Does archaeology Prove or Disprove stories in the Old Testament (Tanakh)?

[Somerville]

As the linked article from Haaretz says: "The founding fathers of Israeli archaeology explicitly set out with the Bible in one hand and a pick in the other, seeking findings from the biblical eras, as part of the Zionist project. But as excavations progressed in the 1970s and 1980s, rather than substantiation, what began to pile up was contradictions."

Is the Bible a True Story?

A paucity of evidence

Eighteen years ago, on October 29, 1999, Haaretz published an article by Tel Aviv University's Ze’ev Herzog, whose message was spelled out in the very headline: “The Bible: No evidence on the ground.”

Of what? No evidence that the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt, passed through a miraculously parted Red Sea, wandered the Sinai Desert for 40 years or indeed any years, and no evidence that they conquered the land of Israel and divided it up among 12 tribes of Israel. The renowned archaeologist also shared his suspicion that David and Solomon’s "United Kingdom," described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a minor tribal domain.

"Jehovah, the God of Israel, had a wife and the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only towards the end of the period of the kingdom, not at Mount Sinai,” Herzog also wrote.

The unbridgeable gap Herzog described between the Biblical tales and the archaeological findings was nothing new, to researchers. Israeli archaeologists have long thought as much, based on biblical criticism theories originating in Germany during the early 19th century. The general public, however, was shocked.

Today, 18 years on, armed with cutting-edge dating and molecular technologies, archaeologists increasingly agree with Herzog that generally, the Bible does not reflect historical truths.

 

[OrphanSlug]

We need to be careful with some of these terms, without that context we end up adding to the problem.

All of the parts of the bible written from roughly 2000 years before Christ to roughly 200 years after were not about a recording of history or an acknowledgement of science, no one at the time knew what those things were from a standpoint of how we define history and science today form an academic point of view.

Just about everything from the Bronze Age in terms of writing those things were all about how they looked at belief, meaning the term truth from religion back then has no real association to how we define truth (or fact) from any academia today.

The other thing to keep in mind is the extreme minority back then could read and write in the language spoken, all of it was elitism for lack of a better way to put it and weight given to any writing ended up applied based on someone giving it credit. Local custom, local leaders, or something much larger like Rome deciding hundreds of year later what all was included (with other writing excluded) into what you call the Bible. It took Rome to give Christianity any merit, before that effort all these concepts of monotheism were splintered with plenty writing all sorts of things all based on their belief. Again, no real history or science applied.

It does not really matter that someone published an article claiming the Bible is not a true story, the only qualification for truth from any system of belief is just that... belief.

All other academia looks at truth entirely differently, anyone trying to bridge the gap between systems of belief and systems of science by yet again twisting Bronze Age writings into applying to what science figures out is creating falsehoods based on distortions.

The raw method, even though process, to consider how we go through systems of process is entirely and will always be adversarial to what people believe from any and all religions. That is the true "unbridgeable gap" to mention, the bible had no interest in the very things humanity discovered from science far after the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman Period, the Dark Ages, and on up until we finally decided religion did not have all the answers it claimed it did... including history.

 

[Logicman]

As the linked article from Haaretz says: "The founding fathers of Israeli archaeology explicitly set out with the Bible in one hand and a pick in the other, seeking findings from the biblical eras, as part of the Zionist project. But as excavations progressed in the 1970s and 1980s, rather than substantiation, what began to pile up was contradictions."

That's slanted nonsense. Here's these for starters.

List of artifacts in biblical archaeology - Wikipedia

 

[Somerville]

That's slanted nonsense. Here's these for starters.

List of artifacts in biblical archaeology - Wikipedia

Not much for "starters".

1) The Autobiography of Weni is a tomb inscription Many of his battles were in the Levant and the Sinai. He is said to have pursued a group of Bedouins all the way to Mount Carmel. He battled a Bedouin people known as the sand-dwellers at least five times. No mention of Israelites or Hebrews or Judaeans

2) Sebek-khu Stele is historically important because it records the earliest known Egyptian military campaign in Canaan. Notable because it mentions capture of the city/town of Shechem. No mention of Israelites or Hebrews or Judaeans

3) The Statue of Idrimi is an important ancient Middle Eastern sculpture . . . Dating from the 16th century BC, the statue is famous for its long biographical inscription of King Idrimi written in the Akkadian language. . . The inscription includes the "first certain cuneiform reference" to Canaan. No mention of Israelites, or Hebrews or Judaeans.

