Review: On the Reliability of the Old Testament

[ChrisChillin]

Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, has just recently come out with a massive new work on the Old Testament. This well-regarded Egyptologist is one of the top maximalists who contends for a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity. I have just ordered On the Reliability of the Old Testament and will make my own comments on it in the future. In the meantime, here is the only review of Kitchen's book that I have managed to find online.

*****

British expert strongly defends Old Testament
Author makes most sweeping scholarly case in a generation for traditional beliefs of conservatives
By Richard N. Ostling / The Associated Press

Is the Old Testament historically reliable, or mostly fiction and legend concocted to buttress Jewish nationalism - or something in between?

In this long-running debate, skepticism has recently gained ground in academic circles. Now a British authority has launched a vigorous defence of the Old Testament's historical credibility against the doubts disseminated by liberal scholars and popular books.

On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans) provides the most sweeping scholarly case in a generation for the traditional beliefs held by Orthodox Jews and Christian conservatives.

Author K. A. Kitchen is professor emeritus of Egyptology at England's University of Liverpool. Because his views are academically unfashionable, he feels a need to immodestly mention his facility in a dozen ancient languages and the half-century he has spent studying the relevant texts.

The book was planned as a counterpart to The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by now-deceased Prof. F. F. Bruce, a conservative classic reissued in paperback last year. But the problems are more complex and the case more elaborate.

And Kitchen is more polemical than Bruce, castigating liberal writings with such terms as "wilful evasion of very clear evidence," "without a particle of foundation in fact," "palpably false," "totally misleading," "trendy nonsense," "self-delusion," "sloppy scholarship," "immense ignorance," "agenda-driven drivel," "pure, unadulterated fantasy," "lunacy" and "crude anti-biblical (almost anti-Semitic) propaganda."

Kitchen assails radical "minimalists" who dismiss the Old Testament as mostly fictional. But he also targets Israeli archeologist Israel Finkelstein, who finds some factual material in the Jewish Bible (see his co-written The Bible Unearthed) and the University of Arizona's William Dever, who finds somewhat more in What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? and Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

It will be fascinating to see how proponents of well-entrenched liberal views reply to Kitchen - and more fascinating if they don't reply.

Much of Kitchen's case is summarized in three words: "Some manuscripts, please!" He repeatedly complains that liberal theories ignore or distort the actual evidence from ancient texts.

Another Kitchen theme is that the doubters rely heavily upon "negative evidence," the lack of ancient remains and non-biblical texts that would absolutely prove biblical accounts. Kitchen says this lack "proves absolutely nothing" except that artifacts from thousands of years ago often didn't survive.

Archeologists haven't found hard evidence left behind from the 40 years of wilderness wanderings after the Exodus, for instance, but Kitchen says that doesn't prove the Israelites weren't there.

Given the many gaps in records outside scripture, Kitchen necessarily supports the Bible with circumstantial evidence from his knowledge of Egyptian and other ancient materials.

"Implicit or indirect evidence can be equally powerful when used aright," he argues, and it's fair to judge the Bible's plausibility by comparisons with other events in the same era.

Thus he presents arrays of ancient treaties, inscriptions, trade routes, treasure troves, political systems and biological data, and says many more examples could be piled atop those in this book.

Kitchen urges readers to closely watch what the Bible actually says. For instance, he notes, doubts raised about the "conquest" under Joshua often distort the Bible's own report that Israel only gradually infiltrated the Holy Land. Similarly, David's kingdom was not like the grand centralized empires of modern times.

In terms of "general reliability," he concludes, the Old Testament "comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all."

Drawbacks: readers could use a heftier introduction and may be confused by the reverse order in treating events, moving from the Babylonian Exile backward to Genesis.

[Celsus]

Thanks for the review Chris!

I'm wondering though, on the one hand, arguments from silence are not convincing, and on the other, filling in gaps with pet theories is asking for rebuttal when further evidence comes in. The problem is, when regional surveys have been carried out, there isn't many gaps left, and the fact that there are no clear "Israelite" layers in Early Iron strata of cities like Shechem, Lachish, Dor, Megiddo, etc. means that you're going to have to cram them into a period which clearly isn't just absent, but has no room for it. Similarly, in Egypt, for example, where would Kitchen fit the period of slavery in Egypt since we have near complete king lists and chronologies which even he must agree with make no mention of Israelites, nor is there evidence of a Semitic people there other than the Hyksos and Hap/biru, both discredited as Israelite? And how does that compare with Redford's views, since both are Egyptologists?

Joel

[ChrisChillin]

Hiya Celsus!

The basic answer to your questions is...well, that simply I don't know. I haven't gotten Kitchen's book yet and I'm still learning a lot from the others that I'm reading. I need a better grasp of the data and interpretations before I can properly discuss the details of these questions. Hopefully, though, I will be able to do so in due course...

[WinAce]

And Kitchen is more polemical than Bruce, castigating liberal writings with such terms as "wilful evasion of very clear evidence," "without a particle of foundation in fact," "palpably false," "totally misleading," "trendy nonsense," "self-delusion," "sloppy scholarship," "immense ignorance," "agenda-driven drivel," "pure, unadulterated fantasy," "lunacy" and "crude anti-biblical (almost anti-Semitic) propaganda."

That soooo makes me think he'll come to sound, reasoned conclusions based on the evidence, and not purely apologetic and circular nonsense !

[Celsus]

Thanks Chris,

I hope you will find something interesting in there that we can debate about. Maybe I'll pretend to be Donald Redford, and we'll see how everything goes. :D

That soooo makes me think he'll come to sound, reasoned conclusions based on the evidence, and not purely apologetic and circular nonsense !
Perhaps, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should actually read the book first.

Joel

[ChrisChillin]

I hope you will find something interesting in there that we can debate about. Maybe I'll pretend to be Donald Redford, and we'll see how everything goes. :D

Hehe, agreed. You'll have to wait a while so I can get all the necessary reading done. Also, I will likely be going to Israel for a dig this summer. So maybe I'll be ready after digesting some books and getting some 1st-hand experience of archaeology, no? :wink:

Perhaps, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should actually read the book first.

WinAce was a little quick to downplay the work of one of the world's most respected Egyptologists as "apologetic nonsense" wasn't he.

[Robyn Banks]

Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, has just recently come out with a massive new work on the Old Testament.

I spotted it on the shelf a couple of weeks back, and flicked through it. It's not on my order-list. :smile:

Like the Creationists, it seems that Historical 'Maximalists' have been pushed into the aburd corner of no longer constructing positive searches for truth, but engineering pop-apologetical defences and 'how-it-could-possibly-be' scenarios. This is all quite sad, really.

Robyn Banks

[WinAce]

Perhaps, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should actually read the book first.

Did I say anything about not reading a book? I merely made the self-evident point that good arguments stand or fall on the merits of their supporting evidence, not the rhetoric of their proponents.

Polemic is never a substitute for argument. In most cases, it's rarely a fitting accessory, either.

[Celsus]

Did I say anything about not reading a book? I merely made the self-evident point that good arguments stand or fall on the merits of their supporting evidence, not the rhetoric of their proponents.

Polemic is never a substitute for argument. In most cases, it's rarely a fitting accessory, either.
Funny, that's not how I read your sarcastic comments. I certainly think that Kenneth Kitchen is deeply wrong, but I'm not about to dismiss his scholarship as "purely apologetic and circular nonsense". Robyn, I would call Kitchen a conservative, not a maximalist--maximalists disagree with far more of the Bible than Kitchen does.

Joel

[ChrisChillin]

It's not on my order-list.

Fair enough. Did you see any part that specifically disappointed you, or are you just not too interested in reading it?

I certainly think that Kenneth Kitchen is deeply wrong

Wait, Celsus, I think you're being too polemical, you need to replace "wrong" with "misleading". :lol:

When I was reading through some N.T. Wright the other day, he made the comment that often when scholars call somebody's arguments "misleading", it's basically academic code for "dead wrong". So maybe Kitchen is being more honest than most. :wink:

[ChrisChillin]

Well, I finally got Kitchen's book in the mail yesterday, after a long ordeal w/ the Internet company I ordered from. And it's a beaut. Celsus, I'm going to be using the book as a source for my paper for my archaeology class, which will be on models of Israelite origins and settlement. I intend to read a lot of Dever and Finkelstein as well, of course. So perhaps on that basis we could discuss something like the conquest in a couple of months?

[chsalvia]

Kenneth Kitchen is probably one of my favorite scholars, and definitely a trustworthy source when it comes to Egyptology. His views on the Old Testament should not be dismissed as apologetics. He deserves to be read. He is not as conservative in some areas as you would think from this review.

[Condi]

"Another Kitchen theme is that the doubters rely heavily upon "negative evidence," the lack of ancient remains and non-biblical texts that would absolutely prove biblical accounts. Kitchen says this lack "proves absolutely nothing" except that artifacts from thousands of years ago often didn't survive.

Archeologists haven't found hard evidence left behind from the 40 years of wilderness wanderings after the Exodus, for instance, but Kitchen says that doesn't prove the Israelites weren't there."

If I remember the book "Out of the Desert" correctly, we DO find evidence of tiny nomad camps from the same place and the same era. The fact that we do find traces of these tiny transient populations and don't find evidence of a million plus tribe that was supposed to exist in the same place at the same time looks like very positive evidence to me.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence if you've looked long enough and hard enough so that you would have found something if it was there.

[ChrisChillin]

As much as I've heard Out of the Desert mentioned, I'll have to order it and take a look at it one day. I'll probably wait to order it alongside Hoffmeier's Ancient Israel in Sinai when it comes out in about a year or so. Then, I'll be able to compare the two lines of argument about the question of evidence in the peninsula.

[Dr.GH]

I am sure that you must have already read, Dever, William 2001 "What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel" Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and, Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman 2001 "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" New York: The Free Press

Richarrd Elliott Friedman, 1987 "Who Wrote the Bible" New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition) is also worth the time to read carefully.

[ChrisChillin]

Yup, read both Dever and Finkelstein

[Lion]

An observatiom. A few posts ago I noted that there was little or no evidence of the Israelite wanderings in the Sinai peninsula. I read a book "The Gold of Exodus," in which the author claims the Israelites crossed the red sea at the gulf of Aquaba, and crossed into Arabia. There is a mountain in Arabia near there called Jebel al Lawz which the Saudi government calls an archeological site.

I think they were looking in the wrong place. Of course the Saudi governent would take a dim view of any search for evidence of anything about the Israeli wanderings.

[shunyadragon]

An observatiom. A few posts ago I noted that there was little or no evidence of the Israelite wanderings in the Sinai peninsula. I read a book "The Gold of Exodus," in which the author claims the Israelites crossed the red sea at the gulf of Aquaba, and crossed into Arabia. There is a mountain in Arabia near there called Jebel al Lawz which the Saudi government calls an archeological site.

I think they were looking in the wrong place. Of course the Saudi governent would take a dim view of any search for evidence of anything about the Israeli wanderings.
This is not true. Islam considers the Pentateuch as Holy scripture the same as Jews and Christians.

There is still no evidence of the wandering of the Hebrews in the Sinai. There is not any evidence of a mass migration or invasion into Canaan either.

[Lion]

I don't doubt the lack of evidence for a mass migration, but the gold of exodus tells the plan the Saudis had for a radar station on Jebel Lawz. I know the Saudis hate the Jews and I doubt very much if they would allow any attempt to discover evidence of the Exodus.

[Sheshonq]

I don't doubt the lack of evidence for a mass migration, but the gold of exodus tells the plan the Saudis had for a radar station on Jebel Lawz. I know the Saudis hate the Jews and I doubt very much if they would allow any attempt to discover evidence of the Exodus. We consistently find evidence of a few million people (and their animals) living and dying in Egypt / Sumeria / Babylon / China / Mexico / etc.

Why wouldn't we be able to find evidence of the same thing with the Israelites?

Moreover, the Israelites stayed in one place for something like 38 of the 40 years of wandering. That cuts down the need to search the whole Sinai, and allows researchers to focus their archaeological investigations over a much smaller area. In spite of that fact, nothing has ever been found.

[ChrisChillin]

Why wouldn't we be able to find evidence of the same thing with the Israelites?

A number of possible reasons. Do we need to enumerate?

[Failsafe]

Awesome

Makes my last post redundant.

Any books you suggest to an OT novice to go with this book? From both sides of the fence, I don't mind.

[ChrisChillin]

Dever's books are definitely worth reading - What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? and Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Enjoyable reading and a middle position between hard minimalism and traditional evangelical positions. From the conservative side, two other important books are Windows into Old Testament History and The Future of Biblical Archaeology. On the other end of the spectrum, as far as I'm concerned, once you get past Finkelstein you get into a pretty surreal world. I don't give much credit to the extreme minimalists (Lemche, Thompson, etc)

[bandecoot]

A number of possible reasons. Do we need to enumerate?

Yeah I think you do. I am neither a minimalist nor maximalist, I am a factualist. I dont care what the text or source is. I simply want to know what happened and why.

The author of the book you are reviewing makes some pretty broad statements regarding the veracity and politics of Current scholarship.

I might even somewhat cynically suggest that this book is a broadside at the fact that Kitchen was passed over as editor of the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt in favour of Redford, The shorter Oxford History in favour of Shaw and the British Museum Dictonary in favour of Shaw and Nicolson. These being the 3 most recent works on the subject of Ancient Egypt.

Andrew

[ChrisChillin]

Yeah I think you do.

Fair enough. To save myself time, I'm going back to my related previous posts and so much of my text here will be cut-and-paste.

In a response to Johnnny Skeptic, I wrote:

First, let's refresh ourselves on Yamauchi's limiting factors:

1. Only a fraction of what has been made or written ever survives.
2. Only a fraction of the available sites for study have been surveyed.
3. Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated.
4. With the exception of small and short-lived sites, it is always the case that only a fraction of any excavated site is truly examined.
5. Only a fraction of the materials so far uncovered by excavations have been published.
[note: taken from Edwin Yamauchi, "The Stones and the Scriptures"]

So for starters, we need to keep in mind the restricted prospects of recovering anything from any ancient time period and place. Not only do the documents you are looking for need to be written in the first place, but given sufficient regard so that steps are taken to store/preserve them, then they have to be lucky enough not to be destroyed by natural calamities, fire, war, etc, then they have to be lucky enough to be within sites located and identified by archaeologists, then they have to be lucky enough to be within the small sections of the sites excavated. These factors alone provide great odds against our uncovering the kind of documentation you seek.

Although it was in a different context, my statements on "documents" and the limiting factors are valid for other physical remains as well.

