Current Biblical Archaeology

[john]

The Hon. Mr. Marduk, esq.

Dear Sir -

I need to discuss a point of internet site etiquette with you, as we both - and simultaneously no less - have apparently reached the semi-divine status of "know nothings". Should I invite you over for an evening at my club, or should you invite me over for an evening at your club? As it is the internet, alas, I can't even present you with my card. My deepest apologies.

Please reply at yr. earliest convenience.

In haste,

Your Obd't Servant,

John

[Minimalist]

It does not

why do you think it doesn't?

Because the Exodus is a fictional tale, made up years later, to show the people of Judah that they could resist Egypt of th 26th Dynasty by inventing a story of how they defeated a previous incarnation of Egyptian power.

Oddly, the first person I ever saw mention the Hyksos in relation to the Exodus was Finkelstein. But of course, you would never agree with anything he says.

it is a possibility, my readings on the exodus has led me to so many different theories that it gets to be a pain to sort it all out. humphreys is convinced that it was ramses II, and his reasoning is logical just not solid.

Logic is dangerous when combined with religious fervor. We know from archaeological remains that Egypt maintained a close dominance over Canaan throughout Ramses' reign. The Battle of Kadesh occured when Ramses was a young man and the resulting period of peace after the treaty would have reminded many of the Cold War when Russian and Allied armies faced each other over the E. German border. As logical as you may think it is, it is absurd that Ramses would allow a hostile state to set itself up on his flank.

For that matter, had Egypt been as severely damaged as the Exodus story implies, how come the rest of its vassals did not take the opportunity to revolt? After all, Egypt (which was at its peak during the era of Ramses II) was supposedly laid low. Yet...no evidence exists for such an occurence anywhere. Odd, huh?

i forget if hoffmeier committed to any date, if he did it may have been the tradtional time frame. the thing that bothers me about santorini being used is the pillars of smoke and fire that the israelites followed through the first part of their journey.

santorini is in the wrong direction to be of much help , so there must be another source for those pillars. another volcano? humphreys also has mt. sinai in the land of midian and not on the sinai peninsula which is an interesting take on things and plausible in the way he explains it.

The entire region suffers from earthquakes but active volcanoes are exceedingly sparse. In Africa, there are volcanoes South of Egypt in the Rift Valley....but as you say, you already know that.

i would probably read finkelstein if you hadn't held him up to be the standard for interpretation or the last word on any biblical topic.

You'd have to throw it across the room on page 5 when he says: "Some of the most famous events in the bible clearly never happened at all." Nothing I've seen from you leads me to believe that you could handle that kind of criticism of your beliefs.

[Guest]

Because the Exodus is a fictional tale, made up years later, to show the people of Judah that they could resist Egypt of th 26th Dynasty by inventing a story of how they defeated a previous incarnation of Egyptian power.

besides finkelstein and dever, let's see you back this up.

As logical as you may think it is, it is absurd that Ramses would allow a hostile state to set itself up on his flank.

if he was pharaoh at the time of the exodus, what choice would he have? he suffered a humiliating defeat at the hand of God and probably would feel he would have no chance again, if he attacked.

how come the rest of its vassals did not take the opportunity to revolt?

good question, but when poland did its famous solidarity movement with some success, why didn't the other russian held countries also do so. many reasons why they didn't and same for ancient times.

You'd have to throw it across the room on page 5 when he says: "Some of the most famous events in the bible clearly never happened at all." Nothing I've seen from you leads me to believe that you could handle that kind of criticism of your beliefs.

i have heard it before but that is another good reason why i don't read finkelstein, if by pg. 5 he has drawn his conclusion then the rest of the book is worthless.

[Minimalist]

Because the Exodus is a fictional tale, made up years later, to show the people of Judah that they could resist Egypt of th 26th Dynasty by inventing a story of how they defeated a previous incarnation of Egyptian power.

besides finkelstein and dever, let's see you back this up.

Why do I need anything more when you have exactly NOTHING to indicate that it ever happened?

