Is there any evidence for the Exodus?

Lysimachus, Buz and others claim there is evidence of the Biblical Exodus.This is a thread started at Lysimachus' request to allow them to present the best case for the alleged event.see Message 46 and Message 48.AbE:I just want to make it clear that this is not limited to just archaeological evidence, but any evidence at all.Edited by jar, : add evidence def and fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There is evidence for the exodus, in the Bible.The Bible is evidence of the Exodus, we just need to test the information contained in it.I would say to the Bible supporters that the best place to start in the search for quest to support the biblical Exodus would be to present a date for this event.We all know what was supposed to have happend, so we need to know where in time to look.Discovering the name of the pharaoh of the Exodus would be a huge help in determining the historicity of the event. BTW, leaving out the name of the pharaoh, such a key figure in the story, smacks of mythology.So, Bible believers, when does the Bible say the Exodus happened?Brian.

This topic has been discussed many times before and always gets mired down by divergent definitions as well as criteria for historical evidence. You have to not just tightly define what you will accept as historical evidence, but also what you will accept as the historical biblical exodus. Of course there was an exodus. There were exoduses going on all the time and continue to today, which is one of the reasons Egypt has airports and bus stations.But you are looking for a specific event in which some semitic population found itself residing in Egypt, there arose in this population a charismatic leader who became convinced that the population should leave Egypt and return to their (supposed) ancestral homeland and was able to convince the population that this was in their best interest, negotiated with government authorities for permission to make such a sojourn, which negotiation may have been coincident with one or several socially significant events (all that unpleasantness about plagues), with the result that the semitic population left Egypt traveling in an easterly direction and after many interesting adventures, settled down in or near what is now Israel.I would suggest parsing the challenge into several specific subtopics, such as:1) Evidence that a fairly large semitic population resided in Egypt in or around 1200 bce; the circumstances under which this group came to reside in Egypt; the conditions and status of their residency; evidence for the exact number of colors in Joseph's coat;2) Evidence that a charismatic leader arose who convinced the semitic populace to leave Egypt and travel to a new homeland (or a perceived ancestral homeland) to the east;3) Evidence that said leader negotiated with the Pharaoh or his representatives for effecting such exodus, including evidence for significant historical events that might have occurred during those negotiations;4) Evidence for the exodus itself and any unique hydrological events that may have accompanied that exodus;5) Evidence for the passage of this rather large group through the lands east of Egypt and their interactions with indigenous populations.I don't know if you mean to include in this thread any counter-evidence that argues against the biblical story of the exodus, including discussion of things that are physically very unlikely or logically impossible, but I'm sure the thread will drift in that direction on its own.

