Passover Mystery

Hi.Could I ask a few questions concerning the claims made in your earlier post?You claim that I would suggest that there was no such thing as a Hebrew Conquest of Canaan at any time in history. I would also maintain that there is no 'plausible' date for the Exodus.Do you have any access to some information that suports a Hebrew conquest of Canaan at any time in history. I have rather a lot of contrary evidence and it would be beneficial to me personally if I could look at any information that you have as I may have to alter some work I have prepared, thanks. I would also maintain that there is no evidence that these two cities were ever occupied at the same time. Do you have evidence that they were, or are you quoting from an unsuported source? I would say that the 'invasion' was not military but was entirely peaceful and that the 'Hebrews' emerged from within Canaanite society, do you have any evidence of a new material culture brought into Canaan by these 'invading Hebrews'.I am not trying to be confrontational here, I am truly interested in what evidence you have for these claims. From what I have discovered in my own research I would say that these claims are about 50 years out of date, but I am willing to be corrected here.Cheers!Brian.

Hi,Thanks for the reply. Here is a reading list that I gave to an undergraduate student who was looking for an introduction to the debate on Israel's origin. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but two or three books from it will give some insight into the problems of harmonising the Hebrew Bible's narratives with the archaeological data.I am sure that Consequent Atheist could probably improve this list as well as he has an excellent knowledge of the subject. (BTW, thankyou very much for the recommendation of Dever' book CA, I appreciate it and will try to get a look at it as soon as I have time, it is nice to see that Dever may be mellowing a little.)If I were to recommend a few books that are not expensive and not too advanced I would say that Albright's The Archaeology of Palestine, Bright's History of Israel, Shanks' The Rise of Ancient Israel, and McNutt's Reconstructing the Society of ancient Israel would be a good intro that covers a good 60 years and illustrates how the debate has developed.I will look at your link later and post a reply, I have just got home from work and have a few things to do.Aharoni Y The Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the first Temple Period SCM Press London 1982.Ahlstrom G W The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest JSOT Press Sheffield 1993.Albright W F The Archaeology of Palestine Penguin Books Harmondsworth 1949.Albright W F From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process Doubleday New York 1957.Albright W F The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology BASOR 71 1974 pp 11-23.Alt A Essays on Old testament History and Religion Blackwell Oxford 1966.Amiran D The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine IEJ 3 1953Barr J Story and History in Biblical Theology SCM London 1980.Bimson J Merneptah’s Israel and Recent Theories of Israelite Origins JSOT 49, 1991, pp 3-29.Bimson J Redating the Exodus and Conquest JSOTsup Sheffield 1978.Bright J A History of Israel SCM London 1972.Callaway J A The 1968-69 Ai (Et-Tell) Excavations BASOR 196 1970 pp 7-31.Castel F The History of Israel and Judah in Old Testament Times Paulist Press Mahwah1985.Coote R B Early Israel: A New Horizon Fortress Press Minneapolis 1990.Coote R B and Whitelam K W The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective Almond Press, Sheffield Academic Press Sheffield 1987.Davies P R In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ JSOT Sheffield 1992.Dever W G Archaeological data on the Israelite Settlement: A review of recent works BASOR 284 pp 77-90.Dever W G and Gitin S (eds) Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology ASOR/Eisenbrauns Winona Lake.Edelman D (ed) The Fabric of History: Text, Artefact and Israel’s past JSOT Sheffield 1991.Finegan J Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible Princeton University Press 1964.Finkelstein I The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement IES Jerusalem
1988Finkelstein I and Nadav Na’man (eds) From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel IES Jerusalem 1994.Flanagan J David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age Almond Press Sheffield.Freedman D N and Graf D F (eds) Palestine in Transition: The Emergence of Ancient Israel Almond Press Sheffield 1983.Frerichs E S and Lesko L H Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns Winona Lake 1997.Frick F S The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A survey of Models and Theories Almond Press Sheffield.Fritz V The Israelite ‘Conquest’ in Light of Recent Excavations at Khirbet el-Meshash BASOR 241 1981 pp 61-73.Fritz V Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine Biblical Archaeologist 50 1987 pp 84-100Fritz V and Davies P R The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States JSOTsup 228 Sheffield 1996.Garbini G History and Ideology in