Since this question arises during discussions on history, biblical inerrancy, and the designated hitter rule, I took the opportunity to compile a great summary from a great reference. This has proved quite the time saver! First of all, let me identify the primary text that served as the basic of this essay:
. I have primarily followed Laughlin's organization.
I have revised and expanded this summary to add further scholars and to touch upon the historical problems of the Davidic and Solomonic monarchy. I am afraid I must share Whitelam's basic thesis that both scholars and laypeople start with the basic assumption that the stories of the Hebrew Bible have a historical and factual basis. This is an assumption that is no longer tenable. Scholars can no longer depend on the Hebrew Bible for history and read the extra-biblical evidence
the lens of the Hebrew Bible, and archaeologists can no longer wander Palestine with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. Lemche is blunt: “. . . it is hardly possible any more to uphold this idea of the Old Testament literature as a historical source in the classical sense of the word,� (Lemche,
).
The temple in Shiloh serves as a good example of the problem of “wandering around the desert with a Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other.� As Lemche notes, in Jer 7:12, Jeremiah asks people to travel to Shiloh to learn what will happen to the Temple in Jerusalem: “This temple in Shiloh is well known from the biblical historical narrative as the sanctuary where the prophet Samuel grew up (1 Samuel 1-3). It is the home of the priest Eli and his wanton sons, the place where the holy ark stood before it was lost to the Philistines; in short, the sanctuary of Yahweh that truly preceded the establishment of Jerusalem’s Temple,� (Lemche,
). However, for “. . . more than two generations, archaeologists have been looking for this temple without finding so much as a trace of it. The reason for the search is, of course, that there must be a temple in Shiloh since the Bible says so,� (Lemche,
).
Part of the problem comes with retrojecting relatively modern conceptions of nationhood and kingdom to the past. Lemche traces this to the Romantic period in which biblical scholarship concentrated on nationality and history: “This was part of the general romantic construct, which could be called the national state. The nation-state . . . was dependent on the acceptance by its populace of belonging together,� (Lemche,
). Lemche explains that history was introduced to create this “sense of ethnic identity,� since, “. . . it created the sense of something very old, that is to say, that the nation-state could trace its origin back to the early days of the people who happened to inhabit the state,� (Lemche,
). From this, contends Lemche, “. . . it became a truism in romanticism that the inhabitants of a certain area belonged to the same ethnos with an age-old history, and each ethnos displayed characteristic traits, which were particular to it in comparison with the neighboring nations,� (Lemche,
). Furthermore, this idea of history became:
. . . a specific European political phenomenon in order to persuade the masses—most of all the peasants—that they belonged to a certain nation and therefore were obliged to fight for the preservation of their state. We accordingly find over the next century in Europe a development of the historical sciences that went hand in hand wit the growing of European nationalism (Lemche, TIiH).
Lemche contends that history becomes a tool for the creators of ethnicity, and “. . . it is of little importance whether this history is a real history or an invented one,� (Lemche,
). Thus:
History is written in order to create identity among the members of a certain society, congregation, or whatever ethnic group we may speak about. The only important thing seen in the perspective of the author, who created this history, would be that it must be acceptable for its readership; its readers must be able to identify with the history as it has been told to them,� (Lemche,
TIiH).
The Problem of "Exodus" Out of EgyptQuote:
In fact, this story (or stories) is so essential to the Bible's self-understanding that biblical scholars, and especially "biblical" archaeologists, until recently took for granted that at its core there must have been some "historical" event, however, much it might have been embellished by later generations of Israelites. . . . However, in the past ten to fifteen years there have been a steady increase of the archaeological data that have raised very serious doubts about the historicity of this story, as well as that of Joshua's "conquest" of Canaan (Laughlin). . . .
Hendel notes that, "Recent decades have seen a diminution of William F. Albright's confidence that the exodus was undoubtedly a historical event," (Hendel). Regarding the defense of Albright's confidence in the historicity of the Exodus story, Hendel cites Hoffmeier's concession that there exists no direct archaeological or historical evidence to support it (Hendel, Hoffmeier).
