Response to Veretuesi post on Genesis and Fundamentalist Creationism

[psstein]

1) Exodus contains numerous Egyptian names and locations, most of which would have been forgotten by 600 BC.
2) The various dates are not "conjecture", but are calculated from numbers given in the biblical text.

The conditions of slavery in Exodus fit very well within a New Kingdom context.

[psstein]

1 Kings 6:1 in the LXX has 440 years. Acts 13:18-22 with 1 Kings 2:11, 40 + 450 + 40 + 40 = 570. A 90 to 130 year discrepancy exists between the numbers. The variant reading 480 & 440 is in evidence of a textual problem. Chronologists are cited in Adam Clarke's commentary to propose values ranging between 330 to 672 years for that number. I think Acts 13:18-22 with 1 Kings 2:11 gives us a more accurate number of 570.

The LXX should not be considered here. It's very widely agreed upon that it's more a paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible than a direct translation. As for the existence of a textual problem, that's very possibly the case. The issue is that 440/480 are probably not literal numbers. The OT consistently uses 40 to refer to a generation, so it could mean 12 generations after the Exodus.

Clarke's commentary is from 1831, so not exactly modern scholarship.

[psstein]

Kenyon did very good work and was careful with the radiocarbon dates. This was early in the days of radiocarbon; the lab later revised the dates slightly, but this did not affect Kenyon's conclusions. I am fairly confident that the charcoal that she dated was dated correctly.

However, I am skeptical of her confidence that the site was NOT occupied at the traditional date of its destruction. Bryant Wood has done some careful pottery analysis, and sees evidence that the site WAS occupied at this time (see the link that 37818 gave above).

(A number of years ago I tried to re-date the destruction from a small piece of wood from Jericho that I obtained from Bryant Wood, but it was too contaminated. The dates got older as I went deeper, to about 1000 AD, and the dates never leveled off.)

Wood's evaluation has generally not been followed by archaeologists or Biblical scholars. James Hoffmeier makes a good argument in this article for a 13th century date: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD..._Hoffmeier.pdf

If the Exodus happened, it happened in the 13th (or 12th) century.

[shunyadragon]

Or classicists, or actually most scholars of the ancient world. Internal evidence is critical to the dating of most ancient materials. Nobody would try to fix the dates of Sennacherib's reign based on evidence external to Assyrian archives.

Comparison not valid, and bad example, because the known records are not controversial with archaeological evidence. Actually no, internal evidence is not critical standing alone, without correlation with archaeological evidence, and other sources

It depends what you mean by "evolved text." If you mean a completed text, yes, the Pentateuch probably isn't compiled until the Persian period. That's not really controversial among mainstream scholars. The reasons for that belief, however, are more based on what we can glean from the text itself, rather than some sort of external evidence. Obviously, there are sources that date prior to the Persian period, though.

No there are no writings, nor other definitive sources, prior to the Persian Period.

[Doug Shaver]

Here is the link where the C14 dating is discussed: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...t-Jericho.aspx

The scholarly consensus seems to be against Bryant Wood and in favor of Kathleen Kenyon. If the consensus is correct, then the battle described in Joshua didn't happen. What do you think I should make of that?

[37818]

The scholarly consensus seems to be against Bryant Wood and in favor of Kathleen Kenyon. If the consensus is correct, then the battle described in Joshua didn't happen. What do you think I should make of that?

I too favor Kathleen Kenyon's dating of that cite. Which I thought I had indicated arguing that Acts 13:18-22 with 1 Kings 2:11 gives us 570 years over against 1 Kings 6:1 480 years. I think the evidence supports the notion that the 480 is not the original reading. Now apparently lost.

[Kbertsche]

I too favor Kathleen Kenyon's dating of that cite. Which I thought I had indicated arguing that Acts 13:18-22 with 1 Kings 2:11 gives us 570 years over against 1 Kings 6:1 480 years. I think the evidence supports the notion that the 480 is not the original reading. Now apparently lost.

I have no problems with Kenyon's dating of what she DID find. I have doubts about her conclusions of when the site was NOT occupied.

[Doug Shaver]

I too favor Kathleen Kenyon's dating of that cite. Which I thought I had indicated arguing that Acts 13:18-22 with 1 Kings 2:11 gives us 570 years over against 1 Kings 6:1 480 years.

My apologies. I was not paying close enough attention when I first read what you wrote.

After checking several sources, I find that according to most inerrantists, the biblical chronology puts the conquest of Canaan at around 1400 BCE. Are you saying that believers should reinterpret the Bible to make its chronology consistent with the archaeological record?

[Kbertsche]

My apologies. I was not paying close enough attention when I first read what you wrote.

After checking several sources, I find that according to most inerrantists, the biblical chronology puts the conquest of Canaan at around 1400 BCE. Are you saying that believers should reinterpret the Bible to make its chronology consistent with the archaeological record?

You apparently didn't read Hoffmeier's excellent JETS paper which psstein referred to in this thread? Hoffmeier argues that both ~1400 and ~1230 BC can be considered "biblical" dates for the beginning of the conquest.

[Doug Shaver]

You apparently didn't read Hoffmeier's excellent JETS paper which psstein referred to in this thread? Hoffmeier argues that both ~1400 and ~1230 BC can be considered "biblical" dates for the beginning of the conquest.

I didn't claim to have read every paper that anyone has written on the subject. I just did a bit of googling, which informed that that most Bible believers put the start of the conquest at around 1400 BCE. That would be consistent with a few believers thinking it was either later or earlier.

It matters little to me if some believers think the Biblical account can be reconciled with the consensus of archaeologists as to when the site was both occupied and fortified. I think there is ample reason, having nothing to do with that particular issue, to doubt that the book of Joshua is a reliable account of actual events.

[Kbertsche]

I didn't claim to have read every paper that anyone has written on the subject.

No, you didn't. But you also didn't bother to read the one paper on the subject which which was directly linked to in this very thread just a few messages ago. This is just lazy and irresponsible on your part.

[37818]

My apologies. I was not paying close enough attention when I first read what you wrote.

After checking several sources, I find that according to most inerrantists, the biblical chronology puts the conquest of Canaan at around 1400 BCE. Are you saying that believers should reinterpret the Bible to make its chronology consistent with the archaeological record?

Well yes. But because the text Acts 13:18-22 (v.22 reference 1 Kings 2:11) calculates 570 years over against 480 of 1 Kings 6:1. There being evidence that number could be wrong given that the LXX has 440 years. And in this case it is worse. A 90 to 130 year discrepancy. Acts account was more recently written and less likely to have a textual problem. And Hebrew texts being older is notorious for having some textual issues with numbers.

[shunyadragon]

Well yes. But because the text Acts 13:18-22 (v.22 reference 1 Kings 2:11) calculates 570 years over against 480 of 1 Kings 6:1. There being evidence that number could be wrong given that the LXX has 440 years. And in this case it is worse. A 90 to 130 year discrepancy. Acts account was more recently written and less likely to have a textual problem. And Hebrew texts being older is notorious for having some textual issues with numbers.

The tip of the iceberg, all scripture is notorious for having textual problems. That is one of the reasons Genesis and Exodus are not historically accurate, and they are scripture compiled very late (after ~600 BCE) set in history. This why the Exodus is an undocumented, and unsupported event in history as described in Exodus and the Bible, and with numerous contradictions.

[psstein]

You apparently didn't read Hoffmeier's excellent JETS paper which psstein referred to in this thread? Hoffmeier argues that both ~1400 and ~1230 BC can be considered "biblical" dates for the beginning of the conquest.

Two things here:

1. I think Hoffmeier is pretty convincing

2. Elements of the narrative strongly point towards a 13th century date, rather than an earlier one.

[37818]

The tip of the iceberg, all scripture is notorious for having textual problems. That is one of the reasons Genesis and Exodus are not historically accurate, and they are scripture compiled very late (after ~600 BCE) set in history. This why the Exodus is an undocumented, and unsupported event in history as described in Exodus and the Bible, and with numerous contradictions.

You conflate original autographs with known copying issues. They are two different issues. Known copying problems do not prove fault with the original. Also bad interpretations and bad translations also have no baring on the original text as it was given.