The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

Re: The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein & Silberman, Free Press Pub.These two authors, one an archeologist and the other a historian, have published a book which draws attention to some striking discrepancies between certain Bible (Torah) narratives vs. recent archeological and historical findings. By recent, I mean within the last hundred years.Of the several topics covered within the book (the Patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, etc.), I'd like to discuss the Exodus story within this thread.Israel Finkelstein - Director of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University.Neil Asher Silberman - Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archeology in Belgium and a contributing editor to Archeology magazine.The book of Exodus describes the labours of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, their eventual liberation at the hand of Moses, and the subsequent wanderings of these people in Sinai for forty years. Does this story reflect historical reality? Can we find extra-biblical and/or archeological evidence in support of this story?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). 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. Also, despite the fact that the ancient Egyptians kept good records, there exists no Egyptian record of a concentration of Hebrews living in the eastern delta, as implied by Genesis 47:27. Indeed, there are no Egyptian records relating to a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. Furthermore, during this time period (LB), Egypt was in control not only of the Sinai, but of Canaan, as well. Egypt had fortifications throughout the entire region, extending as far north as the border with Syria, making it unlikely that a large group of Hebrews could have entered the region without meeting Egyptian opposition.According to the Exodus account (12:37-38), the freed Hebrews numbered almost two million (600 thousand men as well as women, children, and the elderly, not to mention cattle, sheep, etc.), and wandered in the Sinai for forty years. However, archeologists have been unable to uncover a single campsite or sign of occupation within the Sinai during this (LB) period - no pot sherds, no bones, no emcampements, nothing.The Bible (Deut. 1:46, 2:14) tells us that these Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps 38 out of 40 years) encamped in and around Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai. The location of this site is set in Num. 34. Repeated excavations within this area have not provided the slightest evidence of occupation during the LB. Ezion-geber is another such site identified in the Bible, and again, no trace of LB occupation has been discovered.What does this tell us? It suggests that the dates and places mentioned in the Exodus story do not relate to the time of the Exodus as related in the Bible. Quoting from the authors...The most evocative and consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE, during the great era of the prosperity of the kingdom of Judah - six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place. All of the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering of the Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century; in some cases they were occupied only at that time.The Bible tells us that Moses sent agents from Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom to ask permission to pass through the country on the way to Canaan (Num 20:14-21). The king refused. Archeological investigations suggest that Edom reached statehood only under Assyrian rule sometime in the seventh century BCE. Before that, it was a backwater.Again, this seventh century era keeps popping up in archeological and historical investigations. But by this time, Judah was already established as an Israelite settlement.

So far I've seen portions of the chariot wheels video and data on TV as stated in my thread on this subject.You don't mean Ron Wyatt, do you?

Imagine mentioning Ron Wyatt in the same post as Israel Finkelstien LOL, it's absolutely mind boggling.Yup. See hereAlso, for a review of the book, See here

Hey, guy!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.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.Why do you imagine that the city by that name is related to the pharoah of that name?Is that so very far-fetched? The Egyptian name of the city of Raamses was Piramesse, which translates in its full form to "The Domain of Raamses-mearmon, great in victories" and is associated by historians with Ramesses II (source: Anchor Bible Dictionary). Ram II was, in fact, a great warrior and city builder. However, he ruled from 1279 to 1212 BCE, which puts him completely outside the biblical Exodus timeframe.

Are you familiar with arguments as to why this 480 years is not 480 years?Are you willing to discuss, to share insights, or are you simply playing games?

Thanks for the links.Yes, I'm quite familiar with the work of Barry Setterfield. I once engaged him in an online discussion concerning his astronomical c-decay theory, and I've had extensive discussions on biblical topics with his wife Helen Fryman.Both Barry and Helen are young earth creationists and I also know that Helen is a confirmed biblical literalist. Although Barry writes on biblical topics as well as topics related to (creationist) astronomy, my recollection is that he lacks formal qualifications in either discipline (this could have changed since the last time I checked). This is not to say that he should be ignored. However, in reading Setterfield, one quickly determines that his apparent goal is to promote the creationist/biblical literalist-inerrantist position and, in so doing, he sometimes (in my opinion) sacrifices intellectual integrity.With regard to your second link, I'm not familiar with Alan Montgomery and I honestly had neither the time nor the inclination to read through his rather lengthy paper in search of whatever point you were attempting to make. Let me offer you a bit of advice: simply posting links to lengthy Internet articles is a poor substitute for discussion.

Aardsma claimed [1, p1] that the "historicity of the Old Testament is currently facing a challenge of unprecedented severity". He thinks that secular archaeologists may provide as serious an intellectual challenge to the faithful as Darwinism. Therefore, it is important to use the lessons we have learned from the challenge of Darwinism. The hidden strength of creationists lay in their humility to put their complete trust in God's Word, ahead of their own professional training, knowledge and understanding, and their courage to withstand the mocking and jeering of the press and peers. They have built their positions of faith and practice on the foundation of inerrancy. Biblical scholars would do well to follow them when the facing the new challenges to the historicity of the Old Testament.A fascinating yet completely predictable approach on the part of many biblical literalists. Thanks for providing the quote.He thinks that secular archaeologists may provide as serious an intellectual challenge to the faithful as Darwinism.I wonder what is meant here by "the faithful"? I also wonder what challenge Darwinism poses to "the faithful". Who are the 'faithful'?Within the next few days, I'm going to try and put together something on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Torah which, I believe, is relevant to some of the issues you brought forth in the context of the Aardsma/Montgomery quote. I don't know whether that merits a new thread or not, or whether that topic has already been covered. Perhaps our moderator can advise.[This message has been edited by Orion, 03-19-2003][This message has been edited by Orion, 03-19-2003]

Answers...I. The authors use an archeological timeline.
II. We have records which suggest that the Egyptians made use of migrant, seasonal labour. I am personally unaware of any records regarding slaves.
III. Don't know.
IV. There was a succession of Egyptian kings named Ramesses from circa 1300 to 1070 BCE.
V. The Egyptians had in place fortifications in the northern Sinai, Gaza, and Canaan as far north as the border with what is now Syria. As to the exact number of these fortifications and to what extent they were staffed, I really don't know except to say that it appears that the locals (especially in Canaan) paid the Egyptians to provide this service as a form of protection from invasion by northern neighbours.
VI. Archeologists are very adept at discovering evidence of human habitation, especially with regard to the alleged wanderings of some 2 million people over a period of forty years. Re: change of clothes - the longest wearing set of jeans I ever had lasted me three years, and I only wore them once a week.
VII. Yes.
VIII. Don't know.
IX. I don't understand the nature or intent of your question.
X. Fairly certain.
XI. During the time of the alleged Exodus, Edom is believed to have been inhabited by Bedouins.

What about generals or statesmen?Well, I suppose it's possible that there was a janitor named Raameses for whom the Egyptians named the city. However, there appears to be general agreement among historians and archeologists that the city was named after king Raameses II. The guy was, after all, a warrior and a city builder. The problem is, Ram II's reign falls considerably outside of the biblical Exodus timeframe, and therein lies one of the many problems associated with the biblical account.I note that, in my absence, others have attempted to answer your numerous questions. However, I would suggest to you that peppering a thread with (often pointless) questions is a rather poor substitute for discussion, especially questions of the form: "Can you provide supporting evidence?".You can probably answer many of your own questions by employing a search engine such as Google or by obtaining a copy of the book which I referenced in the intro to this thread, after which, I look forward to discussing some of these issues with you.[This message has been edited by Orion, 04-07-2003]

First, I am not as familiar with the evidence and reasoning behind modern archeological opinion as I would like to be...I understand this, and it's quite acceptable....Mr. Finkelstein is somewhat prone to lying in order to prove his theories.Mr. Finkelstein has either lied about his knowledge of the Bible, or he has lied in attributing to it claims which it has never made.And this is where you fall into a hole. You've already stated that you're not up to date on modern archeological findings, and yet you accuse this man of 'lying'? Render unto me a break![This message has been edited by Orion, 04-13-2003]

I stated that Mr. Finkelstein lied about the Bible.It's one thing to argue that an author is misinformed or incorrect, or that perhaps you don't agree with his position, but it's quite another to accuse the author of lying. You have demonstrated no basis for this absurd accusation.A sidebar question: If Finkelstein's (apparent) thesis that the biblical Exodus story is mostly fictional in that there exists no supporting evidence in its favour is correct (and he is not alone in this opinion), would your world come crashing down? Would your faith be shaken to it's core?[This message has been edited by Orion, 04-15-2003]

I've been looking into this a bit. In a previous post the statement was made to the effect that the Isrealites spent up to 38 years in and around kadesh-barnea.Well, yes and no. That is the biblical interpretation. However, archeologists have thus far been unable to discover evidence of habitation of Kadesh-Barnea by anyone of the alleged Exodus magnitude during the Exodus timeframe. Upwards of two million people cannot but leave evidence of their prolonged presence within a region.

I was only addressing the assertion by ws_fortenberry that Finkelstein(?) is lying or ignorant. If you read the Biblical account, compare it to the maps, it is reasonable enough to say that according to the Biblical account the Isrealites lived in and around kadesh-barnea for about 38 years. That is the only point I meant to make.Understood and agreed. I apologize if I misunderstood your implication.

I see this discussion came to a dead stop. Wonder what happened to fortenberry?Dunno. Folks tend to drift in and out of these types of fora.As to the thread, I attempted to present information from the book as best I could, and I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from others here.

I, too, was taken aback by W's accusation that Finkelstein and others were 'lying' with respect to the the Exodus account. Why in the hell would he and other distinguished scholars threaten their credibility within the academic community by publishing deliberate falsehoods?As I pointed out earlier, to disagree with someone's assertions is one thing; that happens all the time. But to accuse someone of deliberate deception is quite another.Where is W, anyway?