|
|
Here is one other source that I found interesting:
Evidence for settlements
The second argument against the traditional date for the Exodus is based mainly on the work of archaeologist Nelson Glueck in the 1930s, which failed to find evidence of permanent settlements in the Transjordan and the Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 B.C. This region should have shown a sizable presence of Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites at that time, since the biblical account mentions their strong opposition to the Israelites.
However, more-recent excavations have shown many settlements in the area that Glueck did not find. Archaeologist John Bimson notes that "Glueck’s initial conclusions were definitely wrong (indeed he later retracted them), and it is disappointing to find scholars citing them as if they were still valid evidence. All too often the 13th century date for the Exodus has been perpetuated by the baseless repetition of outmoded views" (Biblical Archaeological Review, September-October 1987, p. 44).
Widespread destruction
The third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s B.C. is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.
Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for This would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Joshua 13:1; Judges 3:1-6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.
Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes: ". . . The signs of widespread destruction
at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest (by Joshua). These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace" (The Stones Cry Out, 1997, p. 147).
Dr. Merrill adds: ". . . Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor" (Kingdom of Priests, p. 73).
We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.
Recent discoveries
Another argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3,400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.
taken from: http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn039/exodus.html
Here is some information I found due to some material I read before regarding the Dream Inscription found at the Sphinx and this source talks about the Dream Inscription providing evidence of an early Exodus plus discusses some other material as well (the Wycliffe Bible Enycyclopedia provides some excellent early date Exodus material. I highly recommend it):
The Tenth Plague—which smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne (Ex.xii.29 J)—ought, however, to be capable of archaeological verification. Is there any record on the monuments that the eldest son of Amenhotep II came to an untimely end?
That he did so certainly seems to be implied by the curious Dream Inscription of Thothmes IV, Amenhotep's immediate successor, showing that Thothmes was not that sovereign's eldest son.
On an immense slab of red granite near the Sphinx at Gizeh it is recorded that Thothmes IV, while yet a youth, had fallen asleep under the famous monument, and dreamed a dream. In this the Sphinx appeared to him, startling him with a prophecy that one day he would live to be King of Egypt, and bidding him clear the sand away from her feet in token of his gratitude: which, on his accession, he did.
It is clear from this inscription that Thothmes' hopes of succession had been remote, which proves—since the law of primogeniture obtained in Egypt at the time—that he could not have been Amenhotep's eldest son. In other words, there is room for the explanation that the heir apparent died in the manner related in the Bible.
As to the historical situation in general, there is no reason to doubt the possibility of the Exodus occurring about the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep II. The records show that on the death of the puissant Thothmes III the whole of the outlying parts of the empire broke into revolt. At the instigation of the Mitanni in the far north a rebellion against Egyptian supremacy involved the whole of Syria and Palestine. Amenhotep soon moved against the confederates and crushed them, but it may well be that the distractions of this campaign early in his reign created a diversion of which Moses was not slow to make use.
Thus, though we have no explicit proof of the Exodus story outside the Bible, 'there is', in the words of T. E. Peet, 'yet nothing in the monumental evidence which throws doubt on the general credibility of the Biblical narrative. On the contrary, the picture presented by the latter agrees remarkably in general features as well as in detail with the picture presented by the monuments.'
THE WILDERNESS WANDERING
The duration of the Wilderness Period is fixed by one of the oldest written passages in the Bible as 'forty years'—/ led you forty years in the wilderness (Amos 210; cf. 525)—with which all other Biblical references agree. Forty may, of course, be no more than a round number, but to make the duration of the Wandering much more or much less than a generation would be to do violence to the firm tradition. We may therefore assign this interlude to the years 1447-1407 BC or thereabouts, commencing with the Exodus and ending at the latter date with the entry of Joshua into the Promised Land.
Archaeologically, in the nature of the case, one can expect little additional light upon the Biblical narrative of these forty years during which the Hebrews were in hiding from the long arm of Egypt. But we can at any rate reconstruct the imperial background against which they moved.
Amenhotep II survived the Exodus for twenty-seven years, being succeeded about 1420 BC by a younger son Thothmes IV, whose tomb was discovered by Carter in 1902. It was adorned with pictures of his warlike exploits, but of course makes no reference to the Hebrews then lurking in the wilderness. He was succeeded in 1411 by Amenhotep III, whose reign inaugurated one of the most brilliant epochs of Egyptian history. It was claimed that his empire extended from Nubia to Mesopotamia, and the great North Road through Palestine resounded to the tramp of his armies. Palestine itself was held in subjection to the Pharaoh by a system of vassal kings or chieftains, mostly Amorites, whose embattled fortresses (though weakened by previous Egyptian assault and spoliation) were held in fief to guard the roads from Bedouins and bandits, or if need be to hold the frontiers against more dangerous enemies until Egyptian reinforcements should arrive.
That the Egyptian supremacy in Palestine involved more than merely military occupation is clear from the innumerable remains of a peaceful and domestic type discovered by the excavations. Scarabs of the XVIIIth Dynasty are plentiful everywhere, thus dating the discoveries. [Scarabs: typically Egyptian ornaments or charms made in the shape of the sacred beetle of Egypt, and often containing the name of the reigning Pharaoh. They are thus the ancient Egyptian equivalent of date-stamps.] Other typical relics include 'Horus Eyes' (charms to avert the Evil Eye), statuettes of Nilotic deities such as Isis, Osiris, and Hathor with her lotus-flower, draught-boards and men, models of sacred cats, apes, and hippopotami, dolls, jewellery, and so on. There are many signs, too, that the Egyptian religion was not without its influence on the cults of Canaan, and that in more ways than one this influence was reciprocal.
It has frequently been suggested, indeed, that Canaanite influence may have penetrated to the Court of Egypt itself through Amenhotep's wife, Queen Thi, who is said (apparently without much proof) to have been of Semitic blood. It was this Queen Thi whose parents Yuaa and Thuaa were buried in the dazzling tomb discovered, with all its treasures still intact, by T. Davies in 1905. Her son Akhnaton's religious reforms, however, show no trace of Semitic influence, but are purely Egyptian in expression.
Under Amenhotep, Egypt attained a peak of wealth and splendour never touched before. A whole chapter might be written on his treasure-stores, his works of art, his magnificent temples and palaces, his towering monuments (of which the so-called Colossi of Memnon are so well known in picture), and his munificent endowment of the sacred Apis bulls.
While this mighty monarch was at the height of his power, it was clearly useless for any invader of his frontiers to expect success. We can well understand that Moses and Joshua, biding their time in the wilderness, must have felt that the opportunity for claiming the Promised Land was not yet.
THE ROUTE OF THE WANDERING
During these forty years (c. 1447-1407 BC), therefore, we are to picture Moses building up his people into a nation in the security of the wilderness. The wandering itself probably would not last very long: he would make as directly as possible for the well-watered camping-grounds by Sinai and Kadesh, there to settle down and develop his resources in peace. [The J narrative says nothing of detours, but makes the Israelites march direct from Egypt to Kadesh.]
The precise route of his journey thither will probably never be agreed. None of the place-names mentioned in the Biblical narrative have been certainly identified [Even the identification of the 'Red Sea' (Heb. the Sea of Reeds) is in doubt.], and excavations in the Sinaitic peninsula have failed to find any trace of the Hebrews.
Petrie's excavations at Serabit-el-Khadem, it is true, have proved the existence of Semitic quarrymen and turquoise-miners in the peninsula at this time. Quite unlike the free-roving people of Moses, they were clearly prisoners or slaves, held down to their work under Egyptian overlookers. Yet they were allowed a certain amount of religious freedom, as is shown by a temple dedicated to 'Hathor, Queen of the Turquoise', where the cult-objects are of distinctly Semitic type—altars of incense, sacred pillars, and the like. If our chronology is correct, this temple was actually in use at the time of the Exodus, and Marston makes the interesting suggestion [C. Marston, New Knowledge about the Old Testament (1933), p.137.] that it was used by Moses as a pretext for visiting the peninsula—let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God (Ex.v.3 J). Petrie here discovered, among the interesting inscriptions described in our first chapter, a group of characters which he read as MNSHEH [It is more likely to be Manasseh.] and which some have tried to identify with the name Moses.
It is unlikely, however, that the route of the Exodus ever descended south into the peninsula at all. The name 'Sinaitic', and the identification of the Jebel Musa (Mount of Moses) with Mount Sinai go no farther back than the third century of our era, while the 'dotted line' showing the 'journey of the Israelites' in most of our Scripture atlases has no real authority. As a matter of fact the peninsula was probably the last hiding-place that any one would choose who was anxious to escape from Egyptian pursuit. From the days of Senerkhet of the 1st Dynasty onwards, its mines of precious stones and metals had been treasured possessions of the Pharaohs: to this day the hills of 'Sinai' are strewn with the marks of Egyptian occupation. The whole country was known and charted; indeed 'a papyrus chart—the oldest map in the world—has been discovered which reveals how the Pharaoh marked out the route across the desert to the goldmines in that region' [Knight, Nile and Jordan, p.228 (1933 edit.).]. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that the Israelites would dally long in a land so overrun by their enemies.
A very reasonable conjecture would place the Holy Mount of Sinai, or Horeb [Horeb and Sinai are probably only different names for the same mountain, Horeb perhaps being the more primitive (W. J. Phythian-Adams, The Call of Israel, 1934).], not in the peninsula, but east of the Gulf of Akaba in the volcanic region of northern Arabia. There are many indications in the oldest Biblical tradition that Sinai was a volcano (e.g. Ex.xix.18 E: Mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace). Now there are no volcanoes in the peninsula, but in Arabia there are several. It has been observed that 'the extensive volcanic region of Awaridh contains an isolated volcano called Tadra which appears to satisfy the requirements of the Biblical record concerning Sinai.... A number of Arab traditions still associate it with the exploits of Moses.' [Ibid.] Others suggest a more northerly volcanic area near Petra. From the crater of such a volcano at the height of its activity the light could be seen for many hundreds of miles, and it has been suggested that this was the pillar of fire by night that guided Moses in a direct line from the crossing of the Red Sea to the Sacred Mount.
The Land of Midian, which according to the Biblical narrative was in close contact with Sinai, must accordingly be located east of the Gulf of Akaba in Arabia, and not (as in the Scripture atlases) west of it in the peninsula. This fits in well with the Biblical narrative, where Midian is clearly in the neighbourhood of Moab and Edom—compare the very ancient Song of Deborah, for instance (Jdg.v.4-5): and is in accord with a statement in Ptolemy the Geographer, and with the Septuagint translators, which imply that Midian took its name from Maon [Maon-ites is translated by Midianites in LXX. For survey of evidence for this identification of Midian see Jeremias, op. cit.] (Minaea) in Arabia.
The importance of thus localizing Sinai and Midian lies in the fact that it brings us back once more to Arabia, the original motherland of the Semitic peoples and now (as it seems) the home of the Mosaic Law. Recent scholarship tends to lay far more stress on Arabian archaeology than formerly, and it is much to be desired that the country of Mohammed, so long almost closed to European explorers, should be more thoroughly excavated. Among the discoveries already made are the remarkable Minaean Inscriptions of south Arabia, dated by many scholars as early as the fifteenth century [But others regard them as contemporary with the Sabaean kingdom many centuries later. See Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible (1934).], in which are found many parallels to Hebrew religious beliefs and practices, going back perhaps to the days of Jethro, Moses' Midianite father-in-law. And connected (in all probability) with this Minaean civilization are the recently discovered Ras Shamra tablets which contain so many curious reminiscences of the Mosaic legislation.
We also make contact with Petra [A picturesque description of Petra with excellent photographs is in Hammerton's Wonders of the Past (1934), p.83.], that unique rock-hewn city of north Arabia immortalized by Burgon in the famous lines:
Match you this wonder save in Eastern clime,
A rose-red city half as old as time.
The existing temples and typically Canaanite High Places of Petra (called in the Bible Sela, the Rock, or Joktheel) are probably not older than Nabataean times, but the religious importance of the place may date much earlier. Conjecture would connect it with the home of the Kenites, perhaps the ancient shrine of Jethro himself, and the spot, which Balaam had in mind when he sang, Strong is thy dwelling place, and thy nest is set in the rock (Num.xxiv.21).
Phythian-Adams definitely identifies Kadesh (Kadesh-Barnea), where the Hebrews encamped on the eve of the Conquest, with this Petra, rather than with Ain Kadeis in the Negeb. In that district, he points out, there is no stream of any note, while Kadeis means simply a 'paddle', and has nothing to do with Kadesh. The very remarkable rivulet, on the other hand, which runs out of the solid rock through the narrow defile at Petra, he regards as the original of the Massah-Meribah episode (Ex.xvii.2-7 JE). The stream is still called the 'Brook of Moses' by the Arabs, and an adjoining hill is pointed out as the mount where Aaron died.
Such, perhaps, were the surroundings—beetling cliffs, volcanic mountains, fertile oases at their feet where encampment could be made, a district occupied by kindred tribes of no mean civilization nor unenlightened religion—in which Moses sojourned with the Midianites and where he afterwards prepared his people for their entry into Canaan. Here, if Hommel and his school are right, Moses may have spoken that dialect of Arabic which, fused with Canaanite, became the Hebrew tongue; may have learnt the script which evolved into the Hebrew alphabet; and may have renewed the half-forgotten faith of his forefathers under the influence of the mother religion of Arabia.
taken from: http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChVI.htm#Title
Here is another article which says something interesting about the probable pharoh of the Exodus plus some other matters as well:
The Bible nowhere mentions the name of the pharaoh of the Exodus, but Bible students have always been curious as to who he was. No doubt, some Christians will be wary of trying to discover something the Bible has not clearly revealed; but in studying this question one can come away with his faith increased in the Bible as the unerring word of God. Although the Bible does not specifically name the pharaoh of the Exodus, enough data is supplied for us to be relatively sure who he was.
Admittedly, there are two schools of thought concerning the date of the Exodus (i.e., the early date and late date theories). Proponents of the late date theory (1290 B.C.) are clearly in the majority, but they reject clear Biblical statements with reference to the date of the Exodus. Therefore their arguments in favor of a particular pharaoh will not be considered in this article.
In I Kings 6:1 the Scriptures say: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month that he began to build the house of the Lord." One can readily see that the times for both the Exodus and the beginning of the Temple have been specifically stated in God's Word. Scholars have identified the fourth year of Solomon's reign as 966 B.C. (Gleason, A Survey of Old Testamsnt Introduction, 1974, p. 223). Using this 966 B.C. date, we find that the Exodus took place in 1445 B.C. Now, if this information is correct, the Exodus occurred in the third year of the reign of the pharaoh Amenhotep II.
Before concluding that Amenhotep II was, indeed, the pharaoh of the Exodus, we will need to study further other evidence that can be presented. For instance, when comparing Exodus 7:7 with Acts 7:23, we learn that Moses was in Midian approximately forty years. Assuming the pharaohs mentioned in Exodus 1:8, 22 and 2:23 are all the same person, he would have had to reign for over forty years. Amenhotep's predecessor, Thutmose III, is the only pharaoh within the time specified in I Kings 6:1 who reigned long enough (54 years) to have been on the throne at the time of Moses' flight and to die shortly before his return to Egypt. This would make Thutmose III the pharaoh of the Oppression and Amenhotep II the pharaoh of the Exodus.
History tells us that for several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his cavalry, chariotry, and army at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:23, 27-30).
Furthermore, we learn from the Dream Stela of Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II, that he was not the legitimate successor to the throne (J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, p. 449). This means that Thutmose IV was not the firstborn son, who would have been the legitimate heir. The firstborn son of Amenhotep II had evidently died prior to taking the throne of Egypt. This would agree with Exodus 12:29 which says the pharaoh's first-born son was killed during the Passover.
If the Exodus did take place in 1445 B.C., forty years of wilderness wandering would bring us to 1405 B.C. for the destruction of Jericho. Interestingly enough, John Garstang, who excavated the site of ancient Jericho (city "D" in his survey), came to the conclusion that the destruction of the city took place around 1400 B.C. (Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 1948, p. 122). He also concluded that the walls of the city toppled outward, which would compare favorably with Joshua 6:20.
Scholars have been fascinated by a revolutionary religious doctrine which developed shortly after 1445 B.C. that threatened to sweep away the theological dogmas of centuries. These scholars have credited Amenhotep IV, great grandson of Amenhotep II, with founding the religious concept of Monotheism (the idea that there is only one God). The cult of Aton set forth this idea to the Egyptian people and scholars have mistakenly credited this idea to the Egyptians. But it does not seem unusual to me that a people who had been so influenced by the one God of Moses would try to worship the God that had so convincingly defeated their gods. A continually increasing body of evidence indicates that this cult of Aton had its beginning in the reign of Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II, pharaoh of the Exodus.
Although the final verdict is not yet in, we can be reasonably sure that Amenhotep II was the pharaoh of the Exodus.
taken from: http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html
|
|
TheologyWeb Campus
» Anthropology
» Archaeology 201
»
What are best sources for a early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?
