Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-23-2002, 10:12 AM

I suspect that the Harper's article was inspired by a Passover sermon last year by a prominent Los Angeles Rabbi, based on Finkelstein's work.

From <a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-000021031mar23.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dreligion" target="_blank">the LA Times religion section</a>:

Quote:

Although Jews have debated the Torah's origins for 1,500 years, questions of its historicity exploded last Passover, when Wolpe told his congregants that most modern archeologists agreed that the Exodus did not occur precisely as described in the Bible. The bombshell sermon reverberated around the world, prompting more than 1,000 e-mails, letters and calls to Wolpe.

The impact of that single sermon lingers today. Among other things, Diamond said it opened the door for more rabbis to discuss the issue of the Bible's historicity with their congregants. Although most non-Orthodox rabbis are trained not to view the Bible as literal truth, Diamond said, they did not often present this to their congregants--mainly because, in his words, such sermons were often "duds."

...

"I believe in the inexhaustible spiritual richness of these stories and the God who inspired them," said Wolpe, who is Conservative. "But the insistence on their factuality is, at this point in history, just untenable."

And here's another interesting take on the matter, from that article:

Quote:

Reform Rabbi Steven Z. Leder of Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles told the 350 people gathered Wednesday at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino that he could not be a believing Jew if he thought that God had literally dictated the Torah. He said the Scripture contains too many exhortations he rejects: that people suffer because they sin, that homosexuals and rebellious children should be stoned, that slavery and concubinage are permissible.

"If you attribute all of this to God as opposed to human beings, I would feel shackled to a theology that I would reject," Leder said. He made a distinction between the Torah's supposed facts, some of which he doubts, and its truth, all of which he said he embraces.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-23-2002, 01:04 PM

Hey, I was raised in Encino.

boneyard bill · 03-24-2002, 03:59 PM

Spin writes:

Quote:

Stangely enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably mainline Jewish Temple religion before the siege of the temple by Pompey. If one actually reads them one finds the leaders are priests, the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron

That's an interesting point. The original (post-rediscovery) proprietors of the Scrolls kept their control so long that alternatives hypotheses are only now beginning to be developed. And it almost suggests that Christianity is closer to Temple Judaism than modern Judaism is. But I wonder if the scrolls represent merely a pre-Pompey theology or a pre-Maccabean theology. The Maccabees combined the priestly and political functions and this aroused some opposition from the priestly caste. Not that I'm claiming to know a great deal about this period, but that's the first thing that comes to my mind.

I also wonder how ancient the Pharisees' tradition is. It seems as if the Deuteronomic reforms of Josiah are at least in the spirit of the Pharisees, and the importance of the law and its spiritual power are matters of considerable discussion and debate in Paul and obviously go back at least to Rabbi Hillel.

The point of my post however, was that the Persian influence wouldn't give you the monotheism of the prophets or the later claimed monotheism of Sinai.

boneyard bill · 03-24-2002, 04:12 PM

Spin writes:

Quote:

Archaeology seems to suggest that monotheism did not arise during what is termed the first temple. At both Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud there are inscriptions to Yahweh mentioning his Asherah, a well-known goddess mentioned in Ugaritic texts and elsewhere along with the bible. So, in Judah the major evidence suggests that the Yahwistic religion was originally polytheistic.

I'm not disputing that the Sinai period, whatever that may actually mean, represents the origin of Jewish monotheism. The links presented on this site clearly show evidence of polytheism during the period of the first temple. What I am suggesting is that the Prophets and the reforms of Josiah suggest a movement toward monotheism, and that these pre-date the Babylonian captivity and that Persian monotheism is quite different from what we find in the monotheism of the Pharisees. I think we have a fairly good date for Josiah since he was killed in battle with the Egyptians.

boneyard bill · 03-24-2002, 04:29 PM

Spin writes:

Quote:

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

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? 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.

Quote:

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.

I don't know what dates you are referring to. I'm merely suggesting that Jewish monotheism had an independent origin prior to Babylon. 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.

boneyard bill · 03-24-2002, 04:56 PM

Reasonable Doubt writes:

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boneyard bill:
... this is stacking the deck. The argument isn't between archeologists and theologians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who made up that rule? The topic under discussion is "False Testament", not "Harsh Differences Arise Despite Similarities in the Dating of the Deuteronomistic History's account of the Israelite Monarchy".

