Dating the Exodus from Egypt

There is extensive information on this on the site.

There are 2 basic datings: 12th century BCE and 15th century.

* 15th century BCE – is the approach of Israeli researchers Dr. Maitlis and Rabbi Professor Yoel Elitzur. This approach is most suitable for simplifying the Bible.
* 12th century approach – the approach of most researchers is that of Rabbi Dr. Yoel Ben Nun.

In honor of Passover and for the benefit of many, I am attaching herewith a draft of parts of the summary and introduction * of an extensive article I wrote on the subject (and neglected due to lack of time. For those following, I have resolved the difficulty I had with the article). Indeed, there may be errors and inaccuracies here and there, but this is (part of) what I have. For all the above points in the summary, sources and expansions were provided in the article in the body of the article, with an explanation of various objections that can be raised. Overall, I think the points stand.

Again, I emphasize-
1. This is a draft and as such it is preliminary and may contain errors. I did not have time to formalize the marginal notes into an academic form.
2. I am not going to have discussions about the above things here. The things are detailed in the full document.

(When copying here, I added a few small expansions so as not to need the full article to get a picture of the situation. Due to the lack of time, the things are written in a less formal manner).

I suggest that the lay reader read only the summary without the comments.

I warn in advance that I did not write with brilliant writing skills, I tend to prolong and complicate. With the reader's forgiveness.

I would like to thank my friend Gili Stern, with whom I have worked together on many of the thoughts in the draft parts of this article, and who has always been able to add information to me and enrich me greatly, time after time. Part of the original idea for the article came after reading a post by Ariel73 on the forum Stopped Here Thinking, an idea that was refined, expanded, and changed following criticism.

I would also like to thank Rabbi Dr. Yoel Ben Nun, Dr. Yitzhak Maitlis, Rabbi Professor Yoel Elitzur, and others who provided some advice and assistance. Everything written here is my opinion and does not always reflect their words.

______________________________________________________________

From the introduction (part):

____________________________________________________________

One of the well-known and difficult questions in the contradiction between the solution and science is the real possibility of the story of the Exodus. Every beginning archaeologist belonging to the minimalist school, knew how to proudly tell that things never happened, that the Exodus is a myth that has nothing to do with reality, he knew how to enlist to his aid all the findings from the ancient East, which in his opinion do not contain even the slightest hint of the biblical ethos. Could it be that the central ethos of the people of Israel is one big historical fiction?

While the research debate on the historical reality of the Exodus is taking place in academia, in the open, on the Internet, a parallel discussion is taking place, conducted with dishonesty and ignorance. On the one hand, religious organizations for conversion sometimes distort findings in favor of proving their thesis, and on the other hand, atheist organizations present the situation in research in a one-sided manner. In their opinion, it is clear from the research that the tradition of the Exodus from Egypt has no supporting evidence and it is clear to all researchers that the story has no historical basis. In this article, it seems that this is far from the case. Presenting the facts in this way is a one-sided and dishonest presentation of the data.

In this article, we will first review in a concentrated manner the findings of the research world regarding the Israeli ethos. It seems that, unlike the conventional wisdom, there is actually quite a bit of evidence for the story of the burden on the basis of the Israeli ethos and that they constitute important evidence that the above story is based on an actual historical event. It also seems that the simplistic picture presented by various factors, despite the fact that there is no basis in the Israeli story, stems from a different interpretation of the findings, lack of knowledge, distortion of the findings, and failure to ask the right question.

The atheistic claim that we would like to deal with is as follows:
1. There is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus - all the evidence presented so far is lies or taken out of context.
2. There is conflicting evidence that proves that the story of the Exodus is not plausible - the Egyptian kingdom during the time of Ramses II was a very powerful kingdom, it is unlikely that the story of the Exodus took place otherwise we feel it.
3. Researchers all assume that this story has no historical basis.

This article will discuss these questions. On the one hand, we will scan all the evidence for the story and on the other hand we will discuss the meaning of the above evidence and whether it can be seen as sufficient to establish a rational argument about the reality of the events, and on the other hand we will try to understand whether the claim about a research consensus has a basis.

It is important to note that the article does not discuss or attempt to convince or prove in the same way that the Exodus is a historical event. Its purpose is to show that given the existing evidence, the mind tends to believe that the biblical story is true and is certainly rational and reasonable to accept it. After presenting the facts, anyone can judge whether the claim about the lack of evidence for this story is accurate or stems from manipulation and ignorance.

I will mention another key point in understanding the article, the purpose of the article is not to prove that everything written in the Bible about the story is true (a claim that I personally do accept) but to show that the story has a historical basis. Therefore, we will put our hearts at the center and not at the marginal details (for example - the size of the population that left Egypt or its exact route). In other words, it seems that there is good and strong evidence that the national memory of the Exodus is indeed well-founded, and even if it is not accurate in all the details - the basis is still correct.

I will also emphasize - I personally accept all the details of the story, and as we have seen, in my opinion, there is no real reason not to accept it in its many details, and yet, my purpose in saying this is to explain that this is not the essence of the article. A person can be convinced that a certain detail is wrong or exaggerated, but this should not prevent him from accepting the rest of the story, which, as it seems, is definitely anchored in the findings in our hands.

I will also add that the article also does not intend to touch on the religious issue of the Exodus from Egypt, but rather on the historical event regarding the mass exodus of the people of Israel from slavery. Some will see this as a metaphysical event and divine intervention (like me), and some will see it as national history and nothing more. I do not intend to deal with these ambiguities, and we will leave it to each person to interpret things according to their own beliefs.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________ Summary of the article: ______________________________________________________________ Many people like to brag about the lack of evidence for the Exodus. According to them, there is no doubt that the biblical story is a myth. The more knowledgeable will argue that there is no mention in Egyptian history of the story of the Exodus, and there is no evidence in Egypt to support it. In addition, according to them, the story directly contradicts Egyptian history at that time (which was a period of prosperity), that excavations in the Sinai Desert have shown that there is no evidence of the Israelites wandering in the Sinai Desert and that it is unlikely that the people would have managed to escape from it. To all this, they add the fact that the cities of Canaan (such as Jericho and Ai) were already destroyed by the time the Israelites entered them, and that the biblical story of the Exodus contains many anachronistic features (such as the kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at that time). In this article, we have shown that such a presentation is far from being the case. These claims stem mainly from a lack of familiarity with the material, from dating paradigms (such as the erroneous and ancient attribution of the Exodus to the days of Ramses II), or from footmanalism and an obsession with details. In fact, a thorough study of the data shows unequivocally that there is actually quite good evidence for the biblical story, and there is no reason to accept it. The purpose of the article, as we defined it, was to understand whether there is evidence for the story, and whether it is reasonable to assume that it has a historical basis. From the very beginning, our goal was not to prove that all the details of the story are accurate, but to show that there is certainly some good evidence in favor of this ethos and that it is based on a real historical story. We started with the fact that every group of people has some kind of founding memory - where they came from, how the group was founded, etc. These stories often reflect truth, and there is a good reason for this. Nations, for the most part, preserve their national memories, and experience also teaches that national memories are (as a whole) relatively reliable, at least in their basic form. The people of Israel also have a story: the forefathers of the nation came across the river and lived as a small, nomadic minority among the peoples of Canaan. Because of famine, the family moved to Egypt, and after a while Pharaoh enslaved them. After a long and difficult period of slavery, Moses appeared with the message of redemption, who brought them out of slavery while subduing Egypt, which was a power. After leaving Egypt, God gave them His Torah, and after a generation of wandering, they conquered the Land of Israel from the Canaanites and settled there. This is the story they told, according to the oldest literary evidence the people have - the books of the Bible. It is important to note that this story appears not only in the Torah, but is also interwoven in the words of the prophets, the first and the last, and in the Psalms. Many Psalms. In the books of the Prophets, the prophets address the people and remind them of how the Lord brought them out of Egypt. Note that they do not try to convince the people that this happened, but simply mention famous facts known to all. Therefore, this story is not the property of a spiritual elite, but a shared collective memory of all strata of the people (even in the Chronicles, which seem to have a tendency to glorify mainly the monarchy, there are several references to the Exodus). In addition, we have seen that the story of the Exodus is a folk story with a distinctly anti-mythical flavor, a story that generally does not belong to the school of stories that peoples in ancient times used to invent for themselves. It begins with the fact that in the ancient pagan world, the lowest social class was the slave class. It is understandable that a people descended from slaves would tell of themselves that they were truly descendants of gods or kings or heroes. But who has ever heard of a free people living in their own land inventing that they were slaves? To this it must be added that Moses is indeed described as a prophet. Individual but stammering (unlike other leaders who glorified themselves), the priestly class also does not remain intact in the criticism written about it in the story of the Calf by Aaron and especially the people who are consistently described as a troublesome and childish people. The Israelites panic in the face of every problem, and Moses and God are repeatedly required to prove their strength and concern for the people. They are neither heroes nor geniuses, but a "stubborn people". What people invent such stories about their ancestors? The description of the Torah, which does not flatter the character of our ancestors, is precisely a courtship that the things were probably true, and not an invention. Following all of this, and following this story that is full of details, locations and chronology (something that is not very characteristic of myths), there is at least a considerable suspicion that it is not a myth, let alone that it is a central, unique national myth that establishes identity. (My personal opinion is that the fact that the story is a national myth that establishes Agreed – This gives it credibility. It is possible that philosophically – the one who claims that he is wrong has evidence. Especially in a myth that does not look like a myth, but that is not the subject of this article). Later, we saw that the nature of the story itself makes it very difficult to find documentation for it. This begins with the fact that in the area where the story takes place (Goshen), due to the humid nature of the area, not only is there no papyrus documentation about the Israelites, but there is no papyrus documentation in all of Egyptian history at all! This is a place that simply does not allow inscriptions that are not engraved on temples to survive. Moreover, it turns out that a story such as this is the type of story that, if it happened, is usually expected to be silenced by ancient empires. We even empirically proved this claim by the lack of documentation for another parallel period in which Egypt was humiliated by foreigners for 200 years (!), a period that the Egyptians tried and succeeded in silencing (periods that did not survive Egyptians directly about the affair!), and indeed without the later documentation of the Egyptian historian Manton, about a thousand years after the event, we would not have known anything about it, since the Egyptians succeeded in destroying every written record of the period (the inscription in Nabi Hassan is not a record of this either). This fact, about the Egyptian documentation method, has long been mentioned and supported by several important Egyptologists such as Professor Nili Shopak and Professor Kenneth Kitchin. And yet, we have seen that, although it is likely that such an event would not be recorded, there are echoes of it in the books of Egyptian history, in Manton, the greatest of Egyptian historians, in the one thanks to whom we know today about the Hyksos rule. That historian documents the expulsion of the Hebrews after they brought diseases to Egypt, but describes a completely different version that may indicate the existence of such an Egyptian national memory. Late Egyptian documentation in any case – There is also there. Later, in what was one of the innovations of the article and under the understanding in the paragraph above, we decided that we should change the paradigm and distinguish between that evidence for the biblical ethos, the probability of finding which is low (due to the documentary bias and the preservation problems in Goshen), and evidence which, if the story is true, despite the documentary bias, we would be able to identify with a high probability in my opinion. As an example of this evidence that is difficult to conceal, we mentioned Egyptian weakness during the period of the Exodus, numerous construction projects, the destruction of the cities of the land, and more. Then, in what was the second innovation of the article, we explained that due to the inability to know the exact form of the counting in the Bible[1] – we proposed to fumble and look for evidence over a period, not an exact year – a period. In other words, it is not possible to know from the descriptions of the Bible when exactly we should look for the Exodus from Egypt, at most we have a possible time range. Therefore, we must check whether at some point, during the 18th-19th dynasty, there are The same clues that we are expected to find if the Exodus did take place, if such finds are found, we must determine whether this is a hint or years or the accumulation of the entire framework of the story. After this paradigm shift, we have seen that, upon careful examination of the map of finds in Egypt covering the period in which the story takes place, we discover that most of the central elements of the story are documented, and well documented. All this, despite the illogicality behind such documentation, and despite the preservation problems in the area in which the story takes place. As part of the above list of finds, we have seen that approximately 200 years before the Exodus period (depending on how far back we count), a pro-Semitic dynasty ruled Egypt (the Hyksos), a dynasty that could have been a fertile ground for the penetration of the Hebrews and would have allowed the advancement of Semites to power (something that had already happened more than once even during the Egyptian dynasties). During the reign of this dynasty, several well-known names in Egypt are mentioned, such as Jacob-Har and others. (To be clear, I am not claiming that the Hyksos are the Israelites.) At the end of this dynasty, Egypt is hit by a famine and is overthrown by a new dynasty of kings. The new dynasty aims to wipe out all traces of the previous Proto-Semitic dynasty with which it was at war and which it feared. This dynasty probably harbors a grudge against anyone who was even remotely connected to the Hyksos rule. We later learn that this new dynasty carries out many construction projects using thousands of Semitic slaves, including building food storage in a city in the land of Goshen, which is later referred to in Egyptian records as Ramesses[2]. When we examine the end of this period (1350 BCE, the end of the reign of Amenhotep III), within the general time frame in which, according to the biblical account, the Exodus was supposed to take place, we see the rise of a new king, Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten, This king is not the heir to the throne (he died for unclear reasons), and at the same time as his rise we witness the total collapse of the Egyptian empire and its old colonies in the Middle East (the Egyptian government in Canaan, the Amorite kingdom, etc., and the Egyptians sign a peace treaty with the Hittites, who themselves destroy the Egyptian allies). These colonies cry out for help and do not receive it, and even complain that the endless gold that Akhenaten's father used to send them has simply stopped arriving. At the same time that the Egyptian empire is collapsing, a religious change is also taking place in Egypt, and a revolution is taking place that is a preliminary, undeveloped version of monotheism (Notheism - a single supreme god, and a pantheon of gods under him). We have also noted that, according to a few (very) scholars, it is possible that we may even have preserved a document from the period (the infamous Ephesus) about riots, diseases, and disasters in Egypt at that time (although it is not exactly identical to the story of the The biblical, an identity that is very far from how it is usually presented), although the overwhelming majority of scholars believe that this dating of the inscription is incorrect (for linguistic reasons). In addition to the disputed inscription in this section, another inscription should be added, which documents the peoples neighboring Egypt during the period of slavery. The inscription contains a broken name of a people, which, according to several scholars, the most likely (and some say the only) way to complete it is the name – ‘Israel’. Close to the end of the time period we have proposed for slavery, after according to the biblical testimony, the people set out towards the Land of Israel on a long and roundabout route in order to avoid a military conflict along the way (apparently since the Egyptian fortresses are located in the coastal area. Fortresses that exist only during the New Kingdom! The time of the Exodus) and at the same time as the revolution in Egypt and the dramatic decline in its power – We have much significant archaeological evidence of the entry of an ethnic element New from the east into the Land of Israel and settles there in thousands from east to west, across the Jordan and in the central mountain. Some time before this settlement, in Canaanite - Egyptian correspondence from the same period that we have (the Amarna documents) it is even said that a person named 'Abiru', a name that is known to generally describe people of low status in the ancient East, invades the land and burns its cities. According to these correspondences, the people of Canaan ask for the help of the Egyptians in stopping the emigrants (in my opinion – only the illegal immigrants from the desert), help that was not granted, possibly due to the chaos occurring in Egypt at the time (this is despite the fact that the Canaanites ask them for very minimal help, minimal help that may be taking into account the chaos occurring in Egypt and perhaps its purpose is to convey a message to the invaders that they are dealing with the Egyptian power and not with the Canaanites alone). Very puzzlingly - according to these documents, the residents of Shechem cooperate with those emigrants, this is in conjunction with the fact that if we examine the Bible we will discover that strangely Joshua does not conquer Shechem - a city located on a mountain where the Israelites settled, and even in the Chronicles there are hints about an early settlement of this city by the Ephraimites, this at the same time as the slavery in Egypt. Indeed, we do not know for sure who this factor is[3], but it is not inconceivable that this is a contemporary record of the first penetration of some of the ancient Israelites (the illegal immigrants) who were few at this stage into the land. And here, at the same time, a little later, for all we know from archaeological excavations, the cities of the land are truly in ruins, one after another (among them Jericho, Ai, Hazor, Gibeon and perhaps even Heshbon, which was claimed following an incorrect dating of the Exodus from Egypt and problems in the chronology of the Land of Israel that did not exist at the time of the Israelites' penetration. This solution was proposed by archaeologist Dr. Yitzhak Maitlis). Interestingly, from the excavations we learn that the factor penetrating the land destroys both Canaanite and Egyptian idols in its path, and establishes its own cult sites, some cult sites where only kosher animals are sacrificed and where worship is performed that has monotheistic allusions. These sites are built in the shape of footprints and the settlers go up to offer sacrifices there). In addition, we explained that it is possible that one of these worship sites discovered on Mount Ebal and suspiciously similar to the biblical altars and the story in the Book of Deuteronomy dates back to this period (and we will not touch on the various arguments against this statement in a summary). In addition, we learn that the people who penetrated the land have different national characteristics than the peoples of the region (for example, a different style of pitchers that is influenced by the neighbors in the plain), and they show signs of a people who came from the desert region (they do not eat pork, a clear sign of peoples who wander in the desert) and perhaps even have hints that they may have come from Egypt (the footprints, the shape of the tabernacle, etc.). With this, in a process of 200 years, the central mountain region of the Land of Israel is repopulated, as well as several places beyond the Jordan. All of this is in accordance with the biblical story. At the end of this period, after the end of the aforementioned settlement period, we already have explicit and agreed-upon Egyptian documentation in the Merneptah inscription, about a person named ‘Israel’ residing in the land (in addition to earlier indirect mentions of persons named Dan, Assyria, and Manasseh), a person whose destruction the Egyptians boast about “Israel is established, he has no seed”, and in parallel with it, also a puzzling documentation about a Medini tribe residing in the Sinai desert, who also begins to worship a deity named YHWH, a deity whose representation in a statue or image is forbidden, the same tribe also builds copper serpents and structures similar to the shape of the Tabernacle. At the same time, in the land, the same person residing there, it seems, is spreading over the entire mountain region with hundreds of settlements, perfecting a new form of writing that will later be known as – The ancient Hebrew script, a script whose early version is found only in southern Egypt and in the Egyptian mines in Sinai, where they are carved on a grave by Semitic slaves who work there (Proto-Sinaitic script). We later saw that even with the claim of the lack of remains in the desert there are difficulties, it is certainly possible that we have such remains, although it is not clear that the nature of the place, the settlement and the research even allow for the discovery of such ones[4]. To these findings should be added the discoveries on Mount Karkum, an ancient holy mountain where carved stone forms of the Tablets of the Covenant, copper snakes, calves, 12 tombstones and inscriptions engraved with the name of the God of Israel were discovered. The excavator of the site predates him by about a thousand years before the Exodus, but it is not impossible that he is wrongly dated and that it is from the New Kingdom period. The excavator of the site himself confirmed this possibility as a real possibility. In addition to these findings, we saw that the author of the accidental story reveals a surprising, intimate and unlikely acquaintance with Egypt at a very specific period – The New Kingdom period (the period in which the story is supposed to take place), an introduction to a very specific period, which if the story were a late myth (as its detractors claim), should not have appeared as such. We have seen that there are several books recently published that document dozens of examples of this, including: the Egyptian practice of employing thousands of Semitic slaves (called, among other things, "aviru"), the fact that Pharaoh is referred to as "Pharaoh" and not "Pharaoh So-and-So"; which fits Vodka with the reign of the Exodus and not after that, the fact that the Israelites actually leave from the south and not the north "lest the people be afraid when they see war"; – An area that was only fortified during the Exodus, the use of gum and tar in Egypt for boats, Egyptian names like Moses (or ms in the Egyptian version) that are known in ancient Egypt, the form of Joseph's title that fits perfectly with the ancient Egyptian form of title, the form of the tabernacle, many Egyptian names and nicknames in the story (Abreech, Potiphar) and among the Exodus (Kehat and Merari, etc.), and many more evidence and examples that can be cited from these books written by Egyptologists. All of this indicates that the author of the story knows all too well what was happening in Egypt at that time and that a later writer probably could not have known all of this (even under Egyptian rule in the land, it must be remembered that the government was in the plain area and not in the mountain area - that's where the ancient Israelites lived, and it is not at all likely that he would have preserved such small details about the Egyptian way of life for centuries). To all this, it should be added that at the same time there is countless evidence of mutual penetration of customs and words between the two peoples, evidence that shows a clear ancient connection between the peoples (although some would argue that this specific point can be explained in other ways). We have also seen