Ancient Israel SCM London 1988.Gottwald N K The Tribes of Yahweh, A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE SCM London 1979.Grant M The History of Ancient Israel Charles Scribner and Sons London/New York 1984.Hallo W W and Simpson W K The Ancient Near East: A History Brace Jovanovich New York 1971.Halpern B The First Historians. The Hebrew Bible and History Harper and Row San Francisco 1988Halpern B The Emergence of Israel in Canaan Scholars Press California 1983.Hasel M G Israel in the Merneptah Stela BASOR 296 1994 pp 45-61.Hauer C From Alt to anthropology: the rise of the Israelite State JSOT 39 1986 pp 3-15.Hayes J and Miller J M Israelite and Judaean History SCM London 1977.Herrmen S A history of Israel in Old Testament Times SCM London 1981.Hopkins D C The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the early Iron Age Almond Press Decatur 1985.Hughes J Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology Sheffield Academic Press Sheffield 1990.Jagersma H A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period SCM London 1983.Kenyon K M Archaeology and the Holy Land Benn London 1979.Kenyon K M The Bible and Recent Archaeology British Museum London 1978.Knight D A and Tucker G M The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters Fortress Press Philadelphia 1985.Lemche N P Early Israel. Anthropological and Historical Studies in the Israelite Society before the Monarchy Brill Leiden 1985.Lemche N P Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society JSOT Sheffield 1988Mazar A Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10 000 -586 BCE Doubleday London 1990.Mazar A Three Israelite Sites in the Hills of Judah and Ephraim BA 45 pp 167-78.McNutt P M Reconstructing the Society of ancient Israel Westminster/John Knox Press Louisville 1999.Mendenhall G E The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition The John Hopkins University Press Baltimore 1973.Moran W L The Amarna Letters The John Hopkins University Press Baltimore 1992.Noll K L Canaanite and Israel in Antiquity Sheffield Academic Press London/New York 2001Noth M The History of Israel SCM Press London 1960.Pritchard J B Ancient Near eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament Princeton University Press Princeton 1950.Ramsay G W The Quest for the Historical Israel: Reconstructing Israel’s Early History John Knox Press/SCM London 1982.Rowley H H From Joseph to Joshua Oxford University Press London 1950.Sasson J M On Choosing Models for Recreating Pre-Monarchical Israel JSOT 21 1981 pp 3-24.van Seters J Abraham in History and Tradition Yale University Press New Haven 1975.Van Seters J In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History Yale University Press New Haven 1983.Shanks H The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society Washington 1992.Shiloh Y The Four Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City IEJ 20 180-90.Soggin J A A History of Israel from the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt AD 135 SCM Press London 1985.Sparks K L Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel Eisenbrauns Winona Lake 1998.Stager L E The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel BASOR 260 1985 pp1-35.Thompson T L The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the historical Abraham Walter de Gruyter Berlin/New York 1974.Thompson T L Early History of the Israelite people from the Written and Archaeological Sources Brill Leiden 1992.De Vaux R The Early History of Israel Longman and Todd London 1978.Weinstein J M The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment BASOR 241 pp 1-28.Wieppert M The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine SCM Press London 1971.Wiseman D J (ed) Peoples from Old testament Times Oxford University Press London 1973.If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask. This is a very complex area and takes a long time to become familiar with the material.CheersBrian.

Hi,I will have to reply to your request tomorrow night, I am up to my eyes in work here, and it will take a fairly detailed reply from me.All I can say is that I haven't really formed an overall opinion, I have quite a few conclusions about the smaller components of the debate,(things such as the 'types' of history contained in the Bible, archaeological data and anthropological models) but I think I will reserve an overal judgement for a while yet, though I am leaning toward the 'we will never know for sure' stance.AT the moment I am not a fence sitter, I personally think that the Bible has been more of a hinderance than a help in this investigation, too many man hours have been spent trying to support the individual researcher's religious beliefs rather than investigating, for example, the archaeological data by itself rather than trying to shoehorn it to fit the bible narrative. I do not think the Bible accounts can be taken at face value either, but how many chances do you give a source before you discard it as unreliable?There have been a few threads on the Exodus, you could search for these and red them in the meantime if you wish.I will reply tomorrow, thanks for the reply.Brian.

Hi Amlodhi, hope you are well.I have a few comments about the Merneptah Stele that I would like to share. Strictly speaking, the Merneptah Stele tells us absolutely nothing at all about the Exodus, it is actually unrelated to the Exodus event and is not an independent witness for the Exodus. It is unreasonable to assume that because an ‘Israel’ is mentioned on the Stele that the Exodus account is reliable.I am not trying to be deliberately obstructive here, I am just pointing out one of the limitations of archaeology, and one of the most common errors made in relation to archaeology and biblical studies. This is the first mention of Israel as an ethnic group in a non-biblical source, but the Israel mentioned in the stele should really be identified as ‘Israel’ as there is no clear indication that the ‘Israel’ referred to in the Stele is in fact the biblical Israel.The German Egyptologist Wilhelm Speileberg first published the text of the Merneptah Stele in 1896. The inscription refers mainly to a victorious battle against the Libyans, however, the last few lines of the inscription mention a campaign by Merneptah in western Asia, and this is where the ‘Israel’ reference can be found.Up until the arrival of the ‘New Archaeology’ of the 1970’s, this text was taken as important evidence that supported the immigration of the Israelites into Palestine around the end of the 13th century BCE. The date of the Libyan campaign is claimed in the text to have been in Merneptah’s fifth year, which places it in 1208 BCE, this would mean that the Israelites would have to have left Egypt no later than 1248. Further evidence that the Israelites had not settled in Palestine before this date is that the Amarna letters, dated to the mid 14th century BCE, never mention the Israelites even although many letters mention the places that the Israelites were said to have taken over in the Bible text.In regard to the military conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, the Mereptah Stele can tell us nothing about this, it only bears witness to the fact that an ethnic group called ‘Israel’ was present in western Asia at the end of the 13th century BCE. What precisely this entity was is not known for certain, whether it is the same entity that is mentioned in the Bible is unknown, there are also no clues as to the religious beliefs of Merneptah’s ‘Israel.’Frank Yurco is in no doubts that this really was a military campaign, as he believes that he has found pictorial evidence on the walls of a temple in Thebes. One of the four different illustrations shows what are interpreted by Yurco as Canaanites, they are wearing the same garments and using the same equipment as the other conquered peoples in the other three illustrations. This again may simply be circumstantial evidence, although it is a contemporary source, it does not prove beyond doubt that the group in the illustration was the ‘Israel’ from the Merneptah Stele. ‘Israel’ in the Merneptah Stele does indeed stand out from the rest of the names there because it is prefixed by the hieroglyphic symbol that denotes a ‘foreign people’. Canaan is prefixed by the hieroglyphic that denotes a foreign land, Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yano’am are all prefixed with a hieroglyph that identifies them as cities (Shanks, Rise of Ancient Israel, page 19).This then suggests that the ‘Israel’ of the Stele was not a settled ethnic group inside Palestine, which could mean that the ‘Israel’ referred to, was in fact, the biblical Israelites before they conquered Canaan.But, yes there is always a ‘but’, there is an alternative explanation given by Gosta Ahlstrom who demonstrates that the use of these prefixes, or determinatives, in Egyptian inscriptions was inconsistent and that this would mean that Israel was indeed already settled in Canaan.Ahlstrom maintains that we should understand the term ‘Israel’ in a territorial context. He goes on to assert that the part of the inscription that mentions ‘Israel’ is a ‘ring composition’ where Israel parallels Canaan and should be understood as being a land, the determinative for ‘foreign people’ should then be taken as a scribal error when prefixed to Merneptah’s ‘Israel.’ Ahlstrom makes a very convincing argument when we consider that the text opens and ends with a broad statement that does not include any reference to a geographical name. The next part of the text is concerned with the key geographical entities, Nine Bows, Hatti, and Kharu are use by Ahlstrom to form an ‘outer ring’. He then forms an ‘inner ring’ that begins with Canaan and ends with Israel, in then centre can be found the three Palestinian locales, Ashkelon, Gezer and Yano’am. In this scheme, Canaan and Israel are identified as territories, which would support the biblical assertion that Canaan and Israel were separate entities. As with most schemes there are some problems, the most striking is the belief that Canaan may only refer to Gaza, which was the centre of the province of Canaan during the reign of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty.If the reference to Canaan is nothing more than the mention of a town, then there is a good geographical progression line into Palestine that was taken by the Egyptians. Thus the inscription descriptions progresses from Canaan (Gaza), which was the standard departure point for an Egyptian army entering into Palestine, on to Ashkelon then on to Gezer, then finally on to Yano’am. Although Yano’am’s location is not certain, it was probably within a few miles of Gezer, the end of this line is, of course, the reference to Israel. It should be stressed though that the Stele does not explicitly identify the ‘Israel’ mentioned as a specific population, or as a tribe, or just a territory named ‘Israel.’In an attempt at objectivity regarding the inscription, and how it can aid any investigation into the origins of Ancient Israel, we have to be honest and admit that there is nothing at all in the inscription that suggests that Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ was ever in Egypt, the only way we can link the two is by employing the biblical text. Without the biblical text however, all that can realistically be taken from the inscription is that at the end of the 13th century BCE there was a group of people in Canaan who were collectively known as ‘Israel’. The stele tells us nothing more, it does not inform us which God or gods they worshipped, it gives no indication of how the people were organised, and in relation to the Exodus from Egypt the information contained in the Merneptah Stele is utterly irrelevant.Brian.

Stormdancer,I will post my opinions about the bible as history tomorrow. My partner had impotant work to do on the computer.Sorry about the wait.Brian

Hi Stormdancer,Sorry for the delay, I have been meaning to reply for about a week now, but with work and other things I haven't had the chance.I have given a very very brief outline of what I think about the questions you asked, if you would like to discuss them in more detail then let me know and we can examine one at a time. I was going to give a detailed answer here but I had around 30 pages typed up in Word so I thought I better condense things a little.Anyway, to answer your questions:Who were they?It is difficult to say exactly who the Israelites were, the only real clues we have are in the Bible. To find out who the Israelites were would require us to do what any historian should do, examine the sources and decide what evidence is credible and usable for answering our question. What are the sources for reconstructing the origins of ancient Israel? Well, if we examine the evidence from archaeology we would have no reason to assume that the people known as Israel appeared on the scene in ancient Palestine. In fact, by using the name ‘Israel’ in association with the Iron Age means to draw on the other main source of evidence, the written sources. The written sources relevant for dealing with ancient Israel fall into two categories, materials of various kinds collected in the Hebrew Bible and certain nonbiblical documents (e.g. royal inscriptions). Most of the nonbiblical documents may be considered first-hand evidence in that they were written soon after the events which they report. Unfortunately, they provide only occasional references to Israel, and without prompting from the Hebrew Bible these references would not tell us much. (Miller, J Maxwell, Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without the Hebrew Bible? in Edelman Diana V, The fabric of History (JSOT) Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 1991. p.94)Without prompting from the Hebrew Bible, for example, no one would ever have read the hieroglyphic name on the Merneptah Stele as ‘Israel’ and to distinguish it as the same ‘Israel’ of the Moabite and Assyrian version of the name that do not turn up until 350 years later. Historians probably would make a connection between ‘Omri king of Israel’ of the Mesha Inscription, ‘Jehu mar Humri’ in three of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions, and the references to the ‘land of bit-Humria’ in Tiglath-pileser's records. But I don’t think they would read ‘Ahab of Sir-‘i-la-a-a’ in Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription as ‘Ahab the Israelite’ or recognise that Samaria, which also turns up occasionally in other Assyrian contexts, was the capital of ‘Omri land’ rather than some other place. Even if they did, the general impression gained would have to be that Israel was a small kingdom, located somewhere in the vicinity of Damascus or the Phoenician coast, apparently founded by one Omri during the first half of the ninth century and surviving to the latter half of the eighth century. (Miller p.94)If we relied solely on the archaeological data, we would not be thinking of Israel in terms of Early Iron Age settlement patterns in the central Palestinian hill country because there is nothing at all ‘about the potsherds or wall lines that cries out ‘Israelite’ (Miller p.97). Instead, the search would focus on Iron Age II, or on southern Lebanon or perhaps even Galilee, and would involve widely conflicting views regarding the location of Samaria.The reason, the sole reason, why we are focussing on things like settlement patterns, pastoral nomads, and economic and technological models is really down to the fact that in the past we have relied far too much on the Hebrew Bible, and the Hebrew Bible has let us down time and time again. Although we are beginning to focus on the archaeological evidence, or the extrabiblical sources, or a combination of the two, it is still the Hebrew Bible that dictates the parameters of the ongoing discussion regarding the origin and early history of Israel. Any time historians, archaeologists, sociologists, or whoever speak of Israelite tribes in the central Palestinian hill country at the beginning of Iron Age I, or about the united monarchy, or about two contemporary kingdoms emerging from this early monarchy, they are presupposing information that comes from, and only from, the Hebrew Bible (Miller p.95).In my opinion, the Hebrew Bible has undoubtedly hindered the progress or archaeologist and anthropologists who have been trying to reconstruct Israel’s past. But we have to be realistic, without the Hebrew Bible no one would even dream that Israel was ever in Egypt, or wandered the Sinai and camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years, we would not, even for a second, consider that there had ever been a unified conquest of Palestine in the late 13th century BCE. These ‘historical’ events come only from the Bible, no one else even noticed a thing.I find this lack of evidence very hard to believe, look t the sort of things spoken about in the Bible in relation to Israel’s involvement with Egypt, there are some pretty epic events there, yet there is only one mention of an ‘Israel’ in all of the surviving Egyptian records, and this reference does not provide anything to support Israel in Egypt. Also, surrounding countries are suspiciously silent about Israel’s