Patriarchs , Exodus, Conquest : Fact or Fiction ?

[Nungali]

Another great lecture from Israel Finkelstein .  That also supports my theories  in the other thread 'Construction of Judaism' .

 

As Dr Finkelstein pointed out .  King David and Solomon are more like the legends of King Arthur ... 'myth' and constructed revisionism .  Nearly everyone agrees  other cultures myths are myths ... so why so stuck on this one as a reality ? 

 

We might find the brief introduction here gives us a clue . This is , for MANY westerners ;  "... part of the reality  that we learned as children  and where part of our lives  we assumed where the real history ....  "

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, Nungali said:

That also supports my theories

 

Part of your theories.  Those parts, the ones from Dr. Finkelstein are one end of a spectrum.  At the other end, is biblical literalism.  And in the middle is Dever.  Dever and Finkelstein argue.  Are you familiar with the criticisms of Finkelstein's research?  Or are you hunting for validation, and ignoring all the others?

 

 

Edited December 10 by Daniel

[NorthWide]

I tend to ascribe more twords literalism.. Except Yom I know is a time period, sometimes a day.

 

There is a fire without a flame that burns up distortions:

14"Behold, they have become like stubble, Fire burns them; They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame; There will be no coal to warm by [Nor] a fire to sit before! -Isaiah 47:14

 

That is an interesting subject whether it is literal or figurative. But then, how would they know? Who decides? Thankfully not Jimbob or Fraiser. 

 

If a person reaps the benefits of said paradigm, they have no reason to doubt.

 

Sometimes, people really get hurt by people and they become very bitter.  I would have to say that Nungali is probably in a lot of pain over something, we probably need to help him heal.

 

 

 

Edited December 11 by TheWhiteRabbit

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

That is an interesting subject whether it is literal or figurative.

 

Why not "and"?

 

Literal AND figurative?  There's a literal story ( true or not isn't that important ), and more general figurative story being told at the same time?

 

 

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Part of your theories.  Those parts, the ones from Dr. Finkelstein are one end of a spectrum.  At the other end, is biblical literalism.  And in the middle is Dever.  Dever and Finkelstein argue.  Are you familiar with the criticisms of Finkelstein's research?  Or are you hunting for validation, and ignoring all the others?

 

 

 

I will refer you to the other thread about King Solomon's temple . In that lecture Dr Finklestein has a special chapter devoted to answering the critics  of  this evidence .  We even see how some previous critics had come over to his 'side' after more research was available .

 

I dont know why you bought Dever in to support your anachronistic views ... let's have an equally quick glance at Dever then :

 

"In retirement, Dever has become a frequent author on questions relating to the historicity of the Bible, criticizing many scholars who deny any historical value to the biblical accounts.

 

( Note ;  so does Finklestein, thats VERY clear in his lectures !  ... note the word  'any' above  )

 

" However he is far from being a supporter of biblical literalism either. Instead he has written:

I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a 'maximalist.'^[11]

( again, same as Finkelstein )

 

" and

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. "

 

You are welcome to put up any evidence you have of Biblical literalism  being a valid approach in your own thread elsewhere, but I am dealing with  the history of a religion here  and the construction of a story .  IE this is NOT faith based .  

 

I am  not hunting for validation at all , actually, when I came across it I was pleasantly surprised .

 

Here are some of the reasons I appreciate the work of Dr Finkelstein ;

 

Israel Finkelstein (Hebrew: ישראל פינקלשטיין‎; born March 29, 1949) is an Israeli archaeologist, professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University and the head of the School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures at the University of Haifa. Finkelstein is active in the archaeology of the Levant and is an applicant of archaeological data in reconstructing biblical history.^[1] Finkelstein is the current excavator of Megiddo, a key site for the study of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant.

 

Finkelstein is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities an associé étranger of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,^[2] and International Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Finkelstein has received several noteworthy academic and writing awards. In 2005, he won the Dan David Prize for his revision of the history of Israel in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE.^[3] In 2009 he was named chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by the French Minister of Culture, and in 2010, received a doctorate honoris causa from the University of Lausanne.^[4] He is a member of the selection committee of the Shanghai Archaeology Forum, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

 

Among Finkelstein's books are The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (2001) and David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (2006), both written with Neil Asher Silberman. Also he wrote the textbooks on the emergence of Ancient Israel, titled The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (1988); on the archaeology and history of the arid zones of the Levant, titled Living on the Fringe (1995); and on the Northern Kingdom of Israel, titled The Forgotten Kingdom (2013). Other books deal with biblical historiography: Hasmonean Realities Behind Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles (2018), Essays on Biblical Historiography: From Jeroboam II to John Hyrcanus (2022), and Jerusalem The Center of the Universe (2024).

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

I tend to ascribe more twords literalism.. Except Yom I know is a time period, sometimes a day.

 

There is a fire without a flame that burns up distortions:

14"Behold, they have become like stubble, Fire burns them; They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame; There will be no coal to warm by [Nor] a fire to sit before! -Isaiah 47:14

 

I dont need a fire though ...its summer down here and a balmy 32 deg. C. So later I might do the opposite ;

 

 

 

That is an interesting subject whether it is literal or figurative. But then, how would they know? Who decides? Thankfully not Jimbob or Fraiser. 

 

If a person reaps the benefits of said paradigm, they have no reason to doubt.

 

Sometimes, people really get hurt by people and they become very bitter.  I would have to say that Nungali is probably in a lot of pain over something, we probably need to help him heal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

31 minutes ago, Nungali said:

"In retirement, Dever has become a frequent author on questions relating to the historicity of the Bible, criticizing many scholars who deny any historical value to the biblical accounts.

 

Exactly.

 

What do you think of this of this method?

 

"deny any historical value to biblical accounts" as the beginning of inquiry?

 

33 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I dont know why you bought Dever in to support your anachronistic views

 

Because my views are irrelevant.

 

34 minutes ago, Nungali said:

However he is far from being a supporter of biblical literalism

 

~nods~

 

Yes.  That's what I said.

[Nungali]

23 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Exactly.

 

What do you think of this of this method?

 

"deny any historical value to biblical accounts" as the beginning of inquiry?

 

You punctuation here is a little confusing . I will assume the second sentence  does  not  follow on from the first , but instead needs  :  instead of a ?     .

 

I dont know . I , myself, came into the subject as assuming the Biblical accounts WHERE history and did have historical value , that was the world I was bought up in ; a western Christian society .

 

 

 

Because my views are irrelevant.

 

 Curious !   I note the absence of a question mark ,  so I should  take this a statement . 

 

If you choose to see it that way, that is up to you . I  actually claimed they where anachronistic   ( Having an opinion of the past; preferring things or values of the past; behind the times; over-conservative ) .. but that was just my opinion . I shall stand corrected .

 

 

~nods~

 

Yes.  That's what I said.

 

 

The first 10 mins of this might make it clearer :

 

 

 

Edited December 11 by Nungali

[Daniel]

19 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I dont know . I , myself, came into the subject as assuming the Biblical accounts WHERE history and did have historical value , that was the world I was bought up in ; a western Christian society .

 

Exactly.

 

This is a new method.  Completely.  That's what makes it interesting.  A lot of people like it.  But, naturally, it's going to be missing a significant amount of information.  What ever data is collected and presented by Finkelstein is going to be a minute fraction of what actually occurred.  The standards are impossibly high due to the age of this story.  

 

Agreed?

 

Edited December 11 by Daniel

[Daniel]

If a person would like to show that the exodus cannot possibly have occurred in the manner which it is described in the Torah, they don't need any of this.  All they need, is to read the story.  

 

How long would it take for 600,000 Jews and another million or more of the mixed multitude of Egypt to cross the red sea?   There's no way it happened in the manner it's described.  It's ridiculous.  Similarly, Moses addresses the entire group?  And, according to the story, they all heard it?  There's no way.  The numbers are outrageous.

 

So, I'm not sure, what's really useful about bringing Finkelstein into this.  Doing so, causes a lot of problems for the, forgive me, typical bible critic.  Here's why:

 

Conventional scholarship posits the composition of the Torah to have occurred 500BCE-ish.  This date is key.  It positions the composition of the Torah within the Babylonian exile.  That's very important, because, the typical bible critic argues that the Torah is Persian.  Therefore, this date, 500BCE, is important for that specific criticism.   That date?  It assumes that the Book of Ezra is historical.  Using the method:  "deny any historical value to biblical accounts" as the beginning of inquiry, the Book of Ezra is dismissed.  The opportunity to copy/borrow Persian mythology is ... poof.

 

I think, but I'm not certain, those who have adopted Finkelstein's method produce a much later date of composition of the Torah, 150BCE-ish.  This may or may not be appealing to the bible critic?  I don't know?  But using this later date, it's more difficult to make the "It's borrowed theology/mythology" claims.

 

Edited December 11 by Daniel

[NorthWide]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Why not "and"?

 

Literal AND figurative?  There's a literal story ( true or not isn't that important ), and more general figurative story being told at the same time?

 

 

 

Im all for people reading and learning about things. But I can't just say all of it is both. That requires discernment. Im sorry but no sect of Christianity has it entirely right, most of what I learned was through prayer and lots of bible reading. Yes, there is lots of us out there. I just don't want to give the impression that just because a bible passage may seem a specific way that it is not bound to an understanding of the people who also wrote it.

 

A really good example is the passage that says calculate the number.

In Hebrew we know that when you calculate you use a Hebrew letter for the number, and so on. Nunances are lost if we just forget that aspect.

 

But I am entirely faith based, which Nungali doesn't want so, I fully respect that and I will not chime in.

Edited December 11 by TheWhiteRabbit

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

But I can't just say all of it is both

 

For your review?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(exegesis)

[Daniel]

20 minutes ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

Im sorry but no sect of Christianity has it entirely right, most of what I learned was through prayer and lots of bible reading.

 

If you are a Christian, I think this is important as well.  So much of Christian proof texting comes from Pesher.  Again, dual story lines.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher

 

Edited December 11 by Daniel

[NorthWide]

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

For your review?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(exegesis)

 

No, for what I will be judged on.

 

Pardes 👌

[Daniel]

48 minutes ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

what I learned was through prayer

 

I agree that's the best way.  If needed, there's a way to sift the many interpretations and filter out the noise.  Good interpretations are consistent.  The literal is in harmony with the figurative.  Bad interpretations conflict.  The literal is in contrast to the figurative.  It's an easy way to objectively compare differing interpretations/understandings as you learn them and gather more knowledge.  It's useful.

 

Peace bro,

 

Edited December 11 by Daniel

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

for what I will be judged on

 

~off-topic~

 

Spoiler

 

כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם ורשעים יכשלו ברעה׃

 

For a Tzaddik falls seven times, and yet rises up again; but the wicked stumble into calamity.
 

ויחלם והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלהים עלים וירדים בו׃

 

And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

 

Up-and-down Up-and-down Up-and-down Up-and-down

 

The secret to surfing?  The pop-up.  - LINK

 

This is what I watched when I was young:  Bounce, Bounce, Bounce. 

Theme song by Husband and Wife Team:  Michael and Patty Silversher.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Exactly.

 

This is a new method.  Completely.  That's what makes it interesting.  A lot of people like it.  But, naturally, it's going to be missing a significant amount of information.  What ever data is collected and presented by Finkelstein is going to be a minute fraction of what actually occurred.  The standards are impossibly high due to the age of this story.  

 

Agreed?

 

 

No.  I cant agree as I find your post too obscure and I dont know what you are asking me to agree to .

 

There is a part quote from me ,  which was an answer to a previous question , followed by your comment of 'exactly ' .

 

?    Exactly what ?

 

Then you go on to talk about 'this method '  .   What method ?     Finklestien's research ?    New in relation to what ?

 

Are you asking me if archaeological research and compiling history misses a  significant  amount of information ?  If so, then any 'significance' depends on the parameters of the investigation .  Again see the  beginning of 'Episode 1'  for that .

 

Its hard to comprehend without watching the video , a significant amount of information would be missed .

 

Then you go on about  'standards are impossibly high ' .   What standards ?   Then you ask me to agree .  

 

 

 

[Nungali]

... and please  dont keep posting off topic side conversations in this thread including ones with gummy bears cartoons , thanks .

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

No.  I cant agree as I find your post too obscure and I dont know what you are asking me to agree to .

 

Never-mind. Forget about it.  The other readers will understand or not.  

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

... and please  dont keep posting off topic side conversations in this thread including ones with gummy bears cartoons , thanks .

 

Bro, you can't expect anything like that from me, without a commitment in writing explicitly offering to do the same for me.  At least I put it in a spoiler.

 

Everyone sees the shit you post, and your BS double standards.

 

Bye.

 

Edited Thursday at 04:45 PM by Daniel

[Daniel]

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Bro, you can't expect anything like that from me, without a commitment in writing explicitly offering to do the same for me.  At least I put it in a spoiler.

 

Everyone sees the shit you post, and your BS double standards.

 

Bye.

 

 

Now you have yet again resorted  to  bad language and insults .

 

Of course that has NOTHING whatsoever  to do with the  research Dr Finklestein  showed to PROVE  his case .

 

yes, the readers WILL understand or not .... when they watch the video . The rest of the attempt at distraction comes after that , it in no way matches the interest and import of the video .

 

Its too late now in this thread to shut down the info with diverse tricks