[APRPEH]

why is this in news/activism? the publishing date according to the article is:

Originally appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 21, 2000, p. A19.

[FLOutdoorsman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RAVxaqA-qE

[FateAmenableToChange]

Wow. I wasn't aware that Judaism had it's own flaky revisionist version of the Jesus Seminar folks.

[Mr. Lucky]

What agenda compels you to post a six year old story as if it were recent?

[Brilliant]

Ze'ev Herzog invited such a comparison by concluding his Ha'aretz article with an explicit linkage to modern Israeli history: "It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women -- but is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye," he wrote.



To me, it sounds like he's the one with the agenda.

[wideawake]

This tissue of incompetent blasphemy is right up your alley.

[gallaxyglue]

The archaeological evidence of settlements and their origins is not never sufficient to determine conclusions. My sister works in Cholula, Mexico, studying settlements of volcanic worshipers at the base of the volcano, Popo. the settlements date from only two thousand years ago, and yet the origins and beginnings of the people who built and inhabited the dwellings cannot be determined.

My guess is the people who became the Israelites were distinct from the Canaanites; better in many ways. If they did not come from Egypt, what were their origins? Who were the slaves who built the pyramids, if not the Israelites?
If Solomon did not construct the Second Temple, who did? If David did not kill Goliath, what gave the tiny Jewish population the image of "Giant Slayer?"

[AmericaUnited]

"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," he wrote.

What a flaming idiot!

[Tzimisce]

Interesting.

[Nevadan]

re: "Mr. Herzog sees it differently. It is precisely because Israel is firmly established and no longer in danger of being wiped out....."

Israel is no longer in danger of being wiped out? So, all those threats from the surrounding fanatical Muslim countries vowing to wipe Israel off the face of the planet can be dismissed? Israel can disband their army and discontinue controlling their borders? The nutjob in Iran doesn't mean the Jews any harm? One could ignore everything else Herzog says in the article and get a pretty good idea of how disingenuous the man is just from that claim alone.

[AmericaUnited]

This is an awesome sight! Anchor Stone International

THE EXODUS EVIDENCES

..."In our last newsletter, we examined the route taken by Moses and the great multitude as they fled Egypt. We will now examine the evidences which tell us exactly who were the Egyptian royalties involved and the approximate date the Exodus occurred. This is a subject that gets quite involved and we will only be able to present a bare frame of reference in this publication. Bear with us, as we will attempt to present a large amount of information in a short space.

From Ancient History and Archaeology: Insights into Biblical Understanding

In the last few centuries, scholars proclaimed there was no evidence for most events in the Biblical account, and it was nothing but a collection of Hebrew legends. Then, a massive amount of evidence emerged through the findings of archaeologists, such as the discovery of the Hittite civilization, which vindicated much in the Bible that had been touted as fictitious. But, then the cry went forth that the Hebrews "borrowed" or "copied" stories from the peoples around them.

So much has been shrouded in confusion brought about by "explaining away" evidences which absolutely vindicate the Biblical account in a manner which makes it appear that the original incident occurred at an earlier date, and therefore the Hebrews incorporated the tale into their "mythology".

A good example of this is the evidence found at Jericho. In the 1930s, Professor John Garstang excavated Jericho. In 1931, he found the cemetery that had been in use by the inhabitants of Jericho from the earliest times. Because it had been so well concealed by the sand of the plain, it had escaped the plundering that so often occurs. Carefully excavating through the various levels, in 1932 they made a discovery which absolutely confirmed the Biblical account.

They found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches (royal name) of the eighteenth dynasty pharaohs. They end with Amenhotep III of the 18th dynasty. Other archaeological evidence showed that the city ceased to exist at that time, which perfectly fit the account of the entry into the "promised land". ("New Bible Evidence", Sir Charles Marston, pub. by Fleming H. Revell Co., 1934, pps. 134-137.)

[chesley]

Mr. Herzog sees it differently. It is precisely because Israel is firmly established and no longer in danger of being wiped out, he says, that he and other scholars can ask questions that were unaskable before. "The Jews in Israel no longer need the Bible to justify their presence in the Middle East. We're here because we're here. We no longer need excuses -- we're natives," he insists.

This is the problem, "scientists" who let their political and ideological necessities drive their research. Everything they say is suspect. Just for the record, I will believe the Biblical record regardless of what they may "discover". It's 3000 years in the past, and they are politically motivated. I need something more than their "professional" opinions to discard the Word of God.

[cookcounty]

(To accompaniment by honkey-tonk gospel piano)

"Herzog said it,
I believe it,
That settles it for me."

[BenLurkin]

"None of the scholars speaking at either conference believe that the Bible's historical sections can be accepted as literal, accurate descriptions of historical events."

No wonder they are coming to the wrong conclusions. What these types can't get through their heads is that the Bible IS history.

[Radix]

Wow, get two Jews in a room and you really will get three opinions.

There is a bit more dangerous delusion there near the end.

[Just another Joe]

I stopped reading after about the first 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Apparently the writer doesn't know that the Jewish faith rests on the Torah, not the Bible.
If he doesn't know that, it ain't worth reading the rest.

[Dog Gone]

A very big problem for Torah and Biblical literalists is the complete lack of physical evidence supporting the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt.

None exists. And the Egyptians were great record-keepers. Nor is there any evidence that Egypt was brought to its knees by the Ten Plagues and the Exodus. Indeed, the biblical timeline places it in the height of Egypt's Golden Age, hardly a time of devastation.

It really comes down to a question of whether you want to believe that every word of Genesis and Exodus is literally true, or whether you're open to the suggestion that these are writings passed down as oral history over the generations that might contain inaccuracies and even some legends or allegories.

One side has drawn its line in the sand. The other side is still trying to figure out what happened based on real evidence.

[Danette]

bump for future reading

[Dead Dog]

"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. BS Alert. BTW, up until the Romans, regional powers were "small' tribal kingdoms.