As logical as you may think it is, it is absurd that Ramses would allow a hostile state to set itself up on his flank.

if he was pharaoh at the time of the exodus, what choice would he have? he suffered a humiliating defeat at the hand of God and probably would feel he would have no chance again, if he attacked.

So your proof of the bible is what the bible says? Interesting. In law that is called a "self-serving statement." Meanwhile the supposedly shattered Egyptian army maintained an iron grip on Canaan. Oh, there's that damned archaeological evidence again. Shame that it keeps getting in the way of your fairy tales.

how come the rest of its vassals did not take the opportunity to revolt?

good question, but when poland did its famous solidarity movement with some success, why didn't the other russian held countries also do so. many reasons why they didn't and same for ancient times.

The USSR still remained a potent military power unlike an allegedly devastated Egypt. There is a slight difference between the Czechs and Hungarians (both of whom had been well experienced with Russian reactions to revolts!) sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happened and the various vassal states of Egypt who would have been eager to see their masters brought low.

No. At some point the principle of Occam's Razor has to apply. All this contorted mental masturbation that has to go on to explain away the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of the Israelites being in Egypt or even existing prior to the end of the 12th century. Apply the razor and it is simply far more reasonable to conclude that the bible is a crock of shit from beginning to end with just a few incidental brushes with reality later on.

You'd have to throw it across the room on page 5 when he says: "Some of the most famous events in the bible clearly never happened at all." Nothing I've seen from you leads me to believe that you could handle that kind of criticism of your beliefs.

i have heard it before but that is another good reason why i don't read finkelstein, if by pg. 5 he has drawn his conclusion then the rest of the book is worthless.

Unlike your precious bible which starts with IN THE BEGINNING, huh? I think it was polite of Finkelstein to warn bible thumpers that they risked heart failure by continuing to read further. He's a very nice man and I'm sure he would not even want your death on his conscience.

As for me.....I could probably live with it.

[Guest]

Why do I need anything more

because you made a declaration without any facts to back it up that is why. as kenneth kitchen would say, 'absence of evdence is not evidence of absence...' and i think hoffmeier is correct also when he talks about the grave robbers and other acts that have removed any artifacts from that areawhich would have shed more light on the topic.

So your proof of the bible is what the bible says?

you are using Egyptian texts which states only victories and not defeats and i have shown that to be true which means you are using glossed over texts that have been 'cleansed' from any event that makes the egyptians look bad. i think my source trumps yours.

Meanwhile the supposedly shattered Egyptian army maintained an iron grip on Canaan. Oh, there's that damned archaeological evidence again

again, that does not mean that pharaoh used all his men to chase down the israelites. if the americans get massacred in afghanistan, they lose an army but they still have an army left to use. same for the egyptians. they lose one army chasing the israelites but still have an army elswhere for other purposes.

The USSR still remained a potent military power unlike an allegedly devastated Egypt

same goes for the egyptians, we do not know how many men were wiped out chasing the hebrews.

you mean this:

Occam's razor has always been associated with the aesthetic concept of simplicity

that has to go on to explain away the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of the Israelites being in Egypt or even existing prior to the end of the 12th century

well we do have but it is usually ignored and dismissed as it goes against people's beliefs.

I think it was polite of Finkelstein to warn bible thumpers that they risked heart failure by continuing to read further

when did finkelstein get promoted to God,that he has the right to say what did or did not happen in the Bible? or when did archaeology or science gwt to be the final word on anything? we know the limitations of both which disqualifies them as being the authoritative final say, so obvioously finkelstein is speaking from his interpretation and not fact since there is so muich evidence missing and not taken into consideration.

[Minimalist]

Why do I need anything more

because you made a declaration without any facts to back it up that is why. as kenneth kitchen would say, 'absence of evdence is not evidence of absence...' and i think hoffmeier is correct also when he talks about the grave robbers and other acts that have removed any artifacts from that areawhich would have shed more light on the topic.

