the exodus revisitied

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyrus

David Rohl recently proposed a revised chronology, dating the Exodus to the Second Intermediate Period, in which case Ipuwer might refer to that event, but Rohl's chronology has been convincingly rejected by major Egyptological authorities.[6]. Moreover, the association of Ipuwer with the Exodus is generally rejected by Egyptologists, who if they interpret the Exodus as a historical event at all generally place it later, in the reign of Ramses II. Some have alternatively interpreted the poem's references to disturbances in nature as relating to the Thera eruption, which according to vulcanologists occurred ca. 1600 BC.

Both the Exodus and Thera interpretations assume that the poem records a historical event, which is disputed by many Egyptologists.[7] Recently the poem has instead been interpreted as an essentially ahistorical, timeless consideration of the theme of 'order vs. chaos'. On this reading, the references in Ipuwer to rivers of blood, and to slaves revolting, may be schematic 'world turned upside down' laments rather than reports of specific historical reports

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/Ipuwer.html

The first Egyptologist to make a detailed examination of it was Sir Alan Gardiner, in 1909. He believed it to be a XII dynasty work, recalling the chaos of the First Intermediate Period. Most scholars have agreed with Gardiner, though over the years some (Kurt Sethe, Immanuel Velikovsky, and Jan Van Seters, to name a few) have argued that a Second Intermediate Period date is more likely

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm

Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make.

these are but a few non-religious ones i found. couldn't find a bible thumper website discussing it.

i am surprised that you haven't made the charge that the ipuwer document was aq clever forgery of the biblical text or vice versa.

[Minimalist]

The biblical text was written many centuries later.

[Guest]

here is something to much on while you wait for me to wake up. neqar the endof hispaper montgomery writes:

"Archaeology relies heavily on pottery dating. The present egyptian chronology is responsible for giving dates to most of the pottery of the middle east during the bibglical era. The current dates were largely determined at the turn of the century. AT that time Petriediscovered mycenaean pottery in 18th & 19th dynasty tombs. This allowed absolute egyptian dates to be applied to this pottery. it s important to understand that these dates caused a serious controversy. Torr, a gr. arch., pointed out that Petrie had raised their dates for mycenaean pottery by 400 years... This caused a dark age to appear in greek archaeology between 1200-800 where there was littleor no history, architecture, art, or weaponry. Furthermore, the dates of the greek pottery were then transmitted to other contemporary pottery types. ...Egyptian dates prevailed but theproblems created have never been resolved.

The problem betwen biblical dates and conventional late br. dates is now seen to be with the latter. A 400 year down dating will fully realign the stratigraphy of Israel so that the chronology of the strata and the biblical dates are synchronized..."

[Minimalist]

So all he needs to do is convince the rest of the archaeological field.

How's he making out on that score?

[Guest]

if that is all you have then there is no point continuing the discussion with you.

i didn't say he was right but he makes a good point which needs to be examined. you do not examine but deny anything that causes you to examine closely the arguments that contradict what you want to believe.

[Minimalist]

It is not a good point. He's an apologist for the fact that the bible does not work and just like Rohl he is trying to re-write history in an attempt to make it work better. There are far more important voices he would have to convince than you or I. Right now, he is no more credible than Jacobovici who also tried to do the same thing.....with no success.

Fiction remains fiction.

[Minimalist]

It is not a good point. He's an apologist for the fact that the bible does not work and just like Rohl he is trying to re-write history in an attempt to make it work better. There are far more important voices he would have to convince than you or I. Right now, he is no more credible than Jacobovici who also tried to do the same thing.....with no success.

Fiction remains fiction.

[Guest]

It is not a good point. He's an apologist for the fact that the bible does not work and just like Rohl he is trying to re-write history in an attempt to make it work better

well i disagree and worth the time examining it for validity. no i doubt if he is trying to re-write history but correcting it. if he is right and petrie made an error then it needs rectifying.

jacobovici was just an idiot without proper research or evidence. this guy makes much more sense and has proper research to make his case. you are just upset because it is your apple cart being re-examined.

sorry ut thhe evidence needs to be explored to find the truth, remaining in denial and dismissing everything because it disagrees with what you want it to be is not accomplishing that goal.

[Guest]

p.s. i have been doing some research into some of his support evidence and claims. some i can't find more information on, some i do not like what i read and some i haven't got to yet.

there really isn't a lot of clear cut information on the web to investigate this. though i am beginning to believe that the ipuwer papyrus was contemporary and not literature.

[Minimalist]

Arch, you are desperate to believe.


It clouds your thinking.

[Guest]

you are desperate to believe

i am not desperate as i already believe plus i really don't need proof. God's word is good enough for me. {i can do no less than the roman centurian i mentioned before}

i do need more information, which is true of course, so i can provide answers for those who have questions. the mantra "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." only goes so far and does little but frustrate.

authors like finkelstein and dever need to be rebutted as they serve only to cloud the issue and lead astray. relying on physical evidence only is a mistake because we know that we do not have all the physical evidence we need since we can only dig up a miniscule amount. thus the biblical texts are needed and not to be discarded.

[Minimalist]

They might pay attention to a rebuttal from their fellow archaeologists.

I rather doubt they give a rat's ass about the opinion of bible-thumpers.

[john]

you are desperate to believe

i am not desperate as i already believe plus i really don't need proof. God's word is good enough for me. {i can do no less than the roman centurian i mentioned before}

i do need more information, which is true of course, so i can provide answers for those who have questions. the mantra "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." only goes so far and does little but frustrate.

authors like finkelstein and dever need to be rebutted as they serve only to cloud the issue and lead astray. relying on physical evidence only is a mistake because we know that we do not have all the physical evidence we need since we can only dig up a miniscule amount. thus the biblical texts are needed and not to be discarded.

would you just get it for once? and i know you won't, but what the hey, at least i tried. and then i can walk away.

epistolary evidence is less reliable than physical evidence by geometric (not arithmetic) magnitudes.

why you keep beating the epistolary ass is beyond me,

the animal is dead.


john

[Starflower]

Okay, I have got to agree with Arch on the archaeological categories I cannot keep them all straight and am so confused now I don't even remember my own name But if I'm understanding the dates correctly I am slanting towards Montgomery's view,mostly. The dating of the pottery is the most compelling evidence to me. But, I would like to see some more research done. Of course when I come down off my meds and reread everything I may change my mind, but I had to jump in here before things devolved any more
Also, thought I would post this timeline again:
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/timeline.html

The Jews have an entirely different date for the Exodus than any of ya'lls or yourns.

Jacob & Family go down to Egypt 2238 -1523
The Exodus 2448 -1313

The first date in each row is the Jewish calendar and the second is the Gentile calendar.

[Minimalist]

Egyptian (and Hittite) history says they are wrong.




It is going to take more than the wishful thinking of a bible-thumper to overturn this verdict.