Hi W_Fortenberry, hope you are well
The majority has been wrong before. The number of people in favor of a position does not necessarily make that position correct.
Whether they are correct or incorrect is not the issue, the issue is whether Prof. Finkelstein is a liar (your words) or not.
Now I have clearly shown you that the 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea is a well-established tradition, Prof. Finkelstein obviously knew this is an established position and used it in his book. Now whether it turns out that the Israelites did or did not stay at Kadesh-Barnea is immaterial, the ‘truth’ of the matter is that there is a way to find a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea in the Hebrew Bible. Prof. Finkelstein has not lied; he used a well-established tradition to support his findings. He wasn’t the one who came up with this information, I already posted various books where you can find the reference to the 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea.
You have not told me whether you believe that the editors of Easton’s Bible are liars, or whether H. H. Rowley lied, are the editors of ‘The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible’ liars too, is John L Makenzie a liar? All these people, and many more, confirm that there is a tradition of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea, it is a fact that a 38-year stay in Kadesh-Barnea can be inferred from the Bible texts, I even posted where it can be found. Whether it turns out that the Israelites were actually there or not is not the issue, many things in the Bible cannot be supported by archaeology, it doesn’t make the people publishing the finds liars because it doesn’t fit in with your view. Even if they turn out to be mistaken does not mean they lied, it only means that they published what they believed to be a valid conclusion from the artefacts that they are interpreting.
So the point is not whether the majority are correct or incorrect, the point is that there is a well established tradition of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea that can be found in the Hebrew Bible and this is what Prof. Finkelstein referred to.
You have not shown that Prof. Finkelstein and all the others who use the Book of Numbers to support a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea are mistaken. If you do manage to prove they are mistaken it still doesn’t mean that they knowingly used false information.
Likewise, the number of people opposed to a position does not necessarily make that position incorrect.
It does however mean that there are very good reasons for doubting that particular position. And when Bible maximalists like Bill Dever and Baruch Halpern also demote the Bible to a secondary source then the Bible’s credibility as a historically reliable source is gravely weakened. Some events have such bizarre conditions attached to them that they can indeed be incorrect. The sheer numbers involved in the Exodus and the complete lack of evidence for the epic events surrounding that event make it impossible for the Biblical narrative to be true, at least at face value. Sure there may be ways to manipulate the text or reinterpret the biblical information, but if we have to continually investigate, reinterpret and manipulate the biblical texts because the events described are not supported by archaeology or are physically impossible, then we must at some point start to question the accuracy of this source. You also have to remember that no other source receives the special treatment that the Bible does, if any other source claimed some of the things that the Bible does, you would laugh at it
Also, I am sure that we would differ over the term, "respected scholar." Those whom you respect may not be the same that I respect. Nevertheless, the presence of respect also does not make one's position correct.
In regard to the debate on the origins of Ancient Israel, can you inform me of anyone who, in your opinion, is a respected scholar that takes the Bible account of the Origins of Ancient Israel at face value, and what their external supporting evidence is?
I use the term ‘respected scholar’ in this context as anyone who lectures, or has lectured, on this very subject at an accredited university, anyone who has published peer reviewed books or articles on this topic, and anyone who does not fall back on supernatural explanations for supporting a historical event.
That is a very interesting conclusion. Would you be willing to tell us how you arrived at it, especially in regards to our current topic? Perhaps you culd provide a list of those contradictions and impossible claims which are relevant to this discussion.
I am sure that you agree that the Bible no longer stands unchallenged at the centre of intellectual and religious life of the western world, and there are some very good reasons for this.
There are far too many problems to list them all, but if I post ‘themes’ rather than an endless list of ‘problems’ then it should be clear why historians have problems with taking the Bible as a reliable source for reconstructing history.
These themes are by no means an exhaustive list, I am sure there are other themes that show how unreliable the Bible is, but I think these should suffice. I have posted some of these arguments at this site before, but I will repeat them here to save you time.
