Hi George, Jon,
The problem is not so much the question of archaeological evidence, but
that we do not have a single contemporary record of names and
events of any figures prior to, say, Shishak. So even
if there are some archaeological pieces of archaeological evidence, you
still wouldn't convince the most hardheaded person of an historical
exodus if the precise names Moses, Aaron and Miriam and all the
tribes of Israel are not found written on the forehead of their remains - if
possible naming also some identifiable Egyptian or Mesopotamian kings. That is what historians want to see. Anything else is called
'circumstantial evidence'. Such 'definite, literal evidence' is hard to deny, and has been found concerning the Persians and Romans,
even if there is no archaeological evidence for it. But such unequivocal contemporary evidence is not found concerning
any of the Biblical figures prior to Rehobeam, and of many other non-biblical figures as well. And even when we do find evidence, such as at Mari and at Ebla, there is always a handy man who reinterpret the evidence in such a way that the evidence is refuted and this refutation is copied by all as being the more 'recent evidence'. Nobody tries to burn his hands on refuting the refutation, since it also involves their jobs and carreers.
So if there is no irrefutable contemporary literary evidence, then one
is asked to show a set of correctly interlocking
archaeological evidence, a task which is more difficult than anything else concerning historical events. But you can bet on your grandmother's chair that as soon as you do accomplish that feat, you will be rewarded with ultimate silence. Evidence for a real Exodus is unwanted, even by most believers. A miracle that becomes real seizes to be a miracle.That is the main reason why especially the most far-fetched scenario's fair so well. They are wanted. People simply love science-fiction.
are mainly dealing on the one hand with what Sunday Schools told us to believe, and on the other hand with the cat and mouse game between Biblicists and Archaeologists.
Holland, Den Haag
From: Jon Smyth <driver40386@...
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 4:09 AM
Subject: [ANE-2] Exodus proof? (was: Elephantine Aramaic Papyri)
At the risk of appearing to support an Exodus argument, which I do not. May I ask this question in all fairness.
In something of the order of almost a thousand years later, from c.700 BCE to the Christian era, we know from the written record that the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman armies all crossed the northern Sinai, back & forth.
Is there an abundance of archaeological evidence which can prove that any of these armies did indeed make such crossings?
Yet we ask Exodus proponants to find archaeological proof of one crossing?
Is there any evidence the Hyksos made the crossing?
I do not believe the Biblical Exodus story but I think the argument against such a story offered below is a flawed argument.
Sincerely, Jon Smyth
Kitchener, Ont. Can.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
> The problem with your thesis is that there is no archaeological evidence for either the Exodus or the Conquest.Â One would expect that had the Exodus been an historical fact then they would have left some evidence of their traverse of the desert since other smaller groups have left such evidence.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]