The Briefing Room

Thank you for yet again publishing my letter in the March issue of Investigate and taking the time to reply to it.

You suggest that the origin of creatures as different as ducks, geese and swans from a single common ancestral species can be explained through microevolution. Surely, then, the evolution of humans and apes from a single ancestral species can also be explained through microevolution.

Your next comment that many cultures have memories of a large flood in no way indicates they refer to the same flood.

Next, sure all of us trace our male and female ancestry back to a single male and a single female. All creatures do. The surprising thing for humans is that our common ancestors are surprisingly recent although there are easily explainable reasons for this. A problem still remains for the Adam and Eve theory in that "Adam" lived less than 140,000 years ago and "Eve" lived at least 175,000 years ago.
Therefore Eve must have been at least 35000 years old when she gave birth to Cain and Abel! Abraham's wife Sarah was nowhere near that old when she gave birth to Isaac.

Ah, Abraham. You have obviously forgotten Abraham and King Abimelech (Genesis 20:1-18). Abimelech is referred to several times as "king of the Philistines". This indicates Abraham lived more recently than at least 1200 BC, much more recently than the Bible in its present form suggests. There is also the problem of references to Hittites, Aramaeans and Ur of the Chaldees.

I hope you are prepared to carry this debate on although your readers are probably getting sick of it. I look forward to your comments.

I'll try and squeeze another letter in, but couldn't resist dealing with the reference to Abraham now.

I stand corrected, I overlooked the Abimelech references in my previous skim-through.

However, several possible explanations exist for this. Your assumption that the Philistines did not exist until much later is based only on a few other scant archaeological records. Now those records may record Philistine presence relative to contacts in their own areas, but they don't negate the possibility that the Philistines were present much earlier.

It is entirely possible that the Bible is correct and that the Philistine culture as we understand it was much older than we currently believe.

Option two is that the reference in Genesis regarding Abraham is simply using a contemporary name (Philistines) for an older culture in the area, in much the same way we refer to modern New York rather than New Amsterdam - its original name, or to Egyptians, even though today's Egyptians have no direct racial link to the Egyptians of Old Testament times.

Option 3 is that Washington's axe changed its handle several times. By that I mean there is reference at Gen 10:13 and 14 to the ultimate ancestry of the Philistines, making clear that a particular people did exist early and were cousins of or perhaps even closer to the Caphtorites. In turn, the Mari tablets from early second millennium (c 1900BC) record the existence of Kaptara (Caphtor), and Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen records Egyptian references to the same people dating back as far as 1973 BC. Kitchen feels that these original Philistines in Abraham's time might be different from the Sea-peoples group later given that name as a result of settling in that area. Shades of the "Palestine (Philistine)" moniker given to the Arabs who swept in with Muhammad to settle the area in the mid 600s AD.

A fourth possibility is that the original Philistines were the same race as the later ones, but that settlement came in two waves hundreds of years apart, only the latter of which is specifically recorded in extra-biblical literature.

So as you can see, I don't think an Abramic link to Philistia is fatal in any way, shape or form to biblical accuracy.

My understanding of Hittite records is that they trace themselves back to a ruler in the 19th century BC named Anittas, so they're not anachronistic either.

Ur of the Chaldees.

Kitchen and others identify this with Ur in south Babylonia, and say the "Chaldees" reference is a post-Mosaic addition "precisely to distinguish the patriarchal Ur from possible northern counterparts", which is basically the Philistine modern usage argument again. Ur was an important centre at the start of the second millennium, contemporaneous with Abram.

Arameans
According to the texts I've seen, the only extrabiblical references to Aram are the Tell Dan stela and rare mentions by Assyrian rulers from the ninth century onwards. I don't think you can construct any kind of argument that the Abramic references are anachronistic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Cheers
Ian

I am sorry to trouble you but I have the day off and have had the opportunity to look at your email again.

I am sure you will agree with me that discussion and questioning improves our understanding of the evidence. I certainly enjoy having my ideas questioned.

You offer four possible explanations for the problem I presented. You would have to admit that your explanations contain more "possiblys" than you would ever let any evolutionist get away with!

Your first explanation that my assumption that the Philistines did not exist until much later is hardly based only on a few other scant archaeological records. The Philistines are almost certainly the Peleset mentioned in Egyptian records. Pharaoh Ramoses III named them as one of the tribes of Sea People he fought (1250BC). He claims he allowed them to settle in Southern Canaan but it is more likely he had no choice in the matter. It is hardly the first time a politician has made a virtue of necessity. Some tribes of Sea People such as Dan are mentioned as early as the time of Akhenaten (1350 BC) but most appear later.

