WVIncagold

Would it not be more fun if we could just use lambs blood instead of do not distrub sign?:Cheeky:

Minimalist

Archaeology cannot provide "evidence" for something which did not happen. Thus, when nearly 200 years of digging in Egypt fail to find any evidence that the Israelites were ever there, the best that can be said is that there is "no evidence" that they were ever there.

However, when archaeologists digging in Jerusalem find evidence that in the 9th-10th centuries the town was nothing but a little hilltop village instead of the glorious capitol of Solomon's "empire" that is "evidence" that the bible story is untrue. Moreover, the tales that are told portray "Solomon" in the manner of a 7th century Assyrian monarch...which, oddly enough, is exactly when the Deuteronomistic History was written. It's fairly easy to see where those writers got their model.

lpetrich

It's clear that the Exodus had clearly not happened as described. But there is some history that could have gotten mangled into the Exodus account.

The expulsion of the Hyksos, who had ruled northern Egypt from around 1648 BCE to around 1540 BCE. They were likely Canaanites, and they likely returned to where they came from, and could well have orally transmitted some of their memories of Egypt. These would then get passed down the generations and gotten very mangled along the way until they were written down again.

The Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great (454-526 CE) was remembered in later centuries as Dietrich von Bern, and the Song of Roland is likewise some mangled version of real history. So such a thing can happen.

They may have remembered the pharaoh Ahmose, but his name sounds like "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew, and some storytellers may have elaborated on who Moses was. Thus:

The Egyptian pharaoh Ahmose drove us out of Egypt.

could have been mangled into

The Egyptian pharaoh, the Brother of Moses, drove us out of Egypt.

And further mangled into

The Egyptian prince Moses led us out of Egypt as that wicked pharaoh was chasing us.

And later storytellers filled out his biography in detail, explaining how he changed sides.


And as to crossing the Red Sea, the original Hebrew version is the Reed Sea, yam suph. That was likely some reedy marsh along the way, though which one is not certain.

The Septuagint is the first translation to use "Red Sea" (he eruthra thalassa), and most, though not all, translators, have used "Red Sea". Some translators have used "Reed Sea", and some have footnoted "Red Sea" and noted that the original is "Reed Sea".

And what happened next? I suspect some dramatization. The original was likely

After we crossed the Reed Sea, the Egyptians stopped chasing us.

That is rather undramatic, and some storyteller likely turned it into

When we reached the Reed Sea, Moses spread its waters and we crossed. The Egyptians followed us, and Moses let its waters flow back and drowned them.

And some Septuagint translator must have thought

Reed Sea? What's the Reed Sea? Must have been the Red Sea.


Finally, there is a speculation that some of the Ten Plagues of Egypt had been produced by the massive caldera eruption of Thera / Santorini around 1628 BCE or perhaps 1550 BCE.

The Hyksos had been in Egypt on both dates, so they could have experienced that eruption's effects or else learned about those effects from Cretan refugees.

makerowner

I think this guy bailed out. "Oh shit, atheists aren't all idiots like my pastor told me."

Minimalist

The Santorini blast, and resulting ash cloud and tidal wave, would have had a much greater impact on Lower Egypt (where the Hyksos were at Avaris) than on Upper Egypt (where Ahmose's clan was hanging out around Thebes.) It is not such a stretch to see that the environmental damage to Lower Egypt could have easily tipped the balance of power to enable Upper Egypt to mount an attack.

Keith&Co.

Unlikely.
In my experience, they're more inclined to believe we're too stupid to grasp the Higher Truth they're offering. Preserves their initial belief that anyone with brains wouldn't be an atheist...

Withered

Just because one person bailed doesn't mean the thread is lost.

Besides, if there are any lurkers out there, they, like me, might be learning something..

I appreciate all of the detailed responses.

L.

reniaa

I watched a documentary on jerusalem can't remember what it's called now but it did mention that jerusalem has been so destroyed and rebuilt over centuries and the rocks resused that it's unlikely to be a good source to come to any definite archaeological conclusions accept for recent centuries. Evidence could simply have been destroyed.

One other issue is archeaologists of the past where not as careful as those of today and did incredible damage to areas of great interest in their greed for artifacts, jerusalem was much abused this way. so i'm not sure where you got your info from but didn't it mention that jerusalem is not a good archaeological source?

Minimalist

And who produced that documentary? The National Council of Churches?

They have found remains going back to the neolithic period...not to mention the middle bronze age, the iron age and every conqueror to come through. How come it is only EXACTLY the evidence that bible-thumpers seek that seems to be destroyed? Damned convenient, wouldn't you say?

Well, probably not you but I leave the question open for others.

Minimalist

Absurd. The problem with archeologists of the past (Robinson, Albrght, Garstang) is that they had a shovel in one hand and a bible in the other. They went out there to "prove" the bible stories true and no matter what they dug up they attached it to some bible story or another. They set the bar way too high and scientific study has shown that their findings were blinded by their own faith.

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Refe..._(Harpers).htm