- The Late Date
- Main Navigation
- kelazaxuky.tk: The Dating of the Exodus by Steve Perry
- Navigation menu
Surely, what these patterns mean are more important than the mere plotting of them down on some time-line! Nonetheless, I am personally confident that the majority view of the scholars is correct , that is, that the Exodus was in c. And if indeed this date is correct, then we have an astounding fact before usthe patterns of the above chart happen to work flawlessly with this same date of BC.
The patterns not only continue uninterrupted, but indeed they blossom and converge at the birth of Christ. A remarkable coincidence indeedif it is a coincidence! For example, since the temple was begun in BC, years after the Exodus 1Kgs. This means, therefore, that the , , and the patterns continue unabated and indeed converge at Christ's birth!
It is reasonable to inquire as to whether or not the popular date of BC for the Exodus was simply a concoction by scholars to fit the bible numbers. However, the BC date was not chosen arbitrarily but was the consequence of first establishing the date for Solomon's temple as c. Moreover, most scholars reject out-of-hand the day-equals-a-year principle , thus they would not have been influenced by the bible numbers in ascertaining the Exodus date since they do not as much as believe in them as I have here displayed them!
Interestingly, the day-for-year principle was the norm for centuries before us. However, bible students that lived during those centuries lacked the correct dates and thus they did not discover anything substantial in their exhausting studies. Ironically, while our generation possesses the correct dates indeed, yet they have generally forsaken the day-for-year principle and so have overlooked the patterns in the bible numbers! By this, God "sealed up" the understanding of the numbers until our day. In conclusion then, even though the establishing of specific dates is of tremendous value in the study of the numbers, yet it is by no means a prerequisite for reaping its benefits.
Many patterns exist internally within the bible itself unaffected by date setting, and are of great value in aiding biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, there are far-reaching benefits reaped by the establishing of exact dates. The patterns that result from them not only aid biblical interpretation, but also prove the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ to an unbelieving generation. Eisenbrauns Luft, Ulrich Asiatics in Illahun: Zaccone and Tomasco R.
International Association of Egyptologists. A Reconstruction of Its Stratigraphy. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 8.
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Andrews University Seminary Studies Archaeology and Biblical Research Premier Issue: A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence. New Evidence for the Presence of the Israelites in Egypt. A Response to James Hoffmeier. Klingbeil and Paul J.
Recent Research on the Date and Setting of the Exodus. Our ministry relies on the generosity of people like you, who make it possible for us to develop and publish great articles. If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting ABR with a small donation or by becoming a member.
What about David Rohl's work? I would refer you to the following article on David Rohl's untenable changes to Egyptian chronology: Wood's view is NOT that the Bible is in error We maintain they are BOTH correct. The understanding of how they are correct and compatible is a good subject of investigation. We don't hold the extra-biblical dates above Scripture. Here is an excellent article on the chronology of the Kingdom period, for example: THEN, we have to find external dates as an 'anchor point', because the Bible does not provide the external dates.
The date that is almost universally agreed upon is the destruction of Jerusalem in BC although, some say ! There are other dates that are very well attested as well. From an anchor point such as the destruction of Jerusalem, we then use the internal chronology of the Bible to synchronize the dates further.
Shishak's invasion of Israel, the reign of Cyrus of Persia, the invasion of Judah by the Assyrians, etc. These events are well attested outside the Bible. Much of the rationale can be found here: As far as the creation date of BC, there is reasonable debate with respect to our understanding of the geneaological data found in Genesis 5 and We believe it is possible there are gaps not errors in the period between the Flood and Abraham, and therefore the creation date would be earlier. Our friends at AIG and CMI feel very strongly about this, whereas we believe there is more study to be done on the subject and the possibility is open for a different understanding.
Determining external dates is critical for finding evidence that illuminates the Bible. For example, pottery at Jericho dates from the same time period that Biblical chronology places the event. If we don't have anchor points, there would be no way to say X pottery fits or does not fit X Biblical date.
However, there is nothing 'wrong' with Red Sea, as it is clearly attested in the NT and clearly refers to the same event. Wood's point is that the Hebrew text by itself does not say Red Sea. Date of the exodus-conquest As reviewed above, the internal chronological data of the Hebrew Bible 1 Kgs 6: External supporting evidence for this dating comes from the Talmud.
There, the last two Jubilees are recorded which allows one to back calculate to the first year of the first Jubilee cycle as BC. Fall Bible and Spade: The Jubilee and Sabbatical Cycles" www. Support from Palestinian archaeology Evidence from the three sites that were destroyed by the Israelites during the conquest, i. Support from Egyptian archaeology a. Rameses The area of Pi-Ramesse in the eastern delta has not only revealed evidence for a royal residence from the early 18th Dynasty, the time period of Moses according to biblical chronology, but also for a midth century BC Asiatic settlement that could well be that of Jacob and his family shortly after their arrival in Egypt.
This supports a 15th century exodus, as Jacob would had to have entered Egypt much later, in ca. Since the Israelites under Deborah and Barak were able to overthrow the largest city-state in Canaan in ca. Israel in Egyptian inscriptions The mention of Israel in the Merenptah stela demonstrates that the 12 tribes were firmly established in Canaan by BC. It now appears that there is an even earlier mention of Israel in an Egyptian inscription. A column base fragment in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin preserves three names from a longer name list.
The first two names clearly can be read as Ashkelon and Canaan, with the orthography suggesting a date in the 18th Dynasty. This evidence, if it holds up to further scrutiny, would also support a 15th century BC exodus-conquest rather than a 13th century BC timeframe. Most of the Article fails at a true biblical Chronology, because it lowers the dates of the united monarchy to fit with the extra biblical dating of the invasion of Shishak.
Thus the article is not a biblical chronology but is rather based on the Egyptian Chronology, which is full of problems. A truly biblical date for the Exodus is based on only internal evidence from the Bible plus the BC date for the destruction of the first temple. However the apostle Paul and Josephus both Ignore the year account in 1st kings, and therefore come up with even longer periods of time, thereby pushing the Exodus back into the 16th century BC. Which coincidentally fits well both with the expulsion of the Hyksos and the Destruction of Jericho.
The difference is found in the 45 additional years in the Divided Kingdom period. Extensive work has been done on this by Rodger Young. See here, including extensive bibliographical information for further study.
The Late Date
The situation is not nearly as simple as you are characterizing it: His epistles were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the infallible author of Scripture, who also authored the I Kings 6: The problem is not Paul, the problem is your interpretation of what Paul wrote. Kenyon's dating conclusions were wrong by years.
I have a number of comments to add to the ongoing discussion, and in relation to Dr. I will need numerous entries to accomplish this. Let me say how beneficial it is have such a running forum, which--among other possibilities--can be used as a wonderful instrument for honing our understanding iron sharpening iron. First, my dear friend Henry Smith is correct about Rohl's work.
I, as does Rob, believe in the precision of astronomical evidence for establishing sound Egyptian chronologies for the 12th and 18th Dynasties. However, Rohl's work and astronomical evidence are two mutually exclusive entities, at least to date. I will attempt to accomplish this despite saying little. He needs to consult important works on chronology, Thiele's lifelong work being first on the list.
Next, he needs to consult the writings of Rodger Young, cited in Dr. These refine and update Thiele's monumental work. Young's work is sound and exceedingly persuasive. He is correct in assigning as the proper year of the exodus. In my article, cited in Dr.
- dating apps wp8!
- The Date and Pharaoh of the Exodus?.
- speed la dating san diego.
Wood's article, I even demostrate how it is that we know the exact day of the exodus, on our own calender 25 April, on a Sat morning. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making such claims, IF the evidence available makes this possible. I would suggest that Dr. The final point to make about this matter is that the Bible is absolutely littered with such precise chronological statements, especially the OT. Thus, to God, the precise recording of historical events and the wedding of these events to known historical pegs is something of vital importance.
If it is important to God, why would it be of non-importance to us?
As important as practical matters discussed in the Bible marriage, law, relationships with others, how we interact with unbelievers, etc. The extreme of such a focus on "what is practical to me" is that the focus is on "me", and not on God. We would be better to say, "What is important to God? We in the modern world are so selfish that we do not even vaguely understand the extent of our self-centeredness. I'm sorry for the diversion from the topic. Now I would like to address Dr. Tee's statement that follows: But, I would like to deal with the record regarding the firstborn son of the one and only!
Essentially, I have discussed this at length in my article, which can be downloaded in PDF format under the "Resources" tab on my website listed below. This needs to be read and digested. Yet he also was never referred to as "the king's eldest son". It would be necessary to assume, however, that this Thutmose had passed away in childhood without leaving a trace.
Yet in one of my footnotes, I discuss the possible attestation to this elusive Thutmose on a wall-painting in one of the Theban tombs. I think that the possibility of this connection is a strong one. Either way, Redford hits the nail on the head. Therefore, if Amenhotep II was the exodus-pharaoh, perhaps his eldest son was this elusive Thutmose, who died in the plague without leaving much of a trace, thus satisfying both the Egyptological and Biblical records Exod What I would like to comment on now is the question of the Red Sea vs.
Tee wrote the following: To this, Henry Smith replied, "there is nothing 'wrong' with Red Sea, as it is clearly attested in the NT and clearly refers to the same event. This will take a bit to explain, but it is worth the effort.
- >The Date of the Exodus | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament.
- dating fossils using radioisotopes?
- nichkhun and victoria dating allkpop.
The original Hebrew term meant Reed, which is best argued in chapter 9 of Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt Of this, there is no doubt. He may have the dating of the Exodus wrong, but he's an excellent Egyptologist and archaeologist. And here, Hoffmeier has hit a home run. So from where do we get the "Red" idea? Well, if you find a mistake of some sort in a modern translation, the first rule of thumb is to check the LXX, which introduced a slew of interesting--yet fully wrong--readings.
This is what we have here. The LXX translators, who were NOT translating under inspiration when they rendered the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, beginning in the 3rd century BC but not completing the project for scores of years, found a way to turn "Reed" into "Red", which looks understandable in English, but not so much in Hebrew.
How this mistake came about is anyone's guess. Jerome used it heavily when he made the Latin translation that eventually became the standardized text of the Roman ergo Western church. And of course, this Vulgate was used throughout much of later western history as a basis for translating the Bible into the native languages of the Christians throughout the Romanized world and beyond. Thus the mistake was perpetuated virtually ad infinitum. Henry Smith is correct that the NT writers twice used the word "Red" when penning their documents under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
So, does this mean that the NT writers actually erred? To be sure, the words "Red" and "Reed" simply cannot be morphed into a single word, years later, with two divergent meanings. To suggest this would be "too cutesy" of an attempt to avoid the problem. So, this idea is to be nixed. Does it mean that the Bible's inerrancy is now lost?
This is the other extreme to be avoided. So, what is the answer that provides a happy medium between these two unacceptable options? Glad you asked, because there IS a satisfactory answer. Years ago, my Hebrew prof at seminary taught us about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics.
If I say, "Me and my friend drove to the mall. Well, yes and no. Prescriptively, it does not fit proper English grammatical rules. As the subject of the sentence, I should be writing "I" instead of "me", because "me" is to be used for the objective case, but not for the subjective case.
The grammatically correct rendering is, "My friend and I. So, it is both correct and incorrect at the same time.
kelazaxuky.tk: The Dating of the Exodus by Steve Perry
In NT Greek, not infrequently it happens that the NT writer, most notoriously being John, uses the inflected ending "-an" with verbs that should be using the "-on" ending that is properly used with 1S and 3P verbs of that type. Thus the inspired writer's use of -an with 3P verbs is "not good Greek". Grammatically, it may even be called incorrect, at least by Greek speakers who considered themselves to be grammatical purists. But probably John's writing reflected a phonetic change that had occurred in the spoken language, at least in his neck of the woods.
The other option is that he wanted to distinguish the 3P form from the 1S form, to avoid confusion. In this case, he borrowed the -av ending that otherwise was used with a different verb conjugation. As to which of these options is correct, only a guess can be offered.
I will not do so. This same principle can be applied to the "Red" vs. The NT writer did not render the correct meaning of the Hebrew word for the name of this particular sea. Sorry, but this is just the reality of the situation. Does this signify an error in his text? Descriptively, it correctly duplicated the word in common use in the LXX of his day. Therefore, this "mistake" does not say a whole lot about whether there was an actual error introduced into the inspired GNT or not. Perhaps this even reflects their greater knowledge of Greek, over Hebrew, but this would be difficult to prove conclusively.
I realize that an issue such as this is so thorny that emotions may come to the forefront and incite unenthusiatic responses, or outright opposition. Anyone who takes a position always must be prepared for this. However, I have attempted to deal head-on with the issues involved. As far as I can fathom this issue, there is no better explanation that can "walk the fence"; if there is a better one out there, I am all ears. I would like to add some thoughts to Henry Smith's reply to Mark, who stated the following: I'll leave him to others.
However, Mark's reference to Paul is of great concern to me. Paul neither ignores the th-year reference in 1 Kings, nor do his writings suggest that the exodus should be pushed back to the 16th century BC. This inaccurate position is based on a faulty understanding of the phrase "about years" in Acts Moreover, my second master's thesis was a resolution of the "en Efeso" variant in Ephesians 1: Therefore, this discipline of biblical "TC" is one in which I have done extensive study.
Two of the variants that I discussed in detail with students in the TC course were those in 1 Kgs 6: So either the text of Acts After that He gave them judges for about years, until Samuel the prophet. After these things, He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. Paul's purpose was not to define the length of the judges, but to approximate the time between Jacob's entry into Egypt and the conclusion of Joshua's ministry in Israel when the Israelites were "settled"! The years reckoned in Acts This figure totals years, which number clearly seems to be used by Paul as an approximation of time, a rounded number which conclusion agrees with the choice of the wording in Greek.
A full discussion, including pro's and con's for each view, in both external and internal evidence, is available on my website, as cited above. Paul has no intention of challenging the th-year reference in 1 Kings 6: This view has always baffled me because it implies whether anyone wants to fess-up to it or not that I Kgs 6: Folks, something is wrong with this logic!
Let the clear and specific reference in I Kgs 6: And interpret it literally! We need not check our brains at the door, or warp our principles of hermeneutics when a potential contradiction arises. Of course, if your mind has been made up beforehand, without a willingness to change your view based on a more thorough study of the issues, you will be better off not wasting your time with what I have written to you here. Mark then went on to say, ". The Hyksos are NOT connected to the exodus or the conquest.
However, this is not the whole picture. Having studied Exodus carefully for an exegesis class I taught on that book, I found some fascinating historical connections, which--I hope--will someday make their way into print. But as a teaser, I want to note a few things here that are related to our discussion.
First, the pharaoh who arose in Egypt "who did not know Joseph" Ex 1: Under Ahmose, the Hyksos were expelled, and they resided in southern Canaan for several years until the Egyptians, afraid of a reversal of fortunes, finally eliminated the Hyksos altogether. It was during this transitional time i. Who are the enemies of the native Egyptians in this period who struck fear into them? And why would the Egyptians fear the Israelites leaving Egypt unless there was a precedent of that pattern, which was exemplified perfectly in the Hyksos?
Probably the only legitimate possibility is that these enemies are the Hyksos, whose "civil war" with the native Egyptians from Thebes is proven conclusively by a plethora of archaeological evidence. There are numerous other lines of proof for the supposition that this period is the outset of the 18th dynasty and that the enemies are the Hyksos , which are found in the Hebrew wording and grammar, but this will have to wait until I finally get to publish my findings.
So, the Hyksos do seem to find their way into biblical history, though it is true that they are NOT the Egyptian rulers who turned into the taskmasters and exploiters of the ancient Israelites in the time leading up to the exodus. There is one other comment about the Hyksos that I forgot to make. If anyone thinks that it was a Hyksos king who was the pharaoh who rose to power and "did not know Joseph", you have another problem. It is probably well known to all who have even a minimal knowledge of ancient Egyptian history that both the Israelites Goshen and Hyksos dwelled in the Nile Delta region of Lower Egypt.
They were at least neighbors, at most co-tenants. In other words, their dynasty was spawned in far-away Upper Egypt, making it completely logical that they especially Ahmose would not have known of Joseph and the Israelites down in Lower Egypt. Next, I want to reply to a couple more comments from Dr. He said, "it would be wiser to search for evidence to support the exodus than to secure a date. History and chronology are absolutely inseparable. Without chronology, your history is various colors of paint splattered on a broad palette. If you have no pinpointed time for the exodus, a critic may say to you, "Well, Dr.
Or he could say, "It is no legitimate proof, because you do not even know if this evidence supports your view, as you are not even sure WHEN the exodus took place in the first place. He would have you in a barrel. Only when you have a clear and undeniable synchronism between two divergent historical traditions can you even hope to have "proof" of an event such as the exodus. No chronological peg, no hope of proving anything to anyone. Your approach, at best, provides only the latter. If you read my article on the exodus-pharaoh and Amenhotep II, I think you will see how powerful the evidence can be, if-and-only-if we have undeniable chronological synchronisms between Egyptian and Israelite history, which are based on specific dates that are fully certain.
This will be the most difficult contribution to the discussion that I have attempted to make. Well, because there is one part of Dr. Yet I have the utmost respect for him and his work, and I even hate the idea of having a view that opposes his. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I write this posting. He is a dear man to me, will continue to be so, and I will continue to hold him in the utmost respect.
However, since love and truth indeed can go hand in hand, I do feel the need to address this issue head-on. Thankfully, it is not an issue of doctrinal or monumental proportion. When I first read Shea's article, I think it would be fair to say that my jaw hit the floor. You see, I have done an enormous amount of research in the field of Egyptology. Wood completed his PhD some moons previously. I have a keen sense of how well the Egyptians kept records, especially in the New Kingdom, when the events of the exodus took place. More books and articles have been written about this NK era than any other, by far.
Part of this is because the ancient sources for this period are so numerous. Egyptian records, especially given that we are talking about the New Kingdom. I suppose this would be great fodder for Hollywood. In fact, this very thing WAS pulled-off by the bad guys in the recent G. They substituted an imposter for the U. But come on, folks, this is Hollywood. Do you think someone could pull this off in real life, with--for example--President Obama, even if the usurper s did have the same nanomyte technology as they had in the G.
Or, even more, what chance would there be to pull-off such a scheme with a United States president, without such technology? They knew his height, weight, habits, scars, personality, strengths, weaknesses, etc. This is not even to mention all of the foreign ambassadors who must have known him, as well.
Are we honestly supposed to believe that a coup, even if it had been of Al-Qaeda-operative proportions could get away with something like this? For this not to lead to a civil war, and for it not to be recorded in current or later Egyptian or even foreign! Is this even realistic to propose?
Is there even a mathematical possibility of its happening without any record anywhere, and without ANY repercussions? And take note that this is a mere story, in popular literature, NOT an official document. Official documents of the coup and the conspiracy do exist. And this royal intrigue even transpired long before the New Kingdom, before Joseph was alive. Amenhotep II coming to power. There is much more argumentation that could be forwarded against this theory, but essentially I would be repeating what is argued in my TMSJ article, cited above.
However, this apparently did not happen. This brings me to the final point I want to make on this topic.
The question that is begged is why Dr. Wood and William Shea, such wonderful and insightful ANE-history buffs, would resort to such an impossible theory in the first place. What possibly could drive them to it? The answer is fairly simple, though I cannot say that I confirmed it with them. However, for most people who would devise or subscribe to such a theory, there is a simple reason as to why they would do so. From our days as children in SS Sunday School , mine included, we were taught by our teachers that the exodus-pharaoh died in the Re e d Sea.
Eventually we even came across the biblical passages that led to this presupposition. And, it seemed to be an undeniable truth. I cringed within, thinking to myself that the exodus-pharaoh actually DID NOT die in the Re e d Sea, but was buried in Egypt in his own tomb, as was the case with virtually every other Egyptian pharaoh. My question was this: Yet, the historical record from Egypt was clear and unequivocal. Next I had to ask myself an honest and important question: I was forced to go back to all of those passages that supposedly stated—cut and dry—that he drowned with his soldiers.
This made the task easier, providing great certainty. In fact, there are even strong arguments from those texts that show that the exodus-pharaoh most likely DID NOT die with his soldiers. All of my findings were explained and detailed in my TMSJ article. They should be read by anyone seriously interested in the issue of the exodus and its historicity. The most thrilling part of this entire adventure for me was that, for the first time for me, anyway , Ancient Near Eastern history played the key role in correcting a wrong presupposition I had about something that the Bible teaches.
This showed me the extreme value of the study of ANE history! The question that faces many of you, however, is this: If not, do not waste your time reading anything I have to say. But if you ARE willing, and you are similar to the Bereans who were more noble than the Thessalonians, because they compared everything that Paul said with the Scripture—and not merely casually dismissing his teachings as outrageous, either , then read my arguments.
Then, study the Hebrew text yourself. Shed your own blood, sweat, and tears. If you arrive at a different conclusion, more power to you. Develop your own theory, if you feel so compelled, but make it a sound one. More often than not, the real problem is with us, and our stubborn presuppositions. Hoping this will help many truth-seekers, Douglas Petrovich. The main thesis of this article by Dr. Wood is utterly refuted by one key verse in the OT, Deut.