Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

> Until such time as their is archaeological or epigraphic evidence to
> support
> a bronze age mass exodus of Jews from Egypt, I consider any attempt to
> "date the Exodus" in the same light as dating Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark.
> 
> The kernel of historicity that may be buried in this legend may be the
> expulsion of the Hyksos and like Ramses at Kadesh, it is not uncommon
> for defeats to be transformed into victories by the story tellers.  The
> bottom
> line is an event for which there is no evidence cannot be dated regardless
> of appeals to collateral historical events.
> 
> Jack
> jkilmon AT historian.net
> 
> [Niels Peter Lemche]  
> Yes, and the first evidence of the link between the Hyksos and the Exodus
> may be by Hecataeus (c. 300 BCE). I do not know whether there is sign in
> Hezechiel the tragedian (2nd century BCE) about such a link. Josephus has
> it and accuses Manetho of misrepresenting his case--probably because
> Manetho does not have it or include this possibility. Moving back before
> 300 BCE is hypothesing without any possibility of falification, it is
> gratuitous.
> 
> Somehow the discussion about smoking or burning columns is very strange,
> indeed--to put it mildly. Already Reimarus and Lessing mocked such
> assumtions more than 200 years ago. It was before the period of critical
> scholarship--you might call it pre- or proto-critical. Our evangelical
> friends must understand that we--the scholars--do not mock their beliefs
> but it is difficult to be serious when confronted with all sorts of
> arguments that were put aside as irrelevant hundred of years ago. 
> 
> As to the conquest nobody among this community of gentlmen and gentle
> ladies took up the question of the impossibility to create a scene that
> would allow for the historicity of all the events mentioned in, say Joshua
> (the case of Gibeon and Ai--especially, not to speak about Jericho--we
> count the issue a dead horse). The same applies to the posting about
> having the cake and eat it, that you have to decide what you prefer, the
> biblical version or a chance of a historical nucleus which would in anu
> case be very different from the version presented by the HB.
> 
> And again, to find a descent overview from a very conservative side (even
> evangelical), trace David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (eds.), The Face of
> Old Testament Studies. A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids:
> Baker Books, 1999). Nobody will accuse Baker and Arnold for being
> radicals; I suppose that we from my side will reckon them to be
> evangelical. They, however, presents a very descent overview of the status
> quaestionis from scholars on the conservative side. Worth reading also for
> radical scoundrels like me.
> 
> NPL
> 
> 
>