Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RGD · 03-09-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Hi Crowley:

Supported by archaeology, in part, the Exodus is a historic fact.

Cite the archaeological work. Cite actual research. (Hint, Ron Wyatt's material is not 'archaeology'.

Quote:

Persons who deny the event as factual base their views on presuppositions which cannot be overcome because the factuality of the event jeopardizes the validity of secular worldviews.

Factually incorrect; we find no evidence to support your position. Even good Christians don't buy into your lack of evidence and lack of logic.

WILLOWTREE · 03-09-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Cite the archaeological work. Cite actual research. (Hint, Ron Wyatt's material is not 'archaeology'.

Neither is Finkelstein then - see how that works.

I've never read an archaeology report that denies the 15th century Exodus.

WT

someotherguy · 03-09-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

I've never read an archaeology report that denies the 15th century Exodus.
WT

But what RGD asked for are the articles that support it.

Asha'man · 03-09-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley

Just for clarification's sake:

From the Historic/Archeaological perspective when did the Exodus or an Exodus occur (BCE)?

Or did no Exodus of any kind actually occur?

It never happened.

From the evidence side, the big problem is not the departure of slaves from Egypt, but their arrival and conquest of Canaan.

It turns out that archeologists can observe a continuity of culture within Canaan throughout the centuries in question. There is no sudden influx of Egyptian-influenced pottery shards, no sudden appearance of Egyptian-influenced architecture, no sudden appearance of Egyptian-influenced writing styles. A sudden influx of foreigners is exactly the type of thing that archeology is good at finding, and the positive evidence shows that this didn’t happen.

The people of Canaan seem to have been killed and replaced by exact duplicates, culturally.

Or, far more in fitting with the evidence we observe, no conquest and influx of a large number of ex-Egyptians ever happened. So, if the Hebrews escaped Egypt in something you want to call an Exodus, they didn’t end up in Canaan.

What the evidence actually supports is that the Hebrew culture was an offshoot of Canaan natives that slowly developed over centuries. They never arrived and conquered the land, they simply grew up in place.

MiddleMan · 03-09-2005, 04:36 PM

Touching back upon my opening post, and following the lead of some rather insightful replies, I looked over the literature regarding Moab and Edom that I have in my possession and I'd like to share what I found for further discussion.

I did not find anything of relevance in The Bible Unearthed but I did find something in William Dever's Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. I will quote from page 28 and 30 of his hardback if anyone wants to follow along!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWEIWDTCF

We now know that occupation of Edom did not begin until muc later [than the 13th century], and even then it was extremely sparce. And the area reminded largely nomadic until perhaps the 7th century B.C., when a sort of semi-sedentary "tribal sate" finally emerged.

...there cannot have been a king of Edom to have denied the Israelites access, since Edom did not achieve any kind of statehood until the 7th century B.C.

...if biblical Iyeabarim is indeed Medeiyineh, then there is no city there before the 8th century B.C., at the earliest.

But then I turned to Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (in which he rips Dever as basically incompetent) and says of this area politically (again, page 196-197 in the hardback for those who want to follow along):

Quote:

Originally Posted by OROT

The idea is promoted that a monarchy cannot exist in a land prior to sedentarization of the working populace (land-tillers), urbanization (cities dominating society), and material display (monumental buildings, luxury wares).

But all this, frankly, is poppycock. The Assyrian king list opens with a whole section of "17 kings who lived in tents" for the early second millenium. No toiling peasants on landed estates here; no whisper of urbanization here; no trace of fine buildings or luxury wares here. These men were in effect sheikss of the steppe, in the region of Ashur, Assyria's eventual capital...

Thus there is no valid reason whatsoever to deny the title of king to rulers so termed by either Near Eastern documents or the biblical writers...That is certainly what should be posited for almost purely pastoral Edom before the ninth/eighth century, and largely for Moab (and Ammon, no doubt), plus agricultural, farm- or village-based communities likewise.

I get the impression that Kitchen is calling Dever's statements untrue. That Moab and Edom could have existed, perhaps not as city-states, but as "kingdoms" nonetheless. Or, am I reading that wrong?

Celsus · 03-09-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Neither is Finkelstein then - see how that works.

Don't be ridiculous. Finkelstein has just been awarded the Dan David prize, for, you guessed it, his work in archaeology. Wyatt didn't even have a BA in archaeology, let alone a license to dig in Israel. Joe Zias laughed at him when the inquiries came in. I mean really.

Quote:

I've never read an archaeology report that denies the 15th century Exodus.

Well we already know that, as you haven't read any archaeology reports by professionals. Try L.E. Stager, "Forging an Identity", in M.D. Coogan, Oxford History of the Biblical World; A. Mazar, ch.7, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible; J.C.H. Laughlin, ch.6, Archaeology and the Bible; W.G. Dever, ch.2-4, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where did They Come From?. All of these deny an exodus altogether. I have purposely not mentioned any minimalists. Go figure.

Joel

spin · 03-09-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Don't be ridiculous. Finkelstein has just been awarded the Dan David prize, for, you guessed it, his work in archaeology. Wyatt didn't even have a BA in archaeology, let alone a license to dig in Israel. Joe Zias laughed at him when the inquiries came in. I mean really.

But you don't get it: Willow Tree considers any sort of science as witchcraft. Anything that uses hard data, must be the work of the devil through atheists. That's why his positions defy science and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willow Tree

I've never read an archaeology report that denies the 15th century Exodus.

Well we already know that, as you haven't read any archaeology reports by professionals. Try L.E. Stager, "Forging an Identity", in M.D. Coogan, Oxford History of the Biblical World; A. Mazar, ch.7, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible; J.C.H. Laughlin, ch.6, Archaeology and the Bible; W.G. Dever, ch.2-4, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where did They Come From?. All of these deny an exodus altogether. I have purposely not mentioned any minimalists. Go figure.

And, as Willow Tree won't read any of them, his original statement won't need changing.

insp

Celsus · 03-09-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But you don't get it: Willow Tree considers any sort of science as witchcraft. Anything that uses hard data, must be the work of the devil through atheists. That's why his positions defy science and logic.

Actually, his arguments just defy common sense. If he knew enough about science or logic to defy them, he would have posted something pseudoscientific like Lysimachus' Ron-Wyatt-appreciation thread in E/C by now. But unfortunately...

Quote:

And, as Willow Tree won't read any of them, his original statement won't need changing.

Good point. I'm just waiting for him to accuse them of being minimalists. I'm sure they will be overjoyed to hear that they've earned that label from a radical new ground-breaking archaeologist like Willow. Especially Dever. He cosies up to the minimalists too much y'know.

Joel

spin · 03-09-2005, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Actually, his arguments just defy common sense.

But how would you know? -- you're just an atheist. What you see is common enough for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

I'm just waiting for him to accuse them of being minimalists. I'm sure they will be overjoyed to hear that they've earned that label from a radical new ground-breaking archaeologist like Willow. Especially Dever. He cosies up to the minimalists too much y'know.

Now that's just not true, Celsus! Willow Tree has nothing against them at all, beside their being atheist practitioners of the black arts.

isnp

MiddleMan · 03-10-2005, 12:59 PM

Oh, please don't let this thread die. I would like to see a discussion of post #35 if I may.

And why does an Exodus, as part of the Hyksos collapse, not be feasable? Not that the Hebrews were the Hyksos, but that the Hyksos held them captive and it was the Hyksos who were "punished" by the Hebrew god. Afterall, for a time, the Hyksos were the Egyptians.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2005, 12:59 PM	#40
MiddleMan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Between a rock and a hard place Posts: 916	Oh, please don't let this thread die. I would like to see a discussion of post #35 if I may. And why does an Exodus, as part of the Hyksos collapse, not be feasable? Not that the Hebrews were the Hyksos, but that the Hyksos held them captive and it was the Hyksos who were "punished" by the Hebrew god. Afterall, for a time, the Hyksos were the Egyptians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.