From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Ancient Near Eastern warfare task force (c. 4000 BC–c. 700 BC)

Contents 1 Discussion cleanup 1.1 Article structure 1.2 Historical questions 1.2.1 Issues relevant to a historical event 1.2.2 Dating 1.2.3 Hyksos expulsion theory 1.2.4 "Conventional" early date 1.2.5 Late date 1.3 Mythicist point of view 2 Arguments over historical theories 2.1 Hyksos theory vs. 15th century date 2.1.1 The archaeology opposing the Hyksos=Hebrews theory is old, outdated, and misinterpreted 2.1.2 Rameses, Hazor, etc 2.1.3 If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ... 2.1.4 If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ... 3 Dating of Joshua 3.1 If we assume a Joshua to have existed, that is the most probable time for him, 3.2 Joshua and the twin eclipses of 1471 and 1470 BC 3.3 Joshua and the extra day 3.4 Eclipses 3.5 The Bible doesn't say the sun stood still 4 Duration of the Exodus wanderings 4.1 Duration of the Exodus 4.2 More on the Duration of the Exodus 4.3 430 Years? 5 Other contributions, kept for reference 5.1 Cleanup report from November 2005 5.2 Unadressed dating issues 5.3 Suggestions 5.4 Response to Suggestions 5.5 References 5.6 Minimalist Theory section 5.7 Latest NPOV and Other Updates 5.8 New Section Needed? 6 Various requests for cleanup 6.1 Delegate bits to the Hyksos article? 6.2 Population of Exodus 7 Removal of the Non-Neutral POV Tag 7.1 600,000 man army 7.2 Latest Updates: Pi-Rameses and Edom 7.3 Moved from "Moses" page

[edit] Discussion cleanup

Hello everyone. I'd love to see The Exodus article improved, as I'm sure we all would. It is flagged as possibly POV and there are obviously lots of points to be reconciled. I'm going to "Be Bold" and try to restart the whole discussion page from the top, to see if we can make some progress.

For the last month the discussion has been entirely between User:ThaThinker and the anonymous 207.224.194.34 (IMHO, it would help if you logged in). I'm sure there are others who want to contribute, and I hope you will. What I intend to do for now is pull out what I see as the key discussion points, because it was getting a little involved and perhaps off the point. FrankP 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

Two related suggestions have been made for a new structure, an original suggestion by itpastorn:

1. Brief introduction
2. Biblical narrative
3. Historical views
   1. Maximalist views (the biblical narrative has a high degree of real historical accuracy)
   2. Minimalist views (the biblical narrative is purely mythical, written to give the people an identity in the 5th and 4th century BC)
4. Geographic issues ("Red Sea" vz "Sea of weeds", Where exactly is Mount Sinai, etc)
5. Historical issues (When did it happen? Different thories.)
6. Alternative explanations/special theories
7. Legacy
   1. Jewish identity
   2. Christian interpretations
   3. Lore (Folk tales and stuff like the juridic nonsense that happened a few years ago where some Egyptians sued the Jews for stealing...)

And a second, slightly revised sugestion by FrankP, with geographical and historical issues in their own section as follows:

1. Brief introduction
2. Biblical narrative
   1. the significance of the story in the OT narrative
   2. explanation that the event can be seen historically or mythically
3. Historical views (the biblical narrative has some degree of real historical accuracy)
   1. Geographic issues ("Red Sea" vz "Sea of weeds", Where exactly is Mount Sinai, etc)
   2. Historical issues (When did it happen? Different thories.)
   3. Archaeological implications of historical theories (evidence and/or problems)
   4. Alternative explanations/special theories
4. Mythical views (the biblical narrative is purely mythical, written to give the people an identity in the 5th and 4th century BC)
5. Legacy
   1. Jewish identity
   2. Christian interpretations
   3. Lore (Folk tales etc.)

[edit] Historical questions

The idea that there was a real, historical event corresponding to the story in the Bible is a point of view. Even within that point of view, there are several competing theories, each with passionate arguments for and against. Having a historical section allows for these theories to be presented separately from the totally different "mythicist" point of view (see later).

[edit] Issues relevant to a historical event

The rational for having a separate section for geographical and historical issues is that some questions make sense only if the Exodus event is considered as occurring within history, for example:

• the date of the Exodus and related points of Egyptian chronology
• the size of the Exodus, i.e. how many people were involved
• the route of the exodus
• the location of the Crossing
• the duration of the wanderings in the desert

[edit] Dating

The key theoretical arguments seem to relate to dates, e.g.

• an "Early" date
• a "Late" date
• the theory that Exodus = Hyksos expulsion

There may be more. These theories should be identified and explained to inform the reader, who should be assumed not to know what 'early' or 'late' might imply in this context.

[edit] Hyksos expulsion theory

A widely prevailing theory among professional historians and archaeologists -- dating all the way back to Manetho and Josephus -- is that the Exodus story is a recasting of the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos/Hebrews from Egypt. It wasn't the Egyptians who oppressed the Hebrews, it was the Hebrews who oppressed the Egyptians.

[edit] "Conventional" early date

The Pharaoh of the Oppression was Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426 depending on the Egyptian dating scheme employed) or one who ruled near that time (e.g. Amenhotep II, who ruled immediately after him is also popular)

[edit] Late date

Under Pharaoh Ramesses II (1290-1223 or 1272-1213).

[edit] Mythicist point of view

The opposing point of view is that the Exodus is entirely fictional, or based so loosely on dimly-remembered legend that asking precise historical questions of the narrative is futile.

This position is well-supported academically now, and applies to Biblical "history" at least as far as Solomon and David. From the point of view of someone (like myself) who regards Solomon's kingdom itself as a fairy story it is senseless to enquire what exact date is connected with Joshua or what route the Exodus took. FrankP 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs tremendously more emphasis. The mythicist vs historicist argument should at least be the central organizing principle of the article, and the fact this position is "well-supported academically" should not be minimized. I don't know if it is accurate to say that any other theory is academically supported at all, at least in scientific sense. Same with the searches for the "real" Garden and Noah's Ark. Treating the Exodus as a theological construct seems much more appropriate that devoting so much time to wide variety of "historical theories" and debates about the dating of event that no HARD evidence indicates has any historicity. umbersage.

I agree that the article as it stands is blatantly POV in treating the exodus as a real historical event. Nowhere in the current version of the article does the word "myth" appear.GideonF 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is because the majority of scholars don't believe in the mythicist point of view. Even the most liberal of scholars will state that some of the Israelites probably came out of egypt. As stated in many places, the belief that the exodus is just pure myth is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Even finkestein won't go quite that far. This is a minority view screaming to become majority, but it isn't central to anything, it's a peripheral issue to almost all scholars. Thanatosimii 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments over historical theories

[edit] Hyksos theory vs. 15th century date

Pharaoh Amosis I (in Greek, Ahmose) freed the Egyptians from slavery to the Hyksos in about 1550 BC, driving the Hyksos out of Egypt and into southern Palestine. The derivation of the name Moses from Amosis is obvious. The pottery trail from the kilns of Avaris (the Hyksos capitol in Egypt) to the hills of Israel confirms the ethnic identity of the Hyksos with the Hebrews. NASA's dating of Joshua's twin eclipses to 1470 BC confirms the timing. Monuments, scarabs, and other objects confirm that at least two of the Hyksos rulers were named Jacob. The Hebrew storytellers simply recast themselves from the villians to the heros in the story of the Exodus.

There are many other instances where the Hebrew storytellers recast history. For example, the story of Moses and the bullrushes is a recasting of the story of Sargon (about 2300 BC) and the bullrushes: "My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship."

Ref.

Sargon and the bullrushes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

207.224.194.34 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You charge my statement as being a falsity. If you cite more actual prominent scholars other than Bimson, I might consider agreement with you. Even better, of course, would be a field archaeologist or two.

I agree that Manetho and evidently Josephus, as well as other classical writers associate the Exodus with the Hyksos. This fact should ordinarily be given considerable weight, but not over and against the findings of the archaeologists. I am not surprised (I had heard of a proposed destination of their exodus) to find a pottery trail from Avaris to hills of Israel, which even may have some overlap with the proto-Israelite culture. The Hyksos were Amorites, just as is Abraham's lineage in Genesis. This particular fact does nothing to localize the Exodus in time. Likewise, you try to claim that Ahmose's name indicates Moses to have lived about that time, but there is an even better match from a court case early in the reign of Rameses II, involving a person actually named Mosee, involving a lawsuit to attempt to reclaim his mothers land. (An exact reference escapes me, but I have seen it. Anybody know this one? I'll find it again at the library if necessary.) In any event, -mose elements in Egyptian names were by no means restricted to the time of Ahmose, but appears in the names of other pharaohs, and thus could have been given as a name any time later.

I always wondered what that supposed NASA claim was based on. It appears this urban legend that NASA had calculated Gibeon's sun standing still has Gibeon synchronized with an eclipse. As above, an eclipse lasting an hour is not the sun standing still for a day. One results in much more than the usual amount of daylight, the other not enough. I just noticed this site on urban legends, which judges this one to be false:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm

You recount one of my own arguments against the expulsion of the Hyksos being the Exodus: "It wasn't the Egyptians who oppressed the Hebrews, it was the Hebrews who oppressed the Egyptians." I'll agree that the Bible sometimes recasts things in a light favorable to themselves, such as the decree to rebuild the Temple by Cyrus acknowledging their god rather than Cyrus' one, and admitted, many biblical tales bear a striking resemblence to earlier, Babylonian and Sumerian ones, but it is not safe to make such an assumption without further evidence. In this case, it seems a better gloss on them really being expelled kings, would have been that some really evil person slandered them, bringing about the end of their rule, or something. Making up a tale of slavery for the righteous seems an unlikely thing to do when spinning tales in support of the might of one's god. The theme of them being slaves, and not kings, is present in the oldest strata of the tales, and so we are awaiting evidence as to this point as opposed to mere supposition. Better, it seems, to try to synchronize the Expulsion of the Hyksos with the arising of a "pharaoh who knew not Joseph", rather than the Exodus, but that runs afoul of pi-Rameses and pi-Thom being uninhabited from the Hyksos to the time of Rameses II. If we can't rely on the fact that the Hebrews were treated as slaves before the Exodus, then we might as well reject the whole Genesis account as uninformative. This does not seem to be the case with the expulsion of the Hyksos, who were trapped in their capitol city until they were allowed to leave for the hills of Israel peacefully. They were a kingly class, not a disenfranchised enslaved class.

Yes, there were Hyksos rulers named Jacob, but again, Jacob himself is not described as a ruler, and mere existence of the name does not prevent it to have been used centuries later, as with the appearance of a city named Jacob-el centuries later as a city conquered by Thutmost III.

The excavators of Lachish were very clear. They said that there had been two transition layers that they might be tempted to associate with Joshua, but further excavation had elucidated that the layer between them was Egypto-Canaanite, and thus the later one, ca. 1150 BCE, should be associated with the arrival of proto-Israelite material culture. Bimson makes his case based on when certain cities were occupied and when they were not, but does not account for the nature of the material culture at these sites, nor the numerous Ramesside finds found in the territories of ancient Israel - especially in the south and so-called "Joshua" cities.

If you find more supporters for Bimson than I do (just do a survey of the last year or two of BAR, for example), I'll be glad to reflect that something else is more popular, but until better evidence is presented, I'm still inclined to think that the archaeologists of ancient Israel know what they are talking about. As to ones that support a late date for the "Joshua" cities to be under proto-Israelite control, these include, but by no means should be limited to: the Mazars, Finklestein, Malamat, de Moor, ben-Tor, and the late Mazar, Aharoni, Yadin and Albright. Bietak may support this idea, as Bimson tried to lower the date for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and Bietak rejected the idea (BAR 14:04, Jul/Aug 1988). I can triple that list if you like. Against that list, there is Bimson and perhaps Kitchen, but I think neither of them have ever done any field archaeology. This shouldn't discount their evidence, of course, but does seem relevant. This isn't by any means meant to be an exhaustive list on either side, of course, but rather representative of some of the most prominent archaeologists.

--ThaThinker 23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The archaeology opposing the Hyksos=Hebrews theory is old, outdated, and misinterpreted

--ThaThinker says: 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, ...

Joshua's conquests did NOT take place in 1250-1150, and modern archaeology flatly contradicts those dates for Joshua. Carbon dating, confirmed by textual, pottery, eclipse, and other evidence, places Joshua firmly in the late 1400's BC. For example, as I referenced earlier, the Amarna letters, which were written 1400-1330 BC, say that invaders had earlier destroyed exactly the city that Joshua destroyed when he invaded.

All of the "evidence" you've been citing seems to be pre-1992 -- before carbon dating corrected the earlier erroneous assumptions. The carbon dating showed that much of the destruction attributed to Joshua was in fact due to either earlier or later compaigns. I don't know of a single modern archaeologist who places Joshua anywhere other than the late 1400's BC.

Can you cite a single archaeologist since 2000 who places Joshua anywhere other than the late 1400's BC?

207.224.194.34 14:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the dates for Rameses II have changed by centuries, his cartouches and finds in these cities demonstrate his importance there. I am aware of no mainstream movement in archaeology since 2000 that has changed either Israelite or Egyptian chronology that much. When you say Joshua's conquests did not take place 1250-1150, do you admit that these "Joshua" cities have transitions from Canaanite to proto-Israelite in that time frame? Reports on Hazor and Megiddo I've read recently still use these time frames, or else revise them up to 75 years later. The radiocarbon tests are not showing results requiring revision by centuries, as you seem to suggest, and you are STILL not acknowledging the Ramesside control of much of Canaan during the supposed Judges era. I assert that even if the dates for Hazor, Megiddo and Lachish are lowered by 75 years, this is STILL their transition from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture. This is STILL the arrival of the conquest, or the material transitions, or the peasant revolt, or what have you, at these sites, and thus most probably are the source of the Joshua tales (although other sites such as Kadesh-Barnea seem to be wrongly attributed to his actions). Do you translocate Rameses II hundreds of years earlier, or do you admit the widespread signs of Egyptian control in Canaan under Rameses II and his successors that Aharoni finds, which would then be in the middle of the Judges era? Just because you find a conquest in the Amarna era that is also a conquest in Joshua, doesn't prevent the same city to have been conquered twice. On the other hand, there is ample evidence of Egypto-Canaanite culture quite late in the Judahite territories and even Beth-Shean. Amarna rulers have Canaanite names, but Semitic writing only appears in the archaeological record in such locations much later.

If you want to get Herzog involved in this page, how about getting somebody representing other mainstream views like those of ben-Tor and the Mazars, for balance?

--ThaThinker 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could add a section on Herzog’s and Redford’s ideas, I could attempt to rebut them in a paragraph following that.

Sounds good. It may take me about a week since I'm busy with other stuff right now. When I visit Tel Aviv University this June I'll see if can get Herzog, et al, to check the page out.

207.224.194.34 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rameses, Hazor, etc

-- ThaThinker says: I am aware of no mainstream movement in archaeology since 2000 that has changed either Israelite or Egyptian chronology that much.

So you agree with putting Joshua ca. 1470 BC?

-- ThaThinker says: When you say Joshua's conquests did not take place 1250-1150, do you admit that these "Joshua" cities have transitions from Canaanite to proto-Israelite in that time frame? ...

I have no problem at all with any archaeology of any period. No modern archaeologist that I know of identifies any site from that time period with the Biblical Joshua.

-- ThaThinker says: If you want to get Herzog involved in this page, how about getting somebody representing other mainstream views like those of ben-Tor and the Mazars, for balance?

Sure, if I run into them. I didn't mean to exclude them; I simply wasn't planning on visiting Hebrew University or Hazor.

I am not sure what you would expect the Mazars to contribute, since I believe Amihai is in semi-retirement and Eilat works mainly around the Temple Mount.

I believe Ben-Tor, on the other hand, would simply confirm the mainstream view placing Joshua ca. 1470 BC. Ben-Tor's excellent work at Hazor confirms that it was probably destroyed by Israelites, but Ben-Tor has repudiated the late Yigael Yadin's identification of those Israelites with Joshua.

207.224.194.34 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ben-Tor says,

"I never claimed that 'Joshua was the conqueror of the city'. What I do claim is that Hazor was violently destroyed by fire, most probably sometime during the 13th century B.C. In that century, the name 'Israel' as of a people in the region is mentioned in the stele of Merneptah. In the book of Joshua (whenever the text was written or edited) the Israelites are mentioned as having destroyed Hazor by fire. Why then is it so difficult to accept the view that the (Proto-?) Israelites, perhaps in cooperation with others, may have had something to do with it?"

He says this in 2002. It sounds like he's describing the closest thing to Joshua as archaeology can give us. I'd like a reference or some other confirmation that he has excluded this possibility. Many archaeologists I'm sure are reluctant to venture an opinion on the controvercial subject, and I think that quote is about as clear as many get. de Moor is, I'm sure, an archaeologist, although not a field archaelogist to my knowledge, whom I feel pretty sure does still support this possibility, although a while back he underwent heart surgery. All the evidence for a Hyksos Exodus sounds terribly thin, to me. Since when are Egypto-Canaanites Israelites? As far as I am aware, none of this has done anything to place the transitions at Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, and the probable Debir, Ai and Bethel any earlier than 1250 when they become Semetic; and there are many other such sites showing such a transition in these layers. If you have no problem accepting such a transitions at these sites, then the conclusion is inescapable that these are the times in which culturally Semetic peoples took over important sites such as Hazor, which was head of the Canaanite confederation. There are many reasons to think that parts of the Judges are of Iron Age vintage. Josh. 17:16 says that the Canaanites had iron chariots, but the Iron Age didn't come to Palestine until about 1190 BCE. Israel isn't even mentioned archaeologically until the reign of Mereneptah. These ideas are an uncomfortable fit on a lot of levels. It sounds like you support a 200+ year long conquest if you admit proto-Israelites didn't come to the "Joshua" cities any earlier than 1250 BCE. If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos, why are a number of Israelite cities in Egyptian hands in the Amarna era and in later times? If you try hard enough, you can force parallels to the Exodus at many different times. All we have to go on is the "anything archaeological" you claim to have no trouble admitting, and we often must choose among imperfect fits to find the closest.

We can keep such a dialog up indefinately, but I'll allow you the last word, in all probability, until you get your section added. I'll be content to simply respond with my objections, such as they may be - and I should have a few choice additional arguments to supply once my book is published.

--ThaThinker 06:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ...

No modern archaeologist I know of claims that the entire "conquest" happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. No modern archaeologist I know of takes anything in the Bible as literal truth unless it's proven by other evidence. Like the story of the Exodus itself, most modern archaeologists (such as Ben-Tor) believe that the story of the "conquest" is a conflation, compression, and recasting of events (e.g. that's why references to iron age events are included side-by-side with references to much earlier events).

Ben-Tor doesn't claim Joshua destroyed Hazor; he claims that the story of the destruction of Hazor by the proto-Israelites is a piece of evidence that the proto-Israelites did indeed destroy Hazor -- even if the story is mis-attributed to Joshua. I agree with him. And Yadin himself noted the obvious, that the Biblical Joshua might have been responsible for one of the earlier destruction layers at Hazor: "The lower city flourished throughout the Late Bronze Age, i.e., 15th to 13th centuries, B.C., being alternately destroyed and rebuilt."

If you believe the Biblical Joshua was responsible for the destruction of Hazor that happened ca. 1250 BC, as opposed to one of the earlier destructions, do you also believe the Biblical Joshua destroyed the walls of Jericho ca. 1250 BC?

207.224.194.34 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ...

No modern archaeologist I know of claims that the entire "conquest" happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. No modern archaeologist I know of takes anything in the Bible as literal truth unless it's proven by other evidence. Like the story of the Exodus itself, most modern archaeologists (such as Ben-Tor) believe that the story of the "conquest" is a conflation, compression, and recasting of events (e.g. that's why references to iron age events are included side-by-side with references to much earlier events).

Ben-Tor doesn't claim Joshua destroyed Hazor; he claims that the story of the destruction of Hazor by the proto-Israelites is a piece of evidence that the proto-Israelites did indeed destroy Hazor -- even if the story is mis-attributed to Joshua. I agree with him. And Yadin himself noted the obvious, that the Biblical Joshua might have been responsible for one of the earlier destruction layers at Hazor: "The lower city flourished throughout the Late Bronze Age, i.e., 15th to 13th centuries, B.C., being alternately destroyed and rebuilt."

If you believe the Biblical Joshua was responsible for the destruction of Hazor that happened ca. 1250 BC, as opposed to one of the earlier destructions, do you also believe the Biblical Joshua destroyed the walls of Jericho ca. 1250 BC?

207.224.194.34 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you ask me direct questions ... I don't see where Ben-Tor is saying Hazor's destruction was mis-attributed - he seems to be saying archaeology hasn't been able to prove anything about an actual Joshua one way or another, as is my understanding. Yadin might have noted the possibility of associating Joshua with an earlier destruction, but I am not aware he ever represented it as probable. I tend to avoid Jericho for purposes of determining any synchronized conquest of Joshua cities, as I understand the site is greatly disturbed and difficult. I do tend to side with the view that it too was nearly unoccupied from the time of the Hyksos to at least 1150, at just the time when these other proto-Israelite transitions occur. Yes, there were earlier wall destructions there, and any habitation at 1150 was a few hovels, but again, a Hyksos or an Iron Age I conquest is a possibility. One prediction: Hazor's burning should be placed 1150 or later, and is synchronized with these transitions at sites like Megiddo and Lachish to say 15 years. My understanding is that a Canaanite iron gate was found at Hazor in recent years, dated to 1155 BCE. If these findings change, their transitions are whenever Egypto-Canaanite meets proto-Israelite, in my understanding.

Notice that unlike with a Hyksos Exodus, de Moor can point to a nice little series of conquests at "Joshua" cities, that can plausibly be dated to a tidy 40 years after the "cluster of Exodus-like events" Malamat finds in the reign of Sethnakht. The Hyksos Exodus does not have Semitics moving into Hazor, Megiddo, Lachish and other important sites 40 years later.

