Doug Shaver

Au contraire. If you assume that the Bible is true, then the Bible is all the evidence you need to support whatever ad hoc assumptions are required to explain the utter lack of evidence for the events described therein.

Pataphysician

I'll just repost this, as you haven't yet addressed the main Historical part of your so called ArcheoHistorical theory. The source you keep calling Manetho is really the Book of Sothis as given to us by George the Syncellus in the Ninth century, no other sources exist for this text and most Historians consider it a spurious text not written by Manetho, and in fact written probably by someone with a Jewish/Christian agenda.

This is fairly clear in the qoute I provided, which is the portion addressing Joseph in Aphophis reign. In that qoute you can see the author seems to just take the scripture and work it in. So the 13 years between when Joseph is taken as a slave, that Genesis tells us happened when he was 17, and he was made Vizier when he was 30, as Genesis tells us. It seems pretty unlikely that anyone in Egypt would have recorded the year that Joseph was made a slave. Yet strangely there are no other dates given nor any other events told that aren't in the Bible. I also doubt Manetho would care what was the first time the Bible calls the king of Egypt Pharaoh. The fact that Josephus does not mention any of this, is also a very clear indicator it is not from Manetho, as his agenda would have made him mention it.

Lastly ,as regards your theory, in George the Syncellus's Chronographia, using the same Book of Sothis, he states that Moses adoptive mother was sisiter to Thutmose III. So why is the source, according to your theory, "accurate" about Joseph's time period, but inaccurate about Moses' time period?

spin

Basically yes. C14, being fundamentally statistical process, doesn't allow you to pinpoint when within the range yielded that the object relates to. Any point is equally possible.


spin

Gundulf

Man, I have to jump in here.

If there were plagues that killed lots of people, why would that require mass graves? Is there some historical precedent that Egyptians always had nice burial ceremonies for every person that died EXCEPT when the had famines or something?

Or are you suggesting that, since there are no mass graves, that Ancient Egypt NEVER experienced a single famine?

Cege

The Bible does record where God killed thousands at a time, for instance: 24,000 died of God's plague at Shittim where the Israelites appear to have stayed for months just before entering the promised land. In addition to those who died of that plague, Moses was ordered to kill all the men who had whored with the daughters of Moab and anyone who had worshiped the gods of the Moabites, cutting off their heads and hanging them in the sun before Jahweh.

That's a lot of dead bodies all in one place, not to mention the results of encampment in one place for months. Imagine the latrines for a million people!There have been numerous archeological searches for sites mentioned in the OT where the Israelites wandered and camped but as yet, nothing found to support the stories told in Exodus, Judges, and Numbers.

There is a lot of the practical left unexplained in the exodus and wandering as the Bible describes it all, in addition to the absence of both archeological evidence and historical mention outside the stories of the Bible. There's no explanation for the availability of doves, for instance, that were required for sacrifice by every woman who gave birth over the 38+ years. Or the materials that made up the tents. Or the contents of some tents, such as the ark of the covenant, the fine-linen veils, the silver-clad poles, etc

Larsguy47

True, true. But there is a lot of harmony and satisfaction at bringing some of the REALITY, especially in archaeology and ancient history from Egypt or Babylon, etc. and seeing confirmations and validations of what's in the Bible. Like being able to explain WHY Akhenaten became a "monotheist." It's amazing to read an Amarna Letter describing the death of Amenhotep III and knowing he's talking about the death of that king in the Red Sea. That's a lot of fun and inspiring, even if you have had all the faith you need to believe.

Thanks for sharing your comment.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

[QUOTE=Cege;4291401]

I totally understand this, certainly. But I'm wondering what is missing? Now that I have confidence in the chronology related to Akhenaten and Amenhotep III dying in the Red Sea, I have to presume that part of the story is accurate and true. Then by the time Shishak comes on board, there's is total confirmation of everything and that confirmations continues with validation extra-Biblically right through the Persian Period. So it's just this sort of blank page, archaeologically speaking for this period. I'm wondering if archaeologists are misinterpreting what to expect during this period?

Good point. I'm wondering how "isolated" they were were then? Obviously, some strayed and got involved with the surrounding people. I'm not that concerned about explaining too many of the supplies. We don't know exactly what was going on and obviously they had an opportunity to plan ahead. I'm going to enjoy re-reading the account and seeing what clues are there to be found.

But there is a gap for some of this as far as archaeology is concerned that doesn't explain the other side. Some sites mentioned in the Bible, not found by archaeology or allegedly claimed not to have been there are actually mentioned in Egyptian records. So besides the Bible, some sites apparently have either not been found or have such neglible remains that they don't exist any more at all. So archaeology certainly weighs in, but it would hardly be preemptive when everything seems to be precisely on line and confirmed from Shishak to Darius II. Mereneptah was the first to mention the Israelities as a people fairly early on confirming their presence, with others in Canaan. So those people had to come from somewhere, gain a self identity and project that to others. I'm not so sure archaeology has the scope to explain that simply by the specific evidence they are looking for.

As far as the doves go, apparently they were around and I'm sure they could have bread them, etc.

Thanks for your comments! Definitely something to look into for this period.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Hi Spin. So what you're saying is that if you had several liters of grain that was burned, and you tested that whole sample, and it gave you a chart result like we see for Level City IV at Rehov, and the testers create a chart to show how that result points to certain dates, and it is clear, and that on one side they say "probability percentage" and at the bottom various dates and you see at 925BCE only 5% probability for that level and you have a 99% probability for a range of dates from 874-867 BCE, you're saying that it is just as likely that entire sample could have originated in 925BCE as 871BCE?

If that were the case, why wouldn't they make the entire range at 99% probability? I've seen the other charts and sometimes the range is greater than for City IV, but that might represent the samples. To say that 871BCE is no more likely to be accurate than 925BCE I think is not realistic, especially since Level V destruction level is dated to around that time. What's the purpose of RC14 of short-lived grains if you still can't tell the age of anything by this method?

Furthermore, why is it (coincidence?) that now that we can confirm the absolute correct date for that invasion in 871BCE for this very level does the 99% probability 7-day dating range include 871BCE?

No. I'm afraid not. I think the system is excellent and the dating represents the best and highest probability and it is extremely accurate as it turns out since 871BCE is the actual dating. If the dating didn't turn out where it did, then I'd wonder about the process itself. But since it has, it seems RC14 methodology, if you have the right sample and can link that to a specific event, such as the end of a certain level because of burning, etc. then it will confirm the correct timeline. Further, this dating is very much in sync with the dating already in place archaeologically, even as far back as the fall of Jericho.

Why would you second guess this best "probability" estimate?

Larsguy47

spin

It might be good if you looked at your own chart carefully:

You'll see in the upper right the information you need to consider for probability. It lists two probabilities: 95.4% (this is 2-sigma) and 68.2% (1-sigma), ie 95.4% of being the correct date range, which is larger than the 1-sigma range, which here provides two short ranges. The narrower the range required the lower the probability of being correct. So the 2-sigma range though less precise is a lot surer.


spin

John Kesler

The only people for whom the issue is "already reconciled" are Jewish and Christian apologists trying to force their 215-year-Egyptian-sojourn theory into the text. Notice that Abraham was promised that his descendants would be enslaved and oppressed in a foreign land for 400 years. There is nothing to hint that Ishmael's "oppressing" Isaac is in view (which, by the way, took place in Canaan, not in a foreign land), and this "solution" is really so implausible as to not deserve further comment. You made appeal to Josephus to buttress your case. Though you didn't give a citation, you were referring to Antiquities 2.15.2, which reads as follows:

So you think that because Josephus claims that only 215 of 430/400 years were spent in Egypt your case is proven? And Josephus, a Jew, would never try to harmonize disparate biblical accounts, would he? Frankly, it doesn't matter what Josephus says, but what the text says, and Josephus gives no reason why his figures should be accepted. But here's the bad news for you: Josephus also comments about the 400 years of oppression, and as we shall see, his interpretation is not at all helpful to you.

In Antiquities 1.10.3, Josephus states the following, emphasis mine:

Also, in Antiquities 2.9.1, we read this, again my emphasis:

What do you know, Josephus says that the Israelites were oppressed for 400 years in Egypt, just as Genesis 15:13-14 "predicted." Don't look now, Larsguy47, but your appeal to Josephus just blew up in your face. :rolling:

Thank you for segueing into another Bible contradiction. Genesis 16:16 says that, "Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael" and Genesis 21:5 says that, "Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him." Simple math says that Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born. Genesis 21:8 states that Isaac was already weaned when Ishmael and Hagar were "cast out," so Ismael may have been as old as 15 or 16, maybe even older. (2 Maccabees 7:27 reads: But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native language as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.") So please tell me how Hagar could have carried a 15- or 16-year old on her shoulders while Ishmael sucked "from some makeshift water "'breasts.'" Tell me, too, how Hagar was able to "thr[o]w [Ishmael] under a bush as if dead" if he was a teenager. I know that what you relayed is what chapter 21 claims, but you have unwittingly demonstrated another inconsistency in the Bible.