Talk:The Exodus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

References

References need to be cleaned up - ISBN numbers in particluar are needed. PiCo 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC) And who's using Albright? He's a bit outdated, no?PiCo 11:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Minimalist Theory section

The line "By and large, they regard (correctly so), the "Books of Moses" as compilations of post-Solomonic priests centuries after the fact," is not written from NPOV. It declares a rather controversial viewpoint and declaring one side to be true, without providing proof. I find it hard to believe that there is sufficient proof to prove beyond a doubt that they were written in this style, but if proof exists, then a citation is needed or proof provided here.

Ashaver 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in science, nothing is ever proven, but this "hypothesis" seems to be held by most archaeologists and non-literalist scholars. I had read Friedman's book in its entirety, as well as a few other materials on the subject, and although on first glance, I told myself, "There's no way they can be that sure about the source of a verse, what with all the scribes who have worked on the Bible," on reading his book at length I became completely convinced of the fact of multiple sources which had somehow been interwoven. I consider the evidence for it to be excellent. Still, in my rush to get the ideas out, I did make a statement that exceeded the evidence to the casual reader. I have modified the statement in parentheses to read:

"(and this is reasonable, given the findings of the Documentary Hypothesis - see esp. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible), "

and added the book to the References section. It is the curiously high number of doublets and triplets which seem to differ and are usually opposite in theological implications for a character, and even in the Noah's ark story, the way from line to line it often seems not to know what was said even a few lines ago, that make the matter decisive in my mind. The Wikipedia article on the Documentary Hypothesis doesn't really make the point well, and indeed, the article would get ridiculously long if it did. Note that there is a need to make this point, i.e. so that the reader doesn't regard the Minimalists having no solid evidence, but rather utilize some that there are some support for, while making others that are not so widely accepted.

--ThaThinker 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Delivered at Midnight. The deliverance of Israel under the Exodus from Egypt took place at midnight during the last plague. The preparation necessary was to have the blood sprinkled on the door-posts and to have everything packed up and ready to move. They were to be dressed with their sandals on their feet and their staves in their hands. Exactly at midnight the angel of death to the Egyptians and of deliverance to the Israelites passed through the land. There arose a wail of woe from the Egyptians and a shout of deliverance from the people of God. The hosts of Israel had been organized for the journey and all preparations had been made. The 430 years were ended and the prophetic movement started from Egypt to Canaan, from bondage to freedom.

by Danny Boy

Latest NPOV and Other Updates

OK, everybody, I've finished a major update that made some of these statements to be from a more neutral POV. The page has now been updated with ISBN numbers on all the references, has had some of the more broadly criticizing language of the Interpretations section restricted more to the issue at hand, has even had some more Early Exodus materials added (although the links were added by someone else), had my errors as to the length of the Wandering the order of two of the pharaohs corrected. I added a reference with a scholar supporting the later date for the conquest of Hazor. I only summarized some other sites that no LBA occupation was found at, as I'd heard of these from other sources, and regard them as, at least among OT scholars, public knowledge of the matter. I cleared up a place where I overstated and/or oversimplified the case for the Documentary Hypothesis. I reworded the part on how the Babylonian chronology used to synchronize with the biblical Babylonian Captivity, and made a lot of little improvements in the wording. The article's a little long, but this isn't a simple subject, amenable to breaking apart into smaller chunks, either. I present this as a more or less completed work, except for sections about the Exodus in art and literature, which aren't so much my area of expertise. There are a few references which aren't my work, which occur in the text (not counting Wikipedia topics) that may or may not be good form to have that way. I'll be working on the Stations List in my spare time, unless somebody else gets time for it, as well as my own projects. --ThaThinker 10:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New Section Needed?

Well, I don't admit that Herzog's and Redford's view is mainstream, although with Bimson's work, perhaps a minority view. Nor do I admit that the overwhelming evidence is that the Exodus should be synchronized with the defeat of the Hyksos. I want to take a little time studying these ideas further, although I'll give you an off the cuff response now. Herzog's and Redford's ideas appear to at least deserve notice in this article, but they aren't simply Early Exodus theories, nor Minimalist theories, so I suggest a "Minimalists Synchronizing the Exodus with the Hyksos Expulsion" section.

These ideas seem strange to me. You have to accept that an eclipse is an extra day, and that they weren't slaves, but masters, even though bondage is so much a part of the Exodus narratives: two rather tenuous leaps. You have to accept that although the Exodus happened with the expulsion of the Hyksos, ca. 1544-1521, Joshua's conquests took place 1250-1150, as per the archaeology, not some 40-45 years later as per the Bible. Also, where are you going to find a Babylonian Empire before the time of the Hyksos, for the Nimrod of the Bible to conquer, when taking into account 210-430 years in bondage and the time since Abraham came to Canaan? Herzog states that Josephus says that the Israelites were not in bondage in Egypt, but he is incorrect in that. Josephus in fact identifies this time period as 215 years. Herzog has the central highlands being settled about 1200 BCE, but the exodus 1544-1521. The date I am more accustomed to seeing is that a material culture of cistern digging, three roomed Semitic house building culture was already taking over the central highlands by 1400 BCE, not 1200. Perhaps I overstate the case for the scholars who support a Late Exodus (in the discussion, not the article), but I said this only because I supposed the Exodus to be only 40-45 years before Joshua's conquests. Still, there is no Rameses II in control of much of Canaan in the Judges Era in the Bible, as there was in archaeology, but then again, if you are just sort of picking and choosing events to match different parts of the text to without any requirement that they form a version of history anything like the sequence as given, then almost anything works. For example, if we observe some period of time to be constrained by the number of generations, it is always easy to "explain it away", by saying that this was one of the things that didn't get transmitted accurately, but then, if not much did, how can we reconstruct anything that happened with confidence? It would be nicer to have more evidential reasons for our conclusions, or else we should just admit the difficulties in verifying the texts. These particular astronomic calculations and an appeal to Josephus just don't seem like arguments with a whole lot of substance, given difficulties like these. De Moor has a much more coherent proposal, highlighting events that parallel the texts much more closely without assuming such drastic revisions to have been made.

As to whether most scholars can be said to support an Early or Late Exodus, disregarding a Hyksos Exodus, I think I am on safe ground. My guess is that most scholars favor a Biblical date near 1446 BCE, so as to assume that I Ki. 6:1 is right. Add to that the number of people that support the one I think the evidence is most easily read as supporting, the Late Exodus, and we probably have a majority. You and I will agree that both Avaris and sites in ancient Israel were unoccupied from the time of the Hyksos to the time of Rameses II, and so a date in keeping with I Ki. 6:1 is probably not viable, but such dates are popular. Nonetheless, Herzog's and Redford's ideas appear to be popular enough to merit discussion, so I say let the best arguments on both sides be brought forward. I also have also written a book which presents additional, as yet unpublished evidence as to why the Judges period should be much shorter than the impression its present form gives us. If it really bugs you that much, that one sentence could have another phrase added on to say how most scholars either have Rameses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, or a pharaoh at 1446 BCE as the pharaoh of the Exodus, or else they synchronize it the expulsion of the Hyksos, ca. 1544-1521 BCE. The idea is to explain to the reader how the categories of Early Exodus theories and Late Exodus theories arise, so that the various broad categories can be covered after that. I'm so far not impressed with the evidence for these theories, but am also not adverse to information on them being covered in the article. If you could add a section on Herzog’s and Redford’s ideas, I could attempt to rebut them in a paragraph following that.

--ThaThinker 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Various requests for cleanup

This article is the most horribly POV article I've come across which is not an obvious attempt at vandalism. It doesn't even mention the controversy which exists over whether or not the Hebrews ever were in captivity. I know relatively little on the subject, as it's been a while, but I do have an excellent source for anybody who wishes to re-right this article: Redford's Egypt, Israel, & Canaan in Ancient Times. I'll be checking it out, and if nobody else re-rights this, I will do so shortly as best I can with an "Expert Attention Needed" tag. Zelmerszoetrop 00:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I will support your effort. Three million people crossing the Red Sea in two hours ? That's not even plausible. Actually, there's already an article about this: Passage_of_Red_Sea. So is it really useful ? Ze miguel 16:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I tagged this article with "cleanup". It needs to be rearranged and rewritten. The disussion about the Tsunami is a clear example of this. A fringe theory being described in the very beginning. --itpastorn 11:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on the ideas above, and some cutting and pasting. There is still a fair bit to do, but I think its a little more readable now. Codec 14:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a separate section dealing with the theories and perspectives regarding the actual historicity of the occurrence of the event itself? so far (version of 24 April 2006) it seems that the biblical narrative is being regarded as a historical primary source! Though from the beginning we're being told that the Exodus is a biblical story, it still has its historical problematic aspects with which this article should be also concerned. -- Maysara 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the authors of the article (and much of this Talk page) get into great detail over dating questions and routes without seeming to stand back and consider the question of historicity properly. FrankP 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. There's no mention of all the evidence that the Exodus -didn't- happen, as well. Darkahn 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly could be mentioned that the Exodus might not necessarily have happened, but other than to admit that there are is no unambiguous evidence for the correct time frame of the Exodus as yet, even though reasonably close parralels can quite plausibly be posited between the Bible and archaeology, I don't really know what else to say about it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disallowing that possibility, by any means, and I don't think the article does, either. As to the numbers involved in the Exodus, I didn't write that part. Although the climate in Egypt and Southern Palestine was more verdent back then, the numbers reported for the Exodus do seem unlikely, and I believe that is what that section says. It is harder to rule out a smaller migration that might have accounted for the original stories, and one wonders who wrote the laws of Moses if not the leader of some kind of migration from Egypt. The tales do seem to have some authentic, second millenium BCE Egyptian details to them, as well. I have no grudge to as to migrating the Tsunami stuff lower, and I think that the ideas Julian Onions has had so far have been helpful.

--ThaThinker 12:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not to say that I have any grudge against a section on historicity, BTW. Please keep in mind however that the article is already slightly over the recommended length in the guidelines. Any statements that assume historicity may also be edited, if there are any, but please let us know what you did. Actually, some minimalists believe there is no reason to require the Exodus never happened, and they generally fall under this category. As an example of a Second Millennium detail in the narratives, the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 seems to be the city pi-Rameses constructed for Rameses II. By the time of the Saite era, these monuments had by and large been moved to Zoan, and THAT city probably was not known by the name Rameses. Others have prepared more extensive lists of Second Millennium details in the narrative, as I recall, although I don't remember where. Early mentions of the Hittites would be another detail suggesting a Second Millennium source. This is by no means to say most archaeologists are biblical 'maximalists' either. --ThaThinker 20:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Delegate bits to the Hyksos article?

The Hyksos article may be the better place for some of the controversy on this page. Previously it contained only a few allusions to the fact that some associated the Hyksos with the hebrews, in stark contrast to other pages such as this one. I tried to make them a bit more explicit, but know very little about the subject. Flammifer 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I also copied (after minor formatting) a bit from the Hyksos page concerning Osarseph - I believe this article should have a reference to Osarseph, and more importantly that whatever alternative exodus theories on Wikipedia should primarily be in this article. I know, this makes the article even more messy :P Flammifer 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting a bit longish, but it would seem remiss not to have at least something on Herzog's and Redford's main ideas on this page. Bimson has also done considerable work supporting this idea, although many scholars do not support a Hyksos Exodus. I'm not really an expert on these guys myself though, as yet anyway.--ThaThinker 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Population of Exodus

Quote:"At this time the land [Canaan] is estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Archaeologists, however, disagree greatly among themselves on timing, such as the conquest of Jericho, based on carbon dating and pottery shards, so they can neither affirmatively disprove the Exodus."

Where does the figure of 50,000 to 100,000 come from--this seems unusually scant? In 1420 bc pharoah Amenhotep II boasted of having made 89,600 prisoners in his expedition of Canaan and Southern Syria, and I doubt this was the entire population. It seems reasonable that Canaan had a population of 100,000 even back then (1420 bc) and by 1200 bc (Exodus era?) may have had 200,000 to 300,000 people or more. Many historians believe that by king David's day there were 500,000 to 700,000 people in Israel, and Jospehus estimates there were atleast 2 million people living in Palestine during his era c. 50-100 AD.

I didn't write it, and I believe you have a point with Amenhotep's prisoner numbers. If you can find a good source for it, I encourage you to put it in, and source it in the references. Of course, the number of Israelites in Israel and the numbers involved in the Exodus will be harder to determine than an archaeologist's estimate of the overal population in ca. the reign of Rameses II. --ThaThinker 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the Non-Neutral POV Tag

I've tried to be as inclusive as possible with these different Exodus theories (without sacrificing clarity of thought, of course). I've answered charges that say that the article assumes the Exodus to have happened (it seems likely, but as in the article, cannot be proved archaeologically). I've even added a section on the Hyksos Exodus, after a lot of complaining about its lack, but no effort on the part of the complainers to actually add one (although a few sentences about Herzog and Redford's ideas are still in order). Thus, I would ask anybody that thinks it is leaving out their point of view, or making unfounded statemets, to either make such changes as have been touched on already on this talk page, or to propose the subject and then make them, or else not oppose removeal of the neutrality tag. It reads like a cross between a popular and a scholarly article, but modern schlarship can still say much without being POV. I think it's a fine article for the Wikipedia, as you rarely get such a well-rounded survey of the viewpoints; and I wonder if the non-neutral tag is now serving any purpose. --ThaThinker 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that much is better, however I still find the date of the exodus to be problematic. The current text of that section is entierly biased against the minority view, and not exactly accurate to boot. Now, I am admittadly an adherant of that minority view, but I believe that there are are several obvious pov problems that should be clear to everyone, apart from their own pov. In addition to this, there are some screwy factual errors

• To start with, we see, In the Bible, Pharaoh is treated as a name rather than a title, and he is not otherwise named. Now, I assume good faith, and there's nothing outrightly wrong with that statement, but it's frequently been used somthing like this by people of bad faith, "Oh, see, they don't name the pharaoh, that proves they don't know what his name is because they're making up the story centuries later." In fact, pr-aa was only a title equivalent to king from the 26th dynasty and beyond, and Pharaoh as a name is in fact totally normal. I don't think it's innatly pov, but it has the potential for abuse, and that's my concern.
  
• Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426 depending on the Egyptian dating scheme employed) There are many dating schemes which have been employed, not just the two. Furthermore, the more common high scheme runs about from 1504 to 1450.
  
• The way the date section states that the "orthodox" date comes from the text of the Bible, and is wrong for a, b, and c., is kinda unbalanced. The arguments made against it are very old, and significant arguements have been made against them. In fact, no arguements are included whatsoever except the arguements made against the thesis.
• Difficulties with this sort of chronology include that the Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11 have been plausibly identified, but were unoccupied during this period Well, no. In fact, Pithom, or pr-itm, and Ramasees, or Avaris, were big big cities during the 18th dynasties. Manfried Bietak is currently excavating the palace of Thutmose III in Avaris.
  
• iron, which the Philistines were able to work in the early Judges era, did not come to the region archaeologically until ca. 1190 BCE; i.e. the Iron Age. A careful examination of Judges shows that the whole iron-working buisiness comes from very late in judges into early Samuel, and indeed, The philistines are latecomers to Judges, which might show that much of judges must have any historical basis which it has in periods before ramesees III.

This article states specific reasons why the early date is wrong without actually giving any of the early date's own defenses, which really ought to be included. My professor of egyptology is an early date exodus adherant. When I see him in a few weeks, I can ask him to give me a list of reputable published sources which have the real arguements for an early date. Inclusion of its own arguements would de-pov this.

Now, as to the other, factual problems, that just may require a bit of an extra rewrite. That reference that ramesees was uninhabited during the early date period... Either the source was pre-bietak or so early that it misidentifed Avaris with Tanis, rather than tell el-daba. Either way, that's really suspect.Thanatosimii 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick response to your suggestions:

• The Britannica has it that 'Pharaoh' came to be used as a generic name for 'king' ever since it was applied to kings after Ahmose I, to whom it was first applied, with the original meaning of 'great house'. It seems to have been a slang term for 'king'. That would certainly make its generic use old enough. I wasn't intending to imply that the name was unknown, at least for certain. The reasons why it was not given are unknown. Which candidate for pharaoh of the Exodus is known to have that as one of his names? The names of the pharaohs are fairly well known. I do think what I said could have been worded better. I don't really know that it wasn't being used generically in the Bible. It does sound like I'm trying to argue for a minimalist position there, which I am not.

I was confusing here... Pharaoh only became a title in the 26th dynasty. You are right in saying it was a generic term for King; I am saying that it is to be expected that the term Pharaoh be used in any text at the time. The page doesn't make the arguement, but the arguement that using Pharaoh means the writer had no idea which pharaoh and thus was making it up is, however, a very frequent, very bad arguement for the Biblical minimalists. The page doesn't make the arguement, but it is possible that some might infer it by the way it is currently phrased. Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize for the paucity of Orthodox Exodus arguments, as I have not come across a lot to recommend it to me. Please feel free to contribute significant arguments in favor of it, and post refutations of my refutations here. Bietak's work may count as one.

Sorry, I said somthing confusing here too. By orthodox, I only meant the date considered "Biblical" by Bible scholars as a whole, not eastern orthodox people. orthodox just means "In agreement with proper doctrine" when used not to refer to the church. My problem was that the arguement section just patently declared that the orthodox was untenable, which has yet to be proven, even if it is believed. There are significant early date arguements that can easily debunk the reasons that the early date is declared untenable.Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By 'orthodox', I wasn't intending Eastern Orthodox. I shouldn't have capitolized it. Most archaeologists seem to reject the ca. 1446, and it does seem there are better arguments to be made on both sides in this section.--ThaThinker 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The dating schemes given were from the Britannica and the Americana. I have read more about lowering such dates as raising them, salient arguments are always welcome. I was just trying to use those as gauges of mainstream sentiment. I was not trying to imply there were only two dating schemes. Perhaps you could suggest a better wording for incorporating their dates, or another mainstream, widely accepted dating? Is there a more inclusive way to word it?

Unfortunatly, Thutmose III and Amenhotep II really have no solid way of dating. When they ruled is totally dependant upon both if the heliacle rise of sothis mentioned by a text in Amenhotep I's reign was observed in Memphis or Thebes, and how many years to give to Thutmose II. That last decision is more or less totally arbitrary, and varies by about 10 years. Everyone, and I do mean just about everyone, has their own slightly different date for them. Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to use what I considered to be mainstream dates, i.e. from the encyclopedias. You may have a better way to word it. It doesn't substantially alter any of these arguments, I believe. --ThaThinker 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was unaware that Bietak had a Thutmose III palace there. I seem to recall some commemoration of Rameses where it talks about pi-Rameses having lain in ruins since the time of the Hyksos. In ANET, I think. Perhaps they were mistaken, too, which is a real possibility. In any event, Thutmose III would make a poor pharaoh for the Exodus, as he was too busy capturing more prisoners from Palestine to be worried about Hebrew overpopulation.

Actually, the pharaoh of the opression does not have to be anywhere near the pharaoh of the exodus. Most literalists say he was either Kamose or Ahmose, on the grounds that the phrase "A new pharaoh arose over Egypt" indicates in hebrew a very nasty, battleridden manner of arising. Kamose and Ahmose would both not have a problem killing off random asiatics. Thutmose III, on the other hand, wasn't fighting in Retenu for the sake of slaves to begin with. He hardly ever entered Djahy, and spent most of his time fighting in north syria, for the goal of subduing Mitanni. captives weren't the goal, they were the side effect. Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see how a literelist interpretation = orthodox interpretation could allow Ahmose or Kamose to be the "pharaoh who knew not Joseph". If taking hostages was a side effect of what Thutmose III was doing, still, it seems an unlikely thing to do when the Israelites are overpopulating the land. He even takes tribes with names of Joseph-el and Jacob-el. There are also very good candidates for non Semitic leaning pharaohs arising after the Amarna era, especially those who had sought to eradicate all mention of Ankenaten. If memory serves, although I don't have a ready reference, Rameses II essentially employed slave labor to build his monuments, and it was more the norm for people to get paid and do it voluntarily. I believe I'll stick by this objection.--ThaThinker 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• You say you don't hear much about the Philistines until the late Judges period, yet we have them in Josh. 13:2, and in Judges 3:3, e.g. They are even mentioned in Genesis, for that matter, but don't play much of a real role in sizeable numbers in the narrative until later. It seems at first the Philistines were more or less at peace with the Israelites. Although they may be mentioned anachronistically back through Gen., it is my instinct that they are not encountered in significant numbers until Ex. 13:7, when the Hebrews departing Egypt elected not go to Canaan on the road through the Philistine territory. As to iron working, it, like the Philistines, is rather subjective as to which passages one prefers to allow as anachronistic and which not. I tend to allow that the iron chariots referred to in Josh. 17:16 are also a suggestion that the Iron Age had already arrived. Rabinnical literature tells of iron gates on Hazor, and just such a gate was found there recently, I have been told.

very few people hold that Joshua and Judges were not edited at a later date. the reign of Hezekiah seems the popular assumption these days. Working off of the precedent set by the change of Avaris to Rameses in Genesis, there is no reason to believe that an early reference to the name in a geographical sense must mean the actual settlement had happened by that date. Furthermore, lack of an iron age doesn't mean lack of iron, since it was a valuable byproduct created when one made bronze. Iron gates were present at Middle Bronze II-C Jerecho, which was destroyed around 1400 BC, and fits perfectly with a early date. Presence of iron does not automatically mean the iron age had come, only presence of much iron which actually has an effect in battle will indicate that the iron age had come, as seen in late Judges and early Samuel. Iron Chariots can easily be put in the same catagory as references to the gigantic Anakim mentioned. The israelites are scared, and they are exaggerating what they've seen. The rulers quite likely did have iron chariots quite earlier as a status symbol which just happened to make them more durable, but they were status symbols much like romans rode in triumph in golden chariots. Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you are working off the change of Avaris to Rameses a bit early. Late Exodus adherents don't believe the mention of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 is anachronistic. If you think iron chariots are not original to the texts, then it still subjective as to which passages to consider anachronisms, and which not. The thing is, we find just such a late transition from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite within decades of the arrival of the iron age there (although recent findings can always change things).--ThaThinker 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole basis of the early date exodus theory is that the conquest was not extremely effective, and even razed cities like Hazor were resettled by Non-israelites. I don't believe that the iron chariots are anachronism, I believe they are exaggerations on the parts of the witnesses. Iron was present before the Iron age, just not widespread. I don't have the sources to create the dissent section as of yet, I just believe that there is a problem in outrightly claiming that the early date is unacceptable. Thanatosimii 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would need to change it in a number of places to account for Bietak's Thutmose III remains. I may be busy for a while, having other responsibilities. Succinct pro arguments would be welcome, but con arguments should probably take in most of my criticisms, with the possible exception of the settlement of Rameses during the 18th dynasty.

One thing which could use to be updated, is that significant mining remains have been found in ancient Edom from the 12th cent. BCE, but things get rather sporatic before that.--ThaThinker 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats another thing... Another archaeologist recenly surveyed the first survey of moab and edom, and he found 13th and 14th century civilization, and found the first survey had surveyed in the wrong spot... I don't have that book with me though. I need access to my professor to get that report. I can try to put together the early date arguements, but it'll take a significant while as well. Thanatosimii 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to reference that, 'cause I'm not aware of it at all. The article about the mines in recent BAR seems unaware of it, too. In any event, it seems like we are negotiating in good faith, so it should be possible to resolve this impasse with some work.--ThaThinker 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but it'll take an awful long time before I can find that.

The only criticism I can offer is that, for the article to be truly NPOV, you should preface any mention in the introductory paragraph of "The Exodus" with the word "alleged." I personally find the lack of any evidence or contemporary accounts outside of canonical texts to be particularly troubling, and from an empirical perspective suggestive of the fact that no "exodus" ever really occured. While the section on The Exodus as Mythology mentions this, I think that an encyclopaedia entry should err on the side of empirical evidence rather than religious dogma. Chris kupka

That would also not be NPOV. Alledged is a weasel word, and in such a case would only be there to bolster the biblical minimalist pov. Furthermore, your criterion for acceptable proof is set too high. We lack any evidence or contemporary accounts for almost all of ancient middle eastern history. The job of a historian is to make a reasonable reconstruction from other evidence. We have no texts? Well, for large portions of Ancient Egypt and for almost all of Syrio-Palestine, we have no texts. Regardless, large theories are made, which are regarded as proven fact, based on other evidences, about things to happen in these periods. However, if by evidence you mean no other evidences whatsoever which could lead one to accept an exodus, you're incorrect. We have among the best evidence for a migration in all of history (no migrants, as a rule, use writing, so no records remain). We know that in the 2nd intermediate period, Israelites were living in the city of Avaris, and we know that during the end of the new kingdom, Israelites began to live in and attacked cities in Caanan. That is one of the best evidences in the ancient world. Consider the migration for the sea peoples. All we have is a terminus, but I just yesterday heard a good reconstruction of their route as they moved through caria into Hattusa to Crete to Egypt to Palestine, and possibly further into Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily, and such a belief is hardly on the basis of some dogmatic work, that can be reconstructed from evidence. "The exodus was..." is in concurrance with the majority of scholars who do work on the subject. Even the scholars who don't work on it still assent to its existance. "The alledged exodus was..." is pov slanted to the extreme minority view, and be it understood, although the biblical minimalists are well qualified, fine scholars, their views are the extreme minority view. The desire for a contemporary source on the exodus, however, is not just minority, it's considered absurd. Even the minimalists don't find that a good enough reason for their theories. Thanatosimii 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if scientific thinkers used the word alleged as much as you suggest, we might be talking about the alleged sentence you allegedly just wrote, and such. While it might have some merit metaphysically, it is terribly inconvenient. Most writers seemt to think something like an Exodus happened, as there are some rather accurate Egyptian details in Gen. and Ex. My rule of thumb: if most people think it happened and I think the facts make it seem at least likely, it's probably safe to drop alleged, even though I hold at least the possibility that one never happened. The word does seem to carry a perjorative meaning that seems unnecessary. Even the expulsion of the Hyksos might answer to a very loosely related Exodus narrative, barring no better candidates, so it seems rather difficult to refute all off the possibilities for grounding in historical events. The problem really seems to be what sort of historical events from archaeology answer best to the Biblical description, so far as we can determine, and if we can have any real confidence in that identification.--ThaThinker 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

600,000 man army

Shouldn't "600,000 men" be understood as an exaggeration of a hundred-fold? Similar to David's Census of 500,000 men of Judah or 800,000 of Israel? If the stats are historically reliable, then it seems a 6000 man army would be proportional to an overall pop. of around 30,000 people. Maybe this number of 6000 men was based on the confederation at Gilgal?

One recent speculation is that the Hebrew word for 'thousand' can also mean something more like military unit, and might be being so used here. If this can be shown to make gramatical sense, may help sort out the riddle. I think I saw this idea in Kitchen, in The Reliability of the OT. --ThaThinker 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But does it (the OT) actually say there was a 600,000 man army? And what does it mean? A close reading from the book of Numbers gives a really big clue. Here it is, from Numbers 1:17-19 (NIV): "Moses and Aaron took these men whose names had been given, and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people indicated their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, as the LORD commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai." Note that the people "indicated their ancestry by their clans and families." That is a key point.

Now follow up this point with Numbers 3:40-43 (NIV): "The LORD said to Moses, "Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names. Take the Levites for me in place of all the firstborn of the Israelites, and the livestock of the Levites in place of all the firstborn of the livestock of the Israelites. I am the LORD. So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273."

So -- the total number of living firstborn of all Israelites a month old or older was 22,273, whereas the total number of men 20 years or older eligible for the army was 603,550 (from Numbers 2:32.) This would appear to be a HUGE discrepency -- except for the clue about "ancestry by clans and families". The answer appears to be -- that the first census in Numbers 1 & 2 includes the geneological listings, whereas the number in Numbers 3 is the actual headcount of firstborns living.

Thus, the 600,000 man "army" may be interpreted as all of those who will inherit the promised land, including all the righteous dead ancestors (who are written in YHWH's "Book of the Living"). That doesn't mean they were part of any military fighting army. No, the numbers of firstborn counting from 1 month old and older (which, by the way, could include firstborn females where there was no male heir) shows the actual Israelite living population to be far smaller. And thus the Exodus population numbers become much more tenable. SunSw0rd 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As a followup for this concept of a much smaller population, assume that about 1/3 of those firstborn were of childbearing age, and they had 8 to 10 kids. This leads to a total population size of maybe 120K people or so. Which is a big clue as to why, in Numbers 31:3-5, we see this: "So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel." Forming up an army of 12,000 men seems like a reasonable fighting force if the total population was around 100K people (because by that time they they had taken losses from plague - see Numbers 25:9.) SunSw0rd 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest Updates: Pi-Rameses and Edom

I reviewed Beitak's 1995/6 book, and although I confirmed that Dynasty XVIII remains from the time of the Hyksos till past the time of Thutmose III had been found at Tell el-Dab'a (i.e. the citidel), I also noticed that he identified Qantir as the nucleus of pi-Rameses, whereas he identified Tell el-Dab'a with Avaris. At Qantir and all sites shown on p. 6 of Avaris other than Ez Helmi (which makes up a single citidel on a small corner of the ancient Avaris), he shows haitus during the time of the biblical Exodus. Do you have something more recent, showing Dynasty XVIII finds at Qantir?

I also noticed an excavation of a copper mine in Edom in the recent BAR, which shows occupation back until the Twelfth Century only, and that rested on bedrock. I am not aware of your recent finds that show Fifteenth Century finds there, nor do the authors of the article seem aware of such. They do admit that the king list of Edomite kings in the Bible could be taken to suggest there was settlement that far back, but, importantly, the evidence at the mine is the oldest yet discovered, did not go back that far, and rested on bedrock. We would need not only, e.g. a small tribal king to be residing there, but a large enough settlement to make Israel detour around it. Perhaps even more significantly, they point out that the first Egyptian mention of Edom by name was in the reign of Merenptah, in Papyrus Anastasi. Perhaps this offhand speculation about the king list was the supposed Fifteenth Century settlement you were thinking about?

As for an iron gate found at Jericho at 1400, I am entirely unaware of that, and would like a reference. Kenyon thought it was uninhabited at the traditional Exodus date, and it is my understanding that the site is badly picked over and eroded, so that a clear picture there is problematic.

If you have references to Fifteenth Century Edomite remains, an iron gate at Jericho, or Dynasty XVIII remains at Qantir, please produce them so we can get the POV tag removed. The question here is whether I am expressing a POV, or simply defending the mainstream view because it seems the most probable. I would say that it is the latter. Of the three outstanding points you make, I have thus far found evidence to undermine two. The argument based on Beitak's work vanishes on closer inspection, unless you are aware of finds from Dynasty XVIII other than at Ez Helmi. The excavators of the Edomite copper mine have an article in BAR this month that seems unaware of the Edomite finds you cite, and in fact, say theirs in the Twelfth Century is now the earliest known in Edom. If Jericho does show transition at 1400 BCE, it would still not synchronize with the transitions at other "Joshua" cities well: Hazor, Lachish, Meggido, and Tapnaach.

I do also hold that the Philistines may have been in the region before the invasion of the Sea Peoples, at which time Peleset from Cyprus seem to have been settled in the Philistia area, but that invasion does dovetail with the statement that they would not go the way of the Philistines lest they see war rather nicely in a Late Exodus chronology. I understand that the beginning of the Iron Age in Philistia occurred about this time, ca. 1172 or so, meaning the time this latest wave of Sea Peoples Philistines brought iron to the area. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like a little documentation on this pre Iron Age iron in Palestine, as well, given the problems I am having verifying some of your other assertions. I understand that iron had come to Egypt up to a century earlier, and to Anatolia at least as early as 1400 BCE. In Africa, ingots have been found as early as 1700 BCE. This is the overview of iron in the region as I understand it, but newer developments could well have changed the picture. I don't a priori admit the description of iron chariot wheels is a later embelishment. We have mentions of iron all throughout the Pentateuch.

Here's an article about how Wood tried to redate Jericho from ca. 1500 to ca. 1400, but his evidence was disputed, and subsequent radiocarbon datings of seed grains again put the date back to ca. 1500:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php

I know you said it will be a while until you have these references, but two of your initial points seem insubstantial, one required my understanding that Qantir, not Tell El-Dab'a was associated with Pi-Rameses by Beitak, and the other are claims that I don't know about, and seem to be the only thing holding up the removal of the POV flag. It's not that I have pre-decided on an Exodus date, but like Meek and Albright, believe that one should look at the archaeology first, without preconceptions, and let it tell you what is going on. This is how Meek came up with the two part Conquest idea. The evidence for a Late Exodus seems strong enough that I, like many mainstream scholars, think it deserves to be defended. While the chronology of a Late Exodus does differ from the MT, the archaeological situation answers to the backdrop of the biblical saga admirably well. This makes it POV only so far as it is not warranted by a preponderance of evidence. If evidence undermining this idea comes along, the conclusions should be modified to reflect it. Of course, even if a theory such is this is thought of as secure, we shouldn't hesitate to scrutinize those beliefs for flaws in order to render the result more secure. --ThaThinker 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

These sources are well out of my reach for some time now. And, unfortunatly, being that I'm getting back into the swing of school here, my efforts cannot be directed to this for some time. This would waiting for my contributions unwise. feel free to do as you please. Thanatosimii 19:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall continue to try to apprise myself of your suggestions further, and more arguments for the traditional date could probably be contributed. I hope the article is now more up to date on its Egyptology sections. I would like to get the NPOV tag removed, if there are no further requests to add things, or any inaccurate/unfounded statements anybody feels they need take issue with. If you are the last holdout to removing the POV tag, I'd like to do it, even if you have further suggestions to make later. If and when you have additions/corrections regarding Egyptology or the traditional Exodus date, I hope you feel that I'll incorporate suggestions in good faith. This is not to say that good arguments supporting the traditional date might not come along requiring revision of relevant parts and summaries/introductions. The POV flag can always be raised again later if I'm being unreasonable about anything (but please try to negotiate in good faith first). I am aware of no substantial POV disputes remaining, other than yours. I hope we can lower the POV flag now, for a little while anyway. That would actually be quite an accomplishment, as many religion articles have had both POV and factual error flags raised. Nobody has ever bothered to accuse this article of not being factual, which I hope speaks well of the people who have contributed to it. --ThaThinker 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no real objection. I recently heard the early date explained, and it mainly has to do with pottery being improperly dated, and thus dating cities destroyed around 1400 to 1550. The main proponent of this view today is Bryant Wood, whose doctorate is in palestinian pottery, and who is currently excavating at Ai, where he has dated one city to about 1400. Like I said, I haven't any time to cover that for a few months, but if you ever come across anything of his, I believe he (and probably bimpson) most clearly articulate the early date theory. I do hope that this actually manages to keep the NPOV flag down for a while, but I can just sense that when it does, millions of laymen who, listening to Israel Finkelstein's theory, actually believe he's the mainstream opinion and want this to say "no exodus, no exodus, no exodus!" all over it. Too bad too. Thanatosimii 16:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As you may note, I have an article on Wood's attempt to redate Jericho above, which refers to a more recent radiocarbon survey. You can find the underlying article at: http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume37/Number2/azu_radiocarbon_v37_n2_213_220_v.pdf&type=application/pdf Thus far, it seems, not a lot of scholars have embraced his views. The link about him cited above this one describes him as a conservative scholar, and he may have a theological axe to grind. I'll have to put it on a very short list of books I want to read, but regard their chronologies with some misgivings. As far as the POV flag, I agree. It seems I'm constantly walking a thin line between those who want to treat the Exodus as pure mythology, and those who wish to fit it into the Biblical chronology no matter what. It strains credulity to suppose that some form of the law of Moses was imposed on the Israelites with no Exodus involved whatsoever. I guess my approach has this in common with Albright's (even if most of his detailed findings have been superceded by more recent work): leaning toward the idea that the Biblical narratives do refer to real history, and so the task is probably to figure out how these early histories might map into archaeology. (Albright has also been described as a reactionary to anybody who would try to date a biblical event differently than the traditional chronology, but one will observe that in later life, this was not so.)

Do you know how to remove the NPOV flag, or do I just need to find an admin? After that, I won't have much time for this article either, as I have a book that's almost ready for publishing, and a lot of other 'irons in the fire', as it were. Your input has genuinely been helpful to the article thus far. I think its now a better, more accurate article after addressing the shortcomings you pointed out.--ThaThinker 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just edit the tag and delete the npov notice. As for wood, he is a conservative, so his work is usually painted with the fundimentalist brush, however it is of high scholarly quality. It is not difficult to poke holes in a poor dating scheme if they exist. He's poked holes in kenyon's dating of Jerecho from picture of pottery in her own archaeological dig notes, and if someone wanted to poke holes in his own work, it should be fairly easy to find legitimate problems. Good luck with whatever you have remaining; this article is a good deal fairer now. Thanatosimii 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, done deal. So would you really say Wood has good confirming evidence? How about radiocarbon surveys and cartouches of Egyptian pharaohs? Have other major scholars, especially those who used to believe in a Late Exodus, been convinced by the evidence he presents? --ThaThinker 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I do see now that Wood has followers in the scholarly community, but I don't know what he bases his claims on as yet. --ThaThinker 04:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarabs and radiocarbons are part of it, but also he bases it on plain old pottery dating. We're not actually sure why Kenyon dated Jericho IV to when she did, because she died before publishing and in a number of places the compilers of her reports didn't have a clue why she came to her conclusions. Wood, having examined her reports, thinks it's because of the lack of Cypriot pottery, which is in fact a good reason to doubt inhabitation, however the problem is that there is domestic pottery there from the early LB II period, c. 1400 BC. Wood does have a Ph.D. in syrio-palestinian pottery from the best institute on the american continents from which to get one, so I'm not sure how he comes to his conclusions, but they'd be good to note. Thanatosimii 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from "Moses" page

This belongs here, not on the Moses page. You may determine what to do with it:

Many of the details of the Pentateuch are consistent with the time period, such as the price of a slave (30 shekels as opposed to around 60 at the time of the Babylonian captivity) and the practice of blood covenants. It has been claimed that "chariot wheels" have been discovered on the bottom of the Red Sea. As for the ability to cross the Red Sea, portions of it have a depth that exceeds that of Arizona's Grand Canyon. It is currently unknown to the editors of this article as to the ability to cross the seabed, and whether any slopes or rugged terrain would have interfered with it.

With the exception of Many of the details of the Pentateuch are consistent with the time period, such as the price of a slave (30 shekels as opposed to around 60 at the time of the Babylonian captivity) and the practice of blood covenants. which belongs in penteteuch, most likely, the rest can be mostly deleted. Wyatt's "Chariot wheels" have been found by JUC divers -- they're the steering column and wheel of Saudi jeeps. Further, "Red sea" is a mistranslation for Yom Suph, which means "Sea of Reeds" and refers to, probably, one of the great bitter lakes. Certainly not the red sea proper. Thanatosimii 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the Bible has the Red Sea (lit. the "reed sea") as near Succoth in Ex. 13:20, which seems to be in Egypt near Rameses, as well as near the Gulf of Aqaba, in Nu. 21:4. The Bible writers knew that the Gulf of Aqaba was contiguous with the Gulf of Suez, and both were part of the body of water represented by the Hebrew phrase, "the reed sea". In both cases, the same terminology is used. From the point of view of science-minded scholarship, murky round shapes are no substitute for well-studied evidence that those are indeed chariot wheels from some suitable time. Only evidence sufficent to prove the point can prove the point. It merits attention, but then Nu. 21:4 is most easily read as being a transit from West of the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba to east of it, and then north around Edom. As such, the crossing of the Red Sea, which has already happened, should not leave them East of the Gulf of Aqaba. It seems that these supposed chariot wheels could be mentioned here, especially if Thanatosimii can produce a reference for his JUC divers. As to the price of slaves, in "Dating the Patriarchal Age: Where Kitchen Erred" (BAR, Jul/Aug 1995), Hendel concludes that since in much later times, the price of an adult was still only 50 sheckels in the Eighth Century BCE in 2 Ki. 15:20, that although Joseph's price was consistant with the Old Babylonian period, since he was just a boy, the 20 sheckels paid for him could also be consistent with much later periods. --ThaThinker 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a new books out by an Egyptologist from Trinity... I always forget his name... I need to hunt that down. He's the excavator of Tjaru and has arguments for a great bitter lake crossing. It is true, however, that from a "it's a myth" point of view, grandeose travels like across Aqaba make more sense. From a "literal history" point of view, however, a crossing right near the boarder forts of Egypt is probably to be preferred. Both should probably be mentioned. Thanatosimii 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Amenhotep II dating theory

JG van der Land proposes a different dating of the events, at this URL:

http://www.apologetique.org/nl/artikelen/mens/geschiedenis/bib_geschiedenis/JVDL_datering_uittocht.htm

His dating theory is based on the LXX version of the Bible, which states that the 430 years period refers to the total time from Abraham's arrival in Kanaän to the Exodus, and that the actual period of time spent by the Israelites in Egypt was 215 years. According to him, the period of 400 years refers to the time from Isaac's birth to the Exodus.

Van der Land dates the Exodus as the time of death of Amenhotep II, who died in the prime of his life, and who was followed up by not his oldest but his youngest son, whose reign was characterised by a marked decrease in military activity in Palestine.

Van der Land's proposed dates are: Abraham came to Kanaän in 1831 BC, 25 years later Isaac was born, 60 years later Jacob was born, and when Jacob was 130 years old, in 1616 BC, he and his 11 sons went to Egypt. The Exodus took place in 1401 BC, entry into Kanaän in 1361 BC, and Joshua's conquest in 1361-1354 BC.

How much credibility does JG van der Land's theories have? -- leuce 09:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the entry paragraph for NPOVity

The current article gives the following dates: Joseph's death + 400 years of freedom + 30 years of slavery = 430 years. Are the numbers 400 and 30 in these cases based on anything in the Bible, or are they simply a way in which the 400 years and 430-400=30 years are made to "fit" the facts?

The current entry paragraphs of the wiki article is not neutral because it shows a particular interpretation of the numbers. Instead, I think it should be rewritten with no numerical conjecture in it:

"The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was vizier of Egypt. After the death of Joseph, the Israelites spent further generations growing and multiplying. During this time, a new king came about who didn't know of Joseph, and he enslaved the Israelites and compelled them to perform much manual labor intensive work."

Perhaps it should also be incorporated into the article that according to the LXX, the Israelites were in Egypt *and Kanaän* for 430 years, and that according to the LXX, the time from the Exodus to the building of the temple was 440 years, not 480 years. -- leuce 09:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

1510 BC?

The traditional Catholic Christmas liturgy actually suggests a precise date by intoning that Christ was born 1,510 years after the Exodus. I was curious to see where this notion comes from. Even if it isn't accepted by current archaeologists, it seems to indicate a once-common notion. Can anyone comment on this? (I suppose that would actually be 1514 BC, wouldn't it?)

I am in no way a scholar on this, but I would suppose that it is actually closely tied to the approximate 1525 date. Jesus was most likely born in 8-6 BC. The reasoning for this is in the account of Matthew, the astrologers from the east first visited Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. The account also states that Jesus was child, and does not use the Greek term for baby. Furthermore, Herod ordered the execution of all boys under the age of two to be put to death. Assuming that Herod did not die in the following years and that Jesus was getting close to the maximum age limit (3yrs), this could put Jesus' birth as early as 10 BC. But the latest likely year of birth would probably be 5 BC. Hence the 6-8 BC. If we instead assume 10 BC, add 1510 to get 1520, we are now very close to the 1525 approximation. BobertWABC (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Velikovsky

Should not the Velikovsky mention be expanded considering his dating results in Egyptian and Israeli history matching up to some degree? For example there was known to be large Asiatic slave population of possible Semitic origin living in Egypt during the 12th dynasty which vanished in the 13th, "abandoning their tools and other possessions" according to Petrie. Archaeologists have found evidence of nomads wandering the Sinai destroying cities in this period and this dating also allows the Biblical Jericho and Gibeon to match up. Regardless that the chronology is not accepted I feel some mention of events that are reconciled should be made purely because it is of interest that many events do line up. Wayne (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The section The_Exodus#Greatly_lowered_Egyptian_chronologies is all that needs to be in this article until such point as any of these revised chronologies gains mainstream acceptance.

Speaking as someone who has done a great deal of work in the area myself, I do not expect my work or anyone else's to appear in Wikipedia when it's still fringe. That's not what Wikipedia is for. If you're interested in more info on the subject, though, you could try this. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Velikovsky is that although he started out well he at some point went overboard. However, the massive flaws of orthodox Egyptian chronology have messed up every other chronology that is synchronized with Egypt's (as Levantine chronology, and Greek chronology where a "dark age" was fabricated because of it). All available hints point at an Exodus (if it happened at all) near the end of the 13th Dynasty (also cf. Manetho), when there were really large numbers of Aamu in Egypt. There are NO traces or similarities with the biblical account to be found in Egyptian history in the period that is currently assigned to the Exodus (18th/19th Dyns) AT ALL, whatever Evangelicals like Kitchen might say. Cush (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

NEO CANAAN EGYPT : In grael sequalogy - back to the smithsonian having similar regards COMIX!, through radio city - finding this time 'he he', that Morgan Freeman is Ramasees, Samuel L jackson is Orpheus, "wonders tutenkahmun",, and lawrence fishburne is morpheus is pharoah --- direct meditated proof of this, is that the bible says pharoah-ae-ramasees in some Jamsein ways, leading to find well if egypt is still here, then these guys must be too --- somewhere who is at in this way, oh, i see, VARIANT ORPHEUS BARAK O BAMA, : --- but the obvious one is now that being older or elder and not being bill cosby - because of familiarity instead of kings - has that Morgan Freeman is ramasees as it comes, LLL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.175.167 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's... intense. Can I have some of whatever you're having? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to delete it but decided maybe I just didn't understand so I assumed good faith. I think it safe to say we wont add any of that to the article (unless he has a RS). Wayne (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

There are frequent cases of repetition in the article where things are stated that had already been stated in a manner as if they had not yet been stated even though they had. Okay, that was a little blatant and it isn't so obvious in the article, but it is there. In particular, the Hyksos expulsion is re-introduced several times. The article could be shortened and become easier to read if those instances were cleaned up. BobertWABC (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Paul's Dating

The article currently states:

In the New Testament (Acts 13:18,20), Paul says after the 40-year Wandering, the period of the judges lasted 450 years, but still does not take into account the reign of the kings Saul and David, which suggests a total period of at least 580 years. Josephus gave 592 years as the time between the Exodus and the Temple.

This seems a significant misunderstanding of his statement in Acts 13:16-20:

Acts 13:16 So Paul stood up, gestured with his hand and said, "Men of Israel, and you Gentiles who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and made the people great during their stay as foreigners in the country of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. 18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. 19 After he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave his people their land as an inheritance. 20 All this took about four hundred fifty years. After this he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. (New English Translation)

Paul's reference to 450 years seems to include the 400 years spent in Egypt before the Exodus, plus the 40 years wandering in the wilderness, plus 10 years conquering the nations of Canaan. The time of the judges is explicitly stated to be "after this" and no attempt is made to describe its duration.

Based on this, I'm going to rework that section. TexasTwister (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The King James Bible and modern translations seem to differ on the 450 years. In the King James the 450 years refer to the period of the judges. Youngs Literal Translation has "And after these things, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges -- till Samuel the prophet", which is ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjvermeer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Western text-type and the Alexandrian text-type of Acts 13:20 regarding to what period the "about 450 years" refers. In the Western textual tradition the "about 450 years" is applied to the period from the Israelite entry into Canaan to the beginning of the United Israelite Monarchy under King Saul. In the Alexandrian textual tradition the "about 450 years" is applied to the period from the Israelite entry into Canaan to the beginning of the era of the Israelite judges. The consequences as to whether the "about 450 years" applies to the period before, or is actually the duration of, the era of the Israelite judges is obvious. However, Paul (writing in Galatians 3:17) states that the confirmation of the covenant came before the Mosaic law took effect, and that all the conditions required for that confirmation had taken 430 years to accomplish. The record in Genesis 15:13-16 describe those conditions, one of which being that Abram's seed would be an alien in a foreign land for 400 years during which that seed would endure servitude and affliction. Only when Abram's seed came out of that foreign land and returned to Canaan would the conditions of the covenant, and thus the assurance of the promise, be fulfilled. The record in Exodus 12:40 states that the Israelites had sojourned in Egypt for 430 years where they endured affliction before their return to Canaan. That 430 years encompasses the 400-year period of affliction foretold to Abram, as well as an initial 30 years of peaceful life in Egypt before the 400 years of affliction began. After this initial period of 30 years the Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph" began the period of servitude and affliction that was to last 400 years until the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Thus, the 430 years mentioned by Paul in Galatians and the 430 years stated in the Exodus narrative refer the same period of time. So if there is any chronological ambiguity, it is caused by the defective record preserved by the Alexandrian textual tradition.

New Conquest of Canaan article or add section below to Exodus page?

I'm wondering...what do other editors think...should we create a dedicated article to the Conquest of Canaan? Maybe just a redirect of "Conquest of Canaan" to this page The Exodus. This could then be used as a stub in several articles dealing with the issue, including The Exodus and the history articles on the United Monarchy and Divided Monarchy. Regardless, here's what I think is a useful addition to your article or a unified article on "The Conquest of Canaan". There are references but they may not show up on the discussion page. You can see them if you click "edit this page" but all (except one) are based on this article: Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995 (one of the "standard" texts we are using at the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I. Finkelstein from Tel Aviv University is known as an out-spoken critic of the Conquest of Canaan and the very existence of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon, but his data on Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements is very interesting...see below. This section can be expanded with other sources, etc.:

I agree that a 'Conquest of Canaan' article would be worth having. Be careful of using Finkelstein however. His new chronology and his views on the conquest are marginal to the point of fringe. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe? The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for a Conquest of Canaan, hell there is not even real evidence for Israelites as the Torah describes them. It is just a biblical story, and there is no need to create a new article and inflate an issue that is hollow. A section in the article about the Tanakh would suffice. After all, this is not history but religious teaching. Cush (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)\

Yes fringe. Since you're not familiar with the relevant scholarly literature, you're unaware of this fact. The rest of what you wrote is merely POV ranting. Other editors here actually refer to the relevant scholarly literature and provide academic references when making their points. You don't do either. You just scream and rant. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me those academic references that are not in one way or another based on the biblical story itself. In the past 20 years I heave seen nothing that would have led me to assume anything out of the Tanakh to be accurate history. Show me the excavation results that confirm the bible in an unambiguous manner. Show me all the extensive Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite records about "Israel" that surely must exist if the Bible is true. Show me any artifact that connects a biblical figure with real history. Show me hard evidence that Moses, Joshua, any Judge, Saul, Solomon really existed and that they were all Yhvh worshipers. We both know you have nothing to show, so stop expanding articles that do nothing more than restate what's already in the Tanakh and present it as history. Of course I rant, because I am sick and tired of reading religious junk presented as factual history. There is no need for a Conquest of Canaan article because there is nothing to say about that Conquest except that it lacks evidence. Cush (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For academic references, you could start with Mazar, Halpern, Bunimovitz, Ben-Tor, Na'am, Lederman, Dever (all respected non-religious archaeologists). How many of these have you actually read? If in the past 20 years you have 'seen nothing that would have led me to assume anything out of the Tanakh to be accurate history', then you're clearly unfamiliar with the relevant scholarly literature. How many of the scholarly journals do you read regularly? How many of the standard works have you read? If you were familiar with them, you would be familiar with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Hittite records about Israel that exist, as well as artifacts connecting Biblical figures with real history. I don't have to show you any evidence that 'Moses, Joshua, any Judge, Saul, Solomon really existed and that they were all Yhvh worshipers'. This is not a forum. Nor does this article simply 'restate what's already in the Tanakh and present it as history. It does absolutely nothing of the kind. If you have any WP:RS to add, please do so. If on the other hand you're going to simply use this Talk page as a place for personal rants, then you need to leave. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's debated re Finkelstein is his dating of the large-scale architecture at Meggido and Hazor - he dates the walls gates etc about a hundred years later than is conventional, putting them back from the time of Solomon into the time of the Omride kings of Israel. Therefore irrelevant to discussion of the date of the Conquest. His discussion of the pre-Davidic period in "The Bible Unearthed" is quite mainstream and can be used without fear of getting into controversial interpretations. (And Taiwanboi is something in IT, not an archaeologist or a biblical scholar - don't let him bully you :).PiCo (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the only part of Finkelstein's work which is debated. His interpretation of the Iron Age ceramic assemblage is critical to his chronology, and it is this which has come under specific criticism by a large number of scholars (including Mazar, Halpern, Bunimovitz, Ben-Tor, Na'am, Lederman and Dever). This is related not only to his chronology, it's also related directly to his views on the Conquest, with which not even Dever agrees despite having similar views and agreeing largely with Finkelstein that the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites. Finkelstein's discussion of the pre-Davidic period in 'The Bible Unearthed' is not all simply 'quite mainstream', which is precisely why it has been contested by a significant number of scholars. Furthermore I am not bullying Cush, I am holding him accountable. I am in IT, but I am a regular reader of the relevant scholarly literature, I own a large number of the standard works in the field, I own several of the standard scholarly journals, and I have a JSTOR account which enables me to stay current with the latest academic debates. I am informed on this subject, whereas Cush is not. I am also far more read and better informed on this subject than you are. That's why I'm able to cite so many sources in the relevant scholarly literature when I contribute to articles such as this, whereas most people don't (Cush for example). I also cite from the entire range of scholarly literature on this subject(Maximalist to Minimalist), whereas others only cite sources sympathetic to their personal views and prejudices (you for example PiCo). --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

F's "new chronology" relates exclusively to the 10th century, not before, and his views on the emergence of Israel are mainstream - as you yourself admit (Dever agrees with him). There are, of course, people like Kitchen who disagree, but that view is definitely fringe. Anyway, the point at issue here is whether a separate article on the Conquest is justified. I agree that it is. I'm not sure Cush should write it though - he seems a bit fringe himself (he likes Rohl). PiCo (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contested that Finkelstein's New Chronology relates to the 10th century. But it does not do so exclusively. It is also related to his views on the Conquest, since his New Chronology is based on his interpretation of the archaeological data of the 11th century (the putative Judges era), which in based on his views on the Conquest. What relevant literature on this subject have you read? Please cite the scholarly journals you are currently following. Ironically, Finkelstein does not deny the existence of either David or Solomon, in complete contravention of people like Cush. I did not say that his views on the emergence of Israel are 'mainstream', and the fact that Dever agrees with them in part does not prove that they are mainstream (Dever disagrees significantly with Finkelstein's views on the emergence of Israel, and contests his interpretation of the archaeological evidence). I have not cited Kitchen at all, but Kitchen is absolutely not 'fringe'. He is as mainstream as they come. I agree that a separate article on the Conquest is justified, and that Cush should not be writing it due to his obvious agenda. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Models for the Emergence of Early Israel

In the archaeological literature there are three "classic" views of the emergence of early Israel, but all agree that there was a single, historical event that could be associated with the Israelite settlement of Canaan. This section is based on the summary on p. 363 in Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995.

The first, held by archaeologist W.F. Albright and his students and adherents, understood the conquest as a military conquest by the ancient Israelites who entered and engaged the Canaanites of the Bronze Age and destroyed their city-states and settled to some extent on the sites of the Canaanite settlements. This first view is most commonly associated with the traditional view of the Conquest of Canaan by the ancient Israelites. Criticisms of this view include the archaeological finds that suggest the settlement was a gradual process that lasted for an entire century, and that the material culture of Iron Age I sites suggest a similarity to the previous inhabitants of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan.

A second view, held by archaeologist A. Alt interpreted the Israelite settlement as a gradual peaceful occupation of Canaan, starting in the highlands, and only then engaging the Canaanite city-states. After this the nation state was consolidated and expanded towards the lowlands. Israel Finkelstein's criticism of this view is similar to that of the first, in that, he indicated there was no archaeological evidence to connect the "incoming population" to other people groups or locales in the ancient Near East.Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995, p. 363.

The third view, proposed by archaeologists G. Mendenhall and N. Gottwald, interpreted the settlement in terms of a "Marxist social revolution." The destruction of the previous Canaanite-city states was due to a clash between social classes, in which, a hierarchical established class was brought down by those seeking social equality, in essence destroyed from within. This view requires a population migration from the lowland sites to the highland sites, for which there is no direct archaeological evidence.Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995, p. 363.

The most dramatic increase in archaeological sites in Canaan during the biblical period took place during the Iron Age I and II periods, while the most notable decrease of sites occured during the Late Bronze Age. Israel Finkelstein reported that in the central hill country of Canaan the transformation was from 248 sites in the Middle Bronze Age to 29 sites in the Late Bronze Age and rose to 254 in Iron Age I and increased further to 520 in Iron Age II. Iron Age II (980 BCE - 732/701 BCE) through Iron Age IIIA (732/701 BCE - 586 BCE) is generally believed to be the period of the United Monarchy of Solomon and the Divided Kingdoms of Judah and Israel among many archaeologists working in Israel today.These are the dates of the MCC or Modified Conventional Chronology, which is the dominant view of many archaeologists working in Israel today. See Amihai Mazar, "The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its history, the current situation and a suggested resolution". Pp. 15-30 in: T. Levy and T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating – Archaeology, Text and Science. Equinox: London, 2005. In the transjordan plateau, a total of 96 sites in the Middle Bronze Age dropped to 32 in the Late Bronze Age and rose to 218 in Iron Age I and increased further to 262 in Iron Age II.Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995, p. 355-356.Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to add this chunk from the Merneptah Stele. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)