The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Thanks for the links.Yes, I'm quite familiar with the work of Barry Setterfield. I once engaged him in an online discussion concerning his astronomical c-decay theory, and I've had extensive discussions on biblical topics with his wife Helen Fryman.Both Barry and Helen are young earth creationists and I also know that Helen is a confirmed biblical literalist. Although Barry writes on biblical topics as well as topics related to (creationist) astronomy, my recollection is that he lacks formal qualifications in either discipline (this could have changed since the last time I checked). This is not to say that he should be ignored. However, in reading Setterfield, one quickly determines that his apparent goal is to promote the creationist/biblical literalist-inerrantist position and, in so doing, he sometimes (in my opinion) sacrifices intellectual integrity.With regard to your second link, I'm not familiar with Alan Montgomery and I honestly had neither the time nor the inclination to read through his rather lengthy paper in search of whatever point you were attempting to make. Let me offer you a bit of advice: simply posting links to lengthy Internet articles is a poor substitute for discussion.

Two Comments:

1. For Orion: Naturally critisizing Setterfield's qualifications, even if accurately, and questioning his intellectual integrity is no substitute for addressing the issues he raises, but your response was not inappropriate because...
   ​
2. For Judge: Orion is under no obligation to reply in any substantive way because, as the Forum Guidelines clearly state, links should be accompanied with some explanation or discussion. This serves several purposes. It indicates you understood the link and have read it yourself, it allows people to understand how you're using the information in the link to make your point, and if the content of the link is lengthy it can make clear the relevant portion. In the case of your links, both were *extremely* lengthy, and so summarizing the arguments each makes in your favor would have been appropriate.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi judge - thanks for the links. Interesting bits of calculation they do. Still and all, for me the question remains which pharaoh was killed in the Exodus? The second link indicates 1591 +- 1, which again roughly puts it at the start of Tao II's reign. I don't care which/what date is accurate according to the bible - I'm just interested in seeing which historical figure was involved based on the date you pick. We have pretty good archeological evidence from the Middle and New Kingdoms as to who was doing what when, based on finds found in the particular strata.Which brings me to an interesting side note: from the conclusion of the second link you provided: This statement doesn't bode well for the accuracy of anything that comes from the site. It appears the author is advocating for the use of creationist-style reinterpretation and downright falsification to shoehorn archeology into the Bible - even if it doesn't fit - just like the creationists try to shoehorn biology. Not a good sign.(edited to add the reference cited in the quoted passage. Sorry. 1 Aardsma, G., "A new approach to the chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel", 1993, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego.)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-19-2003]

No problem Admin!
As I mentioned I was unable to open lambert dolphins website yesterday...so I thought I would at least post the links, as a precursor. But I see your point and will be happy to engage in discussion with any one interested, as I do have an interest in the area and in learning more.

Hi judge - thanks for the links. Interesting bits of calculation they do. Still and all, for me the question remains which pharaoh was killed in the Exodus? The second link indicates 1591 +- 1, which again roughly puts it at the start of Tao II's reign.Judge:
Still unable to open that site from where I am (not like it's subversive or anything! ) ...but for some reason I am denied access. Will try to have another look on the weekend.

Aardsma claimed [1, p1] that the "historicity of the Old Testament is currently facing a challenge of unprecedented severity". He thinks that secular archaeologists may provide as serious an intellectual challenge to the faithful as Darwinism. Therefore, it is important to use the lessons we have learned from the challenge of Darwinism. The hidden strength of creationists lay in their humility to put their complete trust in God's Word, ahead of their own professional training, knowledge and understanding, and their courage to withstand the mocking and jeering of the press and peers. They have built their positions of faith and practice on the foundation of inerrancy. Biblical scholars would do well to follow them when the facing the new challenges to the historicity of the Old Testament.A fascinating yet completely predictable approach on the part of many biblical literalists. Thanks for providing the quote.He thinks that secular archaeologists may provide as serious an intellectual challenge to the faithful as Darwinism.I wonder what is meant here by "the faithful"? I also wonder what challenge Darwinism poses to "the faithful". Who are the 'faithful'?Within the next few days, I'm going to try and put together something on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Torah which, I believe, is relevant to some of the issues you brought forth in the context of the Aardsma/Montgomery quote. I don't know whether that merits a new thread or not, or whether that topic has already been covered. Perhaps our moderator can advise.[This message has been edited by Orion, 03-19-2003][This message has been edited by Orion, 03-19-2003]

Weird. I wonder why you're having problems? It opened easily from here. Anyway, once you get it working, let me know what your take on the dating bit is.

