Exodus Part One: Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt

How certain is the translation ? As I understand it the word translated as "thousands" could mean "family" or refer to some other grouping (i.e. the occupants of a tent).

Well to give the opposition a fair chance, if we assume a more reasonable number what sort of evidence might we reasonably hope to find ?

It seems that you have problems interpreting the evidence.Firstly these "155 cities" are not limited to Egypt. ALL of the 19 identified are in Israel or Judah. Indeed it is likely that none of the cities are in Egypt proper and the list identifies cities external to Egypt but subject to the Pharoah. If that were not the case then we would expect major Egyptian cities - such as Thebes and Memphis - to be included and identified.They include unimportant towns and small villages, so even if it did include places in Egypt they need not account for many people.While only 19 were identified in 1937 this may not be the case today, moreover an inability to identify the site does not mean that it is unknown - only that it is not possible to link it with the name in the inscription.So it seems that you don't have much of a point at all.

Apparently you are unable to understand why your quote is not relevant. FIrslty we are discussing the evidence IN EGYPT so unless your quote is evidence of a significant number of "lost: settlements in Egypt it has no value ot the current discussion..If none of the settlements are in Egypt they are not direct evidence of "lost" settlements in Egypt. Since it apparently does not mention the major Egyptian cities which WOULD have been identified in 1937 we can conclude that it does not include any sites in Egypt proper.If the reason the settlements were unidentified in 1937 does not apply to the current state of our knowledge of Egypt then it is not indirect evidence either. The fact that ALL 19 settlements identified were in Israel or Judah and that they included small villages indicates that the identification is a function of the amount of archaelogicial investigation. Since the degree of investigation of Egypt would be comparable to that of Israel and Judah even at the time - and more evidence would have been gathered since - the data cannot be reasonably extrapolated to apply to Egypt.Therefore the quote is neither direct nor indirect evidence of "lost" settlements in Egypt.As for your final comment, are you are arguing then that there is nothing that could distinguish sites occupied by pre-Exodus Israelites from sites occupied by Canaanites of the same period ?

quote:

---

he fact that the Torah does not name the Pharoah, is evidence of early Mosaic authorship. Official New Kingdom language never mentioned Pharoah by his name. Moses perpetrated the custom which explains why the Pharoah is not named.

---

This argument does not hold water. Since I have linked to a genuine New Kingdom document naming three Pharoahs it is obviously false to claim that any such rule would have applied to Moses' writing.

The link (2 actually) is given in this post:
http://EvC Forum: Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man -->EvC Forum: Egyptology Sets Up A Straw ManSince you replied to it, you must have read the message.

Ahmose was probably not crowned in 1580 - but the event referred to is his pursuit of the Hyksos into southern Palestine. And if you want to try to introduce your chronology here then I strongly suggest hat you start a topic to discuss it. I am certainly not going to take it seriosuly until it is laid out and supported by real evidence.Moreover, if Moses wrote Exodus why would he not follow the form of an autobiography ? What official documents do you have in mind that never named the Pharoah and why would Moses follow that form instead ?

However the Hyksos fled (and I have not investigated that) it is accepted that they retreated to Sharuhen.And you can understand why Ahmose might wish to continue the war rather than allowing the Hyksos to rebuild. And it is certain that someoen attacked Palestien in that period.
The location of Sharuhen is uncertain but Tel Ajjul is likely - it also is named in the Bible (Joshua 19:6)