I didn't make up any rule. The question at hand concerns the claims of the Harper's Magazine article. That article makes claims based upon assertions by archeologists. But links cited here tend to indicate that those archeologists do not represent a consensus or even a majority opinion among archeologists. So the question comes down to what the archeological and historical evidence seems to suggest. If the Harper's article is misleading then one doesn't need to posit a "rule" to point that out. Nor is one forced to defend the literal historicity of the Bible.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boneyard bill:
Neither archeologists nor Biblical historians approach the subject from the theological "truth" of the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me, but I believe that to be extremely naive

If you mean it is impossible for researchers to leave their personally beliefs out of the matter, I would agree. But it applies to theists, non-theists, and atheists alike. That's why these issues are debated publicly and in professional journals. But scholarly researchers, whatever their persuasion, recognize a need to explain the data and fit it into a coherent and believable theory.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boneyard bill:
But it hardly seems justified to claim that no such exodus occurred at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That depends entirely on what is meant by "exodus". Like Humpty Dumpty, we can always pay a word extra to mean whatever we want it to mean, but shifting from "Exodus" to "exodus" is, at best, 'shifty'. It is entirely justified to claim the "no such Exodus occurred at all".

I don't think it has anything to do with shiftiness or using exodus instead of Exodus. I used the small "e" because it's easier not to capitalize. The question is whether or not there is a historical incident behind the exodus (or Exodus). Only Biblical literalists will defend the literal claims made in Exodus (the book). Since even the Harper's article claims that semitic tribes moved in and out of the area, I see no reason to claim that a certain group, calling themselves Israelites, weren't among them.

[quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boneyard bill:
And thirdly, why should the united monarchy be discounted simply for lack of evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/QUOTE
Perhaps my point would have been more clear if I had said for the lack of archeological evidence. The Bible makes claims of a united monarchy under David and Solomon. The minimalists claim that such a monarchy never existed. I pointed out that, if this is the case, why is the fall of the Northern Kingdom such an issue? Why is it more significant that the fall of Tyre or the defeat of the Moabites or other semitic groups?

Quote:

Be that as it may, what are your views on "False Testament" and the work of Finkelstein/Silverman which no doubt inspired it?

I don't understand this question. I thought I gave my views on the subject in my original post. It doesn't appear to me to be plausible and certainly not as plausible as what appears to be the mainstream position. I don't claim any special expertise on this. I'm going mostly by the arguments presented in the various links posted here.

RyanS2 · 03-24-2002, 09:48 PM

Quote:

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?

That's worse than arguing from a negative evidence standpoint, that's arguing from a non-existent standpoint. Yes, it could be true that is what happened, however, archaeological evidence points that is probably not what happened.

The first point would be, "Where does Israel come from?" Though it first seems to have been from "Sarah" and "EL", which makes "God fights", the El Shaba tablets show it is from Ugaritic inscriptions at about 1300 - 1400 BCE. So, we know they were probably after this time-period. However, Ugaritic writing is done using a combination of cuneiform and alphabetic script, (which resembles Hebrew). This is probably because they were condenscing the cuneiform languages, and still in transition. Thus cuneiform was being weened out while alphabetic writings were coming into play. That means that Hebrew has a direct forerunner in Ugarit. In addition, Egypt was controlled Ugarit, adding to the idea that the Hyksos rewriting is a closer parallel to it. The job of history is not, "Which version do I like more?" it is, "Which version makes the pieces fit together based upon the evidence which is present?" That does not mean that the picture drawn which best fits the evidence is going to always be right, but it means it will be the best solution we have for the problem at the time. As new discoveries come in, (Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ugaritic tablets, the excavations in the Middle East, etc.), we will have more to work with, and a new picture will rise up. So, based on our evidence, do we believe that:

Small groups of people went into Egypt, who identified themselves as Israelites. They left Egypt, founded a nation, (or two of them rather).

Or:

A mass movement occured from Egypt to Canaan. The Hebrews were once Canaanites, driven out by expulsion. They worshipped the same Gods, the same architecture, same language, etc. The Hebrews became "self-aware", probably following contact with the Babylonians and the Persians. They then started rewriting their history to show contempt towards their former relatives, to show themselves to be the chosen people of the one God supreme, and that whatever happened to them was to the glory of God.

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. 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.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-25-2002, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
The question is whether or not there is a historical incident behind the exodus (or Exodus). Only Biblical literalists will defend the literal claims made in Exodus (the book).

No, it is not, at least not here. I have read not one single person, not one single source, that would suggest that the Exodus story is wholly devoid of historical underpinnings. What, then, is the question? As I've quoted elsewhere, Hershal Shanks writes:

Quote:

But not one of the speakers mentioned the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—or anything else in the Book of Genesis. Nothing about Moses, the enslavement in Egypt or the Exodus. Not a thing about the trek through the Sinai desert or the settlement in the Promised Land.

