conclude that a group calling themselves "Children of Israel" would not have been among them? Of course the story was embellished and probably confused over time. But there are elements that also seem to suggest an Egyptian connection. I think it was Shanks who noted the price of slaves, for example.
----------------

I have already talked of nomads coming and going, but naturally in insignificant numbers. This is the purpose of the forts that the Egyptians built along its borders to have control of who went in and out. You must face the Egyptian foreign policy from the time of Ahmose to Ramses III. They were xenophobic because of their Hyksos experience. You cannot hope to have them allow the same thing to happen again, when they were had the strength, they were prepared to deal with incursions, and they had the experience of dealing with them. You can see that the Egyptians effectively stopped the Philistines and their associates at the doors of Egypt.

You need to put what you are talking about in some historical context before it can start to have much meaning. When are you referring to.


spin:
------------------------------
Exodus 1 talks of two cities, Raamses and Pithom. The first was Pi-Ramses which has been uncovered and it dates (naturally enough) from the time of Ramses II, so that provides a first limit to the exodus story as told in the bible. There is a further limit, however: Pithom is a town called Pi-Atum, which also has been uncovered and dates to the time of Necho II (See Reford EC&I, p.458). This drastically moves the limit closer to us, down to after 610 BCE when Necho II came to the throne. So, we at least have a writing down of the story after 610 BCE.

Boneyard Bill's dates are highly suspect.
--------------

boneyard bill:
--------------
I don't know what dates you are referring to.
--------------

Your use of Josiah.

The exodus account could not have been written before 610 BCE and was probably written substantially after that date. Josiah was long dead.

boneyard bill:
------------
I'm merely suggesting that Jewish monotheism had an independent origin prior to Babylon.
------------

This also is dating that is unsupported and extremely unlikely.

boneyard bill:
------------
This reference would only be relevant to the redaction of OT scriptures which, it is generally agreed during the exile or shortly after. This would have been the culmination of the process, not the beginning of it.
------------

You cannot assume this. If you would like to argue it, please do, otherwise you seem tohave nothing up your sleave.

I have provided a context for the writing of the exodus story, a probable reason for why it was written.

Josiah may be a different kettle of fish because he did exist. However, the Josiah of Kings seems to do things that John Hyrcanus the Hasmonean king does, which is either coincidental, or that Josiah was written up as a precursor to John Hyrcanus.

While there is a reason for the temple priesthood to develop and maintain texts like the pentateuch and the prophets, who would benefit from the production and maintenance of texts like Samuel and Kings which deal with the rise of a royal house and its maintenance of control for several centuries?

Obviously the Hasmoneans. (However, at least Kings has as many references to the past as the writers could find, including Josiah and Hezekiah, though some of these kings have the appearance of text fillers, for there were standard formulas that the writers adhered to and with minimal information one could provide a new king easily.)

spin

Ryan2:
--------------
It's impossible to a priori discount that perhaps small groups of people calling themselves the Israelites were the original "Exodus" story, however, the evidence which is presented from various finds seems to collaborate the Hyksos rewriting moreso than the small groups of unknowns.
--------------

Well, yes and no. I think I can establish that there were no records kept by the Jewish people as far back as the time attributed to the exodus. In fact the evidence suggests that the accounts were written quite late -- as I hopefully indicated in earlier messages here. While no-one can "a priori discount that perhaps small groups of people calling themselves the Israelites were the original "Exodus" story", one can probably say that there is little hope for the Jews to have maintained the record, as they were not able to maintain historical records about the Philistines or the Hittites. If they couldn't maintain such records we can discount the stories a posteriori.

Ryan2:
--------------
Of course, there is a theory out there called the "Peasant revolt" theory which works along the lines of the original Hebrews being Canaanites who revolted under the leadership of Joshua, (these were peasants), because they were being taxed too heavily by overlords.
--------------

If there is no distinction between Canaanites and Hebrews at the earliest stages we have indications for then the artificial distinction here also has no support and is thus not useful.

The archaeological record merely shows the emergence of a village culture with movement from nomadic life to sedentary life (if I remember Finkelstein et al. correctly).

Let's deal with the archaeological evidence, given that it was an enormous attempt by Christians to find tangible support for their religion. It has been a massive failure and the few gains by archaeology in the field have been overshadowed by the vast amount of real history which has been uncovered reflecting a different story from the biblical accounts. The early archaeology involved wanton distruction of sites with the sole purpose of finding religious data and still they failed. The cost of this failure was enormous for themselves, but also for us, as so much was destroyed. Israel is probably one of the most heavily archaeologically researched areas in the world, perhaps the most. And that was supported mostly by religious money for religious aims, run by religionists who interpreted all the data through religious eyes.

How about if we look at the data afresh? And produce theories which come from the data, not from one's a priori positions?

spin

ReasonableDoubt citing Finkelstein/Silberman:
---------------------------------------------
It is ironic that the Sojourn and the Exodus themes, native in origin to the folklore memory of the Canaanite enclaves of the southern Levant, should have lived on not in that tradition but among two groups that had no involvement in the historic events at all -- the Greeks and the Hebrews. In the case of he latter, the Exodus was part and parcel of an array of origin stories to which the Hebrews fell heir upon their settlement of the land, and which, lacking traditions of their own, they appropriated from the earlier culture they were copying.
---------------------------------------------

I think they're going in the right direction, but have their timing wrong. The people who made the connection between the Hyksos and the Jews were the Egyptians in the post-exilic period. This is supported by the late date of the construction of Pi-Atum mentioned in Exodus 1. It is also supported by the very little reference to Moses in the prophets.

Jayhawker Soule

Sorry, but you've totally lost me. BTW, note that it is Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times being cited, not Finkelstein/Silberman. In what way do you disagree with Redford's evaluation?

boneyard bill

Posted by Spin:

Then what are we disagreeing about? It was the Harper's article that claimed that the exodus was non-existent. I agree that the exodus could have been a reference to the expulsion of the Hyksos, but I don't think it even needs to be that. It could have been a much less significant affair that occurred while the Hyksos were still in power.

As I just noted, the exodus could have occurred while the Hyksos were still in power. Since it is presumably based on folk memory, the dates would be impossible to pin down. But we do know that semitic tribes entered and left Egypt with some frequency. And we know that they tended to settle in the Land of Goshen. So the fact that some elements of the exodus story are obviously contrived doesn't prove that the whole story was contrived. There are some details that seem to be accurate.

But this only means that the final version or versions that found their way into the official literature were written or redacted after 610 BCE. I'm assuming that the standard view is that the Torah was redacted in the 6th Century, either in Babylon or in Palestine shortly after the end of the exile.

Josiah could have had an earlier version. My understanding is that the standard view is that he is believed to have been presented with the Book of Deuteronomy and that was the basis for his reforms. Perhaps my understanding of this is out of date. Perhaps Josiah was not a religious reformer. But why should he be presented as such if he were not? Would Hyrcanus and his followers choose Josiah as the reformer when shortly after this Judea was beaten and the Jews were taken into captivity? Surely Ezra or Nehemiah or even Jeremiah would have been better choices. Perhaps Josiah wasn't a reformer, but I don't see why that Biblical claim should be discarded without evidence.

I also pointed out that the prophets were also active at this time, and if they weren't preaching an outright monotheism; they were at least very close to it.

But what evidence is there that they did, in fact, do this? If one assumes that the OT is largely a fabrication to begin with, then I suppose you might come up with a theory of this kind. But isn't that assuming what you're setting out to prove?

You seem to be assigning a late date to the redaction and claiming that the Hasmoneons sponsored it, I assume, to justify combining the powers of the kingship and the monarchy. So the whole thing as a propaganda ploy by the Hasmoneans. But what is the evidence for this? I suppose it's plausible. But it also sounds very speculative to me. I understand that most scholars date the redaction to the 6th century. I don't know the basis for that so I don't know the weakness in that theory either. Then again, the redaction referred to the Torah. Samuel and Kings could have been subject to a later redaction. But what evidence do we have that the claim that Josiah was a religious reformer was invented?

This is why the mainstream archeologists seem to have the better take as far as I can see. I don't see where the minimalists are engaging in anything but speculation. But those speculations create their own problems, as has been noted.

spin

bb:
------------
A hope for what? To prove that the Exodus is literally true? Of course that would be extremely unlikely if not impossible. But was the Exodus based on some kind of historical fact?
------------

spin:
------------
I have already pointed to a plausible fact, the Hyksos expulsion, which the Egyptians connected to the Jews in the post-exilic period.
------------

bb:
------------
Then what are we disagreeing about? It was the Harper's article that claimed that the exodus was non-existent. I agree that the exodus could have been a reference to the expulsion of the Hyksos, but I don't think it even needs to be that. It could have been a much less significant affair that occurred while the Hyksos were still in power.
------------

1) There are close analogies between the literary event and the historical event.

2) The connection was specifically made by the Egyptians in post-exilic times.

The exodus story may not have been based on the Hyksos expulsion, but the odds seem relatively good to me.

bb:
------------
the exodus could have occurred while the Hyksos were still in power.
------------

There is nothing that points to this.

bb:
------------
Since it is presumably based on folk memory,

There is nothing that points to this.

bb:
------------
the dates would be impossible to pin down. But we do know that semitic tribes entered and left Egypt with some frequency.
------------

"Tribes" is exaggerating.

bb:
------------
And we know that they tended to settle in the Land of Goshen.
------------

No we don't.

bb:
------------
So the fact that some elements of the exodus story are obviously contrived doesn't prove that the whole story was contrived. There are some details that seem to be accurate.
------------

Which? and on what grounds? The logic above -- which I don't accept?

boneyard bill:
--------------
I don't know what dates you are referring to.
--------------

spin:
--------------
Your use of Josiah.

The exodus account could not have been written before 610 BCE and was probably written substantially after that date. Josiah was long dead.
--------------

bb:
--------------
But this only means that the final version or versions that found their way into the official literature were written or redacted after 610 BCE.
--------------

I know nothing about any earlier versions of the text. Do you? I think this is baseless conjecture. THe earliest copies of the texts were found at Qumran.

bb:
--------------
I'm assuming that the standard view is that the Torah was redacted in the 6th Century, either in Babylon or in Palestine shortly after the end of the exile.
--------------

You can't assume such a thing. You start with what is given and that is the dating from the Qumran exemplars and then you start working. The opinions of tendentious religionists are only opinions.

bb:
--------------
Josiah could have had an earlier version.
--------------

I'm not advocating that any texts were written in Josiah's time.

bb:
--------------
My understanding is that the standard view is that he is believed to have been presented with the Book of Deuteronomy and that was the basis for his reforms. Perhaps my understanding of this is out of date.
--------------

Standard views equate to standard opinions. If you want to talk about data then fine. If you don't you are probably not saying anything.

bb:
--------------
Perhaps Josiah was not a religious reformer. But why should he be presented as such if he were not? Would Hyrcanus and his followers choose Josiah as the reformer when shortly after this Judea was beaten and the Jews were taken into captivity?
--------------

The Hasmoneans needed some traditions to look back to and some support for their policies.

bb:
--------------
Surely Ezra or Nehemiah or even Jeremiah would have been better choices.
--------------

Well, if Ezra did not exist and the figure was not a king, he would be poor material. I don't think Ezra existed. The book we have now is newer than Josephus, based on a text that was hacked up probably by the Pharisees (1 Esdras). But nobody knew of Ezra until Josephus mentions him.

Nehemiah is a different story. A little of this figure was known to Ben Sira and to 2 Maccabees. However, not being a royal figure what would be the point of reaching back to him?

bb:
--------------
Perhaps Josiah wasn't a reformer, but I don't see why that Biblical claim should be discarded without evidence.
--------------

One doesn't start out simply accepting claims that cannot be demonstrated. The modern historical approach would shelve the idea until further data came along or see if one could do without it completely in an effort to test its relevance.

bb:
--------------
I also pointed out that the prophets were also active at this time, and if they weren't preaching an outright monotheism; they were at least very close to it.
--------------

It is very hard to date the prophets. For example, we have references in Isaiah ostensibly to Hezekiah, then to Cyrus, then apparently to the Oniad temple in Heliopolis. That makes for one mixed up book whose dating simply cannot be derived from internal indications. It may be a reflection of the composite nature of all the literary prophets.

spin:
--------------
While there is a reason for the temple priesthood to develop and maintain texts like the pentateuch and the prophets, who would benefit from the production and maintenance of texts like Samuel and Kings which deal with the rise of a royal house and its maintenance of control for several centuries?
Obviously the Hasmoneans. (However, at least Kings has as many references to the past as the writers could find, including Josiah and Hezekiah, though some of these kings have the appearance of text fillers, for there were standard formulas that the writers adhered to and with minimal information one could provide a new king easily.)
--------------

bb:
--------------
But what evidence is there that they did, in fact, do this?
--------------

My problem is that none of these kings have any historical confirmation. If I can do away with them and not change anything about history as we know it, why not?

bb:
--------------
If one assumes that the OT is largely a fabrication to begin with, then I suppose you might come up with a theory of this kind. But isn't that assuming what you're setting out to prove?
--------------

We are dealing with texts at present datable to the first or second centuries BCE -- the oldest examples we have. If one cannot relate them directly to historical events, then what value is there dealing with them at all as history? Obviously, we cannot. If you want to know why Judah as a state didn't appear in historical texts until the time of Sennacherib, and that Israel seemed to have control of the Shephelah in the 9th century and Arad seemed to have been an independent kingdom on Judah territory, one needs to deal with the historical implications that there is no evidence to support a Judah kingdom at least down to the time of Hezekiah, whose father has been reported on an artifact from the period. There seems little hope of reclaiming a Judah kingdom, which existed from the hypothetical time of the end of the "united kingdom" of David and Solomon. If this is the case, and much of the archaeology points to there not being such a kingdom of Judah until the time of Hezekiah, let's just work with the notion that it didn't exist and that the biblical material isn't particularly historical at its core.

bb:
--------------
You seem to be assigning a late date to the redaction and claiming that the Hasmoneons sponsored it,
--------------

For the book of Kings. Chronicles, I'd advocate was a Pharisaic or rabbinical compilation. Some psalms were also written in the second century BCE. I don't know about others. The pentateuchal books generally admit to a priestly control of the religion so were probably written after the exile in the "theocratic" city state of Jerusalem.

bb:
--------------
I assume, to justify combining the powers of the kingship and the monarchy. So the whole thing as a propaganda ploy by the Hasmoneans. But what is the evidence for this? I suppose it's plausible. But it also sounds very speculative to me.
--------------

Why would priests seriously want to maintain royal stories? Maintain records of a system that undermines the theocratic state?

bb:
--------------
I understand that most scholars date the redaction to the 6th century. I don't know the basis for that so I don't know the weakness in that theory either.
--------------

It is a salvage operation. Maintain the earliest date they can. It is not based on history but what couldn't be shown by detractors, ie that the works were not prior to some date. I work the other way around. We have texts dated to Qumran times and how do we get them earlier?

bb:
--------------
Then again, the redaction referred to the Torah. Samuel and Kings could have been subject to a later redaction.
--------------

If you believe the people who talk of the Deuteronomical history (or other such names) we are dealing with a text which also includes Kings and Samuel.

bb:
--------------
But what evidence do we have that the claim that Josiah was a religious reformer was invented?
--------------

The things that he was supposed to be reforming against weren't dealt with, if John Hyrcanus was doing the same thing. The hypothetical destruction of the cults by Josiah wasn't very successful if they continued unabated.

bb:
--------------
This is why the mainstream archeologists seem to have the better take as far as I can see. I don't see where the minimalists are engaging in anything but speculation. But those speculations create their own problems, as has been noted.
--------------

The mainstream archaeologist? Are you referring to infamous "biblical archaeologists"? Dever et al.? While the minimalist is looking hard at archaeology, the -- for want of better words -- maximalist is engaged in polemic against them for doing so. Biblical archaeology is a massive failure. It was never archaeology and they didn't prove the bible which was more or less the consistently stated aim. You know, to unveil our lord's heritage.

I have seen no problems in looking at the physical and epigraphic data. I don't think that you have. You have it seems only used the "maximalist"'s demagoguery against the "minimalists" uncritically.

Sojourner553

To Spin:

Is there a book out there that puts forth your views that you'd recommend?

Sojourner

spin

Sorry, Sojourner, I don't know of a single book to deal with this stuff. Much I have gleaned or developed myself. But some books might be useful:

Redford, Donald "Egypt, Canaan and Israel", Princeton U.P. , 1992.

Davies, Philip, "In Search of Ancient Israel", Sheffield, 1992.

(Dever attempts to hack up the Davies book in a BASOR review. It's worth reading after reading Davies to see how Dever thinks.)

Thompson, T.L., "The Mythic Past", Basic Books, 1999.

Garbini, Giovanni, "History and Ideology in Ancient Israel", London, 1988.

If you have any more specific questions, I may be able to help, or at least supply a lead.

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks for the list. A couple of things:

• The list shows a healthy respect for the 'minimalists'. At the same time, I note that you did not include the Finkelstein/Silberman work. I'd be interested in your review of that work.
• Your list starts with Redford, yet you seemed to have some issue with his perspective (as noted at the bottom this thread's page 3). Is this a difference in assessment between you and Redford or the result of new archaeological data?
• Could you suggest additional sources from the ranks of Egyptology?

Once again, thanks for the input.