Archaeologica.org

When these detailed discussions get going I tend to lose sight of what it is about. And that, for me, is the truth or falsity of the stories (folk tales, myths, legends, OT, whatever). Did those things happen?.

After all is said and done my vote goes to the sweaty toilers who lift their spades in triumph and shout “It happened because I found it!”

Grumpage wrote:

I could recommend Philip R. Davies "In Search of Ancient Israel" if you are interested.

Thanks for the ref.
I've ordered his latest: Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History as it seems better suited to my level of ignorance and it's more up to date.
(I assume the publication date of 2008 means what it says and is not simply a reprint of a much earlier publication

I've pre-ordered that one, too. I just received Niels Peter Lemche's The Old Testament Between Theology and History.

But around the first millennium BC, the priestcraft of every country was cosmopolitan and travelled widely,

I've got to dig around through Redford's "Ancient Egypt, Canaan and Israel." As I recall he made an argument that much of the similarity resulted from the incorporation of foreign cults by conquerors. IOW, rather than obliterate the various cults they were absorbed. Now, while Egypt and Mesopotamia never conquered each other, there were numerous small states between them that were overrun by one side or another at various times. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.

Sorry about your Mum. Hope all goes well.

Did those things happen?.

No, but does that really matter?

The Spanish did not blow up the USS Maine in Havana harbor but people believed that they had and acted accordingly.

I also find it hard to imagine how the migrating Babylonians could be ‘handed a story’ that had been extant for thousands of years

Alright, Ish, let's think this one through.

1- Who did the Babylonians deport?

The elite and anyone who might be useful to them such as artisans. They ones left behind were the peasants working the fields and the herders shlepping the goats. Literacy would not have been a prime skill.

2- What were conditions in Judah while the so-called elite was away?

Probably fairly unchanged from what it had been before. The populace worked to support the upper classes. Instead of their own Judahite overlords with Babylonian overlords. Would they have really noticed the difference?

3- Who was sent back?

In a time when average life expectancy was below 30 the idea that after 50 years of Exile any of the adults who were taken were still alive and/or in a condition to make the return trip has to be considered slight. Some of the children of the Exiles might have made the trip although even they would be in advanced old age for the time.

4- The returnees mainly were strangers to Judah. They were newly-minted Persian citizens. Probably literate and with a sense of entitlement in the first place from being selected by Cyrus they were used to the pleasantries of Babylon and were taking on a mission to a backward realm that they were expected to re-make into a loyal Persian province.

Now, as you say, people would have had, through oral transmission, some idea of the tales/myths of the land. But in reality what did the returning priests do? They wrote themselves into the story as the rightful rulers of the land. "God said that you are to only worship at the temple and, oh, by the way, WE run the temple because god chose us" How good would the story have had to be? They had the Persian empire behind them and the Judahites who stayed behind probably didn't care less which hand was holding the whip. One can speculate (only) that they would have regarded the Babylonians as foreigners and might welcome even the illusion of the restoration of Judahite rule.

They did not endeavor to set up any sort of political entity....Cyrus was the king and that was that. The Book of Ezra even makes Cyrus out to be god's anointed just to close the circle! How convenient.

We have no evidence of a temple or a monotheistic religion in Judah prior to the end of the Exile. Only the OT which is a questionable document at this point tells that story. Archaeology may not be able to disprove that there is a god but it certainly can show that the tales told of him or his "people" are unsupported.

Grumpage wrote:When these detailed discussions get going I tend to lose sight of what it is about. And that, for me, is the truth or falsity of the stories (folk tales, myths, legends, OT, whatever). Did those things happen?.

After all is said and done my vote goes to the sweaty toilers who lift their spades in triumph and shout “It happened because I found it!”

The further you go back in history (especially Jewish history which is myth that has been literalised) the more difficult it is to be sure of what actually did happen. But in looking at the mythology of surrounding nations at the time, we can see what almost certainly didn't happen in Israel.

It would be difficult, for instance, for the 'sweaty toilers' to come up with anything to prove categorically that the Exodus didn't happen, although what they have found (nothing!) points us in that direction. But what makes that conclusion more firm is that the Story of Exodus is remarkably similar to an astronomical teaching story (myth) of the Egyptians called The Flight from Amenta tht was thousands of years older.

Again, how could the 'sweaty toilers' ever prove whether there was or was not a Great Deluge that covered all the mountains of the world? So far, they haven't been able to, but they don't even have to try if they go to the mythology. This story occurs in at least 30 other civilisations, but it is told as an astronomical teaching story about the precession of the equinoxes by the Incas and the Egyptians, who also used it as a eschatalogical teaching story. In both these versions, you can see the myth in its much more complex, original form, before it was dumbed down for Jewish audiences. We can then also see the reason why Noah's Ark was 15 cubits high, or why Noah sent out a raven and then a dove - these are not just random elements to the story but have allegorical meaning.

So there we are - the Great Deluge and the Exodus did not happen - and all without having to lift a spade! (We can still have the cry of triumph, if you like!)

On top of that, studying myths teaches us how ancient man thought. This is important because actions don't exist in a vacuum - they are preceded by thought. So by knowing what ancient man thought, we are more likely to be able to figure out what ancient man did ... or at least, in these cases, didn't do.

Thanks, Min.

I’d like to approach this from another angle.

How much of what we know about Jewish history is from sources extra to the OT?

I’m assuming that we know the Babylonian captivity really did happen because of Persian documents recording it. But I’ve never seen these documents or heard them quoted from. Once again, not to say that they don’t exist – just that I’ve not seen them or heard about them.

I only ask because my own research has convinced me (and many others, far more illustrious) that the following stories from the OT are myths and therefore, are not historical.

1. The Creation
2. Garden of Eden
3. The Deluge
4. The Exodus
5. Joseph and his Coat of Many Colours
6. Joshua’s Conquering of Jericho
7. David and Goliath
8. Solomon’s Temple

Now, imo, these are the core stories of the OT. Without them, what would the OT have? Just some psalms based on old Canaanite hymns and Egyptian myths, and the dark mutterings of prophets who use mythical language themselves.

So was the OT used by outsiders to oppress the Jews?

My point is, how can we tell? Having established that the core stories of the OT are myths, could it not be true that they all are?

For instance, myths are full of goodies and baddies doing absolutely unspeakable things to each other. There is always a hero and there is usually a battle of some sort against a monster/dragon or an evil race(s) of people.

So how do we know that, say, King Josiah’s destroying of the pagan high places was not just another example of someone playing the baddie? Do we have extra evidence that he really did exist? “Destruction of the high places” could be likened to the overcoming of the poles during the precession of the equinoxes which is a celestial, not earthly, event.

How do we know that that the demand to only practice at the Temple was not just another example of this mythical antagonism, especially as there is no evidence of a Solomon-like temple? In mythology, tyrannical rulers playing the bad guys make incredibly unreasonable demands on the people. King Kamsa in the Srimad Bhagavatham, the Egyptian Pharaoh when Moses was born and King Herod all called for infanticides to kill the god child – when in fact we know those infanticides never really happened. In other words, they are fictional – common mythical motifs that allegorically represent a celestial rather than an earthly event.

How do we know that the Babylonian captivity actually happened, or at least, happened in the way you described? “Captivity” is a common feature of myths – the most classic example being Plato’s Cave, but also the thousands of years older Sarama and the Panis (from the Rig-veda), The Flight from Amenta (Egyptian), Ishtar’s Descent to the Underworld (Babylonian) and the rescuing of countless long-haired damsels in distress.

I know that I’m going way out on a limb here, and probably playing Devil’s Advocate a bit. You’ll probably come back with loads of evidence showing how we know that these events were historical, apart from what’s written in the OT. But I hope you do – because, as I said, I’m willing to believe in these things if I see the evidence. It’s just that so far, I haven’t.... whereas I can see mythical motifs all over the place, jumping up at me from the page.

I’ve also heard that both Philo and Origen understood the whole of the OT as allegory, and not just selected bits of it. And they were closer to 'home' ....

Yours, confused

Minimalist wrote: We have no evidence of a temple or a monotheistic religion in Judah prior to the end of the Exile. Only the OT which is a questionable document at this point tells that story. Archaeology may not be able to disprove that there is a god but it certainly can show that the tales told of him or his "people" are unsupported.

This is a separate point.

Can I rewrite your last sentence to one that makes more sense to me?

Archaeology may not be able to disprove that there is a god, but it certainly can show that the tales told of a Jewish God or his "people" are unsupported in history, but make more sense as mythos.

Can I cut in here and back up a bit to something Ish mentioned earlier.

Plato too was initiated into the Mysteries in Egypt, and the story told to him by Solon about Atlantis can actually be read in the original Egyptian Destruction of Mankind texts. It was an astronomical teaching story taught to initiates - and not a history lesson.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg15.htm

1. Why do you think Plato was initiated into the Mysteries in Egypt?

2. It is worth remembering that Plato is our sole source for the Atlantis story. He relates it through Critias who, Plato says, claims it as a family legacy originally provided by Solon. For all we know the story originated from Plato himself.

3. I followed your link to the Egyptian Destruction of Mankind. Not being familiar with this kind of material I found it difficult and, forgive me, somewhat tedious (are all Egyptian stories like this?). However, I failed to recognise anything which might lead me to associate it with the Atlantis story. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Minimalist wrote:

Did those things happen?.

No, but does that really matter?

The Spanish did not blow up the USS Maine in Havana harbor but people believed that they had and acted accordingly.

I find your answer quite remarkable.

Yes, it matters if one wants to know the factual basis of any story if for no other reason than to simply know (isn’t that what history is about?). The first question anyone asks on hearing a story is “Is it true?”.

Now, if you are saying that if subsequent events are contingent upon a belief then the factual basis of that belief is irrelevant, it seems equally obvious to me that it still matters if only to determine the rationale of history.

Also, a knowledge of the factual basis of beliefs offers up strategies for subsequent action. For example, if events were caused by erroneous beliefs they might later be reversed or compensated for.

Finally, you are implying a belief-based history of mankind. Since it can be argued that everything we know and do is, or is based upon beliefs then this is self-evidently true. ButI don’t see how such a history can tell the whole ‘story’.

What people believe to be true is usually far more important than what is true. The fact that large masses of people can be hoodwinked into acting according to their beliefs rather than the facts is a demonstrably repeated failure of humanity since the dawn of time.

Just ask the Spanish in 1898.

As far as "history" goes I agree with Napoleon. "History is a lie agreed upon."

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote: We have no evidence of a temple or a monotheistic religion in Judah prior to the end of the Exile. Only the OT which is a questionable document at this point tells that story. Archaeology may not be able to disprove that there is a god but it certainly can show that the tales told of him or his "people" are unsupported.

This is a separate point.

Can I rewrite your last sentence to one that makes more sense to me?

Archaeology may not be able to disprove that there is a god, but it certainly can show that the tales told of a Jewish God or his "people" are unsupported in history, but make more sense as mythos.

Yes, as far as it goes. In your earlier post you mentioned that Jewish myths were "literalized." This is the problem and also the solution. Myths can seem fantastic but when you claim that something really happened then it should leave evidence on the ground. We have found virtually nothing to support these "literalized" tales.

How much of what we know about Jewish history is from sources extra to the OT?

Damn little. Much of what we have learned contradicts the OT account.

I’m assuming that we know the Babylonian captivity really did happen because of Persian documents recording it. But I’ve never seen these documents or heard them quoted from. Once again, not to say that they don’t exist – just that I’ve not seen them or heard about them.

Not only Persian but we have records from Babylon which tell of the capture of the city in 597/6. We also have Assyrian records relating to the numbers deported from "Israel" a century or so earlier.

I only ask because my own research has convinced me (and many others, far more illustrious) that the following stories from the OT are myths and therefore, are not historical.

1. The Creation
2. Garden of Eden
3. The Deluge
4. The Exodus
5. Joseph and his Coat of Many Colours
6. Joshua’s Conquering of Jericho
7. David and Goliath
8. Solomon’s Temple

1,2 & 3 seem to have been copied from Sumerian tales. We can speculate that they learned of these tales during the Exile in Babylon but really that isn't necessary or even terribly likely. Most likely these were camp fire yarns told to wandering shepherds which were eventually written down when literacy came to the land. BTW, geologists (not archaeologists) have compiled a fairly convincing argument against any world-wide flood. The evidence would have been overwhelming and unmistakable had it happened.

4 & 6 is the bulk of the dispute between Finkelstein and the Minimalist school. I'll expand in the next post.

5 Probably reflects actual Canaanite racial memories of migrations to Egypt during times of famine. Archaeology has evidence for these journeys although the specifics are, of course, imaginary.

7- Finkelstein makes a compelling argument for this to have been a 7th century tale depicting the Judahites facing the Philistines or, more likely, the mercenary Greeks in service to the 26th Egyptian Dynasty of Psammetichus. The Greek hoplite style armor which the OT decks Goliath in is representative of a style of fighting which did not exist in the 10th century. Hoplites arose in the 8th century and were quickly recruited by Mediterranean powers. Judah would have lacked the resources to recruit these men which would have left them with light weapons facing a bronze-clad phalanx. Not a good idea.

8- We don't have a single archaeological find relative to the first temple. The two which they thought they had have turned out to be modern frauds. What has been found for the 10th century at best shows a miserable little village of perhaps 1,000-1,500 people in a land with a dozen small, scattered settlements in total. The bulk of the est. 20,000 total population would have been pastoralists and simply not capable of supporting any massive building projects. Now, Arch's answer to that is to "keep digging" but they are down to neolithic levels in Jerusalem and the only culture that does not show up is the one that the bible-thumpers insist upon because their stories claim it was there. Well. At some point one has to admit that the evidence does not exist.

Grumpage wrote: 1. Why do you think Plato was initiated into the Mysteries in Egypt?

This is from Plato's biographer, Thomas Taylor:

"Plato was initiated into the 'Greater Mysteries' at the age of 49. The initiation took place in one of the subterranean halls of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. The Isiaic table formed the altar, before which the Divine Plato stood and received that which was always his, but which the ceremony of the Mysteries enkindled and brought from its dormant state.

“With this ascent, after three days in the Great Hall, he was received by the Hierophant of the Pyramid (the Hierophant was seen only by those who had passed the three days, the three degrees, the three dimensions) and given verbally the Highest Esoteric Teachings, each accompanied with Its appropriate Symbol. After a further three months' sojourn in the halls of the Pyramid, the Initiate Plato was sent out into the world to do the work of the Great Order, as Pythagoras and Orpheus had been before him."

Grumpage wrote:
2. It is worth remembering that Plato is our sole source for the Atlantis story. He relates it through Critias who, Plato says, claims it as a family legacy originally provided by Solon. For all we know the story originated from Plato himself.

Highly unlikely. For one thing, Plato’s teachings are in allegorical form. Also, it's an Egyptian story and it is recorded in the Destruction of Mankind texts. So Plato said it came from an Egyptian (Solon) for a reason.

In Egyptian, the word ‘atr’ or ‘atl’ has several meanings, all relating to water. Early Egyptian had no sign for L, so originally 'atru' meant water in terms of flood, the water boundary, limit, measure, frontier, embarkment. Later on, this became ‘atl’, the root of such words as Atlantis and Atlantic.

The word ‘antu’ or ‘anti’ means ‘a division of land’. So the two words together – ‘atl’ and ‘antu’ gives us Atlantis.

In Egypt, (or Kam as it was then known and much bigger, stretching down the Nile into the south) the land was divided into seven ‘nomes’. In dividing the land in this way, they were reflecting the heptanomis (seven nomes or astronomes), the seven celestial poles. During the precession of the equinoxes, the poles shift – at the moment, we have Polaris as our Pole Star. But that will change when the equinoxes shift again early in the 22nd century. This cycle was know as the Great Year, and the end was of each Great Year was symbolised by a Great Deluge. This is the story told in the Destruction of Mankind, of the Flood that drowned the heptanomis – i.e, the seven pieces of land that bordered the water, the ‘antus’ of the ‘atls’, or seven islands of Atlantis.

Plato was actually criticised for repeating some of the stories he learned as an initiate of the Mysteries, and this was one of them.

Grumpage wrote:
3. I followed your link to the Egyptian Destruction of Mankind. Not being familiar with this kind of material I found it difficult and, forgive me, somewhat tedious (are all Egyptian stories like this?). However, I failed to recognise anything which might lead me to associate it with the Atlantis story. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Perhaps now my explanation of the symbolism will help you to read it in a different way? Hope it helps anyway. But these stories are complex and without a guide to the symbolism, you’d be all at sea (no pun intended!).

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.

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.

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.

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.