Archaeological evidence for the Exodus?

[yxboom]

I am interested in getting some feedback from more knowledgable folk than I, who could offer some insights into the archaeological evidence or lack thereof for the Exodus.

[Xru]

I am interested in getting some feedback from more knowledgable folk than I, who could offer some insights into the archaeological evidence or lack thereof for the Exodus.

My understanding is that there is very little archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

However, I saw a video once about a fella who found some Egyptian chariot axles at the proposed crossing point for the Red Sea. See http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVER..._Wheels_3.html

The pictures a rather dramatic. For some reason the archaeologist who discovered this is is some disrepute . . . not sure why. Perhaps its because he has funny ideas . . . that is ideas that support the Bible.

[Soyeong]

The other parts repeat some of the beginning, so you can skip to 3:40 for the second part. The other parts have their skip point listed in the comments.

[Xru]

Thanks for the video's. This is consistent with the Ron Wyatt video except he supposes that the Jews traveled down a wadi to the crossing point. But they both identify the same place.

Also, Wyatt addresses the Mt. Sinai thing and in his video he states that the Arabian gov. closes off the supposed Mt. Sinai location and fences it off to "protect" the site . . . according to Wyatt anyway.

So what is the "conspiracy" . . . the fence? Trying to keep the "truth" from the faithful . . . ?

[KingsGambit]

While this piece doesn't focus specifically on the Exodus account, Glenn Miller mentions several other ancient civilizations whose existence is well accepted, yet of whom no archaeological trace exists.

http://christianthinktank.com/noai.html

The point is clear: even if we don't have evidence right now, there is no reason it could not have occurred.

[Xru]

While this piece doesn't focus specifically on the Exodus account, Glenn Miller mentions several other ancient civilizations whose existence is well accepted, yet of whom no archaeological trace exists.

http://christianthinktank.com/noai.html

The point is clear: even if we don't have evidence right now, there is no reason it could not have occurred.

Well ya . . . but this does little in my humble opinion as that leaves room for anything to be possible.

I do think that the axles in the Red Sea is evidence though.

[KingsGambit]

Well ya . . . but this does little in my humble opinion as that leaves room for anything to be possible.

I do find it helpful when a common skeptical refrain is "absence of evidence is evidence the Bible was wrong!" Archaeology just doesn't work that way.

[technomage]

Greetings, 'boom,

I am interested in getting some feedback from more knowledgable folk than I, who could offer some insights into the archaeological evidence or lack thereof for the Exodus.

I fear there is none, Wyatt's claims notwithstanding.

Instead of an absence of evidence, we have a definite evidence of absence on several issues dealing with the Exodus:

1. The fighting men of Israel (according to the narrative) were some 600,000 men, but in addition, they had their wives, their children, and the "mixed multitude" that left with them ... what would you say, around 2,000,000 people? And their livestock? And the treasures they took with them? At the various times proposed for the Exodus, Egypt's total population was about 3 to 3.5 million.

Think that through--not even considering the plagues, what would happen to the economy of any labor-intensive, mainly agricultural nation that lost, overnight, between half and two thirds of its labor pool? Each individual is another mouth to feed, yes, but each one adds in much more to the economy than they consume. When you add in the effects of the plagues, the livestock that the Hebrews took with them, the loss of Pharaoh's solders that pursued the Hebrews into the sea ... you have an economy that would have been completely and totally shattered.

Instead, during and after the time these events supposedly occurred, you had a strong Egypt, militarily and economically powerful enough to dominate most of Canaan.

2. Instead of an origin from Egypt (or, taking it back a few generations further) from Mesopotamia, the Hebrews were descended from the Canaanites.

We can see this in their language, in their literature, in their pottery practices, in their architecture, in the practice of circumcision (common in Canaanite areas), in some of their dietary habits (the Hebrews were not the only ones who eschewed pork) ... and the list goes on. The Hebrew culture originated in Canaan, originally in the areas of higher elevation. They displaced their Canaanite cousins (for the most part, peacefully), and the area became Hebrew--not through Exodus and Conquest, but through a long and relatively peaceful process.

3. On leaving Egypt, they would have formed a column ten people abreast, and 150 miles long--not counting livestock. Make the column wiser and it gets shorter, but at no point do you have a population that is not going to leave a huge impact on the terrain.

