Exodus, fact or fairy tale?

[Bluejay4]

It's mythic storytelling and nothing more. The more we learn about archeology and history in biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the bible is fiction.
—Michael Shermer

Is this true? Do you know of any serious archeologist who thinks the Exodus has a basis in reality?

[Byblos]

It's mythic storytelling and nothing more. The more we learn about archeology and history in biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the bible is fiction.
—Michael Shermer

Is this true? Do you know of any serious archeologist who thinks the Exodus has a basis in reality?

If you get a chance check out the documentary The Exodus Decoded. Highly recommended.

[B. W.]

There is evidence in Saudi Arabia peninsula of a large group of people passed through, complete with Hebrew pictograph, places that fit the events, a huge split rock, etc and etc a mountain top that appears burnt along with a cave...

So, yes, there is evidence it happened, however, do you really think people will accept the evidence?

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... -mt-sinai/

https://www.google.com/search?q=exodus+ ... CpMQsAQIPQ

[abelcainsbrother]

It's mythic storytelling and nothing more. The more we learn about archeology and history in biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the bible is fiction.
—Michael Shermer

Is this true? Do you know of any serious archeologist who thinks the Exodus has a basis in reality?

There is actual evidence out there as B.W. pointed out but another evidence for the Exodus is the fact that religious jews still celebrate jewish feast days that were set up by God after Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and so the fact religious jews still celebrate these jewish feast days that go back thousands of years is evidence for the Exodus.

[Philip]

Or you can try a book by well-respected author, Egyptologist and Old Testament scholar, James K. Hoffmeier:

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evid ... +Hoffmeier



http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Si ... +Hoffmeier

[crochet1949]

The Bible is God's Word -- the book of Exodus is part of the Bible -- therefore it is God's Word. Maybe a simplistic view but worthy of attention. Jesus tells us " I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father , but through Me." What is it that makes something Right and something else Wrong? It's the plumb-line It happens to be God's Word -- The Ten Commandments for one thing. The Golden Rule is in the New Testament. Archeology uncovers what Bible says is there. Yes, the Exodus Did take place. There are simply a lot of people who don't want Bible to be authentic.

[Silvertusk]

Try also Patterns of Evidence: Exodus a wonderful documentary -

http://patternsofevidence.com/

[Audie]

It's mythic storytelling and nothing more. The more we learn about archeology and history in biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the bible is fiction.
—Michael Shermer

Is this true? Do you know of any serious archeologist who thinks the Exodus has a basis in reality?

Looking at the response, I see a link to a presumably respectable
professor at a Divinity school, one that appears to be to Ron Wyatt,
one to a film, not the work of an archaeologist that seems to be
about overthrowing the works of every other archaeologist.

Is there something concrete in there.

[Philip]

Audie: not the work of an archaeologist that seems to be about overthrowing the works of every other archaeologist

Um, NO archaeologist's "work" reveals anything but fragments of the total picture. All have documented and assembled ONLY their own fragments. There are, of course, various popular interpretive, yet speculative, narratives of the Exodus, all based upon various assumptions. Hoffmeir draws from the arc of the total evidences, drawing upon the works of numerous other scholars, evidences, and other archaeologists. One thing is definitely certain: As for those whom would assert that the Exodus accounts were written up to six centuries later, the level of specifics and knowledge of the text's asserted period, it's certain geographical markers, are far too detailed, match up far too well with what scholars and archaeologists HAVE found - and thus are NOT just the work of just any ONE archaeologist. Again, if one starts from an assumption, assembles the evidences into their own narrative to fit it - well, that will be but one unproven consensus. But it surely doesn't mean that other analyses are incorrect. For the longest time, until archaeologists had found proof, many asserted that Solomon and David were but myth. And yet... And this is true of so many Bible assertions that have later been proven. Certain NO archaeology has disproven the Bible - which is pretty amazing.

[Audie]

Audie: not the work of an archaeologist that seems to be about overthrowing the works of every other archaeologist

Um, NO archaeologist's "work" reveals anything but fragments of the total picture. All have documented and assembled ONLY their own fragments. There are, of course, various popular interpretive, yet speculative, narratives of the Exodus, all based upon various assumptions. Hoffmeir draws from the arc of the total evidences, drawing upon the works of numerous other scholars, evidences, and other archaeologists. One thing is definitely certain: As for those whom would assert that the Exodus accounts were written up to six centuries later, the level of specifics and knowledge of the text's asserted period, it's certain geographical markers, are far too detailed, match up far too well with what scholars and archaeologists HAVE found - and thus are NOT just the work of just any ONE archaeologist. Again, if one starts from an assumption, assembles the evidences into their own narrative to fit it - well, that will be but one unproven consensus. But it surely doesn't mean that other analyses are incorrect. For the longest time, until archaeologists had found proof, many asserted that Solomon and David were but myth. And yet... And this is true of so many Bible assertions that have later been proven. Certain NO archaeology has disproven the Bible - which is pretty amazing.

If you look at how much chronolgy he has to overthrow, perhaps you'd tempet
that some.

As for "disprove the bible", that has much to do with one's
chosen reading. Some are resdily disproved.

Are you a Ron Wyatt fan, btw?

[Philip]

Audie: Are you a Ron Wyatt fan, btw?

No. And neither are Bible scholars.

[PaulSacramento]

Archaeologically speaking I do not think there is any evidence for the Exodus BUT archaeology is just ONE part of the equation.
The archaeological record is the body of physical (i.e. not written) evidence about the past.
The other aspect is historical accounts.

[Audie]

Audie: Are you a Ron Wyatt fan, btw?

No. And neither are Bible scholars.

So you might agree thst his reading is readily shown to if not be
disproved, at least utterly unsupported by his "chariot wheels" and so forth.

Nothing in the bible can be disproved, of course, if one adapts interpretation to evidence.

What is remarkable in that?

[Audie]

Archaeologically speaking I do not think there is any evidence for the Exodus BUT archaeology is just ONE part of the equation.
The archaeological record is the body of physical (i.e. not written) evidence about the past.
The other aspect is historical accounts.

Historical accounts that cannot be verified in any way may not really be
all that historical.

Ones contrary to any evidence and that rely on supernatural intervention
are especially not reliable.

There evidently was a Troy, but the highly detailed account of what happened
cannot be verified, still less the supernatural, which everyone likes put in
on their side.

[PaulSacramento]

There are a lot of historical accounts that we take as truth, but have never been verified archaeologically.
We know there was an Alexander the great, a socrates and that Caesar crossed the rubicon BUT we have no archaeological evidence of those things.
An example of the battle of thermopylae of the fames 300 Spartan battle.
Historically we know it happened but there is no concrete archaeological evidence to prove it did.

That is why historians don't just go on the archaeological evidence.

As one archaeologist said:

Basically archaeology is best at getting at very the general social structure and broader human development, and not great at getting at the specific events and individuals of the past. This is why archaeology is typically a sub-discipline of anthropology (except for Classical archaeology, they do their own thing. We don't talk. It's kind of sad). Where texts exist they can really help clarify the archaeological record, but the record itself is limited to broader aspects of a given society (not to mention that it is the only information we have for people that didn't have writing, and even in societies that had writing the written records often focus on the major figures of society, so archaeological evidence is the main data for figuring out what the majority of people were up to).

Does this means that exodus happened?
No BUT it also means that just because we don't have any archaeological evidence to show that Exodus happened that way we think it did, means that it never happened at all.