OK, circa. 1250 would put you in good company... ie. it is the consensus view of scholarship. While I reject a mass exodus and any supernatural elements, I have no strong objections to a thirteenth-century BCE dating for the escape of some slaves from Egypt who later joined with disenfranchised peoples in Canaan to form the entity now known as 'Israel' by the time of Merneptah.I want to say 1250, but I'd have to go back and watch that section again.
He's not... he rejects the numbers as later embellishments to the story by the writers of E and P.Yes. Why is he even trying to find a way to make the numbers work?
Yes, he is.Is he Jewish?
Neither does Friedman... he sees J and E as competing (ie. contradictory) histories of the southern and northern kingdoms respectively brought together when refugees from conquered Israel fled south to Judah. He then views P as an alternative (ie. contradictory) history to this and D as an alternative (ie. contradictory) history to P --- he also lets the contradictions stand without attempting to harmonize them. There isn't anyone in contemporary mainstream academia who would take a different approach... harmonization is a theologically-driven agenda that takes place outside of and often in opposition to critical scholarship.Everyone isn't like you in that you find something contradictory and then your work is done. You don't try to do anything else with it.
Yes... though he may have given me a D (pun very much intended) for challenging the Documentary Hypothesis!He's entertaining. I bet his students like him.
He needs a little spray to hold his hair in place. It was a little distracting from his presentation.