existence. It is unusual that Israel is only mentioned once in Egyptian sources, since Israel was allegedly a neighbour of ancient Egypt’s and all other Canaanite inhabitants are well attested in many Egyptian texts (El Amarna and Mari for example). Also, these other Canaanite ‘neighbours’ of Israel show little or no interest in the word ‘Israel’ either. When they do mention Israelite kings, mainly in the neo-Assyrian writings, the almost never call them Israelite kings, they invariably call them by the dynastic name of ‘bit humri’, which meant ‘The House of [king] Omri’.Even when using the Hebrew Bible it is difficult to identify who the Israelite were as the information can sometimes be confusing. The Bible identifies the Israelites as an ethnic group that descended from the 12 sons of a man called Jacob, each son being the head of a tribe. Jacob’s fathering of twelve sons who each father a tribe is clearly an eponymic legend. Anthropologists have discovered that eponymic legends are common in many ancient societies. The ethnic identity of a group is defined by telling a story of kinship. Normally, the story does not really reflect a biological reality it reflects a social or political unity. When groups of people enter into relationship with one another, they begin to cooperate for agricultural purposes, mutual defence, and so on, they sometimes express their alliance by telling a tale of kinship. The primary function of this kind of story is to create and sustain a sense of community identity. Most of these stories are creative inventions. The kinships are invented strictly for the purpose of community identity, not because the people involved are actually related biologically. But the story is not a ‘lie’ since members who tell the story know that it is an invention.Ancient Israel was more than likely not an ethnic group that descended from one man and his wife, it was more likely a loose collection a people who could identify with each other through a common purpose, political or social, and they then had this eponymic legend to unite the group. The biological relationships recorded by the Bible authors were not the principal part of most Bible stories, the artificial genealogies in the Bible prove this, for example Zerubbabel who is the son of Shealtiel in Ezra 3.2, but he becomes the son of Pediah in I Chronicles 3.19. Another example is in the New Testament, in which the family tree of Joseph, father of Jesus, is traced from David's son Solomon in Mt. 1.1-17, but is traced from David’s son Nathan in Luke. 3.23-38 which results in many of the names conflicting in the two genealogies (Christians perform wonderful textual gymnastics to deny this of course).Another problem with identifying an ethnic group that came to be known as Israel is the different ways in which the Bible makes use of the term ‘tribes of Israel’, this shows that the biblical authors were aware of the fluid nature of social and political relationships. Biblical writers often speak of 12 tribes of Israel, but the exact names of those 12 tribes change from passage to passage. Sometimes Israel includes a tribe called Levi (e.g. Deut. 27:13), other times Levi is not listed as a tribe. In order to preserve the number 12, the tribe of Joseph is eliminated each lime that Levi is missing, and they are replaced by two other tribes. Ephraim and Manasseh, the two ‘sons’ of Joseph (e.g. Num. 1.5-15). It gets even more complicated, however. Sometimes there are fewer than 12 tribes and their names do not correspond to the traditional names: Judges 5 lists only 10 tribes, and includes the ‘tribes’ of Machir and Gilead. Missing from the list are the more famous tribes of Judah and Joseph, as well as the tribes of Manasseh, Simeon, Levi and Gad. Evidently, biblical writers recognised that the concept of ‘sons’ of Israel was a metaphor for a complex and ever-changing process of social and political affiliation.‘Israel’, then, is primarily a social or political term, though its exact meaning seems to have shifted over time. Early in the Iron Age Israel seems to have been a term of political affiliation among loosely related tribal groups, as in Judges 5. Later, Israel became the label for a monarchy, the Kingdom of Israel, which ruled over portions of Palestine's Cisjordan Highlands. After that kingdom was destroyed by the Neo-Assyrians in the eighth century BCE, Israel seems to have become an alternate name for another monarchy, the Kingdom of Judah in the southern Cisjordan Highlands.Where did they come from?It would depend on when we believe ‘Israel’ began. One very large difficulty here is that there is no telling exactly when ‘Israel’ came into distinct existence in Palestine (Halpern B, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. Scholars Press, Chico California, 1983. p.81). I would say that the Exodus account in the Hebrew Bible suggests that all Israel came out of Egypt. Technically, Israel should have begun with Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, as it is from his 12 sons that the Israel that came out of Egypt descended. We should also remember that the Israelites should be identified separate from the Hebrews, although all Israelites were Hebrews, not all Hebrews were Israelites.This claim that Israel came out of Egypt has some very serious problems, I don’t wish to labour the point but there are no references to the Israelites in any surviving Egyptian literature nor are there any references or artefacts from archaeology that indicate the Israelites were ever in Egypt.I also think a very very important point is that the Hebrew Bible itself is totally ignorant to the fact that Egypt had a very large presence in Palestine, the Bible never mentions Egypt as being in Palestine. Also, the small villages of the central highlands that have been allocated to the Israelites show no signs at all that the inhabitants were ever in Egypt.According to the latest archaeological and anthropological data they came from within Canaanite society. There is no sign of a break in the material culture of the central highlands, all the pottery types of the late bronze age/early Iron age that have been found in these settlements have also been found in the Canaanite city states. What is more, any apparently new elements that were once believed to have entered Palestine along with the Israelites, for example, the four roomed house, water cisterns and rim collared jars, have since been found in other areas of Palestine, and also in areas that have no association with the Israelites.Finally, the conquest narrative presented in the Bible is totally and utterly rejected by the archaeological evidence, so many of the cities that were said to be conquered by Joshua’s armies have been found to have been uninhabited when the Bible says that conquest happened. Bill Dever has concluded that only 2 out of the 19 sites that have possible identifications with the Joshua narratives (Hazor and Bethel) actually have evidence of destruction levels in the 13th century BCE (Israel, History of (Archaeology and the ‘Conquest’), The anchor Bible Dictionary 1992).So I would say that we do not know for certain where the Israelites came from, but it looks highly likely that the emerged from within Palestine itself.Who was their God?Regarding their God, it really isn’t a cut and dry case of the Israelites always being worshippers of YWHW, most Christians that I know appear to think that Israel has always worshipped Yahweh, this is not the case.Equating YHWH only with the Israelites is a mistake that many people make, but it has to be remembered that not all YHWH worshipers were Israelites. There really is no essential association between the people called ‘Israel’ and a God whose personal name is YHWH. The Bible itself is evidence that the Israelites had not always worshipped YHWH. The Book of Exodus tells us that the patriarchs worshipped El Shaddai (6:3) and that YWHW worship only began with Moses. This is a fairly common theme among religious groups that have combined several gods into a single God. The names of each original God become the multiple names of the one God, Hinduism is another example of this. The authors of the early books of the Bible were obviously aware that a multiplicity of gods had been combined into the one entity, and that the YHWH element was a latecomer to the Israelite faith.The word Israel is a theophoric name, ‘yisra-‘el’ and demonstrates that the early Israelites did not worship YHWH. There have been different interpretations of what ‘Israel’ means, ‘El strives’ or ‘El is just’ or ‘Struggle with El’ are a few that come to mind. The important thing here is that the divine element of Israel is ‘El’ and not ‘YWHW’.If the name had been Yahwistic rather than Elistic it would be written yisra-yahu. In English it would have been Israiah (K L Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity Sheffield Academic Press, London 2001).It seems that the bible retains a memory that Israel’s God was called El Shaddai and later He became known as YWHW, it is up to the individual if they want to believe that these are two names for the same God or are two different gods. There is evidence to support both views. El is of course the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, but El is also a general Semitic word for ‘god’. Most people that I have spoke to like to take the use of ‘El’ in the general sense of the word, i.e, El means ‘God’ and YWHW is his name, but I don’t think it is as straightforward as this, for example, we have references in the Hebrew Bible at Genesis 33:20 and 46:3 to’el’elohe yisra’el which accurately translates as ‘El, the God of Israel’ (Bright John, A History of Israel, SCM Press 1972 edition). So, again, it is up top the individual what they want to believe, but I think there is good evidence to support the belief that the Patriarchs worshipped ‘El’ in various forms and that the worship of Yahweh by ‘Israel’ was a fairly late development.I think there is some circumstantial evidence to support a theory that the Israelites brought YHWH worship from Sinai into Palestine, although any nomadic or semi nomadic Canaanite group may have done this. There are a series of geographical locations associated with YHWH in biblical poetry that places the YWHW to the south and east of ‘historical’ Israel and Judah. Based on this observation and others, some scholars believe that somehow the worship of Yahweh, had its origin south and east of Israel and Judah in the region which today includes the northern part of Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan and Israel.Here are some verses that provide evidence that YWHW was only associated with a certain region of the ancient near east. Of course, in those days each region had its own god, so YHWH was not different from any other god.Deuteronomy 33:2
He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes. Judges 5:4-5 "O LORD , when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water.
The mountains quaked before the LORD , the One of Sinai, before the LORD , the God of Israel. Habakkuk 3:3 God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth. I think the Bible itself supports the view that YWHW arrived in Palestine from the south east because the primary site of theophany for Yahweh is Mount Sinai. Not only is YWHW associated with this area in the oldest poetic texts (see the examples above) but in Exodus 19, which is fairly late addition to the text, YWHW is still associated with Sinai. This is very interesting because there was a tendency to try and move YWHW’s principle theophany to Mount Zion in Jerusalem. According ot the Zion tradition, Solomon’s Temple was YWHW’s dwelling place forever:1 Kings 8:13 I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever. Kyle McCarter writes: Why, then, didn't Mt. Zion displace Sinai altogether? The only explanation I know is that the old Sinai tradition was so venerable and well known, that it was so persistent and authentic, that it couldn't be suppressed. ( in Shanks The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1992, p.128)Another indication that Yahwism originated south and east of Judah is the Midianite tradition. In the Exodus story Moses flees from Egypt into the wilderness and has his meeting with Yahweh. The tradition was that the first encounter between Yahweh and the Israelites was in Midian, Midian being the name used in the Exodus story for this same region. This takes place in Exodus 2 and 3, where Moses marries the daughter of a man named Jethro. Jethro is a Midianite priest, and at one point (Exodus 18:11) Jethro says that Yahweh is the greatest of the gods. Exodus 6 shows that according to one part of the biblical tradition the God of Israel revealed his name Yahweh for the first time in Midian. In other words, even the Bible itself suggests that, in one sense, Yahwism originated south and east of Judah. (McCarter p.129)I would say then that there is a good indication that Yahwism originated in the south east, whether it arrived in Palestine with the Israelites of the Hebrew Bible there is no way to tell. That Canaanites regularly followed nomadic pastoral routes through the south east and into Egypt is well supported in non-biblical texts, it is possible that some of these groups brought the idea back to Palestine with them.Was there an Exodus?No.But to elaborate, although the Exodus, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, is not supported by archaeological and textual evidence, I believe that there are little ‘snippets’ in the myth that do reflect accurate history. As Dever says though, we have to weed these ‘kernels of history’ out from among the fictional ‘history’ of the Hebrew Bible.The problem for me is that the Exodus account is severely lacking in support, the epic claims made by Hebrew Bible should have left some ‘fingerprints’ in the archaeological record, but they have left none.I also agree with Dever when he says .. ’And with the new models of indigenous Canaanite origins for early Israel, there is neither place nor need for an Exodus from Egypt’ (Dever W. Is there any archaeological evidence for the Exodus? in Frerichs E S and Lesko L H Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1997).If we take the information in the Bible that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years then there is a surprisingly meagre amount of Egyptian references in the Exodus account. Moses is clearly a part of an Egyptian name, goodness knows what the first half of Moses name would have been, but there are also other Egyptian names such as Hophni, Phineas, Shiprah and Puah. I find it surprising that the main Egyptian character, the pharaoh, is not identified, you would think that such an important figure would be clearly identified by the author of the narrative but we have to guess who it is that ruled Egypt at the time of the alleged event. So we can start of a list of historical kernels by saying that some of the names given in the Bible’s Exodus account are Egyptian, and this could suggest that there is some truth in it.Although precise references to the enslavement in Egypt are very rare, the names of the cities in Exodus 1:11, Pithom and Rameses, have been identified by archaeology as being located at Tell el-Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabe, and Tell el’Dab’a respectively. There are clear problems with supporting what the Bible says about these cities, but these cities do show a substantial Canaanite or Asiatic presence in the so-called patriarchal period and that he two were rebuilt in the Ramesside period (Dever p.71). The mention of these cities does lend some support to the theory that at least some of the elements of the Exodus myth stemmed from ancient Egypt. The one certain thing about the rare Egyptian evidence is that it points undisputedly to the 13th century BCE and proves the biblical dating of the mid 15th century impossible.Although there is certainly no direct extra-biblical source that supports the Israelite enslavement in Egypt or the Exodus but there are other pieces of circumstantial evidence. For example, there is the papyrus Leiden 348, a decree from an Egyptian official about the construction work at the city of Rameses that states: Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the ‘ApiruThe long time held view that the ‘Apiru were indeed the Hebrews has been rejected as the term ‘Apiru refers to a social strata rather than an ethnic group. But, it is possible that some of the Hebrews could have been ‘Apiru, but we still cannot prove a link between the Hebrews and the Israelites by using this text. The name Hebrew designates a much broader ethnicity than the name ‘Israelite’ anyway. The Israelites would all have been Hebrews but not all Hebrews would be Israelites, and not all Hebrews would have been ‘Apiru, and since the ‘Apiru were comprised of a wide range of ethnic groups, it is quite possible that some Israelites were ‘Apiru. Although this is not proof that Israelites were used for building these cities, it is circumstantial evidence, it is extremely questionable though, but possible nonetheless. Therefore the next ‘kernel’ of history is the mention of the two cities in Exodus 1:11, which may lend a hint of historiography to the event.Another historical kernel of the Exodus is contained in Exodus 13:17-18 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt. So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. This passage about the journey of the Israelites through Sinai may be better understood if we take into account the military road that the Egyptians constructed along the coast of northern Sinai, the biblical way of the Philistines. This route was fortified with a tight network of strongholds by Seti I early in the 13th century BCE, and remained under strict control of the Egyptians throughout that century. The fortification line provides a strong historical reason for the Israelites not taking the shortest route to Palestine, if they did indeed leave Egypt then they would have had to make the detour into the desert in order to avoid Egyptian strongholds.There is particularly good support for this from the Papyri Anastasi (purchased as early as 1839), which were originally used as schoolboys’ copy books of model letters. Some of them reveal the tight control of the Egyptian authorities over their eastern frontier in the last decades of the 13th century BCE. These letters prove that there were strong controls over who could enter or leave Egypt, no one was allowed to do wither without a special permit.Papyrus Anastasi III records daily crossings of individuals in either direction in the time of Merneptah.Anastasi VI illustrates the passage into Egypt of an entire tribe coming down from Edom during a drought. This report is reminiscent of several patriarchal episodes concerning Abraham and Jacob, who were also said to have descended into Egypt because of a drought.But most exciting for our purpose is Papyrus Anastasi V,11 dating to the end of the XlXth Dynasty (the end of the 13th century), which reports the escape of two slaves or servants from the royal residence at Pi-Ramesses, on the western edge of Wadi Tumilat. The fugitives flee into the Sinai wilderness by way of the fortified border. The author of the letter, a high-ranking Egyptian military commander, had been ordered by the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the runaways were captured and returned to Egypt: Another matter, to wit: I was sent forth from the broad-halls of the palacelife, prosperity, health!in the third month of the third season, day 9, at the time of evening, following after these two slaves. Now when I reached the enclosure-wall of Tjeku on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10, they told [me] they were saying to the south that they had passed by on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10. (xx 1) [Now] when [I ] reached the fortress, they told me that the scout had come from the desert [saying that] they had passed the walled place north of the Migdol of Seti Mer-ne-Ptahlife, prosperity health!Beloved like Seth.
When my letter reaches you, write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? What people are after them? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them.
[May your health] be good! Although this could provide another historical snippet of truth, for me the papyri Anastasi actually place the Bible version of Israel’s origins firmly into the category of fiction. Firstly, they show that no one could enter or leave Egypt without permission, and these incidents were all recorded, nothing in the Anastasi corpus mentions anything to do with an ‘Israel’. It is also rather unusual that there is a record of just two slaves escaping from Egypt, yet they failed to notice a group of several million Israelites escaping from Egypt.
The Tell el-Amarna letters also cast great shadows on the biblical narrative as well. These letters (as well as other evidence) inform us that Palestine was merely a province of Egypt when the Conquest attributed to Joshua allegedly happened, yet there is also no mention of Israel in these texts. We are also presented with the absurdity here of the Israelites escaping from Egypt and then battling to settle into another part of Egypt!I think that the circumstantial evidence, that I have outlined very briefly, is very poor considering what effects the biblical events should have had on surrounding cultures, and the effects that it would have had on the archaeological record. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the debate over Israel’s origins would find fatal flaws with this circumstantial evidence. So I think it is safe to conclude that there was no Exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible, there may have been a mini-Exodus but we have no direct evidence of that either.I would argue that it is more than likely that the events that make up the enslavement, Exodus, and conquest were legends passed down from generation to generation, they may at one time not have even been interconnected but became ‘cut and pasted’ together by a redactor after the exile.I really think that the Exodus and Conquest narratives will eventually be recognised by everyone for what they are, ancient folk tales that were designed to give a nation a claim to live in a land that has been fought over by many nations for a very long time. What I find upsetting is that the Israelites probably do have a legitimate claim to the land, not because the Bible says so, but because they originally came from Palestine anyway, and they have been slaughtering their fellow Palestinians because they have taken some absurd ancient fairytales far too seriously.It is a tragedy what has happened, and is happening in Palestine, and the blame sits squarely at the feet of the Bible.Brian.

Hi SD, I think the deabte over the origins of Israel always will always produce more questions than answers, and I think that because of the deep religious involvement with the area peole are unwilling to accept some of the answers that are already available.If you have any more questions feel free to ask or you can e-mail me if you want to.Brian.

Hi,Your first source is writing in 1919, this is qute a bit out of date. The Ebla tablets also revealed 'ya' names, which prompted some people to say that Yahweh was worshipped there. However, it seems that many names include yh yah yeh yo names that have nothing to do with the worship of Yahweh.Brian.

HI SD,Just to let you know that I am preparing a reply for you! I have been very busy lately and haven't had the spare time to reply, sorry about that.Brian.PS, post 71 on first impression seems to be an outline of the documentary hypothesis.