Whitelam devotes much of his work to demonstrating that biblical scholarship and archaeology operated on the assumption that the texts preserved an accurate history, an assumption driven more by religious and political bias than actual evidence. On the contrary, "The picture of Israel's past as presented in much of the Hebrew Bible is a ficton, a fabrication like most pictures of the past constructed by ancient (and, we might add, modern) societies," (Whitelam). More recent efforts, particularly in studying the way in which tradition "is invented or recycled," have:
Quote:
. . . undermined the fundamental assumption within biblical studies that such traditions, despite a significant temporal separation from the events they describe, necessarily preserve some kind of historical kernel or historical memory which can be extracted from the narrative to provide raw data for the modern historian (Whitelam).
The very use of "history" implies an underlying accuracy. Referencing a complaint of Hughes, Whitelam notes that "many biblical scholars refuse to use the term 'myth' in relation to the Bible because it is commonly defined as stories about gods whereas the Hebrew Bible is presented as non-mythical and monotheistic," (Hughes). This point cannot be stressed too strongly: the stories about gods
are myths and the texts of the Hebrew Bible are
not monotheistic.
Literary Evidence:
When evaluating literary sources which include the HB texts, one has to be aware of whether or not the sources serve as evidence for the events described, particularly the details. Oliver Stone’s movie
JFK is based on an actual event in history; however, his details are, to be kind, fiction. Thus, in evaluating the HB texts as a source for Israelite history, Lemche cautions that everything, “. . . narrated by them may in principle be historical, but the biblical text cannot in advance be accepted as a historical source or documentation; it has in every single case to prove its status as a historical source,� (Lemche,
TIiH). Contrary to critics who cast his and others from the “Copenhagen School� as denying the biblical texts as historical sources, Lemche maintains that the, “. . . text of the Old Testament is, for the simple reason that it is an old document, a historical source. The question is only about what,� (Lemche,
TIiH). Thus, while it has been, “. . . traditionally believed to be a respectable enterprise to try to show that a certain event narrated by the Old Testament really happened and that the narrative is for that reason a valuable source,� (Lemche,
TIiH), this is the same fallacious reasoning that because Kennedy was actually assassinated, Stone’s film becomes a “valuable source� to justify the erroneous “magic bullet,� let alone the wild conspiracies theories. I would extend Lemche’s caution to note that just because a biblical text describes an actual historical event, that does not make
everything else actual history. Those engaged in inerrancy apologetics miss that critical point.
In evaluating the literary evidence for an Egyptian Sojourn, Exodus, or Conquest for that matter, Laughlin notes:
Quote:
Except for the biblical story there is no literary evidence that there was ever an Egyptian Sojourn and Exodus as described in the Bible. This is true regardless of the date one assumes for the event, if there was such an "event" at all. [He then discusses the Mernaptah Stela.--Ed.]
Dated to the fifth year of Mernapthah's reign (
ca. 1208-7, according to the low chronology), the stela contains a hymn or a series of hymns celebrating the pharaoh's victory over his enemies. . . . . . . This is the earliest reference to "Israel" as a community known from any ancient text. . . . [He gives a reference for "Israel" as a personal name.--Ed.]
Quote:
[He quotes from the stela which is translated by Albright in Prichard's ANET. The Israel quote is:--Ed.]: Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; (Laughlin). . .
Without assuming the biblical story in advance, there is absolutely nothing in the stela inscription itself to suggest to anyone that this "Israel" was ever in Egypt. All that can be reasonably inferred from it is that an Egyptian scribe at the end of the thirteenth century BC could list among the enemies defeated by the pharaoh a group of people living in Canaan known collectively as "Israel," . . . How this “Israel� was organized; what deity or deities it worshipped, and most of all, from where this “Israel� originated and in what way or ways, if any, it is to be related to the “Israel� that emerged 200 years later under Saul and David is nowhere mentioned nor even suggested, . . . . . . Papyrus Anastasi V (Wilson,
ANET: 259), might allow one to hypothesize that a few Egyptian slaves could have slipped out of Egypt from time to time, but all of the known Egyptian texts put together do not even remotely hint at an "Exodus" (Laughlin). . . .
