Toto

Krumbein is a paid defense expert witness. If he hadn't said that, you wouldn't be reading about it.

See these recent threads:

BAR at it again with Ossuary

Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein says James Ossuary is authentic

Nuwanda

Do you also discredit medical doctors who are brought in to testify in criminal cases? This is a criminal indictment in the District Court of Jerusalem concerning antiquity forgeries, who do you expect to be a witness?

Nuwanda

I find it interesting how much credence all of the Exodus nay-sayers on this thread are putting in the ancient Egyptian sources for the history of the Hyksos, when most have demonstrated the ability to perform textual criticism. Egypt's great 3rd century BC historian Manetho recorded most of what we claim to know about the Hyksos, yet none of his original 3 works, known as the Aegyptiaca, exists today. All we have are various quotes of his work from Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and George Syncellus (to say nothing of the fact that Manetho himself live 1200 years after the events he wrote about).

If my memory serves me, all four of these writers have been roundly criticized in this forum for not being historically reliable. Some of those very same critics are now using them to debunk the relationship of the Hyksos with the Hebrews. Somehow the trustworthiness of these four historian's/writer's are now legitimate.

To further complicate the matter, these sources of the Aegyptiaca are full of conflicting information regarding the list of kings, chronology, and the length of their dynasties. Why the lack of criticism?

FatherMithras

Maybe because none of the stories that link the Hebrews and the Hyksos make any sense in light of the fact we know the Hebrews were natives, and thus could not possibly have come from Egypt?

Steven Avery

Thanks for this Nuwanda. I spent a bit of time last night trying to find out what was the provenance and transmission of the Hyksos 'knowledge'. I was trying to figure out what was actually in the Rhind papyrus and put the project down (then noted the math aspect). So your sharing here was timely and appreciated.

Incidentally Lennart Muller (Exodus Case) doesn't say much about the Hyksos, simply that the equation with the Hebrews was "probable". This was one of the areas where I appreciated the Exodus Decoded show.

Have you seen any articles that approach this information gap question, including the vagaries of transmission, in a sound manner ?

FM, I really don't understand your objection above ? Are you saying that the Hebrews could not be the Hyksos because the Hebrews did not come from Egypt, and the Hyksos did not come from Egypt ? Maybe you can unpack a bit.

Oh, I got it, you are saying that there was no Exodus, so there was no relation
Ahh, good 'ol skeptical circularity.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Harumi,

This is a long-time discussion, nothing at all new.

I have written some moderate posts on this in defense of the Red Sea understanding, and some good articles are on the web.. And Farrell and others have rightly pointed out that the terminology Red Sea at that time included the Gulf of Aquaba.

Imho, this and the mountain selection were the weakest parts of the Exodus Decoded show. The show was reasonably impressive (ok, the nouveau chic computer graphics were overdone) for the first hour and a quarter.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Diogenes the Cynic

Attacking the Hyksos sources really does nothing to bolster any theory of a Biblical Exodus. There was STILL never any enslavement of Israelites in Egypt, so trying to debunk the Hyksos story is really neither here nor there. All it represents is an attempt to call into question one possible theory of how the Biblical story may have had a remote historical root in a story about a different group of people. Get rid of the Hyksos expulsion and you're basically left with a Biblical story rooted in nothing at all.

Nuwanda

Actually, I'm the last one in this forum you would find trying to disprove the Exodus, I believe it whole heartedly. My objection was to the fact that some in this forum are drawing conclusions for the dismissal of the exodus based on writings from authors that they have shot down in the past. Just pointing out their skeptical selectivity.

gregor

Well, of course all paid, expert witnesses come with baggage. Forensic experts for the prosecution continue to be hired by the prosecution because their testimony is appreciated by/helps the prosecution. A defense expert is hired and interviewed, his/her expected testimony is massaged, clarified, and prepared, and he/she testifies in court to bolster the defense's case. This is not some kind of neutral consultant hired by the judge.

Nuwanda

Actually, I'm one of the last ones in this forum you would find trying to disprove the Exodus, I believe it whole-heartedly. My objection was to those in this forum that draw conclusions for the dismissal of the Exodus based (in part) on writings from authors that they have shot down in the past as being historically unreliable. It seems a bit selective wouldn't you agree?

They're either reliable or their not, and the fact is that those 4 authors do a lot of justice for the affirmation of historic Christianity. To dismiss them as unreliable on those counts but reliable on their accounts of Manetho's works is indeed very selective.