Weird. I wonder why you're having problems? It opened easily from here. Anyway, once you get it working, let me know what your take on the dating bit is.Judge:
No the problem was I was unable to open it from the computer I was using. I am home now so I have opened it. My take on the dating presently is that Setterfield has the best case I have seen.He arrives at 1585 +or- 6 years. This agrees with Montgoimery and I think they use independent methods (I'll have to check).With this in mind I will post a quote from his essay.....he initially refers to the Ipuwer papyrus, then on to Manetho.(e). Egypt Conquered Without A Single Battle!

​

This Papyrus therefore lends support to the contention that the Plagues of Moses occurred at the close of the Middle Kingdom. But that is not all. Ipuwer noted that these plagues came about the time that the invading Hyksos entered Egypt. He states (2:5 - 6) 'The nomes are laid waste: a foreign tribe from abroad has come into Egypt.' This connection with the Plagues and the Hyksos is an important link because of an additional comment from the Egyptian historian Manetho. He called the Plagues 'A blast of heavenly displeasure.' He went on: 'We had a king called Tutimaeus. In his reign it happened. I do not know why God was displeased with us. Then unexpectedly from the regions of the East, came men of unknown race. Confident of victory they marched against our land. By force they took it, easily, without a single battle. ...' (W. Keller, 'The Bible as History', p. 101).

​

Pause right there just for a moment. These Hyksos conquered Egypt 'easily, without a single battle.' How remarkable! Where was all the might of the Egyptian armies that had conquered Nubia a few years before. 'Without a single battle' implies that there was no Egyptian Army to fight against them. Why not? Unless Pharaoh's armies had just been destroyed in the Red Sea and there were no military personnel left. That can be the only logical conclusion one can come to. Manetho's comment is therefore an important piece of contributory evidence.

​

(f). The Pharaoh Of The Exodus?

​

But it goes further. It names the Pharaoh at the time of these events as Tutimaeus. The 'Tuti' in Greek corresponds to 'Dudi' in Egyptian, and the 'maeus' Greek ending is the equivalent of the Egyptian 'mose'. Given this identification, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Dudimose I who reigned near the close of the 13th Dynasty. Now the Atlas of Ancient Egypt shows the dates of the early 12th Dynasty dates are exact, being astronomically determined. However, the Atlas admits that 13th Dynasty dates from Sobekhotep I onward are approximate at best. It suggests that Sobekhotep IV reigned around 1720 BC and the 2nd Intermediate period started about 1640 BC. However, the Biblical chronology developed above has Moses fleeing from Kha'neferre about 1625 with the Exodus in 1585 BC 6 years. It therefore appears that these admittedly imprecise 13th Dynasty dates may need a correction and be brought forward by a period ranging from 55 to 95 years. This is well within the bounds of possibility and contrasts sharply with the attempts of some to totally revise Egyptian Chronology.Now I am interested in your thoughts. I have read before about the unsettled nature of egyptian chronology, but am far from an expert.[This message has been edited by judge, 03-20-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 03-20-2003]

A translation of the Ipuwer Papyrus can be found athttp://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htmIt is certainly questionable that it concerns the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty as Setterfield says, and the main concern seems to be famine and civil strife - not the plagues of Exodus.
"How comes it that every man kills his brother? The troops whom we marshaled for ourselves have turned into foreigners and have taken to ravaging"Setterfield's claim that the disasters mentioned by Ipuwer were associated with the arrival of the Hyksos is speculation - it is not explicit in the text which refers only to "foreigners" - not even specifying that these are Asiatics rather than, say, Libyans. In the translation referenced above it does not seem to refer to any specific people, rather it refers to foreigners in general.Manetho is a late source and it is possible that his account is influenced by the propaganda of the Hyksos' enemies. We don't really know much about how the Hyksos takeover happened. We don't even have the original of Manetho - all we have is quotations from other sources (this one is from a Jewish apologetic, _Contra Apion_) and it seems that these secondary sources did not have entirely reliable material to work with. I have heard it said that the Hyksos were immigrants to Egypt who took over mainly by outbreeding their neighbours. (As Exodus 1 says it was feared that the Israelites would - it seems to me that the oppression of Exodus would fit in rather better with the period immediately following the expulsion of the Hyksos where Asiatics would likely be persecuted and kept on a tight reign).As I have pointed out Setterfield's case on the matters discussed above is not that strong, but it is in the section on Pithom and Raamses where he goes seriously wrong. He does not give any dates for the structures at Pithom - but the original excavators attributed it to Rameses II based on the archaeology. It is unlikely that Setterfield is unaware of this - if he is it represents a serious gap in his research - yet he does not mention it at all. Yet still he tries to use bricks laid centuries after the date he assigns to the Exodus as evidence for the reliability of the Exodus account.Of course, dates established 100 years ago are subject to revision - and the dating of that site has been revised. However, in this case the revision went the wrong way for Setterfield, moving that part of the site to the reign of Necho II in the 7th Century BC. Moreover a Hyksos settlement has been found lower down in the site.(A brief description of the site may be found on this page
Egypt: Minor Temple and Other Ruins of the Nile Delta, Part II )

Paulk:It is certainly questionable that it concerns the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty as Setterfield says, and the main concern seems to be famine and civil strife - not the plagues of Exodus.
"How comes it that every man kills his brother? The troops whom we marshaled for ourselves have turned into foreigners and have taken to ravaging"Judge:
Paul I agree!!...but I think the fact that the main concern is famine and civil strife supports the case that the Ipuwer papyrus, is relating the situation after the plagues not the plagues themselves.
This is exactly what would be expected afterwardsPaulk:
Setterfield's claim that the disasters mentioned by Ipuwer were associated with the arrival of the Hyksos is speculation - it is not explicit in the text which refers only to "foreigners" - not even specifying that these are Asiatics rather than, say, Libyans. In the translation referenced above it does not seem to refer to any specific people, rather it refers to foreigners in general.Judge:
OK fair enough, do you have any reason to think it may refer to Libyans?Paulk:
Manetho is a late source and it is possible that his account is influenced by the propaganda of the Hyksos' enemies. We don't really know much about how the Hyksos takeover happened. We don't even have the original of Manetho - all we have is quotations from other sources (this one is from a Jewish apologetic, _Contra Apion_) and it seems that these secondary sources did not have entirely reliable material to work with. I have heard it said that the Hyksos were immigrants to Egypt who took over mainly by outbreeding their neighbours.Judge:
Do you have any reference for this?Paulk:
(As Exodus 1 says it was feared that the Israelites would - it seems to me that the oppression of Exodus would fit in rather better with the period immediately following the expulsion of the Hyksos where Asiatics would likely be persecuted and kept on a tight reign).Judge:
Can you expand at all here?Paulk:
As I have pointed out Setterfield's case on the matters discussed above is not that strong, but it is in the section on Pithom and Raamses where he goes seriously wrong. He does not give any dates for the structures at Pithom - but the original excavators attributed it to Rameses II based on the archaeology. It is unlikely that Setterfield is unaware of this - if he is it represents a serious gap in his research - yet he does not mention it at all. Yet still he tries to use bricks laid centuries after the date he assigns to the Exodus as evidence for the reliability of the Exodus account.Judge:
Thanks for the link you provided. In assume I can find reference in there. Will have a look.Judge:
The problem seems to me that if the Ipuwer papyrus does not refer to the chaos that followed the exodus, then to what does it refer?all the best

Are you really suggesting that only the plagues of Exodus could produce the civil disturbances mentioned in the Ipuwer papyrus ? In that case surely you have to move the Exodus even further back to the collapse of the Old Kingdom (circa 2160 BC) - since we know that there were such disturbances then and that the Ipuwer papyrus may well be about those.
I am afraid that if you want to link the Ipuwer papyrus to the Exodus you need more than the idea that the plagues of Exodus (which are NOT historically confirmed) might have caused the situation, unless you can show that they are the only likely cause. So the Ipuwer papyrus can refer either to the situation at the end of the Old Kingdom, or the end of the Middle Kingdom but neither is necessarily associated with the plagues of Exodus.I also have to ask why I would have to show that the Ipuwer papyrus's foreigners are Libyans. Surely it is for Setterfield to show that these foreigners are specifically the Hyksos since that is what he claims. So far as I can tell it refers to foreigners in general - Libyans and Nubians as well as Asiatics.Here is a page on Manetho, confirming that he is a late source and that his text was confused even by the time the quotatiosn we have were written - this may be significant "Josephus knew both the original Aegyptiaca or its epitome, and the fake Manethoan literature, but he was often unable to distinguish between them."Page not found | The Ancient Egypt SiteThis page deals with the origins of the Hyksos
Who Were the Hyksos"One hypothesis is that the basic population of Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus. The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a. Indeed, parallels for the foreign traits of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab'a have been found at southern Palestinian site." (More on site)
So on this view the Hyksos were immigrants allowed into Egypt who gradually asserted control of the Delta region. (more on the page)Egypt: History - Second Internediate Period (13th to 17th Dynasties) states
"The invasion of the Delta by a specific new race is out of the question; one must think rather of an infiltration by Palestinians
glad to find refuge in a more peaceful and fertile environment.My aside that the Opression would fit in well with the removal of the Hyksos is on the grounds that the Delta area was taken over by invaders from the South and that the new rulers of all Egypt would likely have been poorly disposed towards Asiatics (who would be automatically associated with the Hyksos - think of how ethnic Japanese were treated in the U.S. during WWII). Also they may have been concerned about avoding a repeat of the original Hyksos takeover which would explain concern over the numbers of Israelites - which is an well-known part of the Moses story. We don't really have any evidence that that is the case with the XIIIth dynasty and if the Hyksos took command from within, especially if intermarriage with native Egyptians was involved, it would seem unlikely that there was any general opprssion of Asiatics and it seems implausible that the Israelites would be specifically singled out while other related peoples were allowed to take high posiitons in society.