Papyrus Anastasi V is a model letter for students which reports the pursuit of two escaped slaves (Wilson). An Exodus it is not.
Whitelam agrees with Laughlin's analysis and states that the, ". . . only clear information provided by the inscription is that some entity called Israel was encountered in the region by the Pharaoh's troops towards the end of the thirteenth century BCE; . . ." (Whitelam). He continues: "Israel appears to be distinguished from the place names Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yano'am by a determinative which is used elsewhere to designate 'people' or 'foreign people," (Whitelam). However, Whitelam does concede that to be mentioned in a royal inscription, this "Israel" had to have some "
relative significance," (Whitelam).
The status of the Merneptah stele has changed. Lemche notes that in, “. . . the days of old—only a generation ago—this text was considered important evidence of the immigration of the biblical Israelites into Palestine, . . .� (Lemche,
TIiH).
The Archaeological Evidence (see Dever 1997b; Weinstein 1997b):
Interestingly, Lemche notes that in, “. . . traditional historical research, written sources always take precedence over all other types of evidence,� (Lemche,
TIiH). This may appear odd given that it is rather easier to create a story and write it down even centuries after the event in the story, than it is to create remnants of villages, farmsteads, houses, artifacts, and even cities. However, Lemche notes that the problem with archaeological results is they come from “a highly complicated scientific discipline,� with results “. . . based on material remains not accompanied by any written indication of the people who produced them,� (Lemche,
TIiH). In other words, in order to claim that a settlement is or is not the product of a particular people, for example, it rather helps to have some evidence that supports or establishes that connection. Laughlin does a rather good job at explaining how certain artifacts made by a particular people—all of that shard stuff!—can help support that “these� people lived in “this� place. Lemche would remind that such do not establish that “a� people used them, “many� different people may have shared the same artifact. More specifically, the two artifacts that have traditionally been held up as indicative of “early ‘Israeli’ culture�: the three-room house and the collared-rim jar, both of which have been found far outside of the territory considered “Israeli,� (Lemche,
TIiH).
Nevertheless, one would expect that a Sojourn, Exodus, and even Conquest would have left material evidence evidence, even evidence devoid of the “written indication� Lemche mentions. Curiously:
Quote:
[Laughlin notes some attempts to defend the biblical story and then quotes.--Ed.], "were it not for the Bible, anyone looking at the Palestinian archaeological data today would conclude that whatever the origin of the Israelites, it was not Egypt" (Weinstein 1997b: 98). . . . Any serious doubts regarding the historicity of the "Exodus" also impact upon an understanding of the "Conquest."
Any effort to support the biblical story . . . will have to explain the following: first, if the inhabitants of the Central Highlands of Palestine in the Iron Age I period came from a people who had an extended sojourn (over 400 years according to the Bible, I Kings 6:1) in Egypt, why have excavations and surveys of these villages yielded so little evidence of Egyptian influence. . . ? . . . according to biblical tradition, several million people (cf. Exod. 12:37; Num. 1:45-6) wandered around the Sinai Peninsula for "forty" years. Yet not a single trace of such a group has ever been recovered.
Most telling in this regard is the archaeological history of Tell el-Qudeirat, identified as ancient Kadesh-Barnea. The excavations . . . locate in the northern Sinai . . . have recovered nothing pre-dating the tenth-ninth centuries BC. . . . Kadesh-Barnea played a major role in the biblical traditions of the Exodus and wilderness wanderings (Num 13:26; 20:1,14). . . . Surly, if this event as described in the Bible actually happened, something of the presence of so many people would have turned up by now, if nothing more than camp sites with datable pottery (Laughlin).
Laughlin then notes the connection between problems with the Conquest and Exodus dovetail.
The Emergence of Early "Israel":
Quote:
[Summarizes the biblical story.--Ed.] The clear impression one gets from this story is that a united Israel attacked Canaan from the east and that the defeat of its inhabitants, at least in the Central Highlands, was sudden, swift and complete. That something is seriously wrong with this picture is an understatement. [He then summarizes previous models for interpreting the occupation.--Ed.]
