Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anti-Mormons On Mormons and The Bible Christadelphians Part One
Anti-Mormons On Mormons and The Bible Christadelphians Part One
By Ronnie Bray
Christadelphian
1
Mormonism of God or Men, Christadelphians, West Beach, Australia, Vol 30, Number 2,
January, 1981, Published by Eureka Press, inside front cover: hereinafter referred to as
‘MOGOM.’
f. Mormonism destroys this concept of Scripture.
A: Mormonism agrees that these are the last days in which, Bible
prophets foretell that Jesus Christ will return to earth.
2
Isaiah 49:22 (20–22); 60:4; 1 Nephi 19:16 (16–17)
3
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel
4
Ether 13:6 (2–11); D&C 42:9; 45:66 (66–67); 84:2 (2–5); Moses 7:62
5
Micah 4:7.
6
Isaiah 11:1–9; 35:1–10; 51:1–3; 65:17–25; Ezekiel 36:35 (1–38); 2 Nephi 8:1–3.
7
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng
8
Micah 4:7.
Q: Does Mormonism agree with these claims?
Despite the qualification that the Bible is the word of God ‘as far it is
translated correctly,’9 Latter-day Saints believe the Bible is on the
whole trustworthy, and an essential guide to doctrine, faith, and
morals, and as such it is treated.
Two major points in this quoted section require addressing. The first
is, What was meant by fulness?
9
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng see Article Eight
10
Doctrine & Covenants 42:12
11
MOGOM., p. 2
Although the modern understanding of fulness [‘fullness’ in British
English], has to do with being filled or completeness, that is not the
only definition of this versatile word.
Fulness: Noun
1 completeness over a broad scope, comprehensiveness
2 the property of a sound that has a rich and pleasing timbre,
mellowness, richness
3 the condition of being filled to capacity
4 greatness of volume, voluminosity, voluminousness
The Bible itself informs its readers that it is incomplete, when Saint
John explains whey he has carefully selected the parts of the
biography and teachings of Jesus to include in his gospel, and he lets
his readers know the extent of what could have been included had he
recorded everything that Jesus both said and did.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.13
In his dissertation of ‘The End For Which God Created The World,’14
Jonathan Edwards15 wrote:
12
http://topicalbible.org/f/fullness.htm
13
John 21:25
14
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.iv.vii.html
15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_%28theologian%29
“The thing signified by that name, ‘the glory of God,’
when spoken of as the supreme and ultimate end of all
God’s works, is the emanation and true external
expression of God’s internal glory and fulness; meaning
by his fulness what has already been explained; or, in
other words, God’s internal glory, in a true and just
exhibition, or external existence of it.
16
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Jonathan Edwards," First published Tue Jan 15, 2002;
substantive revision Tue Nov 7, 2006
17
George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (2003), pg. 498–505
18
John E. Smith, "Christian Virtue and Common Morality," in The Princeton Companion to
Jonathan Edwards, ed. San Hyun Lee (2005), 34–41
MOGOM asserts,
The first scientific investigation of the site of Jericho was carried out by Charles
Warren in 1868, but amounted to no more than a site-survey (Warren's prime
interest was in establishing the modern equivalents of Biblical locales). In
1907-09 and again in 1911 digging was carried out by two German
archaeologists, Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin. Watzinger and Sellin believed
that they would be able to validate the Biblical story of Jericho's destruction by
Joshua and the Israelites, but concluded instead that the data indicated that the
city was unoccupied at the time which the Bible indicated for the Conquest.
Such a date strikes at the historicity of the Bible, since the Exodus,
once thought to have taken place around 1550 BC, has been moved by
modern discoveries to around 1250 BC. Kenyon's interpretation of
the data was thus radically and fundamentally different from
Garstang's. She concluded that City IV had been destroyed about 1550
B.C. and, therefore, there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer
around 1400 BC She suggested that the archaeological evidence
discredited the biblical record! Moreover, a sizeable portion of
scholars accepted her findings as conclusive.
21
Radiocarbon, Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995
John Garstang was the Director of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
1920-1926. During this time he walked the exact itinerary of Joshua's army and
began excavating Jericho in the 1930's. He investigated more than 100,000
shards of pot from Jericho, and using the ceramic index dated the destruction of
Jericho to the middle of the Late Bronze Age which traditional dating places at
1400 – 1300 BC, in conflict with the then prevailing date of the Exodus during
the 19th Dynasty of Egypt, some 200 years later, 1200 – 1100 BC. This was
just one example of many conflicting dates that riddled the archæology of
Jericho.
The Biblical account places the Exodus and conquest 480 years before the
founding of Solomon's Temple. The 19th Dynasty timeline is in direct conflict
with this, because a date of 480 years before Solomon's Temple moves the
Exodus and subsequent conquest to around 1450 BC
At the time of Garstang's findings, scholars and historians put forth any
explanation they could find to discredit his date. Sceptics thought the
archæology of Jericho too insubstantial to verify the Biblical dates as
understood. This was a problem to those that considered they had accurate
historical dating in the Biblical account of the Exodus, Conquest, and Settlement
of Canaan, particularly inerrantists.
Among his findings were scarabs which bore symbols and pictures of Egyptian
Kings. The latest of these Kings was Amenhotep II,dating from 1413-1373 B.C.
"Four main epochs in its occupation are attested by that number of separate and
successive periods of fortification...The walls were Babylonian in style...This
period of occupation is to be assigned to the last centuries of the third millenium
BC, say 2300-2000 BC and corresponds therefore with the first Semitic Dynasty
of Babylon, the remote age of Hammurabi and Abraham ."
Garstang goes on to state that about 2000 B.C.E. the site of Jericho, archaeology
had proven, was enclosed by "definitive defensive ramparts".
These fortifications comprised a stout wall 12-14 feet thick. He also stated that
Jericho, at this time, was only about 8 acres in size, a very modestly sized city.
"About 1800 BC, a date depending ultimately on Egyptian chronology, the city
of Jericho was re-fortified on a more ample scale. The area of Jericho now
attained its maximum of about 12 acres..the defensive works of Jericho at this
time were unparalleled comprising the three fold principal of glacis, parapet and
outer fosse."
Notice how the walls appear to have slid downward, reminiscent of a landslide.
These walls formed a ramp, which allowed for the Israelites to march up and
into the city. Jericho archaeology had perhaps produced evidence of the collapse
of Jericho's walls.
Garstang concluded that the tombs of the Hyksos were the most numerous and
complete, and that Jericho was captured and the fortifications dismantled at the
end of the Hyksos period, soon after 1600 BC.
Jericho archaeology has produced possible ruins of the Israelite invasion.
However, it was soon restored as a vassal of the Pharaohs, and continued in this
state until the earthquake at the end of the 16th century.
"We come now to the last phase in the history of Bronze Age Jericho. The
buildings of this period in the palace area and their contents are found to have
been consumed by an intense conflagration which has left them embedded in a
knee deep deposit of white ash covered by blackened debris.....The 15th century
BC is represented by hundreds of intact specimens...notably one of Thuthmose
III, the successor of Queen Hatshepsut in tomb 5 and two of Amenhotep III in
tomb 4....the last names Pharaohs ruled from about 1411-1375."
Garstang then points to the handful of specimens that represent the ensuing
centuries, in sharp contrast with the vast amount of artifacts from the Hyksos,
down to this Pharaohs reign.
He concludes this is evidence that the city and its normal life "ceased utterly
around 1400 BC".
Garstang also found dozens of jars full of grain dating from the last Canaanite
city of Jericho. This evidence indicates these were from the time of the harvest,
when the city was burned.
Thus, the foremost archaeologist of his time had shown that the prevailing belief
in the Biblical dating of the conquest and fall of Jericho was accurate with
Jericho archaeology. Garstang's findings, though did not go unchallenged, stood
on solid ground for about 20 years.
However, Egyptologists were concerned about Garstang and his dates. They
argued that if the Exodus took place during the 18th Dynasty, there should be
evidence of building by the Israelites in the Delta region, of which there was
none.
Additionally, the date of the Exodus was still preferred to be in the 19th
Dynasty, and Garstang's findings did not fit in with this view. His version of
Jericho archaeology seemed to go against some commonly held Eyptian dates
and events.
Study Resource
John Bartlett gives an account of the most recent archaeological finds at the
biblical site of Jericho in his book Jericho, Cities of the Biblical World,
Jericho Archaeology
Katherine Kenyon
The double wall placed by Garstang in the Middle Bronze Age, around 1400
BC, Kenyon claimed it was from the Early Bronze Age, which she dated as
ending around 2100 BC. This was a difference of over 700 years!
She claimed no possibility that this wall could be connected to Joshua, and in
fact, stated that Jericho had not been inhabited for at least 150 years before 1400
BC.
She stated;
" … almost all traces of the Late Bronze Age town of the time of Joshua had
been destroyed by erosion"
She agreed that the city was destroyed by fire and earthquake, but in 1580 BC,
towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age II period.
Kenyon stated that an acceptable end of the MBII period is the rise of the 18th
Dynasty in Egypt, around 1567 BC, when Egypt drove back the Asiatics.
Kenyon credited the Egyptians with the destruction of the walls which Garstang
attributed to the Jews. Kenyon argued this destruction followed the Hyksos
removal from Egypt, and subsequent ousting from Palestine.
Critics of this view claim that Jericho is a strange location for an Egyptian
invasion. The reason being the city does not rest on any main North-South route
likely to be utilized by an invading Egyptian army.
"At Jericho, the evidence for destruction is even more dramatic. All the middle
Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire....The stratigraphical
evidence suggests in itself that there was a gap in the occupation at Jericho. This
is confirmed by a gap in the occupation of tombs in the cemeteries. Burials
cease in all the tombs in the northern cemetery at the end of the Middle Bronze
Age (1550 BC - conventional dating)."