Numbers 13Im planning another thread where I cover alot on these issues (havnt had time to type everything up),but I would (in this short suggestion to Bible supporters) suggest that there isnt an infitite amount of possible periods for these events.Infact the Biblical text gives some very very specific details that simply cant be ignored. One has to establish a proper chronology and isolate the actual period being described.The Middle Bronze Age 11B ran from 1800/1750 to 1550 (somewhat of a majority view)The Late Bronze Age went from 1550-1200 (majority view)divided asLate Bronze 1 1550-1400
Late Bronze Age IIA 1400-1300
Late Bronze Age IIB 1300-1200
Iron Age 1200-539 (several subperiods)First lets look at the Pithom issue This important eastern-delta site, limits the Exodus to around 50 years before the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Israel Finkelstein said this about the Bibles description of the Israelites, who were in Egypt, in the Bible Unearthed; Is there evidence of a group of Pastoralists with close material & cultural ties to Palestine living in eastern delta sites like Pithom during this period? Is there evidence they left around 40 years prior to an archaeological situation reflected in Exodus/Numbers- Joshua/Judges?Next clue centers around the gold mine of imformation provided in the Bibles description of Hebron.Description of a HUGE fortified city that scared the Israelites.When it was built in relation to "Tanis" (a later Biblical redactionary updating of Raamses of which "Raamses" itself- according to the inner logic of the Biblical text gen 47:11 - was also anachronistic)The actual names of Hebrons leaders.Plus Joshua says it was destroyed and then the Bible doesnt mention any sedintary occupation for at least the next 750+ years and only minor amounts of non-settled dwellers for a few years during the time of David. Hurrian names in Palestine are archaeologically attested from the Hyksos period till around the 12th century, but not after. (there is at least one early 10th century Biblical character in Davids time with a Hurrian name-in Jerusalem)The 14th century Amarna tablets feature Jerusalem leaders with Hurrian names.The book of Joshua also has Hebron rulers with Hurrian names. Lets look at the occupational history. Hebron was built near the start of Middle Bronze IIB around 1750When was Raamses built? Both seem to have been built at around the same time:the start of the Middle Bronze Age IIB-C period though Bietak starts it at 1700 and others a little earlier. What do the expert archaeologists from the Negev and Palestine (especially during the Hyksos period) have to say about the archaeological record and its relation to the Biblical text?Lets start with KempinskiKempinski is one of the best archaeologists in the business and a great scholar (one of the leaders behind the "consensus theory" scholarship movement that offered evidence that the Iron Age Israelites were not invaders but natives from the previous period). I will cover Hebron and other sites in MUCh greated detail sometime in the future when I have time.Here is what the great archaeologist James Weinstein said about Pithom.
(Weinstein is a MAJOR expert on both the Hyksos period and palestinian archaeology)His explanaion for the the explanation for the Exodus writings are to be found archaeologically .... This Hebron episode I partially quoted (above) took place at the start of the 40 year period.The Negev region around Arad/Hormah played a major part both at the beginning of the Wandering and the end when the Negev town/towns were destroyed.Here is what the great Negev archaeologist Yohanon Aharoni said about the Negev situation at the terminal-Middle Bronze Age period. (which I will cover in much greater detail sometime else) Textual and archaeological analysis from the leaders in Palestinian, Egyptian , and Negev archaeology.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

But some of these ”very specific’ details contradict each other, and some very specific details are reinterpreted by some people to fit the evidence. For example, the chronological reference in 1 Kings 6:1 is pretty specific. In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD. I am sure you will agree that this is very specific, to the very year in fact, but this date (which would be around 1446 bce) is rejected by most scholars because given what we know about Thutmosis’ reign and extent of his empire it looks impossible for the Exodus to have happened during this time. So, this specific date is rejected because it doesn’t fit the evidence, so we have to look for another date for the Exodus. But why should we look for another date? Which again conflicts with 1 Kings 6:1.This verse contains at least one anachronism as well, and has to have been written during or after the 7th century bce as Pithom was never used as the name for a city until the Saite period. That’s IF Pithom is Tel el maskhuta (I suspect it is).But Redford also rejects the biblical Exodus, he believes that the Egyptian topographical information in the Book of Exodus relates to the Saite and Persian periods rather than the new kingdom.But, if Exodus 1:11 was written at the end of the 7th c bce or into the 6th c bce, this could explain the anachronism. I don’t see the need to quote Finkelstein here, in this part of the book he is just relating what the Bible tells us. Certainly not at Pithom there isn’t . Except that, as I am sure you are aware, Joshua/Judges contradict greatly over the way in which Canaan was ”conquered’. It must have been huge to scare 2-3 million Israelites, or do we ignore this ”specific detail’ as well? So we will go with Avaris, tel el dab’a?I wonder why the Israelites never gave us very specific information.You know if there was an exodus and the whole nation of Israel came out of Egypt you would expect at least the name of the pharaoh to be known, and even the names of the cities that the Israelites allegedly helped to build to be at least accurate. Why the amnesia? This really has no bearing on the historicity of the Exodus though. You have asked when Raameses was built and then went on to look at Avaris ( I know it’s the same location). Why are you rejecting this specific detail in the Bible? But, in the very same book, Weinstein does declare that there is no evidence to support the Exodus.I think what we need to do on this thread is decide what ”Exodus’ we are going to examine, because no one appears to think that the biblical Exodus can be accepted at face value.So, it can be stated, IMO, quite categorically that the biblical Exodus did not happen.Thus we appear to be starting with a conclusion and then setting out to find evidence.Why cant the Bible simply be wrong?Why cant the Exodus be a foundation myth?

