Thanks for the conversation. It's always fun.
> except in Exodus 1:6-12 it says the Israelites were multiplying so much they even overwhelmed the egyptians.
We have to look at ALL the information, not just one isolated passage.
V. 9: The pharaoh said, "The Israelites have become much too numerous for us." Let's be honest. If the Israelites were 600,000 fighting men (and therefore population of ~ 2.5 million, we're into a ridiculous scenario. The total population of Egypt at the time is calculated to be somewhere between 1.6-5 million, including slaves. The Egyptian army was no more than 20,000. If the Israelites were 2.5 million, and with a fighting force of 600,000, Israel has no need to be afraid (Ex. 14.10). They could conquer the Egyptians easily. It's impossible that's the picture.
Back to 1.6-12. Numbers, not strength, are what's going on. They had come down as 70 people, and now numbering in the tens of thousands (I mentioned about 25,000). I can see where the language fits a growth from 70 to 25,000.
"So that the land was filled with them" is obviously hyperbole. I say my body is filled with mosquito bites when I have about 20. Obviously the Egyptians felt outnumbered in some parts of the land (viz., Goshen).
Egypt would never have chased after them (Ex. 14) if there were 600,000 fighting men vs. 20,000 Egyptians.
Instead, if we read 'lp as "clans" and not "thousands" (as the MT has translated), we get a much more realistic picture throughout the whole text.
> jericho was unhinabited at the time, and this is known since the 1950s.
Kathleen Kenyon's work of the 1950s has been questioned. She dated Jericho's destruction to 1570 BC, but Bryant Wood (director of the Associates for Biblical Research) discovered evidence in her findings that sometimes contradicts her own conclusions. (A major factor in her conclusion involved the *absence* of Cypriot bichrome pottery—representing questionable logic and scholarship. Since Jericho is not on a mojo trade route, why should we expect to find Cypriot pottery? But there were also low-grade imitations of this pottery that were relatively abundant. Also, Kenyon excavated on a small portion of the tell. Can we really trust Kenyon's date?). In addition, John Garstang dated the destruction to about 1400. In other words, the case is far from settled and still being debated. Unfortunately, the site is not being excavated now.
> Ai
You can't conclude it didn't exist at the time, because the site of Ai has not been found. One site thought to be Ai (et-Tell) shows no habitation during Joshua's era—that is, IF, in fact, this is where ancient Ai was located. (The topical features of et-Tell don't match what the Bible says Ai was like.) Alternative sites are still being theorized (such as Khirbet El Maqatir), though no strong candidates have yet emerged. In other words, possibly we haven't found Ai yet.
> Pithom
Here I would have to disagree with you. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region. The locations, however, are still debated (Tell-el-Retabeh [Pir-Atum], or, less likely, Tell el-Mashkuta). Some archaeologists even speculate whether Pithom was moved to a new location.
> Hazor... so it seems the authors attributed unrelated events all to Joshua.
????? "Pithom" doesn't appear in the biblical Joshua/Conquest account.
> pottery developed from previous canaanite forms
It should be no surprise that a people group (the Israelites) of Aramean descent, who spent several centuries in Canaan (during the era of the patriarchs) to show some similarity to Canaanite forms. The pottery of the Israelites was simple, and imported goods were absent. Finkelstein noted a difference between Israelite and Canaanite pottery.
> Finkelstein believes the shape of hilltop settlements could indicate another ethnic marker but he still believes it was still an ethnogenesis out of canaanite groups.
Correct, but the shape of the hilltop settlements led him to write that "the implication seems clear that a new population group had arrived."
> there was still egyptian control until 11th century bce
Correct. The biblical account describes the occupation of Canaan as gradual. The Israelites only took possession of the hill country, and even that a little at a time. The biblical account accords with what we know from history and archaeology.
> and the verse specifically refers of a raid in which "Israel's seed is no more" in the 1209 bc egyptian stelle.
Yes, another piece of ancient warfare rhetoric and hyperbole, common in the ANE.
- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).” It's not true.
- The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
- Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
> And there is no record anywhere of a pharaoh dying in a slave revolt.
The Bible doesn't say Pharaoh died. It says his army drowned (Ex. 14.28). "Not one of them survived"—another piece of ANE warfare rhetoric and hyperbole. Enough of the army was killed that they turned back. Then we get the rhetoric of "Not one of them survived" indicating a convincing victory at the hand of their God, their Divine Warrior (14.30-31).
> No record of Jacob either.
Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> Though the authors certainly knew the region
Correct.
Thanks for the conversation. It's always fun.
> except in Exodus 1:6-12 it says the Israelites were multiplying so much they even overwhelmed the egyptians.
We have to look at ALL the information, not just one isolated passage.
V. 9: The pharaoh said, "The Israelites have become much too numerous for us." Let's be honest. If the Israelites were 600,000 fighting men (and therefore population of ~ 2.5 million, we're into a ridiculous scenario. The total population of Egypt at the time is calculated to be somewhere between 1.6-5 million, including slaves. The Egyptian army was no more than 20,000. If the Israelites were 2.5 million, and with a fighting force of 600,000, Israel has no need to be afraid (Ex. 14.10). They could conquer the Egyptians easily. It's impossible that's the picture.
Back to 1.6-12. Numbers, not strength, are what's going on. They had come down as 70 people, and now numbering in the tens of thousands (I mentioned about 25,000). I can see where the language fits a growth from 70 to 25,000.
"So that the land was filled with them" is obviously hyperbole. I say my body is filled with mosquito bites when I have about 20. Obviously the Egyptians felt outnumbered in some parts of the land (viz., Goshen).
Egypt would never have chased after them (Ex. 14) if there were 600,000 fighting men vs. 20,000 Egyptians.
Instead, if we read 'lp as "clans" and not "thousands" (as the MT has translated), we get a much more realistic picture throughout the whole text.
> jericho was unhinabited at the time, and this is known since the 1950s.
Kathleen Kenyon's work of the 1950s has been questioned. She dated Jericho's destruction to 1570 BC, but Bryant Wood (director of the Associates for Biblical Research) discovered evidence in her findings that sometimes contradicts her own conclusions. (A major factor in her conclusion involved the *absence* of Cypriot bichrome pottery—representing questionable logic and scholarship. Since Jericho is not on a mojo trade route, why should we expect to find Cypriot pottery? But there were also low-grade imitations of this pottery that were relatively abundant. Also, Kenyon excavated on a small portion of the tell. Can we really trust Kenyon's date?). In addition, John Garstang dated the destruction to about 1400. In other words, the case is far from settled and still being debated. Unfortunately, the site is not being excavated now.
> Ai
You can't conclude it didn't exist at the time, because the site of Ai has not been found. One site thought to be Ai (et-Tell) shows no habitation during Joshua's era—that is, IF, in fact, this is where ancient Ai was located. (The topical features of et-Tell don't match what the Bible says Ai was like.) Alternative sites are still being theorized (such as Khirbet El Maqatir), though no strong candidates have yet emerged. In other words, possibly we haven't found Ai yet.
> Pithom
Here I would have to disagree with you. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region. The locations, however, are still debated (Tell-el-Retabeh [Pir-Atum], or, less likely, Tell el-Mashkuta). Some archaeologists even speculate whether Pithom was moved to a new location.
> Hazor... so it seems the authors attributed unrelated events all to Joshua.
????? "Pithom" doesn't appear in the biblical Joshua/Conquest account.
> pottery developed from previous canaanite forms
It should be no surprise that a people group (the Israelites) of Aramean descent, who spent several centuries in Canaan (during the era of the patriarchs) to show some similarity to Canaanite forms. The pottery of the Israelites was simple, and imported goods were absent. Finkelstein noted a difference between Israelite and Canaanite pottery.
> Finkelstein believes the shape of hilltop settlements could indicate another ethnic marker but he still believes it was still an ethnogenesis out of canaanite groups.
Correct, but the shape of the hilltop settlements led him to write that "the implication seems clear that a new population group had arrived."
> there was still egyptian control until 11th century bce
Correct. The biblical account describes the occupation of Canaan as gradual. The Israelites only took possession of the hill country, and even that a little at a time. The biblical account accords with what we know from history and archaeology.
> and the verse specifically refers of a raid in which "Israel's seed is no more" in the 1209 bc egyptian stelle.
Yes, another piece of ancient warfare rhetoric and hyperbole, common in the ANE.
[list][*] Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
[*] Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).” It's not true.
[*] The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
[*] Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.[/list]
> And there is no record anywhere of a pharaoh dying in a slave revolt.
The Bible doesn't say Pharaoh died. It says his army drowned (Ex. 14.28). "Not one of them survived"—another piece of ANE warfare rhetoric and hyperbole. Enough of the army was killed that they turned back. Then we get the rhetoric of "Not one of them survived" indicating a convincing victory at the hand of their God, their Divine Warrior (14.30-31).
> No record of Jacob either.
Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> Though the authors certainly knew the region
Correct.