"The Bible Unearthed" - Exodus

[Orion]

Re: The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein & Silberman, Free Press Pub.

These two authors, one an archeologist and the other a historian, have published a book which draws attention to some striking discrepancies between certain Bible narratives vs. recent archeological and historical findings. By recent, I mean within the last hundred years.

Of the several topics covered within the book (the Patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, etc.), I'd like to discuss the Exodus story within this thread. If this generates enough interest, we can then move on to some of these other topics. I apologize if I'm plowing old ground here. I did a forum search and could find nothing on this subject.

Israel Finkelstein - Director of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University.

Neil Asher Silberman - Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archeology in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archeology magazine.

The book of Exodus describes the labours of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, their eventual liberation at the hand of Moses, and the subsequent wanderings of these people in Sinai for forty years. Does this story reflect historical reality? Can we find extra-biblical and/or archeological evidence in support of this story?

First, let's establish the time frame. The biblical account in 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to about 1440 BCE in the Late Bronze age (LB). Right away, problems crop up. Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

According to the Exodus account (12:37-38), the freed Hebrews numbered almost two million (600 thousand men as well as women, children, and the elderly, not to mention cattle, sheep, etc.), and wandered in the Sinai for forty years. However, archeologists have been unable to uncover a single campsite or sign of occupation within the Sinai during this (LB) period - no pot sherds, no bones, no encampements, nothing.

The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai. The location of this site is set in Num. 34. Repeated excavations within this area have not provided the slightest evidence of occupation during the LB. Ezion-geber is another such site identified in the Bible, and again, no trace of LB occupation has been discovered.

What does this tell us? It suggests that the dates and places mentioned in the Exodus story do not relate to the time of the Exodus as related in the Bible. Quoting from the authors...

The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah - six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. All of the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century; in some cases they were occupied only at that time.

The Bible tells us that Moses sent agents from Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom to ask permission to pass through the country on the way to Canaan (Num 20:14-21). The king refused. Archeological investigations suggest that Edom reached statehood only under Assyrian rule sometime in the seventh century BCE. Before that, it was a backwater.

Again, this seventh century era keeps popping up in archeological and historical investigations. But by this time, Judah was already established as an Israelite settlement.

[Dr.GH]

You might find William Dever's 2001 book What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What
Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) worth reading. Dever is very irritating, constantly ranting about why he is the only person who is competent to write about the Bible and archaeology. None the less, his is the surviving scientific argument for substantial historical/archaeological correlation with the Bible.

All and all, I find Finkelstein & Silberman much more persuasive.

I also found two books on the pentateuch very interesting:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Both men have substantial careers, and international respect.

[Peter Kirby]

08-08-2003 @ 05:09 PM post located here
Dr.GH:

You might find William Dever's 2001 book What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What
Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) worth reading. Dever is very irritating, constantly ranting about why he is the only person who is competent to write about the Bible and archaeology. None the less, his is the surviving scientific argument for substantial historical/archaeological correlation with the Bible.

I have read Dever's 2001 book and enjoyed it. See also Dever's earlier work Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Dever has no more sympathy for the maximalists who search for a historical Abraham than he has for the minimalists who seek to eliminate the first temple. While Dever has his niggling points in relation to The Bible Unearthed, Dever is in full agreement with Finkelstein on the non-historicity of the Exodus narrative.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Esther]

Have any of you seen the video "Exodus Revealed - Search for the Red Sea Crossing"? I'm curious to hear what someone else's thoughts are on it. I found it interesting.

[popof3]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here
Esther:

Have any of you seen the video "Exodus Revealed - Search for the Red Sea Crossing"? I'm curious to hear what someone else's thoughts are on it. I found it interesting.

The greek was misinterpreted. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea.

[Patty]

It is a common misconception that 1st Kings 6:1 gives an Exodus date of 1440BCE. So common is this misconception i was most surprised to find upon reading 1st Kings 6:1 to find it gave only 480 years to the incomplete date of the 2nd month of King Solomon's 4th year. Upon further research i discovered that the misconception that it gives the 1440BCE date is based really upon adding years from Shoshenq's 1 reign placed about 960BCE.

This placement is derived by the translation of Champollion in the 1st half of the 19th century CE of Shoshenq I as the Biblical Shishak. This placement is considered rock solid. Despite the fact that modern Archaeologists. Having reviewed his expedition into the "Holy Land." Are no longer so sure that Shoshenq I even made it into what is now considered historical Judea. Considering his expedition to be more in line with an invasion into what is now considered historical Israel. Please see David Rohl's work Pharaohs and Kings a Biblical Quest. As his work on Shoshenq I expedition is the best available at this time. That Shoshenq I makes no mention of having sacked a great temple, such as the Temple of Solomon which he would have, if he had. Ought to make modern scholars a tab more cautious in believing he did.

The placement of Shoshenq I as Shishak places his predecessor Siamun as the most likely Pharaoh to have given Solomon his Pharaonic daughter as wife and Queen. Siamun as this Pharaoh is almost as funny as placing either Ramesses II or Tuthmosis III as the Pharaohs of the Exodus. (The 1440BCE date of the Exodus favors Tuthmosis III as this Pharaoh by the way.) Siamun was to busy robbing and reburying the Pharaonic tombs of the 17th Dynasty through his own. He left no records of having given any cities away. Such as the Biblical recording of Gezar being given to Solomon (1st Kings 9:16) as a dowry for the Pharaoh's daughter. Let alone the fact that he gave a daughter to a powerful King on his northeastern border.

Another reason to question the identification of Shoshenq I as the Pharaoh Shishak (if more is needed). Solomon's great grandson King Asa of Israel (2nd Chronicles 14:9) saves Israel from threaten invasion by Zerah, the Ethiopian. There is no Ethiopian threat in 900BCE! It existed during the reigns of Ramesses II, his son Mernephat of the 19th Dynasty and during the time of Pi Ankiy 750 BCE.

No record, no record, no record is the history of the Pharaohs of the 20th, 21st, and the 22nd Dynasties of any relationship with Israel. The only record of relationship between Shoshenq I of the 22nd Dynasty and the Bible is found in the identification of Champollion 19th century BC. I am sorry it is not acceptable to me. Especially when that identification results in Tuthmosis III as being the most likely Pharaoh of the Exodus! When he left Egypt in the most extreme opposite condition from what the Bible describes Egypt as being at the Exodus.

It is not surprising that those that seek to peg Shoshenq I as Shishak. Can't make heads or tails of the Biblical recording of the Jewish peoples history. Leading them to question the validity of the Bible period. I would be more accepting of the work of such scholars as Dr.s Finkelstein and Silberman if they were as complete in their work as they were in the formation of their theories based upon mid-19th century identification of Shishak.

[Richbee]

Welcome to Theology Web!

I admire your courage to bring your Anti-Biblical, and Anti-supernatural POV's over here.

I would also like to explore, why your thread here generates little interest and posts, but in contrast over at The Atlantic, and at the following link:

http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?14...k8.0@.2cb42678

Your POV and agenda is exposed for what it really is, but then why should I care!?

IMHO, over on the Atlantic, your attitude is snotty, and you have, by your own confession spent eight(8) years attacking the Bible, and Christians who proclaim that the Bible is God's Holy scripture, without any concern for the TRUTH.

That is quite an agenda.


Why?

I too, wonder why your posts on the Atlantic generate an emotional response on my part, as originally when I first visited the NYT two(2) years ago and The Atlantic one(1) year ago, I would have thought, that I had no agenda what so ever.

Only after witnessing posts of Biblical nihilism, or your Anti-Biblical agenda, do I realize that I desire to defend my Christian faith. Although, for what gain?

BTW, I have never thought of "converting" or "evangelizing" anyone on the forums. Only God can reveal the truth of Jesus Christ, and IMHO, no one is converted intellectually in cyberspace, or by reading text messages.

In some starnge way, I am drawn to a good cyber contest of wills, and I confess to increasing the drama to maximize the entertainment value. (NYGLAD and KANZEON were my role models.)



Any who, have fun, and who knows, we may yet have fun here, where I can be little old "richbee".......again. :bv:

Sincerely,

Richard "B." Goode

P.S. The smiley faces here seem to diffuse some of the high drama???

I do apoligize for my part in taking my stage show, and hyperbolic posts, and threads too far, but I just can never resist responding to your posts.

[Socratism]

First, let's establish the time frame.

And therein lies the source of the problem. Why not establish the time frame after establishing synchronism between events?

If one looks in the wrong place for synchronism between events recorded in scripture and those found in Egyptian history with dates estimated by archaeologists, it would not be surprising to conclude that the scriptural accounts were pure fiction.

However, if one simply looks for synchronism between scripture and Egyptian history, with a modestly sliding scale of dates, then astounding synchronism can be achieved.

From reading the other side of the argument a believer can be quite optimistic that the Biblical chronologies are the correct ones and the Egyptian ones are those which are in error datewise.

The record of the events themselves seems to be in both cases reasonably accurate, although of course I favor the Biblical version.

[Orion]

Me: First, let's establish the time frame.

You: And therein lies the source of the problem. Why not establish the time frame after establishing synchronism between events?

Well, the only time frame we have is the biblical one. Don't you agree? And it is both the biblical time frame and the biblical account of the Exodus events whose historicity is under question.

If you have authoritative information which you are willing to bring to bear on this complex subject, please don't hesitate. Perhaps you could address the points I raised in my initial post?

[Socratism]

Orion,

Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with what is now Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.

All of the problems which you have raised are solved by the simple expedient of finding synchronisms with Egyptian accounts instead of citing the lack of synchronism with accepted Egyptian history in the time periods specified in scripture. In other words the Egyptian datings, based primarily on the dubious accounts of Manetho are wrong.

This was first discussed by Velikovsky in his book "Ages in Chaos", where he cites examples from ancient records discovered by archaeologists to prove his case. Others have recently published books along the same lines except that there is agreement among the various sources only that the previously accepted Egyptian chronology is off by hundreds of years. Incidently, by moving dates by several hundred years, the Joshua stories are also matched very well with findings by archaeologists at Jericho. There is also good internal evidence in the "Sun stood still" story that this was a real event recorded by eyewitnesses.

[Orion]

All of the problems which you have raised are solved by the simple expedient of finding synchronisms with Egyptian accounts instead of citing the lack of synchronism with accepted Egyptian history in the time periods specified in scripture.

I'm sorry, but none of the problems I raised regarding the historicity of the biblical Exodus story have been solved to date. And, trust me, I only scratched the surface - there exist a great many other problems associated not only with the Exodus story, but with the conquest of Canaan story, as well.

This was first discussed by Velikovsky in his book "Ages in Chaos"...

I'm surprised that you would cite Velikovsky. Almost no one within the academic community takes him seriously. However, if you like Velikovsky, you'll certainly like this guy.

[Socratism]

One does not need to agree with all of Velikovsky's many hypotheses to recognize that his books contained many interesting and frequently valuable citations of work from mainline journals.

Of course he was vilified as an "outsider" and also because his only journal publications were in his professional field of psychiatry. Nevertheless, the citations he gathered remain, and these were what I was referring to in his book, "Ages In Chaos".

You can ignore data if you wish. That is your choice and also your blind spot.

BTW, Velikovsky was an evolutionist and believed that the catastrophic events documented in the citations greatly affected the ecostructure, and this led to rapid adaptation and hence rapid change in the morphology of lifeforms.

[NeilUnreal]

I like what Carl Sagan said about Velikovsky: he realized Velikovsky's planetary science was all bunk, but he thought the archaeology was pretty good. Then he met an archaeologist who said he thought that the archaeology was all bunk, but that the planetary science was pretty good...

-Neil

p.s. Loosely paraphrased; I don't have the original handy. I think Sagan relates the story in The Demon-Haunted World.

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 10:50 PM post located here
Socratism:

You can ignore data if you wish. That is your choice and also your blind spot.

Maybe he doesn't want to miss the forest by looking at the trees?

BTW, Velikovsky was an evolutionist and believed that the catastrophic events documented in the citations greatly affected the ecostructure, and this led to rapid adaptation and hence rapid change in the morphology of lifeforms.

Actually, this sounds a lot more like the creationist model, where the Flood (undoubtably a catastrophic event) was followed by rapid adaptation and super-fast changes in morphology.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 10:06 PM post located here
DunnySaze:
Actually, this sounds a lot more like the creationist model, where the Flood (undoubtably a catastrophic event) was followed by rapid adaptation and super-fast changes in morphology.

Some evolutionists, including Velikovsky, have called this "evolution".

Remember the NAS article "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" that claims that changes in finches due to environmental change could generate a new "species" in just a few hundred years?