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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.