The Exodus' and the Conquest's Historicity

[Quantum Weirdness]

On the FB page, I asked when and if did members think the exodus occurred.
Now I would like to attempt to justify my position that the exodus occurred around 1620B.C (Perhaps earlier) and the conquest took place from 1580B.C. onwards(or later).

This article by Alan Montgomery (http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html) shows evidence for a Middle bronze age conquest

So does this article by James Parkinson (http://www.biblechronology.org/studies/chron2m.pdf from page 7)
What they both argue essentially is that there is good evidence for a destruction of Canaan around the end of the Middle Bronze age.


Also, this article (http://vernerable.wordpress.com/arch...-1-fact-sheet/) notes some coincidences that seem interesting regarding who the people who invaded Canaan are. (Take a guess who I think they were )

Another article (see http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...tureBruins.pdf) notes another coincidence regarding the Santorini eruption (which may account for the ninth plague) and the destruction of Jericho (about 45 years later apparently)

What are your thoughts Twebbers?

[firstfloor]

Any investigation that starts with the assumption that The Exodus is an historical event cannot conclude anything about the historicity of The Exodus because then it is simply restating its assumption. The Bible account can only be checked by use of archaeological data. It cannot be part of its own evidence.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Any investigation that starts with the assumption that The Exodus is an historical event cannot conclude anything about the historicity of The Exodus because then it is simply restating its assumption. The Bible account can only be checked by use of archaeological data. It cannot be part of its own evidence.

I suppose that is correct but what do you think of the archaeological data provided?

[firstfloor]

I suppose that is correct but what do you think of the archaeological data provided?

The archaeological evidence is bound to be very thin indeed. It is interesting reading.

[Quantum Weirdness]

The archaeological evidence is bound to be very thin indeed. It is interesting reading.

Gotta ask what you mean by thin.

[shunyadragon]

I found that the references appeal to the scripture being true apriori and not the evidence in their assumptions as in the following.

[cite = http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html] "These theories fail to explain why the Israelites believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years."

"If we are not prepared to reject the historical value of the Exodus account we could respond that Redford is less qualified than God to speak on the matter. Or we could point out the errors of fact - Gibeon was occupied before the Iron Age; or critique his textual interpretation - Edom and Moab in the book of Numbers could be merely nomadic tribal kingdoms; or to challenge his assumptions - the textual misreading that all cities captured in the Conquest should show destruction in the archaeological record. I think, though, the honest investigator has to admit that the Evangelical model of the Exodus is a poor fit to many though not all evidences. I attribute this poor fit to poorly chosen assumptions and mistaken chronologies. With new assumptions and chronologies, a biblical Exodus model can be proposed that fits all the evidence." [/cite]

An independent less biased view would consider the archeological evidence independent of scripture. The Israelite archeologists do not believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years.

The other reference criticized the Gilgamesh accounts. It is interesting that the OT books lack any scripture older than the Dead Sea scrolls, The older tablets of Gilgamesh carry greater weight in archeology.

[Juvenal]

What are your thoughts Twebbers?

Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse

[firstfloor]

Gotta ask what you mean by thin.

Thin because of distance in time. Evidence may seem richer than it really is because of confirmatory bias, for example, if the researchers are themselves Jewish or Christian. A good researcher should be looking just as eagerly for evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

[shunyadragon]

Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse

The problem is 'at what time' did the Israelites believe they came out of Egypt. I believe Exodus in its present form is post exile. Yes, Egypt's withdrawal is a likely source of the story. Yes the time frame for the archeological evidence concerning the conquest of the cities does not fit Exodus. Your link to 'withdrawal' is a spam problem.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Hello QW,

I think it's beyond question that the early Israelites saw themselves as having come out of Egypt. But the archaeological evidence shows otherwise. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua have their falls separated by over a hundred years in some cases. Population estimates similarly do not support the influx described in the Bible.

But the tradition is very clear.

So, I think the easiest way to untie this knot is to note that "Egypt" extended at one time as far north as Syria. Egypt's withdrawal from the region would give the inhabitants an equivalent sense of having left Egypt.

As ever, Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Could you give me some examples of the bolded above?
And yeah, I don't think there is evidence of 2 million+ people that conquered Canaan. That's why I came up with a theory that suggests 150000-210000 people were the exodus crowd.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I found that the references appeal to the scripture being true apriori and not the evidence in their assumptions as in the following.

[cite = http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html] "These theories fail to explain why the Israelites believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years."

"If we are not prepared to reject the historical value of the Exodus account we could respond that Redford is less qualified than God to speak on the matter. Or we could point out the errors of fact - Gibeon was occupied before the Iron Age; or critique his textual interpretation - Edom and Moab in the book of Numbers could be merely nomadic tribal kingdoms; or to challenge his assumptions - the textual misreading that all cities captured in the Conquest should show destruction in the archaeological record. I think, though, the honest investigator has to admit that the Evangelical model of the Exodus is a poor fit to many though not all evidences. I attribute this poor fit to poorly chosen assumptions and mistaken chronologies. With new assumptions and chronologies, a biblical Exodus model can be proposed that fits all the evidence." [/cite]

An independent less biased view would consider the archeological evidence independent of scripture. The Israelite archeologists do not believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years.

The other reference criticized the Gilgamesh accounts. It is interesting that the OT books lack any scripture older than the Dead Sea scrolls, The older tablets of Gilgamesh carry greater weight in archeology.

What about the archaeological data shunyadragon?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Thin because of distance in time. Evidence may seem richer than it really is because of confirmatory bias, for example, if the researchers are themselves Jewish or Christian. A good researcher should be looking just as eagerly for evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

Ok Fair enough
I'll try and find some stuff that contradicts this and see if it holds true.

[shunyadragon]

What about the archaeological data shunyadragon?

I will comment further on the archeological evidence, but it is important that this was given as apriori assumptions before the archeological evidence was considered. I consider the archeological evidence of the ancient cities of Israel as inconsistent with the Biblical Exodus accounts.

[cite = http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html] "Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations."

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." [/cite]

[Quantum Weirdness]

I will comment further on the archeological evidence, but it is important that this was given as apriori assumptions before the archeological evidence was considered. I consider the archeological evidence of the ancient cities of Israel as inconsistent with the Biblical Exodus accounts.

[cite = http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html] "Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations."

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." [/cite]

As far as I know, Finkelstein is just looking for evidence around the Iron age. (not where I put it i.e. in the Middle Bronze age). According to my theory, he's not going to find any. What about the Middle Bronze Age archaeology?

Link you gave is broken btw.

[shunyadragon]

As far as I know, Finkelstein is just looking for evidence around the Iron age. (not where I put it i.e. in the Middle Bronze age). According to my theory, he's not going to find any. What about the Middle Bronze Age archaeology?

Link you gave is broken btw.

Not happy with how links are working since I came back. I do not think the search by archeologists was Iron Age only. I will try for some specific sources.

go with the flow the river knows. . .

Frank