Over the next few weeks, I am going to write an extended book analysis of A Biblical History of Israel by Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman. I’ve used this book in my Biblical History course for the past few years and I feel that it gives a challenging and fascinating overview of the question of Old Testament history. The trend in Biblical Studies over the past few decades has been to dismiss more and more of Old Testament history as nothing more than imaginative fictions written by later writers. Perhaps you’ve taken an Old Testament course where, at the risk of being too oversimplistic, the course ended up being a daily dose of, “Well, we know this didn’t happen; and this…no, didn’t happen…neither did this. Here, read this article about Genesis that doesn’t really address Genesis, but really just shows how source critics have divided it up into hypothetical sources.”
I’ve read books like that, and at the very least, they are wholly boring and frustrating to read for the simple reason that they really aren’t addressing the Old Testament, but are rather putting forth the latest scholarly trend that is en vogue that, if you look just below the surface, really isn’t much more than assertions and speculations based on a number of unfounded presuppositions of what really must have happened (because, despite what the Old Testament texts say, we just know that they aren’t reliable history at all).
That’s why I love Provan’s book. Instead of mindlessly repeating the same drivel, he actually challenges many of the prevailing assumptions of minimalist scholarship that assert the Old Testament is more imaginative fiction than it is history. At the same time, though, Provan isn’t what we can call a maximalist scholar who argues that everything in the Old Testament is a virtual modern newspaper account that is giving “just the facts, ma’am,” and that it all literally happened exactly the way the Old Testament ways. If you want to be a competent Old Testament reader, you want to avoid both the minimalist and maximalist extremes.
In a nutshell, Provan argues that the Old Testament is, indeed, relating real historical events, but that the Old Testament historical books have been shaped with literary creativity in ways that would have been understood and accept in the ancient world. Therefore, to truly understand the Old Testament, one has to wrestle with the very real historical and archeological questions involved, but also to become intelligent and competent readers of literature. And, if I may put it this way, most of the minimalist scholars simply don’t know how to read.
Provan’s book has twelve chapters, as well as a pretty spicy appendix in which he addresses the criticisms of those minimalist scholars to the first edition of his book. The first five chapters address the more fundamental questions pertaining to how we know anything about the past. Then, starting in chapter 6, Provan works his way through the actual Old Testament books, beginning with the Patriarchs and ending with the return from exile. I am going to do the best I can to devote one post per chapter. So, let’s jump right in.
The Death of Biblical History? (The Claims of Whitelam, Soggins, Miller and Hayes)
The first chapter, “The Death of Biblical History?” focuses on the claims of many of the minimalist scholars who claim that some, much, or most of the supposed historical texts of the Old Testament aren’t, in fact, historical at all, but rather literary creations that push specific ideological and biases agendas of a later time. Provan makes the argument that the reasons and rationale of such scholars is highly questionable and deeply flawed.
He begins by looking at the conclusion of Keith Whitelam regarding the idea of “biblical history.” In a nutshell, Whitelam says there’s no such thing. He thinks the biblical texts were produced by the “elites” of later Jewish society and that they are nothing more than invented history that have silenced the “real Palestinian history.” Thus, “Ancient Israel” is imaginary and the “people of Israel” in the Old Testament are a literary fiction. Since they show signs of literary creativity, and since they are biased and have an agenda, the biblical texts cannot be trusted to provide real history, in fact they are little more than propaganda and invented history. Archeology is the only objective trump card that can determine what really happened. That is why Whitelam confidently declares the “death of biblical history.”
The problem with such a declaration, as Provan points out, is that Whitelam himself acknowledges that archeology provides us with only incomplete information, and that the interpretation of that incomplete information is partially influenced by the political and theological assumptions of certain scholars. Indeed, as Provan states, “The historian is always faced with partial texts—however extensively archeological work might have been carried out—and the ideology of the investigation itself influences archeology” (8).
