Is the Exodus less an exodus if the story told in the Hebrew Bible never happened? That is, myth functions not because of its accuracy, but because of its truth.
And would today's Israelites have a better claim for killing Palestinians if the land they claim as theirs was once claimed by a progenitor? Who's land is it, after all?
As Joseph Campbell pointed out, religion goes astray once it begins to venerate the symbols it's created, losing sight of (or, worse, desecrating) the symbolic message.
I'd agree with the Campbell point to a degree, myth doesn't need to be factual to carry real meaning. Where I get more careful is when that meaning gets used to justify a present-day territorial claim. Whether a founding story happened and whether it should decide who owns land today are different questions, and that second one is political, not historical. I'll leave that one to readers.
Only the Jews need archaeology to justify their claim to Gaza, and then only for their conscience. For the rest of us it's irrelevant, no pot sherd or context label would justify what that have done.
Genesis says Abraham had camels. Archeology and DNA analysis says camels weren't domesticated in Mesopotamia until the Iron Age, well after Abraham. The received text of Genesis, however, was written in the Iron Age. So the anachronistic camels are understandable.
The Bible is not history, or truth; it is myth, which supplies meaning.
No, the Bible isn’t simply a history textbook that got some details wrong. But it is a history textbook that got a lot of the details right, and very well may continue to do so given enough time, intense investigation, and most importantly, an end to the biased, minimalist obsession with “ destroy the new findings whatever the cost.”
There is hard, new evidence that much of the outdated theories initiated and maintained by supposed Biblical “ experts,” can be overturned and replaced with new and authentic versions of both history and Scripture, and how those two seemingly contradictory points of reference can have areas of common agreement. Archaeology has certainly been effective in the digging up, and the unearthing of exciting new evidence never before deemed possible to uncover.
Whether one wishes to continue following the same old well-worn and outdated interpretive path laid out by Dever, Finkelstein, Thompson, et all, let it be understood that any, and probably most all new evidence they encounter will be trashed and discarded as pure nonsense and speculation, best left underground and forever concealed.
So too with the earlier discoveries associated with both the authenticity of the Exodus, followed by an examination of Kathleen Kenyon’s outdated narrative focusing on the siege of Jericho and the resulting destruction and conquest by Joshua. Meticulous analysis and mathematical models accurately predict a new dating system based upon the Biblical Book of Kings, and, wow, the new theories are downright stunning in there match to match agreement between both Bible and history.
Exodus happened. Joshua’s conquest of Jericho happened.
So no, the Bible is not filled to the brim with tall tales invented solely to offer a background for a people’s identity and origin. Much to the dismay and disappointment to many, the Bible, for all it’s many contradictions and occasional folly, is one heck of an historical account of humanity’s spiritual journey with Divinity.
I didn't offer an opinion in the piece, I laid out scholarly consensus. What I personally believe about whether the Exodus happened has no value to the reader since that's not evidence and shouldn't carry any weight.
Genuine question back to you: do you think archaeology could ever dig up evidence that falsifies the Bible's account of events? Or is that not a bar you think the evidence needs to clear either way?
I hope I didn’t infer that your piece was based on your personal opinion re. whether events happened. I apologize if it came across that way. I understand that your goal is to remain neutral and to allow the facts to speak, whether in support of Biblical claims or not.
Absolutely, if archaeology digs up evidence that could falsify Biblical claims, and perhaps that has already happened, I would accept and appreciate the findings, as long as those findings were beyond dispute and not open to further controversy.
I wasn't upset at all. I now see my answer may have come across as cold, but that wasn't my intention.
My worry is more about staying honest and judging myself by the same standards I apply to people I'm critical of, some of whom are religious and some irreligious.
Detecting patterns, coming to personal conclusions, and emotionally investing in those conclusions is very human, and I do it too. The trick is separating what one knows from what one believes. Even if I believe something is true 100 percent, I wouldn't state it as fact or defend it as true if I don't have hard evidence. I might at best float it as a hypothesis.
I do think your articles are free of personal opinion and pretty much reflect objective analysis. I agree, we all have that tendency to emotionally invest in the conclusions we reach, but you are right, we need the facts to support those conclusions or they will simply fall on weak grounds.
Re “The Tel Dan Stele, discovered in 1993, references the “House of David,” which was a bombshell for scholars who’d argued David was entirely mythical.”
I read that scholars atested to the use of “House of …” laguage, like the house of Windsor, did not exist at that time. Maybe they were referring to a house owned by someone named David.
Re “… the monotheism we associate with biblical religion was a late development, probably not fully consolidated until the Persian period (after 539 BCE).” Fully consolidated? Hardly. There were “Altars in the Hills” well into the current era. Monotheism was invented and pushed by elites in Jerusalem, but in the hinterlands, not so much.
Good catch, worth clarifying. The "house of X" formula in Northwest Semitic inscriptions is a standard way of naming a dynasty after its founder, same construction shows up for Omri (bit-Humri) in Assyrian records. It's not that nobody named David could've owned a house, it's that this specific phrase is dynastic language. That's why it landed as evidence for a historical David rather than just some guy's house.
And yes, I agree that "fully consolidated" was an oversimplification. Household religion and local shrines stuck around well past the Persian period. What the Jerusalem priesthood was pushing and what people did in the countryside are two different things, and I conflated them there.
My comments can come off as sounding critical, for which I apologize if you felt that. I am a big fan of yours. Impressed by the totality of your output and now a financial supporter, too. Thanks for all you do!
A heartfelt thank you -- and truly, no need to apologize. I took your comment as critical, but I wasn’t hurt or anything. Critical feedback is always welcome here. This kind of work only improves when readers care enough to point out what doesn’t land.
Kinda like the US Constitution - built on the monotheism of "pursuit of happiness" Wasn't Tom crafty covering up John Locke's honest description of the Enlightenment agenda? Maybe that's why Jefferson is on the two-dollar bill - he's so two-faced
"the Israelites emerged from within Canaan, they didn’t invade it."
What about the Mesopotamia connection? Mesopotamia is the cradle of Jewish ancestry and the birthplace of the Diaspora. It is the legendary origin point of the patriarch Abraham (Ur). They obviously came to Canaan later -- invasion or not.
"Israelites emerged from within Canaan" is about the material record, house styles, pottery, settlement patterns in the Iron I highlands looking like local Canaanite culture, not an invading foreign population. The Abraham-from-Ur story is a separate strand, probably a later origin legend explaining ancestry and land claims, not something archaeology can trace as an actual migration. Both can be true at once: the population was mostly indigenous, and the text also preserves an origin story pointing east that the settlement evidence doesn't back up.
The UR is best translated as the Urfa corridor - on the way to Urartu/Ararat, the Anatolian highlands also. This is where the 'ur' and kald and chald phonemes are first found. It is also where the trail of the firsts descends to the Mesopotamian basin - writing (Vinca) mining, metalwork, viticulture, etc. The Ur of the Chaldees is not the Babylonian basin where the scribing began, but indicates the 'origin of the Chaldeans. A very different locale entirely.
As with every branch of science, archaeology never shows the existence of the supernatural. The most plausible explanation for the universe is scientific not supernatural
That’s not how it is understood by christians seeking affirmations of supernatural belief through archaeology. They want the science to support the supernatural. It is why some of them resort to lies about finding chariot wheels to prove the parting of the Red Sea and ancient timbers on a mountain to prove Noah’s Ark and an apocalyptic flood.
I hear what you're saying. The projects you're referring to are often run by charlatans making their millions from it, and those projects have little to do with science.
The question of the historical Jesus isn't about whether the biblical Jesus is historical. It's about whether the biblical Jesus is based on a historical figure.
Neither the natural nor social sciences provide tools to prove or disprove any supernatural claim.
The supernatural is unfalsifiable by definition, so history isn't in the business of confirming or denying whether a miracle actually happened. What it can look at is whether people believed it happened, and what that belief did.
Same deal with Egyptian pharaohs as historical figures. History records that their people regarded them as gods. Whether they actually were gods isn't a question history or archaeology is equipped to answer, or even trying to.
While the foundation of modern-day Israel and its right to exist is irreversible, ancestral claims are bollocks (pardon my British) under any circumstances. If we went by that logic, all white people worldwide would have to move back to Europe, leaving the land to its "true" owners, the natives.
Ironically, the claim doesn't even hold up on its own terms. The ancestrally claimed land wasn't originally Israelite. If anything, the Israelites were refugees. Their land was somewhere in Egypt.
The criterion of embarrassment is used only in biblical scholarship; it is not an accepted tool of historical research. Are you familiar with other explanations for Jesus' baptism by John, and how do you respond to them?
Yes. The archaeology has been forced into a Biblical derivation in what we believed history was in the Victorian era. We are still not de-hypnotized from it. Many elements of history we have accepted as established fact rest on the Roman and Church scholars who were working to an agenda.
I have looked and thought long and hard on how archaeological evidence looks if we take the Roman influence away and stick to what is evidenced. And the picture is strikingly different.
Once various Bedes and Eusebiuses and Josephuses (with their claimed sources such as Manetho) are reigned in and propaganda taken out, the world looks very different. The Bible becomes a repetition of Egyptian and Mesopotamian theologies almost entirely. Greek history is given as Judean, tribal reforms in Greece appear as tribes in Canaan etc. Memories of Avaris given as escape from Egypt. Thera and the storm mountain god as the great punisher become memories of the greatest volcanic eruption in history etc.
But you mention Tel Dan as evidence for King David. I entirely disagree. The data is nuanced at times, but the stele is no David. It is House of 'David' as a banner, and container for a type of people, not even clearly 'Israel' as we know it. When examined through a data-driven lens and compared to 'Davidic' and related texts in the Bible, a very different picture emerges. And it evidences 'no David' more than a messianic king who organised a set of tribes in Canaan.
From the Logos Ptah from his void and Atum,. to the founding father Moses as Osiris and Jesus as an other recursion of the same mythos, a set of seasons told as thousands of years in generations, the disambiguation of where the sky and earth dramas meet becomes clearly Egyptian with Mesopotamian types held in common.
Thank you for sharing it. However, the article is more of an opinion piece, as it includes things that are either still debated by scholars, rejected by mainstream historians, or purely speculative. For example, there's indeed a damaged statue of a high-status Asiatic figure with a colorful garment, dating back to the Hyksos period. However, there is no evidence linking it to Joseph.
This isn't about whether I think you're right or wrong. Even if I thought your piece was the most plausible, I'd have to remind myself that reality isn't defined by what I find most sensible.
There is a major dispute about the numbers of people in the Exodus. Firstly it could be a mistranslation of 600,000 or 6,000,000 but actually a much smaller number of thousands. The oasis mentioned would not have bee sufficient for a very large number.
Secondly there is a distinct possibility that not all the Israelites followed Moses but some may have taken another route - perhaps towards Kush.
In the book of Samuel (I prefer the original one book rather than a division) one verse mentions both Hebrews and Israelites hence there not being the same. Did Hebrews leave pre-Exodus and become mercenaries in various nations ?
What is read - even in the most ancient sources - is a congromulation of assorted versions often updated and varied across various geographical areas and understandings.
The Bible is FOR us not TO us as our instruction manual containing allegories.
There is a distinct similarly between the ten instructions and chapter 127 (if I recall that number correctly) of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Tanner,
Is the Exodus less an exodus if the story told in the Hebrew Bible never happened? That is, myth functions not because of its accuracy, but because of its truth.
And would today's Israelites have a better claim for killing Palestinians if the land they claim as theirs was once claimed by a progenitor? Who's land is it, after all?
As Joseph Campbell pointed out, religion goes astray once it begins to venerate the symbols it's created, losing sight of (or, worse, desecrating) the symbolic message.
In short, way to go - again!
Take care,
Alan
I'd agree with the Campbell point to a degree, myth doesn't need to be factual to carry real meaning. Where I get more careful is when that meaning gets used to justify a present-day territorial claim. Whether a founding story happened and whether it should decide who owns land today are different questions, and that second one is political, not historical. I'll leave that one to readers.
I agree - leave it for each of us to hash out. That said, I'm with Robin Wall Kim meter. Property - human claims to land - is fraught
Only the Jews need archaeology to justify their claim to Gaza, and then only for their conscience. For the rest of us it's irrelevant, no pot sherd or context label would justify what that have done.
Genesis says Abraham had camels. Archeology and DNA analysis says camels weren't domesticated in Mesopotamia until the Iron Age, well after Abraham. The received text of Genesis, however, was written in the Iron Age. So the anachronistic camels are understandable.
The Bible is not history, or truth; it is myth, which supplies meaning.
That's an interesting addition, thanks.
No, the Bible isn’t simply a history textbook that got some details wrong. But it is a history textbook that got a lot of the details right, and very well may continue to do so given enough time, intense investigation, and most importantly, an end to the biased, minimalist obsession with “ destroy the new findings whatever the cost.”
There is hard, new evidence that much of the outdated theories initiated and maintained by supposed Biblical “ experts,” can be overturned and replaced with new and authentic versions of both history and Scripture, and how those two seemingly contradictory points of reference can have areas of common agreement. Archaeology has certainly been effective in the digging up, and the unearthing of exciting new evidence never before deemed possible to uncover.
Whether one wishes to continue following the same old well-worn and outdated interpretive path laid out by Dever, Finkelstein, Thompson, et all, let it be understood that any, and probably most all new evidence they encounter will be trashed and discarded as pure nonsense and speculation, best left underground and forever concealed.
So too with the earlier discoveries associated with both the authenticity of the Exodus, followed by an examination of Kathleen Kenyon’s outdated narrative focusing on the siege of Jericho and the resulting destruction and conquest by Joshua. Meticulous analysis and mathematical models accurately predict a new dating system based upon the Biblical Book of Kings, and, wow, the new theories are downright stunning in there match to match agreement between both Bible and history.
Exodus happened. Joshua’s conquest of Jericho happened.
So no, the Bible is not filled to the brim with tall tales invented solely to offer a background for a people’s identity and origin. Much to the dismay and disappointment to many, the Bible, for all it’s many contradictions and occasional folly, is one heck of an historical account of humanity’s spiritual journey with Divinity.
I didn't offer an opinion in the piece, I laid out scholarly consensus. What I personally believe about whether the Exodus happened has no value to the reader since that's not evidence and shouldn't carry any weight.
Genuine question back to you: do you think archaeology could ever dig up evidence that falsifies the Bible's account of events? Or is that not a bar you think the evidence needs to clear either way?
I hope I didn’t infer that your piece was based on your personal opinion re. whether events happened. I apologize if it came across that way. I understand that your goal is to remain neutral and to allow the facts to speak, whether in support of Biblical claims or not.
Absolutely, if archaeology digs up evidence that could falsify Biblical claims, and perhaps that has already happened, I would accept and appreciate the findings, as long as those findings were beyond dispute and not open to further controversy.
I wasn't upset at all. I now see my answer may have come across as cold, but that wasn't my intention.
My worry is more about staying honest and judging myself by the same standards I apply to people I'm critical of, some of whom are religious and some irreligious.
Detecting patterns, coming to personal conclusions, and emotionally investing in those conclusions is very human, and I do it too. The trick is separating what one knows from what one believes. Even if I believe something is true 100 percent, I wouldn't state it as fact or defend it as true if I don't have hard evidence. I might at best float it as a hypothesis.
I do think your articles are free of personal opinion and pretty much reflect objective analysis. I agree, we all have that tendency to emotionally invest in the conclusions we reach, but you are right, we need the facts to support those conclusions or they will simply fall on weak grounds.
Re “The Tel Dan Stele, discovered in 1993, references the “House of David,” which was a bombshell for scholars who’d argued David was entirely mythical.”
I read that scholars atested to the use of “House of …” laguage, like the house of Windsor, did not exist at that time. Maybe they were referring to a house owned by someone named David.
Re “… the monotheism we associate with biblical religion was a late development, probably not fully consolidated until the Persian period (after 539 BCE).” Fully consolidated? Hardly. There were “Altars in the Hills” well into the current era. Monotheism was invented and pushed by elites in Jerusalem, but in the hinterlands, not so much.
Good catch, worth clarifying. The "house of X" formula in Northwest Semitic inscriptions is a standard way of naming a dynasty after its founder, same construction shows up for Omri (bit-Humri) in Assyrian records. It's not that nobody named David could've owned a house, it's that this specific phrase is dynastic language. That's why it landed as evidence for a historical David rather than just some guy's house.
And yes, I agree that "fully consolidated" was an oversimplification. Household religion and local shrines stuck around well past the Persian period. What the Jerusalem priesthood was pushing and what people did in the countryside are two different things, and I conflated them there.
My comments can come off as sounding critical, for which I apologize if you felt that. I am a big fan of yours. Impressed by the totality of your output and now a financial supporter, too. Thanks for all you do!
A heartfelt thank you -- and truly, no need to apologize. I took your comment as critical, but I wasn’t hurt or anything. Critical feedback is always welcome here. This kind of work only improves when readers care enough to point out what doesn’t land.
Kinda like the US Constitution - built on the monotheism of "pursuit of happiness" Wasn't Tom crafty covering up John Locke's honest description of the Enlightenment agenda? Maybe that's why Jefferson is on the two-dollar bill - he's so two-faced
That's a fun connection, thanks.
"the Israelites emerged from within Canaan, they didn’t invade it."
What about the Mesopotamia connection? Mesopotamia is the cradle of Jewish ancestry and the birthplace of the Diaspora. It is the legendary origin point of the patriarch Abraham (Ur). They obviously came to Canaan later -- invasion or not.
"Israelites emerged from within Canaan" is about the material record, house styles, pottery, settlement patterns in the Iron I highlands looking like local Canaanite culture, not an invading foreign population. The Abraham-from-Ur story is a separate strand, probably a later origin legend explaining ancestry and land claims, not something archaeology can trace as an actual migration. Both can be true at once: the population was mostly indigenous, and the text also preserves an origin story pointing east that the settlement evidence doesn't back up.
The UR is best translated as the Urfa corridor - on the way to Urartu/Ararat, the Anatolian highlands also. This is where the 'ur' and kald and chald phonemes are first found. It is also where the trail of the firsts descends to the Mesopotamian basin - writing (Vinca) mining, metalwork, viticulture, etc. The Ur of the Chaldees is not the Babylonian basin where the scribing began, but indicates the 'origin of the Chaldeans. A very different locale entirely.
https://ivanfraser.substack.com/i/172254188/karkharchar-enclosure-quarry-cliff-the-khatti-as-stone-people
As with every branch of science, archaeology never shows the existence of the supernatural. The most plausible explanation for the universe is scientific not supernatural
That’s not how it is understood by christians seeking affirmations of supernatural belief through archaeology. They want the science to support the supernatural. It is why some of them resort to lies about finding chariot wheels to prove the parting of the Red Sea and ancient timbers on a mountain to prove Noah’s Ark and an apocalyptic flood.
I hear what you're saying. The projects you're referring to are often run by charlatans making their millions from it, and those projects have little to do with science.
The question of the historical Jesus isn't about whether the biblical Jesus is historical. It's about whether the biblical Jesus is based on a historical figure.
Neither the natural nor social sciences provide tools to prove or disprove any supernatural claim.
The supernatural is unfalsifiable by definition, so history isn't in the business of confirming or denying whether a miracle actually happened. What it can look at is whether people believed it happened, and what that belief did.
Same deal with Egyptian pharaohs as historical figures. History records that their people regarded them as gods. Whether they actually were gods isn't a question history or archaeology is equipped to answer, or even trying to.
All the more reason to challenge a narrative which lays ancestral claim to the land.
While the foundation of modern-day Israel and its right to exist is irreversible, ancestral claims are bollocks (pardon my British) under any circumstances. If we went by that logic, all white people worldwide would have to move back to Europe, leaving the land to its "true" owners, the natives.
Ironically, the claim doesn't even hold up on its own terms. The ancestrally claimed land wasn't originally Israelite. If anything, the Israelites were refugees. Their land was somewhere in Egypt.
Hi Tanner,
A familiarity with ancient history is essential before studying the Hebrew Bible.
Understanding the Israelites’ origins is essential to knowing where they came out from.
Did they originate in Egypt? Certainly not!
Your stance on the Exodus appears to be similar to Bart Ehrman’s.
Here is my response to “Bart Ehrman’s uneducated take on Exodus”:
https://www.academia.edu/170149748/Bart_Ehrmans_uneducated_take_on_Exodus
https://medium.com%2F@medium.com/@dtango/bart-ehrmans-uneducated-take-on-exodus-9069bd2d8f98
I will check them out. Thanks.
Whether Exodus happened isn't a controversial question. Even most mainstream Christian scholars see it as theological, not historical.
Read John Romer’s Testament - History & The Bible.
Appreciate the recommendation, I'll take a look.
It’s worth it.
The criterion of embarrassment is used only in biblical scholarship; it is not an accepted tool of historical research. Are you familiar with other explanations for Jesus' baptism by John, and how do you respond to them?
Yes. The archaeology has been forced into a Biblical derivation in what we believed history was in the Victorian era. We are still not de-hypnotized from it. Many elements of history we have accepted as established fact rest on the Roman and Church scholars who were working to an agenda.
I have looked and thought long and hard on how archaeological evidence looks if we take the Roman influence away and stick to what is evidenced. And the picture is strikingly different.
Once various Bedes and Eusebiuses and Josephuses (with their claimed sources such as Manetho) are reigned in and propaganda taken out, the world looks very different. The Bible becomes a repetition of Egyptian and Mesopotamian theologies almost entirely. Greek history is given as Judean, tribal reforms in Greece appear as tribes in Canaan etc. Memories of Avaris given as escape from Egypt. Thera and the storm mountain god as the great punisher become memories of the greatest volcanic eruption in history etc.
But you mention Tel Dan as evidence for King David. I entirely disagree. The data is nuanced at times, but the stele is no David. It is House of 'David' as a banner, and container for a type of people, not even clearly 'Israel' as we know it. When examined through a data-driven lens and compared to 'Davidic' and related texts in the Bible, a very different picture emerges. And it evidences 'no David' more than a messianic king who organised a set of tribes in Canaan.
From the Logos Ptah from his void and Atum,. to the founding father Moses as Osiris and Jesus as an other recursion of the same mythos, a set of seasons told as thousands of years in generations, the disambiguation of where the sky and earth dramas meet becomes clearly Egyptian with Mesopotamian types held in common.
https://ivanfraser.substack.com/p/the-return-of-the-storm-god-appendix-12f
The archaeological record isn't completely empty re: the Patriarchs.
https://pilgrimssearch.substack.com/p/israel-in-egypt
Thank you for sharing it. However, the article is more of an opinion piece, as it includes things that are either still debated by scholars, rejected by mainstream historians, or purely speculative. For example, there's indeed a damaged statue of a high-status Asiatic figure with a colorful garment, dating back to the Hyksos period. However, there is no evidence linking it to Joseph.
This isn't about whether I think you're right or wrong. Even if I thought your piece was the most plausible, I'd have to remind myself that reality isn't defined by what I find most sensible.
There is a major dispute about the numbers of people in the Exodus. Firstly it could be a mistranslation of 600,000 or 6,000,000 but actually a much smaller number of thousands. The oasis mentioned would not have bee sufficient for a very large number.
Secondly there is a distinct possibility that not all the Israelites followed Moses but some may have taken another route - perhaps towards Kush.
In the book of Samuel (I prefer the original one book rather than a division) one verse mentions both Hebrews and Israelites hence there not being the same. Did Hebrews leave pre-Exodus and become mercenaries in various nations ?
What is read - even in the most ancient sources - is a congromulation of assorted versions often updated and varied across various geographical areas and understandings.
The Bible is FOR us not TO us as our instruction manual containing allegories.
There is a distinct similarly between the ten instructions and chapter 127 (if I recall that number correctly) of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.