Was the Exodus natural or supernatural, fact or fiction?

[GreatestIam]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

True. They kill any deeper spiritual understanding.

They do the same with the Eden myth. They see a fall where the originators of the myth, the Jews, saw it as man's elevation to adulthood.

Christianity took a story where both man and God were winners and turned both into losers.

2. Orthodox Judaism: The Garden of Eden

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[

Just as I figured, Finkelstein is your authority.

And you prefer a book that begins wioth a talking snake and ends with a 7 headed monster.


The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[16] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[17] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[18] compared with an entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE of around 3 to 3.5 million.[19] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[20]

No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[21] Some scholars have rationalised these numbers into smaller figures, for example reading the Hebrew as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, but all such solutions raise more problems than they solve.[22] The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the improbability of the Exodus story originates because it was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[3] Thus it seems probable that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but a gematria (a code in which numbers represent letters or words) for bnei yisra'el kol rosh, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[23] while the number 600,000 symbolises the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[24]


Archaeology

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[25] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[26] There is archeological evidence of the Caananite Hyksos people moving into and out of northern Egypt, though the relation of their dates to the biblical account is debated by scholars.

Regards
DL

 

[konradv]

Look. I know what the extant evidence is. You're the one making the claims that we have no evidence beyond the biblical testimony. You're basing this on something. Right?

Yes, lack of evidence.

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Just as I figured, Finkelstein is your authority.

Your point being? Whoever said it, there's still no evidence to prove your assertion that the Exodus proceeded as written. He's not the only one saying it, either, if you don't like that source.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes, lack of evidence.

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Just as I figured, Finkelstein is your authority.

Your point being? Whoever said it, there's still no evidence to prove your assertion that the Exodus proceeded as written. He's not the only one saying it, either, if you don't like that source.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I note that you embrace Finkelstein et al., i.e., liberal scholarship, and apparently assume that assessment is universal, when if fact it is not. I seriously doubt that you even know what the underlying presupposition of this “scholarship” is.

We do in fact have evidence that supports the Exodus. What we don't have and may never have is conclusive archeological evidence.

 

[konradv]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

Then show us the archaeological evidence that proves the Exodus story. Palestine is the most dug up region in the world. Surely, if they found Ur, they should be able to find some evidence of the conquest. To date all the evidence found has shown the Israelites to be just one of many pre-existing Canaanite communities.

 

[konradv]

Just as I figured, Finkelstein is your authority.

Your point being? Whoever said it, there's still no evidence to prove your assertion that the Exodus proceeded as written. He's not the only one saying it, either, if you don't like that source.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I note that you embrace Finkelstein et al., i.e., liberal scholarship, and apparently assume that assessment is universal, when if fact it is not. I seriously doubt that you even know what the underlying presupposition of this “scholarship” is.

We do in fact have evidence that supports the Exodus. What we don't have and may never have is conclusive archeological evidence.

The underlying presupposition is apparently that you need evidence to make claims. You make claims about evidence, but don't seem to be producing any. Why are you smearing Finkelstein without giving a reason? I only quoted him originally because he was mentioned in the OP's story. There are many others who say so too, if you bothered to check Wikipedia's sources.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can never understand some Christians' dogged determination to take the stories of the OT as literal factual events. The Jews by-and-large certainly don't do that. They acknowledge that there is some symbolic meaning involved. It's a Christian tendency to take the OT so literally.

There's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Hebrew Exodus is not historical. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence proves nothing. For decades it was thought by liberal scholars that Abraham and the land of Ur never existed, but behold, archeological discoveries of the 1930s proved otherwise.

Then show us the archaeological evidence that proves the Exodus story. Palestine is the most dug up region in the world. Surely, if they found Ur, they should be able to find some evidence of the conquest. To date all the evidence found has shown the Israelites to be just one of many pre-existing Canaanite communities.