that the claims about anachronisms and other claims against the Exodus simply do not stand up to criticism, recent findings or comparison with findings of parallel events with the same characteristics[5]. Finally, we have also seen that, contrary to the picture that many like to paint, quite a few biblical scholars, archaeologists and Egyptologists actually accept the fact that the biblical ethos preserves a story with a historical core about the escape of slaves. Among these scholars are some of the greatest biblical scholars and archaeologists ever. The later researchers among them fully admit that it is possible that the tendency to not accept the story stems more from a worldview than from the findings themselves, a worldview that we have shown to contain quite a few absurdities, and that has been carried out here and there in the face of other archaeological studies in the Middle East. As examples of these absurdities, we asked, for example, why is the mention of the name “Edom” as a people consolidated in the 12th century BCE in the Israeli national memory (which there are quite a few hints that preserve ancient foundations) or in Israeli historical writings (even according to those who believe they were written later), an anachronism, but on the other hand, a brief mention of the same name in Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian or Babylonian historical writings (which are no less religious or politically tainted) actually proof of its existence? Why do we expect the Egyptians to document in an explicit, detailed, and extensive manner (more than is found) a story as humiliating to them as the Exodus (especially when we have other examples from such periods)? How many such examples do we know of in history? Why does such a lack of documentation constitute proof that the story is a myth? Furthermore, we have shown other absurdities, such as the fact that scholars reject the entire Exodus story that appears in the Book of Exodus, because of anachronistic elements (which have since been disproven) in the Book of Deuteronomy? (which, according to them, was written by a different author several hundred years before the Book of Deuteronomy)? Why do the same scholars, when dealing with the history of other peoples in the Middle East, tend to accept the national documentation, and at most assume that part of it is only exaggerated (in its own order of magnitude), but do not apply the same rule of reduction to the Israeli national documentation and assume that it is fundamentally true but exaggerated? Why do those researchers who dismiss the story of the Israelites wandering in a vast desert like the Sinai Desert because they believe it lacks sufficient evidence (an argument we have seen that is not at all simple), continue, in a completely biased manner, to accept the authenticity of the Egyptian war campaigns, which passed through the same deserts, for which no remains have been found? Why is the failure to find the inscriptions in Goshen evidence of the unreliability of the story, when in all of history, not a single papyrus has been found in Goshen (!) due to the humid nature of the area? These few examples, out of the many examples we have given in the article, only easily demonstrate the complete dishonesty of the modern examination of the evidence for the biblical story, a dishonesty that stems from a worldview, not from facts. To sum things up, the Israeli people have a central and founding, ancient tradition about being slaves in Egypt. This tradition is so central that it is taken for granted by the people and is based on almost their entire religious circle. The tradition, as we have learned, is very different from parallel traditions that usually glorify the people and do not present them as slaves and their leader as a stutterer. If we are not captive to the old dating paradigms, we see that during the period in which the Exodus from Egypt is likely to have occurred, there was a Canaanite people who ruled the land and could have formed a large base for the story of Joseph. This people is ultimately expelled from Egypt and tries to harass anyone who was associated with it. The kings who replaced them employ many slaves and sometime in the middle of the dynasty there is a sudden decline in the power of the kingdom as well as a religious break. Shortly after this event and in parallel with it, tribal invasions of the land begin and later the total destruction of many fortress cities. In their place, a nomadic people from east to west settles, a people with a monotheistic religion who does not eat pigs and later invents the Hebrew script and establishes a kingdom in the land. This people who preserve a tradition of escape from slavery to freedom know all too well what was happening in Egypt during the New Kingdom, things that the people are not supposed to know or preserve just like that. All of this, together with the many other pieces of evidence I presented in the article, are decisive in my opinion that the biblical story is anchored in historical reality. Indeed, I knew that some of the evidence I presented could be disputed on its own (and I tried to address these criticisms with which I disagree, in the body of the article) and many have already done so. However, it should be remembered that my goal was not to show that there is unequivocal evidence for the biblical story, but rather to show that it is certainly possible and that we even have a considerable amount of evidence that indicates the reliability of the story. However, in my opinion, the overall map of evidence (a national, anti-mythical, and humiliating story, the silencing of embarrassing events by the ancient empires, the documentation of Egyptian national historians, evidence for all parts of the story in themselves, inscriptions from the time that may or may not even document the event, internal acquaintance with the New Kingdom, evidence of mutual influence of the peoples, and more) also paints a map that gives very high reliability to the biblical ethos, even if not to its entirety, but at least to its basis. And yet, although I would understand if someone were to argue that none of this proves unequivocally the credibility of the story (although in my personal opinion, as stated, the evidence does show unequivocally that such an analysis would be completely wrong), what is certain is that with a broad map of evidence like the one I presented, even in the opinion of those who think that there is no definite proof for the story, there is undoubtedly a very broad rational basis for adhering to it and there is no reason not to accept it, as I have shown, many scholars do. Therefore, in conclusion, the statement that there is no evidence at all for the biblical story, and that it is clear as day that the story is a myth, is not based at all. [1] It is common to say that the Exodus from Egypt was 480 years before the building of the Temple, and therefore in 1445 BCE, and this also seemingly corresponds to Jephthah's statement about the Israelites living beyond the Jordan for about 300 years and with the priestly dynasties. But all of this is only apparent. In ancient times, typological numbers were widely used, the exact meaning of which cannot be known (and therefore 480 could symbolize several generations or anything else). We cannot learn anything from Jephthah's words during the period of the judges either. We do not know whether he simply meant 300 years, and in addition, and most importantly, we do not know what the exact order of the judges was and whether they ruled synchronously (which, if we do, also makes it difficult to simplify the biblical chronology). It is very possible that a large number of the judges acted simultaneously, some in the north of the country, some across the Jordan, and some in the south, and in fact the stories of the judges are stories that take place simultaneously. Thus, it is possible that Jephthah actually acted during the period of the judges and not 120 years before its end. Recently, Dr. Yuval Veday, in his doctoral thesis, saw the book of Judges as two parallel parts. According to us, it is very possible that there are even 3 such parts, so it is not possible to learn the exact timing of the number of judges. Even an accurate time estimate based on the priestly dynasties is not possible and can be done with a range of between 500-300 years. Therefore, it follows from our words that it is impossible to mark a specific time when the Exodus from Egypt occurred according to the Bible and that evidence for it must be sought over a period of time. Breaking this paradigm is one of the main innovations of the article. [2] The name Ramses could also be earlier, as Egyptologist Professor Avraham Shalom Yehuda has shown, or a later editorial note as Ibn Ezra says. [3] Indeed, Abiru is the name of a class in the ancient East and not the name of a people, but let us not forget that Abiru describes those of low status, nomads or slaves. It is very possible that Abraham belonged to this class and that is why he was called Abraham the Hebrew, which, as is well known, led to the association of this name with his descendants and the land at this point, as Rabbi Dr. Yoel Ben Nun states in his article Eretz Evrim. [4] Indeed, no remains from the Late Bronze Age have been discovered in the desert (although researchers assume that the place was not deserted). There are several methodological problems or unfounded assumptions in this claim against the reliability of the Bible - without going into the problematic nature of the research method (in general, a survey, and not more), it is possible that the inhabitants of the desert used more primitive ceramic methods and that the finds in the desert from the Early Bronze Age are in fact finds from the people of Israel. In addition, this is a well-known phenomenon in the study of the entire ancient Near East, which makes it difficult to deal with the migrations of peoples in general and with nomadic settlement in particular. This phenomenon is particularly well-known in Sinai, where no remains of Egyptian war caravans have been found, and what we know for sure is that they were established in Sinai. The desert is not a place that facilitates the preservation of nomadic finds. [5] Throughout the article, we mentioned in the comments the main objections to each of the evidence we understood, and we saw that for the most part, they have no substance, and the evidence still stands. ______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

I am also attaching an appendix to one of the chapters from the article that discusses the claims regarding the research “consensus” that the story never existed and was not created. The goal is not to show that smart people are drawn to the story, but only to refute the opinion that no one accepts it.

______________________________________________________________

About the “academic consensus”

One of the favorite things of people on the Internet who understand nothing about biblical research is to present the state of research in a one-sided manner. According to them, it is clear to every intelligent person and every researcher that the story never existed, and what is more, there is full agreement on this in academia. Unfortunately, this argument is a lie, an absolute lie. Indeed, many researchers do not accept the story, and it seems to me that they are even the majority, among them important researchers such as Prosfor Israel Pankelstein, Professor Zeev Herzog, Prosfor Asher Neil Silverman, and others. Amichai Mazar even went so far as to say: “The biblical narrative, which includes the Exodus from Egypt and Moses our Lord, has long since been dismissed as a historical event.” Indeed, this fact cannot be denied, and many serious researchers believe so. On the other hand, the picture is more complex, both because of research paradigms that, if we do not adopt them, we see that there are also findings, and quite a few. And because very many researchers do accept the credibility of the basis of the story of the Exodus from Egypt[1].

Among these biblical scholars are important scholars such as (all biblical scholars/archaeologists):

Professor Yehezkel Kaufman[2] (former head of the Department of Bible Studies at the Hebrew University), Professor Moshe David Cassuto[3] (former head of the Department of Bible Studies at the Hebrew University, and one of the greatest biblical scholars), Professor Yehoshua Meir Greenz[4] (head of the Department of Bible Studies at Tel Aviv University, and one of the greatest biblical scholars), Professor Kenneth Katshin[5] (considered the greatest Egyptologist of our time), Professor William Albright[6] (one of the greatest archaeologists of the Land of Israel), Professor Benjamin Mazar[7], Professor David Ussishkin[8], Professor Yigal Yadin[9], Professor Yoel Elitzur[10], Professor James Hofmeyer[11], Professor Emanuel Anati[12], Professor Menachem Haran[13], Professor Ernest Wright[14], Professor Adam Zertel[15], Professor Eliyahu Shmuel Hartum[16], Professor Yehoshua Berman[17], Professor Avraham Malamlet[18], Professor Oded Bustanai[19], Professor Shmuel Levinstaum[20] (editor of the Biblical Encyclopedia), Professor Avraham Shalom Yehuda[21], Professor Moshe Zvi Segal[22], Professor Nili Shopak[23], Professor Yehuda Elitzur[24], Professor Shmuel Yivin[25], Professor Baruch Halpern[26], Professor Richard Haas[27], Professor Benjamin Sommer[28], Professor Frank York[29], Professor Richard Elliot Friedman[30], Dr. Haggai Misgav[31], Dr. Yitzhak Meitels[32], Rabbi Dr. Yoel Ben Nun[33], Dr. Pnina Gilad Feller[34], Dr. Zvi Ilan[35], Yehuda Kil[36] (head of the Da'at Mikra Interpretation Project), Hershel Shanks[37] (head of the American Society for Biblical Archaeology[38]) and so on.
As can be seen – indeed, no scholar accepts the story of the Exodus.

This short list of 36 scholars is a partial[39] and limited list, these are examples of only some who support the biblical narrative, the astute reader will see that most of the scholars whose names I have cited are Israeli scholars. Recently, several books[40] were published that were compiled after several days of seminars discussing the reliability of the biblical narrative at universities in the United States. These books contain over 50 articles by scholars discussing the likelihood of the truth of the Exodus (some accept it and some do not). Many scholars who have not been cited here write in these books, and they also accept the biblical narrative.

I knew that these names might not mean much to the uninformed reader, and it is important to note that scholars such as Kaufman, Zertel, Albright, (b) Mazar, or Ketchin are among the greatest biblical scholars who have lived in the last century. These facts can be easily verified online[41].

Another point to note – as I have already said, I am not claiming that almost all scholars or even most of them accept the story of the Exodus, that would be dishonest. Quite the contrary, it is likely that the situation is the other way around (although I have not checked statistics[42]). However, my critical argument is different. Indeed, many scholars do not accept the credibility of the story, but the claim that “it is clear to all scholars that the story is a myth, and no one in academia accepts it” is nothing more than a lie, an absolute lie. I do not know if this stems from ignorance or malice, but it is simply a lie. Anyone is welcome to check my sources on the scholars in question and verify this.

In conclusion, unlike what laypeople like to write on the Internet, there are many important scholars who do accept the story of the Exodus from Egypt, and there is no scientific reason for doing so. Anyone who claims that only the ignorant and uninformed accept this argument does not know their way around. Once again, we have seen that the above argument is unfounded.

____________________

[1] As we recall, our goal is to examine whether the basis of the Israeli story is a kernel of truth about the exodus of slaves towards the land and the founding of the Israeli people, and not to concentrate on details such as the ten plagues, the number of those who leave, and so on. Matters that are more related to religious views or marginal details. These scholars may believe that the Exodus from Egypt occurred as a result of natural phenomena or a mass or limited slave escape and not necessarily a miraculous event. These scholars may also believe that the Torah tells a true story but was written many years after the event occurred.
[2] Yehezkel Kaufman, History of the Israeli Faith, Volume 2, Bialik Publishing.
[3] Biblical Encyclopedia
[4] Yehoshua Meir Greenz, The Unity and Ancestry of the Book of Genesis, Magnes Publishing.
[5] In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament
[6] In his book The religion and archaeology of the old testament, and in William Foxwell Albright, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, translated by Aaron Amir, with Oved Tel Aviv, 1951
[7] Benjamin Mazar, ‘Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of the Land of Israel; Canaan and Israel: Historical Studies, published by the Bialik Institute and the Society for the Exploration of the Land of Israel and its Antiquities, Jerusalem, 1980, and also Dr. Rivka Shapak Lisak, Exodus from Egypt: Invention or Reality, News1, 21.11.16
[8] Dr. Rivka Shapak Lisak. Exodus from Egypt: Invention or Reality, News1, 21.11.16
[9] See his book See his book – Hatzor: “Head of All These Kingdoms”, 1975, and also see Na'eman and Finkelstein, Wandering to the Kingdom, Ben Zvi Publishing, page 361.
[10] Yoel Elitzur, A Place in the Parasha, Yedioth Ahronoth, 2015.
[11] Israel in Egypt: Evidence for Authenticity of Exodus
[12] Emanuel Anati, “Mount Karkum – In the Light of New Discoveries”, Ariel Publishing, 2001.
[13] Menachem Haran, The Bible and Its World, Magnes Publishing.
[14] Anest Wright, The Bible in Its Environment, Hadar Publishing.
[15] Avital Lahav, Is There Evidence for the Exodus?, Ynet, 06.04.09. See also the original in Zertal's book: A People Born, published by Yedioth Ahronoth. In this book he believed that the people of Israel entered from the east of the Jordan. After his latest research he changed his mind.
[16] Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Introduction,
[17] Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt.
[18] The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, October 26, 1991
[19] Encyclopedia of the World Bible, Exodus, p. 12.
[20] Encyclopedia of the Bible, entry Exodus, published by Bialik.
[21] The accuracy of the Bible: the stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis confirmed and illustrated by Egyptian monuments and language, London: W. Heinemann, ltd. 1934.
[22] Introduction to the Bible, published by Carta.
[23] Her words are quoted in Ad Yom Hazeh, Amnon Bezek, Yedioth Sfarim 2013, p. 281.
[24] In his commentary “Da'at Mikra” on the Book of Exodus. Published by the Rabbi Kook Institute.
[25] Shmuel Yavin, Exodus from Egypt. Tarbetz 3, 1961.
[26] The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, October 26, 1991
[27] How to Judge Evidence for the Exodus, mosaic magazine, March 2015
[28] How to Judge Evidence for the Exodus, mosaic magazine, March 2015
[29] Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective
[30] See his lecture at UCSD. Professor Friedman is an excellent example of our principle. He is a researcher who completely accepts the criticisms of the Bible and is not suspected of religiosity and believes that from reading the sources it is clear as day that the Exodus from Egypt actually happened.
[31] Exodus from Egypt – Was it or was it not?, website 929.
[32] Yitzhak Maitlis, Digging up the Bible, 2005, Reuven Publishing House.
[33] The polemic on historical truth in the Bible, Ben Zvi Publishing House.
[34] Exodus from Egypt, reality or imagination.
[35] Zvi Ilan, Yesterdays – Studies and Discoveries in the Past of the Land, Modan Publishing, 1988
[36] Da'at Mikra, Genesis, Part 4, Rabbi Kook Institute, 1988
[37] Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, American Archaeological Association, 2016.
[38] It should be noted that this is not a religious organization. Herschel himself is an avowed atheist to the best of my recollection.
[39] Important researchers, archaeologists and Egyptologists such as Professor Avraham Byrne, Professor David Rohill, and others were not mentioned.
[40] Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt, Israel in Egypt; Evidence for Authenticity of Exodus
[41] The knowledgeable reader will see that some of the names I have listed here are scholars from the beginning of the second half of the 20th century (Cassouto, Kuifmer, Granz, Albright, Wright, Yehuda and Segal) and today some no longer agree with their method. This is indeed true. And yet, first, these scholars are among the greatest biblical scholars in history and therefore their opinion is important and makes it very difficult to claim that no one accepts the biblical story (and in addition, as we have seen, many scholars do continue to accept it). Second, the question is why? What has changed? After all, the map of finds in Egypt at the beginning of the century was not stronger in favor of the biblical narrative, even the opposite, the finds we knew 50 years ago made it more difficult to accept the story and yet they accepted it. So what has changed? Simple. The Prosphorus Amichai Mazar has already been quoted: “The interpretation of archaeological data and their connection to the biblical text is often a matter of subjective judgment … influenced by the values that the researcher espouses, his beliefs, his ideology and his approach to the data…”. Indeed, unfortunately, experience shows this.
[42] The size of the lists I have cited should not be seen as evidence that there are more recipients of the story. It was cited in order to indicate the most central researchers who hold this thesis.

