Jack the Bodiless

We WERE originally discussing whether or not the Exodus happened.

..Because if it did NOT happen, then there cannot be a WHEN.

At best, you could use Jewish sources to assign a timeframe for the story. If these sources happen to agree: why should we care?

Hydarnes

I am addressing issues pertinent to the debate between Brian and WT with regard to the date for the Exodus, providing it happened. Obviously you don't know enough on the topic so you feel obligated to give us this wonderful insight of yours on the absence of the Exodus altogether! Give me a break.

You might find it interesting to know that even a large number of secular scholars agree that there was a resemblance to the event, just not on the divine scale as it is represented in Scripture.

Again, a body of evidence for the actual event is most certainly in existence, but I'm not addressing that issue at the moment. You would help yourself by just conceding that you spoke too soon.

We're talking about whether or not the identification of Tell-el Maskhuta as Succoth is correct or not. Next time find out the issue before giving us your 2 cents.

Amaleq13

Actually, Willow initially claimed to be presenting evidence that the Exodus took place. Those who have responded have indicated that it seems his evidence has more to do with dating the tradition or belief in the Exodus rather than the actual event.

Hydarnes

Are you sure he didn't mean "evidence" for an early date as opposed to a late?

Hydarnes

BTW Amaleq,

I inadvertently made quite a few grammatical and typo errors in my original post to Brian, how do I amend that? Why can't I edit my post?

Amaleq13

Actually, his first post stated that he was presenting evidence relating to the traditions. It was after others pointed out that there is a significant difference between dating traditions about an alleged event and establishing the event actually took place that he began (or at least seemed to begin) arguing otherwise, i.e. that establishing a date for traditions somehow established the event.

There is a time limit on how long you have to make changes. If it isn't substantive, don't sweat it.

Hydarnes

But it's awfully annoying when I haven't proof-read my post within the designated timeframe that I have to edit and then I discover multitudinous errors because of the haste in my original submission.

Is there some way you can grant be a brief editing privilege for my original post to Brian? I need to ameliorate some significant mistakes. If not, I should probably post another edited version to avoid any further misunderstanding.

I think the expiration on editing is a rather lousy policy.

Toto

The policy was instituted for a very good reason, but this is not the place to discuss that.

I suggest that you go to your post, hit "quote", and then list the changes you would like to make.

Hydarnes

(surprise!)

Hello Brian. I’m here because of an email that my brother obtained containing notification of a statement originally made by myself (at the, dare I say, infamous EVC), and which is now being used as a source of reference by our respected friend here, Willowtree, presumably to reiterate a point relating to the scarcity for directly affirmative evidence establishing an Israelite presence in the Delta.

Because I disagree significantly with Velikovsky’s chronology, and also with your blind persistence in a 13th century Exodus, I’m not going to take sides on that particular controversy at this point. Also keeping in mind that it is hardly possible for me to address in abundant measure your endless revenue of Exodus-related subterfuge, I will strictly attempt to address, at this juncture, that which seems reasonably deserving of my time and effort.

And your evidence and sources ARE? Baseless Brian and nothing but the Brian.

Even if you wanted to, you simply can’t make that assertion and still expect to be taken seriously, because NOBODY KNOWS 100% FOR SURE WHICH SITE IN EGYPT IS BIBLICAL SUCCOTH. But what we do know is that there exists a reasonable amount of data which seems to suggest Tell-el Maskhuta as being a strong candidate. How’s that for an ending to your impetuous conclusions? (It really doesn’t feel very good does it, to go so high above yourself and then realize you don’t even have enough to sustain your own words?)

And since you have blatantly made an assertion that directly contradicts a referenced source by J.J. Bimson (quoted by WT) which essentially corroborates my statement iterating the very same identification, you are hardly in a position to be giving us this utter manure about your “evidence� being “superior�—especially when you haven’t even given us sufficient reason to believe that it exists at all, apart from your wildly prolific imagination!



EVIDENCE AND SOURCES FOR ESTABLISHING TELL-EL MASKHOUTA AS BIBLICAL SUCCOTH:

Now, if I might vindicate my original quote and expose your pretenses for what they are when it comes archaeological “locations�.

It should be noted that even Touregypt, which seems to accept a 13th century Exodus concurs that Tell-el Maskhuta is Succoth:
“It should also be noted that the route chosen by the escaping Israelites, from Piramesse to Tjeku (biblical Succoth: Exodus 12:37) and eastwards, was precisely the same that was used by two escaping slaves of the late 13th century BC, as reported in Papyrus Anastasi V.�-- http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm

And more evidence suggesting Tell-El Maskhouta is biblical Succoth:

"Tell el-Maskhuta located 15 km W of modern Ismailia and Lake Timsah in Wadi Tumilat has been suggested by a number of scholars as a possible location for Succoth. The name Succoth may be an adaption of Egyptian Tjeku (tkw), a region and perhaps a city proposed to be located at Tell el-Maskhuta. Brugsch has offered an explanation of the derivation of Hebrew Succoth from Egyptian Tjeku (tkw) correlating Egyptian t with Hebrew s, Egyptian k with Hebrew k, and noting that the Egyptian w is a plural suffix while the Hebrew wt represents the femine plural suffix (Bleiberg 1983:21)...Papyrus Anastasi VI dating to about 1230 BCE preserves a message sent from a frontier official to his superior that certain Edomite bedouin had been allowed to pass the fortress in the district of Tjeku (Succoth ?) to pasture their cattle near Pithom (ANET, 259), locating both places in the same area." (p. 217. Vol. 6. Jo Ann Seely. "Succoth." David Noel Freedman, editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 1992. New York. Doubleday)-- http://www.bibleorigins.net/SuccothTjekuSinai.html

“The site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been made. It may be the fortress town of Tjeku mentioned in Egyptian sources. In these we learn, for example, of a chief of the archers sent to Tjeku to prevent certain slaves from running away, but arriving too late. They had been seen crossing the north wall of the fortress town of Seti-Merenptah. Another mentions some Libyan mercenaries who had tried to flee but were brought back to Tjeku. Thus Tjeku was on the route taken by fugitives.�-- http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/exodus3.html

“Hoffmeier suggests that Papyrus Anastasi 6 indicates that Tjeku was a location possessing horses and possibly chariots, which might have been used in pursuit of Israel at Pi-ha-Hiroth :

‘Here Tjeku is described as a place where horses and their grooms were stationed, and the city determinative is written with Tjeku, suggesting a particular location, not a general region, was intended. Kitchen suggests that the 'three waters of Pharaoh' may be one and the same as the 'pools (brkt) of Pithom of Merneptah which is [in] Tjeku' of Papyrus Anastasi 6 (54-61)...It is from such a fortress that we might expect the Egyptian chariotry, which would be stationed to defend Egypt, to have been dispatched in pursuit of the Israelites (Exod 14:6-8).

Further support for Tjeku being a militarized zone is found in military titles associated with officers assigned to defend that area. The earliest reference to Tjeku is found in the 18th Dynasty. This text from Sinai is dated the 7th year of Thutmose IV (ca. 1393 BC). It names one Amenemhet who was 'troop commander (hry pdt) of Tjeku." (p. 180. Hoffmeier)�--- http://www.bibleorigins.net/YamSuphT...mAyunMusa.html

Well, it sure looks like you’re going to need some better counter-evidence than “you’re wrong� that disagrees with the identification of Succoth at Tell-el Maskhuta, and also that it wasn’t an Egyptian Military base.

It’s quite clear that in your haste to discredit my statement you have missed the point altogether: that the absence for hard archeological evidence of an Israelite occupation of Egypt isn’t any more decisive than the conspicuous paucity for archaeological evidence of military proportions at a site that Egyptian records testify as having had. But you won’t find many scholars arguing that Egypt’s records on the matter were fictitious, despite having no real proof for the fact.

[quote]The experiment isn't finished yet.

Which of the two claims, Hydarnes and mine, would you say is the more accurate?[ quote]

I think we have yet to see your claim graduate from anything more than a hollow “I’m right, you’re wrong�.

Just admit it, you’ve tried and failed, now renounce this puerility and give us something sound.

And might it be accurate for me to assume that YOU have done your research on this matter? If so, you might as well concede to your patent dishonesty in staging ignorance.

You know something Brian, I truly admire your zealous desire to possess all the answers when it comes to deciphering various archaeological matters and what they entail with regard to the Exodus—endless fodder for hypothetical ingenuity--but I honestly cannot in good conscience extend the same commendation for your, at times (forgive me) hilarious, credulity in matters of [tentative] published “data� which may tend to appear particularly congenial to your ideological fancies and over-indulged [mis]conceptions on issues of antiquity—not to elaborate extensively on your dangerously self-delusive habits for highly selective sourcing of both authors as well as purported “evidences� that seemingly fit your unwavering anti-biblical mentality. It also cannot be ignored that this inevitably betrays a deficit in realistic equilibrium on your part, more so when one is aware that even the most acclaimed scholars, archaeologists and researchers constantly dispute over matters (dating, locations, etc) which a very loose majority pass off to the gullible public as unequivocal historical fact, depending on the source.

That you are a victim of these commercialized “fact� gimmicks is palpable, not to overlook your inexcusable negligence as an incriminating factor---considering the years of research and experience under your belt, not only as a teacher and a mature adult, but in your painstaking study of these topics---archaeology and the likes—which you, if I might add, spare no effort in utilizing (reasonably or not) for your unrelenting anti-biblical agendas.

You know, I really like to think that I know a relatively decent amount when it comes to ancient Egypt and some of the Ancient Middle East—I’ve been deeply in love with Ancient Egypt since I was 4 yrs old, even before I could read. I am also quite aware that I haven’t been around nearly as long as you to be granted the opportunity of filling my gray matter with a comparable amount of pertinent literature, but it is your debating tactics in generally that greatly disturb me. Why? Because they unmistakably exhibit an arrogance and over-confidence about them that either leaves your opponent apt to blindly concede to your aggrandized bluffs on issues, or causes them to realize that you’re relying heavily on presuppositions to gain an imagined “edge�.

And there seriously isn’t anything wrong with using data to support a point--and I wholeheartedly don’t object to you doing this--but it is when you use said information that hasn’t been categorically verified to feign this sophomoric certainty about locations and timeframes, which you in turn use to baselessly disparage other propositions that don’t agree with the one you espouse. Needless to say, it is downright misleading and injurious to your credibility. It may be your prerogative to believe the sources that favor your paradigm, just refrain from touting them at the exclusion of others demanding at least equal, if not more, evidential legitimacy.

But I for one can’t help but notice how rife your posts are with this cheap mediocrity, and how you constantly allude to complete uncertainties as compelling basis for your categorical assertions and/or rejections about matters. I trust that any unbiased person who has read even a handful of your debates will know exactly what I mean

And if you need to be refreshed on a few of your past pretenses to “facts�:

Pithom---You claim to know it’s location for a “fact,� when the naked truth is, there are more than a few sites that have been proposed and nobody knows for sure---EXCEPT BRIAN WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING, including more than those officially qualified to be disclosing the data!!!!!! It’s also interesting how you so adamantly reject Tell-El Maskhuta as Succoth even though it has so much evidence to support it, but then you decide to believe that you know exactly where Pithom is when its location is one of the most disputed of all!!! Your positions are so untenable it’s alarming.

Raameses---You insist that the biblical reference to this city corresponds to Pi-Rammesse built by Rameses II, but this is based on hardly more than the similarity in the names and multiple assumptions---which you use to erroneously connect with the king Rameses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus. The site for biblical Raameses is still under heavy dispute and many scholars point out the sensitivity of the prefix “Pi� when considering the site. And EVEN if Pi-Rammesse WAS the location, there is abundant alternative evidence to suggest that it was in reality occupied much earlier and even during the 18th dynasty. So if I were you, I’d give up on this futile foolishness for acting like you’ve fortified with good reasons for a 13th century.

The Amarna Letters---You claim that they completely negate the possibility of an Israelite Conquest in ca. 1400 because, according to you, some of the correspondences contained in the letters do not reflect in specific nature a massive-scale Israelite invasion. But there are several problems with this, and you take WAY TOO much for granted here.

You might find it interesting to know that the commonly proposed dates for when the Amarna letters were written are strictly CONTINGENT on the dates of the reigning monarchs under whom the letters were composed, which are in turn tragically subject to MASSIVE UNCERTAINTY (something you loathe to acknowledge). Egyptian chronology vacillates significantly depending on which author or proposed chronology you’re sourcing. But BECAUSE scholars have tentatively put the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten during the exact period that corresponds with an Israelite invasion (counting forward from 1450bc.), YOU persistently and ridiculously PRETEND THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW TANTAMOUNT to some fantasized evidential rejection of a ca. 1400 invasion. Your claims are even more ludicrous when we remember that the conquest only lasted several years according to Josephus, and that our dates are far from precise, but you act as if there is no room for a dating compromise, when there is in fact plentiful room for such.

(You know way better than this, but you persist ad nauseum, and I’m quite frankly sick of it. This is part of the reason I lost interest in dialoguing with you on EVC)

Moreover, nobody really knows for sure when Amenhotep III even reigned, neither Akhenaten, nor ANY EGYPTIAN PHARAOH for that matter—so give up these naïve pretenses of yours. It only perpetuates ignorance and you're not fooling anyone who is really acquainted with the matter —I’ve been into Egyptology long enough to know what a dating holocaust it is. We rely on EXTREMELY dubious dating methods that could easily yield the possibility for year alteration of any of these reigning kings AT LEAST a good 50-60 years. Of course, we have to remain within certain reasonable bounds that find at least marginal support from generally accepted methodologies for what is considered historically viable vis-ê-vis traditional dating techniques---because they are all that we know. But we cannot flatter ourselves with such certainly, as you so perilously do.

Furthermore, I don’t subscribe to the "infallibility" of these error-ridden “scientific� methods like you do, and since I predicate my beliefs on the Bible I automatically reject any tentative data that doesn’t agree with a scriptural event and will conversely accept that which DOES seem corroborative to it—albeit I can’t pass it off as absolute, unless there is enough evidence to justify it as such.

Of course, if any solid evidence were truly to be found against the Bible, then I guess I would have to dismiss Scripture as a reliable book, wouldn’t I? But that isn’t going to happen, so if I were you I’d start realizing that you could be accepting an unwarily vast amount of archaeological hooey under the garb of progressive science without even knowing it (actually, archaeological methods don’t even qualify under the scientific heading, because they are so hard to rely on).

I might be significantly less than half your age Brian, but I am totally flabbergasted at how you can possibly think you can get away with this baloney about having such a complete understanding of locations and their precise identifications in general because some scholars have SAID SO—when even the heavyweights vociferously disagree. If you didn’t know better, I might be more inclined to excuse you. But I entirely refuse to feed into this absurd pabulum of yours urging us to accept phony, half-baked facts that are in actuality the prodigy of innumerable assumptions and conjectures promulgated by a few heavyweights professing a godly intuition of the past.

(Too bad I can’t recall all of your similarly outlandish assertions with direct quotes, or I would most certainly catalog them here. Perusing through almost infinite threads at EVC to find them, however, would be a significant waste of my time.)

I just can’t help but marvel at how you so effortlessly feign this consummate confidence in the identification of these proposed locations when the fact is, even the most reputed and informed scholars admit uncertainty—except you, of course (the only one specially endowed with inimitable insight when it comes to knowing precisely the identity of every location in Egypt and Palestine).

Bah…You’re blowing smoke. Of course anyone can make a mistake, you keep avoiding the issue, and you continue to show yourself unwilling to acknowledge when proven wrong.


For sanity's sake, spare us this over-obvious sanctimony. You’d be the first here to buy into any claim or allegation that seems even remotely favorable to “proving� your pet beliefs. (You’ve demonstrated this to me brilliantly by your anti-Wyatt stance, even though you know virtually nothing about the issues behind the discoveries or the allegations of fraud before rushing to take a side)

Honestly, that has got to earn you the nobel prize in irony.

You never cease to amaze me, Brian.

I can see you aren’t cognizant of all the data before speaking, as usual.

And btw, where is your conflicting evidence? I’d like to see it! What makes you think it was Pithom? What makes you think that the placement of the site as “Pithom� is superior to the methods used to identify the site as Succoth?

Furthermore, what makes you think that the linguistic similarity is a fabrication?

Please tell me this isn’t all about your wishful thinking, because that’s the only vibe I’m getting from you at this point.

GASP!!! And since when do you criticize your own?

And what makes you think that the name “Rameses� did not exist before the Pharaoh called Rameses II? You act completely ignorant of the fact that “Rameses� was even an additional title for pharaohs going all the way back to the Old Kingdom.

How many times do we have to prove to you that there simply is no concrete basis for concluding that Rameses II built the city because of the similarly titled city “Pi-Ramesse�? You also ignore the fact that translators could have later changed the word from “Avaris� to “Rameses� in order to make contemporaries more able to readily identify the location. Your sheer myopia on this city name=pharaoh business is getting exasperating.

I have gone over this with you on EVC how many times???...you refuse to budge. Don’t make me begin to think that you’re hopelessly out of a capacity to admit when you’re wrong; even with overwhelmingly contradictory evidence glaring you straight in the face…

EARLY VS LATE DATE FOR EXODUS

And I’m really sorry to burst your precious bubble, but the 13th century Exodus is being antiquated with ever augmenting evidence in support of a 15th century date.

Allow me to briefly summarize again why a 13th century Exodus is absolutely impossible, since you have such a knack for forgetting, or eliding the problems altogether:

You claim that an Exodus event could not have occurred prior to the reign of Rameses II because he was the pharaoh who constructed the cities Pithom and Raamses. But in order for you to believe this, then you must also accept that the Exodus could not have happened during the reign of Rameses II because:

The Biblical cities of Pithom and Raamses were constructed at least some time before the birth of Moses, and since Moses was already 80 by the time he confronted Pharaoh for the release of the Israelites, this would not yield enough time for it to happen within Rameses’ 67yr reign, but would instead force an Exodus under the reign of his son Merneptah. But neither could it have happened under Merneptah because of the implications of the stele already alluding to Israel’s presence in Canaan, and the timeframe simply cannot afford enough time for the 40 year wandering in the wilderness. Not to mention that you would have to make the time of the Judges virtually nonexistent because it wouldn’t allow enough time for David to come to the throne at 1000B.C. What part of this are you not willing to understand?

Even KMT magazine has an article entitled “Dating The Exodus� by Omar Zuhdi, which does an EXCELLENT job at demolishing a 13th century and vindicating a 15th century date.

Below is an excerpt from the magazine:

“The mention in Exodus 1:11 of Raamses as one of the cities built with Hebrew forced-labor has convinced many that the Oppression and Exodus occurred during the sixty-four year reign of Rameses II. Specification of the name, they reason, must preclude any date for these events anterior to the rule of that pharaoh. Actually, it precludes the 1290.B.C. date, as well. Chronologically, the building of Raamses took place before the birth of Moses. Since he was eighty when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, the city was at least that old by then. Adding eighty years to 1290 places the construction of the city of Raamses no later than ca. 1370 B.C., towards the end of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (reign of Amenhotep III)—in which period archaeology has proved the absence of Egyptian occupation in the northwestern Delta .

However, if one assumes the Exodus took place in 1446., the addition of eighty years to that date yields 1526. It should be noted that 1526 B.C. would not necessarily be the fixed date of construction of the city of Raamses, but rather the latest date, as the interval between initial building activity there and Moses’s birth is not specified. It is in this exact period—the early years of the Eighteenth Dynasty—that Egyptian presence in the northeastern Delta is attested by the archaeological record.

“The Israel Stela, so-called because it lists Israel among a series of Palestinian peoples and places defeated by King Merenptah, sheds much light on the question of Exodus chronology. The relevant portion reads:

‘The princes are prostrate, saying “Mercy!�
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehennu;
Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkalon;
Seized upon is Gezer;
Yenoam is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste,his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified’

The significance of the Israel Stela is not its claim that Merenptah defeated Israel per se, but that the Israelites were in Palestine when his encounter with them took place. The precise date is not given; it obviously fell during his reignt, or between 1224 and 1214 B.C. This reference to Israel provides a terminus ante quem. Israel, if the tradition of forty years wandering in the desert is trustworthy, had departed Egypt four decades before an unspecified date in Merenptah’s ten year reign. Thus, the Exodus could not have occurred under King Merenptah and a 1220 B.C date for the event is completely ruled out.�

…And all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Hydarnes

If one of the moderators could please replace my older post #66 with the content here provided in my latest revision #89, I would be much obliged.

You are then free to delete post #89.

Hopefully I covered all the errors.