Archaeological evidence for the Exodus

[McCulloch]

Archaeology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material culture and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, and landscapes.

There is lack of evidence for a massive exodus (600,000+ people) of Jews from Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/news/mn-50481

Is there any evidence from the science of archaeology to support the literal story of the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt?

[cnorman18]

Archaeology is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material culture and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, and landscapes.

There is lack of evidence for a massive exodus (600,000+ people) of Jews from Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/news/mn-50481

Is there any evidence from the science of archaeology to support the literal story of the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt?

No. But then, the events, if any, that were the origin of the oral traditions that developed into the Exodus narrative did not necessarily include 600,000 adult men (not "people"; 600,000 adult men translates into around 3 million people). Those stories might have begun with a few Hebrews, say a hundred or less, who took the opportunity of the chaos following the Thera eruption to flee Egypt. There is no reason that a record would be made of the escape or emigration of a relatively few slaves, or members of a subclass.

There IS evidence of the presence of a few Semites in Egypt, and of their working in Egyptian mines (proto-Hebrew graffiti in said mines). In any case, archaeology is probably subject to revision as much or more than any field of science, and there are few, if any, hard-and-fast conclusions that may be drawn about any events in ancient history. New information is always arriving to knock previous theories into their respective cocked hats. Biblical minimalists had been theorizing for decades that King David himself was a fictional creation, until artifacts bearing his name were discovered.

3 million people? Extremely unlikely. A few score? No way to tell, and probably never will be.

As always, the question "Did this really happen?" is of very little concern to Jews. The principles and traditions, e.g. Passover, that come from those traditions are the focus.

It's worth noting that there is no Egyptian record of the Thera explosion, either, and that, without doubt or question, actually happened.

[CJO]

Biblical minimalists had been theorizing for decades that King David himself was a fictional creation, until artifacts bearing his name were discovered.

It's still a possibility. First, it's a cue name, dwd, "Beloved," right? A literary name, which is not to say it wasn't a real man's name, but it's suggestive. And don't the artifacts refer to "the House of David" and not an individual? If that's right then it's hardly inconceivable that some early Iron Age local dynasty had a legendary tradition of being descended from God's Beloved, who we need not assume was a real king named David.

3 million people? Extremely unlikely. A few score? No way to tell, and probably never will be.

Agreed, but I'm uncomfortable with this kind of rationalized paraphrase of a story that doesn't make any sense unless it's taken on its own terms, which are: Yahweh, the God of Hosts, sustained the whole of Israel in the desert for many years and then delivered the next generation to the promised land. You can say, well maybe there were just a few, and that's where the story came from. But it is not in any meaningful sense "the same story." Exodus is the product of a highly developed literary and theological tradition, not some legendary tales going back to a few wanderers in the desert, at least this is how it seems to me.

As always, the question "Did this really happen?" is of very little concern to Jews. The principles and traditions, e.g. Passover, that come from those traditions are the focus.

Well, good. Do you generally agree, then, that de-mythologized "versions" of events like the parting of the sea by Moses and other divine interventions recounted in the Exodus narrative entirely obscure the significance of the story?

And if this truly is your approach to scripture, why bother arguing that David was real based on a couple of inscriptions? All the evidence argues against there being developed state structures in and around Jerusalem at the putative time of the "unified kingdom" of David and Solomon, so, again, we're looking for a lost "kernel of history" where the narrative offers us stories about God and his people and betrays very little interest in recording mundane history. If it doesn't matter if "it really happened," why insist on the historicity of David, whose career could not have resembled that of the Biblical David anyway?

It's worth noting that there is no Egyptian record of the Thera explosion, either, and that, without doubt or question, actually happened.

A singular event, however disruptive and awe-inspiring, we would not expect to be the subject of official record keeping, in the way that we would the administration of a massive, servile population of foreigners. There's no administration to do with a volcanic eruption, and Egyptian literary inscriptions of the period are concerned with royal propaganda, not natural history.

[cnorman18]

Biblical minimalists had been theorizing for decades that King David himself was a fictional creation, until artifacts bearing his name were discovered.

It's still a possibility. First, it's a cue name, dwd, "Beloved," right? A literary name, which is not to say it wasn't a real man's name, but it's suggestive. And don't the artifacts refer to "the House of David" and not an individual? If that's right then it's hardly inconceivable that some early Iron Age local dynasty had a legendary tradition of being descended from God's Beloved, who we need not assume was a real king named David.

Of COURSE it's a possibility. My point is that David's nonexistence is not a matter of established fact, as it is occasionally presented. See below.

3 million people? Extremely unlikely. A few score? No way to tell, and probably never will be.

Agreed, but I'm uncomfortable with this kind of rationalized paraphrase of a story that doesn't make any sense unless it's taken on its own terms, which are: Yahweh, the God of Hosts, sustained the whole of Israel in the desert for many years and then delivered the next generation to the promised land. You can say, well maybe there were just a few, and that's where the story came from. But it is not in any meaningful sense "the same story." Exodus is the product of a highly developed literary and theological tradition, not some legendary tales going back to a few wanderers in the desert, at least this is how it seems to me.

You're misunderstanding my statements here. I certainly don't deny that "Exodus is the product of a highly developed literary and theological tradition," but I think its origins may well lie in "legendary tales going back to a few wanderers in the desert." I don't see a conflict here. The story of Alexander Selkirk isn't "the same story" as that of Robinson Crusoe, but the former remains the origin of the latter.

As always, the question "Did this really happen?" is of very little concern to Jews. The principles and traditions, e.g. Passover, that come from those traditions are the focus.

Well, good. Do you generally agree, then, that de-mythologized "versions" of events like the parting of the sea by Moses and other divine interventions recounted in the Exodus narrative entirely obscure the significance of the story?

Not sure how that could be. Those of us who don't believe that the events depicted in the Bible are necessarily historically or literally true, nor that it matters very much, still find meaning and significance in the story. It's perfectly possible to recognize the difference between history and myth while remaining aware of the meaning of the latter.

And if this truly is your approach to scripture, why bother arguing that David was real based on a couple of inscriptions? All the evidence argues against there being developed state structures in and around Jerusalem at the putative time of the "unified kingdom" of David and Solomon, so, again, we're looking for a lost "kernel of history" where the narrative offers us stories about God and his people and betrays very little interest in recording mundane history. If it doesn't matter if "it really happened," why insist on the historicity of David, whose career could not have resembled that of the Biblical David anyway?

Who's insisting? I merely say that a real David remains a possibility, probably as a local tribal chief. The fact that anachronisms worked their way into the story over the centuries is hardly surprising; just as stories about the (probably real) 5th-century British war leader that we call Arthur came to include characteristics of the arms, armor and sensibilities of the French court of a thousand years later, so the accounts of David absorbed the characteristics of later times.

There are three positions here, not two: there is "There was a David and Solomon exactly as presented in Kings and Chronicles," there is "There were nothing like any such rulers and any such kingdom," and there is "The facts of the matter are not known." Historical conclusions are always tentative; for instance, it was widely and confidently said that the tales of Abraham are obviously fictional because he lived long before the camel was domesticated. I don't have the reference at hand, but it appears now that the camel was domesticated by that time in some areas - which isn't surprising; the progress of humanity has never been uniform across the world, or even the Mideast. Would you believe that cell phones are much more common among Israelis than among Arabs?

It's worth noting that there is no Egyptian record of the Thera explosion, either, and that, without doubt or question, actually happened.

A singular event, however disruptive and awe-inspiring, we would not expect to be the subject of official record keeping, in the way that we would the administration of a massive, servile population of foreigners. There's no administration to do with a volcanic eruption, and Egyptian literary inscriptions of the period are concerned with royal propaganda, not natural history.

The emigration or escape of a small group of persons would not be recorded either, no?

The mystery is why there is no indication of the Thera disaster at all; there were certainly administrative issues concerned with its aftermath, e.g. the repair of the damage caused by the tsunami that no doubt took place, not to mention the enormous number of dead, the agricultural and sociological disruptions, and so on. If the records were more concerned with propaganda than with history of whatever kind, the records of that historical disaster may well have been suppressed as a "defeat" of the Egyptian gods and the Pharaoh. It's hard to think of another explanation. Surely someone noticed the pillar of fire by night and smoke by day in the distance.

Hmmm. Perhaps the records of the Exodus were suppressed for the same reason...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

I don't have the reference at hand, but it appears now that the camel was domesticated by that time in some areas...

A reference from About.com:

Dromedaries were probably domesticated in coastal settlements along the southern Arabian peninsula somewhere between 3000 and 2500 BC...
...Evidence for the domestication of Bactrian camels has been found as early as 2600 BC at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.

I make no warranties, but offer the information for evaluation.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is there any evidence from the science of archaeology to support the literal story of the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt?

None. An interesting result of this is that one can spend hours in the very fine Israeli Museum, Jerusalem (as I have) and find nothing of the Moses or the Exodus.

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. But then, the events, if any, that were the origin of the oral traditions that developed into the Exodus narrative did not necessarily include 600,000 adult men (not "people"; 600,000 adult men translates into around 3 million people).

There are many who would translate the term as "contingent" rather than "thousand."

[Cathar1950]

Is there any evidence from the science of archaeology to support the literal story of the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt?

None. An interesting result of this is that one can spend hours in the very fine Israeli Museum, Jerusalem (as I have) and find nothing of the Moses or the Exodus.

Or David until the 8th century.
I was just reading a book on child sacrifice and found it interesting that such words as beloved, first born, first begotten go back to the practice and the kings practiced the MLK sacrifices. Maybe the whole dynasty was built on child sacrifice of a royal child.
Interesting stuff and its after life.

[Cathar1950]

Writings like Chronicles and Kings are idolized history and the authors have differing positions. The tribe of Dan is suppose to be a group of Phoenician that happened to revere Hercules. Interesting enough we find Samson from the tribe of Dan. If I remember correctly.
Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.
I suspect that what made the Hebrew writings central was Ezra and the power of the Persian empire behind him. The rest has been shaped by the forces and circumstances since.
Christians seem to be the ones that make a big deal out of the writings where the Jews have a much better time with them.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is there any evidence from the science of archaeology to support the literal story of the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt?

None. An interesting result of this is that one can spend hours in the very fine Israeli Museum, Jerusalem (as I have) and find nothing of the Moses or the Exodus.

Or David until the 8th century.

To compare the historicity of the David with the historicity of the Exodus or Moses is sloppy at best. David and Jesus would be the more interesting comparison.

I was just reading a book on child sacrifice and found it interesting that such words as beloved, first born, first begotten go back to the practice ...

Sounds like drivel to me. Primogeniture played an enormous role in ancient society. To say that terms like 'beloved' and 'first born' are found in early descriptions of child sacrifice is not at all the same as suggesting that these terms "go back to" that practice. What book?