Vast Majority of Egyptologists Believe the Exodus Happened?

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of Egyptologists actually accept the historical narration of the exodus. I came across this recently as I was reading through some of the published work of one of todays foremost historians, James Hoffmeier.

I came across a paper by Hoffmeier, a highly respected professor of the Old Testament, and someone who has contributed significantly to the field of Egyptology. In 2013, an international conference was held on the Exodus narrative in California, attended by many scholars where some 40 of the leading scholars, including Hoffmeier himself, would present papers on the historicity of the exodus and whatnot. Another conference was held on the exodus by highly prominent scholars once again the following year in Texas. Hoffmeier is, to my knowledge, the only scholar who had a presentation in both conferences.

In the paper he presented, titled Egyptologists and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt (that you can click on and read here), he revealed the results of an unofficial survey he conducted with about 25 scholars at an Egyptological conference regarding their viewpoint on the exodus narrative. The scholars were asked “Do you think the early Israelites lived in Egypt and that there was some sort of exodus?”. In total, 19 out of the 25 scholars agreed with the historicity of the exodus, and not a single one said that there were no Hebrews in Egypt and that there was no exodus. Indeed, the other 6 simply had views from ‘probably’ to ‘unlikely’, and again, 19 out of 25 expressed that they did view the exodus as historical.

This is quite extraordinary, because most non-academics are lead to believe that historians stand against the historicity of the exodus, when in fact a grand majority are actually on the complete opposite side in the field of Egyptology. Most who have not done significant research into this field probably do not know that critics as critical and against the historicity of the Bible such as Ronald Hendel himself accepts the historicity of Moses. Hendel has been convinced of the historicity of Moses because of the following two factors; 1) The name Moses is Egyptian, or at least potentially an Egyptian name, 2) The fact that the biblical narrative says Moses was married to a Midianite women. Hendel finds this marriage narrative of Moses far too peculiar to have been made up.

So, in reality, contrary to popular thought, the great majority of Egyptologists actually fully accept the historicity of the exodus. This is rather astonishing to say the least, and something that even greatly surprised myself. It’s clear that the narrative of the Bible is clearly and plainly historical fact, and this is being recognized at a greater and greater amount as time passes on. Hallelujah!

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Vast Majority of Egyptologists Believe the Exodus Happened?

  1. What a disingenuous halfwit you truly are.
    The ”vast majority of Egyptologists”.

    agreeing to ”some sort of exodus” is not agreeing to The Exodus as written in the Ild Testament.

    19 out of 25 . Were there more Egyptologists at this conference? It seems from the dialogue this was the case.

    Why did the others not want to respond?

    Hoffmeir is an evangelical Christian. I have watched him on Youtube and his Christian bias shines through.

    Like

    • LOL! Perhaps you should’ve told Oxford University about Hoffmeier’s bias before they published three of his books!

      Who knows why other Egyptologists at the conference didn’t want to answer. Hoffmeier received a response rate of about 20%, although the average response rate for such surveys is about 15%. So, it seems Hoffmeier got a little lucky.

      Agreeing to ‘that the Hebrews were in Egypt at one point and there was some sort of exodus’ destroys the typical online atheist narrative that the entire story is complete fiction.

      Like

      • Oh, I am sure they knew all along.
        After all, idiots like William Lane Craig get published, so why not Hoffmeir?
        And Having watched one of presentations on the Exodus I can say without fear of contradiction he has not yet been able to produce a scrap of evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that would redeem the nonsensical tale in the Old Testament.

        If you are not interested in why the other Egyptologists didn’t want to answer then it doesn’t say much for your desire to establish any sort of genuine veracity, but rather another example of how you cherry-pick your way to severe confirmation bias – just like all Christian Fundamentalists.

        And as your widely sweeping title is the epitome of falsehood, almost borderline lying in fact, it also demonstrates your preference for sensationalism to attempt to grab the attention of credulous Fundamentalists like yourself.
        Jesus might have castigated you for this underhand approach, but rest assured Eusebius would have cheered from the wings!

        No, the Biblical tale is complete fiction, irrespective of the number of Israelites you wish to ascribe to supposedly ”fleeing” from Egypt.

        And then there is the complete lack of evidence in the Sinai, and the fact the Egyptians controlled the entire region during the time of this supposed ‘Exodus”
        You might want to check out Kadesh Barnea.

        Like

      • As your claims become more grandiose, they increasingly become more belligerent. I am quite astounded that you could have typed up such a response.

        “After all, idiots like William Lane Craig get published, so why not Hoffmeir?”

        But that’s the exact problem with your arguments — both Craig is a world-class philosopher who has published to Oxford University multiple times, and Hoffmeier is a world-class egyptologist who has published to Oxford University multiple times. The problem with your argument is that these credentials specifically show that these men are *not* idiots. One of the most rotten ways to handle an academic/intellectual discussion is to degrade the opposition. Let’s focus on the arguments, not trying to attack the persons making the arguments.

        “And Having watched one of presentations on the Exodus I can say without fear of contradiction he has not yet been able to produce a scrap of evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that would redeem the nonsensical tale in the Old Testament.”

        Considering you likely dozed off in the first ten minutes of the presentation, perhaps you could try to address one of his published works defending the exodus rather than trying to scrap a YouTube video. For example, in the edited volume ‘Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt’ published in 2016, Hoffmeier wrote the first chapter giving some pretty good evidence for the exodus. This chapter is available online here, please read through it and address it:
        https://www.academia.edu/27020413/Egyptian_Religious_Influences_on_the_Early_Hebrews

        “If you are not interested in why the other Egyptologists didn’t want to answer then it doesn’t say much for your desire to establish any sort of genuine veracity, but rather another example of how you cherry-pick your way to severe confirmation bias – just like all Christian Fundamentalists.”

        There is no ‘cherry-picking’ going on, why on Earth would I be interested? The average survey gets a response rate of about ~15%. Hoffmeier got a 20% response rate. Where’s the problem?

        “And then there is the complete lack of evidence in the Sinai, and the fact the Egyptians controlled the entire region during the time of this supposed ‘Exodus””

        You’re going to have to expand on this argument a little more, considering it makes no sense as of yet why whatever you suggested is supposed to challenge the exodus. Are you complaining that there are no discovered manuscripts in the Sinai mentioning the exodus… Even though literally 100% of all manuscripts in the entire Sinai have been completely lost? Seriously, all of them.

        “You might want to check out Kadesh Barnea”

        Already have, another unconvincing skeptic argument.

        Like

      • Craig is an evangelist who believes in Divine Command Theory which reveals his hyper religious bias and he also a proponant of the Kalam Cosmological argument which has been debunked by cosmologists, notable among them being Sean Caroll.

        There is NO archaeological evidence that supports the biblical tale of The Exodus. Absolutely none.

        Where’s the problem?

        I have no problem. The problem lies with you, as always.
        Archeology is against you at every turn .

        If you are aware of the significance of Kadesh Barnea and the Exodus as it is told in the biblical tale then perhaps you would like to explain the total absence of evidence?

        Like

      • “Craig is an evangelist who believes in Divine Command Theory which reveals his hyper religious bias and he also a proponant of the Kalam Cosmological argument which has been debunked by cosmologists, notable among them being Sean Caroll.”

        I searched up what ‘Divine Command Theory’ is, and it seems perfectly logical to me (although I wouldn’t necessarily take the exaaact same position, something small seems off).

        Furthermore, Carroll has not ‘debunked’ the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the KCA remains very much a still open question in academia on the existence of God. In fact, the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith notes “a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence.”

        So, even if one says Carroll beat Craig in the debate (which is totally fine, I think it may be the only debate Craig ever lost, although I think he would be much more ready in a rematch — I think Carroll caught him off guard), that in no way equates to a complete burial of the argument.

        “If you are aware of the significance of Kadesh Barnea and the Exodus as it is told in the biblical tale then perhaps you would like to explain the total absence of evidence?”

        As I explained in another response to you, nomadic migrations leave behind virtually no archaeological remains. Thus, it is of no surprise that we don’t have any finds at Kadesh Barnea to date.

        Like

      • .

        … searched up what ‘Divine Command Theory’ is, and it seems perfectly logical to me (although I wouldn’t necessarily take the exaaact same position, something small seems off).

        You are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian and you do not know what DCT is?
        Good grief!
        As Craig is an evangelical fundamentalist he also believes in the veracity of the flood.
        No serious geologist accepts this nonsense and the evidence refutes the biblical account.

        I think it may be the only debate Craig ever lost,

        You have a short memory …
        Sam Harris took him to the cleaners as did Chris Hitchins.
        Maybe you haven’t watched these debates?

