Exodus at Magnolia Avenue

jeffmooney — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:18:58 +0000

If you are free on Sunday nights, this might be an option. I will be teaching on the book of Exodus at Magnolia Avenue Baptist Church for the next 5 Sunday nights. The following is a tentative outline of the Sundays.

Sunday 1: Overview of Exodus: Alone and with Its Friends (Genesis – Deuteronomy)

Sunday 2: Major Theological Themes of Exodus I – The God who Keeps Covenant

Sunday 3: Major Theological Themes of Exodus II – The God who Delivers and Instructs

Sunday 4: Major Theological Themes of Exodus III – The God who Dwells with His People

Sunday 5: Exodus and the History of Redemption: Looking To New Testament

Love to see you there. However, if you cannot make it, please pray for both me and (mayb specifically for) my audience.

Evangelicals and the Current Discussion concerning the Date of the Exodus

jeffmooney — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:09:46 +0000

“[A]lthough the Biblical texts seem to require a date in the middle of the 15^th century BC, archeological evidence seems to point to a date in the 13^th century.” (W. Shea. “The Date of the Exodus,”International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

In the past, perspectives on the date of the exodus were painted out as simple as eschatology seems to be painted out in popular circles today. If you were conservative you proposed an 15th century exodus (early date). If you were anything else you proposed a 13th century exodus (late date).

In the last century, the latter group (13th century Exodus) typically emerged from an ideological bias against the historicity of the biblical testimony. The former group (15th century) perceived themselves to be the defenders of the biblical historical testimony and they were probably right to do so. The scene has changed substantially now. Scholars who identify themselves as both devoted to the inspiration of the Bible and convinced of its historicity are arguing loudly for a 13th century exodus.

One significant difference is the manner in which the new evangelical scholar is arguing – in sharp contrast to his nonevangelical counterpart of the 20th century. They are not ideologically committed to the 13th century (Hoffmeier, Hawkins, Kitchen, Longman, Hess, Millard, etc.) nor are they confused over what counts as evidence. Hawkins establishes himself as a staunch conservative, believing both in the inspiration and historicity of scripture. While he uses evidence, he does not adjudicate the testimony of scripture worthy or unworthy over against archaeological data. This move was guaranteed in the past by 13th century proponents but no more. Thus, when the 15th century guys respond, there should be no reliance upon non-applicable taxonomies or rhetoric, “liberal, Wellhausian, etc.” but simply a response that corrects a textual reading, if one is warranted.

A brief example might make the point. contrast the quote at the beginning of this post with the conclusions of Ralph Hawkins.

Hawkins claims that when one reconstructs the numbers given in the biblical account they do not add up to the 1 Kings 6:1 number (480)

o Num 32:13 – 40 year period of wandering

o Josh 14:10 – 5 years of battle behind Joshua

o Judges – 470 years

Hawkins reaches an aggregate total of 515 years. Block comes up with 593 years and Kitchen with 633 years. Hawkins argues that 40 years appears in the bible as both demonstrating a “limited period of time” and “the length of a generation.” He further argues that the book of Kings uses 480 in an interesting manner.

Exodus – - 480 yrs – -TEMPLE – - 480 yrs – - Return from Exile

Thus, according to Hawkins, the biblical writer, wishing to highlight the centrality of the Temple in his history, constructs 12 generations of 40 years before and after the construction. I am not suggesting that Hawkins has won the day but what he has equally not done is suggest something less than a historical reality for the biblical text. He has simply spoke to the intent of the author.

It will be interesting to see how this debate unfolds in the near future. Unlike the earlier discussion, both sides are ideologically committed to the biblical text as the inspired word of God, thus, neither side submits that archeology trumps textual testimony. Like the earlier discussion (as in all discussion of such a nature), both sides think they are right. It will be interesting to see how the 15th century proponents conduct their side of the debate. One wonders if they will deal with these new textual opinions with regard to both interpreter and the genuine difficulties of the text or perhaps parse the “opponents” off as faithful peddlers of a liberal (i.e. unfaithful) position? Furthermore, it will be interesting to see a robust discussion from a 13th century exodus perspective that matches the “faith-commitment” seriousness of the current conservative contingency devoted to the 15th century.

A few scholars have already gotten the discussion moving quite aggressively in the last couple of issues of JETS. For the 13th century discussion see the articles by Ralph Hawkins (PROPOSITIONS FOR EVANGELICAL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE-DATE EXODUS-CONQUEST: BIBLICAL DATA AND THE ROYAL SCARABS FROM MT. EBAL) and James Hoffmeier (WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL DATE FOR THE EXODUS? A RESPONSE TO BRYANT WOOD). See the 15th centruy proponents’ discussions led by Bryant Wood (THE BIBLICAL DATE FOR THE EXODUS IS 1446 BC: A RESPONSE TO JAMES HOFFMEIER) and his colleague Roger Young (THE RISE AND FALL OF THE 13TH-CENTURY EXODUS-CONQUEST THEORY).

Curious to get your input.

SoCal Theologica: Musings from the West Coast » Date of Exodus

Exodus at Magnolia Avenue

Evangelicals and the Current Discussion concerning the Date of the Exodus