That, it seems obvious, is what the average person thinks of when you mention the "History of Ancient Israel." During the question period, none of the prominent scholars who asked questions and made comments noted this, what seemed to me strange, omission. The only exception was the Regius Professor of Old Testament at Oxford, Hugh Williamson. Dever had told his audience that "the Western tradition, the dominant cultural force that has driven the free world for centuries and will forge its destiny in the next millennium, derives essentially from the Biblical worldview. That tradition rests on the premise of history as purposeful and individual rights and responsibilities as the foundation of a moral and just society." How can Dever make this claim, Williamson wanted to know, if the Sinai event and all of Genesis were left out? Dever replied that it was a good question—but he had no answer. He could not explain how saving the Bible for its moral lessons and cultural tradition as an anchor of Western civilization could be important without this early and central part of the Biblical message.

Quote:

Originally posted by boneyard bill:
... semitic tribes moved in and out of the area, I see no reason to claim that a certain group, calling themselves Israelites, weren't among them.

Good grief! What does that mean?

With all due respect, have you read either the Finkelstein/Silberman book or the work of Egyptologist Redford?

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

lpetrich · 03-25-2002, 04:31 AM

Quote:

boneyard bill:
The question is whether or not there is a historical incident behind the exodus (or Exodus). Only Biblical literalists will defend the literal claims made in Exodus (the book).
ReasonableDoubt:
No, it is not, at least not here. I have read not one single person, not one single source, that would suggest that the Exodus story is wholly devoid of historical underpinnings.

What kind of historical underpinnings? The sort of historical underpinnings possessed by numerous works generally dismissed as mythology? Works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey. Does the existence of a city in the right place about 3000 years ago demonstrate that the rulers of the Universe took sides and were involved in a war involving that city?

Quote:

ReasonableDoubt quoting Hershal Shanks:
(omission of most of the Genesis-to-Conquest history)
That, it seems obvious, is what the average person thinks of when you mention the "History of Ancient Israel." During the question period, none of the prominent scholars who asked questions and made comments noted this, what seemed to me strange, omission.

I don't see how that is a big omission. Most of the "historical" parts of Greek mythology are set in Mycenaean times, but most archeologists working on that time and place ignore the question of the historicity of Achilles, Helen, Hector, Hercules, King Minos, Theseus, Jason, etc. There could have been historical people who have inspired several of these characters, but there is a whole lot of stuff added that is generally dismissed as mythological. Does anyone think that the historical Achilles, if there was one, had been dipped in the river Styx as a baby, and had been made nearly-invulnerable in the process?

Quote:

RD quoting HS:
The only exception was the Regius Professor of Old Testament at Oxford, Hugh Williamson. Dever had told his audience that "the Western tradition, the dominant cultural force that has driven the free world for centuries and will forge its destiny in the next millennium, derives essentially from the Biblical worldview. That tradition rests on the premise of history as purposeful and individual rights and responsibilities as the foundation of a moral and just society." How can Dever make this claim, Williamson wanted to know, if the Sinai event and all of Genesis were left out? Dever replied that it was a good question�but he had no answer. He could not explain how saving the Bible for its moral lessons and cultural tradition as an anchor of Western civilization could be important without this early and central part of the Biblical message.

That seems to me to be a fairy tale. There is much in the "Western tradition" that does not derive from the Bible, and that instead derives from ancient Greece and Rome. But we do not feel constrained by that to accept the literal historicity of the Iliad or the story of Romulus and Remus; and neither should we feel constrained to accept the literal historicity of the earlier parts of the Bible. Furthermore, much of "Western tradition" has taken a life of its own, independent of whatever historical sources it has had.

I don't see why human history has to be "purposeful", at least in the sense of having a purpose outside the purposes of its human participants. IMO, there is no positive evidence to believe that such purposes exist, and reasonable hypotheses which avoid such purposes. So why not adjust to that?

A generalized conception of individual rights and responsibilities is not very evident in the Bible, other than one having the responsibility to obey the law and obey one's superiors.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-25-2002, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
What kind of historical underpinnings?

Finkelstein/Silberman refer to Redford in this matter. Quoting Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times:

Quote:

Despite the lateness and unreliability of the story in Exodus, no one can deny that the tradition of Israel's coming out of Egypt was one of long standing. ... There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt.

[... and later ...] 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.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

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

03-23-2002, 01:04 PM	#62
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Hey, I was raised in Encino.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.