(a) Live long and prosper!
The most explicit difficulty found in the Hebrew Bible is exposed without using any convoluted exegesis. It is fair to say that even the proverbial `man in the street' has major problems with accepting the life spans of certain biblical characters at face value. These incredibly long life spans are many times longer than what expect modern day people to live for. To even reach one hundred years old is seen as a major achievement nowadays, so special that if you are a British citizen you will receive a telegram from the queen on your one hundredth birthday.
The Guinness Book of Records claims that `the oldest fully authenticated age to which any human has ever lived is 122 years and 164 days, by Jeanne-Louise Calment. She was born in France on February 21, 1875, and died at a nursing home in Arles, southern France on August 4, 1997. President Jacques Chirac once said Jean Calment was a little hit like a grandmother to everyone in France. She was 14 when the Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889. She led an extremely active life, taking up fencing at 85 years old, and was still riding a bicycle at 100. She portrayed herself at the age of 114 in the film Vincent And Me, to become the oldest actress in film. (Guinness book of records web site)
Now the Bible doesn't just claim that some people lived a little bit longer than Jeanne Calment, in some cases it claims that they lived more than seven times longer with the first man, Adam, living to the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5), Seth, Adam's son, lived to be 912 (Gen. 5:8), Jared 962 (Gen. 5:18), Noah 950 (Gen. 9:29)) and the longest lived person in the Bible, Methuselah, lived to the grand old age of 969 (Gen. 5:27). When we compare this to the expected lifespan of people living in the modern world then we can appreciate why it is difficult for modern day historians to view these claims, at least at face value, with anything other than scepticism.
Although it is argued that there may be a way to harmonise these inordinately long life spans with modern day life expectancy, for example, by suggesting that these ages are not biological or that the system of counting was different to ours (Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible, General Editor Watson E Mills, entry Noah p.619), this involves a particular interpretation of the text and possibly applying to the text a system of counting that the Bible authors did not use.
(b) Systematic and Schematic Chronologies.
Another problem related to time is the inclusion of what looks like systematic or schematic chronologies. Essentially, some scholars think that certain time frames show too many signs of order to be actual literal times. For example, the recurring use of numbers such as 12 and 40 suggest that these are not literal periods of time, but are schematic numbers. Jeremy Hughes highlights some common schematic numbers:
`12 and 40 are common schematic numbers: there are 12 tribes of Israel, Israel wanders for 40 years in the wilderness, Moses spends 40 days on Mount Sinai etc. 40 years was considered to be the typical duration of adult life (Num. 32:13), and is therefore used as an ideal figure for periods of ministry or rule. Moses was a prophet for 40 years, David and Solomon reigned for 40 years each, and so on. Schematic Biblical numbers typically fall into one (or more) of two categories. Some numbers (10, 100, 1000, and multiples) are simply round decimal numbers. Others (such as 12 and 7) have calendrical associations: 12 is the number of months in the year and 7 is the number of days in the week. 365 (the number of days in a solar year) is occasionally used as a schematic number: Enoch lives for 365 years and there are also 365 years from the flood to Abraham's migration. Similarly 52 (the number of weeks in a solar year) is used as a schematic figure in post biblical literature (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology JSOT, Sheffield, 1990. p.37).'
As well as referring to David and Saul both reigning for forty years (2 Sam. 5:4 & I Kings. 11:41), Hughes could have also included the reign of Joash that also lasted forty years (2 Kings 12:1) and that Eli judged Israel for forty years (1 Sam. 4:18). Also, even although 1 Sam 13:1 is unclear about how long Saul reigned, Acts 13:21 informs us that he too reigned for forty years.
Moses' life is neatly packaged into three groups of forty years. He was forty years old when he decided to visit his fellow Israelites (Acts 7:23), he lived with the Midianites for forty years as he was eighty when he first spoke to pharaoh (Ex. 7:7), and he led the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years (Ex. 16:35) before he died aged 120.
Numbers related to forty also feature in some passages, e.g. Solomon began work on the Temple 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt (l Kings 6:1) and there are another 480 years from this point until the return of the exiles from Babylon.
Modern historians believe that examples such as these are just a little too well organised, life as we know it, doesn't really work out as systematically as this.
(c) Creative Imaginations.
Some narratives in the Hebrew Bible also appear to be beyond the realms of possibility and at face value many accounts seem to be more the product of an over active imagination rather than an accurate historical record.
There are many instances where events described appear to have been greatly exaggerated or are logically dubious. An example of this is the generally accepted number of people included in the Exodus group. There are references to the number of Israelite men off fighting age who were included in the Exodus group, this figure is given as about 600 000 (Exodus 12:37), John Bright in his History Of Ancient Israel, writes that `counting women and children and old men there would be 2-3 million Israelites in the Exodus group.' Many scholars take the middle figure here and work from a group of two and a half million people. But, if we start to dissect this claim then huge problems of credibility come into view.
To begin with, the Bible informs us that just 430 years earlier (Exodus 12:40) the seventy members of Joseph's family entered Egypt (Genesis 46:27), John Bright actually has a footnote that states:
'Cf. A. Lucas (PEQ, 1944, ppl64-168), who estimates on the basis of present rate of population increase in Egypt that 70 men would have produced 10 363 offspring in 430 years. The reader can figure that two and a half million people marching in an old-fashioned column of fours would extend for some 350 miles!
This is the complete reference that Bright makes regarding Lucas' article and as I was very interested in how this figure was reached I managed to get a hold of the original article by Lucas.
Lucas starts the article off by stressing that the number of Israelites involved in the Exodus is very important because this has a direct bearing on the amount of food and water required by the group on their journey. He then gives the standard run down of biblical references that claim there were around 600 000 men of fighting age involved in the Exodus and adds to this women and children to arrive at a total of two million for the entire group.
Lucas then claims that not only is this figure of two million people far too high, but the numbers given in the census list of Num. 1:46 also `very much too high (Lucas p.167).' Lucas gives two solid pieces of evidence to support his stance.
Firstly he cites the Bible references that claim there were only 70 Israelites who entered Egypt 430 years earlier, this isn't quite in line with what Bright says as bright declares there were 70 men, but this makes no difference to the argument. Lucas is working with official population figures from Annuaire Statistique, 1937-8 and informs us that between 1907 and 1937 the average annual rate of population increase per 1000 people was 11.69%. When he applied this growth rate to the 70 Israelites over a period of 430 years he arrived at a total population of 10 363 (Lucas, p.137).
Secondly, he tells us:
`The population of the whole of the Administrative Division or Province, of Sinai, from the Mediterranean Sea on the north to the apex of the peninsula on the south, was only 15,058 in 1927, and only 29 951 in 1937, and there could not possibly have been either water or food sufficient for the number of Israelites given (Lucas, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly , 1944, p167-8).
These figures cast serious doubts on the credibility of the Bible in regard to the numbers involved in the Exodus, not only do they make the population growth a physical impossibility, they also make it out of the question for a group this size to survive off the land's resources.
Just as there are several ways to harmonise the unbelievably long life spans given in Genesis, there have been several suggestions that attempt to give credence to these very large numbers.
Bright gives an explanation that can drastically cut the numbers involved in the Exodus group, he says that the word used for `thousand' ('elef) can be used to refer to a tribal subunit (Bright, p.130) which would make the figure a bit more realistic. Lucas gives a better explanation when he reveals:
`Another suggestion is that made by Flinders Petrie, namely, that the Hebrew word alaf (elef ), which is translated " thousands," should be " families," " tents," or " clans." In this manner of reckoning, the first census would mean 598 families with a total of 5 550 men, and the second census would mean 596 families with a total of 5,730 men. But, since the totals, whatever they are, are stated to represent only men of twenty years old and upward who were able to fight, the Levites being excluded, therefore, with women, girls, boys, children and Levites, the total for the whole of the Israelites would have been many times 5,550 and 5,730, and probably at least about five times as many, which would represent 27 750 and 28,650 respectively, a great reduction on the 603,550 and 601,730, but still far too many (Lucas, p.166).
