I left this week blank for a while, not because there are a lack of topics, but rather because there were so many different choices that I wasn't sure what I wanted to talk about. In the end, I decided on a discussion of a particular argument you see thrown around a lot among the Modern Orthodox, sometimes where it is applicable, but often where it isn't. The argument is often stated as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and when misapplied yields to something akin to scientific nihilism. I will demonstrate this with two contrived examples, and then follow it up with a discussion of a topic relevant to Torah historicity.
Before I begin, I will make a caveat. This post assumes a general acceptance of scientific principles. There can certainly be discussion on this matter, but I am far from an expert in philosophy of science or on the finer points of epistemology. So, out of necessity, I'm going to take the accuracy of scientific methodology as an assumption. This isn't too bad for this topic, since in general, the people who misuse "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" aren't rejecting the value of the scientific method intentionally. They're attempting to use scientific principles in a way that supports an improbable event.
President Wilbur Thwilmond
Imagine a situation where you are in conversation with me, and I state that there was once a US president by the name of Wilbur Thwilmond. You might reply that there was no such president by that name. I will ask how you know that. You might pull up a list of presidents, perhaps on Wikipedia, or maybe from the government website, and you'll note that the name Wilbur Thwilmond does not appear on that list. "Ah," I'll reply, "but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the name does not appear on the list is not sufficient to prove that there was no such president."
Depending on how ornery I wish to be, the discussion can then devolve down a line familiar to anyone who ever discussed something with a conspiracy theorist. I could bring up many possible scenarios that could have vaulted this individual to the highest office, along with lots of reasons as to why the person's name was suppressed in all historical records. I could even bring up alternate sources from other people (or myself under pseudonyms) sympathetic to the "Thwilmond Hypothesis" to bolster my claim. Another thing I could do is "move the goalposts." I could admit that there was no President of the United States named Wilbur Thwilmond, but there was a President of some other office. I would redefine my original statement and claim that the essence of what I was saying as still correct.
The truth is, it is impossible to prove with full certitude that there was no president named Wilbur Thwilmond. In fact, it's impossible to completely disprove any invention I could bring up. Nevertheless, you'd be wise to reject my claims, and in fact, scientifically, you absolutely should reject my claims. This is because scientific thinking never cares about one hundred percent certainty. The next example will make this clear.
A Bag of Balls
Here's the second thought experiment. Let's say I hand you a bag with ten balls in it. You can feel from the outside that there are clearly ten balls. You are allowed to take a ball from the bag, examine it, and then return it to the bag. After which you may take another ball out. You may never take more than one ball out of the bag, and each time you remove a ball, it must be randomly selected from all ten balls. Let's say the first ball you take out is green. So is the second. And the third. How many more consecutive green balls must you take out of the back before you can safely claim that there are only ten green balls in the bag? Does the answer change if I tell you at the beginning that there are 9 green balls and 1 red ball in the bag? What about, if I claim there were 9 red balls and 1 green ball?
The mathematical answer to both questions is "an infinite number of balls." Mathematics deals in absolutes. And no matter how low the probability goes, it never reaches zero. That is not the scientific answer though. Science deals in probability. For this example, it's actually pretty easy to calculate the probability of taking N consecutive green balls out of a bag filled with 9 green balls and 1 red ball. For example, there's a ~35% chance that the first 10 balls you take out of a 9-green, 1-red bag are all green. This amount falls off pretty quickly. There's only a 1/200 chance that the first 50 balls are green. There's less than a 1/37000 chance that the first 100 balls are green. And if you sit through and pick 1000 balls out of the bag, there's only a 1/5 billion billion billion billion billion billion chance (6 billions = 9 millions = 1 quattuordecillion).
After 10 balls if you were to claim, "hey there's no non-green balls in here." I might reply "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And I'd be using it correctly! 35% chance is certainly reasonable. You have not picked enough balls to comfortably reject the red ball hypothesis. Even at 50 balls, I might be able to get away with it, that's an unlikely occurrence for sure, but 1/200 is not outside the realm of possibility. At 100, the phrase is misapplied, and it certainly is at 10000. At what point have you gathered enough evidence to conclude the absence of non-green balls?
The answer is somewhat subjective. In the scientific world everything is given with confidence intervals, or margins of error. Often a result is stated with a 95% probability that the value is between two bounds. In this case, it would take 28 balls to be 95% confident that there were only green balls in the bag. Is this good enough? It might be if you had no prior expectation of what colors of balls were in the bag. This is where the second part of the question comes in. If I told you there was one red ball in the bag, you might not be so confident in 95%. You might require 99.5% (50 balls) or more. Well, that's if you thought I was trustworthy. If you thought I was infallible and would never lie, then you might never be satisfied, even at 1000 balls. Everytime another green ball gets pulled out of the bag, you might claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But now, you have abandoned scientific principles.
Going back to the first example. Can we say for sure that there was no President Wilbur? No. Can we state with a high degree of confidence that there was no President Wilbur? Yes. Prior information, such as me saying that there is a President Wilbur, or that there is a red ball in the bag should only change the degree of confidence you need to reject the hypothesis. If you set that degree of confidence at 100%, then you've put yourself in a situation where the scientific methodology will never produce an answer. That's why I said above that using "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in situations like these is akin to scientific nihilism.
Finally, the Kefirah
So now let's turn to an example of relevance. There are no dearth of biblical claims that can be analyzed using scientific analysis, but in order to preview some topics we will discuss in future weeks, let's look at the Exodus story, one that begins at the end of Bereishit (Genesis) and culminates all the way in Yehoshua (Joshua) with the conquest of Eretz Yisrael (Israel). The story makes several claims that appear to be testable.
The story claims a very large group of people leaving Egypt. The number is given as 600,000 males between 20 and 60 along with women and children, giving a total number of roughly 1.5 million. It claims a complete destruction of the Egyptian army at the time of departure. It claims that the entire nation lived in various locations in the Sinai desert for 40 years, 38 of which were spent at one location, Kadesh Barnea. It mentions other nations around at the time, kingdoms in Arad and Heshbon. It mentions states of Ammon, Moab and Edom. In the conquest, it claims that the Israelites captures many cities in a quick campaign, displacing the inhabitants. It mentions destructions of the cities at Jericho and Ai, as well as other locations. In a nutshell, this is the biblical claim.
We can pretend the ground is a giant bag, now with an infinite number of balls. Each ball that we pull out that supports the hypothesis can be a red ball, each one we pull out that does not support it, can be a green one. Note, that it's not important here that the green balls contradict the hypothesis, just that they do not support it. This analogy isn't perfect, no analogies are. In truth things aren't as binary as green and red. But for this thought experiment, let's assume they can be.
We can temper our expectations based on location. If we're excavating at Kadesh Barnea, and we're pretty sure we know where it is, we might have good expectations to get a red ball. Similarly, if we're digging up Jericho. If we're excavating in Syria, we might not expect to see much. The type of evidence matters. If we're trying to see the 70 individuals who went down to Egypt with Yaakov (Jacob) we might not be surprised if nothing turns up. It's more likely than not that 70 people would get lost in the 2-5 million in the Egyptian empire. However, with the 1.5 million that left, we would expect to see some trace. Also, the time period matters. Let's say we're looking for references to some of the other nation states, Ammon, Edom and Moab. If we're looking in a period with a lot of recovered correspondence between states in the region, discussing treaties and trade details, then we might expect to see references to these nations if they existed at the time. If we're looking in "dark age" regions with a very limited amount of correspondence, then it wouldn't be surprising to see nothing.
