Redating the exodus and conquest

23-Jan-2017 19:54 by 6 Comments

Redating the exodus and conquest - portugal dating romance

Lachish was excavated by Starkey beginning in 1933. A jar was found with hieratic script of a receipt dated in the year of some Pharaoh. There is no real way of knowing, but Ramases II or Merneptah is usually chosen for obvious reasons (see chronology). One phase of the city was destroyed about the middle of the 14th century although an earlier or later date is possible.

redating the exodus and conquest-87redating the exodus and conquest-6redating the exodus and conquest-17

'There have been only two important views of the conquest of Palestine by ancient Israel', wrote G. Mendenhall in 1962, in an article in which he offered a third.[1] Since then hypotheses have proliferated, and the question of Israel's origins has become a vastly complex one.

C.” I do not feel that Albright’s discussion is dogmatic enough to warrant a 1250 date for Israel to have defeated Debir.

“And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.” Joshua . Hazor is mentioned in the execration texts and the Mari tablets.

Data: Collapsed city walls; burning; spring time (indicated by a presence of grain); presence of grain (so must have fallen quickly and not a lengthy siege).

A quick fall points to a supernatural fall (not his words).

The date for the Exodus is usually given as 1441 (the variations result from some uncertainty as to the date of Solomon’s accession). Not all could possibly have been Israelites; the geographical and temporal distribution is simply too great.

Some critical scholars hold to an Exodus of some sort (certainly on a much more limited scale than that indicated in the Bible) in the 13th century. But could the Israelites as they are described in the books of Joshua, Judges, and even Samuel have been (1970), quotes Garstang (in 1948) as saying his position has not been refuted.Alternatively, the placing at Jericho of a dramatic siege and capture may be an aetiological explanation of a ruined city [Wright, in Wood’s discussion is promising, but most archaeologists do not agree with him.Provan, et al., summarize the situation: Jericho: what do we know?These two linked up through a gradual infiltration into Palestine by the Egyptian Israelites. Secondly, he says, “It was fortunate for the future of monotheism that the Israelites of the Conquest were a wild folk, endowed with primitive energy and ruthless will to exist, since the resulting decimation of the Canaanites prevented the complete fusion of the two kindred folk which would almost inevitably have depressed Yahwistic standards to a point where recovery was impossible.” This issue will be taken up further in the next lecture on Canaanite religion.This would explain some of the diverse traditions which have become interwoven into the biblical documents. Albright believed in a conquest, but he thought it was in the thirteenth century. Provan says, “Today, most scholars regard Albright’s conquest model as a failure, which is not surprising since, as L.Evangelical scholarship may be moving back to a Late Bronze date (mid 1500’s). The town may have been destroyed by one of the other Hebrew groups, the history of whose infiltrations is, as generally recognized, complex.