50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically

[bhsmte]

I already did that. Were you sleeping that day?

You may have induced that sleep.

 

[VirOptimus]

I did provide evidence why it remains possible. Those that denied it ever happened however, have not nor addressed my reasoning.

There isnt much to adress. Moreover, you have your view based on religion, not on scientific evidence so there is no point in arguing with you as rational arguments will be ignored by you.

 

[Papias]

Egyptian records will not report slaves leaving after Egyptian failure since it is monumental evidence. Go look for monuments to American failure and you won't find it, but it is common to rephrase something in your favour. Look at the Battle of Kadesh which both Ramesses II and Muwatili II claimed as victories.

I'm not expecting monuments - but at least some mention, among the millions of records the Egyptians left. After all, Exodus states the Jews numbers around 2 million (600k adult men ~ about 2 million total). The whole population of Egypt was only about 3 million at the time. And their departure left no discernible record? No one wrote it down? And that whole wilderness thing.......

To say that a smaller scale exodus "didn't happen" is really not provable. .....Those things might be exaggerations or Mythology, but no less true for that.

As to numbers of soldiers, Herodotus and all ancient writers usually give astronomical numbers which we moderns tone down. For instance Xerxes is supposed to have marched a millions of men to Greece.

....Never said it did happen, merely said it remains a possibility and cannot be completely excluded, so the burden of proof shifts to those making the definite statement.

Yes, exaggerations and myth are exactly "less true". I think the biggest issue here is that you are trying to claim the exodus is true, but when confronted with the evidence, change your claim to say that you are only arguing for a different "kernal of truth", which you won't specify, all the while trying to shift the burden of proof. Your posts are a textbook example of two fallacies:

1. "having your cake". So what is your actual claim? Please state it, since it doesn't appear to be that the exodus happened as recorded in the Pentateuch. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/101/Having-Your-Cake
2. Burden of Proof. It is up to you to prove your claim (see 1, above). Not to throw it out there and expect others to disprove it. My claim is clear - that the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.

Speaking of that, it looks like we agree that "the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.", right?

As to the Hyksos being culturally similar to Middle Bronze Age Canaan:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-from-canaan/5CC09503E9BBC2E657B5312C292CB5B6
There are many others, but it would be tedious to find and deluge you with journal articles, especcially as it seems you have already made up your mind.

Um, it was never in dispute that the Hyksos were from the Eastern Mediterranean. The article doesn't support the idea that they were the israelites, historians agree that they weren't the Israelites, and I'm trying to get a clear statement from you as to whether or not you are claiming they are the Israelites (see Having your Cake).

I am not a Biblical literist.

To quote Lewis: .....

Nor am I. I like how Lewis is approaching this. I think we agree on this - though what exactly do you mean by "true" for Exodus?

Because it is clear from the evidence that the Exodus didn't happen (and includes a lot of stuff that only existed around 600 BC), it seems clear that the story was made up around the 600s BC. As such, I see it as a symbolically true description of God choosing and saving his people - not as literal history.

As such, it is irrelevant if there were a small number of slaves that escaped. After all, I'm sure that at some point some slaves escaped Egypt. They didn't form the Israelite nation, and the Exodus story was clearly made up 1000 years after it was set in.

Sorry no. He started out as a rock musician ....; I myself have read papers based on points he raised.

I agree that he's not as much of a crackpot as, say, Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. Heck, even nutcase crackpots like Wyatt have done "digs" where he found pieces of "Noah's Ark".

However, the fact remains that he's not an expert, that his ideas are not seen as supported by evidence by those who know the evidence, and, most tellingly, that his primary way to publicize his ideas is to make money from producing movies and books aimed at the popular audience, containing things that disagree with the expert consensus. That there is enough to classify him as a crackpot. You can get the same things from other crackpots like Vermeer.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[lesliedellow]

But it illustrates the fact that just because a book uses historical fugures does not make it truthful or accurate.

No, but secular history does. Such as Josiah's attempt to intercept the Egyptian army, on its way to do battle with the Babylonians, at Carchemish, in the summer of 605BC.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not expecting monuments - but at least some mention, among the millions of records the Egyptians left. After all, Exodus states the Jews numbers around 2 million (600k adult men ~ about 2 million total). The whole population of Egypt was only about 3 million at the time. And their departure left no discernible record? No one wrote it down? And that whole wilderness thing.......

There are things that can be construed in that manner, as I mentioned. They just aren't explicit and are therefore dismissed by those who hold the exodus to be impossible.
However, we have very little papyrus left, so it is not unreasonable to have so little evidence. Whole Pharoahnic dynasties are only known from a few scraps of papyrus.