Nonsense. The reasons for the statement are well established in this very thread. There is not a single shred of evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt. There is not a single shred of evidence that they were held in bondage in Egypt. The only evidence for their existence at all is in Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE. As I have told you a hundred times, come up with PROOF that they were in Egypt and we can go from there. Right now, it is a closed case to all but the densest of bible thumpers...including Kitchen.

So your proof of the bible is what the bible says?

you are using Egyptian texts which states only victories and not defeats and i have shown that to be true which means you are using glossed over texts that have been 'cleansed' from any event that makes the egyptians look bad. i think my source trumps yours.

You continue to grasp at straws. Virtually all we know of Egypt comes from Egyptian sources. We know that the country was overrun by Libyans, Nubians, and the Hyksos from Egyptian sources. You can keep repeating that idiocy until you are blue in the face but it is not true. Give it up, arch. Your precious Hebrews weren't there.

Meanwhile the supposedly shattered Egyptian army maintained an iron grip on Canaan. Oh, there's that damned archaeological evidence again

again, that does not mean that pharaoh used all his men to chase down the israelites. if the americans get massacred in afghanistan, they lose an army but they still have an army left to use. same for the egyptians. they lose one army chasing the israelites but still have an army elswhere for other purposes.

You better check the records....we are stretched pretty thin thanks to Bush and his warmongering.

You know, given your general understanding of ancient history I don't know why I would have thought that you would have any better understanding of ancient warfare than you do of ancient religion. They did not maintain massive "standing" armies. Small garrisons, or royal guards, would have been the most common application of military force. In the case of Canaan we know from the Amarna letters that Canaan was so weak that a handful of Egyptian soldiers were all that was needed to keep things in line.

Standing armies were a comparatively late (Roman) innovation.

The USSR still remained a potent military power unlike an allegedly devastated Egypt

same goes for the egyptians, we do not know how many men were wiped out chasing the hebrews.

Oh, I know. None.

you mean this:

Occam's razor has always been associated with the aesthetic concept of simplicity

that has to go on to explain away the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of the Israelites being in Egypt or even existing prior to the end of the 12th century

well we do have but it is usually ignored and dismissed as it goes against people's beliefs.

No. It is ignored or dismissed because it is nonsense. It amounts to wishful thinking.

I think it was polite of Finkelstein to warn bible thumpers that they risked heart failure by continuing to read further

when did finkelstein get promoted to God,that he has the right to say what did or did not happen in the Bible? or when did archaeology or science gwt to be the final word on anything? we know the limitations of both which disqualifies them as being the authoritative final say, so obvioously finkelstein is speaking from his interpretation and not fact since there is so muich evidence missing and not taken into consideration.

Because unlike your precious bible thumpers he (and many others) have done the work to show that the Israelites arose, probably from the debris of Canaanite refugees and pastoral nomads (although Dever and Finkelstein argue this point ad nauseam!) but the archaeological surveys of the villages are there. In the eastern hill country in the 12th century.
Nowhere else. As I said, above....for all the 'wonders' that your bible claims there is not a single shred of evidence that any of it ever happened. Hold your breath until you turn blue, for all I care, until you have something tangible to point to, I dismiss you bible as fiction. In fact, Finkelstein tries to prop it up as it moves down later into the historical period but really the horse is out of the barn by then. Without its miracles what is the bible except shitty literature?

[Guest]

The only evidence for their existence at all is in Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE

not true, we have the conquest period which your side ignores and many many more pieces of evidence that secular archaeologists wish to push to the side with a lot of loud yelling and poor interpretative work.

You continue to grasp at straw

i don't need to grasp at straws, i know the evidence is there and accepted by those who know the truth.

You better check the records....we are stretched pretty thin thanks to Bush and his warmongering

well i'll send you the 37,000 here if you like, word is in about 2010 or 2012 the u.s. will reduce their forces here.

You know, given your general understanding of ancient history I don't know why I would have thought that you would have any better understanding of ancient warfare than you do of ancient religion.

i don't study military history but again you give a statement with no source to back it up.

