Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[Halbhh]

This issue I have with your post is this statement.

The Neolithic human remains were buried in graves, if I was to take your statement literally no human remains would be left, the fact that they do exist invalidates your argument.
The Israelites buried their dead as well and the problem still exists if much older Neolithic graves containing human remains from sparely populated nomadic societies have been discovered where are all the Israelite burials from a much larger nomadic population?

Did I write unclearly enough it seems I suggested that " literally no human remains would be left" from an exodus?? I might have -- often I have trouble with people thinking I meant something other than I did.
I meant that we are unlikely to find very extensive clear proof of a nomadic group that was only moving around a mere 40 years and rarely camping for a very extended time in just one place (and also 40 years for a nomadic group is archaeologically a very short time!).... Make sense?

But on the other hand, if you peruse the link I gave above, you see that the population number is plausible to have been much smaller than those figures like 2M, and more like 100K, and that's what I think and why I offered that link. Would you like me to excerpt from it? Maybe it's a more useful information for me to highlight.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

@Halbhh - I didn't take your remark as though there would be no remains at all, just that there are plausible scientific reasons for no bones remaining. I didn't take it as an absolute statement.

In such a vast area, in an environment less than friendly (a desert) it would be difficult to find bodies when the graves would be under multiple geological layers and scattered sparsely. That's a lot of work and you'll need personal resources (food, water and shade) to do long archaeological digs. You might as well grab a shovel and go into your backyard and dig for buried treasure. The likelihood of finding buried treasure in your backyard is probably better than finding a grave by chance. To find evidence of a human remains would be so remote without evidence of a campsite nearby. And then you need to be able to date the human remains to the Exodus time-frame (c. 1500 BC)

Plus, areas where campsites are known the Saudi's forbid entrance into those sites.

 

[SelfSim]

@Halbhh - I didn't take your remark as though there would be no remains at all, just that there are plausible scientific reasons for no bones remaining. I didn't take it as an absolute statement.

I took the statement as being irrelevant because of the evidence of gravesites.

In such a vast area, in an environment less than friendly (a desert) it would be difficult to find bodies when the graves would be under multiple geological layers and scattered sparsely. That's a lot of work and you'll need personal resources (food, water and shade) to do long archaeological digs. You might as well grab a shovel and go into your backyard and dig for buried treasure. The likelihood of finding buried treasure in your backyard is probably better than finding a grave by chance. To find evidence of a human remains would be so remote without evidence of a campsite nearby. And then you need to be able to date the human remains to the Exodus time-frame (c. 1500 BC)

Plus, areas where campsites are known the Saudi's forbid entrance into those sites.

Yet human remains have been found .. just not ones supporting the Exodus timeframe.

Hypotheticals become rapidly irrlelevant in the light of evidence at hand.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

All the human remains dotted on the map you posted are not even in the regions where Israel wandered. So if hypotheticals are irrelevant so is your map. You still have to find remains in an Exodus time-frame in the correct location. My statement is that such a thing would be difficult to do--not impossible, but difficult.

 

[Halbhh]

I took the statement as being irrelevant because of the evidence of gravesites.

Yet human remains have been found .. just not ones supporting the Exodus timeframe.

Hypotheticals become rapidly irrlelevant in the light of evidence at hand.

What I was getting at that only a few tens of thousands of deaths over just a mere 40 years in the desert would be a very tiny portion of all deaths in that desert over millennia, and that a nomadic group sorta on the run and never remaining in one place for long would not bury their dead carefully (why would they?) -- that was my implication.

It's not just plausible, but seems the more likely: they'd do a quicker easier disposal of bodies, not some careful sealing.

Why? Because most mornings they have to move out... (and they aren't allowed to do work on their sabbath)
(and they are following a leader that is keeping them moving generally)

They don't have time to linger and bury the dead in a lasting way.

So, therefore, it seems the most plausible to expect there ought be very few remains from them among the remains found (we ought to only find in contrast remains that are more carefully protected).

It would have been really surprising to me at any time, 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 25 years ago, to suddenly learn of even a few graves from the Israelite nomadic time.

To me, someone thinking we ought to find a number of remains needs to give some kind of reason they think so.

Then we could consider their idea, and compare against what I said is very plausible just above (few or none would be buried carefully is what I expect). Then, if something really plausible was presented, then I could look at that more closely.

 

[SelfSim]

All the human remains dotted on the map you posted are not even in the regions where Israel wandered. So if hypotheticals are irrelevant so is your map. You still have to find remains in an Exodus time-frame in the correct location. My statement is that such a thing would be difficult to do--not impossible, but difficult.

i) Why did Israel wander? (Large groups of people don't wander in a desert for no good reason). Any ideas?

ii) Searching for remains in some 'correct location', is not a scientific approach ... its a back-to-front method. The 'difficulties' you mention there, are thus also irrelevant.

 

[Halbhh]

Ok, now I think I'm more clear in that last post just above, post #45, if you have a look. So, along with only a few tens of thousands dying over just a short time, by a group on the move in the desert and then...(see post #45)

This issue I had with your post#35 was this statement.

The Neolithic human remains were buried in graves, if I was to take your statement literally no human remains would be left, the fact that they do exist invalidates your argument.
The Israelites buried their dead as well and the problem still exists if much older Neolithic graves containing human remains from sparely populated nomadic societies have been discovered where are all the Israelite burials from a much larger nomadic population?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Israelites buried their dead as well and the problem still exists if much older Neolithic graves containing human remains from sparely populated nomadic societies have been discovered where are all the Israelite burials from a much larger nomadic population?

First, we should start with the hermeneutical questions: Does the Bible interpret the archaeological finds? Or, do the archaeological finds interpret the Bible? In 'Curious'' case, archaeology is used to interpret the Bible. That is a very dangerous precedent to follow because archaeology is not an exact science and it is always changing with new excavations and new interpretations. Views held by archaeologists today may be passé tomorrow due to new evidence.

Second, to say that there are no graves in the Sinai from the period of the Exodus / Wilderness Wanderings is very misleading. One should first ask the question: In what archaeological period was the Wilderness Wanderings (Cohen 1983:16-39; for surveys of Sinai, see Meshel 2000)? Does a preconceived idea of which archaeological period to look at happen to eliminate all your evidence?

Third, what kind of graves would Israelites have been buried in? If the Israelites buried their dead in a simple trench burial in the ground, would they have even left a marker on top of the grave? There would be no reason to mark the grave because they were heading to the Promised Land, the Land of Canaan, and not returning back to visit the graves of their ancestors as Bedouin in Sinai, the Negev, Jordan and Saudi Arabia do today, thus the markers on their graves so they can visit their ancestors!

Fourth, how do we know that most of the Israelites were even buried in Sinai? The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers that: 'But with most of them God was not pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness' (I Cor. 10:5 NKJV). 'Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert' (NIV). One gets the distinct impression from this passage that most of the bodies were just left in the Wilderness, exposed to the elements … and the vultures, hyenas and jackals! If that is the case, there will be very few graves at all, thus 'no gravesites in Sinai' would be a dead objection.

Fifth, another possibility that should be pursued is the Hebrew practice of secondary burial. In this practice, the dead would be buried in a cave for a year and then the bones would be gathered for 'secondary burial.' In the case of the First Temple period, the bones would be placed into a repository in the cave. During the Second Temple period, the bones would be placed in an ossuary. The phrase in the Bible that is connected with this practice is: 'and he slept with his fathers,' or more literally, 'he was gathered to his fathers.'

This practice began with the Patriarch Abraham when he bought a cave near Hebron and buried his wife Sarah in it (Gen. 23). He was later interned there, as was his son Isaac and his wife Rebecca. Jacob and one of his wives, Leah, were buried there as well (Gen. 49:28-33; 50:5, 13). When Jacob died in Egypt, he wanted to be gathered to his fathers in the Promised Land.

SOURCE

 

[Halbhh]

i) Why did Israel wander? (Large groups of people don't wander in a desert for no good reason). Any ideas?

Sure, it's what we are discussing, the 'wandering in the desert' of Exodus, from the biblical text. It's the text we are discussing. If you want to read it, it's not really long in my view. (maybe 1 hour - 90 minutes? (you could skip chapters 21-30, 33-40 unless you like a very full picture of their rituals.

Exodus 1 NIV

then resume in Numbers at chapter 13, and could skip some like chapters 18-19. Just look at section headings to see whether it's about events or instead about rituals or accounting.

Numbers 13 NIV

Numbers has some fun things (a lot actually, here and there). Like the story of Balak and Balaam for instance is just plain entertaining.

 

[SelfSim]

What I was getting at that only a few tens of thousands of deaths over just a mere 40 years in the desert would be a very tiny portion of all deaths in that desert over millennia, and that a nomadic group sorta on the run and never remaining in one place for long would not bury their dead carefully (why would they?) -- that was my implication.

It's not just plausible, but seems the more likely: they'd do a quicker easier disposal of bodies, not some careful sealing.

Why? Because most mornings they have to move out... (and they aren't allowed to do work on their sabbath)
(and they are following a leader that is keeping them moving generally)

They don't have time to linger and bury the dead in a lasting way.

Another hypothetical. I don't buy it.
Cremation has always been an option for humans .. especially if one is 'on the run', no? But no evidence of any.

So, therefore, it seems the most plausible to expect there ought be very few remains from them among the remains found (we ought to only find in contrast remains that are more carefully protected).

It would have been really surprising to me at any time, 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 25 years ago, to suddenly learn of even a few graves from the Israelite nomadic time.

To me, someone thinking we ought to find a number of remains needs to give some kind of reason they think so.

Then we could consider their idea, and compare against what I said is very plausible just above (few or none would be buried carefully is what I expect). Then, if something really plausible was presented, then I could look at that more closely.

I don't have to buy what you say as being plausible, do I(?)
After all, what you say is your opinion .. and not based on the evidence at hand.

However, the reason one would expect to find remains is .. well .. its a very harsh environment .. survival chances are slim (which is supported by the abundance of evidence of what happens to humans in such environments over such extended durations).

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, it's what we are discussing, the 'wandering in the desert' of Exodus, from the biblical text. It's the text we are discussing. If you want to read it, it's not really long in my view. (maybe 1 hour - 90 minutes? (you could skip chapters 21-30, 33-40 unless you like a very full picture of their rituals.

Exodus 1 NIV

then resume in Numbers at chapter 13:

Numbers 13 NIV

Thanks .. but I'll move forward based on the evidence at hand.
(If I were to go on such a scavenger-hunt however, I think I'd be following the water .. and the geography).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Isn’t it strange archaeologists can find evidence of Neolithic sites thousand of years earlier but not a single piece of evidence of twenty thousand or two million Israelites occupying Sinai for forty years in the upper archaeological layers where they should be easier to find?

That is strange. And if there's one thing we shouldn't expect the God of the Bible to "do" is, something strange.

It's too bad that a Physics and Life Sciences forum isn't the place to talk about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is strange. And if there's one thing we shouldn't expect the God of the Bible to "do" is, something strange.

-- That's a good one!

 

[Benjamin Müller]

ii) Searching for remains in some 'correct location', is not a scientific approach ... its a back-to-front method.

Um, yes, it is. You want to narrow down a search. I don't how looking in the wrong location is some how more scientific than looking in the right location.

Your posts are dismissive, rude and incorrigible.

The issue at hand isn't about whether or not there are remains, but whether or not the remains can be found. Is that point of my argument escaping you? If archaeologists can not access the sites, or are looking in the wrong location, how then does one expect to find evidence of Israel in the wilderness?

 

[Neogaia777]

Your post is full of holes.
Isn’t the point of posting in a science forum to explain why there was no evidence of Israelite occupation of the Sinai for forty years without relying on the supernatural such as not needing campfires to keep warm or relying on heavenly manna for survival as their animals were drowned in the parting of the Red Sea?
These stories not only lack the evidence but are also unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific.

At least your link from what I can read relies on a non-supernatural argument by engaging in word games to greatly reduce the number of Israelites in the Sinai using the Book of Numbers.
The trouble is Exodus 12:37 also refers to six hundred thousand men so including women and children, two million is the number that is implied in the Bible.

As a result, all bets are still on as described in the other closed threads.
(1) No archaeological evidence of Bronze age nomadic occupation of the Sinai involving human and herd animal remains, tool kits, pottery, hearths etc.
(2) The Sinai became an arid desert 8000 years ago making it impossible to support two million individuals and a greater number of herd animals for a forty year occupation.
(3) No evidence of the collapse of Egyptian civilization at the start of the New Kingdom when Exodus supposedly occurred by the sudden loss of up to 2/3 of its population.
The evidence shows Egypt was not only prosperous but a military power with an empire extending into the Middle East including Israel.

Let’s play the devil’s advocate and assume there were only twenty thousand Israelites according to your link.
It still doesn’t prove the authenticity of Exodus but becomes “evidence of absence” versus an “absence of evidence” argument where the latter suggests it is undiscovered yet comes perilously close to being an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.
The Sinai being a desert by the time of the Exodus clinches the “evidence of absence” argument.
The archaeological evidence of Neolithic sites which predate Exodus but when Sinai had become a desert indicates very small mobile groups much like the nomadic Bedouins of today where the group size is not larger than fifteen individuals.
Small groups with a smaller number of herd animals are less reliant on the environment.
Isn’t it strange archaeologists can find evidence of Neolithic sites thousand of years earlier but not a single piece of evidence of twenty thousand or two million Israelites occupying Sinai for forty years in the upper archaeological layers where they should be easier to find?

Here is an example of evidence supporting the Bible in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 which refers to a King Shisak of Egypt.
Shishak is a translation for the pharaoh Shoshenq 1 who campaigned in Canaan and left details of his campaign at Karnak in Egypt which is consistent with the Biblical account.
This is the type of evidence required to support Exodus namely the Egyptian side of the story.

I tried.

For the record, I don't think you looked at the paper beyond the first page, because it is not "word games", etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Shortly after the Hebrews left Egypt, God commanded a census. According to Numbers 1:46, there was 603,550 adult males, thus making the population around 2 to 3 million.

Let's remember, Israel spent 430 years in Egypt, and God blessed them, and they multiplied so rapidly, that Egyptian leaders began to fear that the Hebrews would over throw them (Exodus 1 8-10). The Egyptian leaders would not fear such thing if there was only 20,000 Hebrews.

Read the paper.

It addresses this.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

Ok, now I think I'm more clear in that last post just above, post #45, if you have a look. So, along with only a few tens of thousands dying over just a short time, by a group on the move in the desert and then...(see post #45)

Your argument doesn’t work.
Whether you are talking about 100K or 2.5M Israelites in Sinai, a forty year period represents a generation which has left no trace.
Archaeological research in the Sinai to specifically find evidence for Exodus has been going on for 40-50 years.
In that time they have found Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites but no Late Bronze Age sites attributed to the Israelites in the period 1550-1200 BC.
Here is an updated map.

There is a Late Bronze Age Site at Serabit-El-Khadem where an Egyptian temple was found and a turquoise mine used by the ancient Egyptians but nothing that can be attributed to the Exodus.

Let me emphasize again the hostile desert environment cannot support long term habitation of the region for forty years.
The simplest and most logical outcome of which solves all the issues raised in this thread using Occam’s razor is there was no Exodus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Read the paper.

It addresses this.

God Bless.

It's kind of hard, only the first page is visible.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's kind of hard, only the first page is visible.

You have to create an account unfortunately, and to download it costs money, but it's worth at least creating an account if you ask me.

 

[sjastro]

That is strange. And if there's one thing we shouldn't expect the God of the Bible to "do" is, something strange.

It's too bad that a Physics and Life Sciences forum isn't the place to talk about that.

And quite rightly so as this forum is all too commonly used as pretext to attack science and those who are scientists or support science.