Author Topic: Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red  (Read 63794 times)

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134
Quote
and another argument for its' editing in the 6th century BC

Just found a couple more verses that mention "to this day":
Joshua 15:63
Now as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; so the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah at Jerusalem until this day.
1 Kings 9:21
Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land--whom the Israelites could not exterminate --to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day.
These books were edited post-Solomon. Since the style seems the same as in Genesis 47:26 and 22:14, I agree that the Pentateuch was edited in the time of the Kings of Israel. That doesn't mean, though, that the details were changed.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Just found a couple more verses that mention "to this day":
Joshua 15:63
Now as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; so the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah at Jerusalem until this day.
1 Kings 9:21
Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land--whom the Israelites could not exterminate --to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day.
These books were edited post-Solomon. Since the style seems the same as in Genesis 47:26 and 22:14, I agree that the Pentateuch was edited in the time of the Kings of Israel. That doesn't mean, though, that the details were changed.


-
But it argues that those who edited it had an agenda - and rewrote history to suit that agenda.
Again, there is simply no evidence from archaeology to back up a slave community of any description in the Delta.
None.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134

-
But it argues that those who edited it had an agenda - and rewrote history to suit that agenda.
Again, there is simply no evidence from archaeology to back up a slave community of any description in the Delta.
None.
Which agenda? Please expand...

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
They were trying to unite a populous divided by conquest, oppression and exile. Their monuments had been destroyed, the state dissasembled. They took the core of the Pentateuch  - and I velieve there WAS acore - and expanded it, putting 'modern' (well, modern for the 6th century BC) geo-political, cultural and social norms on a story which had taken place six or eight centuries earlier. Again, this does not devalue the Pentateuch as theology, but makes it unreliable as history. Since there exists not a shred of extrascriptural evidence to bacck it up, we cannot take the Pentateuch as historically accurate.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134
They were trying to unite a populous divided by conquest, oppression and exile. Their monuments had been destroyed, the state dissasembled. They took the core of the Pentateuch  - and I velieve there WAS acore - and expanded it, putting 'modern' (well, modern for the 6th century BC) geo-political, cultural and social norms on a story which had taken place six or eight centuries earlier. Again, this does not devalue the Pentateuch as theology, but makes it unreliable as history. Since there exists not a shred of extrascriptural evidence to bacck it up, we cannot take the Pentateuch as historically accurate.
Along with the new testament miracles, if we follow your logic here.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Eh? How can a document taken in isolation, with no archaeology, historical or literal corroberation to back it up, be regarded as history? As far as I'm aware, the synoptic back each other up. There are also a few extrascriptural documents (Tacitus, Suetonius, etc) which also lend support, and a few tantalising archaeological bits and pieces as well. But how could any archaeology back up any miracle claims? Even if someone came up with a dozen ten gallon amphorae with datable high quality wine from Cana, that wouldn't be proof of a miracle - no archaeology would. What has that to do with proving the historicity of the Exodus through archaeology?
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134
The pentateuch is five books, remember. Not one in isolation. There is also a slight problem with saying that the Exodus didn't happen as reported: it is the foundation for the ten commandments, which were to be kept because God had brought them out of Egypt:
1Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me.…
We also have four separate instances where the number of Israelite men is given is 600,000.

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134
Quote
What has that to do with proving the historicity of the Exodus through archaeology?
I just meant that the Exodus was brought about by miraculous means.

floo

  • Guest
I just meant that the Exodus was brought about by miraculous means.

And pigs might fly! ::)

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
I just meant that the Exodus was brought about by miraculous means.
_ Are you saying that the numbers, people, locations and events in Exodus are literally and historically true - despite not one iota of evidence to confirm it as written/edited down?
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

DaveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but
Okay, so if Genesis was re-written in Jeremiah's day, ie. 626-587 BC, we wouldn't expect it to say what it says in 47:26... right?
Hi Spud, You might find the following comments on the authorship of the Pentateuch interesting.  Taken from the ESV Study Bible resources. They boast a pretty impressive list of well qualified scholars as being contributors to the ESV translation.  In particular note the comment in the final paragraph that, 'it should be seen as originating in Moses’ time but undergoing some slight revision in later eras so later readers could understand its message and apply it to their own situations.'

For more than 2,000 years, readers of the Pentateuch assumed that Moses was its author (cf. Mark 7:10). This was a natural conclusion to draw from its contents, for most of the laws are said to have been given to Moses by God (e.g., Lev. 1:1), and indeed some passages are explicitly said to have been written down by Moses (see Deut. 31:9, 24). The account of his death could have been recorded by someone else, though some held it was a prophetic account by Moses himself (Deuteronomy 34).

But in the late eighteenth century, critical scholars began challenging the assumption of Mosaic authorship. They argued that several authors were responsible for writing the Pentateuch. These authors supposedly wrote many centuries after Moses, and were separated from each other in time and location. Complicated theories were developed to explain how the Pentateuch grew as different authors’ accounts were spliced and adjusted by a series of editors. According to these critical scholars, it was likely that the Pentateuch reached its final form in the fifth century b.c., nearly a millennium after Moses.

In the late twentieth century this type of critical theory was strongly attacked, not just by conservative scholars but also by those brought up on such theories. They argue that the theories are too complicated, self-contradictory, and ultimately unprovable. It is much more rewarding and less speculative to focus interpretative effort on the final form of the text. So there is a strong move to abandon the compositional theories of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for simpler hypotheses. Thus some critical scholars would see the Pentateuch being an essentially fifth-century b.c. creation. Others suggest earlier dates. But none of these suggestions can really be proven.

The Pentateuch does undoubtedly claim to be divine in origin, mediated through Moses. Thus Moses should be looked to as the original human author. Indeed, as stated above, the Pentateuch looks like a life of Moses, with an introduction. But this need not mean that he wrote every word of the present Pentateuch. It seems likely that the spelling and the grammar of the Pentateuch were revised to keep it intelligible for later readers. Also, a number of features in the text look like clarifications for a later age. But this is quite different from supposing that the Pentateuch was essentially composed in a later age. Rather, it should be seen as originating in Moses’ time but undergoing some slight revision in later eras so later readers could understand its message and apply it to their own situations.   

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Again, dAveM, literary criticism is fine - as far as it goes. But an even such as captivity of half a million people and their subsequent departure from a territory leave evidence. We have none. Doesn't that mitigate against a Mosaic Pentateuch, and support  an edited version?
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

DaveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but
Again, dAveM, literary criticism is fine - as far as it goes. But an even such as captivity of half a million people and their subsequent departure from a territory leave evidence. We have none. Doesn't that mitigate against a Mosaic Pentateuch, and support  an edited version?
Hi AM.

Not that it proves anything, but it is worth remembering that the length of time when there was such a large population in Egypt may well have been a very short period. When I was at school in the 1950's the population of Africa was estimated at 180 million, although today revised estimates place the figure at more likely close to 250 million.  Today, some 60 years later Africa's population is estimated at 1.2 billion, an average growth rate of around 2.65% or a doubling every 27 years.  On the basis of these sorts of numbers, at the time of Moses' birth the number of men was possibly as low as 75 000 while when he fled from Egypt at the age of 40 it could have been no more that around 210 000.  Only during the second 40 year period of Moses life would it have moved above this figure towards the 600 000 mark.

But the real purpose of my previous post was simply to highlight that there is no unanimity amongst Biblical scholars on this issue with a substantial number favouring the Pentateuch to have been substantially Mosaic authorship with some subsequent fairly minor editing. 

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7134
Again, dAveM, literary criticism is fine - as far as it goes. But an even such as captivity of half a million people and their subsequent departure from a territory leave evidence. We have none. Doesn't that mitigate against a Mosaic Pentateuch, and support  an edited version?
What you mean by an 'edited version' - a gross exaggeration of the original material - seems to be very different to what Dave and I mean - small changes centuries later but keeping the original detail. The number 600,000 seems to have been in the original documents, even if you see no archaeological evidence for it.

Thanks for the info, Dave.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Hi AM.

Not that it proves anything, but it is worth remembering that the length of time when there was such a large population in Egypt may well have been a very short period. When I was at school in the 1950's the population of Africa was estimated at 180 million, although today revised estimates place the figure at more likely close to 250 million.  Today, some 60 years later Africa's population is estimated at 1.2 billion, an average growth rate of around 2.65% or a doubling every 27 years.  On the basis of these sorts of numbers, at the time of Moses' birth the number of men was possibly as low as 75 000 while when he fled from Egypt at the age of 40 it could have been no more that around 210 000.  Only during the second 40 year period of Moses life would it have moved above this figure towards the 600 000 mark.

But the real purpose of my previous post was simply to highlight that there is no unanimity amongst Biblical scholars on this issue with a substantial number favouring the Pentateuch to have been substantially Mosaic authorship with some subsequent fairly minor editing. 



Even were a large population present for a short time (five years, for example) substantial traces of their activity would exist - witness the temporary Roman camps set up by Agricola in his Caledonian campaign - each camp occupied for a few months at best, but all easily excavated.
Again, no such evidence for a large temporary population in Egypt exists.
Sorry, Dave.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
What you mean by an 'edited version' - a gross exaggeration of the original material - seems to be very different to what Dave and I mean - small changes centuries later but keeping the original detail. The number 600,000 seems to have been in the original documents, even if you see no archaeological evidence for it. Thanks for the info, Dave.
- Spud: If there are no remains for a population of 600,00 - middens, cemetaries, breweries, townships, etc - then there was no such population. You might be able to lose a village of a few hundred inhabitants - or a town with a few thousands; but a population of over half a million would be impossible to lose - the traces would be far too obvious. There are no such traces in the Qantir region - absolutely none.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 04:34:47 PM by Anchorman »
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

DaveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but

Even were a large population present for a short time (five years, for example) substantial traces of their activity would exist - witness the temporary Roman camps set up by Agricola in his Caledonian campaign - each camp occupied for a few months at best, but all easily excavated.
Again, no such evidence for a large temporary population in Egypt exists.
Sorry, Dave.
The first paragraph of my post commenced with the phrase, 'Not that it proves anything', while the second paragraph commenced with the phrase, 'But the real purpose of my previous post'.  So I am a bit disappointed that you have only responded to the first paragraph and not seen fit to give any response to the main thrust of my posts, which is that a substantial number of scholars do not go along with your views (although clearly many others do).  Do you considers the contributors to the ESV translation as being no more than lightweight theologians of no real consequence?  Do we need to place them in the category of simple wooden biblical literalists?

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18265
The first paragraph of my post commenced with the phrase, 'Not that it proves anything', while the second paragraph commenced with the phrase, 'But the real purpose of my previous post'.  So I am a bit disappointed that you have only responded to the first paragraph and not seen fit to give any response to the main thrust of my posts, which is that a substantial number of scholars do not go along with your views (although clearly many others do).  Do you considers the contributors to the ESV translation as being no more than lightweight theologians of no real consequence?  Do we need to place them in the category of simple wooden biblical literalists?

Just out of interest, Dave, are the scholars you refer to archaeologists or theologians: what Jim seems to be saying is that there is no supporting archaeology for the OT details of the Exodus claim, which there would be were it true - therefore it simply didn't happen as per the story in the OT.

In this case archaeology trumps theology.

   
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 07:23:50 PM by Gordon »

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18265
The number 600,000 seems to have been in the original documents, even if you see no archaeological evidence for it.

Prepare yourself for a shock, Spud - in the absence of supporting archaeology the 600,000 is plain wrong.

Perhaps now would be a good time to stop taking what the Bible says literally when what it says patently isn't true.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Dave, my speciality is Egyptology (actually, post Amarna and Third Intermediate Period, if you're interested) There are no qualified experts in the field who  can produce any evidence to contradict theconventional view of archaeology - that the Exodus did not occur precisely as laid down in Scripture. I can't change that. I know many so-called 'Bible archaeologists' and spurious websites either ignore the lack of evidence, or try to twist what they think exists to fit some YEC model that makes them comfortable - but this is dishonest and unworthy of either the Christian or the historian. Of course I'd love to have every jot and tittle of Exodus proved to be accurate to the letter - but it simply is not, and no amount of theological hoops jumped through with a Bible in hand will make it accurate. That's why, with many others, I'm perfectly comfortable with a radical editting of the Pentateuch in the sixth or late fifth centuries - where the actual history of Egypt of the fourteenth to tenth centuries would be little more than speculation unless the writers were literate in Hieroglyphs or Hieratic, which seems implausible, since even the vast majority of Egyptians themselves were illiterate.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18265
Came across this, which is worth a listen (apart from the ads).

http://www.historyhitpodcast.com/the-historical-reliability-of-the-bible-francesca-stavrakopoulou/

Re. Exodus - she says Moses didn't exist.

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Came across this, which is worth a listen (apart from the ads).

http://www.historyhitpodcast.com/the-historical-reliability-of-the-bible-francesca-stavrakopoulou/

Re. Exodus - she says Moses didn't exist.
thanks Gordon , gives some perspective to reality , however the diehards will never accept it ,sadly.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16038
  • Maranatha!
Actually, I don't think we can say that Moses didn't exist. All we can say is that there is no evidence for events happening as laid down in Exodus as we have it today.
"for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Actually, I don't think we can say that Moses didn't exist. All we can say is that there is no evidence for events happening as laid down in Exodus as we have it today.
you've just proved my point.

DaveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but
Just out of interest, Dave, are the scholars you refer to archaeologists or theologians: what Jim seems to be saying is that there is no supporting archaeology for the OT details of the Exodus claim, which there would be were it true - therefore it simply didn't happen as per the story in the OT.

In this case archaeology trumps theology.

 
Morning Gordon,

The ESV Bible is widely recognised as one of the more accurate translations available today.  The commentary notes provided in the ESV Study Bible could be said to represent a broad conservative evangelical approach to biblical exegesis.  The contributors are primarily theologians and pretty well without exception have PhD’s in their respective fields of expertise from recognised and well respected universities and theological institutions.  The majority of these are in the UK and include the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, London, Liverpool, Bristol, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Queens in Belfast.  In the USA are the Fuller and Westminster Theological Seminaries, and Universities such as Harvard, California, Michigan, Northwest and Michigan.  There are also a handful from other countries including one contributor who qualified at the University of Stellenbosch (not that far from where I live) and which would be classified as teaching an essentially liberal approach to theology.

Of interest is that the ESV Study Bible also includes an article on the arguments put forward by the proponents of both an early date and a late date for the Exodus.  The ESV does not take a firm position on either.  In fact in its chronological charts of Old Testament dates it always offers two options, one based on an early date and the other on a later date.  What is of real interest is that the proponents of each date include arguments based on archaeological data and findings to support their position.  All of which indicates that there are those archaeologists who do believe that there is evidence for the Exodus and that, as in so many disciplines, the available evidence is not as clear cut as we would wish and is open to interpretation. 

Enjoy your day.  310C here today and heading for 35 tomorrow.  So summer at the southern tip of Africa is not done yet!