I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).
Before I get started on the analysis of the first question with respect to the Old Testament, let's just remind ourselves of the 5 key questions I considered it appropriate to ask:
- What period in history are these manuscripts meant to cover? (covered in this entry)
- Who wrote the original manuscripts on which the books are based?
- When were these manuscripts written?
- When were the manuscripts assembled into established books?
- Who assembled the books?
What period in history is it meant to cover?
I want to start off by saying that much of my consideration will be from the standpoint of a biblical literalist – i.e. someone who takes the bible as literally and historically accurate and that it is being allegorical only where it is plainly doing so or where it is at obvious odds with common sense (beyond the limits of a miracle – whatever those limits may be). There are people who argue instead that the bible is meant to be considered in the context of the time in which it was written, or that the bible is really a collection of stories meant to give some very salient underlying message, but still consider the bible to be a reliable source of moral values. For these people, the question of who wrote the bible (question #2) and the canonisation process (questions #4 and #5) will be most applicable. So let's get the ball rolling.
The Old Testament is meant to cover our human beginnings right down to around 445BCE, with a few gaps in between. My first concern is that the Old Testament has such a sudden beginning of humanity at all. I don't really want to delve into this point however, as this will bring me dangerously far into arguments concerning the content of the Old Testament (i.e. creation story) and how this is at significant variance with established science (evolution). This will be a good time to reiterate that I don't really want to focus on the information within the bible, only factors surrounding how that information eventually made its way into it. This first question, though it appears to be about content, is mainly applicable because it helps to frame question #3, but also because some general points can be made about the bible's reliability depending on the period it covers, as you shall soon see.
Before we move on from the creation story however, I just want to point out that there may be some ancillary aspects of the creation story that can still lend itself to this question. For example, if you believe that man was abruptly created, then you're going to have to make some assumptions. Unless you believe that Adam's first words were “ga-ga-goo-goo”, you would have to assume that God immediately bestowed Adam with a vocabulary of unknown extent (along with some other skills – like the ability to walk, rudimentary farming skills, and several others abilities that we humans generally have to learn, including the ability to teach these skills to others without having been taught himself). We can then ask questions such as:
- Does the bible give any indication as to what this “first language” might be?
- Do we have any evidence from other sources that this language ever existed?
- When did this language exist?
- Do we have any evidence of other languages predating this “first language”?
All very thought-provoking questions which can be made relevant to this discussion, but all, I think, more cohesively framed within the creation vs evolution debate. So let's leave it there for now.
My next and more primary concern stems from the less controversial periods in history the Old Testament covers and to what extent. Over a decade ago, I decided that I would try to read the bible from cover to cover. I only managed up to the end of the Pentateuch, but when my mother saw me, she warned me that I “couldn't read the bible like a story book” in that it does not necessarily go in chronological order. She was right to a large extent. It is quite interesting to see how the bible covers history, how much emphasis it places on some periods compared to others, and to what extent there are overlaps.
While the table may have given you some idea, let's try to condense it further so it can be better put into context. And for this specific purpose, I will further sub-divide the Old Testament into chapters as some books have far more chapters than others.
- From the beginning of mankind to the death of Moses in 1437 – 187 chapters
- 1436BCE to 970BCE – 104 chapters
- 970BCE to 445BCE – 449 chapters
- Don't cover a time period – 189 chapters
As can be plainly seen, if you completely ignore the chapters that are not framed in the context of a historical period, 60% of the bible is concerned with the 500 year period between 970BCE and 445BCE. A mere 15% is concerned with the 500 year period before that, with the remaining 25% covering the span of human history even prior.
You might say – so what? TIS (This Infinite Something AKA God) does not have to intervene in human history or inspire prophets or the like in equal amounts throughout human history. There are obviously going to be times when he speaks to his people more and times when he is going to sit back and let things play out. Well, this may be so. But notice, I haven't yet drawn from what extra-biblical (i.e. outside of the bible) research into this has shown. At this point, therefore, I will introduce a few facts, all framed in the context of an overall understanding of the chronology of the people we now know as Jews/Israelis.
Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, Israelis – some might say that these are somewhat interchangeable terms for the same people, but let me highlight the differences between them:
Hebrews – this is the oldest term for the “Jewish” people. It was first used in the bible to describe Abram (later renamed Abraham), one of the earliest biblical characters (born 1978BCE).
Israelites – this likely stems from the history of Jacob (later renamed Israel) and his 12 sons, who formed the 12 tribes of Israel (i.e. Israelites)
Jews – this likely stems from one of the 12 tribes mentioned above – the tribe of Judea. According to the bible (I could not find extra-biblical corroboration for this), there was a United Kingdom of Israel consisting of all 12 tribes. After a civil conflict of sorts, this United Kingdom split between 2 tribes to the south (Judea, the largest of the tribes, and Benjamin), and the remaining 10 tribes to the north. The Northern Kingdom was called the Kingdom of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom was called the Kingdom of Judah. The historical records confirm that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 722BCE, leaving the Kingdom of Judah as a vassal of Assyria. The terms “Jew” and “Judaism” originated from this Kingdom of Judah to describe its people and the religion they practiced. It is currently used to describe people of a particular ethnicity (and therefore ancestry) as well as people of a particular religion.
Israelis – this is what is currently used to describe nationals of the current Israel regardless of their ethnicity or religion.
With that context, here I present what is known using non-biblical sources:
- The earliest known reference to the people now known as Jews is to the term “Israel”. It appears on an ancient Egyptian stone slab (or “stele”) called the Merneptah Stele circa 1209BCE.
- There are no confirmed historical references to any “Hebrew” people outside of the bible. There are some theories attempting to relate the Habiru (a social group – wanderers of varying ethnicities and religions – in the Bronze Age) to the Hebrew, but modern scholars largely reject this.
- While there are no historical references to a “Hebrew” people, there are references to the Hebrew language. It was one of many semitic languages emerging from the land of Canaan. This language first appeared in the early Iron Age, which began circa 1200BCE
- There is no archaeological or other evidence to support the biblical conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (book of Joshua). Modern scholars now believe that the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan
- The Kingdom of Israel existed 931BCE to 722BCE, reaching prominence in the 9th century (900BCE to 801BCE)
- The Kingdom of Judah existed circa 900BCE to 586BCE, reaching some level of prosperity between 700BCE and 650BCE as a result of its relationship with Assyria
- Following the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah in 586BCE by Babylon, some of the population remained, while others (particularly the higher classes) went into exile
- In 539BCE, the Persians conquered Babylon and much of the exiles returned
- During the Persian era (538BCE to 400BCE), the foundations for biblical canons were laid
Putting the information from these extra-biblical sources into a context, a cohesive story can be determined:
There was never any Hebrew people. There was a group of people who emerged from the land of Canaan speaking a common Hebrew language, which was largely similar to other semitic languages in that region. They began distinguishing themselves from other Canaanites through religion (conversion from polytheism to monotheism), emphasis on family history, prohibitions against intermarriage, and identified themselves as Israelites somewhere around 1200BCE or perhaps a bit earlier. They had invented/imported myths to explain the existence of humanity as a whole as well as to explain their specific existence and why they were special, inserting the genealogical significance of a “Hebrew” people here. These myths gave rise to the Pentateuch, which represents 25% of the historical portions of the bible.
Later, when they rose to prominence in the land of Canaan, they reinvented history to explain their rise to power (the conquests of Joshua), and to a lesser extent, their continued dominance (Judges to Samuel II), both of which represents 15% of the historical portions of the bible. The 400 year period in which at least the Kingdom of Judea actually existed, the 47 years when the Judean elites were in exile and strongly held on to their ethnic and religious identities, and the 150 year period or so thereafter that gave rise to the biblical canon (and therefore the Hebrew bible), spawned the vast majority of the bible (60%) primarily written through the eyes of various prophets. It is this period that bible makes mention of quite of a lot of events which are corroborated by historical records. It is in this period that there is some overlap – with different prophets describing the same events from different perspectives and/or describing more personal events with a backdrop of the larger historical events.
On the basis of this question alone, we can therefore consider the first 10 books of the 39 book Old Testament as not historically reliable at all (although there may be nuggets of truth within some aspects of the growth and governance of Israel). I suppose the most difficult thing people may find to accept about what the evidence demonstrates is that there are times when the Israelites “just make shit up” - i.e. the creation story, the conquest of Canaan, etc. Keep in mind that this is all going on between 2,500 and 3,000 years ago in the midst of high levels of superstition and low levels of literacy. Information was not revealed through research and analysis but through divine revelation and borrowed tradition.
Moreover, I invite you to research the historicity of the “conquest of Canaan”. Why? Because in researching this myself, I found it exceedingly interesting that the vast majority of sites defending the story were religious in nature and often started off their arguments by saying that most modern scholars have concluded that there is little to no historical evidence for the conquest of Canaan and that instead, the evidence suggests that the Israelites emerged naturally from this region. They then go on to “debunk” these claims. To me, that is tantamount to saying “the people most familiar with the evidence (the experts; archaeologists) say this, but me, with only peripheral knowledge of pieces of the evidence, along with my inherent bias, believe that...”
It is at this point that I will like to emphasise that the purpose of these entries is not to search for the evidence and then disprove it. Instead, it is to point out what is generally believed, search for the current widely held secular views (i.e. the views held based on the review of the evidence), and then explain why the evidence refutes what is generally believed. My point is to reveal what modern secular research has shown, not to go against it. Where the modern secular research is consistent with the bible however, I will admit it.
Tracking back to my research on the “conquest of Canaan” however, by far the most informative and interesting non-Wikipedia webpage was within the site of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs – http://www.mfa.gov.il/. I shit you not. The official website of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a very interesting article about King David and Jerusalem – Myth and Reality. No – the government of Israel is not getting into the archaeological industry. Far less, they seemed to have written the article as an information piece within the framework of their commemoration of 3000th anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by King David. Seriously! Because of Israel's ongoing very religiously based political situation, it's easy to consider its people fundamentalists. But the more I read about what many sometimes conservatives Jewish leaders actually say about their religion and the related evidence, the more astounded I am about how accepting they tend to be of research that seems to so significantly contradict their faith... I suspect there will be more (but occasional) references to such instances of Jewish non-partisanship in this blog.
Now, I would have given you the link to the article, but as it discusses points which I plan to cover in future entries (spoiler alert!), I will reveal the link after I've finished my discussion of the Old Testament. I found the site after completing the first drafts of my entire EIGHT-PART entry (that's right, folks – after this entry, there are FIVE more to go), and was pleased to note that it coincided with much of my secular research.
Ooh I can't wait for the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment