Book dating line making match matches
The findings of the above-listed surveys indicate there are few, if any, Late Bronze Age materials and a paucity of Iron I Age materials in the areas being surveyed.On the other hand, the Iron II Age is well represented in all of these areas.However, THE TEXTS IN QUESTION WERE MOST PROBABLY WRITTEN IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVAILED IN THE IRON II PERIOD AND PROBABLY TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PERIOD. anonmyous Exilic author "thought" were in existence in the timeframe (1512/1446 B. As already noted by Finkelstein and Mac Donald not even the Late Iron Age II has _all_ the sites appearing in the narratives occupied.Thus, the assumption here is that although the biblical writer may have used material that predates his time, he set that material into a context, namely, the Iron II AND LATER PERIODS, that would be meaningful to his readers." If Finkelstein and Mac Donald are right, and I believe they are, then this means that those scholars who are seeking to establish the "route" of the Exodus from its itinerary preserved in Numbers 33:1-50 have a daunting task before them. Anyone seeking to find sites in existence before the 7th-6th centuries B. for their Exodus will hit a brick wall: the fact that _no_ archaeological time period has _all_ the sites in existence and occupied.We have established that the account was written not earlier than the 7th/6th century B. because some of the sites mentioned did not come into existence until that time frame. He probably did not realize that some of these sites did not exist or were abandoned at the time he "thought" the Exodus occurred (1512/1446 B. It thus follows that even if one could satisfactorily identify a chain of sites or ruin heaps or tells in existence by 7th/6th century B. extending from Egypt across the Sinai to the Negev and Canaan these sites still would _not_ constitute the "real" route of the Exodus as it would have been most probably the way to the land of the Philistines following the shore of the Mediterranean Sea because there were no Philistines to oppose Israel's Exodus and entry into Canaan in 1512/1446/1260 B. Besides the fact that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) in various books suggests for some scholars different dates for the Exodus, the single most important impediment in establishing a date for the Exodus is Archaeologists' failure to find a period when _all_ the sites mentioned in the narratives were in existence at the same moment in time.So, how "reliable" is this account if it was written roughly 1000 years after the date given in the Bible for the Exodus (Catholic: 1512 B. That is to say, no matter what archaeological timeframe one chooses to place the Exodus in be it Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age or Iron Age, _none_ of these time frames has _all_ the sites in existence and occupied at the same moment in time.I WAS THUS FORCED TO QUESTION THE TRADITIONALLY HELD OPINION THAT THE MOSES-LED GROUP, ON ITS WAY FROM EGYPT TO THE LAND OF CANAAN, PASSED THROUGH/AROUND EDOM (AND MOAB) DURING THE LATE BRONZE-IRON I PERIODS.
Obviously someone else is writing about Moses and describing his activities (Cf. The Philistines are portrayed as being in Canaan in the days of Abraham (circa 2100 B. Archaeology has established that the Philistines are the Pelest of Ramesside era records and they did not settle in Canaan until circa 1175 B. Thus the Exodus account is _in error_ in having Philistines present circa 1512 B. The archaeological excavations revealed that some of the sites were in existence only in the 7th century B. so this anomaly suggests the Exodus account is no earlier. C.) "how" can one identify the route of the Exodus from the itinerary given in Numbers 33:1-50? That is to say, if there was an Exodus circa 1512/1446/1260 B. they probably did take "the way to the land of the Philistines" as the Philistines were not present to oppose them.However, recent archaeological evidence indicates that opposition to such a passage would be understandable during the Iron II period.Thus, the narratives relative to the Exodus best fit the settlement history of the area during the Iron II rather than the previous two archaeological periods.Hoffmeier argues that Moses being a Prince of Egypt would have been an educated man and capable of writing and composing a record of the Exodus and its itinerary.
He therefore rejects Redford's proposal as nonsense:"It is inconceivable that early Israelites were incapable of preserving their early history, in either oral or written form, from the second half of the second millennium onward... for my article exploring the letter forms Moses would have used in 1512/1446 B. as revealed by archaeological findings in the Sinai.