Translation? Archeology doesn’t give either complete or objective evidence the conclusively tells us what really happened. Yes, of course it is evidence, but not only is it incomplete evidence, it is interpreted by human beings who inevitably have their own biases and assumptions. Therefore, Whitelam’s claim that archeology is objective evidence, but the biblical texts are subjective, biased fictions (and therefore, not evidence) is, in and of itself, a subjective and biased claim that is rooted in no real evidence.
The real question, as Provan points out, boils down to what counts as evidence in the first place? Whitelam automatically dismisses the biblical texts as evidence at all because they have been literarily shaped and convey a certain point of view/ideology. Is that dismissal valid? If a text is creatively crafted together and is trying to make a point, does that automatically mean it cannot be conveying history? Does that mean it is all just “fiction”? That would make as much sense as if someone said, “The movie Patton was creatively put together and appealed to American patriotism, therefore it isn’t historical at all. It’s all fiction and WWII never happened.”
Therefore, unlike Whitelam, Provan argues that the historian has to take into consideration the full scope of the evidence, both archeological and textual, and not toss out some of it a priori. At root, this is the problem with Whitelam’s position. He refuses to consider all the evidence available to us. Instead, he automatically dismisses some of it as not being evidence, but that dismissal comes from his own presuppositions and biases. In short, it is he, ironically, who is more driven by agendas and ideologies, and less by a desire to consider all the evidence to get a fuller picture of history.
Thus, Provan shows that Whitelam’s decision to discount the entirety of biblical history as just ideological fiction is completely arbitrary. Other scholars who don’t go as far as Whitelam, nevertheless draw arbitrary lines in biblical history that separate “real history” from “legend” or “folklore.”
First, Provan discusses J. Alberto Soggin’s claim that everything from the Patriarchs to King Saul is pretty much fiction, and that actual history begins with King David. His reasoning? That there are “negative elements” in the David story that indicate real history, whereas everything before that essentially a “romanticized glorification of the past.” Well, anyone who has read the accounts from the Patriarchs to King Saul will easily find plenty of “negative elements”—a “romanticized glorification of the past” it most certainly is not. Furthermore, the literary style isn’t really particularly different. Therefore, it seems Soggin has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. As Provan says, “The truth is that Soggin’s choice of starting point for the writing of Israel’s history is quite arbitrary. It is not a matter of reason; it is simply a matter of choice, buttressed by assertions about the ‘naivete’ of people who think otherwise” (14).
Then there are the scholars J.M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, who say that “history” begins with the time of the Judges, and that everything from the Patriarchs to the Conquest isn’t real history. Their reasons are that there isn’t as much an emphasis on the miraculous beginning in Judges, that beginning in Judges the Iron Age sociocultural conditions are more easily seen, and that it just gives more of a believable background to the rise of the monarchy. Of course, as Provan argues, they don’t really explain why Judges provides a “believable background,” whereas Genesis-Joshua doesn’t. And let’s not forget there are “miraculous” events in Judges-II Kings as well. So again, the line they make between “history” and “folklore” is quite arbitrary.
Enlightenment Presuppositions
All of these scholars, Provan argues, display an extreme form of historical skepticism whose roots are to be found in the Enlightenment. Up until the 18th century, history was understood to be, in the words of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, “…philosophy teaching by examples” (20). Yes, history was conveyed, but the purpose of the writing of it wasn’t to provide some kind of “objective account.” It was understood that the writer was trying to convey lessons and employ creativity in his account of history.
But with the Enlightenment came “the overall shift in the modern age from philosophy to science as the foundational method for human endeavor” (19). Thus, the Enlightenment narrative was that through science and reason, human beings are ever progressing to a better society. Thus, anything before the Enlightenment was considered “unscientific,” “unreasonable,” and tainted by bias and superstition. Therefore, all history-telling before that was suspect, on the grounds it was religiously-tainted and biased. The only way to get around those biased claims of history, Enlightenment thinkers proclaimed, was…science! Just as science could unlock mysteries in the natural world, it could also “get behind the curtain” of the religiously-biased telling of history, and thus unlock “what really happened.”
