Unresolvable problems with Exodus in archaeology, history and contradictions in the Torah

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Thos like you who refuse to consider the objective veifiable archaeological, historical and geological evidence will always refuse and persist in intentional ignorance where there is not question as to what the evidence demostrates. The Pentateuch is not a historical document. It is narratives compiled ~600 BCE from various sources with nothing written at the time the events occured.

Can you explain the accuracy of the Pentateuck when no Hebrew written records are known until after ~600 BCE?

The only written records available and there is abaolutely no record of Joshua's invasion when Egypt occupied and colonized Canaan.
























/

Archaeology goes only so far. So the evidence could be interpreted both ways. I am not very familiar with the available evidence. Could you help by posting the alleged evidence and why you do not find it to be credible? Thanks. We should remember that absence of evidence does not mean absence of event. History is built by the winners.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

"Unresolvable problems with Shakespeare and the historical record"

"Unresolvable problems with Star Wars and any actual possible future"

"Unresolvable problems with the myth of Donald Trump and the reality of him"

Expecting mythology to align with reality is a silly expectation as that is not what myths are about, or for. Myths deliberately exaggerate stories about reality to help us recognize and understand some ideal lesson to be learned from the experience. Myths are a mixture of fact and fiction intended to represent some truth about reality, not to actually BE REALITY.

True. But the fact in the muth cannot be denied.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you explain the accuracy of the Pentateuck when no Hebrew written records are known until after ~600 BCE?

You might want to tread cautiously.

The Wikipedia entry on the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon identifies it as "the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" and suggests a date of "late 11th/early 10th century BCE."

In what I believe to be a more recent article ...

The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: A New Collation Based on the Multispectral Images, with Translation and Commentary​

the author writes:

the preceding analysis shows the ostracon to contain a continuous, coherent text—a short judicial text addressing a local judicial concern. Second, if the reading of 3.4 as dalet and translation of Line 2 is accepted, then this would suggest that the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription is written in Hebrew, with the qualification that this should be understood to be an archaic, dialectical form of Hebrew.​

Maybe the date offered by Wikipedia is wrong,

maybe the author's dalet reading is wrong, and​

maybe we should flirt with the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" and quibble with "Proto-Canaanite" versus "Archaic, dialectical form of Hebrew."​

​

I really don't know. But I do know that your claim is but one discovery, or one confirmation, away from looking premature. The bird circling overhead could well turn out to be Popper's white raven.

 

[Brian2]

"One would think." does not respond to my post.

The Book of Joshua describes the conquest as complete, defeat of all the kings, and brutal killing of all.

Again . . .

Of course, you have to deal with the unresolvable conflicts between the books of the Pentatuch concerning the accounts of the invasion by Joshua. This undermines the credibility of the acounts. You cannot just 'hand wave' away obvious contradiction concerning the Joshua invasion, as well as unresolvable conflicts in the historical reliability of the Pentateuch.

By saying ""The Book of Joshua describes the conquest as complete, defeat of all the kings, and brutal killing of all.""
You are going straight back and doing exactly what I said you do,,,,,,,,,,, ignore those parts of Joshua and then the same thing in the next book, Judges 1, that tell us the conquest was not complete.
Combined we have a picture of Joshua conquering Canaan and bringing peace so that Israel could settle there and have peace, but also that to complete the conquest fully in the various alloted tribal regions was going to need a lot more fighting.
So Israel won places to live and left the rest till later.
Presumably you can read and know that Joshua and Judges tell us of the places that are not conquered but because it looks as if Joshua has overstated the conquest in places and made it look as if the whole of Canaan was completely defeated, you seem to think that entitles you to say that the whole account is not true.
But doing just the opposite, seeing the whole account as true, enables us to align it with archaeology and history.

Avaolutely ridiculous and not comprehendable. Ypu ovject to and misrepresent archaeological evidence and then cite misrepresentations of the evidence.

If archaeology was not a science of opinion there would be no room to come up with other opinions that are as or more plausible.

