I noticed something recently in my search to accurately 'date' the documents we have been reading. I am currently in the process of investigating chronological accuracy regarding the Enochian texts; throughout this process I have come across many of the same words phrases, and definitive verbiage... "theorize", "assume", "probably", "most likely", "probable",
I wanted to share briefly how scholars have classified doctrinal Biblical History before I get into how scholars have classified extra-Biblical history, like many of the documents found near the Dead Sea.
I encourage the reader to seek The Spirit for guidance before continuing any further, ask our Teacher to be present as you allow this information into your heart through the windows of your spirit- your eyes.
I do not claim to be a historian, philosopher, archaeologist, linguist, scholar, or geologist. I can, however, declare proudly with complete confidence; I am a child of The One Most High God of Heaven and earth. The Father, Yahuah, loves me so much that He sent His Son, Yahusha, to die for me. Furthermore, I am so loved by The Creator; I was given His Holy Spirit to guide me in Righteousness. His presence has become evermore palpable in my life as I draw nearer to Him and seek Him daily. His spirit of discernment guides me as I study and research that which He places before my eyes.
The good news for you is this: I am not alone. Yahusha shed His innocent blood for the sake of all, to defeat the sting of death: eternal suffering from sin. The Holy Spirit resides in all of Yahuah's children, this is "The Helper" Yahusha sent to help us through this life of trials that He has already overcome.
Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
As I proceed below, I pray that you look at this through a focused lens. We are told who to listen to, but not always are we told why to listen to them; ponder this as you proceed. Do you believe The Bible? Do you believe "The majority of scholars"? Can you believe both?
"Historian Graham Davies has criticized minimalist scholars for relying too heavily on archaeology, stating "a historian cannot simply ignore the textual evidence (both biblical and non-biblical) that is relevant to an issue, and in this case the textual evidence purports, at least, to give a different view from that which archaeologists now tend to favor (or most of them, anyway)."
..Graham Davies is emphasizing here the importance of analyzing every bit of evidence when declaring a conclusion..
"Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as accurate history for a number of reasons. The Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41)"
..Wikipedia claims here that the mainstream does not accept the Bible as inerrant..
"Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say that while archaeology has found traces left by small bands of hunter-gatherers in the Sinai, there is no evidence at all for the large body of people described in the Exodus story: "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable . Repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence"
..Here, Finkelstein and Silberman state there is no evidence at all that 603,550 (at minimum) Israelites traveled through the desert; leading to an echoing conclusion: The Bible is inaccurate. While I don't claim to be an archaeologist, I can easily understand the difficulty of finding any accurate traces of people from 4687 years ago (According to the Bible) set aside the fact we are referring to a geographical location that is literally a sea of sand..
"Most scholars who accept a historical core of the exodus date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of Ramses II, with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of Ramses III. Scholarly estimates for how many people could have been involved in such an exodus range from a few hundred to a few thousand people. The numbers of people involved in the Exodus as given in the Bible are fanciful, as the Sinai Desert could never have supported the 603,550 Israelites mentioned in Numbers 1:46"
..Avraham Faust, William Dever insert here: due to the impossibility of hundreds of thousands of people surviving in an extremely harsh landscape for any period of time- The Biblical account must be wrong. I am not a nutritionist, but I am a Believer in Yahuah's power- I've experienced this power firsthand. When The Bible states clearly how the Israelites survived in the desert, I believe that the power of The one and only God sustained His chosen people in exactly the detailed ways His chosen Prophet recounted them..
"The story may, therefore, have originated a few centuries earlier, perhaps in the 9th or 10th BCE, and there are signs that it took different forms in Israel, in the Transjordan region, and in the southern Kingdom of Judah before being unified in the Persian era. The Exodus narrative was most likely further altered and expanded under the influence of the return from the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BCE."
..Stephen C. Russell submits that The Biblical account of The Exodus was piecemealed together during multiple different centuries and, by implication, not the inspired Word of God written through His prophet Moses..
"In addition, there is widespread agreement that the revelation of the law in Deuteronomy was originally separate from the Exodus: the original version of Deuteronomy is generally dated to the 7th century BCE. The contents of the books of Leviticus and Numbers are late additions to the narrative by priestly sources."
According to Wikipedia:
""Paleography is the study of historic writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical manuscripts, including the analysis of historic handwriting. It is concerned with the forms and processes of writing; not the textual content of documents. Included in the discipline is the practice of deciphering, reading, and dating manuscripts, and the cultural context of writing, including the methods with which writing and books were produced, and the history of sciptoria.
It is important for understanding, authenticating, and dating historic texts. However, it generally cannot be used to pinpoint dates with high precision.
Knowledge of writing materials is also essential to the study of handwriting and to the identification of the periods in which a document or manuscript may have been produced. An important goal may be to assign the text a date and a place of origin: this is why the paleographer must take into account the style and formation of the manuscript and the handwriting used in it.
William M Schniedewind..stated that "The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity".""