Slow down there!Several issues to respond toFirst of all, two of the best Egyptologists in the world do think there is strong evidence for the Exodus to have happened during the reign of Thutmose III: Hans Goedicke and William Shea. (Shea is a conservative Christian true, but he thinks the Egyptian evidence supports such and has given multiple pages of supporting evidence) Goednicke feels it happened during what would be 1467 B.C.E. (Im adjusting his discoveries to the "low chronology" that seems to be a majority view).Shea feels it happened a little later-during the sole reign of Thutmose III.The above views only come from an Egyptian archaeological perspective. As far as I know, both men always assumed the Middle Bronze Age Palestinian destructions were around 1550 B.C.E.and thus un-related to the Conquest.Donald Redford believes the Middle Bronze Age ended in 1457 B.C.E.(this strong conclusion of Redfords does allow for the period to have ended perhaps as late as 1420-1430 IMO-infact
there have been some stunning discoveries which show important Egyptian sites to have produced seals of Amenhoteph II in a town that seems to contain terminal-Middle Bronze Age material-remains.He didnt reign till 1425.This chronological adjustment would not bust a single Sothic date either!)On your chronological issues, its very ironic but Redford reads the Bibles inner chronology to have the exact year of the Joshua destructions as 1457 B.C.E! (the same date he gives for the Middle Bronze Age ending when Jericho, Hebron , Arad/Hormah, Laish , Hazor , Shechem, Lachish, and Gezer were destroyed).Now he doesnt believe the Bible's events happened but he feels that the expelled Hyksos destroyed many towns in the highland region (perhaps during 1520 and 1450) then Thutmose III destroyed many towns along the north and the coasts.The Bible writers (many assumed to be descendents of the Hyksos) would then have confused the history with their own.This leads me to another issue though.
You.Brian, dont seem to understand that you have contradicted yourself.Ands its related to the chronology too.You do know that, in addition to the 480 years from the Temple to Exodus, the Bible gives 480 years from 537 B.C.E till the Temple being built? Redford notices it and places the date at 1017 (its an internal consideration , Im not saying Redford believes it is historical exactly).He then calculates the 1 Kings 6 "480 years" and comes to 1457 for the Conquest (again internal Biblical considerations)Regardless, the Bibles 480 years from the Temple founding to 537 is off by roughly 50 years.There are several reasons for such a flawed calculation (read the book Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings)And that 480 year period is based on strictly adding up years.Why cant the period from Exodus to 1 Kings 6 it be off by 50 years (or more)
also? The Kings date above (Exodus-Solomon) is just a raw number, which is subject to far more fascile errors than the isolated chronological history of each reign
from Solomon-Cyrus.That would also place the destruction as around 1457 B.C.E. even if one assumes the Temple was founded in 966 B.C.E. (and I think it was).It would fit with a possible date for the destruction of the Middle-Bronze Age cities too!But wait!There is another way to look at it.Remember that I pointed out that the 480 year period from Solomon to Cyrus (which even Redford noticed) was based on adding up doens of historical dates which have now been found to be too long by 50 years?Kenneth Kitchen has pointed out that the total of dates given in the Bible from Exodus to the Temple ,when added up, total over 600 years (he came to about 595 plus the total of 2 unmentioned periods and frankly I have found even more unmentioned periods).If one subtracts about 50 years from that (to be consistent with the post-Solomon chronological issues) then the Biblically consistent chronology still places the Exodus in the 16th century B.C.E.Why obsess over such a fascile number (the "480 years" in 1 Kings 6) in a single Biblical location Brian? You can sometimes come off sounding more bone-headed than the worst of fundamentalists (well .... lol)I have evidence that Jews from 285 B.C.E. had far less of an obsession over that lone isolated number than even you.To go from your obsession, Brian, over a single verse toward my broad working-hypothesis,is to go from the crude elements of fundamentalism (your thinking) to enlightened criticism (my own thinking). Raameses was also used during the Saite period though its exact location was unknown.Both verses reflect a redactionary update from the period you describe.(SEE POST 8 BELOW!) Actually, an alternative site has been proposed and might now be nearly as strong as a candidate, but I feel it has been offered with much padded support from more conservative archaeologists and scholars to remove an *apparant* contradiction with the Biblical text (ie the obsession with the 13th century though many conservative reject the Bible but simply feel Exodus has some accurate details of the 13th century building projects which would exclude this site for obvious reasons)Alos,Redford didnt write that article (I need to start crediting article authors) , he was just the editor.Other archaeologists, like Bietak and others, dont hold such a skeptical view of the Bibles georaphical details and its relation to being based on older memories.Redford is more extreme in his interpretation of the geogrpahy and such than many archaeologist/ scholars. Many people argue with obvious details in the Bible once they notice that it would provide archaeological support for a terminal-Middle Bronze Ae Conquest.Many feel that the book of Joshua contradicts Judges for example.I often need to quote critical-scholars clear reading of the biblical text to counter such fascile nonsense. (see my quotes of the Bible-critic A. Mazar in post #288 in you Accurate History In The Bible thread- in my quotes of him from around page 65?)From the fascile to the broad , one will see that Joshua and Judges are 100% consistent with each other and also 100% consistent with archaeology. See my quote of Weinstein near the end of post 5.Certainly at Pithom there *IS*You simply must agree that it is consistent with "what the Bible tells us" (see your comment on my Finkelstein quote just slightly above AND see post 5 for the Finkelstein quote you agreed with) Only if one reads selective parts of Joshua.Yea I am aware that an extremely fascile reading of Joshua and Judges can bring one to the conclusion you hold.Again, see my Mazar quote on post 288 of your Reliable History In The Bible thread. (also see my quote of Kenneth Kitchen around post 240 to 250? or around there in the said thread) The Bible's Conquest details describe the Canaanites as much more numerous than the Israelites.Putting aside your fascile focus on several selective Biblical texts (which went through quite a transmission till vowel letters were used LONG after the Conquest) , do you have any specific Biblical verses that give numbers of Canaanites fought? I just quoted the cities lol. I even showed when they were built in post 5 (though there is a chronological issue as to when the early part of the Middle Bronze II was).It is everything one would expect if the Conquest happened during the terminal Middle Bronze Age period(typically dated at 1550 BCE).Bietak dates Avaris to around 1630 and Pithom was built around the same time.See Stiebing quote (in POST 8 below)If the Conquest was 1550 then the building of the cities 80 years earlier (based on Moses life though there are many other ways to interpret the exact time of building the towns plus Moses' actual age) would match the archaeology perfectly.I dont think the Israelites were described as building the towns exactly right before Moses' life (though one can read the text as such) , nor do I think that they were necessarily the founding workers (maybe they just build part of them and after there were already buildings in the general area), nor do I think the "Raamses" location can be considered a 100% specific location.Both Raamses and Tanis would be acceptable names for ancient Avaris (or the area around) in a (post)7th century redaction. Pithom would be the required name for its likely site in such a redaction.As for the Pharaohs name being omitted, I dont think the broad conclusion you then reach (gee it must be mythological since he is only called by his title) can be described as anything other than fascile (a trend I see...) since it is based on way too little data.The definition of per-aa (Pharoah) is "Great House" and it seems substantial enough to be used without a name affixed. The Numbers details on Hebron rulers was an event that heppened about a year after the Exodus-during the start of the "Wandering"- and the ruler during Joshua's time must have been the ruler from around then end of the Wandering.There is a internally consistent feature of the Biblical text through the roughly 40-50 years from the start of the wandering to the Joshua campaigns; names which were common in Palestine during the entire Late Bronze Age (1550-1200) but non-existant shortly after 1000 BCE , were heavily featured in the Wanderings/Conquest period right after the Exodus. (this doesnt just apply to the Hebron names)Since names will not be updated in redactions , it is a solid chronological marker for the origins of texts (or traditions).True names can be lost in later redactions, but we have a case of that clearly not happening.Names are VERY important when they are manifestly present which they are here.