Just focusing on one event, the encampment at Kadesh Barnea. The Torah claims that approximately 1 million people encamped there for 38 years. There are two census counts in the Torah that claim this number, as well as the 600,000 count upon leaving Egypt. An encampment of 1 million people would make this one of, if not, the largest city in the world. We can also set bounds on the time period, loose ones for now [1]. It must occur in the middle to late bronze age, between about 1600 BCE and 1000 BCE. Do we know where Kadesh Barnea is? We think we do. It is well known in later times as a trade route city between Arabia and Egypt. It is located near an oasis, and while we could be wrong about the exact location of this settlement, cities of 1 million people are phenomenally large. We dig in the region and what to we come up with? Absolutely nothing. Their are remains there from small outpost settlements much earlier, and much later, but nothing in the time frame in which the Israelites are supposedly there. No pottery shards, no animal bones from the numerous sacrifices, no human remains from the entire generation that supposedly died there, no tombs or graves, no written records. Every historian who looks at the archaeological result comes to the conclusion that if this account is referring to a real event, the numbers are horribly inflated. If there were indeed 1 million people here, we would not be only digging up green balls. We would have hit at least one red ball. We have not, despite an incredibly large number of motivated expeditions in the area, most of them by religious groups wishing to verify the biblical account and coming up empty-handed [2].
So the question I leave with, and one I won't answer here, is "How many consecutive 'green balls' would you need to pull out of the ground before you convinced yourself that there were no red balls in there. This is something to keep in mind in future weeks, and if you do any of your own reading on the subject. I will discuss the Exodus story in detail 3 weeks from now, and at some unspecified later point I will deal with the conquest of Israel.
1. We'll look at the dates of the Exodus in 3 weeks (parshat Bo) and determine that it fits in no time period at all.^
2. Finkelstein and Silberman discuss the difficulty of Kadesh Barnea in "The Bible Unearthed."^
I'll refer you to another post on this seemingly obsolete blog: http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/2008/07/myth-of-600000-argument-from-silence.html
ReplyDeleteI disagree with his final point. In this case there is clear evidence of absence, and he actually makes the case clear as to why.
Delete5am?
ReplyDeleteThese posts get written well in advanced, sometimes months in advance. 5am was somewhat of an arbitrary time that they get automatically posted.
DeleteO yee of little faith. There are numerous miracles claimed - you know manna from heaven, and also you do not defecate after eating it. Then the shechinah cleans up the desert after all the trampling - see how god cares about the environment - you can not expect to find anything. The shechinah was probably originally a female goddess. IT IS obvious that torah is mytholgy imposed perhaps on some kernals of historical memories. I wrote 4 posts so far on Kuzari. We can not write enough about that argument since it is so widely thought by Orthodox and other Jews as some sort of proof.
ReplyDeleteThe 1.5 million people are supposed to have died. Which means they would have left bones. Similarly the large amount of animals that were slaughtered for the sacrificial service should have left remains. Fire pits, necessary for the construction of the temple are another easy thing to find. Even with the miraculous ad-hoc excuses, there still should be evidence for.
DeleteAt some point I will write the obligatory Kuzari refutation, where I will try to focus on some less frequently used rebuttals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEarlier this month, the Florida Sun Sentinal ran a story about a Chabad rabbi who moonlights as a biblical archaeologist and claims that a number of key biblical accounts are supported by discoveries made at different sites.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/news/miami-dade/fl-jjdc-archeology-1210-20141208-story.html
What key biblical accounts ? Works of fiction have accurate facts in them. I do not doubt there is some historical basis for some of stories in the Tenach. But the ancient Israelites and the authors of the Torah would read theology into events.
DeleteThe article is pretty short and there is not much there, but this quote is pretty indicative of what you tend to find with religiously motivated archaeology.
Delete"It gives you a sense of satisfaction that these are stories that I learned in the Bible as student and continually study and then every so often, when something is actually found that corroborates a story and brings the story to life, it gives you a feeling of satisfaction."
What the Rabbi is describing is confirmation bias as a mode of operation. Does he get dissatisfaction when a finding contradicts the biblical record? Or does he only focus on what supports it.
When looking at the historicity of the Tanach, you have an area that is clearly well rooted in actual historical records. This era starts with at the reign of Rehoboam where it describes an attack by an Egyptian Pharaoh that is corroborated in Egyptian records. You also have a clearly ahistorical period, which culminates in the conquest of Israel. Everything from this period and earlier is filled with anachronisms, broadly steals from stories of nearby cultures, and is blatantly contradicted by the archaeological record. The Rabbi doesn't mention these problems.
In between these two areas is the period of the united kingdom, and to a lesser extent, the era of the Judges. This is currently where the most intense battles among archaeologists today are fought. Honestly, I have read enough of the topic to make a confident statement that I do not have enough information to determine whether there ever was a united kingdom, and whether it was ruled by rulers named David and Solomon. This may sound like a weird statement, being confident of not knowing, but that's how things go sometimes. The answer lies in detailed excavation records and Bayesian analysis of C-14 data, and it's not sufficient for either side yet.
You'll notice when articles get posted like this, they tend to focus on either the low hanging fruit of the divided kingdom period where everyone agrees the Tanach has historical merit, albeit heavily propagandized. Or they focus on the transition period of the united monarchy, where the record is sparse and contradictory. They never talk about the conquest or the Exodus. They leave that out entirely (or they lie). Because they know that it is ahistorical and anyone who has even glanced at the material can determine that.
Numbers in the Torah are often if not always typological. The 600K figure of those who left Egypt should not be taken literally (aside from the fact that it makes no sense for various reasons) any more so than the clearly typological 70 souls who went down.
ReplyDeleteWe know that is the case today. But many Jews in the past have believed the numbers are accurate 600k plus, and many today still do. It is one of the key assumptions of the Kuzari argument - a mass revelation to an entire nation of several million.
DeleteI have yet to see any reasonable exegesis that explains the two census counts in Bamidbar in anything but a literal sense. I don't want to go into too much detail here, because I'm planning a full post on this when we get there.
DeleteI will say that modern academia has an out here, in that they can say that the 600k in Shmot was from an earlier account, and the Bamidbar censuses were from a later account. An account which took a trope number and interpreted it literally.
I will also say that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews view these numbers as literal. I was certainly taught the literality of these numbers during my entire trek through yeshivah. Also, the large number of people participating in Sinai is touted by proselytes like Kelemen. But more on that in a future week.
I don't disagree that the numbers are taken literally by the vast majority of Orthodox Jews. That doesn't make it right, of course. The proselytic potential of a literal interpretation is far outweighed by its rational, shall we say, difficulty.
DeleteAs for a reasonable exegesis for the censuses, this may provide a starting point, especially the endnote:
http://judaicseminar.org/bible/bemidbar2.pdf
Thanks for your response. I don't want to write my full answer now, because I want to write it for one of the parshiot containing a census. But, it should be noted, that the existence of mystical reasons for the numbers, if we grant that they actually exist, do not preclude a literal explanation as well. They are on different axes so to speak. In the explanation I will offer, you actually would expect there to be non-random elements to the tribe numbers!
DeleteEven then, the specific examples of "key numbers" is not all that compelling. As the pesach song "echad mi yodea" points out, any number can be considered special.
Unfortunately, if you want more, you'll have to wait a couple of months.
"It claims that the entire nation lived in various locations in the Sinai desert for 40 years, 38 of which were spent at one location, Kadesh Barnea."
ReplyDelete1) Can you be so kind to refer me to the verse which states that the Jews were in Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years? (See, commentary of R' Meyuchas to Devarim 2:14, for more info);
2) Are you aware that the Jews couldn't have been in the Kadesh Barnea that was in Israel, according to Daas Zekeinim, Chezkuni, Haemek Daver, to Bamidbar 34:4, while Finkelstein's site is in Israel, pg. 63?
3) This may no longer be true (it's an old edition), but according to the Encyclopedia Judaica (a wholly secular publication) the oldest thing we found while digging Damascus is an idol from 900BC. Would you therefore conclude that Damascus in Genesis is an anachronism?
1) The verse in question is Devarim 1:46. While granted it doesn't exactly say 39 years, that can be recovered from reconstructing a timeline in Bamidbar. (well sort of, the timeline is confused a bit because of multiple authorship, but let's ignore that). Even if you conclude it's not 39 years, it definitely says they stayed there for "yamim rabim" which is enough to make the points in the above post.
Delete2) I'm not sure why you say Ein Qadis or Ein Qudeirat is in Israel. Here's a map I found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadesh_(Israel)#/media/File:Map_Land_of_Israel.jpg I couldn't find an equally good map for Ein Qudeirat, but everyone I see lists it as in northern Sinai. Also, be aware that what currently is the state of Israel is not equivalent to biblical Israel.
3) Damascus is mentioned in the Amarna letters. EA194-197 are all written from Damascus. So no, Damascus is not an anachronism.
Also wiki (whether you can trust it or not) claims sites at Damascus stretching all the way back to pre-history (7th millennium BCE). Although I think the Amarna letters is the first time the name Damascus appears.
1) It is anything but clear from the biblical text that they were there for 38 years. (This sloppyness alone, of their so-called "irrefutable" proof from the lack of remains at Kadesh Barnea, is reason alone to question their other conclusions that we can't check). R' Meyuchas, if I remember correctly, stated that the Jews were at Kadesh-Barnea for as little as two months.
Delete2) My point was that there are two locations with the same name, Kadesh Barnea. He must prove that he searched the correct Kadesh Barnea (I believe he searched neither one correctly, because I suspect those names appended centuries later by Arab nomads recently. We have no way of determining locations in ancient Israel, unless they were populated continuously by Jews. . Most of Israel was empty for centuries (during Galus). Until they enunciate how they determined ancient locations, we don't need to be intimidated.
But even if we have full faith in Finkelstein's "irrefutable" conclusion, he needs to spell out which Kadesh Barnea he was looking at.
3) Exactly. When we have positive evidence for the existence of a city, we ignore the "absense of evidence" argument. So the argument might need be as fool proof as Finkelstein would have us believe.
1) One minor Rabbi's opinion is not enough to contradict the meaning of the text. The verse says "Yamim Rabim" which it does not say for any other location. Regardless, anyone can actually read the Torah and come to their conclusions as to what it means. Even if they only stayed their 1 year, you would expect copius remains if the size of the dwelling was anywhere close to what you get from the reading of the texts.
Delete2) Finkelstein does indicate which of the two sites (Qadis and Qudeirat) he thinks actually is Kadesh Barnea. He also mentions that he both locations have had extensive excavations. It shouldn't be hard to find the largest city in the world, even if it was a temporary city. The locations arise from the existence of wadis and springs. Springs are roughly geologically constant, you do not expect these locations to move.
3) I don't understand what you are talking about.
You seem to be hung up on the basic argument. The "irrefutableness" of the conclusion arise from a probabilistic treatment of the data. It is not 100%, it does not need to be 100%.
1) As Orthodox Jews, we accept the approach of the rishonim, and we accept that their understanding of the text is legitimate. R' Meyuchas, who is cited both by the Shaarei Aharon and the Mikraos Gedolos Otzar Harishonim (both, especially the former, are found in most shuls), isn't presenting a drush. He claims that it is the simplest understanding of the verse. Yamim Rabim, literally translated, means many days, nothing more. At most, Finkelstien should say, "R' Meyuchas has been proven right!"
ReplyDelete2) The problem is that the Kadesh Barnea that he (presumably) checked is not the one referred to in the Torah. Kadesh Barnea, a border village, is used by the Torah to demarcate the Southernmost region of Eretz Yisroel. The Jews, however, camped outside of Eretz Yisroel. The villiage was in Eretz Yisroel, which is what he checked (as far as I could tell). Furthermore, as Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch points out (if I understood him correctly), we have no clue where the ancient sites of Israel are. Finkelstein can trust the Arabic nomads, and they probably are right a certain percentage of the time, but it is highly unlikely that they maintained even a majority of the place names that the Torah refers to (since there was little overlap between them and the Jews, and because they were nomadic herders).
3) My point is that since we have positive written evidence that Damascus is old, you rightly ignored the fact that we haven't found anything there from prior to 900 BC. If we have positive evidence for Sinai, we should ignore the lack of evidence at Kadesh Barnea (again, I don't think that they ever checked the real Kadesh Barnea).
To elaborate: Here's how Finkelstein states how they determined the location of Kadesh Barnea: "The general location of this place is clear from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the three commentators I mentioned above - Daas Zekeinim, Chezkuni, Heemak Davar - all state that the Kadesh Barnea that the Jews camped in wasn't at the one mentioned in Numbers 34.
Rashi on Devarim 1:46 indicates that yamim rabim means 19 years. There is no consensus here, so taking a single guy and saying, this is definitely what the text means is kind of silly. Anyway, this is dancing around the point. The conclusion that the wilderness account is not historical does not arise from the excavations at Kadesh Barnea alone. But rather repeated excavations across the entire Sinai peninsula. None of them indicate anything of a passage of a large nation of Israelites. In order to recover a historical reading of the text you need to either reduce the numbers greatly (as Hoffmeier does) or rely on miraculous events that somehow erased all data of the event (which is unsatisfying to anyone approaching it rationally.)
DeleteAn idea that we do not know where the sites are therefore we cannot say anything definitively is a cop-out. The problem is that what we *do know* does not align with what is written in the Torah. As Moore and Kelle state:
"Most histories of Israel no longer consider information about the Egyptian sojourn, the exodus, and the wilderness wanderings recoverable or even relevant to Israel's emergence. Many of the same methodological difficulties that led to the disappearance of the "patriarchal period" from histories of ancient Israel led scholars to this conclusion." (p. 81)
Now I will say, find evidence of a large encampment anywhere in Sinai dating to the late bronze and I will change my view. What will change yours?
You can claim that they're wrong or whatever, but what you cannot do is claim that any academic scholar today thinks that there's room for a literal biblical interpretation of the wilderness (except with greatly reduced numbers, so that we wouldn't expect the evidence).
As far as Damascus, this is a non-sequitur, and I doubt it's correct. As I noted, not being an expert on Damascus, I cannot directly argue the claim that we only have archaeological evidence from 900 BCE, I did point out that wiki claims evidence stretching back millennia before that. However, we do have external evidence of the existence of the city (Amarna letters) where we would expect to see it. Had Damascus not been present in the Amarna letters, but nearby cities were, we would have concluded that Damascus didn't exist yet. This is exactly why we conclude that Israel, as a city state or something similar, could not have existed yet at this period.
1) Did I say that R' Meyuchas's explanation is the only correct reading of the text? I merely claimed that the verses are vague, vague enough to allow for the reading of R' Meyuchas. Thus, if you want to contradict the verses, the only thing you can do is FALSELY claim, as Finkelstein does, and as you have, that the Bible states that they were there for 38 years. You haven't succeeded to contradict the biblical claim. All you have is chest-thumping.
ReplyDelete2) What percentage of the Sinai desert did they dig up, when coming to their conclusion that the Jews didn't sojourn there?
3) I never claimed that I have archeological evidence for the sojourn, so I don't need to find anything. You claimed that there is archeological evidence against it. I haven't seen even the slightest evidence against it.
4) My point, and I'm not an expert on Damascus either, with Damascus was that cities don't necessarily leave archeological remains. Had the Amarna letters not mentioned Damascus, you would have mocked Genesis's claim that Damascus existed before the times of David.
5) I don't have the burden, since I'm not making an archeological claim, YOU ARE. However, Interestingly, I was reading up about Tenochtitlan the Aztec's capital in Mexico in the sixteenth century. We know a lot about the city. There are people that still speak the Aztec language, in fact. The Spanish conquistadors wrote detailed first-hand accounts about the city. Most importantly, we have NUMEROUS maps of the ancient city. Despite this relatively solid footing archeologists ESTIMATE that the city had somewhere between 35,000 and 500,000 residents (based on the map, and assumed population density). Thus, if anyone claims that they can determine the population size of ancient Sinai or Israel which 1) we have no map of, 2) happened thousands rather than hundreds of years ago, 3) no first hand accounts, we should be very, very skeptical when we are lectured regarding FLEETING population sizes. And we aren't talking about a city. We are talking about huge areas of land.
1) I take your comment to mean that you didn't even read the first response where I clearly stated that the actual 39 years is irrelevant. Any period of time is long enough to leave archaeological markers with a population size that would be the largest city in the world in an environment that does a very good job at preserving remains. We have early bronze age relics from small trading caravans that passed through, why nothing in the late bronze?
Delete2) Pretty much every reasonable site has had an excavation. This includes both reasonable choices for Kadesh Barnea, and Etzion Gaber, as well as other various wadis and oasises. When Hoffmeier, someone who wants to squeeze as much historicity as he can out of the Torah, says a population of 1 million+ is absolutely impossible, then you can put money down that it's impossible.
3) The argument is laid out in the actual post. We have enough data to rule out a population of 1 million. And every academic agrees.
4) I would have not mocked Damascus. Perhaps you should actually look at the things that I think are ahistorical and why I think they are ahistorical before putting words in my mouth.
5) The null position is that the Torah makes an extraordinary and unsupported claim, therefore it is not to be believed without evidence. I do not need to prove the negative. You cannot shift the burden of proof, it is a logical fallacy. Nonetheless, despite this, I do make the claim that there is sufficient evidence that the 1 million population figure is impossible. I have the backing of every academic. That is sufficient to state this case through the probabilistic argument I laid out in the post. Had this population size been realistic, we *would* have excavated evidence of it by now.
@ Anonymous “You claimed that there is archeological evidence against it. I haven't seen even the slightest evidence against it.”
DeleteA) Absence of evidence is evidence of likely absence in this situation. See for example Hoffmeier why.
Sometimes Absence of evidence is evidence of likely absence.
B) The Torah is making a an extraordinary claim. The onus is on believers to demonstrate it happened. If they can not, then we reject the claim.
1) Now you claim that "any period" of time is sufficient to leave archeological remains, but earlier on you claimed that one year was sufficient. My point is that there isn't reason to conclude that they were there for an entire year. (You then claim that if small trading clans left remains, surely the Jews should have left remains. The pircha on your kal vachomer is that you didn't enunciate the percentage of trading caravans that have left remains. If one in a thousand clans left remains, we can't necessarily expect that the Jews would probably leave remains.)
ReplyDelete2) There is no "reasonable site." We haven't the slightest clue where these sites are. They are based on contemporary nomad's place-names, and other guess-work. Another issue with your "reasoning" is its circularity. You claim that we checked "wadis and oasises [sic]." But that assumes that the Jews didn't have a miraculous source of water. The entire desert needs be searched.
3) The academics believe the following three ideas to be axiomatic (I can provide specific sources of this sort of logic): 1) Miracles are unscientific, and we therefore must presume that miracles didn't happen in Sinai (thus, we can rule out a million Jews in the desert), 2) The fact that the Sinai history is riddled with these false miracles renders even the natural parts less reliable, and most crucially 3) the are either entirely unaware or unimpressed with the kuzari argument; they view Jewish history the same way we'd view Greek myths. With these three conclusions in hand, they then use the "absence of evidence" argument as the cherry on top. Since they have these three initial prepositions, they feel comfortable, for example, on a) relying on Arab nomads, b) digging literally a millionth of the Sinai desert and concluding that "no evidence of the Jews has been found."
4) I am not shifting the burden. I agree that I must provide evidence that Sinai happened. But if you claim that archeologically the Sinai sojourn couldn't have happened, you have to dig more than a millionth of the desert.
1) We are not talking about a trading caravan, we are talking about the largest city in the world at the time.
Delete2) There are reasonable sites, because the Torah specifically mentions places with trees and water sources, these are rarities in that region. Your argument that we can't rely on the place names is poor. It envisions an author who did not want his audience to know where he was talking about.
3) We've dug up more than "1 millionth of the desert", which was the entire point of this post which you don't seem to understand. I gave the summary quote by Moore and Kelle, you can also look for similar quotes by Hoffmeier quoted in this post http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-population-problem-of-torah.html or Dever quoted here: http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-conquest-of-canaanite-nations.html Those last two are sympathetic to the biblical narrative. Hoffmeier in fact argues for a largely historical Exodus, and yet he still thinks that 1 million is completely impossible. These are what you need to argue against.
4) If your answer is that we don't have evidence because "miracles" then you've removed yourself from scientific and rational inquiry and this entire conversation is silly. You're relying on a god that used supernatural powers to hide evidence that his recorded history is reliable.
1) But your argument from caravans - that if we found the remains of roving caravans we surely should have found this "city" is illogical, since only an infinitesimal percentage of caravans have left remains. Remember, you have the burden of showing that the Jews probably would have left remains. Furthermore, you continuously use the word "city," which implies aqueducts, sewage systems, houses, palaces, roads, city-walls, entertainment complexes -- all of which the Jews in the desert DIDN'T have. So stop using this misleading word "city." The word city would be more appropriate for Damascus, for example, not the Jews in the desert.
ReplyDelete2) The Torah doesn't mention "places with trees and water sources." Besides Ailim, where does the Torah claim that there were trees? And they could have stayed in Ailim for no more than an hour...
3) Yours is an argument from authority. And, as I explained before, all the scholars you quoted are against the possibility of miracles. If your whole blog is just arguments from authority, what's the point of this blog. We are here to scrutinize their arguments. Thus, for example, when the ARGUE that the Jews were in Kadesh Barnea for 38 years, we can challenge that argument.
4) I never claimed that the author "did not want his audience to know where he was talking about." My point is that, of course, the desert Jews knew where Kadesh Barnea is. But then they went into exile after the first temple [to Egypt and Babylon, although, as Richard Friedman points out, WE HAVE LITTLE OR NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS EXILE, although all scholars agreed it took place, as far as I'm aware]. Once they came back, they probably forgot the exact location of some, maybe even a majority, of the villages. Then, they went into exile a second time. The land was nearly empty, as the Ramban records; it was hard to get a even a minyan, except in Jerusalem. Then arab nomads moved in, and had, I presume, some interaction with the few Jews who remained in SOME CITIES. But how can you disprove our national history based on such flimsy traditions? Even if you trust the arab traditions, the Jews are notoriously bad at keeping historical records (aren't they?!). So how do you rely on such flimsiness? Because you start with the conclusion that miracles are impossible. Thus, even the flimsiest argument is sufficient to topple the entire biblical history
(And when you rely on archeological claims regarding when specific cities were destroyed, you need first enunciate thoroughly HOW YOU DETERMINED THESE ANCIENT CITIES).
5) I never claimed that we don't have evidence. I claimed that THE MAIN REASON the archeologists are against the biblical story is because it contains miracles, and they don't take miraculous stories seriously. Thus, your argument from authority carries no weight.
1) The reason to bring up the word city is the fact that the population size claimed in the Torah is larger than any city of the period. I'm using it to give an idea of what the approximate *size* of the encampment would have to be (huge). The fact that the Torah doesn't allow for any of the actual physical structures that could actually sustain a population of that size is a hole in the narrative, one that can only be filled by appealing to miracles. Nevertheless, you would expect to find some manner of bones from the millions of people that died in the desert, or from the slaughtered cattle.
Delete2) In addition to Elim, there's also the guy who gathers wood in the forest (Num 15:32-36) and of course all the wood that was needed to construct the mishkan. (Did the Jews carry raw timber from Egypt?)
3) Sigh, argument from authority is only a fallacy when the claimed authority does not have relevant knowledge or credentials at the topic at hand. See here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Please don't be a fallacy troll. Relying on statements of experts is a key way of gleaning information. (Similarly, attacking the credentials of an individual is not an Ad Hominem fallacy if those credentials are key to the weight of the argument.)
4) You're making unsupported claims about what Jews did or didn't know. Please provide evidence that pre-exilic Jews knew exactly where Kadesh Barnea was and post-exilic Jews had no clue.
This is off topic, but there is evidence of the Babylonian Exile, for one the Babylonian records describe the conquest of Jerusalem and the exile of the king. We also have cuneiform tablets indicating trade in Babylon by Jewish merchants. Here for example http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622505,00.html What we don't have evidence for is that a large portion of the population was exiled, which is why most modern academics think it was only the political elite that were taken to Babylon. So please stop saying false things before you've checked whether they're accurate or not.
5) Regarding miracles I'll quote from the beginning of my post
"Before I begin, I will make a caveat. This post assumes a general acceptance of scientific principles. There can certainly be discussion on this matter, but I am far from an expert in philosophy of science or on the finer points of epistemology. So, out of necessity, I'm going to take the accuracy of scientific methodology as an assumption."
