Steefen as per Robert
… So, can you reply after checking with the British Museum, the Met Museum, or any other museum, that you have support for insisting that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression who drowned chasing the Israelites because Exodus says the Israelites were building his storehouses?

Robert
But Bart certainly does not insist on this version of the Exodus account. If I recall correctly, he doesn’t even think it happened.

Steefen
Robert,

That is unimportant. Bart has written a college textbook with incorrect information, miseducating young minds. The textbook needs to be corrected. What is important, if you want to address most important issues, is accepting the verification of the description of Jericho and Jericho’s destruction evidenced by archaeology–and having college textbooks present that.

Where the discussion now stands is:

The description of Jericho is verified in the book of Joshua and this part of the Exodus, the Wilderness Tradition, and the Conquest is verifiable history, to be accepted by historians, put in textbooks, and taught in the halls of learning.

= = =

Now, I would like to address, specifically, your point: Bart does not think the Exodus from a territory of Egypt under the rule of Ramesses II/The Great happened.

Bart does not get to be an Exodus-denier. If he is only denying this version of the Exodus account, as an educator (and a textbook writer), he is part of the community that lets the evidence write history, letting people know the history under biblical literature.

Generally speaking, Bart does think the Exodus happened in a humbler way:

Bart responds:
My guess is that there was a small group of immigrants from Egypt who settled in Canaan and over the years, decades, and centuries their background stories came to be exaggerated hugely, leading to the accounts in Exodus.

Robert said

Thus no miraculous parting of the Red Sea and no Pharaoh who drowned chasing the Israelites.   

You clearly are not up to speed on this topic. People who are up on this topic do not say Red Sea, they say Reed Sea.

And to your point, the parting of the Reed Sea and the closing of waters around Egyptian pursuers is not settled at “no, it did not happen.”

Robert:

… Even more so to expect Bart to provide some kind of evidence from the British Museum, the Met, or any other museum, as support for his insistence that it was Ramesses II who was not drowned. 

Steefen:

Robert, you are wrong again.

When you pick up one end of the line/string you pick up the whole line of reasoning. That is the coherence standard in history. Holding on to slaves built Pi-Ramesses instead of rejecting it ties one to an Exodus from the storage city of Ramesses II/the Great.

I’m signing out for the next two hours (at least).

And again, you are not addressing the important issue: Bart’s need to qualify his statement or correct his statement given the John Noble Wilford New York Times article, and more important, the University of Toronto archaeologist who looked at the Kenyon excavation and re-interpreted the findings.

Bart does not get to hold on to Pi-Ramesses point as if it is not connected to Ramesses the great which an argument of less importance than the more important, original post about Jericho.

Robert said
Does Bart also have to provide evidence to refute your belief in astrology, reincarnation, and psychics?   

Evidence is important.

David Rohl’s reply about the NYT’s article:

98% of the graves at Jericho are dated to the MB I (over 300 years), while at very most 2% date to the Late Bronze I (over 150 years). The conclusion must therefore be obvious that THERE WAS NO CITY AT JERICHO IN THE LATE BRONZE I because the population was less than 100 (represented by a maximum of 20 burials over 150 years).

The mudbrick wall is dated by everyone except Wood to the MB IIB.

The 2% of pottery dated to the LB I burials represents the residence of Eglon of Moab (Judges).

Bryant Wood and his followers are COMPLETELY WRONG … as every archaeologist familiar with the issue will tell you.

Consult the papers and research of all the top archaeologists – scholars such as Piotr Bienkowski who is the leading expert on LB Jericho.

Steefen said
vergari
So, let me try to get this straight. You’re inclined to believe in the historicity of Moses and Exodus, but believe Jesus and the books of the New Testament were works of myths created by the Flavian dynasty to fool people?

Do I have that right?

Steefen
Pick up David Rohl’s book, or his lectures. This is not about inclinations to believe. Join the conversation AFTER you have either studied David Rohl’s book mentioned above or seen his lectures.

** you do not have permission to see this link **  

I bought this.

I am watching Lecture 1: The Bible – Myth or History? (52 min.s, 41 seconds)

Forget Ramesses II, forget Pi-Ramesses.

History starts with the evidence of Jericho. There is a Jericho destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age IIB circa 1400 BCE.

Pick up at 27: 31 minutes where he starts with Joseph.

Bart
You’ll note this article was written 30 years ago in a *newspaper*.  You don’t want to turn to a newspaper to learn scholarship!  Even so, I’m tellin’ you: archaeologists are unified that there was no major walled city of Jericho to be destroyed in the days of Joshua.  If you want some authoritative accounts, well, they are easily accessed and widespread.  Maybe start with the writings of William Dever or Unearthing the Bible by Siverman and Finkelstein.

Steefen

Bart:
The article was written 30 years ago in a “newspaper.”

Steefen
And?
A newspaper reports the work and interpretation of an archaeologist associated with a university. It holds up until directly refuted.

Bart:
The article was written 30 years ago in a “newspaper.”

Steefen
That goes for “Biblical Archeology Review” also?
= = =
Bart::
A) Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed
and B)
at the time Jericho
Steefen:
We have A.
We have B when there is evidence that the destruction occurred at the time the archaeologists and Egyptologists say it happened, not when the Bible says it happened.

In 2014 lectures on DVD by the Egyptologist David Rohl, he has proven your suggested authors wrong: William Dever (author of What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It, 2001), Silverman, and Finkelstein (authors of The Bible Unearthed,, 2001).

qid=1570412006&sr=8-1

The description of Jericho is verified by archaeological descriptions matching biblical descriptions. That is where your claim needs to be corrected. This physical evidence will not change. How you, Dever, Silverman, and Finkelstein interpret the timing is too weak to uphold your claim: Yes, the physical evidence verifies the Bible but it is not on the Bible’s timeline.

The Bible’s timeline is not an acceptable standard.

The verified Jericho description happened before the Bible’s timeline for it to happen. We cannot say Jericho did not catch on fire as the Bible says because that is verified by archaeological evidence.

When Dever, Silverman, and Finkelstein say Jericho is not on the Biblical timeline where the Bible says it supposed to be, that does not mean the Jericho account is without merit, it means the Bible timeline is wrong.

When the Bible has taken a verified place and event and conflated it with either fiction/exaggeration or an earlier historical event, the burning of Jericho is not a fiction/exaggeration, it is simply an earlier historical event.

Similarly, given the question, Did the guest eat dinner, eating at 7pm or 6pm does not change the fact that the guest ate dinner.. Yes?