Dating the Exodus

I don't think that I am equipped with the refernces and knoweldge to match your post, but there is a point I'd like to raise just to see how you would answer it.Exodus, Joshua and Judges refer to the Philistines who did not settle in the area until the 12th Century BCE.For a 13th Century Exodus the reference in Exodus itself must be an anachronism. And there is nothing to mark the Philistines as recent arrivals in any of the books. That aspect of the Biblical account seems to me to better fit an 11th Century Exodus.

It's not quite that simple. For instance the Philistines are listed in Judges 3 as one of the peoples "spared" by Joshua.What I think is more likely happening is that in the absence of reliable historical records the redactors are projecting the current situation into the past.

Looking at the limited sources I have available it seesm that there has been a bit of a to-and-fro on the dating of that destruction layer. Lane Fox reports that the Mycenean pottery had been redated to ~1200 BC or later. Finkelstein states that the pottery indicates a date prior to the early thirteenth Century.But if the Exodus occurred in the mid fifteenth Century BC as some people here have argued then Joshua's destruction would have to be in the early 14th century (maybe late 15th).

Even with the to-and-fro I mentioned I would not like to argue for a date much earlier than 1350 BC for the destruction of Hazor.As for Jericho, from what I gather it was no more than a small village at 1400 BC. And neither Ai nor Gibeon show any signs of significant occupation at any time in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 BC).

Unless you propose a major revision of Egyptian chronology Imhotep lived centuries too early to be identified as Joseph.Exodus 12:40 gives the duration of Israel's stay in Egypt as 430 years.If you want an Exodus in 1446 BC then Joseph must have been alive in 1876 BC. Imhotep's date of death is not certain but it is estimated as around 2649 BC BBC - History - Imhotep Chacking out the alternative datings given for the end of the 3rd Dynasty at the narnmer.pl site we still have Imhotep dying 700 years too early.

I'd like to raise a couple of minor points.1) These are the same letters that David Rohl interprets as being about the wars of Saul and David. There is no clear match with the Biblical book of Joshua (and I believe that Hydarnes is admitting as much).2) If the Exodus is placed at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III - which is one of the dates Lysimachus has argued - then we should not expect to see Joshua's invsaion in the Amarna letters. At least not unless the 40 years the Israelites supposedly spent in the wilderness are shortened or the Amarna period is lengthened.

1) I personally don't buy Rohl's chronology, but I think it was worth mentioning the quite different interpretation he puts forward.2) To clarify what I meant on this point, I'm not talking about absolute dates here but dates relative to the accession of Amenhotep IV (Akenaten). If Amenhotep III died in the Exodus as Lysimachus argued, then Joshua's invasion should be 40 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. Amarna, however, was abandoned about 25 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. The Tuthmosis=Amenhotep argument doesn't touch this point.

I've just had a look at Josephus (Whiston translation because it is public domain).According to this there are 5 years of war. Then Joshua dismisses the tribes which had been given Amorite territory, across the river, indicating that the current war was ended - "now all our difficulties are over" (Antiquities V 1.25). Then he has the captured land divided. The next 20 years are glossed over with no mention of any conquests or conflict with the Canaanites.http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-5.htmAntiquties V 1.28

quote:

---

So Joshua after that dissolved this great assembly of the people, and sent them to their own inheritances, while he himself lived in Shechem. But in the twentieth year after this, when he was very old..."

---

This passage deals with Joshua's death having lead the Israelites "for twenty-five years" after Moses' death. Which covers both the 5 years of conflict and the twenty years for which no war is mentioned.If Josephus puts the period at twenty years it is not in Book V chapter 1 which actually covers Joshua's invasion and only mentions 5 years of war.

I think that we won't get an actual reference from Hydarnes. I strongly suspect that the twenty year period after the conquest given in Antiquities V 1 has been confused with the duration of the conquest itself. I'm afraid it would be all too typical of the cavalier use of sources I've seen from the pro-Wyatt camp.

Since:a) I've been on the recieving end of worse "invective" introduced solely for the purpose of belittling opponents - with you as a mahor offender in that regardandb) My comment - unlike yours - was true and belongs under "fair comment"I find your "request" hypocritical to say the least.

I'm quite willing to offer substantiation.In this particular case we have some substantiation in that he repeated the same claim after Brian had provided contrary evidence in post 155http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the ExodusIf you read Hydarnes reply you will see that he has accepted this evidence.Nonetheless in post 162 http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus he still repeated the false claim that Josephus gave a period of 20 years for the Conquest and that the Bible gave no timescale. At the least it would be more responsible to have read Brian's earlier post and accepted that there was genuine doubt over the issue rather than simply declaring that Brian was wrong.However I will use clearer examples to make my point.1) we have Hydarnes own use of the Bible "Genesis 34"4" - actually Exodus 32:4 http://EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II -->EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II
Please take note of the insulting and hostile tone.As I point out Hydarnes argument is contradicted by the context, and there is no clear link to the petroglyphs - only speculation based on choosing one particular translation over another with no reason given.
(Moreover although it was not discussed the following verse - Exodus 32:5 provides additional context contradicting Hydarnes in that that is when the altar is constructed - after the statement which Hydarnes reads as referring to carvings on the altar).Let us also note that Hydarnes claimed to know the context of the verse in post 480
EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video IIEither he knew that the context - the immediately preceding and following verses - ruled out his speculation in which case he intentionally misrepresented the Bible, or he did not know. Either qualifies as a "cavalier" use of the Bible as a source.2) In this post I identify some problems with a list of "similarities" between Moses as described by the Bible and the Egyptian Senmut.
EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOThe list is given here
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOElsewhere Lysimachus attributes the list to Moller.
http://www.kingtutone.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=289&start=75
(you will need to scroll down the page to find the message).Nowhere is it mentioned that:
a) Tyldesly rejects the idea that Senmut served in the military
b) Josephus has Moses suddenly appointed general with no mention of any army career (Antiquities II 10.1). This contradicts the claimed similarty that Senmut "rose through the ranks" (as would be expected of a commoner, not of the heir to the throne).
c) Josephus has Moses marry an Ethiopian Princess contradicting the alleged similarity that Senmut did not marry. (Antiquities II 10.2)
d) That Josephus does not have Moses retire from the army to embark on a long career as a government official - instead it appears that Moses' flight to Midian follows very shortly after the war. (Antiquities II 11.1), and nothing is said of retiring or starting any other career. Yet the statement that Senmut quit the army to join the bureaucracy is is split and the first part ("quit the army" is claimed to be similar to Josephus.3) In message http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO Lysimachus claims that

quote:

---

Various scenarios all over sources seem to question the successions between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s, as indicated quite elaborately by Edward F. Wente, Professor, The Oriental Institute, of which presents various schemes of the 18th dynasty successions based on the enormous amount of confusion and contention that persists in identifying the mummies:

​

Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

---

Yet as I pointed out the "schemes" are reidentifications of mummies - and no change to the order of succession is given. Moreover Wente's article damages Lysimachus; claims about the mummies made earlier in the post - all of the alternate schemes contradict his suggestions, and Wente points out that Tuthmosis IV is one of the better identified mummies while questioning the identification of the mummy of Amenhotep II which Lysimachus identified as being "nailed".My reply also identifies another misrepresetation apparently stemming from the Wyatt/Moller camp - the attempt to reinterpret the mural depicting a story of the conception and birth of Hatshepsut as depicting the conception and birth of Senmut.
(see http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/hatshepsut_temple.html
Egypt: Deir el-Bahri, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/...es/hatshepsut/hatshepsut.html for descriptiosn of the actual mural)4) In message http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO Lysimachus claims that :

quote:

---

Take a look at the traditional layout of all the dynasties: Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs)

​

You will notice that the 18th dynasty layout is very unique in it’s alternating between the names. No other dynasty in that link is quite like it.

---

In fact you will find similar patterns in the 12th and 22nd Dynasty - as listed on the linked page. It is not "very unique" at all.

I don't propose to make a big issue over this - it is primarily for the moderators.However let us note that the initial example deals with the behaviour that prompted the initial remark and I clearly stated that I was NOT putting it forward as an example. Hydarnes chooses to omit that.Hydarnes also choses to omit that I specifically asked for better evidence than the tenuous links links already provided. His speculations that the verse MIGHT indicate a corruption of the text, omitting a reference to something else that MIGHT be petroglyphs is just another of these tenuous links. If Hydarnes was arguing that the verse did present the sort of evidence I asked for then his argument WAS negated. If he was not then there is nothing that I needed to negate. Hydarnes, needless to say does not mention this either.As I stated in message 490:http://EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II -->EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II

quote:

---

And I'm not ignoring what you say - I am just pointing out that it has little relevance. Whatever it refers to - and it may well not be a genuine plural - there is nothing to say that it does refer to petroglyphs...

---

And 497 I made a similar comment
EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video IIIn short Hydarnes' argument was not ignored - it was rebutted and if you follow the thread you will see that Hydarnes did not offer any real answer which showed that this particular piece of "evidence" was anything more than another "tenuous link" - precisely what I did NOT ask for.The distortion is therefore in Hydarnes selective omissions. I asked for better evidence. All I have to show, then, is that Hydarnes response falls short of that - as I did. Hydarnes omits both these facts and accuses me of distortion.And Hydarnes still doesn't understand that his attempted usage of an interlinear Bible is incorrect. He needs to know the grammer to argue the point. In English the use of "these" rather than "this" is forced by the use of the plural "Gods" - in the Hebrew the word translated "Gods" is plural - yet as Hydarnes knows it is often translated as the singular "God". But Hydarnes doesn't deal with the grammer - or show any awareness that it is necessary for a proper understanding.At this point I rest my case. I will make no more substantive posts on this issue except by the request of a moderator or admin.The evidence has been provided.Judge for yourselves.

As I said I will post no substantive responses on this matter.If anyone wants an explantion of why Hydarnes points lack merit then they can contact me privately or suggest an alternative place for discussion. Hopefully the evidence already provided should render that unnecessary.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-20-2004 11:01 AM

To correct your corrections:According to 1 Kings 16:Omri was first made King over Israel in the 27th year of Asa (1 Kings 16:15-16)There was a civil war from that point until the 31st year of Asa (16:22-23). Therefore it lasted about 4 years, not 2.Omri died in the 38th year of Asa (16:28-29) therefore the whole period from his accession to his death spanned no more than twelve years - INCLUDING the civil warThere is no room for an extra 2 years - Zimri dies in the 27th year of Asa's reign and Omri dies in the 38th. The entire period is less than 12 years. If Rutherford claims that his "2 years" should be added to that period he is contradicting the Bible.

I did provide citations. Chapter and verse.