Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events

Old Testament verifications are cited largely as real places,
or large scale historical events (invasions etc). Inclusion
of these is a common story telling technique.What about references to Moses, the exodus, or such ? These
were big events ... wouldn't they be recorded besides the bible ?[/B][/QUOTE]Hi Peter, I am new to this forum but much of the discussion in this thread is an area that interests me.
As for independent evidence for the Exodus etc, the only that i am aware of is in the work done by Immanuel Velikovsky, or based on his work.
He published (after more than a few problems on the way) a book in the fifties attemting to deal with some of the great descrepencies between conventional Egyptian chronology and the history recorded in the old testament of the bible. It is called 'Ages in Choas"
It was quite an ambitious project and I don't know that he was ever happy that he had sorted out all the problems, but he certainly became very controversial!
He suggested that there was an egyptian document that recorded the events of the exodus. This document is known as the Ipuwer papyrus.
I'm sure 'google' can help you find some more info.
Others have used his ideas since then to try to reconcile biblical history with other sources, and to find evidence of characters such as Solomon or The Queen of the South etc.
The solutions attempted usually rely on different cultures having different names for the same people.sean

Yes, velikovsky certainly had some interesting ideas (such as his ideas re: venus).
However I think his point that either the conventional egyptian chronology or the biblical one is out by about 600 years is well put. At least one of them must be wrong.
finding 'firm ground' with the traditional egyption chronology has its problems though, as George Rawlinson noted over a century ago.
"it is a patent fact and one that is beginning to obtain general recognition, that the chronological element in early Egyptian history is in a state of almost hopeless obscurity" of the documents and monuments he said, "The chronological value of these variuous sources of information, is however in every case slight. the great defect of these monuments is their incompleteness. the egyptians ahd no era> tey drew out no chronological schemes. they cared for nothing but to know how long each incarnate god, human or bovine, had condescended to tarry on the earth. they recorded carefully the length of the life of each apsi bull, and the length of the reign of each king; but they neglected to take note of the interval between one apis bull and another, and ommitted to distinguish the sole reign of a monarch from his joint reign with others."
a history of egypt II ols Vol II pages 1-2.
Now admittedly much more has come to light since then, but the chronological problems may be cultural.
( I am also curious as to his claim they 'had no era' and how this relates to their sothic cycle).But the point is that there are problems preferring the conventional chronology.An interesting article (very recently published) I came across just now may be worth reading, but take note that they do give credence (as i do) to at least some of velikovskys work and the ipuwer papyrus)I should also disclose that I presuppose the reliabilty of the scriptural record a priori.Any way enjoy....sean
http://www.ldolphin.org/montgochron.html