A final point about the Exodus group is that it also seems highly improbable that only two midwives were required for a group of two million people. It may be argued that the Bible says that the Hebrew women were vigorous and gave birth before the midwives arrived (Ex. 1:19), but this, of course, begs the question of why there were midwives in the first place. It is more likely though that the episode involving the midwives Shiphrah and Puah, was the product of a creative imagination.
Again, if we want to harmonise these accounts with our modern day knowledge of the world, then we need to interpret the text in a certain way, or we need to accept them as they are and reject all that the sciences tell us about human reproduction and the basic human dietary requirements.
(d) Conflicting Narratives
Another problem that modern historians find with the Bible narratives is that there appears to be texts that give conflicting or even contradictory information.
The Bible certainly wastes no time in introducing conflicting information as it begins with two contradictory accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1-31, 2:1-3) is the first source, and the second source begins at (Gen. 2:4).
There are also two conflicting genealogies given for the first man Adam. In Gen. 4:126 Cain and Abel are said to be the first sons of Adam. But in Genesis 5:1-32 it is stated that Seth is the first son of Adam, Cain and Abel do not merit a mention.
Speaking of genealogies, there appears to be a bit of a credibility problem with Joshua's genealogy. If we look at the bothers Moses and Aaron we see that they are shown to be fourth generation descendants of Jacob (Ex 6:16-20) while Moses' contemporary, Joshua, is listed a twelfth generation descendant of Jacob (I Ch 7:2229).
God's flippant mistreatment of animals is another impediment to taking the Bible literally, the Bible claims that all the livestock belonging to the Egyptians were destroyed by God in Exodus 9:3-6, and for some reason had to be destroyed again in Exodus 18-21, this should make the reader think twice about the historical accuracy of these claims, it should also leave them wondering what the Egyptians used to pull their chariots as they pursued the fleeing Exodus group.
The first account tells of how Joshua and his armies carried out a lightning military campaign that resulted in `the whole land' and `all their kings' being conquered (Joshua 10:40). Then after this comprehensive victory, the land to the west of the Jordan is divided between the Israelite tribes.
However, in the account given in the Book of Judges informs us that the division of the land between the tribes came first, and it is only after the allotment that the Israelites attempt to conquer Canaan by means of a military campaign. In the Book of Judges there is no `unified effort by `all Israel' to conquer the land, as was claimed by the Book of Joshua.
Also, the Book of Judges explicitly states that the entire land was not conquered in a lightning campaign. We find in Judges chapter one a list of twenty cities whose people were not driven out by Joshua's armies. Now these cities include some of the most important cities in the land such as Jerusalem, Megiddo and Beth-Shean. So we can see that there is some degree of conflict between these two accounts.
There are usually explanations to `remove' any apparent `errors' and apologists perform wonderful contortions to explain these `errors' away. However, as far as the critical historian is concerned, the accounts as given are of little use unless they are qualified in some way. They may all be explainable, but that involves adding to the text or appealing to different interpretations, but that does mean thatthe text is not taken as being 100% accurate as we see it on the page.
(e) Composite Accounts.
For the more conservative Bible follower it is accepted without doubt that Moses wrote the five books that make up the Pentateuch, there is no problem for these people to accept that it was the work of one man, despite having recorded his death and frequently slipping into the third person narrative.
Now I don't think that proverbial `man in the street' has heard of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis but the modern bible scholar seems to accept that there were at least four authors at work in writing the Pentateuch as we have it today. The Bible clearly shows signs of being a composite work that's draws together many different types of literature and has been reworked to show a certain degree of harmony.
