PDA

View Full Version : The Exodus' and the Conquest's Historicity



Quantum Weirdness
01-18-2014, 04:22 PM
On the FB page, I asked when and if did members think the exodus occurred.
Now I would like to attempt to justify my position that the exodus occurred around 1620B.C (Perhaps earlier) and the conquest took place from 1580B.C. onwards(or later).

This article by Alan Montgomery (http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html) shows evidence for a Middle bronze age conquest

So does this article by James Parkinson (http://www.biblechronology.org/studies/chron2m.pdf from page 7)
What they both argue essentially is that there is good evidence for a destruction of Canaan around the end of the Middle Bronze age.


Also, this article (http://vernerable.wordpress.com/archaeology/middle-bronze-1-fact-sheet/) notes some coincidences that seem interesting regarding who the people who invaded Canaan are. (Take a guess who I think they were :teeth:)

Another article (see http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1996/NatureBruins/1996NatureBruins.pdf) notes another coincidence regarding the Santorini eruption (which may account for the ninth plague) and the destruction of Jericho (about 45 years later apparently)

What are your thoughts Twebbers?

firstfloor
01-19-2014, 05:35 AM
Any investigation that starts with the assumption that The Exodus is an historical event cannot conclude anything about the historicity of The Exodus because then it is simply restating its assumption. The Bible account can only be checked by use of archaeological data. It cannot be part of its own evidence.

Quantum Weirdness
01-19-2014, 07:29 AM
Any investigation that starts with the assumption that The Exodus is an historical event cannot conclude anything about the historicity of The Exodus because then it is simply restating its assumption. The Bible account can only be checked by use of archaeological data. It cannot be part of its own evidence.

I suppose that is correct but what do you think of the archaeological data provided?

firstfloor
01-19-2014, 12:53 PM
I suppose that is correct but what do you think of the archaeological data provided?
The archaeological evidence is bound to be very thin indeed. It is interesting reading.

Quantum Weirdness
01-19-2014, 06:08 PM
The archaeological evidence is bound to be very thin indeed. It is interesting reading.

Gotta ask what you mean by thin.

shunyadragon
01-19-2014, 08:07 PM
I found that the references appeal to the scripture being true apriori and not the evidence in their assumptions as in the following.

http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html][/url] "These theories fail to explain why the Israelites believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years."

"If we are not prepared to reject the historical value of the Exodus account we could respond that Redford is less qualified than God to speak on the matter. Or we could point out the errors of fact - Gibeon was occupied before the Iron Age; or critique his textual interpretation - Edom and Moab in the book of Numbers could be merely nomadic tribal kingdoms; or to challenge his assumptions - the textual misreading that all cities captured in the Conquest should show destruction in the archaeological record. I think, though, the honest investigator has to admit that the Evangelical model of the Exodus is a poor fit to many though not all evidences. I attribute this poor fit to poorly chosen assumptions and mistaken chronologies. With new assumptions and chronologies, a biblical Exodus model can be proposed that fits all the evidence."

An independent less biased view would consider the archeological evidence independent of scripture. The Israelite archeologists do not believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years.

The other reference criticized the Gilgamesh accounts. It is interesting that the OT books lack any scripture older than the Dead Sea scrolls, The older tablets of Gilgamesh carry greater weight in archeology.

Juvenal
01-19-2014, 08:27 PM
What are your thoughts Twebbers?

Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse

firstfloor
01-20-2014, 03:38 AM
Gotta ask what you mean by thin.
Thin because of distance in time. Evidence may seem richer than it really is because of confirmatory bias, for example, if the researchers are themselves Jewish or Christian. A good researcher should be looking just as eagerly for evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

shunyadragon
01-20-2014, 04:43 AM
Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse The problem is 'at what time' did the Israelites believe they came out of Egypt. I believe Exodus in its present form is post exile. Yes, Egypt's withdrawal is a likely source of the story. Yes the time frame for the archeological evidence concerning the conquest of the cities does not fit Exodus. Your link to 'withdrawal' is a spam problem.

Quantum Weirdness
01-20-2014, 02:04 PM
Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Could you give me some examples of the bolded above?
And yeah, I don't think there is evidence of 2 million+ people that conquered Canaan. That's why I came up with a theory that suggests 150000-210000 people were the exodus crowd.

Quantum Weirdness
01-20-2014, 02:06 PM
I found that the references appeal to the scripture being true apriori and not the evidence in their assumptions as in the following.

http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html][/url] "These theories fail to explain why the Israelites believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years."

"If we are not prepared to reject the historical value of the Exodus account we could respond that Redford is less qualified than God to speak on the matter. Or we could point out the errors of fact - Gibeon was occupied before the Iron Age; or critique his textual interpretation - Edom and Moab in the book of Numbers could be merely nomadic tribal kingdoms; or to challenge his assumptions - the textual misreading that all cities captured in the Conquest should show destruction in the archaeological record. I think, though, the honest investigator has to admit that the Evangelical model of the Exodus is a poor fit to many though not all evidences. I attribute this poor fit to poorly chosen assumptions and mistaken chronologies. With new assumptions and chronologies, a biblical Exodus model can be proposed that fits all the evidence."

An independent less biased view would consider the archeological evidence independent of scripture. The Israelite archeologists do not believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years.

The other reference criticized the Gilgamesh accounts. It is interesting that the OT books lack any scripture older than the Dead Sea scrolls, The older tablets of Gilgamesh carry greater weight in archeology.

What about the archaeological data shunyadragon?

Quantum Weirdness
01-20-2014, 02:09 PM
Thin because of distance in time. Evidence may seem richer than it really is because of confirmatory bias, for example, if the researchers are themselves Jewish or Christian. A good researcher should be looking just as eagerly for evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

Ok Fair enough
I'll try and find some stuff that contradicts this and see if it holds true.

shunyadragon
01-20-2014, 07:30 PM
What about the archaeological data shunyadragon?

I will comment further on the archeological evidence, but it is important that this was given as apriori assumptions before the archeological evidence was considered. I consider the archeological evidence of the ancient cities of Israel as inconsistent with the Biblical Exodus accounts.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html][/url] "Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations."

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Quantum Weirdness
01-21-2014, 03:36 PM
I will comment further on the archeological evidence, but it is important that this was given as apriori assumptions before the archeological evidence was considered. I consider the archeological evidence of the ancient cities of Israel as inconsistent with the Biblical Exodus accounts.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html][/url] "Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations."

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

As far as I know, Finkelstein is just looking for evidence around the Iron age. (not where I put it i.e. in the Middle Bronze age). According to my theory, he's not going to find any. What about the Middle Bronze Age archaeology?

Link you gave is broken btw.

shunyadragon
01-21-2014, 08:16 PM
As far as I know, Finkelstein is just looking for evidence around the Iron age. (not where I put it i.e. in the Middle Bronze age). According to my theory, he's not going to find any. What about the Middle Bronze Age archaeology?

Link you gave is broken btw.

Not happy with how links are working since I came back. I do not think the search by archeologists was Iron Age only. I will try for some specific sources.

go with the flow the river knows. . .

Frank

Quantum Weirdness
01-22-2014, 06:44 PM
Not happy with how links are working since I came back. I do not think the search by archeologists was Iron Age only. I will try for some specific sources.

go with the flow the river knows. . .

Frank
Ok then. I don't think they are aware of the Middle Bronze Age theory though.

shunyadragon
01-24-2014, 01:04 PM
The archeology evidence we have from Egypt is from ~1200 BCE when Egypt conquered the region we call Palestine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

"No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

The Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1206 B.C.E. and now housed at the Cairo Museum, offers the earliest historical evidence of a people called Israel. Enlarge

Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription." [/quote]

Ged
01-24-2014, 05:17 PM
Now I would like to attempt to justify my position that the exodus occurred around 1620B.C (Perhaps earlier) and the conquest took place from 1580B.C. onwards(or later).



And yet the Hebrews historical records, in no less than 3 separate places, place the Exodus in the 15th century.

Quantum Weirdness
01-24-2014, 05:59 PM
And yet the Hebrews historical records, in no less than 3 separate places, place the Exodus in the 15th century.

Where specifically?
1 Kings 6:1 was interpreted somewhat differently by ancient writers as compared to now. Eg Josephus.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm#BIBICAL WRITERS

More or less, I think this is the same with Judges 11:26

Quantum Weirdness
01-24-2014, 06:01 PM
The archeology evidence we have from Egypt is from ~1200 BCE when Egypt conquered the region we call Palestine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

"No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

The Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1206 B.C.E. and now housed at the Cairo Museum, offers the earliest historical evidence of a people called Israel. Enlarge

Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription."


Ok that is Iron Age data. What about the Middle Bronze Age?

Ged
01-24-2014, 10:21 PM
Where specifically?

1 Kings 6:1, 2 Chron 3:2, and Judges 11:26


"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord."


The record of the Kings is written in precise, 'matter of fact' language and each kings reign is reliably dated. If we accept the chronology of Kings back to Solomon (969 BC to 930 BC) why should we reject what is plainly stated in chapter 6? Then there is the plain statement of Jephthah in the book of Judges.



Jephthah again sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites .... Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country. And they took possession of all the territory of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the wilderness to the Jordan. ... While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, 300 years, why did you not deliver them within that time?
Judges 11:14, 26

300 years from Jephthah to Israels settling of the trans-Jordan (Num 21:31, Deut 1:3-4) brings us to the year 1405 BC which fits perfectly with the Kings records.

I took a look at your link and it seems to think that the oppressions mentioned in the book of Judges were nation wide. Based on that assumption they have accumulated the years and created about 100 years error. However, the oppressions were regional and in some cases overlapped.

Quantum Weirdness
01-25-2014, 04:25 AM
1 Kings 6:1, 2 Chron 3:2, and Judges 11:26


"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord."


The record of the Kings is written in precise, 'matter of fact' language and each kings reign is reliably dated. If we accept the chronology of Kings back to Solomon (969 BC to 930 BC) why should we reject what is plainly stated in chapter 6? Then there is the plain statement of Jephthah in the book of Judges.



Jephthah again sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites .... Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country. And they took possession of all the territory of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the wilderness to the Jordan. ... While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, 300 years, why did you not deliver them within that time?
Judges 11:14, 26

300 years from Jephthah to Israels settling of the trans-Jordan (Num 21:31, Deut 1:3-4) brings us to the year 1405 BC which fits perfectly with the Kings records.

I took a look at your link and it seems to think that the oppressions mentioned in the book of Judges were nation wide. Based on that assumption they have accumulated the years and created about 100 years error. However, the oppressions were regional and in some cases overlapped.

I didn't see anything of note in 2 chronicles 3:2 so I'll not bother with that.
You have to also take into account the traditions when interpreting texts. So why is Josephus wrong in his interpretation of the text?
The same interpretation method of 1 Kings 6:1 is used in Judges 11:26 by me.

Ged
01-25-2014, 09:44 AM
So why is Josephus wrong in his interpretation of the text?


Accuracy during the kings reigns was not his strongest point, so Im not surprised that Josephus simply summed up the judges era without considering the possibility of overlaps. Also, I notice that your linked article chooses a mis-translation in order to make his point about Acts 13:18:21. Here is his quote:


"For some forty years He bore with their conduct in the desert. Then in the Canaanite country, after overthrowing seven nations, whose lands he gave them to be their heritage for some 450 years he appointed judges for them until the time of the prophet Samuel. It was then that they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin. He reigned forty years before God removed him and appointed David as their King..."

But please read it again in the ESV.


The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. And for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance. All this took about 450 years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. (Acts 13:17-20 ESV emphasis mine)
I believe the modern versions translate the text correctly in this case. So the '450-year' approximation St. Paul is referring to is:

400 years enslaved (compare Acts 7:6)
40 years wandering
7 years conquering promised land
1-2 years distributing inheritance

total = 449 years (approx 450)

shunyadragon
01-25-2014, 01:38 PM
Ok that is Iron Age data. What about the Middle Bronze Age?

From the Egyptian perspective there is no evidence or record of anything prior to this involving Israelites. In fact little or no significant Bronze Age evidence of Israelites in Palestine. The presence in Palestine at that time is Canaanite, and Jeruselum was a Canaanite City under Egyptian. Egyptian records and archeological evidence documents that the Bronze Age Palestine was Canaanite under Egyptian control from ~1600 to 1200 BCE. By the evidence Israelites were a tribe of Canaanites up until 1200 BCE, when it was referred to as a pastorial tribe in the hills of Palestine. Israel rose in power after this at the expense of the Canaanites as they lost to Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites

Quantum Weirdness
01-25-2014, 05:08 PM
From the Egyptian perspective there is no evidence or record of anything prior to this involving Israelites. In fact little or no significant Bronze Age evidence of Israelites in Palestine. The presence in Palestine at that time is Canaanite, and Jeruselum was a Canaanite City under Egyptian. Egyptian records and archeological evidence documents that the Bronze Age Palestine was Canaanite under Egyptian control from ~1600 to 1200 BCE. By the evidence Israelites were a tribe of Canaanites up until 1200 BCE, when it was referred to as a pastorial tribe in the hills of Palestine. Israel rose in power after this at the expense of the Canaanites as they lost to Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites

And the Israelites never controlled Palestine during that time, at least according to the biblical text. So what's your point?
About Jerusalem being Canaanite, yeah there were Canaanites living there which I don't think contradicts my model.

Quantum Weirdness
01-25-2014, 05:10 PM
Accuracy during the kings reigns was not his strongest point, so Im not surprised that Josephus simply summed up the judges era without considering the possibility of overlaps. Also, I notice that your linked article chooses a mis-translation in order to make his point about Acts 13:18:21. Here is his quote:


"For some forty years He bore with their conduct in the desert. Then in the Canaanite country, after overthrowing seven nations, whose lands he gave them to be their heritage for some 450 years he appointed judges for them until the time of the prophet Samuel. It was then that they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin. He reigned forty years before God removed him and appointed David as their King..."

But please read it again in the ESV.


The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. And for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance. All this took about 450 years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. (Acts 13:17-20 ESV emphasis mine)
I believe the modern versions translate the text correctly in this case. So the '450-year' approximation St. Paul is referring to is:

400 years enslaved (compare Acts 7:6)
40 years wandering
7 years conquering promised land
1-2 years distributing inheritance

total = 449 years (approx 450)

Fair enough. I really don't care about Acts 13:20 in this debate (apparently it can go either way)
But what about the others which didn't use the 480 years?

Ged
01-25-2014, 08:03 PM
By "others" you mean, Josephus, Africanus, Clement, Tatian and Theophilus. Notice how all of these are 1st century historians, whereas, the Hebrew kings records were penned before the Babylonian captivity. My answer to you is that the original records were probably lost when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 587BC. Therefore, the 1st century historians didn't know anymore than we do, and they had to work it out from the same books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) as we do.

I would go so far as to say that modern chronologists are better equipped than 1st century writers because the synchronisms between the Hebrew kings have only been properly settled this century. Hence the all-important 4th year of Solomon's reign.

Quantum Weirdness
01-25-2014, 10:05 PM
By "others" you mean, Josephus, Africanus, Clement, Tatian and Theophilus. Notice how all of these are 1st century historians, whereas, the Hebrew kings records were penned before the Babylonian captivity. My answer to you is that the original records were probably lost when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 587BC. Therefore, the 1st century historians didn't know anymore than we do, and they had to work it out from the same books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) as we do.

I would go so far as to say that modern chronologists are better equipped than 1st century writers because the synchronisms between the Hebrew kings have only been properly settled this century. Hence the all-important 4th year of Solomon's reign.

I was thinking along the lines that these people would have preserved traditions on the sacred texts and that we should use them to clarify the text on what it means.

Ged
01-25-2014, 11:11 PM
The impression I get of inter-testament chronology is that the 1st century writers (Jewish and Christian) were having problems nailing it down accurately. The Seder Olam did a bad job of it and the Church fathers had the same historical data as the Jews. That is one of the reasons why such large crowds came to hear John in the wilderness. They realised that his count of the Sabbatical years (Daniels 70 weeks) had nearly reached the revealing of Messiah but weren't absolutely sure. Jubilees were on the right track but, again, there were problems and no one had it perfectly pinned.

It has not been until our day that we have been able to compare Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Greek chronicles getting a precise chronology between Solomon and Christ. As for the era between Moses and Solomon, it still gets a lot of debate. Personally, I think that we can place the judges and get to Solomons 4th year in 480 years.

shunyadragon
01-26-2014, 04:22 AM
And the Israelites never controlled Palestine during that time, at least according to the biblical text. So what's your point?
About Jerusalem being Canaanite, yeah there were Canaanites living there which I don't think contradicts my model.

The point is the evidence indicates that the Israelites were pastoral tribes in the hills of Palestine, and are home grown as part of Canaan up until 1200 BCE and after. There is no evidence for Exodus and conquest of Palestine.

Quantum Weirdness
01-26-2014, 04:32 AM
The point is the evidence indicates that the Israelites were pastoral tribes in the hills of Palestine, and are home grown as part of Canaan up until 1200 BCE and after. There is no evidence for Exodus and conquest of Palestine.

No evidence you say! What about the links that support a/an
1)Invasion near the end of the Middle Bronze Age
2)Destruction of cities associated with the biblical conquest.

shunyadragon
01-26-2014, 10:54 AM
No evidence you say! What about the links that support a/an
1)Invasion near the end of the Middle Bronze Age

Yes, there is evidence for an Egyptian invasion in the late Bronze Age, but this mainly a Canaanite war, and the Israelites are a little more a footnote as a pastoral hill tribe. No record of significant slaves taken to Egypt.


(2)Destruction of cities associated with the biblical conquest.

No such evidence of Israelites conquering cities exists that fit that time frame. There are records of Egyptian entering between 1550 and 1400 BCE and conquering Canaanite cities and making them subservient to Egypt. Prior to 1550 BCE there are records and evidence of trade. The Egyptians were dominant in the region in this period and made records. No record of Israelites until ~1200 BCE. Just recording lists of destroyed cities does mean anything without giving the details of the archeology found at these cites.

Quantum Weirdness
01-26-2014, 04:33 PM
Yes, there is evidence for an Egyptian invasion in the late Bronze Age, but this mainly a Canaanite war, and the Israelites are a little more a footnote as a pastoral hill tribe. No record of significant slaves taken to Egypt.

And what does the bolded have to do with the biblical account at all?




No such evidence of Israelites conquering cities exists that fit that time frame. There are records of Egyptian entering between 1550 and 1400 BCE and conquering Canaanite cities and making them subservient to Egypt. Prior to 1550 BCE there are records and evidence of trade. The Egyptians were dominant in the region in this period and made records. No record of Israelites until ~1200 BCE. Just recording lists of destroyed cities does mean anything without giving the details of the archeology found at these cites.

Apparently according to this paper,
(see http://www.academia.edu/233778/Canaan_under_Siege_The_History_and_Archaeology_of_ Egypts_War_in_Canaan_during_the_Early_Eighteenth_D ynasty_)
the idea that the Egyptians caused that destruction is inferred by them only being a viable candidate and Ahmose being in the area (I'm not sure Ahmose is recorded as conquering the areas where the Israelites were said to have conquered and burnt etc. Can you provide a reference and quotes for these. Thanks.)

Quote:
"Having ruled out Hurrian invasions as a culprit, as previously held by a number of scholars, and having eliminated notions that Egyptians were incapable of the effort required or were inept in siege warfare, the Egyptian army remains the only viable culprit for the destructions attested across Canaan and especially, as will be discussed in detail here, in the southern coastal plain.

and

"While it is clear that not all of the Late Bronze Age destructions evidenced in the archaeological record can be correlated with specific Egyptian references, whether textual or iconographic sources of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, the absence of historical or archaeological evidence to permit the association of these destructions with either Canaanite or Hurrian culprits is significant. Thus, with no reasonable option left but to assign Egyptian agency to these destructions, attention can be focused on the unfolding nature of Egypt’s early imperial policies during the early Eighteenth Dynasty."


Interestingly, there is an absence of Egyptian garrisons and fortresses.

Quote
"Seemingly absent to date is evidence for Egyptian garrisons and fortresses that would typify Egyptian imperial presence from the LB IB onward. Indeed, Morris has characterized this “nascent empire” as “in a period of crisis prior to the campaign of Thutmose III”, although to do so is to embrace the mistaken assumption that the later character of the Egyptian empire was the shape intended but never realized by early Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs."

Also, there is a lack of mention of the Hill country (where the Israelites were conquering) among the New Kingdom pharaohs

Quote
" It is particularly remarkable that no hill country sites are mentioned among the campaigns of Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs, and Shechem and Jerusalem only receive first mention during the Late Bronze Age in the Amarna period and are never identified among the targets of New Kingdom campaigns."

In some other places there is also a lack of evidence

Quote
"It should be noted, however, that the destruction of Hazor XVI/3 is attributed to Ahmose by Ben-Tor, despite an absence of evidence for this pharaoh’s presence this far north.

Quantum Weirdness
01-26-2014, 06:58 PM
The impression I get of inter-testament chronology is that the 1st century writers (Jewish and Christian) were having problems nailing it down accurately. The Seder Olam did a bad job of it and the Church fathers had the same historical data as the Jews. That is one of the reasons why such large crowds came to hear John in the wilderness. They realised that his count of the Sabbatical years (Daniels 70 weeks) had nearly reached the revealing of Messiah but weren't absolutely sure. Jubilees were on the right track but, again, there were problems and no one had it perfectly pinned.

It has not been until our day that we have been able to compare Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Greek chronicles getting a precise chronology between Solomon and Christ. As for the era between Moses and Solomon, it still gets a lot of debate. Personally, I think that we can place the judges and get to Solomons 4th year in 480 years.

I suppose that is correct but we're talking about how to interpret a verse, not the actual dates themselves (which they could have got wrong). At least one (Josephus) didn't read the verse as being 480 years only.

Regarding Josephus now, can you go further into what his inaccuracies were and specifically what kind of chronology errors he made? Thanks

There is also the matter of this

Josephus seems to include the oppressions as well as the judges, whereas the writer of Kings excludes the the rule of oppressors, as was customary at this time (Jackson and Lake 1979, 151).
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm#Jewish Writers

Ged
01-26-2014, 09:22 PM
Regarding Josephus now, can you go further into what his inaccuracies were and specifically what kind of chronology errors he made? Thanks


I havnt done a systematic study of Josephus' chronology but his approach to Judges and Kings seems to be a cumulative count without any effort to find co-regencies or, as in the case of Judges, regional oppressions.

In his 'Antiquities' each book sub-heading shows his total count of years so you can check them out if you like. I will give a few examples and include in brackets () the count as per our modern findings. Incidentally, the more that chronology has been refined, the more that it concurs with biblical records. Josephus is useful, but his early era history gets unreliable. Judges and Kings on the other hand is very accurate.


Exodus to Fall of Samaria - 947 yrs (725 yrs)
Division Kingdom to Fall of Samaria - 241 yrs (211yrs)
Fall of Samaria to Cyrus - 182 yrs (181 yrs)
Cyrus to death of Alexander - 253 yrs (215 yrs)

shunyadragon
01-27-2014, 04:27 AM
Ged

Over the years my main reference has Been the publication BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGICAL REVIEW. Academically they are first rate. A recent eBook publication addresses some of these issues here. http://c795631.r31.cf2.rackcdn.com/ancient-israel-in-egypt-and-the-exodus.pdf. It is best to go to the BAR site and sign up for free ebooks and weekly newsletters, From this source in general I came to these conclusions. The archives of BAR have extensive excellent academic archeological articles on Biblical History.

(1) Israelites were a pastoral tribe(s) in a region of Canaanite origins and/or rule up until ~1200 BCE.
(2) Egypt presence began as trade and then invade and dominated the region, raiding burning small cities, but did not build fortified cities.
(3) Over time Canaanites weakened.
(4) References to Israelites were recorded specifically in Egypt ~1200 BCE with possible references going back to ~1400 BCE.
(5) There were likely populations of Israelite slaves in Egypt beginning between ~1400 to 1200 BCE.
(6) The description of locations and trade routes and pastoral migration routes in Exodus have some basis in fact most likely as Canaanite trade routes.
(7) It is possible that Israelite slaves did leave (escaped/kicked out) of Egypt and went back to the Palestine region, on a much smaller scale than in Exodus. There is evidence of one or more periods of catastrophic drought, plagues, and crop failure in this period.
(8) The main problem with Exodus is the numbers of Israelites involved, and the invasion of Canaan.
(9) The main players in the region militarily over this time were Egypt, Canaan, Philistines, Phoenicians and no evidence that Israelites had any significant military capability in this period. Israelites grew in strength and power after ~1200 BCE as Canaan weakened.

Ged
01-27-2014, 11:41 AM
Has the Archeological Review considered the claims of several German universities that a fragmentary name on a topographical pedestal (Berlin Museum) included the name 'Israel' ? They date their item about 100-200 years earlier than the oft quoted 1200 BC

shunyadragon
01-27-2014, 12:29 PM
Has the Archeological Review considered the claims of several German universities that a fragmentary name on a topographical pedestal (Berlin Museum) included the name 'Israel' ? They date their item about 100-200 years earlier than the oft quoted 1200 BC

Yes, if you note I said the firm evidence was ~1200 BCE, possible references go back to ~1400 BCE. Also the dating of these earlier references are a bit shaky, because the stella and pedestal are damaged and dating is not firm. The dates of between `~1400 to 1200 BCE do not change the over all problems of the accuracies of Exodus. The name on the previous Stella were incomplete and not the same as the later ~1200 BCE stella which was accurately dated.

Quantum Weirdness
01-27-2014, 02:09 PM
I havnt done a systematic study of Josephus' chronology but his approach to Judges and Kings seems to be a cumulative count without any effort to find co-regencies or, as in the case of Judges, regional oppressions.

In his 'Antiquities' each book sub-heading shows his total count of years so you can check them out if you like. I will give a few examples and include in brackets () the count as per our modern findings. Incidentally, the more that chronology has been refined, the more that it concurs with biblical records. Josephus is useful, but his early era history gets unreliable. Judges and Kings on the other hand is very accurate.


Exodus to Fall of Samaria - 947 yrs (725 yrs)
Division Kingdom to Fall of Samaria - 241 yrs (211yrs)
Fall of Samaria to Cyrus - 182 yrs (181 yrs)
Cyrus to death of Alexander - 253 yrs (215 yrs)


Ok you're probably right about chronology, but what about the interpretation of the text?

Ged
01-27-2014, 10:10 PM
Ok you're probably right about chronology, but what about the interpretation of the text?

Hi QW.
Im not really qualified to criticize Josephus' text. Chronology is my special interest so I just appreciate him in the same way as I appreciate James Ussher. Their work is worthy of respect but some ancient dates need refinement.

Ged
01-27-2014, 10:53 PM
Yes, if you note I said the firm evidence was ~1200 BCE, possible references go back to ~1400 BCE. Also the dating of these earlier references are a bit shaky, because the stella and pedestal are damaged and dating is not firm. The dates of between `~1400 to 1200 BCE do not change the over all problems of the accuracies of Exodus. The name on the previous Stella were incomplete and not the same as the later ~1200 BCE stella which was accurately dated.

Thanks. As for the older date "not being firm," okay, fair enough :hrm: but ...

I cant help getting the feeling that concessions from the late Exodus camp only get prized out of them one at a time, and usually quite reluctantly. Considering the gradual march of archaeological finds hinting at old Bible stories, it might be time for historians to tweak down their inbuilt skeptic a little bit when it comes to the biblical accounts.

Here is Van der Veen's latest article (http://ia700308.us.archive.org/4/items/vanderveen_918/Jaei2-4VanDerVeenEtAl.pdf) by the way.

shunyadragon
01-28-2014, 08:46 AM
Thanks. As for the older date "not being firm," okay, fair enough :hrm: but ...

I cant help getting the feeling that concessions from the late Exodus camp only get prized out of them one at a time, and usually quite reluctantly. Considering the gradual march of archaeological finds hinting at old Bible stories, it might be time for historians to tweak down their inbuilt skeptic a little bit when it comes to the biblical accounts.

Here is Van der Veen's latest article (http://ia700308.us.archive.org/4/items/vanderveen_918/Jaei2-4VanDerVeenEtAl.pdf) by the way.

This article was referenced and discussed in the BAR reference. The photos here a little better then theirs. There still exists the fact that these hieroglyphs are damaged and incomplete, though on careful examination I accept them. I think that you are being a little to negative and critical of the academic view, which justifiably has a skeptical edge. By in large the archeological academics follow the evidence to where it leads. I like BAR, because it is rather inclusive of all legitimate research and academic sources, and reasonable on its conclusions.

Ged
01-28-2014, 10:08 AM
Thanks for your fair reply shunyadragon. Your BAR link is on my bookmarks and I hope to have a good look at their articles soon.