Yes, exaggerations and myth are exactly "less true". I think the biggest issue here is that you are trying to claim the exodus is true, but when confronted with the evidence, change your claim to say that you are only arguing for a different "kernal of truth", which you won't specify, all the while trying to shift the burden of proof. Your posts are a textbook example of two fallacies:

1. "having your cake". So what is your actual claim? Please state it, since it doesn't appear to be that the exodus happened as recorded in the Pentateuch. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/101/Having-Your-Cake
2. Burden of Proof. It is up to you to prove your claim (see 1, above). Not to throw it out there and expect others to disprove it. My claim is clear - that the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.

Speaking of that, it looks like we agree that "the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.", right?

This cake eating fallacy does not apply, since I have been clear and explicit in almost every post that I was arguing that the Exodus remains a possibility, not that it happened necessarily. I cannot help it if people read meaning or points into my posts which I did not place there.
I have shown how it remains a possibility through various ways of interpreting our extant texts and Archaeologic findings, so I have supported my side. It is those that disagree which have not. I have not seen much in the way of dispute of my points, so as far as I am concerned, the burden no lies with those that deny the exodus entirely in this thread.

The Exodus if it occurred, probably would not have happened exactly like the Pentateuchal narrative, no.
Significant parts of it might be plausible in such a construct though.

Um, it was never in dispute that the Hyksos were from the Eastern Mediterranean. The article doesn't support the idea that they were the israelites, historians agree that they weren't the Israelites, and I'm trying to get a clear statement from you as to whether or not you are claiming they are the Israelites (see Having your Cake).

Again, never said the Hyksos were Israelites, merely that they had a cultural affinity to Canaanites, which thus raises the chances of a movement of people occuring from one to the other. You are again assuming I said something that I never did nor implied.

However: The name Hyksos is derived from Manetho, who says that they were driven out of Egypt and settled in Canaan where they founded Jerusalem. He is then quoted by Flavius Josephus in his Aegyptiaca, where Josephus equates them to the Israelites.
Similarly Manetho tells a tale of a figure Osarseph that led a revolt of slaves and lepers and then led them to Canaan. Although in Manetho's narrative Osarseph was a priest of Heliopolis, Josephus again equated this to Moses.
Now Manetho is a hellenistic Egyptian writer whose works are only available in fragments, but this is intruiging if nothing else and raises the probability significantly of such events as he had no bias for Judaeo-Christianity.

Nor am I. I like how Lewis is approaching this. I think we agree on this - though what exactly do you mean by "true" for Exodus?

Because it is clear from the evidence that the Exodus didn't happen (and includes a lot of stuff that only existed around 600 BC), it seems clear that the story was made up around the 600s BC. As such, I see it as a symbolically true description of God choosing and saving his people - not as literal history.

As such, it is irrelevant if there were a small number of slaves that escaped. After all, I'm sure that at some point some slaves escaped Egypt. They didn't form the Israelite nation, and the Exodus story was clearly made up 1000 years after it was set in.

I think the exodus may be a retelling in a legendary sense of a real event, like King Arthur. I do think that if it did happen, that its participants played a part in Israel - most likely the tribes of Ephraim, Mannasseh and Benjamin may be descended from them. But this would all be speculation and fits the Christian history forum better than this thread which I have tried to stick to Archeaologic evidence.

I agree that he's not as much of a crackpot as, say, Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. Heck, even nutcase crackpots like Wyatt have done "digs" where he found pieces of "Noah's Ark".

However, the fact remains that he's not an expert, that his ideas are not seen as supported by evidence by those who know the evidence, and, most tellingly, that his primary way to publicize his ideas is to make money from producing movies and books aimed at the popular audience, containing things that disagree with the expert consensus. That there is enough to classify him as a crackpot. You can get the same things from other crackpots like Vermeer.

In Christ-

Papias

He is an expert. He is a trained and degreed Egyptologist. He is a former director of the Eastern desert survey. His chronologic theories are published in peer-reviewed Egyptology journals.

Just because you disagree with his findings, it does not make him a crackpot. He did publicise his findings, but who wouldn't if they found something interesting. This is similar to how Heinrich Schliemann was vilified or the translators of Linear B. Just because someone popularises what he found, it does not diminish the validity or not of his findings.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There isnt much to adress. Moreover, you have your view based on religion, not on scientific evidence so there is no point in arguing with you as rational arguments will be ignored by you.

Nope, based on rational, historical and archeaologic evidence conforming to historical-critical method, which you and others have failed to address and merely dismiss because of presumed bias. As far as I am concerned, my argument stands unopposed.

I would quote scripture on removing motes and beams from eyes, but that would merely reinforce an erroneous judgement.

 

[VirOptimus]

Nope, based on rational, historical and archeaologic evidence conforming to historical-critical method, which you and others have failed to address and merely dismiss because of presumed bias. As far as I am concerned, my argument stands unopposed.

I would quote scripture on removing motes and beams from eyes, but that would merely reinforce an erroneous judgement.

As I have said, wishing does not make it so.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As I have said, wishing does not make it so.

I agree.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree.

You can lead a horse to water...

So, when will you drink?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So, when will you drink?

I have drunk deep draughts my friend. But when someone does not even offer any... merely saying my proffered cup is empty without investigating its contents.

 

[Armoured]

Nope, based on rational, historical and archeaologic evidence conforming to historical-critical method,

Sorry, where was this? post number?

 

[VirOptimus]

I have drunk deep draughts my friend. But when someone does not even offer any... merely saying my proffered cup is empty without investigating its contents.

No you havent.

And I'm certainly not your friend.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sorry, where was this? post number?

Just to recap, I am not saying the Exodus necessarily happened, but that it can't be completely excluded based on current knowledge.
Sorry, my system doesn't display post numbers. But the following:

While we cannot show the Bible to be accurate in all instances, it has been proven correct in the past:

1. Pilate's title - The bible records his title as Prefect, while Tacitus called him a procurator. For centuries historians sided with Tacitus and used this as an example of another biblical innaccuracy. Then a decree of Pilate was discovered in Caesarea, the Pilate Stone, bearing the Biblical title.
With this information in hand, historians went back and realised that during the reorganisation of Syria after the death of Herod Aggripa in 44 AD, the titlutature of most of these provinces became procurator, so Tacitus was obviously making an anachronistic error.

2. Belshazzer - Again thought non-historical since the king of Babylon was Nabonidus during Cyrus's conquest and not Belshazzer. Then they discovered the Nabonidus cylinder which mentioned him placing Babylon under his son Belshazzer as regent. Incidentally this fit the Biblical narrative nicely as Belshazzer offers Daniel the third place in the Kingdom. This was inexplicable until we realise Belshazzer himself is still under his father.

3. The Hittites - These people, a major civilisation of history, were completely forgotten until the 19th century except for the Biblical narrative which here and there mentioned them. Many 18th century critics like Voltaire used it to show how inconsistent and ahistorical the bible was, until their cities and writings came to light in Anatolia and Syria.

There are others, but these are the most glaring examples, where the Bible was right and secular history very much wrong. Luckily Historians are willing to take correction.

Now there are narratives which are probably mostly true, but for which we have little evidence like the court records of Israel. Few historians doubt these.
Then there are narratives that are often doubted like the Exodus, but as this is closely linked to the traditional Egyptian timeline, which is based almost solely on the identification of Shisaq with Shesonq I, this can be disputed. If alternate timelines are adopted like Rohl's alternate one, then it becomes far more plausible and it solves certain historical problems like the Greek Dark Age, with figures that can be corroborated to Saul, David and Ishbaal. Rohl's alternate chronology has its own problems, but they are not that much worse than those that the traditional chronology create, so the jury is very much still out.

Sufficed to say, we have seen areas where the Biblical narrative was ultimately supported by Archaeology and I think as time progresses, these will only increase. For after the 19th century, the pendulum in Academia swung firmly against trusting the Biblical narrative and this obviously swung too far. While much of the narrative will likely never be proven, nor can be, there is quite a lot of legitimate history there that secularists merely dispute because it is biblical and on little other grounds. For even stories of miracles and such does not call a historical text into question as a source, for even campaigns of Marcus Aurelius or Crusade narratives, frequently mention these and are not automatically discarded as a result.
While the miraculous in the Bible will likely always remain an article of faith, as a historical source it is a fairly good one, in my opinion. There are mythopoeic elements, but this is true of any contemporary historian or text, from Ramesses's friezes to Greco-Roman historians to Cuneiform tablets.

Egyptian sources actually aren't that good. They are far from perfect.

We have no complete Egyptian narratives, but one painstakingly constructed from various decrees and monumental works of various Pharoahs until the Greek historians pick up the slack.
The Egyptians based their years on the reign years of the Pharoahs, so it is difficult to piece together how pharoahs fit together and often how long their reigns are. For instance Amenophis III's reign length is in doubt and whether or not it was coterminous with the first stated years of his son's.

As most everyday egyptian writings were done on perishable papyrus, we have to build a narrative based on monuments. While this is pretty good, it is by no means exhaustive. Think of creating a narrative of US history based on the monuments of the Washington Mall, it will have significant lacunae. This is especcially true of negative events as they usually are not commemorated in stone, something the ancients seldom if ever do. So the lack of Egyptian references is not as big a problem as it first appears.

It also depends on which Chronology one follows. If we follow the traditional Egyptian one created by 19th century Egyptology, then yes there is paltry evidence of an Exodus.
If we follow Rohl's new Chronology, then it becomes far more plausible.
Both of these have significant issues with their timelines, so the truth perhaps lies somewhere else entirely and there are other proposed chronologies as well, but not as popular as these two at the moment.

Which Chrononology you use for the Exodus matters a great deal.

If we use Rohl's new Chronology, it shifts the assumed date for the Exodus from the 18th dynasty to the 13th. This correlates with the Hyksos more or less.
If you look at the Archaeological record for Avaris and the delta at this time, a large Semitic population was present which shows clear cultural similarities to Middle Bronze Age Canaan (MBIIA population).
Toward the end of the period, we also see widespread city destruction in Canaan, fitting an Exodus narrative as we see the population leave Egypt ('driven out' in egyptian sources) and then a similar population present in Canaan.

It can easily be construed as a sojourn in Egypt, Exodus and conquest narrative or at least the germ of such a national epic.

I very much agree. Rohl is controversial as I stated in my initial post. But the Chronology is by no means fixed. The Traditional chronology has many problems itself with its dating and contradictions in reigns of Pharoahs. The very facts it is based upon is a connection between Shisaq and Shesonq which has never been shown beyond a presumed etymological similarity and a dubious rising of Sirius. If the first is wrong then the astronomical data can point to a whole different chronology. Middle Eastern Chronology is very much still in flux, for example based on changes in Egyptian Chronology, the fall of Nineveh has been redated 5 times in the last 150 years.

To say we can finally put to rest the Exodus is wishful thinking. While the Bible is not a history book, it is as good an historical source for the period as any of our other extent texts. They all need a lot of corroboration.

Egyptian records will not report slaves leaving after Egyptian failure since it is monumental evidence. Go look for monuments to American failure and you won't find it, but it is common to rephrase something in your favour. Look at the Battle of Kadesh which both Ramesses II and Muwatili II claimed as victories.

While you don't have the same massive population evidence in Sinai as we would expect from the Biblical narrative, we do have evidence of limited movement of peoples throughout all these periods and ancient texts always exaggerate numbers. To say that a smaller scale exodus "didn't happen" is really not provable.
We do however see the first references to YHWH in Sinai before becoming the National God of Israel, so even if you disbelieve the Exodus, then YHWH still had to have moved from the Sinai into Canaan at some point. Based thereon and as there is an exodus narrative of ancient pedigree, I see no reason to doubt a kernel of truth therein.

As to the Hyksos being culturally similar to Middle Bronze Age Canaan:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-from-canaan/5CC09503E9BBC2E657B5312C292CB5B6
There are many others, but it would be tedious to find and deluge you with journal articles, especcially as it seems you have already made up your mind.


I am not a Biblical literist.

To quote Lewis:
"Child, if you will, it is mythology. It is but truth, not fact: an image, not the very real. But then it is My mythology. The words of Wisdom are also myth and metaphor: but since they do not know themselves for what they are, in them the hidden myth is master, here it should be servant: and it is but of man's inventing. This is My inventing, this is the veil under which I have chosen to appear even from the first until now. For this end I made your senses and for this end your imagination, that you might see My face and live. What would you have? Have you not heard among the pagans the story of Semele? Or was there any age in any land when men did not know that corn and wine were the blood and body of a dying and yet living God?"

Those things might be exaggerations or Mythology, but no less true for that.

As to numbers of soldiers, Herodotus and all ancient writers usually give astronomical numbers which we moderns tone down. For instance Xerxes is supposed to have marched a millions of men to Greece.




Never said it did happen, merely said it remains a possibility and cannot be completely excluded, so the burden of proof shifts to those making the definite statement.


Sorry no. He started out as a rock musician during which he studied Egyptology. He got his degree from the University of London and went on to excavate at Kadesh, Sinai and Egypt, going so far as being the director of the Eastern Desert Survey in Egypt. He is affiliated to the London Institute of Archaeology, for which he worked for many years.
While it is true that he has branched into other more controversial topics of late and restarted his rockband based on his new notoriety, his credentials in Egyptology are quite good and his New Chronology is based on Egyptian sources and was published in peer-reviewed journals (it was originally his doctoral theses which his new found popularity has so far prohibited him from completing). Rohl remains a trained Egyptologist in good standing in that field and his chronology revisions are debated and taken seriously in Egyptology; I myself have read papers based on points he raised.

I can and did. But let me summarise as you seem to be one of those that don't read more posts than the one you reply to or follow arguments from one to the next:

1: There is an ancient tradition of an Israelite exodus.
2: YHWH is first mentioned amongst the Shasu of YHW in the Sinai, before reappearing as the national God of Israel, so his worship had to have moved frim the Sinai to Canaan at some point.
3: Egyptian and near Eastern timelines have not been definitively established and often change - the Fall of Nineveh has been redated 5 times for instance in a 150 years.
4: Egyptian records aren't based on day to day papyrus mostly, but on monuments - which by nature would not describe negative events. The history therefore has large lacunae.
5: Movements of peoples between Egypt (especcially the delta) and Canaan was common - for instance the Hyksos or later Jewish settlement at Elephantine or the forward settlements established by Thutmose I or Ramesses III.
6: Semitic populations are present in Egypt in middle and new Kingdom times as can be attested through syncretic worship of Set/Baal and adoption of West Semitic gods like Resheph.
7: There is cultural affinity between Canaan IIB culture and the Hyksos.
8: Israelite religion shows possible Egyptian influence such as Psalm 104, the name Moses, golden calf worship etc.
9: History and Archaeology has been proven wrong in the past when they stated something definitely did not occur such as the Hittites, Trojan War, Teutoburger Wald battle, Belshazzer etc. by later evidence that emerged.
10: Manetho's 30 dynasty scheme is in the process of revision with dynasties being run concurrently and reassessments of reign times being made.
11: The exodus need not follow the exact route nor consist of the same numbers as the Bible states as all historical texts of the period is prone to exaggeration.

I could continue, but I think you get the point and I think it likely futile as it seems people here aren't interested in historical dialogue or criticism, but fighting some peripheral societal battle irrespective of the history involved.
Sufficed to say, while I cannot prove an event as being the exodus nor fit the narrative in a specific place, that something similar occured is not improbable.

There are things that can be construed in that manner, as I mentioned. They just aren't explicit and are therefore dismissed by those who hold the exodus to be impossible.
However, we have very little papyrus left, so it is not unreasonable to have so little evidence. Whole Pharoahnic dynasties are only known from a few scraps of papyrus.



This cake eating fallacy does not apply, since I have been clear and explicit in almost every post that I was arguing that the Exodus remains a possibility, not that it happened necessarily. I cannot help it if people read meaning or points into my posts which I did not place there.
I have shown how it remains a possibility through various ways of interpreting our extant texts and Archaeologic findings, so I have supported my side. It is those that disagree which have not. I have not seen much in the way of dispute of my points, so as far as I am concerned, the burden now lies with those that deny the exodus entirely in this thread.

The Exodus if it occurred, probably would not have happened exactly like the Pentateuchal narrative, no.
Significant parts of it might be plausible in such a construct though.


Again, never said the Hyksos were Israelites, merely that they had a cultural affinity to Canaanites, which thus raises the chances of a movement of people occuring from one to the other. You are again assuming I said something that I never did nor implied.

However: The name Hyksos is derived from Manetho, who says that they were driven out of Egypt and settled in Canaan where they founded Jerusalem. He is then quoted by Flavius Josephus in his Aegyptiaca, where Josephus equates them to the Israelites.
Similarly Manetho tells a tale of a figure Osarseph that led a revolt of slaves and lepers and then led them to Canaan. Although in Manetho's narrative Osarseph was a priest of Heliopolis, Josephus again equated this to Moses.
Now Manetho is a hellenistic Egyptian writer whose works are only available in fragments, but this is intruiging if nothing else and raises the probability significantly of such events as he had no bias for Judaeo-Christianity.




I think the exodus may be a retelling in a legendary sense of a real event, like King Arthur. I do think that if it did happen, that its participants played a part in Israel - most likely the tribes of Ephraim, Mannasseh and Benjamin may be descended from them. But this would all be speculation and fits the Christian history forum better than this thread which I have tried to stick to Archeaologic evidence.




He is an expert. He is a trained and degreed Egyptologist. He is a former director of the Eastern desert survey. His chronologic theories are published in peer-reviewed Egyptology journals.

Just because you disagree with his findings, it does not make him a crackpot. He did publicise his findings, but who wouldn't if they found something interesting. This is similar to how Heinrich Schliemann was vilified or the translators of Linear B. Just because someone popularises what he found, it does not diminish the validity or not of his findings.

 

[Papias]

I wrote:

I'm not expecting monuments - but at least some mention, among the millions of records the Egyptians left. After all, Exodus states the Jews numbers around 2 million (600k adult men ~ about 2 million total). The whole population of Egypt was only about 3 million at the time. And their departure left no discernible record? No one wrote it down? And that whole wilderness thing.......

There are things that can be construed in that manner, as I mentioned. They just aren't explicit and are therefore dismissed by those who hold the exodus to be impossible.
However, we have very little papyrus left, so it is not unreasonable to have so little evidence. ....

No - I asked about the massive trail 2,000,000 people would leave in the desert. This isn't about papyrus.

This cake eating fallacy does not apply, since I have been clear and explicit in almost every post that I was arguing that the Exodus remains a possibility, not that it happened necessarily. I cannot help it if people read meaning or points into my posts which I did not place there.

Yes, it does, because you continue to be evasive about what you actually are proposing. What are you explicitly claiming?

The cake issue shows in how you make one comment, then another vague comment in contradiction to it. Some examples just from your last post:

The Exodus if it occurred, probably would not have happened exactly like the Pentateuchal narrative, no.

vs

Significant parts of it might be plausible in such a construct though.

What exactly do you mean by "significant parts". 500,000 people? Flying frogs? 10 footsteps into the desert by 50 escaped slaves? What exactly are you claiming?

Again, never said the Hyksos were Israelites,...

vs.

However: The name Hyksos is ......where Josephus equates them to the Israelites.
Similarly Manetho tells a ......Josephus again equated this to Moses.

Which is it? First you agree that the Hyksos aren't the Israelites, and then you mention two things to say that they are indeed the israelites.

I don't think I've ever seen a person fight themself so clearly. This is a textbook case of the "Having your Cake" fallacy.

I have not seen much in the way of dispute of my points, so as far as I am concerned, the burden no lies with those that deny the exodus entirely in this thread.

Because you pull your points like Lucy and the football. What exactly is your claim? How many people are you saying composed the Israelites in the Exodus? 1,000,000? What exactly are you saying they did? Are they or are they not the Hyksos?

The burden of proof lies with you to support your claim. If you still refuse to make a claim, then at least admit it.

At least you have agreed that "the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.". Which is at least something. ("The Exodus if it occurred, probably would not have happened exactly like the Pentateuchal narrative, no."), though "exactly" like sounds like some pretty weasely wording. I mean, based on that, you could claim it all happened, but that there were only 590,000 men in the army instead of 603,550.

The "about 600,000" from the book of Exodus could be argued to be not "600,000", but that argument doesn't hold after the number is repeated in a different book (Numbers), and is broken down by tribe, showing that it's not a symbolic number. Here's Numbers, chapter 1:

The people registered their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, 19 as the Lord commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:
20 From the descendants of Reuben the firstborn son of Israel:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 21 The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.
22 From the descendants of Simeon:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were counted and listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 23 The number from the tribe of Simeon was 59,300.
24 From the descendants of Gad:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 25 The number from the tribe of Gad was 45,650.
26 From the descendants of Judah:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 27 The number from the tribe of Judah was 74,600.
28 From the descendants of Issachar:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 29 The number from the tribe of Issachar was 54,400.
30 From the descendants of Zebulun:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 31 The number from the tribe of Zebulun was 57,400.
32 From the sons of Joseph:
From the descendants of Ephraim:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 33 The number from the tribe of Ephraim was 40,500.
34 From the descendants of Manasseh:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 35 The number from the tribe of Manasseh was 32,200.
36 From the descendants of Benjamin:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 37 The number from the tribe of Benjamin was 35,400.
38 From the descendants of Dan:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 39 The number from the tribe of Dan was 62,700.
40 From the descendants of Asher:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 41 The number from the tribe of Asher was 41,500.
42 From the descendants of Naphtali:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 43 The number from the tribe of Naphtali was 53,400.
44 These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. 45 All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel’s army were counted according to their families. 46 The total number was 603,550.​

Just because you disagree with his findings, it does not make him a crackpot.

I never said that my opinion of his ideas meant anything (stop putting words in my mouth). I'm not an expert, after all.

It is the experts who point out his lack of reasonableness. The experts have said that his claims don't stand up to an examination of the evidence (formal language), and in less formal language, one called his revisionist history "100% nonsense".

Just because someone popularises what he found, it does not diminish the validity or not of his findings.

Yes, it does, if it isn't accepted by the community of experts. It shows that his claims don't stand up to the examination of the evidence in the community of experts, and he has to peddle it to those ignorant of the actual evidence. He's made millions this way. Does he have some of your money?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wrote:




No - I asked about the massive trail 2,000,000 people would leave in the desert. This isn't about papyrus.

Nope, you asked for a mention amongst the records the Egyptians left us. The only place to expect that would be in Papyrus as I explained earlier. Besides, as I said, the numbers are definately exaggerated as is all history from the ancients, even the most reliable ones like Thucydides.
So I would need to show significantly fewer Semitic peoples moving about (for which there is evidence and being proto-Israelites they need not yet bear the exact names), nor is it reasonable to expect it absolutely present in the Egyptian records.

Yes, it does, because you continue to be evasive about what you actually are proposing. What are you explicitly claiming?

The cake issue shows in how you make one comment, then another vague comment in contradiction to it. Some examples just from your last post:



vs


What exactly do you mean by "significant parts". 500,000 people? Flying frogs? 10 footsteps into the desert by 50 escaped slaves? What exactly are you claiming?




vs.



Which is it? First you agree that the Hyksos aren't the Israelites, and then you mention two things to say that they are indeed the israelites.

I don't think I've ever seen a person fight themself so clearly. This is a textbook case of the "Having your Cake" fallacy.

Please stop impuning my honour and actually READ what I write.
As I said repeatedly, an Exodus cannot be completely excluded from current knowledge. This does not mean the entire pentateuchal narrative, nor the same numbers, as I said repeatedly. I earlier mentioned an Analogy to King Arthur: lots of miraculous stuff, but probably a grain of truth. There likely was a figure Arthur which was probably not a king or a nickname, who slowed the Anglo-Saxon advance and battles like Mons Badonicus occurred and figures like Derfl Gadarn existed.
Now to the Exodus: It remains a possibility that runaway slaves fled Egypt under a religious leader, fewer in number than the Pentateuch narrative, adopted YHWH in Midian, and became a component of one or more of the Israelite tribes. The narrative of Manetho as well as the documented shift of YHWH from Sinai to Canaan, along with the very existence of a legendary narrative to this effect, suggests this. Events like the Golden Calf support it, via the Criterion of Embarrassment and the implied Egyptian influence on the runaways. There are other points I could raise, but I fear I would be wasting my time. Again though, I am NOT SAYING IT DID HAPPEN, but that it may have and such a view can also be archaeologically supported.

Because you pull your points like Lucy and the football. What exactly is your claim? How many people are you saying composed the Israelites in the Exodus? 1,000,000? What exactly are you saying they did? Are they or are they not the Hyksos?

The burden of proof lies with you to support your claim. If you still refuse to make a claim, then at least admit it.

At least you have agreed that "the Exodus as recorded in the pentateuch didn't happen.". Which is at least something. ("The Exodus if it occurred, probably would not have happened exactly like the Pentateuchal narrative, no."), though "exactly" like sounds like some pretty weasely wording. I mean, based on that, you could claim it all happened, but that there were only 590,000 men in the army instead of 603,550.

The "about 600,000" from the book of Exodus could be argued to be not "600,000", but that argument doesn't hold after the number is repeated in a different book (Numbers), and is broken down by tribe, showing that it's not a symbolic number. Here's Numbers, chapter 1:

The people registered their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, 19 as the Lord commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:
20 From the descendants of Reuben the firstborn son of Israel:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 21 The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.
22 From the descendants of Simeon:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were counted and listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. 23 The number from the tribe of Simeon was 59,300.
24 From the descendants of Gad:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 25 The number from the tribe of Gad was 45,650.
26 From the descendants of Judah:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 27 The number from the tribe of Judah was 74,600.
28 From the descendants of Issachar:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 29 The number from the tribe of Issachar was 54,400.
30 From the descendants of Zebulun:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 31 The number from the tribe of Zebulun was 57,400.
32 From the sons of Joseph:
From the descendants of Ephraim:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 33 The number from the tribe of Ephraim was 40,500.
34 From the descendants of Manasseh:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 35 The number from the tribe of Manasseh was 32,200.
36 From the descendants of Benjamin:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 37 The number from the tribe of Benjamin was 35,400.
38 From the descendants of Dan:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 39 The number from the tribe of Dan was 62,700.
40 From the descendants of Asher:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 41 The number from the tribe of Asher was 41,500.
42 From the descendants of Naphtali:
All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. 43 The number from the tribe of Naphtali was 53,400.
44 These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. 45 All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel’s army were counted according to their families. 46 The total number was 603,550.​

I never pulled points. I showed evidence from both sides as I am NOT ARGUING THE EXODUS OCCURRED, merely that it cannot be said it definitely did or did not based on current evidence, as there are plausible arguments either way, which both have significant flaws. Please stop arguing as if I said something I have never done.

I am becoming highly offended by your insistence that I am making some kind of fallacy based on your own delusional reading of what I wrote, when I am doing nothing of the sort. This does not allow you merely to dismiss what I am saying.

Your fallacy implies some disingenuousness on my part, which is not the case as I myself am not sure if the Exodus occurred or not. I really am not arguing for either case, just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as "the Exodus didn't happen" - as it seems is the fixed belief of most posters here, based on no more than their own opinion and not on any meaningful familiarity it seems with the facts.

I never said that my opinion of his ideas meant anything (stop putting words in my mouth). I'm not an expert, after all.

It is the experts who point out his lack of reasonableness. The experts have said that his claims don't stand up to an examination of the evidence (formal language), and in less formal language, one called his revisionist history "100% nonsense".



Yes, it does, if it isn't accepted by the community of experts. It shows that his claims don't stand up to the examination of the evidence in the community of experts, and he has to peddle it to those ignorant of the actual evidence. He's made millions this way. Does he have some of your money?

In Christ-

Papias

You are mistaken. The new Chronology was published in peer-reviewed Archaeological journals by a degreed Egyptologist based on Archaeological evidence. There are other Archaeologists besides Rohl who espouse this or similar chronological revisions.
Obviously this is a very fierce argument since people are coming along and saying that a lot of what you have studied is basically wrong. People circled the wagons on both sides and proceeded to throw barbs at each other. You are merely dismissing one side based on the fact that it holds the traditional view and is the majority and the others are revisionists, but many revisionists were proven correct in the past from longer odds such as the Hittites existing, Teutoburger wald being fought, Mycenaen Greece, Jomon period Japan etc. Maybe the old Chronology is right, maybe the New. Only time will tell.
The New Chronology remains a minority view in Archaeology, but this does not make it wrong. This is the fallacy of popularity, I believe?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

But it illustrates the fact that just because a book uses historical fugures does not make it truthful or accurate.

It illustrates fictional characters and nothing more. And has absolutely no correlation to the OP link.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Yep, I am defunct, put me on ignore so you do not have to trouble yourself reading my posts and trying to make any sense out of what I am saying.

You're being baited and attacked. I don't know why Christians post Biblical evidence materials in a forum that is inhabited by people who wait to attack Christians for posting Biblical materials here.

Post in the Christians section and those types will starve for attention. They have no respect for our faith but they're here to persecute it.
Brother, you deserve better for your effots.

 

[SteveB28]

Nope, you asked for a mention amongst the records the Egyptians left us. The only place to expect that would be in Papyrus as I explained earlier. Besides, as I said, the numbers are definately exaggerated as is all history from the ancients, even the most reliable ones like Thucydides.
So I would need to show significantly fewer Semitic peoples moving about (for which there is evidence and being proto-Israelites they need not yet bear the exact names), nor is it reasonable to expect it absolutely present in the Egyptian records.



Please stop impuning my honour and actually READ what I write.
As I said repeatedly, an Exodus cannot be completely excluded from current knowledge. This does not mean the entire pentateuchal narrative, nor the same numbers, as I said repeatedly. I earlier mentioned an Analogy to King Arthur: lots of miraculous stuff, but probably a grain of truth. There likely was a figure Arthur which was probably not a king or a nickname, who slowed the Anglo-Saxon advance and battles like Mons Badonicus occurred and figures like Derfl Gadarn existed.
Now to the Exodus: It remains a possibility that runaway slaves fled Egypt under a religious leader, fewer in number than the Pentateuch narrative, adopted YHWH in Midian, and became a component of one or more of the Israelite tribes. The narrative of Manetho as well as the documented shift of YHWH from Sinai to Canaan, along with the very existence of a legendary narrative to this effect, suggests this. Events like the Golden Calf support it, via the Criterion of Embarrassment and the implied Egyptian influence on the runaways. There are other points I could raise, but I fear I would be wasting my time. Again though, I am NOT SAYING IT DID HAPPEN, but that it may have and such a view can also be archaeologically supported.


I never pulled points. I showed evidence from both sides as I am NOT ARGUING THE EXODUS OCCURRED, merely that it cannot be said it definitely did or did not based on current evidence, as there are plausible arguments either way, which both have significant flaws. Please stop arguing as if I said something I have never done.

I am becoming highly offended by your insistence that I am making some kind of fallacy based on your own delusional reading of what I wrote, when I am doing nothing of the sort. This does not allow you merely to dismiss what I am saying.

Your fallacy implies some disingenuousness on my part, which is not the case as I myself am not sure if the Exodus occurred or not. I really am not arguing for either case, just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as "the Exodus didn't happen" - as it seems is the fixed belief of most posters here, based on no more than their own opinion and not on any meaningful familiarity it seems with the facts.



You are mistaken. The new Chronology was published in peer-reviewed Archaeological journals by a degreed Egyptologist based on Archaeological evidence. There are other Archaeologists besides Rohl who espouse this or similar chronological revisions.
Obviously this is a very fierce argument since people are coming along and saying that a lot of what you have studied is basically wrong. People circled the wagons on both sides and proceeded to throw barbs at each other. You are merely dismissing one side based on the fact that it holds the traditional view and is the majority and the others are revisionists, but many revisionists were proven correct in the past from longer odds such as the Hittites existing, Teutoburger wald being fought, Mycenaen Greece, Jomon period Japan etc. Maybe the old Chronology is right, maybe the New. Only time will tell.
The New Chronology remains a minority view in Archaeology, but this does not make it wrong. This is the fallacy of popularity, I believe?

Again, your argument congeals around that which you deem POSSIBLE. This is almost irrelevant, in that virtually ANY proposition is possible. We should be centring our focus on the PROBABILITY of various propositions.

Your 'exodus' scores very lowly on that scale.....



.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Again, your argument congeals around that which you deem POSSIBLE. This is almost irrelevant, in that virtually ANY proposition is possible. We should be centring our focus on the PROBABILITY of various propositions.

Your 'exodus' scores very lowly on that scale.....



.

I disagree. A limited exodus as I sketched out is fairly probable as it helps explain a number of peculiarities like YHWH worship moving, the narrative itself etc. as I explained.

Please provide evidence why it is improbable, for I do not see it and without it, this is merely your opinion alone.

 

[SteveB28]

I disagree. A limited exodus as I sketched out is fairly probable as it helps explain a number of peculiarities like YHWH worship moving, the narrative itself etc. as I explained.

Please provide evidence why it is improbable, for I do not see it and without it, this is merely your opinion alone.

Yes, your "sketched out" exodus consists of little more than 4 men and a donkey crossing the Sinai.............sometime!

So, indeed, the probabilities improve remarkably........,