Jayrok

I've read the Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman.

This link seems to claim there is evidence for the Exodus and canaanite conquest:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm


Has anyone reviewed this site and if so, what do you think about its accuracy regarding biblical archaeology?

Thanks

mountainman

I took a quick look at the New Testament related pages.
On the pages that they provide dating in relation to cited
manuscripts (eg: Bodmer)
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/bodmer.htm
they do not state the (presumeably) scientific dating process,
which in the case of all NT fragments (apart from the gJUDAS,
which the site may not mention) is not carbon-14-dating,
but paleopgraphic assessment (handwriting analysis).



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Jayrok

Thanks.


The site mentions as perhaps the most significant discovery is the Merneptah Stele, which is the first mention of "Israel", albeit in passing, ever discovered. They date this around 1210 BCE. I did a search on the Secular Web google for Merneptah Stele and didn't see anything.

Josephus quotes the Egyptian Manetho they claim mentioning the Jews in Epypt. He equates the Jews with the Hyksos, and the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose who founded the 18th dynasty (1570-50 BCE). In other words, the site claims Josephus believed the exodus was this expulsion and the Jews were part of the Hyksos. Granted, it does't equate to 600,000 jews leaving Egypt as the bible suggests, but it might indicate that some Jews left Egypt, in which the exodus could be based on. Finkelstein says there is no evidence of any such exit from Egypt. I'm just wondering.

Jabu Khan

Sounds to me like true events that the myths could have been based on what it has to do with the acts depicted in the Bible though is beyond me.

Anat

Merneptah's stele is evidence for the existence of Israel at the time (whatever that meant), but is problematic for a literal reading of the exodus story, for it does not leave enough time for much wandering of the Israelites in the desert between Ramesses II and the battles celebrated in the stele, nor does it leave much time for the Egyptian economy and military to recover from plagues and the loss of all those drowned horses and chariots.

In no way does the stele refute Finkelstein's thesis, that what came to be known as 'Israel' grew out of a local population of herders who settled in the hill country and became farmers following the economic collapse of the Canaanite cities at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

Jayrok

Agreed. I went back and reread the book where he talks about this and the Hyksos. Josephus, as the site I originally posted also said, seems to equate the exodus with the Hyksos expulsion. This alone throws a wrench into the biblical narrative and time period. The Hyksos occupation, as described by Manetho, was that of rulers of Egypt... not slaves. This occured 300 years before the Merneptah's stele period. The Stele is indication that the Egyptians came into canaan and destroyed some folks, including Israel.

If the exodus is supposed to be the Hyksos expulsion, (1) the timing is off, and (2) it would be hard for the Egyptians to follow Israel into Canaan and destroy it when the bible says the Egyptian army is destroyed in the Red Sea.

So in a sense, this website isn't saying anything Finkelstein isn't saying. They are claiming this is evidence for the exodus while Finkelstein is describing why it wasn't or shouldn't be considered the "exodus". At any rate, the bible paints itself in a corner with its dating. This is mainly why Finkelstein believes most of the bible was written around the 7th century BCE as opposed to the 14th or so.

Ruhan

I agree with Jayrok that apologetics paint themselves into a corner by claiming that the Hyksos were indeed the Israelites. A few more reasons why this is impossible would be:

1) When the Hyksos occupied Egypt they introduced new military technology to the Egyptians such as the horse drawn chariot and the composite bow. The Canaanites in the 16th century BCE did not have this type of technology.

2) We have overwhelming evidence that they Hyksos ruled Egypt during the 16th and 15th centuries BCE. If the Hyksos were indeed Israelites, why would Israel describe their time in Egypt as enslavement when in reality they ruled the land?

The more probable answer is that when the Hyksos fled some remained behind in Canaan and the story became part of the local folk lore.

Anat

And what would the Hyksos be doing building the city of Raamses?

rob117

IMO, Josephus' identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites is probably do to it being the closest thing in Egyptian history he could find to the exodus story. I doubt it was the actual inspiration for the exodus story.

Also, the Hyksos are believed to have been primarily of Canaanite origin; the Canaanites at that time had adopted horses and chariots from the Hurrians, who had presumably adopted it from Indo-European-speaking groups in Iran.