The History of Ancient Israel

Apr 16, 2006 21:29

The Exodus. God’s covenant with Abraham. The parting of the red sea. Many have heard these stories, and for some, they play an integral role in their faith and understanding of themselves as a people. However, is it a fallacy to say that these stories are true? The answer to this question is, of course, heavily debated. In his book, In Search of Ancient Israel , P.R. Davies argues that “'Ancient Israel' is based... on a biblical, literary construct, which is then made into an historical one.” (Davies p.47) In looking at the evidence, this certainly seems to be the case, as there is no direct archaeological evidence to prove that the history of ancient Israel unfolded as described in the text of the Bible. For this reason, I find myself tending towards the minimalist perspective and believing that the Bible is primarily a fiction.



It is a mistake, however, to believe that there is no evidence in favor of the Bible, for there exists a fair amount that archaeologists and other historians have obtained over the years. One of the earliest references to Israel in ancient times (dating around 1200 BCE) can be found on an Egyptian stone tablet known as the Merneptah Stele. Here there is mention of Israel being “laid waste.” The significance is that the word Israel is denoted in hieroglyphics with a symbol known to represent nations or people. It can therefore be concluded that Israel existed at early as 1200 BCE, although, as Davies points out, it is difficult to determine when this Israel became the Israel known to the Bible. Another tablet, known as the Kurkh Stele and dating around 853 BCE, yields similar evidence. Here there is mention of “King Ahab” of “sir-il-la-a-a” (presumably Israel). But is this “Israel” a continuation of the population mentioned on the Merneptah Stele? Is this proof of the existence of a kingdom of Israel? Davies would say no. As tempting as it is to use the Bible as a form of proof, one cannot when making truly sound conclusions. “There is no way to judge the distance between the biblical Israel and its historical counterpart unless the historical counterpart is investigated independently of the biblical literature.” (Davies pg 60) If one is finding evidence and trying to interpret the Bible in a manner that makes the two fit, he is not accurately analyzing what is true. This is not to say that one must try and disprove the bible when out on the field, but rather he must be cautious and take a purely neutral approach to the matter. Indeed, keeping the Bible and evidence separate is the only way there can be a basis for claiming that biblical Israel has any relationship to the Israel that truly was.

So it would seem that archaeologists know that Israel at least existed to some extent (although that extent is not entirely known) but what of Judah, the surviving part of Israel? “Here the problem is simply one of a complete absence of extra-biblical references. The biblical ‘empire’ of David & Solomon has not the faintest echo in the archaeological record - as of yet.” (Davies pg 67) This statement by Davies had a profound effect on me. No evidence whatsoever? There is not much one can do to argue with a complete lack of evidence, but what I soon found was that a lack of evidence was not the only proof archaeologists have to suggest that the Biblical narratives are untrue. Evidence historians and archaeologists have found makes it difficult to see the formation of a state until about 900-800BCE (as opposed to 1200BCE), and the formation of an empire of any kind seems out of the question, according to Davies. This elaborate administration of David as described by the Bible would therefore be impossible, and the fact that Jerusalem cannot be established archaeologically “ought to be troublesome.”

In Exodus 12:37 it states that “The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.” This would amount to almost 2,000,000 people fleeing from Egypt, which seems impossible for a number of reasons. The exorbitant figure of 600,000 men in addition to women, children and livestock makes one wonder how a dessert could support this many nomads, and moreover how this many people could escape from Egypt. Furthermore, there is no extra-biblical evidence to back up this figure, and historians know that Egyptian’s guarded their cities well and would go to quite extreme measures to keep slaves in captivity. Even if a large number of slaves managed to escape from Egypt, one would expect some sort of document describing such a catastrophic event, and yet there exists none that can be found.

It has long been believed that the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; in other words the first five books of the Bible ) was written by Moses himself. However, a thorough examination of the bible, especially of older texts, reveals that this is probably not the case. There are a number of discrepancies within the Bible. For example, certain parts of the bible are written in different styles: one author (dubbed E) refers to God as Elohim, while another (dubbed J) uses the term Yaweh for God. Furthermore, the styles of Deuteronomy differ completely from the rest of the text, suggesting that there is yet another author. Through similar logic, scholars have come up with four different authors responsible for writing the bible. Though the divergences in writing styles are slight, they still suggest that a number of authors wrote the bible, not Moses himself. Unfortunately, however, there is no scholarly consensus as to who these four authors were.

There are other inconsistencies that add to the suspicion that Moses did not write the Bible. “There [are] the third-person accounts of Moses... the report of Moses’ death...the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses’ lifetime...” (Friedman pg 20) and other such irregularities that raise suspicion. In fact, it appears that the bible was not only not written by Moses, but also written at some point long after his death: “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses...” (Deuteronomy 34:10). This passage certainly seems to be a reflection on the past by someone who lived long after Moses had died, as Friedman brings up in his book Who Wrote the Bible. Judging by all this evidence, then, it seems most likely that the Bible was written by a number of authors over time, perhaps well after these events had happened. The idea that the Bible, one of the most read books in the world, was written by unknown authors is completely amazing to me. This uncertainty about the Bible’s origins makes me suspicious of its historical validity.

At this point I had to ask myself, what reason do I have to believe that the places and people mentioned in the Bible were real? True, there are a number of steles and inscriptions, but no direct physical evidence that they truly existed. I therefore see the limited proof for the biblical narrative as a sign that they are largely made up. Were they true, I do not doubt that there would be a good amount of evidence to prove them, but there simply isn’t and I am disinclined to believe in events for which there is no proof. “This kingdom [of Israel], which exists at present exclusively in the biblical literature and the biblical scholarship dependent on it, remains theoretical.” (Davies pg 69)

I should mention, perhaps, that I came into this course with a reasonable amount of bias. I am an atheist myself, though my family outside my household is predominantly Christian. And not simply Protestant, all manners of Christianity from Mormon to Roman Catholic. As such, I have had exposure to the Christian faith and its teachings, but have generally kept to my own beliefs. I saw this class as a neutral approach to the Bible, one entirely devoted to the evidence that has actually been unearthed. I was not seeking to find holes in the religion, nor trying to find out whether it was true, but rather curious about the evidence we have uncovered over the years, and exactly what one can deduce from this evidence. In taking the course I would say I stand more boldly with the position I had before: that the bible is largely made up, as I have seen little evidence to persuade me otherwise.

When reading about biblical archaeology, it is important to keep in mind what archaeology and scholarly research can and cannot accomplish. Archaeology could one day show that a large number of slaves escaped from Egypt to form Israel, but it cannot prove that it happened because of the will of god. Perhaps we will never know if the stories in Genesis really happened, or if Abraham was a real person, but whether “Abraham was historical or was not historical is really no longer relevant. The important fact is that Abraham lives today.” (Marcus quoting Yehud Yaniv pg 36) The fact that these tales of Ancient Israel are untrue does not make them meaningless; these stories serve as a kind of epic by which they define themselves as a nation. It is a document that they identify with culturally as well as spiritually, and its truth, therefore, does not affect their relationship to these tales which have been passed down for generations.

Julius Wellhausen once said that "we attain to no historical knowledge of the patriarchs [from genesis] but only of the time when the stories about them arose in the Israelite people." and I think this is very true and well put. In reading the Hebrew bible we learn more about the people and cultures who wrote it than of the history it actually describes. As far as we can tell the stories are untrue; the evidence for this is clear and I find myself bound to believe it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Davies, P. R. In Search of Ancient Israel. Sheffield Academic Press, 1995
Marcus, Amy. The View From Nebo. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000
Friedman, Richard. Who Wrote the Bible. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1987
Suggs, Sakenfeld, Mueller, eds. Oxford Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992
Previous post Next post
Up
[]