Because unlike your precious bible thumpers he (and many others) have done the work to show that the Israelites arose, probably from the debris of Canaanite refugees and pastoral nomads (although Dever and Finkelstein argue this point ad nauseam!) but the archaeological surveys of the villages are there.

yes and what did harrison say; ' too many interpretations concerning the same evidence...? so i will place finkelstein and dever in the wrong interpretative pile as that is what it really is. you only mention a partial of what is going on to give a false impression of the reality.

[Guest]

two quotes to turn minimlaist's position again. taken from Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament by John D. Curridpgs. 24-26:

"Many of these same scholars argue as well that any comparison of Egyptian history and the Bibl inevitably entails problems because'the purposeof the biblical account is not what we regard as history'. Baruch Halpern has described the biblical narrative of the exodus from egypt as being more like Homer's Odyssey than history:

' In both cases, there is evidence of that peculiar process of oral transmission in which the story is renegotiated with each separate audience each time it is told...So, in itsway, is the story of the Exodus. Itis the historical myth of an entire people, a focalpoint for national identity...The actual evidence concerning the exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn.'

Nevertheless, Halpern is convinced that there may be a kernal of historical truth hiddenin the exodus account: 'Behind the Exodus story events can be discerned that, unlike those of the patriarchal narratives, can be termed historical in scale.' The only real question for scholars like Halpern is which events can be deemed historical in nature-- and thereis much disagreement over that issue.

To be blunt, there is nothing new here. The present debate is merely the tired old stuff of 19th century liberalism wrapped in a new package."

and then :

"A final reason that scholars have distrusted the biblical accounts that relate to Egypt, particularly the exodus story, is the lack of written evidence from Egypt that would support their historicity. True, the Hebrews are not directly mentioned on Egyptian monuments or in their texts from that period of the sojourn. Butwe need to be careful with this line of reasoning because it is an argument from silence. Such arguments have frequently proved to be fallacious. For example, many of Nlson Glueck's conclusions about the history of
edom and Moab in relation to the biblical record were based upon incomplete surveys of archaeological sites and for the most part upon what he did not find. As more evidence has come to light, many of Glueck's judgments have proven to be faulty."

[Minimalist]

The only evidence for their existence at all is in Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE

not true, we have the conquest period which your side ignores and many many more pieces of evidence that secular archaeologists wish to push to the side with a lot of loud yelling and poor interpretative work.

Demolished by Dever. Also, already stated in this thread. The "Conquest Theory" reads like a travelogue of 7th century Palestine...not Bronze Age Palestine.

You continue to grasp at straw

i don't need to grasp at straws, i know the evidence is there and accepted by those who know the truth.

No. Nonsense is accepted by bible thumping morons who are desperate to continue to believe in fairy tales when there is not a shred of solid proof. Say it as many times as you like. You believe it on FAITH not evidence. And faith may be good enough for you but it don't mean shit to me.

You better check the records....we are stretched pretty thin thanks to Bush and his warmongering

well i'll send you the 37,000 here if you like, word is in about 2010 or 2012 the u.s. will reduce their forces here.

Well....if we're still bogged down in Iraq by them we'll need them to fill up the ranks.

You know, given your general understanding of ancient history I don't know why I would have thought that you would have any better understanding of ancient warfare than you do of ancient religion.

i don't study military history but again you give a statement with no source to back it up.

Why? You wouldn't listen anyway and would simply go on about pharoah's mighty armies. It's your fairy tale. You can see it any way you want it. Shit, you can have them driving tanks if you like. That's the great thing about fantasy....it can be anything you want it to be.

Because unlike your precious bible thumpers he (and many others) have done the work to show that the Israelites arose, probably from the debris of Canaanite refugees and pastoral nomads (although Dever and Finkelstein argue this point ad nauseam!) but the archaeological surveys of the villages are there.

yes and what did harrison say; ' too many interpretations concerning the same evidence...? so i will place finkelstein and dever in the wrong interpretative pile as that is what it really is. you only mention a partial of what is going on to give a false impression of the reality.

