Larsguy47

Archaeology has been compared to treasure hunting but sometimes it is more like gambling. You can have a lot of the right numbers but just not in the right order, then sometimes when everything does fall into place it's like hitting the jackpot. That is what some astronomical references or radiocarbon 14 dating discoveries can do when they can be effectively linked to a specific historical event that can be introduced into the timeline. An alignment of some of these discoveries relating to "absolute" dating has recently improved the credibility of the archaeohistorical dating for the Exodus. The key comparisons are that of the KTU 1.78 solar eclipse text from Ugarit and the RC14 dating sample from Rehov of grain stores burned at the time of Shishak's invasion.

First, though: ARCHEO-HISTORICAL. This is a combination of a historical reference for the Exodus and the archaeological evidence that harmonizes with it. The historical reference, of course, the only one known to exist that would date the Exodus to a specific rulership is the reference via Syncellus of MANETHO who notes that Joseph came into Egypt in the 4th year of Apophis and was appointed vizier in his 17th year. This allows us to date Jacob's advent in Egypt to his 25th year and the Exodus 215 years later. 215 years from the 25th of Apophis is the 1st of Akhenaten. This confirms that the Exodus occurred the same year that Akhenaten became king, of course, supporting the Biblical reference that the ruling pharoah died in the Red sea.

There is a wide range of dates for Akhenaten, however, so we use the KTU 1.78 eclipse dated to year 12 of Akhenaten (via Rohl, New Chronology) to arrive at a "fixed" absolute date for Akhenaten's 1st year in 1386BCE. This is a good archaeological dating for that event since archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon assigns the destruction of LBIIA Jericho to the Israelites, dated between 1350-1325BCE. That gives the archaeological range for the Exodus sometime 40 years earlier from 1390-1365BCE. So this dating is well placed archaeologically if not already implied.

The newest discovery, however, is the recent dig at Rehov, a city mentioned in Shishak's inscription of during his campaign. Radiocarbon dating doesn't usuaully give such specific numbers but if short-lived grains in large enough quantities are found that can be connected with a specific event, then it's like hitting the jackpot. This precise circumstance lined up at Rehov where a large grain store was found that was burned at the time of Shishak's invasion. That means that based upon the age of the grain, we can reasonably date Shishak's invasion within a year of less of that date or range of dates.

RADIOCARBON DATING QUOTE RE: REHOV

Well, though a large range is given in the above quote, when you look at the graph of probability specifically, it allows us to compare specific dates. In this case the results are strongest at 99+% probability for dates in a narrow range between 874-867BCE. Of note, this is not where the conventional dating for Shishak's invasion is dated which is around 925BCE. When that date is tested against what was found at Rehov, that dating only had a 5% probability.



While the above obviously suggests that 925BCE dating is too early for Solomon, it is still an opportunity to have an ABSOLUTE dating reference for the Exodus since Shishak's invasion can be dated to the 39th year of Solomon (year 5 of Rehoboam in a co-rulership).

CALCULATING THE EXODUS RANGE BASED UPON THE RC14 DATING: Based upon the range of 874-867 for year 39 of Solomon his 4th year would fal between 909-902 BCE, and limiting the Exodus 480 years earlier to dates between 1389-1382 BCE. Of course, our KTU 1.78 eclipse dated 1st year of Akhenaten falling in 1386BCE occurs within this very narrow range of absolute dating based upon radiocarbon14 dating.

EXTRA-BIBLICAL CONTEXTUAL CONFIRMATION: Now that we basically are limited to dating the Exodus in relation to the death of Amenhotep III in the Red Sea followed by Akhenaten, we can look specifically at how well the Exodus scenario does in this context. Four areas are quite compatible.


1. Obviously the impact of what one would expect if the Ten Plagues actually happened on the culture or economy of the nation, but certainly the religious impact. Akhenaten's conversion to a "monotheistic" type of religion compared often to Jewish monotheism would certainly be explained by the trauma of the Ten Plagues.

2. Historically speaking there has been a claim no mention of it has been found in Egyptian records though reasonably expected. Now that we know specifically the Exodus is placed at the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten after Amenhotep III died in the Red Sea, the only place we'd expect it to be mentioned would be in Akhenaten's records. But he was considered such an outlaw all his records were destroyed and every attempt to wipe his memory from Egyptian history. So the Exodus might have been mentioned specifically during the early part of his reign but if there is no evidence of it now one reason would be because those records were destroyed.

3. The MUMMY of Amenhotep III becomes an issue if he actually was killed in the Red Sea. Now this is not a direct reference but certainly the state of his mummy might be consistent with a crushing-drowning injury versus somone dying of old age or from some other specific cause. In this case, his death is aged at about 50 years of age and the cause of death is unknown, even though his body is badly damaged and a special embalming process was undertaken for some reason specifically for him. We can surmise that possibly his body was not recovered that soon and the embalmers had an already decomposing body to deal with rather than one that could have been embalmed immediately. That might explain the special embalming process associated with Amenhotep III. Also, of note, besides other broken bones, they discovered one of his lower limbs wasn't even his own. It's possible if he suffered a sever injury of amputation in the trauma of the Red Sea death that the embalmers decided to simply replace the limb. All this is quite consistent with a crush-type violent injury causing death, including a delayed embalming. ( Click on link for Amenhotep III mummy info.

4. Finally, probably one of the more intriguing confirmations that Amenhotep III died in the Red Sea along with a thousand others is a letter written to Akhenaten expressing condolences to him for the loss of his father. Here's the excerpt from that reference:

Highlights, of course, would be the fact that this letter confirms that the news of his death was well publicized, this king hearing bout it in a report. Telling the son of Amenhotep III that he heard the report though suggests that it might have been embarassing. Of course, the pharoah dying in the Red Sea at the hands of the God of the Jews would have been big news. But also very suggestive of the Red Sea death is that this king suggests that a large number of his servants or Egyptian servants dying would have been preferable if the king himself were spared. So where did that come from? Obviously, this implies the pharoah died puntatively with many others. If pharoah died in the Red Sea with say a thousand of his troops, a very diplomatic sentiment would have been the preference that the pharoah's personal life was saved even at the expense of more soliders, in this case possibly ten times more than actually got killed, as if the king's personal life was worth that rate of exchange. But this must have been understood by Akhenaten in the specific context of his father's death, which would make sense if his father was perceived to have been punished along with a thousand others. On the other hand, would an ordinary death from sickness or personal mishap have evoked this comparison? I can't imagine how. But if the overal situation is described as "fate", which is the reference used by this king, and someone had to die to pay for some transgression, then of course, the sentiment would be accept that at the price of many servants who willingly would die or be sacrificed for the sake of the life of the king, etc.

CONCLUSION: So all considered, now that we are closer to placing the specifics of the Exodus in place as far as the chronology and Egyptian timeline goes, it gains more credibility as actually happening when it did, but also the "miracles" of the ten plagues and the tragic Red Sea death of pharoah gets confirmed for us as well, thanks to the Amarna letters.

EXEGETICAL ABSOLUTE DATING FOR THE EXODUS: Finally, just as a note as far as the Biblical timeline and dating goes for the Exodus, Biblical chronology is a complex mess to sort out, especially for the NB and Persian Periods with lots of varying dates and theories. But fortunately, we are past the critical dating for the return of the Jews to their homeland, a prophesied event linked to Biblical chronology that in turn is linked to the specific timing of the Exodus. Without going into boring details, basically the Exodus is the 1st jubilee in a "week" where the final return of the Jews is the last jubilee beginning their 70th jubilee week. A jubilee week is 49 years. Thus 1947 implies a specific dating for the Exodus based upon the fixation of this "week" to 1947. The Jubilee wee is 7 days of 70 weeks each (3430 years), a total of 70 weeks of 49 years each, with the 70th week celebrating the final return of the Jews to their homeland, which occurred in 1947. To calculate the year of the Exodus we simply calculate to the end of the week of 3430 years by adding 49 years to 1947 to get 1996. We calculate the beginning of the week 3430 years earlier to 1435BCE. The Exodus as the first jubilee of this week would occur 49 years later, which dates the Exodus specifically to 1386 BCE. So the dating of the Exodus from an exegetical advanced point of view is set and fixed and won't change. What is left to do is to see how "realistically" it fits in with any archaeohistorical or possibly astronmical evidence in place; which, of course, it does quite well.

It's the combination of exgetical application and understanding combined with research that makes it difficult to doubt what the Bible says. When you have the incorrect dates, though, of course, the errors appear and it's easy not to believe when there are contradictions right and left with other evidence. Unfortunately, too many people give up too early before they get the dates right and seem forever lost bouncing back and forth between dysfunctional theories. Fortunately, due to continued research and new evidence at least we can rest a bit on the Exodus issue now; we know when it happened, why Akhenaten became a monotheist and for sure that Amenhotep III died in the Red Sea with many others--just as the Bible says.

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

Dude, you are talking about over a million people exiting Egypt and spending 40 years in the desert. When you can come with some archeological evidence of that happening, we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is stringing together a series of surmises.

So, let's hear about latrines, camp fires and supply dumps for a million people. When you find 'em, let us know.

RED DAVE

gnosis92

could exodus b historical if an exaggeration? say maybe 200 people leaving?

Toto

Lars: I don't think you will find many posters here (except praxeus) who think that Rohl's New Chronology has enough credibility to bother with. E.g., see Biblical Chronology and Extra-Biblical History.

See also Waste Of Time Home Page: This website is devoted to exposing David Rohls New Chronology of Ancient Egypt and showing that it will not stand the "Test Of Time".

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From gnosis92:
Would you believe 100?

How about 50?

How about 25, two mules and a dog?

RED DAVE

Hex

*sigh*

And all of this presupposes that the 'Hebrews' of Isreal are actually somehow connected to the Harapu who actually -were- in Egypt as opposed to the Semitic groups that only semmed to make it as far as Palestine before stopping. And, other than some biblical literalists, there's debate on that, so you can't just take it as rote.

Also, this post hits on some of the very issues that Dever brings up in "Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?" (Archaeology and Israelite Historiography: Part I, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research © 1995 The American Schools of Oriental Research, pp 61-80), where he brings up the concrete nature of the use of archaeology to document a typical 12th-11th century Bronze/Iron age temple and how that matches fairly well to the description of Solomon's Temple.

Archaeology, in such as case as examining the 'Exodus', falls into the type of archaeology done by Albright et al - A bible in one hand and a trowel in the other. Making archaeological evidence subservient to a text written long after an alleged occurance, especially to the exclusion of evidence that does not fit with the theological claim, is not, in any way, science. :banghead:

As many archaeologists have said over the last few decades, we need to have the archaeology and texts working together, not subsuming one under the dominant paradigm of the other. Theology has, for more than a century, been the dominant paradigm of understanding archaeological finds in the 'Holy Land'. It's not the case in other places where archaeology stands on its own without a driving theology to 'guide its hand to separate the wheat from the chaff'.

All of that said, a couple of quick notes:

If you want to be strict on this, where are the records to -show- the loss of the amount of slaves to the Egyptian peoples? For that matter, the records of the ten plagues? If we're sticking mostly to the theological history and forcing the records to fit, why didn't the Egyptians oblige with corroborating records? Oh, wait ... You've nicely ducked that by hitting on Akhenaten, whose religious edicts and political proclaimations were destroyed.

What about the other record-keepers elsewhere in Egypt? Did no-one think to note the plagues? That huge numbers of very rich slaves just up and left one day? That the first-born of all households were killed all in one night? Here we have a culture known for writing things down, and one that has an unbroken history up through the Ptolemaic dynasty, and there's no note?

Think about it.

And if you want to try and use the Amarna Letters for proof of Amenhotep III's means of death, then why is it not noted in EA 26, the condolence letter to Tiy instead of talking about what a cheapskate Akhenaten is compared to his father?

To say that we -know- when it happened, that because of it Akhenaten tried to institute a monotheism and that it all explains Amenhotep II's death is a bit much. What you've got is a nice theory and a couple of scraps of information that fit it.

Where's the rest? :huh:

Your version of archaeohistory, as you call it, is merely a rehash of theologically driven biblical archaeology, full of important-sounding jargon and grasping at the straws of science to try and validate itself.

Stick to your theological beleifs. If you try and use archaeology, you're likely to get an answer you won't much like. :devil:

Note: Sorry I took the bait, I just hate bad archaeology ...

aa5874

Then the only historical facts contained in Exodus would be that somebody wrote fiction.

And if you downgrade from a million to 200 persons, you may have to downgrade everything. You may have to claim it was 4 days instead of 40 years and maybe only 2 soldiers died as a result of local flooding after a dry season.

RED DAVE

From aa5874:
Don't forget the two mules and the dog.

RED DAVE

Benni72

If the probability for 874-867 is 99%+, how can one for 925 equal 5%? It would make more than 100% in toto. Maybe somebody is confusing probability with its density? Besides, it is by no means certain that the city was destroyed by Shishak/Shoshenq.

Gamera

Using this standard, Herodotus is fiction, since his calculation of the Persian army is nonsense.

Let's assume that numbers in the Hebrew scriptures are intended representatively not absolutely. 40 years means a long time. Several million means a large number of people. That's no different from you saying "give me two seconds" and meaning, "a short period of time."

If that's the case, Exodus can be as historical (or unhistorical) as Herodotus, and not fiction.