Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red

[Dicky Underpants]

The names of both Northern and Southern kings are found written in cuneform tablets - several on one tablet, actually - from Babylon itself. The problem is that they are jumbled up. Of course, I'd argue that this is a marker for the dual kingdoms existing and known outside the area - but I'd say that anyway. The fact that these names do occur together in the same tablet, fragmented as it is, is significant, though. I'll try to find a reference to it....I think it's in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY.

Indeed it is, and is further evidence that the Documentary Hypothesis is still the best explanation we have of how the early books of the Bible came to be written.
The DH is certainly an area of interest for me, and a number of people from various backgrounds have poured scorn on it. The fundamentalists and evangelicals don't like it because it militates against the idea of the Bible being 'divinely inspired', and a number of modern scholars from an archaeological background like to turn their noses up at it because "we have discovered so much more from field-work than Julius Wellhausen ever had available to him" (Glad to note that you've cited an archaeological discovery which supports the hypothesis). The latter, however, have yet to some up with any thesis which has one iota of the D.H's comprehensive explanatory power - not everything fits, but so much does that it seems to me one of the most satisfactory areas of scholarship dealing with the ancient world and its literature.

And the fact that respected scholars like Richard Elliot Friedman, Karen Armstrong, James Barr, Robin Lane Fox and Robert S. Kawashima (yes, that Kawashima - I'm sure you've all heard of him) - think the D.H. is still the best explanation of how the early bits of the Bible came to be written, suggests to me that these ideas are sound.

[Dicky Underpants]

This would be at the same time the Pentateuch was heavily re-written, DU  - I'd argue at the time of Jeremiah in the OT.

Richard Elliott Friedman argues that Jeremiah was a very significant contributor to the formation of the Pentateuch - indeed he cites him as the author of the Deuteronomist narrative, and also Joshua and the Books of Kings, I believe. However, Friedmann believes that the final redactor of the Pentateuch was Ezra (and apparently St Jerome thought this too).

[Dicky Underpants]

OK, that would be further evidence that the two kingdoms existed.

Just to corroborate what I say, I'll cite Richard Elliott Friedman again. In his book "Who Wrote the Bible", he has a chapter headed "J and E" (J for Jahvist, and E for Elohist). A section in this is headed: "J in Judah, E in Israel", and the next chapter is headed "Two Writers, Two Kingdoms". I can't imagine a clearer exposition of these somewhat recondite matters, and since you're one of that small, eminent band of people who do read this kind of literature (despite what that idiot BA used to assert), I certainly recommend it to you.

[Anchorman]

Indeed it is, and is further evidence that the Documentary Hypothesis is still the best explanation we have of how the early books of the Bible came to be written.
The DH is certainly an area of interest for me, and a number of people from various backgrounds have poured scorn on it. The fundamentalists and evangelicals don't like it because it militates against the idea of the Bible being 'divinely inspired', and a number of modern scholars from an archaeological background like to turn their noses up at it because "we have discovered so much more from field-work than Julius Wellhausen ever had available to him" (Glad to note that you've cited an archaeological discovery which supports the hypothesis). The latter, however, have yet to some up with any thesis which has one iota of the D.H's comprehensive explanatory power - not everything fits, but so much does that it seems to me one of the most satisfactory areas of scholarship dealing with the ancient world and its literature.

And the fact that respected scholars like Richard Elliot Friedman, Karen Armstrong, James Barr, Robin Lane Fox and Robert S. Kawashima (yes, that Kawashima - I'm sure you've all heard of him) - think the D.H. is still the best explanation of how the early bits of the Bible came to be written, suggests to me that these ideas are sound.

-

     The fact that many Christians. including evangelicals, don't have a problem with the DH - or accepting that it was still 'inspired' really doesn't penetrate some of the more intransigent fundamentalist.
The discipline of Biblical archaeology is littered with fruit loops armed with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, determined to find 'evidence' to bolster their position.
Serious scholars use the evidence to deduce the situation in which that evidence was found: a surprising correlation between Scripture and the 'outside world' exists, but, given the vagaries of the writers of the original MSS, and subsequent editing/re-writing of many documents which eventually made up the OT, it cannot be used as a reliable historical guide.
That, of course, was never its' purpose; that the theology contained therein is not marred by the historicity or lack thereof, should not detract from the meaning of the OT Scriptures.

[Dicky Underpants]

-

     The fact that many Christians. including evangelicals, don't have a problem with the DH - or accepting that it was still 'inspired' really doesn't penetrate some of the more intransigent fundamentalist.
The discipline of Biblical archaeology is littered with fruit loops armed with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, determined to find 'evidence' to bolster their position.
Serious scholars use the evidence to deduce the situation in which that evidence was found: a surprising correlation between Scripture and the 'outside world' exists, but, given the vagaries of the writers of the original MSS, and subsequent editing/re-writing of many documents which eventually made up the OT, it cannot be used as a reliable historical guide.
That, of course, was never its' purpose; that the theology contained therein is not marred by the historicity or lack thereof, should not detract from the meaning of the OT Scriptures.

Nice post. However, your last sentence is highly debatable: we can never know what "purpose" there may have been behind the OT scriptures. Indeed, one could only refer to the matter in the singular if one assumed there was one divine author behind them all. It is highly likely that there were many 'purposes' behind the writings of all the disparate authors (Friedman argues that the Deutoronomist author had a very different agenda from other writers of the Pentateuch). In addition, I'm averse to referring to 'the theology' in the singular - Floo is happy to accept such a designation, though she thinks the God revealed is evil. And fundamentalists also like to think of the theology of the OT as a consistent unity. I seriously dispute this: there are many images of God in the OT, and I personally find some of them quite loathesome, and others inspiring. The fact that these are all linked by the flimsy idea that they are portraits of the "God of Abraham Isaac and Israel etc", does not convince - nor more than does the fact that these scriptures happen to have been gathered together in between two covers.
However, the point that many of the seemingly 'historical' passages may well have a purpose beyond simple historical narrative, I wouldn't dispute - and of course, many texts in the Bible have no appearance of historicity in any case (Leviticus and Ecclesiastes, for example). But whatever purpose may have been the original intention of the authors in question, we can only only indulge in (hopefully well-informed) speculation.

[Spud]

The chiastic structure of the flood narrative suggests a single author. Yet the documentary hypothesis splits it into J and P components some of which are shorter than one verse.

[Spud]

There is also a clear format in Genesis with 10 sections, each beginning "These are the generations of ..."

[Anchorman]

Which militates against a historical event and more some remembered oral tradition (and none the worse for that)

[Spud]

Which militates against a historical event and more some remembered oral tradition (and none the worse for that)

Why does it militate against a historical event?
The NT assumes a historical Adam and Fall: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." 1 Cor 15:21

[floo]

Why does it militate against a historical event?
The NT assumes a historical Adam and Fall: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." 1 Cor 15:21

Even if the NT assumes Adam etc is factual there is no evidence to support it.

[Anchorman]

Why does it militate against a historical event? The NT assumes a historical Adam and Fall: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." 1 Cor 15:21

Spud: This thread is about exttant evidence for remains of a Jewish army inthe Red sea - which do not exist - and for archaeological evidence for confirmation of Scripyture. I've shown that there are umpteen bits of evidence to confirm certain Biblical narratives in the OT, but not a shred to confirm a slave population in the Egyptian Delta - not that given the poor preservation conditions, we're likely to have any. There's ample evidence of Canaanite contacts with the main powers of the Middle East (Egypt, Mitanni, Naharin, etc) from the 16th - 12th centuries BC, before the name of 'Israel' gets a look in on the world stage. You and I might see Israel as a pivotal lodestone in history - but to the world i n general, it was either a minor player at worst, and a severe irrittation at best. Whatever the Pentateuch was, it cannot be relklied on as accurate history - even a cursory glance at the numbers stated for the 'Hebrew slaves' should show you that!

[Spud]

Anchorman,
So you're saying it's the lack of archaeological evidence that militates against the historicity of the Pentateuch. Okay - I was a bit confused by your post #32

[Anchorman]

Anchorman,
So you're saying it's the lack of archaeological evidence that militates against the historicity of the Pentateuch. Okay - I was a bit confused by your post #32

I'm telling you that there is no archaeological evidence for a large slave population in the Nile Delta, or for the stories in Genesis and Exodus concerning Egypt.
Pure and simp;le.
Yes, there's ample evidence of Smitic trade from the Middle Kingdom onward, and certainly a Semitic element in the Hyksos rule of Lower Egypt, but simply nothing else.
No names, no inscription, no trace of mass graves, nothing.
That argues that the Pentateuch as we know it is not, therefore accurate history.
Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but one of the problems in Egyptology is the amount of evidence - give them a rock or a building, they'll write on it.
Give 'em a tomb and they'll cover it in inscriptions.
Give them a bit of flat stone or broken pot and they'll put a shopping list on it.
So far, out of the literally millions of inscriptions and fragments of inscriptions, there is not one which reliably attests to a high ranking adopted Smitic prince in a Royal court, or a slave population in the Delta.

[Dicky Underpants]

The chiastic structure of the flood narrative suggests a single author. Yet the documentary hypothesis splits it into J and P components some of which are shorter than one verse.

Hello Spud

The structure of the Flood narrative suggests nothing of the kind - in fact, when the glaring contradictions are pointed out, and the sudden shifts of narrative, let alone the somewhat differing 'doublets' are noticed, it is a wonder that anyone who has read the text could think it had one single author.
There are many items I could bring to your attention, but a few notes should be enough. The entry of the families and animals is recorded twice, and in the 'Yahwist' narrative, the number of seven 'clean' pairs of animals is specified (because the author of this bit knew that Noah would later be sacrificing a few - and that would put an end to certain species at a stroke, if there were only one pair of each, as the Priestly narrative relates).
The Flood is also given quite different durations in the two combined accounts - forty days and forty nights we remember, but in the second account, 150 days are mentioned.
Furthermore, the structure of the cosmos related in each flood account is a direct mirror of the two accounts in Genesis 1 and 2  (you will probably know that the Priestly author is supposed to have written Genesis 1, whilst the Jahwist author wrote G2).

Following the analysis of the DH, if you split the text into the suggested Priestly and Jahwist accounts, you will find that each separate narrative tells a flowing, self-consistent story.

The short sentences which have been attributed to one author or the other do not detract from the main argument, which depends much more on large swathes of narrative.
Can't see the joins? They're much easier to spot than those on Donald Trump's wig!

[Spud]

The Flood is also given quite different durations in the two combined accounts - forty days and forty nights we remember, but in the second account, 150 days are mentioned.

Hi Dicky,

I will comment on the above point first. If these were two different durations for the flood, we wouldn't expect the dates of the flood's beginning and ending to tally with the total number of days given.

So the durations are not contradictory, and we can look next at other aspects of the DH.

[Gordon]

If these were two different durations for the flood, we wouldn't expect the dates of the flood's beginning and ending to tally with the total number of days given.

So the durations are not contradictory, and we can look next at other aspects of the DH.

Spud

If there are two different durations given (40 days/nights vs 150 days) for this flood then surely these are contradictory?

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

I will comment on the above point first. If these were two different durations for the flood, we wouldn't expect the dates of the flood's beginning and ending to tally with the total number of days given.

So the durations are not contradictory, and we can look next at other aspects of the DH.

If you want some calculations, try here:

www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/duration_of_flood.html

from which I quote the following rather sarcastic paragraph:

The flood lasted for 40 days until the dove discovers land on the 47th day.  But then, it wasn’t until 150 days that all the waters were abated.  Then, on the 150th day, the ark mysteriously came to rest on Mt. Ararat instead of a lower altitude.  It was a miracle that the ark landed on the mountain because all the waters were already gone.  For some reason, nobody could see the tops of mountains until the 253rd day because of the water, even though it was long gone and the ark had landed.  Finally, at 314 days the water was all dried up, but the earth wasn’t dry until 370 days.  It’s another miracle that the earth wasn’t dry until 56 days after the water was all dried up.

[Gordon]

If you want some calculations, try here:

www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/duration_of_flood.html

from which I quote the following rather sarcastic paragraph:

The flood lasted for 40 days until the dove discovers land on the 47th day.  But then, it wasn’t until 150 days that all the waters were abated.  Then, on the 150th day, the ark mysteriously came to rest on Mt. Ararat instead of a lower altitude.  It was a miracle that the ark landed on the mountain because all the waters were already gone.  For some reason, nobody could see the tops of mountains until the 253rd day because of the water, even though it was long gone and the ark had landed.  Finally, at 314 days the water was all dried up, but the earth wasn’t dry until 370 days.  It’s another miracle that the earth wasn’t dry until 56 days after the water was all dried up.

So Spud was right then: absolutely no contradictions whatsoever!

[Spud]

If you want some calculations, try here:

www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/duration_of_flood.html

Do I really need to answer this? The dates given for the beginning and end of the flood tally exactly with the number of days given in the account. So no contradictions.

[Spud]

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/biblical-overview-of-the-flood-timeline/

[Gordon]

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/biblical-overview-of-the-flood-timeline/

Which is unreconstructed bollocks of the creationist variety. You need to avoid such nonsense, Spud.

[Spud]

Which is unreconstructed bollocks of the creationist variety. You need to avoid such nonsense, Spud.

That's another issue, though. From looking at the table in the link, do you think that the 40 days and 150 days are from two contradictory flood accounts, or not?

[Gordon]

That's another issue, though. From looking at the table in the link, do you think that the 40 days and 150 days are from two contradictory flood accounts, or not?

Spud

There wasn't a global flood (as claimed in the first para), therefore it doesn't matter what this nonsense asserts.

For example footnote 5. says 'Using the genealogy found in Genesis 5 and Noah's age at the time of the Flood reveals that the world had been in existence for roughly 1,656 years.'

Why on earth you bother yourself with such drivel beats me.

[Anchorman]

If this is gonna develop into a YEC thread, I'm going to need paracetamol.

[Owlswing]

If this is gonna develop into a YEC thread, I'm going to need paracetamol.

Damn paracetamol - I'll use Mead - it tastes better!