Jayhawker Soule

Absolute rubbish. There is zero evidence of the Exodus/Conquest narrative. It's folklore perpetuated by three forces: (a) the religious, as a matter of faith, (b) the amateur or indifferent, as an unchallenged presumption, and (c) the gullible fool, who ignorantly and eagerly buys into every fringe 'theory' and bogus claim that comes his way.

Go to Israel. Visit the Shrine of the Book and then stroll over to the marvelous Israel Museum Jerusalem. The two stand as a monument to the very best of the fruits of Biblical Archaeology and Philology. Yet, save for scraps of the Shemot, you will find nothing to suggest the historicity of the Exodus.

Similarly, pick up a copy of The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt or Redford's excellent Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. You will search in vain for such evidence.

Finally, there's the consensus of the archaeologists themselves. And here we'll be conservative. There are archaeologists, the so-called minimalists, who argue that the Bible is altogether historically worthless. So let's not quote the minimalists, but, rather, one of their staunchest opponents: William G. Dever:

Quote:

Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history. - What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It? (pg. 97) After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical. - ibid (pg. 99) Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ... - ibid (pg. 121)

You're ignorant, Jabob. That, in and of itself is no crime, but you're tiresomely, perversely, and, as far as I can see, willfully ignorant. Rather than waste internet bandwidth with your inane babble, why not actually read something of worth? You might start with ...

Exploring Exodus

by Nahum M. Sarna

Oxford History of Ancient Egypt

by Ian Shaw (editor)

Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times

by Donald B. Redford

Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context

by George E. Mendenhall

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E.

by Amihai Mazar

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It?, and
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from?

by William G. Dever

The Israelites

by B.S.J. Isserlin

Archaeology and the Bible

by John C. Laughlin

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, and
From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel

by Frank Moore Cross

Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, and
Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

by Mark S. Smith

Babylonians

by H.W.F. Saggs

Canaanites

by Jonathan N. Tub

The Pentateuch

by Joseph Blenkinsopp

How the Bible Became a Book: Textualization in Ancient Israel

by William M. Schniedewind

And for God's sake, learn how to think.

sisterX

Jayhawker how bout you learn a little respect for others and take things in your stride. You seem to have an unjustified sense of your own importance. Lighten up dude, are you constipated or something?! Even if someone does say something factually incorrect, there is no need to blow it out of all proportions.

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Jayhawker Soule

Not even a little. I do, however, have an intense disdain for pedantry grounded in ignorance.

lauraclay

Intense disdain is not something terribly welcomed by anyone.

__________________

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.

The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to.

Jayhawker Soule

What on earth are you babbling about?

• I don't suppose that there is a "God of Mt Sinai".
• I don't suppose that some fictive God told the Israelites anything whatsoever.
• I don't suppose that you have the slightest capacity to engage in rational discourse.

Jayhawker Soule

As noted elsewhere: off to the ignore list.

milligal

Jacob-quoting Dateline from "the 90's" and "various websites" is not enough to back up your statement. I for one need to know which web sites you are referring to so I can research them and see if they are scholarly. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it factual-and Dateline is definitely not peer reviewed by Harvard professors....you have presented no criteria by which to take your statement seriously.

Jacob

Google in "REAL Mt. SINAI". Choose a site.

I have presented my opinion, that's all I've done. I should not have been vehemently slurred for this.

Investigate on your own and make your own decision whether Ron Wyatt's discovery is the real Mt. Sinai or not.

Jacob

milligal

A) When you present your 'opinion' on a forum like this, and then get the responses that you have (basically saying you're full of it), it is YOUR obligation-IF you want to be taken seriously, to provide supportive data. This is your debate. If you don't want to provide valid research, then you deserve everything you've gotten.

B) Googling does not count as scholarly research, it can only if certain criteria are met (I take it you haven't completed any college research classes). If you retreived this information from EBSCO, ProQuest or any number of other search engines with the scholarly articles only checked-THEN you would be presenting valid data. Otherwise you are just repeating something you read on the internet-and there's a whole lot of BS out there.

Based on your response to me I'm willing to bet you have no scholarly peer reviewed citations behind your 'opinion'.

Jacob

I wasn't aware that you needed scholarly peer reviewed citations to have an opinion. In any case, you make good points. I'll be much more careful in the future.

Jacob