Archaeology conducted at what are recognised even in the Bible as being Philistine cities shows that their culture was Mycenaean or Greek. Their pottery first appears around 1200 BC thus giving a time for at least their main arrival in the region. If any were present earlier they would hardly be in a position to have a king.

Your explanation that the Philistine culture was much older in that region than we currently believe is unlikely to be correct.

Your option two that the reference in Genesis regarding Abraham is simply using a contemporary name (Philistines) for an older culture in the area suggests that the stories were written down long after Abraham's time. This introduces a whole new set of problems. What else was adjusted for the contemporary audience? your explanation tends to support the belief that the Old Testament was extensively revised and even rewritten at the time of King Josiah (650 BC).

In passing on what grounds do you say that today's Egyptians have no racial link to the Egyptians of Old Testament times? Sure the Arabic language has been introduced but that is a bit like saying that Maori are English because they speak that language. The argument that the Palestinians are not descended from the Philistines is much the same in spite of your comment that the "Palestine (Philistine)" moniker was given to the Arabs who swept in with Muhammad to settle the area in the mid 600s AD. In fact the Palestinians, Lebanese and Jews are much closer genetically to each other than any are to the Arabs.

The myth that these people are all different is simply Israeli propaganda. As we know from treaty claims in New Zealand myths are always used to justify some claim ahead of others.

Incidentally the idea that the Hebrews descend from a group that invaded Canaan is demolished by the fact that about 1000 BC Hebrew was simply a regional dialect of Western Canaanite as was Phoenician.

The reference at Gen 10:13 and 14 to the ultimate ancestry of the Philistines shows that the local people had a memory of the Philistines coming from the Mediterranean Sea, including the island of Caphtor.

Minoans, not Greek-type Philistines controlled the islands of the Mediterranean at the time of the Mari tablets and Egyptian references in the early second millennium (c 1900BC). There is no reference to the Philistine tribe so early.

Therefore it is very unlikely that any tribe in Abraham's time might have had the same name as a later Sea-peoples group.

Similarly your fourth possibility that the original Philistines were the same race as the later ones, but that settlement came in two waves hundreds of years apart does not stand up to any sort of examination.

You state that Hittite records trace themselves back to a ruler in the 19th century BC named Anittas. It is fairly unlikely they were in Canaan as early as 1850 BC though. They attacked Babylon about 1600 BC and let loose the Mitanni, the Kassites and the Hyksos. These groups all had large empires but the Hyksos were the people who controlled Canaan. Isn't it a little strange there is no record of them in the Bible? Of course there is a school of thought that claims there is though! The Biblical Exodus may record their expulsion from Egypt and David and Solomon's kingdom may record their Canaanite possessions. The Hyksos were finally defeated by Thothmoses at the battle of Megiddo about 1450 BC.

As to the reference to "of the Chaldees" being a post-Mosaic addition I have already covered the problems that this releases in your option two!

Assyrian rulers from the ninth century onwards mention the Arameans. The conclusion we reach from this is that they didn't develop until that time. Therefore the Abramic references are totally anachronistic.

The excuse "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used for anything. I'd love to read your reaction if Warwick Don or I used it to support arguments in favour of evolution!

I hope you can find the time to reply to all this.

Cheers
Terry

Terry, my comments are in brackets [] sprinkled throughout your letter below.

You wrote:

You offer four possible explanations for the problem I presented. You would have to admit that your explanations contain more "possiblys" than you would ever let any evolutionist get away with!

[I'm not saying mine are the definitive explanations, I'm saying they are strongly arguable. You on the other hand were being more definitive in your own position. All I'm doing is winding you back to say, 'hang on, it isn't cut and dried'. Which is exactly the same point I make on evolution]

Your first explanation that my assumption that the Philistines did not exist until much later is hardly based only on a few other scant archaeological records.

[Yeah, that's one of the scant archaeological records I'm referring to. Of all the millions of people who lived in the area during these times, and all the things that could have been written, we have only a handful of records. Again, this does not make your position unassailable.]

The Philistines are almost certainly the Peleset mentioned in Egyptian records. Pharaoh Ramoses III named them as one of the tribes of Sea People he fought (1250BC). He claims he allowed them to settle in Southern Canaan but it is more likely he had no choice in the matter. It is hardly the first time a politician has made a virtue of necessity. Some tribes of Sea People such as Dan are mentioned as early as the time of Akhenaten (1350 BC) but most appear later.

[Egyptologists make the point that Pharaohs only recorded things that either made them look good (whether true victories or a PR-spin on the less than convincing ones) or which were unavoidable. As a rule, they ignored the rest and they ignored skirmishes they lost. So even if our Egyptian records were complete, and they're far from that, they are not an objective account of history as we would understand it. Thus, while the Peleset are mentioned here, it doesn't necessarily mean they were absent earlier. They may just have been ignored in the official records]

Archaeology conducted at what are recognised even in the Bible as being Philistine cities shows that their culture was Mycenaean or Greek. Their pottery first appears around 1200 BC thus giving a time for at least their main arrival in the region. If any were present earlier they would hardly be in a position to have a king. Your explanation that the Philistine culture was much older in that region than we currently believe is unlikely to be correct.

[The Onomasticon of Amenope dating from 12th BC lists three major Philistine cities already established at that time (Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza). The cities had presumably been settled much earlier. The Tale of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian traveler from 1100 BC, notes very strong Philistine presence, particularly right up the coast, to the point where it appears the Philistines certainly controlled the seaboard and coastal trade. Archaeologist Amihai Mazar identifies Caphtor in the Bible as the original homeland of the Philistines, and believes Caphtor to be Crete.]

[Significantly on the pottery front: Yes, the pottery is Mycenaean, but only to start with. Literally within a decade or three the Philistines have adopted their own artistic style. And one would expect the same to happen in the case of a previous migrant wave at the time of Abraham. Archaelogists have only scratched the surface of the Biblical lands, particularly as many areas remain dangerous. It is entirely conceivable that pottery shards from an earlier Philistine settlement are yet to be found.]

Your option two that the reference in Genesis regarding Abraham is simply using a contemporary name (Philistines) for an older culture in the area suggests that the stories were written down long after Abraham's time. This introduces a whole new set of problems. What else was adjusted for the contemporary audience? your explanation tends to support the belief that the Old Testament was extensively revised and even rewritten at the time of King Josiah (650 BC).

[Abraham lived somewhere around 1900 BC. If Moses was the editor of the OT, on the basis of oral or possibly written traditions handed down since Abraham hundreds of years earlier, then it is entirely possible contemporary names were used to denote certain things. On the other hand, as Dever points out, there are vast numbers of references to things that had long vanished and shouldn't even have been remembered, but which the nomadic Hebrews got right.]

In passing on what grounds do you say that today's Egyptians have no racial link to the Egyptians of Old Testament times? Sure the Arabic language has been introduced but that is a bit like saying that Maori are English because they speak that language. The argument that the Palestinians are not descended from the Philistines is much the same in spite of your comment that the "Palestine (Philistine)" moniker was given to the Arabs who swept in with Muhammad to settle the area in the mid 600s AD. In fact the Palestinians, Lebanese and Jews are much closer genetically to each other than any are to the Arabs.

The myth that these people are all different is simply Israeli propaganda.

[IN 2002, one of our photojournalists (Arabic-speaking) went to Egypt. She discovered during three months immersed in the local culture that the modern Egyptians have no racial or cultural ties to the creators of the pyramids...that the previous race vanished long before modern Arabs moved in. So my analogy is correct.]

As we know from treaty claims in
New Zealand myths are always used to justify some claim ahead of others. Incidentally the idea that the Hebrews descend from a group that invaded Canaan is demolished by the fact that about 1000 BC Hebrew was simply a regional dialect of Western Canaanite as was Phoenician.

The reference at Gen 10:13 and 14 to the ultimate ancestry of the Philistines shows that the local people had a memory of the Philistines coming from the Mediterranean Sea, including the island of Caphtor.
Minoans, not Greek-type Philistines controlled the islands of the Mediterranean at the time of the Mari tablets and Egyptian references in the early second millennium (c 1900BC). There is no reference to the Philistine tribe so early. Therefore it is very unlikely that any tribe in Abraham's time might have had the same name as a later Sea-peoples group.

[See my earlier point above. Amihai Mazar and others are perfectly satisfied that Caphtor was Crete (ie, Minoan), and that the Philistines originated from there, not mainland Greece.]

Similarly your fourth possibility that the original Philistines were the same race as the later ones, but that settlement came in two waves hundreds of years apart does not stand up to any sort of examination.

You state that Hittite records trace themselves back to a ruler in the 19th century BC named Anittas. It is fairly unlikely they were in Canaan as early as 1850 BC though. They attacked Babylon about 1600 BC and let loose the Mitanni, the Kassites and the Hyksos. These groups all had large empires but the Hyksos were the people who controlled Canaan.

[With respect Terry, think about it a little more. A village does not become an empire overnight; more colloquially, Rome wasn't built in a day. To be big enough to take a crack at Babylon in 1600 means you need quite a bit of cultural history and strength under your belt. It is entirely probable that the early Hittites referred to in Genesis during Abramic times were themselves a little regional grouping that became the genesis of the empire to follow. Indeed, before whacking Babylon they had decades earlier devastated the kingdom of Yamhad in northern Syria. You need to remember that by the time many of these ancient civilizations are "mentioned in dispatches" they are already at their zenith.]