By reading through the text with a critical eye some signs can be found of the bringing together of different traditions. For example, did Abraham actually present his wife Sarah as his sister on different occasions (Genesis. 12:10-20, 20) and with effectively the same consequences in both cases, could we possibly have different accounts of the same event? Then we have Isaac and Rebekah acting out a similar scenario (Gen. 26:1-11), this could mean that there is an accepted literary theme being employed by the authors.
The problems continue when we read about the start of the Exodus the text reveals that the Hebrews fled Egypt without Pharaoh knowing about it, they left in a desperate hurry and totally unprepared (Exodus. 12:39; 14:5), but read a bit more carefully and you realise that they weren't unprepared, they were very well organised, they took their time in departing, and even had time to get some valuable items from the Egyptians (Exodus. 11:1-2; 12:35-36; 13:18-19).
Going back to the hero of the Conquest, Joshua, did he conquer Hebron (Joshua. 10:36), or was it Caleb (Josh. 15:13-14) or maybe even Judah (Judges. 1:9-10)?
The conservative readers may not have a problem with these examples but the critical historian, if his work is to be taken seriously, doesn't have the luxury of ignoring these problems. Again, there may be valid explanations for these problems but they involve hypotheses or questioning the accuracy of the reports. This is not an ideal way to reconstruct history.
[f] The Concept of a "Golden Age.
It was a general practice in ancient times to assume an ideal period in the distant past during which human beings allegedly lived under exceptional conditions, they enjoyed special relationships with the gods, sometimes cohabited with the gods, and lived the aforementioned fantastically long life spans. This is reflected in the early chapters of Genesis where the earliest ancestors of humanity begin life in a paradise state, are tempted to disobedience by a serpent, intermarry with divine beings, live fantastically long lives, and suffer a universal catastrophe. Modern understandings of human history informed by geology, archaeology, and paleontology assume a radically different perspective on the origin and early days of human life on earth.
(g) Divine Intervention
Another characteristic of the biblical account of Israel's origins that it shares with ancient literature in general is its emphasis on divine involvement in human affairs. In the Genesis-Joshua narrative, divine activity and purpose are considered the primary forces that are influential in the shaping and course of the historical process. God speaks directly to certain persons from time to time. God’s participation in human affairs involved ‘showing off’ His supernatural power. He sends a flood to remove all of the wicked humanity from the earth except for the eight on the Ark, he confuses the languages and scatters humanity across the earth, he sends a series of plagues upon Egypt, intervenes to help the Israelites escape from Egypt by drowning the pharaoh's army, He miraculously provides manna and quail that made it possible for them to survive in the desert for forty years, He produced unnatural occurrences such as the sudden collapse of Jericho's walls and the sun standing still at Gibeon that gave Joshua and his army an edge over the Canaanites.
While historians do not universally reject the idea of divine involvement in history, it is a premise of modern historiography that the general cause and effect aspects of history are explainable without reference to exceptional interference in natural conditions, the Red Sea crossing for example, or any kind of obvious divine involvement to human affairs. What this really means is that historians find miracles problematic and prefer to explain apparent supernatural events by means of natural phenomenon.
(h) Lineal Genealogical Descent.
There is another historical perspective that the biblical writers share with most ancient cultures and this is the assumption that the origins of the different peoples of the world are to be understood in terms of a simple lineal descent from a single ancestor or an ancestral line. The Genesis-Joshua narrative introduces Israel, Judah, and their neighbours in and around Palestine in terms of extensive family trees. The tribal groups within Israel and Judah are treated the same and they are considered to be twelve tribes descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. Modern historians, who also use anthropological studies, know that the emergence of population groups is normally a very complex process that cannot be explained or understood in the simplistic categories of lineal succession such as those presented in the Bible.
