The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

I. How many are there? No webpage found at provided URL: http://chaos1.hypermart.net/egypt/tae.htmlII. What information I have found puts the Exodus around 1200-1100 BC. This is well into recorded history. I can't find a total for the number of records we have from the time period.III. This doesn't follow.IV. Look at the timeline in the link above.V. You might find this interesting. Access deniedVI. a. Numbers 1 gives the size of the male members of the various tribes. Extrapolate to include women and children, and viola.b. Not really. The Bible isn't specific in all cases. However, some stays were considerable. The camp around Mt. Sinai for example. Still, with numbers of the size purported in Numbers, a one day stay would leave a huge footprint.c. So the israelites didn't excrete? And to which dietary laws do you refer?VII. Feel like being less cryptic?VIII. A population of the size of the purported Israelite population would leave so much evidence you couldn't miss it. A one night's stay would leave tens of thousands of fire pits for example, and these scattered over several square miles.IX. Sure. Maybe some named sites were never camps.X. and XI. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

However, according to the first post on this thread, Mr. Finkelstein claims that the biblical account allows for a stay of thirty-eight years in kadesh-barnea.

---

I've been looking into this a bit. In a previous post the statement was made to the effect that the Isrealites spent up to 38 years in and around kadesh-barnea. Well, by looking at a map of the region and comparing place names -- as near as I can determine the names are appropriate to the time in question-- on the map with those in Numbers, it does appear that the Isrealites spent a great deal of time in and around kadesh-barnea. Looks like the places mentioned are all within about 150 miles, and many are much closer. Distances like that are nothing to nomadic herding peoples. For some perspective, if I am not mistaken, the trip from Mt. Horeb to kadesh-barnea was an eleven day trip and the distance is about 300 miles or so. Basically, it looks to me like the statement that they lived in and around kadesh-barnea for 38 years is pretty accurate.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I was only addressing the assertion by ws_fortenberry that Finkelstein(?) is lying or ignorant. If you read the Biblical account, compare it to the maps, it is reasonable enough to say that according to the Biblical account the Isrealites lived in and around kadesh-barnea for about 38 years. That is the only point I meant to make.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-17-2003]

I see this discussion came to a dead stop. Wonder what happened to fortenberry?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

This is the verse which has been used to support the idea that Israel spent 38 years at Kadesh-barnea. However, that idea can not be found in this verse. In fact, the verse states just the opposite

---

You haven't responded to my post #43, which addresses this issue. Perhaps, you missed that post?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

My post #43 does in fact address this issue.

quote:

---

yet looking at it objectively, the claim that Deut 1:46 and Deut 2:14 state that the Hebrews spent a considerable amount of time at Kadesh is in no way, shape or form TRUE.

---

All of the place names listed are withen 200 miles of Kadesh-Barnea, many much much closer. At 5 miles a day, 5 hours a day, you can cover this in 8 days. This may seem like a lot to sedentary Americans but for a nomadic herder, this is nothing. And in that climate, you can't stay put for too long. Which brings up another thought, and I am hoping someone can comment. We think of places as being very specific, because we don't move aroung much. Our cities stay put. But a people who are constantly on the move probably do not have that conception of 'place.' While we may think of a town, they may refer to a large region of similar habitat-- say, a whole valley.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

All I was saying to you was that given the size of the Sinai Peninsula, saying that these places are all within 150 to 200 miles of Kadesh is only saying all are within the Sinai Peninsula.

---

Indeed. Now think about that in relation to the size of the population given in the Bible-- appr. 2,000,000. The county in which I live has a population of about 853,000 and covers an area of just over 1019 square miles. That is a square with 31.62 miles on a side. Now consider that the Isrealite population was purportedly 2.34 times larger than this, and so they would need a larger area. Also consider that I live in a modern city and the people here don't have to have pasture land within walking distance, so that they can feed their livestock. A camp of that size would have an enormous sprawl. What would it mean to say they were camped at Kadesh-Barnea anyway?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Looks like you know some Hebrew...

---

Yes. And took the name a famous rabbi as well.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You're implication that Egypt would be drastically affected is a good argument, and obviously any proposed exodus date should take that into consideration.

---

I don't think you unerstand the magnitude of the Exodus relative to the population of Egypt. The Exodus, as per the Bible, was of around 2 million people. The population of Egypt circa 3000 bc was 1-2 million. By the time the Romans conquered the land, the population had grown to 7 million. Anywhere you place the Exodus, it isn't going to work-- too much vital labor would walk away and Egypt would fall.Placing the Exodus at somewhere around 1570 bc, we'd have a population of about 4 million in Egypt. That means that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the entire empire would have marched away into the desert. Imagine if similar numbers exited the country in mass. Such a thing would leave a mark.

quote:

---

But how would we differentiate between Egyptian artifacts and Hebrew artifacts if the Hebrew culture had been there for hundreds of years?

---

Cultural peculiarities such as artistic styles are remarkably robust. These things hang around much longer than things which more directly effect survival, such as subsistence methods. It isn't likely that 200 years would erase these markers.It is worth noting, also, that Jewish culture has historically been very stubborn in its opposition to foreign customs. The Romans complained about it when the middle east was under thier control, as did the Greeks before them. The Islamic empires had the same problem.

quote:

---

At http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html the author makes a strong rebuttal against Redford's opinion that the archeological record totally discredits the exodus and conquest stories.

---

The author lists problems which an archeaologist must face. I wouldn't call this a strong rebuttal. Basically, the argument is "These things might have gone wrong." It isn't very convincing. If the author could take some actual sites associated with the Exodus and show that these errors HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN made, that would be much better.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

That is true, I believe such a calamity would cause Egypt to fall into great distress.

---

We aren't talking about great distress. You are still underestimating the magnitude of the problem. When half to all of your population walks away en masse, you don't have distress, you have utter destruction. Not only that but in this case, you have utter destruction that doesn't rate a mention in anyone's records, except the records of those making the extraordinary claim. Someone would have noticed if Egypt suddenly fell, but no one did.

quote:

---

When they entered Egypt, they were but a small band. They had no culture of their own that we would recognize.

---

Why do you believe they had no culture that we would recognize? Everyone has a cultural background. Joseph et al did not live in a cultureless fantasy world. According to the Bible, the initial small group expanded to a couple of million in a few hundred years. The culture would have expanded with the people. In other words, there ought to be a trail.

quote:

---

Then, after the Exodus, you would begin to see their cultural distinction in their artifacts because they had a whole series of events that solidified their religion, government, and lifestyle.

---

As slaves? You'd expect to see a loss of cultural identity, not the acquisition of one. This consideration isn't good for either of our positions actually. I'll have to reconsider some things.

quote:

---

But, according to the story, they looted Egypt, no doubt carrying much of Egyptian jewelry etc. into Canaan. This would make picking out and seperating the two rather difficult.

---

ummm.... or not. I believe that there is another version of the story wherein the Israelites left in a big hurry.

quote:

---

While it is not directly related to the Exodus per se, it is valuable for the sake of the argument at hand because it demonstrates that analyses of archealogical data is frought with uncertainty.

---

Of course archealogical data can be troublesome. Still, it is the only data we have.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Oh, I dunno. The Aztecs forged themselves an identity (and a persecution complex IMO) out of being slaves and mercenaries consigned to live in a swamp. Slavery could act as an external pressure encouraging the developement of an esprit de corps.

---

What?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

"In the Aztec codex Tira de la Peregrinacion, commonly called the Migration Scrolls. The scrolls have the Aztecs leaving Aztlan, which was described as an island in a lake with Chicomoztoc depicted as seven temples in the center of the island. The Aztecs felt they were the "chosen people" of Huitzilopochtli. The Aztecs believed Huitzilopochtli their war god was their protector, how had them search for their promised land."

---

You wouldn't be getting your info from No webpage found at provided URL: www.crystallinks.com would you? Anyone notice the similarity?Now, try looking at what the Tira de Peregrinacion actually says. No webpage found at provided URL: http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/Images-Theme%203.htmMost notably, it portrays the Aztec as being Aztec long before they became vassals of King Tezozomoc of Azcatpotzalco. This episode occurs right at the end of the tale and not during the time of their wandering. Also notable is that the land they settled upon was not ceded them by the Tepanecs. They lived there before the Tepanecs took control. Though this isn't entirely clear from this particular codex, the information is not hard to find. No webpage found at provided URL: http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v001.htm

quote:

---

Thus I argue that a model in which a "!national consciousness" is forged while under subjection is not without precedent. I can buy the idea of the Israelites acquiring a national identity while under the rule of Egypt.

---

And since your information is not entirely correct, I'm sure you'll reconsider.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

No. I don't do superstition. That said I can;t prove it, of course.

---

So, explain the word for word quote without citation. Seems a bit odd that you made up an exact copy of the paragraph in question. I understand your embarrassment, but honesty really is the best policy. Plus, quoting without citation violates forum guidelines.

quote:

---

This is not much of a rebuttal. An oral tradition reinforcing the legitimacy of the ruling agency to be the ruling agency - with fully fledged ex nihilo customs of obeisance - is a common feature of origin myths.

---

Hello???? YOU brought up the codex as evidence for your position. I simply pointed out that it doesn't say what you claimed it does. That is most certainly fair play. Of course the codex ought to considered as biased toward the Aztec. However, I didn't bring it up as evidence. You did. I quite effectively refuted that argument by examining the text. And since the codex is the only bit of evidence you've posted, I have quite effectively refuted your entire argument. If you have something else, present it.

quote:

---

And while it is not impossible that all Aztech customs predate their contact with the heirs of the Toltecs, I have never found a serious claim to this effect

---

Nor is this the claim in question. The issue is whether the Aztec gained some form of cultural identity while in slavery. You've not demonstrated the slavery and your time frames seem to be confused.

quote:

---

No, not really.

---

Wow. Not willing to reconsider in light of better data? Sad...

quote:

---

It seems to me you have attributed motive to my argument; I shall not speculate on why.

---

Motive? You made a claim that you cannot support. Thus I expect you to reconsider. Where do you see an attribution of motive?

quote:

---

I put it to you that the assertion that the forms Aztech state can be demonstrated to pre-date Aztech contact with Toltec-informed polities, that the Aztech state emerges fully fledged from initial tribal politics, is a much stronger claim than the one I am advancing and requires some sort of evidence.

---

Why would I make this claim? And why would you ask me to support it? Making the claim that the Aztec did not develop their culture while slaves is nowhere near the claim that they developed their culture in the absense of external influences. I doubt you could make that claim about any culture, but certainly not any one of the cultures of central America.The people who were to become the Aztec were certainly under the rule of other powers, but subjugation to a foreign government is not the same as slavery. The pre-Revolutionary war colonies were subject to the English crown, but were not slaves. The Egyptians under Cleopatra were subject to the Romans, but were not slaves. Judea, under the Pilates, was subject to Rome, but its people were not slaves.Try again.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com