Talk:The Exodus/Archive 1

message: Hi.  I'd just like to add my input on the "480 years between Exodus and Temple Dedication" section.  
I understand that this section mentions several reasons suggesting that 1446 BC is an unlikely date for the Exodus.  I'd just like to add another one: it appears that Moses was born between 1300 and 1100 BC.  Frankly, I don't understand how Moses could have initiated the Exodus 64 years prior to his birth.  Can anyone provide me with an exact year for the Exodus - one that is perhaps a bit more probable (preferably post-1300 BC)? 69.183.52.57 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exodus dated 1446 BC?

message: Hello everyone. I'd love to see The Exodus article improved, as I'm sure we all would. It is flagged as possibly POV and there are obviously lots of points to be reconciled. I'm going to "Be Bold" and try to restart the whole discussion page from the top, to see if we can make some progress.
For the last month the discussion has been entirely between User:ThaThinker and the anonymous 207.224.194.34 (IMHO, it would help if you logged in). I'm sure there are others who want to contribute, and I hope you will. What I intend to do for now is pull out what I see as the key discussion points, because it was getting a little involved and perhaps off the point. FrankP 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because the majority of scholars don't believe in the mythicist point of view. Even the most liberal of scholars will state that some of the Israelites probably came out of egypt. As stated in many places, the belief that the exodus is just pure myth is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Even finkestein won't go quite that far. This is a minority view screaming to become majority, but it isn't central to anything, it's a peripheral issue to almost all scholars. Thanatosimii 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion cleanup

message: The opposing point of view is that the Exodus is entirely fictional, or based so loosely on dimly-remembered legend that asking precise historical questions of the narrative is futile.
This position is well-supported academically now, and applies to Biblical "history" at least as far as Solomon and David. From the point of view of someone (like myself) who regards Solomon's kingdom itself as a fairy story it is senseless to enquire what exact date is connected with Joshua or what route the Exodus took. FrankP 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because the majority of scholars don't believe in the mythicist point of view. Even the most liberal of scholars will state that some of the Israelites probably came out of egypt. As stated in many places, the belief that the exodus is just pure myth is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Even finkestein won't go quite that far. This is a minority view screaming to become majority, but it isn't central to anything, it's a peripheral issue to almost all scholars. Thanatosimii 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythicist point of view

message: ==Hyksos theory vs. 15th century date==
Pharaoh Amosis I (in Greek, Ahmose) freed the Egyptians from slavery to the Hyksos in about 1550 BC, driving the Hyksos out of Egypt and into southern Palestine.  The derivation of the name Moses from Amosis is obvious.  The pottery trail from the kilns of Avaris (the Hyksos capitol in Egypt) to the hills of Israel confirms the ethnic identity of the Hyksos with the Hebrews.  NASA's dating of Joshua's twin eclipses to 1470 BC confirms the timing.  Monuments, scarabs, and other objects confirm that at least two of the Hyksos rulers were named Jacob.  The Hebrew storytellers simply recast themselves from the villians to the heros in the story of the Exodus.
There are many other instances where the Hebrew storytellers recast history. For example, the story of Moses and the bullrushes is a recasting of the story of Sargon (about 2300 BC) and the bullrushes: "My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship."
Ref.
Sargon and the bullrushes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad
207.224.194.34 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments over historical theories

message: Pharaoh Amosis I (in Greek, Ahmose) freed the Egyptians from slavery to the Hyksos in about 1550 BC, driving the Hyksos out of Egypt and into southern Palestine.  The derivation of the name Moses from Amosis is obvious.  The pottery trail from the kilns of Avaris (the Hyksos capitol in Egypt) to the hills of Israel confirms the ethnic identity of the Hyksos with the Hebrews.  NASA's dating of Joshua's twin eclipses to 1470 BC confirms the timing.  Monuments, scarabs, and other objects confirm that at least two of the Hyksos rulers were named Jacob.  The Hebrew storytellers simply recast themselves from the villians to the heros in the story of the Exodus.
There are many other instances where the Hebrew storytellers recast history. For example, the story of Moses and the bullrushes is a recasting of the story of Sargon (about 2300 BC) and the bullrushes: "My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship."
Ref.
Sargon and the bullrushes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad
207.224.194.34 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyksos theory vs. 15th century date

message: --ThaThinker says: You have to accept that although the Exodus happened with the expulsion of the Hyksos, ca. 1544-1521, Joshua's conquests took place 1250-1150, as per the archaeology, ...
Joshua's conquests did NOT take place in 1250-1150, and modern archaeology flatly contradicts those dates for Joshua.  Carbon dating, confirmed by textual, pottery, eclipse, and other evidence, places Joshua firmly in the late 1400's BC.  For example, as I referenced earlier, the Amarna letters, which were written 1400-1330 BC, say that invaders had earlier destroyed exactly the city that Joshua destroyed when he invaded.
All of the "evidence" you've been citing seems to be pre-1992 -- before carbon dating corrected the earlier erroneous assumptions.  The carbon dating showed that much of the destruction attributed to Joshua was in fact due to either earlier or later compaigns.  I don't know of a single modern archaeologist who places Joshua anywhere other than the late 1400's BC.
Can you cite a single archaeologist since 2000 who places Joshua anywhere other than the late 1400's BC?
207.224.194.34 14:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The archaeology opposing the Hyksos=Hebrews theory is old, outdated, and misinterpreted 

message: -- ThaThinker says: I am aware of no mainstream movement in archaeology since 2000 that has changed either Israelite or Egyptian chronology that much.
So you agree with putting Joshua ca. 1470 BC?
-- ThaThinker says: When you say Joshua's conquests did not take place 1250-1150, do you admit that these "Joshua" cities have transitions from Canaanite to proto-Israelite in that time frame? ...
I have no problem at all with any archaeology of any period.  No modern archaeologist that I know of identifies any site from that time period with the Biblical Joshua.
-- ThaThinker says: If you want to get Herzog involved in this page, how about getting somebody representing other mainstream views like those of ben-Tor and the Mazars, for balance?
Sure, if I run into them.  I didn't mean to exclude them; I simply wasn't planning on visiting Hebrew University or Hazor.
I am not sure what you would expect the Mazars to contribute, since I believe Amihai is in semi-retirement and Eilat works mainly around the Temple Mount.
I believe Ben-Tor, on the other hand, would simply confirm the mainstream view placing Joshua ca. 1470 BC.  Ben-Tor's excellent work at Hazor confirms that it was probably destroyed by Israelites, but Ben-Tor has repudiated the late Yigael Yadin's identification of those Israelites with Joshua.
207.224.194.34 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rameses, Hazor, etc 

message: No modern archaeologist I know of claims that the entire "conquest" happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. No modern archaeologist I know of takes anything in the Bible as literal truth unless it's proven by other evidence.  Like the story of the Exodus itself, most modern archaeologists (such as Ben-Tor) believe that the story of the "conquest" is a conflation, compression, and recasting of events (e.g. that's why references to iron age events are included side-by-side with references to much earlier events).
Ben-Tor doesn't claim Joshua destroyed Hazor; he claims that the story of the destruction of Hazor by the proto-Israelites is a piece of evidence that the proto-Israelites did indeed destroy Hazor -- even if the story is mis-attributed to Joshua.  I agree with him.  And Yadin himself noted the obvious, that the Biblical Joshua might have been responsible for one of the earlier destruction layers at Hazor: "The lower city flourished throughout the Late Bronze Age, i.e., 15th to 13th centuries, B.C., being alternately destroyed and rebuilt."
If you believe the Biblical Joshua was responsible for the destruction of Hazor that happened ca. 1250 BC, as opposed to one of the earlier destructions, do you also believe the Biblical Joshua destroyed the walls of Jericho ca. 1250 BC?
207.224.194.34 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ... 