Just think of the physical waste alone. Can you imagine (assuming 2,000,000 Hebrews) between 750 and 1000 tons of human excrement buried in little pits in the desert floor... each and every day for forty years? Even as dry as it is, the Sinai desert would be the best fertilized territory on the face of the planet!

I discount the Exodus for precisely the same reasons I discount the Mormon tales of horse-riding, iron-forging, city-building Hebrew cultures in the Americas. It's not that the archaeology is silent on the issue--it's that the archaeology definitively refutes even the possibility.

[Xru]

It's not that the archaeology is silent on the issue--it's that the archaeology definitively refutes even the possibility.

ah no . . . you assert something. Archaeology is silent.

You made some citations of numbers . . . got some sources for them?

[yxboom]

My understanding is that there is very little archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

However, I saw a video once about a fella who found some Egyptian chariot axles at the proposed crossing point for the Red Sea. See http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVER..._Wheels_3.html

The pictures a rather dramatic. For some reason the archaeologist who discovered this is is some disrepute . . . not sure why. Perhaps its because he has funny ideas . . . that is ideas that support the Bible.

Thanks, I am unaware of really solid evidence for the Exodus which is why I ask.

...

The other parts repeat some of the beginning, so you can skip to 3:40 for the second part. The other parts have their skip point listed in the comments.

Thanks for the video, I watched the 5 parts, do you have any idea how old it is? It seemed to me more like propaganda than actual science.

Thanks for the video's. This is consistent with the Ron Wyatt video except he supposes that the Jews traveled down a wadi to the crossing point. But they both identify the same place.

Also, Wyatt addresses the Mt. Sinai thing and in his video he states that the Arabian gov. closes off the supposed Mt. Sinai location and fences it off to "protect" the site . . . according to Wyatt anyway.

So what is the "conspiracy" . . . the fence? Trying to keep the "truth" from the faithful . . . ?

The appeal to mystery and conspiracy came off rather silly.

While this piece doesn't focus specifically on the Exodus account, Glenn Miller mentions several other ancient civilizations whose existence is well accepted, yet of whom no archaeological trace exists.

http://christianthinktank.com/noai.html

The point is clear: even if we don't have evidence right now, there is no reason it could not have occurred.

I will look into that, thanks.

[technomage]

ah no . . . you assert something. Archaeology is silent.

If your statement were true, then we must give equal credence to the Mormon claims.

There is such a thing as the absence of evidence. I am not citing such. In this case, as I said before, I am citing a positive evidence of absence.

You made some citations of numbers . . . got some sources for them?

For the numbers for the Hebrews, one need only look to Exodus 12 and Numbers 1. For Egypt, Routledge's Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. I don't remember the article it came from, however--I have it as notes I've written, and didn't cite it properly in my notes.

[Cerebrum123]

Greetings, 'boom,



I fear there is none, Wyatt's claims notwithstanding.

Instead of an absence of evidence, we have a definite evidence of absence on several issues dealing with the Exodus:

1. The fighting men of Israel (according to the narrative) were some 600,000 men, but in addition, they had their wives, their children, and the "mixed multitude" that left with them ... what would you say, around 2,000,000 people? And their livestock? And the treasures they took with them? At the various times proposed for the Exodus, Egypt's total population was about 3 to 3.5 million.

Think that through--not even considering the plagues, what would happen to the economy of any labor-intensive, mainly agricultural nation that lost, overnight, between half and two thirds of its labor pool? Each individual is another mouth to feed, yes, but each one adds in much more to the economy than they consume. When you add in the effects of the plagues, the livestock that the Hebrews took with them, the loss of Pharaoh's solders that pursued the Hebrews into the sea ... you have an economy that would have been completely and totally shattered.

Instead, during and after the time these events supposedly occurred, you had a strong Egypt, militarily and economically powerful enough to dominate most of Canaan.

2. Instead of an origin from Egypt (or, taking it back a few generations further) from Mesopotamia, the Hebrews were descended from the Canaanites.

We can see this in their language, in their literature, in their pottery practices, in their architecture, in the practice of circumcision (common in Canaanite areas), in some of their dietary habits (the Hebrews were not the only ones who eschewed pork) ... and the list goes on. The Hebrew culture originated in Canaan, originally in the areas of higher elevation. They displaced their Canaanite cousins (for the most part, peacefully), and the area became Hebrew--not through Exodus and Conquest, but through a long and relatively peaceful process.

3. On leaving Egypt, they would have formed a column ten people abreast, and 150 miles long--not counting livestock. Make the column wiser and it gets shorter, but at no point do you have a population that is not going to leave a huge impact on the terrain.

Just think of the physical waste alone. Can you imagine (assuming 2,000,000 Hebrews) between 750 and 1000 tons of human excrement buried in little pits in the desert floor... each and every day for forty years? Even as dry as it is, the Sinai desert would be the best fertilized territory on the face of the planet!

I discount the Exodus for precisely the same reasons I discount the Mormon tales of horse-riding, iron-forging, city-building Hebrew cultures in the Americas. It's not that the archaeology is silent on the issue--it's that the archaeology definitively refutes even the possibility.

If it weren't for a few burial mounds, then we would know absolutely nothing about the Scythians, and they lived out in the kind of wilderness that the Israelite's wandered through, and for FAR longer a time period.

[yxboom]

Greetings, 'boom,

Hi.

I fear there is none, Wyatt's claims notwithstanding.

Instead of an absence of evidence, we have a definite evidence of absence on several issues dealing with the Exodus:

1. The fighting men of Israel (according to the narrative) were some 600,000 men, but in addition, they had their wives, their children, and the "mixed multitude" that left with them ... what would you say, around 2,000,000 people? And their livestock? And the treasures they took with them? At the various times proposed for the Exodus, Egypt's total population was about 3 to 3.5 million.

Think that through--not even considering the plagues, what would happen to the economy of any labor-intensive, mainly agricultural nation that lost, overnight, between half and two thirds of its labor pool? Each individual is another mouth to feed, yes, but each one adds in much more to the economy than they consume. When you add in the effects of the plagues, the livestock that the Hebrews took with them, the loss of Pharaoh's solders that pursued the Hebrews into the sea ... you have an economy that would have been completely and totally shattered.

Instead, during and after the time these events supposedly occurred, you had a strong Egypt, militarily and economically powerful enough to dominate most of Canaan.

I have read some attempts to bringing that number down to about 6000.

2. Instead of an origin from Egypt (or, taking it back a few generations further) from Mesopotamia, the Hebrews were descended from the Canaanites.

We can see this in their language, in their literature, in their pottery practices, in their architecture, in the practice of circumcision (common in Canaanite areas), in some of their dietary habits (the Hebrews were not the only ones who eschewed pork) ... and the list goes on. The Hebrew culture originated in Canaan, originally in the areas of higher elevation. They displaced their Canaanite cousins (for the most part, peacefully), and the area became Hebrew--not through Exodus and Conquest, but through a long and relatively peaceful process.

How does this harmonize with the conquests i.e., Joshua, judges, etc?

3. On leaving Egypt, they would have formed a column ten people abreast, and 150 miles long--not counting livestock. Make the column wiser and it gets shorter, but at no point do you have a population that is not going to leave a huge impact on the terrain.

Just think of the physical waste alone. Can you imagine (assuming 2,000,000 Hebrews) between 750 and 1000 tons of human excrement buried in little pits in the desert floor... each and every day for forty years? Even as dry as it is, the Sinai desert would be the best fertilized territory on the face of the planet!

I discount the Exodus for precisely the same reasons I discount the Mormon tales of horse-riding, iron-forging, city-building Hebrew cultures in the Americas. It's not that the archaeology is silent on the issue--it's that the archaeology definitively refutes even the possibility.

I hadn't given much thought to how much manna remains in the desert, but thats an interesting point. I would be just as interested in any evidence that addresses this.

[Xru]

If your statement were true, then we must give equal credence to the Mormon claims.

What . . . the above makes sense somehow. You impress me as a Troll or maybe you're on drugs or just drunk.

I'm convinced of one thing and that you are a nut case.

BTW, arguing that 2.5 million is too much does not exclude a lesser number. The fact is no one knows idiot.

[Cerebrum123]

Hey yxboom, I thought I should mention that the chronologies for the things happening in Egypt, and what the time of the Exodus might have been, may not be lined up right. In fact, there are some who believe that the chronology of Egyptian history needs to be revised, if I remember correctly, there is a certain period not too distant from the Exodus, that would match up perfectly with the economic, and social upheavals that would naturally occurred after the Israelite's left.