Israel Finkelstein is awesome...An Israeli Jew who has no issue at all speaking the truth about the mythology of his people in the context of modern archaeology. The points he hits in this lecture are absolutely true and for the most part have been known for over 100 years. If you can get past his thick Israeli accent this lecture is a good summation for the average biblical-historicist to mull over.
That is completely evident. Of course one question that remains is where did Yahweh come from? Not Ebla, not Ugarit... Most likely an adaptation of an Aegean version of Zeus to the reality on the ground after the destruction of Ugarit in the late bronze age.
@@scin3759 Worship of Yahweh predates worship of Zeus. He also seems to have come from the south based on pre-Israel references to him in the Sinai and Edom whereas Ugarit was much further north. It seems probable that Israel adopted Yahweh from Judah
I think belief in gods originated at a time when when people had no other explanations for natural events. There would be a flood or a draught that destroyed the crops and people would conclude the gods were angry. Out of that the need to appease these gods with rituals and worship arose Belief in god or gods has become so deeply entrenched into our culture that even in our age of science and reason people.find it hard to let go of. It doesn’t help that children are heavily indoctrinated into this belief system which is continually reinforced their entire lives.
I listened to James Hoffmeier, an egyptologist with Ph.D from the univ. Of Toronto talk about exodus. His approach was to believe in whatever the bible says until proven wrong. The point being that when you decide to stick to your faith, you'll find ways to make it look like your the Bible is a true book of history.
Finkelstein delivers a horrendous blow to all those fanatics that take the bible literally. I love this guy. And the great part is that he has scientific evidence for much of what he says.
Horrendous blow? The guy does archaeology based off of a flawed Egyptian dating. Finkelstein still believes a dating system putting Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of an Exodus. How could that be if Ramesses son's stele put Israel as a nation in Canaan during their time? If he digs something up in Israel, based off of this one fact, it is misrepresented or taken out of context. No one worries about these kinds of archaeologists sir.
uva fan --most of the archeologists supports Finkelstein. John Bright, in his History of Israel (1981), takes Samuel at face value. Donald B. Redford, however, sees all reconstructions from biblical sources for the United Monarchy period as examples of "academic wishful thinking". Thomas L. Thompson rejects the historicity of the biblical narrative: "The history of Palestine and of its peoples is very different from the Bible's narratives, whatever political claims to the contrary may be. An independent history of Judea during the Iron I and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings." Amihai Mazar however, concludes that based on recent archeological findings, like those in City of David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Dan, Tel Rehov, Khirbat en-Nahas and others "the deconstruction of United Monarchy and the devaluation of Judah as a state in 9th century is unacceptable interpretation of available historic data". According to Mazar, based on archeological evidences, the United Monarchy can be described as a "state in development
@@uvafan940 The Egyptians were not wrong. The jewish sources were. Israel on the Merneptah Stele references Israel along with a bunch of city states. Every single one of them is Sumerian. Israel used to be Sumerian, not Semitic. What happened to them? The stele says: The seed of Israel is shorn. They were genocided. Half a millennia later Akkadians who would be identified as "jews" moved in. They weren't, but the OT claims that.
I read and reread Finkelstein's book The Bible Unearthed. It was really challenging. What it meant was that Yul Brunner and Charlton Heston were playing fictional characters in the movie The Ten Commandments. What amazed me was that this scholar a Jew was challenging a major story in Jewish culture.Would not he had a vested interest in supporting the stories. It shows he was a true scholar.
I think Finkelstein has no choice but to embrace this position, considering the seismic changes that rational archaeology has unleashed on the pre-minimalists.
aussieguy55 You may think that at first if you are not faimilar with true biblical scholarship. It's about unbiased investigation and assessment of the evidence,..
S Cin: No, it's not about choice. It's about detaching oneself from any perceived cultural or tribal obligations and reporting the actual findings. It's about integrity.
I don't think that Judaism is contingent on the historicity of the bible. Like Finkelstein mentions, there's a cultural component behind it that rings true regardless of whether the events actually happened. If anything, Christianity and Islam would be more impacted as their cultures absorbed the biblical religion as opposed to Judaism where the religion and culture are one and the same.
Given all of the facts and evidence within archaeology, history, anthropology, and science, I am absolutely dumbfounded at the fact that anyone is still practicing the abrahamic religions. Well, any religion, actually.
I am equally dumbfounded that anyone would waste their time and on UA-cam of all places to write such comments. We live in a free country where you can practice what ever you want, who cares? Apparently you do
Yes, what a complete waste of time and energy, and not to mention the disrespect of all those murdered, tortured and displaced in the name of religion.
The truth cannot remain hidden forever. I always knew there was something fishy about the Exodus story, especially when they worked so hard to link themselves directly to the first human created by God. A thousand years of history, all fiction.
3:20- j source (history) dated to 10th ctry ? 4:30- patriarchs 5:27- abraham 6:57- some argued patriarch story compiled during monarchic period (Solomon) 7:25- patriarchs from mesopotamia( hence check records from 2nd mil BC)
I've always had a theory of the Patriarchs. The way the story is told is incredibly repetitious, with various Patriarchs entering the Promised Land from different directions. For example, we have a fellow from Ur - oh wait, now he is from Haran - who enters the Promised Land from the north and is called Abram; now suddenly he is leading his family in from the west - from Egypt - and he is called Abraham. Then we have a second fellow moving in from Haran, but this time he is called Jacob; then he is crossing the Jordan from the east and he is called Israel. Then a patriarch called Joseph enters from Egypt again. Then we enter from Egypt in the west AGAIN, only the fellow is called Moses, and then sometimes he is called Aaron. Then we are suddenly entering the Promised Land from the east, only the patriarch is now called Joshua, and the slaves from Egypt now much more resemble a conquering army. My theory would be that the Patriarch tales are collated together into the Old Testament in a way that encourages national unity among tribes. These tribes originally possessed different national patriarchs who were supposed to have led them into the Promised Land from different directions and with different names - sometimes slightly varying names and sometimes totally different. I would guess that all these Patriarchs were originally the same "age" - that is, Joshua is no more recent than Abram. I would guess the patriarchs were given priority based on whichever tribe had precedence at the time the stories were fused together. For example, Joshua was revered by the Ephraim Tribe, the traditional rulers of the Northern Kingdom; and their entry into the Promised Land is much more elaborate and warlike than that of, say, the Levite Aaron. Poor Benjamin, patriarch of the smallest tribe, can barely even leave the land of Egypt before he is obliged to return because of the artifice of the silver cups. I have a similar theory about the Iliad, where, to me, the narrative is quite repetitious because different city-states of Greece had different traditions about who exactly charges heroically into Troy and seizes it. Therefore you have a narrative where one hero after another is suddenly blessed by a deity and charges up towards Troy killing masses of Trojans...but none of them can quiiiiite make it in, because the poet, fusing together multiple traditions, has prioritised the story of Achilles, and it would not do for Diomedes or Agamemnon to take the city first.
