This week, once it has arrived, I shall be reading “Centuries of Darkness:
A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology”, by Peter James, I.J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot, and John Frankish. The book’s website contains their details of their scholarly backgrounds, including academic publications relevant to their research, and updates on the state of discussion concerning the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age in the ancient Near East.
The timing of the Exodus and other events of Israelite history has proved controversial in academic circles (as has the location of Mount Sinai). The historicity of the Exodus event is an important part of Judaism and Christianity.
A historical event took place at a particular time and in a particular location. This marks a difference between myth and history. Relegating historical events to the realm of myth is dangerous for Christianity. It undermines our faith and hope. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead in history, then why should believers be raised at the end of the age? Indeed, why should there be a return of Jesus and end of the age at all?
Similarly, we worship of a God of truth, who wants to enlighten us, not commit us to deception and error. Therefore, events in the biblical narrative should be consistent with archaeological data and historical data, when these are properly assessed and interpreted.
I believe that the Exodus serves as a pattern for the events of the end of the age. Joel Richardson plans to release a book on this topic in the future, to which I look forward. My hope is that as we (re-)study the Book of Exodus we will have a deeper understanding of what the events meant in their own context and as prophetic signs for the return of Christ.
All Along the Watchtower 
Have you heard or read by chance Richard Elliot Friedman’s book on Exodus? It came out about a year or so ago?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Levite argument (first proposed by Freedman)?
It’s not entirely implausible, but if you argue that then you of course have to put a giant red cross through the entire origin tale (including Conquest), conceding the bible is a lie… Meaning no revelation, which is awkward for a “revealed” religion.
I think the fact that no Jewish rabbi, or Israeli archaeologist takes the position seriously is telling. It’s just complicating a story that really isn’t complicated. The Philistines landed (1150 BCE), took the coastal states, and small bands of Canaanites took to the hills over a number of decades where the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were founded… Founded, mind you, minus any Egyptian cultural/technological/architectural/artistic/linguistic influence.
LikeLike
I haven’t decided fully on a theory.
You say,
“It’s not entirely implausible, but if you argue that then you of course have to put a giant red cross through the entire origin tale (including Conquest), conceding the bible is a lie…“
Well, that’s not true.
The Catholic, the majority of Christians, understanding of Scripture is teaching the truth for the sake of our salvation. CCC 108 Furthermore, the Old Testament is read to be typological of the coming of Christ CCC 129.
At any rate, Catholic theology holds, since at least Augustine, that scripture is as much analogically as metaphor. The book of Joshua, for example, is common among ancient cultures to create a conquest origin story—see the Egyptians.
LikeLike
Are you entirely sure you meant to draw attention to 129? Self-evidently, the fact that Exodus/Conquest is historical fiction means, of course, there is no revelation. Hence my observation: the revealed religion is missing the revelation.
scripture is as much analogically as metaphor.
And yet you appear desperate to see Exodus as historical fact, even if you have to invent alternative story lines. Seems you’re confused as to what you actually believe.
LikeLike
Confused or discerning? It appears you’re fixed strictly on your position. Instead, I am more like Jacob wrestling with God on such matters.
In the past, I’ve thought important to indicate that historical figures that Jesus spoke directly about are true. Naturally, this isn’t the only explanation, If Scripture is meant to merely guide the way to salvation, the various genres of text within the library of the Bible can do so. Jesus could have merely been speaking to a society that would have understood those figures as fixtures to their cultural history.
Or, there could be historical implications. The Catholic Church hasn’t made a dogmatic stance on the specifics. The closest is that some hold that Pius XII’s Humani Generis decrees an official position on single parenthood of the human race; however, Catholic theologians dispute that as well.
So, no, I’m hardly desperate anymore on the issue. I am intrigued by the theory such as I’m intrigued by Rohl’s Chronology theory, but I haven’t decided a definitively on the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s good to know. I’m guessing this “I don’t really care” position is a lot easier on you mentally/emotionally/intellectually.
I’m curious, though: am to understand you accept that there was no revelation?
LikeLike
I don’t accept your premise that it’s self-evident.
LikeLike
Sorry, I don’t quite understand your answer.
Do you believe there was revelation, or not?
LikeLike
Also , you’d need to be more thorough on what do you mean specifically by revelation?
LikeLike
No, I don’t. It’s self-evident. Remember, you drew attention 129. Did Yhwh reveal himself?
LikeLike
Yes. It’s fully acceptable within the schools of history to hold that Moses existed and how particular cultures record their history is vastly different from our own, this is what is called historicism, which could cause Discrepancy with modern schools of historic criticism.
Now, on a faith basis, I can acknowledge that and accept that God revealed himself to Moses.
LikeLike
So, you believe there *was* revelation, yet the authors of the story clearly didn’t feel that singularly astonishing event/events was/were dramatic enough, so they invented a fictional story around that/those event/events and tried to pass it off as historical fact.
That’s an interesting position to hold.
LikeLike
I think it was fairly common in ancient cultures to write history in a particularly different way before that advent of modern history with Herodotus.
LikeLike
Right, so you believe an astonishing series of supernatural events where the creator of the universe revealed himself and performed a series of miracles wasn’t *dramatic enough* for the tellers of the story, so they embellished it with a fantastic fiction.
It’s an interesting position.
LikeLike
If we’re pointing to the Catechism, the point of the text, being divinely inspired, wouldn’t necessarily to record a picture perfect account, but rather a record an account that would bear witness to salvation history.
It’s hardly a unique position, I think it’s more or less the same as Bishop Barron’s take on the events although he may differ on the details. He has more of an opportunity to dive into such matters.
LikeLike
wouldn’t necessarily to record a picture perfect account,
Yes, I understood that from your earlier comments. You believe an astonishing series of supernatural events (not least of all the physical manifestation of the creator of the universe) was not considered *dramatic enough* for the tellers of the story, so they embellished it.
LikeLike
I keep trying to explain the intent and purpose of scripture would be God’s: not the writers. But you can keep strawmanning it, that’s fine.
So, it was good to talk to you again and keep me up to date with rehashed objections.
LikeLike
So God didn’t think his physical manifestation and revelation was dramatic enough.
Fair enough.
LikeLike
My position is expressed in these two Vatican documents on Scripture, so if you summarize their position as such, then so be it, nonetheless, I wanted it to be stated clearly what I hold.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission:
“If it is taken in the absolute sense, this term (inerrancy) would suggest that there can be no error of any kind in the Bible. But with the progressive discoveries in the field of history, philosophy, and the natural science, and because of the applications to biblical research of the historical-critical method, exegetes have had to recognize that not everything in the Bible is expressed in accordance with the demands of contemporary sciences, because the biblical writers reflect the limits of their own personal knowledge, in addition to those of their time and culture.
Dei Verbum:
Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writing for the sake of salvation.
Naturally, there is debate among theologians. The one position in regard “for the sake of salvation” holds that God put inherent truth into Scripture for salvation. There is a distinction between what is asserted by the author and what is written. the other position is that God protected from error which truths within scripture, statements that do not concern salvation are not protected by God from error.
LikeLike
Thanks, but I do understand your position. It can be summarised as:
1) It’s historical, except for the parts that aren’t.
2) There was revelation, but just not as dramatic as Yhwh (the editor-in-chief) made it out to be.
3) Which parts are true and which parts are fiction, embellishments, exaggeration, fantasy are unknown, but this can be passed off as a sophisticated and deliberate literary tool virtually every reader is entirely unaware of.
4) “Truth” can be asserted by the apologist as per their need on the day, but shall be determined by their audience’s knowledge of history/archaeology.
LikeLike
You most be the most literal person at the party. “Well…actually…”
I write short stories.
I recently wrote one about fishing. The event did occur, the dialog of the story is fictional to the degree that I wanted to convey a certain message of wisdom that I recall from the event that I learned from the entire relationship with my father—that is true.
The people in the story are historical and the place mentioned in the story.
Also, I did have a certain bobber mentioned in the story, so that’s factual. However, I didn’t use it on that particular day but I meshed it from another fishing story with my dad because of its sentimentality
The intent of the story overall is to illustrate the wisdom of satisfaction of an accomplishment after struggle not to give an exact account of that day.
LikeLike
Exactly: It’s historical, except for the parts that aren’t. Which parts are true and which parts are fantasy are unknown, but this can be passed off as a supposedly deliberate literary tool that is defined nowhere, contains no guidelines for distinguishing truth from fiction, and was only first suspected to exist after apologists in the 19th and 20th Centuries found themselves in dire need to explain away fabulous inaccuracies in a book that claims to be historically true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes,, but it’s all true as I did mention the purpose of the work. To convey wisdom. The intent of scripture is stated in the above Vatican documents “for the sake of salvation:” the guideline
.
If needed more in depth understanding, you can turn to Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine for further guidance on reading scripture, as it appears to be needed here for further discussion. Thanks.
LikeLike
Thanks, but I don’t have much need for sophisticated excuses to explain away faulty and unreliable content.
You do, though, it seems…
LikeLike
Well, talk to you later then.
LikeLike
Sure, when you stumble upon another hopeful hypothesis for proving the Jewish origin tale to be, in fact, historically true… And on that day, should it bear fruit, I’m sure you’ll happily cast aside all of today’s inventive excuses for why the story was never—according to you today—intended to be seen as literal.
LikeLike
Yes, I will, of course, do a reassessment of my conclusions when new evidence or theory is presented. Thanks, again.
LikeLike
Oh, the evidence is in. It came in decades ago. Good luck with the creative excuses, though.
LikeLike
Mostly an argument from silence much like the ‘evidence’ was that both David, Isaiah, Caiphas, and Pilate were fictional until, of course, the materialist were forced to reassess their prior conclusions when evidence turned up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If by ‘silence’ you mean the libraries of evidence confirming a completely different origin story, then sure.
And I see you’re admitting your proffered explanations for all the inaccuracies are, in fact, convenient bunk.
LikeLike
There you are strawmanning again. In regard to the Vatican Documents and Augustine nothing have I said is contrary to any other previous position. But, of course, generalize to fit your own ideology. The only understanding of Canon is their purpose is again, let me explain once more, for the sake of salvation.
So, if we hold something to be literary and it happens there is evidence that certain figures are true and deeds then it doesn’t change the expressed intent of the purpose of Scripture.
LikeLike
Oh, so if the stories are proven to be true you’ll still maintain that those same stories were NEVER meant to be taken literally.
Interesting.
LikeLike
Again, a master of fallacy, another strawman. The intent is always to give the truth of salvation. So, what you mean by truth, did event happen, is entirely different from expression of truth for the intent to convey a method of salvation.
LikeLike
I meant historically true, and you know I meant that. And as you wrote above, if they were proven to be true you’d jettison every explanation you’re presenting today for why the stories were NEVER meant to be taken as literally true. By admitting that, as you have above, you are conceding your proffered explanations (excuses) for all the inaccuracies are, in fact, convenient bunk.
LikeLike
I’m not conceding anything. I’ve always said I would reassess, why wouldn’t anyone who holds the Biblical Commissions statement as true.
To express why it would be convenient bunk, you’d have to unpack a motive for the purpose of knowing facts would onto the commissions statement.
If a scientist holds to a certain law of physics and we find that when particulars are sped up they do not hold to the law, the previous law isn’t bunk but rather merely an explanation with all of the known information at the time of expression.
LikeLike
Don’t get frustrated with me. I’m not the one presenting hastily arranged explanations (excuses) for why the origin tale was NEVER meant to be taken as literal/historical fact, then admitting I’d toss those very same explanations (excuses) away if *actual* evidence were ever found.
My advice: stick to perfecting the excuses. The evidence you want is not coming.
LikeLike
Huh? I’m not frustrated at all. I just merely stating that your rhetorically fallacies won’t fly here. A genuine conversation would unpack rather than generalize and frame a narrative.
For example, you’d also have to show that the purpose of “convenient bunk” of reading scripture is a cause of modern science and historic criticism. Undoubtedly, this is why, there’s little doubt you’d avoid acknowledging Augustine’s thought on reading scripture because your historical and scientific understandings would not be his motivation writing in the 4th and 5th centuries.
LikeLike
Good to hear you’re not frustrated. And also good to know if *actual* evidence for the origin tale were ever found you’d maintain your position that the stories were NEVER meant to be taken literally.
LikeLike
So, that’s your interpretation of Augustine on the topic?
LikeLike
I have no idea. If you’re happy today with Augustine’s excuses then good for you.
LikeLike
I hold that certain facts as defined by the charism of teaching authority of the Church by Grace are important in the narrative: The Fall, Revelation of God, the Incarnation, The Resurrection, etc.
The intent of Divine authorship of Scripture is to move one into the wisdom to cooperate with God’s free gift of grace.
LikeLike
Oh, well that clears everything up.
Carry on.
LikeLike
And I do care; however, as we’ve had this conversation multiple times, I don’t really feel the need to rehash it. As I have explained then that your self-evident position is anything but generalizations.
Take Friedman’s theory. If one were told hold that the Levites made the journey toward a promise land and that it has been meshed with other narratives, the idea that it somehow invalidates revelation is a non sequitur.
And we’ve discussed why before, so I don’t feel the need to go over charged territory again.
LikeLike
OK, so was there revelation, or not?
LikeLike
I’ve seen a video of him speaking at a conference. I do not buy the Levite Hypothesis, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forty years at Kadesh with a population the size of Houston Texas, and not even a pottery shard of evidence. All but a few Jews have relegated the story to myth. No cities of brick, no pharaohs to match the time frame, nothing. Not even a single grave (out of millions) supposedly buried there. It’s a myth, that’s why.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Actually, there is evidence – for example in Midian, which is within the the borders of Saudi Arabia. The government of KSA is beginning to grant access to the region this year and archaeological work is anticipated there in the next few years, which may lead to more work in Jordan too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So can we expect archaeologists to uncover evidence of a once thriving ancient infrastructure including millions of graves etc?
Why do you think no such population mass is recorded in the records of any nearby nations who would have inevitably come into contact with such a large population and quite likely traded with them as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although it would make sense to me that Moses, if he was a real person, would have led the refugees to an area he knew. This would account for “miracles” along the way as well. People go where they know, and what might come as a surprise to the children of Israel was already known by Moses. This would also support Flavius Josephus claim that Sinai was “the highest mountain in Midian” (supposing he actually knew) At this point from what I can discern, only the hopefuls are placing any credence on the idea, but it would make sense to me to take that route. Egyptologist like Davin Rohl has discounted the idea that Sinai was in Arabia, but we shall see. I’m all for finding the fact. If the times and evidence add up to consensus…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not opposed to the idea of miracles – David Hume’s reasoning against miracles is fundamentally flawed.
LikeLike
Right up until their is a realistic explanation. If I may, I would like a believers input on this very short question about some miracles of Moses https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2018/12/08/mountains-devils-and-gods/
LikeLike