The beauty of the Torah is that it can be read and understood on many different levels. Over the centuries, many different approaches to its interpretations. Most of the major commentaries generally have an agenda that they want to cover. Rashi comes to explain the pshat while Ramban comes to attack Rashi, for example. Both the Netziv and Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch try to explain how the wording and arrangement of the text show the intricate connection between the Oral and Written Law.
However one of the real classics is also one of the most important despite its recent fall from grace. The commentary of Rav Joseph Hertz, z"l, is one most people who grew up in non-Chareidi shuls remember. Although in recent years most shuls have moved to replace this old standard with the newer Artscroll Stone Chumash, it is important to remember the contribution towards understanding the Torah Rav Hertz provided us with.
During his time, Rav Hertz noted that British Jewry was faced with two challenges. On the one side were the evangelical Chrisians who were intent on proving that the Torah actually predicted the coming of their so-called saviour. On the other side were the skeptics of the day, the scholars of Biblical Criticism who were intent on proving that the Torah was not the word of God but rather an anthology invented by Jewish leaders centuries after the events contained in it.
It was against these two trends that Rav Hertz wrote his commentary. For those who often wonder why non-Jewish sources seem to be quoted as often as Jewish ones, the preceding paragraph answers that question clearly. Rav Hertz was interested in disproving the opponets of the integrity and Jewishness of the Torah. Using Rashi and Sforno to do so would not be productive in this manner. After all, the major mephorshim were "in on the game" to justify the problems with the text. Rather he emphasized major Chrisian scholars who acknowledged the Jewishness of the text and then-modern historians and archeologists who confirmed that there was much to substantiate the Torah's narrative.
It is in a similar view that Between the Lines of the Bible, the first volume in a putative series, comes to us. As the book's write-up notes:
Over the past few decades, Orthodox Jewish scholars have carefully embraced many of the methodologies of modern Bible study. History, archeology, linguistics and many other disciplines-especially literary analysis-can serve to enhance our understanding of the Book of Books. Traditional students have much to gain by utilizing all of the tools available in studying the Divine word. However, this burgeoning genre of scholarship has been almost entirely in Hebrew.
In this book, Yitzchak Etshalom provides the first English introduction to the methodologies of the New School. In a number of popular essays, Etshalom analyzes the familiar stories of the Bible and demonstrates the powerful tools of modern Torah commentary. In the process, Etshalom undermines many of the arguments of biblical critics and defends the Torah, through literary and historical methodologies, against attacks.
The text starts off slowly enough. There is a long introduction on the need for "modern Orthodox interpretation of the Bible" along with an explanation of what kind of commentary this is going to be. The first few chapters, which focus on the story of Joseph and his brothers, introduces the idea of seeing the story from the characters' point of view instead of the commentator. Interesting but nothing earth-shattering.
However, things definitely pick up after chapter 5 as Rav Etshalom moves on deeper into the text of Bereshis and goes after the well-known difficulties in the text. After several chapters refuting the baseless claims of Biblical Critics, he goes further using scholarship and academic methods to show support of the text of the Torah. By the time he's done, he's done an excellent job not just defending the integrity of the Torah but also providing valuable insights off the beaten path of most existing Torah commentaries.
Overall an enjoyable read and one that will cause you to look differently at Bereishis in the future.
Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!
36 comments:
Hey Garnel, how do you like my blog's new Required Reading section? XD
Actually I haven't noticed it. You've got so many gadgets that I get bored and move on before it all loads.
"and then-modern historians and archeologists who confirmed that there was much to substantiate the Torah's narrative."
Garnel are you seriously arguing that israeli archaeology is not more or less debunking any truth in the Torah?
Often Christian and Jewish websites love cherry-picking certain findings to verify their preconceptions of the torah being true. I would assume someone of your intelligence would be able to see that.
For example while the Bible claims that the army of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, which was besieging Jerusalem, was miraculously annihilated by the angel of the Lord in a single night and that King Hezekiah triumphed over the Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35–37), history and archaeology instead support the Assyrian version of events, that Sennacherib sacked and devastated every city of Judah but Jerusalem, and that Hezekiah paid a huge tribute to the Assyrians just to hang on to Jerusalem and its environs.
the same is true now of most of the other biblical stories.
Ze'ev Herzog. "Following seventy years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel ... this is what archeologists have learned. The patriarch's acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not wander in the desert, and they did not conquer he land in a military campaign. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."
Shalmo, you have already established your credentials as a liar with more bull feces than the local dairy farm.
Assyrian versions of history record a triumphant campaign into Israel, followed by a brief diversion to head off a counterattack by the Egyptians, then a return to Jerusalem and then a mysterious return to Assyria without destroying the city that they came to wipe out for its rebellion.
In other words, the Biblical narrative EXACTLY matches the Assyrian except in the one place that you would expect it NOT to.
I mean, really you do seem that stupid but try to think about it. Do you really think that Sancheriv would have written down "And then the God of the Hebrews wiped out my army and I beat an inglorious retreat"? Please, who is those days wrote down their defeats? After all, our best sources for the destruction of Assyria not long after by Babylon come from - wait for it - Babylonian sources!
I have no use for chiloni archeologists who only look at specific parts of theirs finds, the ones that agree with their pre-determined conclusions that we're all a bunch of Khazars, something you doubtlessly also believe.
Go back to school and learn something before shooting your mouth off Shalmo.
What exactly are archeologists expecting to find?