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

I am also attaching a small pamphlet I wrote today that reviews the common appeals against the Exodus in various videos.

__________________________________________________________

Common counterarguments:

* The lack of mention of the name Israel in Egypt – First – This is simply not true, and we explained it in the article about the inscription that Herschel Shanks cites, which may be earlier than the Merneptah inscription. Second, in case everyone has forgotten, the Egyptians call the slaves by the general name ‘Astheites’ and do not use specific names for the slaves.
* Egypt ruled Canaan at the time of the escape to it – A. During the aforementioned period, control collapsed B. Its rule was on the coast and not on the mountain where the settlers from the desert lived.
* Cities mentioned in the story were built in the 8th century BCE – It's just a shame that they did exist at the time of the exodus (like Gibeon, which was also there, or Hesbon, which is very likely to be the fortified mound Tel el Umeiri – a mound near Tel Hasban, not Tel Hasban itself. This is similar to 24 other mounds in the Land of Israel where there is a similar phenomenon, as Yohanan Aharoni showed). Beyond that, as we said, if we advance the exodus to the 18th Dynasty, there is no dating problem at all in most places, and in particular not in Jericho and Ai. Regarding the fact that there was extensive construction of these places during the period of the kingdom (and then we see that these cities existed again) – Yes. It's just that the entire country was built and expanded during the monarchy, dozens of sites were rebuilt during this period, just as dozens of sites were rebuilt on top of the remains of ancient settlements during the establishment of the State of Israel.
* Failure to find traces of a settlement in Kadesh Barnea where the Israelites lived for 19 years – A common mistake! The Israelites did not live in Kadesh Barnea for 19 years. The Israelites lived in Kadesh (which was apparently in the Transjordan region) for a long period of time. This is how some researchers have recently shown and according to the commentators that there were two Kadeshes – Kadesh and Kadesh Barnea. Beyond that – As we have already explained, it is very possible that the findings they found are indeed findings of the people of Israel, as the possibility raised by Professor Emmanuel Anati.
* The non-existence of Edom – Even if we ignore the fact that there are serious problems in the archaeological study of Transjordan (as Finkelstein himself wrote) – Edom did exist in the 13th century BCE as a pastoral tent kingdom, we know this with the recent discovery of Edomite quarries, and following contemporary Egyptian inscriptions that mention Edom in the 13th century BCE, a people so significant that the Ramesses waged wars against it.
* The non-existence of Arad – First, it is not clear from the text that the king of Arad was nothing more than the king of the nomadic tribes of Arad who lived somewhere in the Negev, and regardless, the Egyptian inscriptions at Karnak mention 2 cities named Arad in the Negev – ‘Arad Rabat’ and ’Arad Beit Yerucham’. It is very possible that ’Tel Arad’ is not the Arad of Moses' time, but the second city whose name was Arad. Indeed, a few kilometers from Arad there is another mound that Professor Yohanan Aharoni suggested identifying as ancient Arad, and in it, after an excavation that was carried out after this proposal – findings of a settlement from the Exodus period were discovered.
* The non-existence of the Philistines during this period – This opinion was refuted long ago by Professor Yehoshua Meir Greentz in his famous article and is actually proof of the antiquity of the biblical story. There are also settlements found in the Aegean Sea before the invasion of the Sea Peoples, settlements that were in the Gerar area and not in the coastal area – exactly as described in the Bible. This is truly evidence and not refutation.
* There are no papyri that tell the story – Indeed. But there are also no papyri at all from the area of the land of Ramses.
* The name of Pharaoh is not mentioned in the story because it was written hundreds of years after – Complete nonsense and even contrary evidence, in ancient times Pharaoh was simply called ‘Pharaoh’, only after the New Kingdom did they start to attach names to Pharaoh such as ‘Pharaoh the Disabled’ and so on. This is actually evidence that proves the authenticity of the biblical story and not the reverse.
* The Egyptian border was full of fortresses and they could not escape through it – Obviously, the northern border was fortified. Therefore it is written that the people did not go through the northern border or “through the land of the Philistines” which were fortified, but rather through the south. This is not a counterargument but rather proof of the reliability of the story.
* The lack of mention of the Exodus in Nubian writings – I would love to hear how many Nubian writings have been discovered in history. Again, lack of professionalism and charlatanism spoken with great self-confidence.
* The Egyptians adapted to the failures of their predecessors – Here too, of course, the claim ignores that this is generally hidden by other similar cases that occurred in Egypt, especially since it is not at all clear that national-religious humiliation would be documented by a later king.
* If there had been an Exodus, the Hittite Empire or others would have taken advantage of it and attacked it – This is exactly what happened, the Hittites attacked the Egyptian allies in the period after the time we proposed the Exodus, despite the peace treaty with them, and we also saw a general collapse of the Egyptian empire at that time, especially in Canaan.
* The Ipwar Papyrus is not related to the Exodus and is also earlier – I also tend to think so, which is why I did not mention it as evidence but as a possibility (which I do not accept personally). However, it should be noted that the papyrus itself does indeed date from the period in which the exodus supposedly took place, but it is estimated to be earlier, mainly due to linguistic evidence and the fact that it fits the Egyptian description several hundred years earlier (but also fits the description in the Bible. Therefore, this is not an argument). Despite this, there are some Egyptologists who do attribute it to the beginning of the 18th dynasty, the end of the 17th. These researchers are few but do exist. Regarding the claims that the things in the papyrus were taken out of context - the claims are completely correct (for example, the paragraph about the blood that was taken out of context), although it should be noted that the specific descriptions are not the significant part of the papyrus, but rather that it describes a period of disasters of various kinds and a slave revolt, which certainly fits with the biblical description.
* If there was an exodus from Egypt, we would add to the inscriptions in which the other neighbors would mock the Egyptians - a nice argument. The problem is that it does not fit with the facts. In similar cases where Egypt suffered internal discrimination, there is no non-Egyptian documentation of this, for example, not a single nation denies the story of the Hyksos.
* There is no mention of the story in the Egyptian historical writings – There is a vague mention in Manton. Indeed, it could also stem from other reasons, but this proves that the claim of lack of mention is simply wrong.
* 600 thousand slaves would have emptied Egypt of residents – Even if we ignore the fact that these numbers could not be literal or that our goal is to examine the core of the story and not its details – This is still another common mistake. In Egypt during the New Kingdom, it is estimated that there were between 2.5-4.5 million residents (there are different opinions), which completely refutes the claim about the emptying of Egypt if we follow the literal meaning of the Bible and rely on the more extensive method of dating Egypt. It should be added of course that bringing this claim is extremely puzzling, these numbers are hypotheses based on various factors – there is no document that describes such a census, these are hypotheses that cannot constitute evidence of anything (hypotheses that are based, among other things, on a natural birth rate – which contradicts the Bible about the unnatural rate of reproduction of the Israelites, so that basing oneself on the assumption of a natural birth rate is a sought-after assumption that seeks to refute the story. Nice). The claim about the inability to reproduce at such a fast rate has also been mathematically refuted by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner in an article he wrote on the subject.
* According to the archaeological surveys, far fewer residents entered the land than the 600 thousand (+women and children) described in the Bible – Although the numbers in the Bible may not be as simple as they seem (as Cassuto[1] has already shown), there are still problems with this claim about the number of settlers in the Iron Age. The first and most central problem of all is that the claim ignores the fact that the above information is based on a book from 1998 (!) a period when only about 250 settlement sites were known, and on approximate density estimates. Today, a few years later, over 650 settlement sites of various sizes are known just on the western side of the Jordan (and dozens more that have now begun to be discovered in the Madaba project in the limited area being surveyed on the other side). Interestingly, 450 of them were all discovered in the Mount Menashe survey alone. The same survey that changed the research approach and proved that the parallel survey method misses 90% of the finds. If this is the case, then – The Judea Survey, the Samaria Survey, the Ephraim Survey, the Galilee Survey, and the Negev Survey (which together discovered a total of 200 settlements) cannot provide reliable population estimates. After all, if we assume that they missed the same percentage of discoveries that Zertal proved that the survey before him missed (although I think this is a bit exaggerated. Although in Transjordan, Larry Har has already proven that the percentage of misses is even higher), we add to this the fact that almost a fifth of the people remained in Transjordan at all and the problems in inference that deviates population estimates according to density (as Maitlis has already shown in his book about the number of graves being disproportionate to the dimensions of the estimated settlement in the Negev) and the fact that it is not possible to excavate much of the area and some of the construction methods are such that they will not allow for ancient remains - then the numbers are already more reasonable. To this should be added Maitlis's latest article in his book on the Bible and Archaeology, so it is not impossible that the number of people entering the country was 600,000 people in total, including women and children, and not just men. All of this, of course, only under the assumption that the numbers are simple (which is not clear, even though the numbers in the Bible are not round), an assumption that, given its possibility, makes this counter-argument unnecessary. This is, by the way, another wonderful example of an argument that atheist videos make with great confidence but is based on partial information and a lack of professionalism in the world of content they are talking about, after all, any professional who is familiar with the conclusions from Zertal's research would be much more careful to make today.

We will not address the arguments against the arguments of the Repentants (which I also strongly disagree with) in this context. I will say briefly that bringing up O'Rone White as an example of a religious scholar (and not bringing up, for example, Professor Kenneth Kishtin, the most senior Egyptologist of the Ramesses period who wrote a book on the reliability of the Exodus) is nothing more than a straw man and utter dishonesty. It is not for nothing that they deal with these guys and not with professional scholars.

[1] Cassuto, in his treatise on Genesis and Exodus, showed that even the unrounded numbers in the Bible had typological significance in the ancient East. His arguments are not entirely convincing but certainly possible. Another point should be added, as I have already mentioned, there may have been earlier waves of exodus from Egypt who settled in the Nablus area. It is possible that the number in the desert includes all Israelites, including those who live in the land, and not just those who enter it and wander in the desert.

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

I am also attaching a small pamphlet I wrote about the claim about the lack of finds in the Sinai Desert. A claim that is refuted by so many independent sources.

__________________________________________________________

Indeed, no remains have been discovered in the desert from the Late Bronze Age (although researchers assume that the place was not deserted). There are several methodological problems or unfounded assumptions in this claim against the reliability of the Bible:

1. Because of the enormous size of the desert (3 times larger than the State of Israel!), the nature of the excavation (survey, not excavation – below), the nature of the dwellings that do not leave remains for survey (see below) and especially the nature of desert preservation in Sinai that does not allow for the discovery of nomadic traces but only traces of construction – it is not at all certain that remains of the wandering journey should be found in the Sinai Desert. You could call this apologetics, but this has been empirically proven! There is a similar failure to discover findings from other nomadic peoples who were in the area, such as the migrations of peoples in the ancient East (as the marginal note in Kitshin's book notes) as well as the Egyptian war campaigns or camping sites that also passed through the Sinai Desert. The fact is that no remains were found for all of these. This is not a problem of biblical archaeology but a general archaeological problem. Several researchers and archaeologists have already written that nothing can be learned from the results of the surveys in Sinai (among them the minimalists Ze'ev Herzog and Nadav Ne'eman). The claims are also true for sites that were excavated and not just surveyed - there is definitely a problem in locating nomads who used tents rather than houses.
2. It is possible, and even probable, since we have quite a few such findings. It is not unreasonable to think that the nature of the ceramics of the desert dwellers was lagging behind the nature of the urban ceramics, and similarly it is possible that the findings in Sinai from the Early Bronze Age are no less than the findings of the wanderings of the Israelites. An opinion that important researchers have said is certainly realistic. And it is also known that the nature of the Israeli ceramics discovered on the central mountain during the period of settlement itself is relatively primitive (although more advanced than that in Sinai, but it is likely that in the desert conditions they will be even more primitive).
3. It is important to explain the nature of the archaeological survey, in most of Sinai no archaeological excavation was carried out (probably) but an archaeological survey. An archaeological survey is a technique in which what is visible on the surface today is surveyed (mainly in aerial photographs but not only) and it is not unreasonable at all that the desert nature will not leave nomadic remains on the surface. Indeed, there were also sites that were excavated, but these are a relatively insignificant number out of this vast desert and see 1,2.
4. We must add what we learned from the ’Har Mishnah Survey’ conducted by Adam Zertal. This archaeological survey was conducted in a place that had been surveyed in the past by archaeologists. Zertal decided to change the search method and instead of going to a few places in the field and relying mainly on photographs – to walk hill after hill. And here is the wonder Zertal discovered that no less than 90% of the archaeological finds he discovered were ones that had been missed in the previous survey, meaning they failed to discover 90 of the material. Where the previous survey discovered 45 settlements – Zertal discovered 450! Which is a question that I am critical of the existing survey method, especially in a place like a desert that is not in a hurry to leave pottery on the surface and in a vast area like the Sinai Desert. The situation in the Jordan Valley is more serious and recently it was discovered that the percentage of finds that were not discovered in surveys is even more significant. This is in addition to the general methodological problems in the Transjordan surveys in dating finds, superficial reviews and ignoring unique ceramics as Finkelstein and Maitlis have already demonstrated. Each from a different perspective in his book. Finkelstein, in an article reviewing the Transjordan research, went so far as to say, “At this stage, it is not possible to learn from the research about the settlement of Transjordan in the Bronze Age.”
5. It has already been suggested by several researchers that the wanderings were actually in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and not in the Sinai desert itself. This claim deserves a separate examination.