(contrary to your previous obsession with the Pharoahs name which is based on absence of a name which is of extremely limited value in pinning a date down and ,contrary to your stated conclusions ,it especially doesnt tell much about the ultimate accuracy of a text)I suppose one could try to assume that the Biblical writers somehow had access to traditions or perished writings naming specific Hurrian rulers of Palestine during the later part of the Middle Bronze Age BUT the fact remains that the post-David texts dont mention a single Hurrian name (there were 2 Hurrian names mentioned during the time of David who seemed to rule from 1010-970 BCE) and the Conquest texts do.Kempinski was impressed that the Hyksos Pharoahs had some rulers (including hurrians) who shared names with Hurrian rulers of Hebron and then assumed that Biblical writers used ancient non-israelite traditions of Canaanites in their historical claims.Amazing that they cant find any other specific ruler names (in Palestinian texts) to match the multitude of Hurrian names in the Conquest narratives.The names were attested but not as rulers during the period (especially specific ones).Redford called the lack of written records during the Middle Bronze Age destructions "maddening" (and in light of the destructions "doubly maddening").It shows that there is a severe lack of written records during the period.Redford even criticised those who use such "fascile" bits of information for the period to support the notion that Ahmose destroyed the Middle bronze Age cities in Palestine.I will use it (just above) to criticise those who expect to find specific details of an Exodus in the textual record during the period.Getting back to the accusation of Israelites using other peoples traditions (and stealing ruler neames from the Conquest period of c1550 BCE) , then I will ask why they didnt just go ahead and "invent" a semmingly historical Pharoah by using a name they clearly had the ability to steal (based on the logic of those like Kempinski and other Bible critics)?I will also ask why a c600 BCE invented-writting (as brian and others claim of the Bibles texts) could do such a good job of proportionally using Hurrian names that specifically match the historical presence of Hurrians (in Palestine) in such a consistent way
from c1600-1500 BCE (a small but growing body of them present plus a gorwing ruling elite) all the way to their gradual dissapearance in around the 10th century BCE?If they could be so specific in "inventing history" in their choice of ruler names & the proportional names of the general population over such a long period (roughly 1000 years from the Conquest to 600) , then one has to wonder if any history can be read without fear of such Einstein-level genius.Are we really to believe the Israelites had the space-aged ability to comb the archaeological records over 1000 years and "invent" such a critical history?(if they could do THAT then they had specific ancient archaeological details that are far far beyond the knowledge we have *today*)That fansasy aside,we do clearly have found enough archaeologically (and the much harder scholarly details brought by the world-class of scholars across our 21st century planet is also an impressive ability)to at-least have the ability to measure the archaeological evidence (the minor but scientificly accurate sample we have discovered) in comparison to the Conquest and later periods.Suffice to say, the match is extraordinary. I assume you are responding to the question I asked (among 4 or 5) in the context of Hebron and Numbers 14 ?(around verse 20-23?)My point is that both were built around the start of the first half of the Middle Bronze Age with Hebron slightly earlier.Consistent with the book of Numbers.Its not my job to make the archaeological records of the 18th/17th centuries match the Bibles very specific historicals details.I only take it upon myself to read the text ask the question, and then to examine the archaeological evidence.Then I demand that I accept what the evidence shows.It shows a stunning match! There is also very little textual evidence for alot of what happened in many parts of the world in ancient times.Even finding rulers mentioned in Palestine (and specific events) is extremely rare.Tell me a detailed history of "the worlds oldest city" Jericho and name me each of its rulers from its founding around 8000 BCE till the common era.Tell me Brian.Tell me how many rulers of Gezer you can name from 1750 till 1000 BCE.Go on!Even with Egypt we have many problems.Sir Alan Gardiner said something to the effect that what we call Egyptian history is little more than rags and fragments of shreds of paper.I DO THINK we have a broad enough sample of textual information to make conclusions.But even they must be extremely limited.Too many unsound conclusions come from expecting way too much and arguing from silence (and the silence isnt as silent as Bible-critics want to imagine, since they ignore the fact that textual records match the Bible in all the measurable ways).I almost think we should start by ignoring tetual details and simply look at the mute archaeological record (even when there are some texts present).Then ocne we see if it can match the Biblical text in important details (like the sudden destruction of Palestinian towns around the period they should be detroyed), then slowly expand our archaeological zone of examanation-again IGNORING pre-supposed
assumptions (such as "israelites didnt exist yet" or "Ahmose destroyed those towns").Enter scholarshipThen later we should closely examine key Biblical textual markers (like names from a said location and specific period).Then with the extremely limited archaeological text discoveries (but broad in its ability for a scientifically accurate sample), we can see if the Biblical markers (see above) match and in what way.But we need to be careful to not expect too much.Arguments from silence are deadly (and have been-look at the sad state of biblical "scholarship" today) and most arguments from silence only come when one ignores the archaeolgical texts that match the Bible thus its a self-fulfilling mutation of the textual evidence which actually isnt mute in reality but is made mute by rather selective "scholarship". Considering the fascile, selective, and ignorant state of most people making the claim that you seem to support then I frankly am not as moved by their conclusions as others (like you) might be.There is, never the less, some truth to your conclusion that a "face value" acceptance of the exodus text might be somewhat fascile in and of itself. Speaking of fascile. Dont group me in with you lol! It can infact be wrong.It does indeed have the ability ot be wrong.It doesnt mean I will simply reach a conclusion without a critical-examanation of all evidence avaliable. It can and does have the ability to be such.See above. One verse ,one Hebrew text, one far reaching-conclusion.Which of the above does not belong? (hint hint it has to do with that "fascile" issue I keep talking about)You think that the Biblical text was redacted, if not invented, around the 7th century.I am at a loss that you would be so obsessed oer a single verse that would have come so long after the events it described. (see way above for a responce I made on this)EDIT
(The webtv pastes twice, I have been deleting tons of double pasted material in edits.I started to respond to a dupe before noticing it, so I will leave my responce in)Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

Ill create a seperate thread for an important issue. (this is a slightly smaller version of a larger post I made a long time ago)Issue
"Rameses" and the ignorance of redactionOne major element that created the artificial "c1200 Israelite Conquest period" in Palestine was was the false assumption that the Biblical text mentioning the city of Rameses (Exodus 1:11)being built by Israelites, somehow limited the building to the reign of Raamses II or his early 19th dynasty predecessors.It, along with the fundamentalist "c1400 Conquest" (based on a very selective & obsessive reading of the *single* Biblical verse in 1 Kings 6 ), contributed to the view that an Israelite Conquest could only be post 1400BCE at the earliest in any circle.But the "Rameses" issue was front and center in secular circles; and combined with the poor scholarship on the Philistine issue (another "scholarly" flop based on ignorance of anachronisms), it would dictate a historically-incorrect view that the Israelites couldnt have emerged much before pre-1200BCE. (the Sea peoples invaded Egypt slightly before c1200 BCE and the wave that included the Philistines was 1175BCE).First, lest see what secular scholars say about this Rameses issue.Ill start with the always outstanding William Stiebing who wrote one heck of a great book that actually covered EVERY possible Conquest date which is not only refereshing, but make him one of a kind(sad that others dont follow).The impressive ,critical, and mainstream historian William Stiebing on "Rameses" ....... SIDE NOTEStiebing went on to mention the complete lack of archaeological evidence for a c1200 Exodus based on the excavations at the site most felt was Pithom (and many still do-including me). He now covers the alternative sites which has gained alot of acceptance for actually being Pithom lately.(SEE POST 9 for the site I feel actually is Pithom and again I diagree with this more recent identification Stiebing will cover below) Again, I disagree (see post 9 below)END SIDE NOTE Stiebing goes on to tell of it being largely unsettled for much of the rest of the 18th dynasty and not re-settled till the time of Horemheb (c1321-1293).(I skipped a massive amount of what Stiebing wrote down, this was just a sliver of what he said. He only considers a 19th dynasty Exodus if one at all, though he doesnt give any reasons for such dogma)(more has been learned however and Avaris does seem to have been populated well into the 18th dynasty based on current excavation)
I must say.....It fits in well with an Exodus during the Middle Kingdom and especially with an Exodus from a Hyksos Pharoah (modern scholarship is showing that the Hyksos were highly "Egyptianized" and did not arrive by miliary invasion- in much the same way that many feel Rameses and Seti were part Semitic yet 100% Egyptian, infact Seti's name was after the Hyksos God!)This "Raamses" confusion (ignorance of the nature of anachronisms) was the main pillar that caused many to look for Rameses II as Pharoah of the Opression (or Exodus)and to assume a c1200 Conquest.Once it was found out that his reign was later than the fundamentalist "480 years" (1 Kings of the 100AD Massorah)and that the Ancient Near easten dates led Solomon to have complete the Temple in 967B.C.E. then all the fundamentalists looked to c1400 for the Conquest.It set up the artificial "Israelite" period of c1200 (and fundamentalists were equally & fundamentally un-helpful with their incorrect c1400 obsession)Back to the issue of Rameses being used as an anachronism in Genesis but not being considered one in Exodus1:11 (and historians have based the entire early Israelite history, with its massive implications for Palestine, on such an assumption)....David Rohl says it quite well Stiebing said this (below) about the particular date for the Israelite recording of the "Rameses" city.He gave history of the city Rameses seeing much of its impressive statues , inscriptions, and parts of buildings moved before lakes dried up (late 21st dynasty or early 22nd).Some Egyptians thought the old capital was Bubastis or Tanis. Later Biblical writers (in Psalms)called the city Tanis (Zoan)so clearly the writting in Exodus was likly older if it refered to a specific city.I feel it ("rameses" in exodus 1:11) simply indicated an Israelite updating of a text or oral tradition around c1250-c1000 (based on c1650-1700 material).The reason it ("rameses")was left in after later redactions (say 500BCE) was because the regional name was well known.Though the actual city was later assumed to be elsewhere in later times.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