> this is what archeologists have learned. The patriarch's acts are legendary,
Well yes, they were all shepherds. They build no castles, conquered no kingdoms, kept pretty much to themselves except for interactions with local kings who have also disappeared from history.
>the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt
Actually that's now been thoroughly disproven. None so blind as them what will not see, eh?
> or make an exodus,
And where would records for that be kept? In Egypt? Look at what Garnel said. Losers don't keep records. You cannot except to find a recounting of the ten plagues and the exodus in Egyptian records. Besides, that there's any trace of our ancestors in Egypt is a miracle. The first thing they did after they left was erase all traces to avoid remembering their humiliating defeat.
> they did not wander in the desert,
That's right. God knew exactly where they were going. But again, what were you hoping to find? It was a transient tent based encampment. What traces could they possibly have left behind?
> and they did not conquer he land in a military campaign.
Again, that's been disproven. One decade there's no mention or trace of them in Canaan. Next decade, bang! Traces everywhere along with ruins of previously settled Canaanite cities. No, there's not "Yehoshua was here!" graffitti but if that's the standard of proof these archeologists require, then they're setting the bar higher than the accepted standard.
Garnel your holy books say Hezekiah won, the assyrian sources show he did not win at all and paid his enemies a tribute because of it.
Hard to imagine if the angel of the Lord really did intervene
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Sennacherib.aspx
Dr Mike:
"Well yes, they were all shepherds. They build no castles, conquered no kingdoms, kept pretty much to themselves except for interactions with local kings who have also disappeared from history."
Stories of the visits they made to "the land of the Philistines" and their meetings with Philistine kings also seem to be the work of later authors.
"Actually that's now been thoroughly disproven. None so blind as them what will not see, eh?"
no there is no evidence for JEws in egypt pre-Sinai
"And where would records for that be kept? In Egypt? Look at what Garnel said. Losers don't keep records. You cannot except to find a recounting of the ten plagues and the exodus in Egyptian records. Besides, that there's any trace of our ancestors in Egypt is a miracle. The first thing they did after they left was erase all traces to avoid remembering their humiliating defeat."
the Egyptians, other civilizations flourished in the Near East of that time: the Babylonians, the Hittites, and towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE the Assyrians. Each left plenty of historical documents, and from them we can reconstruct a clear historical picture of what happened in the Middle East in the 2nd millennium BCE. Moreover, events which were significant for the whole region were mentioned and described in documents of different civilizations, and this gives us a brilliant opportunity to cross-check information, to crystallize the facts, and to separate fiction from the facts of the ancient Near East. Modern archeological studies add to the picture, and thus we obtain quite a detailed and reliable chronology of the Near East in the 2nd millennium BCE. Yet no where are Josephus' great reforms in egypt ever mentioned....Babylon, at that time a highly developed civilization where literature flourished, left many historical sources, but none of them mentions a massive pilgrimage of Babylonians to Egypt to buy food and a total dependence of the Babylonian population on Egyptian food supplies. Texts from the great Hittite empire of Asia Minor reveal nothing of this kind about the Hittite people. Are we therefore to understand the Biblical phrase "in all lands," as legend?
you believe in a magical growth from 70 to 12,500,000, 125,000,000 and 1,250,000,000 persons correspondingly. historical and archeological research tells us that the whole population of Egypt was only 2-3 million people towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. So, when the Israelites left, according to the Torah, Egypt would have been devastated. Yet this devastation did not happen in fact. Moreover, no large population decrease occurred in ancient Egypt from the 4th millennium to the 4th century BCE. How, in light of the above, am I to understand the Rabbinic notion of the Exodus?
Moreover, were the Egyptian army indeed crushed, the not-so-peaceful neighbors of Egypt -- the Babylonians and the Hittites -- would have immediately invaded the powerless empire. At the end of the 14th-beginning of the 13th centuries BCE Egypt and the Hittite empire were at a state of constant war; the ten plagues and the Exodus would have quickly led to a Hittite invasion and conquest of the ruined Egypt, especially since according to the Torah the Egyptian army wasn't able to recover for at least 40 years (see Deuteronomy 11:4 and Nachmanides's commentary on it). But no such invasion ever happened, and after almost four decades of indecisive war a peace treaty and a mutual defense pact were signed between Egypt and the Hittite empire
"That's right. God knew exactly where they were going. But again, what were you hoping to find? It was a transient tent based encampment. What traces could they possibly have left behind?"
metallurgy and biological sciences should show evidence of such a great human population in the soil strata.
"Again, that's been disproven. One decade there's no mention or trace of them in Canaan. Next decade, bang! Traces everywhere along with ruins of previously settled Canaanite cities. No, there's not "Yehoshua was here!" graffitti but if that's the standard of proof these archeologists require, then they're setting the bar higher than the accepted standard."
YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG> There is zero evidence of Joshua's conquest. zero. zip. nada.
According to the Scripture, the number of the Israelites invading the land of Canaan was about 2.5 million, and it is simply impossible for such a vast population to have survived in that area at that time. In fact, even the earlier archeologists estimated the Israelite population immediately after the supposed time of the conquest as much smaller: W. F. Albright thought it to be about 250,000, and M. Avi-Yonah approximated it to be 1,000,000 . However, the further excavations and research progressed, the more skeptical archeologists became about the magnitude of the Israelite population at the time of the supposed conquest. Israel Finkelstein speaks of about 20,000 sedentary Israelites living in Canaan in the 12th century BCE, while towards the end of the 11th century BCE their number increased to about 50,000
Dr. Mike read with an open mind:
Prof Ze'ev Herzog of Tel-Aviv University wrote about archeological research into the period of the alleged Israelite conquest of Canaan:
"The most serious difficulties were discovered in the attempts to locate archeological evidence for the Scriptural stories about the conquest of the land by the Israelites. Repeated excavations conducted by different teams in Jericho and the Ai -- the two cities whose conquests were told in the greatest detail in the book of Joshua -- greatly disappointed. Despite attempts by excavators, it became clear that at the end of the 13th century, the end of the late Bronze period, in the age agreed upon as the time of the conquest, there were no cities at either tell and certainly not walls which could be brought down... As excavated sites multiplied... it became clear that the settlements were destroyed or abandoned at differing times, the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the Scriptural story about the conquest of the Land of Israel by the Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua was strengthened.
The Canaanite Cities: The Scripture magnifies the strength and the fortifications of the Canaanite cities that were conquered by the Israelites: 'great cities with walls sky-high' (Deuteronomy 9:1). In reality, all the sites uncovered remains of unfortified settlements, which in most cases consisted of only a few structures or the ruler's palace rather than a genuine city. The urban culture of the Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age disintegrated in a process that lasted hundreds of years and did not stem from military conquest. Moreover, the Scriptural account is inconsistent with geopolitical reality in the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE. The Egyptians' administrative centers were located in Gaza, Jaffa and Beit She'an. Egyptian findings have also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the Jordan River. This striking presence is not mentioned in the Scriptural account... The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the Scriptural picture: the Canaanite cities were not 'great,' were not fortified, and did not have 'walls sky-high.'"
Shalmo, as I have a life I will be brief:
For every archeologist you can quote, I can find one who disproves your conclusions.
There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts other histories of them except by providing details that those histories lack because they fail to mention God's appearance in history for self-serving purposes.
Finally, if you're so besotted with these revisionists, may I also conclude that you put faith in Mahmood Abbas' doctoral thesis that there was no Holocaust and David Irving's conclusions that the crematoria at Auschwitz could not possibly have killed the number of people we claim them did?
Holocaust denial, Sinai denial, it's all the same pathetic thing to me.
"For every archeologist you can quote, I can find one who disproves your conclusions."
Sorry, Garnel, but that was really pathetic. You may be able to find archaeologists who disagree with those conclusions, but you have offered precisely no evidence to "disprove" those conclusions. Claiming you "have a life" is hardly an excuse for failing to rebut a reasoned challenge.
Finally, your Holocaust denial=Sinai denial theme is so outrageously offensive as to boggle the mind. Sinai, by the very explanation of those who believe it, was a miracle-- it was outside the laws of nature, and contrary to the experience of anyone who lives or has lived. Even if one does believe in the experience of Sinai one cannot simply claim that it is the equivalent of any other historical event. The holocaust, which was mass murder on an enormous scale, was, tragically, not unique in history. It was documented, photographed, witnessed and experienced by various people, from perpetrators, to victims, to deliverers, to detached observers. It was, sadly, not a miracle by any stretch of the imagination, and wholly within the boundaries of human experience.
For you to resort to this argument which, were it not so offensive, would be laughable, is tantamount to an admission of the glaring weakness of your argument. And, beyond that, it says something-- something not too positive-- about your character. You owe Shalmo an apology for that.
>You owe Shalmo an apology for that.
He owes every human who doesn't feign belief in his Revealed Word of whatnot an apology.
Now OTD, you know you're supposed to take your meds before blogging.
David, no can do. For me Sinai is a historical fact, miraculous as it was. The Holocaust is a historical fact, as tragic as it was. Denying either is either done out of ignorance or maliciousness.
As for apologies, considering he likes to spread around the blogosphere that I am a "Judeonazi", I think the old Russian parable (Star Trek VI): "If boot fits, wear it!" is applicable here.
"David, no can do. For me Sinai is a historical fact, miraculous as it was. The Holocaust is a historical fact, as tragic as it was. Denying either is either done out of ignorance or maliciousness."
Garnel, "for me" is not the same as "for everyone," and disagreement with you on a point on which there is absolutely nothing approaching consensus is not tantamount to ignorance or malice, especially on a point that you never bother to defend except with ad hominem nonsense or silly sophistries that assume their own conclusions.
"Holocaust denial" is an evil thing to do, and has connotations that we all understand without the need for further discussion. Disagreement as to the historical events (or lack thereof) on Sinai is not evil, regardless of who is right or wrong, and you know it.
Fact check time once again
Just check here http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/02/black-pharaohs/robert-draper-text
or here
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/2085.xml&style
So the bible says angel of G-D and history, archaeological or written by historians of the time say plague or Nubian king was arriving just in the nick of time. Either way it was pretty miraculous. Also, the bible admits that the Assyrians destroyed much of Judah before Sancheriv retreated. So how was the biblical narrative incorrect in this instance?
Okay David, let's look at actual facts instead of Shalmo's selective lying and conjecture masquerading as such.
According to the Torah, the exodus from Egypt took place in 2448, or 1312 BCE. We took 40 years to get to Canaan, 1272 BCE. Considering most real archeologists (outside of self-hating chilonim) date the entrance of the Israelite into Canaan based on archeological finds to be around 1270-1260 BCE, that's not bad.
Now, archeologists rely on a few things to decide what happened in the past.
1) Destruction - most ancient conquerors took the time to wipe out their victims and burn their towns to the ground. Therefore, if at a given level only burned remains are found and the date for that level can be ascertained, then the archeologists can say that roughly around a certain time the town was destroyed.
2) Proclamations like stellae that detail the victor's version of events. Of course, this assumes the victor was telling the truth.
3) Contemporary accounts, preferably of neutral witnesses who records the events.
4) Stable ground conditions so that the past can be properly preserved.
Now, when it comes to Yehoshua and our ancestors entering Israel, none of these factors apply universally or at all.
1) If you actualy take the time to read Sefer Yehoshua, you will see that our ancestors, during their entrance to Canaan, burned a total of 3 - count 'em: 3 - cities - Lachish, Hazor and Ai. They also wiped your Jericho. Other than that, the text details raids, attacks on opposing armies and other such but no mass destructions. What's more, the text says that most of the tribes, unable to dislodge their Canaanite neighbours, just moved in alongside them. Now, interestingly enough there is evidence that Lachish and Hazor were destroyed by fire around 1260 or so, just the time you'd expect from the Biblical account. Ai hasn't been located yet. Jericho is close enough to the Jordan River that natural erosions wipes out anything older than a few centuries. Add to that the account of its rebuilding in Kings I and there can be no traces of the Israelite victory there. Not because it didn't happen but because the environment wouldn't have preserved it.
2)Neither the early Israelites, nor the Canaanites, made stellae. They left no durable records of victories.
3)As for external sources, the Assyrians hadn't discovered the Levant, the Babylonians were still a minor power to the east of them and the Egyptians do mention Israel in 1210 BCE during a foray into the land. Yes, Canaan was an Egyptian protectorate at this time but they clearly did not regard the Israelite entrace to Canaan, especially due to our ancestors' lack of success against the locals, as important. Hence no records.
4)See above on Jericho.
So in conclusion, what evidence had definitively surfaced either confirms or at the least does not contradict the Biblical account. Many areas have not yet been excavated because modern Arab villages exist on those sites so one can't dig there.
The non-religious archeologists, using their underlying assumption that the Bible is entirely fiction, say Absence of proof is absence of proof. But that's just their opinion, not definitive fact.
As for Holocaust denial and Sinai denial, I think revising history is a terrible thing to do, no matter what the event. Yes we have a stronger emotional sense of revulsion to Holocaust denial because it was recent and we are all related to someone who suffered in that tragedy, but the Arab denial of the existence of our Temples and the atheist denial of the Sinai revelation are the same attempts at revising history to fit a pre-determined agenda - the destruction of the Jewish people.
Garnel,
Your argument is ridiculous. First, you claim that all true archaeologists agree with you. The ones who don't are dismissed as "self-hating chilonim" (note, their ideas are not disputed, only their personal merits). There you go again-- you offer no support for your ideas, merely a reference to the authority of those who support your views, coupled with an ad hominem attack on those who don't.
As for the rest of it, sorry, but modern archaeology does not support the Biblical account of the conquest of Israel as given in the Bible-- there are many different views on the subject, and you can't just dismiss a large percentage of those views by abusing the people who hold them. Not if you wish to be taken seriously, anyhow.
Apart from that, there is nothing whatsoever in the archaeological record to show that 3,000,000 people soujourned for a generation in the Sinai. And, even if there were, it would not prove that there was some kind of revelation, so your whole argument is irrelevant. Further, there is no contemporary record of such a thing at all-- not even the Torah, which is written in a script which significantly postdates the time of the alleged exodus, and which has not been shown to exist at any time even close to the exodus. Indeed, the oldest fragments of Exodus date only to the mid-3d century BCE, and are not complete. Using mid-3d century evidence to decipher events that, supposedly, occurred a thousand years earlier may be plausible, but it is hardly grounds for certainty, and cannot be accepted as absolute proof, especially in the absence of more contemporaneous data.
Moreover, and this is key, you have admitted elsewhere that there is nothing that could change your mind on this subject. Aside from proving yourself untrustworthy on the issue, you demonstrate here that you are not reaching your conclusions about the Torah based on evidence. Thus, when you trash other people for not sharing your views, you do so not because of their ignorance, but rather because of your own, and because of their unwillingness to share it without question.
Finally, your piece de resistance: "As for Holocaust denial and Sinai denial, I think revising history is a terrible thing to do, no matter what the event."
History, Garnel, is what is written down. If what is written down is inaccurate, then revising history is far from a terrible thing to do-- it's the right thing to do. The old French Chanson de Roland states that Charlemagne was a few centuries old at Roncesvalles-- any reason I should believe that? It's a very old text, and is far closer to Charlemagne's age than the most ancient fragment of the Torah is to the events which it purports to describe.
The whole purpose of archaeology and the study of history is to improve our knowledge-- not to mindlessly reinforce what we've been told.
You didn't reason your way into a belief about Judaism, so you can't be reasoned out of it. If that works for you, fine, but at least have the decency to recognize that your decision to be a man of faith is not something that everyone is driven to share, nor does it give you the right (like your fellow physician, Ayman al-Zawahiri) to deride those who fail to share your faith as unworthy or wicked.
> modern archaeology does not support the Biblical account of the conquest of Israel as given in the Bible-- there are many different views on the subject
I believe I explained why modern archeology would not have much to find in terms of the conquest of Israel. I did emphasize that modern archeology hasn't come up with anything positive to disprove the Bible. The best it can do is say there is no evidence supporting the Biblical text. In the absence of contradictions, I don't see why I should doubt the Bible.
Further, everybody in every field of science picks and chooses. No, it's not right but look around. Global warming? Pick the scientists and data that "prove" it's happening and dismiss those who don't agree as non-reputable. Or vice versa. Archeology? Same thing. Pick those digs that reveal or don't reveeal what matches your agenda. You don't think there's bias? You don't think archeologists likely go into a dig with a pre-ordained conclusion and then only look at what supports it? Don't be naive, of course they do.
> there is nothing whatsoever in the archaeological record to show that 3,000,000 people soujourned for a generation in the Sinai
Of course not. Tent dwellers don't leave traces. Well known principle.
> You didn't reason your way into a belief about Judaism
Actually I did.
You know what's really interesting? All this post originally was about was a book review. I liked the book. I recommend it to folks who have similar opinions to me. That's all. And then the attacks came. "Hey! You don't seriously believe that stuff?!" As if I don't have a right to? As if the subject has been definitively dealt with?
Isn't that the interesting part? That the same people railing against the tyranny of religion shout and scream when I express my opinion without even directing at them?
"In the absence of contradictions, I don't see why I should doubt the Bible."
First, this is not a case of "the absence of contradictions;" it's a case of your ignoring the contrary evidence (or denigrating people who point it out). Second, the burden is on one asserting the truth of something, so the question is why you should not doubt the Bible (or any other assertion of miraculous occurrences for which no evidence exists). Again, Garnel, believe it if you like-- I'm not trying to talk you out of it. I'm just trying to point out that it's obnoxious to call people evil for not sharing your faith.
"Further, everybody in every field of science picks and chooses. No, it's not right but look around."
Let's say that you're right (indeed, I am not disputing this). All the more reason that your decision to equate skepticism with regard to some of the outlandish claims in the Torah with Holocaust denial is so completely outrageous. If "it's not right," then what gives you the right to put on airs and claim that everyone who doesn't pick and choose the way you do is some kind of moral degenerate?
"Tent dwellers don't leave traces. Well known principle."
No, it's not a well-known principle. It's not even true. They leave lots of traces, and 3,000,000 people eating, butchering animals, burning things, burying their dead and taking the occasional dump will leave tens of thousands of pounds of materials behind them.
"You know what's really interesting? All this post originally was about was a book review. ... That's all. And then the attacks came."
Fine, defend yourself, or ignore them. But, if you'll scroll up a bit, you'll notice that you had no attacks or even comments on this post from me until you launched into one of your silly ad hominem attacks on everyone who fails to acknowledge that your beliefs are not subject to question.
Dav,di there is no contrary evidence. All the opponents of the Bible can say is that there is no positive evidence corroborating the Bible's account. Can you cite even one example where the existing archeological record definitively contradicts the Biblical account of Yehoshua's invasion?
> 3,000,000 people eating, butchering animals
According to the Torah, other than sacrifices, they rarely ate meat. They had the man.
>, burning things,
Again, other than sacrifices, not much burning. Besides, I doubt a bunch of campfires in exposed desert areas would leave traces over 3000 years later.
> burying their dead
And the entire Sinai has been dug up? You know for a fact there are no bodies there?
> and taking the occasional dump
Oh please, you think that if someone takes a dump in the Sinai that the little nuggets will be detectable 3500 years from now? Come on, even you couldn't fall for that.
I'm not complaining about your comments, by the way. I realize why you jumped in when you did.
Garnel,
Your response now suggests that the manna is one reason for the absence of archaeological evidence. Fair enough, but that's a problem, too, since it posits another supernatural explanation on top of the previous one. You're asking me to take a great deal on faith here.
As to the poop, you are quite wrong. Coprolite analysis is a significant source of evidence, and, where 3,000,000 people lived, should be available (especially if, as the rabbis taught, the Jews were delicate about their needs and used facilities outside the camp).
I will agree with you (again) on the picking and choosing issue-- for me, one of the challenges of reading about biblical archaeology (or, as you note, climate change) is that people on both sides of the issue often bring a great deal of bias to their work, and I lack the expertise to sort through it all. However, as a practical matter, a good scientist should bring a great deal of skepticism to an evaluation of any claim of the supernatural, when a non-supernatural explanation is available.
Since you have more or less yielded the point about everyone on both sides picking and choosing, I think that you are more or less also yielding the point that one can honestly feel skepticism or doubt with regard to what did or did not happen at Sinai. The complete absence of contemporaneous evidence is quite a challenge (even if, as you suggest, there is no absolute refutation).
Now, once again, based on what I have read and seen, I am generally persuaded that there is no reason to believe that the Sinai revelation took place as described. I used to believe it (and even used to feel distress that other Jews I cared about did not seem to "get" it), but gradually came to believe otherwise based on reading and experience.
You disagree; well and good, but I'm not calling you evil for disagreeing.
If, however, we take your premise, and assume that I am being wicked for denying the Sinai revelation, then, logically, we must conclude that I deny it falsely (there is no wickedness in being honestly mistaken)-- which is to say that, in denying it, I really know it to be true.
If this is the case (and given that I keep kosher and observe Shabbos anyhow), what possible earthly gain do I have by denying this revelation? I certainly don't harm you by doing so-- indeed, if I deny the revelation on Sinai while knowing it to be true, I am working incalculable harm to myself. What would be my incentive to do that?
Bottom line: there's no odds in denying the Sinai revelation. I gain nothing by doing so, and (if I'm wrong) I might lose a great deal. So, your only choices for labeling me are: 1) ignorant; 2) insane/self-destructive; or 3) of a different opinion, even if it's a mistake. What have you got to lose by engaging in a little dan l'chaf z'chus and assuming #3?
> Fair enough, but that's a problem, too, since it posits another supernatural explanation on top of the previous one
Bingo! That's ultimately the difference between the believers and the disbelievers. Disbelievers remove God and all His miracles from the story and then say that the stories in the Bible couldn't possibly have happened. And they're right from their point of view. Seas do not split. Water does not spontaneously turn to blood. Stones do not fall from the sky to crush your enemies at convenient times during battle. And so on.
But for the believer, that doesn't matter. God intervened in history so the impossible did indeed occur. Do I ask you to take it on faith? Absolutely. Being Jewish is about having faith. Faith that there was a Matan Torah and that there will be a Moshiach. These aren't options, rather they're part of being Jewish.
And no, I don't think you're evil. And you're clearly not insane (or the pills are working well, but either way...) I do think, however, that you're living with some cognitive dissonance. If you don't believe in Sinai, fine but then why do you keep kosher and Shabbos? After all, the root authority of the Torah and halacha is based on God presenting it to us at Sinai. Is the Torah really was written by humans, then what authority does it have over us? None, so why inconvenience yourself?
> I am working incalculable harm to myself. What would be my incentive to do that?
That's not the question. The question is: why aren't you paying attention to the spiritual side of everything instead of just focusing on the rational?
Garnel:
Now we're getting somewhere!
"I do think, however, that you're living with some cognitive dissonance."
An understatement.
"If you don't believe in Sinai, fine but then why do you keep kosher and Shabbos?"
Two reasons:
1) [cue Fiddler on the Roof music] Tradition!
2) Wife and kids. I got married during the phase of my life when I was much more in tune with all this; my mind changed, but that's not fair to my wife (whose mind has not yet changed), so I muddle on, sometimes grudgingly.
"After all, the root authority of the Torah and halacha is based on God presenting it to us at Sinai. Is the Torah really was written by humans, then what authority does it have over us? None, so why inconvenience yourself?"
Good point, and hard to answer. Still, [cue that music again] we do have a tradition, and even a nice community. Some of these things do help provide a tangible link to a history and culture that (even without believing what I consider to be the folkloric parts) has a good deal to recommend it.
"The question is: why aren't you paying attention to the spiritual side of everything instead of just focusing on the rational?"
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's the question. But, surely, you'll remember the story about the fish who couldn't live without waterm because that's who and what he was. I'm a rationalist; I could fake being something else, but I think I would be faking (you could argue here that I'm doing just that by keeping kosher). OK, it's wierd, but it's not on the same moral level as holocaust denial. Which was, in fairness, my main point. If you admit (as you do) that this is about faith and spirituality, then you should recognize that it's not really fair to criticize a person for lacking those things. I've never been a very spiritual person-- even when I was more religious.
> we do have a tradition, and even a nice community
Side note: have you seen "The Big Lewboski"? If you have, you'll know what I mean.
> I'm a rationalist; I could fake being something else, but I think I would be faking
I've written about this before. The folks in Mea Shearim who still believe lice come from sweat and that the sun revolves around the Earth because the Midrash says so somewhere are wrong because Judaism expects a certain amount of rationality. The extreme rationalists, on the other hand, are wrong because Judaism asks you to take some things on faith without absolute tangible proof.
However, there are good authorities in both groups.
If you haven't read Rav Nosson Sliffkin's stuff, for example, you might be pleasantly surprised by his rational approach.
> but it's not on the same moral level as holocaust denial
So think of it this way: Let's say God is out there, did appear at Mt Sinai and gave us the Torah. Could one not see denying this as an incorrect moral choice?
And I'm also not a very spiritual person. I love the intellectual and practical aspects of halachic Judaism. When the ooga-booga stuff comes up, I generally exit the room. So you're not a "lose case" because of your rational nature.
At any rate, you can't force yourself to be something you're not. On the other hand, look at the archeology example. Both the pro and con side can present convincing cases to defend their point of view. What makes me pick the pro-God position and reject the con position? My personal bias. What makes Shalom do the opposite? A metabolic mental disorder. Also his bias.
Given that, why not investigate the other side's info? I could recommend a couple of books, one of them a decent text on Biblical archeology and the other the book that this post was about. Read them both with an open mind and see if the rational side of you can put aside your current conclusions.
If you want, e mail me at garnelironheart@yahoo.com and I'll send you the Amazon link to the other book.
It's lovely that you've found (what you believe to be) a perfect middle ground. But (like lots of other Jews) you seem to have concluded that everyone to the left of you is a miserable apikoros, and everyone to the right of you is a mindless fanatic. Again, it's a bit much to insist that nobody but you has a moral leg to stand on...
I'm familiar with Slifkin's work (and his excommunication by the mindless fanatics/gedolei Yisroel). He is an interesting character, and I think that what he's trying to do is commendable in many ways.
"Let's say God is out there, did appear at Mt Sinai and gave us the Torah. Could one not see denying this as an incorrect moral choice?"
One could, but not if one pretends to any sense of justice. You've resorted to spiritual arguments, moral arguments, and faith arguments, but, almost by definition, those arguments will not persuade everybody, and it's unfair to slam people for not taking the same leaps of faith that you have taken.
The basic (and fatal) flaw in your original analogy between Holocaust denial and Sinai denial is that the Holocaust is an event which requires no faith to believe (indeed, its inescapable reality has destroyed quite a bit of faith). To acknowledge that it occurred is to offer no political, social, spiritual or moral view at all. Denial of the Holocaust, on the other hand, is essentially a political attack-- it accuses the entire Jewish people and our mysterious allies of some kind of massive fraud perpetrated on humanity. It is a horrible slander, and has even been criminalized in some countries (not, mind you, that I support that sort of thing). To equate someone who, whatever his personal feelings, is unpersuaded of the Sinai revelation with someone who nurses an abiding hatred of the Jewish people is simply an unwarranted and meritless personal attack.
"look at the archeology example. Both the pro and con side can present convincing cases to defend their point of view. What makes me pick the pro-God position and reject the con position? My personal bias."
Yes, both the pro and con sides have arguments. But, in the end, only one is right, and that one will probably have more persuasive arguments than the other. You chose (you admit) because of your bias-- I happen to believe that I've come to where I am (from where you currently are) because of the evidence.
David, I am curious, what is the evidence that has convinced you?
I have been researching the archaeological projects that have ben done in Egypt and surprisingly I have found that many of the documents contain much falsehood. Meaning they say one thing, but the archaeologists prove that the Egyptians were lying. This happened by the vastness of their empire, the reach of their might and whether or not they won battles. Supposedly all of their documents need to be taken in with a grain of salt. Even so, the Archaeological record has many recordings of the Apiru and the Hyksos that are considered semetic people that existed around those times that came from the desert and there are historical records of them leaving Egypt.
From what I have seen, it seems like there is uncertainty of what actually happened. Many scholars disagree about many facts and what actually happened. What I think most of them would agree on is that nothing is certain.
David, this statement tells all we need to know:
> You chose (you admit) because of your bias-- I happen to believe that I've come to where I am (from where you currently are) because of the evidence.
Implying that where I am is NOT because of evidence? I would submit I have just as much evidence as you, and I think mine is probably the better quality. For example, I challenged you to provide an example of how archeology contradicts - not fails to corroborate but flat out contradicts - the Biblical narrative. I'm still waiting. And as E-man correctly notes, you need to be sure you're reading the truth in your sources, not Middle Kingdom propaganda.
Beware the arrogance of certainty. I was where you were and it is not nice to be told that because I made the opposite choice - embracing faith instead of losing it - that I am the one making the mistake? Perhaps you are privy to a higher source of information confirming that you're right?
"Implying that where I am is NOT because of evidence?"
Not implying it; asserting it-- you said as much, and you've also said that no evidence would persuade you to change your beliefs. Accordingly, by your own affirmation, you are not where you are because of evidence.
It's difficult to prove a negative. However, such things as references to Goshen and the Philistines, neither of which were around in the Bronze age, confusion as to the date of the Exodus, failure to name a pharaoh, references to the city of Ramses (the first Ramses post-dated the supposed Exodus) and other confusion of dates and places tend to suggest that the story was written long after the alleged events would have occurred. Moreover, there's no evidence to support the fairly wild claims made in the Bible (wild population growth, confused dates as to the time spent in Egypt, millions of people in the desert, etc.).
Finally, the burden is on the person asserting the truth of something, not on the one questioning it. Insisting that the Torah must be assumed to be (irrefutably) true unless proven otherwise is hardly a reasonable way to proceed with a serious discussion.
Sorry, but the Philistines are dated back to 1190-1180 BCE. They invaded western Israel, tried to attack Egypt and were repulsed, settling in 'Aza instead which fits exactly with Devarim's account of invaders displacing the original Philistines of Avraham Avinu's times, a mention in Judges of Shamgar attacking them and also, interestingly enough, may explain the verse at the beginning of parshas Beshalach as to why God didn't lead our ancestors by way of the Land of the Philistines lest the people get scared "when they see war". The timing is right that an Egyptian army would have been fighting with the new Philistines at that time and avoiding such a war was part of God's plan.
As for Goshen, it's a giant mud plain. Forgot our ancestors, there are minimal records there of anything, period. Lack of evidence is completely consistent with that. Also, Rameses II post-dated the Exodus. Rameses I came before.
And that's just off the top of my head!
sorry I was away. Had an essay to write.
Garnel:
"Can you cite even one example where the existing archeological record definitively contradicts the Biblical account of Yehoshua's invasion?"
Guess I'll copy and paste my post from the prof:
Prof Ze'ev Herzog of Tel-Aviv University wrote about archeological research into the period of the alleged Israelite conquest of Canaan:
"The most serious difficulties were discovered in the attempts to locate archeological evidence for the Scriptural stories about the conquest of the land by the Israelites. Repeated excavations conducted by different teams in Jericho and the Ai -- the two cities whose conquests were told in the greatest detail in the book of Joshua -- greatly disappointed. Despite attempts by excavators, it became clear that at the end of the 13th century, the end of the late Bronze period, in the age agreed upon as the time of the conquest, there were no cities at either tell and certainly not walls which could be brought down... As excavated sites multiplied... it became clear that the settlements were destroyed or abandoned at differing times, the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the Scriptural story about the conquest of the Land of Israel by the Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua was strengthened.
The Canaanite Cities: The Scripture magnifies the strength and the fortifications of the Canaanite cities that were conquered by the Israelites: 'great cities with walls sky-high' (Deuteronomy 9:1). In reality, all the sites uncovered remains of unfortified settlements, which in most cases consisted of only a few structures or the ruler's palace rather than a genuine city. The urban culture of the Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age disintegrated in a process that lasted hundreds of years and did not stem from military conquest. Moreover, the Scriptural account is inconsistent with geopolitical reality in the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE. The Egyptians' administrative centers were located in Gaza, Jaffa and Beit She'an. Egyptian findings have also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the Jordan River. This striking presence is not mentioned in the Scriptural account... The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the Scriptural picture: the Canaanite cities were not 'great,' were not fortified, and did not have 'walls sky-high.'"
There you go Garnel. I very much gave you an example of how existing archaeological records contradicts Torah.
I am sad to see that you ignored much else of what I wrote
Garnel:
"Sorry, but the Philistines are dated back to 1190-1180 BCE"
In Genesis 11:31 we are told that Abraham, his wife, his father, and the rest of his relatives "went out from Ur of the Chaldeans [Ur Kasdim]." According to our tradition, Abraham was born in 1813 BCE and died in 1638 BCE, but the Chaldean tribes reached southern Mesopotamia (where the city of Ur is situated) only about 1000 BCE, and the first historic reference to them appears only in Assyrian documents of the 9th century BCE (Encyclopedia Hebraica, Kasdim, v. 20, p. 1076), and the city of Ur was turned into a major religious center of the Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) kingdom only in the 6th century BCE (Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, p. 313).
So Abraham could not have left "Ur of the Chaldeans," and the account of Genesis 11:31 seems to be an anachronism committed by a writer who mistook the geopolitical situation of his time for that of hundreds of years earlier.
Likewise, in Genesis 21:34 we are told that "Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days," and Genesis 26:1 tells us "Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines to Gerar." The region of Gerar was located, according to the Torah, in the Land of Israel; in the subsequent verses of Genesis 26 God even warns Isaac not to leave the Land. But the Philistines only appeared in the Land of Israel (on its southern coast) in the 12th century BCE (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Philistine).
Should one doubt whether the Philistines of which the Encyclopaedia Britannica speaks are those written about in the Torah, the Scripture itself answers: "Woe to the inhabitants of the sea coast, the nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan, the land of the Philistines" (Zephaniah 2:5). In Hebrew "the nation of the Cherethites" is goy Kretim, the people of Crete, also called Kaftor in the Scriptures (e.g. in Amos 9:7). Only once during the 2nd millennium BCE did people from the Aegean islands invade the eastern and the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean -- in the 13th-12th centuries BCE; in the history books this is called the Sea People invasion. Some of those Sea People were indeed from Crete; they are the Scriptural Philistines (Pelishtim), and the Egyptian sources call them prst or plst (the later is usually vowelized Peleset). By the 13th-12th centuries BCE, according to any possible Scriptural chronology (the Judaic tradition included), both Abraham and Isaac had already been dead for centuries.
Stories of the visits they made to "the land of the Philistines" and their meetings with Philistine kings also seem to be the work of later authors. How, then, can we believe in the Torah's historical accuracy?
Here Shalmo is a perfect website for you http://www.israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type=large_advic&advice_id=195&page_data%5Bid%5D=174&cookie_lang=en&the_session_id=50ac1a7049bcbe47a50e7c2fb45248b9&BLUEWEBSESSIONSID=51516d04fe803b39109a09d40ef3a5d2
It bashes the bible, but says that Herzog is ridiculous of rhis conclusions. If your views were the views of this website, that would be fine. But you are putting all of your eggs in one basket that is... well just read this website and you will see what I mean.
Also, if the destruction of the temple was in fact in the year 587 BCE like most people believe then, according to the biblical account, the exodus must have been around 1450 BCE and not 1300 BCE. If this were true then there would be strong evidence that Jericho was the Jericho conquered by the Israelites since, as the archeologists point out, Jericho was destroyed around 1400 BCE. Furthermore, the Armana tablets, talking about the time around 1400BCE would be describing the Israelites coming and conquering Canaan.
Also, your phillistine argument does not hold water for the following reason. Are the Egyptians today the same Egyptians that were in ancient times? No, they were Arabs that came into the land in the time of the moslem conquest. However, they are still called Egyptians. So the Phillistines of Abraham's time were not the same Phillistines of the time of Joshua, but they were still called Phillistines because they lived in the land of the Phillistines.
Also, your phillistine argument does not hold water for the following reason. Are the Egyptians today the same Egyptians that were in ancient times? No, they were Arabs that came into the land in the time of the moslem conquest. However, they are still called Egyptians. So the Phillistines of Abraham's time were not the same Phillistines of the time of Joshua, but they were still called Phillistines because they lived in the land of the Phillistines."
That's really lame. There were no Philistines, so there was no land of the Philistines. There would be no reason to describe a group of people who predate the Philistines as "Philistines" simply because they lived in a place where, one day, the Philistines were going to show up. You know that's ridiculous, and is nothing more than a very weak post-hoc rationalization of an obvious error. If you can't do better, you'd be better off just admitting you're wrong.
David are you serious???? So the Egyptians of ancient time should not be referred to as Egyptians!! What are you talking about? I call Egyptians nowadays Egyptians because they live in Egypt and I call Egyptians of ancient time Egyptians because they lived in Egypt, even though they are completely different people with different origins. How is that different than calling the phillistines the phillistines because they live in the land of phillistia? It had nothing to do with the phillstines showing up. The original inhabitors were phillistines and the ones that replaced them were called phillsitines. Why is that hard to understand? It is just like the egyptian idea. In ancient days the Egyptians lived in Egypt. Then in Roman times they were replaced and then again in more recent times they were replaced by the moslems. However, all are Egyptians.
Post a Comment