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...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.

With this archaeological and topographical information about Hebua in mind, the meaning of Exodus is now clear.

The way to the coastal highway had an insurmountable barrier, the fortress Tjaru..."I understand that the Bible's "internal chronology" suggests the Exodus was the Hyksos expulsion of circa 1540 B. They most likely fled along "the way of Horus" (biblical "way to the land of the Philistines") to Sharuhen near Gaza, the Egyptian army later pursued and defeated them at this location (Tell el Ajjul).

It is the Late Iron Age II Period, the 7th-6th centuries B. Some scholars have suggested on this archaeological basis that the Exodus account was composed towards "the end of the Late Iron Age II Period," the author and his audience being apparently _unaware_ that the cities in existence at this time were _not_ in existence (or if in existence, they were unoccupied) within the time frame the anonymous author cast the Exodus story in. For the reasons why "Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real.

I understand that Genesis-2 Kings was composed in 560 B. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time.

There were _no_ Philistines in Canaan to harass Israel in a 1512 or 1446 B. Consequently, this massive military facility would have had troops stationed continuously throughout the New Kingdom.

Therefore, it is most unlikely the Israelites would have taken this way out of Egypt...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.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.Only then were most of the identified sites occupied; there is little or no evidence of their occupation during either the Iron I or early Iron II Age"My experience in the field of Near Eastern archaeology has led me to the general conclusion that the biblical stories about Transjordanian places and events best fit into the Iron II period and later.