Invalid Comments on Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) in Lundahl (2022r)
Kevin R. Henke
September 28, 2022
In Henke (2022aj), I made the following comments:
“Philosophy and history cannot and should not be separated into two different debates as Lundahl (2022i) mistakenly believes. They must be part of the same debate. This is why Mr. Lundahl is having so many problems in this debate trying to justify the existence of the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 and many other topics. He doesn’t have the good scientific or historical evidence to support his claims. Furthermore, as explained in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022bh), and my other essays, Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience rule” is a dogmatic and worthless proclamation based on demonstrably false assumptions. People lie all the time and there is often a large “first known audience” that gullibly believes the lies. As I’ve stated before, the archeological results in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) demonstrate that the ancient Israelite “first known audience” was wrong about the events in the Old Testament book of Exodus.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022r) then replies to my bolded statements:
“Archaeology by itself doesn't tell a story, and therefore only indirectly refutes or remotely confirms a story. Finkelstein and Silberman demonstrate no such thing, neither on the case of Exodus nor on the principle, because it is fairly easy to debunk their work from 2001 in categories like:
· misinterpreting Biblical chronology
· misinterpreting carbon dates prior to Trojan War
· misinterpreting the relation between what is seen and what is told as a contradiction, where there is no such thing.
So, first known audience of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts certainly took it as a work of non-fiction in the mainly historical genre, and in that sense it is history, but the problem is, it is history where grave misunderstandings from people who weren't there cannot even remotely be discounted.”
Notice that Lundahl (2022r) provides no details, references or evidence to back up his accusations against Finkelstein and Silberman (2001). Why should anyone trust Biblical “chronology”, when Mr. Lundahl and other young-Earth creationists (e.g., Sarfati 2015) can’t even agree on what it is (Henke 2022do)? As I further mentioned in Henke (2022fb), radiocarbon dates calibrated with tree rings and varves are acceptable (e.g., Dellinger et al. 2004), but not any radiocarbon dates that have been “adjusted” to comply with likely fairy tales in the Bible as Lundahl (2022o) promotes.
Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, pp. 240-243, 264-265) and other archeologists have demonstrated that polytheism was the norm in ancient Judah. They didn’t start out as monotheists and then backslide into polytheism as the Bible claims. So, we don’t know what the ancient Israelites would have thought of the Exodus and other stories in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, as further discussed in Henke (2022gc), Henke (2022ek), Henke (2022es), and my other essays, Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience” scheme is a worthless indicator of what is history and what is myth.
Now, I admitted in Henke (2022b):
“In my earlier emails, Henke (2022a) and this essay, I argue that the history of Alexander the Great is far more reliable than Genesis 3, that contemporary archeology is needed to confirm the validity of ancient written histories, and that ancient historical accounts and contemporary archeology must work together to cautiously provide reliable history.” [my emphasis]
In contrast, Mr. Lundahl repeatedly ignores the importance of archeology and the reason for this misbehavior is clear as I stated in Henke (2022fh). Mr. Lundahl knows very well that there’s not a shred of archeological evidence to back up his Bible stories about Adam, Abraham, and Moses. Thus, he tries to eliminate the importance of archeology in all historical investigations. Yet, Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) demonstrate that archeological data provide a wealth of information on the activities and origins of the ancient Israelites. They don’t just tell stories, they provide real history. I further stated in Henke (2022dn):
“Traditions, ‘collective memories’, and ‘earliest known audiences’ are not reliable evidence of history. They may be nothing more than centuries of a lot of people believing in made-up stories and misinterpretations. Archeologists Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) discuss the archeological results on the origin of the nation of Israel and demonstrate that there’s no evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that the ‘collective memory’ of the Israelites in Genesis, Exodus and elsewhere in the Old Testament is largely wrong. In particular, they noted that considerable progress in deciphering the historical origins of Israel only began once archeologists stopped taking the claims in the book of Joshua at face value (p. 105). Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, p. 118) concluded that Israel did not result from a massive Exodus from Egypt and the violent conquest of the Canaanites as indicated in Exodus, Joshua and other Old Testament books. The massive Exodus from Egypt never happened. Instead, Israel emerged from within the Canaanites. Mr. Lundahl needs to realize that just because a story is old and widely believed, this is no reason to label it as ‘history.’”
While many archeologists, Jews and Christians have traditionally dated the exodus in the 13th century BC, Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, p. 56) expected the supposed event to have occurred roughly in 1440 BC, not far from the date of 1510 BC listed in Lundahl (2022r). However, Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, pp. 56-71), recognize that there are serious problems with dating the Exodus around 1440 BC or anywhere near 1510 BC as Lundahl (2022r) would demand. Reinfort (2019) summaries a just a few of the many problems with the Exodus that are mentioned in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, pp. 56-71) (cited with permission):
“Exodus 1:11 mentions that the Israelites were involved in forced-labor projects at Rameses or Pi-Rameses (House of Rameses in Egyptian), which was built in the 13th century BC as an eastern delta capital for Rameses II and was named after him (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 59). Previously, Rameses I came to the throne in 1320 BC (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 56). As a result, most scholars have concluded that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 is not literal. If the Exodus occurred, it must have happened in the 13th century BC, perhaps under Rameses II (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 57). [Creationist] Down (2011, p. 56) disagrees with this conclusion and thinks that the town of Rameses simply means “Door of Two Roads.” If Down (2011, p. 56) is correct, then the town and Rameses II sharing the same name must have been a coincidence. Down (2001, p. 56) argues that Rameses II cannot be the Pharaoh of the Exodus because his body is in a Cairo Museum and not at the bottom of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:5-28). He argues that Khasekemre-Neferhotep I was the pharaoh during the Exodus. While secular scholars date the reign of Khasekemre-Neferhotep I in the 18th century BC, Down (2001) thinks that the Egyptian chronologies are wrong and that he ruled during the Exodus date of 1446 BC.”
Of course, Down (2001) is making the serious mistake of assuming that Exodus 14 actually happened and that the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea. Reinfort (2019) later continues:
”Exodus 12:37 mentions that 600,000 Israelite men left Egypt. When women and children are counted, the Israelite population would have easily exceeded one million during the Exodus. The Sinai is slightly smaller (60,000 km2) than the U.S. state of West Virginia (62,755 km2). That is, a single line of only 250,000 people with one person per meter would easily stretch across the Sinai from Suez, Egypt to the Gaza Strip. The annuals of the Egyptian conqueror Thutmose III states that he was able to march his troops 250 km across the Sinai in only 10 days (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 60). As few as one million Israelites wandering over 40 years in the Sinai should have left a lot of archeological evidence. Yet, not a scrap of evidence was found during the reign of Ramesses II or his immediate predecessors or successors (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, pp. 62-63). However, evidence of pastoral activity was found in the Sinai during the 3rd millennium BC and during the later Hellenistic and Byzantine periods (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 63). Archeologists located the campsites of Kadesh-barnea and Ezion-geber mentioned in the Bible, yet no evidence of Late Bronze Age Israelites were found there (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 63). On the basis of the archeological evidence and the total lack of evidence at the campsite locations mentioned in Numbers 33, as well as Kadesh-barnea and Ezion-geber, Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, p. 63) and other secular archeologists have concluded that the Exodus did not occur as described in the Bible. Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, p. 1) conclude that the Exodus, as well as many other events described in the Old Testament, were not miracles from God, but products of the human imagination. The Israelites did not come from Egypt and violently conquer Canaan, they emerged from among the Canaanites (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 118).”
It's not surprising that the ancient Israelites would have preferred to believe in stories about God selecting them as a “chosen people” and leading them out of Egypt over a mundane, but far more realistic, Canaanite history.
References:
Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 pp.
Dellinger, F., W. Kutschera, K. Nicolussi, P. Schieβling, P. Steier, and E.M. Wild. 2004. “A 14C Calibration with AMS from 3500 to 3000 BC, Derived from a New High-Elevation Stone-Pine Tree-Ring Chronology”, Radiocarbon, v. 46, n. 2, pp. 969-978.
Down, D., 2001, Searching for Moses: Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), v. 15, no. 1, pp. 53-57.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
Reinfort, E.M. 2019. Young-Universe Creationism Versus Naturalism: Volume 1: Introduction and Background Issues, Amazon Digital Services, Kindle Edition.
Sarfati, J.D. 2015. The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11: Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, GA, USA, 786 pp.