Yhe letterd are from generals and appointed leaders of occupied Canaan and are rvidence that Egypt ovvupirf Canaan, eith absolutely no reference to an invasion by Joshua,

The letters are Canaan city state leaders complaining that they are being attacked and overrun and Egypt is not helping them as they should.
So Egypt had conquered Canaan but was nowhere to be seen when the Hebrews came in and conquered the individual city states. Your protest that Egypt had conquered Canaan and was there is shown to be wrong by the Amarna letters for this conquest time.
All Canaan knew is that they were being attacked by people they called Habiru,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they did not know of the escaped slaves and the damage they had done in Egypt, or that Joshua was their leader at that time. The archaeology of opinion says the Amarna letters are evidence for the conquest. The minimalist archaeology of opinion does not like that view. Where is your objective verifiable evidence that the conquest is not true?

Unbelievable "personal" conjecture and speculation to justify your agenda, There is no evidence to justify this statement,

Yes that is what archaeology does, speculate about finds and fit them, if possible, with the histories presented by the various nations. The Amarna letters fit Joshua history, both time and place and so it is good to say we have a fit and that the various Canaanite kings did not know exactly who was conquering them,,,,,,,,,,, and this also fits with the ton of evidence that Egypt were big liars when it came to any defeats they had.

Yes, Egypt knew of the Hebrews in the Hills of Judah. So what!?!?!? Egyptian records descriptions of all the tribes and kingdoms in the Levant region, with absolutely no records of the conquest by Joshua. We have no evidence of any written records by Hebrews at the time. All the evidence demonstrates that the Hebrews were a pastoral tribe, without a written language no significant miltary to achieve what is fiscribed as Joshua's conquest of Canaan. Again . . . yes, Egypt had records of defeating the Henrews and capturung slave.


Yes, there is adequate records and wvidence of Eghpt defeating Hebrews and having slaves, but abaolutely no evidence of the scale and description of events in the conflicting texts of the Pentateuch

Again, Egypt are liars about their defeats, Egypt was not there to push back the invading Hebrews according to Amarna Letters, the Hebrews were pastoral tribe/s and did not sit around reading by candle light at night no doubt BUT that says nothing about the education of Moses and a section of the population.
The nomads of Yahweh at the time of the wilderness roaming and in the right area certainly fit the historical records we have from Israel, records by the educated section of the population. For all we know Moses conducted school for the children in the wilderness, so they could read the law he was recording.
But if you want to throw out the written records then you don't really care if archaeology fits them. According to you they were all made up hundreds of years later and no amount of archaeological fit to show they are accurate is going to change your mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

By saying ""The Book of Joshua describes the conquest as complete, defeat of all the kings, and brutal killing of all.""
You are going straight back and doing exactly what I said you do,,,,,,,,,,, ignore those parts of Joshua and then the same thing in the next book, Judges 1, that tell us the conquest was not complete.

That is the problem with the text of the Pentatech. The different bocks five contradictoty frdvtiptions of the conquest. The establishes the jnreliability of the trct. I wotld fo by what Joshua wrote as firdt hand, but unfortunately th whole of the Pentateuch was not compiled until after ~600 BCE. There are no Hebrew text written at the time to testify actually what happened..

Combined we have a picture of Joshua conquering Canaan and bringing peace so that Israel could settle there and have peace, but also that to complete the conquest fully in the various alloted tribal regions was going to need a lot more fighting.
So Israel won places to live and left the rest till later.
Presumably you can read and know that Joshua and Judges tell us of the places that are not conquered but because it looks as if Joshua has overstated the conquest in places and made it look as if the whole of Canaan was completely defeated, you seem to think that entitles you to say that the whole account is not true.
But doing just the opposite, seeing the whole account as true, enables us to align it with archaeology and history.

The whole account is definitely not true when there are convicting accounts, and archaeology as whole does not support any sort of Joshua invasion as referenced in many posts in the past.

If archaeology was not a science of opinion there would be no room to come up with other opinions that are as or more plausible.

No archaeology is not based on opinion. It is based on the actual evidence. The Egyptian records like the letters you misrepresent do not support any sort of invasion described in the Bible text,

The letters are Canaan city state leaders complaining that they are being attacked and overrun and Egypt is not helping them as they should.

True, but that is not evidence of any invasion by Joshua, The letters are from generals and other representative of the Egyptian occupying army.

So Egypt had conquered Canaan but was nowhere to be seen when the Hebrews came in and conquered the individual city states. Your protest that Egypt had conquered Canaan and was there is shown to be wrong by the Amarna letters for this conquest time.

By the evidence Joshua's army is nowhere to be seen. The Amars ltters support the congquest, occupation and collonization of Canaan. Remember there is abundant other evidence such as Egyptian forts temples, aplacial residences, and government buildings all over Canaan. Also other Egyptian records support this, and no sign of a Joshua army in the records.

All Canaan knew is that they were being attacked by people they called Habiru,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Not true in the Egyptian Amara letters.

they did not know of the escaped slaves and the damage they had done in Egypt, or that Joshua was their leader at that time. The archaeology of opinion says the Amarna letters are evidence for the conquest. The minimalist archaeology of opinion does not like that view. Where is your objective verifiable evidence that the conquest is not true?

No' the stela referenced records the defeat of the Hebrews and there ar illustrations of HEbrew or Semite slaves., There is no record of Egyptian cities being captured by Hebrews.

Yes that is what archaeology does, speculate about finds and fit them, if possible, with the histories presented by the various nations. The Amarna letters fit Joshua history, both time and place and so it is good to say we have a fit and that the various Canaanite kings did not know exactly who was conquering them,,,,,,,,,,, and this also fits with the ton of evidence that Egypt were big liars when it came to any defeats they had.

The Amara letters definitely do not fit the Joshua history. You are the one speculating without rvidence or any Hebrew records of the time for the invasion.

Again, Egypt are liars about their defeats, Egypt was not there to push back the invading Hebrews according to Amarna Letters, the Hebrews were pastoral tribe/s and did not sit around reading by candle light at night no doubt BUT that says nothing about the education of Moses and a section of the population.
The nomads of Yahweh at the time of the wilderness roaming and in the right area certainly fit the historical records we have from Israel, records by the educated section of the population. For all we know Moses conducted school for the children in the wilderness, so they could read the law he was recording.
But if you want to throw out the written records then you don't really care if archaeology fits them. According to you they were all made up hundreds of years later and no amount of archaeological fit to show they are accurate is going to change your mind.

No you cannot use this speculative line of reasoning without any Hebrew records of the events dated at the time of Exodus or Joshua's invasion. The Egyptian records simply do not support your speculation.

 

[shunyadragon]

You might want to tread cautiously.

The Wikipedia entry on the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon identifies it as "the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" and suggests a date of "late 11th/early 10th century BCE."

In what I believe to be a more recent article ...

The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: A New Collation Based on the Multispectral Images, with Translation and Commentary​

the author writes:

the preceding analysis shows the ostracon to contain a continuous, coherent text—a short judicial text addressing a local judicial concern. Second, if the reading of 3.4 as dalet and translation of Line 2 is accepted, then this would suggest that the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription is written in Hebrew, with the qualification that this should be understood to be an archaic, dialectical form of Hebrew.​

Maybe the date offered by Wikipedia is wrong,

maybe the author's dalet reading is wrong, and​

maybe we should flirt with the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" and quibble with "Proto-Canaanite" versus "Archaic, dialectical form of Hebrew."​

​

I really don't know. But I do know that your claim is but one discovery, or one confirmation, away from looking premature. The bird circling overhead could well turn out to be Popper's white raven.

Well, I will do more research, but I do not consider proto-Canaaanite to be "Archaic dialecical Hebrew" based on the present evidence, because proto-Canaaanite versions are all over the region. I do not buy the 'True Scitsman argument." The Canaanites, Ugarits and Phoenicians dominated the region at the time, and versians of their writting dominated. Actually the Proto-Canaanite is very close to Pheonician. It is more likely at this time the Hebrews began to use Proto-Canaanite writting in trade and legal matters. The Canaanite/Ugarit libraries they have found with tablets in variations and different languages supports this. I believe the evidenced demonstrates Hebrew evolved later.

Will look further.

 

[shunyadragon]

Archaeology goes only so far. So the evidence could be interpreted both ways. I am not very familiar with the available evidence. Could you help by posting the alleged evidence and why you do not find it to be credible? Thanks. We should remember that absence of evidence does not mean absence of event. History is built by the winners.