(i) Common Storytellers' Motifs.
A lot of the biblical narratives are built on motif patterns that had widespread currency in the ancient world. Perhaps the most famous motif is the ‘Cinderella’ theme. This is the story of the underdog winning through to claim the day, someone who overcomes overwhelming odds, who appears to have no chance of success but suddenly enjoys a change of fortune. The Bible is littered with these tales, Joseph, an imprisoned slave in an Egyptian jail, Moses, a baby afloat on the Nile, the Hebrews, enslaved in Egypt by a cruel pharaoh, all of these are presented as ‘Cinderellas’ who, with divine help, eventually succeed.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story shows another motif known from extrabiblical literature, this is when divine beings visit a city to test the hospitality of its people and eventually destroy the city because of its wicked inhabitants. You can compare this to the Greek myth of Baucis and Philemon. The presence of these traditional motifs in the Bible surely raises the possibility that at least some of these narratives are products of the storyteller, which of course raises serious questions about their usefulness for historical reconstruction.
(j) Far too many unconfirmed events.
Another reason that modern day historians treat the bible as a little less than reliable is that far too many of the events found in it have no support from external data.
Look at the epic events portrayed in the Bible.
The Flood.
The Tower of Babel.
The Exodus
The Military Conquest of Canaan.
The Kings, Saul, David and Solomon.
What do we have to support any of the above from external sources?
The truth is, we have NO direct evidence of any of these events, there may be inferences from some data, but there is no clear cut evidence for ANY of the above.
When a source, such as the Bible, is continuously failing to provide reliable evidence for reconstructing history, then eventually we need to relegate that source and maybe eventually discard it.
(k) Which Bible do we use?
Finally, what version of the Bible should we take as being the one to work from? Many Bibles disagree on certain things, so which one do we use for the reliable one.
Here’s an example.
The Masoretic Text claims that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch claim that it was only 215 years. (Hughes, p36)
These texts also disagree in many other places, the MT and SP have Jared living to be 962 and the LXX has him living to 847, the LXX has Methuselah living to 720, the other two say 969 years, all three disagree on the age of Lamech when he died, the LXX says 653, the MT says 777 and the SP says 753.
Of course there are many more examples, and if these do not suffice just let me know and I will provide more for you.
Forgive me for my confusion, but I do not understand your reasoning behind these statements. I do not remember any evidence given to prove the validity of Mr. Finkelstein's position.
Your confusion if forgiven. I posted the Bible references that support his position and I also posted various books that also hold that position. The fact remains that a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea can be supported from the biblical text. This is the crux of the argument, you said he lied when he mentioned the 38-year stay, you said that the Bible does not support this, yet there is a way to get that figure, as the Bible dictionaries and other scholars point out. Therefore, Prof. Finkelstein’s point is valid.
You did present evidence of the acceptability of his position by certain people, yet that does not prove validity. Yes, Mr. Finkelstein's position is highly accepted, but we must be careful not to equate popularity with validity. If you have evidence of the validity of Mr. Finklstein's claims please do present it.
You seem to be under the impression that it was Prof. Finkelstein that came up with this idea of a 38-year stay at Kadesh-Barnea, however it clearly wasn’t. The Rowley book was published in 1950, the other books were publish in the 60’s, I dare say I could find a book much older than these that supports the 38- years stay at Kadesh-Barnea. This is not Prof. Finkelstein’s theory, it is a interpretation of the text that has been accepted from before he was born.
Now if you want to discuss the archaeological evidence for the stay at Kadesh-Barnea, or any other archaeological artefacts used in the debate, then I’d be happy to do so, but Prof. Finkelstein’s claim that the Israelites stayed at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years is a valid claim, and can be supported by the Hebrew Bible. This is the only source that there is anyway, as archaeology and history is silent on the events surrounding the Exodus.
Best Wishes, and sorry for the delay in replying.
Brian.
)
™ Version 4.2
