Faldage

We know that everything before the story of the Exodus is just another version of Middle Eastern myth and much of what comes after it is more or less supported by archeological or historical evidence. Is the story of the times in Egypt and the Exodus purely myth and, if so, is it reflected elsewhere? Is the story of the Exodus truly a watershed event, dividing the known myth from the known history?

Gullwind

As I understand it, the current information indicates that the "watershed" is sometime later. I believe Omri is the earliest ruler in Israel/Judah that we have found corroborating evidence for. There is the "House of David" stele, but that is the subject of debate. At best, it confirms the family name, not the events described in the bible.

Basically, nothing before the last part of I Kings/I Chronicles has any archaeological support thus far. I will insert the almost obligatory recommendation for The Bible Unearthed as a good point for starting out.

Anat

We probably have the right names (or some variation thereof) of most of the kings of Judah and Israel, but the areas of their kingdoms (especially of the earlier ones) were probably more limited. Saul's kingdom likely included basically the Rachel tribes - Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh (on both sides of the Jordan) and David's was just Judah (I have seen Herzog claim David only ruled over Hebron while Solomon ruled over Jerusalem, but Finkelstein seems to describe David's kingdom as covering most of Judah - from somewhere between Jerusalem and Bethel in the north to Hebron in the south). Jerusalem was a small village of a few acres and a few hundreds of residents untill the late 8th century BCE, while Judah had a few thousands. The description of David's and Solomon's court is an anachronism, as are the description of Solomon's administration and construction activities as well as the commercial ties of his kingdom.

The northern kingdom of Israel flourished under the Omride kings, and then again under JeroboamII. It was more densely populated than Judah, developed statehood earlier, had more commercial ties earlier, engaged in monumental construction earlier and had widespread literacy earlier.

I think the earliest Biblical event with any kind of confirmation is the Shishak campaign, though there are contradictions between archaeological evidence Egyptian historical evidence, desctruction layers) and the biblical account. Finkelstein seems to be suggesting that it took place earlier, not in the days of Rehoboam but in the times of Saul and David. The next confirmed event would be the rebellion of Mesha against the Omride kings.

Asha'man

You need to draw your line just a little bit more recently. Exodus was pure myth. The conquest of Canaan was pure myth.

The fantastic wealth of the Kingdom of David and Solomon is a myth, but there is an off chance that David was some sort of a local chief. There is weak evidence that the family of David had some recognition several years after the supposed kingdom would have existed. However, it's very clear that the kingdom itself never unified both Israel and Judah, and never had the fantastic wealth that was described.

I think the specific histories of the subsequent kings of Israel and Judah are mostly myth, but they may have at least gotten the names and order of the kings correct. So I'd draw a wide line across the 8th & 9th centuries BCE and call that the point where myth slowly fades into real history.

dug_down_deep

The history that says George Bush has protected us from terrorism may also be called myth if my reading of your criteria is accurate.

The story of the Exodus was oral history before it was "put down in black and white". I would guess that most oral history (and a great deal of written history) is very much focused to place the people hearing it in the center, with a "valuable" lesson attached. It is very believable that a group of nomads being held as slaves in Egypt escaped their bondage and headed East.

Literalism may be removed from much of history without dismissing its value.

--doug

EthnAlln

This is purely uninformed speculation. I look for analogies with other nations, and I see Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, and the others as being rather like the Homeric heroes in the story of Greece, or as Romulus and Remus in the history of Rome.

David and Solomon just intuitively look more realistic to me, but still much exaggerated by encrustations of legend, perhaps like the Etruscan kings of Rome, or perhaps Solon and Croesus, as reported by Herodotus These were at least fairly recent at the time when Herodotus wrote, and the more prosaic incidents that he reports about them may be fully accurate. I've tried to figure out some rational explanation for the Pythia knowing exactly what Croesus was doing on the particular day when she was consulted, since there were no cell phones back then, and I can't. So I'm inclined to discount the legend that his decision to attack the Persians was based on the oracle. I also discount fully the legend that Apollo came in and put out the fire when Cyrus was burning Croesus alive. All of that sounds suspiciously like the plagues/Exodus legend.

Asha'man

Sure, it's believable, but it's not factually true.

Archeology is particularly well suited for detecting mass migrations of people, especially when there are differences in cultural artifacts to demonstrate such shifts. And archeology has established that Canaan was not conquered in the 13th century BCE by an invading people with experience in Egyptian culture. In fact, the land of Canaan wasn't conquered at all. The city of Jericho, famous for the walls that tumbled at the sound of Hebrew trumpets, was unfortified and nearly uninhabited in the 13th century BCE.

Instead, we have positive physical evidence that the Hebrew people developed from Canaan natives, that it was a slow evolutionary change. The Hebrew pantheon slowly became a Yahweh first movement, then later an Yahweh only movement. It was not a sudden replacement of the existing inhabitants, but a gradual shift in culture and religion that took centuries.

Since the conquest of Canaan didn't happen, it's pretty clear that the Exodus that preceded it can safely be counted as Myth.

aa5874

Asha'man, what time period was the mythical 'exodus' thought to have happened?

Anat

I'm not Asha'man, but from my reading - it depends whom you ask. Based on the mention of the city of Rameses (identified as Pi-Ramesses) the exodus is commonly dated to the times of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE), who moved his capital to that city, named it after himself and built in it. A slight problem (beyond all the archaeological stuff) is that according to the bible the pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites died and his heir was the one who experienced the plagues and the exodus itself. That would have been Merneptah, who reigned 1213-1203 BCE. Except Merneptah claims to have run a campaign against a people called Israel in Palestine, which doesn't leave 40 years for the wanderings.

Alternatively, I can find many Christian pages that attempt to date the exodus to the end of the Early Bronze Age because many of the cities mentioned in Joshua were destroyed around that time, whereas at the more traditional date of the exodus many of those cities were unpopulated or barely populated, and many of those that were populated were not destroyed. This alternate dating ignores the geographical information from Egypt. It also runs into trouble when one tries to date the later eras in Israelite history. Because one either ends up with having the monarchy in Middle Bronze and the return from exile in the Iron Age, in total contrast with Babylonian and Persian chronologies or with a very long time of the Judges, with inexplicable demographic changes - increase in Middle Bronze, decrease in Late Bronze and increase again in the Iron Age.

aa5874

Anat, thanks for the info. The Christian Bible is so difficult to follow, it is a chronological nightmare