The Exodus' and the Conquest's Historicity

[Ged]

Thanks for your fair reply shunyadragon. Your BAR link is on my bookmarks and I hope to have a good look at their articles soon.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks. As for the older date "not being firm," okay, fair enough but ...

I cant help getting the feeling that concessions from the late Exodus camp only get prized out of them one at a time, and usually quite reluctantly. Considering the gradual march of archaeological finds hinting at old Bible stories, it might be time for historians to tweak down their inbuilt skeptic a little bit when it comes to the biblical accounts.

Here is Van der Veen's latest article by the way.

This article was referenced and discussed in the BAR reference. The photos here a little better then theirs. There still exists the fact that these hieroglyphs are damaged and incomplete, though on careful examination I accept them. I think that you are being a little to negative and critical of the academic view, which justifiably has a skeptical edge. By in large the archeological academics follow the evidence to where it leads. I like BAR, because it is rather inclusive of all legitimate research and academic sources, and reasonable on its conclusions.

[Ged]

Yes, if you note I said the firm evidence was ~1200 BCE, possible references go back to ~1400 BCE. Also the dating of these earlier references are a bit shaky, because the stella and pedestal are damaged and dating is not firm. The dates of between `~1400 to 1200 BCE do not change the over all problems of the accuracies of Exodus. The name on the previous Stella were incomplete and not the same as the later ~1200 BCE stella which was accurately dated.

Thanks. As for the older date "not being firm," okay, fair enough but ...

I cant help getting the feeling that concessions from the late Exodus camp only get prized out of them one at a time, and usually quite reluctantly. Considering the gradual march of archaeological finds hinting at old Bible stories, it might be time for historians to tweak down their inbuilt skeptic a little bit when it comes to the biblical accounts.

Here is Van der Veen's latest article by the way.

[Ged]

Ok you're probably right about chronology, but what about the interpretation of the text?

Hi QW.
Im not really qualified to criticize Josephus' text. Chronology is my special interest so I just appreciate him in the same way as I appreciate James Ussher. Their work is worthy of respect but some ancient dates need refinement.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I havnt done a systematic study of Josephus' chronology but his approach to Judges and Kings seems to be a cumulative count without any effort to find co-regencies or, as in the case of Judges, regional oppressions.

In his 'Antiquities' each book sub-heading shows his total count of years so you can check them out if you like. I will give a few examples and include in brackets () the count as per our modern findings. Incidentally, the more that chronology has been refined, the more that it concurs with biblical records. Josephus is useful, but his early era history gets unreliable. Judges and Kings on the other hand is very accurate.

• Exodus to Fall of Samaria - 947 yrs (725 yrs)
• Division Kingdom to Fall of Samaria - 241 yrs (211yrs)
• Fall of Samaria to Cyrus - 182 yrs (181 yrs)
• Cyrus to death of Alexander - 253 yrs (215 yrs)

Ok you're probably right about chronology, but what about the interpretation of the text?

[shunyadragon]

Has the Archeological Review considered the claims of several German universities that a fragmentary name on a topographical pedestal (Berlin Museum) included the name 'Israel' ? They date their item about 100-200 years earlier than the oft quoted 1200 BC

Yes, if you note I said the firm evidence was ~1200 BCE, possible references go back to ~1400 BCE. Also the dating of these earlier references are a bit shaky, because the stella and pedestal are damaged and dating is not firm. The dates of between `~1400 to 1200 BCE do not change the over all problems of the accuracies of Exodus. The name on the previous Stella were incomplete and not the same as the later ~1200 BCE stella which was accurately dated.

[Ged]

Has the Archeological Review considered the claims of several German universities that a fragmentary name on a topographical pedestal (Berlin Museum) included the name 'Israel' ? They date their item about 100-200 years earlier than the oft quoted 1200 BC

[shunyadragon]

Ged

Over the years my main reference has Been the publication BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGICAL REVIEW. Academically they are first rate. A recent eBook publication addresses some of these issues here. http://c795631.r31.cf2.rackcdn.com/a...the-exodus.pdf. It is best to go to the BAR site and sign up for free ebooks and weekly newsletters, From this source in general I came to these conclusions. The archives of BAR have extensive excellent academic archeological articles on Biblical History.

(1) Israelites were a pastoral tribe(s) in a region of Canaanite origins and/or rule up until ~1200 BCE.
(2) Egypt presence began as trade and then invade and dominated the region, raiding burning small cities, but did not build fortified cities.
(3) Over time Canaanites weakened.
(4) References to Israelites were recorded specifically in Egypt ~1200 BCE with possible references going back to ~1400 BCE.
(5) There were likely populations of Israelite slaves in Egypt beginning between ~1400 to 1200 BCE.
(6) The description of locations and trade routes and pastoral migration routes in Exodus have some basis in fact most likely as Canaanite trade routes.
(7) It is possible that Israelite slaves did leave (escaped/kicked out) of Egypt and went back to the Palestine region, on a much smaller scale than in Exodus. There is evidence of one or more periods of catastrophic drought, plagues, and crop failure in this period.
(8) The main problem with Exodus is the numbers of Israelites involved, and the invasion of Canaan.
(9) The main players in the region militarily over this time were Egypt, Canaan, Philistines, Phoenicians and no evidence that Israelites had any significant military capability in this period. Israelites grew in strength and power after ~1200 BCE as Canaan weakened.

[Ged]

Regarding Josephus now, can you go further into what his inaccuracies were and specifically what kind of chronology errors he made? Thanks

I havnt done a systematic study of Josephus' chronology but his approach to Judges and Kings seems to be a cumulative count without any effort to find co-regencies or, as in the case of Judges, regional oppressions.

In his 'Antiquities' each book sub-heading shows his total count of years so you can check them out if you like. I will give a few examples and include in brackets () the count as per our modern findings. Incidentally, the more that chronology has been refined, the more that it concurs with biblical records. Josephus is useful, but his early era history gets unreliable. Judges and Kings on the other hand is very accurate.

• Exodus to Fall of Samaria - 947 yrs (725 yrs)
• Division Kingdom to Fall of Samaria - 241 yrs (211yrs)
• Fall of Samaria to Cyrus - 182 yrs (181 yrs)
• Cyrus to death of Alexander - 253 yrs (215 yrs)

[Quantum Weirdness]

The impression I get of inter-testament chronology is that the 1st century writers (Jewish and Christian) were having problems nailing it down accurately. The Seder Olam did a bad job of it and the Church fathers had the same historical data as the Jews. That is one of the reasons why such large crowds came to hear John in the wilderness. They realised that his count of the Sabbatical years (Daniels 70 weeks) had nearly reached the revealing of Messiah but weren't absolutely sure. Jubilees were on the right track but, again, there were problems and no one had it perfectly pinned.

It has not been until our day that we have been able to compare Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Greek chronicles getting a precise chronology between Solomon and Christ. As for the era between Moses and Solomon, it still gets a lot of debate. Personally, I think that we can place the judges and get to Solomons 4th year in 480 years.

I suppose that is correct but we're talking about how to interpret a verse, not the actual dates themselves (which they could have got wrong). At least one (Josephus) didn't read the verse as being 480 years only.

Regarding Josephus now, can you go further into what his inaccuracies were and specifically what kind of chronology errors he made? Thanks

There is also the matter of this

Josephus seems to include the oppressions as well as the judges, whereas the writer of Kings excludes the the rule of oppressors, as was customary at this time (Jackson and Lake 1979, 151).
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archa...ate.htm#Jewish Writers

[Quantum Weirdness]

Yes, there is evidence for an Egyptian invasion in the late Bronze Age, but this mainly a Canaanite war, and the Israelites are a little more a footnote as a pastoral hill tribe. No record of significant slaves taken to Egypt.

And what does the bolded have to do with the biblical account at all?

No such evidence of Israelites conquering cities exists that fit that time frame. There are records of Egyptian entering between 1550 and 1400 BCE and conquering Canaanite cities and making them subservient to Egypt. Prior to 1550 BCE there are records and evidence of trade. The Egyptians were dominant in the region in this period and made records. No record of Israelites until ~1200 BCE. Just recording lists of destroyed cities does mean anything without giving the details of the archeology found at these cites.

Apparently according to this paper,
(see http://www.academia.edu/233778/Canaa...eenth_Dynasty_)
the idea that the Egyptians caused that destruction is inferred by them only being a viable candidate and Ahmose being in the area (I'm not sure Ahmose is recorded as conquering the areas where the Israelites were said to have conquered and burnt etc. Can you provide a reference and quotes for these. Thanks.)

Quote:
"Having ruled out Hurrian invasions as a culprit, as previously held by a number of scholars, and having eliminated notions that Egyptians were incapable of the effort required or were inept in siege warfare, the Egyptian army remains the only viable culprit for the destructions attested across Canaan and especially, as will be discussed in detail here, in the southern coastal plain.

and

"While it is clear that not all of the Late Bronze Age destructions evidenced in the archaeological record can be correlated with specific Egyptian references, whether textual or iconographic sources of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, the absence of historical or archaeological evidence to permit the association of these destructions with either Canaanite or Hurrian culprits is significant. Thus, with no reasonable option left but to assign Egyptian agency to these destructions, attention can be focused on the unfolding nature of Egypt’s early imperial policies during the early Eighteenth Dynasty."


Interestingly, there is an absence of Egyptian garrisons and fortresses.

Quote
"Seemingly absent to date is evidence for Egyptian garrisons and fortresses that would typify Egyptian imperial presence from the LB IB onward. Indeed, Morris has characterized this “nascent empire” as “in a period of crisis prior to the campaign of Thutmose III”, although to do so is to embrace the mistaken assumption that the later character of the Egyptian empire was the shape intended but never realized by early Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs."

Also, there is a lack of mention of the Hill country (where the Israelites were conquering) among the New Kingdom pharaohs

Quote
" It is particularly remarkable that no hill country sites are mentioned among the campaigns of Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs, and Shechem and Jerusalem only receive first mention during the Late Bronze Age in the Amarna period and are never identified among the targets of New Kingdom campaigns."

In some other places there is also a lack of evidence

Quote
"It should be noted, however, that the destruction of Hazor XVI/3 is attributed to Ahmose by Ben-Tor, despite an absence of evidence for this pharaoh’s presence this far north.

[shunyadragon]

No evidence you say! What about the links that support a/an
1)Invasion near the end of the Middle Bronze Age

Yes, there is evidence for an Egyptian invasion in the late Bronze Age, but this mainly a Canaanite war, and the Israelites are a little more a footnote as a pastoral hill tribe. No record of significant slaves taken to Egypt.

(2)Destruction of cities associated with the biblical conquest.

No such evidence of Israelites conquering cities exists that fit that time frame. There are records of Egyptian entering between 1550 and 1400 BCE and conquering Canaanite cities and making them subservient to Egypt. Prior to 1550 BCE there are records and evidence of trade. The Egyptians were dominant in the region in this period and made records. No record of Israelites until ~1200 BCE. Just recording lists of destroyed cities does mean anything without giving the details of the archeology found at these cites.

[Quantum Weirdness]

The point is the evidence indicates that the Israelites were pastoral tribes in the hills of Palestine, and are home grown as part of Canaan up until 1200 BCE and after. There is no evidence for Exodus and conquest of Palestine.

No evidence you say! What about the links that support a/an
1)Invasion near the end of the Middle Bronze Age
2)Destruction of cities associated with the biblical conquest.

[shunyadragon]

And the Israelites never controlled Palestine during that time, at least according to the biblical text. So what's your point?
About Jerusalem being Canaanite, yeah there were Canaanites living there which I don't think contradicts my model.

The point is the evidence indicates that the Israelites were pastoral tribes in the hills of Palestine, and are home grown as part of Canaan up until 1200 BCE and after. There is no evidence for Exodus and conquest of Palestine.

[Ged]

The impression I get of inter-testament chronology is that the 1st century writers (Jewish and Christian) were having problems nailing it down accurately. The Seder Olam did a bad job of it and the Church fathers had the same historical data as the Jews. That is one of the reasons why such large crowds came to hear John in the wilderness. They realised that his count of the Sabbatical years (Daniels 70 weeks) had nearly reached the revealing of Messiah but weren't absolutely sure. Jubilees were on the right track but, again, there were problems and no one had it perfectly pinned.

It has not been until our day that we have been able to compare Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Greek chronicles getting a precise chronology between Solomon and Christ. As for the era between Moses and Solomon, it still gets a lot of debate. Personally, I think that we can place the judges and get to Solomons 4th year in 480 years.