4) The Merneptah Stele, dated 1212-103 BCE - The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the Libyans and their allies, but the last 3 of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. The stele is sometimes referred to as the "Israel Stela" because a majority of scholars translate a set of hieroglyphs in line 27 as "Israel".

According to The Oxford History of the biblical World, this "foreign people" "sign is typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic groups or peoples, without a fixed city-state home, thus implying a seminomadic or rural status for 'Israel' at that time." The phrase "wasted, bare of seed" is formulaic, and often used of defeated nations – it implies that the grain-store of the nation in question has been destroyed, which would result in a famine the following year, incapacitating them as a military threat to Egypt.

The problem for those who believe the Bible provides accurate history in the tale of the Exodus lies in the description on the Stele of "Israel" as a semi-nomadic group at time a couple hundred years after the supposed exodus of Jews from Egypt. A time when we may read of an organised kingdom that worships Yahweh.

 

[Rumpelstil]

"Jehovah, the God of Israel, had a wife and the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only towards the end of the period of the kingdom, not at Mount Sinai,” Herzog also wrote.

Cannot somebody inform those JW about this fact?

 

[Logicman]

Not much for "starters".

1) The Autobiography of Weni is a tomb inscription Many of his battles were in the Levant and the Sinai. He is said to have pursued a group of Bedouins all the way to Mount Carmel. He battled a Bedouin people known as the sand-dwellers at least five times. No mention of Israelites or Hebrews or Judaeans

2) Sebek-khu Stele is historically important because it records the earliest known Egyptian military campaign in Canaan. Notable because it mentions capture of the city/town of Shechem. No mention of Israelites or Hebrews or Judaeans

3) The Statue of Idrimi is an important ancient Middle Eastern sculpture . . . Dating from the 16th century BC, the statue is famous for its long biographical inscription of King Idrimi written in the Akkadian language. . . The inscription includes the "first certain cuneiform reference" to Canaan. No mention of Israelites, or Hebrews or Judaeans.

4) The Merneptah Stele, dated 1212-103 BCE - The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the Libyans and their allies, but the last 3 of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. The stele is sometimes referred to as the "Israel Stela" because a majority of scholars translate a set of hieroglyphs in line 27 as "Israel".

According to The Oxford History of the biblical World, this "foreign people" "sign is typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic groups or peoples, without a fixed city-state home, thus implying a seminomadic or rural status for 'Israel' at that time." The phrase "wasted, bare of seed" is formulaic, and often used of defeated nations – it implies that the grain-store of the nation in question has been destroyed, which would result in a famine the following year, incapacitating them as a military threat to Egypt.

The problem for those who believe the Bible provides accurate history in the tale of the Exodus lies in the description on the Stele of "Israel" as a semi-nomadic group at time a couple hundred years after the supposed exodus of Jews from Egypt. A time when we may read of an organised kingdom that worships Yahweh.

Here's some evidence for the Exodus for you:

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

"The exit from Egypt by the Hyksos probably included the Israelites as well. The story of the Exodus is most likely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, for there is no other record of any mass exit from Egypt (Robertson 1990, 36; Halpern 1994, 89-96; Redford 1897, 150). The evidence seems to fit well with Josephus' account. Although the Egyptians saw the expulsion of the Hyksos as a great military victory, the Israelites viewed this as a great salvation victory for them. This seems similar to other events recorded in ancient history where both sides claim a great victory. Ramses II battled with the Hittites and almost lost his life, yet he calls this a great victory, but so do the Hittites. In reality it was a stalemate, so they both signed a treaty (ANET 1969, 201; Soggin 1993, 213) Ahab is seen as a powerful king (ANET 1969, 279). Sennacherib claims a great victory over the Jews by taking 46 cities and surrounding Jerusalem. Hezekiah is said to be "like a bird in a cage" (ANET 1969, 288), yet he claims a great victory because Jerusalem is not captured. In the Mesha or Moabite stone (ANET 1969, 320) the king of Moab, Mesha claims a great victory over Israel, yet Israel claims a great victory over Moab (II kings 3:4-27). So it seems that what the Egyptians saw as a great victory over the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Israelites saw as a great exodus victory of salvation."

 

[soylentgreen]

Here's some evidence for the Exodus for you:

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

"The exit from Egypt by the Hyksos probably included the Israelites as well. The story of the Exodus is most likely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, for there is no other record of any mass exit from Egypt (Robertson 1990, 36; Halpern 1994, 89-96; Redford 1897, 150). The evidence seems to fit well with Josephus' account. Although the Egyptians saw the expulsion of the Hyksos as a great military victory, the Israelites viewed this as a great salvation victory for them. This seems similar to other events recorded in ancient history where both sides claim a great victory. Ramses II battled with the Hittites and almost lost his life, yet he calls this a great victory, but so do the Hittites. In reality it was a stalemate, so they both signed a treaty (ANET 1969, 201; Soggin 1993, 213) Ahab is seen as a powerful king (ANET 1969, 279). Sennacherib claims a great victory over the Jews by taking 46 cities and surrounding Jerusalem. Hezekiah is said to be "like a bird in a cage" (ANET 1969, 288), yet he claims a great victory because Jerusalem is not captured. In the Mesha or Moabite stone (ANET 1969, 320) the king of Moab, Mesha claims a great victory over Israel, yet Israel claims a great victory over Moab (II kings 3:4-27). So it seems that what the Egyptians saw as a great victory over the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Israelites saw as a great exodus victory of salvation."

Completely dishonest of you again. This has nothing to do with the fairy tale story written in the bible of moses and exodus as described in the bible.

No one disputes the fact that there was an exodus of slaves from egypt . But there is no evidence or reason to believe that a fictional account given in the bible has anything to do with reality.

Once again you fail to distinguish reality from a badly written book of fiction.

 

[Logicman]

Completely dishonest of you again. This has nothing to do with the fairy tale story written in the bible of moses and exodus as described in the bible.

No one disputes the fact that there was an exodus of slaves from egypt . But there is no evidence or reason to believe that a fictional account given in the bible has anything to do with reality.

Once again you fail to distinguish reality from a badly written book of fiction.

Go tell your nonsense to your pet carp. Maybe he'll believe your follies.

 

[soylentgreen]

Go tell your nonsense to your pet carp. Maybe he'll believe your follies.

You fail to distinguish between a fantasy story and reality. And that is what the bible is a book of fantasy.

 

[Logicman]

You fail to distinguish between a fantasy story and reality. And that is what the bible is a book of fantasy.

The fantasy is yours.

 

[soylentgreen]

The fantasy is yours.

Yet you can offer us nothing in the way of evidence for fictional character called moses. Nor any evidence of millions of jews wandering a desert for forty years. Nothing that shows the fantasy story written in the bible is in fact history.

No, the fantasy is all yours.

 

[Somerville]

Here's some evidence for the Exodus for you:

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

"The exit from Egypt by the Hyksos probably included the Israelites as well. The story of the Exodus is most likely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, for there is no other record of any mass exit from Egypt (Robertson 1990, 36; Halpern 1994, 89-96; Redford 1897, 150). The evidence seems to fit well with Josephus' account. Although the Egyptians saw the expulsion of the Hyksos as a great military victory, the Israelites viewed this as a great salvation victory for them. This seems similar to other events recorded in ancient history where both sides claim a great victory. Ramses II battled with the Hittites and almost lost his life, yet he calls this a great victory, but so do the Hittites. In reality it was a stalemate, so they both signed a treaty (ANET 1969, 201; Soggin 1993, 213) Ahab is seen as a powerful king (ANET 1969, 279). Sennacherib claims a great victory over the Jews by taking 46 cities and surrounding Jerusalem. Hezekiah is said to be "like a bird in a cage" (ANET 1969, 288), yet he claims a great victory because Jerusalem is not captured. In the Mesha or Moabite stone (ANET 1969, 320) the king of Moab, Mesha claims a great victory over Israel, yet Israel claims a great victory over Moab (II kings 3:4-27). So it seems that what the Egyptians saw as a great victory over the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Israelites saw as a great exodus victory of salvation."

I have bolded some words in your quote, words which show the rational that the 'evidence' is rather weak.

Then there are the problems with a lack of archaeological evidence for any large group, much less a gang of THREE MILLION, trekking around in the Sinai for 40 years.