Hi judge. Looks like Paul has done a much better job than I could have. Go away for a couple of days and...Just one or two comments:1) There's a pretty good chronology of kings and events for the 12th Dynasty, corroborated by archeological finds (stele, inscriptions, etc). As noted, the 13th Dynasty kings are more problematic, principally because of a lack of archeological finds, the fact that many of the kings weren't related to each other, etc. It was the weakening of the power of the Egyptian kings that prevented any effective resistance to the "Hyksos" takeover - which may not have been an invasion, but rather an assimilation or combination event. There's quite a bit of evidence for the existence of foreigners living in the delta for a number of generations before the "invasion". However, I can find no evidence that the overall dates are nearly 50-100 years off as Setterfield claims.2) Manetho is a later writer - and writing from an Egyptian standpoint. He was a priest in Heliopolis hired by Ptolmy I to write a history of ancient Egypt, so may not have been necessarily as authoritative as some people have made out (like Josephus, for instance). There may be a bit of historical revisionism or "filling in the gaps" with literary license where hard evidence or records were unavailable. In any event, even if he was 100% accurate, he makes no reference to plagues, even in the sense of a "plague of Hyksos". Here's an interesting essay on Manetho's possible errors: Competing for a Greater Antiquity. The only evidence of large scale plague at this period at all was from excavations in Avaris dated to during the Hyksos period - mass graves with no attempt at the normal burial ceremonies, etc. Anyway, Hyksos occupation of Avaris is pretty solid on dates, as is their final abandonment of the fortress as I noted. There doesn't appear to be any Exodus event or even pharaoh that matches what Setterfield states.

Thanks again for the links!....I will try to look at them in the near future.PaulK:
Are you really suggesting that only the plagues of Exodus could produce the civil disturbances mentioned in the Ipuwer papyrus ? In that case surely you have to move the Exodus even further back to the collapse of the Old Kingdom (circa 2160 BC) - since we know that there were such disturbances then and that the Ipuwer papyrus may well be about those.Judge:
I had heard that there may be disagreement as to the dating of the Ipuwer papyrus. Do you know if any scholars date it to this period?The only reference i have is, John Van seeters, "A Date for the Admonitions" The journal of egyptian archeology. L (1964) pp.13-23.
He apparently thinks it is from the end of the middle kingdom.I think Alan Gardiner in his 1909 translation, also known as the "admonitions of an egyptian slave" agreed with this as well.In the absence of a dating at the end of the old kingdom we may have to steer away from it for the time being?[This message has been edited by judge, 03-22-2003]

If you don't mind the interuption, I would like to ask a few questions about the original post.I. Which Egyptian timeline is being used?
II. How many records do we have of any other slaves the Egyptians might have had?
III. Do we have any records which refer to the building of the city Raamses?
IV. Are we sure that there were not any earlier Phaaros called by that name?
V. How many garrisons did the Egyptians then posses and how strongly were they manned?
VI. Can archeologists expect to discover such a campsite when the Israel's maintained their very strict laws of sanitation and when they never needed a new change of clothing (Deut. 29:5)?
VII. Have you ever read the verses between Deut. 1:46 and 2:14?
VIII. How long did the Israelites camp in Ezion-gaber?
IX. Could the camp sites inhabited by the Israelites have been places which had names but were uninhabited by any but wandering bands?
X. Are we sure that Edom never attained statehood before the seventh century BC?
XI. Who ruled Edom during the time that the Israelites were wandering?Finally, I also have a rather minor and simple question for judge.
What date is given in Acts 13? I have read the chapter several times and have yet to find it.

The datign of the Ipuwer papyrus is relevant but even a firm date putting it at the end of the Middle Kingdom (which you don't have) is not sufficient since it may REFER to conditions at the end of the Old Kingdom (as mentioned in one of the links I supplied), and even if it does not we DO have similar conditions at that time without any Biblical plagues.All we can say is that there were civil disturbances leading to a partition of Egypt at the end of the Middle Kingdom. There is nothing in the Egyptian records to make any firm connection with the Exodus story.