How historically accurate is the Bible?

Faith & Science Conversation
82

I originally thought I would have to challenge this idea that the Song of Deborah is that old. Freedman’s outlines some of his key assumptions, and the Songs of Deborah and of Miriam provide some of the basic ones. He points out that his own professors were the first ones to assert that these two sons are of the oldest antiquity in the Old Testament (in 1948!):

“One of the great contributions to critical scholarship was made jointly by my teacher Frank Cross (z”l) and my senior colleague David Noel Freedman (z”l). In 1948, they established on several different grounds that certain songs were of very high antiquity. These included the Song of Miriam in this parasha and the Song of Deborah in Judges 5. Freedman called them the two oldest texts in the Tanakh.”

I’m willing to think that Freedman’s scenario doesn’t change that much even if these songs are not genuinely old. But why would I even challenge their age? I can’t comment on the Song of Miriam, but this is Freedman’s sentence on the Song of Deborah:

“The Song of Deborah, meanwhile, lists all ten tribes of Israel (Judah and Simeon were a separate community at this time and not part of Israel) but doesn’t mention Levi.”

Jdg 5:13 +

[Half-Tribe EPHRAIM, BENJAMIN, ?MACHIR? (supposedly SIMEON, but clearly Half-Tribe Manessah),
ZEBULUN] = 2 tribes + 2 Half Tribes
… Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.

[ISSACHAR, REUBEN] = 2 tribes
And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart…

[GILEAD (aka ?GAD?), DAN, ASHER] = 3 tribes
Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.

[NAPHTALI (Zebulon is already mentioned with Machir!)] = 1 tribes
Zebulun and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field.

2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 9 tribes

.
.
.
It is interesting to see, perhaps, the very birth of the half-tribe concept! Not because the Song of Deborah refers to any tribe as a half tribe - - but because the Song of Deborah seems to be treating the future half-tribes as full Tribes !

1-Ephraim
2-Machir (the original name for the Manessah territory
3-Benjamin
4-Zebulon
5-Issachar
6-Reuben
7-Gilead (the original name for the Gad territory)
8-Dan
9-Asher

And even if we treat the revealed list of tribal areas, it produces NINE (90 tribes, not even 10.

Tribes not mentioned:
**Levi, Judah and Simeon. **

**It is of more than minor interest that these are the 3 tribes that become entrenched in the **
Kingdom of Judah, with the exception of Benjamin. The “much reduced Benjamin” may well
be the people that latter day scribes would “fuse” with the Jebusites! For both Jebusites and
Benjaminites are noted for their minority presence in the city of Jerusalem!

Various writers have various elaborate schemes for the “perception” of the missing tribes.
But it seems quite likely that any “Hebrew tweaking” that is genuinely present simply reinforces
the fact that the Priests were not happy with what they found. And if there was no tweaking at
all, then the Priests were simply going to pass over these irregularities in silence!

in the more mature part of the O.T. corpus, we encounter the more conventional
naming of the 10 tribes + 2 tribes = 12, and it is still a mess!

Judah & Simeon, plus Levi - - they join with
Benjamin (the region around Jerusalem)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 Tribes + 1 tribe of Levi

1 tribe now called Joseph (a single giant tribe formed from a merger of 2 alleged
half tribes - - because otherwise there would be an embarrassment (!)
of riches in the full tribal count!)

plus the 7 other tribes of the Northern Kingdom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Zebulon
Issachar
Reuben
Gad
Dan
Asher, and last (and probably least)
Naphtali

What to make of this?.. I just can’t say!

At the very least, Simeon clearly cannot be the 10th tribe of the Northern Kingdom;
it is at the extreme southern end of the both kingdoms!

Jdg 1:3: “The men of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, “Join with us to fight
against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your
territory.” So the men of Simeon went with Judah.”

**[^^ So, Judah’s relatives are the tribe of Simeon? Wow, I had completely **
**forgotten that the founders Simeon and Judah were brothers! **
^^ Another teaching moment for the readers? ]

Judges 1:3 seems to make it inevitable that Simeon becomes co-opted as a division within
Judah! And Benjamin also cannot be the 10th tribe of the Northern Kingdom, because the
Scribes never even imply this! It is the tribe to which Jerusalem has been assigned.

But according to Judges 1, Jerusalem was indeed captured early:

Jdg 1:8: “The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing
all its people and setting the city on fire.” [ < But did they kill all its people? ]

[[ Then forgotten about and then re-conquered by David? Nawww ]]

So, even without the aberration of Levi, there are 3 tribes in the south, and 9 tribes
in the North. AH-HA! NINE TRIBES!

The same count that a plain reading of the song of Deborah produces!
1-Ephraim
2-Machir (the original name for the Manessah territory
3-Benjamin
4-Zebulon
5-Issachar
6-Reuben
7-Gilead (the original name for the Gad territory)
8-Dan
9-Asher

But by the time of the timeline of the Books of Samuel, things are so out-of-sync, throwing
Levi (not mentioned in the Song of Deborah, but made into a unforgettable tribe in the latter
naming scheme! Great naming scheme … terrible counting scheme !!!

4 tribes in Judah

and

8 tribes in the Northern Kingdom, despite the few texts that try to assert 10 tribes
for Israel!: [ SEVEN (7) VERSES ]

Gen 42:3: “So Joseph’s ten older brothers went down to Egypt to buy grain.”

Jos 22:14: In this delegation were ten leaders of Israel, one from each of the ten tribes, and each the head of his family within the clans of Israel.

2Sam 19:43: “But there are ten tribes in Israel,” the others replied. [[< A “teaching moment” for the readers?]]

2Sa 15:16: “So the king and all his household set out at once. He left no one behind except ten of his concubines [one from each] to look after the palace.”

2Sa 20:3: “When David came to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to look after the palace and placed them in seclusion. Their needs were provided for, but he no longer slept with them. So each of them lived like a widow until she died.”

1Ki 11:31: "Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten of these pieces [of cloth torn from the garment], for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten of the tribes to you!

1Ki 11:35: “But I will take the kingdom away from his son and give ten of the tribes to you…”

83

This is the question in my mind. Given that there’s no direct evidence of a smaller Exodus, is the evidence Friedman presents any less consistent with the Levites being some kind of priestly remnant of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan? I don’t see anything that would contradict that interpretation, and I’m not finding it difficult to imagine possible scenarios for it. The admonitions to treat foreigners well might even fit it better.

84

The irony, @John_Dalton, is that back in 1908, in an issue of THE EXPOSITOR (p. 193), Rev. B.D. Eerdmans, DD, wrote a chapter called THE HEBREWS IN EGYPT.

GOOGLE BOOKS LINK: B.D. Eerdmans, DD, “Hebrews in Egypt”, THE EXPOSITOR (1908), p. 193.

And in it, he describes a small Exodus, at exactly the time I said would be the soonest that such a one could occur! It concerns the notorious personality of IRSU (Chancellor Bay [or Bey] is no longer believed to be the same man, having been put to death years before Irsu’s demise.

I’ll put together an abstract of the details, but in the meantime, let me provide a relatively recent (1979) translation from the Harris Papyrus, which is many times referenced, but most often discredited in its possible connection to the events that appear to have inspired Exodus:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1906 Translation by James Henry Breasted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Modern understanding of the events occurring at the time is heavily dependent on the translation of Papyrus Harris I, a task which has proven difficult. In his 1906 translation of the document James Henry Breasted writes

“Hear ye that I may inform you of my benefactions which I did while I was king of the people. The land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was (thrown out) of his right; they had no chief mouth for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbor, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years, Yarsu, a certain Syrian was with them as chief. He set the whole land tributary before him together; he united his companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the temples…”

This translation leaves open the possibility that Irsu acted in Egypt proper and consequently Chancellor Bay was considered a plausible candidate for this Irsu until 2000. However, an IFAO Ostracon no. 1864 found at Deir el-Medina and dated Siptah’s fifth regnal year records that “Pharaoh, life health prosperity, has killed the great enemy, Bay”.[2] Because chancellor Bay died years before Irsu, he is no longer considered a plausible candidate for this historical figure.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IMPROVED 1979 TRANSLATION BY Hans Goedicke
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In 1979 the Egyptologist Hans Goedicke produced a second translation based on a detailed grammatical analysis of the document:

“The land belonging to Egypt was abandoned abroad and every man in his loyalty, he did not have a chief-spokesman [i.e. a pharaoh] for many years first until the times of others when the land belonging to Egypt was among chiefs and city-rulers — one was killed [the pharaoh], his replacement was a dignitary of wretches [a second pharaoh]. Another of the family happened after him in the empty years [a third pharaoh], when Su [aka Irsu], a Kharu with them, acted as chief and he made the entire land serviceable to him alone. He joined his dependant in seizing their property, when the gods were treated just like men, as one did not perform offerings inside the temples.”

Goedicke suggests that Irsu rose to power in Egypt’s territories abroad, in Canaan, following years of neglect on behalf of the last three pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, Seti II, Siptah and Twosret. According to this translation of the document, the earliest of these pharaohs, Seti II, is responsible for not asserting his power and control over the region; the second was held in low regard; while the last, Twosret, is said to have made an alliance with Irsu who had de facto authority over the territories.

Footnote: Hans Goedicke, “Irsu the Khasu in Papyrus Harris”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 71 (1979), pp. 1-17

o Erichsen, Wolja. 1933. Papyrus Harris I: hieroglyphische Transkription. Bibliotheca aegyptiaca 5. Brussel: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth

o Grandet, Pierre. 1994. Le papyrus Harris I (BM 9999). 2 vols. Bibliothèque d’Étude 109/1–2. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire

o Grandet, Pierre. 1999. Le papyrus Harris I: Glossaire. Bibliothèque d’Étude 129. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1 Like
85

<<The fact of the Philistine entrenchment on the coast by 1130 BCE is not an Enlightenment Era finding. It is based on the most recent archaeological findings.

Digs at Beth Shean reveal that it was a major Egyptian administrative center (for collecting tribute, taxes and food products), and that once the last Egyptian fortress on the coast (north of the Philistines) had been destroyed, any Egyptians trapped behind in Canaan would be in serious trouble!>>

David took Jerusalem in about 1000 AD, no? The Hill Country is where they invaded.

86

@HmanTheChicken

So you are good with about 150 yrs or less relapsing between Moses and David?

87

I’m undecided on the 13th century v 15th century Exodus.

88

Neither date range is possible if the Exodus party avoided the Philistine road… because the Philistines didn’t entrench on the coast until around 1130 BCE!

1 Like
89

There were other sea peoples. Philistine was used to refer to non-Canaanite gentiles often.

1 Like
90

Let us suppose that is true… this would increase the odds that any settlement of sea people would be so-labeled. And yet, even with the most latitude allowed, the Egyptian garrisons and administrative centers do not succumb until around 1130 BCE.

In an earlier generation, when Merenptah is destroying opposition in Canaan… Canaan would be the last place to which Semiye refugees would flee.

But the Harris Papyrus does register the existence of such refugees… during the time of IRSU, a semite chancellor, who fled the father of Ramesses III… who within just a few years of his own ascent to the throne, Ramesses III defeated the sea people in the sea and in Lebanon!

There is one place refugees such as these might go for a warm welcome: the Philistine encampments on the coast themselves!

91

Have you read A Biblical History of Israel or On the Reliability of the Old Testament?

1 Like
92

I have been reading Friedman’s book. I find some (though not all) of his evidence for an Egyptian origin for the Levites convincing.

  1. The earliest account of the Exodus, in the song of Miriam mentions are priestly location for the 'am being led out of Egypt, which fits best with the Levites.
  2. Only Levites ever have Egyptian names.
  3. The Tabernacle (only ever mentioned in Levite sources) resembles Egyptian battle tents.
  4. Levite authors ascribe special significance to ritual cirumcision, which is of Egyptian origin.
  5. The Levite sources had a particularly good knowledge of Egyptian customs and Traditions in the Book of Exodus, which the Jahwist author lacked.
  6. The Levite sources had a special concern for the welfare of slaves, which the Yahwist source lacks.

All this converges well, and presents strong biblical evidence for an origin of the Levites as Egyptian slaves.

He makes an error when he claims that no one else in the ANE believed in treating aliens with respect.

1 Like
93

The context of the exodus of wilderness does not match with Sinai which was under egyptian control at that time. Fleeing to coastal philistine does not work because philistines are attested after 1200 bce onky. Moreover god has asked them to avoid the land of philistines.

94

We must set the priority of evidence. First is geograpgy that is relatively definitive over a 3500 year period. Second is archaeology that provides positive evidence but is not definitive because more may be found. Third come etymology that is bublical names being found. Only 4th we have textual parallels. Here too we must look for the main plot. So let us not blow up farthest textual and ignore the three higher.

95

If Allah and Yahweh are not the same, you may want to check with Yahweh to make sure that you’re not disrespecting Him.

1 Like
96

Considering its stories cover four thousand years but only correlate with 700 at best, 15% is being generous.

1 Like
98

I did. He said these were his two among many names. I say this with humility.

99

What caused Philistines be so dangerous? How come Hebrews weren’t seafarers like the Philistines were? Would sailing to Yisrael be easier then traveling on land?

100

This is a challenge for me to communicate. Are you upset with me? During that time I questioned 613 laws that were associated with YHWH? I’d been reflecting a lot after that situation.

As this is an Exodus topic. As when did 613 laws come about., because during the traveling to Yisrael it seems 10 laws., where did these other laws happen, before the 10 or after?

I have a long ways to learn, including my own behavior., one of the reasons I feel I can connect with Moses, because Moses lost it and killed then fled., yet God chosen Moses while Moses was afraid to speak., meaning Moses was real raw very emotional reaction, and in an uncommon situation due to being adopted by daughter of Pharaoh., so placed in two cultures and it emotionally caused Moses to kill., that’s a strong reaction of rage.

So my question to you, how upset are you with me?
And then my next question is, notice how I reacted emotionally, but look how we’re studying Moses who also many times reacted emotionally, yet God used a man who reacts emotionally., isn’t that interesting?

101

Absolutely not! If I have ever been annoyed by something you wrote, I cannot remember it now; so, I cannot even say that.

102

And what has any of this got to do with Jesus of Nazareth?