According to Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel (circa 1st century CE, author of an Aramaic translation of the Five Books of Moses), there were 3 million Jews in total who witnessed the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. (see Targum Yonasan – Exodus 12:37) It is probable that a comparable number of Jews left Egypt.

By the way, the Talmud says that 80 percent of the Jews never even left Egypt. They were so steeped in Egyptian culture that they were unwilling to join the Exodus.

15 MILLION Jews stayed in Egypt? Might be just a bit off on the numbers as Egyptologists guesstimate the entire population of Egypt at the time of the supposed Exodus was between 2 and 4 million. "a very rough estimate of approximately 200,000-250,000 slaves in Egypt during the New Kingdom can be made."

Then there is the problem of dating the Exodus: What century did it take place? Who was the pharaoh at that time?

What has emerged from these sometimes conflicting perspectives applied to the historical question of dating the exodus are two dates for the exodus that really represent more periods of time than exact dates. The early date is usually placed in the middle 15th century around 1440 BC, while the late date is usually assigned to the close of the 13th century around 1290 BC. The early date relies most heavily on two specific biblical passages understood literally, while the late date relies on a more general view of the nature of Scripture combined with archaeological evidence. Both views depend heavily on assumptions concerning both the nature of Scripture and the methods of study used, as well as rational deduction based on those assumptions.

Archaeological digs at the tel (Tel es-Sultan) which has been identified as the site for Jericho have shown that there was no city at the time generally accepted by Bible believers. There were ruins but no city, so in academic circles the commonly accepted view says the writer of the Book of Joshua probably used the ruins and local myths to create the tale. Then there is debate over the date of composition of the book, with most academic scholars agreeing on a post-Exilic date (6th century BCE) while fundamentalist believers claim the book was written by a contemporary of Joshus.

 

[Logicman]

I have bolded some words in your quote, words which show the rational that the 'evidence' is rather weak.

Then there are the problems with a lack of archaeological evidence for any large group, much less a gang of THREE MILLION, trekking around in the Sinai for 40 years.
15 MILLION Jews stayed in Egypt? Might be just a bit off on the numbers as Egyptologists guesstimate the entire population of Egypt at the time of the supposed Exodus was between 2 and 4 million. "a very rough estimate of approximately 200,000-250,000 slaves in Egypt during the New Kingdom can be made."

Then there is the problem of dating the Exodus: What century did it take place? Who was the pharaoh at that time?

Archaeological digs at the tel (Tel es-Sultan) which has been identified as the site for Jericho have shown that there was no city at the time generally accepted by Bible believers. There were ruins but no city, so in academic circles the commonly accepted view says the writer of the Book of Joshua probably used the ruins and local myths to create the tale. Then there is debate over the date of composition of the book, with most academic scholars agreeing on a post-Exilic date (6th century BCE) while fundamentalist believers claim the book was written by a contemporary of Joshus.

Believe what you want.

 

[Logicman]

Yet you can offer us nothing in the way of evidence for fictional character called moses. Nor any evidence of millions of jews wandering a desert for forty years. Nothing that shows the fantasy story written in the bible is in fact history.

No, the fantasy is all yours.

You claim Moses is fictional. Prove it. You made the claim, you back it up, with evidence.

 

[JustHanging]

That's slanted nonsense. Here's these for starters.

List of artifacts in biblical archaeology - Wikipedia

Why do you never bother to read your own links? None of that confirms Jesus-God or Yahweh-God. It just confirms that people believed in gods.

By that standard, Ra is real, and carries the sun across the sky every day.

 

[JustHanging]

You claim Moses is fictional. Prove it. You made the claim, you back it up, with evidence.

Good point. That's like someone claiming Harry Potter is fictional. No way they can prove he doesn't exist in real life. Same with any storybook character like Moses, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Does archaeology Prove or Disprove stories in the Old Testament (Tanakh)?

Yes and No

 

[calamity]

As the linked article from Haaretz says: "The founding fathers of Israeli archaeology explicitly set out with the Bible in one hand and a pick in the other, seeking findings from the biblical eras, as part of the Zionist project. But as excavations progressed in the 1970s and 1980s, rather than substantiation, what began to pile up was contradictions."

"Disprove" is probably a misnomer. Fact is many claims made in the Bible lack supporting evidence, including the biggie about Exodus, something that should have been easy to prove.

 

[soylentgreen]

You claim Moses is fictional. Prove it. You made the claim, you back it up, with evidence.

How laughable. i do not have to prove it. It is your fantasy not mine therefor it is up to you to prove it.

But how you are going to prove that 3 million jews walked a small part of a desert for forty years without leaving a trace of their passage will be quite amusing to watch.

 

[calamity]

You claim Moses is fictional. Prove it. You made the claim, you back it up, with evidence.

Prove Harry Potter is fictional. He popped up out of a stupid book just like that Moses dude.

 

[Logicman]

Why do you never bother to read your own links? None of that confirms Jesus-God or Yahweh-God. It just confirms that people believed in gods.

By that standard, Ra is real, and carries the sun across the sky every day.

Then believe in Ra and see how that works out for you, LOL.

 

[Logicman]

How laughable. i do not have to prove it.

You don't get a free pass around here, to slap your anti-biblical rants against the wall and declare them factual. So you have no proof Moses is a fairy tale, yet you believe it.

OH YE OF GREAT FAITH, LOL!

 

[Logicman]

Why do you never bother to read your own links? None of that confirms Jesus-God or Yahweh-God. It just confirms that people believed in gods.

By that standard, Ra is real, and carries the sun across the sky every day.

<chuckle>

How about you provide some empirical evidence for these figures from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

If you can't, then you have no objective basis for evaluating historical individuals from antiquity.

 

[calamity]

<chuckle>

How about you provide some empirical evidence for these figures from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

If you can't, then you have no objective basis for evaluating historical individuals from antiquity.

Historians have been parsing the data on those men, separating myth from fact, for centuries. Some even study the Jesus man. They’ve found some interesting facts about him as well. But, nothing yet has been found to support the myth that he is a god.

 

[Somerville]

<chuckle>

How about you provide some empirical evidence for these figures from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

If you can't, then you have no objective basis for evaluating historical individuals from antiquity.

What do you consider to be "empirical evidence"? I don't think you quite understand that it doesn't support your claims about the truth of the Biblical stories

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. We - the rational amongst us - have loads of 'empirical evidence' about three of the five persons you have named, specifically Archimedes, Hippocrates and Confucius.

I believe you are actually looking for physical or historical evidence. "Sources only become historical evidence, however, when they are interpreted by the historian to make sense of the past. The answers they provide will very much depend on the sorts of questions historians are asking."

Interpretation of the sources - of the evidence - is obviously the basis for the differing opinions between those who see the Bible as the Word of God and those who view it as an ancient document which has been 'interpreted' in many different ways and many different languages. Every translation from the oldest texts available, those in Greek, Latin and Syriac will vary according to the new language, its connotations, context and comprehension of the words before the reader..

Have fun going thru the multiple pages found when searching Bible Version Comparison Chart and that's just the English language versions.

Back to your demand for "empirical evidence" for five historical figures.

1) Hippocrates – Famous for his philosophical and science work, today it is acknowledged that even if he did exist, much of what is attributed to him probably came from others working at the same time or within a few years of his death.

Though Plato (a contemporary) makes reference to Hippocrates (Phaedrus*270a and elsewhere), it is generally believed that most of the writings in the*Corpus Hippocraticum*are actually the work of a number of different writers. By convention of time, place and general approach a common name of ‘Hippocrates’ was assigned to the lot (without distinguishing those of the historical Hippocrates). Hippocrates | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy SO, Hippocrates may or may not have been a real person; however, it is the work accredited to him that was a hugh influence on science and medicine thru the centuries from his supposed time. About the same relationship between Moses and the work accredited to him - neither instance is a proof of historicity.

2) Attila the Hun (406–453 CE) is best known because of a Roman named Priscus, who visited Attila and wrote about his visit in one of the 8 history books he composed

. . . only fragments survive. The fragment presented here details a visit in 448 by Priscus himself to the court of Attila and offers a picture of the Huns that differs markedly from other sources; it is therefore valuable for a number of different reasons. Fragment 8 (in the numeration of Müller,*Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV) is a long fragment, only partly translated by Bury. A complete translation and Greek text of Priscus, including this and other fragments, by R. Blockley is available in his*The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. II,

[continued in following post]