Re: Archaeology Versus History: Issues with the Emergence of Ancient Israel


"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:002c45cc-4a2e-403f-990b-27808a76fc32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The author is a TA in Dr. Donald Redford's (http://www3.la.psu.edu/
cams/redford.htm) course on Ancient Egypt.

Hello Jack. Great topic! Below are my brief comments as a "Biblicalist" to
your presentation:


January 31, 2008
Archaeology Versus History: Issues with the Emergence of Ancient
Israel

One of my interests in antiquity is combining archaeological and
historical evidence to investigate the past. In order to do so I
realized the importance of formal training in both disciplines.

Excellent. You do need expertise in both areas for competent comparisons.



how does the
scholar approach a topic when the archaeological and historical
evidence are contradictory?

That is, "allegedly contradictory." Remember, there can be more than one
view of the same evidence!

The emergence of the ancient state of Israel is a scholarly paradox.
The historical evidence, the books of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges,
states essentially that the Israelites left Egypt, destroyed many
cities in Canaan, defeated the Philistines, and created the United
Monarchy (David and Solomon) whose great capital was at Jerusalem.
Obviously, I could describe every event in detail but a superficial
description will suffice here. It is also important to note that no
other contemporary historical sources note a mass exodus,

Nor would a mass exodus record be expected since per Syncellus, the Exodus
would take place at the very end of the reign of Amenhotep III and the
beginning of the reign of Akhenaten. Akhenaten would have been the logical
recordist of the Exodus, but his records were purposely destroyed. On the
other hand, the buliding of an altar to a Yaweh in the center of Egypt, the
monotheist god of Israel and the conversion of Egypt to monotheism
immediately after the "blow" they received from YHWH from the Ten Plagues
can clearly be assigned to Akhenaten. (Isa 19:19). So ironically, while we
have little supporting any great Exodus, we do have circumstantial evidence
the ten plagues actually happened and pushed Akhenaten toward monotheism.
Of course, the hyms of Akhenaten and those of Darvid are often compared,
suggesting mutual "inspiration"of their god?

the
destruction of all the major Canaanite cities, or a United Monarchy
under David and Solomon. The archaeological evidence, numerous
excavations and surveys, paint another picture. The earliest evidence
of a people known as the Israelites comes from the Merneptah Stela
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele). Merneptah, the son
and successor of Rameses II, commemorated his victories on the stela.
The stela notes several groups from specific lands but identifies the
"people of Israel." Since the pharaoh identified the Israelites as a
people instead of the land of Israel, suggests that they were a
nomadic group.

This does not contradict the Biblical record since there was no kingship at
this time and the land may not have been completely conquered. In fact,
some sites never were. The Jews were thus living in the context of the
Canaanites at the time, unfortunately adopting many of their ways and
forming marriages. There was no central monarchy and they were ruled by
judges so that impression of a nomadic people is appropriate at this point
in time.

Of the seven major cities said to have been destroyed
by the Israelites, only Hazor shows clear signs of destruction during
this period (Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age I).

Ai was said to have been destroyed by Joshua too, a city adjacent to Bethel
but there is no remains of that city apparently, though there are some from
Bethel. Ai was considered a "dependent" city upon Bethel. This suggests
that the city might have been protected by wooden walls, perhaps. If so the
usual remains would not be expected.

The city of Jericho,
according to several archaeologists, does not show evidence of
destruction or massive walls as the Bible illustrates.

This is true, however, a massive stone foundation from Jerusalem is dated to
this period. The Bible does not say in what condition the walls "fell
flat", whether it was small individual stones or even turned into dust. If
it did fall over flat with invididual stones, they might have been slavaged
for building elsewhere. Falling "flat" also suggests a wooden wall, which
would not have left any remains and also might have been salvaged. What we
do know is there is very little of that city left remaining to tell much of
a story. Even so, Kenyon specifically dates the destruction of LBA Jericho
to the Israelites c. 1350-1325 BCE, which would link the Exodus to Amenhotep
III in consistance with Manetho/Syncellus. Here is her direct quote:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."


Because of the above, Biblicalists find no contradictions with the
archaeological findings, what little there is, since it is not clear what
wall remains one would expect. If the walks crumbled into dust and that is
what is meant by falling "flat" then the dust would have been blown away and
the remaining left to erode away completely. As far as no evidence of
destruction. There is simply no evidence of any specific destruction in the
one part of the house that remains from the LBA city, hardly anything to go
on. But Kenyon addresses this notion by noting the city must have been
destroyed since it remained unrebuilt for the next 400 years as is also
consistent with the Biblical history for Jericho. A sudden and abrupt end
to an occupation suggests it was destroyed.

Survey and
excavation in Canaan, according to Israel Finkelstein and others,
suggest that the Israelites were local Canaanites.

With all due respects, there is no way an archaeologist can make that call
that I know of. The Israelites came with just what they had from Egypt, and
thus would have adopted and adapted to the lifestyle of the Canaanites,
using their pottery and tools, etc. So how could an archaeologists tell the
difference based on something like pottery, etc. In the meantime, they
would be nearly indistinguishable from the Canaanites, archaeologically
speaking. And they did intermix as well, adopt some of their gods, etc.
But that doesn't mean the originated with these people.

Excavations in
Jerusalem have yet to unearth any evidence of a great palace or
temple.

True, but great palaces at Mediggo have been unearthed, with major works at
Gezer, Hazor and Jezreel from this same period. And Shishak certainly
attacked a densely populated area with major fortified cities! This all
attest to the greatness of the period. If the expectations of ruins from
the time of Solomon are missing, it could be that all the old foundations
were reused after the Exile and thus evidence of the original temple, David
and Solomon's palaces would become a missing archaeological layer. Maybe
all remains were removed from the previously destroyed temple and palaces
for superstitious or religious reasons. Remember, like at Jericho, human
intervention has to remain a factor of consideration when you have other
archaeological evidence, such as at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor clearly showing
what Finkelstein calls "full statehood" in the region at the time. There
had to be some central seat of government somewhere. We know from the Bible
it was Jerusalem. If no palaces have been found from this area, then
perhaps they were dismantled and completely removed and replaced with new
ones. There is no rule that says every ruined city will be buried and built
on top of that layer. Jerusalem may be atypical in that sense. So the
absence of evidence of the palaces equally suggests what remained of them
could have been removed and an earlier foundation used for the rebuilding.
That's a viable consideration because other area monuments clearly show a
centralized monoarchy in place.

The archaeological and historical evidence contradict each other.

They don't really. If you narrowly interpret the possibilities they do.
So far, the only "contradictions" are presumptions by archaeologists that
MISSING evidence constitutes a "contradiction". It does not. It simply
does not confirm. Again, Jericho's remaining walls is a perfect example.
If people thought what was left of the walls were a great souvenir for
rebuilding then nothing would have been left to remain for the
archaeologists to find. It doesn't mean the wall wasn't there, had fallen
down into salvageable pieces and then carried off by those wanting these
stones due to their easy accessibility and/or superstitious value.
Therefore, again, I see no "contradiction" just lack of direct evidence for
thos specific sites. But there is direct poof otherwise at other sites like
Megiddo, etc.

This paradox has allowed several emergence theories to arise including
the conquest theory, peaceful infiltration theory, social revolution
theory, and the pastoral nomad theory. All these theories adopt and
reject certain elements of each data set. To support the historical
evidence means rejecting the archaeological evidence and vice versa.

I disagree. The historical record shows the Jews interacted and
intermarried with the Canaanites and even adopted some of their gods. They
likely would simply buy pottery from those who made it rather than make it
themselves. So the two groups lived together rather homogeneously at times.
They likely traded with each other as well. I don't see where the
contradiction is. Besides, even as a pastoral "people" Mereneptah
recognized their ethnic distinction from the Canaanites. That argues
against them so amalgamated that they had no ethnic identity at this time.
So I fail to see the critical contradiction that requires a choice between
the historical and archaeological for this period.

History and archaeology are always associated with politics. The
emergence of Israel is no different. So much of Israelite culture
bases its foundations with the Exodus and House of David. To reject
these stories would be depraving Israel of their history.

Yes, but that is not necessary. Remember, this is the scant time when Egypt
was ruling. We have mention of the Israelites from Mereneptah, then later
by Shishak (indirectly), and then after that constant documentation from the
Assyrians, mentioning by name several kings including David, Omri, Ahab,
Jehoram, Ahaziah, etc. all down into the Babylonian era. So the Jews are
hardly "deprived" of anything since they are more than confirmed when the
secular records are actually more complete for those who interacted with
them. So it is only this little bit of history immediately after the
Exodus and down to the time of David that we really just have a blank spot,
but the records from this period were not as extensive as when the Assyrian
Empire took over. So at the very best, the Jews would only be missing part
of their heritage, the part the archaeologists thinks is dismissible only
because they haven't found all the gold Solomon was supposed to have had. I
wonder why? Or the walls of Jericho that were salvaged by people who wanted
a part of a miracle. Or palaces of David and Solomon that were razed to an
earlier foundation, leaving no evidence of those buildings.

You're concept of a "contradiction" is not really there. It's a shallow
straw man. In the meantime, the focus is clearly on what is "missing" and
not what is there. Shishak's inscription is there confirming the number of
fortified cities during the time of Solomon and Rehoboam. The palaces at
Megiddo and the 6-chambered gates at Gezer and Hazor confirm a major
administration in place that had to rule from somewhere. So that's
evidence!! Even the end of the Philistine pottery period c. 950 BCE
confirms David. So again, sure there is lacking evidence in some places,
but there is clear evidence in others. The lack of evidence left for
archaeologists could have practical explanations, some of which may not be
anticipated by archaeologists who lack a complete insight into the times and
customs of those days.

To accept
it would require ignoring an ever growing data set.

No, absolutely not! What in fact is happening is just the opposite. Case in
point the RC14 dating from Rehov pointing to c. 871 BCE for Shishak's
invasion. That dating correlates well with Kenyon's dating for the fall of
Jericho by the Israelites c. 1350-1325 BCE. That is, 871 BCE would date the
Exodus in 1386 BCE and the fall of Jericho in 1346 BCE, which is within
Kenyon's assigned range for that destruction level. So if anything,
improved science, at least in the way of RC14 dating, is confirming the
Biblical timeline more than ever. Recent excavations at Megiddo, Hazor and
Gezer as well as Jezreel all help fill in the picture and the more precise
chronology. Furthermore, again, the Israelites reflect quite well from the
time of Ahab onward with virtually no problems conrfirming the presence of
the Jews and Israelites during that period. So why the decrease in faith
in the written record? There is really only one blank spot in the
archaeological record and that is pre-David. That's unfortunate. But it
doesn't change what we have documentation for from Ahab forward. So the
lack of faith will only be partial, if, in fact, you can find a critical
CONTRADICTION of evidence other than what is MISSING that archaeologists
expect to find. The walls at Jericho could have fallen because they were
turned into dust. Are archaeologists looking for that dust that has long
blown away to the four winds? The Jews could have completely dismantled
and removed all remains of Solomon and his temple or anything Solomon built.
Why would we expect to find evidence of those stones now?

So I see you creating in your own mind a contradiction out of thin air that
really doesn't exist, while ignoring the evidence that does.

.. One must realize,
however, that a lack of evidence is never evidence itself.

RIGHT! Just as I was saying!!

The
emergence of Israel is one of the many topics where scholars find it
difficult to affectively combine history and archaeology to create a
coherent picture of the past.

Archaeologists might but not the well-informed Biblicalist.

Case in point: AKHENATEN. We know from Syncellus that he followed the
Exodus. We know from the Bible that immediately after the Exodus an altar
to YHWH was to be built in the middle of Egypt and the Egyptians were to
convert to monotheism. That did occur with Akhenaten and he did built in
the middle of Egypt, just as the Bible prophesied (retrospectively). So
that adds to the faith of those following the written record. It helps us
appreciate the ten plaggues actually did occur, the primary event of focus
for Akhenaten's conversion.

Then there is the scientific confirmation of the strict Biblical timeline.
The strict Biblical timeline is a combination of that from Martin Anstey,
who wrote "The Romance of Bible Chronology" in 1913, dating the 1st of Cyrus
483 years prior to the baptism of Christ per the "70 weeks" prophecy. That
dates his 1st year to 455 BCE. The Exodus is 19 jubilees earlier and falls
in 1386 BCE. That means the 4th of Solomon falls in 906 BCE and Shishak's
invasion in year 39 of Solomon in 871 BCE. The RC14 dating from Rehov
points to c. 871 BCE as one of the highest probable dates. It's the
mid-range date for the 918-823 BCE 95.4% range.


This does two things for the Biblicalist. It confirms the 871 BCE dating is
the correct archaeological date for that event, completely agreeing with the
Bible's timeline; and 2) it contradicts the contradictory secular timeline
now in place that misdates this period by 54 years, dated to the wrong
eclipse of 763 BCE rather than 709 BCE.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/REHOVPROB.JPG

Result is that the Bible is more confirmed now than it was before, thanks to
archaeology. So as I noted. the TREND is definitely going in the other
direction. We even have astronomical texts now that have the original
dating for Nebuchadnezzar before revisions. The VAT4956 has both dates, 568
and 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When the 1st of Cyrus falls in
455 BCE and you reference Josephus (Ant. 11.1.1) who says that there were 70
years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus, year 23 of
Nebuchadnezzar gets dated to 525 BCE. That means year 37 falls in 511 BCE.
Do you really think it is an accident that two 511 BCE lunar references are
contained in the VAT4956? Thus this document confirms for us, indepently,
what the original chronology was.

There is a higher confidence now in the Bible's timeline and history, thanks
to RC14 and Akhenaten's monotheism than ever.

Your presentation of a contradiction is somewhat of a straw man. The real
question would be, where is the real archaeological evidence that no great
king ever ruled in Israel or built anything at Gezer, Hazor or Mediggo? We
have evidence of that king. The problem is that archaeologists don't use
the independent Biblical timeline, but a pseudo-Biblical timeline based upon
the secular timeline, one that was revised during the Greek Period by
Xenophon. It is 54 years too early. So, of course, a question of a
"contradiction" might come up if you're dating David and Solomon too early,
or Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE instead of 871 BCE. But if you DO use the
Biblical timeline as set for by Martin Anstey, then Shishak in 871 BCE lines
up perfectly with the RC14 dating. The 925 BCE timeline, though is
contradicted by it. Archaeologists are comparing the illegitimate
Biblical dates to their archaeological dates and get poor results. When the
correct dating is used, then the results compliment each other quite nicely.

Thanks for your presentation. I don't accept you to accept my point of
view, but it is enough that you are aware that at least one Biblical
timeline theory is consistent with the archaeology for this period, that is,
as far as Jericho and the "Solomonic" buildings at Megiddo, and Shishak's
invasion c. 871 BCE.

Lars Wilson

(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
    ... George Evans wrote: ... all the volumes of The History of Middle Earth. ... there isn't even a shred of physical evidence for the Egyptian captivity ... his monotheism from the Israelites. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... archaeologists are not really scientists. ... Israelites emerged out of the general population in Canaan around ... But there is no evidence that they did "enter" Canaan. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Was the hebrew bible written by Romans?
    ... Can anybody show me evidence of the israelites before the Roman Empire? ... Why, elsewhere, did you conflate the Bible with literalism? ... Bible may well be mythologicized history (even JTEM and Matt have ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Putting the clock back 10,000 years in centre city Bath
    ... uncovers evidence of 10,000 year old hunter-gatherer encampment. ... the history of Bath already ran to quite a weighty tome. ... But archaeologists admitted yesterday that two new chapters would have ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Fascinating fragment found
    ... It has pro-Canaanite characters with some chance ... that they were used by Israelites. ... archaeologists may find evidence of diet that can ...
    (soc.culture.israel)