The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

I was only addressing the assertion by ws_fortenberry that Finkelstein(?) is lying or ignorant. If you read the Biblical account, compare it to the maps, it is reasonable enough to say that according to the Biblical account the Isrealites lived in and around kadesh-barnea for about 38 years. That is the only point I meant to make.Understood and agreed. I apologize if I misunderstood your implication.

I see this discussion came to a dead stop. Wonder what happened to fortenberry?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I see this discussion came to a dead stop. Wonder what happened to fortenberry?Dunno. Folks tend to drift in and out of these types of fora.As to the thread, I attempted to present information from the book as best I could, and I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from others here.

Hi WFinkelstein could hardly lie about knowing a lot about the Bible, he profesor of archaeology at Tel Aviv Univerisity for goodness sake, look at his qualifications, publications and experience. Why is it ‘simply not true?’Since the Hebrew Bible gives no explicit indication of how long the Israelites stayed in each place, why is it impossible for them to have lived in and around Kadesh Barnea for 38 years?Professor Finkelstein is not alone in his opinion over this: Sometimes people’s conclusions can be wrong, although they are entitled to them. I am very familiar with Professor Finkelsteins work and I can assure you that he has probably forgotten more about the Hebrew Bible than you or I will ever know. I conclude that you have not looked into this as well as you should have, or you would have known that there is a theory that the Israelites lived in and around Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. I think it is safe to conclude that Professor Finkelstein was not the originator of this theory. If you are truly interested in this theory, I can look into it at my university library, but as I am very busy, I will only look it up if you are truly interested in furthering each other’s knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.Calling someone of Prof. Finkelstein’s stature a liar before you have seriously looked into his claims is not really a Christian thing to do, I hate to remind you of bearing false witness. No they don't, there is no statement remotely resembling that in these verses. What is there in these verses that makes you conclude that they didn’t live in Kadesh-barnea for 38 years? Yes and many of these places have not been identified, in fact very few have, so they could have been very close together. I see nothing in these verses to negate Prof. Finkelstein’s claim. If you could explain to me your reasoning here I would be grateful. Either that or you haven’t done your homework.Seriously, can you look at this and in all honesty say that you know more about the Hebrew Bible and archaeology than Prof. Finkelstein?http://www.tau.ac.il/~archpubs/faculty/finkelcv.htmlThanks for your time, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters are they are of particular interest to me.Best WishesBrian.

I, too, was taken aback by W's accusation that Finkelstein and others were 'lying' with respect to the the Exodus account. Why in the hell would he and other distinguished scholars threaten their credibility within the academic community by publishing deliberate falsehoods?As I pointed out earlier, to disagree with someone's assertions is one thing; that happens all the time. But to accuse someone of deliberate deception is quite another.Where is W, anyway?

Hi Orion,I know this is slightly off-topic, but what do you make of Bill Dever?Joel

I know this is slightly off-topic, but what do you make of Bill Dever?I'm sorry, but, what should I know about "Bill Dever"?Can you point me to somewhere?[This message has been edited by Orion, 04-25-2003]

Well, Dever is something of a maximalist, and the most well-known of the maximalist camp. As far as I can tell, Finkelstein and Silberman are somewhere in the middle (and to be differentiated from the minimalists). I was just wondering what you make of them, since you're familiar with archaeology (my question extends to Johnston too, actually).Joel

I've not read Dever, but Google provided me with a couple of hits..."Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.Dever's view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but "no one would do that today," he says. The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible--often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups--has given way to more objective professionals aiming to piece together the reality of ancient lifestyles.In a new book this year, "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.http://www.truthbeknown.com/exodus.htm

Hi Orion,W_ doesn't seem to realise the editing process that books go through before they are published. The maximalists would have slaughtered Finkelstein if this piece of information had no credibility.Finkelstein is one of the leading, if not THE leading authority in this field, if I saw what I thought was an error in any of his work I would be double and triple checking the ‘error’ before I disagreed with him. These guys may make mistakes, but not as obvious a one as this was supposed to have been.Anyway, it seems that the reference to the ‘thirty eight of the forty years’ is credible. It is not a lie by Finkelstein, it is a theory that Fortenberry and myself have obviously never heard about. Most people know that the Torah is a composite work by at least 4 different authors and that by scrutinizing the text the ‘ragged edges’ of where these stories have been merged together can be found. I posted an example of a composite account in the thread ‘The Exodus: A Dead Issue’ where two different accounts of the Israelites leaving Egypt can be found. Well, apparently some scholars propose that there were at least two ‘Exoduses’, Albright is perhaps the most famous scholar to suggest this. It appears that there is a way to suggest that the Israelites did stay at Kadesh —Barnea for the aforementioned thirty eight years.I have been very busy lately but I managed to pick up a book that mentions this theory, so I typed out a couple of pages from it.The book is ‘From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology, by H. H. Rowley, Oxford University Press 1950.’This is at least support that the theory of the thirty-eight year stay at Kadesh has been around for sometime and is not in Finkelstein’s imagination. The following is from pages 104-108. The attack would then be from the neighbourhood of Kadesh-Barnea. There is some reason to suppose that this place figured even more largely in the traditions of the southern tribes than it does in the present Pentateuch. When the Israelites came out of Egypt we read that after crossing the Red Sea they went three days' journey into the wilderness without finding water (Ex. 15:22). We are not told the name of the place they then reached, but it seems probable that it was Kadesh. For they came to a place called Marah, where were some bitter waters which Moses sweetened, (Ex. 15:23) and we read that after the sweetening of the waters God made for them statutes and ordinances, and there he tested them (Ex: 15.25). This would seem to refer to the testing which took place at Massah, (Ex: 17.1-7) which means `testing'. But Massah is identified with Meribah, and Meribah is elsewhere located at Kadesh (Num. 20.13, 28.14; Deut. 32.51). It would appear that all of these traditions gathered originally around Kadesh, where there is known to have been a sacred spring, called En-mishpat, (Gen. 14.7) with other springs in the neighbourhood, and these would seem to be the ones referred to in these traditions. Lods says: `Situated at the junction of several of the desert trails ... it has four main springs, distant from one another from one to three hours' journey. The most abundant of them, Ain-el-Qedeirat, flows out of a rock in three jets, each as thick as a man's arm, and forms a stream by whose bank grow shady acacias and luxuriant vegetation.

​

It is therefore probable, as has frequently been recognized, that in the earliest tradition the Israelites who came out of Egypi were said to have proceeded straight to Kadesh, (Judges 11.16: But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.) which they reached three days after leaving the pursuing Pharaoh behind. This is then probably to be brought into association with the request of Pharaoh to allow them to go three days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh (Ex.5.3). It would then follow that Kadesh was associated with Yahweh before the Israelites arrived there.

​

In the form in which the Pentateuch now stands, however, the tribes are said to have gone to Horeb, or Sinai, which was far from Kadesh, and only to have come to Kadesh subsequently. In the book of Deuteronomy we are told that Kadesh was eleven days journey away from Sinai (Deut. 1.2). The reference to Kadesh in the passages mentioned was suppressed, giving the impression that all these incidents took place on the way to Sinai or Horeb, and again all at Kadesh later. Yet it is to be noted that thirty-eight of the forty years of the wilderness period are said to have been spent at Kadesh (Deut 2.1 & 14).

​

From Kadesh the spies were sent into the land, and according to the J account they proceeded no farther than Hebron, and the minority report was given by Caleb alone (Num. 13.22,26,30). This account would therefore seem to be connected with a movement from Kadesh into the district occupied by Judah, with whom, as has been noted, Calibbite elements were associated.

​

It is likely, therefore, that two accounts of what happened after the Israelites came out of Egypt have been combined.

​

According to the one they proceeded straight to Kadesh, and there offered sacrifice to Yahweh and received his statutes. They remained there for thirty-eight years and then advanced northwards into the territory occupied by Judah. According to the other, they proceeded to the sacred mount of Sinai or Horeb, where they received the divine ordinances, and had a two years' period of wandering in the wilderness.

​

It has to be remembered that while the J narrative displays a special interest in the traditions of Judah and the E narrative in those of Ephraim, both are corpora of traditions of all the tribes.

​

Both appear to have been compiled after the traditions had been fused in the period of the early monarchy. Hence both represent all the tribes as having together passed through all the major experiences recorded. Lods observes that we need not infer from the fact that in the J tradition Kadesh was the original home of the Mosaic legislation that in this form of the tradition Sinai had no place, and he suggests that in its earliest forms the J tradition described a short visit to Sinai in the course of a long stay at Kadesh. This is likely, indeed, for Sinai certainly figures in the J tradition. But this does not mean that the group that sojourned for so long at Kadesh actually paid a visit to Sinai. We have to distinguish between the history behind the tradition and the tradition as it is modified by combination with the traditions of the various tribes. If the tribes all came out of Egypt and were all led by Moses, they cannot have gone first to Kadesh and also have gone first to Sinai or Horeb, and one of these traditions would have to be pronounced false. But if some of the tribes came out of Egypt and some did not, and if some were led by Moses and some were not, then it is equally possible that some went to Kadesh and some did not, and that some went to Sinai or Horeb and some did not. We can no more conclude that all the tribes went to Sinai or Horeb because both J and E have traditions of a visit to that mountain, than we can conclude that all the tribes were led by Moses because both J and E represent him as the leader. We need not discuss whether Sinai is to be equated with Horeb or not. What is certain is that Sinai takes the place in the J tradition that is taken by Horeb in the E and D traditions.

​

Here it should be remembered that if all the tribes had come out of Egypt together it would be surprising for some of them to forget the goal of their first journey and the place where they had a rendezvous with Yahweh. On the other hand, if the two groups really had separate experiences, it would not be surprising for each group to impress upon its form of the combined traditions of the whole its own special memories. This would mean that we do not have to choose between the two separate forms of the tradition which can be found behind the present conflation. The conflation is unhistorical, but the separate traditions may be accepted as genuinely historical. Our only difficulty is to disentangle them. In particular we have to decide which of the groups came out of Egypt and which of them was led by Moses. Here scholars of eminence are not agreed, and it may be granted that the decision is not simple. But all that I am concerned at the moment to stress is that the Biblical traditions are not simple, whether we look at their chronology or their content. The chronology of Ex. 12.40 and 1 Kgs. 6.1 finds itself in conflict with a whole series of data, as we have seen; and the Kadesh and Sinai or Horeb traditions equally find themselves in conflict, as also do the traditions of the entry into the land. The story of an advance from the south of a group consisting of some only of the tribes and of the scattered attack of the various tribes each acting singly or in local groups finds itself in conflict with the story of an advance by all the tribes across the Jordan at Jericho with the spread over the land from that point. And if we resolve the attack across the Jordan into the attack of a single group of the tribes, we have to consider its age relatively to the attack from the south. Moreover, when we have separated a Kadesh tradition from a Sinai or Horeb tradition we have to consider their relation to one another and the relation of both to the Yahwism which all the tribes recognized as their religion. This is not a full explanation of the theory, but it is at least a starting point. It suggests that there is a way to arrive at the thirty-eight years through closer examination of the text. I really do not have time to follow this up in great detail but I will probably look deeper into it when I have more time on my hands.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi Celsus, pleased to meet you.I find William Dever a bit of an enigma, he is without doubt the most vocal of the maximalists, along with Baruch Halpern, they will try to manipulate any morsel of a find to fit into the Hebrew Bible in some context. What I find puzzling about him is that he insults fellow scholars who don’t have the same opinion as he does regarding the reliability of the Bible yet he himself rejects much of it as historically unreliable.In ‘The Rise of Ancient Israel, by Shanks, Dever, Halpern and McCarter, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1992’, Dever comments on the Bible’s account of the Conquest of Canaan: The conquest model is not subscribed to by most biblical scholars today — certainly no one in the mainstream of scholarship — and that’s been true for some time. Moreover, there isn’t a single reputable professional archaeologist in the world who espouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe or America. We don’t need to say any more about the conquest model. That’s that. (Laughter.) Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but (Laughter.) You know the Bible is in trouble when one of its most vociferous supporters is convinced that many accounts in it are fictional, or exaggerated.Dever is a prolific writer, and I would argue that he is the most referenced archaeologist involved in the debate over the origins of ancient Israel. Pick up any text book on the subject written in the last 20 years or so and Dever will definitely be listed in the index, and more likely than not he will have the most references in the bibliography.However, I am not keen on the guy, not because of his maximalist views, but because it has been witnessed that he has deliberately manipulated evidence at least one site and he has also insulted one of my friends, Keith Whitelam, by virtually accusing him of being anti-Semitic. I am not personally claiming that Dever manipulated evidence; it is the claim of Thomas L Thompson who was on a dig with Dever at Gezer in 1967 under the supervision of Anson Rainey (another maximalist).In ‘The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Eds. Volkmar Fritz and Philip Davies JSOT, Sheffield 1996. pp30-31. Thompson writes: Although Dever denies having approached the excavation of the Solomonic gate at Gezer, so to speak, Bible in hand it is my distinct memory that in the spring dig of 1967, all of us who were then at Gezer had gone, fully aware of Dever's quite explicit purpose of uncovering `Solomon's' gate. Half of the gate had already been `recognized' by Dever-following Yadin-in Macalister's report on the Maccabean tower. No efforts to establish an independent interpretation or chronology were undertaken either in regard to stratigraphy or to the chronology of the pottery that was related to these gate structures. Although Dever certainly did not have the Bible in hand when he marked out the squares for excavation, he did have Yadin's article citing the relevant biblical passage. Far from the objective archaeological excavation that Dever claims in his BASOR article,23 the sole purpose of this particular expedition was to confirm Yadin's thesis. There was no other reason for being there.24 In Dever's then expressed opinion, the architectural similarities with the gates at Hazor and Megiddo were the sole and sufficient criteria for dating Gezer's 'Solomonic' stratum.

​

23. 'Of Myths and Methods', pp. 121-23. See on this, W.G. Dever, `Archaeological Date on the Israelite settlement: A Review of Two Recent Works', BASOR 284 (1991), pp. 77-90. Indeed, in the square in which I worked, under the supervision of Anson Rainey, we uncovered immediately overlying the gate three large boulders ca. 85-110 cm in diameter, which did not make sense either in Macalister's descriptions or in Dever's reconstructions. These `artifacts' were rolled down the slope of the mound by Rainey and Dever and never appeared in the field notes. When it came to questions of chronology and the gate itself, all pottery discrepancies were consciously discarded prior to recording.
24. Dever's effort at confirmation is to be stressed. Perhaps if we had found something that would have made Yadin's thesis entirely impossible, Dever may have re-examined the issue. Failing such overwhelming contradiction, however, all 'evidence' became malleable, and supported confirmation. The Gezer excavation's pragmatic and politically motivated observations, of course, depart substantially from Popperian preferences for the hypothetically falsifiable question that is the quintessentially scientific one. Of course Dever was a student of Wright’s, who in turn was a student of William Albright, so this appears to have tainted his ‘objectivity’, the fact that his father was ‘an old fashioned fundamentalist preacher’ may have rooted the importance of the ‘Word of God’ too deeply in Dever’s subconscious for him to let go of it completely.Another puzzle about Dever is that he goes on and on about how scholars in the debate over the origins of Ancient Israel need to work together in order to have a better chance of discovering Israel’s actual historical origins. But in his book ‘What did the Biblical Writers know and when did they know it?’ Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2001’, he carries out a number of character assassinations on what he calls the ‘minimalist’ or ‘revisionist’ school, interestingly he lists Finkelstein as a minimalist.He has a go at Davies, Thompson, Whitelam, Lemche and Finkelstein, and the comments made are more of the kind that I would expect to be made in a school playground rather than in a professional arena.Dever has made a fantastic contribution to biblical archaeology, but he now appears to be more occupied with slandering opponents that answering them with hard evidence to support his maximalist claims. Maybe his scholarship is failing slightly nowadays because he appears to be making some basic errors, for example in ‘The Rise of Ancient Israel’ Norman Gottwald writes: A major reason for Dever’s lapse at the point of developing a covering theory is that he seems uniformed about recent developments in the social-critical theory concerning early Israel. For example, he apparently does not realise that since 1985 I have abandoned the terms ‘peasant revolt’ and ‘egalitarian’ society’ as imprecise and misleading explanatory categories for early Israel, or that I have replaced them with constructs of ‘agrarian social revolution’ and ‘communitarian mode of production.’ The result is that Dever’s comments on my modelling of early Israel have as much currency as would an attempt on my part to assess Dever’s archaeological interpretations based exclusively on his work prior to 1985. Also, although I realise that the format of the symposum does not call for documentation, I see no sign that Dever recognises the pertinence of the work of many other contributors to early Israelite society, among whom I would name, Robert B Coote and Keith Whitelam, James W Flanagan, Neils Peter Lemche and William H Steibling Jr, for starters. Dever has made a great contribution to biblical studies and archaeology, but I am of the opinion that he should focus on the evidence and the latest developments rather than dreaming up new ways to insult people.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Hi Brian,Thanks for a very enlightening series of posts. I'm a little curious though. I know Dever has come a long way since his earlier days, and he does say things like the Biblical siege of Jericho didn't happen. He's also now an agnostic, so his past religious affiliations can't really be held against him. Does he still criticise people as he once did, or is this mostly in the past (or continuing old animosities)? Secondly, the list you mention of people he's attacked are all minimalists (except for Finkelstein). Perhaps he just exercises more rhetoric than others? What do you think of the Copenhagen school?Sorry for the questions, but it's hard getting the big picture just from reading the different sides of the debate.Cheers,
Joel

I have in front of me a copy of Etz Hayim, Torah and Commentary, published by The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism of the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). This book pretty much discounts the historicity of the biblical Exodus account. And this, from a conservative Jewish commentary..."The contribution of archeology to the biblical narratives of the last four books of the Torah is limited. There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country, and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect."[This message has been edited by Orion, 04-27-2003]

quote:

---

why is it impossible for them to have lived in and around Kadesh Barnea for 38 years?

---

This is the verse which has been used to support the idea that Israel spent 38 years at Kadesh-barnea. However, that idea can not be found in this verse. In fact, the verse states just the opposite. Please notice the two phrases, "come from Kadeshbarnea" and "come over the brook Zered." The 38 years in this verse refer to the time between Israel's leaving of Kadeshbarnea and their crossing of the brook Zered. Their time spent at Kadeshbarnea is not included in those 38 years.

quote:

---

Calling someone of Prof. Finkelstein’s stature a liar before you have seriously looked into his claims is not really a Christian thing to do, I hate to remind you of bearing false witness.

---

If something contradicts the truth it is a lie regardless of the stature of the person stating it or of the number of people supporting it. Truth is not determined by public opinion. If a lie is being used to support a proposition, then it is the responsibility of those who are aware of the truth to reveal the presence of the lie.

quote:

---

Seriously, can you look at this and in all honesty say that you know more about the Hebrew Bible and archaeology than Prof. Finkelstein?

---

No, but I can say that Mr. Finkelstein is no less capable of lying than anyone else is. I can also say that recognition of a lie is not dependent on one's having studied that lie more than the one proclaiming it. On the contrary, if one is aware of the truth, the lie becomes self-evident.

quote:

---

If something contradicts the truth it is a lie regardless of the stature of the person stating it or of the number of people supporting it.

---

To claim that Finkelstein may be mistaken is one thing, to accuse him of knowingly promulgating a falsehood is quite another. Note that it is not enough to say that Finkelstein should have known that a statement you claim is false, was in fact, false - that would imply incompetence perhaps, but not lying.Are you sure you are really saying that Finkelstein knowingly made false statements?