The catalyst for starting much of this discussion [Revolution in understanding of emergence of early "Israel."--Ed.] was the publication of I. Finkelstein's book, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, in 1988. . . . . . . Finkelstein showed that there were hundreds (more than 300, p. 333) of new villages or hamlets that had sprung up in the Central Hill Country of Canaan during the Iron Age I. . . . . . . Finkelstein estimated the entire population of the Hill Country peoples to be no more than 50,000, if not fewer . . . a remarkably small number when compared with the millions who supposedly left Egypt with Moses only "forty" years earlier (Laughlin). . . .
Whitelam, while granting the importance of Finkelstein's work, reminds that Finkelstein still concentrates on finding an "ancient Israel" that is assumed to exist: "It is, in essence, however, unwittingly, the search for a national identity . . . like other nationalist archaeologies, . . ." (Whitelam). Nevertheless, "Finkelstein has realized the inherent problems of such a definition by his admission that he would consider omitting the term 'Israelite' from the discussion of Iron I settlement and refer instead to 'hill country settlers' until the period of the monarch," (Whitelam). Whitelam emphasizes that Finkelstein's concession, ". . . is significant since it confirms the growing recognition that the archaeological evidence from recent surveys ad excavations cannot be used to differentiate Israelite and indigenous material culture," (Whitelam). Or as Lemche claims “. . . biblical Canaanites [are] the invention of ancient biblical historians,� (Lemche,
TIiH, citing
TCaTL).
Laughlin continues:
Quote:
Other studies . . . have also argued that the people who moved into the highlands were farmers and horticulturists, not nomadic raiders from the east. . . . These, and other archaeological data, have led Dever to conclude that the Iron I inhabitants of these Central Hill villages were anything but invading nomads from the desert as portrayed in the Bible. Rather, they "appear to be skilled and well-adapted peasant farmers, long familiar with local conditions in Canaan" (Dever 1992c: 549-50). Until recently it was assumed by most scholars that the Iron I inhabitants were Israelites. . . . . . . thanks to the pioneering efforts of archaeologists such as Dever and Finkelstein, this is no longer acceptable.
Although Dever . . . has agreed with Finkelstein that the Iron I village people were not nomads invading from the east, he has disagreed with Finkelstein completely on the question of their origins. For Dever, most of the Iron I Central Hill villagers came from the already sedentary Canaanite population . . . not from non-sedentarized pastoralists (Laughlin).
In a funny footnote, Laughlin notes the "disagreement" between Dever and Finkelstein extends to the highly specialized field of ceramics and advises to "Stay tuned!"
Whitelam cites Lemche's complaint of the very circular interpretation common in biblical studies, ". . . pointing out that the period around 1200 BC is hardly ever described as an archaeological phase rather than a historical period, . . ." (Whitelam). Lemche explains:
Quote:
The reason for this seems to be the fact that some archaeologists appear to find it more fascinating to hunt for "proof" of the presence of Israel, since even the most minute changes in architecture, pottery, town lay-out, and so forth, have been taken to show the presence of new (foreign) elements among the existing population at this time (Lemche, EI).
Whitelam notes the importance of Lemche's conclusion:
Quote:
Thus it was correct to dismiss the importance of the Settlement traditions in the OT and to see them instead as expressions of a very late view of the nation's origins which arose in the last part of the monarchical period and particularly in the period after the loss of national independence. The consequences of this fact ought to be taken seriously. It is no longer legitimate to attempt to "save the appearances" of certain portions of the Settlement narrative. Rather, it is the very idea of Settlement, as it appears in the OT, which must be done away with, for historical reasons. In one's reconstruction of the course of events towards the close of the second millennium one ought at least in the first instance to ignore completely the OT traditions, and instead attempt to reconstruct the archaeological history of the period without considering whether it was Israelites or Canaanites who were active at one site or another. (Lemche, EI).
