BBS Bible-Merneptah
Intersection
Introduction
What is for the most part an exact
copy of the script follows. There are a
few places where individual speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for
this we apologize. Every effort was made
to be precise: there were just spots that defeated us. Since this is a quote in its entirety it
seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation marks. The notation for each speaker is tedious
enough: Narrator, Reader, etc. If you
discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point them out. You may verify the script more easily by
starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion begins. The second of the above links is free from
advertising and thus easier to use.
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
The Merneptah Stele adds little or
nothing to the intersection. The
biblical provenance paints a complete picture by itself. The Israelites do have a presence in the hill
country, but it is never an absolutely commanding one. As time passes the various Canaanite
coalitions tend to become stronger; while the Israelite forces weaken. The timing of the Philistine uprising prior
to Jephthah is an ideal fit with the date of the Merneptah Stele so we wish
that it were possible to establish intersection. The dates for the return of the Ark fit well
with David’s career. There is no
evidence to suggest that the Israelites are natives: they are decisively
settlers. Those who have sought an intersection
have produced none: yet, here it is, unfolded before your very eyes.
Script
The
Bible-Merneptah Intersection (time 9:10)
N: Scholars search for intersections between
science and Scripture. The earliest is a
victory stele of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah from 1208 BC. Both the stele and the Bible place the people
called the Israelites in the hill country of Canaan, which includes modern day
Israel and Palestine. It is here between
two of history’s greatest Empires that Israel’s story will unfold.
Peter Machinist:[1] The
way to understand Israel’s relationship through the superpowers, Egypt and
Mesopotamia on either side, is to understand its own sense of its fragility as
a people. The primary way in which the
Bible looks at the origins of Israel is as a people coming to settle in the
land of Israel, it’s not indigenous, it’s not a native state.[2]
Commentary
It is not true that “Both the stele
and the Bible place the people called the Israelites in the hill country of
Canaan.” The so-called proofs of the
Merneptah Stele are dubious indeed.
First of all, the Merneptah Stele
does not cite any precise location markers within the hill country. The location markers that are given are for
cities on the sea coast and in the western plain, not in the hill country. An interesting related fact is that the Egyptian
forces were well known charioteers. They
also employed infantry. It is unlikely
that they would have risked their chariot forces in the hills where chariots
are at a disadvantage. It is equally
unlikely that they would have marched an infantry over such a great distance to
deal with what for Egypt must have been a petty irritant at the time. After all the whole remark is limited to two
lines on the Stele: barely an unimportant afterthought, a mere annoyance, a
nuisance, a triviality.
Second of all, the Merneptah Stele
does not cite any certain identification of Israel. The Egyptian word sounds a little bit like
Israel; yet, it took a long time for the experts to even guess at that
possibility. It is a distinct
possibility; but, it is far from a certainty.
We would prefer that it were a certainty: for that would substantiate a
good deal of Israelite history. Alas, no
such substantiation is there.
There is no use trying to squeeze
unwarranted conclusions from evidence that isn’t there. In short the Merneptah Stele neither proves
nor disproves the existence of Israel at all; nor does it establish the
existence of any ethnic group in the hill country: the hill country is simply
not mentioned. Now if any firm
identification of and location for Yano’am[3] can ever be established,
and if confirmation of the uncertain Egyptian word translated Israel[4] were ever found, our
analysis would necessarily change. We
would love to have the Merneptah Stele’s archaeology confirm the presence of Israel in the hill country. With the extant state of knowledge such
confirmation from Merneptah simply does not exist.
The Bible certainly places the
Israelites in the hill country. It is
not true that the Bible presents the Israelites as in control or dominant in that
hill country. So, when Machinist says,
“it’s not a native state,” the point is well taken. We agree, [Israel is] “not a native
state.” That being said, it seems to
contradict the claim that we are able to, “place the people called the
Israelites in the hill country of Canaan.”
If such claims as, “here between two of history’s greatest Empires that
Israel’s story will unfold,” to which great empires do we refer? For Machinist, this obviously means, “Egypt
and Mesopotamia.” Yet, The Bible’s
Buried Secrets never develops an archaeology of Mesopotamia, so this is
a strange claim to make and not follow through on that claim.
Even so, we are even more interested
in Machinist’s remark, “The way to understand Israel’s relationship … is to
understand its own sense of its fragility as a people. Such a fragility seems to be an even more
important theme that was never developed.
Israelite
Fragility.
We have showed in a previous blog
that Joshua left much of the work unfinished at his death at a ripe age of 110.[5] The Israelites maintained some degree of
momentum throughout the next generation after Joshua, but then they seemed to
have fallen apart through inconsistency of leadership.[6]
What where the causes of such
uncertainty of leadership? Yahweh was
their leader and it is impossible that He lacked sufficient power to complete
the conquest of Canaan. The Israelites
simply broke covenant with Yahweh: first, they stopped trusting Him; then, they
stopped obeying Him. Consequently,
Yahweh stopped leading and protecting the Israelites.[7] Without Yahweh’s leadership and protection,
the Israelites were no match for the Canaanites with their iron chariots, their
skills with archery[8], and
backing from Egyptian, Mesopotamian or other world powers.
In spite of such horrendous breaches
of faith, Yahweh continued to show mercy: for whenever His punished children
cried, He stopped the punishment which they had brought upon themselves.[9] So the whole campaign for the conquest of
Canaan lapsed into a downward spiral of repentance and defeat, which would last
for over three centuries.[10]
- Eight years of Mesopotamian domination under Chushanrishathaim.[11]
- Forty years of deliverance under Othniel.[12]
- Eighteen years of Moabite domination under Eglon.[13]
- Eighty years of deliverance under Ehud.[14]
- Shamgar
- Twenty years of Canaanite domination under Jabin.[15]
- Forty years of deliverance under Deborah, Barak, and Jael.[16]
- Forty years of deliverance under Gideon.[18]
- Three years of Abimelech’s insurrection[19]
- Jotham
- Twenty-three years of deliverance under Tola[20]
- Twenty-two years of deliverance under Jair[21]
This appears to
cover a three hundred-one year period.
However, Jephthah in his contention with the Ammonites, claims that this
period is only three hundred years long.[22] This calls the historicity of the period in
question because: 1. the count is off by one year; 2. no space is left for
Joshua or the elders who outlived Joshua.
One solution is to
assume that the account is not historic.
But why would a scribe writing at a later date (say 500), fabricate an
historic record in which he makes an error of simple addition. There is a tendency among those who falsify
records to perfect and correct errors, not to make them.
A second solution
is to assume that the account is not intended to be sequential. All of these reigns are thought to be
regional and overlapping in this view.
This is the usual solution to the problem; it may not be denied that it
is a possibility. This is a period of
great uncertainty: so the last thing we may do is speak with certainty about it.
A third solution is
to assume that the account uses ascension dating in which the final year of the
predecessor is also counted as the ascending year of the successor, so that one
year is counted twice. By reducing each
number by exactly one, we arrive at a different counting method, non-ascension
dating. Both dating methods were in use
over the span of Israel’s history. This
yields a sum of two hundred-ninety years, which allows ten years for the life
of Joshua and the elders who outlived Joshua.
This makes a great
deal of sense. Joshua served as Moses’
chief assistant for forty years. It does
not stand to reason that Moses entrusted such a task to a person many years his
junior.[23] Nor does it stand to reason
that Joshua lived long after Moses died: he is an old man who has just actively
participated in seven or eight violent campaigns.[24] The elders who outlived Joshua were his own
age, his contemporaries: so ten years is more than adequate to account for
these deaths. All of them had endured
the forty years in the wilderness. Many
of them were sixty when they crossed the Jordan. In spite of the longevity of Moses (120), and
Joshua (110), we have no reason to doubt that an age of seventy was quite old.
In any case, we see no real reason
to doubt that the number three hundred is historically accurate, or that the
whole account is accurate. We cannot
prove that the resolution to the problem is found in overlapping reigns or in
correcting for ascension counting methods, or some combination of both. Neither is there any good statistical reason
to doubt the provenance; nor does any evidence exist that would refute such
provenance and its historicity. Three
hundred years sets the date to either 1106 or 1066. This suggests that the exaggerated claim of
Merneptah may have been carried out by Philistine forces, if it fact took place
against Israelites at all. The spiral of
repentance and defeat continues:
- Eighteen years of Philistine and Ammonite domination.[25]
- Six years of deliverance under Jephthah.[26]
- Seven years of deliverance under Ibzan.[27]
- Ten years of deliverance under Elon.[28]
- Eight years of deliverance under Abdon.[29]
- Forty more years of Philistine domination.[30]
The whole sequence of Judges 12
suggests that Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon were successful at defeating the
Ammonite side of the coalition; that this was sufficient to discourage the
Philistines from further advances.
Doubtless the Philistine power ebbed
and flowed; yet, in forty-three years the Philistines had become the dominant
power in western Canaan: they were Egyptian allies. This picture suggests a Philistine domination
of lesser and greater development that lasted for eighty-three years or more
which will not be terminated until the combined energies of Yahweh’s covenant
renewal with David, Samuel’s prayer at Ebenezer, and David’s God-given military
and political prowess come into focus shortly after 1003.
In this turn of events, David makes
important lifelong alliances with the Philistines, winning many of the Philistines
away from Egypt; eventually making some Philistines his bodyguard. We ought not to think of this as due to David’s
charm, singing, or wit; rather, Yahweh’s actions and David’s responding faith
eventually brought many Philistines to see the futility of Dagon, and the
reality of the Shəkinah, the Glory.
Eighty-nine more years have passed;
eighty-three as corrected for the double accounting of ascension dating.[31] This brings us to 1023 or 983 and creates a
potential conflict with the reign of David, who reigned from 1010 to 970.
We are not in position to
resolve this conflict over forty years at this time. However, one possible solution is that the MT
includes the forty years in the wilderness; while the LXX excludes the forty
years in the wilderness. This would
result in firm dates for Jordan, Jephthah, and the Philistines of 1406. 1106,
and 1062-1023 respectively.
- Twenty years without deliverance under Samson.[32]
This dates Samson to sometime within
the Philistine domination without any occurrence of peace during that
period. Nor does the text say that
Samson brought peace.[33] If Sampson engages the Philistines
immediately in 1062, then the thirty-three year period from 1043-1010 is
available for the activities of Eli[34], Saul[35], and Samuel[36]. Both Eli and Saul are also defeated by the
Philistines, and The Ark enters a self-imposed exile at this time.[37]
The problems with dating Eli are: 1.
we don’t have a date for the start of Eli’s judgeship; 2. he is credited with
being a judge and a priest, not a prophet; 3. his centrality of authority
reinforces the idea that other judges were also national, not local leaders; 4,
MT credits Eli with forty years of service, while LXX has only twenty.
- Twenty to forty years without deliverance under Eli.[38]
Several possibilities present
themselves: 1. Samson and Eli are contemporaries which would date Eli from
1062-1023 (MT) or from 1062-1043 (LXX); 2. Samson and Eli are sequential which
would date Eli from 1043-1004 (MT)[39] or from 1043-1024 (LXX);
3. Samson and Eli both have unknown floating dates.
The emphasis not on Eli after his
death; rather emphasis in on the Ark.
When Yahweh departs, He indicates the cessation of leadership under the
Judges. When Yahweh returns a new
institution of government is formed, the government by Kings. Even Samuel is rejected.[40] A new covenant is eventually established with
David.
- Yahweh is absent with His Ark for seven months.[41]
- Yahweh subdues the Philistines in response to Samuel’s prayer.[42]
- Yahweh and His Ark remain in exile for twenty years.[43]
If 1024/1023 dates ever prove to be
credible for the death of Eli, then the Ark is in Philistia in 1023/1022, and
at Kirjath Jearim from 1023/1022 to 1004-1002.
David rules over Judea in 1010 and ascends to the monarchy in 1003,[44] which is a perfect fit. The sequence is:
- David rules over Judea.
- Civil strife continues with Saul’s family and followers.
- David unites the nation.[45]
- David takes Zion.[46]
- David defeats the Philistines.[47]
- David restores the Ark.[48]
- Yahweh renews the Covenant with David.[49]
Conclusion
The Merneptah Stele adds little or
nothing to the intersection. The
biblical provenance paints a complete picture by itself. The Israelites do have a presence in the hill
country, but it is never an absolutely commanding one. As time passes the various Canaanite
coalitions tend to become stronger; while the Israelite forces weaken. The timing of the Philistine uprising prior
to Jephthah is an ideal fit with the date of the Merneptah Stele so we wish
that it were possible to establish intersection. The dates for the return of the Ark fit well
with David’s career. There is no
evidence to suggest that the Israelites are natives: they are decisively
settlers. Those who have sought an intersection
have produced none: yet, here it is, unfolded before your very eyes.
[1]
Peter Machinist, a professor at Harvard Divinity School with no special
qualifications in archaeology. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/who-was-moses-was-he-more-than-an-exodus-hero/
[2]
What will later be contested here is whether or not Israel is an indigenous
people or foreign immigrating settlers.
Machinist develops a mild case for the immigration scenario, but Dever
will mount a much more strongly worded opposition to it. Even though Dever’s position lacks factual
support, his argument is presented with much greater force; and that,
conclusively. Nevertheless, argumentum ex silentio and argumentum ad ignorantiam
prove nothing either for or against any hypothesis. Careful attention to the correct statistical
formation of hypotheses in their null or alternate form readily exposes such
errors. The failure of The Bible’s
Buried Secrets to formulate correctly and carefully worded hypotheses,
exposes a sloppy disrespect for science.
To call this science is insulting.
In this context, credible and noteworthy scientists are quoted in
support of issues in ways with which they may not completely agree.
[3]
What we need here is quite a bit more than Redford says so. We need a dig in the central highlands, or
elsewhere, which has present on its site, the undeniable reference to the name,
Yano’am. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokneam
Janoah, E9 on the map, 2 Kings 15:29,
[4]
What we need here is confirmation from other Egyptian, Israelite, or other
monuments or artifacts that unmistakably show that the Egyptian word on the
Merneptah Stele is commonly used for ethnic or national Israel. Strong lexical meaning cannot be established
on a hapax legomenon: so where else is this term used.
[5]
Joshua 24:29-31; Judges 2:6-9
[6]
Judges 1; 2: 10
[7]
Judges 2:1-3; 11-15
[8] Evidently,
combat level archery skills were not common among the Israelites prior to
David. On the other hand, the
Philistines and Egyptians were renowned archers. 2 Samuel 1:18; Psalm 18:34
[9]
Judges 2:16-23; 6:8-12
[10]
Judges 3:1-8
[11]
Judges 3:8
[12]
Judges 3:11
[13]
Actually a Moabite coalition with Ammonites and Amalekites, Judges 3:11:13-14
[14]
Judges 3:30
[15]
Judges 4:3
[16]
Please do not overlook the lengthy Todah, Judges 5:31
[17]
Actually a Midianite coalition with Amalekites, and the
children of the east (desert people from Jordan to the Euphrates),
Judges 6:1
[18]
Judges 8:28
[19] Abimelech is a nasty piece of work, Judges 9:22.
[20]
Judges 10:2
[21]
Judges 10:3
[22] Judges 11:25
[23]
This proposal makes Joshua junior to Moses by seventeen to twenty years.
[24]
Three in Canaan, two at Ai, One at Jericho, plus the east bank conflicts prior
to crossing Jordan
[25]
Judges 10:7-8
[26]
Judges 12:7
[27]
Judges 12:9
[28]
Judges 12:11
[29]
Judges 12:14
[30]
Judges 13:1
[32]
Judges 15:20; 16:31
[33]
We propose the dates 1062-1043 for Sampson.
[34]
Eli’s age is given, dating material is given without a start. 1 Samuel 4:15, 18
[35]
Saul’s dates are corrupted in MT, possibly deliberately. LXX has no dates. Acts 13:18-21 has ἔτη τεσσεράκοντα, which is neuter nominative or accusative without
any clear reference. It could indicate
that Yahweh gave Saul ben Kish to Israel as an added punishment: after a four
hundred fifty year period of the judges that preceded Samuel, forty years after
a king was first requested, or a forty-year-old king. There is nothing to substantiate the idea
that Saul was in office for forty years: and Acts is not perfectly clear on
that matter. Acts simply says “forty
years” without providing any other reference material.
The other dates in Acts 13:18-21 are equally problematic. They cannot be made to mesh with the Old
Testament numbers. The word about may
solve the riddle: it is possible that Paul does not intend to be precise. On the other hand, Paul may simply be
reciting some standard rabbinic summary, since he is caught in a rabbinic
argument. Without taking into account
the ascension year errors, the numbers do accumulate to 440, or more without
adding to 440 (10 + 301 + 89 +40), which is close to 450. If Paul considered Joshua and the elders who
outlived him to span 20 years, rather than 10 years, the numbers would
accumulate to 450 (20 + 301 + 89 +40).
This could indicate that the standard rabbinical explanation for the
seeming excessive length of Judges was due to overlaps: in which case the
numbers could easily accumulate to 450, without actually adding to that number
in real time. In any case, there is
insufficient evidence here to cast much doubt on the historicity of Judges. If either 14C dating or pottery
dating could produce results within ±
50 years, we might be forced to draw a different conclusion.
1 Samuel 13:1; 15:35
[36] 1
Samuel 7:15; 25:1; 28:3
[37] 1
Samuel 4:17-22; 6:1
[38] 1
Samuel 4:18
[39]
Which interferes with and overlaps the established dates for David, and leaves
no time for the Ark’s self-imposed exile.
[40] 1
Samuel 8:7
[41] 1
Samuel 6:1
[42] 1
Samuel 7:13
[43] 1
Samuel 6:22-7:2
[44] 2
Samuel 2:10-11; 5:5; 1 Kings 2:11; 1 Chronicles 3:4; 29:27
[45] 2
Samuel 5:3; Psalm 78:67-71
[46] 2
Samuel 5:7
[47] 2
Samuel 5:25
[48] 2
Samuel 6
[49] 2
Samuel 7; 23:5; Psalm 89; 132
[50] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment