Board index ‹ The Exodus

[Maxwell's Hammer]

> "The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom (Ex 1.11) in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region, most likely by a large slave force."

I need a source for the construction being done "most likely by a large slave force."

[jimwalton]

The practice of using forced labor for building projects is documented for the Egyptian period 1450-1200 BC. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvée#Egypt)

Early in his reign, Amenhotep II (about 1400 BC) made a military campaign into Canaan. He says he brought back 800 captives. He led his army north again in his 9th year. This time he only went to Sharon and the plain of Jezreel, but he claims to have brought back thousands of captives to use as a work force: “princes of Retenu: 127; brothers of princes 179; Apiru 3600; living Shasu 15, 200; Kharu 36,300; living Neges 15, 070; the adherents thereof 30, 652; total 89,600 men; similarly their goods, without their limit.” The numbers actually add up to 101,128, and is probably an inflated figure to make him seem great. But the point is that he brought back large numbers of slaves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II)

In a surviving Egyptian document known as the Leiden Papyrus 348, orders are given to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the 'Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." Some scholars believe that the 'Apiru are the Hebrews.

Roger Littman (Biblical Archaeology Review, July/Aug 2000 p. 55) says, "There is abundant evidence in all eras (including the 2nd millennium BC) that Egyptians, like virtually all ancient Mediterranean cultures, were slave owners. Scholars previously though that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures. Foreigners, captured in war, were enslaved. Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) brought back almost 90,000 prisoners from his campaign in Canaan. A letter survives, sent from Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1391-c. 1354 BC) to Milkilu, the Canaanite ruler of Gezer, ordering 40 beautiful concubines for 40 kits of silver each."

[Jesus is a Dinosaur]

> "You are making an anachronistic mistake. The disposable trash of our culture had no place in a 'migrant' culture 3300 years ago. When you're on the move with no place to call your own, you pack light and learn to conserve."

Not modern disposable trash. But we have evidence from beduin tribes much smaller than the supposed exodus. No matter your culture you still light fires, you still bury your dead, you still break pots and lose things, you still have animal waste even if you use more of it than we do today.

[jimwalton]

Hershel Shanks, in an article in Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2014, pp. 30ff.), explores the possibility that Mt. Sinai was not in the Sinai peninsula, as is assumed by many, but is possibly Har Karkom in Saudi Arabia. Around Har Karkom, over 1300 archaeological sites have been documented, "including 40,000 rock engravings and more than 20 rock cult sites, such as small temples, standing stones, tumuli, open-air altars, stone circle and other types of shrines. Most of the rock engravings...are clustered at the base of Har Karkom." Many of the findings date to the period of the Bronze Age Complex (4300-2000 BC). According to archaeologist Emmanuel Anati, the area is a ceremonial high place...reserved for worship and religious ceremonies, and that in this period "[thousands] of people lived here in in seasonal, semi-permanent encampments." Among the findings, a table with ten squares or partitions, another depicting a serpent and a staff, and alignments of 12 standing stones. Also, in the Bible the mountain is known by more than one name, at least Mt. Sinai and Mt. Horeb. Since the exact dates of the Exodus are unknown, since all of the artifacts at Har Karkom have not been examined and dated, and since the dating of such things has at least some flexibility to it, could this possibly be the evidence for which you are looking? We also know that Moses had spent 40 years as a shepherd in Midian (Saudi Arabia), so it could make sense that he took the people back to that region. If they are few and far between in Canaan, for hundreds of years, why should we expect to find them in the desert over 40 years?

In addition, there are thousands of ancient sites in the Sinai Peninsula with broken pottery sherds, lying even on the surface. Many predate the traditional time of the Exodus, but the sheer number of pieces to be examined stalls complete investigation.

Shanks says, "More recently, the Midianite hypothesis turns out to be supported by archaeology. In contrast to the empty Sinai at the traditional date for the Exodus, Midianite territory in Saudi Arabia was thriving, full of Bedouin settlements." There are so many artifacts, Dr. Peter Parr of University College London, calls the Midianite culture "oasis urbanism". Frank Cross says that the notion of the mountain of God located in the Sinai Peninsula "has no older traditions supporting it than Byzantine times."

Ex. 19.18 speaks of the mountain of fire and smoke. Midian is a region of volcanic activity; the Sinai Peninsula is not.

The jury is still out on all these things, and yet many detractors have already closed the book as if it has been decided. The research continues; don't draw a conclusion until conclusions are more certain.

> Animal waste

Animal waste? You expect an archaeologist to find animal waste 3300 years later? They often burned animal waste as fuel.

> Fires

You expect an archaeologist to find campfires 3300 years later?

> Bury your dead

It has been proven that nearly 300 new settlements in mostly the Central Hill Country of Canaan appeared in Iron Age 1 (1200-1000 BC). This people group was distinctively different from the people group who had previously populated the area. Almost all scholars agree that this population group is the early Israelites settling down. One of the things that is known about this people is that despite obvious evidences of occupation, "there are precious few artifacts, even skeletons of the dead. The Israelites buried in simple inhumations outside settlements, in open fields with no grave goods."

[J Lord]

This translation as "clan" was only put forward by people wanting to lead the evidence to their preferred conclusion after discovering that the original translation could not be true. In order to translate as "clan" you have to propose that other parts of the bible are in error, or that the usages of words changed over time, or other things that are possible but for which there is no evidence of. As explained here:

http://hallel.info/wp-content/uploads/N ... ousand.pdf

And similar arguments from an apologetic source here:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-ar ... ebrews.htm

[jimwalton]

You're imputing motive to scholars about whom you don't know their motive. I don't think that's a legitimate argument. Plus you are assuming they fired their shot first, and then drew a target around where the arrow landed. That's not a provable assumption either.

I looked at your links. My point is that *elef* can be translated either way, depending on the context. Your first link looks at other texts, and concludes, "We would translate it 'thousands' of shekels in this verse, so it can't mean clans in that verse." Well, that's ignoring what I said about the word being WRITTEN exactly the same in all contexts, and its meaning has to be discerned.

In your second link, yeah, I obviously disagree with his analyses, as scholars are prone to doing. As I've said before on other posts, numbers a tricky things in other cultures. Other cultures don't treat numeration as we do. I can give cross-cultural examples, as I have done in other posts, but it always cautions us to regard numbers with a prudent eye.

[Fear of Emptiness]

You wrote:

> 1. What evidence are you thinking an archaeologist will find?
2. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative of the early chapters of Exodus. The author knew what he was talking about.
3. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative. The Joseph story is easily believable given what we know about Egyptian history.
4. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative. The book of Exodus fits easily into the framework of Egyptian history.
5. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.
6. There was extensive construction in the Nile delta region, most likely by a large slave force. So far all we have is "doesn't prove it, but hey, it could have happened.
7. There is no reason to believe that such an artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites. While this is similar to 1-6, I thought I would call it out because it's particularly telling. "no reason to believe this artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites." is just insanely weak argument. No reason to believe that the mound that Joseph Smith found the golden plates in wasn't a burial mound of ancient Israelites, except that there is no reason to believe it.
8. These give credibility to the narrative. Here we go again.
9. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC. Ugh, a single house that is similar to Israeli construction... not impressed.

Dude, it's a f***ing gallop, a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't even point to a conclusion, it simply "doesn't disprove my assertion, so enough things that don't prove my assertion lead me to beleive my assertions is true" I should stop now, but I'm pretty deep already.

"Fits the culture." big deal. Still not evidence.

Egyptians being slave owners is a far cry from 1,000,000,000 of them organizing and escaping.

"If a future discovery of an inscription could link this word to the Hebrews..." Really? Really?

Still not proof.

"Compare that with Gen. 42.3." Hey look, I found something that's not exactly contradictory, so that's evidence.

Another excuse as to why no evidence has been found.

Is that better? Do you feel better that I addressed each step of your 16-point assault?

[jimwalton]

Yes, I do feel much better. Thank you. I feel better for having been read than having been blown off.

The point I was making in my 18 points is that everything about the Exodus account in the Bible is historically and geographically accurate. There is nothing in the story told there that is questionable. Research bears out that when Egyptologists write about connections between Egypt and the Old Testament, they have generally accepted the Bible's claims. In Nicolas Grimal's *A History of Ancient Egypt*, he says, "It is considered possible that the Jewish Exodus may have taken place during the reign of Ramesses II." He finds the lack of evidence for this event "not in itself surprising, given that the Egyptians had no reason to attach any importance to the Hebrews." Ronald Williams, another Egyptologist, said, "The evidence is overwhelming that Israel drank deeply at the wells of Egypt."

It is true, and it goes without saying, that there is no direct evidence for Israel's presence in northern Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC, and there is no direct evidence for the event called the Exodus. The indirect and supporting evidence, however, are very plausible. Every element of the Bible story is compatible with what we know of the history and geography of the time.

- Foreign rulers of Canaanite origin ruled Egypt during the era of Joseph
- Foreigners came to Egypt for survival during periods of drought
- A non-Egyptian like Moses could be raised in the royal family
- There were many foreign slaves in Egypt
- The foreign slaves made bricks and did agriculture
- The plagues make ecological sense in an Egyptian setting

It goes on and on. I can tell that you have subscribed to the minimalist position. I am looking at the indirect and supporting evidence and finding that there is no particular reason to doubt the Biblical account since it speaks accurately in every other sense. That makes me a "maximalist," I am aware, but to me the evidence gives the story plausibility.

[Fear of Emptiness]

You said, "Because I am siding with the experts for the exodus,"

"The problem with your "experts" is that they are almost entirely either explaining why it's okay that there is no evidence, or warping evidence to fit a preconceived answer. That's a shitty way to go about something. They should be ashamed to call themselves experts if that's how they approach questions. You should never ask a question that you already know the answer to and then try to make the evidence fit, or explain why there is no evidence. You should look at the evidence and ask "what is this really evidence of".

[jimwalton]

That's quite a presumption on your part, and rather prejudicial and judgmental. You can actually say with confidence that the experts I named are "warping evidence to fit a preconceived answer"? You've read their works? Conversed with them? Been privy to interviews? And you can tell me with 100% confidence that the minimalist experts have no bias, but every expert on the other side does? Hm. Something about your quick brush-off is extremely academically suspect.