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?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

Just a reminder that unproductive one-liners are against the rules.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Moderator Intervention

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

Just a reminder that unproductive one-liners are against the rules.

Good grief! Then permit me to offer more than a one line - this time not in jest ...

Some "scholars" do, in fact, suggest all manner of things. To assert that "some scholars suggest X" is entirely worthless. To suggest that this in and of itself is a reason to consider X is nonsense. And to do so without citation is simply absurd.

[Cathar1950]

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

I am going to go with the finding of the last 50 years as to so-called Biblical Archaeology. I am going with the works and studies of Finkelstein, Silberman and other as I find the argument persuasive.

It seems the two families of priest saw themselves as the descendants of Moses or Arron and wrote separate stories with their own interest and ideologies based on older stories from even older stories. Even the stories of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and others and are many separate tribal stories that were borrowed, combined and related to the groups of people under at least two separate kingdoms as they were being centralized and the writings were first being propagated for royal and priestly propaganda just like all their neighbors has done, sometimes long before.
Some stories or writings could very well have started out as entertainment much as Homer's.

[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.

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?

I agree that comparing David and Jesus is an interesting comparison.
Yet “beloved, first born, first begotten� do go back to the practice and can also be seen in the neighboring kingdoms. Even circumcision is an after life of the practice.
I had read some writings on human sacrifices in the Bible and while reading Tim Callahan’s “Secret Origins of the Bible� I was checking out some of his sources and one led to another and I came across Francesca Stavrakopolou’s “King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice�. Although the writers and editors of the final writings seem to cover a lot of things up and do use a number scapegoats the language is an after life of earlier practices that seem to have continued right up until the real Exodus or Exile. One prophet says God never commanded such things while another said God did and did it to destroy them. While the prophets might disagree with the practice and disagree with the source they do show us that it was going on. There was the Child sacrifice to the ancestors or Elohim, the MLK or king sacrifice, the fertility sacrifice and sacrifices to even Yahweh. And from the language and references used some were done even at Zion and at the temple.
I got interested in the subject of how in the Hebrew stories the second son seems to end up first and when you look at the practice of sacrificing the first born it looks like an interesting coincidence.
We should start a thread on human and child sacrifices while I still have the book. It is due today but I think it is only 15 cents a day and I can take some notes and copy a few pages and references. Or is this from the University library that costs a dollar a day?

[Cathar1950]

Moderator Intervention

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

Just a reminder that unproductive one-liners are against the rules.

Good grief! Then permit me to offer more than a one line - this time not in jest ...

Some "scholars" do, in fact, suggest all manner of things. To assert that "some scholars suggest X" is entirely worthless. To suggest that this in and of itself is a reason to consider X is nonsense. And to do so without citation is simply absurd.

I was mentioning it in passing. I find your last post "entirely worthless" and absurd nonsense. Read my last post and I went in to more detail and even made references to the scholars you so easy dismiss before you have seen the content.
Granted I guess looking back I should have gone in to more detail and mentioned the scholars but it was just a passing thought until you went off.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

I am going to go with the finding of the last 50 years as to so-called Biblical Archaeology. I am going with the works and studies of Finkelstein, Silberman and other as I find the argument persuasive.

I have read Finkelstein's works (plural). Have you? I've also read Dever, Mazar, Redmond, Zevit, and numerous others. I would be delighted to have you site Finkelstein on Moses and Aaron. I would be even more pleased if you would not falsely insinuate that Finkelstein (much less Silberman) reflects the consensus within the field of Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.

[Cathar1950]

Some scholars suggest that Moses and Arron were not brothers but two different groups of priest that saw them as their respective ancestors.

Some scholars say all manner of things ...

I am going to go with the finding of the last 50 years as to so-called Biblical Archaeology. I am going with the works and studies of Finkelstein, Silberman and other as I find the argument persuasive.

I have read Finkelstein's works (plural). Have you? I've also read Dever, Mazar, Redmond, Zevit, and numerous others. I would be delighted to have you site Finkelstein on Moses and Aaron. I would be even more pleased if you would not falsely insinuate that Finkelstein (much less Silberman) reflects the consensus within the field of Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.

Yes I have read a number of there books including Dever, Mazar, Redmond, and others so what?
There may not be a consensus, I don't recall claiming there was but it is some of the latest stuff, in the last 50 years, in the field of Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.
I will be glad to look up the reference as I have a number of the books here with me someplace. You do have an attitude problem which seems odd given the lack of substance you have shown.

[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 is not at all the same as suggesting that these terms "go back to" that practice. What book?

I agree that comparing David and Jesus is an interesting comparison.
Yet “beloved, first born, first begotten� do go back to the practice and can also be seen in the neighboring kingdoms.

You've offered no evidence that these terms "go back to" (i.e., originate out of) these practices. You've offered no evidence that these terms (or their equivalents) are absence in those early societies with no known history of ritual child sacrifice. Barring that, what we're left with has all the trappings of a classic cum hoc fallacy.

You might appreciate reading H. C. Brichto's “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife: A Biblical Complex,� Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973): 1–54.

I had read some writings on human sacrifices in the Bible and while reading Tim Callahan’s “Secret Origins of the Bible� I was checking out some of his sources and one led to another and I came across Francesca Stavrakopolou’s “King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice�.

That you for the references. I've read neither scholar. Would you mind outlining their credentials.

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, I tend to agree with you regarding circumcision. One of the more interesting discussions to be had about all this concerns the Akedah, or binding of Isaac, which I'm convinced can only be understood from the perspecive of a culture comfortable (if that's the right word) with child sacrifice.