The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Hi Orion!...there is a lot we could discuss here, but I might just touch on acouple of points to start.Orion:
First, let's establish the time frame. The biblical account in 1 Kings 6:1 dates the Exodus to about 1440 BCE in the Late Bronze age (LB).
Judge:
I think there is very good reason to doubt the 480 years mentioned here as being correct. If you have a look at Acts chapter 13 you will see that 480 years cannot be correct.IOW I beleive the exodus would have happened around 1590 B.C.Orion:
Right away, problems crop up. Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Hebrews were forced to construct the city of Raamses, but the first pharaoh with that name came to the throne in 1320 BCE, more than a century after the biblical date of the Exodus.Judge:
Why do you imagine that the city by that name is related to the pharoah of that name?All the best[This message has been edited by judge, 03-17-2003]

I don't believe it is reasonable to attempt to verify the historicity of the Exodus accounts using anything contained in Acts. One has to assume that the authors of the books of Exodus, Kings, Numbers, etc. wrote in a timeframe much closer to the alleged Exodus events than did the author of Acts.Judge:
Are you familiar with arguments as to why this 480 years is not 480 years?

Hi quetzal...good to have your input! Hi Judge.
in a reply to Orion, Judge writes:I think there is very good reason to doubt the 480 years mentioned here as being correct. If you have a look at Acts chapter 13 you will see that 480 years cannot be correct. IOW I beleive the exodus would have happened around 1590 B.C.Quetzal:
Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at this date?Judge:
As I mentioned above if we look at 1 kings and compare it with Acts chapter 13 wee see that both sets of numbers cannot possibly be taken literally. (Intersetingly the LXX has a different number of years again.)
So the obvious conclusion is that they are both wrong or one of them is wrong (taken literally).
My own investigations (as an amatuer ) have led me to believe that the Aramaic NT is the least corrupt of all biblical texts we have. The greek variants of Acts chapt 13 seem to show that some people tried to alter the text to make it fit.
There seems a strong tendency for some to stick with the 480 years from the maasoretic hebrew text as a literal time....I think this approach is wrong.A couple of articles giving this sort of date are here. I am aware that as one is authored by Barry setterfield this will cause some additional skepticism for some ...but I think the case presented stands on it's own.
http://www.ldolphin.org/barrychron.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.htmlI am unable to open these sites at the moment but I beleive that the issue of who was pharoah is touched on in at least one of the essaysIf correct, the pharaoh would have been the 17th Dynasty king Tao II Sekenere (1591-1573, capital Thebes) under the Hyksos (he's the guy who started the ultimately successful war against them). Tao only controlled Upper Egypt, and was killed in battle. His son, Kamose finished the war, and ushered in the New Kingdom period. Interestingly, Tao II's mummy shows evidence of battle ax, spear, etc wounds. He didn't drown.It seems a little strange that you are claiming he was the one who died in the Exodus account.Judge:
I am not....but I will have to go over why this would not be the case again...it is some time.[This message has been edited by judge, 03-18-2003]

Judge:
Are you familiar with arguments as to why this 480 years is not 480 years?Orion:
Are you willing to discuss, to share insights, or are you simply playing games?Judge:
Hi orion...check out the links I provided to Quetzal. I'm not playing games...but I don't just want an argument for the sake of it. I was not sure whether perhaps your mind was already made up.All the best.[This message has been edited by judge, 03-18-2003]

No problem Admin!
As I mentioned I was unable to open lambert dolphins website yesterday...so I thought I would at least post the links, as a precursor. But I see your point and will be happy to engage in discussion with any one interested, as I do have an interest in the area and in learning more.

Hi judge - thanks for the links. Interesting bits of calculation they do. Still and all, for me the question remains which pharaoh was killed in the Exodus? The second link indicates 1591 +- 1, which again roughly puts it at the start of Tao II's reign.Judge:
Still unable to open that site from where I am (not like it's subversive or anything! ) ...but for some reason I am denied access. Will try to have another look on the weekend.

Weird. I wonder why you're having problems? It opened easily from here. Anyway, once you get it working, let me know what your take on the dating bit is.Judge:
No the problem was I was unable to open it from the computer I was using. I am home now so I have opened it. My take on the dating presently is that Setterfield has the best case I have seen.He arrives at 1585 +or- 6 years. This agrees with Montgoimery and I think they use independent methods (I'll have to check).With this in mind I will post a quote from his essay.....he initially refers to the Ipuwer papyrus, then on to Manetho.(e). Egypt Conquered Without A Single Battle!

​

This Papyrus therefore lends support to the contention that the Plagues of Moses occurred at the close of the Middle Kingdom. But that is not all. Ipuwer noted that these plagues came about the time that the invading Hyksos entered Egypt. He states (2:5 - 6) 'The nomes are laid waste: a foreign tribe from abroad has come into Egypt.' This connection with the Plagues and the Hyksos is an important link because of an additional comment from the Egyptian historian Manetho. He called the Plagues 'A blast of heavenly displeasure.' He went on: 'We had a king called Tutimaeus. In his reign it happened. I do not know why God was displeased with us. Then unexpectedly from the regions of the East, came men of unknown race. Confident of victory they marched against our land. By force they took it, easily, without a single battle. ...' (W. Keller, 'The Bible as History', p. 101).

​

Pause right there just for a moment. These Hyksos conquered Egypt 'easily, without a single battle.' How remarkable! Where was all the might of the Egyptian armies that had conquered Nubia a few years before. 'Without a single battle' implies that there was no Egyptian Army to fight against them. Why not? Unless Pharaoh's armies had just been destroyed in the Red Sea and there were no military personnel left. That can be the only logical conclusion one can come to. Manetho's comment is therefore an important piece of contributory evidence.

​

(f). The Pharaoh Of The Exodus?

​

But it goes further. It names the Pharaoh at the time of these events as Tutimaeus. The 'Tuti' in Greek corresponds to 'Dudi' in Egyptian, and the 'maeus' Greek ending is the equivalent of the Egyptian 'mose'. Given this identification, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Dudimose I who reigned near the close of the 13th Dynasty. Now the Atlas of Ancient Egypt shows the dates of the early 12th Dynasty dates are exact, being astronomically determined. However, the Atlas admits that 13th Dynasty dates from Sobekhotep I onward are approximate at best. It suggests that Sobekhotep IV reigned around 1720 BC and the 2nd Intermediate period started about 1640 BC. However, the Biblical chronology developed above has Moses fleeing from Kha'neferre about 1625 with the Exodus in 1585 BC 6 years. It therefore appears that these admittedly imprecise 13th Dynasty dates may need a correction and be brought forward by a period ranging from 55 to 95 years. This is well within the bounds of possibility and contrasts sharply with the attempts of some to totally revise Egyptian Chronology.Now I am interested in your thoughts. I have read before about the unsettled nature of egyptian chronology, but am far from an expert.[This message has been edited by judge, 03-20-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 03-20-2003]

Paulk:It is certainly questionable that it concerns the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty as Setterfield says, and the main concern seems to be famine and civil strife - not the plagues of Exodus.
"How comes it that every man kills his brother? The troops whom we marshaled for ourselves have turned into foreigners and have taken to ravaging"Judge:
Paul I agree!!...but I think the fact that the main concern is famine and civil strife supports the case that the Ipuwer papyrus, is relating the situation after the plagues not the plagues themselves.
This is exactly what would be expected afterwardsPaulk:
Setterfield's claim that the disasters mentioned by Ipuwer were associated with the arrival of the Hyksos is speculation - it is not explicit in the text which refers only to "foreigners" - not even specifying that these are Asiatics rather than, say, Libyans. In the translation referenced above it does not seem to refer to any specific people, rather it refers to foreigners in general.Judge:
OK fair enough, do you have any reason to think it may refer to Libyans?Paulk:
Manetho is a late source and it is possible that his account is influenced by the propaganda of the Hyksos' enemies. We don't really know much about how the Hyksos takeover happened. We don't even have the original of Manetho - all we have is quotations from other sources (this one is from a Jewish apologetic, _Contra Apion_) and it seems that these secondary sources did not have entirely reliable material to work with. I have heard it said that the Hyksos were immigrants to Egypt who took over mainly by outbreeding their neighbours.Judge:
Do you have any reference for this?Paulk:
(As Exodus 1 says it was feared that the Israelites would - it seems to me that the oppression of Exodus would fit in rather better with the period immediately following the expulsion of the Hyksos where Asiatics would likely be persecuted and kept on a tight reign).Judge:
Can you expand at all here?Paulk:
As I have pointed out Setterfield's case on the matters discussed above is not that strong, but it is in the section on Pithom and Raamses where he goes seriously wrong. He does not give any dates for the structures at Pithom - but the original excavators attributed it to Rameses II based on the archaeology. It is unlikely that Setterfield is unaware of this - if he is it represents a serious gap in his research - yet he does not mention it at all. Yet still he tries to use bricks laid centuries after the date he assigns to the Exodus as evidence for the reliability of the Exodus account.Judge:
Thanks for the link you provided. In assume I can find reference in there. Will have a look.Judge:
The problem seems to me that if the Ipuwer papyrus does not refer to the chaos that followed the exodus, then to what does it refer?all the best

Thanks again for the links!....I will try to look at them in the near future.PaulK:
Are you really suggesting that only the plagues of Exodus could produce the civil disturbances mentioned in the Ipuwer papyrus ? In that case surely you have to move the Exodus even further back to the collapse of the Old Kingdom (circa 2160 BC) - since we know that there were such disturbances then and that the Ipuwer papyrus may well be about those.Judge:
I had heard that there may be disagreement as to the dating of the Ipuwer papyrus. Do you know if any scholars date it to this period?The only reference i have is, John Van seeters, "A Date for the Admonitions" The journal of egyptian archeology. L (1964) pp.13-23.
He apparently thinks it is from the end of the middle kingdom.I think Alan Gardiner in his 1909 translation, also known as the "admonitions of an egyptian slave" agreed with this as well.In the absence of a dating at the end of the old kingdom we may have to steer away from it for the time being?[This message has been edited by judge, 03-22-2003]

Hi fortenberry!fort:
Finally, I also have a rather minor and simple question for judge.
What date is given in Acts 13? I have read the chapter several times and have yet to findjudge:
If we read 1 kings 6(?) we see that it plainly says there was a period of 480 years from entering cannaan until the construction of the temple (fourth year of solomons reign I think). I don't have a bible here but I think this is right.Read acts chapter 13 and add up the years provided there. I think there is 450 years of judges, 40 years of David, 40 for saul etc...
IOW if we add Sauls reign, Davids reign, the period of the judges etc...it clearly comes to more than 480 years.
480 years is given in the hebrew massoretic text, but the LXX says 440 IIRC.These deatils may be wrong (I don't have them in fromt of me now)
But if you check you will see that both sets of numbers cannot be true.
Setterfield gives one possible explanation in the link I provided above.