Kenyon states that tombs were found in the Western cemetery dating around
1375-1300 BC. This is still before her date of the time of Joshua.
"The evidence from the 1952-1958 excavations at Jericho indicate that there was
a Late Bronze Age town there in the 14thcentury which might have been
attacked by Joshua, but nothing survives to illustrate the Biblical account. It also
suggests that if this destruction followed by 600 years of abandonment was the
work of the Israelite tribes under Joshua, it is not likely to have been later than
1300 BC, which is difficult to reconcile with a flight from Egypt in 1260 BC."
She also found another massive destruction of Jericho by fire at the end of the
Middle Bronze age.
After this, there remains limited evidence of occupation during the Late Bronze
Age (1550-1200), and after that, nothing.
The Biblical account, Garstang's finds, and Kenyon's conclusions do not seem to
fit at all.
The Conclusion
It must be noted that the dates for Jericho archaeology, according to Garstang
and Kenyon, were based on Egyptian Chronology. This has since been proven
erroneous, and a revised chronology has been set forth.
Thus, taking only the words of Garstang and Kenyon, and by comparing these
with the revised chronology, the following conclusion can be made.
Jericho archaeology has produced two possibilities for the position of Joshua
and the conquest of Jericho. One centres around the wall Garstang found.
Kenyon claimed this wall was from the Early Bronze III period, placing it from
2700-2200 BC, far too early for Joshua.
The other position centres on the wall Kenyon found from a later age. The
problem with this wall is that nothing came after it, and the Bible still talks of at
least two other periods of occupation in Jericho.
Garstang's wall shall be taken to be the wall during the time of Joshua, then
Kenyon's second wall is the final remains of the walls of Jericho stemming from
the gradual occupation of the tribes of Benjamin. The walls of Jericho fall down
before the Israelites. From this gradual occupation, Eglon King of Moab over
took these Benjamites and established The City of Palms as part of Moab. A
reduced city seems to fit with findings from Jericho archaeology.
This led to the story of Ehud, the left handed Benjamite, and his assassination of
King Eglon. In turn, this led to the re-occupation of Jericho by the Benjamites.
The towns of the Benjamites would eventually be burnt by the remaining tribes
of Israel. This was in retaliation of the heinous crime committed by the Levite
on his concubine. Parts of her body were sent to all the tribes of Israel.
The tombs of the Egyptians signifies the Egyptian influence and presence living
in the area after Hiel had rebuilt the city at the cost of his two sons.
The loss of his two sons fulfilled the Lord's curse Joshua placed on Jericho.
Jericho archaeology alone, would seem to fit the literary background evidence
surrounding Jericho.
These were the tombs of the Egyptians responsible for giving advice during the
time of the Divided Kingdom, when the Northern Kingdom sought Egyptian
help in fighting off the Moabite threat, and, of course, the power of the Southern
Kingdom Judah. Jericho was a strategic city.
This chart was put forth by Michael Sanders on his lecture of Jericho found at
www.biblemysteries.com
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
When the events of the Bible are viewed in context with Jericho archaeology,
there is little question the Biblical account of Jericho is indeed an actual history
of a city which dates back thousands of years, possibly as early as 9000 BC!
The dates surrounding these events remain controversial at best. However, even
archaeologists will admit the most controversial area of this amazing field of
study is the actual dating of events. It should come as no surprise that dates vary
widely, and should not be used as evidence to dismiss one particular theory over
another.
The traditionally accepted date of the Fall of Jericho based on 1 Kings 6:1,
where it says that the Temple was built in Solomon's 4th year, which was the
480th year since the Exodus. Assuming that the Shishak invasion was in 926,
which was Rehoboam's 5th year (1 Kings 14:25), Rehoboam succeeded
Solomon in 931/0, Solomon became king in 971/0 so Solomon's 4th year was
967/6. Subtract (or actually add) 480, you get 1446. Take away 40 years in the
wilderness, you get 1446 for Joshua's invasion.
Of course, that only works if the dates are accurate, including 40 years for
Solomon (and 40 for David), 40 years in the wilderness, and the 480, which just
HAPPENS to be 40 x 12.
While Kenyon's chronology has been revised, the basic facts seem to be correct:
the city at Tell es-Sultan, identified as the ancient site of Jericho, was a large,
fortified city during the Middle Bronze Age, which was abandoned at the
beginning of the Late Bronze Age, around 1550 BC.
However, even if that date is off by about a century either way it would not
make a difference, as there is NO archaeological OR textual evidence of any
appearance of anything that anyone could identify as "Israelites" until the very
end of the 13th century.22
Some of the evidence for a later date of the exodus has been presented
in countering the arguments for the early date. In addition, advocates
for the later 13th century date rely heavily on the archaeological
discoveries of the past century.
Even though biblical scholars have found significant problems with the 15th
century date for the exodus, there is very little direct biblical evidence for a later
13th century date. Most of the support comes from archaeological and historical
evidence. Historians would argue that this presents no problem since the biblical
text was not written to provide us with the kind of data that we require in order
to answer our modern historical questions. The very reasons offered above
concerning the cultural use of numbers and the lack of concern with precision in
dating suggests that the search for a biblical "proof" of a date may be fruitless.
Still, to those who are used to looking at Scripture to answer such questions, the
22
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.html
answer of "not enough evidence" is not at all satisfying. It is this assumption that
the Bible should be able to address any question they want to pose it that has
tended to fuel considerable acrimony in various issues of biblical history.
Historical Support for a 13th century date (1290 BC)
Archaeology surveys and excavations on the eastern side of the Jordan river
(Transjordan), pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was no settled
civilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern Transjordan until
about the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also, the earliest record referring
to the Edomites is an Egyptian letter dating to the 13th century. There is scarcely
any evidence of settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we know
from the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area (e.g., Num
20:14), it seems that a 13th century date for the exodus is more likely and less
problematic than a 15th century date. Also, the Moabite city of Heshbon was the
first city taken by the Israelites in the Transjordan area, becoming a part of the
tribal territory of Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at what
has been identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until around
1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40 years in the desert, this suggests a date for
the exodus at the beginning of the 13th century.
Difficulties Raised: There have been a few limited excavations that suggest at
least some settled population as early as the 14th century, for example at a
temple complex at Timnah in the northern Negev. There is also substantial
evidence that there were nomadic tribes who inhabited the area earlier than the
14th century. These could have been the people that the Israelites encountered.
Also, it is not at all certain that the site identified as Heshbon is, in fact, the city
that the Israelites conquered.
Excavations at three key cities taken by Joshua and the invading Israelites,
Lachish (Josh 10:31-32), Debir (Josh 10:38-39), and Bethel (Jud 1:23-25) reveal
a level of ash marking the burning of the cities that dates to the late 13th or early
12th century. This appears to correspond to the destruction of these cities by the
invading Israelites. This would place the exodus sometime in the mid to late
13th century.
1) The Hyksos
The Hyksos were an Asiatic people who captured and ruled Egypt from around
1667 to 1546 BC (other dates for the Hyksos range from 1720 to 1580 BC).
They were sometimes called the "Shepherd Kings" because of their assumed
origins among the nomadic peoples of the Fertile Crescent, but that association
is by no means certain. They were generally Semitic people like the Israelites, a
term that simply refers to shared cultural and linguistic roots. Since this time
period of the Hyksos roughly corresponds to the era of the Patriarchs, it seems
logical to conclude that the migration of the Israelites to Egypt and the rise of
Joseph to power corresponded to the Hyksos’ control of Egypt. Semitic rulers
would be more favorable to allowing a Semitic "foreigner" to be second in
command of Egypt and to allow large migrations of other Semitic people into
the land. The "new king who did not know Joseph" (Ex 1:8) would be a
description of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, which led the return of
control to Egyptians and the enslavement of the Israelites as retaliation for
foreign rule.
In Exodus 12:40-41, there is a reference to the span of time that the Israelites
lived in Egypt.
40. The time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years.
41. At the end of four hundred thirty years, on that very day, all the companies
of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.
If we take the earliest date proposed for the Hyksos’ control of Egypt (1720 BC)
and assume that this is roughly the time of the Israelites’ move into Egypt,
adding 430 years would give us a date of about 1290 BC for the exodus. Using
the 15th century date for the exodus (1440) would place the patriarchal
migration into Egypt long before the Hyksos took control of Egypt.
Second, the Septuagint, the second century BC translation of the Old Testament
into Greek, has a slightly different version of Exodus 12:40, adding "and in the
land of Canaan." That is, the 430 years covers not only the period of time the
Israelites spent in Egypt but also includes the time the Patriarchs lived in Canaan
before they went to Egypt. If we add up the various times given for the
patriarchs, we end up with about 215 years that they lived in Canaan (Gen 12:4,
21:5, 25:26, 47:9). This leaves only the other 215 years for the stay in Egypt.
This appears to be problem with either system of dating, and suggests that the
traditions at this point cannot be used as a reliable guide for constructing dates.
Third, the time frame of the Patriarchs is not known well enough to assume that
the migration to Egypt was in the 18th century. It could have been as much as
100 to 150 years earlier than that.
The biblical narratives report that the enslaved Israelites were building the store
or treasury cities of Pithom and Rameses (Ex .1:11). While neither site has been
positively identified, it seems fairly certain that the cities were constructed by or
in honor of one of the pharaohs that went by the name Rameses. The first
pharaoh who reigned as Rameses I ruled Egypt from around 1293-1291 BC
(some date his reign to 1314-1312). Rameses II (1279-1212 or 1290-1224 BC)
was a prolific builder during his long reign, so it seems logical to assume that
this was the pharaoh who constructed the city of Rameses. This would suggest
that the exodus happened sometime during the reign of one of these pharaohs
near the beginning of the 13th century.
Difficulties Raised: It is not necessary that the city of Rameses built by the
Israelites was constructed by a pharaoh. The name Rameses was in use before
the 13th century, and could have been associated with someone else. The name
means "Ra is born," referring to the sun-god Ra, and could have been associated
with a temple complex.
Since the area of Palestine occupies a narrow strip of land connecting Egypt
with the great empires to the north, it was frequently the victim of wars and raids
between these empires seeking to establish spheres of influence. We know from
extra-biblical historical records that during the 15th century BC, Egypt had
extended her influence through Northern Palestine westward into Asia Minor
and eastward to the Euphrates and into the territory of Mittani. However, by the
14th century, Egyptian power had diminished considerably both because of
internal dissension and because of a resurgence of the Hittites in Asia Minor. In
the late 14th to mid-13th century there was a protracted series of wars between
Egypt, led by pharaohs Sethos I (Seti, 1305-1290 BC) and Rameses II (1290-
1224), and the Hittites. There were battles and incursions that ranged back and
forth through Palestine. A peace treaty finally led to a long era of peace between
the two empires, and allowed the reign of Rameses II to be one of the most
peaceful and prosperous of all the pharaohs.
If the Israelites were already well established in the land, as the 1440 BC date of
the exodus would suggest, they would have been continually battered by the
incursions of these two pharaohs as they marched north to engage the Hittites in
Syria and eastern Asian Minor. Yet the biblical record is totally silent about any
such incursions. Given this protracted warfare between the Hittites and Egypt
with Palestine at its center, it is inconceivable that there would be no biblical
records of the incursions of Sethos or Rameses into Israelite territory. This
suggests that the Israelites were not yet in the land, and therefore the exodus
must have been later in the early 13th century. This would correspond to the
other evidence in Palestine as well as the mention of the city of Rameses in
Exodus.
Also, it is entirely possible that the periods of "rest" mentioned in the book of
Judges (e.g., 3:11, 30, 5:31, etc.) were times of increased Egyptian control of the
area that would restrict raids from surrounding Canaanites. When the Egyptians
withdrew or were forced back, the Canaanites surrounding the Israelites were
freer to raid the Israelite settlements.
Conclusion
This quick survey of the two positions on the date of the exodus demonstrates
the tenuous nature of either position, whether working primarily from a literal
reading of Scripture (the early date) or working primarily from the evidence of
archaeological excavations (the late date). While historical evidence can often
contribute to a better understanding of Scripture from a variety of perspectives,
it is also obvious that historical evidence cannot solve every historical question
that we can raise from the biblical text. This suggests that historical
methodology, especially when that methodology is shaped by the assumptions
of modern critical investigation, can be a useful tool, but cannot really serve to
"prove" doctrinal positions about the nature of Scripture. As a tool, it has value.
But just as with any tool when it is used in a manner or task for which it was not
designed, we are left with less than acceptable results.
Historical Context
This places the narrative in an Egyptian context that then allows us to draw from
our historical knowledge about ancient Egypt in helping us understand features
of the narrative. For example, we do know that there was a precedent for a
Semitic "outsider" to govern Egypt, which makes Joseph’s position in Egypt
credible. We know of massive building projects built by slave labor such as
described in Exodus. And there is good evidence from Egyptian documents that
many of the plagues would have corresponded to Egyptian deities, providing not
simply threatening miracles but a sustained challenge to Egypt’s religious
system. Even the final plague struck at a core Egyptian religious belief in which
the heir of pharaoh became an incarnation of the sun-god Re when he ascended
the throne. The historical and cultural background forces us to engage the text
on a far deeper level than reading the story as either straightforward history on
the one side or doctrine on the other (for an example of how this might work in a
specific biblical text, see Genesis Bible Study: The Cultural Context of Israel).
Of course, none of this "proves" the Bible, nor does it tell us "what really
happened." But it does render the biblical narratives more understandable in a
historical context. And if we understand that context, we will likely be in a
better position to understand the impact of the biblical narrative, not for what it
tells us about history, but for what it tells us about God. Finally, the historical
issues and the methods used to research them cannot really stand alone. We still
do not have Scripture after we have "proven" something happened or did not
happen. We only have history. And that is not really our goal in the study of
Scripture. We have Scripture when people who have experienced God and his
self-revelation in human history, and who have come to understand the
significance of that revelation, bear witness to God. We study the historical
dimensions of Scripture in order that we might better hear and understand that
witness to God.
Our temptation is to assume that the Bible was written for us directly. Historical
investigation helps us realize that while Scripture has ongoing relevance, it is
not timeless (outside of time) any more than God’s revelation in that history is
timeless. God’s actions are and have always been time conditioned for us,
because he has chosen to reveal himself in human history, not apart from it.
Since that is true, historical investigation will always be necessary, not to prove
that something happened, or when it happened, or how, but rather to help us
hear the confession about God from the midst of God’s historically conditioned
self-revelation and the people’s historically conditioned witness. In that sense,
while historical investigation cannot prove much about the Faith, it is a crucial
tool of biblical study.
See:
http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html
http://www.cresourcei.org/copyright.html
Alternate views:
The Exodus (Greek ἔξοδος, Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Modern Yetsi'at Mitzrayim
Tiberian [jəsʕijaθ misʕɾajim] Y'ṣiʾath Miṣrayim ; "the exit from Egypt") is the
story of the departure of the Israelites from ancient Egypt described in the
Hebrew Bible. Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure from
Egypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequent
law-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan
described in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
The extant narrative is a product of the late exilic or the post-exilic period (6th
to 5th centuries BC), but the core of the narrative is older, being reflected in the
8th to 7th century BC Deuteronomist documents.[1]
A minority of scholars assumes that the Iron Age narrative has yet older sources
that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th
century BC.[2]
The Book of Exodus tells how Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt and
through the wilderness to Mount Sinai, where God reveals himself and offers
them a Covenant: they are to keep his torah (i.e. law, instruction), and in return
he will be their God and give them the land of Canaan. The Book of Leviticus
records the laws of God. The Book of Numbers tells how the Israelites, led now
by their God, journey onwards from Sinai towards Canaan, but when their spies
report that the land is filled with giants they refuse to go on. God then condemns
them to remain in the desert until the generation that left Egypt passes away.
After thirty-eight years at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea the next generation travel
on to the borders of Canaan. The Book of Deuteronomy tells how, within sight
of the Promised Land, Moses recalls their journeys and gives them new laws.
His death (the last reported event of the Torah) concludes the 40 years of the
exodus from Egypt.
While the story in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the best-
known account of the Exodus, there are over a hundred and fifty references
scattered through the Bible, and the only significant body of work that does not
mention it is the Wisdom literature.[3] The earliest mentions are in the prophets
Amos (possibly) and Hosea (certainly), both active in 8th century Israel; in
contrast Proto-Isaiah and Micah, both active in Judah at much the same time,
never do; it thus seems reasonable to conclude that the Exodus tradition was
important in the northern kingdom in the 8th century, but not in Judah.[4]
In a recent work, Stephen C. Russell traces the 8th century prophetic tradition to
three originally separate variants, in the northern kingdom of Israel, in Trans-
Jordan, and in the southern kingdom of Judah. Russell proposes different
hypothetical historical backgrounds to each tradition: the tradition from Israel,
which involves a journey from Egypt to the region of Bethel, he suggests a
memory of herders who could move to and from Egypt in times of crisis; for the
Trans-Jordanian tradition, which focuses on deliverance from Egypt without a
journey, he suggests a memory of the withdrawal of Egyptian control at the end
of the Late Bronze Age; and for Judah, where the tradition is preserved in the
Song of the Sea, he suggests the celebration of a military victory over Egypt,
although it is impossible to suggest what this victory may have been.[5]
The exodus from Egypt is the theme of the Jewish holiday of Passover
("pesaḥ"); the term continues to be used in the Passover Hagadah.[6] At the
beginning of the Exodus narrative the Israelites are instructed to prepare
unleavened bread as they will be leaving in haste, and to mark their doors with
blood of the slaughtered sheep so that the "Angel" or "the destroyer" will "pass
over" them while killing the first-born of Egypt. The Hebrew name for the
festival, "Pesaḥ", refers to the "skipping over", "jumping over" or "passing
over" by God of Jewish houses while killing the first born of Egypt.
(Despite the biblical story, scholars believe that the Passover festival originated
in a magic ritual to turn away demons from the household by painting the
doorframe with the blood of a slaughtered sheep.)[7]
Jewish tradition has preserved national and personal reminders of this pivotal
narrative into daily life. Examples of such reminders include the wearing of
'tefilin' (phylacteries) on the hand and forehead, which some Jews practice daily;
the wearing of 'tzitzit'; the eating of 'matzot' (unleavened bread) during the
Pesach (Passover) holiday; the fasting of the firstborn a day before Pesach; the
redemption of firstborn children and animals; and even the observance of the
Sabbath.
The documentary model proposes that the four books (actually five - the models
include Genesis) were originally four separate documents, treating the same
subject (i.e. the Exodus) written at various times and combined by a series of
"redactors", or editors, the last in about 450 BCE. The "supplementary model"
holds that that there was a single original document which was then expanded
by "supplements", again with the end product emerging around 450 BCE. The
"fragmentary" model proposes that the four books were combined by a single
author from a host of "fragments", meaning small texts as well as oral traditions
(sagas and folk-tales), again c.450 BCE.
The most recent ideas on the origin of the five books place Deuteronomy in the
late 7th century with a revised version in the 6th, and the other four books in the
Persian period of the 5th century. It is generally agreed that the Exodus tradition
behind the five books predates the narrative as told in Exodus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy (since it also appears in the 8th century prophets), but there is no
consensus on just what might lie behind the tradition.
Historicity debate
The following section discusses some of the more popular aspects of the Exodus
story.
According to Exodus 12:37-38 NIV, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred
thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites
and livestock.[9] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[10] The
600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-
Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[11] compared with an
entire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.[12] Marching ten
abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line
150 miles long.[13] No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a
demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai
desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their
herds,[14] nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, which is estimated to
have had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.[15] Some scholars
have interpreted these numbers as a mistranslation - reading the Hebrew word
eleph as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, reduces the Hebrew population
involved to roughly 20,000 individuals,[16][17] - but the view of mainstream
modern biblical scholarship is that the Exodus story was written not as history,
but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel; the
essentially theological motivation of the story explains the improbability of the
scenario described above.[18] It has also been suggested that the 603,550 people
delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but
contains a secret message, a gematria for bene yisra'el kol ros, "the children of
Israel, every individual;"[19] while the number 600,000 symbolises of the total
destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to
see the Promised Land.[20]
Archaeology
Anachronisms
The late origins of the Exodus story are evident also in a number of
anachronisms which characterise it. For example, Pharaoh's fear that the
Israelites might ally themselves with foreign invaders makes little sense in the
context of the New Kingdom, when Canaan was part of an Egyptian empire and
Egypt faced no enemies in that direction, but does make sense in a 1st
millennium context, when Egypt was considerably weaker and faced invasion
first from the Persians and later from Seleucid Syria.[26]
Chronology
The chronology of the Exodus story likewise underlines its essentially religious
rather than historical nature. The number seven, for example, was sacred to God
in Judaism, and so the Israelites arrive at Sinai, where they will meet God, at the
beginning of the seventh week after their departure from Egypt,[29] while the
erection of the Tabernacle, God's dwelling-place among his people, occurs in the
year 2666 after God creates the world, two-thirds of the way through a four
thousand year era which culminates in or around 164 BC, the year of the
rededication of the Second Temple.[30][31]
Route
The Torah lists the places where the Israelites rested. A few of the names at the
start of the itinerary, including Ra'amses, Pithom and Succoth, are reasonably
well identified with archaeological sites on the eastern edge of the Nile delta,
[32] as is Kadesh-Barnea,[33] where the Israelites spend 38 years after turning
back from Canaan, but other than that very little is certain. The crossing of the
Red Sea has been variously placed at the Pelusic branch of the Nile, anywhere
along the network of Bitter Lakes and smaller canals that formed a barrier
toward eastward escape, the Gulf of Suez (SSE of Succoth) and the Gulf of
Aqaba (S of Ezion-Geber), or even on a lagoon on the Mediterranean coast.
The biblical Mt. Sinai is identified in Christian tradition with Jebel Musa in the
south of the Sinai Peninsula, but this association dates only from the 3rd century
AD and no evidence of the Exodus has been found there.[34]
The most obvious routes for travelers through the region were the royal roads,
the "king's highways" that had been in use for centuries and would continue in
use for centuries to come. The Bible specifically denies that the Israelites went
by the Way of the Philistines (purple line on the map to the right), the northerly
route along the Mediterranean coast. This leaves the Way of Shur (green) and
the Way of Seir (black) as probable routes, the former having the advantage of
heading toward Kadesh-Barnea.
Date
The Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. 2nd century CE) determines the commencement of
the Exodus to 2448 AM (1312 BCE). This date has become traditional in
Rabbinic Judaism.[35]
In the first half of the 20th century the Exodus was dated on the basis of 1 Kings
6:1, which states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of
Solomon's Temple, the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Equating the biblical
chronology with dates in history is notoriously difficult, but Edwin Thiele's
widely accepted reconciliation of the reigns of the Israelite and Judahite kings
would imply an Exodus around 1450 BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose
III (1479-1425 BC).[36]
By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological record
made this date impossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had already been
discovered in 1881,[37] and Egyptian records of that period do not mention the
expulsion of any group that could be identified with over 2 million Hebrew
slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues.
In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous
destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BC - in fact many of them, including
Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of
Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.
The lack of evidence led William F. Albright, the leading biblical archaeologist
of the period, to propose an alternative, "late" Exodus around 1200-1250 BC.
His argument was based on the many strands of evidence, including the
destruction at Beitel (Bethel) and some other cities at around that period, and the
occurrence from the same period of distinctive house-types and a distinctive
round-collared jar which, in his opinion, was to be identified with in-coming
Israelites. Albright's theory enjoyed popularity around the middle of the 20th
century, but has now been generally abandoned in scholarship.[38]
The evidence which led to the abandonment of Albright's theory include: the
collar-rimmed jars have been recognised as an indigenous form originating in
lowland Canaanite cities centuries earlier;[39] while some "Joshua" cities,
including Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo and others, have destruction and transition
layers around 1250-1145 BC, others, including Jericho, have no destruction
layers or were uninhabited during this period;[15][40] and the Merneptah Stele
indicates that a people called "Israel" were already known in Canaan by the
reign of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC).[41]
Modern theories on the date - all of them popular rather than scholarly - tend to
concentrate on an "early" Exodus, prior to c.1440 BC. The major candidates are:
* From time to time there have been attempts to link the Exodus with the
eruption of the Aegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BC on the grounds that it
could provide a natural explanation of the Plagues of Egypt and the crossing of
the Red Sea - geologist Barbara J Sivertsen's 2009 book "The Parting of the Sea:
How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus" is
the most recent.[46]
Extra-Biblical accounts
More than a dozen later stories repeat the same basic theme, most of them with a
marked anti-Jewish tendency.[47] The best-known is that by the Egyptian
historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), known from two quotations by the 1st
century AD Jewish historian Josephus.
In the first Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their
dominion over and expulsion from Egypt, and their subsequent foundation of the
city of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos
with the Jews.[48]
In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people,"
led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living
in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh
and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the
lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses.[49]
Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptians
rather than Jews, and in using a name other than Moses for their leader[47] -
many scholars regard the identification of Osarseph with Moses as a later
addition to the text,[50] although the question remains open.[51]
6. שֵּתָאֵמר ְיִציַאת
ֶׁ ְוֹלא ָזִכיִתי,שָנה
ָׁ שְבִעים
ִׁ ֲהֵרי ֲאִני ְּכֶבן,ָאַמר ָלֶהם ִרִּבי ֶאְלָעָזר ֶּבן ֲעַזְרָיה
ִמְצַרִיםPassover Hagadah according to Mishneh Torah (Hebrew original), (mechon-
mamre.org)
10. Numbers 1
11. Mattis Kantor ("The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia" Jason Aronson
Inc., 1989, 1992) places the estimate at 2 million "[i]n normal demographic
extensions...."
12. Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert (eds), "Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt (Routledge, 1999)p.251
13. Cline, Eric H. (2007), From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the
Bible, National Geographic Society, ISBN 978-1426200847 p.74
14. William Dever, "Who Were The Early Israelites And Where Did They
Come From?", p.19
15. AB Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2002). The Bible
Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred
Texts. Free Press. ISBN 978-0684869131.
19. Barry Beitzel, "Exodus 3:14 and the divine Name: A Case of Biblical
Paronomasia, "Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980), pp.6-7
21. Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and
When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-
X. p.99
22. Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and
When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-
X. p.99
23. Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism
to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration
Society. ISBN 1880317206.
24. Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw. ed. A dictionary of archaeology
25. (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-
0631235835. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=
%22Iron+Age+Israel
%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_
result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron
%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=false
27. Alberto Soggin, "An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah",
(SCM Press, 1999, trans from Italian 3rd edition 1998), pp. 128-9
29. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus", in John Andrew
Dearman, Matt Patrick Graham, (eds), "The land that I will show you: essays on the
history and archaeology of the Ancient Near East in honour of J. Maxwell Miller"
(Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp.255ff
31. James Maxwell Miller and John Haralson Hayes, "A History of
Ancient Israel and Judah" (Westminster John Knox, 1986) p.59
32. Philip Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Westminster John Knox 1998) p. 180
33. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus," in Silberman, Neil
Ash (editor), The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (
35. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, entry for Kadesh Barnea (Mercer
University Press, 1991) p.485
36. James Hoffmeier, "Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the
Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition" (Oxford University Press, 2005) p.115ff
38. Howard, David M. Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (editors) (2003). "The
Date of the Exodus (by William H. Shea)". Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using
the Old Testament Historical Texts. Kregel Publications. ISBN 9781844740161.
41. Mary Joan Winn Leith, "How a People Forms", review of "Biblical
Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines and
Early Israel" (2001), Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2006, pp.22-23
42. Dever, William G (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where
Did They Come From?. Eerdmans. pp. 44–46. ISBN 0802844162.
43. Currie, Robert and Hyslop, Stephen G. The Letter and the Scroll: What
Archaeology Tells Us About the Bible. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2009.
46. Rohl, David (1995). "Chapter 13". A Test of Time. Arrow. pp. 341–8.
ISBN 0099416565.
48. Sivertsen, Barbara J (2009). The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes,
Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 9780691137704.
Bibliography
Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did
They Know It? Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-
VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,
+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-
oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result
&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dever, William, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come
From?, Eerdman's, 2003.
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New
York: Free Press, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8.
James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of the
Exodus tradition, Oxford University Press, 1996, 1999, ISBN 9780195130881.
Nahum Sarna. "Six hundred thousand men on foot" in Exploring Exodus: The
Origins of Biblical Israel, New York: Schocken Books (1996): ch. 5. ISBN 0-
8052-1063-6