Origins of Ancient Israel

[Pattylt]

The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman is another revisionist account. According to them, the Israelites weren’t foreign to the land of Canaan. Instead, they arose peacefully from within in it and eventually a legend was born, perhaps of some earlier small scale event, of the Exodus.

DNA evidence points to this as well.

 

[Veritas6]

You don’t have to accept it without skepticism, but it provides an example of how the Exodus was in fact historical, but “mutated” into the myth now in our Bibles.

I like the article, I’m more inclined to the Exodus having a historical basis perhaps in a smaller scale but exaggerated as a “sacred myth”. Would this professor’s theory be condoned by the Church?

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

You don’t have to accept it without skepticism, but it provides an example of how the Exodus was in fact historical, but “mutated” into the myth now in our Bibles.

I like the article, I’m more inclined to the Exodus having a historical basis perhaps in a smaller scale but exaggerated as a “sacred myth”. Would this professor’s theory be condoned by the Church?

The Church for the most part does not endorse or condemn historical-critical theories, and neither does it require a literalistic reading. In this particular case, the Church will likely remain silent and allow such research to continue, until a line is crossed.

 

[Bithynian]

having a historical basis perhaps in a smaller scale but exaggerated as a “sacred myth”

This is generally how I see it. I think the form - that is, the genre and modes of expression - are important in orienting a reader properly, both theologically and historically.

I think it’s worth noting that, for most of history, the various literary forms (genres, prose vs verse, literary devices, etc.) of the Bible were overlooked by most biblical scholars, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

As an example: it seems fairly instinctive (and somewhat obvious) that we ought to try and read poetry as poetry, being attentive to what poetry is and isn’t and how poetry works. But that was very controversial at the start of the 20th century.

In fact, one impetus for the Fundamentalist movement was an insistence that all poetry in the Bible should not and must not be read as poetry: there was to be no acknowledgement of metaphor and parallelism, because God communicates only propositionally (A = B, do this, believe in that, etc.). The idea that God would communicate meaning via potentially ambiguous and unclear means such as poetry was more-or-less viewed as apostasy.

The revival of Hebrew as a modern language in Israel was hugely important in creating a dedicated and sustained interest in Hebrew (both ancient and modern) literary criticism. I think we’ve become much more attentive to the ways in which the OT - especially the creation, exodus and founding narratives - conform to and innovate upon literary forms widespread in the ancient Near East.

 

[porthos11]

In fact, one impetus for the Fundamentalist movement was an insistence that all poetry in the Bible should not and must not be read as poetry: there was to be no acknowledgement of metaphor and parallelism, because God communicates only propositionally (A = B, do this, believe in that, etc.). The idea that God would communicate meaning via potentially ambiguous and unclear means such as poetry was more-or-less viewed as apostasy.

That’s funny.

If that’s the case, then beautiful Hebrew women had breasts shaped like deer.

 

[TMC]

I have no reason to doubt that the Exodus happened. I also believe, as I said, that the archeological evidence tends to support the Biblical account.

That is not my understanding. My understanding is there is evidence that some people may have lived in Egypt and moved on to what is now Israel, but not evidence of such a massive Exodus, or of mass enslavement of ancients Jews in Egypt.

Does that mean that every Catholic is required to accept as historical fact every single detail in the book of Exodus? I don’t think so.

I agree with this.

I like the article, I’m more inclined to the Exodus having a historical basis perhaps in a smaller scale but exaggerated as a “sacred myth”. Would this professor’s theory be condoned by the Church?

This is my view. My understanding is that the Church does not approve or condemn that view.

 

[CRM_Brother]

How can we interpret the Merneptah Stele from 1200 BC?: “laid waste to Israel. his seed is not”. I understand the interpretation of Israel as a people group named after someone named Israel (like Jacob). If this is true the Exodus might have occurred in the reign of Ramses II (around 1250 BC).

There is no historical evidence to suggest that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He was chosen for The Ten Commandments because he reigned at the height of Egyptian civilization and the clothing, architecture, art, etc. of that time would look best on film. Both ancient writers and many modern scholars point to Ahmose I as the pharaoh of the Exodus. His reign would match the eruption of the Santorini Caldera which some scientists believe to be the natural originator of the Plagues. There is some evidence that it effected some similar occurances in other parts of the Mediterranean .

This corresponds with the great political upheaval in modern-day Israel which happened about 50-70 years after the beginning of Ahmose’s reign.

The Exodus recounts all of Pharaoh’s army being destroyed in the Red Sea and Israel conquers Canaan. The Stele might be interpreted as Egypt’s army not being destroyed but Israel actually is destroyed. I’m not sure what to think.

Just a note, Exodus never says that all of Pharaoh’s armies were destroyed. It just says that “all Pharaoh’s chariots and horses” were destroyed. Scholars believe it is just the forces which were sent after the Israelites which were destroyed. This is supported by archaeological evidence. There was a massive stable complex unearthed from the period of Ahmose I in the north of Egypt. In the first years of his reign, Ahmose used his northern armies to great effect in battles around his northern boarders. After a few years, however, it suddenly stops and Ahmose focuses on building up his southern armies. Some believe that he stopped using his northern armies because a portion of the cavalry and chariots of his northern armies had been destroyed in the Exodus and what he had left was focused on protecting his existing boarders.

The Stele is believed to be an account of a separate event. In the context of the Stele, Israel is treated as a political nation not a few tribes. From the time of the Exodus until the conquering of , the Egyptians regularly patrolled modern day Israel, protecting their trade routes between the Egyptian main land and their logging colonies in Lebanon. Until the conquering of Israel by the Assyrians around 1100 BC, Egypt regularly clashed with the local peoples. The first such battle was in 1457 BC in the north of Canaan. Egypt fought against the remnant of the Canaanite tribes at modern day Meggido (Armageddon).

(post 1 of 2)

 

[CRM_Brother]

(post 2 of 2)

How many Hebrews were involved in the Exodus? Trent Horn thinks it’s implausible for 2 million Hebrews to be involved. He states the word thousand, elep , might mean a clan or military unit.

The estimate of nearly 2 million is generally a 19th century Protestant invention. The modern interpretation goes more along the lines of: forty-five clans (totaling) six hundred and fifty. The ‘elep’ in this sense means ‘clan’ but not in the sense of a military clan. The mention of a military context only comes after clans are mentioned within the context of the Tribe of Gad, Reuben, etc. In this sense, a clan is referring to how many large family units make up that Tribe. A clan is also referred to in this context in other places in the Penteteuch. The eldest living male of a lineage determines a clan and his sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, etc would be part of his clan until he dies and then all of his sons would become heads of their own clans.

If you look at the numbers of Israel in this context, it becomes much more manageable. There would only be 6100 military age men from 603 tribal clans.

If this is so, then where did the extra 550 come from? Some scholars believe that these 550 were those males from outside the clan structure who were part of the Exodus. When in Egypt, the Israelites did intermarry with Egyptians. Daughters who married were not part of the clan of their birth. If one of the daughters married an Egyptian or a lower class worker of another ethnicity, they would be outside of this class system. Their male children and even the non-Israelite husbands (if they followed their wives into the Exodus) would be among these 550. They were extremely few in comparison to the other Israelite forces.

If these numbers are accurate, then the number of Israelites would have been closer to 22,000-24,000 depending on how large uncounted the Tribe of Levi was.

 

[StudentMI]

What do you think of Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s claims? And the DNA evidence that supports it that PattyIT mentioned?

 

[CRM_Brother]

Finkelstein and Silberman’s claims would hold more weight if there was any evidence of a slowly growing Israelite identity within Canaan. Nowhere in Israel is there any evidence of the Israelites developing a separate identity until they suddenly arrive in the historic record and begin to conquer. In every other conquering nation, there is a distinct point of origin. Not so with the Israelites.

If you combine this lack of origin with the distinctly Egyptian (or anti-Egyptian in some cases) aspects of Israelite culture which was totally foreign to the other Semitic tribes inhabiting Canaan at the time, then it casts even more doubt on Finkelstein and Silberman’s theory. For example, at that time, circumcision was a distinctly Egyptian practice. In Egyptian culture, when a male would dedicate themselves to one of the Egyptian Gods, particularly in the priesthood, they would be circumcised. So too, the rejection of pork and dogs heavily implies immersion within Egyptian culture. Pork and dog meat was the primary staple meats for Egyptians. Most other livestock animals (cows, bulls, sheep, etc.) were considered sacred to at least one of the many Egyptian gods and thus Egyptians would not eat them. In demanding that the Israelites only consume the animals which the Egyptians’ gods held sacred, it was a rejection of their pantheon. That this pantheon was targeted specifically implies a negative association with the culture.

As to the DNA evidence, yes. It does point to an origin amongst the Semitic tribes of Canaan. However, it does not prove that they rose from within Canaan. The Bible even supports this. Jacob, Joseph and his brothers were all part of a Semitic tribe originating in Canaan. What Finkelstein and Silberman’s theory doesn’t explain is the other DNA from the century before the proposed Exodus. During this time there were numerous additions to the Israelite gene pool from Egyptians, Nubians and other distinct racial lines from within the Egyptian Empire. These DNA strands are unique to the Israelites. If they came from within Canaan, we would see similar intermarrying in the other Tribes. The reality is that we do not.

 

[Veritas6]

Both ancient writers and many modern scholars point to Ahmose I as the pharaoh of the Exodus. His reign would match the eruption of the Santorini Caldera which some scientists believe to be the natural originator of the Plagues. There is some evidence that it effected some similar occurances in other parts of the Mediterranean .

This corresponds with the great political upheaval in modern-day Israel which happened about 50-70 years after the beginning of Ahmose’s reign.

This makes a lot of sense. I was getting the info about Ramses II from Jimmy Akin. Ahmose I seems more probable.

The estimate of nearly 2 million is generally a 19th century Protestant invention. The modern interpretation goes more along the lines of: forty-five clans (totaling) six hundred and fifty.

This is an interesting interpretation, would this apply to all the censuses written in Numbers? I don’t doubt this information but do you have a reference for the “clans (totaling)” understanding? Thanks!

 

[BartholomewB]

During this time there were numerous additions to the Israelite gene pool from Egyptians, Nubians and other distinct racial lines from within the Egyptian Empire. These DNA strands are unique to the Israelites.

Oddly enough, that goes some way toward tying in with Freud’s theory. In Freud’s day, of course, DNA was unknown. By the time Francis Crick discovered DNA, Freud had been dead ten years or more.

In his book Moses and Monotheism, which I linked to in an earlier post, Freud develops the idea that thousands of slaves, of many different nationalities, escaped from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, an Egyptian officer who was about to be arrested and probably executed for the murder of a brother officer. They spent many years searching for a safe place to settle until they finally crossed the Jordan into the land then known as Canaan. In the course of their long march, the escaping slaves and their descendants had merged into a single nationality, calling themselves the Israelites or, later, the Jews. This was a wholly new national identity: prior to the Exodus, according to Freud, there had been no Jews or Israelites.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I find it just as fascinating to think of “natural” phenomenon causing things like the account of the israelites flight from Egypt. In a way, they’re more marvelous still than a single, momentous interventions. Imagine, for example, God decreeing from all eternity that at a particular moment in time Thera would erupt, causing, e.g. a “pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day” for a time. Imagine Him so designing the cooling of the primordial earth that tectonic plates would meet in the line through which the Dead Sea is placed; that those plates would cause a shift so dramatic that right before the Israelites reached the Red Sea, an enormous tsunami sucked back the waters of the Red Sea, only to have them rush back when the Egyptians tried to cross.

Imagine the complexity of all of that; the setting up of cause after cause after cause in an unbroken chain from the Big Bang to the crossing of the Red Sea; everything fitting together so it would all happen at the right time and in exactly the right way. God at play.

I once read someone who answered the question why God created the universe with the words “because He loves it.” Maybe He loves things about it that we don’t even imagine. If He can set electrons spinning and the slow progression of photons from the center of a star,