The Genesis Fraud

[michaelsherlock]

I've read some of Herzog's articles...whenever I can get one in English. He's actually the guy who started the whole ball rolling back in 1999 in Haaretz.

He is priceless!

[Minimalist]

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

By Ze'ev Herzog

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it.

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

Finkelstein and Silbermann get most of the credit but Herzog fired the opening salvo.

[Undeceived]

You would like the works and findings of the Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, who said;

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

I would find Herzog's conclusions more interesting if he was honest.
Below quotes from this:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik...hanks.html

Instead, Herzog begins to contradict himself. He admits that "many [Egyptian] documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta." This suggests that it is at least plausible that the Israelites (or the Israelites in formation) were among these groups. And Herzog fails to mention that the Egyptians tell us that these shepherds (and others) came from Asia and that they settled in precisely the area where the Bible tells us the Israelites settled.

If you read Herzog carefully, he grudgingly admits that there probably was an Egyptian sojourn and an Exodus: "At best, the stay in Egypt and the exodus occurred in a few families," he concedes. That poses a different question. Now we are really talking about how big the group was, not whether there was such a group. Perhaps it was only a few hundred, or a few thousand. But that is a far cry from trumpeting as fact that "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert." ... Herzog [then] admits that during the period identified with the Israelite settlement (Iron Age I, 1200-1000 B.C.), "hundreds of small settlements were established in the area of the central hill region of the Land of Israel." ... Herzog mentions a famous Egyptian stele that refers to "Israel" as a people in Canaan in 1208 B.C.

Herzog also relies heavily on gaps arguments, meaning he uses lack of evidence for something as proof it didn't exist. An equivalent of this tendency is saying we can't find the remains of any early-human Mesopotamian settlement, therefore there were no early humans (the first part is true; no what evolution would call "cave men" establishments have been discovered). In asserting a total lack of evidence, Herzog ignores plausible evidence:

An Austrian archaeologist has identified a so-called four-room house usually identified with Israelites that he discovered in Goshen, the part of the Nile Delta where the Israelites settled. A prominent English Egyptologist has noted that the price for which Joseph was sold into slavery was the price at the time of the supposed event, rather than the much higher price that prevailed when the story was composed. All scholars agree that in the mid-second millennium B.C. Egypt was ruled by some Asiatic interlopers known as the Hyksos.

More evidence:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik...rdhess.htm

Below contains extra responses to Herzog. They are links, not articles written by the site owners. I think you'll find them sound.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik...erzog.html

[NoMoreFaith]

Herzog also relies heavily on gaps arguments, meaning he uses lack of evidence for something as proof it didn't exist.

So you would rather he uses a gap argument, and a lack of evidence, to prove something does exist?

Oh, you mean like a gap in the fossil record is "proof" macroevolution doesn't exist. Ignoring any and all plausible evidence?

You might be interested to know, that literally only a few weeks ago, a US researcher used satellite technology to locate ancient settlements, by observing soil discolouration and mounds caused when mud-brick settlements collapsed.

The model will be tested when the situation in Syria calms down, or maybe in the Kurdish provinces of Northern Iraq.

[michaelsherlock]

Thank you for providing this very interesting article. Prior to this, the best attack on Ze'ev Herzog, by a Christian, was that Ze'ev was being manipulated and controlled by Muslims to say the things he said, in the words of the apologist: "we would not expect to find such a learned archaeologist, born in Israel to say these things" or words to that effect. This was much better. So firstly, allow me to thank you.
I do not have much time to spare on this issue so please allow me to address it over the coming weeks.

I should deal with the article you have presented, keeping in mind that you may be right. But here are some issues I have.

You said:

I would find Herzog's conclusions more interesting if he was honest.

What, apart from this article by the Christian apologist and pseudo-archaeologist, Hershel Shanks, makes you think Ze'ev Herzog is dishonest?

Let us compare the Resumes of these two people first, to see who is more qualified, keeping in mind that laymen like Hershel and even myself, are also qualified to provide logical arguments, based on evidence.

Ze'ev Herzog

Ze’ev Herzog (Hebrew: זאב הרצוג‎, born 1941) is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005, and serves as archaeological advisor to the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority in the preservation and development of National Parks at Arad and Beer Sheba.

Herzog took part in the excavations of Tel Hazor and Tel Megiddo with Yigael Yadin and in excavations at Tel Arad and Tel Be'er Sheva with Yohanan Aharoni. He directed the excavations at Tel Beer Sheba, Tel Michal and Tel Gerisa and in 1997 began a new exploration project at Tel Yafo (ancient Jaffa).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Herzog

Hershel Shanks

Hershel Shanks (born March 8, 1930, Sharon, Pennsylvania) is the founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review and has written and edited numerous works on Biblical archaeology including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Shanks communicates the world of biblical archaeology to general readers through his magazines, books, and conferences. Hershel Shanks is "probably the world's most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershel_Shanks#cite_note-0

Also keep in mind that Hershel is under quite a bit of psychological pressure to prove the stories in the bible are true, and this can be evidenced by his haste and stubborness in lending his support to the 'James Ossury,' which has now been shown to be a forgery.

Notwhthstanding the above, we do have some intuiging arguments from Hershel, ones which peaked my interest. For the truth is the truth, no matter whose toes it crushes.

I do have some issues with Hershel's arguments provided in the article you provided.

Let me address some of the speculative leaps, Hershel made regarding Herzog's findings and statements as they pertain to the "truth" of the biblical accounts in question.

Instead, Herzog begins to contradict himself. He admits that "many [Egyptian] documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta." This suggests that it is at least plausible that the Israelites (or the Israelites in formation) were among these groups.

Ok, here Hershel is arguing that because Herzog admits that nomadic shepherds often came into Egypt to seek shelter from droughts and famines, at the Nile Delta (an oasis which which provided refuge to many over thousands of years) that this somehow implies that the Israelites were in Egypt, (as the bible describes; sneaky inference). This is a rather large leap, based on little more than speculation, and as Hershel admits Herzog saying; "this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional."

Further, is it possible that those who wrote the relevent stories in the bible, knew that the Nile Delta was a common refuge for those seeking to escape drought and famine?




This is a reasonable question.

I do agree with Hershel in the sense that Herzog cannot make such definitive statements, like "the Israelites were never in Egypt," a better way to put this would be to say that the bulk of the evidence suggests strongly that the Israelites were never in Egypt, as the bible describes.

Hershel goes way off the charts and is a little sneaky, when he says:

All scholars agree that in the mid-second millennium B.C. Egypt was ruled by some Asiatic interlopers known as the Hyksos. All this—and much more—plausibly suggests a real, historical prehistory of the Israelites in Egypt.

This is a huge leap. Firstly, how does proving a group called the Hyksos, suggest a "real, historical" pre-history of the Israelites in Egypt? To establish this, you would first have to establish that the Hyksos were the Israelites, but proving that they were Asiatic does not in itself prove they were Israelites. There is no credible evidence that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Leap!

The cheeky part of the above quote is the use of the weazel "All Scholars agree...............real historical prehistory of the Israelites in Egypt" I know that there are other words in the middle, but this seems a little cheeky to me.

[Epimethean]

More than a little cheeky, especially since there is no pottery record of these people, and the general contention of the Hyksos is that they were polytheistic Asiatics-possibly a mish-mash of cultures, including Hittites. Not exactly compelling evidence for them being the mythical wandering tribe of Israel.

[Minimalist]

Whatever religion existed in pre-Persian Canaan seems to have been based on the Canaanite pantheon based on El, Baal and Asherah. Yahweh is, at best, a minor character. Might he have been some sort of local god of the southern nomads? Sure. In fact that makes sense and as the state grew ( the notion that Judah was a fully fleshed out "state" prior to the 8th century BC has been dealt with best by Finkelstein) Yahweh got a promotion.

It is only after the Persians arrive that we start to see actual evidence of Yahweh as some sort of single creator god ( a la the Persian's Ahura Mazda) and even that evidence is thin because Yehud ( as the Persians called it) was an insignificant shithole of a region.

As for Hershel Shanks, he's a fucking lawyer who used to work for the Justice Department and hangs out with such notable con artists as Simcha Jacobovici and Oded Golan. Shanks' main function is to sell books and magazines to idiot theists. It has been a lucrative profession for him but no one takes him seriously as a "scholar."

[Undeceived]

This is a huge leap. Firstly, how does proving a group called the Hyksos, suggest a "real, historical" pre-history of the Israelites in Egypt? To establish this, you would first have to establish that the Hyksos were the Israelites, but proving that they were Asiatic does not in itself prove they were Israelites. There is no credible evidence that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Leap!

Then you agree we can't determine either way. That's the way history thousands of years ago works--don't make definitive statements unless you have definitive support. In his argument, Herzog uses lack of evidence as his proof that the Israelites weren't in Egypt. Hershel takes the supposed gap and fills it with evidence Herzog either ignored or did not know. All this does is creates a plausibility. Hershel himself admits this when he says,

Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there.

Hershel is not out to prove the Israelites were in Egypt, only that there is a space for them in history and no conclusive evidence against their being there. I might add that there are indications the Hyksos were Israelites. They mingled with the Egyptians in the 11th dynasty, and ruled by the 15th. At the end of the 17th, they were "expelled" (wikipedia). The name "Hyksos" means "ruler(s) of foreign countries," and Manetho, a 3rd century BC Egyptian, called them "Asiatic." This fits with the story of Joseph, who marked the change from original to Hebrew rulership. Generations later, the Egyptians saw how quickly the Hebrews were multiplying and made them slaves to keep the land pure. The 15th dynasty lasted from ~1650-1550 BC, which is about the time Joseph lived, according to Biblical analysis. This evidence is by no means conclusive, but it fits. Saying the Israelites were never in Egypt puts a whole new burden on the 6th century writers to research and basically hijack a couple Egyptian dynasties to make the Bible convincing.

[michaelsherlock]

Then you agree we can't determine either way. That's the way history thousands of years ago works--don't make definitive statements unless you have definitive support. In his argument, Herzog uses lack of evidence as his proof that the Israelites weren't in Egypt.

I agree. We cannot make definitve statements about ancient history (in most cases) because the types of tests and evidences available to the historian and archaeologist are often less than 100%. So yes, I agree. This is why I find 'historically grounded' religions (religion's whose stories have been woven into human history) ridiculous.

Hershel takes the supposed gap and fills it with evidence Herzog either ignored or did not know.

A little cheeky, "Un-deceived". You can fill any gap with evidence, yet can you fill it with good quality evidence? This, for me, is the most important part of what you did not say.

All this does is creates a plausibility. Hershel himself admits this when he says,
Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there.

I agree, both ways of looking at the situation should remain open to investigation. Recently, I have begun reading a brilliant book by a guy called Gmirkin, on the priority of the Septuigant. He provides some very sound evidence that many of the books from the OT, especially Gen and Ex. were written after the Septuigant, by authors who used the Library of Alexandria as thier source for many of the names, prices of slaves, and other pieces of historical information found within the OT. I would highly recommend this book.

Hershel is not out to prove the Israelites were in Egypt, only that there is a space for them in history and no conclusive evidence against their being there.

Why? What is his motivation? One cannot overlook this question, for it, in my mind, is the most important with regards to assessing the quality of his arguments.

I might add that there are indications the Hyksos were Israelites. They mingled with the Egyptians in the 11th dynasty, and ruled by the 15th. At the end of the 17th, they were "expelled" (wikipedia). The name "Hyksos" means "ruler(s) of foreign countries," and Manetho, a 3rd century BC Egyptian, called them "Asiatic." This fits with the story of Joseph, who marked the change from original to Hebrew rulership. Generations later, the Egyptians saw how quickly the Hebrews were multiplying and made them slaves to keep the land pure. The 15th dynasty lasted from ~1650-1550 BC, which is about the time Joseph lived, according to Biblical analysis. This evidence is by no means conclusive, but it fits.

By golly gosh, it is them! The bible is true! Quick run, lock up your daughters, the Hebrews are comming!

No, it fits because you want it to! When looking into such matters, the best place to start, is the self. Look at some of the psychological pressures which cause your mind to perceive information in the way you do. Investigate cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, adaptational strategies, rationalization, etc, and investigate how these pressures effect perception. this is, I think, a good place to start.

Saying the Israelites were never in Egypt puts a whole new burden on the 6th century writers to research and basically hijack a couple Egyptian dynasties to make the Bible convincing.

Again, I agree with you re; definitive statement.

[Epimethean]

Though the Hyksos may well have been Semitic, there is not evidence that they were homogeneous enough to even consider the silliness of calling them Israelites. Since the term is generic, and since they may have included Hittites and Khurrites among them, that contention is very weak.