Fine can you cite some relevant portions for a discussion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unresolvable problems with Exodus in archaeology, history and contradictions in the Torah
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
You know this thread reminds me of the secular claim that the biblical account of the Hittites was a fabrication. For millenia, the only evidence of the existence of the Hittites was in the Bible...of course, history proved the naysayers of the biblical account of the Hittites were wrong!
Also, there's this from Encyclopedia Brittanica...
Also, there's this from Encyclopedia Brittanica...
No conquest of central Canaan (in the region of Shechem), however, is mentioned in the book; and some scholars interpret this to mean that the central hill country was already occupied either by ancestors of the later Israelite tribes prior to the time of Moses or by portions of Hebrew tribes that had not gone to Egypt. Because these people made peace with the tribes under Joshua, a conquest of the area apparently was not necessary. Archaeological evidence supports portions of Joshua in describing some of the cities (e.g., Iachish, Debir, and Hazor) as destroyed or conquered in the late 13th century BCE, the approximate time of the circumstances documented in Joshua. Biblical literature - Conquest, Canaan, History
Last edited:
Your argument reminds me of the classic fallacy 'Just because there is an absence of evidence it doe not mean there is a lack of evidence.'
Reminding of the past 'arguing from ignorance' does not help your canse. The Britanica is not the best source, though it is a reference is reasonable. Can you provide any evidence that Joshua conquered Canaan, while Egypt had conquered and occupied Canaan during this period.
Please base your argument on present evidence and not a hypothetical argument on crystal ball future predictions of unknown evidence that may be discovered in the future.
Last edited:
^ and this thread reminds me of the diminishing returns of Thread Addiction Syndrome
It's only 65 posts. We've only just begun. It has to at least 1,000 posts to be an addiction.^ and this thread reminds me of the diminishing returns of Thread Addiction Syndrome
Here's an interesting article that goes into detail concerning the archaeological evidence for the history of Jericho.
Jericho: From archaeology challenging the canon to searching for the meaning(s) of myth(s)
Jericho: From archaeology challenging the canon to searching for the meaning(s) of myth(s)
www.academia.edu
Jericho: From archaeology challenging the canon to searching for the meaning(s) of myth(s)
Eben Scheffler2013, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies
In this article it will be probed (by referring amongst others to the work of Garstang and Kenyon) to what extent the archaeological excavations at Jericho have been inuenced by a literal reading of Joshua 6 (e.g. Garstang) and to what extend the excavations (by Kenyon) had compelled exegetes to read the text of Joshua 6 historical critically. In the consideration of a wide rangeof possible approaches to Joshua 6, some recent conservative opinions in which there is a continued search to harmonise the archaeological and textual information in order to secure a ‘historical’ reading of the text, will also be noted. Arguing not for the abolition, but rather for a broader interpretation of the concept ‘canon’, some hermeneutical remarks will be made regarding Joshua 6 as a ‘cultic myth’, in view of its positive communication.
Introduction
In the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Bible translation in my possession, in Joshua 6, there are two pen sketches. The rst portrays a city wall (which rather looks medieval) with many palms sticking out from the inside above the walls. The second sketch portrays seven ram horns. I am sure these sketches afrm in the mind of the ordinary Bible reader the historical reality of the miraculous events described in Joshua 6. These sketches also seem to corroborate Garstang and Garstang’s ([1940] 1948) view that: of the many stirring episodes narrated in the Old Testament, probably none has impressed itself upon the popular imagination as the description in the Book of Joshua of the fall of Jericho. Indeed, were it not for that narrative, the place would hardly have been remembered. (p. 19)
If the walls really ‘came tumbling down’ as described, surely there should be archaeological evidence for it. So the search for the walls began. Kenyon (1967:264) is indeed correct in claiming that a 100 years of archaeology was inspired by the story related in Joshua 6. As somebody teaching Biblical Archaeology I have often encountered the popular notion that‘archaeology has proven the Bible to be correct’, an idea propagated by Keller’s (1981) popular book, Und die Bibel hat doch Recht
Sixty years since the publication of the latter work, after the tremendous growth in insight and knowledge in the field, one would have expected that the optimism would have abated. Not so. The NIV Archaeological Study Bible (2005), which contains about 500 short articles and 500 colour photographs, providing the archaeologically interested reader with much valuable information, notes in its article entitled ‘The walls of Jericho’ the following: The details surrounding the destruction of Jericho City IV thus closely parallel what we read in the Bible.Unfortunately, the date of the fall of this city remains a problem. If, as Watzinger and Kenyon argued, Jericho fell around 1550 BC, there would have been no signicant city when Joshua arrived around 1400BC. (p. 312)
So far, so good. However, the the article concludes that: Nevertheless, however one deals with the chronological problem, there is much about City IV to encourage the Christian reader about the reliability of the Joshua 6 account. (NIV Archaeological Study Bible 2005:312)
The article, after recognising the chronological problem, declares it as of no serious consequence.So much for cognitive dissonance!
Finkelstein and Silberman (2002) recall that because of 13th century destruction layers foundat Bethel, Lachish and Hazor, archaeology seemed to conrm the biblical account regarding the conquest, for much of the 20th century, a view especially advocated by Albright (1957; see discussion in Dever 1990:43–47). The interaction between archaeology and the hermeneutical interpretation (not merely exegesis) of the Bible seemed to be clearly on the table. However,asking the question: Did the trumpets really blast?, Finkelstein and Silberman (2002) conclude:
In the midst of the euphoria – almost at the very moment when it seemed that the battle of the conquest was won for Joshua– some troubling contradictions emerged. Even as the worldpress was reporting that Joshua’s conquest had been conrmed,many of the most important pieces of the archaeological puzzles imply did not t. … Jericho was amongst the most important.As we have noted, the cities of Canaan were unfortied and there were no walls that could have come tumbling down. Inthe case of Jericho, there was no trace of a settlement of any kind in the thirteenth century BCE, and the earlier Late Bronze Age settlement, dating to the fourteenth century BCE, was small and poor, almost insignicant, and unfortied. There was also no sign of a destruction. Thus the famous scene of the Israelite forces marching around the walled town with the Ark of the Covenant, causing Jericho’s mighty walls to collapse by the blowing of their war trumpets was, to put it simply, a romantic mirage. (pp. 81–82)
The implication of these remarks is, that whether one accepts the biblical chronology dating the settlement to the early14th century on the basis of 1 Kings 6:14, or the more widely accepted (as established by historical-critical research) late13th century date (relating the conquest to Ramesses II and the Mernephtah stele) – in both cases there was no wall to fall, indicating the ‘historical incorrectness’ of the vivid story of Joshua 6.Palomino (2010) in an Internet article, and thus accessible toa broad popular audience, took Finkelstein
Hence the hope is expected that archaeology, as a science could ‘prove’ the Bible to be‘correct’, in other words to support the claims to its authority.And ‘correct’ here implies not only, but especially ‘historical correctness’.Below I will pursue the hermeneutical issue of the relationship between archaeology, historical reliability and faith (which for current purposes will be viewed as ‘the positive appropriation of texts’) further. In order to facilitate that, a short overview of the archaeology of Jericho is called
This will be followed by noting the wide diversity of different interpretations of Joshua 6 inview (or not) of the archaeological excavations at Jericho.Following this will be some hermeneutical considerations pertaining to the search for the (positive) meaning of biblical myths.
Last edited:
You do realize that you asserted this in your post #65, right?
I did not assert anything.You do realize that you asserted this in your post #65, right?
True. You simply debase the term possibility.
I did not assert anything.
So far in this thread, I have to say, I think that @shunyadragon is doing a bang-up job. There can be no argument that Joshua is intimately connected with -- even a consequence of -- Exodus. It's rather like trying to analyze WWII, only from the point of view of the Americans after their entry into the fray -- there's no ignoring the years before.
@shunyadragon, I"m curious: are you considering moving to discussion of the theories expressed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in their book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts? Those theories, as I'm sure you know, conclude that rather than conquer Canaan, the Israelites arose from within it.
@shunyadragon, I"m curious: are you considering moving to discussion of the theories expressed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in their book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts? Those theories, as I'm sure you know, conclude that rather than conquer Canaan, the Israelites arose from within it.
Various aspects have been covered in this and other threads. One important aspect of this is the written language. The culture that dominated the Levant in the Levant had complex written languages, extensive trade, large cities, and large organized armies like the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Canaanites. The Bible describes the Hebrew culture and Kingdom as established before 1500 BCE. Hebrews did not have a written language, and all the present evidence is they occasionally used a version of Proto-Canaanite or Phoenician common to the levant region until after ~930 BCE, nor a large military presence They were a pastoral tribe in the Hills of Judah and in the North until the First Temple Period ~930 -586 BCE when they became two kingdoms. In this period the Hebrews developed a written language, became a Military power with cities, took over much of what is called Palestine as the Egyptians weakened and retreated, began the compilation of the Pentateuch.
The Hebrews (Israel?) were tribes known for raiding. The first mention in history is on Merne[tah Stele.
Episode 15: Canaan
1207 BCE. Two world empires. And between them, an unassuming strip of seacoast land that has been at the center of history, ever since.
literatureandhistory.com
The Merneptah Stele, again, carved in 1207 BCE, concisely records Pharaoh Merneptah’s victories in Canaan. It announces that “Now that [Libya] has come to ruin, / The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe: / Ashkelon has been overcome; / Gezer has been captured; / Yanoam is made nonexistent. / Israel is laid waste; his seed is no longer.”4 And to repeat that last line, “Israel is laid waste; his seed is no longer.” That line, carved into black granite, is the first historical mention of Israel that we know of outside of the Old Testament. It was cut into rock, 700 miles from Canaan, at the turn of the twelfth century BCE, in the twilight of the Late Bronze Age.
.