Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 10/20 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
Brian
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 317 (132330)
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


I want to keep this focussed on one point at a time, participants should not jump ahead until it is generally agreed that the point under discussion has been well enough dealt with, even if that means there’s a stalemate on that particular point. I realise, that to support a point, it is sometimes necessary to mention something that happened before or after that event under discussion, but I would like that kept to a minimum.
Also, I would really like participants to support any claim with references for their claims. Something like The Hebrews were in Egypt because there are texts that say the Habiru were in Egypt, and Habiru is another name for Hebrew , will not be accepted as an argument for or against anything. The equation of Habiru/’apiru with ‘Hebrew’ would need to be supported from decent academic sources, a website constructed by your mate Bob without any academic references on it doesn’t count.
Although, to support my hypothesis of a mid 13th century BCE date, requires me to present quite a lot of evidence, I will, at this stage, only mention one or two points to support each part of my hypothesis. This will keep the OP fairly narrow and focussed and then we can introduce as much evidence that is necessary to support, or falsify, each of the parts of my hypothesis. I do not see any point in posting reams and reams of information for each part of the hypothesis at this stage. It is also in line with forum guideline number 9 When introducing a new topic, please keep the post narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.
Now, for a group to come out of any country there needs to be a point where we can say that they were actually in that country. I am the first to admit that there is not a single direct mention of an ‘Israel’ as a people in any Egyptian archaeological evidence until c.1207 BCE (which is not without its uncertainties), therefore, I cannot present any direct source to prove that there were Israelites in Egypt during the 13th century BCE, that date I propose for the Exodus.
However, I can provide substantial evidence that it is historically plausible that there were indeed Israelites in Egypt at that time. I do agree that the evidence is circumstantial, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility that they were there.
The Exodus group that came out of Egypt were said to be the descendants of a small group of 70 people who went into Egypt 430 years earlier. A couple of basic point to support the historicity on the entry into Egypt are:
A) The area where Jacob and his people settled in Egypt is an area that tribes were allowed access to during times of famine. A report from a frontier official in Papyrus Anastasi VI (British Museum 10245) talks of Egyptians allowing ‘the Bedouin tribes of Edom (to) pass the Fortress of Mer-ne-ptah.. which is in Tjeku..to the pools of Per-Atumwhere are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive.
Tjeku is the Egyptian name for the ‘Land of Goshen’ and Per-Atum is the name for the biblical Pithom. Therefore, we know, albeit from a later source, that the Egyptians did allow people during times of famine to live in the very areas mentioned in the Bible.
B) Joseph lived during the Hyksos period and as an Asiatic he could have been welcomed by the Asiatic King of Egypt. There are ample records of various non-Syrian and Canaanite individuals who gained positions of high authority in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.
I would say that, given the other sources as well, the general background to the entry of Israel into Egypt is historically plausible, and if they went in, they can certainly come out again.
So, when did they come out? Well, there have been many different dates given for the Exodus from Egypt, up until the early 20th century the standard date for the Exodus was taken to be in the mid 15th century BCE. This was based on the chronology of the First Book of Kings 6:1 ‘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’.
Solomon’s reign is calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, and this places the Exodus in 1446 BCE, this is the date argued for by the extreme fundamentalist.
However, the chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 is not a literal 480 years, it is a schematic chronology based on 12 generations of 40 years. Therefore, it is fully justifiable to offer 25 years as a period of time more suitable to a generation, then we can reinterpret 1 Kings 6:1 to mean a period of 12 times 25 years, 300 years. This would fit in well with my suggestion of a mid 13th century Exodus.
The mid 15th century actually HAS to be abandoned, because there is simply no support for it. As I will argue, everything that is available today, points strongly to the mid 13th century BCE for the date of the Exodus.
