As it relates to the academic study of the Bible in
the 20th century, there are
primarily two opposing poles that have emerged among scholars—with biblical minimalists on
the one end, and biblical maximalists on the other. To oversimplify,
minimalists tend to not consider the Bible as a valid historical document due
to the contradictions that can be found between the biblical narrative and all
that has been dug up by archaeologists over the past century in the Near East.
Maximalists, on the other hand, usually assume that the Bible texts are more or
less correct, unless archaeological evidence can incontrovertibly prove
otherwise. To exacerbate matters, some radical minimalists in the field have
not only raised the question of historical reliability of the Bible, but they
have altogether dismissed it as being purely fictional—only
to be read as (religious) literature.
Most scholars hate these labels because, after all,
a label is just a label, and nothing is ever so clear-cut. The topic of the
validity of the Bible as being archaeologically relevant is hardly a question
of just black or white—there is a whole spectrum of possibilities to consider.
In terms of epigraphic studies, the Bible has
proven to be an indispensable reference tool that can help us understand the
past. The reason why I discuss minimalism and maximalism
here is to bring up a sort of middle-ground perspective that often gets neglected,
or overlooked, ironically, because it cannot be so easily labeled as belonging
to either sides of what is actually a broad spectrum of approaches. This view considers
the Bible texts as being a sort of multilayered folk-memory, or cultural
memory. For instance, Egyptologist Jan Assmann, in his writings regarding
cultural memory, sees Moses not as a historical figure, but an embodiment of
culture (Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, 1998).
In a similar vein, archaeologist Aren Maeir, of Bar Ilan University, also sees
the whole Exodus story as being a ‘mnemo-narrative’, a sort of cultural memory
that has remained with the ancient Israelites. Maeir (as I mention in my book) is
of the opinion that the authors of the Bible likely reconstructed a variety of
stories regarding their ancient Egyptian origins, thus reconstructing them into
a comprehensive text that can be found to exist in the Hebrew Bible.
Egyptologist Rosalie David writes about scholars who take this kind of middle-ground
perspective in relation to the biblical Exodus narrative. As she writes, there
are those scholars who “have agreed that the Exodus did not occur at all as a
historical event, but was perhaps a Canaanite folk-memory of the expulsion, or
[some scholars have suggested] even that the Biblical account may be a
compilation of several historical events which perhaps occurred over a
considerable length of time” (1).
Being in total agreement with Maier, I also prefer
to see the whole biblical Exodus storyline as a sort of collective memory of
some very real historical events,
albeit ones which have been reconstructed. If you can bear watching me in the short
video linked below (I am featured in the last half), I discuss the historical
perspectives which I adopted in writing my book, Deciphering the
Proto-Sinaitic Script. The focus has been placed on my three-pronged
approach—three, because my book not only deals with the origins and development
of proto-Sinaitic writing, but it also touches on Egyptian history, as well as
trying to make sense of some of the early Bible texts (as a folk-memory of the
Semitic-cultured inventors of the world’s first alphabet). But, please don’t
call me a maximalist! I also hate labels.
Notes
(1) p. 269. In Rosalie
David’s Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt. Penguin Books, 2002.
Hi Paul, I have been studying Ahmose for a long time and I personally think his cult, centred on Abydos for 250 years, reverberates throughout the Bible, even into the New Testament and with Jesus himself!
ReplyDeleteI definitely do believe that there is much left to uncover in understanding the Egyptian cultural/religious influences on neighbouring contemporary cultures, namely Semitic, which have come down to us through the ages. I just find it odd to think that many religious scholars seem to often have a very literal interpretation of biblical texts--folklore does not emerge from a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteSince 1990 I have maintained that Ahmose I was recast as Moses in the Exodus, and that the Exodus, is, in part, recalling the Hyksos Expulsion of circa 1546 BC. I say, in part, because of recent (1970s-1990s) archaeological findings in Canaan and Moab. Joshua, in the Bible, is credited with burning the fallen walls of Jericho. In the 1950s Dame Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated Jericho and determined its last walls, which had been burned, were to be dated to the Hyksos Expulsion. Bingo! The Hyksos Expulsion is the Exodus! But excavations (1970s-1990s) in Moab, which fell to Moses, had sites that came into existence only in Iron Age I, circa 1220-1100 BC. Conclusion: The Bible had conflated two historical events, combining them into one event, Jericho's fall and burning of 1546 BC and the founding of Iron Age I villages in Moab by Israel and Moses. Why? The Bible has the answer: Israel after the conquest, married the Canaanites in Iron Age I. Thus, the Israelites of Iron Age II (1100 BC-587 BC) could truly say they were the heirs or descendants of the Hyksos Expulsion via intermarriages with Canaanites in Iron Age I. I have 70 YouTube videos on the Bible and Archaeology, just click on my name by my photo to access them. You can also visit my website, www.bibleorigins.net for more info. I am a retired teacher of History, Geography and Art, aged 75 years. I look forward to buying your book soon and reading its contents.
ReplyDeleteWalter, I am certainly happy to hear that you have very much come to same conclusions as I have as far as linking the historical figure of Ahmose as a prototype for Moses, and the Hyksos Expulsion with the biblical Exodus. Undoubtedly, in these recent times, it certainly appears to me that archaeologists are dredging up the history of the Bible, no less. The connection you make between the fact that Jericho’s walls date to around the same time as the Hyksos Expulsion is a perfect example of this. And, as you also observe, the much later founding of Moab certainly appears to have been somehow ‘conflated’ or absorbed into the folk-memory of the local Canaanite population. It looks like we're on the same page: The Biblical narrative was certainly not born out of an axiological vacuum! The story of the covenant between God and the Israelites through Moses did not take shape in someone’s head suddenly and unexpectedly. In a sense, the whole Moses storyline, at the core of Judaism, was a consequence of all those long lost historical events that we have just begun to dig up... Yet, surprisingly, there are still many who would rather believe otherwise... I’m interested to check out your videos when I have some extra time this week.
Delete