Another reply to Johnny Skeptic:

But what would constitute reasonable evidence for you: where would it come from and what would it be? We could look either for literary or archaeological evidence. For literary evidence there are the problems I've mentioned that can't be skirted around: the Egyptians didn't record their defeats, the East Delta records are lost to us, and major factors weigh against finding written accounts of the exodus in surrounding cultures (especially the Philistines and Canaanites, whom the Bible records as knowing about the Exodus but who have left us no documents at all). Also, major factors weigh in against finding material remains - ramshackle mud slave huts would not survive 3000 years in the Delta, and the Sinai is a vast area to explore and the Israelites weren't likely to be lugging around tons of pottery to throw away for us to uncover. I don't pretend that any of these considerations provide positive evidence for the Exodus, but they do justify the application of Kitchen's dictum that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So what might constitute reasonable evidence after taking all that into account? I say it would have to be a certain amount of indirect data. And I also believe such exists. Despite the contentions of Finkelstein and Dever lately, the case can still be made that Israel entered Canaan from the outside and did not develop indigenously. Some features of the narrative apparently feature local knowledge of the Sinai conditions. And the suzerainty-treaty format of Deuteronomy smacks of high learning and aristocratic upbringing so that, Kitchen says, we would have to invent a Moses or some similar figure to write it if we didn't already have one. Finally, the pervasiveness of the Exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible is difficult to explain away. Again, this does not in any way "prove" the Exodus, but should keep the concept from being summarily dismissed.

As for the specific case of the Sinai, I previously quoted what Kitchen had to say by way of example:


As for no clues in Sinai, it is silly to expect to find traces of everybody who ever passed through the various routes in that peninsula. The state of preservation of remains is very uneven. For the Late Bronze Age, F.&S. [Finkelstein and Silberman – CC] have overlooked the Egyptian mining site at Serabit el-Khadim. The seasonal miners must have had interim stopping places between Serabit and Egypt, if they traveled overland back to the East Delta (on a reverse route to the Hebrews in Exod. 16-19) or at port sites like Markha if they sailed back to Egypt. Why, then, have we no record of these? This absence does not disprove the Egyptian regular visitations into Sinai, given their solid monumental presence – therefore, the absence of possible Hebrew campsites is likewise meaningless. What is more, from Sinai the Hebrews expected initially to be in Canaan in a year, not in forty years. They had no need to lug tons of heavy pottery around with them (just to oblige F.&S. with a few sherds!) if leatherwork or skins would do. So, no sherds at (e.g.) Qadesh-Barnea (where they did not stop for thirty-eight years – a common misunderstanding!) means nothing. [p. 467, italics his and bold mine]

Also, as I have stated previously, it is most likely that the large figures in Numbers and elsewhere are probably inflationary figures based either in a) gross exaggeration on the part of the tradition writers or b) a modern misunderstanding on our part of eleph, which can be translated "thousand" but is also rendered elsewhere in the Hebrew texts as a term for a clan or military-social unit.

As a disclaimer I wouldn't say that I claim to be well-read concerning conditions in the Sinai and exploration there. But I do understand that James Hoffmeier, the archaeologist in charge of the Tell el-Borg excavation at the edge of the Sinai, has written a book about the wilderness traditions and the Sinai that will be published later this year. I look forward to what he has to share with us.

Edit to add: Interesting cynical suggestion, but actually this book has been on the table for about 25 years. It was first suggested to complement F.F. Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

[learning]

What do you think about 'Anati' and his view of things as expressed in this link.
He speaks of finding rock art that appears to be related to the story of Exodus, ie. a staff before a snake, what looks like ten tablets, some camps that appear to have had many people staying there. I noted that he is continuing doing his archeological digs this summer. He is from Italy, and known to be world famous for his expertise in primitive rock art. He is said to have examined primitive rock art in Canada, and other places around the world, but this spot seems to be of big interest to him for now. I find that many of the things listed here, he is quite cautious in saying they relate to the Exodus, but also, that they could indeed relate to the Exodus. The place of camps near this mountain was known to be holy for many generations, before Exodus and after. But so it was when Moses went there, the mountain Moses was said to have gone to, was said to have been 'The Mountain of God.'
www.harkarkom.com

[bandecoot]

Fair enough. To save myself time, I'm going back to my related previous posts and so much of my text here will be cut-and-paste.

In a response to Johnnny Skeptic, I wrote:

First, let's refresh ourselves on Yamauchi's limiting factors:

1. Only a fraction of what has been made or written ever survives.
2. Only a fraction of the available sites for study have been surveyed.
3. Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated.
4. With the exception of small and short-lived sites, it is always the case that only a fraction of any excavated site is truly examined.
5. Only a fraction of the materials so far uncovered by excavations have been published.
[note: taken from Edwin Yamauchi, "The Stones and the Scriptures"]

So for starters, we need to keep in mind the restricted prospects of recovering anything from any ancient time period and place. Not only do the documents you are looking for need to be written in the first place, but given sufficient regard so that steps are taken to store/preserve them, then they have to be lucky enough not to be destroyed by natural calamities, fire, war, etc, then they have to be lucky enough to be within sites located and identified by archaeologists, then they have to be lucky enough to be within the small sections of the sites excavated. These factors alone provide great odds against our uncovering the kind of documentation you seek.

Although it was in a different context, my statements on "documents" and the limiting factors are valid for other physical remains as well.


1 Those of us that actually do history for a living are, in fact, aware of this. However, there is a lot more surviving material than a lot of people think, think about rubbish dumps and all the stuff that ends up there.

2 yes and....

3 yes, true, funding is always short. which leaves these site open to pot hunters, more is the pity.

4 Yes this is true. Usually by design, we are aware of the limits of current methods, and generally leave a good portion of a site undisturbed for future diggers

5 This is flat out false, the material is published, you just have to ask for the site notes and post dig cataloges to read it. Every person who has done Arch 201 knows this.

every historian knows the value of pedestrian material. Especially in the field of womens history Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome : A Sourcebook in Translation, (2nd.ed., Baltimore 1992).

contains a whole section of material from wells and shrines on curse markers. Plus a section on sexuality that was gleaned from a rubbish dump in Alexandria.
You seem to drag up problems that we have already got around, perhaps you might be bertter served going back to do a refresher in what history actually does, as opposed to the “Grand opus school” to which you seem to belong. King lists and noble burial sites are by definition biased to the prevailing conditions of the day.
Cicero is invaluable, but so is a letter by Marcus Lucius Tiddlypus to his wife. Or his wife's prayer maker to the Bona Dea.

I feel that you are inventing problems to leave a biased Magnum Opus as our only source. That is not the case, historians have got around that by simply looking at garbage.


Another reply to Johnny Skeptic:

But what would constitute reasonable evidence for you: where would it come from and what would it be? We could look either for literary or archaeological evidence. For literary evidence there are the problems I've mentioned that can't be skirted around: the Egyptians didn't record their defeats, the East Delta records are lost to us, and major factors weigh against finding written accounts of the exodus in surrounding cultures (especially the Philistines and Canaanites, whom the Bible records as knowing about the Exodus but who have left us no documents at all). Also, major factors weigh in against finding material remains - ramshackle mud slave huts would not survive 3000 years in the Delta, and the Sinai is a vast area to explore and the Israelites weren't likely to be lugging around tons of pottery to throw away for us to uncover. I don't pretend that any of these considerations provide positive evidence for the Exodus, but they do justify the application of Kitchen's dictum that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So what might constitute reasonable evidence after taking all that into account? I say it would have to be a certain amount of indirect data. And I also believe such exists. Despite the contentions of Finkelstein and Dever lately, the case can still be made that Israel entered Canaan from the outside and did not develop indigenously. Some features of the narrative apparently feature local knowledge of the Sinai conditions. And the suzerainty-treaty format of Deuteronomy smacks of high learning and aristocratic upbringing so that, Kitchen says, we would have to invent a Moses or some similar figure to write it if we didn't already have one. Finally, the pervasiveness of the Exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible is difficult to explain away. Again, this does not in any way "prove" the Exodus, but should keep the concept from being summarily dismissed.

As for the specific case of the Sinai, I previously quoted what Kitchen had to say by way of example:


On the Reliability of the Old Testament

As for no clues in Sinai, it is silly to expect to find traces of everybody who ever passed through the various routes in that peninsula.The state of preservation of remains is very uneven.For the Late Bronze Age, F.&S. [Finkelstein and Silberman – CC] have overlooked the Egyptian mining site at Serabit el-Khadim. The seasonal miners must have had interim stopping places between Serabit and Egypt, if they traveled overland back to the East Delta (on a reverse route to the Hebrews in Exod. 16-19) or at port sites like Markha if they sailed back to Egypt. Why, then, have we no record of these?

What do you leave at motels when you stay there? Do you leave a home bought glass or a pair of trousers? People are much the same now as they were then.


This absence does not disprove the Egyptian regular visitations into Sinai, given their solid monumental presence – therefore, the absence of possible Hebrew campsites is likewise meaningless. What is more, from Sinai the Hebrews expected initially to be in Canaan in a year, not in forty years. They had no need to lug tons of heavy pottery around with them (just to oblige F.&S. with a few sherds!) if leatherwork or skins would do. So, no sherds at (e.g.) Qadesh-Barnea (where they did not stop for thirty-eight years – a common misunderstanding!) means nothing. [p. 467, italics his and bold mine]

© source where applicable



and what about the 60 metric tons of excrement per day? Where is said leatherwork? 600 550 people must have left something.


Also, as I have stated previously, it is most likely that the large figures in Numbers and elsewhere are probably inflationary figures based either in a) gross exaggeration on the part of the tradition writers or b) a modern misunderstanding on our part of eleph, which can be translated "thousand" but is also rendered elsewhere in the Hebrew texts as a term for a clan or military-social unit.

Ah prevarication? so it may have been 60 000 people? Legion means 1000 men but a Roman legio had 5000 men plus slaves in it. May there not have been over 600 000 in the band in that case?

As a disclaimer I wouldn't say that I claim to be well-read concerning conditions in the Sinai and exploration there. But I do understand that James Hoffmeier, the archaeologist in charge of the Tell el-Borg excavation at the edge of the Sinai, has written a book about the wilderness traditions and the Sinai that will be published later this year. I look forward to what he has to share with us.


Please be aware that Hoffmeier is a lecturer at Trinity Divinity Theological College, hardly an unbiased writer or digger.

Edit to add: Interesting cynical suggestion, but actually this book has been on the table for about 25 years. It was first suggested to complement F.F. Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Yeah, but the timing is on my side.

[ArchaicGuy]

Bandecoot: ChrisChillin is partially correct about the fraction of archaeological materials unearthed is a small amount. Biblical Archaeology Review editor Herschel Shanks wrote an article complaining about unpublished excavation reports,etc.

[bandecoot]

Bandecoot: ChrisChillin is partially correct about the fraction of archaeological materials unearthed is a small amount. Biblical Archaeology Review editor Herschel Shanks wrote an article complaining about unpublished excavation reports,etc.


Unpublished? or simply not available to him? There is a big difference. Were I still in the field and working in the near east I would not let Shanks have a copy of my site reports either.

Andrew

[ArchaicGuy]

Bandecoot: Shanks was referring to unpublished excavation reports. Some of the excavation reports not being published because of funds drying up,death of the archaeologist with no one else to carry on their work,these are only two of the reasons Shanks mentioned. There are the politics of the region and or department involved and being afraid to publish their findings because they don't want upset people.(Magen Broshi uncovered Herodian walls at Damascus Gate, which puts the Church of the Holy Sepulchre inside the walls of Herodian Jerusalem. The Vatican was not pleased and ordered the Israelis to rebury Magen's excavation.) The publication of excavation reports has improved but it is only slightly.

[Lion]

I was reading an article a few days ago that I think puts the whole discussion in perspective. An evangelist approached the curator of an archeological museum asking for some material that would verify something from the Bible. The curator replied that most of his artifacts were from leftovers from daily living and bore no relation to scripture. He went to explain that only as some site bore relation to some incident in scripture could it be proven to be proof of the accuracy of the Bible, and then only indirectly.

[ChrisChillin]

1 Those of us that actually do history for a living are, in fact, aware of this.

Understood. Yamauchi is an ancient historian himself, as I'm sure you are aware, but he wrote The Stones and the Scriptures for a lay readership, and I cited his factors to a pretentious nut, so I'm sorry if it sounds banal.

This is flat out false, the material is published, you just have to ask for the site notes and post dig cataloges to read it. Every person who has done Arch 201 knows this.

Then help me understand Yamauchi's comment. Perhaps he is referring to how excavations have gone historically, before modern techniques and methods became more prevalent? Or is it still true that some findings remain unpublished, as Hershel Shanks asserts?

You seem to drag up problems that we have already got around

Oh? Are you now saying we are no longer burdened by these limitations, all of which you have affirmed save #5 on Yamauchi's list?

perhaps you might be bertter served going back to do a refresher in what history actually does

I hope not, given that I am currently studying history! I'd hate to be learning it and having to refresh myself about it at the same time! :wink:

I feel that you are inventing problems to leave a biased Magnum Opus as our only source. That is not the case, historians have got around that by simply looking at garbage.

And I feel that you are misrepresenting me. I never stated that the only evidence that counts would be official documents, aristocratic monuments, etc. I fully affirm that we get a lot of information from even the "basest" of material of ancient trash heap. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent last summer digging through such on a tel in Israel.

600 550 people must have left something.

Again, assuming this is the actual number...

Ah prevarication? so it may have been 60 000 people? Legion means 1000 men but a Roman legio had 5000 men plus slaves in it. May there not have been over 600 000 in the band in that case?

See a discussion here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19533

Kitchen also reviews over how some scholars have previously treated the issue of eleph:

For a long time now there has been a widespread recognition that, in the biblical text, the question of the long-term transmission of numbers presents the same kind of phenomena as in the rest of the biblical world. In the biblical texts, the actual words for "ten(s)" and "hundred(s)" are not ambiguous, and present no problem on that score; the only question (usually) is whether they have been correctly recopied down the centuries. With 'eleph, "thousand," the matter is very different, as is universally accepted...(1) We have 'eleph, "thousand," which has clear contexts like Gen. 20:16 (price) or Num. 3:50 (amount). But (2) there is 'eleph for a group - be it a clan/family, a (military) squad, a rota of Levites or priests, etc. For groups in the Hebrew text, compare (e.g.) Josh. 22:14, Judg. 6:15, 1 Sam. 10:19, Mic. 5:2, etc. And (3) there is 'lp, a leader, chief, or officer, with a second vowel u, giving 'alluph, but that vowel is not always expressed by a full vowel-letter (w), leaving a consonantal form identical with above words 1 and 2...

It is plain that in other passages in the Hebrew Bible there are clear examples where 'eleph makes no sense if translated "thousand" but good sense if rendered otherwise, e.g. as "leader" or the like. So in 1 Kings 20:30, in Ahab's time a wall falling in Aphek could hardly have killed 27,000 men; but 27 officers might well have perished that way. In the previous verse (29) we may equally have record of the Aramean loss of 100 infantry officers in one day (with concominant other losses?) rather than the loss of 100,000 troops overall.

Back in 1906 Petrie suggested that the individual tribal figures in the two census lists in Num. 1 and 26 represented (e.g.) in Reuben (1:21) not 46,500 men, but 46 families ("tents") of 500 people (averaging up to 9 people a tent; a couple and 7 children or whatever). So, as a result, his figure for the party that migrated to Sinai and Canaan becomes about 5,500 people (the sum of the 100s in the tribal list of Num. 1) in 598 tented families (sum of the "thousands" in Num. 1). Then the traditional 603,550 arose from 598 'eleph (family) and 5 'eleph (thousand) 550 being run together as 598+5=603 "thousand" and 550 men. However, he could not account for the numbers of Levites and various other figures in Exodus and Numbers.

Thereafter, Mendenhall (1958) took a smiliar line, interpreting the rogue 'elephs as military squads under leaders; his resultant figure for the Hebrews leaving Egypt was 20,000 plus...

Most recently, Humphries (1998, 2000) has brought a more rigorously mathematical approach to these figures, starting with the modest figure of 273 Israelites to be redeemed in excess of the number of Levites (Num. 3:46), and proceeding to establish appropriate formulae in terms of birthrate, etc. The end result is 598 troops (squads) consisting of 5,500 men (averaging about 9 men each, comparable with what is found in, e.g., the Amarna letters) at the first census (Num 1-2) and 596 squads numbering 5,730 men later (Num. 26). At a later period, the 598+5 'eleph gave the 603,550 men of Num. 1-2, and the 596+5 'eleph gave the 601,730 men of Num. 26. The Levites came out at about 1,000 men in twenty-one rotas of about 50. The emigrants from Egypt to Canaan would then total about 20,000 to 22,000, close to Mendenhall's result. So, in Iron IA Canaan, a population of 50,000 to 70,000 by 1150 might have included 10,000 early Israelites. [p. 264-5]

Please be aware that Hoffmeier is a lecturer at Trinity Divinity Theological College, hardly an unbiased writer or digger.

Yes, I am aware that he is a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but please be careful about poisoning the well...

Yeah, but the timing is on my side.

Big whoop.

[ArchaicGuy]

ChrisChillin: What is the name of the Tel you excavated at last summer in Israel? Have you read The Book of Yasher? It provides more details about the time of the Exodus. It has some interesting descriptions of Joseph and the pharoah whom challenged Moses.

[ChrisChillin]

What is the name of the Tel you excavated at last summer in Israel?

I was a volunteer at Beth Shemesh. We dug down into the Late Bronze Age for the first time in the history of the current excavation.

Have you read The Book of Yasher?

Nope.

[learning]

[QUOTE=ChrisChillin]I was a volunteer at Beth Shemesh. We dug down into the Late Bronze Age for the first time in the history of the current excavation.

[QUOTE]

Got any pictures? or links?

[ChrisChillin]

I'm not on my personal computer right now, so I can't display any of my pics at the moment. But here are some links with info on Beth Shemesh.

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/bethshemesh_project.html

http://www.bibleplaces.com/bethshemesh.htm

http://www.iu.edu/~relstud/betshem/background.shtml

[learning]

Thanks!

[bandecoot]

1 Those of us that actually do history for a living are, in fact, aware of this.




Understood. Yamauchi is an ancient historian himself, as I'm sure you are aware, but he wrote The Stones and the Scriptures for a lay readership, and I cited his factors to a pretentious nut, so I'm sorry if it sounds banal.

No problems, I have a tendancy to reuse posts myself.:

Quote:

This is flat out false, the material is published, you just have to ask for the site notes and post dig cataloges to read it. Every person who has done Arch 201 knows this.




Then help me understand Yamauchi's comment. Perhaps he is referring to how excavations have gone historically, before modern techniques and methods became more prevalent? Or is it still true that some findings remain unpublished, as Hershel Shanks asserts?


It is probable that in the past amatuer digs have gone unpublished, But as you know every single thing is recorded at least 3 ways, Stratigraphy, Grid position and Photographically. Plus site notes and site records, then cataloges. You have done some dig work you know this. Even if aspects of the site are not published in the journals, the raw material of the Published work is available to anyone who might need it. Note the use of the word need, not want to casually peruse. There are issues of co-authorship which some people are loathe to grant when requesting the use of site records. It is the prerogative of the original excavator as to who is allowed access to his work.
Publication equals funding. Mr Shanks would have a lot of trouble getting access to any of my work. His continued abuse of The ASOR and his well attested Bias would earn him short shrift from me if I worked in ANE Arch. His habit of not attributing his coworkers(IE people whose site records he has had access to) in the field is also a concern.

How ever, as I do not work in the field anymore and when I did itwas about as far away from ane as you can get, its a moot point.

:

You seem to drag up problems that we have already got around




Oh? Are you now saying we are no longer burdened by these limitations, all of which you have affirmed save #5 on Yamauchi's list?

Burdened? No. Aware of them? Very much so. There are whole chapters devoted to minimising limitations by developing strategies for excavation and conservation of sites. I suggest "Field methods In Archaeology" by Hester Feder and Shafer I have 7th edition, there may be a new edition out.

:

perhaps you might be bertter served going back to do a refresher in what history actually does




I hope not, given that I am currently studying history! I'd hate to be learning it and having to refresh myself about it at the same time!

I apologise for a sharp answer where none was needed. You were not repling to me in that quote. I took it amiss.

:

I feel that you are inventing problems to leave a biased Magnum Opus as our only source. That is not the case, historians have got around that by simply looking at garbage.




And I feel that you are misrepresenting me. I never stated that the only evidence that counts would be official documents, aristocratic monuments, etc. I fully affirm that we get a lot of information from even the "basest" of material of ancient trash heap. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent last summer digging through such on a tel in Israel.

Then it seems that we agree on more than we dont. My point was though, Kitchen belongs to the magnum Opus school.

:

600 550 people must have left something.




Again, assuming this is the actual number...

[Quote]:

Ah prevarication? so it may have been 60 000 people? Legion means 1000 men but a Roman legio had 5000 men plus slaves in it. May there not have been over 600 000 in the band in that case?




See a discussion here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19533

Kitchen also reviews over how some scholars have previously treated the issue of eleph:

On the Reliability of the Old Testament

For a long time now there has been a widespread recognition that, in the biblical text, the question of the long-term transmission of numbers presents the same kind of phenomena as in the rest of the biblical world. In the biblical texts, the actual words for "ten(s)" and "hundred(s)" are not ambiguous, and present no problem on that score; the only question (usually) is whether they have been correctly recopied down the centuries. With 'eleph, "thousand," the matter is very different, as is universally accepted...(1) We have 'eleph, "thousand," which has clear contexts like Gen. 20:16 (price) or Num. 3:50 (amount). But (2) there is 'eleph for a group - be it a clan/family, a (military) squad, a rota of Levites or priests, etc. For groups in the Hebrew text, compare (e.g.) Josh. 22:14, Judg. 6:15, 1 Sam. 10:19, Mic. 5:2, etc. And (3) there is 'lp, a leader, chief, or officer, with a second vowel u, giving 'alluph, but that vowel is not always expressed by a full vowel-letter (w), leaving a consonantal form identical with above words 1 and 2...

