Exodus in archaeology

Hello Rabbi.
I will clarify the point of difficulty, and I am sure that as a scientist you will understand my words.
Archaeologists claim that there must have been evidence of the Israelites' stay in Egypt (the place is known, unlike the desert) and of the events of the Exodus from Egypt.
What evidence? I can assume that they know how to answer this question, and are not simply asking for evidence that cannot be found or does not exist (Byzantines), but evidence that has been found many times in the context of other historical events, for example: inscriptions and engravings written by the Egyptians (who left behind quite a few inscriptions), evidence of the decline of Egypt's power (which probably happened after the Exodus from Egypt), and so on, and none of this has been found.
Now – I, who understand nothing and half a thing about archaeology, will come and ask difficult questions about the archaeologists' claims, such as: “What do you expect to find?” “There is no evidence for many events”? This really reminds me of the way Christian creationists raise questions about evolution (and indeed there are questions) such as: “There are no fossils of intermediate stages” and by virtue of this they reject evolution, and create for themselves a pseudo-science, and ignore the entire continuum of evidence in favor of evolution.
This is my feeling on this matter, that the rabbi makes simple questions difficult for archaeologists as if they were a bunch of fools looking for things that don't exist, and all united against the Torah of Israel, instead of addressing this matter in a deep and serious way.
Regarding the papyrus, and don't atheists rightly despise this claim? The archaeologists date it to a different period, so using it as evidence that contradicts the opinion of all archaeologists is really pseudo-science.
The matter is well reflected in the fact that the rabbi refers me to an expert without any academic background (Moshe Levi), perhaps because there are no experts (God-fearing) with a degree who deal with this?
If you want to clarify the issue, you need to bring examples of historical events that have no evidence, etc.
Because when you think about it, it is strange that there is no evidence of the stay of the Jewish people in Egypt, so it is strange to me that this does not bother the rabbi, did the rabbi never investigate this issue for himself?
I do not know of any experts who deal with this matter, and I thought the rabbi knew by virtue of his academic education.
I would appreciate a response.

I also have no organized knowledge of the subject, but I have read quite a lot in the past. It seems to me that there is not much evidence from the entire kingdom of Israel (and I am talking about the period of the divided kingdom, which is also agreed upon by Finkelstein). You should also know that archaeological excavations are not carried out along unknown routes in the desert, but usually in cities that are known to have been inhabited. Also, usually the only thing that remains is pottery, and what inscriptions are found is only in the cities of the kingdom and the like, like in Egypt, where all the inscriptions are somehow related to the king and the like, like in the royal cities in Egypt at Amarna. Even in Jerusalem, which is a royal city, they found about 4 or 5 inscriptions, some of which are even difficult to read, since they are several sentences long. In general, in all of the Land of Israel, I think you can count on two hands all the inscriptions (except for the scrolls, which are also a small amount relative to the number of people and officials who were there, and they were also preserved by chance by a fire in the treasury room) that have been preserved.

Sorry, I couldn't fit everything into one response, technical reasons...
which has been preserved from hundreds of years of rule and monarchy, even in the opinion of minimalists, and even those who don't accept Wilikowski's brilliant series of books as completely reliable, but it's worth reading to understand to what extent archaeological science is forced, by its very definition as a science but without being able to establish an organized method, to mix hypotheses with truths and answer heavy historical questions with all kinds of speculations, since there is no value for a scientist to say I don't know, and he is forced to say the best he has, but for someone who is not a professional, it is difficult to distinguish what he says from solid knowledge and what he says from not having anything better to say. By the way, I remember that when I was dealing with the matter, there was a very successful website called Idan Tanakh that helped me a lot...
but good.

Also, Yitzhak Maitlis is an observant archaeologist and a student of Finkelstein and wrote a book on the subject, I don't remember if it touches on the Exodus from Egypt but it does touch extensively on the conquest of the land. And also the lost Bible which I am not familiar with but is quoted many times in context.

See Daniel Moshe Levi and Yosef Goldman's book "Bible and Archaeology" on the Da'at website. They insist on the problematic nature of dating the Egyptian royal dynasties based on Egyptian chronology from a later period, in their opinion there are duplications based on a mixture of ancient sources. Among other things, they show that there are complete dynasties for which there is a discrepancy between what is said about them and the archaeological findings from the periods in which they were supposed to exist.
In any case, there is mention in Egyptian documents of the Ephron tribes in Egypt and the Sue tribes in the Sinai Desert, who may be our ancestors of the Israelites. I do not expect an Egyptian chronicle to tell about the plagues that the kingdom suffered. The only ancient historiography that is not ashamed of its mistakes is: the Bible!

There is a book by Dr. Maitlis. Digging the Bible, he talks less about the Exodus. But he expands on the conquest of the land. He also has several videos on YouTube. One of them is about dating the Exodus. Whenever you hear religious doctors on these topics, they claim that many columns have already been poured out on the subject. (They say that for almost every find that contradicts the Bible, there are many studies!!) I have sometimes found several studies on the subject. The problem is that when you search the Internet, you find nothing! Unfortunately... It turns out that the libraries of universities like Bar Ilan have the appropriate material. And it's time for it to be distributed to the public, because on the Internet, the war was unfortunately decided long ago.

I would appreciate a response from the rabbi on my message that begins with the words: “I will clarify the difficulty”…

It is impossible to upload all the scientific literature written all over the world over decades to the Internet. Anyone who wants to investigate a subject thoroughly must check the books. To that end, there are central libraries that have thousands and tens of thousands of books available for on-site reading and borrowing. The Internet helps in finding sources, but cannot be a substitute for thorough research.

Best regards, S.C. Levinger

I don't argue with emotions, and certainly not with arguments of authority (=how do we argue with archaeologists who are experts). If you assume they are experts and you can't argue with them, then the discussion is over.
I referred you (and others wrote more following my words here) to other experts, and that's enough. All the best.

Hello Rabbi and thank you very much for the responses, last response, in conclusion:
a) How does the Rabbi answer (to himself or to others) the claim that no evidence of the Exodus has been found? That it shouldn't have been found? That it's not always found?
b) The feelings I expressed are not feelings but questions, and the question is whether it is not appropriate to accept the opinion of most archaeologists just as it is appropriate to accept the opinion of most biologists, for example?

A. I already answered (both answers are correct. Add to them that the event was not necessarily of epic proportions as described in the Torah).
B. I also answered. No (because archaeology is far from an exact science, and also because the discussions in it are saturated with ideology and I do not trust the positions of scholars).

Hello. Here are a few eye-opening articles - selected from many. The one that gracefully crushes Finkelstein: Regarding the claim that they found no written or archaeological findings and therefore there was no Exodus from Egypt. Well, neither did they find archaeological findings nor written findings about the Hyksos - a Semitic people who ruled Egypt for more than a hundred years. These were not neglected slaves but the rulers of the empire - and the Egyptians simply did not write about them - or alternatively, they suppressed any information about them other than what they had been forced to do. We only learned about them from the letters of Herodotus, hundreds of years later, and from there the detective journey began. Hence I did not see - no evidence:
https://mafyahu.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7%%D7%94%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-7-%D7%9E%D7%94/

The second - a scientific article that nicely explains the feasibility of the exodus, by Dr. Yehoshua Berman:
http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/kadesh-poem/
And another one:
http://mida.org.il/2015/04/02/%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/
Third: Mt. Joel Ben Nun, who specializes in biblical archaeology. Two basic articles:
http://files8.webydo.com/92/9266067/UploadedFiles/8D2B41C5-FA5A-A4AF-0C77-5A3BE2D7C006.pdf
http://files8.webydo.com/92/9266067/UploadedFiles/6A9825E1-0E26-E2DF-6238-339C071185F0.pdf
I'll be brief now. Also look for Joel Elitzur, and look for Haggai Misgav. They understand matters well.
And there is a lot of material on the altar on Mount Ebal that proves both the reliability of the Bible in the physical aspect, and the antiquity of (part of) the Book of Deuteronomy in the textual aspect, and therefore it is stuck like a bone in the throat of the deniers. See a penetrating review by a senior archaeologist in his article: ”Brothers of Enlightened Archaeologists”:http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1295661
Good luck
And many thanks to Rabbi Michi for the wonderful site
“Today the ’Nagila made this and we rejoice in it”

Thanks to all my knowledgeable readers for their assistance. Here is an example of the collaboration I talked about in the column on asking the question.

Hello Moshe.
Since I have dealt with the subject a little, I will expand on it.
I think that the brevity in communication between you and the rabbi stems from the fact that he is a man of exact sciences who is well aware of the shortcomings of the sciences that are not exact, and therefore he does not see the need to expand on the matter.
His excessive confidence in what experts in these fields say is what causes the feeling you describe.
For example: When Professor Finkelstein states decisively that the United Kingdom of Israel did not exist and was not created, he backs up his words with the ”overwhelming” fact: “No evidence has been found for the existence of such a kingdom”.
But anyone who reads a little on Wikipedia about “Biblical Archaeology-The United Kingdom” You will be surprised to discover that many archaeologists (from the Hebrew University) strongly disagree with this claim and say that Finkelstein completely ignores the findings, including those that were recently discovered.
But Finkelstein climbed a tall tree and is unable to come down when new findings are discovered.
They continue to explain the lack of findings by the fact that over the years, much construction was done in the City of David.
And did Finkelstein not hear this claim? From here I come to the important point: the exact sciences (mathematics, and often physics and biology as well) have created for themselves (quite rightly) an aura of sanctity and certainty in their knowledge. (Of course, every intelligent person understands that even in the exact sciences, accepted theories can certainly fall apart, which also happens in our time from time to time). The sciences that are not exact take a ride on the exact sciences, and present their words as if everything is certain to them.
Take, for example, the study of the Talmud. Anyone who goes through the books of the first scholars from the Haskalah period will be shocked by the embarrassing mistakes made by those "scholars" and the unfounded theories that those scholars, in the guise of "science", would be unbelievable what could come out of the mouths of educated people, whose tendency was supposedly to be objective but in fact held many other assumptions (they explained many things in the Talmud as an imitation of Persian and Greek culture, etc., but the comparisons are ridiculous). For many instructive examples, see Yehoshua Inbal's book "Tosheva", pp. 68-85.

Another area in which this matter is expressed in an amazing way is biblical criticism.
Despite the many correct things said by Bible critics, anyone who is even slightly familiar with this literature knows many examples of clearly unfounded inferences at best and disproven at worst that Bible scholars present as ’scientific research’.
I quote, for example, a short paragraph from the entry ‘Tree of Life’ on Wikipedia:
“Some believe that the Tree of Life is a late addition to the biblical Garden of Eden story, and did not appear in the original. The reason lies in the fact that the tree is mentioned only at the beginning and end of the story, while the body of the story deals only with the Tree of Knowledge.” The intelligent reader will judge for himself.
Bible critics laughed at Chazal”s ”unfounded” interpretation of the Bible – And they have created for themselves in many places (again, not in all places) a dubious interpretation full of hallucinations.
But the naive reader (usually also the skeptical atheist) does not dare to declare out loud “The king is naked” because it does not appear that a researcher/professor/doctor would say something so ridiculous. But for those who know their words, the truth slaps them in the face.
Researchers sometimes say delusional things that if they came from the mouths of religious people, they would be laughed at in the face (and rightly so), but the ”titles” protect the experts from the sword of criticism, because what is there to make it difficult for experts, they know everything (“surely they have something to answer for that”) and anyone who dares to say something different from the academic consensus is publicly stoned.
The ardent atheist, who usually argues and examines every claim, excuses himself from truly engaging with these issues because "most professors say otherwise." There is no point in answering an innocent claim that ignores the obvious fact that in imprecise sciences, the researcher's conclusions stem directly from his worldview and prejudices.
Think about it: Is it a case that the Hebrew University researchers accept the Bible as a more factual source (not entirely) than the Tel Aviv University researchers, who suspect the Bible of being more false than any other historical source?
Each one excuses the findings in his own way.
And similarly, each one excuses the lack of findings according to his own method.
Therefore, I also do not accept the claims that attempt to prove the Bible from archaeology; there is no point in doing so, since we are not dealing with exact science.
Another, but similar, area is criminal law. Israel has experienced two particularly turbulent cases in recent years, the Roman Zadorov and Nissim Hadad (a.k.a.).
Anyone who is familiar with the cases in depth knows that the answers to the questions: “Was there supposed to be forensic evidence” “Does the confession and reconstruction match the pathological data” (an argument that is ostensibly factual and not interpretive) “Are the shoe prints the suspect” depend on which side the expert is on, the prosecution or the defense.
Let's take the shoeprint issue for example. It's an inexact science, so is it any wonder that an expert from the defense determines that the shoe is most likely the suspect's, and an American expert says that it's impossible to determine whether it's a shoeprint at all (note the distance between the experts' opinions)?
An instructive example of this can be seen in the case of Dr. Maya Forman Resnik, who claimed from the beginning of the Zadorov case, against all the experts, that the knife used to commit the murder was serrated and not smooth. The reactions against her were deadly. The experts and judges treated her as someone who didn't understand anything in the field, as a fraud who was misleading the public, etc. They canceled her appointment to an important position at the Institute of Forensic Medicine and slandered her (those interested in seeing the exact quotes will find them online). The result is known, in the appeal to the Supreme Court, the district court criticized the district court in this matter, to the point that he was forced to retract his statement and admit her words and even compensate her with thousands of shekels.
Regarding the Institute of Forensic Medicine, serious suspicions arise (and well-founded, see the fact about Haddad) of biasing pathological reports at the request of the prosecutor's office, a report on the subject is due to be published very soon.

It is important to mention that the institute decides fates in its reports, it is a body whose decisions have serious implications, not a body like the academic establishment, which has no say in deciding which king ruled in which year in Egypt.
If there are biases, frauds, and inaccuracies there, is the academic establishment free from them?
Back to archaeology, here is a quote from Wikipedia showing how even a seemingly indisputable carbon-14 test yields different results depending on the opinions of the testers:
“Carbon-14 dating tests, which can date archaeological layers based on chemical tests, have supported Finkelstein's lower chronology. However, Saar Ganor, together with Prof.’ Yossi Garfinkel, published a carbon-14 test that contradicts Finkelstein's method and supports traditional dating”.
I am not claiming that one test can give two different results (such an error is rare). What I mean is that it shows again that it all depends on where you test and what you measure.
And what would we do without Yossi Garfinkel (who was motivated to strengthen his non-minimalist position)? We would be left with the ”crushing fact” That scientific consensus unequivocally proves Finkelstein's opinion, and we would be considered supporters of pseudo-science if we continued to believe in the United Kingdom as the Hebrew University believes.
See an article in which archaeologist Dr. Yitzhak Maitlis claims that Tel Aviv University ignores the findings and distorts them to fit the theory they have built:
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/190230
And also see Maitlis' lecture regarding the dating of the Exodus from Egypt.
And see in the previous comments the instructive lecture of Prof. Adam Zertal who claims something similar about Finkelstein, regarding the altar found on Mount Ebal, and the intelligent observer will decide whether there is no bias in the interpretation of the findings according to the archaeologist's side.
See article about Zertal

Zertal claims that there are also findings that match what is described in the Bible regarding the Exodus from Egypt. He is one of the most important archaeologists, he conducted the entire survey of Mount Manasseh, and is not religious.
The amazing thing is that many atheists excuse themselves from a substantive discussion by claiming: “This archaeologist is religious” a claim so absurd that it is hard to believe that it comes from the mouths of people who consider themselves thinkers.
In their opinion, you need two titles for your opinion to be considered weighty: professor (preferably a professor) and secular.
Zertal was not religious, but he was a man of faith, so perhaps it is worth adding another condition: you have to be an atheist. And by combining these three conditions we arrive at pure objectivity.
So, professors who accept the Exodus (even if not in the dimensions described in the Bible), and do not mind that ”there is no evidence” exist, and moreover, not all of them are religious.
This does not bother them because they believe that there is certain evidence.
For example, if the tribe of the Ephiro (-Ephiro, Hebrew, because B and P alternate) is indeed the people of Israel, then there is documentation about it in Egypt.
Back to Zertal: Here is a quote from Wikipedia: In 1991, Professor Larry Steiger of Harvard University said in connection with the findings: “If an altar stood on Mount Ebal, the impact on our research is revolutionary. We (biblical archaeologists) should all go back to kindergarten”
From this we learn two things:
a) Why did certain archaeologists reject his words, because it ruins their life's work and entire books they wrote.
b) How can a “solid and proven” archaeological theory fall from the altar of one found.
Regarding your desire that only experts with an academic degree speak on these issues, I can understand that, it stems from the fear that this is a pseudo-scientist who brings half-truths and distorts facts.
I don't know if it's worth dismissing it outright because of such concerns, just examining each case on its own merits.
Do atheists refrain from expressing an opinion in areas in which they have no formal education?
In conclusion, archaeology is not a problematic field, combined with the well-known fact that the Bible does not always tell the historical story, but the important messages that must be taken.

To the rabbi, Shalom –

It is not that simple. The claim that they were supposed to find something is based on the fact that from prehistoric times we find evidence (sporadic, it is true) of societies that contained a maximum of twenty people and lived in each settlement for only a short period, as well as evidence of their enclosures, etc.; whereas a story about 600,000 men alone wandering around the desert for 40 years (and whose culture was much more developed: they had pottery, for example) along with all their donkeys and cattle – does not yield a single piece of evidence. And it is not that they did not survey the Sinai Desert. It is true that I would not expect to find every settlement station of this mighty people. But I would expect, given the attempts that have been made – to find at least one nomadic station (yes, nomadic stations can be identified in archaeology) dating back to the end of the Late Bronze Age in the Sinai Desert. It's not 'I didn't find it', it's 'I reached out and didn't find it', and at least from what I remember, it was said about it 'Don't believe it'.

And regarding the discussions about the United Kingdom, there is also much to expand on, but I will go into this briefly: Yadin claimed that he found Solomon's architectural style: in Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, a uniform gate type was found (the "six-chambered gate"), and since they were mentioned in one verse as cities built by Solomon, these gates were dated to the period of Solomon, and in any case evidence was found of the period of the great and powerful, magnificent and fortified United Kingdom.
However, at least in Megiddo, the ceramics associated with this phase of the gate are dated, in light of the excavations in Jezreel, to the period of Ahab. Now, there is simply no city in Hazor before this phase, and after the Bronze Age, which belongs to the Canaanite period. There is a barely rural settlement there, the meager remains of which are cut off by the wall that runs along with the gate that Din attributed to the time of Solomon. In Megiddo, there is also no monumental construction before the relevant layer (Gezer is a problematic site in terms of the area of exposure in it). So the conclusion is that Solomon's kingdom was not a great one. And this is absolutely not what the verses suggest.
So the claim that archaeologists are just saying things when it is not clear what they expected to find is simply incorrect. In the excavated mound there are continuous layers, there is no reason why Solomon's layer should disappear.

Now, there are excuses (that the time span of the ceramics found in Jezreel and also associated with the monumental phase at Megiddo is long – from the days of Solomon to the days of Ahab – this is not unreasonable). But this does not ‘eliminate’ the problems, but rather solves them (and not all of them: for example, now it is not clear what exactly is being said in the summary of Ahab's reign “and *all* the cities he built”, since all the cities that can be dated to his time were built in the days of Solomon, except for Jezreel…).

In short – it is true that many findings and many basic assumptions are subject to debate and interpretation. But it is not true that ’it has no basis at all’ and therefore it is ‘not interesting’ and it can be dismissed outright.

(Sorry for the split into three posts. Something on the site is problematic and only allows you to click the ‘reply’ button on a response up to a certain length… or is that intentional? …)

Hananel Shalom.
First, your argument is absurd. Finding evidence of 20 people does not mean that evidence of sixty thousand will be found. Only if evidence is found for each group of twenty people. And carefully. This is a common statistical error (in fact, this is what I discussed in post 38 on the law of small numbers).
Second, I wrote that in general I do not have much faith in archaeology. This does not mean that there is not one claim or another that is worth examining and thinking about. But in allocating time and attention, I chose not to be interested in and specialize in it because I do not think there is significant potential there. That is all. If there is a particular problem, you can try and think about it. That is why I recommended contacting people who are experts in it.

I do not know of a limit on the length of the response (there were responses here longer than your three). You should contact Oren, the site editor.

Believe me, two Moses,
Instead of getting entangled in the text of the studies, listen to Prof. Adam Zertal.
He also speaks interestingly and to the point. And also proves the antiquity of the Bible well.
There is a light lecture of his, on his YouTube called Friday in Shadma with Prof. Adam Zertal.
https://youtu.be/5EZSYTr0B54

That's just normal, that's enough.

Thank you for the reference to Prof. Zertal's lecture.
An instructive lecture!

In the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon for this Shabbat (P’ Toldot) there is an article by Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun that criticizes the television series “And the World Was in Chaos”. He makes some of the points raised here. So far, it has not appeared on the website. I assume it will be up there soon.

Below is a link to Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun's review (published in Makor Rishon's Shabbat supplement) of the series "And the Land Was Chaos":
https://musaf-shabbat.com/2016/12/05/%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%94%d7%95-%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%94%d7%95-%d7%99%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%9f/#more-24214

It's interesting that M.A. keeps saying in all his books (which, apart from Two Carts and an Excellent Hot Air Balloon, I wasn't thrilled about) that scientific conclusions should be accepted and not bent to personal belief, but when it comes to archaeologists claiming that there are no findings for the Exodus, suddenly everything is fine. The experts become "experts" and everything goes smoothly. It doesn't matter that, according to the simple fact, a larger number of people left Egypt than the population of Tel Aviv, and it doesn't matter that in reality they camped most of the time in the same place and apparently there shouldn't be any difficulty in locating such a place. Because, after all, the story of the Exodus from Egypt, with all its miracles and wonders, is a plausible story that doesn't need too much conclusive evidence.

In the light of Novo.
Read Yair's response above, where everything is explained in my opinion.
The explanation in the Rabbi's words is that there is a fundamental difference between exact science and imprecise science that is often biased by agendas.
I say again, read Yair's response in the thread above, and watch the lecture by Prof. Adam Zertal, and then you will decide again fairly.

I am completely willing to accept the scientific assertion that there are no findings for the Exodus (assuming it is true. This is probably inaccurate). So what? The historical question of whether there was an Exodus is a different question and is subject to interpretation. This goes beyond the difference between the natural and spiritual sciences (which are severely agenda-driven). At the next stage, you will probably ask me why I do not accept the findings of "gender science" or something like that.

So why should one accept the story of the Exodus from Egypt, which is a false story from the start if it has no findings? And what's more - why accept the existence of Abraham, because overall it's likely that it won't be possible to find his place of residence, but a huge number of people who camped for almost forty years in the same place? I would expect findings, and how much more. In this case, a lack of findings is not only a lack of proof, but almost a complete decision for the other side.
I hope the answer won't be tradition, because you'll have to deal with inventions of people from thousands of years ago, when already today we can see how people believe that Elor Azaria's judge is Tali Fahima's sister…

On the interpretation of what does the historical question of whether there was an exodus from Egypt depend?

1. First, the story is not unfounded. If there is a God, there is no reason why He would not perform miracles. Second, the Exodus from Egypt is not conditional on miracles that occurred there (these can be part of the story regardless of its factual core). And third, you can also not accept the story of the Exodus from Egypt. What does it depend on?
2. Findings are not expected when you do not know the place and what objects to search for.
3. The answer is definitely yes, tradition, but it is supported by evidence from the side. See the fifth notebook and the books of truth on this and do not rely on the witness's argument. According to your logic, you should not believe anything anyone tells you, because there are those who say that Heller is Fahima's sister.
[The question is how long the perception that Heller is Fahima's sister will last, and who in the public believes it. The fact that there are a few fools does not say much]

How is it possible not to accept the story of the Exodus?
a) If the story of the Exodus did not exist and was not created, then a myth that there was a Mount Sinai event could have entered the people of Israel, right?
b) This undermines the credibility of the entire Torah scroll, because if the Exodus did not occur, then the Torah scroll was not given by God.
This seems to contradict the rabbi's criticism of Rabbi Kola's book, which says that even if there was no Mount Sinai event, one can still believe in the Torah.

Respected Rabbi. There is a much simpler answer to the matter of the artifacts that were not found. These are probably pottery and fragments of vessels that were supposed to be where they were. The Torah says that there was a miracle that for 40 years their clothes did not wear out (and their feet did not swell). It was a miracle that the clothes did not wear out. I assume that part of this miracle is that “no vessel was lost.” In any case, there are no artifacts to be found. This is part of the miracles of the Exodus that the Torah testifies to.

1. The claim that the story is unfounded is not because it is technically impossible, but because it is improbable. Even if it is technically possible that I won the lottery, for someone to believe that I won the lottery I would have to provide evidence. I have no reason to believe someone who says that God performed a miracle for him (especially since I have never seen a miracle) even if technically God can perform miracles. In any case, the burden of proof is on the narrator.
2. From such a number of people and such a quantity of time, I would expect to find, for example, food vessels, tombs, maybe even scrolls. Because I am not an expert on this subject, it is possible that these are things that are not supposed to survive such a period of time, that is a question for the experts.
3. I am in the middle of reading it, I will write my comments on it there.

1. What is not plausible about it? By the way, if someone claims to have won the lottery, there is no reason not to believe them. Every person who wins is equally unlikely, and yet someone always wins.
2. It is not only because they are not supposed to survive, but mainly because they do not know exactly where to look. In how many places in the Sinai desert have archaeological excavations been conducted? Beyond that, as far as I know, there are findings about the Exodus from Egypt and the crossing of the Jordan and the altar on Mount Ebal and more, but as is the way with archaeology, there are arguments about them (usually they depend on an agenda. Another reason to treat it with skepticism).

For example,
A. Is it possible not to accept the Exodus and also accept another story. And are all the stories a package deal? Maimonides himself interprets some of the Torah stories as a parable or a dream. And certainly certain details (such as some of the miracles) in the story of the Exodus may not be taken literally.
B. I didn't understand. Why, if the Exodus was not from Egypt, then the Torah is not from God? What does this have to do with anything?
C. There is no contradiction. I was talking about the status of Mount Sinai specifically.

1. The miracles described in it are improbable. The more far-fetched the story, the stronger the evidence. Would you believe anyone who tells you they won the lottery? It's pretty clear to me that proof is needed.
2. I'll try to read more, from what I know I haven't seen any findings on the subject.

Regardless, how can one obtain “that which is and that which is not”, “man as straw” and “the spirit of justice”?

In light of Novo - I recommend that you look at the links provided above, especially Zertal's lecture.
To Rabbi Michai - The calculation is simple in my opinion: The Torah tells of the Exodus from Egypt as a completely real event, it is not possible to say that it is a parable for two reasons, each of which is sufficient on its own:
a) It is absurd for it to be a parable about an entire people (unlike the Book of Job, for example).
b) There are many commandments that are a memorial to the Exodus from Egypt.
So G-d commanded a commandment to commemorate an event that did not exist and was not created?
And if so, since it is clear that the Torah claims that the Exodus from Egypt did indeed occur, and is not a parable, and on the other hand we (supposedly) know for certain that it did not happen. In any case, there is an error written in the Torah.
If so, the book and religion (because as stated there are many commandments in memory of the Exodus from Egypt) are not true, because G-d does not make mistakes.

I will definitely believe it if it seems credible to me.
The last two can be obtained from me. “That which is already” is no longer available, although I recently received a message that there is a place where it still exists, and you can check there: http://www.kodeshbook.co.il/product.asp?productid=436

I’
take it too far. There was some event of the formation of the nation, and the surrounding details are not hindering.

Do you sell the books at Bar Ilan University?

Yes. 052-3320543

I don't understand.
The discussion here is not about the surrounding details, but about whether we left Egypt.
a) What does the commandment of remembering the Exodus from Egypt have to do with it if it never happened?
b) Why would the Torah narrate an event that never happened, as if it did?

The main point of the discussion, for me, is in the details. I just said that the Exodus in itself does not depend much on it. The Midrash states that Lot ate matzah even before Israel was in Egypt, meaning that the mitzvot are not necessarily conditional on the Exodus itself. Incidentally, it is possible to command a mitzvah as a reminder of an act that is a myth, as might be said of the miracle of the jar of oil. We celebrate our becoming a people through the myth of the Exodus from Egypt, and we celebrate the victory and purification of the Temple through the myth of the jar of oil. But this is an unnecessary discussion. I intend here to say that there was an Exodus, but not necessarily with all the details that appear in the Bible and certainly in the Midrash.

Following the discussions here, and as a well-known archaeology enthusiast, I decided to really delve into the issue of the remains in Sinai and see for myself what the real situation is. Unlike Rabbi Michi, I was actually bothered by it and the counterarguments seemed very apologetic to me.

Following this, I read more than 12 academic articles on the issue of the Sinai Desert (in addition to books that deal with the subject in the past, such as the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Land of Israel and more), and I saw that the situation is not as simple as presented.

First, let us state that dozens of surveys have indeed been conducted in Sinai (81 in number, they were discontinued in 1993), which found hundreds of sites from different periods (mainly of the tumuli or nevamis type). The problem is that there are remains up to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age and starting from the Iron Age.

The only period in which there are no remains is the Late Bronze Age (the period of the Exodus), to the point that Professor Herzog writes that no archaeologist even tries to search for finds related to the Israelites in the desert today.

However, there are several research directions to answer this issue (each raised by professionals):

The problem of conservation and research in the desert –

At first glance, this sounds like a stupid apologetic claim, since remains have been found in almost all of history except for this period! On the other hand, Professor Zeev Herzog and Finkelstein (known minimalists and in various articles!) have provided strong evidence why it is difficult to find remains in the desert if it is a temporary settlement. Some quotes to support my words:

* Professor 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. To discover the existence of the ancient encampments and sheep and camel enclosures, alongside which new methods of excavation must be developed, classical archaeology will not succeed here”

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

* Professor Nadav Ne'eman – “Since nomads do not leave behind remains that researchers can trace, it makes no sense that no remains of nomadic groups have been found so far… Archaeology has no power to help in the debate about the hesitancy of the Exodus”

* Professor 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”

They searched in the wrong place –

The Sinai Desert is vast (2.5 times the size of the State of Israel!) and therefore it is not improbable that they will not find finds, but apparently here too we can say that if in the rest of history they found remains it is strange that they did not find anything. But, it turns out… In most surveys where finds were found, it was only in places where the finds can be seen on the surface to this day… or alternatively areas that are close to known water sources, or places where there is a Bedouin tradition of settlement (such as the area attributed to Kadesh Barnea). In other words, they search only in very specific places.

Because of the nature of the Israelites' (temporary) wanderings, the problems raised in the previous point, and the size of Sinai, it is difficult to locate finds like this. It is possible that the Israelites did not cross into places where there are remains on the surface or where there are Bedouin traditions. Moreover, it is even plausible.

Some evidence regarding this point – after all, the assumption in the study that the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt – as far as I understand, the remains of their wanderings were not found either. Likewise, all the remains of the many war campaigns that passed through Sinai. Another example – There is Egyptian documentation of a tribe that lived in the Sinai Desert (can't remember the name right now), its traces have never been found either. The people of Israel are not the only ones with documentation about them, and yet nothing has been found.

Incorrect dating of the remains –

This claim is possible, it is possible that the findings attributed to the Middle Bronze Age are earlier. Why? Because of the lack of findings that can be dated, the dating is based on very individual data, such as according to the technology used by the nomads (ceramics, etc.) which may simply have been less advanced among the nomads.. or bones that some researchers say do not teach the generality (because the structures had only secondary burials).

The theory of Dr. Yitzhak Meitels –

Dr. Meitels, in his book Excavating the Bible, for completely different reasons, advances the Exodus by 200 years to the Middle Bronze Age (and brings dozens of pieces of evidence to this effect) and shortens the Late Bronze Age. All of this brings us to the conclusion that the Exodus takes place in the 15th century BC, and now if we go back for a moment to the introduction I wrote, it seems that very close to this period many finds are also found in the Sinai desert (although they are a bit early because they are from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, but here we are already talking about the grammar of poverty that the finds found for the period and it makes sense that the desert population would be a little more primitive than the urban population, but you should ask Meitels himself about this if anyone has his email).

The theory of Professor Anati – Ben Nun –

Professor Anati found hundreds of artifacts in the Sinai desert, some of which appear very similar to the biblical story (he claimed to have found Mount Sinai itself – see Mount Karkum on Wikipedia) that predate the biblical period by hundreds of years (and he emphasizes that everyone disagreed about it because of his description). In a conversation with Rabbi Dr. Yoel Ben Nun, Anati claimed that from what he learned about the period, the desert nomads tended to use existing structures and tools rather than build new ones. Therefore, even if the artifact is ancient, it is not at all impossible that it was used hundreds of years later by later nomads, and in any case it is likely that the artifact will appear ancient. As evidence, the Bedouins in Sinai used until recently (!) structures from the Early Bronze Age that are still on the ground today (tumuli) and even more so by the local nomads who came for a very short period.

