Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Ouroboros]

I know your post wasn't to me, but I'd like to add my views anyway, if you don't mind.

So you discount the entire Bible, the Torah, the Talmud and all ancient Jewish literature ?

I look it up, and the earliest mention of Israel is on the Merneptah Stele, date to 1209 BC, and it refers to Israel as a nomadic people and that their grain storages were destroyed. My understanding is that these Israel nomads were a constant threat to the Egyptians, and the win was helping them quench that threat. (But I could of course be wrong )

The oldest Torah, Talmud, and ancient Jewish literature is much younger than that stele (if I understand it right).

Actually, Egyptian friends of mine have also told me they did not learn about the Exodus in their history, so this is not new to me. But I have not seen any conclusive evidence that an Exodus did not occur.

Perhaps it happened but was a much smaller event than portrayed in the Bible. Just thinking loud here, but it could have been a smaller group of people captured by the Egyptians, and later a couple of them escaped. The story got bigger with time, like a fisherman story.

So I ask again, can you post any links that we can review and discuss ?

Here's one that I just looked at from Wiki: Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps it happened but was a much smaller event than portrayed in the Bible.

Which as a refracted memory has possibilities.

I do not discount Transjordan cross cultural oral traditions that may have held similar beliefs.


The only problem with this are the Anachronisms that show a much later date of composition for the exodus text then any possibility shows.


At this point it is just a very wild guess that there may be a historical core.

 

[Ouroboros]

The only problem with this are the Anachronisms that show a much later date of composition for the exodus text then any possibility shows.

I don't see it as a problem, but rather evidence for how the story grew and evolved. It's like how Rome and Juliet has been rewritten innumerable times into modern settings or ancient settings by later authors.

At this point it is just a very wild guess that there may be a historical core.

Sure.

 

[metis]

Shanks is a embarrassment in front of Finkelstein.

Not really, and remember I'm non-theistic so I have no stock in Shanks' more theistic approach. Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks called him on it, and correctly so.

 

[outhouse]

I don't see it as a problem, but rather evidence for how the story grew and evolved. It's like how Rome and Juliet has been rewritten innumerable times into modern settings or ancient settings by later authors.



Sure.

I see it as a multi cultural people trying to build a more uniform culture in history after being crushed so many times that they had no idea of their real history.

The biblical mythology builds a more static view of the people then real history shows us.


More often then not, their "early" multi cultural aspects are ignored.



This is a culture that constantly had to rebuild itself.

 

[outhouse]

Not really, and remember I'm non-theistic so I have no stock in Shanks' more theistic approach. Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks called him on it, and correctly so.

I would love for you to post some examples so I could research the matter.


I read up on the debate and read through short clips, but the whole version was hidden at the BAS only examples were provided..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not really, and remember I'm non-theistic so I have no stock in Shanks' more theistic approach. Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks called him on it, and correctly so.

IMO: Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks is a jerk - which doesn't mean that they are not occasionally (perhaps even often) right. Also IMO: Finkelstein effectively put the nail in the coffin of the conquest narrative explaining Israelite ethnogenesis.

 

[metis]

It's been a long time since I read the book, but one part that comes to mind is Finkelstein's insistence that David and Solomon were fictitious characters. Shanks did not take the position that they were real but concluded that they could be, and Finkelstein backed off.

Again, it's been a long time, and I have the book right here to my left but not enough time or interest to really go back into it. I have also heard Finkelstein speak, and he just all too often overstates his position, which is also a problem I have with Crossan. Both are absolutely brilliant, but they do periodically shoot themselves in the foot. Sometimes I tend to believe it just goes with the territory.

 

[metis]

IMO: Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks is a jerk - which doesn't mean that they are not occasionally (perhaps even often) right. Also IMO: Finkelstein effectively put the nail in the coffin of the conquest narrative explaining Israelite ethnogenesis.

Even though I used to subscribe to BAR, I dropped that probably over 15 or so years ago. Frankly, I don't know enough about Shanks to make a comment one way or the other.

 

[Ouroboros]

Both are absolutely brilliant, but they do periodically shoot themselves in the foot. Sometimes I tend to believe it just goes with the territory.

It's a common problem for most people who knows a lot about something. It's easy to become too confident about one's knowledge.

 

[metis]

It's a common problem for most people who knows a lot about something. It's easy to become too confident about one's knowledge.

Ya, I think you're probably right.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ya, I think you're probably right.

I still have to read "Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things" by Hecke. It digs into these problems, I suspect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have also heard Finkelstein speak, and he just all too often overstates his position, which is also a problem I have with Crossan. Both are absolutely brilliant, but they do periodically shoot themselves in the foot. Sometimes I tend to believe it just goes with the territory.

Finkelstein often comes across as an argumentative Israeli.

 

[Avi1001]

Not really, and remember I'm non-theistic so I have no stock in Shanks' more theistic approach. Finkelstein all too often overstates his case, and Shanks called him on it, and correctly so.

Thanks, Metis, I am interested in your views on this overall topic.

 

[metis]

Finkelstein often comes across as an argumentative Israeli.

And of course he's the only one like that who lives there.

 

[Avi1001]

I know your post wasn't to me, but I'd like to add my views anyway, if you don't mind.


I look it up, and the earliest mention of Israel is on the Merneptah Stele, date to 1209 BC, and it refers to Israel as a nomadic people and that their grain storages were destroyed. My understanding is that these Israel nomads were a constant threat to the Egyptians, and the win was helping them quench that threat. (But I could of course be wrong )

The oldest Torah, Talmud, and ancient Jewish literature is much younger than that stele (if I understand it right).


Perhaps it happened but was a much smaller event than portrayed in the Bible. Just thinking loud here, but it could have been a smaller group of people captured by the Egyptians, and later a couple of them escaped. The story got bigger with time, like a fisherman story.


Here's one that I just looked at from Wiki: Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is interesting to me that the 1209 BC date given in this Wiki article is very close to the date that the Exodus was believed to have taken place. Do you disagree ?

 

[metis]

Thanks, Metis, I am interested in your views on this overall topic.

Thanks, but please feel free to throw your two cents in as well as I very much look forward to that.

Shabbat shalom

 

[outhouse]

It's been a long time since I read the book, but one part that comes to mind is Finkelstein's insistence that David and Solomon were fictitious characters. Shanks did not take the position that they were real but concluded that they could be, and Finkelstein backed off.
.

Finkelstein leaves the possibility of their historicity open.


I think there probably was a David and a Solomon, I just think the biblical portrayal is mythology surrounding these characters.

I have also heard Finkelstein speak, and he just all too often overstates his position, which is also a problem I have with Crossan. Both are absolutely brilliant, but they do periodically shoot themselves in the foot. Sometimes I tend to believe it just goes with the territory

Definitely agree with that take.

Especially with Crossan. I have seen less mistakes out of Finkelstein.



I have yet to see one scholarship in HJ studies I agree with whole hearted.


The reason I follow Finkelstein is he is more evidence based in his studies then others I have seen.

 

[outhouse]

It is interesting to me that the 1209 BC date given in this Wiki article is very close to the date that the Exodus was believed to have taken place. Do you disagree ?

Shanks may vie for that date for the exodus.

But the bible surely does not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is interesting to me that the 1209 BC date given in this Wiki article is very close to the date that the Exodus was believed to have taken place.

What is "the date that the Exodus was believed to have taken place" and according to whom?