Just for fun ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When Was the Exodus?
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
WitnessofJah
Member
Name of book: Exodus
Writer: Moses
Place written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1512 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 1657 - 1512 B.C.E.
Writer: Moses
Place written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1512 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 1657 - 1512 B.C.E.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
I am sure you've read this at one point, but in case you had not:
The Third Book of Kings (vi, 1) states that Solomon began to build the Temple in the 480th year (the Septuagint gives 440 years) after the Exodus. For the Catholic, that passage seems to settle the question. But a difficulty arises from the fact that there is almost a consensus of scientific opinion that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the reign of Meneptah, or, possibly, that of his successor, Seti II. Moreover we are driven to a date later than the years 1400 for the Exodus, since up to that date, Assyriologists and Egyptologists agree, Palestine was an Egyptian province, with an Egyptian governor (Driver, "Genesis", p. xxix). Ramses II, the builder of Pithom and Raamses, was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and as he reigned from 1348-1281 (Sayce) we have to descend to one of his successors to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hence we are driven to his immediate successor, Meneptah, at earliest, and to about the year 1277 (Early History of the Hebrews, 150) for the date of the Exodus. On the other hand, the date of the building of the Temple cannot be put later than the middle of the tenth century [size=-2]B. C.[/size] But if we take the time between these two dates, we are left with only about 327 years, as against 480 required by III Kings, vi, 1. Wellhausen does not treat the chronology seriously (Prolegomena, 229), but, in company with many other critics, pronounces it to be merely artificial. They say that the number 480 is made up of twelve times 40; forty being taken as a generation; and so the number 40 predominates amongst chronological numbers in this part of Scripture. Thus the time in the desert was 40 years; Othoniel, Debora, Geneon, each ruled for 40 years. Aod ruled for twice 40, or 80 years; the land was under the Philistines 40 years, and David reigned for the same period. But the following facts must be taken into consideration. Professor Sayce points out that "40 years in Hebrew idiom merely signified an indeterminate and unknown period of time, and the Moabite Stone shows that the same idiom existed also in the Moabite language" (Early History of the Hebrews, 146). Chronology in those days was in its infancy; and that the dates were only roughly given is obvious from the recurrence of round numbers. If we were to write down all the numbers that occur during this period, as Father Hummelauer does in his commentary on Judges (p. 12), we should find that the number 40 recurs by no means as often as we are led to suppose. The difficulty remains that III Kings, vi, 1, gives for the length of this period 480 years; science seems to say "not more than 327". But we have to notice the uncertainties that surround the chronology of this period. We have also to point out that Wellhausen and Stade regard chapter vi, 1, as a late insertion (Burney, "Hebrew Text of Kings", 58). If this were the case it would meet the difficulty; and perhaps it is rendered more likely by the fact that in the Greek this verse is inserted before 31 and 32 of chapter v, and also that it reads 440 instead of 480. We conclude, therefore, that the date of the Exodus was about 1277, the monarchy was founded by Saul, 1020; David mounted the throne, 1002; Solomon in 962, and the Temple was begun, 958 [size=-2]B. C.[/size]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm
Peace,
Scott
The Third Book of Kings (vi, 1) states that Solomon began to build the Temple in the 480th year (the Septuagint gives 440 years) after the Exodus. For the Catholic, that passage seems to settle the question. But a difficulty arises from the fact that there is almost a consensus of scientific opinion that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the reign of Meneptah, or, possibly, that of his successor, Seti II. Moreover we are driven to a date later than the years 1400 for the Exodus, since up to that date, Assyriologists and Egyptologists agree, Palestine was an Egyptian province, with an Egyptian governor (Driver, "Genesis", p. xxix). Ramses II, the builder of Pithom and Raamses, was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and as he reigned from 1348-1281 (Sayce) we have to descend to one of his successors to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hence we are driven to his immediate successor, Meneptah, at earliest, and to about the year 1277 (Early History of the Hebrews, 150) for the date of the Exodus. On the other hand, the date of the building of the Temple cannot be put later than the middle of the tenth century [size=-2]B. C.[/size] But if we take the time between these two dates, we are left with only about 327 years, as against 480 required by III Kings, vi, 1. Wellhausen does not treat the chronology seriously (Prolegomena, 229), but, in company with many other critics, pronounces it to be merely artificial. They say that the number 480 is made up of twelve times 40; forty being taken as a generation; and so the number 40 predominates amongst chronological numbers in this part of Scripture. Thus the time in the desert was 40 years; Othoniel, Debora, Geneon, each ruled for 40 years. Aod ruled for twice 40, or 80 years; the land was under the Philistines 40 years, and David reigned for the same period. But the following facts must be taken into consideration. Professor Sayce points out that "40 years in Hebrew idiom merely signified an indeterminate and unknown period of time, and the Moabite Stone shows that the same idiom existed also in the Moabite language" (Early History of the Hebrews, 146). Chronology in those days was in its infancy; and that the dates were only roughly given is obvious from the recurrence of round numbers. If we were to write down all the numbers that occur during this period, as Father Hummelauer does in his commentary on Judges (p. 12), we should find that the number 40 recurs by no means as often as we are led to suppose. The difficulty remains that III Kings, vi, 1, gives for the length of this period 480 years; science seems to say "not more than 327". But we have to notice the uncertainties that surround the chronology of this period. We have also to point out that Wellhausen and Stade regard chapter vi, 1, as a late insertion (Burney, "Hebrew Text of Kings", 58). If this were the case it would meet the difficulty; and perhaps it is rendered more likely by the fact that in the Greek this verse is inserted before 31 and 32 of chapter v, and also that it reads 440 instead of 480. We conclude, therefore, that the date of the Exodus was about 1277, the monarchy was founded by Saul, 1020; David mounted the throne, 1002; Solomon in 962, and the Temple was begun, 958 [size=-2]B. C.[/size]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm
Peace,
Scott
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Personally, and this goes back to my christian days, I think that Exodus is an origen tale ment to inspire pride in ones people, rather than a 'true' historical account.
What I know of archeology, (and I am a tad rusty) the earliest mentions of Jerusalem are an Egyption execration (curse) text from the 19th century BCE and a cuneiform tablet from Tel el-Amarna in Egypt from the 14th century BCE, both refer to it as a Cananite city. Egypt during this was Huge. During the New Kingdom (1550-1070 bc) it streched from the fouth cataract of the Nile in the south (present day Sudan) and North along the coast( what became Judea) into Modern Turkey and west into modern Syria. At the time of the Exodus Egypt owned Jerusalem, Palistine and almost all of the Sinai penninsula. (except for a small strip along the east coast)
Thus any 'escape' from Egypt would not have ended with the Red Sea or eaven in the Sinai. Infact Egypt ran the lands that became Judea untill just a few decades before David did.
Who wouldn't want to say that they defeated an empire so large and powerful?
wa:do
What I know of archeology, (and I am a tad rusty) the earliest mentions of Jerusalem are an Egyption execration (curse) text from the 19th century BCE and a cuneiform tablet from Tel el-Amarna in Egypt from the 14th century BCE, both refer to it as a Cananite city. Egypt during this was Huge. During the New Kingdom (1550-1070 bc) it streched from the fouth cataract of the Nile in the south (present day Sudan) and North along the coast( what became Judea) into Modern Turkey and west into modern Syria. At the time of the Exodus Egypt owned Jerusalem, Palistine and almost all of the Sinai penninsula. (except for a small strip along the east coast)
Thus any 'escape' from Egypt would not have ended with the Red Sea or eaven in the Sinai. Infact Egypt ran the lands that became Judea untill just a few decades before David did.
Who wouldn't want to say that they defeated an empire so large and powerful?
wa:do
Irrespective of the conclusion reached, it should be noted that the 'consensus' referenced is outdated at best. Even with this corrective, there was not a scientific consensus on a 13th century BCE Exodus so much as a consensus that the problems surrounding the earlier date rendered it moot.SOGFPP said:
I thought the Catholic apologetic was fun, just inaccurate.SOGFPP said:Just for fun, eh?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
And you were looking for some accurate, say, eyewitness testimony? We only can do our best with the information (however limited it may be) given and make an educated guess.
We are both standing on the shoulders of giants.... these topics are not self-evident and I try my best to learn a bit from each view of a historical account.
As always, my best to you deut!
Scott
We are both standing on the shoulders of giants.... these topics are not self-evident and I try my best to learn a bit from each view of a historical account.
As always, my best to you deut!
Scott
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It would have been helpful if the Egyptions had recorded any of this.
wa:do
wa:do
I'm sorry, SOGFPP, but I must not have made myself clear. I was not at all talking about "accurate, ... eyewitness" testimony concerning the Exodus but, rather, the Encyclopaedia's assertion thatSOGFPP said:
"there is almost a consensus of scientific opinion that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the reign of Meneptah,"
an assertion which is simply false. So, for example, were you to purchase the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, you would search in vain for any discussion of the Exodus whatsoever.I actually refer to the Catholic Encyclopaedia quite often. I appreciate its scholarship and the usual clarity with which it makes clear when it is speaking from tradition and when it is speaking from scientific (or paleographic/epigraphic) fact. Given that, I was rather surprised at the misrepresentation under discussion here.
The Exodus is a true account. Jesus and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote or refer to Exodus more than 40 times. The plagues are Egyptian in setting supporting their historicity. There is a manuscript called the Egyptian Ipuwer Papyrus. It was discovered in Egypt more than a century ago (1828). The Papyrus parallels the history of the Exodus account as found in the scriptures. Historians believe the Ipuwer was an Egyptian sage who directed his writings to the king as a complaint of the national catastrophes (plagues) were in part caused by the king's failure to act. Just to compare a few: Ipuwer 2:5-6 says "Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere." Exodus 7:21 says "There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt." Ipuwer 9:23 says "The fire ran along the ground. There was hail and fire mingled with the hail; 4:14 says "Trees are destroyed"; and 6:1 says "No fruit or herbs are found. Exodus 9:25 says "And the hail smote every herb of the field and brake every tree of the field. There are more correlations between what Ipuwer (an Egyptian living at the time of the Exodus) wrote to the king and what Exodus says. It is clear and compelling non-biblical evidence to confirm the mysterious scriptural account about the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.
Thanks, Ernestine, but you did not indicate a date for this exodus.Ernestine said:
By the way, if you would like to talk about the lament document, I would be most happy to oblige - but not here. Feel free to start a new topic if you'ld like.
linwood
Well-Known Member
I have no clue when Exodus occured, I don`t see how one could.
I found this..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81053
I`m not threadjacking Duet but I am interested in hearing what you know about this document as it is a complete mystery to me.
I`ll start another thread with what little I`ve found.
I found this..
And the infidels forum seems to have alot to say about it as well.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81053
I`m not threadjacking Duet but I am interested in hearing what you know about this document as it is a complete mystery to me.
I`ll start another thread with what little I`ve found.
linwood
Well-Known Member
I think I`ve taken this thread off track a bit.
In the interest of getting it back to the topic I asked deut a question in another thread.
Is there a certain time period that scholarship believes the writer of Exodus is placing the tale in?
In the interest of getting it back to the topic I asked deut a question in another thread.
Actually a rather stupid question considering I was already aware of the answer.
I should have asked...
Is there a certain time period that scholarship believes the writer of Exodus is placing the tale in?
I would recommend that you look at the Dennis Bratcher article referenced by me in the other thread. He presents a fairly thoughtful summary of the arguments for, and problems surrounding, an early and late date. Certainly Josephus, Manetho, and the early Christians supported an early (16th century BCE) date.
Doodlebug02
Active Member
I have no idea nd I honestly doubt if it ever occurred. But maybe it did happen. Who knows.
You resurrected a 6 week old thread to say that?Holly said: