The exodus decoded

[GALLA PLACIDIA]

What do you think about the story of the Exodus???
This night in a channel of television of Spain there has been emitted the documentary Exodus decoded, I believe that it is a new expression teologist and archaeological very impressive.
What do you think? Was it the exodus a real movement? Does Bible say the truth?

[GALLA PLACIDIA]

http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp

[Jona Lendering]

The Bible always tells the truth, because it is a book about religion, and believers search in it for guidance. To them, it is true. However, as a historical source, I think that it is now reasonably certain that the events as described in Exodus can not have happened. The final composition of the first five books of the Jewish Bible is now dated to the fourth century BCE.

It is interesting that if you arrange the Bible in order of the origin of its parts (e.g., Isaiah before the Deuteronomistic History [=Joshua to 2 Kings] before Ezekhiel before Ezra/Chronicles before the final composition of the Pentateuch), you will find the following development:

(1) Stories about a wandering nation that is found by God (first prophets)
(2) Stories that this wandering nation settles and is born (Judges)
(3) Stories about a leader, Moses
(4) Stories about the exodus out of Egypt (developed Pentateuch)

Moses and the exodus belong to a part of the Bible that is written after the Babylonian exile (which explains all kinds of little details, e.g., why Moses is put in a basket with bitumen, which does not exist in Egypt - the story is evidently derived from the Sargon legend). The hostility to Egypt is absolutely post-Josiah, and probably even fifth-century or later.

If you plot the route of the Exodus on a map, you see that in one tradition, the Hebrews move to the south and move across the Red Sea; the younger tradition shows that they move to the north, and that pharaoh is killed in the Serbonian Lake. There is some evidence (not very strong) that this second tradition is as late as post-350 BCE.

This matter is pretty complex, and there is a lot of difference of opinion. Easy solutions will not do. Nor are there easy confirmations of the Bible's story - which needs no confirmation because it describes a religious, and not a historical truth. Whatever one thinks, the Bible is no longer the unique possession of religious people only; it must be studied with the same standards as other ancient texts.

Literature: Silberman/Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed (2000) caused some shock, but it actually contains no new theories. Details, of course, may be wrong, but I think that for the next ten years, this is the book to read.

Perhaps someone is offended by these remarks; that is not my intention. As a matter of fact, I am a religious person who this week has celebrated Chanukah and Christmas. Still, if the moderators think this message is too strong, I can live with it being removed.

[GALLA PLACIDIA]

I believe that the bible cannot take with the intention of the archeologists that they have done the documentary, I believe that it is a book to ponder and to take his histories and to try to give as real facts it is a mistake.
This documentary is very made, but I believe that his fund, his content is very poor and they to themselves is based on speculations created already by archeologists who need to find these exchequers that they will never be able to find, must not even be found, because there can destroy the base of the catholic religion.

I know that it is a very complicated topic and can hurt many people, if the moderators believe that we must stop this way we will do it.
We do not try to offend anybody.
Thank you.

[Robert Vermaat]

Personally I do not think that all the israelis became a people in Egypt. the Egyptian name of their leader (Mosis) is interesting though, but I have no doubt that a people that grows out of a few families into such a large group that is able to conquer a whole region (Israel), would for sure be showing Egyptian customs as well as Egyptian material culture. Whereas, if you go to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, it is the Israeli archaeologists that tell the visitor that they think that the only migration of what later becomes the people of Israel, came from mesopotamia, not Egypt.

There's all sort of details in Israel's ancient history and archaeology that does not not fit with the Bible, which was in all probability first written down during the first deportation of Israel.

There's that pharaoh that supposedly drowned with all his army (as any Egyptologist can tell you - Fog of War, right Jona?).
There's signs that Israel had a male as well as a female view of God in the early days (Israel Museum again).
There's information in the Bible that not all the tribes arrived at the same time (I read that somewhere a long time ago, I'd have to look the reference up).
You won't find the evidence of Israel's destruction of the walls of Jericho.

Etc.

[Jona Lendering]

Here is the latest installment in the search for the exodus. It is interesting to see that the hard fact is that there was a line of fortifications along the coast, which might explain why the Hebrews took an indirect route - that's all there is to the story, but it's presented as if scholars who believe that the exodus did not take place are now refuted, which amounts to a non sequitur.

[Felix Canus]

I take the opposite view, mostly. The only way to know for sure is to look at each part as separate items.

For instance, many now think that there was a translating error, that the Hebrews did not cross the Red Sea, but crossed Reed Sea which is further north, more shallow, but is affected by strong tides that can cause the ground to appear and then vanish quickly.

Many bodies of water also have odd tidal effects that carve out patterns in the floor, when th tides go out, many become exposed. Fishermen in the Red Sea have known about these and used them for many thousands of years.

Until you have thought out all the parts of the puzzle, the picture can't be completed.

[Comerus Gallus]

Did you saw the well preserved Minoic frescoes uncovered from what seems their settlement sit on Egyp!?... it was amazing.


Can somebody point me out, if really there is a source from history or epic, wich state that the Danaoi came originally from Egypt?....

I think he( Iacobovichi) claim these people as, greeks or hebrew,
but I'm curious if its for this that the misterious Apocripha spartan-hebrew claim camefrom?... that the Spartan were brothers of the Hebrews..... If its, I would say in part... they came before the Spartan-Dorians if I recall. Was the Ruling class Peloponessians before Achaian people... apart from the aborigins Helots?

