William H. Stiebing, Jr. Out of the Desert?

: Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives (Prometheus Books: Buffalo, New York) 1989. Out of the Desert is an epoch making book for two reasons: It is one of the first popular treatments of the archaeology of the Exodus and Conquest narratives, moreover; it also acknowledges amateur attempts to understand and solve the problems associated with the same. Thereby it becomes one of the first popular works, written by an academic, that attempts to establish a dialogue with the many not-ready-for-prime-time-players who have long been interested in the subject and who have sought to solve these difficulties in their own way. To be sure others have mentioned these amateur treatments before but it is usually to ridicule them. But more often scholars ignore them. Of course it is acceptable for scholars writing to and for other scholars to ignore these popular movements but it is quite another matter for scholars who claim to be writing for the public to ignore the voice(s) of that public. The latter sends a very clear message to that public about its non-role in this debate. However, Stiebing has transformed the standard monologue in these instances into a potential dialogue and has created a very positive precedent that others may now follow. By opening such a dialogue one is hardly constrained to agree with such parties. Indeed Stiebing does not. But he also disagrees with the traditional approaches to the Exodus and Conquest narratives while tendering a solution of his own. In Out of the Desert, Stiebing is to be commended for his very even-handed manner of presenting the ideas he considers. There is no detectable malice, cheap-shots, tongue-in-cheek allusions or serious misrepresentations of the positions that he reviews. I must admit that I am rarely this impressed with a popular book claiming to review popular ideas. The academic depth of the book also makes a favourable impression. Before going on to the plan of the book I would like to point out some matters that call for mention. On page 19 Stiebing discusses the word shophetim which is usually rendered judges. In his note to this word he mentions only first millennium occurences. One expects a citation to its Mari and Ugaritic cognates (JNES 30, 1971 p. 196-197 and New Bible Dictionary 1982 p. 637 and 736). On page 42 n. 11 luSA.GAZmes should be lSA. GAZme and a regretable slip of the pen on 53 marrs the in Habiru. On page 120 Stiebing says that there is no evidence for a prehistoric flood covering most of Mesopotamia. However, this statement needs to modified in view of JCS 33 (1981) p. 221-222. On page 121 Stiebing cites Storck 1986 p. 81-84. I would like to take this oppurtunity to correct two mistakes in this article: First the remark attributed to James concerning Iahzibada a captain of Jehoshaphat belongs to Velikovsky. Second, Ano does appear in the Septuagint contrary to my remark quoting Redford, however, it makes for no historical consequences. In returning to Stiebings book his discussion of the political and climatic changes in the Ancient Near East in the latter part of the second millennium might have included Tadmors ("The Decline of Empires in Western Asia ca. 1200 B.C.E."in Frank Moore Cross, ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy Fifth Anniversary of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975) Cambridge, Mass. 1979 p. 1-15) article on the same and a reference to Wenamun usually considered to mark a breakdown in Egypts political arrangements abroad (Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II 1976 p. 224-230 but otherwise Hans Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun 1975 p. 3-4 and 161-171. The plan of the book, according to the chapter headings, goes as follows: The textual and archaeological evidence; dating the Exodus and settlement; Archaeology and a Late Bronze Age Exodus; Redating the Exodus and Conquest (a discussion of alternative, mostly popular theories); Interpretations of the Israelite settlement in Canaan; the end of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean and Conclusions. As alluded to above Stiebing finds major faults with both established and popular views of the Exodus. His own preference is to see the development of Israel in the light of the worldwide (greater Ancient Near East) climatic disruptions of the Late Bronze Age. That is to say as part and parcel of the Sea Peoples, Arameans and other social disruptions due to famine and unpredictable climate. One is inclined to agree in principle. But in this scenario one remains unsettled by the very poor fit between the Exodus and Conquest narratives and the need to place Israels origins within the Dark Age thus conveniently obscuring them from scrutiny. However, it must be pointed out that no other theory is any better and most are a far sight worse. Thus one is left with an uneasy compromise that many will find appealing and some will find unacceptable. But one thing does seem clearer as a result of Stiebings book and the many researchers on whom he draws for support: either the Exodus and Conquest narratives are substantially unhistorical or the modern historical and archaeological interpretations of the past, against which we measure these narratives, are wholly misleading. It is easy to question the former but to date no one has successfully overturned the latter.