Minimalist wrote:4 and 6:
The exodus, portraying the Jews triumph over the might of the Egyptians, is allegedly set in the late bronze age. Simply put, this was the time of the Egyptian empire's greatest reach. There is no evidence that from Ahmose I to Ramesses II that Egypt ever suffered any kind of catastrophe.
Given the archaeological history of the Israelites/Judahites (to use the biblical terms as conventions) we know that they began to form as kingdoms in the 9th and 8th centuries respectively. By this time Egypt was in a downward spiral itself. Beset by dynastic struggles and border wars with Libya and Nubia, Egypt was not a threat to anyone.
One pharaoh, Sheshonq I seems to have made a parade militaire into Canaan near the end of the 10th century but even though he proclaimed victory on the walls of the temple of Karnak there was no resumption of the Egyptian hegemony over Canaan. The attack was without long lasting result.
By the time Egypt next gets its act together under Psammetichus it is in the aftermath of the Assyrian withdrawal. Egypt allied itself with Assyria against the Babylonians with an eye, no doubt, to retaking Canaan and restoring the empire of Thutmoses. It was at this time (AND only this time) that Judah having expanded under the Assyrian economic umbrella and absorbing many refugees from the northern kingdom, also got ideas about expanding into the areas that the Assyrians were being forced to vacate in order to resist Babylon.
The Kings story suggests that the righteous king Josiah went to meet Necho. Necho did not like what he heard and had him killed on the spot. He later went back and installed a new king more to his liking. (Chronicles, written much later, invents a battle for Josiah to lose thus making his death more heroic than simply getting whacked. The Egyptians do not seem to know they fought and won a battle that day, however!)
In any case, Finkelstein uses anachronisms in the text to date it to the 7th century. Certain towns that are mentioned only existed in the 7th century. More to the point, it is hard to find another period in history when both Egypt and Judah were competitors for the same area. The Exodus tale is meant to convey the notion that "we can do this because god is on our side." A notion which has been used throughout history.
The Minimalists claim that the whole tale was written in the aftermath of the Exile but by that time Egypt was not a great power. It was a province of the Persian empire just as Judah was.
So I think what you’re saying is that there would be no reason for the Persians to turn Egypt into the bad guys and that there is no evidence that they were.
Minimalist wrote:
It makes more sense for the folk tales which doubtless remained in Canaan from the Hyksos period to be dusted off and re-worked into some sort of national epic to support the grandiose ideas of the king for expansion.
But let’s be clear.
First of all, what evidence do we have of 'dusting off'. How do we know the people were no longer telling and re-telling each other these stories? Like I said before, they didn't need huge temples and cities for these stories to be passed on orally among them.
Secondly, where do we think, in the OT, that the mythology ends and the political propaganda begins? And how much of that can we attest? Like you say, probably not much ... do we know, for instance, that Josiah was a real king who really destroyed the pagan high places? Do we know that the Jews really were told to only perform their sacrifices in an actual temple at Jerusalem, especially as it doesn’t look as if there was a temple? I really would like to see Finkelstein answering these questions with regard to the known mythology of the period that was current in the geographical region.
Minimalist wrote:
In any case, the Joshua story was meant to provide the basis for the claim to the land (god gave it to us and we conquered it and killed everyone there!) which Josiah wished to annex. Here, archaeology has shown that there was no whirlwind campaign. The destruction layers of the various cities which were occupied in the late bronze age span a couple of centuries and can easily be attributed to other powers such as the Sea Peoples. Moreover, archaeology has shown that some of "Joshua's" targets were not occupied at all during the time period in question.
So it looks as if the Josiah story didn’t really happen, or we cannot attest that it happened. But as I’ve already said, the story fits mythological templates. He even has the right name – Josiah – knowing how fond they were of those Joseph, Joshua, Yeshua names for their mythical heroes.
Minimalist wrote:
These stories may be mythological NOW but they were conceived as political instruments which puts them in a totally different class from the creation myth, et al.
I think it’s the other way round. They’re certainly not considered as mythological in Israel or by Jews NOW, except by mythologists. They’re considered to be literal by the literalist Jews NOW, and political propaganda by the Minimalists NOW.
They were considered to be mythological THEN, by the people. They were conceived of as mythological tales in the same way that similar tales were told all over the region of Mesopotamia, India and Egypt. They even have similar plotlines and characters with just the names changing to suit the location. The Ark of Nnu changes into the Ark of Noah. The Flight From Amenta changes into the Exodus, and so on. You've said yourself that the Persians would not have needed to demonise the Egyptians.
It is only NOW that some people (Finkelstein et al) are saying that these stories were conceived as political instruments, but they have no evidence to back this up. It’s just an opinion, partly based, imo, on an ignorance of mythology.
The only fact we can attest is that the Jews were held captive in Babylon and then eventually sent back by Cyrus. (I'm assuming you have an attestation for the 'sent back' bit).
(We can still have the cry of triumph, if you like!)