There is positive evidence as to the history of the written languages in the region as who could write, and which text they used, The Available evidence follows the evolution of language from two directions. From the East came Sumerian/Babylonian writing From the West came Egyptian first in the form of heiroglyphics, and then simpler alphat based writing. Trade is the main vehicle for the devlopment of language, That is why the variations of Phoenician, Ugarit and Canaanite languages dominated the levant. The evidence dmonstrates that Hebrew evolved from these languages. after about 1000-800 BCE. The Hebrew tribes up to that time were predominantely pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah with limited trade with no evidence of a written language before this, The did not engage i extensive trade, as they grew n stregt and trade they bagain to use versions of Proto-Canaanite, which evolved into Hebrew. Trade was growing in the region of Palestine and the Hills of Judah, At about 930 BCE Camel were introduced as a result ofd trade in copper.

It does remain a fact that there is a total lack of evidence of a written language among the Hebrews beginning withthe increase in trade with use of Proto-Canaanite and they grew into a kingdom and a military power between 1000 and 600 BCE,

 

[Brian2]

That is the problem with the text of the Pentatech. The different bocks five contradictoty frdvtiptions of the conquest. The establishes the jnreliability of the trct. I wotld fo by what Joshua wrote as firdt hand, but unfortunately th whole of the Pentateuch was not compiled until after ~600 BCE. There are no Hebrew text written at the time to testify actually what happened..

The internal evidence suggests what we have are redactions of earlier works.
Joshua gives the conquest story and the whole book needs to be seen as a whole, and that gives the whole story. Parts seem written in the style of the times, exaggeration of conquest achievement, as in the Merenptah Stele. Do you read what the Merenptah Stele says and say that the whole Stele is a lie and did not happen, no, you understand it as the writing style of conquest in that time. But when it comes to Joshua the same style has you saying the whole book is rubbish. Interesting.

The whole account is definitely not true when there are convicting accounts, and archaeology as whole does not support any sort of Joshua invasion as referenced in many posts in the past.

Strangely enough archaeology of Canaan in the 14th century does support the Joshua conquest. It shows Jericho, Ai and Hazor destroyed just as Joshua says.
It also shows the Amarna letters speaking of conquest in Canaan and the absense of Egypt even though you claim Egypt was all over Canaan at that time.

True, but that is not evidence of any invasion by Joshua, The letters are from generals and other representative of the Egyptian occupying army.

You seem uninformed about who wrote the letters and what they say.
Actually read what this site says and see how the Amarna Letters are actual objective evidence for the conquest as recorded in Joshua.

The Amarna Letters: Proof of Israel’s Invasion of Canaan?

The ancient Habiru battled their way through Canaan during the 14th century B.C.E. Who were these people?

armstronginstitute.org

By the evidence Joshua's army is nowhere to be seen. The Amars ltters support the congquest, occupation and collonization of Canaan. Remember there is abundant other evidence such as Egyptian forts temples, aplacial residences, and government buildings all over Canaan. Also other Egyptian records support this, and no sign of a Joshua army in the records.

Sorry the Amarna letters show Egyptian presence lacking in Canaan at the time of the conquest even if they had conquered Canaan

No' the stela referenced records the defeat of the Hebrews and there ar illustrations of HEbrew or Semite slaves., There is no record of Egyptian cities being captured by Hebrews.

The Merenptah Stele exaggerates the defeat of the Israelites. The Merenptah Stele is anyway from a time period about 200 years after the conquest by Joshua.
OF COURSE there are records of Egyptian cities in Canaan being captured by Joshua,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IN THE AMARNA LETTERS, from the actual time of the conquest.

The Amara letters definitely do not fit the Joshua history. You are the one speculating without rvidence or any Hebrew records of the time for the invasion.

Speculation by Biblical minimalists and maximalists about the identity of the Habiru in the Amarna Letters has gone on for centuries.
The Habiru are the same ethnic group as the Hebrews and they are shown to be in Canaan conquering when the Bible says the Hebrews were there doing that.
Hmmm, maybe joining the dots for this one is harder for a minimalist than I imagine. But you say you are not a minimalist and is I remember you even deny those categories exist.
So what's your excuse for not being able to connect the dots?

No you cannot use this speculative line of reasoning without any Hebrew records of the events dated at the time of Exodus or Joshua's invasion. The Egyptian records simply do not support your speculation.

When you say "Egyptian records" you must be referring to the Amarna Letters,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which support what I say, or to the Soleb inscriptions which support what I say about the Hebrews. Are there other records which go against the conquest in the 1300s?
Didn't you know that there are Hebrew records dated to the time of the Exodus and Conquest according to the internal evidence in them?
They weren't chiselled on stone or stamped into clay, and many Israelite rulers and priests and prophets would have wanted to destroy them if they could, but what was recorded at the time of Moses and Joshua is still there to be read today even after all of that.
I guess the Word of God does last forever.

 

[PureX]

True. But the fact in the muth cannot be denied.

The facts don't matter. They are there to support the fictional re-presentation of reality, to make it easier for us to recognize the truth within it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I will do more research, but ...

OK

 

[shunyadragon]

The internal evidence suggests what we have are redactions of earlier works.

There is absolutely no external evidence in terms of anything written by the Hebrews concerning Exodus and Joshua, The argument from internal evidence only is terribly circular reasoning As with all ancient scripture and texts. The scripture cannot justify itself alone.

Joshua gives the conquest story and the whole book needs to be seen as a whole, and that gives the whole story. Parts seem written in the style of the times, exaggeration of conquest achievement, as in the Merenptah Stele. Do you read what the Merenptah Stele says and say that the whole Stele is a lie and did not happen, no, you understand it as the writing style of conquest in that time. But when it comes to Joshua the same style has you saying the whole book is rubbish. Interesting.



Strangely enough archaeology of Canaan in the 14th century does support the Joshua conquest. It shows Jericho, Ai and Hazor destroyed just as Joshua says.
It also shows the Amarna letters speaking of conquest in Canaan and the absense of Egypt even though you claim Egypt was all over Canaan at that time.

The Armana letters do not speak of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, See reference below for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews.

You seem uninformed about who wrote the letters and what they say.

Actually read what this site says and see how the Amarna Letters are actual objective evidence for the conquest as recorded in Joshua.

The Amarna Letters: Proof of Israel’s Invasion of Canaan?

The ancient Habiru battled their way through Canaan during the 14th century B.C.E. Who were these people?

armstronginstitute.org

Sorry the Amarna letters show Egyptian presence lacking in Canaan at the time of the conquest even if they had conquered Canaan

The Ararna letters are from Egyptian governers military oficials appointed by the Egyptians to govern Canaan,

The Merenptah Stele exaggerates the defeat of the Israelites. The Merenptah Stele is anyway from a time period about 200 years after the conquest by Joshua.
OF COURSE there are records of Egyptian cities in Canaan being captured by Joshua,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IN THE AMARNA LETTERS, from the actual time of the conquest.

This is an opinon based on an agenda. What is the independent evidence basis for this absurd claim? Associated text in Egypt shows slaves. The Amarna letters do not record Hebrew conquest of Egyptian cities. Your fundi Christian reference is not an unbiased assessment of the Amarna ketters,

Speculation by Biblical minimalists and maximalists about the identity of the Habiru in the Amarna Letters has gone on for centuries.
The Habiru are the same ethnic group as the Hebrews and they are shown to be in Canaan conquering when the Bible says the Hebrews were there doing that.
Hmmm, maybe joining the dots for this one is harder for a minimalist than I imagine. But you say you are not a minimalist and is I remember you even deny those categories exist.
So what's your excuse for not being able to connect the dots?

I do not connect dots, I give independent academic references as below to provide a less biased fiew of history.

When you say "Egyptian records" you must be referring to the Amarna Letters,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which support what I say, or to the Soleb inscriptions which support what I say about the Hebrews. Are there other records which go against the conquest in the 1300s?
Didn't you know that there are Hebrew records dated to the time of the Exodus and Conquest according to the internal evidence in them?
They weren't chiselled on stone or stamped into clay, and many Israelite rulers and priests and prophets would have wanted to destroy them if they could, but what was recorded at the time of Moses and Joshua is still there to be read today even after all of that.
I guess the Word of God does last forever.

Unfortunatly you cite a biased Christian source to justufy your agenda and not the academic sources cited earlier. The Amarna letters sre extensive fvidence of gommunications from Egyptian governors, militatyr leaders and appointed officials. You are neglevted. Yes there were conflicts with the Hebrews in Canaan, but no Joshua army.

A more legitimate unbiased source provides a better understanding of the context of the Amarna ketters.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jats

Waterhouse: Who Are the HÓabiru of the Amarna Letters? 33 with (neœpus∑u ana) the Habiru-people” (EA 74:19-21).8 In other words, the outlying citizenry of Rib-Haddi’s kingdom have identified themselves (in the eyes of Rib-Haddi) with the unworthy and disloyal “Habiru,” and thus are to be considered as enemies of the crown. The second example actually defines the then current understanding of the term: “Now he [Aziru, the leader of the kingdom of Amurru] is like the SA.GAZ-people, a stray dog (kalbu hÓalqu), and has seized Sumur, the city of the Sun, my lord” (EA 67:16-18). In this missive the charge is made that a head of state has become like the Habiru because his actions are comparable to a “stray dog” who obeys no master, who illegally seizes what he can, and otherwise pays no attention to existing authority.9 It needs to be noticed that in these two examples, neither the citizens of Letter 74 nor the head of state in Letter 67 actually are identified as “Habiru.” Nor do they join the Habiru, so as to be part of an existing external group. Rather, the charge is made that the defectors act like Habiru-people. Being disloyal or subversive, in the idiom of that time, is “to act” (epeœs∑u) Habiru, that is, to “side with” the dangerous Habiru-enemy. If it could be shown that the biblical Hebrews were an active presence in the land of Canaan during the time of the Amarna Age (14th century B.C.), then the case would become much more attractive in identifying at least some references to the Habiru as referring to the Israelites. In this connection, it may be observed that late-Egyptian texts and inscriptions from the time of Seti I (1294-1279 B.C.) and Ramses II (1279-1213 B.C.),10 speak of the Western portion of Galilee as }Isr, a seeming reference to territory settled by the Hebrew tribe of Asher.11 In Papyrus Anastasi I (the so-called “Satirical Letter”), composed during the reign of Ramses II, the Asherites evidently were long enough in Canaan 8 The translations given here are a result of consulting several sources, including: William L. Moran (ed. and trans.), The Amarna Letters (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992); William F. Albright, “The Amarna Letters” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (hereafter ANET); Second Edition, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1955), 483-490; Anson F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets 359-379. Second Ed. (=AOAT 8, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978); Richard S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names. ASOR Dissertation Series 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993); and Samuel A. B. Mercer (ed.), The Tell El-Amarna Tablets (Toronto: Macmillan, 1939). 9 Following the remarks of George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974), 130. 10 Sh. Yeivin, The Israelite Conquest of Canaan (Istanbul: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut In Nabije Oosten, 1971), 23, 31. 11 The identification of I-s-r in the list of Seti I with the tribe of Asher is considered doubtful by W. F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” JAOS 74 (1954):229-231. Yeivin, on the other hand, feels the equation is certain. Yeivin, op. cit., 23: “The occurrence of Asher in the list of Seti I provides the clearest indication for the name’s connection with W. Galilee.” Diana V. Edelman, “Asher,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, op. cit., 482. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 34 to have given rise to a folk-tale about a “chief of Aser” who escaped.

The academic references previous provided of the actual translation of the Armana leters do not support your assertions,

 

[shunyadragon]

OK

I do like your source you provided concerning the academic consideration of Exodus and found you can access it on the internet.

I hope this link works: Joel Klenck, The Exodus from Egypt: Archaeological Data and Expectations.

If not try going through researchgate,net

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hope this link works: Joel Klenck, The Exodus from Egypt: Archaeological Data and Expectations.

It works fine. Thanks.

My book shelves are half filled with a plethora of such works. Stuff by Joel Klenck is not one of them.

Over the last few decades I've too often felt like I'm in a never-ending but losing effort to keep up with the relevant literature -- so much so that I now tend to recoil from broad claims that impress me as reflecting far too much confidence and certainty. I've succumbed to such cockiness a bit too often and it rarely ends well.

Speaking of which (and speaking of Joel Klenck), see The Pseudoarchaeology of Noah's Ark.

 

[Brian2]

I do like your source you provided concerning the academic consideration of Exodus and found you can access it on the internet.

I hope this link works: Joel Klenck, The Exodus from Egypt: Archaeological Data and Expectations.

If not try going through researchgate,net

The conclusion of Joel Klenck's work shows evidence in what Egypt did for a 15th century Exodus and says that Egypt would have not openly admitted the Exodus but that the evidence would survive anyway.

 

[Brian2]

There is absolutely no external evidence in terms of anything written by the Hebrews concerning Exodus and Joshua, The argument from internal evidence only is terribly circular reasoning As with all ancient scripture and texts. The scripture cannot justify itself alone.

We have a problem of communication here. You talk about the Pentateuch and Joshua as works that need to be justified, because you believe they were made up around 600BC. I however see those works as historical in nature and I see external evidence such as the Soleb inscriptions and Amarna Letters and Ipuwer Papyrus etc as just confirming the accuracy of the early Bible.
No other external works confirm the accuracy of the early Bible however for you because you seem to have an a priori belief that it was invented around 600BC.
IOW you start off agreeing with the Biblical minimalists about the nature of the Bible and that closes your mind to even the possibility that evidence I have been presenting to you is even related to the stories in the Bible.
So how about a bit of a level playing field. How about treating the Bible like other ancient documents and seeing them as historical records and not as a fiction which cannot be confirmed in any way, even with archaeological evidence which lines up perfectly with the Biblical stories and fits perfectly with the chronology of the Bible.

The Armana letters do not speak of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, See reference below for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews.

Did you give any reference for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews. I did not see any unless you mean this one, which confirms that the Habiru in Amarna letters are probably the Hebrews.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jats

The Ararna letters are from Egyptian governers military oficials appointed by the Egyptians to govern Canaan,

That point does not really matter. They are screaming for help at the time of the Israelite conquest and none is coming from Egypt.

This is an opinon based on an agenda. What is the independent evidence basis for this absurd claim? Associated text in Egypt shows slaves. The Amarna letters do not record Hebrew conquest of Egyptian cities. Your fundi Christian reference is not an unbiased assessment of the Amarna ketters,

The Amarna letters record mayors, chieftains, governors (whatever name you want to use) of the cities that Israel was attacking and conquering, wanting help from Egypt.
Are you saying that Merenptah wiped out the Israelites around 1200 (200 years after the Biblical conquest date) as the Stele says?
What is an opinion based exaggeration exactly?

I do not connect dots, I give independent academic references as below to provide a less biased fiew of history.


Unfortunatly you cite a biased Christian source to justufy your agenda and not the academic sources cited earlier. The Amarna letters sre extensive fvidence of gommunications from Egyptian governors, militatyr leaders and appointed officials. You are neglevted. Yes there were conflicts with the Hebrews in Canaan, but no Joshua army.

A more legitimate unbiased source provides a better understanding of the context of the Amarna ketters.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jats

This site overall agrees with me. It is from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. How is that unbiased in your view? Did you read it?

The academic references previous provided of the actual translation of the Armana leters do not support your assertions,

I did not see any translation site that you provided.

 

[shunyadragon]

We have a problem of communication here. You talk about the Pentateuch and Joshua as works that need to be justified, because you believe they were made up around 600BC. I however see those works as historical in nature and I see external evidence such as the Soleb inscriptions and Amarna Letters and Ipuwer Papyrus etc as just confirming the accuracy of the early Bible.

You belive they are historical based on faith not evidence, There are no historicaHebrew reords that document your biased view,No other external works confirm the accuracy of the early Bible however for you because you seem to have an a priori belief that it was invented around 600BC.IOW you start off agreeing with the Biblical minimalists about the nature of the Bible and that closes your mind to even the possibility that evidence I have been presenting to you is even related to the stories in the Bible.So how about a bit of a level playing field. How about treating the Bible like other ancient documents and seeing them as historical records and not as a fiction which cannot be confirmed in any way, even with archaeological evidence which lines up perfectly with the Biblical stories and fits perfectly with the chronology of the Bible.Did you give any reference for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews. I did not see any unless you mean this one, which confirms that the Habiru in Amarna letters are probably the He

https://digitalcommon

That point does not really matter. They are screaming for help at the time of the Israelite conquest and none is coming from Egypt.

They were not screaming for help because of the conquest of the Hebrews. That is a bised extreme interpretation that is false, I gave the more correct interpretation of the references above.

The Amarna letters record mayors, chieftains, governors (whatever name you want to use) of the cities that Israel was attacking and conquering, wanting help from Egypt.
Are you saying that Merenptah wiped out the Israelites around 1200 (200 years after the Biblical conquest date) as the Stele says?
What is an opinion based exaggeration exactly?



This site overall agrees with me. It is from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. How is that unbiased in your view? Did you read it?



I did not see any translation site that you provided.

We have a problem of communication here. You talk about the Pentateuch and Joshua as works that need to be justified, because you believe they were made up around 600BC. I however see those works as historical in nature and I see external evidence such as the Soleb inscriptions and Amarna Letters and Ipuwer Papyrus etc as just confirming the accuracy of the early Bible.
No other external works confirm the accuracy of the early Bible however for you because you seem to have an a priori belief that it was invented around 600BC.
IOW you start off agreeing with the Biblical minimalists about the nature of the Bible and that closes your mind to even the possibility that evidence I have been presenting to you is even related to the stories in the Bible.
So how about a bit of a level playing field. How about treating the Bible like other ancient documents and seeing them as historical records and not as a fiction which cannot be confirmed in any way, even with archaeological evidence which lines up perfectly with the Biblical stories and fits perfectly with the chronology of the Bible.



Did you give any reference for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews. I did not see any unless you mean this one, which confirms that the Habiru in Amarna letters are probably the Hebrews.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jats



That point does not really matter. They are screaming for help at the time of the Israelite conquest and none is coming from Egypt.



The Amarna letters record mayors, chieftains, governors (whatever name you want to use) of the cities that Israel was attacking and conquering, wanting help from Egypt.
Are you saying that Merenptah wiped out the Israelites around 1200 (200 years after the Biblical conquest date) as the Stele says?
What is an opinion based exaggeration exactly?



This site overall agrees with me. It is from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. How is that unbiased in your view? Did you read it?



I did not see any translation site that you provided.

I provided the reference and need say nothing more. Too many academic references have been provided that refute you warped religious bias of archaeology and history.

Enough is enough . . .

I would advise you to read the references provided by @Jayhawker Soule.

 

[shunyadragon]

True. But the fact in the muth cannot be denied.

What truth cannot be denied? "muth?"

 

[Brian2]

You belive they are historical based on faith not evidence, There are no historicaHebrew reords that document your biased view,No other external works confirm the accuracy of the early Bible however for you because you seem to have an a priori belief that it was invented around 600BC.IOW you start off agreeing with the Biblical minimalists about the nature of the Bible and that closes your mind to even the possibility that evidence I have been presenting to you is even related to the stories in the Bible.So how about a bit of a level playing field. How about treating the Bible like other ancient documents and seeing them as historical records and not as a fiction which cannot be confirmed in any way, even with archaeological evidence which lines up perfectly with the Biblical stories and fits perfectly with the chronology of the Bible.Did you give any reference for an accurate translation of the references to Hebrews. I did not see any unless you mean this one, which confirms that the Habiru in Amarna letters are probably the He



They were not screaming for help because of the conquest of the Hebrews. That is a bised extreme interpretation that is false, I gave the more correct interpretation of the references above.




I provided the reference and need say nothing more. Too many academic references have been provided that refute you warped religious bias of archaeology and history.

Enough is enough . . .

I would advise you to read the references provided by @Jayhawker Soule.

You better check out post #56 .
It is a bit hard to follow.
I did check out the Joel Klenck link and found that he agrees with a 15th century date for the Exodus and with things I have said about it.
I also checked out the S Douglas Waterhouse site from which you quote in post #51
and see that he agrees with me as to the identity of the Habiru in the Amarna Letters, and with other things I have been saying.
I have checked out other articles in the Joel Klenck site and find that some agree with what I say and some agree with what you say.
Both sides are as staunchely convinced as the other about their results. That's Archaeology and Ancient History, they are disciplines of opinion and often have evidence for both sides of an argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@shunyadragon , @Brian2 :

Let me suggest that an informed discussion of Syro-Palestinian history 'informed' by Joel Klenck is an oxymoron.

 

[shunyadragon]

You better check out post #56 .
It is a bit hard to follow.
I did check out the Joel Klenck link and found that he agrees with a 15th century date for the Exodus and with things I have said about it.
I also checked out the S Douglas Waterhouse site from which you quote in post #51
and see that he agrees with me as to the identity of the Habiru in the Amarna Letters, and with other things I have been saying.
I have checked out other articles in the Joel Klenck site and find that some agree with what I say and some agree with what you say.
Both sides are as staunchely convinced as the other about their results. That's Archaeology and Ancient History, they are disciplines of opinion and often have evidence for both sides of an argument.

I responded to your references with a religious agenda misrepresenting the Amarna letters to justify a religious agenda. Mo matter how stanchly the assert their case they are misrepresenting the Amarna letters.