Isn't it a little
strange there is no record of them in the Bible?

[The statement attributed to Pharaoh in Ex 1:8-10 makes no sense in the mouth of a native Egyptian ruler, but perfect sense if in fact the 'new king who knew not Joseph' was the first of the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt. So I don't think there's no reference, more of a veiled reference]

Of course there is a school of thought that claims there is though! The Biblical Exodus may record their expulsion from Egypt and David and Solomon's kingdom may record their Canaanite possessions. The Hyksos were finally defeated by Thothmoses at the battle of Megiddo about 1450 BC.

As to the reference to "of the Chaldees" being a post-Mosaic addition I have already covered the problems that this releases in your option two!

[When we talk about these events, we use a language that didn't exist in Biblical times. We talk of "Egypt" but I can guarantee you that wasn't the name that existed back then. Nonetheless, even though all of our knowledge is filtered through modern language, we still have a reasonable grasp on what the original texts meant. My point is that the use of contemporary phrasings in the Bible does not impinge on accuracy. It would have been understood by the original audience]

Assyrian rulers from the ninth century onwards mention the Arameans. The conclusion we reach from this is that they didn't develop until that time. Therefore the Abramic references are totally anachronistic.

The excuse "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used for anything. I'd love to read your reaction if Warwick Don or I used it to support arguments in favour of evolution!

[Evolutionists have used the absence of evidence line ever since Darwin. It matters not who uses it. The context will determine whether the claim is valid]

I hope you can find the time to reply to all this.

[I have. Regards Ian]

Here we go again Ian. Your comments and questions are quite stimulating. Although I already had a good idea of the broad outline of Mesopotamian and Egyptian history your comments have encouraged me to research further. Here goes my latest set of comments, yours in brackets.

1) [I'm not saying mine are the definitive explanations, I'm saying they are strongly arguable. You on the other hand were being more definitive in your own position. All I'm doing is winding you back to say, 'hang on, it isn't cut and dried'. Which is exactly the same point I make on evolution] I’m saying my position is based on that of the vast majority of archaeologists in the region and they rely on quite a wide range of evidence.

2) [Yeah, that's one of the scant archaeological records I'm referring to. Of all the millions of people who lived in the area during these times, and all the things that could have been written, we have only a handful of records. Again, this does not make your position unassailable.] There are many other people mentioned besides Philistines. For example the Sea People listed by Pharaoh Ramoses III include Denyen, Weshesh, Shekelesh and Tjekker as well. Some people consider these to be the Israelite tribes Dan, Asher, Issacher and Manasseh respectively. This would actually make sense.

3) [Egyptologists make the point that Pharaohs only recorded things that either made them look good (whether true victories or a PR-spin on the less than convincing ones) or which were unavoidable. As a rule, they ignored the rest and they ignored skirmishes they lost. So even if our Egyptian records were complete, and they're far from that, they are not an objective account of history, as we would understand it. Thus, while the Peleset are mentioned here, it doesn't necessarily mean they were absent earlier. They may just have been ignored in the official records] Where were the Peleset earlier on then? They are mentioned in the region first when archaeology records the introduction of Mycenaean pottery and so they probably introduced it along with iron. I will come back to this in point 8.

4) [The Onomasticon of Amenope dating from 12th BC lists three major Philistine cities already established at that time (Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza). The cities had presumably been settled much earlier.] Agreed. Those cities were not established by Philistines, merely taken over by them or given to them by the Egyptians.

[The Tale of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian traveler from 1100 BC, notes very strong Philistine presence, particularly right up the coast, to the point where it appears the Philistines certainly controlled the seaboard and coastal trade.] By the time of Wen-Amon no one disputes that the Philistines were present. It’s earlier times that are disputed.

[Archaeologist Amihai Mazar identifies Caphtor in the Bible as the original homeland of the Philistines, and believes Caphtor to be Crete. Significantly on the pottery front: Yes, the pottery is Mycenaean, but only to start with. Literally within a decade or three the Philistines have adopted their own artistic style. And one would expect the same to happen in the case of a previous migrant wave at the time of Abraham. ] The change in Philistine pottery shows that they mixed extensively with their Israelite neighbours. In other words the interaction was usually more like Samson and Delilah rather than like Saul.

5) [Archaelogists have only scratched the surface of the Biblical lands, particularly as many areas remain dangerous. It is entirely conceivable that pottery shards from an earlier Philistine settlement are yet to be found.] I disagree with this statement. It’s probably archeologically the most explored region on the planet!