It is plain that in other passages in the Hebrew Bible there are clear examples where 'eleph makes no sense if translated "thousand" but good sense if rendered otherwise, e.g. as "leader" or the like. So in 1 Kings 20:30, in Ahab's time a wall falling in Aphek could hardly have killed 27,000 men; but 27 officers might well have perished that way. In the previous verse (29) we may equally have record of the Aramean loss of 100 infantry officers in one day (with concominant other losses?) rather than the loss of 100,000 troops overall.

Back in 1906 Petrie suggested that the individual tribal figures in the two census lists in Num. 1 and 26 represented (e.g.) in Reuben (1:21) not 46,500 men, but 46 families ("tents") of 500 people (averaging up to 9 people a tent; a couple and 7 children or whatever). So, as a result, his figure for the party that migrated to Sinai and Canaan becomes about 5,500 people (the sum of the 100s in the tribal list of Num. 1) in 598 tented families (sum of the "thousands" in Num. 1). Then the traditional 603,550 arose from 598 'eleph (family) and 5 'eleph (thousand) 550 being run together as 598+5=603 "thousand" and 550 men. However, he could not account for the numbers of Levites and various other figures in Exodus and Numbers.

Thereafter, Mendenhall (1958) took a smiliar line, interpreting the rogue 'elephs as military squads under leaders; his resultant figure for the Hebrews leaving Egypt was 20,000 plus...

Most recently, Humphries (1998, 2000) has brought a more rigorously mathematical approach to these figures, starting with the modest figure of 273 Israelites to be redeemed in excess of the number of Levites (Num. 3:46), and proceeding to establish appropriate formulae in terms of birthrate, etc. The end result is 598 troops (squads) consisting of 5,500 men (averaging about 9 men each, comparable with what is found in, e.g., the Amarna letters) at the first census (Num 1-2) and 596 squads numbering 5,730 men later (Num. 26). At a later period, the 598+5 'eleph gave the 603,550 men of Num. 1-2, and the 596+5 'eleph gave the 601,730 men of Num. 26. The Levites came out at about 1,000 men in twenty-one rotas of about 50. The emigrants from Egypt to Canaan would then total about 20,000 to 22,000, close to Mendenhall's result. So, in Iron IA Canaan, a population of 50,000 to 70,000 by 1150 might have included 10,000 early Israelites. [p. 264-5]



Then we can assume that the OT is in fact unreliable based on this? Or that there was a mistranslation that went unnoticed for 2000 years? What is your take on it.?

You see, I keep seeing obfuscation and prevarication when the facts that are known are simple and quite obvious. The Hyksos invaded Egypt, They ruled for about 100 years and were expelled. This is not equivocal. There is evidence in the stones and bones. None for the Israelites.

I see a similar thing when dealing with Young Earth Creationists, if the facts dont fit the story then change the facts. To the the extent of some truly bizzare hypotheses being concocted.


I am not tarring Kitchen with that brush( I have far to much respect for him), But the tendancy to find work that relies on a torturous skein of logic is less elegant than a simple review of the stones and the bones.



Please be aware that Hoffmeier is a lecturer at Trinity Divinity Theological College, hardly an unbiased writer or digger.




Yes, I am aware that he is a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but please be careful about poisoning the well...

Some wells come prepoisened, thats not my fault. Have a look at their Statement of Faith. If you dont agree to that you dont teach.

If you come at a site determined to find evidence. Thats one thing. If you come to a site determined to prove your faith regardless of the evidence, well thats a whole other thing.

:

Yeah, but the timing is on my side.




Big whoop.


Bwahahahhaa I did say it was a cynical suggestion, But even you must agree, 3 new tomes on Ancient Egypt are released and then a book that has been on hold for 25 years is also released, the timing is suspicious.
But its only a side pont and not really relevent.


Andrew

[ArchaicGuy]

Bandecoot: Professional archaeological excavations have also gone unpublished, as much as any excavations carried out by amatuer archaeologists. I'm aware of a few profession archaeologists whom have yet to publish the results of their excavations because their digs are still ongoing. Professional jealousies between archaeologists both amateur and professionals is unfortunately a large part of archaeology.

[ChrisChillin]

Burdened? No. Aware of them? Very much so. There are whole chapters devoted to minimising limitations by developing strategies for excavation and conservation of sites. I suggest "Field methods In Archaeology" by Hester Feder and Shafer I have 7th edition, there may be a new edition out.

Thanks for the book suggestion; I'll have to check it out at some point. Now I would not deny that upon recognizing limitations archaeologists would proceed in efforts to minimize them. But can such work ever completely overcome these limitations? Of course not. After all, some of them have nothing to do with the methodology of our excavations. If no Philistine documents exist somewhere in the soil today, for example, nothing on our part could conjure them back into existence. Archaeological method can only (sort of) solve part of the puzzle.

Then it seems that we agree on more than we dont. My point was though, Kitchen belongs to the magnum Opus school.

That may be the case, but he should be answered in terms of the evidence and not in terms of categories, right?

Then we can assume that the OT is in fact unreliable based on this? Or that there was a mistranslation that went unnoticed for 2000 years? What is your take on it.?

Let us not think in total black and white terms here - if the census figures are exaggerated that does not totally wipe away all historical credibility for the exodus and wilderness narratives. After all, nobody doubts Sargon II's campaigns in Mesopotamia although he reports mountains of gold and whatnot. Nor do we discount Alexander the Great's march through Persia despite the report that his army was attacked by a dragon! If the census figures are wrong, then it means that the census figures are wrong. As I see it, given the way we have them presented to us in our English translations, they have to be wrong. A population of two million Hebrews cannot fit the population data gathered from Egypt or Iron Age I Canaan. So one must consider the alternatives: the numbers were simply exaggerated, we have mistranslated eleph, or the writer(s) had no idea what they were talking about and made up stuff on the fly.

You see, I keep seeing obfuscation and prevarication when the facts that are known are simple and quite obvious. The Hyksos invaded Egypt, They ruled for about 100 years and were expelled. This is not equivocal. There is evidence in the stones and bones. None for the Israelites.

As A.R. Millard has recently pointed out, there is also little physical evidence for the Amorite invasion of Mesopotamia, but historians do not discount it because of the documentary evidence for it. In that case, a foreign invader swept in and took control yet the archaeological remains alone suggest uninterrupted cultural continuity. In the case of the Israelites, if they were indeed in Egypt, then they were a community of slaves living in the East Delta where little is preserved. The Pentateuch tells us that the core of the Hebrew nation came from a group of Semitic nomads who, at the time of the Exodus, were joined by a "mixed multitude" according to the text. That multitude did not form a distinct ethno-religious identity until after the flight from Egypt (see Mendenhall, who places the formation of Israel as a nation at Sinai). Thus the Hebrews may not have had a very distinct physical cultural trace to leave behind.

I see a similar thing when dealing with Young Earth Creationists, if the facts dont fit the story then change the facts. To the the extent of some truly bizzare hypotheses being concocted.

Has anything I said yet been totally implausible?

But the tendancy to find work that relies on a torturous skein of logic is less elegant than a simple review of the stones and the bones.

Unfortunately, there is no "simple review of the stones and bones" that is not beset by ideological or theoretical presuppositions. Thinking in terms of biblical archaeology, just see how that plays out in the debate over Finkelstein's low chronology, or between Finkelstein and Dever over whether the Israelites were former highland nomads or former Canaanite city-dwellers.

If you dont agree to that you dont teach.

What else would you expect from a religiously affiliated school? At least they're more open about their bias, unlike other institutions which have an unwritten Statement of Faith in Political Correctness. Is there really a difference?

Thats one thing. If you come to a site determined to prove your faith regardless of the evidence, well thats a whole other thing.

Fair enough. My faith doesn't rest on the historicity of the Exodus, however. I just believe that it has been unfairly dismissed from consideration as a historical possibility.

Thanks for the discussion. :thumb:

[bandecoot]

Thanks for the book suggestion; I'll have to check it out at some point. Now I would not deny that upon recognizing limitations archaeologists would proceed in efforts to minimize them. But can such work ever completely overcome these limitations? Of course not. After all, some of them have nothing to do with the methodology of our excavations. If no Philistine documents exist somewhere in the soil today, for example, nothing on our part could conjure them back into existence. Archaeological method can only (sort of) solve part of the puzzle.


Its the set text for Prac Arch at UQ. Enjoy it. You are correct, if there is no evidence for Philistine Docs, then all that can be said is that there are not any at the site. Please dont misunderstand, I am firmly of the veiw that the more recent works backs the OT better than the "maximalist" Veiw(I loathe those words)



That may be the case, but he should be answered in terms of the evidence and not in terms of categories, right?

I am happy to do so, except that unfortunately Kitchen seems to have taken the position that precludes him accepting evidence outside his veiw.


Let us not think in total black and white terms here - if the census figures are exaggerated that does not totally wipe away all historical credibility for the exodus and wilderness narratives. After all, nobody doubts Sargon II's campaigns in Mesopotamia although he reports mountains of gold and whatnot. Nor do we discount Alexander the Great's march through Persia despite the report that his army was attacked by a dragon! If the census figures are wrong, then it means that the census figures are wrong. As I see it, given the way we have them presented to us in our English translations, they have to be wrong. A population of two million Hebrews cannot fit the population data gathered from Egypt or Iron Age I Canaan. So one must consider the alternatives: the numbers were simply exaggerated, we have mistranslated eleph, or the writer(s) had no idea what they were talking about and made up stuff on the fly.

I guess that is my point, if something so basic can be got so wrong, according to the record. That is a definition of unreliable. I am however happy to accept 20000 odd as a reasonable figure for a rout army of Hyksos.

The descriptions of Peoples and the war done on them would be compatible with an army that left their families behind when they lost a war. The Hyksos had had a hundred years of Agrarian, Literate society in Egypt, so these skills would go with them to the Levant. Within a few generations you would have an admixture of Agrarian and nomadic populations. Probably what are now known as the Israelites.



As A.R. Millard has recently pointed out, there is also little physical evidence for the Amorite invasion of Mesopotamia, but historians do not discount it because of the documentary evidence for it. In that case, a foreign invader swept in and took control yet the archaeological remains alone suggest uninterrupted cultural continuity. In the case of the Israelites, if they were indeed in Egypt, then they were a community of slaves living in the East Delta where little is preserved. The Pentateuch tells us that the core of the Hebrew nation came from a group of Semitic nomads who, at the time of the Exodus, were joined by a "mixed multitude" according to the text. That multitude did not form a distinct ethno-religious identity until after the flight from Egypt (see Mendenhall, who places the formation of Israel as a nation at Sinai). Thus the Hebrews may not have had a very distinct physical cultural trace to leave behind.

Documentary evidence is evidence. Its nice to have physical remains as well as these give a better picture of lifeways, but one takes what the record reveals.
BTW I did read a piece about some remains found in the Eastern delta, dating to about 4000 BCE. Given your interest you might have a look for it, but I dont have the site bookmarked.

A mixed multitude you say? Ill have to read Millard.



Has anything I said yet been totally implausible?

Nope not you.

Unfortunately, there is no "simple review of the stones and bones" that is not beset by ideological or theoretical presuppositions. Thinking in terms of biblical archaeology, just see how that plays out in the debate over Finkelstein's low chronology, or between Finkelstein and Dever over whether the Israelites were former highland nomads or former Canaanite city-dwellers.

At best that is precisely what Archaeology should be. Stones and Bones, "According to the evidence from GR B25-C27(15 cm round remains of wood and earth from the above strata) in a rectangle of X &Y Dimensions it would appear that a structure of some form existed. Palynology or aDNA testing is recommended to determine the Use of the structure."
Those are a lift from a site I worked on as an RA, No attempt to prejudge what the structure was despite the fact it was obvious to me it had been a settlers hut that I had some plans for in an old book.

Until the physical evidence had been gathered and examined. Documentary evidence supporting the findings was more or less ignored. Which is one way of doing it. If all you have are documents the you obviousl work from those.


What else would you expect from a religiously affiliated school? At least they're more open about their bias, unlike other institutions which have an unwritten Statement of Faith in Political Correctness. Is there really a difference?

I think there is, One group has a bias towards excluding evidence that does not fit their faith, Where as most of the working Archs that I know are about the least PC group of people I know. Excepting Mechanical and Civil Engineers of course.

Fair enough. My faith doesn't rest on the historicity of the Exodus, however. I just believe that it has been unfairly dismissed from consideration as a historical possibility.

Thanks for the discussion. :thumb:

It has not been dismissed, but it has been given critical scrutiny, same as any other subject.

In my field you can always pick the Romanticists from the pragmatists by engaging them in a discussio of the Illiad, then talk about the site, if they call it Troy, its a fair bet they are Roms if they call it Hissarlik they are prags. Why? Because noone is sure that its Troy of the Illiad, There has been no sign over a gate saying "Welcome to Troy, Please keep left if you are diving a cart or herd of oxen" found. There is plenty of evidence that it is and its a safe bet that Schliemann got it right. but not a certainty. Why should any other story of equal antiquity be immune to Critical Scholarship?

[bandecoot]

Bandecoot: Professional archaeological excavations have also gone unpublished, as much as any excavations carried out by amatuer archaeologists. I'm aware of a few profession archaeologists whom have yet to publish the results of their excavations because their digs are still ongoing. Professional jealousies between archaeologists both amateur and professionals is unfortunately a large part of archaeology.

Publication is only one part of this, the fact is that it is a tenet of of Archaeology that you bag, tag and cataloge everything. The Excavator may only wish to publish data on a certain aspect of the site, but as Archaeology destroys the very thing it studies, everthing must be recorded. These are called site notes records and Cataloges. If another person wishes to publish a paper on another aspect of the site for comparison with another site for example, then its normal to allow access to site notes and cataloges as a professional courtesy. As the site notes are all that remain of the excavation. It is not automatic however, due to the factors you mention. There are certain people I will not allow near my files, indeed there are people in the field that I will not work with at all. Due to problems with shareing publication attributions and in one case outright plagarism of some microscopy work I did for a term paper.


The whole excavation is always recorded however, some aspects of it just might not make it into the journals.

[ChrisChillin]

Note: I'm not gone, I've been out of town for a week, and I'll come back to this thread in short order.

[ChrisChillin]

I am happy to do so, except that unfortunately Kitchen seems to have taken the position that precludes him accepting evidence outside his veiw.

Perhaps. Again, that is still a matter only to determined when actually engaging in a discussion over the material, and not simply over one's thoughts on another's approach to the material...

I guess that is my point, if something so basic can be got so wrong, according to the record. That is a definition of unreliable.

Some unreliability, maybe, but outright dismissal of historicity? No, I wouldn't think so. I believe my point about Sargon's campaign still stands. I'm sure you agree that a certain established incorrect detail does not conclusively disprove a general reliability of the text's historical sketch. Besides, as I pointed out, outright ignorance for the actual figures is only one possible answer to the eleph issue, with the others being deliberately exaggerated numbers or our own mistranslation of the key term. Until we discuss other lines of evidence, what solution is to be preferred? Merely the one that fits one's preconceptions? Let's not say "oh they just didn't know what they were talking about" if there isn't even a consensus among scholars that says we know what the writer(s) were trying to do with the census figures.

The descriptions of Peoples and the war done on them would be compatible with an army that left their families behind when they lost a war.

I'm confused concerning your point here. Are you trying to relate to a specific biblical passage, to ancient texts in general, or what?

The Hyksos had had a hundred years of Agrarian, Literate society in Egypt, so these skills would go with them to the Levant. Within a few generations you would have an admixture of Agrarian and nomadic populations. Probably what are now known as the Israelites.

Could this also be the case for any other Semitic populations in Egypt?

BTW I did read a piece about some remains found in the Eastern delta, dating to about 4000 BCE.

Thanks! I have seen some similar stuff in Bible Archaeology Review before.

A mixed multitude you say? Ill have to read Millard.

Actually, the mixed multitude statement is in the Book of Exodus. But Millard is worth checking out too. :wink:

I think there is, One group has a bias towards excluding evidence that does not fit their faith, Where as most of the working Archs that I know are about the least PC group of people I know. Excepting Mechanical and Civil Engineers of course.

Well, I will continue to maintain that everyone brings their worldview bias into the work they do, and that can't be too readily stressed when we're talking about biblical archaeology, whether one is a religious archaeologist or not. However, let us not use concerns about one's bias to exclude consideration of one's points. It may well be that the religiously-affiliated schools are so biased that their scholars can't see clearly. It may well be that they're on to something. The only way to find out, of course, is to engage in the work of comparative research...

It has not been dismissed, but it has been given critical scrutiny, same as any other subject.

But even a critical study has its shortcomings and is to subject to - perhaps it never ends! - its own critical appraisal. For example, my own research leads me to believe that the possible general reliability of the Joshua account has been dismissed unfairly because archaeologists confused Albright's model of the conquest as being identical with what the text claims. Once Albright's synthesis fell apart, so did support for Joshua. But a careful analysis will indicate that Joshua and Albright are birds of a different feather, if only one is willing to re-open the case.

Why should any other story of equal antiquity be immune to Critical Scholarship?

I at least have not tried to claim any immunity...

[bandecoot]

Perhaps. Again, that is still a matter only to determined when actually engaging in a discussion over the material, and not simply over one's thoughts on another's approach to the material...


True But I cannot fail to take that form of bias into account when examining his work, any more that I can ignore my own.




Some unreliability, maybe, but outright dismissal of historicity? No, I wouldn't think so. I believe my point about Sargon's campaign still stands. I'm sure you agree that a certain established incorrect detail does not conclusively disprove a general reliability of the text's historical sketch. Besides, as I pointed out, outright ignorance for the actual figures is only one possible answer to the eleph issue, with the others being deliberately exaggerated numbers or our own mistranslation of the key term. Until we discuss other lines of evidence, what solution is to be preferred? Merely the one that fits one's preconceptions? Let's not say "oh they just didn't know what they were talking about" if there isn't even a consensus among scholars that says we know what the writer(s) were trying to do with the census figures.


My point exactly, I have never disputed the basic historicity of the OT. I dispute certain aspects of the accounts in the same way I dispute that Athena Pallas assisted in the Iliad. Or indeed Sargons Mountains of Gold. I might in the latter case be convinced that he did find a lot of Gold. The Gold of Tolosa comes to mind as a recorded huge hoard of Gold. A case of exaggeration perhaps, nothing supernatural about a lot of Gold.

I am perfectly happy to discuss any line of inquiry that leaves evidence to find. Accounts that did not leave any evidence however are as suspect as Alexanders Dragon or The Bull of Heaven in the epic of Gilgamesh.




I'm confused concerning your point here. Are you trying to relate to a specific biblical passage, to ancient texts in general, or what?

I am referring in general to Joshuas war on the peoples living in the land.



Could this also be the case for any other Semitic populations in Egypt?

It could very well be, if any evidence were to be found that there was a second Semitic culture in Egypt at the time. Something like a pottery seriation that is found in Egypt and follows the normal pattern to a point in time, abruptly stops, and reappears in the Levant.

There is an artistic tradition in Egypt that is distinctly Hyksos, that breaks off and reappears all over the Levant.

I used seperate examples because the putative Israelites are portrayed as a slave race and they would not have had access to materials for monuments or showy tombs. But everyone uses and decorates pottery, even slaves.



Thanks! I have seen some similar stuff in Bible Archaeology Review before.


The Website I read it on is not all that reliable either :wink:




Actually, the mixed multitude statement is in the Book of Exodus. But Millard is worth checking out too.
I will do so in my copious free time.





Well, I will continue to maintain that everyone brings their worldview bias into the work they do, and that can't be too readily stressed when we're talking about biblical archaeology, whether one is a religious archaeologist or not. However, let us not use concerns about one's bias to exclude consideration of one's points. It may well be that the religiously-affiliated schools are so biased that their scholars can't see clearly. It may well be that they're on to something. The only way to find out, of course, is to engage in the work of comparative research...

Of course they do, But proper rigour demands that one lay that aside and examine the evidence with out predetermining that such and such a Tel is in fact town X mentioned in Exodus. Or Troy or anyother specifically named town. Or to cram Chronology into a predetermined slot.

Comparitive research? Oh you mean the Minimalist/ Maximalist feud. I truly think that the dispute only lies on one side there. I am perfectly prepared to read Kitchen and do a comparison with Redford and Shaw. I wonder if those working with the BAR would do the same?



But even a critical study has its shortcomings and is to subject to - perhaps it never ends! - its own critical appraisal. For example, my own research leads me to believe that the possible general reliability of the Joshua account has been dismissed unfairly because archaeologists confused Albright's model of the conquest as being identical with what the text claims. Once Albright's synthesis fell apart, so did support for Joshua. But a careful analysis will indicate that Joshua and Albright are birds of a different feather, if only one is willing to re-open the case.


I'll take your word on that, but when you finish the paper you could send me a copy. So I can look in detail at your reasoning. For my own interest sake.




I at least have not tried to claim any immunity...

In the field of Biblical Arch you are a rare bird indeed. It has been a genuine pleasure to read this thread. I will be posting a speculative post on Biblical Archaeology in the near future, as you are someone in the field, I would welcome your input a lot.



Andrew