Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

kdlitwak wrote:

> That is a point worth considering.  What I might add to this is, Why does
> naturally-occuring phenomena have any real relevance?  It is, I suggest, a 
> misguided
> quest to find naturally occurring phenomena as an explanation of otherwise
> extraordinary occurrences recorded in Exodus. If you don't want to accept 
> supernatural
> events, then no amount of stretching the known natural facts (of which 
> there is
> precious little for any time before the recent past) while accomplish the 
> task.  If
> you accept supernatural possibilities, none of the events in Exodus is a 
> problem.

[snip]

>   Not many transient events (like quails
> descending or seas parting or the like are open to empirical research now.  
> Even if
> they happens, what would you expect for a trace?  The very best one might 
> hope for is
> other written corroboration, but since most ANE texts don't ever record 
> defeat of
> themselves, there is certain to be no Egyptian annal of this.  So there's 
> going to be
> a problem validating the event through any other source, but that's not a 
> problem for
> me.  The issue would be, Can I trust the book of Exodus as an historical 
> record?  To
> this I can only say, I certainly trust it more than modern historical works 
> which deny
> the Holocaust or Japanese history texts that highlight the bombing of 
> Hiroshima but
> omit mention of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  History writing in 
> every age,
> including our own, is a matter of whether a source seems trustworthy in a 
> legal sense,
> not verifiable in a scientific one, and attempting to ignore this is a dead 
> end.  You
> can never validate any historical event by artifacts or scientific 
> observations
> alone.  You always need texts to interpret the facts and those texts, 
> Israelite,
> Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, are all subject to various human 
> factors
> which  make them more or less trustworthy, but they are really all we have. 
>  You cold
> never reconstruct Babylonian history without Babylonian texts, even though 
> some of
> them are clearly political cover-up of the real facts.
>
> Ken,

Though I'm one of those who sees some sort of historical kernel behind
the Exodus
traditions (and I have no proof of such, nor can I suggest excactly what
happened), I
still have to point out that there's a vast different between slanted
Assyro-Babylonian
historiography (like Sargon II or Sennacherib stating that the god
Asshur scattered their
enemies) and slanted Israelite historiography (YHWH opening up the earth
and swallowing
Korach and his followers). The cuneiform sources may exaggerate or even
lie, but they
remain within the plane of the real. The Biblical sources resort to the
miraculous - and
also exaggerate and sometimes lie.
Each was written for a different purpose, and from a different
worldview. Neither is
objective (historiography can't be, as you point out). But to someone
who approaches both
types of historiography with an unjaundiced eye, the Biblical Exodus and
Wilderness
traditions make a very bad impression, compared to Mesopotamian
historiography. Smiting of
the firstborn! Splitting a sea! Coming down on Mrt. Sinai in smoke, fire
and thunder!
Shades of von Deniken! However way you try to explain it away, it's vary
hard to attribute
any reality to anything like that, and it places the whole narrative
framework under
suspicion - and I'm one who sees some sort of histortical behind the
Exodus and Wilderness
traditions, as I pointed out.
Sincerely,
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel