Old Testament Historicity

I am sorry but as a physicist, this treatment of history as if it were a hard science is a source of some hilarity to me. To be sure it reminds me of the objections of creationists to evolution that we cannot directly see the past. But the problem with the creationist objection, that there is such overwhelming evidence from so many different sources, doesn’t quite apply in the case of history, which looks far more like a gigantic house of cards built of too little hard evidence and way too many assumptions.

Isn’t it just a competition between different sources which are just as human and likely to be biased, not only about what actually happened, but even what people consider to be significant enough to write about. To me it seems an awful lot like assuming that everywhere that a filming camera in some documentary isn’t pointed must be an empty space void of things, people and events. LOL

2 Likes

That "hole " in the OT in my opinion disregards all of .(The Exodus narative) It is a major flaw. Like what was the intention of writting that IF NOT to write actual events or an allegory. The anwer to this,.No reason

In my understanding the Exodus event was historical but as to when I haven’t set much of a date but I do believe the Hebrew occupation of the land coincides with the invasion of the Sea People’s as after the Sea People’s invasion is when the Jews pop up in history. But that’s just my understanding of it.

To give the Hebrews a sense of being called by God for His purpose. Also to help hold the people together during the exile in Babylon. They were God’s special people after all.

2 Likes

What? That doesnt make sense. So he wrote a lie to show them that they are Gods people? If not then it is an allegory?

1 Like

I really enjoyed “Cross Vision,” by Greg Boyd, about the OT historicity and violence. You might want to read this Book Review: Cross Vision by Greg Boyd

Also, I appreciated this discussion on inerrancy and volence here: Inerrancy and mass slaughter

Thanks for your discussion!

1 Like

Reading only one side and concluding that it is correct is a bad methodology. You should read David Rohl’s book, Exodus, in which this Egyptologist argues that it is real. Rohl is an agnostic, not a Christian. He does, however, think the Bible is a good history book. Rohl argues for a slightly different chronology than the guys above hold to and voila, everything falls into place. If one hasn’t read this book then one is only half informed.

You mean the guys on the link i posted?If youre speaking of the middle kingdom hypothesis i think they state that it is not the case and present arguments for that

Yep, and you obviously haven’t considered data from the other side. They have found what certainly looks like Joseph’s palace. if you have any interest other than holding onto the views of the above link you might look at thishttp://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2019/12/has-josephs-palace-been-found.html. It is on finding something that sure as heck looks like Joseph’s palace. with 12 graves outback, and the biggest had a statue of a Semite in a multicolored cloak. Here is a reconstruction of the statue. BTW, Joseph asked that his bones betaken back to the promised land. The big tomb is the only tomb missing bones. Grave robbers don’t take bones, they are worthless.

If this is Joseph’s palace then it moves the exodus back .

As to your claim that your link says there is no evidence for the Middle Kingdom view, it took me a while to find Barry stating that there was no evidence. I gather that his mere breath through Barry’s lip stating the sky is purple would be enough for you to agree that the sky is purple. Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true. I am offering you some archaeological evidence counter to what Barry says, and you seem reluctant to go look. I can’t help it if you won’t look. But the data won’t disappear if you don’t look, it will just be you refusing to look at something.

I found a good defense of the Middle Kingdom view in Muyiwa’s answer. Would have been better with pictures.

But here are some quotes. Of the statue above, Bietak, the excavator, said:

3. From the chapel of Tomb F/I-p/19 no. 1 came fragments of a colossal seated statue (about twice life size) of an Asiatic dignitary with a red mushroom-shaped coiffure, holding a throwstick at his shoulder. The figure was deliberately smashed. Such a statue is unthinkable for the time of the 12th Dynasty. It was in the time of the 13th Dynasty that Asiatics such as 'Amusahornedjheryotef (see above), Ameni’amu,27 Khendjer (Von Beckerath 1964: 49- figs. 51, 238-39), and probably others rose to high posi-tions and even to the kingship. (considered here a sign of dignity)
Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age Author(s): Manfred Bietak Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan in the Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), pp. 27-72, p. 349-51 http://www.academia.edu/download/41037228/Bietak_Basor_281_1991_Egypt_Canaan_in_the_middle_bronze_age.pdf

The statue was found in 1986 but not studied in detail until about 2000 when Robert Schiestl did a Ph.D on it. The large statue of this non-egyptian Semite is very unusual and must have been a man of very high honor:

"Larger than life size statuary of non-royal Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom is very unusual, but rare examples do exist throughout the 12th Dynasty, both from tombs and from temples. They seem to be limited, however, to families of highest ranks. In the late Middle Kingdom nonroyal statuary can become quite small in size (VANDIER 1958, 255, 271, 284), as represented by the statuette from tomb l/19-Nr. 1 of stratum d/1 (BIETAK 1991 b, Abb. 12). On the other hand, most examples of non royal larger than life statuary date to this period as well." p. 136 (PDF) Robert Schiestl, The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt, in: Egypt and Levant 16, 2006, 173-185 | Robert Schiestl - Academia.edu

According to the Bible, 70 people went into Egypt. Rohl writes:

This community of Semites numbered a hundred or so, at most, in its initial phase, with perhaps twenty houses. The Book of Genesis tells us that seventy souls arrived with Jacob to settle in Goshen, so this seems to fit the archaeological picture. As time passed, during the long reign of Amenemhat III, the palace of Joseph in Area F was built over the demolished remains of his father’s house, and hhis elder brothers were buried in the family cemetery to the rear of he vizier’s palace. On Tell A, the village rapidly expanded as the Hebrews multiplied.” David Rohl, Exodus, Myth or History, (St. Louis Park, MN: ThinkingMan’s Media 2013, p…123

The original houses upon which the palace was built were of Semitic style, like found in Harran where these Semites originated from. The palace was built on top of them. Then there is this about the Semitic population of Avaris, which by the way might be an Egyptian corruption of Eber ish, which would mean Hebrew Man.

“The mass graves of Avaris–located at the end of Proto-Israelite Stratum G-0were Quickly followed by an abandonment of the Asiatic quarter of the city (on the main tell next to Ed-Daba village)–all approximately at the time of Dudimose according to the New Chronology. The Semites simply gathered up their belongings and left. Archaeology cannot tell us where they went… but the Bible does.” David Rohl, Exodus, (Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 136-137

They have also found rings which say “Jacob Chosen”. A critic of this interpretation asks questions but doen’t even attempt an answer, as if none is possible:

"The Austrian team excavating the site found nine scarabs (beetle-shaped amulets) bearing the name of a Hyksos called Jacob-Her dating to ca. 1700 BC. Jacobovici, of course, surmises that this is Joseph’s father Jacob. He further contends that these are “seals worn by Joseph’s court officials.” If the scarabs are connected to the high official Joseph, then why is Jacob’s name on them? Jacobovici does not explain. In reality, Jacob was a common Semitic name and in this case probably belonged to a prominent Hyksos leader or businessman. In addition to the nine examples at Tell el-Daba, three Jacob-Her scarabs were found in Israel: two at Kabri, near Nahariya, and one at Shiqmona, near Haifa (Bietak 1997: 115). " Debunking 'The Exodus Decoded' - Associates for Biblical Research

Note, they accept that these rings are there.Here is a picture:

Lawyers always tell themselves, don’t ask questions unless you know the answer. Rabbit Michael S. Bar Ron wrote:

"Ankhu is the core of the Egyptian name of Joseph recorded in the Torah, Zafenath
Pa`aneaḥ (the Z is a צ-ṣadi, pronounced as a sharp S), as it would most likely have
been pronounced: Zatenaf Pa-ankh, according to Dr. Kenneth Kitchen. This
meant “He Who Lives”. According to Rohl, it would have meant "The One Who
Lives".9 The Torah relates that the pharaoh was awed by Jacob, Joseph’s father
(Gen. 47,8). Considering how the pharaoh witnessed the dramatic reunion
between the vizier and his father (who had given Joseph up for dead for so many
years), it is particularly fitting that he would name his vizier, "The One Who
Lives". Rabbi Michael S. Bar-Ron, THE SEAL OF JOSEPH IN HIS PALACE AT TELL ED-DABA, December 29, 2017, 11 Teveth 5778 Beth Midrash Ohel, Moshe Beit Shemesh, Israel, p. 5

Pharoah had a vizer named, “the man who lives” Don’t all men live? Isn’t it odd that Jacob thought his son was dead, yet he still lived! No, we can’t believe that because that might make us have to rethink things about the Exodus’ timing.

So why would the ring have Jacob’s name on it? Well, contrary to the Bible archaeology guys, Jacobovici did answer. Wonder why they didn’t correct their critique? Jacobovici has a great explanation:

"In Genesis 49:24 it refers to God as “the Mighty One of Jacob”. In the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sota 36b.) the rabbis slightly shift the emphasis when referring specifically to Joseph. There, they called Joseph’s father, “the Mighty One, Jacob”. In other words, the Biblical tradition refers to Jacob in near divine terms and declares that he is God’s chosen one*. In Genesis 47:10, it is Jacob that blesses Pharaoh and not the other way around.** This idea is encapsulated in a formula that is still repeated everyday in the Jewish prayer service. It’s a quote from Psalms 135:4. The formula is “God selected Jacob as his Own, Israel as His treasure”. In Hebrew – and this is very, very important – the first part of the formula is stated this way; “Yakob (i.e., Jacob) Bahar (i.e., He chose)”. In other words, if you were the Biblical Joseph, you would not declare yourself to be a “son of God”, but a son of Jacob who is “chosen by God”. You would then have only one formula available to you:* “ Biblical Joseph’s ring – found! | Simcha Jacobovici | The Blogs

Pharaoh’s ruled because they thought they were Gods, It is easy to win an argument the way bible archaeology did, claim your opponent didn’t have an answer and if he does, ignore it as if it doesn’t exist.

As supreme ruler of the people, the pharaoh was considered a god on earth, the intermediary between the gods and the people.” Pharaoh - World History Encyclopedia

Joseph could not even be a minor deity in the Egyptian pantheon so he chose to be the son of the one God Chose, Jacob. This kept him from being viewed as a in any part divine. That is the answer that Bible Archaeology didn’t even bother to try to research.

Their other thoughtless question is why are they found in Israel? I would call this the Che Gueverra effect. Someone famous like Joseph and Jacob will have their stuff, their image or their rings copied so people can gain status. think of all the murderous Che Tshirts that are sold!

Nick, I would certainly not just believe something because Barry Turner says so. Do some research, but that, of course, is up to you to decide if you really want to become knowledgable or take the easy path and just be a believer in what he says.

3 Likes

I mean those guys were professors right?So i took their word as true since they know more. I mean there was a woman in the site that stated and defended her view that the Exodus narative was a collection of stories trough some periods of time. Anyway will look up your answer in a bit .Thanks again.Happy easter although late!!!

1 Like

Happy Easter to you, or happy resurrection day as a friend who also lived in China prefers–it brings more ‘clarity’. Anyway, I have learned long ago, far too many people have their own agenda, so check everything, even what I put out. I can defend what I put out, but check anyway. I have been known to make mistakes. lol

My mother, by her actions raising me and my siblings, gave me a big distrust of all authority. I try to check everything that I can, and everything that I write about.

1 Like

I mean i am sceptic as well and search my information.Unless it come from a proffesor who seems to know about the subject. Christ is risen!!!

lol, I have described my OT history prof who took great love of mocking anything that he didn’t have an explanation for in the bible. Lot’s wife was one of those. I wish I knew then what I know now.

1 Like

The truth is they are God’s people. That is not a lie. It is not a lie in the way they would view Scripture. That fact that you might consider it a lie doesn’t matter. It wasn’t written to you.

Here’s some good evidence for the Exodus:

What is fascinating to me is that people are beginning to become ok with the Exodus being real rather than as painted erroneously and with bias by the archaeological community. The archaeological community right now is just like the geological community was in 1928 when they absolutely skewered Alfred Wegener for his continental drift idea. Academic fields do get stuck on an idea and kill everyone that disagrees with their 'concensus truth". Which consensus truth is later shown to be wrong.

Over in the thread ‘Did Noah’s flood kill all the humans except for Noah’s family’, I present a way for the flood and events of Eden to be real history. This was originally panned by one and all. Even had a guy here call it science fiction. Given that that guy IS a science fiction writer, I am sure he thought that was a complement. :rofl:

The problem for the science fiction idea is that my view of the flood is precisely that of the view that modern geology has for that particular region of the world, except for the addition of Adam and Eve.
I can’t prove Adam and Eve was there but I can prove that there was a real flood matching the description which is in the Bible which occurred 5.3 myr ago and I can prove that the only time the rivers mentioned about Eden were in contact was at the time of that flood 5.3 myr ago, and I can prove that the hydrology described in Eden would only work in a deep basin with artesian flow, which occurred in the Mediterranean 5.3 myr ago. I can prove everything except Adam and Eve. Not bad.

Furthermore, I showed that the curses God gave Adam and Eve are only understandable physiologically if they are given to small brained people. That too can only happen at a time prior to 2.5 myr ago.

With the new data on the Exodus, new data on the airblast at Sodom, the discovery of Joseph’s tomb, and with my views that make the flood a reality, maybe the time of ridicule for those of us who dared dream that the bible might actually be true, not accommodated, is finally coming to fruition! No longer do we have to hang our heads and remain in silence when people criticize the reality of Scripture.

1 Like

I think your region and dating of the flood may be wrong. Take a look at these two videos:

Nope, I watched, but those are both about Mesopotamia. the ‘flooding’ starting at 13000 BC was due to sea level rise. There were no high mountains covered by that flood, just lowlands.

Unless one rewrites the Bible to say that the ark ended in the INdian ocean, such a flood won’t even begin to match what the bible describes.

  1. No widespread flooding in the geologic record of iraq. I am a geophysicist and have had access to oil company information on this issue.

  2. Water flow down the Euphrates and Tigris take floating objects out to the Indian Ocean in about a week. If one beleives this is where the flood happened, then well, the ark couldn’t have landed on the mountains of Ararat which are in Turkey. Water flow is the wrong direction. Thus this theory requires the Bible be re-written about WHERE the ark landed

  3. No high mountains covered. that theory needs to rewrite that part of the Bible

  4. River flooding doesn’t last a year. at most it lasts a few months.

5 concerning Eden, how does one get a river which encompasses Kush (the ancient name for Ethiopia) which means the Nile River, to flow into the Persian Gulf. So, your favored theory ignores or rewrites the bible on that point.

Given that this theory basically re-writes what the Bible says, in exactly what way to you consider it to actually confirm what the bible says, when you change what the Bible says?

Other issues that such a late flood brings. It requires that Swamidass’s view for the image of God be true because Adam and Eve could not be the parents of all living. But such a view requires that some living people not have the image of God.

Why did God give Neolithic Eve the curse of pain in childbirth when all of her ancestral mothers back at least to 2.4 myr ago all had pain in childbirth? It is our large heads which cause that pain, and giving a curse like that to people who already had large brains makes zero logical sense. Why did Adam’s curse also involve the effects of a larger brain? Why give Adam such a curse when all his ancestors back millions of years had sweated by their brows as well?

Mesopotamian flood ideas are accepted only by the desperate who can’t figure a way to make the bible actually be true, so we change it to say it didn’t really mean Mts. of Ararat, it didn’t really mean that a river from actual Kush flowed into the Tigris and Euprhates, it didn’t really mean that high mountans were covered (small hills will do). If the Bible is so flexible of meaning, why not just say it all happened in the Mississippi Valley? If Kush = Arabia and High mountains means mole hills and the Mtns of Ararat actually means some coast along the Indian Ocean, such a Mississipppi Valley interpretation is equally likely. That would be as true as saying it happened in Mesopotamia!

Before you try to debate with a geoscientist, take some time to look at some geological information about how much trouble it would be to have the Nile flow into the Persian Gulf–btw, there is no evidence of that. And, Kush was NOT in Saudi Arabia no matter how much people try to make it be that way.

1 Like

The OP states
“According to biblical scripture the Hebrews led by the patriarch Moses took his formerly enslaved people out of Egypt during the reign of Rameses II.”

That is simply not true, nowhere does it say that!

It does however make certain statements that people interpret that way.

For instance, Exodus 1:11 says “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.” Now if we assume that their “Rameses” is the same as the Pi-Ramesses we know today, then yes that was built by Pharaoh Rameses II. There are two problems with that identification. The first is that Genesis 47:11 says that 400 years earlier “Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed.” That seems inconsistent with Rameses being Pi-Ramesses. The second is that it refers to Rameses being a store city. Pi-Ramesses was built as a capital, not a store city. So I think Rameses=Pi-Ramesses is implausible.

Another clue to the time period is the description of the Israelites being pursued by large numbers of Egyptian chariots in exodus 14:6-7 " Pharaoh prepared his chariot and took his army with him. He took 600 of the best chariots, and all the other chariots of Egypt". AFAIK, the earliest records we have of Egyptian chariots is after the Hyksos occupation. (John Haywood, Chronicles of the ancient world, p58)

Now if I understand David Rohl correctly, he claims the Israelites were the mysterious 14th dynasty, and it was the events of the Exodus that left Egypt too weak to stop the subsequnt Hyksos invasion which established the 15th dynasty. He also seems to think some of the artifacts currently atributed to the Hyksos 15th dynasty actually belong to the canaanite 14th dynasty.

Now I’ve only recently heard about David Rohl but I’m intrigued by what I’ve heard. I do wonder how the Egyptians could pursue the members of the 14th dynasty using chariot technology they obtained from the 15th dynasty? However I’m not an expert and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it may be there are records of earlier chariots that I don’t know about or have not yet been discovered.

That is what I understand of Rohl’s views. The Hebrews were not actually part of the Hykos, just the cause of Egypt being so weakened that others took advantage of them.

He basically said that the Bible when it says the slaves left Rameses is using the readers knowledge of where that city is, but not necessarily saying that is what they built. The verse is

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses toSuccoth Ex 12:37). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

He used an example, I am not sure I have exactly the city he used, but If I talk about events in Eboracum, no one would have a clue what I am talking about. He says it is likely the biblical writers faced the same problem. Avaris was a name no one knew anymore than they know of Eboracum today. But using the city of Rameses which was located atop Avaris made it clear where that city was, After the Hebrews left Rameses built atop their abandoned city. So this is just like me talking events in 50 BC in the city of York in England which used to be called Eboracum.