--ThaThinker 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Several clusters of 100's of thousands of slaves fled Egypt during the reign of Sethnakht? Acquired all the weapons, supplies, and training to become better warriors than the long established residents? And then conquered them? In 40 years? Interesting! :)

In reading about the damage at Hazor, it sounds to me like an ancient 9/11 (i.e. a small group of people causing a disproportionately large amount of damage). With all of the wood and oil in the buildings, I think one person with a lamp (and a chisel to hack at a few statues) could have started the fire and caused all the damage.

207.224.194.34 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that explains it! Rather than raise a large army and train them, the Hebrew just burn down the citys! Nobody knew how to put out a fire back then, and with the city burned, they'd have no choice but to surrender it to a bunch of un-armed ex-slave. And this happened over and over! I wonder why the Roman Army didn't use this trick, would have save so much money! And, ancient versions off 9/11 happened all time, it wasn't dependent on modern weapon! And 9/11 resulted in NYC being takend over by invaders! Wow, you're smart ;-) Steve kap 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of Joshua

A historical date for Joshua and the Conquest is of course of relevance in setting any date for the Exodus. Hence much of the Talk Page discussion has centred on competing theories for Joshua's historical period. I've collected these contributions here. FrankP 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If we assume a Joshua to have existed, that is the most probable time for him,

Joshua was alive in 1471 BC.

Joshua 10:12 "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon" describes a rare pair of dual total solar/lunar eclipses. Since total solar eclipses occur only about once every 370 years at any given spot on earth, and since total lunar eclipses occur only a few times every decade, Joshua accurately described the unique celestial confluence of a total lunar eclipse on Dec 22, 1471 BC, followed about two weeks later by a total solar eclipse on Jan 6, 1470 BC. Joshua even accurately described the positions of the sun and the moon at the times of the eclipses. "Standing still" may have been a reference to the ancient belief that the sun and the moon were propelled by their fires -- hence an eclipse meant loss of propulsion. Joshua said the solar eclipse lasted a whole day, which is how long it may have seemed to someone watching the sun during the approximately four hours from the beginning of an eclipse to the end (even though the period of totality is at most slightly over 7 minutes).

There is some confirmation in the Amarna letters (roughly 1400 BC to 1330 BC), which mention an earlier battle at Aijalon (EA 273), and which mention the name Jasuia (EA 256) (which is too late to be the Biblical Joshua, but which shows that the name was at least current).

There's even a limerick about the event.

Ajalon, Aijalon by Carol June Hooker http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?Word=Ajalon

In the twilight, he started to pray

For more daytime to finish a fray:

"Sun o'er Gibeon, STALL!

Moon o'er Ajalon, CRAWL!"

Captain Joshua's prayer saved the day.

Ajalon (AH yah lon)'s lunar eclipse of December 22, 1471 B.C.E. and Gibeon's solar eclipse of January 6, 1470 B.C.E. seem to correspond with this account of Joshua's long battle.

Refs:

Ajalon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon

Amarna Letters http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html

207.224.194.34 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

- The biblical account says that the sun stood still, not that it was an eclipse. Two very different things. A solar eclipse lasts for perhaps under an hour, and Gibeon's battle for at least the better part of a day.

- The Amarna evidence does know of a name Joshua, but virtually all scholars, upon reading the account, conclude that this in all probability is not the biblical Joshua, you for your own chronological concerns, but mainly because it doesn't sound like him. Mere mention of the name in the Amarna records does not preclude his existence later or earlier.

- You have failed to address the evidence actual field archaeologists find for a late Conquest at sites like Hazor, Megiddo, Lachish, and Debir, Ai, and Beth-El if they have been located correctly. Tel Rehov is also instructive in this regard. You also might care to explain why Rameses II cartouches are found all over the territories of the soon to be Israel, and why Beth-El has monuments to the control of Rameses II. Even Jerusalem contained a rather late Egyptian temple.

--ThaThinker 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua and the twin eclipses of 1471 and 1470 BC

-- ThaThinker says: The biblical account says that the sun stood still, not that it was an eclipse. Two very different things.

The sun is always standing still (it is the earth that rotates). Thus Joshua's phrase must be idiomatic for some other kind of celestial event. Did he mean: 1) the earth stopped rotating (which would have destroyed all life as we know it), or did he mean 2) there was an eclipse (which is what writers as late as the middle ages meant when they said the sun (or moon) stopped))? Since life as we know it still exists, Joshua was obviously referring to an eclipse.

"As for the wording that the sun and the moon "stopped" in the sky, there was a widespread explanation, even during the Middle Ages, for example in A.D. 1595. According to it, the light issued by celestial bodies served them as a propulsion for their apparent movements in the sky, just like for comets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon

-- ThaThinker says: A solar eclipse lasts for perhaps under an hour.

False. For someone in the path of totality (as Joshua was), an eclipse lasts at least several hours from beginning to end. Here is a random record from NASA of an eclipse on 2/26/98 that lasted from 15:54 to 18:56 at Alfaro, Ecuador. http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/980226/tables/table_16.html

-- ThaThinker says: I always wondered what that NASA claim was based on.

Physics. Here is a link to NASA's eclipse calculation website, which lists all the solar and lunar eclipses in the world for 7,000 years: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

-- ThaThinker says: It appears this urban legend that NASA had calculated Gibeon's sun standing still has Gibeon synchronized with an eclipse. As above, an eclipse lasting an hour is not the sun standing still for a day. One results in too much daylight, the other not enough. I just noticed this site on urban legends, which judges this one to be false: http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm

Your own link says that a person named Harold Hill lied when he said that NASA had calculated that 24 hours were missing. That has nothing to do with NASA's scientific dating of Joshua's twin eclipses (and hence Joshua himself) to 1470 BC.

-- ThaThinker says: The Amarna evidence does know of a name Joshua, but virtually all scholars, upon reading the account, conclude that this in all probability is not the biblical Joshua ...

Correct. The Amarna letters merely show that the name Joshua is not an anachronism for the time. And the Amarna letters (EA 273) confirm that Aijalon (where Joshua saw the moon "stop") was destroyed by invaders.

"In the Tell el-Amarna letters Adoni-zedek speaks of the destruction of the "city of Ajalon" by the invaders ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon

-- ThaThinker says: If you cite more actual prominent scholars other than Bimson, I might consider agreement with you. Even better, of course, would be a field archaeologist or two.

I'd be glad to. The matter was settled over a decade ago by radiocarbon dating of the fire damage at several Joshua sites (before NASA even calculated the eclipse information) -- leading to a date of the 1400's BC for Joshua. That eliminated all other reasonable theories for the Exodus story except for identifying it with the explusion of the Hyksos ca. 1550 BC.

I don't have the time or inclination to search old journals for references for you, but fortunately the Archaeology Institute of America at Boston Univeristy and the Learning Channel made an excellent movie called "Archaeology: Mysteries of the Holy Land" that includes interviews with several of the field archaeologists responsible for dating Joshua to the 1400's BC. My local university has copies, as does my local public library, so you should be able to find it quite easily. If not, you can probably get a used copy from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6304879822/qid=1144246137/sr=8-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-1413646-3166328?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=404272

The overwhelming mass of data dating Joshua to 1470 BC, thus confirming the identification of the Exodus story with the expulsion of the Hyksos, has had a huge historical, religious, and political impact.

Many religious groups have revised their Biblical chronologies to be more historically accurate. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses: "1473 BCE ... Israel enters Canaan under Joshua". http://betterdaysarecoming.com/chron/chronology.html

David Wolpe, a prominent Conservative Rabbi, said "The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all." http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Donald Redford, Toronto University, won the 1993 Best Scholarly Book in Archaeology Award for his work confirming Manetho's and Josephus' identification of the Exodus story with the expulsion of the Hyksos: "Likewise, Donald P. Redford, of Toronto University, presents striking evidence that the Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt was inverted to construct the exodus of the Hebrew slaves story in the Torah and Old Testament. His book, which argued this theory, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" was Winner of the 1993 Best Scholarly Book in Archaeology Award of the Biblical Archaeological Society." http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm

207.224.194.34 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua and the extra day

-- ThaThinker says: A solar eclipse lasts for perhaps under an hour, and Gibeon's battle for at least the better part of a day.

What is a day? Genesis defines it as "an evening and a morning".

At sunrise on January 6, 1470 BC, there was a morning. At about noon, as the eclipse approached totality -- i.e. when the sun stopped (shining) over Gibeon -- there was an evening.

Later, as the eclipse exited totality, there was another morning. And at sundown there was another evening.

The eclipse added an extra "evening and morning" to Jan 6, 1470 BC.

207.224.194.34 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think even the primitive ancients knew the difference between a period of darkness that occurred in the middle of a day and a sun that stood still in the middle of the sky for about a day. It was clearly not a natural phenomenon the writers had in mind here, IMHO. The whole story gives us the impression of an extra 24 hours of daylight, not a few extra hours of sunlight after an eclipse. Even if we suppose this to be the historical root of the tale, you haven't ruled out eclipses in the Late Exodus era. I don't take the passage as stemming from an actual historical sun standing still in the sky for 24 hours, but if the earth HAD stopped rotating for a day, and God somehow magically kept tidal and other forces at bay, we still have no way of knowing an exact position of the earth from beforehand so as to be able to calculate the lost day and hour, etc. I just don't see where any of this line of argument proves anything, without a whole lot of other assumptions as yet to be established being taken into account first. --ThaThinker 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipses

-- ThaThinker says: In any event it would not refer to a natural event so ordinary as a normal eclipse.

Yes, the writers of Jasher/Joshua would refer to an eclipse. Eclipses are not ordinary, normal events. Not in Biblical times, and not even today.

Amos threatened the Israelites with an eclipse. Amos confirmed Joshua's interpretation of an eclipse counting as an extra evening and morning by saying that an eclipse is the same as the sun going down. "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day". Amos 8:9.

Plutarch came to much the same conclusion when he witnessed an eclipse in 71 AD. "Now, grant me that nothing that happens to the sun is so like its setting as a solar eclipse." http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/stephenson.html

And sad to say, even today eclipses are not considered to be normal, ordinary events. A partial eclipse over Nigeria in 1989 led to 28 people being killed. "A partial eclipse in 1989 led to massive demonstrations and violence in the country's predominantly Muslim north, where churches and hotels were set ablaze by fanatics to 'atone for the sins of infidels.' A total of 28 persons were killed in the mayhem during the religious 'cleansing' of the region." http://news.monstersandcritics.com/africa/article_1150237.php/Nigerian_government_prepares_people_for_solar_eclipse

-- ThaThinker says: ... that does nothing to demonstrate what century this eclipse should be sought in. This passage cannot reasonably be employed as evidence for proving a Hyksos Expulsion = Exodus ...

Yes, the eclipses can be used for dating purpose -- many people forget that Joshua reported an eclipse of the moon in addition to an eclipse of the sun. That is matched by the pair of lunar/solar eclipses on Dec 22, 1471 BC and Jan 6, 1470 BC. I did a quick check of NASA's lunar/solar eclipse database and could find no other matching pair of eclipses from 2000 BC to 1000 BC that were visible from the region. Perhaps I missed something; if you'd like to check for yourself, here is the link again to NASA's eclipse database (follow the links to "Six Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +4000" and "Five Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000". NOTE: NASA uses negative years instead of BCE or BC, so NASA's year -1469 is 1470 BC). http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

I agree that the eclipses are not proof-positive on their own, but I think most reasonable people would agree that they are strongly suggestive. In conjunction with all the other evidence, they help explain why virtually all modern archaeologists place Joshua ca. 1470 BC, hence eliminating all other reasonable theories except Exodus = Hyksos Expulsion.

207.224.194.34 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible doesn't say the sun stood still

-- ThaThinker says: ... a sun that stood still in the middle of the sky ...

In Hebrew, the Bible doesn't say the sun stood still. The Hebrew word it uses -- pronounced "damam" -- literally means "was silent" or "ceased producing output". I.e. it was an eclipse. The same word "damam" is used in Leviticus 10:3 in the phrase translated as "Aaron remained silent". "Damam" has the same roots as the English words "dumb" and "dim". --- "Joshua commanded the sun to "damam" to be dumb also from which we get the word dim." http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html

I think the mis-translation as "stood still" is due to the fact that in the days of the King James translation some people still assumed that the sun was propelled by its light -- so that if the sun "ceased producing output" it would "stand still." Today we know that is obviously false, but the mistranslation has persisted because of tradition.

207.224.194.34 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try your translation. Israel was fighting the Canaanites, and they were winning, so Joshua prayed to God, and God made the sun eclipse, and the sun eclipsed and did not go down for about a whole day (adapted from Josh. 10:13). This does not seem to be what the writer of the verse meant, as we probably have an example of Hebrew parallelism here, where one phrase restates the meaning of the other in different words. Other translations of the word include "dwell" and "remain". In any event it would not refer to a natural event so ordinary as a normal eclipse. It is disingenuous to leave out this point. It might be argued that the incident in the original Book of Jasher was referring to an eclipse, and indeed, this is possible, but that does nothing to demonstrate what century this eclipse should be sought in. This passage cannot reasonably be employed as evidence for proving a Hyksos Expulsion = Exodus, in and of itself, although you seem to think it can. --ThaThinker 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of the Exodus wanderings

[edit] Duration of the Exodus

As far as I can see, the Exodus lasts 40 years, or at least thats the best figure given in the Bible, in Deuteronomy. I'm not sure where the figure of 80 came from that was in the article - anyway please give a reference for the figure if you change it. Codec 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on the Duration of the Exodus

ThaThinker said: Ex. 16:35 says that Israel had wandered for forty years already. In Nu. 14:26-33, Israel is sentenced to a second forty years of wandering for doubting the success of a southern invasion of Canaan. I guess it could help the layman to include this.

I don't think you can read Exod 16:35 and Num 14:34 as referring to two sequential periods. I have never seen a commentator taking this position. (And no, that was not "common knowledge.")

Rather, Exod 16:35 and Num 14:34 refer to the same period of time. The point of Exod 16:31-35 was to describe the "manah" (its aspect and its eventual duration), but only later in Num 14:34 the rationale for the 40 years would be given. Note that Exod 17:1 resumes the narrative at the beginning of the journey, not at the end of the 40-year period mentioned in Exod 16:35.

Similarly other passages refer to the same period of 40 years (Num 32:13; Deut 2:14; Deut 8:2; Deut 29:5; Josh 5:6, etc.) and also should not be added.

Note that at the beginning of the Exodus, "Moses was 80 years old" (Exod 7:7), and "Moses was 120 years old when he died" (Deut 34:7).

The Scriptures are, therefore, consistent in that the Exodus lasted 40, not 80 years.HYC 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have an unrelated suggestion for this discussion page: What about breaking down your long response in smaller subsections? It may make the discussion more manageable. HYC 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I give up. HYC has convinced me that it was 40 years of Wandering, not 80, since Ex. 16:35 is a forward, not backward-looking statement. I have corrected the entries to no longer support 80 years. The idea was purely an artifact of my misreading this passage. I have corrected the format of my footnotes, albeit to Chicago style, as is popular among archaeologists, but with better format and ISBN numbers. The remaining first half of the list did not have any of my references.

[edit] 430 Years?

FourthAvenue comments:

"The chronology of the decendents of Levi down to Moses is only four generations.They will in no way come to 430 years in Egypt. (Exodus 6:14-20)."

This is not correct. Even school children know that the period begins with Avraham. See Rashi or a good Haggadah.

ThaThinker comments:

Right you are, but the MT version of Ex. 12:40 requires that that period begin with Jacob's coming to Egypt:

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."

The LXX has the reading "who dwelt in Egypt and in Canaan", but most of the audience reading this will be using some derivative of the MT such as the King James Version. Ecumenical scholars cite longer generation lists, and interpret the word begat in the shorter lists as skipping generations. Josephus, for his part, is explicit in supporting an LXX type Sojourn in Egypt. I intend to update the article on Abraham to cover Schrader's hypothesis, relating it to rabbinic traditions which clearly associate Abram with Babylon, not Sumer, and make these observations in conjunction with evidence for a late Exodus and the now mainstream late date for Hammurabi. If anyone else is inclined to cover this scenario for me, please feel free. I intend to publish a book soon that proposes to resolve virtually all these difficulties in dramatic fashion, but I am still getting the rights for the artwork worked out. I hope to have it published in perhaps a week. This is not to say that I accept characters before Abram as historic a priori, nor that his existence can be proven in a scientific sense. It does seem plain enough however, the milieu in which the tales are set; and other nations do retain what appear to be completely independent traditions of Abraham.

Essentially, the two of you are in agreement that it was a Short Sojourn, but disagree as to whether Ex. 12:40 is conscious of it. That, of course, depends on which version you are reading.

--ThaThinker 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a paradox here. From Jacob's arrival in Egypt, YES, there is only four generations to The Exodus. How do we count 430 years then? The 430 years is not just those four generations. It is the collective descendants of fourteen generations between Eber and Salmon. Traditionally, the Hebrew nation consists of all descendants of Eber, not Jacob (ie Israel), eight generations after Eber. Note that prominent Exodus figures like Caleb are not Israelites, but Kenezzites and other Hebrew (descendants of Eber) clans. The suggestion is that Hebrews migrated to Egypt well before Jacob (Israel). One has to differentiate between the definition of the Hebrew people from the Israelite people to unravel this. It is hard because the two terms are practically synonymous. In this case, they are not. Jacob's clan may have been given the fat of the land. The other clans were already elsewhere thereabouts; and more were to arrive during the famine. Collectively, they are the Hebrews. The trouble is Exodus 12:40 which calls them sons of Israel. Somehow, all the Hebrews are considered Israelites now, encompassed within the twelve tribes. This accounting also resolves the question of how there might have been 600,000+ involved in the Exodus, just four generations after Jacob shows up with just 70+. The 70+ merely represented Jacob's clan. The 600,000+ represents much more than that one single clan. Furthermore, thanks to the inbreeding that produced Moses, the text insists that the textual genealogy of the exile is not abbreviated. Ep9206 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other contributions, kept for reference

[edit] Cleanup report from November 2005

I'm the writer who initially wrote the stuff about dating the Exodus. Before that, it mostly had stuff on the volcanoes, and not much more. POV? I wasn't trying to address all the archaeological issues involved, so I didn't get to discussing the historicity of the Oppression ("captivity" calls to mind the later Babylonian and Assyrian captivities). The text that was added later on the size of the Exodus was great, and I added a paragraph to it to tie it into the larger article. I added stuff under Geography about the location of the Crossing and the dating and location of Rameses and Pithom. Also, the transition layer at Hazor I am speaking of at Hazor is from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite/Philistine, as I originally wrote, not Phonecian, as someone changed it to in one of the updates. I updated the references to Theophile Meek, and started an entry on him as well. I mistakenly called him Theophilus previously. The precise dates of some of the cities could used to be checked, and do change with new archaeological developments. One could imagine a Bimson-like table of various Exodus dates, and whether archaeology at the important sites supports such an Exodus date, with pages upon pages supporting the various data points archaeologically.

I have written an as yet unpublished book on the subject. To really address the issue, a "Macropedia" like article could be used. I could easily bring it to four times its current size, but I opted for the current "executive summary of generations of archaeology" type approach. I think what might be most useful, might to have a "Macropedia"-like article, and then leave this one as the "Micropedia" version. Some of the things I otherwise might contribute must await the publication of my book. I'm interested in corresponding with other buffs of this subject. User:ThaThinker 13 November 2005

[edit] Unadressed dating issues

The early date of the exodus is almost entierly overlooked, making this page totally unbalanced. The page insists on two very questionable points: One, that the late bronze city of Hazor was razed by Joshua. After the late bronze city of Hazor was razed, however, it was not significantly inhabited until the time period of Solomon, about the 10th century BC. Since the judges Deborah and Baruch attacked Hazor, the late bronze destruction has to postdate some of the Judges, and thus cannot have been done by Joshua. Thus, the destruction of Hazor becomes proof for the early date. Second, there is a general statement that the archaeology of Caanan supports a late date. This statement is not explained whatsoever, however probably is a reference to the mass destruction of masses of cities in Caanan during the alleged time of the conquest. Now, the problem with this is that the book of Joshua only mentions three cities razed by the Israelites: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. The book of Judges, however, fits mass destruction much better.

The egyptian chronologies are also questionable, there's a comment that Thutmoses III was preceeded by Amenhotep II, however this is backwards. The question of when these pharaohs reigned is also questionable. The 18th dynasty is dated via a heliacal rise of Sirius, an astronomical occurance that can be used to date with a margin of error of four years. Unfortunatly, there is scholarly question over where the rise was observed from, which changes the date by several decades. This has lead to a "High Chronology" and "Low Chronology." In a High chronology, the early date of 1446 is in the reign of Amenhotep II, and in the Low chronology, it is the date of Thutmoses III. (note: this is not the same controversy as the one mentioned at the tail end of the article)

Egyptologists tend to support a late date (or a no exodus theory) and a low chronology of the 18th dynasty, however the alternatives need to be adressed, at least.

Thanatosimii 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I will make the change in the thesis to reflect "The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt". The article does need work, but I observe that the Exodus is not to be treated as a historical fact, but more as we would report a major myth in the history of religions sense --respectfully, accurately, without politics. Just report what the book of Exodus reports. A section on how western literature and art (to include Cecil B. DeMille et al.) has treated the subject is also in order. PS. forgot to sign. --FourthAve 04:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The book of Exodus itself supports an earlier date for the Exodus.The chronology of the decendents of Levi down to Moses is only four generations.They will in no way come to 430 years in Egypt. (Exodus 6:14-20).Kings 6:1: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Isreal were come out of Egypt,,in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel,in the month Zif,which is the second month,that he began to build the house of the Lord".

Solomon's reign has been dated as beginning in 978.b.c.Solomon was given Siamun's daughter to marry,which could not have been earlier that 978 b.c.1 Kings 2:39 makes reference to three years,which according to 1 Kings 3:1,was before Solomon's marriage.The marriage must have taken place in the first year of Siamun's reign,or 978 b.c.Solomon's first year would be around 982 b.c.The temple would have been started,also in 978 b.c.,placing the Exodus 480 years earlier,or 1458 b.c. It is evident that the Exodus can now be placed in the year 1458 b.c.

[edit] Response to Suggestions

It is late, and I have just seen this plan to eviscerate my article. I will respond briefly, and extend these remarks later.

The idea of changing the thesis to have no possible contact with archaeology is a bad one. I have tried hard not to assume that any of this happened with any certainty. Still, there is a real Settlement that can be discussed archaeology, whether by conquest (as appears to be the case in Hazor, as per the burning layer which is found archaeologically). If we assume a Joshua to have existed, that is the most probable time for him, since we see a transition from egypto-canaanite to proto-"Israelite", at that time. If they didn't arrive there at Hazor then, then when? I agree we don't have to assume that he existed. I didn't provide a reference for the eighty years, since scholars typically don't reference common knowledge. Ex. 16:35 says that Israel had wandered for forty years already. In Nu. 14:26-33, Israel is sentenced to a second forty years of wandering for doubting the success of a southern invasion of Canaan. I guess it could help the layman to include this.

It is not safe for a scholarly publication to a priori assume that the book of Exodus has no contact with archaeology, just like it is not safe to assert it to be gospel truth without taking into account any archaeology. The proposed revisor says, "I observe that the Exodus is not to be treated as a historical fact, but more as we would report a major myth in the history of religions sense --respectfully, accurately, without politics." Although the Exodus is mythic, so is Troy, and yet most archaeologists don't assume that there is no historical truth to it. The Israelite chronology is secure back through the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities, probably through the time of Seshonq, of Omri, and maybe through Yadin's claimed Solomonic Gates. If it preserves archaeologically verifiable memories that far back, one wonders if Moses could be entirely ficticious if even the P source, which Fredmen in Who Wrote the Bible takes to be written relatively soon after Solomon's kingdom was divided, mentions him. True, we are at the interface between verifiable and non-verifiable Biblical history, but to not treat the biblical text at all in such a context is like ignoring Homer in investigating Hisirlik. It abdicates a scholarly responsibility of a possibly valid source of history.

In writing this heart of this article, the chronological part, (as others wrote other parts, but my writing currently constitutes the bulk of it), I tried to provide a framework under which MANY different chronologies can be discussed. Most working archaeologists simply reject an early chronology as not being consistent with settlement patterns at sites like Lachish, Hazor and Megiddo, promenent "Joshua" sites. Archaeologists will sometimes invent a character who conquered these sites, who might not be the biblcial Joshua, and who might not be named Joshua, but since these sites may be able to be synchronized with each other, they call whoever led the conquest Joshua by convenience. It need not even be a single person, but if the biblical Joshua was a historical person, he belongs to the Iron I transitions, if any time. Thus, I have not treated the orthodox chronology extensively, although it has its defenders. Kenneth Kitchen is a reasonably well respected archaeologist who maintains this, and Bimson tries to synchronize the Exodus with the end of the Hyksos period. I encourage supporters of those chronologies to put their ideas in appropriate places, as opposed to eviscerating the current article and divorcing the Exodus from any possible physical reality without even considering the archaeology. Even people with grossly revised Egyptian chronologies should be advised to place their best arguments in the alternative section, but leave my objections where they seem to have some merit.

As to high and low orthodox Egyptian chronologies, I am not an Egyptologist, and have principally restricted my Egyptian chronologies to those in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia Americana. I have unpublished work that makes me prefer the latter, which had also been the dominante one throughout the 20th century. Still, I tried to account for both the high and low Egyptain chronologies throughout my contributions, and if I haven't, these should be updated. I will also look for a reversal of Amenhotep II and Thutmose III. If this article lacks neutrality, it is in preferring the Conquest chronology that virtually all archaeologists working in Israel adhere to. This is not grounds for eviscerating the archaeological content of the article. I have forseen that an Early Exodus discussion should fit quite nicely within the current framework. Since I have focused my research on what most working archaeologists believe, I am not an expert in these early chronologies, so I addressed them only cursorily. If anybody feels they have any other valid explanation, let them either show where I am wrong, or let them fit it into the inclusive framework which Julianonions arranged my archaeological discussion into, and which I helped flesh out.

As to the point that the Israelites razed only Hazor, Jericho and Ai, the criticism is weak. Lachish is conquered in Josh. 10:5, and Megiddo in Josh. 17:11. We can try to pretend that there was an earlier conquest, but the transition from Egypto-Canaanite culture to proto-Israelite culture at these sites seems to be related to the first settlements of Israelites on those sites. It is sometimes asserted that Joshua conquered those sites and they were settled by Israelites later, but canaanite city gates have been dated in Hazor to the middle of the twelvth century BCE. This is just begging the question. Where is the evidence for earlier proto-Israelite conquests archaeologically speaking, other than the middle of the twelvth or thirteenth centuries BCE? Is there any burning layer in an early Exodus chronology? To my understanding, no. This is why I focus my attention on this era. As to the objection that the Song of Deborah must have been the late bronze age destruction of Hazor, and thus its conquest by Joshua earlier, it has little force. It may be a reasonable alternate hypothesis, but does not prevent the chronology which I lay out. True, the Bible gives us this sequence of events, but again, Meek tells us that the Song of Deborah calls tribes farther away than Judah, but Judah and Simeon are not called. This has led many scholars to suppose that the song of Deborah is from a much earlier time; especially since two of the tribes have entirely different names than we know them by elsewhere in the bible: Gilead and Machir. By contrast, Joshua IS aware of the tribe of Judah, and knows the tribes by their more conventional names. It is not at all clear that Hazor's burning is a LBA destruction. I have a BAR article in which Amon Ben-Tor suggests that a date as late as the middle of the Twelvth century, i.e. 1150, IS possible. Finklestein would place it later. Thus, we should probably not be asking where Joshua's earlier conquest was, but where Deborah's. However, earlier Israelite material culture might not have distinguished itself from Canaanite culture as at the Iron I boundry so easily observed by archaeologists. Alternately, might we imagine Deborah's attack in some way coordinated with Joshua's? Surveys of things like pig bones mark the difference from LBA to Iron I. Avoiding pork is a habit held in common with the Egyptians, and this is a layer that shows up in Hazor only in 1250-1150. Where are these earlier Joshua conquests archaeologically? There are two destructions at Lachish: 1250 and 1150, but before 1150, the culture is Egypto-Canaanite. If these are judges era destructions, where is Joshua's?

In short, JulianOnions asks a reasonable question, but it is not 40 years, but 80. Thanatosimii seems to have some reasonable objections that need further review. FourthAve wishes to treat the Exodus as mere literature, whereas many True Believers do not, and many archaeologists at least hold out the possibility of finding a suitable archaeological context, whereas some sort of transition in Canaan from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture at Iron I IS in evidence to archaeologists. Actually, I believe I have it that in the early chronology, the pharaoh of the Exodus at the orthodox biblical date, i.e. 1446 BCE, would be Thutmose III or one of the Amenhoteps. It's late, I'm tired, and I'll study this more later. FourthAve suggests reporting only what the book of Exodus reports, and then turns around and wishes to include later literature in the article. There is already a fine article on what the book of Exodus reports, at Exodus, so why repeat it in this article, as FourthAve suggests? This article is about the event, such as it may be, and we may look to archaeology to learn more about it. Does the Encyclopedia Britannica purge all connection with archaeological reality from it's articles on the Exodus? No. There may be literey aspects which whould be included in the article about event, as well as in the article on the book of Exodus. His or her suggestion to remove all archaeological references from this article is in my opinion positively a step backward into ignorance.

I think FourthAve's statement is the principle reason for challenging the neutrality of the article, and I find it to be entirely without merit. Thanatosimii seems to have some needed corrections, but has done nothing to undermine my date for the earliest arrival of Israelites at Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, Ai, Bethel, et al, which is 1150, as per de Moor. Current archaeology such as that of Finklestein, suggests later dates, if anything. I have given JulianOnions the requested reference, but not yet incorporated it. I intend to update the picture to have a lighter blue line, and some tan gradients behind the text labels to make them more readable. If anybody wants the photoshop file to do this before I get time, I'll gladly send it. I think I need to write the article for the Exodus stations lists, since I am aware of some peculiarities of those lists other scholars may not be. This will be a time-consuming project, and I don't have much to spare. The articles for the individual stations themselves should be able to be written by any decent writer that apprises his or her self of good scholarly sources. --ThaThinker 12:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to straighten this out then is to include sections on what archaeologists think and why and what the book of Joshua demands. It is explicit in the text of Joshua that after destroying Jericho and Ai, "They burned Hazor, but none other did they burn." The goal was to live in the cities, not destroy them. "you will live in houses you did not build and harvest what you did not plant."

Now, Amenhotep II was quite undistputibly the son of Thutmoses III. I don't understand how whatever source you are using could mess that up, unless it's following the leading of a particular scandanavian blood chemist who is a crackpot if ever there was one. No legitimate egyptologist ever disputes that Amenhotep Aakheprure was son of Thutmoses Menkhepperre by a minor wife, Hatshepsut-Meryetre.

Thanatosimii 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the map, given references for why the number of years the text of the Pentateuch is understood to indicate 80 years of wandering, and rewritten one of the paragraphs under Interpretation which I did not write originally, but which originally seemed a rather broad criticism of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which I tried to restrict more to the present discussion without failing to draw obvious conclusions. I also changed the text to have Amenhotep II come after, not before Thutmose III. (This was a simple mistake in reading a chronology, not a statement that I thought that a "particular scandanavian blood chemist who is a crackpot" was correct. Again, I'm not an Egyptologist.) As to Thanatosimii's other suggestion, perhaps I'm being dense, but I never described the Israelite actions as "burning" or "razing" cities, and don't recall implying that their action was intended as purely destructive. Perhaps the offending statement on this count might be pointed out. I've also renamed some of the topic headings so Early Exodus enthusists can have their own area, and bolstered the section on the Late Exodus a little. I need to update the article with the regrettable fact that Mazar has passed on, and one of his progeny continues work on at least one of the digs he was involved in.

I've found two fine references I'd like to cite in the article. Although it is probably not wise to bring all scholarly works which bear on the present discussion into the text of the work, two I think might absolve me of being POV. I need to expand where it talks about Kadesh-Barnea as being a concern for a late Exodus chronology with some of the following, I think:

"Systematic surveys and excavations at Kadesh Barnea and in the Beersheba and Arad valleys have not produced any archaeological evidence of the Late Bronze Age, the period to which the exodus is commonly as- signed. At Kadesh Barnea, a third-millennium settlement was followed by a long gap in occupation lasting until the tenth century, when an oval fortress was erected as part of a network of such fortresses throughout the Negev. Not one Late Bronze Age or Iron Age I sherd was found in the surveys, which combed the oasis of Kadesh Barnea and its vicinity, or in the systematic excavations of the mound. Neither did the extensive studies of Y. Aharoni and his associates in the Arad valley and in the Beersheba region produce any hint of Late Bronze Age occupation. Arad itself, after the destruction of an Early Bronze Age II town, remained unoccupied until the tenth century, when the Israelite settlement there was founded. There is thus no evidence for the existence of a Canaanite "king of Arad" at Arad itself. Aharoni attempted to explain the discrepancy by suggesting that Canaanite Arad was at a different site in the region, but systematic excavations in all the mounds of the Beersheba valley, particularly at Tel Malhata and Tel Masos, found no Late Bronze Age settlement."

"In Transjordan, the meager archaeological data shed little light on the biblical tradition of battles and conquests. Numbers 21:21-32 tells of the war of the Israelites with Sihon, king of the Amorites, ending in the capture of Heshbon. Extensive excavations at Tell Hesban have shown that the site was first occupied only in the Iron Age I. The poor remains of this period cannot qualify as the Amorite city taken and destroyed by the Israelites."

"There is no evidence of a second-millennium Canaanite city at this spot [the city of Ai] or at any other site in the region. This constitutes unequivocal archaeological evidence for the lack of correlation between the story in Joshua 8, with all its topographic and tactical details, and a historical reality corresponding to the period of the conquest."

"In contrast, excavations at Tell Rumeideh [note: Hebron] have revealed no evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation, and there seems to have been a gap between the Middle Bronze Age town and the Iron Age I settlement."

"At other sites, however, the picture is more complex. For example, at Ta'anach there is no continuity, and the Canaanite presence seems to have ended with the destruction of the town at the end of the Late Bronze Age."

This is Mazar writing in: The Archeology of Ancient Israel, Amnon ben-Tor (ed.), Yale:1992, pp. 282-284.

Another great passage is ben-Tor himself bristling at the lack of recognizing the transation from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture at many of the so-called "Joshua" cities:

"I never claimed that 'Joshua was the conqueror of the city'. What I do claim is that Hazor was violently destroyed by fire, most probably sometime during the 13th century B.C. In that century, the name 'Israel' as of a people in the region is mentioned in the stele of Merneptah. In the book of Joshua (whenever the text was written or edited) the Israelites are mentioned as having destroyed Hazor by fire. Why then is it so difficult to accept the view that the (Proto-?) Israelites, perhaps in cooperation with others, may have had something to do with it?"

Ben-Tor, Amnon, Scandinavian J. of the OT, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 308.

Again, if anything, the trend in archaeology has been to place the transitions at the Joshua cities later, not earlier. If we wish to see both Joshua and Judges conquests in these cities, I recommend the reader to the twin conquest layers at Lachish, one occurring at 1250 BCE, and the other at 1150, with the transition in material culture occurring at the latter date.

As to the references, it'd be nice if somebody else were to take the task of formatting them right. The two to Albright were not my doing. They were present before I write these articles. They are fine primers to archaeology, but might recommend the book by Aharoni for a more up to date one. Parts of the dating schemes we use today are essentially Albright's. He was one of archaeology's true greats, and there are articles of his that I still might cite. I don't think that the cited books are among them, and removing them seems fine to me, unless anyone else would like to defend their presence.

The current article does favor a Late Exodus over an Early Exodus, but this is not only because many well regarded archaeologists support a Late Conquest, but also because their evidence seems both consistant with other finds and seems to be in order. If somebody writes an article on Relativity that favors Relativity over what most people would intuitively prefer, Newtonian Mechanics, is it POV just because he sides with the evidence of the scholars? IHMO, I wouldn't think so. Including some of the above citations I think might help absolve me of being the goat, so as to allow the scholars to represent themselves in their own words. It seems pointless to try to subatantiate all of the reasons the scholars say the things they do, because it would result in a voluminous and tedious article for the average reader. Better is to simply mention them, and try to direct the reader to where he or she might find this information. Only the best of the best bits, it seems to me, should be quoted verbatum. Information on the archaeology of individual sites, and how it fits with the Exodus and the Conquest, seems better placed under the respective headings for "Hazor", "Lachish", et al.--69.247.181.157 07:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find an ISBN for the following reference, as it nor none of the ones before it were my own:

The Biblical Exodus in the Light of Recent Research: Is There Any Archaeological or Extra-Biblical Evidence?, Hershel Shanks, Editor, Biblical Archaeological Society, 1997

I find no such article in the two main publications of the BAS: BAR and BA, for that year, nor have I been able to turn up an article of this title.

--ThaThinker 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.^[1] 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)