6) [Abraham lived somewhere around 1900 BC. If Moses was the editor of the OT, on the basis of oral or possibly written traditions handed down since Abraham hundreds of years earlier, then it is entirely possible contemporary names were used to denote certain things. On the other hand, as Dever points out, there are vast numbers of references to things that had long vanished and shouldn't even have been remembered, but which the nomadic Hebrews got right.] But Moses also lived long before many of these people were present in the region. Therefore the same arguments apply. When were the stories first written in the Hebrew language? We would expect that if the stories had been transmitted orally even for 600 years many details would remain. You have admitted that many place names have been changed. Let’s not assume they were the only things changed when the stories were finally written down!

7) [In 2002, one of our photojournalists (Arabic-speaking) went to Egypt. She discovered during three months immersed in the local culture that the modern Egyptians have no racial or cultural ties to the creators of the pyramids...that the previous race vanished long before modern Arabs moved in. So my analogy is correct.] I have searched and searched for any evidence that this is so and have found none. It seems your reporter was influenced by some tradition that is not supported by the evidence. The question immediately arises, where did the new arrivals come from? It would easily be possible to prove or disprove the theory by looking at ancient and modern DNA. Although it would be virtually impossible to get Y chromosome or autosomal DNA from ancient mummies mitochondrial DNA has been obtained from them at times. It would then be possible to say what part of the world any non-Egyptian mtDNA was most likely to have come from. I would be very surprised if the vast bulk of ancient Egyptian mtDNA was different to that of people living in Egypt today.

8) [See my earlier point above. Amihai Mazar and others are perfectly satisfied that Caphtor was Crete (ie, Minoan), and that the Philistines originated from there, not mainland Greece.] I agree. But Mycenaeans took over Crete during the reign of Thothmoses III around 1450 BC. Therefore even though the Philistines came from Crete their culture was Greek.

9) [With respect Terry, think about it a little more. A village does not become an empire overnight; more colloquially, Rome wasn't built in a day. ] No, 300 years in fact, about the same time as it took the Hittites to become a major power in the region.

[To be big enough to take a crack at Babylon in 1600 means you need quite a bit of cultural history and strength under your belt.] I’d assume they had allies such as the Kassites and Hurrians. The expansion of these groups, as well as the Hyksos, is attributed to the invention by Indo-European speaking people of the spoke-wheeled chariot on the plains near the Caucasus Mountains. In fact after their conquest of Babylon the Hittites seem to have been pushed back into Anatolia for a time until they defeated the Mitanni about 1350 BC.

[It is entirely probable that the early Hittites referred to in Genesis during Abramic times were themselves a little regional grouping that became the genesis of the empire to follow. Indeed, before whacking Babylon they had decades earlier devastated the kingdom of Yamhad in northern Syria.] On their way to Babylon.

[You need to remember that by the time many of these ancient civilizations are "mentioned in dispatches" they are already at their zenith.] Unfotunately for this theory the centre of Hittite power was modern Turkey. It is possible that some pre-Indo-European traders from the region (Hatti) were present in Canaan about 1900 BC but traders are unlikely to have owned much land, let alone be able to sell it.

10) [The statement attributed to Pharaoh in Ex 1:8-10 makes no sense in the mouth of a native Egyptian ruler, but perfect sense if in fact the 'new king who knew not Joseph' was the first of the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt. So I don't think there's no reference, more of a veiled reference] I think a Hyksos Pharaoh is more likely to be the one that knew Joseph and the first of the new Pharaohs is the one you consider here. Can you give me any reason apart from supernatural ones as to why the expulsion of the Hyksos is not the Biblical Exodus? Everything about it fits including the idea that the Pharaoh changed his mind about letting them go peacefully and pursued them.

11) [When we talk about these events, we use a language that didn't exist in Biblical times. We talk of "Egypt" but I can guarantee you that wasn't the name that existed back then. Nonetheless, even though all of our knowledge is filtered through modern language, we still have a reasonable grasp on what the original texts meant. My point is that the use of contemporary phrasings in the Bible does not impinge on accuracy. It would have been understood by the original audience] I think the contemporary phrasings in the Bible impinge incredibly on its accuracy. Your belief that the references in Genesis regarding Abraham and Moses are simply using contemporary names for older cultures in the area suggests that the stories were written down long after their time. As I have said, what else was adjusted for the contemporary audience? Again I say that your explanation tends to support the belief that the Old Testament was extensively revised and even rewritten at the time of King Josiah (650 BC).

12) [Evolutionists have used the absence of evidence line ever since Darwin. It matters not who uses it. The context will determine whether the claim is valid] I am not aware of any evolutionist literature that uses the expression but perhaps you can point me in the right direction. I agree that there is absence of direct evidence for many changes in species but there is other evidence that supports the conclusions. In the case of Biblical studies there is often not the slightest bit of evidence from archaeology or contemporary writings apart from the Bible to support the claims.

Hear from you again soon,

Terry

I'll tackle just a couple of points, so as to keep this focused:

Point 8, you say:

"But Mycenaeans took over Crete during the reign of Thothmoses III around 1450 BC. Therefore even though the Philistines came from Crete their culture was Greek."

Yeah, so the Philistine wave that came from Crete after that reflected Mycenaean culture. But the Philistines who were around in 2000 BC would not have reflected Mycenaean culture, if you get my drift. Look at how much British culture has changed in 600 years. By your argument, you're saying that because modern British artifacts don't resemble alleged British culture from 1400 AD that therefore they can't both be British. You make no allowance for the ebb and flow of history and culture.

Point 9:

"Unfortunately for this theory the centre of Hittite power was modern Turkey. It is possible that some pre-Indo-European traders from the region (Hatti) were present in Canaan about 1900 BC but traders are unlikely to have owned much land, let alone be able to sell it."

Now you're the one using "possible" or "assume". And sensibly so - you're beginning to appreciate that being definitive about what happened 4,000 years ago is difficult if not impossible. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is certainly possible that a Hittite presence had established itself in the region by 1900 BC, albeit a small one.

Point 10:

"I think a Hyksos Pharaoh is more likely to be the one that knew Joseph and the first of the new Pharaohs is the one you consider here. Can you give me any reason apart from supernatural ones as to why the expulsion of the Hyksos is not the Biblical Exodus? Everything about it fits including the idea that the Pharaoh changed his mind about letting them go peacefully and pursued them."

Your description of the Hyskos invasion of Egypt earlier appears to rely primarily on the claims in Manetho's History of Egypt dating back to third century BC. You should be aware that a large number of archaeologists now disagree with Manetho's claims of a large ruthless military invasion. See the book "Israel in Egypt" by archaeologist James Hoffmeier, who details some of the pro's and con's.

Significantly, they've found archaeological evidence of a Caananite people settling in Egypt around 1800 to 1700 BC, before the Hyskos arrived and contemporaneous with the time of Abraham and his immediate descendants.

Additionally, one site at the Egyptian ruins of Heliopolis is called Tell el-Yehudiyeh in Arabic, which means "mound of the Jew", and it too has evidence of Palestinian/Caananite settlement dating from around 1700BC, the specific inhabitants of the site according to archaeologist Olga Tufnell appear to have been "a poor community of shepherds" based on excavation of their tombs.

Again, these sites suggest a Jewish presence in Egypt preceding the arrival of the Hyskos dynasty, thus making "the pharoah who knew not Joseph" likely to be the new Hyskos pharoah.

Ian

Looking at your points further, I suspect in the to-and-fro here that we're gradually losing some context...so I thought I'd put some back in. The central issue as I read it is a disbelief on your part on the historicity of the patriarch accounts.

I was glancing at a book by archaeologist Randall Price earlier today and found a good summation of the current maximalist position.

While it is acknowledged that the patriarchal period is the most sparse archaeologically-speaking, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that appears to corroborate what the Bible says.

For example, take the references to the city of Haran in Genesis. This city was abandoned from about 1800 BC to 800 BC, making it extremely unlikely that someone inventing the stories later would choose Haran as a key location when it had been lost to common knowledge for a thousand years.

The personal names in Genesis equate with Semite names in use between 2200 BC and 1800 BC (see Ebla, Mari tablets as confirmation). It is unlikely, again, that someone inventing the story in 500 BC would have gotten right a series of personal names that had fallen into disuse elsewhere.

We've also discussed the issue of contemporary place names. Here's another example: Dan = Laish. Writes archaeologist Avraham Biran, who excavated the archway gate at Laish:

"Abraham in the book of Genesis proceeded to defeat the kings of the north who took his nephew Lot prisoner, and the text says in Gen 14 that, 'Abraham came as far as Dan'. Now of course in those days the name of the city was Laish and not Dan. I imagine that the Biblical copyist who found the name Laish said, 'who remembers Laish anymore, it's been gone, forgotten,' so he wrote Dan instead. But to my way of thinking Abraham, no doubt, was invited to visit the city of Laish and for all I know had gone through the gate before it was blocked."

Then, in an Egyptian hieroglyph at the Temple of Amun, Luxor, is mention of "The Fort of Abram".

The explanation for this, according to Yohanan Aharoni is that Fort Abram was the name given by the Egyptians to the Israelite city of Beersheba. This is because the name 'Beersheba' does not appear in the Egyptian list of cities in the Negev, even though archaeologists know it was a prominent site at the time? Why no mention? Because at that time it was called Fort Abram because Abram was the person who'd founded the town (Gen 21: 22-23).