Problems with Tel-Dan and David: Introduction: Archaeology and the Bible:Laughlin notes that if, ". . . there is an archaeolological period deserving of the description 'biblical,' it is Iron Age II. This is the time of David and Solomon (at least for those who still believe that they existed as more than figments of some post-exilic writer's imagination)," (Laughlin). He quotes J. M. Miller:
Quote:
Any time historians, archaeologists, sociologists, or whoever speak of Israelite tribes in the central Palestinian Hill Country at the beginning of Iron Age I, or about the Davidic-Solomonic monarchy or about two contemporary kingdoms emerging from this early monarchy, they are presupposing information that comes from, and only from, the Hebrew Bible (Miller).
Whitelam also cites Miller's observation that, ". . . there is no evidence for a Davidic-Solomonic monarchy independent of the biblical traditions. Historians who refer to this entity are presupposing information which is drawn from the Hebrew Bible," (Whitelam).
Iron Age IIa--
the United Monarchy (ca. 1000-923 BC)
For those familiar with the HB, the Iron Age contains a great empire that, “. . . is supposed to have stretched from, in the north, the Eurphrates and reached as far south as the Brook of Egypt, most likely present-day
Wadi el-Arish in northern Sinai,� an empire whose capital was the great city of Jerusalem, ruled by the great kings David and Solomon (Lemche,
TIiH). Curiously, the only source for this “empire� comes from the HB texts or texts dependent upon its narratives; not, “. . . a single document from the ancient Near East refers to either of these to kings of Israel,� (Lemche,
TIiH). In reality, the core of Jerusalem, “. . . was a small fortified town the size of a few hectares and with a population of hardly more than a couple of thousand persons, including women and children, that is, with an adult male population of about three to four hundred men,� (Lemche,
TIiH).
Laughlin states:
Quote:
The difficulty of relating archaeological data to biblical traditions is clearly apparent when studying the Iron Age IIa period. Biblically speaking, this is the time assigned to David and Solomon and the United Monarchy. . . .
. . . until the remarkable discovery of the so-called "Tel Dan Stela" . . . no reference to "David" was known outside of the Bible, with the possible exception of the Meshe Inscription ("Moabite Stone"). The Tel Dan inscription, as well as the Meshe Stela, are both dated to the end of the ninth century BC. Here I would simply point out that while the translation, "House of David," on the Dan stela has been hotly disputed by a few scholars, the majority of experts who have examined this inscription have confirmed this reading. However, even assuming that the authenticity of this reading proves nothing about a supposedly tenth-century BC monarch, its date (late ninth century) provides what, in archaeology, is known as a terminus post quem. . . . What it does prove is that by the end of the ninth century BC, a political entity known as the "House of David" could be referred to in a public inscription and its referent be expected to be understood by passers-by. However, the connection of the "David" on this stela with the "David" in the Bible is a matter of interpretation, not archaeology. . . . Furthermore, this reference to "David" proves nothing about a "Solomon."
In fact, there is very little in the overall archaeological picture of the tenth century BC that can be connected with David (Laughlin). . . .
Regarding Tel Dan, Whitelam reminds that:
Quote:
Even if it is accepted that this is a reference to the Davidic dynasty and not a place name, as some argue, it is similar to the Merneptah stele in revealing very little in way of usable historical information which we did not already possess. . . . . . . such a stele may confirm the existence of a dynasty which is traced back to a founder named David but it cannot confirm the biblical traditions in Samuel about this founder (Whitelam).
Furthermore, both Laughlin and Whitelam remind that controversy persists as to whether or not "house of David" refers to a person or a place. Whitelam cites Davies' analysis that, ". . . the lack of a word divider suggests that this might be a place name," (Whitelam; Davies). This criticism is repeated by Lemche who discusses the Tel Dan inscriptions in his reference on the Israelites in history and tradition, (Lemche,
TIiH). To begin, he notes that whenever, “. . . an important collection of texts appears, the interpretation of this discovery fist has to pass through a process handled by biblical scholars who try, so to speak on the basis of this inscription, to prove ‘that the Bible is, after all, true,’� (Lemche,
TIiH). Tel Dan is really two fragments that belong to two different inscriptions created by two different engravers, (Lemche,
TIiH). Lemche finds it ironic that if some of the original publishing scholars are correct and the two texts may be connected and read together, “. . . we would be in possession of a curious but important example of a contemporary text going directly against the evidence of the Old Testament,� (Lemche,
TIiH).
The term is
bytdwd--
× ×™×ª×“×•×“--(Lemche,
TIiH)—and the confusion comes from, “. . . the way this Beth David is written in this inscription, which uses word dividers, or small dots inserted between words, (Lemche,
TIiH). Lemche explains:
Quote:
In biblical references to the House of David, Bêt Davîd, the name is always written in two words, as are also contemporary dynastic names of states in Syria and Mesopotamia like Bit Adini, Bit Gusi, . . to mention just a few of them. We were accordingly to expect a word divider between the two words in Beth David. Otherwise, other name combinations including the word Beth are known from the Old Testament, including the city names of Bethel and Beth-shean. Such names are, however, normally written in one word, like bytdwd of the Tel Dan inscription A. It could therefore well be that we here have a reference to a place name in the vicinity of Dan rather than a mentioning of the kingdom of Judah, (Lemche, TIiH).
In conclusion, Lemche feels the Tel Dan inscriptions exemplify a “. . . classical example of how biblical scholars are moved not so much by evidence from the inscription itself as by the wish to create links between the inscription and the biblical narrative,� (Lemche,
TIiH).
The Meshe/a Stela, dated to the 9th century BCE does not really describe a King David. It is celebration of the victories of King Mesha of Moab who is referenced in the biblical text as defeating Israel with the sacrifice of his son:
Quote:
Seeing that the battle was going against him, the king of Moab led an attempt of seven hundred swordsmen to break a way through to the king of Edom; but they failed. So he took his first-born son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up on the wall as a burnt offering. A great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and went back to their own land (2 Kgs 3:26-27).
Levenson notes, “More serious is the great “wrath� (
qesep) that falls on Israel . . , for the implication is clear: Mesha’s sacrifice worked. . . . . . . the term
qesep indicates a force external to the people involved. . . . the author saw Mesha’s sacrifice of his first-born son as having a profound effect upon the deity to whom it was offered, in this case presumably the Moabite national deity Chemosh. . . . (Levenson).
The salient parts are:
Quote:
As for Omri (5) king of Israel, he humbled Moab many days (lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. . . . but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever! (Now) Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and (Israel) had dwelt there in his time and half the time of his son (Ahab), forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time.
. . . Now the men of Gad had always dwelt in the land of Ataroth, and the king of Israel had built Ataroth, and the king of Israel had built Ataroth for them; but I fought against the town and took it and slew all of the people of the town as satiation (intoxication) for cheomsh and Moab.
. . . .
And Chemosh said to me, “Go, take Nebo from Israel!� (15) So I went up by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women, girls and maid-servants, for I have devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there the [ . . . ] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he dwelt there while he was fighting against me, but Chemosh drove him out before me (Albright).
The parenthetical material is supplied by Albright; the son of Ahab is not actually named in the text. Lemche suggests the fact that Mesha does not mention Ahab, “. . . probably reveals that he was fairly ignorant of conditions in the kingdom of Israel in his days, (Lemche,
TIiH). Furthermore, “‘King Omri’ of Israel may be the only Israelite ‘king’ known by name by Mesha, simply because Israel was in those days often or normally called ‘the House of Omri,’� (Lemche,
TIiH). Thus, this may not necessarily be a specific reference to King Omri of Israel.
The only other possible reference to “David� comes from the reference to, “. . . the cult of Ataroth, in Moabite ’
r’l dwdh, . .� (Lemche,
TIiH). Aside from the contextual difficulties of such an interpretation, “. . . the mentioning of the
dwdh in the Mesha inscription cannot be a reference to David endowed with a personal suffix (‘his David’) as Semitic personal names do not carry personal suffixes, (Lemche,
TIiH).
Some time has past since I created this essay to address questions concerning the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest. It has expanded over time to cover the Davidic and Solomonic monarchies. I could expand it further to include criticisms with the assumptions of a once united monarchy, or any political entity of significance. As Whitelam asserts,
Quote:
Palestine simply could not compete with the far superior riverine agrarian economies and demographic base of Egypt and Mesopotama. Later it would be the natural advantages of the Anatolian and Persian plateaux, and eventually Europe, in the form of the Greek and Roman powers, which would come to dominate Palestine. A region with the infrastructural inferiority of Palestine could not compete with contemporary military powers while agricultural production and demography remained such key factors in the dynamics of world power. The imagined past of a Davidic empire needs to be examined in light of this fundamental reality (Whitelam).
One scholar whom I shall keep anonymous at his request, confesses a belief in the basic ideas behind the Jewish religions and, frankly, wants there to be Historical Davids and Solomons. His evidence? "No one questions the existence of David and Solomon!" Unfortunately, many do. Furthermore, any evidence appears to remain in the eye of the beholder. He has no answer for the obvious conclusion of the evidence that "whatever" such historical figures could be, they and their kingdoms as described in the Bible have no existence.
Albert Schweitzer came to a similar conclusion regarding the Historical Junior in which after listing all of the dogmatic attributes from "born of a virgin" to performing miracles to resurrection, ". . . never had any existence," (Schweitzer). Schweitzer waffles in the end, declaring Junior an "immeasurably great man" because . . . well . . . just because! I like to think the reaction to his work sent him scurrying to Africa.
Ironically, the scholar I mentioned is on the forefront of publicizing what has been basic biblical scholarship for over a hundred years, but few laypeople have any knowledge of. His response to evidence for his historical figures reads very much like the responses delivered by fundamentalists to biblical scholarship.
As we [We?--Ed.] have discovered recently, skepticism sometimes ends at the threshold of belief. Most biblical and religious scholars have some belief system, be it "fundamentalist" to an amorphous "Something Up There" that they really do not want to question. Why else would they spend so many years mastering dead languages and staring at inscriptions on pottery shards while their colleagues in science fuck the cheerleaders . . . okay . . . fuck to pictures of cheerleaders . . . right, pictures of actresses on
: underneath the belief is a firm foundation. Only our interpretation of such a foundation is an issue.
Thus, the desire and need to find "something true" in scripture to validate an entire belief system. For some, this "something" does not have to be very large. An honest scholar who has published a number of respected texts on the polytheism of "Israeli" religion, confesses a belief in "Big Daddy" from the onset to warn others of his potential bias. Very honest, and for this scholar, unnecessary since his belief does not color his interpretations.
--J.D.
Laughlin JCH.
. London: Routledge, 2000.
Albright WF. “The Moabite Stone,� in: JB Pritchard (ed).
, 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Dever WG. "Israel, History of (Archaeology and the 'Conquest'),"
, vol. 3, 1992.
Dever WG. "Qom, Kirbet El-,"
, vol. 4, 1997
Finkelstein I.
. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988.
Miller JM. "Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without Relying on the Hebrew Bible?" in: D.V. Edelman (ed.)
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
Weinstein JM. "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," in E. Frerichs and L. Lesko (eds)
. Eisenbrauns: 1997.
Wilson JA. “The Pursuit of Runaway Saves,� and “Hymn of Victory of Mer-ne-Ptah (The “Israel Stela�)� in: JB Pritchard (ed).
, 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Davies PR. "'House of David' Built on Sand: the Sin of the Biblical Maximizers,"
. 1992; 20: 54-5.
Finkelstein I, Silberman NA.
. New York: Free Press, 2001.
Hendel R. "The Exodus in Biblical Memory,"
. 120 (2001): 601-622.
Hoffmeier JK.
. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hughes J.
. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Kloppenborg JS.
. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2000.
Lemche NP.
. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing, 1985.
Lemche NP.
. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Lemche NP.
. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
Levenson JD.
. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Schweitzer A.
. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2000.
Whitelam KW.
. London: Routledge, 1996.
) but he's one of the best experts on the bible I've had the pleasure of knowing. I (of course!) don't ask that you lend any weight to what he says based on my opinion, as always measure the worth of what people say by 