First lets look at the Pithom issue Wenstein said the possible explanation for the Exodus stories.... Here is a somewhat more dated view (a little has been revised since then), though this great book was updated recently (the part I am quoting was left intact from the 1971 edition) Again, this has been revised somewhat.This responce by Bietak below will cover some ground and the Weinstein quote (above) is also very helpful. Bietak makes several good points. The Hyksos developed into a more Egyptianized people despite their early connections to Palestine. Weinstein made the point that some sites remained closer to their pastoralist origins and thus essentially Palestinian.Like Pithom and others.Bietak also shows that the main body of Hyksos could NOT be the proto-Israelites though a seperate nomadic element ( representing the Israelites) wasnt out of the question.Weinstein seems to have isolated such an element archaeologically;An element that could return to Palestine and an element that left Pithom some 30-50 years before Jericho was destroyed.Jericho and Hebron (plus nearly every major site in highland Palestine) were destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age by the Israelites.Finkelsteins observation of the Biblical text and its description of Israelite material connections. The Pithom occupation seems to be highly consistent with the Israelites recognised existence in the Bible.But did a pastoralist population arrive in palestine in the terminal Middle Bronze Age (early Late Bronze Age) which would later become the Israelite nation?Textual sources will always be weak but lets look at the archaeological situation from an expert and unbiased observer.First, a quick reminder on terms.Middle Bronze Age ended 1550
Late Bronze 1 1550-1400
Late Bronze Age IIA 1400-1300
Late Bronze Age IIB 1300-1200
Iron Age 1200-539 (several subperiods)Now... Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