A fatal piece of evidence that negates an Exodus from Egypt before the mid 14th century is the archive of letters from Tell el-Amarna dating from c.1400-1350. The Amarna Letters contain letters from rulers of the small Canaanite city-states, some mentioned in the conquest narratives, who are completely unaware that they are all supposed to be ‘utterly destroyed’ by Joshua and his armies. There is no mention at all of ‘Israel’ in the Amarna Letters, in fact there is no mention of any invasion from outside of Palestine at all. The mid 13th century date for the Exodus is long after the Amarna period, so the Amarna Letters show that this date is perfectly plausible, and, at the same time, they negate any invasion of Palestine by the Israelites before 1350 BCE.
The next piece of evidence to consider is found in Exodus 1:11 so, they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.
There are very few references in the Hebrew Bible that give specific details of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt, but this verse contains two important pieces of historical information. These are the two references to the two cities Pithom and Rameses. The city of Rameses almost certainly to be found at Qantir/Tel el-Dab’a, and Pithom has been identified as possibly being located at Tell el-Maskhuta or the nearby Tel-el Retabe.
Edouard Naville carried out extensive excavations at Tell el-Maskhuta and demonstrated that the city had been built by Rameses II. So. ‘unless we deny the historical character of Exodus 1:11, the date of the Exodus is definitely fixed’ (Sayce A.H, quoted in J Bimson’s ‘Redating the Exodus and Conquest’ JSOT, Sheffield 1978, page 37). Alan McNeile saw Naville’s discovery as ‘important, for if the statement in Exodus 1:11 is accurate, and there’s no evidence to lead us to doubt, the Pharaoh of the Oppression is proved to be Rameses II (‘the book of Exodus with introduction and notes’, quoted in ibid p.37).
By this identification with Rameses II we have to place the Exodus somewhere between 1304-1237 BCE. This essentially nullifies any date earlier than the first half of the 13th century BCE.
At the other end of the scale, we have evidence that forces us to put the settlement in Palestine by the Israelites to the end of the 13th century BCE. After Rameses II died, his son Merneptah succeeded him. Merneptah was already quite old and his short reign was characterised by a time of confusion that eventually resulted in the end of the 19th Dynasty around the beginning of the 12th century BCE.(Bright, John, ‘History of Israel’, SCM Press, London, 1972, page 112).
The first mention of Israel as a people (there are mentions of individuals named ‘Israel’ before this) outside of the Bible can be found in Merneptah’s victory hymn on a Stele dated to around 1207 BCE. This ‘Israel’ on this stele is mentioned alongside three lands in the hill country of Palestine. If we follow a geographic curve through the three lands we arrive at the mention of an ‘Israel’ in an area where we expect to find the biblical Israelites. If this Israel is the same as our Bible ‘Israel’ then it gives us an important chronological reference. But, the ‘Israel’ of the Stele is preceded by the Egyptian determinative that designates a people and not a land. The other three names that are mentioned alongside ‘Israel’ are given the determinative for a land, suggesting that, although these three lands were already established, ‘Israel’ was still an unsettled people who may have been just entering their conquest of Canaan stage.
We therefore have a time frame for the Exodus from Egypt of roughly 1247-1207 BCE, a time frame that fits beautifully with the archaeological evidence and the 40 year desert wanderings before the Conquest found in biblical text.
The next factor has to do with the entry of Israel into Palestine, and as we know the Israelites enter Palestine after wandering in the wilderness for forty years. If my date for the Exodus of around 1247 BCE is correct, then we should see evidence of destruction at Canaanite city sites around the end of the 13th century, and this is exactly what we do find.
According to the Bible, we should actually find all the Canaanite cities destroyed within a very short time span of five years, we do not find this, but there are quite a few destruction levels that can be harmonised. For example:
Lachish, a destruction dated to the end of the 13th century, possibly 1220 BCE (Albright, Tufnell and Vincent).
Bethel, destruction level in the 13th century BCE, although Albright is quite vague about a precise dating.
Debir, dated by Albright to roughly the same time as the destruction of Lachish.
Hazor, dated by Yadin to the second half of the 13th century BCE, c.1220.
Eglon, violent destruction towards the end of the 13th century BCE.
To further support a 13th century BCE date for the conquest, we can add the new settlements at Ai (old site reoccupied), Gibeah, and Mizpeh who make an appearance at the beginning of the Iron Age (1200 BCE).
I know that these are only a very few of the sites that the Book of Joshua claims that the Israelites conquered, but the account in Joshua 1-12 seems to be an exaggeration of the military achievements of the Israelites. For example, some of the cities that Joshua ‘utterly destroyed’ are mysteriously re-occupied in the Book of Judges by their previous inhabitants. This suggests that the campaign of Joshua 1-12 is an exaggeration, or may even reflect the fact that the Book of Joshua was written at a much later time after all the cities had been captured, then the redactor allocated them to Joshua.
Another strong argument for a 13th century BCE Exodus is the mention of the Israelites having dealings with the Kings of Moab, and Edom.
In Numbers 20 we are told that Moses sent messengers to ask the King of Edom asking for permission to ‘Please let us pass through your country.’
In Numbers 22 we are told that King Balak of Moab was concerned about having the Israelites in his land and he sent for Balaam to put a curse on the Israelites.
Nelson Glueck excavated in the Transjordan for many years and his surface explorations showed a total lack of any sedentary occupation from 1900-1300 BCE, therefore the Israeites could not have encountered the Kings of Moab and Edom before the beginning of the 13th century BCE. They could have encountered them if the Exodus was in the mid 13th century, as this period shows sedentary peoples in the transjordan. Glueck provides some very strong evidence for the plausibility of my date for the Exodus, and another terminal piece of evidence against any earlier Exodus.
The final point I want to make is another good argument for the mid 13th century BCE Exodus, namely that if the Israelites were in Canaan before the end of the 13th century BCE, then surely we would find some references to the Palestine campaigns of Seti I and Rameses II, if Israel occupied most of Palestine we would surely expect some contact with Egypt to be mentioned, but there isn’t any and this suggests that Israel was not in Palestine until after the reign of Rameses II.
Please be aware that the arguments for each point I have made are extremely brief, as we are going to discuss each part of the hypothesis then there was no point in posting tons of info that would only confuse each issue. I would like the evidence for and against each point to be dealt with in depth so I would like others, as well as myself, to provide their sources to either support or condemn my hypothesis.
In summary, the ten arguments for a 13th century date for the Exodus are:
1. The background of the entry into Egypt is generally historically sound.
2. Joseph could have reached a position of high authority.
3. The schematic chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 can be rejected in favour of a more reasonable 300 years.
4. The Amarna Letters negate any Exodus and Conquest before 1350 BCE.
5. There is no good reason to think of the mention of Rameses and Pithom in Exodus 1:11 as anything other than historically accurate.
6. The Merneptah Stele dictates that we have Israel beginning to settle in Palestine at the end of the 13th century BCE.
7. There are many cities in Palestine that show either destruction levels or signs of a new settlement at the end of the 13th century BCE.
8. The biblical account of the Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua is highly exaggerated.
9. There was no King of Edom or King of Moab for the Israelites to encounter before 1300 BCE.
10. There is silence in the Bible about Egyptian military campaigns that happened in the 13th century BCE.
I would suggest that the first point to discuss would be whether or not we can establish if there were Israelites in Egypt in the first half of the second millenium BCE. This is just a suggestion, if anyone else can think of a better one then please let me know.
Can I also say that it is extremely difficult to construct a case for something that you could argue very strongly against , but it is a good exercise in understanding both sides of the enquiry.
Remember, this is just my own most likely date for the Exodus, feel free to argue for what ever date you personally think is the most likely if you want to.
Brian.
edited to fixed dating typo (cheers J)
This message has been edited by Brian, 08-10-2004 11:55 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 2:15 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2004 5:50 PM Brian has replied
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-10-2004 6:51 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-11-2004 7:08 PM Brian has replied
 Message 213 by knightwithdignity, posted 09-04-2004 7:06 AM Brian has replied
 Message 217 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-13-2004 7:24 PM Brian has replied
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2004 11:38 PM Brian has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 317 (132346)
08-10-2004 11:47 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2379 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 3 of 317 (132386)
08-10-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


bump
Just a quick bump to keep this thread at the top.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 317 (132454)
08-10-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 08-11-2004 11:31 AM PaulK has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3124 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 5 of 317 (132488)
08-10-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


Hi Brian:
Joseph lived during the Hyksos period
Negative.
He lived prior to the Hyksos period.
Fact: Israel in Egypt about a total of 400 years.
Fact: About the last 100 in slavery.
What happened that triggered the slavery ?
"Pharoah who knew not Joseph" expulsion of the reigning Zarahites/children of Judah/Shepard Kings. Thus leaving their brethren to face slavery.
Zarahites expulsion c.1550 BC
In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky "Ages in Chaos" dated the Exodus 1447 BC.
Velikovsky used the Amarna Letters to arrive at his date.
Velikovsky was an agnostic Jew. He did not believe in the supernatural.
His controversial books were written to evidence and explain that natural catastrophic events caused the "miracles" in the Bible.
Therefore, Velikovsky becomes a pristine unbiased source for the date of the Exodus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-10-2004 7:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 7 by Amlodhi, posted 08-10-2004 8:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 08-11-2004 11:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 6 of 317 (132499)
08-10-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
08-10-2004 6:51 PM


Fact: Israel in Egypt about a total of 400 years.
Please provide some documentation or evidence. Even some logical or reasonable explaination for that belief might help.
Fact: About the last 100 in slavery.
See above.
WILLOWTREE, the problem is that no one has ever brought any evidence that there were ever Hebrews in Egypt until much, much later. There are a few scarabs with parts of the OT on them but they all date from around 6BC.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-10-2004 6:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 317 (132524)
08-10-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
08-10-2004 6:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by WILLOWTREE
"Pharoah who knew not Joseph" expulsion of the reigning Zarahites/children of Judah/Shepard Kings. Thus leaving their brethren to face slavery.
Hi WILLOWTREE,
You made this assertion on another thread where I am awaiting your proofs. I am curious for your explanation because these Zarahites are counted among the families of the exodus on the plains of Moab in Numbers 26:20.
However, let's not derail Brian's thread with this. Prove this point to me on the other thread, and I will come back here and argue it with you.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-10-2004 6:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 317 (132765)
08-11-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
08-10-2004 5:50 PM


Philistines
Hi Paul, thanks for the reply.
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.
Although I would prefer not to admit that it is an anachronism, as that then leaves everything else open to being anachronistic, I do not think it is problematic for my hypothesis. The reason being is that there is information in the Bible that tells us the Israelites knew about the inhabitants of the area before the Philistine entry.
Although Exodus 13:17 does mention the ‘land of the Philistines’ when talking about the southern coast of Palestine, Numbers 13:29 shows that the Israelites had an understanding of the land before the arrival of the Philistines.
The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.
So, although I agree that the mention of the Philistines is anachronistic in certain verses, I do believe that there is enough information in the Bible to show that the Israelites knew that when the Exodus happened in 1247 BCE, the area in question was occupied by Canaanites.
This would mean that the mention of ‘Philistines’ has to be the name of the land when a particular version of the text was written down. Here we would need to go into source and textual criticism.
One answer to this anachronism is presented by John Durham who claims that Exodsu 15:14-16 was not an original part of the song,it was added at a much later date. If you remove these verses then the song reads fine (Durham,J. 1987, Exodus Word Books, Waco, Texas)
This is a part of the song as we have it:
13"In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
14 The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia.
15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
the people of Canaan will melt away;
16 terror and dread will fall upon them.
By the power of your arm
they will be as still as a stone-
until your people pass by, O LORD ,
until the people you bought pass by.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance-
the place, O LORD , you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, O Lord, your hands established.
18 The LORD will reign
for ever and ever."
With the late verse removed:
13"In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance-
the place, O LORD , you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, O Lord, your hands established.
18 The LORD will reign
for ever and ever."
It reads just fine with the questionable verses removed.
The Book of Exodus was written over a long period of time by up to 4 different people, or schools, so we should expect to find many anachronisms given this composite nature, and, even if we just look at the books of Genesis and Exodus they are rife with anachronisms.
There is also a good example in Genesis 36:31 ‘These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned’, if this was written by Moses then it was 400 years before the first King of Israel, Saul came to the throne in 1 Samuel 10:1.
But an ‘anachronism’ cannot be used with any certainty to date a text, especially one that is clearly a composite one. As an example, the mention of ‘Philistia’ in Exodus 15:14 appears in one of the oldest songs in the Bible, the ‘Song of the Sea’. The mention of ‘Phiistia here doesn’t mean that the entire song has to be dated to post 1185 BCE, there are elements of the song that are paralleled in poetry from Ugarit and have subsequently been dated back to the 13th century BCE (Cross and Freedman, Song of Miriam, Journal of near eastern studies 14, pp237-250), or your can access some of the comparisons at this page
Ugarit and Miriam .
If we wanted to use anachronisms as proof that the events must have happened after the mention of a said factor, then we would need to have a 7th century BCE Exodus as the use of ‘Pithom’ is a more severe anachronism that the Philistines:
Pithom was only used as the name of a city in the Saite period, i.e. the 7th century BCE onwards. Pithom means ‘the house of Atum (the god)’ and although this was known prior to the Saite period as the name of temples and temple estates belonging to this god, the name was never connected with cities (Lemche, Niels Peter, 1999 Is It Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel? in V Phillips Long, Israel’s Past in Present Research, Eisenbrauns, Indiana, , p.398).
To identify anachronisms are extremely useful, see how Lorenzo Valla used them to disprove the authenticity of ‘The Donation of Constantine’. But, I believe that the texts have to be taken as a whole, and we have to remember that the Bible isn’t a straightforward history book written down as events happened, it is a composite account from which we need to try and separate the threads that have been interwoven by its final editor(s) only then can we TRY and identify the earliest sources and perhaps reveal some true history as opposed to fictional.
So, I would argue that the mention of Philistines is anachronistic, however, not all references to this area in the Bible claims that it belonged to the Philistines.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2004 5:50 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 11:56 AM Brian has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 689 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 317 (132771)
08-11-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
08-10-2004 6:51 PM


I really don't consider Velikovsky a very good source about anything.
Maybe you can come up with someone that isn't a total flake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-10-2004 6:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 08-11-2004 11:51 AM ramoss has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 317 (132776)
08-11-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
08-11-2004 11:40 AM


Hi Ramoss,
Welcome to EvC.
Velikovsky's 'flakiness' is irrelevant. What I want on this thread is a decent discussion with opinions supported by documented and referenced sources. WT can use Velikovsky if he wants, but he needs to say what reasons he has for placing Joseph before the Hyksos period, and he also has to give reasons for every thing else in that post.
We don’t want empty claims here, we need to know, for instance, WHY did Velikovsky think that Joseph lived before the Hyksos period?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 08-11-2004 11:40 AM ramoss has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 11 of 317 (132779)
08-11-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
08-11-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Philistines
Brian
One key feature of the Bible is that it was written to be read by a contemporary audience. As place names change and language evolves, is it reasonable to assume that more recent additions, expansions or modifications would refelct the idiomatic language of the period.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 08-11-2004 11:31 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 08-11-2004 12:01 PM jar has not replied
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2004 12:03 PM jar has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 317 (132783)
08-11-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
08-11-2004 11:56 AM


Re: Philistines
Hi Jar,
Good point, I think that the Chronicler is a great example of that.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 11:56 AM jar has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 317 (132786)
08-11-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
08-11-2004 11:56 AM


Re: Philistines
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 11:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-11-2004 12:11 PM PaulK has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 14 of 317 (132791)
08-11-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
08-11-2004 12:03 PM


Re: Philistines
Paul
That is exactly what I'm saying. If you read the Tales of King Arthur you find that he is pictured as though he lived, dressed and behaved like the good folk at the time the stories were written or told, complete with medieval castles and armor. But Arthur, if he lived, (which I think likely) lived during the Roman retreat period and would have dressed more like a Roman general than a later knight.
It is very normal to transfer current idiom onto past events. In addition, the whole concept of truth and correctness has evolved over time.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2004 12:03 PM PaulK has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3124 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 317 (132969)
08-11-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


Hi Brian:
Also, I would really like participants to support any claim with references for their claims. Something like The Hebrews were in Egypt because there are texts that say the Habiru were in Egypt, and Habiru is another name for Hebrew , will not be accepted as an argument for or against anything.
IOW, direct evidence supporting the obvious cannot possibly mean what it says. This makes no sense.
would need to be supported from decent academic sources
IOW, sources that agree with predetermined naturalist position ?
Rigged litmus test favoring a worlview. Why can't it just be evidence with source cite ?
a website constructed by your mate Bob without any academic references on it doesn’t count.
Couldn't agree more.
Joseph lived during the Hyksos period
Unsupported assertion.
and as an Asiatic
Unsupported assertion.
Also, a definition of "asiatic" is missing and a description of look and features with source cite.
However, the chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 is not a literal 480 years, it is a schematic chronology based on 12 generations of 40 years.
Unsupported assertion.
Therefore, it is fully justifiable to offer 25 years as a period of time more suitable to a generation
Generous leap based upon an unsupported assertion.
then we can reinterpret 1 Kings 6:1 to mean a period of 12 times 25 years, 300 years. This would fit in well with my suggestion of a mid 13th century Exodus.
The need of a reinterpretation to fit a theory.
I contend you need to demonstrate translation failure or the "reinterpretation" is text corruption.
The mid 15th century actually HAS to be abandoned, because there is simply no support for it.
Velikovsky [Exodus date,1447 BC] has no bias for the supernatural. He wrote to evidence that the alleged miracles were caused via catastrophic events.
http://EvC Forum: Jericho and Ai: Fictional history in the Book of Joshua -->EvC Forum: Jericho and Ai: Fictional history in the Book of Joshua
Yadin's way to explain the apparent problem was to suggest that Deborah and Barak's story is a later editorial glossadded to authentic historical text
WT writes:
How many orthodox Jewish theologians or Christian theologians do you think agree with this ?
Judges Chronology (Message 30) "as might be expected, the Mycenaean pottery of Hazor XIV is still Mycenaean IIIa. In the next level, Hazor XIII, we have Mycenaean IIIb.
Consequently, the city came to an end in the 13th century."
WT writes:
But there is no subsequent Canaanite level in Hazor, thus the kingdom Barak fought against is Hazor XIII ?
This backs the Exodus dating into the 15 century.
source: Cambridge Ancient History/Chronology; page 68 [1962]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John Williams, posted 08-11-2004 7:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 08-12-2004 7:30 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024