message: No modern archaeologist I know of claims that the entire "conquest" happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. No modern archaeologist I know of takes anything in the Bible as literal truth unless it's proven by other evidence.  Like the story of the Exodus itself, most modern archaeologists (such as Ben-Tor) believe that the story of the "conquest" is a conflation, compression, and recasting of events (e.g. that's why references to iron age events are included side-by-side with references to much earlier events).
Ben-Tor doesn't claim Joshua destroyed Hazor; he claims that the story of the destruction of Hazor by the proto-Israelites is a piece of evidence that the proto-Israelites did indeed destroy Hazor -- even if the story is mis-attributed to Joshua.  I agree with him.  And Yadin himself noted the obvious, that the Biblical Joshua might have been responsible for one of the earlier destruction layers at Hazor: "The lower city flourished throughout the Late Bronze Age, i.e., 15th to 13th centuries, B.C., being alternately destroyed and rebuilt."
If you believe the Biblical Joshua was responsible for the destruction of Hazor that happened ca. 1250 BC, as opposed to one of the earlier destructions, do you also believe the Biblical Joshua destroyed the walls of Jericho ca. 1250 BC?
207.224.194.34 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the Conquest happened 40 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos ... 

message: A historical date for Joshua and the Conquest is of course of relevance in setting any date for the Exodus. Hence much of the Talk Page discussion has centred on competing theories for Joshua's historical period. I've collected these contributions here. FrankP 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating of Joshua

message: Joshua was alive in 1471 BC.
Joshua 10:12 "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon" describes a rare pair of dual total solar/lunar eclipses.  Since total solar eclipses occur only about once every 370 years at any given spot on earth, and since total lunar eclipses occur only a few times every decade, Joshua accurately described the unique celestial  confluence of a total lunar eclipse on Dec 22, 1471 BC, followed about two weeks later by a total solar eclipse on Jan 6, 1470  BC.  Joshua even accurately described the positions of the sun and the moon at the times of the eclipses.  "Standing still" may have been a reference to the ancient belief that the sun and the moon were propelled by their fires -- hence an eclipse meant loss of propulsion.  Joshua said the solar eclipse lasted a whole day, which is how long it may have seemed to someone watching the sun during the approximately four hours from the beginning of
an eclipse to the end (even though the period of totality is at most slightly over 7 minutes).
There is some confirmation in the Amarna letters (roughly 1400 BC to 1330 BC), which mention an earlier battle at Aijalon (EA 273), and which mention the name Jasuia (EA 256) (which is too late to be the Biblical Joshua, but which shows that the name was at least current).
There's even a limerick about the event.
Ajalon, Aijalon by Carol June Hooker  http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?Word=Ajalon
In the twilight, he started to pray 
For more daytime to finish a fray: 
"Sun o'er Gibeon, STALL! 
Moon o'er Ajalon, CRAWL!" 
Captain Joshua's prayer saved the day.
Ajalon (AH yah lon)'s lunar eclipse of December 22, 1471 B.C.E. and Gibeon's solar eclipse of January 6, 1470 B.C.E. seem to correspond with this account of Joshua's long battle.
Refs:
Ajalon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon
Amarna Letters http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html
207.224.194.34 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we assume a Joshua to have existed, that is the most probable time for him, 