While this is about Egyptian evidence, we need context to connect the dots.We need to establish a line of evidence connecting the Israelite settlements of the Iron Age to the Egyptian Exodus of pastoralists which,while surely much more difficult to prove, is archaeologically possible if not probable. (probable due to the details matching like Pithom, Hurrians names in Palestine during the period, and especially the archaeological situation) Aside from the fact that the Bible accurately recorded every Egyptian invasion- in the main Israelite region from the c.16th century Conquest of Joshua to the late 10th century invasion of Shiskak- there is another issue involved:the Bible description of the conquered territories (as based on the lands that the books of Joshua and Judges describe as un-conquered)seemed to cause a lingering effect of population reduction.So it isnt the issue that the Judges period is 100% accurate on Egyptian involvment though the multi-hundred year history covered only covered smaller local episodes as a rule.The issue is maninly the terminal Middle Bronze Age destructions matching the Biblical description like a well-tailored glove.Lets establish what the Bible is actually saying first.Here is a quote from a severe Bible critic a Mazar. Mazar even rejects the historical claim of a United Monarchy and certainly rejects the Conquest when he says "In sum, archaeology negates the biblical "Israelite Conquest" as an historical event" though the claim is based on the false assumption that the Bible is describing the archaeological situation from 1200BCE during the Conquest.Im not interested in his sloppy archaeological matching, but I am interested in his mainstream , and generally good scholarship of what exactly Joshua and Judges describe as territories the Israelites did not occupy(thus we can know where to expet Canaanites to have survived after the 1550 Conquest of Joshua). Lets match the description with the archaeological record.Again,here is what mazar said the Bible says. The coastal plain includes the area near foothills or Shephelah.Gezer was on the edge between the highland region and there. [/qs] The New Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy landStern
Avi-YonahGezer
p496Gezer is situated on the last of the foothills in the Judean range, where it slopes down to meet the northern Shephelah. [/qs]Biblical text thus says;Essentially, the north of Palestine , the entire coast, and the Shephelah (foothills) around the south werent conquered.Lachish was on the edge in the south Shephelah similar to Gezer which was on the edge more toward the center-west.The Shephelah was the marginal area where Israelites made inroads at first but would not really hold.Finkelstein said this of the surviving sites in the Late Bronze Age which survived into the Later Bronze Age period(all Finkelstein quotes will be from the 1988 BAR article from post 9) Of the highland region that the Bible indicates the Canaanites were driven from,Finkelstein said this with regards to the Middle Bronze Age-Late Bronze Age transition .... Above is evidence that fits the Bible description like a glove.Getting toward the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition,Finkelstein makes an issue of Canaanites and Israelites being distinguished by differences in material culture.Canaanites urban and "Israelites" (the people who would later become Israelites) the pastoralists from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Mazar hold similar views on the differentiation of Israelite and Canaanite material culture, especially after the Iron Age.Here is what he says about the archaeological evidence (above I quoted his repeating of the general scholarly conclusions of internal biblical-text) The archaeological data shows that the pastoralists who were in the land after 1550 BCE would clearly become the Israelites if they werent already "Israelites".The Palestinian archaeological data would lend support to early historical accuracy (like the Conquest details) as opposed to just the later Biblical details being accurate (though indeed they are too!).

Spam - Content deletedEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam - Content deleted

this has been a great read so far, thanks to all the posters putting so much into it.I could be very mistaken in my simplistic views but i always thought the Exodus happend around 1440 bce roughly 40 years before Joshua captures the town of Ai.I am not naive enough to think it happend just like in the bible (there is alot of mythology there), but i think you can dig through the fairytale to get good information. For instance Joshua was probably a great military mind, and with his grasp of tactics help the Israelites conquer Caana, though the text said it was all God's doing.you seem to have a great thing going here, but why no mention of Ai?

Going by biblical chronology, this would be the date of the Exodus, 1 Kings 6:1 is the relevant text. However, with the mention of the City of Rameses at Ex. 1:11, some scholars thought if this was an accurate claim then the Exodus had to be after 1309 BCE, and more specifically after 1295 when Rameses II came to power. So the new date preferred by most scholars for the Exodus is mid 13th c BCE. Most myths have historical kernels within them. The exodus myth however, has hidden these gems very well. There's no evidence of Canaan/Palestine ever being conquered by the Israelites, certianly no evidence to support Joshua's alleged rout. Ai was uninhabited during from ca. 2400-1200 BCE, so doesn't fit any of the two main dates for the Exodus.

quote:

---

There's no evidence of Canaan/Palestine ever being conquered by the Israelites, certianly no evidence to support Joshua's alleged rout.

---

that is interesting, why would somebody want to make up the exodus story?i guess you mean by physical evidence. Im sure many of the accepted battles between the ancient peoples of mesopotamia, have no evidence other than the written record of the event.

quote:

---

Ai was uninhabited during from ca. 2400-1200 BCE, so doesn't fit any of the two main dates for the Exodus.

---

Im going to look into this somemore, dont take offense if i dont believe that with doing my own research. could you point me to any links or books?Thanks Alot for responding, i really like this subject.

It may or may not be made up.Perhaps there was a mini Exodus of a few dozen families or more, but certainly nothing on the scale that the Bible suggests (2-3 million).It is not impossible that it is complete fiction, many nations have what is known as 'origin myths'. It may be made up to display the power of Yahweh, and how He is so powerful even the great Egyptian gods cannot stop Him, there's lots of reasons. The thing is there's nothing appraoching the scale of the rout that Joshua's book claims. Now for Josh's account to be accurate we need to find evidence of complete destruction at all locations in Palestine within either a 5 or 7 year period, this depends on certain biblical interpretations. We do not have that. I am happy that you wish to do your own research, too many people just accept what they are told.The main archaeologists that you should look up are Judith Marquet-Krause and Joseph Calloway.Calloway led 9 seasons at Ai from 1964-72.I rarely use websites for research, I prefer sitting in the library.The only real online-resources I use are accessible through my ATHENS password, which I get through my uni.Any other pointers you want just ask.