You obviously didn't read this, because had you, then you would have known that miracles fall outside of scientific methodology and are thus irrelevant to the topic. If you need to rely on miracles to reach your conclusions of reality, then you are not using scientific methodology. In fact, scientific methodology is completely useless to you, since you can just invoke miracles to explain away any difficult data. That's not how I work, and that's not what the post is about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@anonymous “I claimed that THE MAIN REASON the archeologists are against the biblical story is because it contains miracles, and they don't take miraculous stories seriously.”
DeleteI don’t recall Hoffmeier including that as one of his reasons. Correct if I am wrong.
1) Appealing to miracles isn't a hole in the narrative; it is the narrative. If your arguments are based on the assumption that miracles didn't take place, then you aren't arguing against the Bible; your'e arguing against your own story.
ReplyDelete2) I don't see any evidence from your other two sources that they camped near wood. Thus, it is possible that some people of the desert searched out other areas (the Jews, according to the oral tradition, did carry the wood for the mishkan, but that isn't needed for our discussion). To repeat: We have checked less than a millionth of the Sinai (or give me a more accurate percentage, if you are aware of one), so you have to specify, clearly, how you determined that the percentage you checked clearly corresponds to areas that Jews spent an appreciable amount of time.
3) You can rely on experts. But when you are blogging, you are trying to determine how STRONG their arguments are. In this context, you can't revert to the fact that the experts say something. That would be circular. In this context, we are evaluating their arguments. Furthermore, my point was that the experts' conclusion is at least somewhat based on the assumption that miracles don't happen. Thus, their conclusions aren't relevant to those who, philosophically, accept the possibility of miracles. Let us, therefore, focus on their arguments. So far, I haven't seen even the slightest argument against the sojourn in the desert, unless searching a millionth of it is an "argument."
4) I am not making claims about what the Jews knew when they came back from the exile. YOU ARE. You are claiming that the Jews maintained accurate place-names, when I don't have any reason to assume that, when the Bible claims that they were exiled. Furthermore, you avoided discussing the arab nomads. How do you conclude that they maintained proper place-names. Sure, some of them are likely correct, but how do you know that a majority are?
5) Correct. I wasn't aware of that article; indeed, it was published last year. But doesn't that show you something? According to Friedman, there was little evidence of an exile, and only now, it seems, we found evidence of this.
1) The narrative makes no mention of any miracles regarding the hiding of bones and other ways that the evidence disappeared. It also specifically indicates that other miracles, like manna etc, ended as soon as the Israelites entered Canaan, yet we see no indication that the civilization structure could support a population of the (claimed) size of the Israelites.
Delete2) The fact that the guy is gathering wood isn't evidence that they're near wood? You are imposing your desires onto a story isntead of reading what it is telling you. The idea that the Israelites carried timber out of Egypt for the mishkan is pretty laughable, but I guess if that's what you need to satisfy your preconceptions, then so be it.
3) I do not have the technical capabilities or the time to do a full review of the entire history of archaeological surveys of the Sinai peninsula. This is a ridiculous demand. What is not a ridiculous demand is that I can quote those who have looked at this. And I have provided four sources (Finkelstein, Dever, Moore & Kelle, and Hoffmeier) who have looked at the combined evidence and concluded that the results of archaeological digs indicate that if there was a wilderness transit, it must have been very small indeed. How many sources do you have that indicate the possibility for a large population based on significant archaeological surveys. You say you haven't seen the evidence but that's because you're just ignoring the conclusions of the survey results I've given and then claiming that they're based off of nothing.
4) You are claiming that placing the location of Kadesh Barnea at either Ein Qadis or Ein Qudeirat is incorrect. To support it you bring traditional Jewish sources (which are theologically based). I'm sorry, but this is still insufficient to me. Your arguments on this matter have not been persuasive. If you think it refers to another site, then you must say what site it is (and if you want me to believe in the population size, you damn well better find evidence of it at that site)
5) Please provide the Friedman quote you are talking about. (Also be aware that Friedman is a textual scholar not a archaeologist or historian. I've only quoted the latter professions in this context. Your argument is an appeal to authority fallacy, since the authority does not have the proper credentials in this topical area!)
1) I referred to miracles to respond to the assumption that the Israelite would have camped near wadis, and that therefore it would be sufficient for us to merely check those wadis. Thus, we need to check the entire desert.
ReplyDelete2) a) The fact that he gathered wood isn't proof that they camped within 100 feet of that wood, or even within five miles of that wood; b) even if they camped near wood, how do you know that they camped there for a sufficiently-long time?; c) If we accept that they had a miraculous source of water, which the states, then that source of water could presumably have allowed for shrubbery to grow near that source of water (See Ohr Hachaim to those verses, who quotes the same from the Midrash Shir Hashirim, and Maharil Diskin who quotes the same from Midrash Tanchuma);
3) All I need are specific details. If you claim that a tenth of the desert was dug, provide that source. Quoting a list of names isn't sufficient, when three biases mentioned earlier apply to their work.
4) Since you are making the argument against the Jewish sojourn, you have to prove that your location corresponds to where the Jews camped. You haven't done that yet. The verses are clear, however, that the Jews could not have camped in the Kadesh-Barnea that Numbers 34 talks about.
5) I'm at work so I don't have the book on hand.
1) The miraculous source of water traveling with the Israelites (well of Miriam) is midrashic. The Torah only refers to specific locations where they "miraculously" found water. Furthermore, the Torah specifies many place names, people don't name places in the middle of the wilderness. (Actually a couple places are specifically mentioned as wilderness, like Midbar Tzin and Midbar Paran, the rest not so much) Seriously reread what you wrote on "c" and just ask yourself if this is truly a reasonable resolution to the problem.
Delete2) The encampment of 1 milllion people would necessarily be more than 5 square miles. You are not appreciating the scale of the problem.
3) The exact amount is a red herring. It's only useful if you can calculate the exact values as I did in my simple example. And I didn't just quote names, I provided the exact quotes and locations of those quotes (unlike you).
4) Sorry, I do not have to "prove" this to whatever arbitrary necessity you demand. All I have to show is that there is a good association between biblical Kadesh Barnea and Ein Qadis/Qudeirat, which I (or rather archaeologists) have done. After this, it is your responsibility to either show that this association is incorrect and that some other site better fits the biblical narrative. You have decidedly *not* done at all, you've just claimed it's incorrect and provided specious arguments regarding its location in Israel which for everything I can tell is absolutely false. Throwing up your hands and saying, we can't ever know where these places are is not good enough. No one should be satisfied with that answer.
Again, I recommend you reread the central argument. The idea I'm presenting here is that you do not need to do a full canvas of the desert in order to come to the conclusion that, at very least, the population size in the Torah is fictional. You don't need to dig anywhere near 10% of that. The chances of missing a population of that size is small even if you just dig at a couple of obvious waypoints.
Anyway, I'm traveling for the next few weeks and probably will not be able to respond much. I might get one in tomorrow, but after that not for a while.
1) So you agree that if the midrash is correct that there was a traveling source of water, your argument regarding the absence of evidence doesn't work (because we'd have no way of determining where they camped)? Yes or no.
ReplyDelete2) I don't see how the size of the camp is relevant to your "proof" that the Jews must have camped right near the trees.
3) If you are claiming that you searched the Sinai desert, we'd need some general idea of how much you checked. Your quotes don't refer to this obvious point. In fact, Finkelstein's argument is based on the assumption that he located "Kadesh Barnea," the place the Jews supposedly camped for 38 years, but as I mentioned previously that argument is fatally flawed for numerous reasons.
4) Your argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. Let's assume that there is a good association between Ein Qadis/Qudeirat. The archeologists have a hunch, in other words, that these locations represent ancient Kadesh Barnea. In my view, if we don't find anything there, that should, at most, prove that the hunch wasn't correct, rather than claiming that the entire Sinai history is false, Second, as I mentioned before, the Jews camped outside of ancient Kadesh Barnea, so their efforts, while appreciated, are irrelevant. Finally, logically, I don't see why I would have to point to a particular site. I am saying that we have no idea where the particular locations are. Does that imply that they never camped in the first place? Or does that that imply that if you don't find anything when you dig a millionth of the desert that we conclude that they couldn't have camped anywhere else in the desert? I don't see how.
5) I was reading a book by the name of "Eleh Masei" a while back. If I remember correctly, he argues (and he's not an apologist, he's just a haredi writing a sefer) that the names for the places they camped are the closest villages that were to the areas they camped. So, if the village Kadesh Barnea was 15 miles away, the Torah would refer to it as "Kadesh Barnea."
6) I don't get why by just digging "at a couple of obvious waypoints" it would be sufficient to prove the Jews weren't there.
7) My main argument is the following: You are much more careful than the archeologists you rely on. You are searching for the truth, which is why you blog. But the archeologists you are relying on are sloppy, and they aren't thorough. For this very reason, they make sloppy and irrational claims. Thus, they claim "if we find small caravans, we surely should find the Jewish nation," which is an utterly irresponsible and illogical claim (since we find only an infinitesimal percentage of caravans). Yet, the archeologists do this. Similarly, you never enunciate exactly how many wadis or locations they check. Why? Because they "know" that miracles can't happen. Thus, to them, the story is obviously false. They, unlike you, aren't concerned with the biblical history.
I will let you respond to this point, but I won't respond to your response, as this will never end (maybe in a couple of months, I will respond to your response). When you get back from your trip, I will respond to your Kuzari post.
1) As I said before, once you admit ad-hoc miraculous explanations, then any scientific inquiry is pointless.
Delete2) The size of the encampment is relevant because you said "5 miles away" as if that was a large distance. But the size of the encampment must by necessity be larger enough that 5 miles isn't very far at all.
3) The relevant quote from Finkelstein is here.
"...not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramesses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai. And it has not been for lack of trying. Repeated archaeological surveys in *all regions of the peninsula* including the mountainous area around the traditional site of Mount Sinai... have only yielded negative evidence: not even a single sherd, no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment. One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material traces behind. But our modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. There is simply no such evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus in the thirteenth century BCE" (Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, p. 62-63, emphasis mine)
Finkelstein also has publications of the archaeological surveys he's referring to, but these are harder to get a hold of. That's what you need to dispute.
4) We have more than a hunch. We have a place name association and geological features that seem relevant. You need to point to a particular site, because the more likely explanation is that the account is invented rather than the site choice is wrong. This is not just because of Kadesh Barnea, but rather from the archaeological surveys I mentioned above, in Sinai, Egypt and Israel.
5) This is conjecture. There is no support at all. In fact in places the Torah recounts that they encamped *near* a site, so this makes little sense anyway.
6) This is why you don't understand the argument. It's the same reason why we can call state and/or national election results when only 1-2% of precincts have reported.
7) Please provide proof that the archaeologists are sloppy. This is a strong allegation and even archaeologists that strongly disagree (Finkelstein and Mahar for example) tend to disagree not on the fact that the other archaeolgist is sloppy.
Again, once you rely on miracles then the whole point of scientific inquiry is pointless. I'm surprised you haven't realized this yet. There is an entire branch of modern-ish Judaism, based on the Rambam, that argues that every miracle is not supernatural but rather hashgacha pratit. This is why you get people like Jonathan Sacks talking about bore tides and strong winds that could have caused the splitting of the sea, and why people refer to red tides and algae blooms as the meaning of the blood plague. This post is for people with that outlook. It's no surprise then that such people only can resolve the account by reducing the number of Israelites significantly.
@Anonymous You want to cite a midrash to support an event. But are not there midrashim that are false or at least not meant to be taken literally ? So what gives you the authority to select one to be literally happening and another not ?
DeleteI promised I wouldn't respond, because i felt that the argument wasn't progressing, but I think your last response added some new insights that I thought were worth probing (I am not responding to many of your points because I don't want to get sidetracked):
ReplyDelete1) I agree that I can't include "ad-hoc miracles." In fact, I can't include even ad-hoc natural explanations. Thus, if I were to claim "the Jews were commanded by Moses not to leave even trace amounts of bones and pottery shards because he felt that it would sully the pristine desert landscape," that would be an ad-hoc explanation, and it would be faulty. But when miracles are part of the biblical text (miraculous sources of water and food), or even the oral tradition, that's not ad-hoc. Those miracles were part of the story before the nuisance of modern scholarship arose.
2) If you sincerely feel that science can't consider the possibility of miracles (a point I would disagree with), then science can neither confirm or deny a text which contains miracles. You can't, on the one hand, claim that science contradicts the bible, when science doesn't have the tools to deal with a miraculous story.
3) If the edge of the Jewish camp was five miles away from the woods and wadis, while archaeologists dug only a four mile perimeter around Kadesh Barnea, for example, they wouldn't find anything from the Jewish encampment.
4) MOST IMPORTANTLY: Finkelstein claims they searched all "regions of the peninsula." Do you realize how silly that sounds to someone who takes the biblical history seriously? Let's say there are ten "regions," or even a hundred "regions," which would mean that they completed 100 digs in the desert (I'd be shocked if they did that many). What are the odds that performing 100 digs -- less than 1% of the desert -- would uncover anything from the tribes? (The rest of his points contain obvious flaws but I'm trying to be brief...). When corresponding with you, I feel like I'm talking to a giant who is standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. It isn't becoming for a serious thinker to rely on such obviously-forced argumentation.
5) I don't see how your analogy with polls has any relevance (I won't watlk you walk you through it for the sake of brevity). Take the follow analogy, however: When you leave your coat in shul (or at the theater?), and can't remember where you left it, how many coats do you look through before concluding that your memory of bringing your coat to with you is incorrect--1%?! We have a pristine history. We shouldn't be intimidated by their arguments.
1) As I said before there is a very large section of modern Judaism, based on the Rambam, that posits that the biblical miracles are all naturalistic. This is what I meant when I talked about people that wished to engage with the scientific community. From a scientific perspective *all* miracles are ad-hoc explanations.
Delete2) Science is based entirely on the idea that the world obeys fundamental rules. Miracles are explicit, claimed, breaks of those rules. If there was ever a miraculous event that was verified, then it winds up getting added to the list of natural phenomenon. It's like the old joke, what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. What is correct is that scientific methodology will provide the same answer to the believability of the Exodus story as it does Mohammed's splitting of the moon, or Jesus's water into wine.
3) You're hair splitting and missing the point of the argument, which is that the camp size is by necessity huge. Therefore, any archaeological survey at a site should be able to find traces of it.
4) Is it silly that Finkelstein makes this claim or do you just not believe it. I think it's the latter.
You don't believe that there are enough archaeological surveys for Finkelstein to make the claim that the desert account is fictional. This leads to a natural question about how can we determine whether Finkelstein is correct or blowing smoke. This is good question, and we should always be checking claims to our abilities. Here are some paths.
a) We can approach it from the source. Look at all the archaeological surveys, generate our own Bayesian model, and evaluate the probability of the Exodus occurring as claimed in the Torah in light of these results. But, the sticking point is that neither of us has anywhere near the capabilities of doing this. We are not trained archaeologists. Furthermore, there's no reason for anyone to actually believe our results. This path is off because of our lack of technical expertise and lack of credentials. Not to mention that it probably entails decades of research. Finkelstein can make these claims because he's spent nearly the entirety of his lifetime working on this. But he can still be wrong. How can we determine that if we can't check the source directly.
b) Look for credentialed experts who disagree. Finkelstein makes a lot of claims that are criticized and objected to. The most prominent example is the "low chronology". Unfortunately, the biblical exodus narrative is not one of them. Even scholars (like Hoffmeier and Dever) who disagree vehemently with Finkelstein on things like the united monarchy, agree with him in this regard. This is a problem, since there is not support to overthrow the model. What we have here is a consensus of experts that something happened a certain way. That's hard to get around.
At least now you know what you're up against. It is not sufficient to sit and take potshots and say, "but Finkelstein is wrong." You need to either prove that (which is difficult unless you are a trained archaeologist) or better yet find some trained archaeologists who can champion your case.
(continued in next post)
5) I will not have time to go into details, but there is a big difference between your coat example and both the political example I gave and the Exodus example. I'll try to outline the differences.
Deletea) In the coat example, you have a strong Bayesian prior that you probably brought your coat to shul. Granted that prior (unless it's 100%) decreases with each coat you check, it still is probably strong enough. The example is better if you couldn't remember at all if you brought your coat. Then you might actually give up after searching some of your favorite coat-hanging spots.
b) The cost of checking all coats is small, and much smaller than the cost of getting a new coat. Therefore, even if the probability is small that your coat is there, you still will check it because the opportunity cost is low. This is opposite of political surveys and archaeological digs which have a high cost. A better example would be contrived where you couldn't remember which shul you left your coat in and would have to travel to each shul in the tri-state area. Or each "check" of a coat requires walking back from home to shul. If this was the case, you might actually give up earlier and assume you just lost your coat.
c) You only have one coat, so the probability is linear. So if you check 100 coats you have exactly the same probability of finding your coat at the first one you check as you do on the 50th. This is because to find your coat on the 50th check, requires you to not find it on the first 49. Mathematically we say that the probability of finding the coat on the 50th check is *dependent* on not finding it on the others. This is different from the desert since the probability of finding information at any site is (mostly) independent of finding it at other sites. The only change in probability arises from the adjustment of the Bayesian prior.
I have more to say, but I'm out of time. I apologize for not being able to proofread this response.
@anonymous "Those miracles were part of the story before the nuisance of modern scholarship arose." Maybe because the ancient Judaens/Israelites would ask how could people survive ? Or how come they were not seeing any remains in the region in question ? The Torah, midrashim, Oral tradition provides an explanation - its all a miracle. See how all problems go away if you plug in miracles ?
DeleteI will not deal with many of your points, not because they aren’t relevant, but because I don’t want to take away from the central points:
ReplyDelete1) As we discussed previously, the argument from authority shouldn’t be relied upon while blogging (in this context), since we are trying to decide just how reliable their arguments are. Furthermore, we have to demarcate the range of an archeologist’s authority. True, their expertise allows them to date certain materials and to decipher ancient languages (and I never questioned their conclusions in this context, despite the inherent speculation and interpretation that they rely on). But, as is this case with an astronomer who pontificates regarding astrology, we can tell an archeologist that his expertise in dating and deciphering doesn’t give him the unquestioned authority to preach regarding “absence of evidence” logic, especially when this logic is based upon three (non-archeological) assumptions, that I discussed earlier on.
2) As I mentioned before, if you believe that science can’t take miracles seriously, then science can neither confirm nor deny the biblical narrative, as the narrative is based upon miraculous events. If you call all miracles “ad-hoc,” then you aren’t contradicting the bible; you are contradicting your own “rationalist” story. Don’t call your book “The Bible Unearthed, “ when it should be called “Our Naturalistic Version of the Events Unearthed.”
3) All the scholars you cited seem to be atheists, with the exception of Hoffemeir. And even Hoffemeir is a proponent of naturalistic interpretations of the biblical history. He also believes in the Documentary Hypothesis, with all its cynical underpinnings. The only scholar who is willing to accept mosaic authorship (not based on faith, but rather based on the simple point that if a book claims that it was written by someone, we should presume that that ascription is accurate) is Kenneth Kitchen. But even he takes naturalistic stances. Thus, he claims that Moses’s monotheism was influenced by Akhenaton, when the Pentateuch is clear that God told Moses regarding monotheism. (I don’t recall whether Kitchen is open to a mass-Exodus, but I do recall that he very critical of the methodology and recklessness of Finkelstein’s arguments).
4) Finally, while we should accept the authority of experts, when these experts fail to provide specific details we need to remain suspicious. Finkelstein never claims (as far as I’m aware): a) What percentage of Wadis were searched; b) the percentage of the land near the Wadis that was searched; c) the total number of archeological digs done in the desert. Experience tells us that people don’t provide details it’s either because they don’t know them, or because they don’t want us to know them.
5) I will touch upon some, but not all, of the points in the coat analogy. The most relevant point (I don’t think that the cost is relevant) is that by the coat we have good evidence that you brought it to shul first place (although memories are often wrong) as opposed to Sinai were we essentially have no evidence that the Exodus happened in the first place. This argument is indeed what motivates archaeologists. They don’t feel the need to check more than 1% of the desert because they don’t think there’s too much evidence for the Exodus. Thus, it isn’t archaeology which disproves the Exodus, but rather the presumption that there’s no evidence for the Exodus. However, Kuzari-proponents believe that national history is a solid form of evidence, which archeologists are either unaware or undaunted by the Kuzari argument.
A couple of more points:
ReplyDelete6) In addition to the logical flaws in attacking a miraculous narrative with scientific principles that negate the possibility of miracles, there's also a moral issue. Biblical archeology is more popular than, e.g., Scandinavian archeology for a simple reason: both theists and atheists rightfully desire info that either confirms or challenges their belief in a personal god, or lack thereof. Thus, when biblical archaeologists sell millions of copies to their trusting readers - while their arguments are based on the assumption that God doesn't perform miracles - they are doing their audiences a grievous disservice which is patently immoral.
7) I bumped into this today: The Persian wars (if you remember them from your high-school global history class) according to ancient writers included millions of Persian soldiers, although that number is lowered by modern scholars to between 300 and 500 thousand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Persian_invasion_of_Greece. Yet, the giant Persian army - who had much more materials for their long journey to Asia Minor than the Jews in the Sinai - left no archeological remains. See, Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, pg. 29 (the snipet is available on Google books; I just ordered this book on amazon, but I never read the book, so I don't know his context...)
1) You are incorrect here in your conception of what archaeologists do (and even how they infer dates.) In order to determine dates of objects, archaeologists often have to do complex Bayesian analysis of radio-carbon dated objects. In other words, archaeology today requires the ability to understand and deal with probabilistic expressions. This is precisely related to the topic at hand. In fact it is the topic at hand. They are the *most* equipped to answer these questions. I recommend reading some archaeological reports. Specifically, look for ones with images like this: https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/calib.gif
Delete2) I'll agree to this correction, only if you call the version with miracles, "Our Imaginary Version of Events Unearthed." Science deals with things that can be measured. Miracles cannot be measured. If they could be, then they become part of science. If you think the miracles in the Torah can be studied and measured, and thus should be part of a scientific description, then please describe how.
3) Dever is not an Atheist. In fact he converted to Judaism. But this is irrelevant. Isn't it telling that all of the scholars listed eventually come around to similar viewpoints after spending a lifetime dealing with the evidence?
4) Finkelstein has certainly written reports on surveys of the Sinai peninsula. These are technical reports, and I do not have access to them, as far as I know. I agree that this is a problem, but I have no reason to doubt that he's telling the truth when he summarize the results of the surveys.
Your desire for "percentages" of wadis is silly. Do you have the expertise to determine whether 1%, 5% or 10% is a significant number? Are all wadis equally significant? This information is useless out of context. It's a number that sounds less impressive the more you know. Regardless, c has certainly been answered, it just requires some work to find. I do not have significant reason to doubt the conclusions based on the evidence that I *have* seen. You do, and that's fair. But you shouldn't expect *me* to have to dig it up.
5) Your difference here is related to the Bayesian prior. And to a point I agree. However, the issue gets turned on its head when you find out that the earliest group of achaeologists, specifically the Albright school, very much did believe that the Torah was accurate. It is only after they dug up enough to start finding contradictions that the consensus view changed. There's a great pair of quotes by Moore and Kelle comparing the views of Bright (Albright's successor) and Dever showing how the view of this school changed over the course of 4 decades. Alas, I don't have access to my books for at least a week.
1) The point is that the BIBLICAL narrative (read without bias or preconceived skepticism) clearly, repeatedly and emphatically conveys that miracles took place. If you presuppose the non-occurrence of miracles, you aren't attacking the bible (your point about 'Our imaginary version...' is too frivolous to deserve a response). Now, it would be scientifically impossible to locate manna, as the manna didn't leave a trace. But you can presumably locate the bones of the ancient Jews, and then you can scientifically analyze them. But, if you pigeonhole the encampments, requiring that they MUST have camped during their 40 years ONLY near wadis, while the bible and oral tradition both claim supernatural sources of water and food, you aren't attacking the biblical narrative, you are attacking your own version.
ReplyDelete2) Dever mocks the idea of miracles; and he admits to this. For examples, Dever writes: “There is simply no way that the Sinai Desert, then or now, could have supported more than a very few thousand nomads." W. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, 19 (obviously he's presupposing here that miracles didn't take place). Furthermore, he writes: “There is the reoccurent problem of miracles [which calls the rest of the narrative into question]." Ibid, pg. 20. So your point about conversion to (orthodox?) Judaism (for a skirt or for theological reasons?) isn't relevant.
3) The point is (as your earlier excerpt of Finkelstein displays) that Finkelstein goes into detail regarding wholly irrelevant points. But on the only relevant issue -- WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE DESERT OR WADIS WAS SEARCHED -- he is eerily silent. And we don't have to surprised why this is so. Every archaeological dig is expensive, and can only cover X numbers of square footage. Obviously, they couldn't look at even at 1% of the possible locations in the desert. So he doesn't include this important fact (because, remember, he's an atheist who doesn't think there's anything there in the first place, as you've so eloquently stated regarding someone whose not sure if brought his coat to shul in the first place). The fact that he doesn't tell us the percentages isn't "a problem." It renders the entire "argument" as nonsensical, bordering on the mythological.
4) Then, you ask, what percentage would satisfy me, and then you argue that I don't have the credentials to demand a specific percentage (if I understood you correctly). First, personally, I believe very strongly in the kuzari argument, that it's a strong enough proof that even if we'd search every granule of the desert, I'd believe in the Sinai sojourn (just as you trust even the fallible amarna letters' claim of the existence of ancient cities that haven't left remains). But I do agree that if we search a large percentage of the desert (90%?) and we find nothing, it would at least be an ARGUMENT against the sojourn (one that kuzari could easily overcome, although it would then depend how strongly you accept kuzari). Others will argue that searching 80% would be sufficient to raise a question against the Sinai sojourn, and, indeed, I don't have the credentials, both in archeology and probabilistic theory, to determine the exact percentage. But, I don't need any credentials to know that when you search 1% of the desert (at best) then you don't even have an argument against the sojourn.
1, 2) I've repeatedly said now at least twice before in this conversation and in the original blogpost that this post is geared towards the segment of the Jewish population that is willing to engage with science. I'm not sure why you're harping on this point. If your answer is "miracles" then this post, and the argument, is not for you. I clarified, now for the third time that I'm specifically talking about the very large segment of modern Orthodox Jews who see miracles not as supernatural events, but rather as hashgacha pratit. A view that is rooted in the Rambam. I will not explain this a fourth time.
Delete3) You did not understand the argument, I'm honestly getting tired of repeating myself, but I will at least quote it. "Do you have the expertise to determine whether 1%, 5% or 10% is a significant number? Are all wadis equally significant? This information is useless out of context." I trust Finkelstein's expertise, you don't. That's ok. But you need a sounder argument than you're putting forth which so far amounts to Finkelstein doesn't know what he's talking about.
4) You might as well transition to the modern Kuzari then, if that's what you're basing it on :)
"But, I don't need any credentials to know that when you search 1% of the desert (at best) then you don't even have an argument against the sojourn. "
You most certainly do!
1) As Iv'e repeatedly stated, miracles and science aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (although, if you believe they are, then you have no right to confirm or deny the miraculous bible). My answer isn't "miracles." My answer is read the biblical text, and test it. Don't make up your own text, test it, and then go back to the bible and start thumping your chest. Nothing in your original post refers to these obvious concepts. It is only subsequently that you began to avoid miracles per se. Now, I don't know what modern orthodox Jews believe, and I can't speak for them. And Jonathan Sacks can't speak for all of them either. Let us, rather, analyze the biblical text. The biblical text is utterly clear. Miracles are the central core of the text.
ReplyDelete2) Finkelstein's expertise doesn't apply to his conclusion--it is philosophical agendas that it driving his conclusion (which explains his lack of details). You are sacrificing your mind and life for nothingness.
3) I will start Kuzari once I'm done showing that you don't have the slightest proof from archeology against the Bible
1) I understand that you don't agree with the worldview I've specified. But this is the premise of the argument. I apologized that it was not explicitly clear in the original post, but I'm not apologizing any more after spelling it out three times. If you want to argue in the confines of this post, then you must accept the premises. If you want to argue outside the confines of this post, then that's fine too. For example we can discuss why miracles lie outside science. What I won't allow is that you rewrite the premises to your liking and then claim the argument is fallacious!
Delete3) Well, I've already told you how to change my view on the matter. Find a systematic rebuttal of Finkelstein's surveys of Sinai archaeology written by a credentialed archaeologist. Or write your own. I highly recommend the first option. Your argument that "they didn't look in enough places" carries no weight without backing.
I wanted to summarize the points that I made, before moving along with other topics:
ReplyDelete1) Finkelstein claims that the Jews were in Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. However, this claim only proves Finkelstein's sloppiness and bias, because the verses never make this claim.
2) Furthermore, a careful reading of the text (and an even cursory reading of the basic commentators) show that they camped in the desert area outside of the village of Kadesh-Barnea (or that they camped in another area that had the same name, Kadesh Barnea) since the Jews weren't permitted to enter the Land of Israel;
3) Finkelstein doesn't provide a thorough explanation how he confidently determined ancient place sites, which are based upon Arab nomads that didn't necessarily have a proper overlap with the Jews who were exiled;
4) In response to points 1-3, you argued that they checked the rest of the Wadis of the desert, thus the Jews couldn't have camped anywhere else in the desert; I responded: a) only checking the Wadis assumes that the Jews didn't have miraculous sources of water [here, you pointed out that in this discussion I can't raise miraculous explanations, since you were only arguing against modern orthodox Jews who, although they believe in the Torah, they don't believe in miracles], b) Finkelstein doesn't describe the percentage of the Wadis of the desert that were checked, and c) we don't know how close to the Wadis the Jews camped;
5) Finkelstein argues that the fact that we located ancient nomads all over the globe proves that we should be able to locate the ancient Jews; however, his logic is flawed since we only find an infinitesimal percentage of nomads;
6) We know of ancient cities that didn't necessarily leave archaeological traces: Byblos [see google books link that I posted earlier], the Persian Army [Ibid], and Damascus [Encyclopedia Judaica];
7) Regarding the argument from authority, I pointed out that the archaeologists are working with certain philosophical and logical assumptions (as well, some would argue, theological and political biases) when concluding that the Jews didn't camp in the 23,000 square miles of the Sinai Peninsula.
I've rebutted most of your points in the past, so I won't do it again.
DeleteHowever, you should be aware that point 6 is factually wrong. There is tons of archaeological evidence of Byblos and Damascus, so your sources are incorrect. In fact Byblos appears to be an archaeologist dream with remains dating all the way back to the 8th century BCE. I have no idea where they are getting these ideas from. I don't remember anything about the Persian army before, so I don't know what you'r talking about there.
And regarding point 7. They are archaeologists. Therefore they are doing archaeology. Your beef is with the science (and more likely with science in general)
I posted this a couple of days ago:
ReplyDeleteI bumped into this today: The Persian wars (if you remember them from your high-school global history class) according to ancient writers included millions of Persian soldiers, although that number is lowered by modern scholars to between 300 and 500 thousand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Persian_invasion_of_Greece. Yet, the giant Persian army - who had much more materials for their long journey to Asia Minor than the Jews in the Sinai - left no archeological remains. See, Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, pg. 29 (the snipet is available on Google books; I just ordered this book on amazon, but I never read the book, so I don't know his context...)
Anonymous - Have archaeologist studied the Persian army routes as intensively and for as long the Exodus has been studied ? The Exodus involves allegedly millions on LAND in a relatively small region. The Persian army was likely much less numerous and over a wider geographic region including on sea. Was the Persian Army in route for 40 or more years ? Did they have access to water ? I am no expert on the Persian Wars nor its archaeology - but the analogy to the situation involving Exodus seems weak. Have archaeologist concluded the Persian Army never was in route because of absence of evidence ?
Delete