Chapter 6 of Provan, Long, and Longman’s book, A Biblical History of Israel is entitled “Before the Land” and it covers both the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph) and the events of the Exodus. Now, truth be told, when it comes to strict archeological evidence, there really isn’t a whole lot. That being said, though, we must remember that archeology should not function as a “high court” when it comes to determining history. There are many other things to consider as well. Be that as it may, the first bit of archeological evidence outside of the Bible that testifies to the existence of ancient Israel is the Merneptah Stela, on which Pharaoh Merneptah celebrated his military victories during his reign, which happened to be 1224-1214 BC. On that stela, he mentions Israel: “Israel is laid waste. His seed is not.” What that tells us is that, at the very least, there was a discernable group in Canaan known as Israel by 1224-1214 BC.
The Time of the Patriarchs
The natural question, therefore, becomes, “Where did they come from?” Beginning with the Patriarchs in Genesis 12-50, this is this question that the opening books of the Old Testament proceed to answer. Now, like I said, there is no evidence outside of the Bible of the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Of course, that really shouldn’t be surprising, in that we shouldn’t expect to see in the annals of any of the great empires of that time any mention of a single family of nomads or of a single Semite like Joseph who rose in the ranks of Egypt. All our knowledge of the Patriarchs, therefore, comes from Genesis 12-50.
Provan correctly states that the main purpose of the patriarchal narratives is theological, in that they are telling about God’s relationship with human beings. At the same time, though, the narratives are not mythological, but are rather presented as actual history. Hence, Provan argues that the genre of Genesis 12-50 should be understood to be theological history. He notes that many other scholars have labeled Genesis 12-50 as either saga, fiction, or folklore, but says that they aren’t so much describing the actual genre of the narratives as they are simply expressing their own lack of confidence of the historical reliability of them. The genre of a given text, Provan argues, should be determined by what the writer intended, not whether or not the scholar believes the writer. Simply put, even if you don’t believe Abraham existed, the fact is that the intention of the writer of Genesis is not to write fiction—he is presenting his work as history.
Since we’ve mentioned the writer, a quick word should be made about the authorship of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy). Even though most people call these books the books of Moses, Provan points out that it is simply impossible to determine, let alone prove, Mosaic authorship. The reason why some conservative scholars spend so much effort trying to prove Mosaic authorship is that they think if they can prove it, then they can also prove that the patriarchal narratives are more historically reliable. Provan’s response to that thinking is pretty simple: You can’t prove it, and even if you could, that wouldn’t necessarily prove the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives anyway. It’s ultimately a fool’s errand.
As far as the actual time of the Patriarchs is concerned, there is no fixed, absolute date upon everyone agrees. If you go strictly by the Bible lays out, you get the following:
- I Kings 6:1: Solomon’s temple (966 BC) began 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt. That would date the Exodus somewhere around 1446-1406 BC.
- Exodus 12:4: The Hebrews were in Egypt for 430 years, roughly 1876-1446 BC.
- Genesis 21:5; 25:26; 47:9: If you add up those numbers, you get 290 years for the time of the Patriarchs, roughly 2091-1876 BC.
The problem is that there is a question regarding whether or not all those numbers are meant to be chronologically exact. Long story short, the two main dates proposed for the Exodus are either 1446-1406 (mid-15th century BC) or 1246-1206 (mid-13th century BC), and thus various scholars have put the time of the Patriarchs anywhere between 2100-1500 BC. The time period is simply foggy. There’s no way around it.
Evidence and Indications for the Patriarchs
Like I said before, Provan notes that there is no archeological evidence that essentially says, “Abraham was here.” Neither is there any specific mention of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph in any of the annals of the great empires of that time. Still, the fact is that archeology has found a number of items that describe cultural and societal practices of the ancient Near East during the time of 2100-1500 BC that mirror some of the practices mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives.
The Nuzi Tablets, written during the second half of the 15th century BC, describe various social customs of the region that go back to earlier in the millennium. Those customs include real estate transactions, as well as adoption and marriage practices.
The Mari Material, dated to 18th century BC Mesopotamia, also reflect some of the customs of the time and are similar to those of which we find in the Patriarchal narratives. That being said, though, Provan argues that in this case the similarities are thin at best, and that no real, direct connection with the biblical texts exists.
In addition, Provan points out that Genesis 37:28 tells us that Joseph was sold as a slave for 20 shekels. We know from other ancient Near Eastern texts that 20 shekels was the going rate for a slave in the early second millennium.
The fact remains, though, that there really isn’t a whole lot of archeological evidence. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that the Patriarchal stories are just made up fiction that were written at a much later time and then fictionally set back to an earlier period. If that was the case, then it is extremely difficult to explain the following items in the Patriarchal stories:
- The patriarchs engaged in sexual/marital relations that were condemned in the later period
- The patriarchs flout, under divine guidance to be sure, later customs of inheritance
- The patriarchs engage in religious practices that later biblical writers condemn
Provan puts it this way: “How likely is it that much later writers, writing purely out of their imagination, would paint a picture of their founding fathers that included such things?” (165). The answer should be obvious: NOT LIKELY AT ALL. It is far more likely, Provan argues, that this material about the Patriarchs had been passed down to the eventual author of Genesis, who shaped and edited that inherited material, warts and all. A later writer who was simply making up the stories of the Patriarchs to serve as their idyllic forefathers of their people certainly would not have invented them doing certain actions that his later audience would have condemned.
Put that all together, what we have thus far is this: No, there is no archeological evidence that specifically mentions any of the Patriarchs, but there is evidence that shows many of the customs and practices mentioned in Genesis 12-50 do reflect, in fact, the customs and practices of the ancient Near East during the time period in which the Patriarchal narratives are set. Furthermore, there are a number of practices mentioned in Genesis 12-50 that would have been condemned by later audience. Therefore, if the stories of the Patriarchs were simply invented fictions written by a Jewish writer about 1,000 years later, it boggles the mind how that later writer would have even known about specific customs from 1,000 years earlier, and why that writer would have the heroes of his fiction commit acts that his audience would have condemned.
Anachronisms, Abraham, and Joseph
In addition to what was just discussed, Provan points a few more things in relation to the historicity of the Patriarchal stories. First, there is the matter that occasionally there are items in Genesis that don’t fit the time period in which Genesis is put. We call these anachronisms: Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 11:28-31), the city of Dan (Gen. 14:14), and the mention of the Philistines in the Genesis and Exodus narratives. There is also the supposed anachronism of the mention of camels in Genesis 24:9-14. In regard to camels, Provan points out, contrary to what was thought before, there is now indication in an old Babylonian tablet that camels were known to the region at that time. As for Ur, Dan, and the Philistines, Provan suggests, as do many other scholars, that these are simply instances of the later writers updating the older texts with scribal glosses, so that the reader would have an idea as to where the place in question was.
As for the figure of Abraham, Provan says that it is a mistake to just characterize him as a “wandering nomad.” A close reading of Genesis shows that the Patriarchs primarily pitched their tents in the specific regions of Shechem, Bethel, and Ai, that they had interaction with the settled people who treated them with great respect—Abraham is even called a “mighty prince” by Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23:6). Hence, Abraham was considered to be a tribal chieftain and a resident alien in the land—someone who was distinguished from a mere foreigner and held to a special status. Interestingly enough, Provan points out that the same kind of social pattern is described in the Mari Tablets in regard to how some tribes would settle in the outskirts of a particular city during the dry season and then venture out during the wet season when the grazing land and water became scarce. Simply put, the very lifestyle of the Patriarchs described in Genesis fits fairly well into what we know about the ancient Near Eastern culture of that time.
And then there is the figure of Joseph. Provan states up front two key points: (A) The Joseph story in Genesis 37-50 is definitely a “finely crafted piece of literature with a subtle theological theme” (174), and (B) There is no direct evidence of a Hebrew named Joseph being an official in the Egyptian court. Nevertheless, there are a number of things mentioned in the Joseph story that lend authenticity to the story.
- Trade happened between Egypt and Canaan ever since the 19th century BC, and it was a common occurrence for people in Canaan to travel to Egypt during times of famine.
- As mentioned before, 20 shekels for a slave fits in with the first half of the second millennium
- Then there are the authentically Egyptian names of Potiphar, Potiphera, Asenath, and Zaphenathpaneah
Furthermore, there is the matter that the Pharaoh in the Joseph story is never mentioned by name. Contrary to what some claim (i.e. this points out the writer just made the story up), it is a matter of historical fact that before the 10th century BC, a pharaoh’s specific name was not typically mentioned by the Egyptians themselves—the pharaoh was simply referred to as “pharaoh.” Therefore, the lack of a specific name for the Pharaoh in the Joseph story actually fits well into that time period. The red flag would be if we were given his specific name. Finally, in regard to the question as to whether or not a Semite (like Joseph) would ever be able to attain a high position in the Egyptian hierarchy, the fact is that sometimes happened, as in the case of Bay, a Semite who eventually held the title of “Great Chancellor of the entire land” after the death of Seti II in 1194 BC.
What all this means is that although we don’t have concrete archeological evidence for Joseph, there are numerous elements in the Joseph story that fit nicely into the Egyptian context of the time period in which the Joseph story is set. Like with Abraham and the other Patriarchs, it is hard to explain, if a later writer was making the stories up out of whole cloth, how he would be privy to specific and accurate cultural information about practices and customs of a different culture from 1,000 or so year prior. One thing is for certain—there was no such thing a Google searches yet.
The simple point regarding the Patriarchs is this: Although we don’t have certain, archeological proof of their existence, we do, in fact, have these texts that purport to be history and that contain accurate knowledge of specific social customs and practices of the time period in question.
In my next post, I will deal with the latter half of Chapter 6, in which Provan addresses the story of the Exodus.
Very good. I really need to order this book from Amazon.
Pax.
Lee.
Merneptah Stele.
The word ”seed” refers to grain and I thought the currently accepted translation is ‘it’s ” rather than ”his”?
What/who was your source if I might ask? Just curious, nothing more.
Quoted from the book.
Does he list his source?
Seed in the Bible can refer to one’s descendants or descendant.
Agreed. However, according to Micheal Hasel, the term “seed,” Egyptian prt, based on contextual relations in other military texts, means “grain.”
No…the context clearly is that off offspring/descendants. Hence, a hyperbolic statement of his greatness: “I wiped them ALL out.”
On the Stele or in Provan’s book?
The stele
Then without a reference to Provan’s source ”it’s” sounds more plausible.
I wonder where he got ”his” from?
Interesting?
Gendered pronouns. That’s where. The English “it’s” is the variation.
According to Egyptoligist, Frank J. Yurco, it reads: ”Askelon has been overcome. Gezer has been captured. Yano’am was made non-existent. Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.”
I havent checked. I dont see why “its” or “his” is significant.
‘It’s’ would refer to a nation/city state, obviously, whereas ‘his’ sounds like it would refer to an individual.
In most languages, gendered pronouns are used to describe nations, cities, peoples, etc.
Okay. I was not aware of this.
I would still be interested in where Provan got the ”his” rendering.
You’re making a big deal out of nothing. It is rendered “it’s” in English because in modern usage we dont ascribe gender to nations, etc.
Not making a big deal at all, for the gods sake, and you are the one immediately on the offensive attacking.
I was just curious, that’s all.
Not “offensive attacking.” Just an odd thing to focus on in the post.
Why odd? It’s about the only concrete thing of the post – or granite to be accurate.
Pretty much everything else is speculative.
Archeological finds are not the only items to be considered evidence. But yes, it is clear that is the only kind of evidence you deem to be worthy.
Here we go again …
The Merneptah Stele is deemed hard archaeological evidence.
Everything else is pretty much speculative.
For goodness sake, no one actually believes someone called Moses from the Torah, for example, any more than you and I believe the tale of Noah and his ark.
Ok. Thank you for agreeing with my assessment of your stance.
Good grief! Did we just agree on something? This may be a first.
Yes. Your stance is that if there isnt concrete archeological evidence of something, then it isnt historical.
I wouldn’t say I am quite that rigid, but this is certainly an excellent foundation to build upon.
It also helps any such discussion if there is agreement of what parts of such texts are not likely to be historical reality as much as what parts are.
So although you seem to be hedging in places it is probably fair to say that much/all of the Genesis tale is simply myth/fiction.
I must say, however, that in light of this I am really looking forward to read how Provan handles the Exodus
“Laid waste” is an odd phrase to use if you’re talking about having no grain because of a famine. “Laid waste” evokes a decisive military action, as when the Romans “laid waste” to Jerusalem in 69 AD. But either way you have a reference to Israel.
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: I wouldn’t say I am quite that rigid, but this is certainly an excellent foundation to build upon.
LEE: Actually, you’re pretty close to that rigid. And one of Provan’s major points is that this kind of “rigid” “foundation” is really more like quicksand. Without a written historical narrative to put archaeological finds into some kind of coherent historical/cultural/social/religious context, all you’ve got is a lot of really old stuff someone found in the dirt.
Plus, if Israel really was a nomadic society they wouldn’t leave mountains of archaeological evidence in the first place.
Plus, the skeptic needs to provide a coherent explanation for why the Israelites, contrary to other historical peoples, made up all of this stuff whole cloth, knowing other surrounding cultures/peoples would know it was fake, too. And why make up such an ignoble, implausible scenario, one which could easily be disproved?
Ark, you’re doing with archaeology what you also do with science in general–placing too much weight on it. You cannot say that any historical event/society/people for which archaeological remains cannot be found never happened. That would be the height of irresponsibility and at one fell swoop wipes out a large chunk of history.
Remember Troy.
Pax.
Lee.
All you’ve basically done is reword my comment. You always try to sound clever,but all you come across as is smarmy.
What you have , in fact is what was once thought to be a reasonable history in narrative form (without the ridiculous miracle nonsense of course) and it was in this vein, with bible in one hand and spade in the other, that archaeologists such as Albright first approached the task of attempting to prove the veracity of the biblical text.
Well, you’re the historian so you will know as well as anyone I suppose how this turned out.
For sure, the bible was what prompted the archaeology, but ultimately it is the archaeology that has been the bible’s undoing.
The evidence of settlements in the hill country suggest they were not nomadic and came from within the general Canaanite population..
Highly qualified people in this field have already done the ”spade work” on this topic. All you have to do is research. As an historian that should be meat and drink.
In certain cases this is correct.
However, the tales of the people in question,the archaeological remains we do have, simply don’t match up chronologically.
As an historian you should know better than most that, If you are going to question the scholarly and archaeological consensus – which you are entitled to do, of course – then you must present your argument and support it with evidence.
So, don’t shoot the messenger (me). Pick on someone such as Williams Devers.
Regards
Ark.
ARK: For sure, the bible was what prompted the archaeology, but ultimately it is the archaeology that has been the bible’s undoing.
LEE: Maybe because these archaeologists put too much faith in a literal interpretation of the texts and put all of their eggs into archaeology’s basket.
ARK: For sure, the bible was what prompted the archaeology, but ultimately it is the archaeology that has been the bible’s undoing.
LEE: People, even PhDs, are not immune to bias/prejudice, thus often see what they want to see, or expect to see, and not what actually IS there. Nobody expected to find Troy so nobody really looked for it, until Schliemann came along, and he was ridiculed by professional scholars in the academy for believing in a myth. But who had the last laugh there?
ARK; Highly qualified people in this field have already done the ”spade work” on this topic. All you have to do is research. As an historian that should be meat and drink.
LEE: Which I take to mean that you can’t really address my question of why/how Israelite chroniclers invented such a bizarre history for themselves unless it was substantially true.
ARK: As an historian you should know better than most that, If you are going to question the scholarly and archaeological consensus – which you are entitled to do, of course – then you must present your argument and support it with evidence.
LEE: I am at liberty to question any scholar’s prejudices, biases, preconceptions and methodology. Simply having “PhD” beside one’s name doesn’t guarantee one is objective and free of bias/prejudice.
ARK: So, don’t shoot the messenger (me). Pick on someone such as Williams Devers.
LEE: As if the so-called “messenger” in this case doesn’t have a deep-seated desire that the Exodus narrative *not* be true. Thus he cherry-picks evidence and scholars that support his belief and ignores anything that doesn’t.
Honestly, this repeated appeal to objectivity and altruism grows wearying.
Apparently even Dever isn’t a total minimalist, believing that the OT accounts contain some historical truth:
“I am not reading the Bible as Scripture. . . I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a ‘maximalist.”
“Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the ‘larger than life’ portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.”
Pax.
Lee.
Not from what the evidence tells us. Albright, for example found nothing to justify his beliefs, and no matter how he tried he was unable to match the archaeology with the biblical tales. It was, in essence a failure.
Oh, how true this statement is.
Of course I can, but Joel has deleted every comment i have posted addressing this issue, as he may well delete this one. Therefore, I leave it to you to search for the evidence yourself. If you feel so inclined. If not …. so be it.
Once again, a more astute comment I doubt you could make. Well done!
There was a time I never doubted the historicity of this tale at all – bar all the ridiculous miracle nonsense of course. Why would I? I grew up on such tales, like most of us, I imagine?
However, during the writing of a humourous fantasy novel that included a satirical character based on Moses I felt it fitting I do a little background research. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there was no historical background to this character and, in fact, he turned out to be nothing but a myth, or at best a composite hero figure as described by Martin Noth.
It was this that prompted my interest in the bible and was one reason I read it.
I am inclined to follow where the evidence leads and accept the consensus of those who are considered to be experts in the field, but am open minded enough to accept that nothing is set in stone.
To date the consensus regards the tale as presented in the bible to be little more than a geopolitical foundation myth. As new evidence comes to light, this view may change.
Little if anything has caused any major shift towards establishing any greater veracity to the biblical tales, and as archaeology becomes more sophisticated it seems that, more and more archaeologists and scholars are recognizing and acknowledging what has been known for at least two generations.
He never was a minimalist. What on earth ever gave you that idea?
Have you ever actually read anything or listened to him speak on this subject?
What’s important, though is the fact he accepts that the tales as presented in the bible are nothing but myth, as your quote aptly demonstrates.
ARK; He never was a minimalist. What on earth ever gave you that idea?
Have you ever actually read anything or listened to him speak on this subject?
What’s important, though is the fact he accepts that the tales as presented in the bible are nothing but myth, as your quote aptly demonstrates.
LEE: Nobody here has argued that the OT stories “as presented in the Bible” are 100% objective, factual history. Obviously they’ve been edited, shaped, crafted, etc. But that doesn’t mean they’re totally made up and “nothing but myth.” Again, that particular “myth,” that they were slaves in Egypt until their monotheistic God used a fickle prophet and his brother to lead them to freedom via a miraculous event is an odd myth to invent out of whole cloth. Where did it come from?
As I said, I haven’t read extensively in this subject but I’ve skimmed enough to be critical of anyone’s claims to certainty.
ARK: It was this that prompted my interest in the bible and was one reason I read it.
I am inclined to follow where the evidence leads and accept the consensus of those who are considered to be experts in the field, but am open minded enough to accept that nothing is set in stone.
LEE: I’m sorry but this is not the vibe I’ve gotten from reading a hundred or more of your posts over the past four months. You seem to gravitate towards scholars who agree with your position that the OT is largely or entirely myth.
1. You didn’t know the definition of “positivism,” but instead kept insisting to us that it simply meant being certain about something.
2. Cherry-picked comments by NT Wright to make it seem to people who haven’t read him that he doesn’t believe we have any clue who actually wrote the gospels..
3. Prefer to take your info about Francis Collins from You Tube videos rather than read Collins’ actual book itself.
4. Refer us to internet articles by atheists instead of actual articles by degreed scholars.
5. Defended Richard Carrier as a legitimate NT scholar.
6. Refuse to acknowledge certain questions/comments we’ve raised to you.
7. Cannot seem to exhibit the patience for Dr. Anderson to work his way through Provan’s book to “get to the good stuff,” when a critical reader/thinker should recognize that laying the groundwork for Provan’s methodology before you jump ahead to the rest of the book is crucial.
I could go on if I thought about it some more.
No, I’m sorry, but you come off an atheist desperate to have his views validated, thus unwilling to seriously examine or think deeply any evidence that doesn’t support your atheism. I’m sorry if this offends you, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from you.
Pax.
Lee.
Yes, and this is precisely where the evidence leads and why the overwhelming consensus in every relevant field accepts this position; which is the antithesis of what I have gleaned from reading your posts over the past four months.
Atheism is solely the lack of belief in gods. What specific evidence are you thinking of that challenges this position?
ARK: Atheism is solely the lack of belief in gods. What specific evidence are you thinking of that challenges this position?
LEE: On what do you base your “lack of belief in gods”? What specific evidence are you thinking of that challenges theism? Simply saying “Nobody but religious people believes in miracles or the supernatural” isn’t evidence.
If you were as honest or critical as you claim to be you’d admit that atheism is as much of a faith claim as theism. You can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. Science certainly can’t.
Pax.
Lee.
Why, evidence, or rather lack of evidence, of course! What an odd question.
Of course I can’t and neither can science.
No such claim has ever been made, as far as I am aware.
So why do you believe?
Thus, your lack of belief in God isnt really “because of the evidence.”
In any case, it would be super if your comments on my post actually addressed things in the post. Please stop going of on your own tangents that are unrelated to the topic of the post.
The evidence as presented by religious people. Or lack of evidence if you wish to
make this about semantics.
I did address the post. I was quite specific right from the beginning when I mentioned the Merneptah Stele.
If you read the comments you will notice quite clearly it was Lee who took it off on a tangent.
Evidence is evidence, regardless of who presents it.
Besides, you agreed that science cannot prove or disprove God, but then said you don’t believe in God because of the evidence—that is inherently contradictory.
I thought you were upset that Lee took this off on a tangent?
Well, okay then ….yes, evidence IS evidence.
However, no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate the veracity of any god claim.
Much in the same way that no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the biblical claims of the Exodus.
PS. I hope you appreciate the way I steered the comment back to the topic of the post?
I’ve just written a post about the evidence pertaining to the Patriarchs and the Exodus.
Minor note: If one discounts the historicity of the Bible and thus “accepts that the tales as presented in the Bible are nothing but myth,” that makes one a minimalist.
Actually, if one accepts the tales as presented in the bible there is the presumption one accepts all the miracles claims as well, which for anyone other than a religious believer would be farcical.
Dr. Anderson, have you looked at NT Wright’s *History and Eschatology: Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology* yet? This book is very dense, but fantastic. Wright examines the Enlightenment presuppositions with regards to history and theology, in particular as they were/are applied to Jesus and the Bible. He addresses some of the very themes Provan does in the work you’re currently reviewing, such as how we know what we know, can/should history and theology intersect?, etc.
It’s a fuller presentation of Wright’s lectures at the Gifford Lectures (founded in 1888) at the University of Aberdeen. In 2018 Tom Wright was the first NT scholar to speak at the Gifford Lectures since Rudolf Bultmann in 1955.
Against the noted German scholar’s dehistoricized approach to scripture, Wright argues that, since the philosophical and cultural movements that generated the natural theology debates in the first place also treated Jesus as a genuine human being—part of the “natural world”—there is therefore no good reason that the historical Jesus should be off-limits. What would happen if we brought him back into the discussion? What, in particular, might “history” and “eschatology” really mean? And what might that say about “knowledge” itself?
Wright takes to task well-meaning Christians who see history as verboten when it comes to Jesus, as well as skeptics who argue that only what can be historically verified counts as “true.”
This would be a great book for you to review here.
Pax.
Lee.
I haven’t. I’ll have to check it out.
ARK: Of course I can’t and neither can science.
LEE: So how can you be so certain that miracles in general, the Exodus in particular, are/is impossible? How can you be CERTAIN that the Lazarus story is just a myth?
ARK: No such claim has ever been made, as far as I am aware.
LEE: Maybe not in so many words. But you’re basically a positivist who will not accept anything as true or factual which science cannot prove.
ARK: So why do you believe?
LEE: We’ve answered this question for you several times across multiple threads. Please either deal with our comments or stop asking.
Pax.
Lee.