Miceni was Achaian people fist no?.


but if there is a truly ancient source wich state Danaoi came from Egypt, this can unite a bit the puzzle.
===============================================

BTW: If its a fact that they came from Egypt, but Greek mythology state that they descent from Danae or greek gods, I would say that many times this is a fiction, they could claim any of this local gods or heroes in order to feell more aborigin to the country.


It reminds me the case of Berosus of Babylon (historian), he state that greeks took Herakles from the Lybians, greeks honored him with a copper statue. I'm not talking of the pseudos sourcel.

Wich mean many time people adopted customs from other pleople.

I think I went too far trying to expplain myself... my poor english!!!! :evil:

[Cornelius Quintus]

Ave Jona and Came,

no, your interesting statements don't bother me. And yes, I think the bible tells the right story.

Jona, you're right, too. It's always a matter of faith, when evidence is rare. My personal question is: are the actual finds just hints to base a special theory on them or straight, complete 'waterproof' evidence which excludes any other view.

As long as there's nothing 'waterproof' (I know it's a desert region there :roll: ), everyone might have no problem to keep following his or her faith (scientific, historical or religious).

To me, there are some challenging finds and opinions, but nothing to turn anything upside down.

I'll play advocatus diaboli: You know, there still are theories on the market, that Charlemagne never lived (and a complete century never happened). As a game of thoughts, someone could state that Caesar never left Italy and all his 'Gallic' reports are fantasy traveling stories (okay, also of a large Roman tourist party of some legions). Okay, that's silly - but perhaps has the potential to become another best seller... :lol:

Again: very interesting puzzle-pieces. In a trial at court of justice, causing doubts is all you need to get a discharge. In Science, one needs certainty in all details. Yet, I personally still see a lack of density in the archaeological-finds-puzzle, which can't be filled by interpretation, never mind the personal intention or point of view.

[hoplite14gr]

Gioi there are evidence of strong trade relations and cultural relations between Bronze Age Greece and Bronze Age Egypt.
But there is no evidence of any Greek population group coming from Egypt.

I will agree with Jona's view that a religious text is true to the religions believers.

Centric's post is important.
I have seen reconstructed maps of the BA Mediterrean that show interesting details of the coast lines that they do not exist now.

Kind regards

[Comerus Gallus]

Gioi there are evidence of strong trade relations and cultural relations between Bronze Age Greece and Bronze Age Egypt.
But there is no evidence of any Greek population group coming from Egypt.

I will agree with Jona's view that a religious text is true to the religions believers.

Centric's post is important.
I have seen reconstructed maps of the BA Mediterrean that show interesting details of the coast lines that they do not exist now.

Kind regards

Cool Stefane!

Ok i was goin to say about the posibility that some of the Philistines, peleset-Caphtorim(cretans?) were in fact egeans-& some probably greeks, but the matter is uncertain, not worth to talk about it....

Thanks!

[Ioannis]

For more info on the Minoan frescoes found at Tell el-Dab'a/Avaris take a look at:

http://www.therafoundation.org/articles ... varisegypt

[Tarbicus]

everyone might have no problem to keep following his or her faith (scientific, historical or religious).

Science has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with evidence and reason. I'm not intending to cause offence to anyone or start an argument either, it's just a minor correction, but an important one to me.

[Steve Schonberger]

I will agree with Jona's view that a religious text is true to the religions believers.

That's not universally true. Some religious believers regard their religious texts as a mix of literal truth and metaphorical teachings. Some assert that literal truth was present in the original form of their texts, but that transcription and translation errors over time have reduced the accuracy to the point that it's no longer literal truth.

A large minority of people in the US (approximately 30%) profess literal belief in this or that version of the Christian Bible. I assume that's often without clear awareness of the contents, other than sections emphasized by their teachers. But metaphorical believers outnumber literal believers. For example, Roman Catholics (26.2%) alone are almost as numerous as literal believers, and they're not the only ones who regard their Bible as a mix of metaphorical and literal truth.

So although you're right that any religion's major texts are regarded as truth in some sense, many don't consider them literal truth, in the sense that a historian or archaeologist would regard independent written accounts or archaeological discoveries as "true". (Technically, sciences don't assert truth, thus the quotation marks. That sort of "true" is just a quick way to say "a scientific theory that's supported by strong evidence and broad consensus.")

[M. Demetrius]

I am a Bible believer. I am not hateful and belligerent about it, though.

Having said that, it's clear that all sorts of literary devices are used in the Bible, from metaphor, to hyperbole, to analogy, to parable, and so forth, to make the points the writer intended. As an example, in one place it says, "The eyes of the Lord wander to and fro throughout the earth, seeking a heart that is completely His...." Nobody has ever seen any giant divine eyeballs wandering around on little legs, or any other way. It's a literary device, personification. But the point is no less valid, the meaning is clear enough.

As for the transcription/translator issues, I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls made that sort of passe' as an argument. But what do I know? By my first sentence, I've already ruled myself out as a credible intellect to many readers. So be it. I'm not trying to start a fight anyhow, as it would be endless, and there's nothing to win.

Way back in the earlier part of the thread, the question was raised and implication made that the Israelis would have taken on Egyptian characteristics or cultural identity, or that they perhaps were of Greek origin. I don't believe that's the case, necessarily, as many cultures in history which are permitted to keep their identity, particularly when allowed to live in the same area with each other manage to preserve their culture fairly well intact.

Moeshe is also a Hebrew name, of course. Hebrew and Arabic share linguistic similarities, though you wouldn't know it by looking at the two languages written. Still, the Jewish mandate is to remain separate in identity, so any compromise there often meets with stern disapproval from the leaders, historically anyway.