Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 22:30:51 GMT -8
The following points come largely from The Historical Reliability of the Old Testament, the work of K.A. Kitchen, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, England:
Historical Reliability of the Exodus account?
No Egyptian records mention Israelites specifically, Moses, or an Exodus by such a group, no direct evidence outside the Bible
Why?
1) The Pride Factor: Pharaohs didn't record defeats, which indicated divine disapproval
2) Archaeological Difficulties: The Hebrews lived in the East Delta region of Egypt in the New Kingdom period of Egyptian history, which is prone to major floods. 99% of all New Kingdom papyri are irrevocably lost, no mud huts would have survived the floods, and the Israelites would not have burdened themselves with Egyptian pottery on their wilderness journey
Still, the following evidences are advanced in favor of the general reliability of the Exodus account:
Evidences for the Exodus during the reign of Ramesses II (1299-1232 BC)
1) The appeal to common knowledge of the Exodus in several parts of the OT-- would the authors use this appeal if, contrary to what they were claiming, the surrounding nations hadn't heard of the Exodus?
2) Records of other exoduses in the 2nd late second millennium (power vacuum in the Levant)
3) Israel, Edom, and Moab are mentioned in firsthand Egyptian sources around 1200, only 75-100 years after the Exodus.
4) Ramesses II Dynasty was particularly cosmopolitan- Semites in all levels of society were common, from the Pharaohs court on down to slaves.
5) Details in the story reflect reality in Eygpt: knowledge of plants, animals, real local conditions not just from book-learning.
6) God's ban on taking a direct route from Egypt to Canaan reflects the historical fact that Egypt had a series of forts on the Mediterranean coast in the 13th Century
7) The tabernacle reflects pre- 1000 Semitic and Egyptian influence
8) The Sinai covenant fits the form of a second millennium covenant
9) The author of such a covenant had to have been court-raised, not a brick-slave.
10) Conditions were favorable for the Hebrews to immigrate in the 1700s (during the Hyksos or 12/13 Middle Kingdom dynasties) and would have been more hostile in the 1200s (Ramesses, New Kingdom)
These conditions and several more reveal to us that the much of the Biblical story of the Exodus rests comfortably in the real world of history. Archaelogy doesn't PROVE every event, of course. But usually, it shows us whether a story is realistic by giving us information about its settings. It is enough here to show us that the Exodus story didn't completely materialize out of thin air hundreds of years after it supposedly happened, but, instead, maintains an authentic witness of events in the 1200s.
Historical Reliability of the Exodus account?
No Egyptian records mention Israelites specifically, Moses, or an Exodus by such a group, no direct evidence outside the Bible
Why?
1) The Pride Factor: Pharaohs didn't record defeats, which indicated divine disapproval
2) Archaeological Difficulties: The Hebrews lived in the East Delta region of Egypt in the New Kingdom period of Egyptian history, which is prone to major floods. 99% of all New Kingdom papyri are irrevocably lost, no mud huts would have survived the floods, and the Israelites would not have burdened themselves with Egyptian pottery on their wilderness journey
Still, the following evidences are advanced in favor of the general reliability of the Exodus account:
Evidences for the Exodus during the reign of Ramesses II (1299-1232 BC)
1) The appeal to common knowledge of the Exodus in several parts of the OT-- would the authors use this appeal if, contrary to what they were claiming, the surrounding nations hadn't heard of the Exodus?
2) Records of other exoduses in the 2nd late second millennium (power vacuum in the Levant)
3) Israel, Edom, and Moab are mentioned in firsthand Egyptian sources around 1200, only 75-100 years after the Exodus.
4) Ramesses II Dynasty was particularly cosmopolitan- Semites in all levels of society were common, from the Pharaohs court on down to slaves.
5) Details in the story reflect reality in Eygpt: knowledge of plants, animals, real local conditions not just from book-learning.
6) God's ban on taking a direct route from Egypt to Canaan reflects the historical fact that Egypt had a series of forts on the Mediterranean coast in the 13th Century
7) The tabernacle reflects pre- 1000 Semitic and Egyptian influence
8) The Sinai covenant fits the form of a second millennium covenant
9) The author of such a covenant had to have been court-raised, not a brick-slave.
10) Conditions were favorable for the Hebrews to immigrate in the 1700s (during the Hyksos or 12/13 Middle Kingdom dynasties) and would have been more hostile in the 1200s (Ramesses, New Kingdom)
These conditions and several more reveal to us that the much of the Biblical story of the Exodus rests comfortably in the real world of history. Archaelogy doesn't PROVE every event, of course. But usually, it shows us whether a story is realistic by giving us information about its settings. It is enough here to show us that the Exodus story didn't completely materialize out of thin air hundreds of years after it supposedly happened, but, instead, maintains an authentic witness of events in the 1200s.