The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

quote:

---

Paul wrote:
Lack of corroborative and archaeological evidence has of course caused much debate over the reality of this event occuring, and discrepancies, variations, and seeming contradictions within the timeline also make it difficult for some to believe it as a historical event.

---

What distinguishes "seeming contradictions" on the one hand from circumstantial evidence for redaction and fabrication on the other? For example ...

quote:

---

The event is suppose to take place in Egypt, yet Egyptian sources know it not. On the morrow of the Exodus Israel numbered approximately 2.5 million (extrapolated from Num. 1:46); yet the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3 to 4.5 million! The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society.

​

[and later ...]

​

... we can now genuinely speak of unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographic information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overloards: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidence for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1075 to 725 B.C., ...

​

-- Egypt, Cannan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford

---

In response to the quote: "The effct on Egypt must have been cataclysmic -- loss of a servile population, pillaging of gold and silver (Exod. 3:21-22, 12:31-36), destruction of an army -- yet at no point in the history of the country during the New Kingdom is there the slightest hint of the traumatic impact such an event would have on economics or society."

quote:

---

This struck my funny-bone a little bit today! I'd have to study your source before I could respond with anything of value, but ...
  —nuklhed67

---

You are easily amused. You can learn about Redford here.

quote:

---

... something that came to my mind right away is the old addage "History is written by the victors" (my paraphrase). The fact that ancient Egyptian writings would omit this event is really no surprise is it?
  —nuklhed67

---

Right away? Well, hope springs eternal ... It's an oft proffered and truly inane argument. What is surprising is the naive belief that a Dynasty can be decimated without leaving a trace. Tell me, when was this Exodus of yours, and what was the state of Egypt a decade later?

quote:

---

This morning I heard a talking head discussing the Middle East peace process and he pointed out that Palestinian schools teach from textbooks that don't even have Israel on the map. If we were digging up artifacts a few thousand years from now and all we found were Palestinian records, how much could we learn about Israel?
  —nuklhed67

---

Great argument: if all we found was Palestinian propaganda, then all we'd have found was Palestinian propaganda. Have you ever read a study of an archaeological site? Do you honestly think that nothing else would be found? And are you honestly suggesting that YHWH, Moses and his merry men (1) wiped out a culture so completely as to leave no trace of the disaster, only to (2) have it re-emerge a short time later?

quote:

---

But one question I have relates to what happened in the early stages of copying biblical manuscripts. Did they use current (for that time) names for these places in order to better convey the story to their readers? The earliest manuscripts we have are the Septuagint, translated in circa 300-100 BCE. Perhaps the translators used more current names.
  —nuklhed67

---

You're stretching, but if we can agree that the redactors of the Tanach modified, harmonized, and fabricated Jewish Canon, I'll accept that as a point of consensus.Parenthetically, do your comments mean that you prefer the LXX to the Massoretic Text?