        I think Carroll caught him off guard), that in no way equates to a complete burial of the argument.

        Lol… he handed him his arse on a plate.

        As I explained in another response to you, nomadic migrations leave behind virtually no archaeological remains. Thus, it is of no surprise that we don’t have any finds at Kadesh Barnea to date.

        Your Israelites spent over 30 years there, so they were hardly wandering, now were they? So, yes, we would expect considerable evidence for such a prolonged stay, This is why Kadesh Barnea was one of the first sites archaeologists who poured into the Sinai after the six day war headed for.
        They found nothing to support the tale.
        Furthermore just to support the numbers , (even if we down-scaled it to the tens of thousands ) there would be evidence from nearby city states ( they would have had to trade and/or import foodstuff.
        There would have been signs of burials, animal bones, pottery sherds, weapons, etc etc. And yet there has been absolutely nothing recovered to indicate any of this.
        Also, archaeological evidence has shown that settlement of Canaan was largely internal , with tribes moving inland and establishing fortified villages etc.
        There is no evidence whatsoever of widespread conquest and no evidence of cultural artefacts ( ie Egyptian influenced pottery) that would have been part of the landscape had your Israelites spent several hundred years in Egypt.

        Only a handful of archaeologists who are mostly christian and mostly evangelical consider there was an Exodus as per the bible, Hoffmeir being one.
        The overwhelming consensus is that it did not happen as described and it is simply a foundation myth.

        And this is why there has been no change in this position for several decades.

        Like

      • “You are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian and you do not know what DCT is?
        Good grief!”

        Huh? I’m not an ‘evangelical’ buddy boy. Looks like you’re projecting your view of a fundamentalist you’ve seen on the internet (which I did not accept either, of course, and probably do not qualify either) on everyone else. Next, I’m going to be a 55 year old white American with a trailer stacked with shotguns, eh?

        And yeah, I did not know what the Divine Command Theory is. No problem there.

        “As Craig is an evangelical fundamentalist he also believes in the veracity of the flood.
        No serious geologist accepts this nonsense and the evidence refutes the biblical account.”

        You mean… This evidence?
        http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

        And I’m also quite sure Craig isn’t an evangelical either.

        “You have a short memory …
        Sam Harris took him to the cleaners as did Chris Hitchins.
        Maybe you haven’t watched these debates?”

        I watched both those debates, Craig beat the living sharts out of those two. It was literally crushing. Craig’s debate with Hitchens was his first debate I ever watched — before, all I knew him from was one 5-minute CNN clip where he seemed like some kind of smug guy to me. But I watched the debate because I knew who Hitchens was and the video had a lot of views, and heck, was that one of the longest torture sessions for poor ol’ Hitch did I ever see. It was that very moment I became an instantaneous Craig fan. There was absolutely no competition, Hitchen repeatedly failed to address any of Craig’s arguments while Craig was loading shotguns into Hitchens claims.

        I saw the debate between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter Hitchens. Chris asked Peter one moral act that someone of faith would do that an unbeliever was not capable of, and Peter failed to answer. Hitchens had pummeled this question for years now. I thought to myself, “i can’t answer that either”. But in the debate with Craig, it was answered so easily as to almost cause brain shock.

        One of the best moments in that entire debate was how Hitchens tried to use evolution on Craig, and Craig devastated Hitchens’ argument so badly that Hitchens failed to every come back to that point in the debate. Here’s the clip:

        You can see Hitchens literally cracked his pants in fear at 2:18. Harris tried to debate objective morality can exist without God — that position is so ridiculous that it is almost too predictable that someone with zero philosophical insight like Harris would be the one defending such a ridiculous position. And of course, Craig took it apart, perhaps the average philosophy student at your local college would be able to handle such a mess of a position.

        “Your Israelites spent over 30 years there, so they were hardly wandering, now were they?”

        According to the claims of some people, the Israelite’s spent 38 years at Kadesh Barnea. However, as far as I’m concerned, this is a misunderstanding according to Kenneth Kitchen. And even 38 years is rather short in ancient near eastern history. Any remains from a nomadic group that had almost nothing would almost be a miracle to survive after three thousand years.

        “Furthermore just to support the numbers , (even if we down-scaled it to the tens of thousands ) there would be evidence from nearby city states ( they would have had to trade and/or import foodstuff.
        There would have been signs of burials, animal bones, pottery sherds, weapons, etc etc.”

        Sorry, pottery sherds and weapons from a group of nomads living in tents that had left everything they possessed back in Egypt before they left? Where exactly did they get these pots and swords from?

        And again, burials, what on Earth are you smoking? Burial sites are hard enough to find when you have an ancient and advanced sedentary population. In the entire history of the major site of Philistia, not a single burial site was found in all of archaeological history until last year. Seriously.

        These common misunderstandings scattered throughout your text makes it clear why people who don’t read up on archaeology enough are so quick in attempting to dismiss the exodus, despite any contrary evidence from linguistics, traditions, etc.

        “Only a handful of archaeologists who are mostly christian and mostly evangelical consider there was an Exodus as per the bible, Hoffmeir being one.
        The overwhelming consensus is that it did not happen as described and it is simply a foundation myth”

        Stop reading rationalwiki.org and start reading published surveys from the likes of world-class egyptologists like Hoffmeier. The vast majority position of scholarship agrees with the historicity of the exodus.

        “And this is why there has been no change in this position for several decades.”

        A few decades ago, when minimalism was erupting in academia from the 1970’s and 1980’s, it would in fact be correct to claim that academia was on your side. However, the tides have turned. Contributions from many scholars, including major ones from those who you most dislike (Hoffmeier and Kitchen) have turned the debate around. This is now the majority position and Hoffmeier’s study shows it. Why is it that it is so hard for you to come to terms with the current state of academia?

        Academia is becoming more conservative, not liberal, because the evidence favors a conservative view of the Bible, not liberal. In 2015-2017 alone, a slew of discoveries and findings have been made buttressing the historical validity of the Bible. I’d be happy to take you through them.

        Like

      • l flood as per the bible.

        I watched both those debates, Craig beat the living sharts

        Did he really? … lol.

        The vast majority position of scholarship agrees with the historicity of the exodus.

        15 nods from an informal survey does not equate to the ”vast majority”. So unless you can provide an academic statement to confirm this then you are simply being very silly.

        The consensus falls with the archaeologists: No sojourn in Egypt, No fleeing from slavery and no conquest. Thus, your claim is simply vacuous.

        Kitchen has never provided a single piece of evidence to back his claims of the exodus,and he is a rank fundamentalist.
        As with Hoffmeir, neither has provided any evidence of a sojourn in the Sinai or any evidence of conquest.

        Your flood link says what?

        We know there was localized flooding and have evidence for it.
        But there is no evidence for a global flood as per the biblical tale.
        Only Creationists believe the story of Noah’s Flood.
        To suggest it was global marks you as a science denier and likely an indoctrinated fool.

        Like

      • “Did he really? … lol.”

        Correct, Craig mauled both Hitchens and Harris so badly, that Dawkins is afraid of even meeting up with the man Craig. According to a top atheist academic about the Craig v. Hitchens debate, “Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

        Also, read Richard Carrier’s summary of his debate with Craig .. hehe
        http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html

        “15 nods from an informal survey does not equate to the ”vast majority”. So unless you can provide an academic statement to confirm this then you are simply being very silly.”

        19 nods out of 25 surveyed egyptologists from the International Association of Egyptologists. That equates to a surveyed ‘majority’. Also, read the study. Out of all 25 interviewed egyptologists, not a single one of them said ‘no’. The 6 that didn’t answer ‘yes’ simply said things like ‘likely’, ‘unlikely’, etc. But not a single egyptologist out of the 25 said “no” to the question. That says a lot, doesn’t it?

        “We know there was localized flooding and have evidence for it.
        But there is no evidence for a global flood as per the biblical tale.”

        But is the biblical tale about a global flood, or local flood?
        https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/01/11/the-genesis-flood-scripture-history-and-science-indicate-a-local-flood/

        “Kitchen has never provided a single piece of evidence to back his claims of the exodus,and he is a rank fundamentalist.
        As with Hoffmeir, neither has provided any evidence of a sojourn in the Sinai or any evidence of conquest.”

        Both scholars have provided great substantiation for the exodus, certainly making advances from the previous generation. Aside from the landmark monographs ‘Israel in Egypt’ and ‘Israel in Sinai’ by Hoffmeier, I will direct you now to resources from both scholars that have made advances when it comes to the historicity of the exodus.

        Firstly, read this study by Hoffmeier published last year in 2016 (I do not need to explain it as the study explains itself);
        https://www.academia.edu/27020413/Egyptian_Religious_Influences_on_the_Early_Hebrews

        Secondly, Kitchen. Kitchen has proven that there were quotas that needed to be met for mudbrick production in ancient Egypt, a fact that is highly reminiscent of Exodus 5:4-19.
        http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1976_27_06_Kitchen_BrickfieldsOfEgypt.pdf

        I’ve already read all the studies I’ve linked you to so far. I heard of another pretty good essay Kitchen published on the exodus sometime in the 1990’s, but I’ve been unable to access it as of yet. Either way, both scholars have made advances in favor of exodus research.

        Like

      • 1. The Biblical tale has its roots in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
        Rather we not not even discuss this as you will only embarrass yourself further.
        However, if you wish to do a but of interesting scientific research why not look up the TTI (Time Temperature Index)
        It is a method used by the oil industry.
        1.

        19 nods out of 25 surveyed egyptologists from the International Association of Egyptologists. That equates to a surveyed ‘majority’

        Are you being obtuse on purpose or disingenuous or simply behaving like a buffoon?
        Yes this was a majority from one conference and only 25 were unofficially surveyed. There are likely hundreds if not thousands of Egyptologists in the world.
        Were any of these Egyptologists Christian?
        Your claim of vast majority is ridiculous so stop behaving like a complete arse.

        Furthermore, the ”vast majority” of archaeologists flat out reject the idea of a Biblical Exodus and they have the hard evidence on their side.

        2. Nope, neither Hoffmeier or Kitchen have provided a scrap of hard evidence to back the biblical tale of the Exodus.
        Hoffmeier beleives the Exodus was an historical event which means he also believes in the miraculous parting of the Red Sea.
        This is nonsense of course,as it wasn’t even the ”Red Sea”.
        Kitchen is a biblical literalist and can be dismissed out of hand with regard the Exodus. he has has no support for his nonsensical theories from mainstream archaeologists.
        Neither has he published a single peer reviewed paper on the Exodus.

        And you still have not provided an explanation of any sort as to why there is absolutely no evidence at Kadesh Barnea where your fleeing Israelites are claimed to have spent over 30 years.

        Archaeological consensus is, there was no Biblical Exodus, and no conquest. and all evidence supports this.
        Period.

        The other problem you face is this:
        Once you start tinkering with the biblical tale of the Exodus, or any other story for that matter you diminish the role of the miraculous, and weaken the case for a divinely revealed text.
        We know there was no literal Adam and Eve – the HGP has proven this.
        We know there was no Noah’s Flood. Geology and plate tectonics have proved this. And the story was basically ripped off from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
        And we know there was no Biblical Exodus, as the numbers don’t match up, no matter how many you wish to assign to an elph.
        Kenyon’s dating of Jericho still stands.

        You are championing a fictional tale that cannot be supported by any hard evidence.
        If you were not an indoctrinated Christian you would accept the evidence as it stands.
        And that is the fact of the matter.

        Like

      • Please, stop. You’re making this absurdly easy for me.

        “The Biblical tale has its roots in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
        Rather we not not even discuss this as you will only embarrass yourself further.
        However, if you wish to do a but of interesting scientific research why not look up the TTI (Time Temperature Index)
        It is a method used by the oil industry.”

        Unlike you, I’ve actually read the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and it’s a pretty fascinating story. However, the ‘flood’ part of the Epic of Gilgamesh is an obvious later addition to the story. And indeed, even though the story dates to some 2100 BC, and we have tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh going easily into the second millennium BC, the first time the flood narrative appears in any Epic of Gilgamesh tablets is in 600 BC, well after the Genesis traditions were around. Thus, the Genesis traditions of the flood predates the very late addition that appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I assume you’re going to invoke the Enuma Elish in you’re next response, eh?

        I’m also not going to search up the TTI until you actually tell me why I should invest my time into it. Why do I care about some oil stuff?

        “Furthermore, the ”vast majority” of archaeologists flat out reject the idea of a Biblical Exodus and they have the hard evidence on their side.”

        Again, the survey shows the exact opposite. You say that there are “hundreds of thousands” of egyptologists (wherever the heck you pulled out such a massive number), and so Hoffmeier’s survey somehow doesn’t count. However, that’s ridiculous. There are 320,000,000+ people in America, but when organizations conduct religious surveys to find out the religious composition of America, only about 300,000 people (0.1%) are interviewed. The purpose is not to survey a literal entirety of a population (which is impossible), it’s to survey a representative sample. There is no reason to think that the majority of scholars do not accept the exodus.

        Now, you go on to challenge the claims of Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier again.

        “Kitchen is a biblical literalist and can be dismissed out of hand with regard the Exodus. he has has no support for his nonsensical theories from mainstream archaeologists.
        Neither has he published a single peer reviewed paper on the Exodus.”

        You claim he has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on the exodus — this is almost too nonsensical of a claim. Just go to Google Scholar, type in ‘Kenneth kitchen exodus’ and find all the papers authored by Kitchen specifically on this paper. I myself have read at least one of these papers, this one:
        http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1976_27_06_Kitchen_BrickfieldsOfEgypt.pdf

        And as I noted from my last comment, both Kitchen and Hoffmeier have produced evidence for the exodus. I gave links to studies by both of these men in my previous response to you, and so I don’t need to send them again — you already have them, or can simply go back to my previous comment to you.

        Because your comment is loaded with claims, far too many to address, I will not address them all at once and give you some time to take all this information in. In my next response, I will solve more of the issues you’ve raised.

        Like

      • I’m also not going to search up the TTI until you actually tell me why I should invest my time into it. Why do I care about some oil stuff?

        Lol … Why indeed would you care?

        I said he had not published a peer reviewed paper on the Exodus.Try to pay attention before you rush off and make yourself look an idiot.

        And once again neither Hoffmeier or Kitchen have produced any evidence whatsoever for the biblical tale of the Exodus.
        If you cannot read and understand a simple straightforward comment then I don’t hold out any hope for the rest of this dialogue.

        Like

      • “I said he had not published a peer reviewed paper on the Exodus.Try to pay attention before you rush off and make yourself look an idiot.”

        That’s exactly what you said, and exactly what I responded to. I noted that if you simply go to Google Scholar (just type in scholar.google.com), type in ‘Kenneth Kitchen Exodus’, the first 3 results will be specifically papers Kitchen has written on the exodus. I even gave you a link to one of them.

        It seems that because I simply took away your argument on the Epic of Gilgamesh, you want to repeat your usual claim:

        “And once again neither Hoffmeier or Kitchen have produced any evidence whatsoever for the biblical tale of the Exodus.”

        I have already noted that Hoffmeier and Kitchen have both produced data to support the historicity of the exodus. Kitchen has shown that mudbrick production in ancient Egypt had to meet quotas, which is highly reminiscent of what the Israelite’s were described to be doing in Egypt in Exodus 5:4-19, and Hoffmeier has produced a large variety of evidences, one of which is this paper:

        https://www.academia.edu/27020413/Egyptian_Religious_Influences_on_the_Early_Hebrews

        And you seem to have completely forgotten Benjamin J. Noonan’s linguistic study on the Exodus.

        Like

      • Nope, it was about mud-bricks in Egypt.
        Not the Exodus.
        Now try to pay attention.
        He has not published a peer-reviewed paper on the EXODUS.
        This is largely because he is is an evangelical fundamentalist and believes the historical veracity of the biblical tale …. miracles and all.
        No I did not forget about Noonan.
        And I reiterate … these are not backed by archaeological evidence that supports an Exodus. /which would naturally include details of themfleeing slavery, their sojourn i the Sinai and the supposed conquest of Canaan as described.
        So it is baffling to try to figure out what exactly you not understanding?
        You would like me to beleive you are not a fool or an idiot, so perhaps you are simply being obtuse?
        One more time. Let me reiterate.
        The archaeological consensus is this: there was no Exodus as described in the bible. (inclusing all details and the supposed conquest ,
        Are we perfectly clear on this statement?
        Do you have any issues with my wording?
        Once more. There was no Exodus.
        Also, there was no conquest as described in the bible.
        Settlement of ancient Canaan was largely internal with tribes moving from the coast inland and there is archaeological evidence to show this.
        It even has a name: The Settlement Pattern.

        As Egypt controlled much of this area there is every reason to accept that there would be cultural influence.

        Now, if you wish to continue this discussion, fine by me.
        But first you must produce solid, peer-reviewed archaeological evidence to support the biblical tale.
        And you must include a valid reason for the total absence of evidence at Kadesh Barnea where your supposed Israelites lived for over 30 years.

        Like

      • “Nope, it was about mud-bricks in Egypt.
        Not the Exodus.
        Now try to pay attention.
        He has not published a peer-reviewed paper on the EXODUS.
        This is largely because he is is an evangelical fundamentalist and believes the historical veracity of the biblical tale …. miracles and all.”

        LOLwhat? Did you even read Kitchen’s paper? It is specifically on the topic of the exodus, and uses Egyptian texts to establish a fact about ancient Egyptian mudbrick production and how it correlates to the Hebrew narrative in Egypt. Seriously, read the first sentence of the paper.

        And if that wasn’t enough, Kitchen wrote a paper titled ‘Egyptians and Hebrews, from Ra ‘amses to Jericho’ in 1998 and one titled ‘Exodus’ to the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

        And none of this includes anything Kitchen has had to say on the exodus in his monographs ‘Ancient Orient and Old Testament’, ‘On the Reliability of the Old Testament’, and ‘The Bible and Archaeology’, all peer-reviewed and widely influential books in academia.

        “No I did not forget about Noonan. As Egypt controlled much of this area there is every reason to accept that there would be cultural influence.”

        As I noted earlier, there are countless problems with your laughable challenge to Noonan’s study.
        -Egypt controlled the entire area, yet the Hebrews were the only ones that had Egyptian influence to their language?
        -The Hebrew in the Exodus and wilderness traditions have more influence from the ancient Egyptian language than Imperial Aramaic, a dialect of Aramaic specifically spoken and written *inside* of Egypt
        -in all other comparisons we can make, the only time where we see such influence of language is when a population exists in a territory dominated by a different group — for example, the biblical books of Nehemiah and Ezra were written under major Persian influence, and thus have Persian loanwords comparable to the Egyptian loanwords in Exodus, this indicates that the Hebrew population must have lived and existed under Egyptian rule in order to have such influence in their texts

        Seriously, your off-hand remarks are never going to challenge the evidence for the exodus.

        “The archaeological consensus is this: there was no Exodus as described in the bible. (inclusing all details and the supposed conquest ,”

        There is no such consensus, as scholars do not even talk about those ‘specifics’ and whether or not they archaeologically happened, because there is no way to investigate the claim “Moses split the sea” or whatnot. Thus, there is no scholarly consensus either way because there is no scholarly data on such claims to draw a conclusion from.

        However, what there is scholarly data on is this: the Hebrews were once in Egypt and that there was some sort of exodus of these Hebrews from Egypt into Israel. And indeed, it has been affirmed by the majority now as the evidence adds up.

        “there was no conquest as described in the bible.
        Settlement of ancient Canaan was largely internal with tribes moving from the coast inland and there is archaeological evidence to show this.
        It even has a name: The Settlement Pattern.”

        The ‘settlement pattern’ is a single model out of the many models to describe the Hebrew/Canaanite movements in the ancient near east. Some scholars think the Israelite’s were originally Canaanite, some don’t. Perhaps I should point you to a recent study that challenges this supposed Canaanite-indigenous thing, K. Lawson Younger Jr’s study which claims that these models are imperfect because they downplay the role of migrationism in ancient population patterns (the very thing that is supposed to bring the Hebrews into Canaan).

        “And you must include a valid reason for the total absence of evidence at Kadesh Barnea where your supposed Israelites lived for over 30 years.”

        I explained this a long while ago and my explanation seems to have flew over your head.
        -as I noted, it is a common misunderstanding that the Hebrews spent 38 or something years in Kadesh Barnea
        -nomadic migrations do not leave behind archaeological remains, especially after 3,000 years, and so it is a mystery why archaeological evidence is even being asked for — it would be similar if I asked you for archaeological remains to show that a group of homeless bandits held a camp in Moscow over two millennium ago, it’s a ridiculous question

        Like

      • The bible states they remained in Kadesh for this length of time.
        You explained nothing.
        Provide a plausible reason for there being a total lack of evidence for any such lengthy stay.
        Once you have done this then maybe I’ll feel inclined to responds to any further points.

        Like

      • I have already countless times explained the lack of archaeological remains: nomadic groups, especially migrations, virtually never leave behind remains.

        Seriously, I cannot repeat myself this many times. It is not productive for me to repeat myself.

        Like

      • The nomadic group in question supposedly spent over three decades at Kadesh -according to the bible.
        Now, provide a plausible answer as to why there is no archaeological evidence for their lengthy stay.

        Like

      • I agree, it is simply a work of fiction.

        However, with your extensive knowledge and understanding of the bible, perhaps you would like to explain your interpretation and how the biblical version … or at least the on in my KJV is incorrect, and back this u with archaeological evidence to support this.

        Thanks.

        Like

      • “I agree, it is simply a work of fiction.”

        ? When did I exactly call it a work of fiction?

        “However, with your extensive knowledge and understanding of the bible, perhaps you would like to explain your interpretation and how the biblical version … or at least the on in my KJV is incorrect, and back this u with archaeological evidence to support this.”

        What exactly do you want me to prove here? That the Bible doesn’t say the Israelite’s were in Kadesh Barnea for 38 years?

        Pretty simple. The Israelite’s entered Kadesh on the 2nd of 48 years, and soon left. Then, on the 40th year, they were back in Kadesh for some reason. It was not a continuous occupation (or so I’m told by the academic whose book I’m reading).

        I also don’t use the KJV (although I use to be a KJV-onlyist, although that was the past).

        Like

      • Oh, and your title:
        ”Vast Majority of Egyptologist etc.”
        There are many hundreds of Egyptologists and of these Hoffmeir got the nod from … 19 ?
        Now of these 19 did they all agree with the biblical tale as written?
        That means, all the mythological stuff as well, or were they simply saying: Yeah, there was an exodus?

        Somehow I very much doubt that they agreed with the mythological stuff … unless they were all evangelical fundamental Christians, of course, like Kitchen.

        Like

  2. It’s certainly an interesting tidbit if valid, but I would definitely love to see the results of a more formal rigorous survey if anything just to silence the critics. It could be something like the incredible yeoman’s work Gary Habermas did on the Resurrection.

    Like

    • I would also greatly recommend a more formal and rigorous study. This study her only was published in 2015, it seems not to be very often that such a study gets done in the first place. So far, these are the results we have.

      Like

    • “Hmm, looks like Hazor has disappeared. Anyway, as I was saying, Amnon Ben-Tor has concluded that Hazor was not destroyed in 1400 BC.”

      Is that a joke? I’ve already sent my response showing how you simply DISTORTED Amnon’s quote. Because you apparently did not get my response/pretended it wasn’t there, I’ll have to re-explain this one to you. This is Amnon’s quote:

      “The picture that arises from our renewed excavations is of a gradual and smooth transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze.”

      As we can see, there are two options to understanding how someone could have taken this quote to say Hazor wasn’t destroyed 1400 BC, the end of the Late Bronze I;

      1) You either lied, and hoped that my understanding of Egyptian chronology is too weak to miss this, OR
      2) You are the one who simply knows virtually nothing about Egyptian chronology and thus hardly understand Amnon’s quote

      Amnon said that Hazor had a smooth transition from the MB (Middle Bronze) to LB (Late Bronze), and this transition took place about 1550 BC — that’s because the MB ends 1550 BC, signalling the beginning of the LB. So, whether you tried to lie or whether you are just inadequate in Egyptian chronology, everyone already knew Hazor was doing just fine c. 1550 BC, and everyone (including even Amnon) knows that Hazor was destroyed towards the end of the LB I (1400 BC). As Iain William Provan notes;

      “As controversial as the other two sites remain, Hazor is somewhat less problematic, for there is no dispute that it was violently destroyed by fire in the Late Bronze Age–several times, in fact, and before that in the Middle Bronze Age as well.”

      Like

  3. Pingback: ¿La Gran Mayoría de Egiptólogos cree que el Éxodo Ocurrió? | Fides et Ratio Mx

    • A survey invokes a representative portion of a certain group. When an organization wants to poll, for say, the religious views in America, at best about 300,000 people (.1% of the population) is interviewed. The trick is to get a good representative population, and because the survey was held at an egyptological conference, it was very good. It’s also very telling that not even a single one answered ‘NO’.

      Like

    • “But with respect to the main event, it seems clear that a vast majority of Egyptologist do not believe that THE capital E Exodus happened.”

      There is no distinction between “the exodus” and “the exodus”, there is no “CAPITAL E” exodus. Perhaps you mean “do the majority of historians think Moses sent ten plagues on Egypt, followed by an escape after God miraculously opened the Red Sea” — the question is impossible to answer, because historians cannot evaluate such claims, this is outside the realm of possible historical confirmation and thus irrelevant to the polling of the historian.

      So, in reality, the only relevant question to the biblical text is “Do historians think that the Hebrews were once in Egypt and that there was some sort of exodus?” — the answer is an astounding yes, and it is highly established by the historical data. It’s a fact. And that is what is relevant to the discussion.

      Like

    • “So we have a legend that mixes fact and fiction. Not astonishing at all. ”

      Nope, nothing of the sort. We have the facts that we can, and indeed have established (that the Hebrews were once in Egypt and that they left Egypt in some sort of ‘exodus’), and thinks that we cannot necessarily access by the standard historical methods (plagues, etc). Being unable to directly investigate the veracity of the plagues doesn’t make it any fact or fiction, and any claim otherwise is simply nonsensical in its conception.

      “For example, we could consider the complete absence of a record of this event in Egyptian history.”

      Why consider such a thing? It’s well known that Egypt never recorded its military defeats. Thus, we have nothing to ask or question, it’s rather well-understood. Even the Battle of Kadesh, which was very bad for Egypt, was portrayed in Egyptian inscriptions as a spectacular victory.

      As for the dating of the exodus, I think I made it rather clear in my exodus article.

      “THE Exodus, not “an exodus. You put the word “the” in the title. Your title, your question.
      And given how you wrote the title, the answer to the question is clearly “no.””

      I put the word “the” because there’s no difference at all. There is no distinction between ‘an exodus’ and ‘the exodus’, you’re simply trying to invent some kind of conflation that isn’t there.

      And thus, the answer to the question is ‘yes’. You need to stop trying to change the facts.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Of course there’s a difference between The Exodus and an exodus, because the OT makes very specific claims about the Exodus. It says way more than just some people who originally came from a region adjacent region to Egypt then left Egypt at some point in time.

      If the OT is absolute, literal truth, then you need all of the specific details to be true. Find a detail that is wrong, and it doesn’t matter if some people left Egypt at some point in time. It doesn’t matter if there was “an exodus.” That is clearly not enough. You need THE Exodus to be true in every detail. So, yes, there is a big difference between “the” and “an.” The majority of Egyptologist do not say that THE Exodus occurred.

      What makes this a legend is that some of the things that we can check do not line up with the OT accounts. And it’s not enough that some of the facts line up, they all must line up.

      Consider the Book of Mormon’s tales about events in North America before Europeans arrived. The Mormons say that there were people living in North America around 2000 years ago. Now, that is a fact. All anthropologists agree that this is true. Does this mean that the tales in the Book of Mormon is true?

      You can’t just count the hits. You have to count the misses, too. And there are enough misses to convince Egyptologists that Exodus contains a mix of facts and fiction. I’m not trying to change the facts. These ARE the facts.

      What can we test? How about the date given in the OT? What was that date again?

      Also, you said that the Egyptians did not record their defeats. Well, Kadesh was a defeat. And they DID record it. So the Egyptians did record events in which they were defeated.

      Like

      • “Of course there’s a difference between The Exodus and an exodus, because the OT makes very specific claims about the Exodus.”

        This ‘difference’ remains to be a fiction in your head — there is absolutely *no difference*, because the two are the exact same things. And according to the consensus of Egyptology, the general foundations of the exodus are historical fact.

        ” It doesn’t matter if there was “an exodus.” That is clearly not enough.”

        Not only is that enough, that is all that is needed. The smaller details are far too particular to be validated/confirmed anyways, and thus they are rather irrelevant — history has proven regarding the exodus basically everything it could hope to (for now).

        “You can’t just count the hits. You have to count the misses, too. And there are enough misses to convince Egyptologists that Exodus contains a mix of facts and fiction.”

        Nope, perhaps convince “some” egyptologists, but there is not a single consensus amongst egyptologists against any point of the exodus, and that is because no point of the exodus has ever been falsified.

        “Also, you said that the Egyptians did not record their defeats. Well, Kadesh was a defeat. And they DID record it. So the Egyptians did record events in which they were defeated.”

        As I said for a fact, the Egyptians NEVER record their defeats, and I was a hundred percent right. Perhaps you need to do a little more history searching — why don’t you actually read the Egyptian Kadesh Inscription — Egypt took their defeat at Kadesh and turned it into a triumphant victory in their records. That says everything about Egypt recording their defeats.

        Like

    • “In Hoffmeier’s own words, this was an unscientific (read, unrepresentative) survey. Hoffmeier deliberately excluded certain groups of Egyptologists, and of those surveyed, only 20 % responded. Not scientific at all; garbage in, garbage out.”

      The way you call this ‘garbage’ is truly pathetic indeed. Of course, your point is overwhelmingly irrelevant. As I initially pointed out, this was an unscientific survey, and that’s where the problems end.

      “only 20 responded”

      No, 20% responded, which means 25 egyptologists. I’ve read numerous surveys, the response rate is generally 15-35%.

      Lastly, there was no “exclusion” of any “certain groups”, this was an entirely invented myth by yourself. Garbage in, garbage out, there goes your response.

      “And in the group that responded, it was considered a positive response if someone thought that at some point in time, some people originally from Canaan left Egypt. Pretty vague and relatively worthless stuff here. ”

      More garbage coming in, and more garbage coming out. Your overwhelmingly critical response to this basic survey reveals the emotion behind it, and the fact that you value your current ideologies more then new data. There was a time when people didn’t try to maintain their paradigms despite information.

      There was no “it was considered a positive response” in the survey. The people were simply asked: ” “Do you think the early Israelites lived in Egypt and that there was some sort of exodus?” There were three types of answers, ‘YES’, ‘NO’, and varying degrees of ‘maybe’ (likely/unlikely/ very likely/very unlikely/etc). As we’ve seen, the results of the survey really kick you in the curb.

      But you go on to misrepresent the survey: You change ‘Hebrews’ with ‘Canaanites’ — VERY disingenuous. Indeed, 100% of all scholars in every field accept the fact that there were Canaanite’s in Egypt all throughout the second millennium BC, because they were always migrating there for Egypt’s fertile land (such as Joseph from the Bible). However, the survey asked whether there were HEBREWS in Egypt, and if there was some sort of exodus. That’s the biblical people. You know, the Jews? LOL.

      Also, you say this:

      “He knew the response he would get, because “an exodus” is not “The Exodus.””

      No, he didn’t know what response he would get, and you once again invoke your mythical distinction of ‘an exodus’ and ‘the exodus’ that no Egyptologist has ever heard of.

      All in all, your response is highly emotional, deliberately misleading in some ways, and overall not entirely honest with the data. We heard from you several very uncharitable accusations, such as accusations of ‘garbage’, ‘worthless’, etc — all because the survey by James Hoffmeier happens to show that egyptologists do not view the world in the way you do.

      But asides from all that, you say this:

      “There are very good reasons why the majority of Egyptologists would say that The Exodus didn’t happen.”

      Contrary to your claims, we have in fact seen that the exodus did in fact happen. You go on to ask when the exodus happened — perhaps the more important question is *if* the exodus happened at all. And indeed, our data actually solidifies the historicity of the exodus, *even* if we don’t know when it happened. The biblical narrative suggests that the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt. We do in fact know Egypt had some foreign slaves, for example, from the foreign slaves depicted in the tomb of vizier Rekhmire that dates to c. 1460 BC. The biblical narrative states that the Hebrews were to make mudbricks and do fieldwork and construction work, and we do in fact now know that Egyptian slaves did in fact engage in such practices. Kenneth Kitchen has proven that Egyptian slaves had quotes for their mudbrick construction (Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. “From the Brickfields of Egypt.” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976): 137-147.), which is a fact that is highly reminiscent of Exodus 5:4-19.

      Secondly, the book Exodus has a very, very high amount of Egyptian loanwords used. In fact, in all of the ancient near eastern languages, the *only* language to have a comparable number of Egyptian words to the Hebrew used in the Book of Exodus is an ancient dialect of Aramaic known as Egyptian Aramaic, and that is because Egyptian Aramaic was directly only written in Egypt, and thus had an enormous amount of Egyptian influence. For further information on this, see Benjamin Noonan’s study on Egyptian words in the exodus and wilderness narratives, and their comparisons to Egyptian words in the rest of the OT and other near eastern languages (luckily, I have found an online pdf to this study: https://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Noonan.pdf). Thus, the only comparison to Egyptian influence we have in ancient near eastern texts, are ones that were written after centuries of influence of being directly inside of Egypt itself. Therefore, we can know for a fact (because of these reasons, and a host of other reasons) that the exodus did in fact happen.

      “When” is an entirely different question, but I happened to have written a long post on the historicity of the exodus myself earlier (although there are a number of points I have yet to incorporate into it that I told you here so far): https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/historical-evidence-for-the-exodus/

      And therefore, because of what we know about Egyptian slaves, and because of the Egyptian influence on the Book of Exodus, and a host of other reasons, Egyptologists agree that the exodus is historical.

      ” Yes, they changed defeat to victory, but the point is that it was recorded in some form, despite the actual outcome. Defeats were recorded in some form, but there is no Egyptian record of The Exodus.”

      As you have been directly shown to your own face, Egypt NEVER recorded their defeats, and even when they were defeated, they would sometimes change it to victory. The Kadesh victory inscription of Egypt is the most widely produced Egyptian inscription on any of their battles that they have ever done, makes you think. Interestingly enough, at one point, Amenhotep II, the possible exodus-pharaoh, suddenly claims to have captured about 100,000 slaves in a single campaign, despite the fact that every predecessor and successor never captured more than a couple thousand slaves in a single campaign. Just noting.

      Like

    • “By definition, an unscientific survey is garbage in, garbage out. By defintion, an unscientific survey is not representative, and hence, of little value. ”

      Citation for this definition needed. Your emotion can be seen right through, I can perhaps hear the tears blazing all around. The difference between an unscientific and scientific survey is that a scientific survey usually follows specific procedures and then serious analysis of the results. Hoffmeier simply surveyed egyptologists at an egyptological conference and revealed the results, which are HIGHLY telling. 25 answered, 19 said ‘YES’, and not even a single one said ‘NO’. That is very telling. And remember, this took place at an egyptological conference — the scholars present for the survey were legitimate scholars employed in universities and other places of higher learning.

      “Show me 20 Egyptologists who say that the detailed account of the Exodus given in the OT is historically true in every respect.”

      Do you REALLY think there are not at least 20 evangelical egyptologists out there? LOL.

      “To test the Exodus hypothesis, we need a date. So pick a date. Any date. Your choice.”

      See my last comment, the exodus can be entirely verified, without even finding the date. But if I had to pick a date right now, I’d go with 1446 BC. See my article I wrote on the exodus why.

      “A footnote. Most ANE archaeologists think that the “Hebrews” were Canaanites. I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous.”

      You definitely were trying SOMETHING, especially when you said it would be a MIRACLE if there were never Canaanite’s in Egypt. You seemed to have been trying to replace the specific Hebrews with the general notion of Canaanite’s. Second of all, Hebrews originating in Canaan is far from a consensus and a claim I do not accept.

      As for the “excluded groups” — I see now that there may also be a trick going on here as well… Hoffmeier clearly noted he did not survey the views of scholars he already knew about. This almost seems to me to have been obvious and the only honest advance Hoffmeier could have took.

      Like

    • If the goal is to establish that a certain percentage of a given group holds a certain point of view (so one can say that a ” vast majority believes X”), then methodology does indeed matter. To draw conclusions about what a majority believes, you need a representative sample. In the absence of a representive sample, when you sampling is “garbage,” you can’t draw any conclusion about the majority.

      Now, if you just want say that X number of people said Y, then what Hoffmeier did is fine. But you can’t take an unscientific survey and declare, as you chose to do, that “a vast majority believe X, because you lack an accurate denominator. You don’t have an unbiased sample. And this is where we move into garbage land. No tears here, just reality.

      You have the names of 20 Egyptologists with doctorates in Egyptology who do Egyptian archaeology who say that the OT is word for word true? You know, I could call myself an “Egyptologist.” Note that you have to insert the word “evangelical” in your reply. That is, you must refer to a group with a very strong intial bias.

      Yes, Hoffmeier excluded those whose views he knew. But did he include these views in his sample? Had he done so, would he have gotten his “vast majority say X” result? See the problem?

      I think that the consensus with respect to the “Hebrews were Canaanite” position may be stronger than you think. Point is, I was not being disingenuous.

      Ok, we have a date. I’ll start but asking what Hoffmeier thinks of this date. Does he agree with this date?

      Like

      • “If the goal is to establish that a certain percentage of a given group holds a certain point of view (so one can say that a ” vast majority believes X”), then methodology does indeed matter. To draw conclusions about what a majority believes, you need a representative sample. In the absence of a representive sample, when you sampling is “garbage,” you can’t draw any conclusion about the majority. ”

        The sample presented in Hoffmeier’s paper is in fact, a representative sample. Surveyed were, 25 members of the International Association of Egyptologists, a highly regarded academic association of egyptologists from many universities (including Oxford, etc), which are certainly representative.

        “You don’t have an unbiased sample.”

        Please show how the members sampled by Hoffmeier are ‘biased’ in favor of the Old Testament. And again, it’s almost too obvious that there are at least 20 evangelicals who are also egyptologists — there are more than 2,000,000 evangelicals who are scientists, for comparison. Definitely going to be at least a few egyptologists. Evangelicals are super literalistic, and therefore it’s clear to see that we’re going to have some literalists among egyptology.

        “Yes, Hoffmeier excluded those whose views he knew. But did he include these views in his sample? Had he done so, would he have gotten his “vast majority say X” result? See the problem?”

        I see no problem of course. What evidence do you have that indicates including these members would have significantly changed his results? And, if they did change his results, how do you know the percentage wouldn’t have gone *up* in the people who said ‘YES’?

        Anyways, the evidence all goes to show that the survey is legit.

        “I think that the consensus with respect to the “Hebrews were Canaanite” position may be stronger than you think. Point is, I was not being disingenuous.”

        Fair enough.

        “Ok, we have a date. I’ll start but asking what Hoffmeier thinks of this date. Does he agree with this date?”

        No, Hoffmeier does not agree with my date. I primarily base my dating of the exodus on 1 Kings 6:1, which says the exodus occurred 480 years before the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, whereas Hoffmeier’s dating of the exodus is mostly based on Exodus 1:11, which mentions the city of Rameses. The Egyptian city Pr-Rameses was built in the reign of Rameses II (13th century BC), and therefore Hoffmeier’s favors a dating of the exodus to this time.

        However, where both I and Hoffmeier agree is that the more important question is *if* the exodus happened, rather than *when*.

        “By the way, since Hoffmeier is clearly interestedly in THE Exodus, why not ask the obvious question in his survey?
        Why ask vague, general questions? Why not directly and clearly ask Egyptologists…do you think that Moses led half a million people out of Egypt following the ten plagues and accompanied by the destruction of the Egyptian army and the conquest of Canaan? Why not put this in a survey?”

        This is a rather weird point, for a few reasons.

        1) Regardless of the answer to this question, it does not conflict with the answers we got from the survey that *was* conducted.
        2) The question is weird because — egyptologists are mostly interested in egyptology, however that question seems to be leaning much more towards biblical studies, which egyptologists have not directly studied as to provide a serious answer.
        3) The questions were not as ‘vague’ as you claim they are — they are about as ‘vague’ as most questions I see on just about any other survey.

        And again, if you want to know about my views on the exodus, I have written a post on it: https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/historical-evidence-for-the-exodus/

        Like

    • By the way, since Hoffmeier is clearly interestedly in THE Exodus, why not ask the obvious question in his survey?

      Why ask vague, general questions? Why not directly and clearly ask Egyptologists…do you think that Moses led half a million people out of Egypt following the ten plagues and accompanied by the destruction of the Egyptian army and the conquest of Canaan? Why not put this in a survey?

      This IS what we all really want to know, right? Was he afraid of what he would find?

      Like

    • Hoffmeier already said that his survey was “unscientific.” In this case, “unscientific” is going to mean that you can’t draw the conclusion that “a vast majority believes X” from such a survey.

      An unbiased representative sample is one which all individuals are equally likely to be included in the sample. However, in Hoffmeier’s survey, we know that at least some Egyptologists were excluded from the start. So right there, we see that this survey is not a representative survey. It’s true that we don’t know what the excluded would have said if asked, but given Hoffmeier’s bias, it seems unlikely that they would have been excluded if they supported his views.

      As for those who were offered the survey, we don’t know why 80 % declined to participate, but we do know that non-participants outnumbered participants by four to one. Obviously, if we could get the opinions of the non-participants, it’s quite possible that we’d end up with only a minority saying that there was an exodus (and that assumes everyone defines “exodus” in the same way.

      In the end, we simply don’t know what a majority of Egyptologists believes because the methodology was badly flawed. The position that a majority believes X is not supportable.

      As to the possibility of asking a more direct question, are you suggesting that Egyptologists are not qualified to answer this question because it’s too “biblical studies?” So, even though most of the events in the Exodus take place in Egypt or in lands controlled by Egypt, Egyptologists are not qualified to answer the question?

      So you and Hoffmeier would disagree about the dates because the OT offers conflicting answers about the dates,? The OT contradicts itself? Interesting.

      You know, if the OT really, actually does say that the Exodus occurred around 1450 BC, then Hoffmeier is saying that the OT is in error. Hoffmieir is saying that it’s dates are off by around 200 years or so, a non-trivial error for an inerrant text. I Kings says 1450 BC. Hoffmeier says it’s wrong.

      Any reasons other than Exodus 1:11 why Hoffmeier disagrees with the 1450 BC date? Maybe there’s something in the archaeology that disproves the 1450 BC date?

      This is why dates really do matter. This is something that can be tested.

      Like

    • This is Stats 101.

      To draw an accurate conclusion about a population, you need an unbiased, representative, scientific sampling of that population. You must follow a certain methodology before you can draw conclusions such as “X % of all Egyptologists believe Y.”

      I’ve shown you several ways in which Hoffmeier’s sampling was biased and not representative, but clearly, you’re not going to listen to me and/or you’re not understanding me. So listen to Hoffmeier. Hoffmeier himself says that his survey was UNSCIENTIFIC. This is Hoffmeier’s own word. It’s an unscientific survey, and so you cannot draw conclusions about the population of all Egyptologists. QED.

      Like

      • “This is Stats 101.”

        Which makes it *astonishing* you still haven’t gotten it.

        “To draw an accurate conclusion about a population, you need an unbiased, representative, scientific sampling of that population.”

        >representative population -> 25 egyptologists surveyed
        >scientific sampling -> all surveyed members are part of the international association of egyptologists
        >unbiased -> any claim that the international association of egyptologist or any other international academic body of scholars in a field is ‘biased’ is laughable

        “I’ve shown you several ways in which Hoffmeier’s sampling was biased and not representative, but clearly, you’re not going to listen to me and/or you’re not understanding me.”

        You disingenuous brat, ALL your accusations are utter garbage, all of them worthless. You’ve made error after error, you’ve made complete and utter non-points and have, in almost every conceptual way, attempted to take away from the highly factual, published representative survey of Hoffmeier amongst top egyptologists in the field, a randomized sample in which Hoffmeier did not know a single opinion-before hand.

        “So listen to Hoffmeier. Hoffmeier himself says that his survey was UNSCIENTIFIC.”

        I have already explained the difference between a scientific and unscientific survey, you clearly either do not understand what they mean, and thus take Hoffmeier’s survey to be un-credible, or have deluded yourself into thinking that this information has changed anything.

        Indeed, your highly annoying responses are starting to get on my nerves. I have explained this time and time again; your responses go exactly as “garbage in, garbage out”. You continue making thousands of misrepresentations against Hoffmeier, even accusing him of bias, making unbelievable flaws in your methodology (you complained about a 20% response rate, when the average external survey gets a 10-15% response rate, ridiculous). You’ve already shown that your understanding of how surveys work, considering the fact that you don’t know what an external survey is, you don’t know the meanings behind ‘scientific survey’ and ‘unscientific survey’, you don’t know a single thing being discussed –> this clearly establishes that your critiques are laughable, ridiculous, misleading and simply confusing on their own part. Indeed, you seem to have either repeatedly lied, or have simply become confused over your own errors.

        The survey had *zero* methodological flaws, and thus conclusions *must* be drawn from it. 25 egyptologists were surveyed on whether the Hebrews were in Egypt and if there was some sort of exodus. 19 answered ‘YES’, zero answered ‘NO’. This tells an enormous amount. Until a single methodological flaw can be found, your countless fabrications must be put aside in favor of a scientific way of thinking.

        Like

    • I understand that the OT does not give exact dates. However, it appears to give enough information to allow an estimates of date plus or minus a few decades.

      So one verse leads us conclude that The Exodus occurred around 1450 BC plus or minus a few decades. Another verse leads us conclude that The Exodus ocurred in the 1200s BC plus or minus a few decades. Notice that the error bars do not overlap? That means that even with the uncertainties these are two different and contradictory dates. The two verse contradict each other.

      I understand that Egyptologists cannot test the hypothesis that there was a burning bush. However, in focusing on the untestable details, you are ignoring the parts which ARE testable.

      For example, if you surveyed Egyptologist with the specific question “Do you think that an exodus of the size and scope of The Exodus described in the OT occurred specifically between 1400 and 1450 BC?”, then I think that there are enough data available for an Egyptologist to answer the question. Give an Egyptologist a date, and he or she can draw a more definitive conclusion about an hypothesized event with that date.

      And given this date, I think that a majority would say that The Exodus of the OT is very unlikely to have occurred around this date, because the archeological evidence contradicts the hypothesis. I think that there’s a really good chance that the majority of Egyptologists would say that an exodus equal to the one described in the OT did not occur between 1400 and 1450 BC.

      Like

      • “I understand that the OT does not give exact dates. However, it appears to give enough information to allow an estimates of date plus or minus a few decades. ”

        Eeehhhhh that seems to depend on interpretation to some extent. Hoffmeier interpretions 1 Kings 6:1 not as 480 actual years, but of 12 sets of 40 years, each 40 years representing one generation (because the Bible says one generation is 40-70 years).

        So perhaps Exodus 1:11 is better to support the theory of Hoffmeier, and verses like Judges 11:26 and 1 Kings 6:1 support my hypothesis better. It’s part of ongoing debate and I don’t think this situation will get completely settled until someone finds hardcore archaeological data to engrave it into one part of history — such as finding when the conquest exactly happened (destruction of Jericho, Ai and Hazor in the same time period).

        Ai and Hazor seem to be resolved, but Jericho is a bit problematic. However, do not ask me how, but I have insider data on the current archaeological excavations going on at Jericho which will be enormous in their findings, which should get presented at ASOR in either the next few months, or November-December :).

        “I understand that Egyptologists cannot test the hypothesis that there was a burning bush. However, in focusing on the untestable details, you are ignoring the parts which ARE testable.
        For example, if you surveyed Egyptologist with the specific question “Do you think that an exodus of the size and scope of The Exodus described in the OT occurred specifically between 1400 and 1450 BC?”, then I think that there are enough data available for an Egyptologist to answer the question.”

        Not necessarily.. I think this gets into the problem of the 600,000 figure in the Bible, which itself is a translation that is being debated (I can send you some references). For example, Deuteronomy 7:7 says that the Israelite’s were the fewest of all the peoples, and Exodus 23:29-30 says that the Israelite’s were so few that they could not immediately inherit the entire promised land right away. The biblical data, taking into account Deut. 7:7, Exo. 23:29-30, some other verses, and the translation of the 600,000 figure passages in the Bible, seems to support a rather small exodus population (I’d put it between 20,000-40,000 people, probably on the lower end). So you can see many of the details are problematic for the very least.

        “And given this date, I think that a majority would say that The Exodus of the OT is very unlikely to have occurred around this date, because the archeological evidence contradicts the hypothesis. ”

        False, there is no such contradiction.

        And again, I have already explained why we can know the exodus *did* happen. I gave a number of points, many of which you seem to have ignored. Sigh. The best, I think, that I can recommend you to do is read the recent academic volume published in 2016 titled ‘Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?’ — it has contributions from numerous scholars, and the volume was edited by none other than James Hoffmeier, Alan Millard and Gary Rendsburg (Hoffmeier and Rendsburg themselves writing one chapter each). If you read the volume, I have not a figment or existence of doubt you will try to deny the exodus again.

        Like

    • I’m sorry that your emotions have gotten in the way of you ability to see the flaws in Hoffmeier’s unscientific survey. I afraid that you do not fully understand the concept of bias. Perhaps a stats class would be helpful to you, but in the meantime, I can see that it is pointless to continue to identify the errors.

      Like

      • “I’m sorry that your emotions have gotten in the way of you ability to see the flaws in ”

        It seems clear that I have won this debate, this was an utter landslide. Between yourself and myself, I was highly more familiar with both the survey conducted by Hoffmeier, and methodology of surveys in the first place. We saw you complain about the 20% response rate, but that turned out to be above average for external surveys.

        Indeed, we saw you claim that the survey was biased or unrepresentative, but we later saw that the 25 surveyed egyptologists were all members of the International Association of Egyptologists. We saw you make many more, baseless claims, that have no basis in reality.

        We also see yet again, that you do not understand what it means to be an ‘unscientific survey’, and that you somehow think this is non-credible, when of course such is nonsense. It only becomes non-credible when there is a methodological error (because the common survey methodology used in scientific surveys tends to avoid methodological errors), however Hoffmeier’s survey avoided any methodological errors and thus must be accepted as bare reality.

        “I can see that it is pointless to continue to identify the errors”

        I can see that your tears are finally beginning to dry up, and that you are coming to accept bear reality. If the survey was invalid, it would have never been published an actual professional journal in the first place. This should say about everything. The majority of egyptologists have decided the exodus is historical, that seems to be that.

        Like

      • “I’ll be brief. Hoffmeier excluded certain groups of Egyptologists. Methodological error.”

        This accusation has already been debunked. Self-repeating will not make you get your way, buddy boy. Including the opinions of scholars who Hoffmeier already knows of would have been a methodological error, but luckily he side-stepped this.

        Like

    • The error was not debu except in your mind.

      You don’t know the size of the group excluded, and you don’t know what percentage of the excluded group believed X. Those excluded were Egyptologists. They belong to the population of all Egyptologists. Their views were excluded, producing a biased conclusion IF the survey is taken as representing ALL Egyptologists. Stats 101.

      But as I said, given your irrational and baseless accusations and emotions, this is largely pointless.

      Like

      • “You don’t know the size of the group excluded”

        Unless there’s evidence it’s significant, and further evidence that this would have been negative rather than positive for the results, this fact we do not know can simply be dismissed as irrelevant. You can of course, always send an e-mail to Hoffmeier for an explanation.

        Again, there are no methodological flaws. You’re simply trying to note very tiny “unknowns”, which are inconsequential to the data, and say “what if…”.

        Unfortunately of course, “what if” possibilities are useless to the scientific endeavor. Science is concerned with the data we do have, not the hypothetical one that “could” change everything “if” it were found.

        And the data says that egyptologists accept the exodus. Your highly repetitive, non-arguments will be ignored if they continue spouting the same, addressed nonsense. Point out a methodological error, not a funky “what if” scenario, and you will receive another response on the survey.

        Like

    • I see that our dates are now getting very, very fuzzy. So much for truth in the Bible.

      Still, I’d sure like to see those Egyptologist asked more specific questions.

      But I’m curious about Hazor. How was this “resolved?”

      Like

      • “But I’m curious about Hazor. How was this “resolved?””

        Hazor is perhaps the best site for Joshua’s conquest possible. It was destroyed by fire in both the 15th century BC and the 13th century BC, so no matter which dating you ascribe, mines or Hoffmeier’s, Hazor was in fact destroyed by the Israelite’s.

        Like

    • I’m supposed to provide the size of the excluded group? That’s not how this works. Surely you understand that the burden is on the investigator to show why the exclusion of a group from the sample doesn’t introduce a bias. Otherwise, this is a clear methodological error.

      Like

      • “I’m supposed to provide the size of the excluded group? That’s not how this works. ”

        Exactly, such information is inaccessible to you, and thus you have no figment of a clue regarding whether Hoffmeier could have possibly excluded critical viewpoints here. There is not an ounce of evidence for this. Yet, you take it as an error. In other words, the argument seems to be “I do not fully understand this part of the survey, therefore it must be wrong, not me”

        I’ve already debunked that any exclusion went on, it’s common procedure in a survey to not include answers you already know. There *was no* large sample excluded from the survey, the survey was completely randomized with 120 randomly selected egyptologists. Thus all accusations have collapsed in on themselves.

        A survey that had a methodological error wouldn’t have been published. Try again.

        Like

    • No, no, I get it. Translations are being debated. Details are problematic.

      So, no one really knows what the OT says. But it’s all supported. Even though no one knows what, exactly, is being supported. It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall.

      Like

      • No, we have a great idea of what is being said, the few uncertain facts have two, at most three possibilities. The claim that no one knows what the OT says was an obvious disingenuous exaggeration by yourself.

        Like

    • Do you think that Egyptian Egyptologists would constitute a tiny or insignificant group?

      Does Amnon Ben-Tor think that Hazor was destroyed twice, including a destruction around 1400 BC?

      Like

      • “Do you think that Egyptian Egyptologists would constitute a tiny or insignificant group?
        Does Amnon Ben-Tor think that Hazor was destroyed twice, including a destruction around 1400 BC?”

        There is no “think”, Hazor has two destruction layers, one in the 15th century BC and one in the 13th century BC. Destruction strata are not arbitrary. Amnon excavated through one (or both) of them, I don’t know which.

        I do know of a paper where Amnon establishes the Israelite invasion of Hazor… http://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/39/4/2…. But I don’t have the money to read it, and therefore I don’t know whether or not Amnon prefers an early or late date here.

        “Do you think that Egyptian Egyptologists would constitute a tiny or insignificant group? ”

        Tiny group of what?

        Like

    • You asked about the size of the excluded groups. Egyptian Egyptologists were excluded. Is this a tiny or insignificant group?

      Amnon Ben-Tor says that Hazor was not destroyed in 1400 BC. I have his book.

      Like

      • “You asked about the size of the excluded groups. Egyptian Egyptologists were excluded. ”

        And thank God Hoffmeier excluded those whom he already knew the views of, otherwise there may have been a methodological error. Conversation about Hoffmeier’s survey is now closed.

        “Amnon Ben-Tor says that Hazor was not destroyed in 1400 BC. I have his book.”

        Which book, and where does he say this? Full quote and context needed. There’s a pretty daunting Late Bronze I destruction stratum in the lower city.

        Like

    • I’m sure that you would like to close the survey question. When one is sampling a given population, and when one deliberately excludes a portion of that population from the sample, then one has made an error.

      Amnon Ben-Tor’s Book is called Hazor: Canaanite Metropolis, Israelite City. A quote which might be relevant is “The picture that arises from our renewed excavations is of a gradual and smooth transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze.” (Page 78)

      Amnon Ben-Tor reports one massive destruction layer which he dates to the mid-1200s. He does not find two separate massive destruction events. That is, there is no massive destruction layer dating to 1400 BC.

      There is evidence of a decline in the 13th century, and then a single destruction event in the mid-1200s. That’s it for destruction events. I would add that all of this is consistent with the Amarna letters which show Hazor to be a going concern with a functioning king just a few decades after Joshua is alleged to have destroyed everything in Hazor around 1400.

      Like

      • As I noted earlier, the discussion on the survey is closed and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoffmeier’s survey is valid. It has been published and it surveys the opinions of egyptologists from the International Association of Egyptologists on the issue, and made sure to avoid all conceptual methodological flaws. Hoffmeier’s understanding of surveys allowed him to note that one strictly cannot survey someone that they already know their opinion of. Therefore, because of this fact, all your claims are instantly debunked. I have already established beforehand that actually including known opinions is a methodological flaw.

        Because this has been proven, you take your whimpering tears and excuses and make one of the greatest misrepresentations of all times against Amnon:

        “The picture that arises from our renewed excavations is of a gradual and smooth transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze.”

        Apparently, David thinks Amnon is retarded and can’t tell a destruction layer from a non-destruction layer. But it turns out that David’s blatantly enormous ignorance of the periods of ancient history have caused him to fail here.

        Amnon says that Hazor had an easy transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. That means that around 1550 BC, when egyptology shifts from the MB (Middle Bronze) to LB I (Late Bronze I), which takes place at about 1550 BC, Hazor was doing pretty well.

        But of course, David hasn’t a clue about these time periods (that I am able to quote without even googling here), and yet decided to buy a book on specifically that issue anyways.

        So, although Hazor was doing well in the 16th century BC, when the Egyptian world entered into what we call the Late Bronze Age, the simple fact that Hazor was doing fine about 1550 BC means little to nothing about the 1400 BC destruction which has been long established in archaeology.

        Indeed, this fact is entirely undisputed. Your glaring ignorance on Hazor is amazing. Anyways, quoting from a book that actually discusses the LB destruction of Hazor; a book titled ‘A Biblical History of Israel’ written by Iain William Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman notes that “As controversial as the other two sites remain, Hazor is somewhat less problematic, for there is no dispute that it was violently destroyed by fire in the Late Bronze Age–several times, in fact, and before that in the Middle Bronze Age as well.” (pg. 178). So apparently the rule “1550 BC, all or nothing” doesn’t apply.

        You then cite another corpus you likely don’t understand (Amarna Letters), written after Hazor had been re-established after its destruction.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s