The historicity of the Exodus

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@Jonathan_Burke

That’s speaking of the Egyptian/Hittite treaty. The Egyptians had to settle for peace because they had to withdraw their army and were unable to take the territory from the Hittites. And after that “No further Egyptian campaigns in Canaan are mentioned”. And this is the mid-thirteenth century, just before the proposed late date of the Exodus. The Hebrews weren’t due in the land for another 40 years or so. And with no more Egyptian campaigns in Canaan, that was obviously going to be a lot easier.

Jon… military campaigns were not necessary … because Egyptian hegemony was not in question.

Redford describes Egyptian plantations in Canaan.

Even Kadesh Barnea is well within the casual reach of the Egyptians … it’s not even protected by the elevations of the hills. And yet even in the highlands, the Amarna texts tell us that Egypt had sway over Jerusalem!

Egyptian sway continues (with greater and lesser intensity) right up to when the Philistines arrive …After all… don’t we read that the fleeing Egyptians choose NOT to go the Way of the Philistines?

Stop thinking like an Evangelical … and think like an Historian …

The story of Exodus is a post-Philistine story …