I think a 13th century BC, Ramses II time period makes the most sense for the historical backdrop of the Biblical story. Bronze age collapse, shrinking of Egyptian, Hittitite, and Assyrian sphere of influence. Isreal pops up in the archeological record in 1208 BC on the Merneptah Stele.

I also think there is something to what Buster is hinting at with the Bedouin people of Canaan. I think the Apiru or Shassu from the city dwelling Canaanite's perspective can be overlapped with the people who would eventually identify as the 12 tribes of Isreal.

I think something came from Egypt during the reign of Ramses Ii, something Semitic, maybe something that considered itself descendent of Abraham and used the Aleph-bet system of writing, and came to Canaan and rejoined with its distant cousins, who also considered themselves descendants of Abraham and used the Aleph-bet system of writing.

They agreed to a tribal confederation of sorts, synchronized their back stories, and became the dominant culture of the Levant.

I am familiar with multiple interpretations/theories on the emergence of Hebrews into the region= and the Merneptah Stele. Looking for any recent "rigorous" scholarship on the routes of the Exodus. Sea of Reeds and a more central Sinai cross seems more likely given where they were supposedly living at the time and from the locations referred to in the texts and the Moses exile period and Exodus references to Midian. I really struggle with the Southern or more traditional Mt Sinai references. Been to the region and I find it hard to reconcile with the texts.

So looking to see what has been discovered recently....archeology and/or textual interpretations.

How recent are you looking for? Most of what I've seen focuses more on the Israelites path out of Egypt and then abandons them at that point because of a lack of hard archaeological evidence and uncertainty as to the meaning of the Biblical geographical references (I think).

James Hoffmeier who is a conservative and Christian Egyptologist and well-respected in secular circles wrote a contribution to a book published in 2012 entitled "Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus." Hoffmeier's chapter in the book is entitled "Out of Egypt". Hoffmeier may have more on the topic in an earlier book he wrote, published in 1997, entitled "Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition."

There are also multiple scholarly and semi-scholarly articles on the topic in journals such as the Biblical Archaeological Review and Bible and Spade. A few examples of such articles include:

• Bietak, Manfred. "On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Egyptology Today Can Contribute to Assessing the Biblical Account of the Sojourn in Egypt." In Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Edited by Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider and William H. Propp, 1737. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
• Byers, Gary. "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I."
  Bible and Spade, Winter (2006). https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/3191-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i.
• Byers, Gary. "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part II."
  Bible and Spade, Spring (2006). https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/4092-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-ii.
• Wood, Bryant G., "In Search of Mt. Sinai." https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/4133-in-search-of-mt-sinai.
• Krahmalkov, Charles R., "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review 20, no. 5 (1994): 5462
• Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11, no. 4 (1985): 42-49, 52-57.
• Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "The Route Through Sinai: Why the Israelites Fleeing Egypt Went South." Biblical Archaeology Review 14, no. 3 (1998): 28, 3133, 3537.
• Franz, Gordon. "Where Is Mount Sinai in Arabia (Galatians 4:25)?". Updated December 19, https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3266-where-is-mount-sinai-in-arabia-galatians-425?highlight=WyJzb2pvdXJuIiwiJ3Nvam91cm4nIl0=.

My guess is that many other relevant articles also exist in those journals.

THANKS! for these

Blue Star Hazor. Many of these are younger than my most recent study here.

Thank you.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

They agreed to a tribal confederation of sorts, synchronized their back stories, and became the dominant culture of the Levant.

---

This is a little supported by the different references of God (Elohim and Yahweh), which is a completely different bog in and of itself.

Might be two different cultures mixing, might just be two different ways to reference God (one being a name, and one being descriptive).

Also, two different holy mountains as the location of the most holy mountain of God. I think that the meshing of two cultures into one in some form or fashion is pretty well argued from the evidence in the OT.

Appreciate your comment.

KingofHazor said:

---

How recent are you looking for? Most of what I've seen focuses more on the Israelites path out of Egypt and then abandons them at that point because of a lack of hard archaeological evidence and uncertainty as to the meaning of the Biblical geographical references (I think).

James Hoffmeier who is a conservative and Christian Egyptologist and well-respected in secular circles wrote a contribution to a book published in 2012 entitled "Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus." Hoffmeier's chapter in the book is entitled "Out of Egypt". Hoffmeier may have more on the topic in an earlier book he wrote, published in 1997, entitled "Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition."

There are also multiple scholarly and semi-scholarly articles on the topic in journals such as the Biblical Archaeological Review and Bible and Spade. A few examples of such articles include:

• Bietak, Manfred. "On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Egyptology Today Can Contribute to Assessing the Biblical Account of the Sojourn in Egypt." In Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Edited by Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider and William H. Propp, 1737. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
• Byers, Gary. "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I."
  Bible and Spade, Winter (2006). https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/3191-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i.
• Byers, Gary. "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part II."
  Bible and Spade, Spring (2006). https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/4092-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-ii.
• Wood, Bryant G., "In Search of Mt. Sinai." https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/4133-in-search-of-mt-sinai.
• Krahmalkov, Charles R., "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review 20, no. 5 (1994): 5462
• Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11, no. 4 (1985): 42-49, 52-57.
• Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "The Route Through Sinai: Why the Israelites Fleeing Egypt Went South." Biblical Archaeology Review 14, no. 3 (1998): 28, 3133, 3537.
• Franz, Gordon. "Where Is Mount Sinai in Arabia (Galatians 4:25)?". Updated December 19, https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3266-where-is-mount-sinai-in-arabia-galatians-425?highlight=WyJzb2pvdXJuIiwiJ3Nvam91cm4nIl0=.

My guess is that many other relevant articles also exist in those journals.

---

These are great! Thanks for taking the time to prepare this. The historical references to "Arabia" was very helpful

Umberto Cassuto was a Jewish scholar who gave a series of lectures in the 1940s-1950s in Rome on the different references to El/Elohim vs. Yahweh in the Pentateuch. His lectures were published in 2006 as a book entitled "The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch".

In his lectures, Cassuto convincingly shows that the use of both El/Elohim and Yahweh shows, not multiple authors, but rather different theological perspectives. Moses used El/Elohim when referring to God in his universal role (such as Creator or Judge, or when dealing with all creation and all nations) and Yahweh when referring to God in his personal, covenantal role with Israel.

I've always been highly skeptical of source criticism (the basis for concluding that there were multiple major authors of the Pentateuch and that it was not compiled until 1000+ years after Moses) for at least the following reasons:

• Source criticism is not subject to falsification
• Source criticism conclusions cannot be confirmed or verified
• Source criticism is highly subjective as demonstrated by the fact that no two "experts" in it can agree as to their conclusions
• Proponents of source criticism ignore all evidence that contradicts their theories and conclusions (e.g., there is much in the Pentateuch that supports a single, very ancient author)
• Source criticism actually began with other ancient classics and has been largely abandoned in that field
• The main motive behind source criticism appears to be, not a search for truth, but an attack on the credibility and reliability of the Pentateuch.

Although I share much or your disdain of source criticism, we can state pretty definitively The Torah didn't have one author, unless Moses discussed his own death in some sort of prophetic way, and proceeded to ironically boast of his own humbleness. I think it's interesting to note that the Samaritan tradition is that Joshua, not Moses, completed The Torah in roughly 1,200 BC. This actually tracks rather well with the archeological evidence as far as a reasonable time for The Conquest, not to mention the shrine on Mount Gerizim.

Scholarship is literally over the place on Torah final composition. Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra have all been popular theories, with a relatively new hyper minimalist movement trying to move it all the way to the Helenistic period.

Although I'm willing to at least consider the Hezekiah/Josiah schools of thought, I think anything post exile is completely false. For me, the Samaritan Pentatauch bears extremely strong witness to a much older composition. You basically have to find a point on the timeline when the Isrealites and Judahites would be able to agree to the exact same ancient back story, and nothing post exile really adds up. Post Assyrian conquest is at least plausible, but at the end of the day I think the Judges/United Kingdom period makes the most sense.

Going back to the various fragmentary/supplementary hypothesis, I think it's important for people to know how incredibly pluralistic the theories are. Many people get this incredibly false picture in undergrad that the Documentary Hypothesis is well articulated with something like a consensus backing and this couldn't be further from the truth. There are dozens of various contradictory versions of the DHS, in addition to the Supplementary Hypothesis, The Two Source Hypothesis, and the Fragmentary Hypothesis, all with its cadre of adherents, and none of it has a shred of actual concrete evidence to back it up.

My own personal theory is the very, very long scribal tradition is poorly understood. I think there was a degree of latitude permitted by the scribes to update language to preserve the transimissability of the story. However, when comparing all the various ancient traditions of The Torah, from the SP, MT, LXX, DSS, and even the Beta Isreal Orit, one thing becomes clear. You could change HOW you told the story (language, dialect, ect], but you could not change WHAT story you told.