The exodus (church, faith, Commandments, Biblical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to modern history and archaeology, the Hittites never existed. Until they found proof of them. Pardon me if I disagree with you.
That is an old and rather kneejerk argument. However, that does not make it an invalid one.
What does is that, sure, before evidence was found of the Hittite empire, nobody believed there was one. I actually think that it is untrue that the reference to the Hittites in the OT was regarded by 'modern history and archaeology' as untrue. Why would they deny that the OT reference to 'Hittites' was pure imagination.?The Bible - writers would of course use the names of peoples they knew.
But they were probably not talking about the Hittite Empire which was long gone by the time the OT was written. They were talking about the Neo Hittite Empire which was effectively a small Caananite state left over by the displaced peoples of Hatti, which had been in Asia minor. Nobody knew much about the neo -hittites either and so, while nobody denied the reference to Hittites in the Bible, nobody knew about either empire or state until the evidence was found.
You will see that the old and rather kneejerk argument is a misrepresentation of a half -truth.
But even then, what it does is show that lack of knowledge about peoples or events mentioned in the Bible is conformed or brought into question by archaeological and historical research and, while the minor reference to the Hittites had been greatly expanded in knowledge by research, the exodus has been brought into serious question.
It cannot have happened as described in the Bible, which makes it at best garbled history, not eyewitness. That is lockdown proof, I'd say. But even the garbled account seems doubtful now as we learn more.
According to modern history and archaeology, the Hittites never existed. Until they found proof of them. Pardon me if I disagree with you.
It's certainly possible that evidence of a Jewish exodus will emerge in the future. However, the story, as traditionally interpreted, results in a number of anachronisms. We can conclude, then, that even if it were true, the biblical account is not a strict retelling of events.
The dates ascribed in the Bible, in particular, make no sense. The Bible suggest a date sometime in the second millenium BCE, but names stopping places that were uninhabited until several hundred years later - this would be no particular issue if we weren't already aware that Israel was under Assyrian control during the years of habitation.
Telling too, is the lack mention by the Egyptians - records are available from the most commonly suggested eras, but no mention is made of a large exodus of people (keeping in mind that the 600,000-odd people would have been 1/6 of the total population - definitely an event worth noting). There is mention of an Egyptian exodus to Canaan, written quite a long time later, but concerns only a band of some 80,000 lepers.
Again, that's not to suggest there isn't a basis of truth in the story - simply that the story, as told, cannot be completely accurate.
Relatively. At least on comparison to the civilizations we are discussing.
In scientific terms it's an aeon. There is a vast difference between discovering a lost culture, and proving the exodus. Since the latter has several points that have been disproven already, as stubblejumper pointed out already. So it is possible that some exodus might eventually be proven one day, just not the one the bible talks about.
According to modern history and archaeology, the Hittites never existed. Until they found proof of them. Pardon me if I disagree with you.
I would scarcely call the prevailing opinions of the early 19th century "modern". Hittite civilization has been established and known for well over a century now. I have reproduction Hittite art in my home.
And besides, why on earth would historians have claimed the Hittite civilization was as extensive and powerful as it was until it was properly substantiated? They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they confirmed the existence of that civilization based solely on some passing mentions of a Hittite alliance in the Torah.
Oh yah....I forgot...you don't need proof....you have your opinion.
Cogent argument the doesn't prop up the Bible is always dismissed as opinion, whereas opinion that does is regarded as proof. However, it seems I have been sucked into yet another bloody exodus thresd.
As I say, It cannot have occurred as in the scripture as it says that Moses led the Israelites into Sinai to avoid Philistia and the troubles there. But, according to the Merenptah stele, Israel already existed before Philistia appeared on the coast.
There are problems with the idea that Sinai (regularly patrolled by the Egyptian military because of the valuable turquoise mines) was just an empty safe place for the Israelites to wander about in and there are doubts (I think I have already mentioned this) about the story of Moses, which is uncomfortably similar to the nativity of Sargon of Akkad.
The conquest that follows also seems anachronistic as it describes a Canaan dominated by Ammon, Edom and Moab, a situation that didn't happen until after Merenptah's mention of Israel (the stele is about a Canaanite campaign) and there are increasing archaeological objections to the idea of a conquest at all.
Yahwh was one of a number of Canaanite gods (and seems to have had a consort, too) and Israel seems to have grown up on site rather than having trekked in from Egypt.
Thus, this argues against the Exodus. And what evidence have we for the exodus? None that stands up to scrutiny. You are welcome to try. There is also the fabulous tone of the narative which doesn't inspire confidence with its rather incredible miracles.
This is evidence, though some negative evidence, and not my opinion. What you can call opinion is my suspicion that Exodus is in a way a memory of the Hyksos (an Egyptian dynasty founded in the delta by Canaanite rulers) being expelled by Amose I rather than 'led out' by Moses.
Cogent argument the doesn't prop up the Bible is always dismissed as opinion, whereas opinion that does is regarded as proof. However, it seems I have been sucked into yet another bloody exodus thresd.
As I say, It cannot have occurred as in the scripture as it says that Moses led the Israelites into Sinai to avoid Philistia and the troubles there. But, according to the Merenptah stele, Israel already existed before Philistia appeared on the coast.
There are problems with the idea that Sinai (regularly patrolled by the Egyptian military because of the valuable turquoise mines) was just an empty safe place for the Israelites to wander about in and there are doubts (I think I have already mentioned this) about the story of Moses, which is uncomfortably similar to the nativity of Sargon of Akkad.
The conquest that follows also seems anachronistic as it describes a Canaan dominated by Ammon, Edom and Moab, a situation that didn't happen until after Merenptah's mention of Israel (the stele is about a Canaanite campaign) and there are increasing archaeological objections to the idea of a conquest at all.
Yahwh was one of a number of Canaanite gods (and seems to have had a consort, too) and Israel seems to have grown up on site rather than having trekked in from Egypt.
Thus, this argues against the Exodus. And what evidence have we for the exodus? None that stands up to scrutiny. You are welcome to try. There is also the fabulous tone of the narative which doesn't inspire confidence with its rather incredible miracles.
This is evidence, though some negative evidence, and not my opinion. What you can call opinion is my suspicion that Exodus is in a way a memory of the Hyksos (an Egyptian dynasty founded in the delta by Canaanite rulers) being expelled by Amose I rather than 'led out' by Moses.
What do you have?
Yeah, only about 3 cities in Joshua's list would have been inhabited at the time of the 'conquest', and that's only if you use a very very late dating of the 13th century. Hazor, Lachish, and Meggido, all of which were destroyed over the period of 100 years. Though the former is disputed as the co directors of the dig each take a different opinion on what happened. Ammnon Ben Tor's position is that it's part of a mild Israelite conquest, Sharon Zuckerman says that the signs of disrepair, and the lack of weapons found in the streets shows more likely a peasant revolt of sorts. A conquest is also hard to prove by the fact that there is no large scale settlement patterns in the highlands around jerusalem at that time. The pottery, the shape of the villages, are all Canaanite in origin. And the size of the population is small, and the settlement sites number I believe just a little more than 20. It doesn't fit with the massive invasion of people as put up by the bible. As for YHWH having a wife, that is possible, though disputed. The inscription is unclear if the phrase "by his Asherah..." means a cultic object, or the goddess. Though she was the consort of el, so it would lend weight to that argument. Added to the fact that her figurine was very prevalent in the north, and south kingdoms at the time.
I agree on the last point as well. The story of Joseph, and the exodus itself were likely born out of the Hyksos tale. The Canaanites escaped famine into the nile delta *Something that happened before, as attested by Egyptian records*, rose to power, and were disgraced, and thrown out. Other aspects of the story likely were added later to explain the large number of ruins that doted the land. Something village people of the highlands would have had a hard time explaining. So stories got invented about their great conquest, which got merged, and became what we have today.
I must say I do find the Hykso intriguing and I'm glad they are getting more archaeological interest. They were able to found their own dynasty during an interregnum (1) and it took campaigns by Kamose and Ahmose I to push them back to Canaan.
Tha Ahmose 'tempest' stele (sometimes trotted out as recording the Biblical plagues inflicted on Pharaoh) in fact grumbles about the destruction of Temples under the Hyksos and their restoration by Ahmose.
There was a series of you -tubes posted here on the conquest and it was an eye -opener. While more work needs to be done, it suggests that the hebrews came down from the hills when the usual markets of canaan vanished (during a time of upheaval I had noted - a sort of meditteranean dark ages at the end of the new kingdom, the disappearance of Hatti, the canaanite statelets and the appearance of the Sea - peoples and the settlement of Philistia on the coast, some time before Israel grew and came into conflict with it. it answered a puzzling thing I'd noted - the Biblical dislike of cities and the idea that goat -herding was the only proper way to live.
I would like to re- post them with thanks to the bod who did so. maybe i have the addies somewhere.
Incidentally, the revisiting of Wyatt's Moses camp in Saudi arabia was discussed a couple of times and it has some flaws. The evidence of the trail (sweet and bitter wells, this long after the date) is surely very doubtful and the site is dubious with its scatter of scree regarded as the 'boundary' (a couple of plans I saw couldn't agree whether it was a semicircle or a straight line. The apparent blackening of the mountain -top sounds arguable. What about the others? This surely isn't a one - off feature. The rock of the waters looks impressive. Even convincing, but the marks of a watercourse surely has to be wind blowing through the gap. If the watercourse dried up hundreds of years ago (it is dry now) it would have been obliterated. Finally and most damning, the 'Calf altar' is 'photo -mined' to show an incised cow. This ignores the other carving in this heap of boulders as they show a goat as well and in fact, as i recall it looked like herdmans' graffiti.
To touch on the red sea crossing, Wyatt seems to have noted a raised strip across the second branch separating Sinai from Saudi Arabia and reckoned that must be the place. There he found (he says) two columns put up (according to the inscription which he translated (but does not give the original hebrew, a copy or a photo) on the one on the Saudi side which has regrettably vanished since then (The column, not Saudi arabia) put up by Solomon to commemmorate the crossing. Only the one on the Sinai side which (regrettaby...again..has had every trace of an inscription eroded away.
Even if this dubious - sounding story is true, it only means that solomon thought it was the crossing place, not that it actually was.
(1) they eventually conquered the Souther 'theban' native Egyptian dynasty after the Hyksos ruler complained that he was being kept awake at night by the Hippopotami in the Nile. They could beat the Egyptians because they had chariots and the Egyptians didn't and after the New Kingdom, chariots became a feature of the Egyptian army.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-20-2013 at 10:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, it seems I have been sucked into yet another bloody exodus thresd.