Well, first of all, it's most likely that the Hyskos are the actual decedents of Jacob/Israel, the branch of Abraham's loins that went into Egypt in the first place. They would have been a smaller contingent of the original Abrahamic Canaanites. Second of all, there are three periods that must be considered: roughly 2300 - 1800 B.C., 1600 - 1350 B.C. or 1250 to 900 B.C.

The lack of conclusive archeological evidence is merely an argument from silence, but we do have evidence contrary to what mainstream media and many Egyptologists would have us believe. This idea that there is a general consensus of no archeological evidence is utter bull.

Is there evidence of the Exodus from Egypt?
New Evidence for Thutmose III as Exodus Pharaoh in 1440 BC
Exodus Revealed - Startling Evidence For The Hebrew Exodus From Egypt on Vimeo
The Israelite Exodus from Egypt
http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/363/363_dayenufinal.pdf
Did the Exodus Happen? Answering the Sceptics
Roger Isaacs: Passover In Egypt: Did the Exodus Really Happen?
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt
NOVA | Moses and the Exodus
Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven? - Lawrence H. Schiffman

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The underlying presupposition is apparently that you need evidence to make claims. You make claims about evidence, but don't seem to be producing any. Why are you smearing Finkelstein without giving a reason? I only quoted him originally because he was mentioned in the OP's story. There are many others who say so too, if you bothered to check Wikipedia's sources.

You have no evidence to make your claims. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence does not back your claim. It merely beckons your prejudice.

 

[konradv]

The underlying presupposition is apparently that you need evidence to make claims. You make claims about evidence, but don't seem to be producing any. Why are you smearing Finkelstein without giving a reason? I only quoted him originally because he was mentioned in the OP's story. There are many others who say so too, if you bothered to check Wikipedia's sources.

You have no evidence to make your claims. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence does not back your claim. It merely beckons your prejudice.

Sure there's evidence. Archaeological digs in Palestine reveal no destruction of Canaanite towns and cities and the pottery used by the Israelites and Canaanites are the same. If they'd come from Egypt their pottery would be expected to be markedly different. It isn't. The only major difference being a lack of pig bones in the Israelite sites.

BTW, why do you say I'm prejudiced? I'm merely looking at the available evidence.

 

[GreatestIam]

Can I ask what you think of God hardeneing Pharaoh's heart so that he could kill the first born.

Do you think it was moral of God to kill the children for what their parents did?

I think not but am willing to hear your argument for that type of injustice somehow being just.

Regards
DL

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The underlying presupposition is apparently that you need evidence to make claims. You make claims about evidence, but don't seem to be producing any. Why are you smearing Finkelstein without giving a reason? I only quoted him originally because he was mentioned in the OP's story. There are many others who say so too, if you bothered to check Wikipedia's sources.

You have no evidence to make your claims. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence does not back your claim. It merely beckons your prejudice.

Sure there's evidence. Archaeological digs in Palestine reveal no destruction of Canaanite towns and cities and the pottery used by the Israelites and Canaanites are the same. If they'd come from Egypt their pottery would be expected to be markedly different. It isn't. The only major difference being a lack of pig bones in the Israelite sites.

BTW, why do you say I'm prejudiced? I'm merely looking at the available evidence.

Because you reject the biblical testimony for one thing. It doesn't count as evidence apparently. Also, if you knew more about the biblical account you would realize that the observation you just made in the above is of no import or at best misleading.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can I ask what you think of God hardeneing Pharaoh's heart so that he could kill the first born.

Do you think it was moral of God to kill the children for what their parents did?

I think not but am willing to hear your argument for that type of injustice somehow being just.

Regards
DL

So now you're God?

 

[editec]

I think it's mostly historical fiction.

Just as it was once an accepted fact that Jewish slaves built the pyrimids, so too the details surrounding the Jewish exodus (which did happen, I suspect) from Egypt have been modified to make for a better story.

 

[konradv]

You have no evidence to make your claims. The lack of conclusive archeological evidence does not back your claim. It merely beckons your prejudice.

Sure there's evidence. Archaeological digs in Palestine reveal no destruction of Canaanite towns and cities and the pottery used by the Israelites and Canaanites are the same. If they'd come from Egypt their pottery would be expected to be markedly different. It isn't. The only major difference being a lack of pig bones in the Israelite sites.

BTW, why do you say I'm prejudiced? I'm merely looking at the available evidence.

Because you reject the biblical testimony for one thing. It doesn't count as evidence apparently. Also, if you knew more about the biblical account you would realize that the observation you just made in the above is of no import or at best misleading.

You can't use the Bible as proof of its own authenticity. I could ask you why you reject archaeological evidence. That's the evidence of real import.

 

[GreatestIam]

Can I ask what you think of God hardeneing Pharaoh's heart so that he could kill the first born.

Do you think it was moral of God to kill the children for what their parents did?

I think not but am willing to hear your argument for that type of injustice somehow being just.

Regards
DL

So now you're God?

Huh?

How does asking a question make me God?

Or is that just your way of showing that you cannot answer simple moral questions?

Many biblical stories are written to convey morals. All I did was ask your moral view of part of this one. Sorry to have made you angry with a question too tough for you to answer.

Regards
DL

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sure there's evidence. Archaeological digs in Palestine reveal no destruction of Canaanite towns and cities and the pottery used by the Israelites and Canaanites are the same. If they'd come from Egypt their pottery would be expected to be markedly different. It isn't. The only major difference being a lack of pig bones in the Israelite sites.

BTW, why do you say I'm prejudiced? I'm merely looking at the available evidence.

Because you reject the biblical testimony for one thing. It doesn't count as evidence apparently. Also, if you knew more about the biblical account you would realize that the observation you just made in the above is of no import or at best misleading.

You can't use the Bible as proof of its own authenticity. I could ask you why you reject archaeological evidence. That's the evidence of real import.

Nonsense. Archeological evidence is not always available . . . and in many instances it's not even reliable in terms of testimony. It is well known that Egyptian pharaohs, for example, routinely revised the accounts of historical defeats or failures, or erased the records of banished/renegade nemeses. We also know that the Hebrew scribes of the 6th and 7th Century B.C. assumed extant names of towns for locations that were no longer known under their original names from oral tradition.

The matter is very complex, and once again, we do have plenty of textual and archeological evidence which strongly points to the historicity of the Exodus. But it is a puzzle. The absence of a universally conclusive archeological record is not a proof that the Exodus did not occur.

There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

 

[GreatestIam]

I think it's mostly historical fiction.

Just as it was once an accepted fact that Jewish slaves built the pyrimids, so too the details surrounding the Jewish exodus (which did happen, I suspect) from Egypt have been modified to make for a better story.

There may be some history to the myth as that clip clearly shows but I read it as allegory or myth wit a bit of history. To me Moses is just an archetype. Just like Jesus is.

I think it was a re-write of the Hyksos expulsion written in a form to give the Semites a bit of pride. Jewish writers seemed to use that kind of typology often.

For instance, there are connections being made between the N T and The War of the Jews in this same way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE]Caesar's Messiah Promo - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[
There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

 

[Fishlore]

The idea that a million people would wander the Sinai for forty years without leaving an archeological trace is silly. We know more about Egypt at the time than we do about most ancient civilizations -- no mention of any rain of frogs etc. much less the destruction of a Pharaoh and an entire army in the Red Sea.

We also now know that Torah as we have it now was written by Temple priests in Jerusalem as part of the reconstruction of Judaism following their return from captivity in Babylon. They worked from earlier manuscripts and oral tradition of course, but the very notion of Torah as a document has now been subject to radical new understanding.

These are beautiful and meaningful stories. But so are the stories about Zeus and the Olympians. Let's keep our facts and categories straight.