Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 10-06-2007, 06:52 AM

Location of papyrus described here:

Rohl’s biggest discovery, though, was in finding the evidence for the Exodus in the Thirteenth Dynasty. His findings are summarized by John Fulton, a supporter of David Rohl:

‘Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum (p.276, fig. 310) resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 06:58 AM

Consilience, Pappy Jack ... evidence of Hebrew slaves ... Manetho's statement ... sudden ending of 13th dynasty ... proven history of Jewish accuracy in keeping meticulous historical records and transmitting them accurately (Dead Sea Scrolls and other examples) ... other items listed above. Taken together it all makes a strong case for the historicity of Exodus.

Coleslaw · 10-06-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

But it doesn't Dave all that this one papyrus can be said to prove is that there were SOME slaves with Hebrew (or Hebrew like even) names NOT that the whole race was enslaved .
I know someone who is descended from black slaves in the West Indies and he has the surname Jones ,that does not mean that the entire population of Wales were slaves in the West Indies.

Right. SOME Hebrew slaves = SOME evidence. Doesn't prove Exodus happened by itself. Not saying it does. But SOME evidence does exist ... contrary to assertions by skeptics.

You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word "confirmed".

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 07:06 AM

Notice this little sleight of hand:

Quote:

Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).

That 50% of the names are Israelite means that there must have been avery large group of them in the Egyptian Delta at that time

See that? See how we went from "Semitic in origin" [surprise, surprise! take a look at a map] to "Israelite" [a term with no meaning to historians of the period, except of course the fundamentalists who are busy assuming the consequent here]

Johnny Skeptic · 10-06-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why not just address the evidence given in the OP?

What evidence, secular evidence, or supernatural evidence? There is a difference you know. How does ordinary secular history help you? If a man named Moses existed, so what? It is not his existence that matters most, but what he accomplished, and how he accomplished what he accomplished. Even if the Egyptians enslaved the Jews for hundreds of years, and let them go, you cannot reasonably prove that they let the Jews go because the plagues occured. If God did not have anything to do with why the Egyptians let the Jews go, all that we have is a secular historical event. If you ask why the Egyptians would have let the Jews go, I will tell you that I do not know, and I will ask you why God would have allowed the Jews to be enslaved by the Egyptians for hundreds of years, and hundreds of other questions why God does what he does.

It is interesting to note that even though God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan, there is not any historical evidence that Jews have ever occupied all of the land of Canaan. They certainly don't today.

If God really wants people to believe that the Bible is true, it is quite odd that he withholds lots of evidence that would convince more people to believe that it is true, unless he does not exist. Logically, the latter possibility is more probable than the former possibility. If there are not any reasonable motives why God does what he does, it is probable that he has not done what the Bible says that he has done. It is a ridiculous notion that God would want to reveal and conceal evidence at the same time. Withholding useful evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Taken together it all makes a strong case for the historicity of Exodus

Well, then. If that's the case, historians will be abandoning the "Exodus was a myth" theory in droves, right? Any evidence that this is happening?

Because I have a different view of this:

I think none of this "evidence" has anything but the most tangential bearing on the question at hand, and has to be laboriously assembled by wishful thinkers to make a case for a precommitted conclusion. This is not what I consider "consilience". Quite the contrary.

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Consilience, Pappy Jack ... evidence of Hebrew slaves ... Manetho's statement ... sudden ending of 13th dynasty ... proven history of Jewish accuracy in keeping meticulous historical records and transmitting them accurately (Dead Sea Scrolls and other examples) ... other items listed above. Taken together it all makes a strong case for the historicity of Exodus.

Dave, I'm curious: where is your archaeological evidence that Moses (or anyone else, for that matter) parted the Red Sea, and that the "Red Sea pediestrians" (I just watched "Life of Brian" last night) actually walked across it.

You think it's incredible that modern scholars doubt this account. I find it incredible that anyone takes it seriously.

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 07:58 AM

Let's dissect this latest bit of afdave used-car salesmanship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MODERN SCHOLARS THINK EXODUS IS A MYTH
Many modern scholars (including liberal Christian scholars) believe that the epic events described in the Book of Exodus and depicted in the excellent movie starring Charlton Heston, The Ten Commandments, are simply myths.

("Excellent movie"? Well I have to admit, I do love that movie, but for the unintended humor.)

But on a serious note: "many modern scholars"? How about "all modern scholars" - except fundamentalist "scholars" who have signed oaths committing themselves to Biblical literalism, regardless of what any extra-biblical evidence might be? Can you name any?

Quote:

Yes, that's right.

They think there was no oppression of the Israelites, no 10 plagues, no Passover, no mass exit during the night, no miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, no wandering in the desert, no conquest, no miraculous deliverance at Jericho, etc.

They think all this is made up and they believe that some Jewish scribe or scribes who lived in the kingdom years wrote down all the "tall tales" of Exodus from various sources they received which in turn were written down from oral tradition because supposedly Moses was a dumb goat herder who didn't know how to write. They even question whether there ever was such a person as Moses!

Incredible.

Note the rhetorical flourish here. "Incredible!" Well, now, why would that be "incredible" when it is pretty much the unanimous consensus of every serious scholar in the field? When your typical reader will be aware of zero (extra-biblical) evidence to the contrary? When - to anyone but a fundy - it's obvious that the Bible is full of "tall tales"?

Quote:

Yet, that's what they think and many scholarly(?) papers have been written to defend this view.