________________________________

Answer to a question I received from Rabbi Ben Nun on this issue:
”
My working assumption on this subject is that the Intermediate Bronze Age continued in the desert throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Age, and that nothing replaced it –

In the settled areas, cities and urban and rural settlements arose in the second millennium BC, but in the desert, the Intermediate culture continued to exist with its characteristics – Therefore, Anati's findings (in my opinion, from Mount Paran) could be from the second half of the second millennium BC, and the early dating is based entirely on stratigraphy in the settled areas.

To test this, you need to excavate several hundred tumuli tombs in the desert, carefully date fruit stones, and see if MB and LB potsherds are found here and there.

Several tombs were excavated in the Golan Heights that were initially attributed to the Intermediate Bronze Age, and it has indeed been proven that they date from the middle of the second millennium BC.

All of this requires extensive preparation, and I do not know what the chances are (politically and security-wise) of conducting such tests in Sinai, but in our Negev it is certainly possible.
I told Professor Anati this, and he listened, and although he tends to advance the Exodus by hundreds of years, he did not rule out the possibility that seems to me.

I hope that a research group will be formed to examine the issue in depth.

With best wishes,
Yoel Ben-Nun

______________________________

Theories of Chronological Changes –

Moving the Exodus hundreds of years (500-1000) before the accepted period (Etzion, Wilkowski, Levi, Rothenstein, etc.). However, these claims that completely dismiss the problem (because there are hundreds of nomad sites in Sinai in slightly earlier periods) are not accepted in the study at all. However, I mentioned them only so that the answer would be comprehensive and to show that there are many disputes about almost every detail (even if they were raised by people who are not their profession in this case).

In conclusion –

In my opinion, the solution of Maitlis or Ben Nun-Anati completely solves the problem (although I only brought them towards the end), and even if it doesn't... As Rabbi Mikhi taught us, even if each argument on its own is not sufficient, the combination of many arguments can lead to plausibility. Because add to Maitlis' solution the fact that this is a nomadic population that archaeology does not know how to eat (as they themselves say), add the fact that this is a vast space where the research is based mainly on evidence that exists on the ground to this day or traditions, add the fact that no remains have been found for other early traditions about peoples who lived in Sinai during this period, add to this the refinement of Professor Anati and Dr. Ben Nun on the attribution of the findings, a few dating errors and you get the state of the research in Sinai... (and this without starting to discuss, like Rabbi Mikhi, whether we are really talking about 600 thousand people or is it a typological number or something like that). What is certain is that the situation is not decided by either side at all.

I suggest that anyone who is asked these questions should inquire with the relevant professionals. In the case of archaeology:
Professor Yoel Elitzur
Rabbi Dr. Ben Nun
Dr. Yitzhak Mittals
Dr. Haggai Misgav
Rabbi Dr. Yehoshua Berman
and more…

And in a parenthetical article – If in this generation there are no people who will teach these professions in this generation, we will be in trouble.

All the best.

M has paid every extortionist for the investment.
Is all of this also true for the huge amount of 600 thousand people who have been camping in the same area for almost forty years (unlike the nomads)?

First, with the exception of Kadesh Barnea, our ancestors were indeed nomads, they only lived in Kadesh Barnea as a permanent settlement (38 years, I think), the rest of the time they moved from place to place.

Indeed, no remains were found in the known Kadesh Barnea during this period, but:
1. All under the assumption that the tradition (or traditions) regarding it were accurate
2. Yes, remains were found in earlier periods and perhaps, as I mentioned, the problem is the dating (Anati, Maitlis, Ben Nun, etc., each in his own way)

Regarding the specific points I wrote:
1. Regarding the areas where they did not examine – with the method in which they search for finds, this is true.
2. Regarding Maitlis' theory – the theory is weak, but as I understand it, the findings there are not in the hundreds of thousands but in lower quantities. It is always possible that there were more remains that were lost in these areas, since as a rule they were mainly found from permanent buildings, it is possible that there were also temporary buildings that are likely to disappear… and it is possible that the few findings that did survive from them were attributed to the residents of the permanent houses and so on to a lower number of people (if let's say I found 100 permanent houses and 10,000 potsherds, this would automatically be attributed to the residents of the houses, even though it is possible that the potsherds belonged to additional people who lived in tents and did not survive).
3. Regarding dating errors/Anati-ben-Nun's theory – The theory still stands, although as far as I understand it, there is also no mention of hundreds of thousands. Here too, of course, the caveat of the previous point should be noted.
4. Regarding findings that were lost – The truth is that this is indeed a lower probability, my intuition says that something would have remained, and yet, see the words of the scholars (that I quoted above) who understand more than me who nevertheless wrote that the reality in Sinai is really challenging for research in relation to this specific topic. In my opinion, they wrote this from the fact that nomad remains are lost in this way, there is a problem with dating them accurately and the enormous size of Sinai.
5. Regarding the findings of the Egyptian or Hyksos military expeditions that were not found – indeed, there was talk of significantly smaller quantities, but as far as I knew, they simply did not find anything (nothing!) of them, and yet these are quantities from which some remnant should remain… the lack of findings probably stems from problems similar to the case of the ancient Israelites (in the case of the size of Sinai, destruction of the material, incorrect dating, etc.’).

In conclusion – things stand as they are.

I highly recommend asking Maitlis/Elitzur/Misgav themselves on this subject. To the best of my knowledge, they accept the story of the Exodus as a historical fact (so they write). It is worth asking them about this point. If anyone does, please share.

Wow, what a job!
Thank you very much for the work and investment in writing the summary here.

M’. Great power. I will also add that the question of the absence of the skeletons of Matti Madbar can also be solved with several assumptions: (and this is assuming that the problem is real and that they checked and searched for skeletons or if it is drawn that they will be able to check in the future by some X-ray or sound waves, etc. B. Here I will mention that next to the Tumils that they found in Sinai there were also skeletons)
A. If we assume that there were only a few tens of thousands of people who left Egypt or less, the sting of the absence of findings will be gone. And this is as is customary in biblical research according to which 600 thousand “armies of the”” that left Egypt was a typological number indicating a large number of “thousands” = military units (“armed men went up”…” each army that went out” and Akmal). Pharaoh had 600 chariots and Israel had 600 army units.
Regarding the number of units in the Book of Numbers, one should discuss the issue, but in the summary of the one who says, these are midrashic numbers that are aimed at a deeper meaning - for example, that the Tabernacle was founded on the contribution of the elders of all Israel. Therefore, let us consider each other as we consider each other, etc. As in Chazal, which speaks of 400 houses of study and 400 students in each of them, etc., and about 400 years of Rabbi Frida. Maharl has already proven that these are typological numbers. In the ancient East, anyone who heard such a number immediately understood what was being said, just as we understand the phrase "I have struck you seven times on your foreheads..seven times the righteous will fall" - all in plural.
B. The bodies of the desert martyrs may have been carried with them to the Land of Israel, as the bones of Joseph are an example of a custom prevalent among believers. It may have been intolerable to them to bury their loved ones in the defilement of the desert.
C. Another possibility is that they burned the bodies as we found they did for Saul and his sons. (I am not discussing the later halakhic prohibition).

Similarly, regarding the lack of findings of Pharaoh's chariots in the Red Sea (without considering Wyatt's forgeries, and also assuming that someone searched enough and knows where): it is possible that they have no origin at all, and this is because they were made of wood, as is known - and that is why they floated at all!! At the first tide, they already found themselves on the shores of the Red Sea, subject to the care of road workers and the ravages of time. Pharaoh's soldiers must be sought in the bellies of tiger sharks and porbeagles.

And I will sigh with an amusing but witty anecdote that is relevant to our concerns. On a Christian conversion site I saw someone dare to ask. If there was a paradise as described in Genesis, why can't we find it today! Everything is laid out before the satellites (this was before the Malaysian plane). The questioner didn't have time to say Jack the Ripper and immediately answered; What does it mean? Paradise was washed away in a flood! And phew!

If anyone is really bothered by this, there is a reference to it in an article (not translated into Hebrew) by Rabbi (Dr.) Yehoshua Berman:

First, the passage published on the Mida website (to which the English section below refers):

And since we are dealing with archaeological evidence, let me get rid of the issue of the ”mass” exodus of two million Israelites. This figure stars in arguments against the historicity of the Exodus – but it functions as a distraction, and deserves a brief discussion of its own. The truth is that despite the Bible's seemingly clear declaration of 600,000 men leaving Egypt, the Torah is replete with hints that show that the number is dramatically lower, perhaps even by orders of magnitude.

For example, in the Book of Exodus it is said that the Israelites are too few to be able to populate the land destined for them in place of its current inhabitants: “We will not drive you out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field multiply upon you. Little by little we will drive you out from before you, until you bring forth fruit and till you have filled the land” (23:29-30). A similar statement appears in the Book of Deuteronomy, according to which the Israelites are the smallest people in the world: “You are not the most numerous of all the peoples, the Lord has chosen you’ “And he chose you because you were the fewest of all the peoples” (7:7). The Book of Numbers (3:34) records the number of firstborn males in Israel of all ages: 22,273. To reach a nation of two million people from here, an extraordinary natural increase is necessary. Each woman would have had to give birth to dozens of children. The Torah does not mention such an extraordinary phenomenon, and there is no record of it in any source for any family in the ancient East.

Furthermore, a camp of two million people, almost three times the population of the entire city of Jerusalem, not built in multi-story buildings, would have covered an area that would have taken entire days to cross. However, the Torah (Exodus 33:6-11) describes leaving and entering the camp as a daily matter. There is also no mention of the commotion and traffic jams that would inevitably have been created by the fact that two million people, as stated in the Book of Leviticus, had to offer all their sacrifices in one place, at the Tabernacle. Moreover, in the Book of Exodus (16:27), it is said that the Israelites camped in an oasis that boasted seventy date palm trees; a population of that size would have required each palm tree to feed 30,000 people.

Why, then, is the figure of 600,000 veterans given, which so wildly deviates from so many elements of the wilderness stories in the Torah? We are concerned here with an oddity that characterizes the Bible in general. The proportions and dimensions in the Bible are, for the most part, reasonable; this is the case, for example, with the Tabernacle and the Temple. The exceptions are almost all in one particular arena: the military sphere. There we find magnificent numbers, gigantic spectacles of “biblical” dimensions.

In biblical Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the word “aelf” also means “tribe” or “company”, groups whose individual numbers we know for certain do not include a thousand souls or even a number approaching that. In the military context, then, the word aelf functions simply as a figure of speech of exaggeration, as in the verse “Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousandsÝ (1 Samuel 18:8) – or it serves some typological or symbolic purpose, such as numbers 7, 12, 40, and others. A census report of 600,000 military men may, in itself, be accurate, but when it is set against such a wealth of contradictory data as the above, it is difficult to know what the true number is. [For a review of the subject, see New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis vol. I, pp. 416-417, and also Jerry Waite, “The Census of Israelite Men after Their Exodus from Egypt,” Vetus Testamentum, 60 [2010], pp. 487-491 .].

The population of the Israelites may not have been so vast – and therefore we should not be surprised at the lack of archaeological evidence of the Israelite camp in the wilderness and their entry into the land.

The excerpt from the second article that was not translated:

The census figure of 603,550 squares perfectly
with the tally by tribe. How could that be anything other than a literal number?

This is a sensitive issue, as much rides on it. The Kuzari bases our trust in the revelation at Sinai upon the testimony of "600,000" people. That number is commonly thought of as the basis for our definition of a reshut ha-rabim.
As I noted in the essay, there are a long list of passages that are really problematic if that figure is literal, which is what prompts the re-examination in the first place. Interestingly, we have only one other place in the Torah where there is a census, which includes a total figure, and then a detail of how that figure is tallied: the list of the "70" descendants of Yaakov in Bereshit 46. Although all 70 are listed by name, all commentators, rabbinic and modern, assume that that figure is symbolic, and that the actual number was significantly larger.

I can hazard a rough guess as to the significance of the census figures in Sefer Bamidbar. Nearly all the tribes are approximately the same size in chapter 26 as they are in chapter 1, with the exception of stunning growth in Menashe and stunning loss in Shimon. The Torah seems unconcerned with accounting for these idiosyncrasies with recourse to events that caused these shifts. I believe that it is not a coincidence that we have in Sefer Bamidbar positive stories about the tribe of Menashe and negative stories about the tribe of Shimon. Due to those events, Menashe received a "raise" in numbers, and Shimon a "penalty". The numbers are reflective of status. What is fascinating here is that the relative sizes of the tribes in the final census of chapter 26, neatly mirror their relative importance in the blessings of Yaakov to the brothers in Bereshit 49. There, the two most celebrated tribes are Yehudah and Yosef. The least "blessed" tribes are Reuven, Shimon and Levi, who come in for censure from Yaakov. The other tribes receive brief blessings. In Bamidbar 26, Yehudah and Yosef (i.e. Menashe + Ephraim) have much larger populations than any other shevet, both in excess of 75,000. At the bottom of the list, are Shimon (22,000) and Levi (20,000), with all the others bunched between 45,000-64,000. The clincher is this: Reuven is twice the size of the smallest tribe (Levi). The Torah emphasizes that Reuven's size, the Korach rebellion notwithstanding, would have been 43,900. That is, Reuven, as a censured first-born, receives the smallest possible double portion of blessing, at twice the size of Levi. You can see through this prism that the key is not to know how many fighting men Israel had. Numbers are manipulated in the census as a way of encoding status to the tribes in accordance with Yaakov's blessings.

Understanding the census numbers this way should pose no difficulty for normative belief or practice. The Kuzari refers to the mass-witness of the revelation at Sinai by Israel. Naturally, like all before him, he assumes this to be a population of 600,000 men. Yet, the real gist of his argument is that a huge assembly bore witness to this event. His argument is no weaker if we assume that present was "only" a stadium-full of people.

Although the common perception is that the definition of a reshus ha-rabim was defined by the size of the population of Israel present in the desert - no authority at all holds this to be the case. The gemara doesn't even mention this figure and most rishonim define a reshus ha-rabim without reference to any number of people at all. Tosfot and other Ashkenazic poskim did. But their use of the numbers is itself instructive. Tosfot is the first to recognize (Eruvin 6a d”h keitsad) that there were not 600,000 people in the desert. There were 600,000 men of fighting age. In their own way, Tosfot admit that we use the figure 600,000 to define a reshus ha-rabim, because that figure symbolically represents the people as a whole. To be sure, Tosfot believed that there were indeed 600,000 men in the desert. But their adoption of the figure towards symbolic ends suggests a way that pre-moderns related to numbers in literature, in a way greatly removed from our obsession with metrics, data and statistics.

Thank you very much. Can you send a link to the full article in English? Dr. Yehoshua Berman also has an article in English on the origins of the Book of Deuteronomy in comparison with Hittite literature and more, as well as an instructive article in Hebrew on the flexibility of biblical law - a word that blunts the question of contradictions - and this appeared in the book - which is less instructive - “In the Eyes of God and Man - The Believer's Dealing with Biblical Criticism”.

I would point out that the biblical evidence for orders of magnitude smaller than sixty thousand is not so convincing. Regarding the layout of the camp, it should not be difficult to say that it is not possible that the nomadic tribes were not spread out uniformly around the grazing of the flocks in the desert, and mention is made of the migration of Joseph's brothers from Shechem to Dothan in Genesis 27, a distance of about 80 km (World of the Bible, ibid.), as well as the tribes of Gad and Reuben in the central desert, spread out over the entire expanse of Gilead and Bashan, and the discussion is long and not the time. Likewise, the question of firstborns: ”The Book of Numbers (3:34) records the number of firstborn males in Israel of all ages: 22,273. To reach a nation of two million people from here, an extraordinary natural increase is necessary. Each woman would have had to give birth to dozens of children. The Torah does not mention such an extraordinary phenomenon, and there is no record of it in any source about any family in the ancient East.” It can be concluded that the firstborns we counted are not from all of Israel but from the firstborns born in the Sinai Desert - something that significantly reduces their number (R’ Elchanan Samet discussed this in his first book and the book is not currently available to me, although it refutes my assumption).

In any case, there are clear truths regarding the size of the population. (However, the question of calculating the shekels of the Mishkan, as well as the meticulous numerological detailing of the tribes, is a matter of debate).

Here is another interesting (but old) article that attempts to explain the parting of the Red Sea related to a date in the month of low tide + east winds, which allows for transportation on a topographic elevation of the seabed (documented there) for a few hours - this is only apparent in a small population of about 25 thousand people, including elderly women and children:

http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.athensams.net/stable/pdf/23503770.pdf

In addition to the previous issue regarding the truthfulness of the Bible, here is a reference to a new article from this month that documents a solar eclipse in the Jerusalem-Given-Ayalon area in 1207 BCE, which corresponds to the period of the beginning of the settlement, the altar of Ebal, the burning of Hazor, and more. (See the article summary around note 130).

http://www.boker.org.il/meida/negev/desert_biking/personal/BM_61-2_196_238.pdf

And here is the interview with the geophysicist on the London program Kirshenbaum (who also served as a church during the pressure on Rabbi Michi) from 18.1.17, starting at the end of the 0:39 minute:

http://10tv.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1228298

In the scholarly article, the researchers explain that this may be the historical nucleus of the miracle of the sun at Gibeon, as the term “Dom” indicates the cessation of its activity from illuminating, as found in astronomical writings in Akkadian, a cessation of activity due to the fact that ”the moon stood still”
That is, it stood on the “Zebulah”-the home, boundary, of the sun. In the Middle Ages, it was Joseph ben Abraham Ibn Waqar, and perhaps also the author of the columns who interpreted the miracle as a solar eclipse - something known from the Greek wars that sowed great panic on the battlefield because it was interpreted as the intervention of the gods (an innovation in the context of the wort: the panic could have been mutual had it not been for Joshua announcing in a loud voice with a trumpet: ”Sun at Gibeon stand still, etc.” - something that was immediately interpreted among the Israelites as the intervention of the ’ - who had indeed caused the aforementioned eclipse already six days before the beginning - and sowed one-way panic among the enemy).

So what was the miracle? It is possible that Joshua knew about the event even before it happened. In any case, the event was engraved in the hearts of Israel as an intervention from heaven for victory on the battlefield, which did indeed happen.

Related to one question – written here to concentrate the material in one place:

Until today (as can be seen in my messages) I have treated the Ipwar Papyrus as pseudoscience used by those who repent (there are a few sentences in it that do indeed come from the Qeshm in my humble opinion) since the document was written 400 years according to the dating of the Exodus (it is linked by Wilkowski who believed that there is a bug in the structure of the Egyptian dynasties). I recently discovered that it is not.
First, I will say that I am based on Dr. Maitlis' theory about the Exodus in the 18th dynasty.
So, the papyrus was written in the 18th-19th dynasty, the period in which the Exodus is assumed to have taken place (!). But the *assumption* of the researchers is that it is a copy of an older papyrus, and this is based on 2 pieces of evidence. The name Ipwar is a name that was common in ancient dynasties and the papyrus mentions anarchy carried out by ‘Asiatics’ a name that the Egyptians gave to the people who ruled Egypt several hundred years before. All this evidence is obviously unproven. The name could also have been used later and it is possible that Asiatics also attacked Egypt in the 19th dynasty (or more simply, usually the enemies are called ‘Anim’ and only once Asiatics. Apparently the Jews were supporters of the Hyksos Asiatics who had long been expelled from Egypt, which would fit with the story of Joseph). The bottom line is that we have a document that indicates anarchy in Egypt from the centuries in which the Exodus took place, scholars who assume that there was no anarchy at that time (and then it doesn't work out for them because there is no more evidence for it at that time) are anticipating it (to argue that there was anarchy), but this is an assessment that stems from a lack of support for the Bible. The bottom line is that the document was written in those days.

It cannot be conclusive proof of the existence of the biblical story, but given this fact, it is not possible to say that there is no evidence in Egypt of the Exodus (and to bring here proof that the event did not occur), there are also some but they choose to precede them, which is not proven. On the contrary, if there is another biblical account of anarchy at that time and a document that testifies to everything, there is no reason not to believe that this is the same evidence.

Another piece of data to strengthen the connection to the biblical story – The document below speaks to a monotheistic god (a statement that does not fit with the introduction of the document) and not an Egyptian god from whom the author seems to be disappointed, this would greatly improve the damage that the idols of Egypt suffered afterwards. And indeed, after the Exodus (for this dating) there was a monotheistic period in Egypt.

In addition, there is evidence of Egypt's weakness in the generation after Ipwar (map copied from a post on the Internet):

During the reign of Amenhotep III, a civil war broke out in the kingdom of Mitanni (a regional power on the Euphrates River), which had until then been a loyal ally of Egypt. The war was fought between supporters of Egypt and its opponents. At the end of the war, Mitanni was divided into two parts, and then attacks began on the Egyptian part.

After that, the Hittite king, Shupilulomesh I, began a series of attacks against the Egyptian Mitanni. The king of Mitanni begged for help from Egypt, but help did not come. Why? 'Unfortunately for Mitanni, religious unrest in Egypt was already increasing at that time, distracting the royal court from foreign policy matters.' (Sags, Babylonian Chronicles, p. 92)
In the end, Mitanni fell. Shupilulchem also conquered various kingdoms in Syria, which were protectorates of Egypt, including Arzu and Amru.

In the land of Canaan, an anti-Egyptian element called the Haber appeared. They threatened all the cities in Canaan and even conquered many of them. The Amarna letters reflect the anxiety and despair that the unfortunate kings felt when the hundreds of desperate letters they sent to Egypt were met with a poor response, if any.
If such a thing had happened a century earlier, during the reign of Thutmose III and his great successors, there is no way the situation would have looked like this.

And the strangest thing is that Amenhotep III himself also went on conquest campaigns to Syria. And now, with the decline of his empire, he decides to stay home. It seems as if something has happened to him. Something big that has distracted Egypt from managing its empire.

Barbarish, king of Babylon, tells Tutankhamun, king of Egypt (son of Amenhotep III, king after Akhenaten) that 'in the days of Korygels my father, all the Canaanites wrote to him, saying: Come to the border of the land! And we will betray the king of Egypt, and we will support you'. Korygels I reigned in the days of Amenhotep III. (He died in about 1375. Around the same year, Shupilulomesh came to power in the land of the Hittites.)

We see that Egypt was one step away from losing its rule in Canaan during the period in question.

Therefore, the entire Egyptian empire in Asia disintegrated as a result of the events mentioned above. As mentioned, according to Ipvar, there were also some invasions of Egypt itself.

All the kings whose letters appear in the Amran Letters demand that the king of Egypt send them gold (or other precious materials). They mention that in the days of their ancestors a much larger quantity and quality of gold was sent to them and wonder why such disappointing shipments are now being sent to them. After all, 'in Egypt gold is as abundant as dust' (from the way this sentence is quoted, it seems that this was a famous saying in those days.)

I will quote a characteristic letter from the Mitanni king:

As for the gold that my brother (the king of Egypt) sent, I gathered all the foreign guests, my brother, in their presence all the gold shipments were opened. They were sealed, but the gold (was it counterfeit?) …and they wept much, saying: "Is all this gold? They did not look like gold!" They said: "In Egypt gold is more abundant than dust, moreover, my brother (your) loves you very much. But if there is someone he loves, he would not give him such things.” Please send me a lot of gold that has not been worked on.

Why did Egypt stop sending gold to its neighbors? This may be related to its economic decline, and according to the Gemara, “and they saved Egypt – which had become like a deep with no fish.” (Ifver explicitly writes, “gold is in short supply.”)

The evidence of the infiltration of an ethnic group named Abiru in the centuries that followed is well-known and does not need to be detailed here (destruction layers, the El Amarna letters, etc.).

Finally, a 14th-century Egyptian inscription describes five tribes wandering around the land of Midian (the identification of the place is uncertain), one of whom wandered in the “land of the Lord.” The scholars, who date the exodus from Egypt to the 13th century, have attempted to claim that this tribe was a Midianite tribe that worshiped God and was the origin of the worship of God among the Israelites.

Once we date the Exodus to the early 14th century, we can assume that these are either the Israelites themselves, during their wanderings in the desert, or the Kenites.
The Midrash states that when Jethro left the Israelites, he returned to Midian and converted his family, who were the Kenites. These things are quite explicit in the Bible: "And the Kenites, Moses' father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees," and so on. [The Kenites, which refers to Jethro's descendants, first appear in Balaam's prophecy as a tribe living somewhere south or east of the land of Canaan.]

Now I saw that in the Open University's Introduction to the Bible, several scholars were cited who also believe that Aivar dates to the 18th Dynasty, as I said. The additional papyrus describing disasters (‘The Prophecy of Nephthys’) was also written during the same period but is also attributed to an earlier period (here the evidence is rather explanatory), but the papyrus has several copies containing information in different versions. It is possible that the original text was limited and was only expanded in the 18th Dynasty, inspired by current events to show that Egypt had already gone through difficult times like the ones it is currently going through.

I also saw that Dr. Maitlis also gives an explanation for Egypt's weakness at that time in his lecture on the subject.

All of this is not evidence, of course, but it makes it difficult to say that there are no clues to the story and it does not make sense against the background of the period’ (Without going into the story's adaptations to Egyptian culture, the entry of the people during the Hyksos period, etc.)

Two more interesting sources on the researchers' attitude towards findings that do not fit their thesis, and on the fluidity of archaeology, where a single finding can collapse entire theories:

* Prof. The late Adam Zertal, on the attitude of archaeologists towards the Bible:
http://www.hayadan.org.il/go-to-eival-mt-sais-zertal-111199

* Dr. Yitzhak Maitlis, on the work of Adam Zertal:
http://mida.org.il/2015/10/22/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%9C/

I added a more organized summary of the arguments regarding the story of the Exodus from Egypt (not the wanderings here):

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%95%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94-2/#comment-4347

To M. Your in-depth study of the subject is astonishing and astonishing. Good luck. I would be happy to receive your email and correspond. I also have quite a bit of material on the subject. The thing I want to discuss mainly is your need to advance the Exodus by 200 years to what is accepted in research (that is, in research that accepts the core of the story). To claim that the Exodus preceded the days of Seti-Ramesses-Marnephtah is a statement that, in my opinion, really cuts off the branch on which the tradition supported by research sits. I will not list all the reasons, but by and large, all the signs supporting the story point to the 12th century BCE, not the 14th. It began with the great wave of settlement in Israel that came from the East - as Zertal revealed. The altar of Joshua, built around 1250 BCE. The destruction of Hazor by fire - in those years. Edom and Moab as kingdoms that were only founded then. The Song of the Sea in the Ramesses style. The Philistine invasion only during this period (“The Philistine Land”). The construction of the city of Ramesses, specifically. All the Ramesses sources that mention the slavery of the Ophir. The famous watermelons and fish of the artificial lakes of Ramesses, the blackberries and onions that feed the Ophir slaves, and the other sources brought by Pnina Gal-Paz. And even the Nechama-Amidah=Sunset Interruption in 1208 BCE at an angle that was seen in the area of Gibeon and the Ayalon Valley. All of these and many, many others do not allow for the advance of dating without entering into great difficulties. This idea was expressed more clearly in Menachem Haran's article in his new book, Institutions in the Bible, Aya”sh. And a final dessert for the butterfly: For years I regretted that they did not find the remains of Pharaoh's chariots in the Red Sea - to quote from the Bedouin Wit. Until I realized that they probably wouldn't find it either. The chariots are made of wood that floats on the water and as such never sank to the depths of the sea. It drifted to the shores of the sea and there it decayed or was taken by desert wanderers. My email is giladstn@gmail.com and I would be happy to share with you the sources I have.

With the exception of the construction of Per-Ramesses, most of the points you raised can also be arranged around the early dating. See all of this in detail here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090630/http://www.chidusheitorah.com/sites/default/files/Cohen.pdf

There are of course additional points not mentioned in the above article, such as –
The Apherus, who are also mentioned as slaves in the 18th dynasty, the Philistines are already mentioned in the Amarna
and so on and so forth

In my opinion, the fit with the background story in Egypt (infiltration with the Hyksos, etc.) and the signs of internal Egyptian collapse in this dynasty constitute the most important piece that was always missing from the story of enslavement, and even allow for an association with other important findings that are not possible during the 19th dynasty (such as Amarna, the collapse of the walls of Jericho, etc.). Therefore, as a layman, it seems to me that this is the most appropriate time. Of course, all of this is not a brilliant stroke of genius of mine, but of Elitzur and Maitlis.

You can continue this in an email.

In my opinion, you should ask the questions here and answer them here.
That way more people can read……

It's clear to me that it's better to have a lot of unnecessary text here, but still have quality content, than to correspond by email and then “spare” the unnecessary text from the readers of the site..

Does the Maithilis method, which advances the time of the Exodus from Egypt, forego the altar of Mount Ebal?
Or does it advance your description as well?

I'm not giving up. I don't remember for sure at this point how he incorporates it into the dating framework.

I continue to share with you my findings on the issue –

Recently I started reading academic literature from abroad on the subject. I must admit that I am very surprised, unlike in Israel where researchers are indeed much more skeptical on the issue, abroad there are many researchers who accept the Israeli story (for good reasons). Recently, 2 seminars were held (on behalf of 2 different universities. At one conference, mainly researchers for the story brought the story and at the other mainly against) in which the best researchers and archaeologists in the world came to discuss the story of the Exodus (since according to atheists it is clear to everyone that it is a lie and there is no point in discussing it at all). A large part of the researchers, it turns out, accept the story, and there is much more evidence that is considered unknown in Israel.

I'll give you an example of 2 pieces of news that I didn't know:
1. It turns out that the Egyptian building style in the 18th-19th dynasties (the dynasties of slavery) is a distinctly Canaanite building style (4 chambers). This is the only period in which the above style appears.
2. One of the strongest and best-known claims for the story of the Exodus is the Marpanthah Stele - a very early Egyptian extra-biblical document that mentions a people named Israel. What is interesting is that it turns out that there is another inscription that many scholars believe mentions the people of Israel about 200 years (!) before the earlier inscription (corresponding to the time of slavery itself). This is a stela containing a list of the peoples close to Egypt. Next to the Canaanites, Nubians, and Ashkelonites, another name appears, half of which is broken. The name contains letters found in the name Israel. This fact becomes interesting when we add the fact that the only place or people name known to us in Egypt that contains these letters (in its entire history) is the name Israel. In other words, we have an inscription that contains the names of peoples neighboring Egypt and that has a garbled name that the only way to read it is “Israel”. Amazing. How does no one in Israel know this?

This is just another example of my conclusion that the atheist websites that present a picture that ”clearly there is no evidence” or “clearly all researchers think it is a lie” present a completely distorted picture. You shouldn't trust me or you shouldn't try too hard – The lecture protocols of these seminar days have all been turned into books and you can read in them the lecture protocols of the best researchers who somehow haven't heard of the research consensus that this is a myth and bring everyone brings their own evidence. The statement that there are no findings or that there is a consensus that this is a myth is a complete lie.

Books by researchers:
* Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective – One of the books of articles. The counter-book (also contains quite a few pro-articles)
* Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt – One of the books of articles. The pro-book
* On the Reliability of the Old Testament – Written by Professor Kenneth Katzin, who is considered one of the greatest Egyptologists today and somehow he has not heard of the atheists' claims either.
* Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence
* Israel in Egypt: Evidence for Authenticity of Exodus

A few more articles to be found here:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/ancient-israel-in-egypt-and-the-exodus.pdf
– Excellent articles by several researchers

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=xpe1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=%22Exodus,+of+a+people+fleeing%22&source=bl&ots=Md5XwnwrCz&sig=afbLcQdjlC7XWwadbvHYuL9_Wbs&hl=iw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwierPvXv7bUAhWCPBoKHUL0DBYQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Exodus%2C%20of%20a%20people%20fleeing%22&f=false – One of the reference books of the day

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hcVgwNWtGWHFOTG8/edit

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/

https://www.academia.edu/1651319/Is_the_Exodus_Story_Possible

In short, there is a lot of foreign material that is not known in Israel.

These days I am writing an article that will summarize all the findings that I know (historians, archaeologists, philologists, direct, indirect, and more), everything is starting to come together for me, from the frame story to the general reality of the story and its evocative hints in Egypt – and it turns out there are a lot of them.
If I don't quit halfway through, I intend to submit the above article to a review by a knowledgeable person, and if I truly (without a vow) continue with the above project and I like its final form, I will publish it here without a vow.

What a great guy! We need people like you!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. I'm really impressed by M's words. I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of the article.

M You are simply amazing, I have no words.
I am eagerly awaiting the article. How long do you estimate it will take you to finish?

I wrote an initial draft but I didn't like its form. Since something like this is expected to be heavily criticized, it needs to be written at a high level, every argument in it needs to be sufficiently reasoned, and things take time. After the testing period, I'll come back to this in a nutshell and see if it makes any progress.

I am also waiting and looking forward to M's words.

I would like to know if there is any information on the population of Egypt in the 15th century or in the second half of the 15th century to be more precise.

There are various population estimates, the average estimate is around 4 million people.
These estimates are based on a combination of a calculation of probable natural increase (growth rate × past), the size of the area, comparison to other countries, epidemics, the economic situation of the country (inhabitants), the size of the cities found, graves and so on and so forth.

These are only estimates and you can see for yourself that these are complete speculations (there could have been a period of great natural increase and we would not have known it) and it is very difficult to know what was there. I personally do not see these figures as too exciting.

Update: There is documentation of a famine in Egypt at the end of the Hyksos period (and that the Egyptians had bar granaries prepared for it). The Hyksos period is, as I recall, the period in which, as I wrote above, the story of Joseph took place in my estimation. Additional details in the Bible from the Field. Label Resnik.

M is very beautiful.
Everyone is of course looking forward to the final presentation.

Just saying that it might be worth bringing another source because I don't know with Label Resnick is a certified archaeologist.
Not that I doubt what he brings but of course you will be made to argue about the source.

Thank you for your clear answer regarding the population of Egypt. If there is a source regarding 4, and also regarding 5 6 and 7 I would even be happy to refer to it.

1. I am not citing Resnick as an archaeologist, Resnick only quotes the Egyptian source in his book, you can see his references to sources there. The book is not in front of me at the moment, to the best of my memory he quotes an inscription from the tomb of someone who in his later years was an officer in the Egyptian army, and he states that in the past he was responsible for the provision of food from the warehouses due to the famine. He cites the exact source there.
2. I do not know what you mean when you say 4, and the same applies to 5, 6 and even what 7 is.

1. Thank you, definitely interesting.

2. I mean the population estimate if you can refer me to sources in your free time, I saw one source about 4 million inhabitants, if there are sources that wrote more I would be happy to see them too.

3. The conquest of the land was a long process, how does this fit in with the altar on Mount Ebal and the time of Joshua?

Additionally, you wrote that in the 18th Dynasty and the 19th Dynasty in Egypt there was a four-chamber building style.

But the 19th Dynasty was also after the Exodus, seemingly this strengthens the belief that Egypt ruled the Land of Israel at that time and was not a YM. But Egypt left the land at some point.

2. You can see references here:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/
Or here:
http://thetorah.com/ancient-egypt-population-estimates-slaves-and-citizens/
The estimates are between 2.5 and 5.

3. If you are asking about the dating system I am talking about with the Joshua find, then in my opinion it is even stronger if the exodus is placed in the 18th dynasty, and this is for several reasons:
1. Ai and Jericho are destroyed precisely during this period (Jericho in an earthquake as narrated in Joshua)
2. The first evidence of collar-rimmed jars (Israelite ceramics) appears during this period
3. The cities of Canaan are destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the settlement is at the beginning of the Iron Age, so it turns out that the Israelites arrive precisely at a time when the land is in ruins. Indeed, it is necessary to believe that the settlement is called In pieces and not in one fell swoop but many have already touched on this and it fits well with the picture in Joshua.

Regarding the altar of Joshua – This does make it difficult to identify the aforementioned altar as the specific altar of Joshua, but the main consideration of this find is not the fact that it fits specifically with Joshua but that it is evidence of early monotheistic worship in the land, so it is possible that this is an Israelite altar from the time of Joshua/Judges but not the altar of Mount Ebal. In his later years Zertal found more finds that teach about monotheistic worship in the land, he called them the sites of the feet. You can find information about this online

Regarding the four-temple temple –

On a factual level:
1. The 4th temple temple appears in the Marpanthah period (19th dynasty) and not in the 18th, what I wrote was not correct about that.
2. Egypt loses its grip on Canaan at the end of the 18th dynasty (Ankhenaten) and regains it only in the 19th dynasty with Seti and Ramesses II.
3. Some place the Exodus in the 19th dynasty and then it works out. I (and not only I) believe otherwise.

Regarding the connection between this and the biblical story:
1. Indeed, in my opinion, the 4th temple temple cannot constitute evidence, it can be explained in different ways (Canaanite slaves, if I remember correctly we have evidence of slave captivity that Ramesses brought from the region of the land).

If you ask what is more likely – That the story was created by the Israelites leaving Egypt or the Egyptians leaving Israel? Many have already discussed this, this is Knohl's thesis. In my opinion, it does not stand the test of facts and is certainly less plausible. After all:
– It explains the national slavery myth less well (according to them, although it is known that Egypt employed Semitic slaves in its territory, it is more likely that the myth was created from conquest and not from the Semitic slaves that we know for sure that it employed. Sounds like the less plausible theory to me)
– It does not explain well enough the traditions of Egyptian historians about the slavery story
– It does not explain the new identity of the people who penetrated Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age
– This does not explain why in the lowlands (the cities that were under Ramses' control) there are peoples who have idolatrous worship who do not maintain a tradition of slavery and only in Israeli sites do they maintain an Israeli national identity (pigs, smashing statues, etc.)
– This does not explain why the Israeli people smash both Egyptian and Canaanite statues
– This does not explain the familiarity with the internal reality of the kingdom (according to this approach, the story was written at a late stage, so it does not make sense that it would have preserved so many distinct Egyptian details, but the framework of the story is completely different. In other words, they kept the minor details but forgot the important ones)

Rabbi M, although this is not related to the discussion here, I knew I would be able to reach you.
What is your view on the arguments for mass revelation in other nations (the Sioux tribe sang the hymn of Hivatha and its like. See the video by ‘Israeli Logic and Science’ about the status of Mount Sinai that brings additional nations), is there a fundamental difference between the revelations? Do these nations really claim mass revelation, or is it just innovations of recent writers who write things about them?
I would appreciate your perspective on the subject. You can respond in the response on the status of Mount Sinai, the second “mass revelation argument” in the leading response.
Thank you, Yosef.

I didn't check. The question is what is the source of the testimony and how solid is it and how much can the bearers of this testimony be believed. There was someone here who brought a review of such revelations, and denied them. You have to search the site.

M
(I'm A, just from another email, I wrote earlier)

1. You wrote that the main importance is that the altar is monotheistic. But if so, what is the altar of Mount Ebal actually? In the book of Joshua. Where is it? There is no other altar in the area there, so it must be Joshua's altar. It fits all the biblical details. Isn't that right?

2. I definitely agree with what you wrote. But to the best of my knowledge, Knohl does accept the Exodus of those who were a few slaves who left there and thus the story was passed down. Therefore, it is not appropriate to talk about the heavenly slaves.

(I would also be happy to receive your email)

1. You can get my email from Gil (see above)
2. I didn't understand what you were asking/trying to say.

I asked him, still waiting for him to send it.

If you say that the altar discovered on Mount Ebal is just a regular monotheistic altar. (Which is also important of course) then fine. But the Book of Joshua describes the altar that was built during the time of Joshua. Where is it? If you give up on the fact that it was built specifically by Joshua, that is a problem – related to the previous question of how it fits with the dating of the Exodus in the 15th century. And the big differences.

What I am saying is a comment on the first paragraph you wrote regarding Knohl's thesis.
It is not that difficult for him because he believes that there was slavery and that is how the “Exodus myth” was created – according to his theory. By a small group of slaves who connected with 2 other groups and then the people of Israel were created.

Does anyone here have Dr. Maitlis' email?

The following email appears on the Herzog College website: itzhakme@013.net.il
But so far I have not received any response to the questions I sent to this email, it may be better for you to call them.

I don't know if this is Joshua's altar or not. If I believe the Exodus was in the 14th century BCE then that's a reasonable estimate. Where is the real altar? I don't know. But because half of Nablus is inhabited today I'm not sure we'll ever know.

Regarding Knohl, it's still up for debate. If, for example, there were 4 historical traditions for the people (one for the slaves, and three for the rest), logic dictates that the tradition that would spread to *the whole* people would not necessarily be the most embarrassing, and it should also be remembered that the tradition of slavery is the most dominant tradition.

Does it make sense that there was an exodus from Egypt if the number of people in it was half of Egypt?!
M What do you think? Do you have anything new in this part?

In general, unfortunately I do not have a convincing and clear answer that I am ready to sign on to. I will tell you some of my thoughts that may somewhat obscure the difficulty in these matters, I hope it will be useful.

As a start, it should of course be noted that:
1. It is not half, more like a third or a quarter. Beyond that, if you think about it deeply, there is really no difficulty even if we say that half of Egypt left. So what?
2. The amount of the population is only an estimate. Negative proof cannot be derived from this.
3. The Bible also states that the increase was miraculous, so it is possible that it exceeded the norm.

— So much for the familiar things, now I will mention a few additional unfamiliar possibilities:
1. As we know, it is always claimed that these may be topological numbers (600 families, etc.). Indeed, there is a difficulty in this since the numbers of the census of the children of Israel are not rounded and it is difficult to claim that it is typological. So not sure... First of all, from the Bible itself it seems that the quantity was possibly smaller (for example, from the one where there were only 23 thousand firstborns), secondly and here is the interesting part... It is true that it is not very well known... But Cassuto has a suggestion on how to arrange the unrounded numbers (of the Israelites and the ages of Genesis) in a typological way (something related to the mana system in the ancient East and so on). In my opinion, I am not sure that his suggestion is 100% convincing (although it is based on acceptance in the ancient East) but it is worth knowing that it exists. In the book "The Temple of Time" by Gabriel Zeldin, another attempt is made to develop Cassuto's ideas on other numerical issues in the Bible. I did not delve into his book, but in brief I saw that he had some pretty good arguments. I emphasize again that I will not be mistaken here, it is not clear that Cassuto's proposal holds water (leaving a large margin for maneuver), which I corresponded with Rabbi Michael about a few months ago, and he said that he tends not to be convinced by, but there is indeed a typological proposal based on the study of the population in the ancient East, even for these numbers, and it is accurate.
2. There is another direction that I will mention briefly, it is a bit radical but possible. There are quite a few hints in the Bible (for example in Chronicles) that some of the people of Israel remained in the land during the slavery (or left before), there are even hints of this in the physical findings here and there (Al Amarna and others). It is possible that when the Israelites left Egypt, they were later joined by some of the people who were already living in the land, or that in the numerical censuses they also included those in the land. This is of course only a proposal and should be discussed, but it is a real possibility that solves much of the difficulty.

So, in conclusion, there are several ways to solve this difficulty. I personally think there is no need to reach radical solutions to this, but it is important that you know that such solutions exist. Let the wise man be even wiser.

By the way, wonderful articles on the Exodus by Dr. Liora Ravid, a historian who taught an online class in the midst of Yom Kippur (so there is nothing to suspect her of being overly religious):

http://www.ranlevi.com/2017/06/20/osim_tanah_exodus_from_eygypt_part_1/
http://www.ranlevi.com/2017/07/03/osim_tanah_exodus_from_eygypt_part_2_of_3/
http://www.ranlevi.com/2017/07/17/osim_tanah_exodus_from_egypt_part_3/

(She of course does not accept the real possibility of a miracle and therefore tries to explain that the entire part that specifically talks about it is legendary and happened naturally)

Another article on the Har Etzion Yeshiva website that shows that the story in the Book of Exodus is very much adapted to the Egyptian religion, even in small details And juniors:

http://etzion.org.il/he/02-%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D

Literature which deals with the Exodus from Egypt generally shows that these details were true precisely at the relevant time in Egypt, and therefore a later writer would have had to write the story differently, and the fact that things are written precisely in this way shows that the story was written at the time of the events.

It is quite likely that about a third or a quarter of the population of Egypt consisted of Israelites, there are many powers that suffered losses and after a few years quickly recovered (Germany for example)

Good, I am also familiar with the above article, a lot of “indirect evidence”.

M , another interesting detail that I did not see mentioned here in the discussion, regarding the name of Pharaoh, supposedly later in the Bible his first name is also mentioned, and supposedly the things in the story of the Exodus are fictitious and the “author” could not have known his first name. I saw the exact opposite in the words of Dr. Berman:

” In the story of the Exodus in the Torah, the kings of Egypt are simply called “Pharaoh”. On the other hand, later in the Bible they are called by their full names, such as Pharaoh Nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). This reflects a phenomenon that existed in Egypt itself, during those periods: from the middle of the second millennium BC to the tenth century BC, they used to write “Pharaoh” without an addition.”

And in addition, I saw in one of the comments there by Prof.’ Greenwich’ an interesting thing: “The casual nickname ‘Pharaoh’ is a clear representative of the New Kingdom, as Prof.’ Greenwich writes (The Uniqueness and Antiquity of Genesis, p.’ 102). The New Kingdom began in the 15th century BC or so. And the style of the Torah only proves that it was written at the time of the events. In the days of the prophets, no one could have known how Pharaoh would have been called during the days of the New Kingdom.”

If there is more such information or if there is a quote from Greenwich’ Someone would love to see.

A few more questions,

Did the Egyptians distinguish between the Semitic slaves? Did they make a division between them or did they treat everyone as Semitic?

Are there sources from our sages or in the Torah that support a conquest that lasted for many years?

How do Chazal”s words about the evening Rav fit together in your opinion? Because if we accept the michalta, their number certainly included more people than the entire population of Egypt

1. Beyond the example with the name of Pharaoh, there are countless such examples, both in the story of the Exodus and in the Book of Genesis. Greenitz's book is wonderful but difficult to read for those who are not used to reading such literature.
2. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes they indicated that they were Asians, sometimes by other names.
3. I don't know. Rabbi Bezeq wrote about this in his book, as did Rabbi Ben Nun, and it is not against my eyes at this stage.
4. In general, the stock of Egyptian slaves during this period came either from the people's tax to the king or from war expeditions, usually there were slaves in Egypt. As for the numbers, I don't know, it falls into the general issue of how many Chazal intended to describe precise details

1. A and all those who ask. It is better not to mix Midrash and Pasha. It is impossible to ask whether our sages believe there is evidence for the long conquest, or how they are doing with the Mekhilta that the Arabs were more numerous than the Exodus from Egypt, etc. These are legends written 2000 years after the events. Why connect the two?! And would it be difficult to explain the Exodus from Egypt from the words of the “Tsitsim to David” or the “Roshanim to Moses”?? And what did the sages hate?! Yes, they were crowned with the Holy Spirit, but that is not the purpose of treating their words as biblical history! It is true that there are some who hold to very ancient traditions, but this is only when external evidence is found for this, otherwise: the claim remains valid. And most of their words are sermons spoken in their day for Torah and other purposes. This does not in the least diminish the need to labor over their profound words.

2. And regarding the failure to mention Pharaoh's personal name - the latter interpretation is particularly beautiful. Yeshkoyich! (But your words are difficult: ”The casual nickname 'Pharaoh' is a clear representative of the New Kingdom, as Prof. Greenitz writes (The Uniqueness and Ancestry of Genesis, p. 102). The New Kingdom began in the 15th century BC approximately”. The difficulty: Pharaoh as a casual name also appears in the stories of the patriarchs that preceded the 15th century.)

I would also like to say that the Torah intentionally omits his name so as not to turn the event into something that once existed, in the days of such and such a king. Rather, every generation is obliged to see itself as such. (The words of Chazal are indeed! But they are completely aimed at the simplicity of the Bible). And according to Israel Eldad, Hagionut Mikra, p. 80: “The Bible does not discuss this entire affair from the historical-factual side, but from the essential side” - all of this regarding the Egyptians’ side, although in relation to what happened to Israel, every historical detail is important not only from the eternal essence but also in relation to the actual concreteness in history.

Another excuse for the nickname “Pharaoh” Just: The name Pharaoh in itself and in isolation implies the violent power of enslavement. Israel Eldad there:

“Pharaoh means in Egyptian language ‘the great house’……And historically this name was justified more objectively than all the others, and wasn't it the great houses that remained almost as a single value, as a single exhibit, of all that four thousand years of culture, the history of ancient Egypt? When you say Greece you say: art, philosophy, culture…And when you say Egypt – you say: pyramids. After all, before you is the essence of all that culture: the great house. This is Pharaoh and this is his memory…In the end, everything goes back to the enormous quantity of working hands, the entire Egyptian people are Pharaoh's slaves, and there is no need to say people of other nations…” (And I do not mean to claim that Israel built the pyramids)

3. Although for a hint at the name of the king of Egypt around the time of slavery (Set the father of Ramses), see Haggai Misgav's website
http://misgav.blogspot.co.il/2017/01/blog-post_18.html
Here is a short quote:
“The story of Moses, in Egyptian eyes, was clear to every reader. Moses' mother did not throw him into the river and did not let his ark drift away. On the contrary, she hid him at the end, on the bank of the river, so that he would not drift away; Pharaoh's daughter, mischievous as she was, went down to the water, and then noticed the hidden ark. The end is the swamp of reeds, it is the place of rebirth, of whoever comes and sues the wicked ruler of the land. The decree of the sons also now receives a new light – the wicked king, who decrees that the sons be thrown into the river in order to kill them, is the god Seth; The first king of the Nineteenth Dynasty was named Seti, after him. Ramesses II, the greatest of the kings of this dynasty, built the city of Ramesses, which the Bible says the Israelites were busy building. He who was born in a swamp, or at least his daughter finds him there, is Horus, who will one day come and defeat Seth”

And I would add the verse “Pharaoh did not set (Set) his heart” as a linguistic hint.

In his book Biblical Logic, Israel Eldad adds another hint to the identity of the enslaved Pharaoh (Ramesses II):
“Among the stone figures that adorn the giant statue of Ramesses II, there is a figure of his house named Binet-anat. This name, which is clearly Canaanite-Semitic, Bat-anat, which in its Hebrew-Israeli rendering would be Binet-ya, or Bat-ya, in’ Haruka, as preserved in the chronicles, Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh (although there she was the wife of one of the descendants of Judah) sheds new light on the entire story of Moses' rescue. This Canaanite or Tyreite (if we do not go so far as to see her as the daughter of an Israelite-Canaanite woman from Goshen) had a very warm heart for the children of the persecuted Hebrews. Her mother, one of Pharaoh's wives, gave her this name, which means that her upbringing was not entirely in the spirit of Egypt either. Bin'at-Anat, the daughter of Ramses II, one of the greatest Pharaohs, and perhaps the greatest of them, was the one who gave Moses drink from the river. See also on pp. 79-80.

In the 26th of Av, 7th day of the month of Adar

To Gil (Gamish?) – Shalom Rav and Gil Ad,

It is possible that the Torah did not mention the names of the various Pharaohs, because their names were the names of idols, about whom the Torah commanded: ‘And you shall not mention the name of other gods’.

With blessings, S.C. Levinger

It is worth noting that in the descriptions of Moses' enslavement and birth (Exodus 1:8-2:9) no one is mentioned by name except the midwives Shiphrah and Puah. Mentioned are ‘a man from the house of Levi’ ‘the woman’ ‘the child’ ‘his sister’ ‘Pharaoh's Daughter’. No one has a name, as befits a dictatorial regime in which no one has an independent personality, and is nothing more than a ‘cog’ in the machine. The first to be given a name is ‘Moses’, whose name expresses his destiny – to rescue the world from the abyss of slavery and to restore to each of the world's inhabitants their name and identity.

M – Thank you very much for all your answers.

Gil – Indeed, I usually do not attach great importance to midrashim (these are for their message sometimes and this is the main intention) and anyway there are many midrashim that contradict each other.
Although since the evening Rav is mentioned in the Torah, it was important for me to ask by the way.

Well-known questions were raised here about the story of the Exodus from Egypt and this is one of the difficulties that various people raise, so I attached importance to it.

Well done everyone, I would like to add an article I wrote on the subject, touching on certain additional perspectives on what was raised regarding the construction of the city of Ramses and more. http://emetmerets.xyz/2017/01/08/Exodus-of-Egypt-in-Archaeology/

Hello M, I would like to know if the article you are working on is ready..
Happy Holidays

Avraham, thank you for a comprehensive article. The alert for the time being; finding an early scarab on the Ebal altar does not pose any difficulty - contrary to what you wrote - since it can be preserved for hundreds of years by a family, like grandmothers' jewelry today and then. And this is also very common in archaeology. What is not so is the finding of a later scarab, from the time of Ramses, which is evidence that at the earliest the altar was active in his time. If the Exodus from Egypt was in the middle of the 15th century BC, then you would have to assume that it was active until the end of the 13th century, close to 300 years, which does not appear from the ecological documentation about the altar, which was active for only about 70 years. Moreover, carbon-14 tests show that the bones of the animals are from the Iron Age 1, that is, the 12th-13th century. So one of the two (allegedly) is either it is Joshua's altar and the Exodus from Egypt was around the time of Ramesses (later) or it is that the Exodus from Egypt precedes him by hundreds of years and the altar is an altar from the time of the judges. This is according to the simple. And there is room for improvement. Thank you for your thought-expanding article.

Gil, thanks! I remember seeing a source that says that the bones on Mount Ebal are dated to the 13th century at the latest. In addition, it is important to add the fact that there are parallel periods that have the same amount of carbon due to changes in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which means that the average error range in carbon tests is about 300 years, although theoretically the error range should have been up to about 13 years on the side of the ′′ clean ′′ index. It is also worth noting that at the site on Mount Ebal you can see that the altar was built on top of an older, round structure, which was probably also an altar. In short, there is definitely room for pepper

See also here, promo for M's article –
on the Exodus from Egypt from the archaeological-historical aspect. Which was revealed yesterday for the first time.

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%90%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%9a-%d7%99%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/