Maybe. I think that's not a bad theory, but that Moses was a different story. If we look around the dating for the end of Jericho, there was a possible model for the story in Ahmose I (Jah- Moses). He had challenged and eventually defeated the pharaoh of the Hyksos, freed his people, restored and reformed the religion of their forefathers, led them from a desert into a promised land (the reunited New Kingdom), conquered Canaan and dedicated all of his successes to his "father" and God, Amen, who had allegedly spoken to him.
@@reinercelsus8299 I personally think all Joshua's conquests were invented by bloodthirsty Ephraimite tale-tellers, and that they are fictitious. (Incidentally this means I do not condemn as strongly the bloodthirstiness of some of the Biblical narratives; to me they are a fiction from a society that likes bloodthirsty stories). All these Patriarchs, I would guess, are intended as glorifications of not-very-glorious shepherd tribesmen, who got into the hills of the Levant who knows how.
@@reinercelsus8299 recently watche an oriental institute lecture on the exodus. The lecturer said the Hyksos were incomers from the Levant and the eventually the Pharoah kicked them out. He suggested that these peoples and their expulsion could be the source of the exodus story. The Egyptians went on to rule the Levant.
@@helenamcginty4920 wow. What bad information. The Bible mentions the Egyptians having horses and chariots which didn't occur until the Hyksos dynasty was established and they ruled for several hundred years. They were also from Canaan and they practiced horse burial which has been observed in Egypt whilst the Hebrews never did that so good attempt but way off.
i read a part of your comment but when i reach the point when you say moses sometimes called aaron dismayed me, i suggest you must read the bible again to know more, moses was never aaron because aaron is his brother.
The Hebrew bible was developed during the Babylonian exile. These scribes and so call prophets decided to write down these oral traditions because they did not want to forget their history and culture.
As regards "Patriarchs" scholars have noted an anomaly about patriarch Abraham, he is portrayed entering Canaan at a time when it was occupied by Philistines. At Beershba he encounters them and they contend with each other over of a well there. Excavations at Beersheba have found Philistine pottery shards in its well's depths. Perhaps this fact is what is behind the biblical account? The problem? The Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until circa 1174 BC and the days of Pharaoh Rameses III (1182-1151 BC) who mentions their attempt to conquer Egypt. He defeats them. Archaeology has found some of the Canaanite towns they destroyed and rebuilt. Abraham makes his appearance in the book of Genesis which mentions three names in co-existence, (1) Israel, (2) Philistines, and (3) Rameses in Egypt. In Egyptian records of the 19th and 20th Dynasties we find mention of all three names. So the author of Genesis and Exodus seems to have preserved a real historical memory of the co-existence of these three. The problem is that the biblical date is too early, its not 2000 BC (Abraham) to 1446 BC (Exodus of 1Kings 6:1), its 1170 BC at the earliest (Philistines being the Plest who fought Rameses III). This is to say Abraham's world is not 2000 nor 1800 BC, its after 1170 BC. The Exodus begins at Rameses in Egypt, Egyptian per-Rameses or Pi-Rameses (Tell ed Daba today), which is named after Pharaoh Rameses II (1279-1212 BC). Genesis mentions Edomite Bozrah, which is no earlier than circa 725 BC. This suggests Genesis was written some time after Bozrah's founding. I understand the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) was written between 562-560 BC in the Exile at Babylon based on 2 Kings 25:27 and the mention of Babylonian king Evil Merodach who reigned from 562-560 BC.
The world has had many floods. But "the flood" is clearly plagiarized fiction. the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh first read by George Smith in 1883 is one of the first nails in the coffin of biblical stories.
My research suggests there was no Exodus to a Mt. Sinai, except in the imagination of the storyteller. How so? The Bible claims the quickest and most direct way from Egypt to the Promised Land is via the Way to the Land of the Philistines. But God, realizing that his people "will turn Chicken and return to Egypt" out of fear of engaging in war, the Philistines, decides to lead his people to the Promised land via a more indirect route called "the way to the Red Sea," which will take them to Mt. Sinai. The problem? The biblical narrator was unaware that the Philistines were not yet living in Canaan when the Exodus occurred, be that circa 1446 BC (or circa 1260 BC). The Philistines arrived in Canaan circa 1175 BC according to the Egyptian annals of Pharaoh Rameses III, who mentioned their attempt to conquer Egypt after conquering coastal Canaan (Rameses III called them the Pelest). Ergo, there was no reason for Israel to head south to the Red Sea and to Mt. Sinai! Thus the events at Mt. Sinai are all fictional: the worship of the Golden Calf, and the smashing of the Ten Commandments by Moses. There is no reason for Israel to camp at a Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia either! Why? There were no Philistines to fear and thus no need for "a detour" to Mt. Sinai and the Red Sea. Regards, Walter R. Mattfeld.
I 100% agree.... that the spot they are looking at is the wrong place it is actually in ethiopia, moses and his people took the nile river instead of the red sea ua-cam.com/video/8iA5Xb8BgEI/v-deo.html and this makes the most sense
The power of belief itself is so powerful. The power of belief absent the activity (or existence) of any "god" is enough to propel the destiny of large groups of people. If there is a god acting through history, the Bible does not tell the story from a historic viewpoint but perhaps it does from a psychological and symbolic viewpoint...and perhaps, that is what really matters to us humans. The story and the symbols are enough to fix our own will and talents to create act within the world and create great things. Are we just inspired by these stories and the progress of history is simply the progress of people inspired by myths of their ancestors?
What I don’t understand is that Finkelstein says Edom didn’t appear as an entity before 8th BC but in the Canaanite Ugarit texts of 1300-1400BC mentioned “Edom” and even the “Yudim.”
as a Christian, I appreciate all that you do for our religion! Religious truths are different from historical truths, and Dr Finkelstein helps me to appreciate the truths of the holy scriptures regarding to actual history. Bible was written for men and men are not written for the Bible, and men are the Lords even of the biblical writings.
@@judyives1832 Personally I don't think that the constantly evolving archeological understanding of our past threatens our faith(s). Historical truth is always changing, and it clearly doesn't conform to the intentions of the authors and compilers of the old testament; but these ideas seek to understand in a modern context, not destroy the understandings of the past.
Hopefully, in the future we can get to the part where the waters flowing from the Temple would flow eastward and somehow the waters flowed to the Occident instead. Thank you very much. I am very grateful.
John Bright, in his History of Israel (1981), takes Samuel at face value. Donald B. Redford, however, sees all reconstructions from biblical sources for the United Monarchy period as examples of "academic wishful thinking". Thomas L. Thompson rejects the historicity of the biblical narrative: "The history of Palestine and of its peoples is very different from the Bible's narratives, whatever political claims to the contrary may be. An independent history of Judea during the Iron I and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings." Amihai Mazar however, concludes that based on recent archeological findings, like those in City of David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Dan, Tel Rehov, Khirbat en-Nahas and others "the deconstruction of United Monarchy and the devaluation of Judah as a state in 9th century is unacceptable interpretation of available historic data". According to Mazar, based on archeological evidences, the United Monarchy can be described as a "state in development
(19 September 2023, 10:40 a.m.) Currently 1530 BC is a popular date for the expulsion of the Hyksos. This date does not align with a circa 1446 BC date for the Exodus based on 1 Kings 6:1 mention of 480 years from Exodus to the building of Solomon's Temple. Not very well known to many, however, two Egyptologists, who identify themselves as Christian Apologists, Professors James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, independent of each other, toted up the number of years of rule from Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David, and Solomon, and concluded the Bible erred! It was not 480 years from the Exodus to the Temple's building by Solomon, it was over 600+ years! This 600+ years aligned the Exodus with the Hyksos period of Egypt! Despite this extraordinary finding, both Hoffmeier and Kitchen, then trashed this Hyksos alignment, opting for a 1260 BC Exodus based on the mention of a store city called Ramesses, built by the Israelites, which, for them is the city of Pi-Ramesses of Pharaoh Ramesses II.
The innovative approach of this content is admirable. A book with akin subjects inspired a new direction in my life. "Temporal Echoes: Amelia's Odyssey Through Ancestral Shadows" by Vivian Rosewood
Great presentation. I am not sure but perhaps the patriarchal accounts are a matter of "my exalted father could beat up yours". Judah and Israel told mythic stories of their national origins similar to Virgil that countered the origin myths of their Semitic cousins and neighbors.That said they seem to have edited earlier myths where once revered characters such as Lot, Ishmael and Esau were made inferiour to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think that originally Lot was a hero of Moab/Bela/Zoar, Hagar was once revered as Iscah, Ishmael was a Nimrod like figure, Esau was also highly admired. That is not to say that these characters are bedrock historical figures but represent other perhaps earlier mythic traditions. After having cut my teeth studying the far more reliable Tacitus, studying the OT is downright hazardous but enlightening all the same.
I agree, I find it fascinating to think that as Israel was destroyed the fleeing people were welcomed into Judah by combining both traditions to form a unified people and nation.
Yes, I ask myself how Israel neighbors saw themselves in relation to Israel. Did Edom consider Esau his forefather? Did they think that his blessing was stolen? Did Moab think that they were the product of incest between Lot and his daughter?
I agree he using using facts to establish facts. The message of rape and racism and genocide and sexual matters does relay a message that the believers in magic like. The amalakites support my analysis as well as lot's daughters. By the way my ancestors were using the chariots of Iron to be the undefeated.
I simply believe him much more than I believe anything written in the Middle-East more than 2000 years ago or by present, contriving religious nuts. Thank you.
(21 August 2024) At 40:43-48 of this video Professor Israel Finkelstein cites the Egyptologist, Donald B. Redford, that the Egyptian geographical setting for the Exodus is the Saite period of the 7th/6th century BC. However, the REAL BOMB SHELL IS Finkelstein's acknowledging that Redford (an Egyptologist) has pointed out "a very ancient event " is being preserved in the Exodus: That the Hyksos Expulsion of ca. 1550 BC by Pharaoh Ahmose I, has been recast as Israel's Exodus in the Bible! Cf. pp. 412-413 Donald B. Redford. 1992. _Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times._ Princeton University Press. "There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt...in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the Canaanite version of this event..." If Redford is right, drop the nonsense of looking for an Exodus date of either 1446 BC (1 Kings 6:1) or 1260 BC, Ramesses II, its 1550 BC!
why is the conquest by the Babylonians and the captivity and the conquest by the Assyrians and being taken into captivity all in the Bible but the conquest by the Egyptians and the captivity in Egypt in the Bible so that an escape from there makes sense?
Great information. Unfortunately, reading text is very tiring. This speaker would do well to join Toastmasters. The delivery is as painful as someone showing PowerPoint slides and reading every slide aloud. This kind of presentation may work in graduate classes, but it is really tiring. On top of it, there is no sense of what was covered and what is going to be covered. So, when you listen, you really don't know where the lecture is going. This guy seems like a researcher and not a communicator.
Thank you. I read his book years ago and found it worthwhile. I wanted to get a brief refresher by listening to him summarize his thesis. I can't bear to listen to people reading.
"Ur of the Chaldeans" is a total anachronism. It existed from 840-960bc. So if Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans then that was his time period which would make Moses and David (both of whom probably never existed) predating Abraham. So this appears to be just another way, of which there many, that the Biblical writers are telling you that this is all allegory.
Did Abraham exist or were he and Sara "borrowed" from Hindu myths of Brahma and Sarawati ? The men's names are spelled the same in script without vowels ...... And the Hyksos ruled Lower Egypt when the Hebrews lived in the Nile Delta . After the Hyksos were exiled , the Hebrew tribes pillaged their way to Sinai ( "with the spoils of Egypt , including much gold." ) . The leaders of Egyptian allies were giver the title "Prince of Egypt" . The baby in a floating basket and growing up in the palace was a later construct of ignorant storytellers .
There were no Hebrews. According to the Egyptian sources, the Hyksos were not only exiled but sieged and eventually defeated by Ahmose (Iah- Moses), at Sile and Sharuhen in Canaan. The baby in a floating basket would also mirror the story of baby Horus hidden from his enemy Seth, in the myth of Isis and Osiris. Ahmose was literally called Horus too and his enemy was a Hyksos pharao who served Seth.
There is absolutely no proof of authorships later than 16th century BC of the Thora. When you take into account the newest rewriting of the Egyptian history then there is no problem with the general accepted dynasties 12th (middle bronze age 1)for the arrival of the Jacobian tribe and the 13th dynasty for the exodus (and the entrance of the Hyksos) and 40 years later the fall of Jericho (middle bronze age 2b)
Excellent lecture! But, if most of the patriarchal stories were written with the purpose of highlighting the importance of Israel, and Judah in particular, why would Joseph be the brother who Jacob favored the most and God blessed above the others? In fact, Judah isn't painted in any better a light than the others until we get to the stories of King David. Not even in Jacob's blessings of his sons in Genesis do we see any exceptionality of Judah.
My view on the Exodus story from Egypt is that it's a mixture of both myth and history. The claim that Israel was enslaved in Egypt IS true, from a certain point of view. You have to remember, during the time of the supposed Exodus (circa. 1446-1250 BCE), the land of Canaan (modern day Israel and Palestine) was an Egyptian territory up until the 11th century BCE.
Des Gardius 2012 Canaan being part of Egypt is a fact many don't know due to willful ignorance. The exodus falls apart when you realize they would still be in Egypt
Its all a pack of lies if taken literally but as an allegory, yes. Its nothing but a grandiose mythical stories of a group of mythical people in a mythical place!
That mythical people, came back to its mythical land following a strange account of events like WWII, foutgh and defeated six well armed counties, weak as they were and even supported by the USSR, after near 2K years. What are the odds for this myth to become reality if not only the God of the Bible!?
@@gapfenix never underestimate the power of organized groups committed to crime especially when they believe their own powerful lies of greatness! However, this only works until they run out of victims, Then they always turn on themselves!
Camels are described in the Old Testament stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob as pack animals. The latest findings, published in the journal Tel Aviv, reveal that camels were most likely domesticated around 900 BC - centuries after the biblical stories are believed to have taken place. “The introduction of the camel to our region was a very important economic and social development,” researcher Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel-Aviv University said. “By analyzing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries.”
+gamesbok Do you really believe camels were domesticated that late in history? The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III very clearly has camels on it, and there are many petroglyphs and steles much older that have camels on them.
I am waiting to be informed ,and what l get is alot of announcing, digression. The Quran places the Metaphorical Patriach person as living in Egypt ( Not Cannan ) Also since 800 ( +- )year the Songs sung from minaret s have contained verses which tell the Exodus story : " ...Small band of travelers ..." There are simple ways to discredit the ( Circular going...) sequence of events.... of the moment of the Exodus- as a hereditary result of a Man who lived in Cannan. So : God already has the Patriarch living in the Promised Land (?) So youre saying ,God needs to have a Boy kidnapped , and grow up in Egypt ,and his descendants are to become slaves , untill a Man ( Whos story is a Similar- to..) as an infant is found in the Bullrushes...... ect. Not only that , but God will tell him to bang on a rock with a stick in order to " Open the Sea ...( Which in a few minutes will come to resemble a dry ..road...) OK this is what make sure no one ever finds out : Don let anyone ever find out that , ' The Red Sea ' ... ..was ever known by a different name by the Egyptian s.....
if Abraham came from the northeast, and Canaanites were already present in Canon, his descendants would take time to replace the local population, say some time after Exodus... forty plus years...
The domino effect of this is that all three Abrahamaic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) revere fictional characters (not surprisingly though).
Perhaps 'fictional' is too barbed a term. Ahistorical might be better. Like, as in our understanding of the European Dark Ages is not really true, our understanding of Queen Elizabeth l is not really true, our understanding of the US Civil War is not really true - and so on.
He describes Israelites changing Scripture to suit the 7th century BCE Assyrian empire. The truth is that he is an Israelite trying to change Scripture to suit 20th century atheism. (Gut Shabbos!)
This video is boring to all except a few scholars. His ideas on the Patriarchs and the Exodus appear to be those of one who wants history and the Bible to step up and tell him in English just what the Bible of Genesis and Exodus mean.
Israel Finkelstein is awesome...An Israeli Jew who has no issue at all speaking the truth about the mythology of his people in the context of modern archaeology. The points he hits in this lecture are absolutely true and for the most part have been known for over 100 years. If you can get past his thick Israeli accent this lecture is a good summation for the average biblical-historicist to mull over.
Kenneth Scott
Excellent video. How on earth can anyone watch this and not realise that the Bible is written by people to suit local politics, etc...
That is completely evident. Of course one question that remains is where did Yahweh come from? Not Ebla, not Ugarit... Most likely an adaptation of an Aegean version of Zeus to the reality on the ground after the destruction of Ugarit in the late bronze age.
@@scin3759 Worship of Yahweh predates worship of Zeus. He also seems to have come from the south based on pre-Israel references to him in the Sinai and Edom whereas Ugarit was much further north. It seems probable that Israel adopted Yahweh from Judah
I think belief in gods originated at a time when when people had no other explanations for natural events. There would be a flood or a draught that destroyed the crops and people would conclude the gods were angry. Out of that the need to appease these gods with rituals and worship arose
Belief in god or gods has become so deeply entrenched into our culture that even in our age of science and reason people.find it hard to let go of. It doesn’t help that children are heavily indoctrinated into this belief system which is continually reinforced their entire lives.
@@8698gil nope lol
I listened to James Hoffmeier, an egyptologist with Ph.D from the univ. Of Toronto talk about exodus. His approach was to believe in whatever the bible says until proven wrong. The point being that when you decide to stick to your faith, you'll find ways to make it look like your the Bible is a true book of history.
Finkelstein delivers a horrendous blow to all those fanatics that take the bible literally. I love this guy. And the great part is that he has scientific evidence for much of what he says.
Horrendous blow? The guy does archaeology based off of a flawed Egyptian dating. Finkelstein still believes a dating system putting Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of an Exodus. How could that be if Ramesses son's stele put Israel as a nation in Canaan during their time? If he digs something up in Israel, based off of this one fact, it is misrepresented or taken out of context. No one worries about these kinds of archaeologists sir.
uva fan --most of the archeologists supports Finkelstein.
John Bright, in his History of Israel (1981), takes Samuel at face value. Donald B. Redford, however, sees all reconstructions from biblical sources for the United Monarchy period as examples of "academic wishful thinking".
Thomas L. Thompson rejects the historicity of the biblical narrative: "The history of Palestine and of its peoples is very different from the Bible's narratives, whatever political claims to the contrary may be. An independent history of Judea during the Iron I and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings."
Amihai Mazar however, concludes that based on recent archeological findings, like those in City of David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Dan, Tel Rehov, Khirbat en-Nahas and others "the deconstruction of United Monarchy and the devaluation of Judah as a state in 9th century is unacceptable interpretation of available historic data". According to Mazar, based on archeological evidences, the United Monarchy can be described as a "state in development
@@uvafan940 The Egyptians were not wrong. The jewish sources were. Israel on the Merneptah Stele references Israel along with a bunch of city states. Every single one of them is Sumerian. Israel used to be Sumerian, not Semitic. What happened to them? The stele says: The seed of Israel is shorn. They were genocided. Half a millennia later Akkadians who would be identified as "jews" moved in. They weren't, but the OT claims that.
@@Arnaere interesting
I read and reread Finkelstein's book The Bible Unearthed. It was really challenging. What it meant was that Yul Brunner and Charlton Heston were playing fictional characters in the movie The Ten Commandments. What amazed me was that this scholar a Jew was challenging a major story in Jewish culture.Would not he had a vested interest in supporting the stories. It shows he was a true scholar.
An actual scholars are interested in finding the truth.
I think Finkelstein has no choice but to embrace this position, considering the seismic changes that rational archaeology has unleashed on the pre-minimalists.
aussieguy55
You may think that at first if you are not faimilar with true biblical scholarship. It's about unbiased investigation and assessment of the evidence,..
S Cin:
No, it's not about choice.
It's about detaching oneself from any perceived cultural or tribal obligations and reporting the actual findings.
It's about integrity.
I don't think that Judaism is contingent on the historicity of the bible. Like Finkelstein mentions, there's a cultural component behind it that rings true regardless of whether the events actually happened. If anything, Christianity and Islam would be more impacted as their cultures absorbed the biblical religion as opposed to Judaism where the religion and culture are one and the same.
Currently reading Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed." Extremely compelling and equally fascinating.
Have you finished it. I have it on my desk and have not started it.
Given all of the facts and evidence within archaeology, history, anthropology, and science, I am absolutely dumbfounded at the fact that anyone is still practicing the abrahamic religions. Well, any religion, actually.
David LaLond:
Because all those things that you listed do not dismiss the message or the religious aspects of the text.
I am equally dumbfounded that anyone would waste their time and on UA-cam of all places to write such comments.
We live in a free country where you can practice what ever you want, who cares? Apparently you do
Dude I live in a country where 99 % of people are believers. I feel like the only sane person in the mental asylum
One day they will find Noah's ark and you'll look stupid ;)
Yes, what a complete waste of time and energy, and not to mention the disrespect of all those murdered, tortured and displaced in the name of religion.
The truth cannot remain hidden forever. I always knew there was something fishy about the Exodus story, especially when they worked so hard to link themselves directly to the first human created by God. A thousand years of history, all fiction.
3:20- j source (history) dated to 10th ctry ?
4:30- patriarchs
5:27- abraham
6:57- some argued patriarch story compiled during monarchic period (Solomon)
7:25- patriarchs from mesopotamia( hence check records from 2nd mil BC)
Brilliant! I really recommend Finkelstien's books. His is not a great speaker but a very clear and reasoned writer who makes a VERY convincing case.
I've always had a theory of the Patriarchs. The way the story is told is incredibly repetitious, with various Patriarchs entering the Promised Land from different directions.
For example, we have a fellow from Ur - oh wait, now he is from Haran - who enters the Promised Land from the north and is called Abram; now suddenly he is leading his family in from the west - from Egypt - and he is called Abraham.
Then we have a second fellow moving in from Haran, but this time he is called Jacob; then he is crossing the Jordan from the east and he is called Israel. Then a patriarch called Joseph enters from Egypt again.
Then we enter from Egypt in the west AGAIN, only the fellow is called Moses, and then sometimes he is called Aaron. Then we are suddenly entering the Promised Land from the east, only the patriarch is now called Joshua, and the slaves from Egypt now much more resemble a conquering army.
My theory would be that the Patriarch tales are collated together into the Old Testament in a way that encourages national unity among tribes. These tribes originally possessed different national patriarchs who were supposed to have led them into the Promised Land from different directions and with different names - sometimes slightly varying names and sometimes totally different.
I would guess that all these Patriarchs were originally the same "age" - that is, Joshua is no more recent than Abram. I would guess the patriarchs were given priority based on whichever tribe had precedence at the time the stories were fused together. For example, Joshua was revered by the Ephraim Tribe, the traditional rulers of the Northern Kingdom; and their entry into the Promised Land is much more elaborate and warlike than that of, say, the Levite Aaron. Poor Benjamin, patriarch of the smallest tribe, can barely even leave the land of Egypt before he is obliged to return because of the artifice of the silver cups.
I have a similar theory about the Iliad, where, to me, the narrative is quite repetitious because different city-states of Greece had different traditions about who exactly charges heroically into Troy and seizes it. Therefore you have a narrative where one hero after another is suddenly blessed by a deity and charges up towards Troy killing masses of Trojans...but none of them can quiiiiite make it in, because the poet, fusing together multiple traditions, has prioritised the story of Achilles, and it would not do for Diomedes or Agamemnon to take the city first.
Maybe. I think that's not a bad theory, but that Moses was a different story. If we look around the dating for the end of Jericho, there was a possible model for the story in Ahmose I (Jah- Moses).
He had challenged and eventually defeated the pharaoh of the Hyksos, freed his people, restored and reformed the religion of their forefathers, led them from a desert into a promised land (the reunited New Kingdom), conquered Canaan and dedicated all of his successes to his "father" and God, Amen, who had allegedly spoken to him.
@@reinercelsus8299 I personally think all Joshua's conquests were invented by bloodthirsty Ephraimite tale-tellers, and that they are fictitious. (Incidentally this means I do not condemn as strongly the bloodthirstiness of some of the Biblical narratives; to me they are a fiction from a society that likes bloodthirsty stories). All these Patriarchs, I would guess, are intended as glorifications of not-very-glorious shepherd tribesmen, who got into the hills of the Levant who knows how.
@@reinercelsus8299 recently watche an oriental institute lecture on the exodus. The lecturer said the Hyksos were incomers from the Levant and the eventually the Pharoah kicked them out. He suggested that these peoples and their expulsion could be the source of the exodus story. The Egyptians went on to rule the Levant.
@@helenamcginty4920 wow. What bad information. The Bible mentions the Egyptians having horses and chariots which didn't occur until the Hyksos dynasty was established and they ruled for several hundred years. They were also from Canaan and they practiced horse burial which has been observed in Egypt whilst the Hebrews never did that so good attempt but way off.
i read a part of your comment but when i reach the point when you say moses sometimes called aaron dismayed me, i suggest you must read the bible again to know more, moses was never aaron because aaron is his brother.
The Hebrew bible was developed during the Babylonian exile. These scribes and so call prophets decided to write down these oral traditions because they did not want to forget their history and culture.
I heard first 5 books were made during King Josiah time during the 7 century BCE?.
This information must receive wide dissemination to identify our true Jewish history and heritage.
Excelent presentation. Congratulations for this.
As regards "Patriarchs" scholars have noted an anomaly about patriarch Abraham, he is portrayed entering Canaan at a time when it was occupied by Philistines. At Beershba he encounters them and they contend with each other over of a well there. Excavations at Beersheba have found Philistine pottery shards in its well's depths. Perhaps this fact is what is behind the biblical account? The problem? The Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until circa 1174 BC and the days of Pharaoh Rameses III (1182-1151 BC) who mentions their attempt to conquer Egypt. He defeats them. Archaeology has found some of the Canaanite towns they destroyed and rebuilt. Abraham makes his appearance in the book of Genesis which mentions three names in co-existence, (1) Israel, (2) Philistines, and (3) Rameses in Egypt. In Egyptian records of the 19th and 20th Dynasties we find mention of all three names. So the author of Genesis and Exodus seems to have preserved a real historical memory of the co-existence of these three. The problem is that the biblical date is too early, its not 2000 BC (Abraham) to 1446 BC (Exodus of 1Kings 6:1), its 1170 BC at the earliest (Philistines being the Plest who fought Rameses III). This is to say Abraham's world is not 2000 nor 1800 BC, its after 1170 BC. The Exodus begins at Rameses in Egypt, Egyptian per-Rameses or Pi-Rameses (Tell ed Daba today), which is named after Pharaoh Rameses II (1279-1212 BC). Genesis mentions Edomite Bozrah, which is no earlier than circa 725 BC. This suggests Genesis was written some time after Bozrah's founding. I understand the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) was written between 562-560 BC in the Exile at Babylon based on 2 Kings 25:27 and the mention of Babylonian king Evil Merodach who reigned from 562-560 BC.
So the Great Flood didn't happen EITHER?
Sorry 🦖 🦕
It may referring to Sumer flood that happened 2900 BCE. Or the last Ice Aged 12000 years ago.
The world has had many floods. But "the flood" is clearly plagiarized fiction. the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh first read by George Smith in 1883 is one of the first nails in the coffin of biblical stories.
@@sophiawilson8696 Sumer flood in 2900bc wouldn't have covered the entire earth. Just a rather large flood compared to the regular yearly flooding.
Great, Prof. Finkelstein. Now it's time to write the real history of People of Israel, as archaeology shows it.
The only thing I can disagree with on the Professor's presentations are: I pronounce Canaan with a long A while he with a short A ...
My research suggests there was no Exodus to a Mt. Sinai, except in the imagination of the storyteller. How so? The Bible claims the quickest and most direct way from Egypt to the Promised Land is via the Way to the Land of the Philistines. But God, realizing that his people "will turn Chicken and return to Egypt" out of fear of engaging in war, the Philistines, decides to lead his people to the Promised land via a more indirect route called "the way to the Red Sea," which will take them to Mt. Sinai. The problem? The biblical narrator was unaware that the Philistines were not yet living in Canaan when the Exodus occurred, be that circa 1446 BC (or circa 1260 BC). The Philistines arrived in Canaan circa 1175 BC according to the Egyptian annals of Pharaoh Rameses III, who mentioned their attempt to conquer Egypt after conquering coastal Canaan (Rameses III called them the Pelest). Ergo, there was no reason for Israel to head south to the Red Sea and to Mt. Sinai! Thus the events at Mt. Sinai are all fictional: the worship of the Golden Calf, and the smashing of the Ten Commandments by Moses. There is no reason for Israel to camp at a Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia either! Why? There were no Philistines to fear and thus no need for "a detour" to Mt. Sinai and the Red Sea. Regards, Walter R. Mattfeld.
The "Philistines" are the anachronism of the Canaanite peoples in the same place. Like the Ur of the "Chaldeans" at the time of Abraham (2000BC).
I 100% agree.... that the spot they are looking at is the wrong place it is actually in ethiopia, moses and his people took the nile river instead of the red sea ua-cam.com/video/8iA5Xb8BgEI/v-deo.html and this makes the most sense
One reason that scholars suggest is to differentiate them from the Hyksos.
@@dantejager9296 DNA now shows the Philistines shared DNA with Greeks, Italians, and Sicilians, much more than Canaanites at the time.
The power of belief itself is so powerful. The power of belief absent the activity (or existence) of any "god" is enough to propel the destiny of large groups of people. If there is a god acting through history, the Bible does not tell the story from a historic viewpoint but perhaps it does from a psychological and symbolic viewpoint...and perhaps, that is what really matters to us humans. The story and the symbols are enough to fix our own will and talents to create act within the world and create great things. Are we just inspired by these stories and the progress of history is simply the progress of people inspired by myths of their ancestors?
What I don’t understand is that Finkelstein says Edom didn’t appear as an entity before 8th BC but in the Canaanite Ugarit texts of 1300-1400BC mentioned “Edom” and even the “Yudim.”
Finkelstein mentions the 8th-century Edomite Kingdom. The earliest mentions describe tribal groups like the Shasu.
as a Christian, I appreciate all that you do for our religion! Religious truths are different from historical truths, and Dr Finkelstein helps me to appreciate the truths of the holy scriptures regarding to actual history. Bible was written for men and men are not written for the Bible, and men are the Lords even of the biblical writings.
Religious “truth” is not different from historical truth. Truth is truth.
@@judyives1832 Personally I don't think that the constantly evolving archeological understanding of our past threatens our faith(s). Historical truth is always changing, and it clearly doesn't conform to the intentions of the authors and compilers of the old testament; but these ideas seek to understand in a modern context, not destroy the understandings of the past.
Hopefully, in the future we can get to the part where the waters flowing from the Temple would flow eastward and somehow the waters flowed to the Occident instead. Thank you very much. I am very grateful.
John Bright, in his History of Israel (1981), takes Samuel at face value. Donald B. Redford, however, sees all reconstructions from biblical sources for the United Monarchy period as examples of "academic wishful thinking".
Thomas L. Thompson rejects the historicity of the biblical narrative: "The history of Palestine and of its peoples is very different from the Bible's narratives, whatever political claims to the contrary may be. An independent history of Judea during the Iron I and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings."
Amihai Mazar however, concludes that based on recent archeological findings, like those in City of David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Dan, Tel Rehov, Khirbat en-Nahas and others "the deconstruction of United Monarchy and the devaluation of Judah as a state in 9th century is unacceptable interpretation of available historic data". According to Mazar, based on archeological evidences, the United Monarchy can be described as a "state in development
(19 September 2023, 10:40 a.m.)
Currently 1530 BC is a popular date for the expulsion of the Hyksos.
This date does not align with a circa 1446 BC date for the Exodus based on 1 Kings 6:1 mention of 480 years from Exodus to the building of Solomon's Temple.
Not very well known to many, however, two Egyptologists, who identify themselves as Christian Apologists, Professors James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, independent of each other, toted up the number of years of rule from Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David, and Solomon, and concluded the Bible erred!
It was not 480 years from the Exodus to the Temple's building by Solomon, it was over 600+ years!
This 600+ years aligned the Exodus with the Hyksos period of Egypt!
Despite this extraordinary finding, both Hoffmeier and Kitchen, then trashed this Hyksos alignment, opting for a 1260 BC Exodus based on the mention of a store city called Ramesses, built by the Israelites, which, for them is the city of Pi-Ramesses of Pharaoh Ramesses II.
The innovative approach of this content is admirable. A book with akin subjects inspired a new direction in my life. "Temporal Echoes: Amelia's Odyssey Through Ancestral Shadows" by Vivian Rosewood
Great presentation. I am not sure but perhaps the patriarchal accounts are a matter of "my exalted father could beat up yours". Judah and Israel told mythic stories of their national origins similar to Virgil that countered the origin myths of their Semitic cousins and neighbors.That said they seem to have edited earlier myths where once revered characters such as Lot, Ishmael and Esau were made inferiour to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think that originally Lot was a hero of Moab/Bela/Zoar, Hagar was once revered as Iscah, Ishmael was a Nimrod like figure, Esau was also highly admired. That is not to say that these characters are bedrock historical figures but represent other perhaps earlier mythic traditions. After having cut my teeth studying the far more reliable Tacitus, studying the OT is downright hazardous but enlightening all the same.
I agree, I find it fascinating to think that as Israel was destroyed the fleeing people were welcomed into Judah by combining both traditions to form a unified people and nation.
Yes, I ask myself how Israel neighbors saw themselves in relation to Israel. Did Edom consider Esau his forefather? Did they think that his blessing was stolen? Did Moab think that they were the product of incest between Lot and his daughter?
No matter what you do or where you are -- if you set up a camera someone will walk in front of it.
Please note dates of talks!
So many comments here seem to be from people who didn't really want to listen. Not all, but many - too much of "I think..."
Dr. Finkelstein has adapted Scripture to fit the political needs of the atheist 20th century.
Dr. Finkelstein is letting the hard evidence - and the lack thereof - speak instead of letting a series of ancient texts tell him what to think.
I agree he using using facts to establish facts. The message of rape and racism and genocide and sexual matters does relay a message that the believers in magic like. The amalakites support my analysis as well as lot's daughters. By the way my ancestors were using the chariots of Iron to be the undefeated.
Just because I’m interested in history I don’t need a movie-wannabe-Jesus to try to sell me something ( I hope this goes to the ad-department )
I simply believe him much more than I believe anything written in the Middle-East more than 2000 years ago or by present, contriving religious nuts. Thank you.
(21 August 2024)
At 40:43-48 of this video Professor Israel Finkelstein cites the Egyptologist, Donald B. Redford, that the Egyptian geographical setting for the Exodus is the Saite period of the 7th/6th century BC.
However, the REAL BOMB SHELL IS
Finkelstein's acknowledging that Redford (an Egyptologist) has pointed out "a very ancient event " is being preserved in the Exodus:
That the Hyksos Expulsion of ca. 1550 BC by Pharaoh Ahmose I, has been recast as Israel's Exodus in the Bible!
Cf. pp. 412-413 Donald B. Redford. 1992. _Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times._ Princeton University Press.
"There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt...in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the Canaanite version of this event..."
If Redford is right, drop the nonsense of looking for an Exodus date of either 1446 BC (1 Kings 6:1) or 1260 BC, Ramesses II,
its 1550 BC!
Redford is pretty outdated. He is a good Egyptologist but his work is outdated. As is Finklesteins.
Excellent presentation... thanks for sharing!
Da Critter
Thank
why is the conquest by the Babylonians and the captivity and the conquest by the Assyrians and being taken into captivity all in the Bible but the conquest by the Egyptians and the captivity in Egypt in the Bible so that an escape from there makes sense?
Great information. Unfortunately, reading text is very tiring. This speaker would do well to join Toastmasters. The delivery is as painful as someone showing PowerPoint slides and reading every slide aloud. This kind of presentation may work in graduate classes, but it is really tiring. On top of it, there is no sense of what was covered and what is going to be covered. So, when you listen, you really don't know where the lecture is going. This guy seems like a researcher and not a communicator.
Thank you. I read his book years ago and found it worthwhile. I wanted to
get a brief refresher by listening to him summarize his thesis. I can't bear to
listen to people reading.
@@numbernine8571 😂
"Ur of the Chaldeans" is a total anachronism. It existed from 840-960bc. So if Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans then that was his time period which would make Moses and David (both of whom probably never existed) predating Abraham. So this appears to be just another way, of which there many, that the Biblical writers are telling you that this is all allegory.
Did Abraham exist or were he and Sara "borrowed" from Hindu myths of Brahma and Sarawati ? The men's names are spelled the same in script without vowels ...... And the Hyksos ruled Lower Egypt when the Hebrews lived in the Nile Delta . After the Hyksos were exiled , the Hebrew tribes pillaged their way to Sinai ( "with the spoils of Egypt , including much gold." ) . The leaders of Egyptian allies were giver the title "Prince of Egypt" . The baby in a floating basket and growing up in the palace was a later construct of ignorant storytellers .
There were no Hebrews. According to the Egyptian sources, the Hyksos were not only exiled but sieged and eventually defeated by Ahmose (Iah- Moses), at Sile and Sharuhen in Canaan. The baby in a floating basket would also mirror the story of baby Horus hidden from his enemy Seth, in the myth of Isis and Osiris. Ahmose was literally called Horus too and his enemy was a Hyksos pharao who served Seth.
There is absolutely no proof of authorships later than 16th century BC of the Thora. When you take into account the newest rewriting of the Egyptian history then there is no problem with the general accepted dynasties 12th (middle bronze age 1)for the arrival of the Jacobian tribe and the 13th dynasty for the exodus (and the entrance of the Hyksos) and 40 years later the fall of Jericho (middle bronze age 2b)
Thank you for this demonstration of the larger forces at work in history at the time of the origins of the jewish people.
Excellent lecture! But, if most of the patriarchal stories were written with the purpose of highlighting the importance of Israel, and Judah in particular, why would Joseph be the brother who Jacob favored the most and God blessed above the others? In fact, Judah isn't painted in any better a light than the others until we get to the stories of King David. Not even in Jacob's blessings of his sons in Genesis do we see any exceptionality of Judah.
My view on the Exodus story from Egypt is that it's a mixture of both myth and history. The claim that Israel was enslaved in Egypt IS true, from a certain point of view. You have to remember, during the time of the supposed Exodus (circa. 1446-1250 BCE), the land of Canaan (modern day Israel and Palestine) was an Egyptian territory up until the 11th century BCE.
Des Gardius 2012 Canaan being part of Egypt is a fact many don't know due to willful ignorance. The exodus falls apart when you realize they would still be in Egypt
Jason Mckenzie
Likely, yes.
Israel Finkelstein is just an extremely historian
Its all a pack of lies if taken literally but as an allegory, yes. Its nothing but a grandiose mythical stories of a group of mythical people in a mythical place!
That mythical people, came back to its mythical land following a strange account of events like WWII, foutgh and defeated six well armed counties, weak as they were and even supported by the USSR, after near 2K years. What are the odds for this myth to become reality if not only the God of the Bible!?
@@gapfenix never underestimate the power of organized groups committed to crime especially when they believe their own powerful lies of greatness! However, this only works until they run out of victims, Then they always turn on themselves!
Yes, with a moral story to tell
His comment about camels at 21:15 has already been proven false.
Perhaps other of his accusations against God's words are false as well?
I'd need a citation over the domestication and use of camels.
Camels are described in the Old Testament stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob as pack animals. The latest findings, published in the journal Tel Aviv, reveal that camels were most likely domesticated around 900 BC - centuries after the biblical stories are believed to have taken place.
“The introduction of the camel to our region was a very important economic and social development,” researcher Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel-Aviv University said. “By analyzing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries.”
+gamesbok Do you really believe camels were domesticated that late in history? The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III very clearly has camels on it, and there are many petroglyphs and steles much older that have camels on them.
earlysda ...surely the book with the talking serpent, talking ass, and talking smoldering shrubbery is absolutely factual.
The timeline of camel domestication is right. It wasn't until this happened that Arabian traders became a thing.
I am waiting to be informed ,and what l get is alot of announcing, digression.
The Quran places the Metaphorical Patriach person as living in Egypt ( Not Cannan )
Also since 800 ( +- )year the Songs sung from minaret s have contained verses which tell the Exodus story :
" ...Small band of travelers ..."
There are simple ways to discredit the ( Circular going...) sequence of events....
of the moment of the Exodus- as a hereditary result of a Man who lived in Cannan.
So :
God already has the Patriarch living in the Promised Land (?)
So youre saying ,God needs to have a Boy kidnapped , and grow up in Egypt ,and his descendants are to become slaves , untill a Man ( Whos story is a Similar- to..) as an infant is found in the Bullrushes...... ect.
Not only that , but God will tell him to bang on a rock with a stick in order to " Open the Sea ...( Which in a few minutes will come to resemble a dry ..road...)
OK this is what make sure no one ever finds out :
Don let anyone ever find out that , ' The Red Sea ' ... ..was ever known by a different name by the Egyptian s.....
if Abraham came from the northeast, and Canaanites were already present in Canon, his descendants would take time to replace the local population, say some time after Exodus... forty plus years...
Hagar is not a slave woman lol
The domino effect of this is that all three Abrahamaic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) revere fictional characters (not surprisingly though).
Perhaps 'fictional' is too barbed a term. Ahistorical might be better. Like, as in our understanding of the European Dark Ages is not really true, our understanding of Queen Elizabeth l is not really true, our understanding of the US Civil War is not really true - and so on.
Finklestein is a genius, even if he sometimes sounds like Elmer Fudd.
Or like Bert Ehrman, or Robert M Price.
Less than 100K watched it. The rest is busy foaming at the mouth telling the rest of the world how true their religions are.
Packed with camels :-))) 21:00 great point!
Amazing ❤️❤️❤️
Exodus mythological
He has a lot vested in this over the years in his written work but I like David Rohl`s explanation much better !
UH-OH ! ! ! !
He describes Israelites changing Scripture to suit the 7th century BCE Assyrian empire.
The truth is that he is an Israelite trying to change Scripture to suit 20th century atheism. (Gut Shabbos!)
Uh oh. Talking about Jews.
This video is boring to all except a few scholars. His ideas on the Patriarchs and the Exodus appear to be those of one who wants history and the Bible to step up and tell him in English just what the Bible of Genesis and Exodus mean.
In English? You know he is a Hebrew speaker as you can hear from his accent.
@@stevenv6463 Yiddish