Dating the Exodus

These comments imply lie and are all in response to exact quotes - quotes which Amlodhi admits he has no access to presently.IOW, I made them up.Isn't it best to remain silent rather than assert lie until you can evidence it ?Edit:You are also mistaken: We are arguing about Dr. Gordon - not Dr. Scott.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-16-2004 10:19 PM

The truth is, we need more archaeological dating at historical cities mentioned in the OT where we can establish an approximate date when Moses entered Canaan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

"Archaeologist Dr. Cyrus Gordon states that they later sailed from Greece to other European coastlands, including Ireland and Denmark. In his book, Before Columbus, Gordon relates, A group of Sea People bore the name of ‘Dan.?The Bible tells how a segment of the seafaring (Judges 5:17) Danites [were part of] the tribal system of ancient Israel. . . . The Danites were widespread. Cyprus was called Ia-Dnan ‘The Island of Dan(an).?The same people were called Danuna, and under this name they appear as rulers of the Plain of Adana in Cilicia. Greek tradition has their eponymous ancestor, Danaos (Dan), migrating from the Nile delta to Greece . . .?(p. 108). Note that the Israelites did in fact emigrate from Egypt. Cyrus Gordon added, Virgil also designated the Greeks as ‘Danai.?Bold scholars see the influence of the Danites in Irish folk lore . . . and in the name of Danmark (‘Denmark?: the land of Dan . . .?(p. 111).

---

There appear to be only two short excerpts from C. Gordon in the above paragraph. Page 111 of what? Dr. Scott's book?Let's see what Prof. Gordon is really saying here:

quote:

---

. . . the bible presents the history of Israel in an idealized fashion. Nations simply do not descend from the offspring of one man (in this case Jacob/Israel). Instead, nations typically develop from the coming together of a variety of peoples over time . . .

​

. . .concerning the tribe of Dan. Among the Sea Peoples was a group called the Danuna, associated by many scholars with the people called the Danaoi by Homer. This group, like the Philistines, settled on the coast of Canaan, but in time joined the Israelites as the tribe of Dan. Their tribal allotment is on the seacoast immediately adjacent to Philistine territory. Judges 5:17 refers to their dwelling in ships; Genesis 49:16 suggests that Dan is joining the Israelite tribal league at a rather late date; and Judges 18:1 notes that Dan did not have an allotment of land like the other tribes. All of these factors combine to support the theory that the tribe of Dan originated as one of the Sea Peoples.

​

(The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary R. Rendsburg, Pgs. 175 & 176, W.W. Norton & Co. pub., N.Y./London, 4th ed., 1997)

---

quote:

---

WT:

​

I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.

---

But he doesn't. You are confusing the terms Hebrew and Semite. To use your previous dialectic: All Hebrews are semites, but not all semites are Hebrews. Since Prof. Gordon dates Jacob at c. 1325 B.C., it is quite obvious that he does not think that some descendants of Dan (or Zerah) sailed away from Egypt c. 1800.Therein, it is also obvious that he does not think that these Danuna/Danaoi took their name from a son of Judah.Thus, rather than saying that the Hebrew tribe of Dan became the Sea Peoples and/or Minoans, he is, conversely, saying that some of these Sea Peoples settled the west coast of Canaan and later integrated into the group calling themselves Israelites and thus became the tribe of Dan.My objection, then, was the result of these; your specific statements of "fact":

quote:

---

WT: I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.

---

He does not.

quote:

---

WT: Professor Gordon aligns his research with a mid 14th century Exodus to an early 15th.

---

He does not.

quote:

---

WT: Professor Gordon decimates any doubt as to Israel's presence in Egypt and their c.1800 BC flight when a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph"

---

Prof. Gordon does not say that the Israelites fled Egypt when "Pharaoh rose up" nor at any other time before the exodus of 1175 B.C.

quote:

---

WT: He has emigration from Egypt by Hebrews c.1800 BC. Are you paying attention ?

---

No he does not say Hebrews. Are you paying attention? Look at the dates he gives: 1295 B.C.E. for Joseph. Thus, according to Prof. Gordon, a group of semitic peoples sailed out of the Egyptian delta c. 500 years before Joseph ever entered it.Now, look at your words quoted above. While the small excerpts (interspersed into Dr. Scott's narrative) from Prof. Gordon may be correct as far as they go, you then misrepresent what he is saying and proceed to put words in his mouth that he did not say and further give the impression that he supports Dr. Scott's views; which he does not.If you want to integrate some of Prof. Gordon's research into your (or Dr. Scott's) theories, that is fine. But you are going far beyond this. You should either represent his views accurately and in context or not at all.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-17-2004 12:24 AM

Admin:I re-examined your complaint.I protested the assertion of my evidence to be fraud by a debater who does not have the source I am using.Instead you protect this debater and place me on the defensive."Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations" by Professor Cyrus Gordon was written to present the voluminous evidence that the high culture of Greece originated from Hebrews who fled Egypt c.1800 BC.I can't stop opponent from asserting contrary but I can protest the nonsense.If you feel I am in error then please point it out.I also see a quickness to stain Dr. Scott - when it was Dr. Gordon we were in dispute about.WT

Hi H,Essentially, and correct me if I am wrong here, you are taking the stance that the ‘Apiru was a general term applied to stateless individuals, and, as such, the ‘Hebrews’ MAY have been included in this classification? Not at all, it speaks of ‘all the lands’ joining with the ‘Apiru, again nothing like what scripture tells us.Does this record seem to reflect anything in the Bible, given that it is referring to the King of Hazor? "The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru...He has taken over the land of the king for the `Apiru." (p.235. EA 148. "The Need for Mainland Tyre." Moran. 1985) This record is the EXACT opposite of what the Bible claims.You should recognise it as it appears on the same page that you have attained almost all your information.Regarding this ‘plagiarism’ Hydarnes, and it is not a criticism on my part and it doesn’t detract from the substance of your arguments here, but it is common courtesy to reference your sources. What you have written here is more or less lifted straight fromHebrewhabiruslavesYou should not include material that is not your own without attribution to the original source.As I say, this doesn’t detract from the arguments; it is a matter of courtesy.None of your quotes suggest that Canaan was under attack by an EXTERNAL force of ‘Apiru, there is no invasion in the Amarna Letters. But there was no ‘emergence’ mentioned in scripture, the Conquest was characterised by how fast and widespread it was. But you have no archaeological support for a Conquest of Canaan at this time, many of the cities that Joshua was said to have conquered show no signs of being destroyed, or have destruction level incompatible with a unified lightning fast campaign, or they were unoccupied. Scripture’s narrative is incompatible with both the Amarna Letters and the archaeological evidence from 14th century Palestine. Yes indeed, which would make the conquest begin around 1400, about the same time that the Amarna Letters began. Why have a ‘tentative duration’ when the Bible tells us how long Joshua’s conquest lasted?Caleb’s age gives the necessary information.Joshua 14:7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land, and I brought word back to him as it was in my heart. Joshua 14:10 "Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! Some commentator’s say the Conquest took seven years because they take off the 2 years from the 40 in the widerness that passed before the Israelites crossed the Jordan. But it is either 5 or 7 years. Well since we have seen that the Bible does indeed specify a length of time, is it any surprise that your claim about Josephus is incorrect as well?Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews Book 5 Chapter 1 Verse 19:
19. The fifth year was now past, and there was not one of the Canaanites remained any longer, excepting some that had retired to places of great strength. So, both the Bible and Josephus support a 5 year (Bible perhaps 7), and this is absolutely against what is going on in the Amarna Letters. Of course there is the possibility that Josephus contradicts himself, so if you give me the reference for Josephus where he states the conquest was 25 years then it would be very useful.A 1446 Exodus needs a 1400 Conquest, the Conquest is over by 1393 by Bible chronology, and the Canaanites have been obliterated, the land is being divided up between the tribes. The Amarna Letters date from 1400-1350, how can this be if all the Canaanites were utterly destroyed by Joshua’s armies? The Bible, at face value, insists that the Canaanites were wiped out 7 years maximum after the start of the Conquest, the Letters falsify this chronology and the historical accuracy of the Conquest narratives.The Amarna Letters are one of the strongest pieces of evidence against a 15th century Exodus. The information in the Letters also render the conquest narratives of Joshua 1-12 unhistorical. Which has just been disproven by the fact that the Bible says the Conquest took 7 years at most, how can the Kings keep writing to Pharaoh when they are supposed to be dead? The circumstances falsify the biblical narrative, they are incompatible. Look, at the end of the 7 years Joshua was supposed to have claimed most of Palestine, if that was in 1393, how on earth did the Letters continue to 1350?The Amarna Letters support my 13th century dating for the Exodus perfectly.Brian.

Hi Jar,I should have been clearer, I was meaning a unified sweeping conquest by 'apiru.brian

HI Paul,2. If the Exodus occured in 1446 it was during Thutmosis III reign, when the empire was arguably at its strongest.The conquest needs to start around 1400 BCE for the 1446 to be correct. The Conquest was over in about 5 years, the Amarna letters cover 1400-1350, the Israelites should have already divided the land up between the tribes.If we go by Amenhotep III and miss out the Amarna Letters period, then that would still nullify the 15th century Exodus and still support my 13th Brian.

I was not finding fault, but rather pointing out that in the Armana letters there are several specific mentions of outside forces, the Hittites, the Sea People, the Mittani, as examples. In many cases the Habiru or apiru as seen as being hired by or used by both the City-States and the outside powers.But the apiru or habiru are not mentioned as a unified force or people.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi WT,Ok, the Cambridge assigns the end of Hazor to Barak. This then means that there should be ANOTHER end of Hazor level that can be assigned to Joshua. So, which end of occupation level does the Cambridge assign to Joshua? My stance isnt based on Yadin, it is based on common sense and logic.We have ONE end of occupation level dated to 1220.We have an end of occupation claimed for Joshua in the Bible.Since there is ONLY one end of occupation level at Hazor then for the biblical narratives to be true this MUST be assigned to Joshua.IF it isnt assigned to him and it is assigned instaed to Barak, then the Joshua narratives are incorrect.Is there an end of occupation level at Hazor dated to around 1400 that can be assigned to Joshua?Brian.

Hi, Moses never entered Canaan, God broke his promise to him Brian.

H Jar,I do appreciate you pointing it out, sometimes I type faster than I think, which is nt difficult.But thanks for highlighting this.Brian.

quote:

---

If the Exodus occured in 1446 it was during Thutmosis III reign, when the empire was arguably at its strongest.

---

That depends on the chronology you're going by. Others place it during Amenhotep II. The fact is, Egyptian chronology remains fundamentally uncertain.

quote:

---

The Conquest was over in about 5 years, the Amarna letters cover 1400-1350, the Israelites should have already divided the land up between the tribes.

---

Wrong. Josephus puts the duration of the conquest at about 20, and I lean towards that placement. The Bible does not indicate how long the conquest lasted.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 11:14 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 11:15 AM

Hi H, The information to support my claims is in post 155.Josephus must contradict himself if you have a reference by him that puts the duration at 20 years. Do you have the reference for this at a hand so I can check it out myself?The bible does indeed indicate the length of time that it took for the Conquest, you just have to read it thats all.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 08-17-2004 11:43 AM

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.

Hi Paul,Josephus' 5 years fits in quite well with the 5-7 years that the Bible has for the Conquest. After 5 years there are no Canaanites left (bar a few) to be writing letters to the pharaoh. I am sure that Ussher puts the conquest at 6 years, but I don't have a reference for that, so it may be wishful thinking.The 5 -7 year military conquest of Canaan ceratinly is no refelcted in the Amarna Letters, so, if it happened at all, it must be after 1350 BCE.The 13th century date still stands strong Keep an eye out for the book and the video coming soon 'The case for the 13th century Exodus'.Brian.Brian.