message: -- ThaThinker says: The biblical account says that the sun stood still, not that it was an eclipse. Two very different things.
The sun is always standing still (it is the earth that rotates).  Thus Joshua's phrase must be idiomatic for some other kind of celestial event.  Did he mean:  1) the earth stopped rotating (which would have destroyed all life as we know it), or did he mean 2) there was an eclipse (which is what writers as late as the middle ages meant when they said the sun (or moon) stopped))?  Since life as we know it still exists, Joshua was obviously referring to an eclipse.
"As for the wording that the sun and the moon "stopped" in the sky, there was a widespread explanation, even during the Middle Ages, for example in A.D. 1595.  According to it, the light issued by celestial bodies served them as a propulsion for their apparent movements in the sky, just like for comets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon
-- ThaThinker says: A solar eclipse lasts for perhaps under an hour.
False.  For someone in the path of totality (as Joshua was), an eclipse lasts at least several hours from beginning to end.  Here is a random record from NASA of an eclipse on 2/26/98 that lasted from 15:54 to 18:56 at Alfaro, Ecuador. http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/980226/tables/table_16.html
-- ThaThinker says: I always wondered what that NASA claim was based on.
Physics.  Here is a link to NASA's eclipse calculation website, which lists all the solar and lunar eclipses in the world for 7,000 years: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html
-- ThaThinker says: It appears this urban legend that NASA had calculated Gibeon's sun standing still has Gibeon synchronized with an eclipse. As above, an eclipse lasting an hour is not the sun standing still for a day. One results in too much daylight, the other not enough. I just noticed this site on urban legends, which judges this one to be false:  http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm
Your own link says that a person named Harold Hill lied when he said that NASA had calculated that 24 hours were missing.  That has nothing to do with NASA's scientific dating of Joshua's twin eclipses (and hence Joshua himself) to 1470 BC.
-- ThaThinker says: The Amarna evidence does know of a name Joshua, but virtually all scholars, upon reading the account, conclude that this in all probability is not the biblical Joshua ...
Correct.  The Amarna letters merely show that the name Joshua is not an anachronism for the time.  And the Amarna letters (EA 273) confirm that Aijalon (where Joshua saw the moon "stop") was destroyed by invaders.
"In the Tell el-Amarna letters Adoni-zedek speaks of the destruction of the "city of Ajalon" by the invaders ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajalon
-- ThaThinker says: If you cite more actual prominent scholars other than Bimson, I might consider agreement with you. Even better, of course, would be a field archaeologist or two.
I'd be glad to.  The matter was settled over a decade ago by radiocarbon dating of the fire damage at several Joshua sites (before NASA even calculated the eclipse information) -- leading to a date of the 1400's BC for Joshua.  That eliminated all other reasonable theories for the Exodus story except for identifying it with the explusion of the Hyksos ca. 1550 BC.
I don't have the time or inclination to search old journals for references for you, but fortunately the Archaeology Institute of America at Boston Univeristy and the Learning Channel made an excellent movie called "Archaeology: Mysteries of the Holy Land" that includes interviews with several of the field archaeologists responsible for dating Joshua to the 1400's BC.  My local university has copies, as does my local public library, so you should be able to find it quite easily.  If not, you can probably get a used copy from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6304879822/qid=1144246137/sr=8-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-1413646-3166328?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=404272
The overwhelming mass of data dating Joshua to 1470 BC, thus confirming the identification of the Exodus story with the expulsion of the Hyksos, has had a huge historical, religious, and political impact.
Many religious groups have revised their Biblical chronologies to be more historically accurate.  For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses: "1473 BCE ... Israel enters Canaan under Joshua". http://betterdaysarecoming.com/chron/chronology.html
David Wolpe, a prominent Conservative Rabbi, said "The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all." http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Donald Redford, Toronto University, won the 1993 Best Scholarly Book in Archaeology Award for his work confirming Manetho's and Josephus' identification of the Exodus story with the expulsion of the Hyksos: "Likewise, Donald P. Redford, of Toronto University, presents striking evidence that the Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt was inverted to construct the exodus of the Hebrew slaves story in the Torah and Old Testament. His book, which argued this theory, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" was Winner of the 1993 Best Scholarly Book in Archaeology Award of the Biblical Archaeological Society." http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm
207.224.194.34 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua and the twin eclipses of 1471 and 1470 BC 

message: -- ThaThinker says: A solar eclipse lasts for perhaps under an hour, and Gibeon's battle for at least the better part of a day.
What is a day?  Genesis defines it as "an evening and a morning".
At sunrise on January 6, 1470 BC, there was a morning.  At about noon, as the eclipse approached totality -- i.e. when the sun stopped (shining) over Gibeon -- there was an evening.
Later, as the eclipse exited totality, there was another morning.  And at sundown there was another evening.
The eclipse added an extra "evening and morning" to Jan 6, 1470 BC.
207.224.194.34 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua and the extra day 

message: -- ThaThinker says: In any event it would not refer to a natural event so ordinary as a normal eclipse.
Yes, the writers of Jasher/Joshua would refer to an eclipse.  Eclipses are not ordinary, normal events. Not in Biblical times, and not even today.
Amos threatened the Israelites with an eclipse.  Amos confirmed Joshua's interpretation of an eclipse counting as an extra evening and morning by saying that an eclipse is the same as the sun going down. "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day". Amos 8:9.
Plutarch came to much the same conclusion when he witnessed an eclipse in 71 AD.  "Now, grant me that nothing that happens to the sun is so like its setting as a solar eclipse." http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/stephenson.html
And sad to say, even today eclipses are not considered to be normal, ordinary events. A partial eclipse over Nigeria in 1989 led to 28 people being killed. "A partial eclipse in 1989 led to massive demonstrations and violence in the country's predominantly Muslim north, where churches and hotels were set ablaze by fanatics to 'atone for the sins of infidels.' A total of 28 persons were killed in the mayhem during the religious 'cleansing' of the region." http://news.monstersandcritics.com/africa/article_1150237.php/Nigerian_government_prepares_people_for_solar_eclipse
-- ThaThinker says: ... that does nothing to demonstrate what century this eclipse should be sought in. This passage cannot reasonably be employed as evidence for proving a Hyksos Expulsion = Exodus ...
Yes, the eclipses can be used for dating purpose -- many people forget that Joshua reported an eclipse of the moon in addition to an eclipse of the sun.  That is matched by the pair of lunar/solar eclipses on Dec 22, 1471 BC and Jan 6, 1470 BC.  I did a quick check of NASA's lunar/solar eclipse database and could find no other matching pair of eclipses from 2000 BC to 1000 BC that were visible from the region.  Perhaps I missed something; if you'd like to check for yourself, here is the link again to NASA's eclipse database (follow the links to "Six Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +4000" and "Five Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000".  NOTE: NASA uses negative years instead of BCE or BC, so NASA's year -1469 is 1470 BC).  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html
I agree that the eclipses are not proof-positive on their own, but I think most reasonable people would agree that they are strongly suggestive.  In conjunction with all the other evidence, they help explain why virtually all modern archaeologists place Joshua ca. 1470 BC, hence eliminating all other reasonable theories except Exodus = Hyksos Expulsion.
207.224.194.34 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipses 

message: -- ThaThinker says: ... a sun that stood still in the middle of the sky ...
In Hebrew, the Bible doesn't say the sun stood still.  The Hebrew word it uses -- pronounced "damam" -- literally means "was silent" or "ceased producing output".  I.e. it was an eclipse.  The same word "damam" is used in Leviticus 10:3 in the phrase translated as "Aaron remained silent".  "Damam" has the same roots as the English words "dumb" and "dim". --- "Joshua commanded the sun to "damam" to be dumb also from which we get the word dim." http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html
I think the mis-translation as "stood still" is due to the fact that in the days of the King James translation some people still assumed that the sun was propelled by its light -- so that if the sun "ceased producing output" it would "stand still."  Today we know that is obviously false, but the mistranslation has persisted because of tradition.
207.224.194.34 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible doesn't say the sun stood still 

message: As far as I can see, the Exodus lasts 40 years, or at least thats the best figure given in the Bible, in Deuteronomy. I'm not sure where the figure of 80 came from that was in the article - anyway please give a reference for the figure if you change it. Codec 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration of the Exodus 

message: ::ThaThinker said: Ex. 16:35 says that Israel had wandered for forty years already. In Nu. 14:26-33, Israel is sentenced to a second forty years of wandering for doubting the success of a southern invasion of Canaan. I guess it could help the layman to include this.
:I don't think you can read Exod 16:35 and Num 14:34 as referring to two sequential periods. I have never seen a commentator taking this position.  (And no, that was not "common knowledge.")
:Rather, Exod 16:35 and Num 14:34 refer to the same period of time.  The point of Exod 16:31-35 was to describe the "manah" (its aspect and its eventual duration), but only later in Num 14:34 the rationale for the 40 years would be given.  Note that Exod 17:1 resumes the narrative at the beginning of the journey, not at the end of the 40-year period mentioned in Exod 16:35.
:Similarly other passages refer to the same period of 40 years (Num 32:13; Deut 2:14; Deut 8:2; Deut 29:5; Josh 5:6, etc.) and also should not be added.
:Note that at the beginning of the Exodus, "Moses was 80 years old" (Exod 7:7), and "Moses was 120 years old when he died" (Deut 34:7).
:The Scriptures are, therefore, consistent in that the Exodus lasted 40, not 80 years.HYC 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an unrelated suggestion for this discussion page: What about breaking down your long response in smaller subsections? It may make the discussion more manageable. HYC 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Duration of the Exodus

message: FourthAvenue comments:
"The chronology of the decendents of Levi down to Moses is only four generations.They will in no way come to 430 years in Egypt. (Exodus 6:14-20)."
This is not correct. Even school children know that the period begins with Avraham. See Rashi or a good Haggadah.
ThaThinker comments:
Right you are, but the MT version of Ex. 12:40 requires that that period begin with Jacob's coming to Egypt:
"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."
The LXX has the reading "who dwelt in Egypt and in Canaan", but most of the audience reading this will be using some derivative of the MT such as the King James Version.  Ecumenical scholars cite longer generation lists, and interpret the word begat in the shorter lists as skipping generations.  Josephus, for his part, is explicit in supporting an LXX type Sojourn in Egypt.  I intend to update the article on Abraham to cover Schrader's hypothesis, relating it to rabbinic traditions which clearly associate Abram with Babylon, not Sumer, and make these observations in conjunction with evidence for a late Exodus and the now mainstream late date for Hammurabi.  If anyone else is inclined to cover this scenario for me, please feel free.  I intend to publish a book soon that proposes to resolve virtually all these difficulties in dramatic fashion, but I am still getting the rights for the artwork worked out.  I hope to have it published in perhaps a week.  This is not to say that I accept characters before Abram as historic a priori, nor that his existence can be proven in a scientific sense.  It does seem plain enough however, the milieu in which the tales are set; and other nations do retain what appear to be completely independent traditions of Abraham.
Essentially, the two of you are in agreement that it was a Short Sojourn, but disagree as to whether Ex. 12:40 is conscious of it.  That, of course, depends on which version you are reading.
--ThaThinker 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  430 Years? 

message: The early date of the exodus is almost entierly overlooked, making this page totally unbalanced.
The page insists on two very questionable points:
One, that the late bronze city of Hazor was razed by Joshua. After the late bronze city of Hazor was razed, however, it was not significantly inhabited until the time period of Solomon, about the 10th century BC. Since the judges Deborah and Baruch attacked Hazor, the late bronze destruction has to postdate some of the Judges, and thus cannot have been done by Joshua. Thus, the destruction of Hazor becomes proof for the early date.
Second, there is a general statement that the archaeology of Caanan supports a late date. This statement is not explained whatsoever, however probably is a reference to the mass destruction of masses of cities in Caanan during the alleged time of the conquest. Now, the problem with this is that the book of Joshua only mentions three cities razed by the Israelites: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. The book of Judges, however, fits mass destruction much better.
The egyptian chronologies are also questionable, there's a comment that Thutmoses III was preceeded by Amenhotep II, however this is backwards. The question of when these pharaohs reigned is also questionable. The 18th dynasty is dated via a heliacal rise of Sirius, an astronomical occurance that can be used to date with a margin of error of four years. Unfortunatly, there is scholarly question over where the rise was observed from, which changes the date by several decades. This has lead to a "High Chronology" and "Low Chronology." In a High chronology, the early date of 1446 is in the reign of Amenhotep II, and in the Low chronology, it is the date of Thutmoses III. (note: this is not the same controversy as the one mentioned at the tail end of the article)
Egyptologists tend to support a late date (or a no exodus theory) and a low chronology of the 18th dynasty, however the alternatives need to be adressed, at least.
Thanatosimii 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unadressed dating issues 

message: I will make the change in the thesis to reflect "The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt". The article does need work, but I observe that the Exodus is not to be treated as a historical fact, but more as we would report a major myth in the history of religions sense --respectfully, accurately, without politics. Just report what the book of Exodus reports. A section on how western literature and art (to include Cecil B. DeMille et al.) has treated the subject is also in order. PS. forgot to sign. --FourthAve 04:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions