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

[Anchorman]

Fair enough, but one can't help thinking that you actually don't want there to be any archaeological evidence for the Exodus. I've given you two links, which give convincing evidence that the story originated from eyewitness accounts. But you seem to ignore anything that might actually prove the Bible to be accurate. Why?

Spud:
What I 'want' is irrelevant.
Archaeology doesn't work that way.
What it does is work with the available evidence, and try to build the history round it.
Sometimes new evidence comes around to shake up the established histories; in that case, if they are in any way true to their discipline, the historians will try to reconstruct the period in question with the new evidence included.
It wasn't always like that. Take a young man, skilled in draughtsmanship and a committed evangelical, determined to prove what he thought the Bible was in his mind.
He entered an Egypt newly administered by Britain and France; was stunned by the pyramids, which, like many of his day, he thought to be a message from God.
As his draughtmanship took over, he realised the truth, and from that moment till his death, he excavated the remote past.
We have him to thank for much of the predynastic and early dynastic dating of Egypt (and showing that the land was not affected by a cataclysmic flood).
His name? W.M.Flinders Petrie - and he remained a committed Christian till he died.
There should be a lesson there for you: that it's perfectly possible to be an evangelical yet accept that the Pentateuch is not historically accurate.

I ask again the two questions I have posed:
1: Where is the archaeology for a slave population of massive proportions in the Egyptian Delta?:
and
2) When do you propose the Exodus occurred (if it happened as set out in Exodus) and why?

[Spud]

Anch,

Again, fair enough. If you find there is no evidence for the 2 million Israelites in Egypt and subsequent journey through Sinai then you are free to believe the Bible is historically inaccurate.

As I look at this I am finding stuff in the Pentateuch that agrees with archaeology - that's why I thought maybe you have your head in the sand. It's similar to the argument for the authenticity of the gospels: details that strongly point to eyewitness sources. So for example, there are remains of buildings made from mud mixed with straw in the Delta region. The first of my links says, "small but significant details, such as these mud bricks, point to an author directly familiar with the circumstances and practices of Egypt in the appropriate timeframe. If written in Babylon (Mesopotamia) or even in Canaan, they likely would have reflected local practice in making up such a story. But our Bible account is written by a divinely inspired eyewitness from Egypt."
For me that is an exciting find, but you don't seem that interested.

2) When do you propose the Exodus occurred (if it happened as set out in Exodus) and why?

Going by the biblical data I think it was about 1350 1450 BC? Will get back to you on the exact working. That assumes the generally accepted chronology based on Manetho is correct. A different chronology has been proposed, so that the Exodus could have been centuries before that. One idea is that the Hyksos were the Amalakites, who entered and easily took over lower Egypt after encountering the Israelites on their way out.

[Anchorman]

Again; a few mud brick houses don't constitute a slave population. Mud brick dwellings are as commion as....er...dirt. I've even excavated one - next to the midden at Djanet (Tanis) which, incidentally, is where most of the stone buildings of Piramesse ('Ramses') ended up. As for 1350 BC? Seriously? In 1350, Egypt was at the height of her power; her influence stretched as far as the Euphrates - and she controlled what is now all of Israel/Palestine and Southern Syria - and would remain in control of that area for nearly two centuries. Any new 'nation' setting up home in Canaan would have come to the notice of the court, and would not have had a hope of surviving without sending tribute to Egypt, and allowing Egyptian officials to oversee the state. Again, not a shred of evidence for this in either Israel or Egypt.

[Anchorman]

If you're interested in the relations between Egypt and other Middle Eastern states from c1600-1200, here's a relatively simple overview from University College, London. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/foreignrelations/asiank.html

[DaveM]

Whether there was an early c1446 BC or a late c 1260 BC date for the Exodus is not a major issue for me and one which I have not researched in any depth.  However, from what I have read I note that there is good support from reputable proponents for both views, the archaeological claims of each side being strongly challenged by the other.  Having only a rudimentary knowledge of archaeology I am unable to make any judgements on the archaeological merits of the evidence provided by the two sides, but in the absence of any general consensus from the experts my preference is to settle for an early date as this seems to fit better with the internal evidence of Scripture.  Points which carry weight in my view would include:

The well-known 1 Kings 6 passage which says, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel … he began to build the house of the Lord.” By the time of the kings there is growing confidence in date estimates with the currently accepted date for the fourth year of Solomon’s reign being c 967/966 BC. Thus 480 years before that would be 1446 BC.

Support for this is also found in the genealogies provided in I Chronicles.  1 Chron 6:33–37, names 18 generations from Korah, in the time of Moses, to Heman, in the time of David.  This would then give 19 generations from Moses to Solomon. Nineteen generations in 480 years works out to an average of 25.3 years per generation, a reasonable number that gives good support to the view that a literal understanding of the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 was intended.

I am aware that proponents of a late Exodus consider the “480 years” of 1 Kings 6:1 as being a representative number to stand for 12 idealised generations of 40 years each. But in reality the period covered in this view of 300 years would comprise 12 ‘idealised’ generations of only 25 years each.  Moreover the actual 19 generations of 1 Chronicles would then represent an average of less than 16 years per generation, a difficult figure to justify.     

[Anchorman]

I don't dispute that there was an exodus of a sort, Dave - just not in the way Exodus puts it. The problem with your Scriptural view is that it does not accord with the situation either in Egypt, or, for that matter, the existing nation states in the Middle East (Naharin or Mitanni don't even get a mention in Exodus, but both were power brokers alongside an expansionist Egypt at this time period.) That Scripture ignores the fact of these states' existance - and the glaring fact that Wgypt held diplomatic and to an extent military sway over what is now Israel and southern Syria during both times suggests that Exodus was either set at some other time for which we have no evidence, or edited at a time when political necessity meant re-setting events in a way which would fit into the mind set of the time.

[Spud]

Hi Anchorman,
You've motivated me to start reading up on ancient Egypt. I was wondering if you have heard much about the revised chronology? From a table in 'The New Answers Book 2' :-

Dynasties 1-2:     2150-1800 BC
Dynasties 3-6      2100-1580 BC
Dynasties 7-10:   1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 11-12: 1800-1400 BC
Dynasties 13-17: 1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 18-20: 1050-550 BC
Dynasties 21-25: 800-500 BC
Dynasties 26-30: 650-380 BC

The first dynasty starts some time after the Tower of Babel, about 2150 BC. 7-10 are concurrent with 13-17. 18-20 are concurrent with the attack of Shishak on Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam. The events in the life of Joseph, the oppression of the Israelites, Moses, and the Exodus all occur during the 12th and 13th dynasties.

You can read the full explanation here:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/

[Nearly Sane]

As an aside, I always think this thread is going ng to be about something else when it shows up as the last posted in on the opening page as 'Archeologists Disco...'

[Anchorman]

Hi Anchorman,
You've motivated me to start reading up on ancient Egypt. I was wondering if you have heard much about the revised chronology? From a table in 'The New Answers Book 2' :-

Dynasties 1-2:     2150-1800 BC
Dynasties 3-6      2100-1580 BC
Dynasties 7-10:   1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 11-12: 1800-1400 BC
Dynasties 13-17: 1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 18-20: 1050-550 BC
Dynasties 21-25: 800-500 BC
Dynasties 26-30: 650-380 BC

The first dynasty starts some time after the Tower of Babel, about 2150 BC. 7-10 are concurrent with 13-17. 18-20 are concurrent with the attack of Shishak on Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam. The events in the life of Joseph, the oppression of the Israelites, Moses, and the Exodus all occur during the 12th and 13th dynasties.

You can read the full explanation here:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/

-
Hi. Spud.
I attrended a seminar a few years back at which David Rohl - one of the proponents of the RC - was a speaker.
He's actually a fine author, though I, along with all mainstream Egyptophiles, dismiss his conclusions out of hand.
The Accepted chronology is not, of course, accurate to within a day or two - actually, from before c800-17oo it can vary as much as twenty years either way, but most agree that's about it.
Rohl has to be lumped in with Hancock as far as dating goes!

Besides, from the twenty first dynasty onward - c1000 BC - Egypt's history seems to confirm much of the content of Kings and Chronicles in Scripture.

[Anchorman]

As an aside, I always think this thread is going ng to be about something else when it shows up as the last posted in on the opening page as 'Archeologists Disco...'

-
Dig 'em crazy pyramid shaped rocks, man.....you get kinda wrapped up in Egypt stuff.....sorry....

[Dicky Underpants]

-

The Accepted chronology is not, of course, accurate to within a day or two - actually, from before c800-17oo it can vary as much as twenty years either way, but most agree that's about it.
Rohl has to be lumped in with Hancock as far as dating goes!

Hello Anchorman

Any thoughts on Graham Phillips? I thought his 'Moses Legacy' at least interesting, and although a bit in the wacky camp, not to be compared with the idiocies of Erich von Daniken.

[Anchorman]

Hello Anchorman

Any thoughts on Graham Phillips? I thought his 'Moses Legacy' at least interesting, and although a bit in the wacky camp, not to be compared with the idiocies of Erich von Daniken.

-TBH, I hadn't read much on Phillips, DU.
There are so many naff authors peddling theories based more on wishful thinking than evidence that I gave up yonks ago (I think Hancock had a lot to do with that).
I'll have to have a shuftie and get back to you.

[Nearly Sane]

-TBH, I hadn't read much on Phillips, DU.
There are so many naff authors peddling theories based more on wishful thinking than evidence that I gave up yonks ago (I think Hancock had a lot to do with that).
I'll have to have a shuftie and get back to you.

I haven't read the book DU is talking about, but I read his Arthur and the Grail stuff and dear god, kill me now! Sorry DU

[Anchorman]

I haven't read the book DU is talking about, but I read his Arthur and the Grail stuff and dear god, kill me now! Sorry DU

-
That bad, NS?

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't read the book DU is talking about, but I read his Arthur and the Grail stuff and dear god, kill me now! Sorry DU

-
That bad, NS?

I hate the whole 'if you think of blue, like it is green,  and John like it's Fulke, and .... Like it is and this is the grail. And he seemed to indulge in that

[Anchorman]

Might as well post this here, since it deals with the latest fragments from the remains of Pi-Ramesse ('Ramses') http://www.archaeology.org/news/5324-170222-egypt-child-footprints

[Anchorman]

Hi Anchorman,
You've motivated me to start reading up on ancient Egypt. I was wondering if you have heard much about the revised chronology? From a table in 'The New Answers Book 2' :-

Dynasties 1-2:     2150-1800 BC
Dynasties 3-6      2100-1580 BC
Dynasties 7-10:   1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 11-12: 1800-1400 BC
Dynasties 13-17: 1400-1050 BC
Dynasties 18-20: 1050-550 BC
Dynasties 21-25: 800-500 BC
Dynasties 26-30: 650-380 BC

The first dynasty starts some time after the Tower of Babel, about 2150 BC. 7-10 are concurrent with 13-17. 18-20 are concurrent with the attack of Shishak on Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam. The events in the life of Joseph, the oppression of the Israelites, Moses, and the Exodus all occur during the 12th and 13th dynasties.

You can read the full explanation here:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/

-
As posted earlier, I am perfectly happy with the conventional dating, Spud.
Here's a simplistic link to a news story from a few years back which uses science to confirm it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10345875

Should you wish, I can provide the relevent research links to Oxford University.

[Dicky Underpants]

I haven't read the book DU is talking about, but I read his Arthur and the Grail stuff and dear god, kill me now! Sorry DU

Oh gawd! If I'd known he was a 'find the True Grail' enthusiast, I doubt very much whether I'd have read the book I mentioned. I lost patience with that kind of thing after wading through the arse-gravy of Baigent and Lee (and realising that all this Grail nonsense really stems from the imagination of Chretien de Troyes).
However, I did read Phillips' speculations about Moses - in which the main point seemed to be his belief that the Biblical Moses was a composite of two characters for whom there is some historical evidence* (whereas there is no historical evidence for a single Moses figure as described in the OT - apart from the OT itself). His arguments didn't seem too outlandish, though how accurate his dating was, I wouldn't know.
As for Graham Hancock - I parted company with him well over ten years ago after reading his book 'Supernatural', in which he ends by drinking a litre of soup made from the hallucinogenic psylocybe semilanceata. Anybody know if the experience imparted supernal revelations to him? Has he published much since?


*

Graham proposes that Moses had in fact been two separate historical figures who later became confused as one. The first, the man who originally converted the Israelites to monotheism, was a dissident court official named Tuthmosis who was banished from Egypt around 1460 BC, and the second, the man who confronted the pharaoh and led the Israelites out of captivity, was an exiled prince, also called Tuthmosis, who lived around a century later. The word Moses, meaning "the son", Graham suggests, was a shortening of this name.

quoted here:

www.grahamphillips.net/moses/moses.html

[Anchorman]

Last I heard Hancock was engaged on making yet another series for National Geographic - a publication which takes dumbing down to a new level of banality since it changed owners.

[Spud]

-
Hi. Spud.
I attrended a seminar a few years back at which David Rohl - one of the proponents of the RC - was a speaker.
He's actually a fine author, though I, along with all mainstream Egyptophiles, dismiss his conclusions out of hand.
The Accepted chronology is not, of course, accurate to within a day or two - actually, from before c800-17oo it can vary as much as twenty years either way, but most agree that's about it.
Rohl has to be lumped in with Hancock as far as dating goes!

Besides, from the twenty first dynasty onward - c1000 BC - Egypt's history seems to confirm much of the content of Kings and Chronicles in Scripture.

Happy to assume the accepted chronology for the purpose of discussion. How about a date of some time after the battle of Kadesh, for the exodus? Early 12th century BC? Maybe it was some time between the decline of the Egyptian and Hittite empires and the renewed Egyptian attack on Judah and Israel at the time of Rehoboam.

[Anchorman]

Oh gawd! If I'd known he was a 'find the True Grail' enthusiast, I doubt very much whether I'd have read the book I mentioned. I lost patience with that kind of thing after wading through the arse-gravy of Baigent and Lee (and realising that all this Grail nonsense really stems from the imagination of Chretien de Troyes).
However, I did read Phillips' speculations about Moses - in which the main point seemed to be his belief that the Biblical Moses was a composite of two characters for whom there is some historical evidence* (whereas there is no historical evidence for a single Moses figure as described in the OT - apart from the OT itself). His arguments didn't seem too outlandish, though how accurate his dating was, I wouldn't know.
As for Graham Hancock - I parted company with him well over ten years ago after reading his book 'Supernatural', in which he ends by drinking a litre of soup made from the hallucinogenic psylocybe semilanceata. Anybody know if the experience imparted supernal revelations to him? Has he published much since?


*

quoted here:

www.grahamphillips.net/moses/moses.html

"Thutmosis", or "Thotmes", are two versions of the same name - Anglicised versions of the Hellenic version in Manetho.
A compromise, used by many Egyptologists, is "Thutmose"
The more accurate Egyptian would read "Djehutymose" - meaning "male child of Djehuty" ' 'Djehuty' being Thoth, a prominant deity in temple and funerary inscriptions at the time.
The 'prince Thutmosis' who supposedly fled was supposed to be the eldest son of Amenhotep III - actually, Amenhotep III HAD such a son - who was high priest of Ptah at Memphis, where records of him remain.
His mummy may well be 'unknown boy' of the three corpses found in a side chamber of KV 35, judging by DNA  evidence from the scans made in 2010. At least the 'elder lady' found next to him was definately Thutmose's mother, the Great Royal Wife Tiye.

[Anchorman]

Happy to assume the accepted chronology for the purpose of discussion. How about a date of some time after the battle of Kadesh, for the exodus? Early 12th century BC? Maybe it was some time between the decline of the Egyptian and Hittite empires and the renewed Egyptian attack on Judah and Israel at the time of Rehoboam.

-
Fairy nuff;
The last decade of Ramesses II were clouded with in fighting at court. Yet Merenptah, his successor, mentioned stamping out Israel in one of his punitive campaigns to fly the flag in Syria-Palestine, and reassert the traditional Egyptian domination of the area, which had shown signs of slippage in the last years of his father's rule.
And again, there is no evidence for a massive slave population in the Eastern Delta in the Nineteenth -or any other - dynasty.

[Anchorman]

If anyone's interested in an in-depth examination of the latest research regarding the 'mummy cache' tombs and their contents, here's an academic paper to fall asleep reading; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22909/full The 'cache' tombs were basically dumps where royal mummies stripped of their finery  by an impoverished Egyptian state from c11-950 BC, were placed - out of sight, out of mind. Some of the greatest names of the New Kingdom ended up there - Thutmose III,, AmenhotepIII, Ramesses II, Merenptah, Ramesses III - a bit like finding William the conqueror, Robert Bruce, Henry VIII, and umpteen other 'greats' in simple shrouds lumped gtogether.

[Gordon]

Happy to assume the accepted chronology for the purpose of discussion. How about a date of some time after the battle of Kadesh, for the exodus? Early 12th century BC? Maybe it was some time between the decline of the Egyptian and Hittite empires and the renewed Egyptian attack on Judah and Israel at the time of Rehoboam.

Perhaps, Spud, you'd be better listening to Jim, who is an expert with practical experience in the field, and listen less to the idiots from AiG (and I did read the pitiful link you posted earlier).

[jeremyp]

Fair enough, but one can't help thinking that you actually don't want there to be any archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

It's not a case of wanting or not wanting. The evidence simply isn't there.