Why the "(?)" ? Do you have any reason to impugn their scholarship, other than they disagree with your preconceptions about biblical accuracy? Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified some of these papers, rather than relying on the old argumentum ad nebulam standby of referring to "some people mistakenly say..."

Quote:

WHY DO THEY THINK THIS?
Well, there are probably many reasons, but one key reason is that no one could find any archaeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites in Egypt ...

UNTIL RECENTLY ...

Turns out that the following evidence for Israel's activities DOES exist ... scholars were looking in the right places, but they were looking in the WRONG TIME PERIOD!!

DAVID ROHL SOLVES THE MYSTERY
As I point out in my ever-expanding book review of Rohl's Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, some of the evidence uncovered by looking in the RIGHT time period is ...

Quote:

* A Papyrus dated to the generation just prior to the birth of Moses listing slaves with Hebrew names–Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (one of the names of a Hebrew midwife listed in Exodus 1:15-21) (p. 276)

Isn't this rather begging the question, since it's the very existence of this alleged "Moses" that - among other things - is the very fact we're questioning? Besides - I trust this Rohl character a whole lot less than I trust dendrochronologist Ferguson and the journals that published all the ¹⁴C calibration data. Can you show us a photo of this alleged papyrus? Can you tell us where we can go to actually examine it ourselves?

Quote:

* Manetho wrote that that in the reign of Dudimose (the Pharoah of the Exodus under the New Chronology), ‘a blast of God smote us’ (i.e. the Egyptians) (p. 283)

There are multiple candidates under multiple "New Chronologies" for the alleged pharaoh of the alleged Exodus. And virtually every civilation has experienced what they metaphorically refer to as "blasts from God". Think 9/11, for instance. Not very impressive.

Quote:

* The 13th Dynasty of Egypt ended abruptly with the reign of Dudimose and we are told by Manetho that a foreign power took over the rule of Egypt. This would make sense if Dudimose’s army had just been destroyed as related in the Book of Exodus.

You'd think that Moses might have mentioned something about this in his memoirs. Your theory is that the "Israelites" destroyed Pharaoh's army in the course of running away, and left the Egyptian empire for some other foreign power to pick, like ripe fruit? To borrow afdave's favorite word: "incredible"

Quote:

* The archaeology of Avaris (northern city in the land of Goshen) shows that, at approximately at this time, there was a terrible catastrophe–shallow burial pits all over Avaris into which victims had been hurriedly cast. (p. 279)

Things like that happen. All the time. In this case, we have no idea whose bodies they are, what killed them, or what the relationship to alleged biblical events was... Pretty unimpressive.

Quote:

* The palace and cult statue of Joseph the Vizier of Egypt (p. 327)
* Evidence for the fallen walls and burned city of Jericho in the correct time period thus vindicating Garstang and refuting Kenyon (p. 299)

WHY WERE SCHOLARS LOOKING IN THE WRONG TIME PERIOD?
This is explained in two of my recent posts HERE and HERE in which I show that ...

* Conventional Egyptian Chronology is out by several hundred years
* This is because of an assumption by Egyptologists that Shoshenk I = the Biblical Shishak
* But this is wrong as shown by the map below and my articles linked above
* The assumption is based upon an ERROR by Champollion, the Father of Egyptology, and has never been questioned until Rohl

for a critical look at Rohl's credibility, rather than just taking afdave's version of it at face value, see this site.

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 08:04 AM

Also, I think it's worth noting that - consistent with the whole argumentum ad nebulam style of discourse, afdave would rather bring up all this extremely thin and highly - to put it kindly - debatable "evidence", raising yet another fog of vague, indirect, ambiguous, inconclusive suggestions, than lay to rest the "2 = 14" controversy, that he says is so obvious he falls out of his chair laughing at the notion that we skeptics can't see it...

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Why the "(?)" ? Do you have any reason to impugn their scholarship, other than they disagree with your preconceptions about biblical accuracy? Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified some of these papers, rather than relying on the old argumentum ad nebulam standby of referring to "some people mistakenly say..."

The primary reason I question their scholarship is because they have taken a document -- the Pentateuch -- which for millenia has been understood to be a historical record and suddenly decided that it's NOT historical with absolutely no external evidential basis for this radical shift whatsoever. Their only evidence (and I'm speaking of the Documentary Hypothesis advocates) is INTERNAL ... that is, textual analysis.

This is poor scholarship IMHO.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2007, 06:52 AM	#11
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	Location of papyrus described here: Rohl’s biggest discovery, though, was in finding the evidence for the Exodus in the Thirteenth Dynasty. His findings are summarized by John Fulton, a supporter of David Rohl: ‘Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum (p.276, fig. 310) resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).

10-06-2007, 06:58 AM	#12
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Consilience, Pappy Jack ... evidence of Hebrew slaves ... Manetho's statement ... sudden ending of 13th dynasty ... proven history of Jewish accuracy in keeping meticulous historical records and transmitting them accurately (Dead Sea Scrolls and other examples) ... other items listed above. Taken together it all makes a strong case for the historicity of Exodus.

10-06-2007, 08:04 AM	#19
VoxRat Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,768	Also, I think it's worth noting that - consistent with the whole argumentum ad nebulam style of discourse, afdave would rather bring up all this extremely thin and highly - to put it kindly - debatable "evidence", raising yet another fog of vague, indirect, ambiguous, inconclusive suggestions, than lay to rest the "2 = 14" controversy, that he says is so obvious he falls out of his chair laughing at the notion that we skeptics can't see it...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.