And we will conclude with quotes from several renowned researchers:

* The well-known minimalist Professor Zeev Herzog – “There is no doubt that nomadic populations have always lived and operated in the Negev and Sinai, and they certainly left behind their remains, but these are not currently visible to the ordinary observer. In order to discover the existence of the ancient encampments and sheep and camel enclosures, alongside which new surveying methods must be developed, classical archaeology will not succeed here”

* The well-known minimalist Professor Israel Finkelstein – “For a long period … the southern nomads left no remains in the vast areas of the Negev and Sinai. However, it is clear that this absence of remains does not reflect a human vacuum”

* The well-known minimalist Professor Nadav Ne’eman – “Since nomads do not leave behind remains that researchers can trace, it makes no sense that no remains of groups considered nomads have been found so far… Archaeology has no power to help in the debate on the historicity of the Exodus.”

* The famous Egyptologist of the Ramesses period Kenneth Cochin – “It would be foolish to find traces of everyone who passed through the various parts of the peninsula. The state of preservation is completely uneven.. The absence of a possible finding of the Israelite camp is meaningless.”

Therefore, the claim that something can be learned from the Sinai surveys about the biblical story and that this is proof of its incorrectness is unfounded from any angle we look at it, especially since it is possible, very possible, that the findings do exist in our possession.

_________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Selected Bibliography and Sources for Extension:

Readings – Yitro
Place in the Parasha
Excavating the Bible
The Bible from the Field
On the Site – 7
Parasha of the Roads
The Controversy Over Historical Truth in the Bible
Footsteps of King David in the Valley of Elah (Khirbet Kaifa)
King David's Palace – Ayelet Mazar
Biblical Archaeology
The Beginnings of Israel
Introduction to the Archaeology of the Land of Israel – Open
Exodus from Egypt – Reality or Fiction
The Bible as History
On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective
Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence
The Rise of Ancient Israel
Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt
Israel in Egypt: Evidence for Authenticity of Exodus
The Bible Was Really
The Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development
Moses and the Children of Israel – Korman
Ifkah is Proved – On the Exodus
Ancient Israel in Sinai
Ancient Israel in Egypt
The Land of Israel in Biblical Times – Aharoni
The History of the Israeli Faith, Yehezkel Kaufman
Israel in Biblical Times – Melmat
The Archaeology of the Land of Israel – Albright
Until this day
Eretz-Israel: Studies in the Knowledge of the Land and Its Antiquities, 25, 1950, Finkelstein Transjordan
Antiquities Booklet 110, Tel Omri and Transjordan
Archaeology and religion Israel
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible – mazar
Eastern Transjordan – Aharoni
The Jordan – Glick
Beyond the Jordan – Glick
Eastern Transjordan – GlickmanVedas to the Kingdom – Finkelstein
Past and Present – Essiah Yehuda
The Archaeology of the Settlement Period and the Judges – Finkelstein
Judea, Samaria and the Golan – Archaeological Survey
Forsaken to the Kingdom – Finkelstein
The Origin of the Generations – Greentz
The Uniqueness and Antiquity of the Book of Genesis – Greentz
The History of the Israeli Faith – Kaufman
Where We Came From – Konohl
In the Eyes of God and Man – Man and Biblical Research
The History of the People of Israel – The Patriarchs and Judges – Mazar
Canaan and Israel – Mazar
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5: Supplementary Volume
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
Redating the Exodus and Conquest
The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian – Abraham Shalom Yehuda
The Accuracy Of The Bible – Abraham Shalom Yehuda
Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament – currid
Anchor Bible – exodus
Ancient Sinai, Pinkscheltein
Northern Negev – Beno Rothenberg
Sinai Discoveries – Beno Rothenberg
Studies in the Archaeology of the Nomads in the Negev and Sinai
The Beginning of the Alphabet – Gonen
The Settlement of the Tribes of Israel in the Upper Galilee – Aharoni
Invitation to Archaeology
Egyptian Mythology
The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra: An Historical Survey

__________________________________________________________

One can go on and on about what the heart desires, etc.

These are all parts of a larger article.

The gist of the matter is
* There is also very good evidence for the Exodus.
* Most of the counterarguments are nothing more than a fundamentalist reading of the text, based on outdated information or unproven speculation.
* There are several respected scholars who do accept the historical credibility of the story.

With the blessings of a happy and kosher Passover,
Hatsvi, M.

_________________________________________________________

There is an M for the Bible!

Best regards, Sh”t Levinger

And about this it is said, “You have been weary and have found faith”.
As is known, Esau is Edom, which in the sense of Christianity is in the sense of grace.
Perhaps because of this, the scripture will come true:
“For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations: As you have done, it will be done to you; your recompense will return upon your own head. 16 For when you have given them drink on the holy mountain, all the nations shall drink, continually; and they shall drink and swallow, and be satisfied. 17 And mount Zion shall be for deliverance, and it shall be holy; and they shall inherit the house of Jacob, their inheritance. 18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall burn them up, and devour them: and there shall be no remnant of the house of Esau: for the LORD hath spoken it. 19 And the south shall inherit the mount of Esau, and the lowland the Philistines, and they shall inherit the field of Ephraim, and the field of Samaria; and Benjamin, Gilead. 20 And the captivity of this land of the children of Israel, which are in Canaan, even unto Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem, which are in Sepharvath, shall inherit the cities of the south. 21 And saviors shall come up upon mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau: and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S. “

Regarding the reference to the thousand as a typological number, or as a family,
the Bible itself treats it with abysmal seriousness when it calculates how much money was collected in half a shekel
These numbers in turn are used for the architecture of the Mishkan
Everything is numbered

And the money of the priests of the congregation was one hundred and twenty-one thousand and seven hundred and fifty and seventy shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary:
Thus he gave for Golgotha, half a shekel, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for all that pass over the priests from among the Ten years and a hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty:
And there was a hundred and a hundred of silver for the Lord of the Holy, and the Lord of the tabernacle of the Lord of the hundred of the Lords for the hundred of the pure, according to the Lord:
Two thousand and seven hundred and five hundred and seventy He made them into pillars, and he covered their tops, and he covered them with gold:

M Did the Israelites build the pyramids?

Check out a good summary lecture on the subject here:

M I would really like to read your full article. Could you post a link or something? If so, I would really appreciate it. I've been working on the subject quite a bit, and I'm having a hard time finding enough information on the subject.

Ask Rabbi Michi for my private email and we'll talk from there.