Diogenes the Cynic

You'll have to explain what you mean by "witness in good standing." How are you defining "witness" (Exodus does not even claim to be an eyewitness account of anything) and how are you defining "good standing?" Good standing with who?

Even if, out of the gate, the book of Exodus was to be afforded a default presumption of historicity, all subsequent evidence has shown that the presumption is false. The book's "good standing" as a witness of history has been completely destroyed.
This is completely false.

spin

Witness validation is the first thing thing a lawyer does when the witness is introduced. The lawyer shows how the witness can know what they know, before their relevant testimony is heard. The usual way that the lawyer validates the witness is to show somehow that they were in the right place at the right time.

Sites of battles and sites of camps do get found. For example, near Lake Trasimene in Italy, where Hannibal defeated a Roman army, weapons and burials from the event have been found and excavated. Around Masada in Israel the remains of camps of Roman soldiers are easily now observable. Your objection is not based on fact.

Would you suggest that, say, Beersheba or Arad changed location dramatically?


spin

Sheshonq

Hardly. Dever - the big name you pulled out to say that it got "great reviews" - holds a position that is 180 degrees away from the book's author. It's obvious that he doesn't endorse the conclusions.

The faint patronization comes from reading how carefully he phrased his review. It's not rocket science, unless you're bound and determined to pick a nit for no good reason.

The best and most good-spirited defense yet of the conservative position that takes the Biblical "Exodus-Conquest" narratives literally as history.

Dever tippy-toes around without invoking his own conclusions: the 'conservative position' that this book is defending is not supportable historically or archaeologically.

Dutch_labrat

Back to the topic:

Is there any hard corroborated evidence for the exodus story? I don’t care for Amazon reviews as much as I care for peer reviewed research (I am weird that way) or just plain facts that I can see, check and understand.

What have you got?

Diogenes the Cynic

In a word, no. Hoffmeier even admits as much. He's on'y trying to argue for a window of plausibility. He's not claiming to be able to prove anything.

-Jay-

In other words, he's casting about for straws.

Diogenes - I was in the Cities earlier this week. I'd forgotten what December in Minneapolis was like...

regards,

NinJay

Solitary Man

Sheshonq - have you read much Dever? Have you read Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk) which came out years prior and to which Dever contributed?

Sheshonq

Distraction? Peddle it elsewhere; it won't work with me.

Why did you try to mischaracterize Dever's endorsement of this book?

Sheshonq

No, it isn't. There are too many historical, archaeological and scientific mistakes in it.

Incorrect. The reliability of the witness must first be demonstrated by those who are putting it forth as a witness - people like you.

You have the burden of proof exactly backwards.

Also incorrect. Armies tend to use things made of bronze or iron, which doesn't decay. Instead of making stuff up off the top of your head, maybe you should spend a few hours reading a basic archaeology textbook?

A population of 2.5 million people living in a desert for 40 years - how hard do you have to think, before you can come up with "what evidence there would be"?

Also wrong.

Amaleq13

I don't see it as a mischaracterization on his part so much as a misinterpretation of the characterization on yours.

Dever did not reject the book as utterly worthless or ridiculous. He complimented it for being a good effort.

Given what we know about Dever's position, that suggests to me that he considers it something that is likely to be embraced by those opposed to his views and, because of that, something that those who champion his views would do well to read.