Food for thought.

Ian

Ian, I agree that I have a disbelief in the historicity of the patriarch accounts. There are too many inconsistencies. Just one or two would be excusable.

I am also prepared to agree that there is circumstantial evidence that appears to corroborate much of what the Bible says. But there is far more "circumstantial evidence" to support evolution. As I said last time, there is absence of direct evidence for many changes in species but there is other evidence that supports the conclusions the vast majority of biologists have come to. In fact again I ask could you point me towards any evolutionist literature that uses the expression "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Of course it is quite likely that the legends of Abraham go back a long way. If the stories had been transmitted orally for as long as 600 years we would expect that many details would remain. This doesn't prove they are totally accurate. In fact you have admitted to them having been altered in more recent times. Let's not assume only the names were changed!
As I have said, what else was adjusted for the contemporary audience? Again I say that your explanations tend to support the belief that the Old Testament was extensively revised and even rewritten at the time of King Josiah (650 BC).

It is my understanding that the Semite names in the Ebla and Mari tablets were used much more recently than just 1800 BC. Any differences between them and Biblical names are due to no more than the differences between the East and West Semitic languages. In fact the tribal name Benjamin appears in the Mari tablets as Banu-Yamina. Of course Biblical supporters deny the connection on the grounds that it is once again inconsistent with Biblical chronology.

The most logical explanation for the Abraham legends is that he was much like such heroes as Maui and Kupe. Their exploits can be interpreted as a combination of stories accreted onto an historical figure. If we accept that, we can see Abraham as indeed coming from both ancient Haran and Ur of the Chaldees, and meeting Philistines, Aramaeans and Hittites.

As a further aside, since my last email I have discovered several sites on the Internet that agree with your suggestion that the modern Egyptians have no racial or cultural ties to the creators of the pyramids. Unfortunately these sites are invariably white supremacist sites. They argue mainly on the grounds that Black people were not capable of building complicated structures and so White people must have built them. I hope your photojournalist is not one of these people!

Look forward to hearing from you again soon,

Terry

Terry,

You wrote:

"It is my understanding that the Semite names in the Ebla and Mari tablets were used much more recently than just 1800 BC. Any differences between them and Biblical names are due to no more than the differences between the East and West Semitic languages."

The point being made was that yes, those names survived "in the Jewish culture" because they were special. It is highly unlikely that names from a civilization 2,000 years earlier and no longer remembered would suddenly be transposed backwards on a fictional OT account written in 650 BC. This is what William Dever was getting at when he attacked the revisionists...that the chances of modern Jews inventing their backstory and getting right details of long vanished civilizations and place names are so infinitesimal as to be not worth considering.

The only logical conclusion is that the backstory is a real one, preserved through the generations.

The issue I'm trying to stress is that given the Bible's accuracy on a whole raft of things that we can prove now, it should be given the benefit of the doubt on the grey areas unless and until definitive hard evidence emerges that it is wrong. Mere speculation or alternative theory, based on a sprinkling of records, wouldn't be enough to convict someone of a crime, and nor is it enough to topple a presumption of accuracy in the OT.

You also wrote: " I hope your photojournalist is not one of these people!"

No...she was marrying an Egyptian at the time.

I was astounded when she came back and told me but she said, yeah, the modern Egyptians have no tie to the pyramid builders...having gone down there with her Arab friends and an Arab guide to photograph the ruins for a story for us.

Ian

you may find this article interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html?sub=AR

why is the bible's version of history relevant? many historical documents, including the koran, speak of events that actually _happened_.

the real question is, of course, whether god exists (and if he does, which of the many possible versions is he?). if the only evidence you can find to bicker over is in an old set of texts, that hardly constitutes a convincing proof.

Let me try and tackle Bart's points:

John 7:53 - 8:11, the adulterous woman. It is widely known that this story, often held up as a shining example of Christ's forgiveness, is a late addition to the texts. It doesn't appear anywhere until around the 5th century AD. But the fact that someone added it does not make Christianity suddenly tumble down. Comparisons have been done between all 5,366 ancient manuscripts and they match to a staggering 99.5% accuracy, not bad for something hand-copied by candlelight thousands of times.

This extract from the article is interesting:
"But as he paces back and forth across the stage, Ehrman ruthlessly pounces on the anomalies -- in this Gospel, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem, he doesn't tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there's no last supper. "None of that is found in John!"

That's right, it isn't in John because three Gospel writers ahead of him had covered those angles already, and John was coming from a more spiritual plane. And as John himself admits at the end of his gospel, he didn't even scratch the surface of all the stories he could have told.

Bart continues: "The crucifixion stories are different -- in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he's perfectly composed. Key dates are different. The resurrection stories are different. Ehrman reels them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition."

And again, Bart Ehrman is misguided. Ask four witnesses to a traffic crash what happened, and you'll get four differing versions. They'll all agree on the main points - there was a crash - but they'll differ on how they describe the sequence and what they saw, depending on their perspective.

Same thing with the Gospels. There's no conspiracy. Most of the gospel writers had access to at least one of the other accounts. If they'd been trying to invent a story that people wouldn't question they'd have deliberately made it consistent. Instead, the gospels reek of authenticity all the more for their perspective differences.

He continues: "In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine," he says, his voice urgent. "In John, you do."

If I was taking one of Erhman's classes I'd want my tuition fees back. The Synoptic Gospels are full of references to the divinity of Christ.

He continues: "He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ's ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning. "You shouldn't think something just because you believe it. You need reasons. That applies to religion. That applies to politics . . . just because your parents believe something isn't good enough."

Yeah, and just because you've lost your faith doesn't mean you've gained wisdom, if you are prepared to deliberately overlook the evidence contained in the Synoptics and extrabiblical accounts.

Then the story continues: "Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible -- but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe."

Granted that 1 John 5:7 is a late addition that shouldn't be there, but it is thoroughly untrue to say the Trinity wasn't spelt out anywhere else. Try Matthew 28:18-20 for size. This is what I mean, most attacks on the Bible are deliberate misquotes which rely on public ignorance for the perpetrator to get away with it.

He continues: "The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death."

Yeah, the only verses in the book of Mark, perhaps. But left unsaid is the fact that the Resurrection is talked about and described in Matthew and Luke and John. So what's his point, other than to bamboozle the gullible?

Reading Bart's story, I am saddened at the prison he has created for himself. Obviously when he became a Christian he based his belief on a misunderstanding of biblical inerrancy which has come back to bite him on the backside.

All the more reason for discussions like these...so that people don't blindly accept errors from either side.

Hi there Ian,

Found it. I'll see if I have time to contribute more tomorrow,

Terry T

Dear Ian,

Re. Your column “tough Questions” in April Investigate. You say I “fall into a trap of accepting the accuracy of an historical source outside the Bible, and assuming the Bible must be wrong”. This is most certainly not the case. I am simply prepared to consider ALL the evidence. When you take this into consideration it becomes obvious that the Bible contains references to historical events. However it also becomes obvious that it presents a very biased account of those events, as do all other sources. They are all the equivalent of Government press releases.

In a “Tough Questions” column of a few months back you mention the discovery of alphabet writing at Tel Zayit. The discovery actually suggests that this form of writing had only recently been introduced to the region. Therefore it is quite likely that any story in the Bible older than this date had been transmitted orally until that time. This doesn’t automatically mean that the stories were true. On the other hand I am sure nobody with any sense believes “the Old Testament was invented in 650 BC”. However the stories in it do reflect the political realities the priesthood in Jerusalem faced at that time. It is most likely that previously accepted oral histories and even written histories were adjusted to fit this reality.

In your latest column you seem to suggest that all the people in the Mediterranean Sea between 2000 and 1000 BC were Philistines. This is most certainly not the case. The Philistines were just one tribe of the Sea People. Many of these tribes such as the Denen, Weshesh, Shekelesh and Tjekker may in fact have eventually become accepted as tribes of Israel. Benjamin certainly seems to have existed long before that tribe could be seriously considered descendants of Abraham.

We know from Egyptian records that the Minoan trading enterprise was overthrown during the time of Thuthmoses III by the Mycenaeans. The language used in Crete changes to an ancient form of Greek. Cities later identified as Philistine in the Bible and in Egyptian records have Greek style artefacts for a short time. Presumably therefore the Philistines originally spoke Greek and did not expand from their home region until after the collapse of the Minoan civilisation or even after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation. Thus they re very unlikely to have had a king Abimelech in the region until at least after the time of Thuthmoses III.

Thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest,

Terry Toohill

Dear Ian,

I see no-one has answered my arguments so I presume toy now agree with me that the Bible is not a reliable source of information for history. I have shown that it contains many errors. Now perhaps you will be prepared to actually listen to arguments in favour of evolution. The only way you can deny that humans have evolved from an ape-like ancestor is to totally refuse to look at the evidence.

I was interested to see your attempt to divert the discussion by changing the argument to whether God exists. This has nothing to do with the Bible. It is a tactic I have found that fundamental Christians regularly employ though. Keep shiftng the goalposts and you don't have to admit anything!

Look forward to your comments although because you find this discussion to have become inconvenient I feel you have abandoned it.

Terry