Ever since then, when it comes to the topic of biblical history, the de facto assumption of many scholars has been that the biblical texts are like giant black curtains that conceal real history and that the only way to get “behind the curtains” was by means of science and the scientific method which, they claim, is the “objective” way to do history. Thus, as Provan points out, “the aim of historians in general became to reconstruct past history ‘as it had actually happened,’ over against traditional claims about what had happened. History and tradition were no longer assumed to be closely related to each other. Rather, history was assumed to lie behind tradition, and to be more or less distorted by it” (24).
Translation? “The people who wrote this were biased. We won’t believe them at all. Through science, we can look behind their smokescreen and reconstruct what really happened.”
Of course, not only is such an attitude of extreme skepticism never used when it comes to other ancient historical texts, and not only is such an attitude fraught with its own inherent biases, but when it comes down to it, as Provan points out, the scholars who hold to this attitude can never seem to agree among themselves where the “fiction begins” and the “real history” begins in the Old Testament. Ironically, their claims of “scientific objectivity” have yielded countless conflicting, subjective conclusions, where each scholar seems to reconstruct the past in his own image of presuppositions and biases.
Given this fact, Provan points out that if you simply throw out the historical testimony we have, then you really don’t have anything. All you’re left with is the arbitrary choices and biases of any particular scholar. Therefore, tradition and testimony shouldn’t be dismissed a priori. To do so is, in and of itself, rather uncritical.
Conclusion
Given the obvious subjectivity and biases of the minimalist scholars who claim to be using science and objectivity, Provan ends Chapter 1 by laying out a number of issues that any historian needs to seriously wrestle with when it comes to assessing Old Testament history:
- What conclusions should be drawn from the fact that our biblical traditions are (a) artistically constructed, (b) ideologically shaped, and (c) written long after the events they describe?
- What role should extrabiblical data, including archeological data, play in the reconstruction of the history of Israel?
- How should the relationship between biblical and extrabiblical data be regarded?
- What role does or should the ideology of the historian play in such reconstruction, and what should be the relationship between ideology and evidence?
- Is historiography a science or an art?
Before one even attempts to come to any conclusions about biblical history, one needs to take all these issues seriously. In my next post, I will look at Chapter 2 in A Biblical History of Israel, in which Provan discusses the concepts of knowing, believing, and faith in the past.
As this is merely an introduction and doesn’t really tell the reader anything about how Provan arrives at his view it is probably best to reserve judgment until you get into the meat of the book.
Without any necessity to go into detail does Provan at least present archaeological evidence to support his overall view? (regarding Exodus for example?)
Yes, he addresses archeology.
This sounds like a book I need to get.
I haven’t read as much OT scholarship as I have NT, however it sounds as if much “critical” OT scholarship is like much of “critical” NT scholarship.
When so–called “critical” NT scholars like Dom Crossan, Robert Funk, Bart Ehrman, etc. finally pulled back the black curtain behind the texts, who did they discover? Themselves.
Pax.
Lee.
I often come back to a post and this sentence you wrote stuck out …
Archaeologists of all persuasions, from Albright to Finkelstein, have combed and excavated many areas/sites mentioned in the bible, including such well known sites as Kadesh Barnea, and yet, to date they have found nothing to validate a single Exodus claim.
Therefore, what specific subjectivity and biases are you referring to that these minimalists adhere to?
As I state in the post. Claims like that the real history begins with David because the texts convey negative elements about David–that is a sign of “real history” and not invented ideology. But that is quite subjective and contradictory too boot, for there are plenty of “negative elements” throughout the Patriarchal narratives all the way up to the Saul narratives.
Plus, there is the glaring bias that says written texts that are creatively-shaped and show any ideological bias are to be discarded as not being able to convey history. That is simply and provably false. And there is the bias that says archeology is “objective.” No, it isn’t. It is the unearthing of fragments and partial ruins. The scholar or archeologist who dismisses the biblical account entirely and then weaves his own narrative as to “what really happened” is, in fact, doing the very thing he accuses his rejected biblical writers of doing.
Surely if the texts were historically accurate then archaeology would support them?
Albright in particular was determined to prove that archaeology fully supported the biblical texts and yet he failed in his quest to do this.
William Dever who came from a devout Christian background was often at loggerheads with minimalists and Finkelstein in particular, but even his view shifted before his retirement.
Kenyan’s findings at Jericho have never been successfully refuted. In fact, carbon dating and even more up to date methods have merely reinforced what she uncovered.
It isn’t that the evidence could be construed as being ambiguous, there simply is no evidence to support the Exodus tale.
Therefore, as there is no evidence of any exodus as described, and what evidence there is suggests of an internal settlement, how are the texts supposed to be interpreted in light of this evidence?
Plus, people tend to assume that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
What they forget is that archaeological evidence is only one kind of historical evidence. Due to the vagaries of history, for some historical periods there is much more written evidence which has survived than archaeological evidence. On the other hand, for some periods such as Dark Ages Europe (ca. 410-1000 AD) there is much more archaeological evidence than written evidence (hence the name “Dark Ages”)..
Besides which, before they get too cocky, people should remember the example of the City of Troy. Skeptical scholars took for granted that Troy was just a fiction of the poet Homer’s imagination. And then Heinrich Schliemann found it in 1871 right where Homer said it would be..
We’d be wise not to exercise what medieval and renaissance literary scholar CS Lewis referred to as “intellectual snobbery,” that we’re smarter than our ancestors and that if we can’t *prove* something happened or existed, then it *must* be fiction.
Pax.
Lee.
Oh, I am in full agreement that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Troy is a good example.
However, the bible is quite specific regarding certain details and as I am sure you are familiar with the text, Kadesh Barnea is one such, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the exodus tale as described holds any veracity.
It is details like this ( and others) that has led to the overwhelming consensus among scholars and archaeologists alike that settlement was by and large internal and relatively uneventful, certainly there were no genocidal campaigns as described in the bible!
ARK: “It is details like this ( and others) that has led to the overwhelming consensus among scholars and archaeologists alike that settlement was by and large internal and relatively uneventful, certainly there were no genocidal campaigns as described in the bible!”
LEE: I think you’re painting with too broad a brush here. The nay-sayers get all the publicity, so the public mistakenly thinks their opinions represent the majority of scholarly opinion.
And the reason man scholars are so skeptical is because it’s the Bible. If it were Mohammed and the Quran you wouldn’t (and don’t generally) see nearly the same level of skeptcism, although many scholars of Islam question the Prophet’s historical existence, but you never hear about them.
Plus, as Prof. Philip Jenkins says in his book *Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way,*about Jesus scholarship: “Despite its dubious sources and controversial methods, the new Jesus scholarship of the 1980s and 1990s gained such a following because it told a lay audience what it wanted to hear.” The same goes for OT studies.
Nobody would want to watch a THC documentary which supports the major historical claims of the OT because there’s nothing controversial in that, and controversy sells, as we all learned from all the nonsense regarding *The Da Vinci Code* fifteen years ago. THC aired one conspiracy-theory documentary after another on the Templars, the Freemasons and all the other ridiculous stuff in the novel–until professional scholars from a wide variety of academic disciplines panned it as total rubbish, and THC could no longer seriously endorse it. So they switched the tone of their documentaries. But even then, while 90% of a THC documentary would debunk the novel’s claims, they would close by saying something like, “So the novel’s claims are probably false. But what if they’re not?”
The Bible gets subjected to an unfair/unprofessional level of academic skepticism, unlike any other collection of historical texts in the world, because of the modern paranoia regarding any supernatural claims, esp. with regards to Christianity.
ARK: “However, the bible is quite specific regarding certain details and as I am sure you are familiar with the text, Kadesh Barnea is one such, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the exodus tale as described holds any veracity.”
LEE: For a long time skeptical scholars insisted that King David was nothing but a myth, and then they discovered, what, a stele with an inscription to him.
Pax.
Lee.
Again, the consensus is that the Exodus as described in the bible simply did not happen.
This consensus is based on the evidence which tells a completely different/ alternate history.
So, before this thread also goes off the rails, please address these two points:
1. Kadesh Barnea.
2. The internal settlement pattern.
ARK: Again, the consensus is that the Exodus as described in the bible simply did not happen.
This consensus is based on the evidence which tells a completely different/ alternate history.
LEE: You’ll of course understand if I say that I can’t simply take your word for it.
You may be right, but have you read widely enough in the secondary literature to be able to make that statement? I’ll admit I haven’t. I’ve read a few academic books who argue most of the OT historical narrative is fiction, then a few other academic books which argue it’s largely reliable.
I do know that majorities can be wrong, as was the case with Troy.
I’ll see your Kadesh Barnea and Internal Settlement Pattern and raise you with a tidbit from “Biblical Archaeology.” You know that magazine, right?:
Contrary to the way the OT books of Exodus and Joshua describe the Israelites escaping Egypt, crossing the Jordan River, and conquering the land of Canaan, many scholars contend that they were already part of an indigenous population in Canaan.
However a recent discovery may provide physical evidence to support the OT Exodus account.
Excavations in Khirbet el-Mastarah, an area in the Jordan Valley, have unearthed numerous nomadic or semi-nomadic enclosures and structures dating back to the time of the Exodus, according to an article in “Biblical Archaeology Review” from Ralph Hawkins and David Ben-Shlomo:.
“Hidden in the Jordan Valley, Khirbet el-Mastarah may shed light on early Israelite origins. The site contains numerous enclosures and structures, which appear to have been used by a nomadic or semi-nomadic group at the beginning of the Iron Age (c. 1200 B.C.E.). Archaeologists Ralph K. Hawkins and David Ben-Shlomo examine the evidence” .(https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/4/5)
Pax.
Lee.
Unfortunately I cannot access the article. But I did note the question mark in the title.
So, as I said I do not want this thread to go off the rails please address the Kadesh issue first and then perhaps we can look at the article you’ve linked.
As I understand it, Kadesh Barnea was excavated in 1908, then again in the 1980s.. Yet further analysis of the finds—especially the pottery—from the Iron Age ruins shed new light on the identification of Tell el-Qudeirat with the Kadesh referenced in the OT.
In the September/October 2015 issue of “Biblical Archaeology Review,” archaeologists David Ussishkin, Lily Singer-Avitz and Hershel Shanks reexamined the archaeological evidence uncovered at Tell el-Qudeirat.
So the question is still open for discussion. Besides as Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin asskedrhetorically in a *Washington Post* article by Prof. Herschel Shanks in 1987, “What nation would invent such a crazy story? — that they were slaves in Egypt and they left that country and came to this country — and then make that the kernel of all their history. Even if you want to minimize it, there is a core of truth there.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/04/12/searching-for-signs-of-the-exodus/46718fd4-3b2c-4f69-bd00-c5e59d57cbb7/)
Pax.
Lee.
Well, if you know your bible the Israelites supposedly stayed at Kadesh for how long, Lee?
Do YOU know for how long the Bible says they stayed at Kadesh-Barnea?
Yes. As I expect do you. And what sort of evidence would one expect to find if this had happened?
That was sort of a question to see if you’d respond with the correct answer.
Well as you probably realise I do know the answer then the real intent of your question was to ridicule.
So, as we both know the answer why don’t you respond and tell me what archaeological evidence one would likely expect to find?
Just a few things will do, I don’t expect an entire litany.
Hahaha….amazing you can’t tell me. If you knew, you’d realize that holding Kadesh-Barnea up as the be-all-end-all proof for “no Exodus happened” is flimsy, to say the least.
I’ve never said it was the be all and end all.
As you don’t seem to trust me, I could link an article if it would make you happy? Even the one Lee linked should be evidence enough.
So am I to presume then that you don’t/em> actually know the length of time they were supposed to have spent there?
Why you try to play these fundamentalist ”gotcha” games is beyond me.
You are the phd for goodness sake.
You should be able to defend this position without batting an eyelid let alone turn to other scholars for your defense.
Ok…you clearly don’t know. All Deuteronomy says is “many days.” To say, therefore, that there should be clear archeological evidence to “prove” it is to go off of a host of unspoken assumptions that people are apparently too lazy to consider.
Hey, you’re the ot phd. Obviously, as nomadic tent dwellers perhaps their livestock also lived on Manna.
I guess it’s true,then, there really was a tribe that cleared away all evidence of their passing?
I suppose all those archaeologists got it wrong in that case?
Of course it would help your case,( an my understanding) enormously if you actually came out and stated exactly what your position on the Exodus is as you seem to continually be evasive on the subject.
Why not simply cut to the chase and state exactly what your position is?
Why not cut to the chase? Because I refuse to jump to addressing those conclusions without first establishing proper methodology.
If you investigated my life, you’d be able to find evidence of me living in various places. I doubt you’d be able to find any evidence of me passing through various places I mentioned I passed through in my journal.
What! You have a phd in OT for goodness sake. You have to have a position by now. You didn’t get your qualifications over a weekend from reading off the back of a cereal box!
Based on your qualifications you must have already established what you believe s the correct methodology and the scholars you agree with.
So what is your position on the Exodus, with specific attention to:
What were the numbers involved, and:
How long they stayed at Kadesh.
What are you blabbering about? I’m going through Provan’s book and will address the specifics in time. You just want to jump to that without first getting straight the underlying epistemological issues. That’s why you’re clearly not a scholar.
As for your two questions: (1) Probably closer to 20,000; (2) “Many days.” Pretty non-specific and general.
There y’go! That wasn’t so hard now was it?
Therefore, if the figure of 20K is the true reflection – and I am presuming you are basing this number on a/some sort of / your interpretation of the word ”eleph” – what archaeological evidence would you expect to find at Kadesh if 20,000 people and their livestock including all the things they brought with them – especially pottery etc – had arrived and stayed there for ‘many days’?
Not much, if any
Not even after 37/38 years?
They werent in KB for 37-38 years. They traveled there from Sinai, chickened out going into the Promised Land, and then wandered in the desert for 38 years. KB was essentially a pit stop.
Again, you could find evidence of me living in Fremont, CA or Chicago, IL. You’re not going to find evidence of my stopping in Colby, KS for a few days during my drive to the west coast.
Not according to the bible.
8 Your fathers did this, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land. 9 For when they went up to the Valley of Eshcol and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the people of Israel from going into the land that the LORD had given them. 10 And the LORD’s anger was kindled on that day, and he swore, saying, 11 ‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not wholly followed me, 12 none except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the LORD.’ 13 And the LORD’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone. (Num 32:8-13 ESV)
2 It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea. (Deu 1:2 ESV)
19 “Then we set out from Horeb and went through all that great and terrifying wilderness that you saw, on the way to the hill country of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us. And we came to Kadesh-barnea. 20 And I said to you, ‘You have come to the hill country of the Amorites, which the LORD our God is giving us. 21 See, the LORD your God has set the land before you. Go up, take possession, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has told you. Do not fear or be dismayed.’ (Deu 1:19-21 ESV)
14 And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them. (Deu 2:14 ESV)
23 And when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, ‘Go up and take possession of the land that I have given you,’ then you rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God and did not believe him or obey his voice. (Deu 9:23 ESV)
Yeah, not seeing anywhere where it says they lived in Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. I see Deu 2:14 that says from the time they LEFT Kadesh-Barnea (i.e. after they chickened out to take the land the first time) to the time they returned (i.e. when they took the land under Joshua), that was 38 years. Now, maybe I don’t know how to read, but it seems that is indicating they WEREN’T in Kadesh-Barnea for those 38 years. But what do I know?
I see. Just so I get this right, you are saying that after ”many days” the entire camp of 20,000 or more humans plus all their livestock then wandered the desert for 38 years?
Is this in fact what you are saying?
Yes, they were nomads for that time period. There are still nomads who live in desert regions throughout the world. This is not unusual.
So the bible is correct about the ”wanderings” but wrong about the numbers who wandered.
Is this also your assertion?
No. It is correct about the wanderings and there is a translational question about the text.
Really? What is the question regarding the accuracy of the text and who says so?
Do you read ancient Hebrew, btw?
Yes, I’ve translated the Hebrew Bible. There are always translational questions on various passages and verses.
Please, get out of your house a bit. You have a serious problem with your current obsession trolling my site. Good lord. Get a life.
Are you not in your house as well? Aren’t we all supposed to be in lockdown?
So what is the ”question” regarding the numbers?
I’m doing other things: writing, other projects, playing with my kid, etc. I have a life.
Besides, as I’ve told you countless times, I will address specifics in the course of my book analysis. It would be one thing to ask questions that actual pertain to the post at hand. But when you completely ignore it and just jump ahead to your pet issues that I havent addressed yet, it gets really old. You are just showing yourself to be a troll.
I do other things too … And I work from home. What a bonus!
And yet … here you are on your blog.
You say you have translated the Hebrew bible. Do you read ancient Hebrew or did you translate from the Greek?
If there is a question regarding the numbers how can you be sure the figure of around 20,000 is correct?
Yes, I read both OT Hebrew and NT Greek.
Marvelous. I am seriously impressed.
So the number problem? Is this related to the word eleph?
Good Lord…yes. Now wait until I address it in the book analysis. Stop being an irritating troll.
Oh, sorry. Forgot to include this:
I presume as a PHD you can read Hebrew?
Apologies if I am being presumptions here, as I don’t know what’s involved in your area of study.
You have used the phrase ‘many days’. I have seen it written as ‘for a long time’.
Do you know what is the correct Hebrew term? I can’t find an exact translation.
Oh, and how do you interpret Deuteronomy 2:14?
I am surprised you linked this article, as it affirms what I have mentioned. Here is the pertinent part about Kadesh
Extensive excavation of the ancient remains of Kadesh-Barnea, however, has revealed nothing earlier than the 10th century B.C. — the time of King Solomon and three centuries after the Children of Israel would have been there. Between 1967 and 1982, Sinai was accessible to Israeli scholars and archaeologists. They scoured the length and breadth of it, but found almost nothing from the end of the Late Bronze Age, the archaeological period when the Exodus was supposed to have taken place.
So where exactly is the core of truth?
Are you proposing that Friedman, for example, is correct?
I know but don’t really care about Kadesh Barnea right now. You’re obsessed with that one facet of the story. But there’s a lot more to it than that.
You have to read the whole article.
“Is the entire story–of the Israelite enslavement in Egypt, the Israelite escape known as the Exodus, the wandering in Sinai where God gave the Israelites the Law, and the taking of the land by force–all made up out of whole cloth?
“Few scholars and fewer laypeople, can accept this. Not because they are fundamentalist believers in the literal truth of the Bible, but hecause it defies common sense to conclude that their was no basis for these biblically described events. . . .
“The likelihood therefore is, that there was a real Exodus and real desert wandering. The literary evidence, although doubtless exaggerated, is too powerful to be denied, especially in light of tradition having preserved no hint of any other account of Israel’s early origins.”
This is the conclusion of Hershel Shanks, a world-reknowned archaeologist–hardly a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian.
Again, absence of proof of Kadesh Barnea isn’t proof of the absence of Kadesh Barnea. How would YOU explain ths origin of the Exodus if it is nothing but a “geopolitical foundation myth”? Why did they invent such a story if it has no basis in truth. And why is there absolutely no evidence (which you’re really big on) for a counter–tradition that sets out Israel’s true origins?
Again, Troy.
Pax.
Lee.
Okay, so let’s suppose there is some core truth to the story. Why not? Maybe Shanks is right after all?
You know what Friedman believes, yes? I suppose it might be a bit like the historicity of Jesus: a real individual existed but all the miracle stuff and the story embellishments are simply theological motifs.
So, how many Israelites do you think left Egypt and what sort of archaeological evidence would you expect to find at Kadesh Barnea?
Of course it’s worth bearing in mind that at the time of the Exodus (irrespective how many were involved), Egypt controlled the entire region.
Therefore, if we go with the figure Joel has proposed – 20,000 – do you not think they would have been aware of such a multitude? Would not someone, or some tribe they came into contact with have alerted the Egyptians?
Were they not missed once they began their sojourn?
Regards
Ark.
We’re talking about an event which happened over 3,000 years ago. There could be a multitude of reasons they haven’t found more archaeological remains, some of which apparently Provan touches on in his book.
However, as just one possibility, the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription from the time of Hatshepsut may be evidence of the Exodus.
Regardless, remember your Indiana Jones from The Last Crusade*: “‘X’ never marks the spot.”
Pax.
Lee.
We’re talking about an event which happened over 3,000 years ago. There could be a multitude of reasons they haven’t found more archaeological remains,
Yes, and the most likely is it did not happen as described in the bible. Occam’s razor thing and all that.
Tsk, tsk, Lee. Bad form! I have been roundly scolded for visiting one or two internet sites for my for info and here you are, cherry-picking! Shame on you!
Best you at least read all of that link,and then share it with everyone.
Didn’t you get scolded by the teacher if you ate sweets in class and you didn’t bring enough for everyone?
I read the whole article. And what I said was: ” However, as JUST ONE POSSIBILITY, the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription . . .”
Pax.
Lee.
Yes, and you will have noted why this a left field possibility that has gained no traction.
And you still didn’t provide the link.
It’s mean that I get told off for using the internet and you moan about me watching videos and here you are trawling the internet. What next? Will you also be watching videos?
There’s nothing wrong with using the internet. You just can’t get ALL of your information from the internet.
As for the 1987 Shanks article, I thought you read it from the link I posted in the other thread (Provan Part 2):
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/04/12/searching-for-signs-of-the-exodus/46718fd4-3b2c-4f69-bd00-c5e59d57cbb7/)
Pax.
Lee.
I did …. 😉
I meant ask if you had considered at all how much progress has been made since …. 1987?
Just a thought.
By the way, how many people do you think made up the Exodus?
Well, in BAR articles in 2015 David Ussishkin, Lily Singer-Avitz and Hershel Shanks reexamined the archaeological evidence.at Kadesh Barnea. But as I said, I’m no expert on Kadeshh-Barnea or OT archaeology in general. But do I understand that this is what even expert archaeologists routinely do, they reexamine evidence, and often draw new conclusions. Archaeology isn’t a static disciple, any more than history is.
I don’t know precisely how many Hebrews there were in the Exodus. I’d trust Dr. Anderson’s figure here of 20,000. I know ancient chroniclers often weren’t precise when it came to numbers. And no, that doesn’t bother me.
And again, if the Exodus didn’t occur substantially as reported in the book of Exodus, please explain the origin of the myth. Why did *those* people invent *that* myth? Why invent being slaves of the Egyptians if they never were? A lie that could easily have been dispelled by the Egyptians themselves.
If you tear down one theory you have to replace it with another that satisfactorily explains all of the data.
Pax.
Lee.