But Harrison has no artifacts to back him up and Izzy and Dever do.
Big difference to anyone with an open mind. You are not such a person.
You are a bible thumper. It's your loss.

[Guest]

Demolished by Dever

ytea right, start posting this 'demolishments' so i have a just to deconstruct them or are you chicken??

Why? You wouldn't listen anyway and would simply go on about pharoah's mighty armies

again you made the statement but you refuse to furnish proof for your position, you are getting as bad as marduk. you'll probably be posting in sumerian next.

But Harrison has no artifacts to back him up and Izzy and Dever do

you haven't posted any yet and i only used one bit of harrison,haven't got to the rest yet.

Big difference to anyone with an open mind. You are not such a person.

when i see that the evidence is subject to faulty interpretation of course i am not going to accept their position or findings.

You are a bible thumper. It's your loss.

i believe the Bible, not finkelstein and dever or their minimalist friends. i see the source of their conclusions and thinking and it is easy to spot their errors.

[Minimalist]

From Mar 24, in this thread.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual with you, arch, a little knowledge is not only dangerous but damned to be erroneous. Albright and Wright are cited for their work in Dever's book (Dever was a student of Wright's who was in turn the successor to Albright!) and Dever has served as the Director of both the Nelson Glueck School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the W. F Albright Institute of Archaeological Research also in Jerusalem. Far from ignoring the efforts of these men, Dever carefully recounts their theories and then patiently explains ( although probably not patiently enough for the likes of you!) how those early theories of 'biblical conquest' or 'peaceful infiltration' have been superceded by modern evidence and dating. This is not portrayed as a slap at any of those earlier researchers. Their biggest problem (much like your new pal, Currid, who is a Biblical Studies professor!) is that they give the bible some sort of credence because it is the bible....as if that gives it any sort of claim to the truth which can not be substantiated by actually doing the work!

Dever has an extensive section of his book dedicated to a place by place study of 31 of the sites that the Israelites allegedly conquered. It reads like a travelogue...except it is a travelogue of the 7th century BC, not the 13th. In only 3 of the 31 is there any evidence of an actual habitation in the 13th century. Most of the sites were established much later but the bible authors, lacking any sense of history, assumed that what was there in their time had always been there and so when they made up their glorious history for Israel they simply concocted the story based on what they saw around them.

There are so many holes in your precious bible that if it were a boat it would be on the bottom of the river.

Keep bailing, arch.

So, read the book. What are you afraid of? That you might learn something?

[Minimalist]

Demolished by Dever

ytea right, start posting this 'demolishments' so i have a just to deconstruct them or are you chicken??

See above. There is no alternative for reading the book. Dever goes on for pages about the stupidity of the so-called Conquest.

Why? You wouldn't listen anyway and would simply go on about pharoah's mighty armies

again you made the statement but you refuse to furnish proof for your position, you are getting as bad as marduk. you'll probably be posting in sumerian next.

By your own words you are not a student of military matters. It is not possible to educate you on all you would need to know in this forum. Besides, no matter what evidence is presented as soon as it conflicts with your bible based fantasy world you will simply deny it which makes the whole exercise rather pointless. I will have to leave you in your ignorance.

But Harrison has no artifacts to back him up and Izzy and Dever do

you haven't posted any yet and i only used one bit of harrison,haven't got to the rest yet.

How does one post "artifacts?" You have to read the books of people you disagree with in order to find the evidence. Harrison pitiously praying that the "bible is true...." is not evidence. It is a prayer. Let him do the work that the Israeli archaeologists did in the 1980's and he would see the truth. But he can't can he. He's dead!

Big difference to anyone with an open mind. You are not such a person.

when i see that the evidence is subject to faulty interpretation of course i am not going to accept their position or findings.

Wrong. When you see something that contradicts your book of fairy tales you react as any bible-thumping idiot can be expected to do when their certainty of future nirvana is threatened. You react emotionally, not scientifically.

You are a bible thumper. It's your loss.

i believe the Bible, not finkelstein and dever or their minimalist friends. i see the source of their conclusions and thinking and it is easy to spot their errors.

Which is why you cannot be considered a rational human being. My kids used to believe in fairy tales, too....but they grew up.

[Guest]

See above. There is no alternative for reading the book. Dever goes on for pages about the stupidity of the so-called Conquest

when you start reading the ones i have used then maybe i will consider reading the ones you have posted.

a quote from taken from wikipedia* which best illustrates oneof the weaknesses of dever:

"Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not.

the Bible is not a grocery store where you get to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. doesn't work that way. dever, like finkelstein and others, set themselves up as the people who get to make the declaration of what is true and what isn't and that isn't their authority nor responsibility.

they use scant evidence or dismiss other pieces of information which proves the Bible true to make their conclusions which are not based on archaeological fact but solely upon interpretation and their own belief.

You react emotionally, not scientifically

i think that describes you and your tirades not me.

*wikipedia was the only source that came up that gave such a biography but is a good example of why i don't like it as well, as its information is scant in some places and its own sources are questionable.

[Guest]

to kep thingsin perspective and to show that dever and his buddies have little credibility here is a passage taken from 'Is the Bible True' by Jeffery L. Sheler pg. 86-87:

"As confident as Dever and others may be, not all scholars are ready to toss aside the Bible's depiction of military campaigns inthe settlement of the Promised Land...Some Scholrs, including Wheaton's James Hoffmeier, argue that the 'conquest model' to which Dever refers has become something of a straw man for skeptocs who improperly equate it with the biblical record. More often than not, itis the model--an explanatory summary of biblical and physical data assembled by Bible scholars and archaaeologists-- rather than the Bible itself that conflicts with the archaeological evidence.

A casein point: In an unsuccessful attempt during the 1950s to show how modern archaeology confirms the Israelite conquest, G. Ernest Wright, a protoge of William Albright, overstated what the Bible actually claims concerning the military exploits of the Israelites...(he then names the cities--Lachish, Megiddo, Beth-Shan, Jerusalem and Gezer)

Yet no where in Joshua and Judges are Megiddo or Beth-shan listed among the cities devastated, or even conquered by Israel. Wright also ascribed the destruction of Beitan, which he believed to be biblical Bethel,to the Israelites even though the Bible does not make that claim. Nonetheless, when some of Wright's archaeological evidence later came into question, weaknesses in his argument were widely represented as weaknesses in the biblical record. In the collective mind of biblical and archaeological academia, the 'conquest model' and the Bible had become synonymous, and the historical veracity of both had been eroded.

However, a careful reading of Joshua suggests a far more modest military outcome than the blitzkrieg scenario some critical scholars are so fond of challenging. The Bible does not explicitly say, for example, that the Israelites demolished the cities enumerated in Joshua 10-- several of which appear on Dever's list of unattested sites. Instead, in describing what happened at those cities, the text uses terms that some biblical scholars say are more accurately translated. 'smote', 'laid siege', or 'captured'. While the inhabitants of those cities may indeed have been annihilated, as the Bible says, the cities themselves presumably were left standing.

Seldom, in fact, does the Bible depict the Israelites as even directly attacking the cities of their adversaries. More often, notes Abraham Malamat of Hebrew University, Joshua and his menare seen employing an 'indirect military approach'-- either covert infiltration to neutralize a city's defenses, or enticement to draw the defenders out into the open. Battles fought in that manner likely would have left little or no evidence of catastrophic destruction for archaeologists to uncover."

so it is easy to see that archaeologists, like Dever and Finkelstein, come to the field with a pre-set thought of what they should be looking for and when they do not find it, they ignore other possibilities and draw the conclusions they want to have. Plus they ignore the biblical record and go after other people's thoeries incorporating that record into what other scholr's are saying thus again come to a false conclusion.

[Minimalist]

Wheaton's James Hoffmeier

One of the biggest bible thumping shitheads out there....next to you, of course!