Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

The Bible does not record that all of Pharaoh's army was destroyed - so ... why would other histories record it?

If the drowning of Pharaoh's army occurred it would have been a massive defeat for the greatest power on earth. And not at the hands of a foreign army, but at the hands of their run away slaves. But none of the surrounding countries bother to record this great Egyptian defeat and humiliation??

It didn't happen, Tabby. That is why no one recorded it.

Add all the evidence together:

---no archeological evidence of a mass Hebrew slave population in Egypt.
---no archeological evidence of millions of Hebrews wandering and dying in the Sinai.
---no record of the humiliating defeat of Pharaoh's army in the writings of any people or nation which existed in the Near East at the time.

The absence of evidence STRONGLY suggest the non-historicity of the alleged event.

[Mikeenders]

Last time I looked at Netflix, half its content (or more) wasn't available to Australia. I'll look again.

Ah bummer. If you are into such things its a video worth watching (with I think the almost inescapable issue that all DVDs covering scholarship have - not going to be exhaustive - HAS to consider entertainment value ).

Amazon instant video has it for like $3.99 from state side as well. Don't know if that has issues for you guys down under as well

[Gary]

In the ordinary - drop a body in a hole and cover it with a bit of dirt kind of graves - course, there isn't much chance of any body parts being left after even a couple of hundred years, including skeletons - except in ph neutral soils. The people were leading a nomadic existence, the kind of burials that would leave traces weren't likely.

Three million people wander in circles around an area approximately the size of West Virginia for forty years, all but two of them die there, sometimes in great slaughters (such as the Golden Calf massacre)...and not one artifact or skeleton is left behind...

And you think that is perfectly normal??

Give me a break, Tabby.

[tabibito]

[RANT]I consider the New King James to be the best of the mass market Bibles available, particularly for study purposes - but even that proves deficient at times. The King James was considered so unreliable by members of its own translation team that they continued to use the earlier common use translation. Dynamic equivalent translations aren't worth consideration for the most part. All up, it's pretty much a futile effort trying to establish facts concerning the actual records by using translations.[/RANT]

Last time I looked at Netflix, half its content (or more) wasn't available to Australia. I'll look again.

[Mikeenders]

Most reputable biblical scholars, including the publishers of The New American Bible, accept that the Torah was written by at least four different sources, over a period of 400 years:

bolded part is called "trying to stack the deck"

Sometimes people try to be subtle with the no true scotsman fallacy sometimes others can see right through it.

Last time I checked the New American Bible was not the final word on anything

[Mikeenders]

Does Stein rely on stuff from this bloke? Surely not.

https://youtu.be/8vHganYiOQM

At this point I don't know what Stein follows. I think its pretty obvious its not recent research and debate issues. when I entered into conversations with him it was because I assumed he was conversant on the issues but when he flat out denied that dating was a key issue in the exodus debate he lost huge credibility points as he would with ANYONE who even has a passing knowledge of that issue. To use his earlier phrase to me - thats either ignorance or dishonesty - only in this case the shoe actually would fit.

[Mikeenders]

So - if the video trailer accurately portrays the state of play, the exodus occurred a couple hundred years earlier than the Bible record suggests.
That would play to the accounts of the Pentateuch not being recorded by Moses, but by some later generation.

To my recollection thats not a key argument of the video. Its now available on Netflix by the way so if you have a subscription there you don't have to rely on the trailer. Though by most accounts its a well done video and gives play to all sides it does tend to lean to Rohl and his revised chronology. Others get to an earlier date form the biblical text but without a full revised chronology so its not like yo have to go with Rohl to get anything from the video.

[tabibito]

You seem to just summarize and dismiss but I am not even sure you really can because many of your own arguments boil down to arguments for silence and pronouncements similar in form (but not in conclusion) . Frankly saying the Bible is evidence is just as valid as saying abraham means father of many so its theological.

Does Stein rely on stuff from this bloke? Surely not.

https://youtu.be/8vHganYiOQM

[Mikeenders]

Mike,

You are a fundamentalist.

At least Stein is using his brain...most of the time...when examining the evidence. You on the other hand have already decided what is and what cannot be Truth.

An interesting fact abut you Gary that you might not know (somethings are seen better from the outside). You tend to get more ad hom prone and erratic when some of your key points evaporate. Its your "tell" Never play poker.

You are like Hoffmeier:

Thanks given Hoffmeier is a known published author and we know nothing of you and Stein Thats quite the compliment.

Now go ahead and try and claim that Hershel Shank just follows an agenda. Of course its all just fluff and puff that anyone that supports the Biblical text is automatically wrong. Who got the Davidic monarchy right after all? the Hoffmeiers of the world or the FInkelsteins?

At least Stein is using his brain...most of the time...

I'll easily concede Stein uses his brain more than the person who claims because we have a disagreement of a year or two on a date the events that are said to have happened are PROVEN not to have happened. Only a dolt would make that argument. You have my condolences.

[Mikeenders]

I am not a minimalist, nor am I a maximalist. I am what the evidence actually demands. I believe the Exodus in the OT is fictitious. I believe there is a clear historical memory of enslaved peoples in Egypt escaping. That much is obvious. The biggest issue is that the Exodus in the OT is so far removed from whatever happened that it's almost impossible to tell what the nature of this escape was.

Pure conjecture and narrative - not a sound piece of hard evidence. You mentioned yourself as a minimalist by the way - not my invention. I'm still awaiting for some hard evidence. You've so far produced narratives as evidence and absence of evidence as evidence of absence not much more and the claim that dating is not an issue to the Exodus debate still remains as one of the most off the reservation statements not made by Gary in this thread.

I don't think Qadesh is some city. If you're there for 38 years, you leave evidence. You'd have bones from sacrifices or a garbage pit. Both, most likely.

Did you even bother to check the link? You are still acting like there no question whatsoever that theres no evidence. Personally I doubt that bones of animals would convince anyone of anything.

I would love the Exodus to have happened. The Davidic monarchy wasn't denied by anyone except a handful of scholars. (Thompson's early work is actually quite good, for the record). You are correctly pointing out that I don't have enough hours in the day to read all the material I should, yet alone the new material.

Nope I never made any such observation of you not having the time to read the material pertinent to making a determination. As a matter of fact I don't think it s an excuse not to know the more recent research when you declare near certainty as you do and your "handful of scholars" comment is kind of ridiculous. In truth only a fraction of scholars publish books each year and to imply Finkelstein for example was some outlier that himself did not represent the views of others or was not followed by others is just totally inaccurate.

c) I am aware the location is disputed.

and yet you still presented a single archaeological dig as a good example? Thats actually worse than not knowing Stein. It makes presenting a single dig at one location pretty deceptive to list as an evidence when you know it may well not have even been the right site to look at.

As you may (or may not) know, the literature in both OT and NT is voluminous. There's more than a man could handle in a dozen lifetimes.

Its really not if you have an archaeological and document evidence focus. we really don't get a landslide of that each year. If however you are in essence reading through argumentations/narratives then sure .

I am aware of Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt and read it some time ago. I have also read Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament, and I can send you my Amazon review of it if you so desire. Israel in Sinai I look forward to. Unfortunately, many of the arguments boil down to "the Bible is evidence" and arguments against arguments from silence.

Stein I am more into actual data not reviewing people works or reading reviews. You get this a lot in some academia and I don't know why but I have been averse to it for decades even though my peers love that kind of thing. Even in general theology scholars love to talk about Calvin and Augustine etc etc I'd rather get down to the facts . I really don't read to find out what Hoffmeier thinks or KItchens or Rohl or anyone really. I read for what document and archaeological facts they give which is why I guess I don't have to boil down what they state to any cliff notes. Take Rohl and his revised chronology. It has issues - what you might call problematic and dismiss it. ROhl can be completely wrong and yet STILL present serious issues and data that indicate there are problematic aspects to the conventional chronology.

You seem to just summarize and dismiss but I am not even sure you really can because many of your own arguments boil down to arguments for silence and pronouncements similar in form (but not in conclusion) . Frankly saying the Bible is evidence is just as valid as saying abraham means father of many so its theological.

[archaeopteryx]

That would play to the accounts of the Pentateuch not being recorded by Moses, but by some later generation.

Most reputable biblical scholars, including the publishers of The New American Bible, accept that the Torah was written by at least four different sources, over a period of 400 years:

a. the Yahwist source (J) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
b. the Elohist source (E) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
(these two were redacted in Jerusalem around 750 BCE and combined into a single (JE) volume.
c. the Deuteronomist source (D) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform, possibly by King Josiah himself or his merlin, Jeremiah.
d. the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon, who felt that the Yahwist (J) source had depicted a god who was too anthropomorphic for their tastes (walks in the garden, personally crafting garments on the celestial Singer, etc.), and intended that their version of a more regal one replace that of the J source, but the Redactor, who combined all four works into the Torah in 400 BCE, had no idea which to trash and thus, included them both.

That is the primary reason that so many inconsistencies exist in the Torah - because various parts were written by different authors, with different viewpoints, thus we have the Ten Commandments given both on Mt. Sinai and Mt. Horeb (as well as many, MANY others).

[tabibito]

As well as graves.

In the ordinary - drop a body in a hole and cover it with a bit of dirt kind of graves - course, there isn't much chance of any body parts being left after even a couple of hundred years, including skeletons - except in ph neutral soils. The people were leading a nomadic existence, the kind of burials that would leave traces weren't likely.

[tabibito]

Why is there zero record anywhere in the ancient world of mighty Egypt's greatest defeat: the total destruction of Pharaoh's army; drowning in a sea chasing their runaway slaves?

The Bible does not record that all of Pharaoh's army was destroyed - so ... why would other histories record it?

[archaeopteryx]

a) ...If you're there for 38 years, you leave evidence. You'd have bones from sacrifices or a garbage pit. Both, most likely.

As well as graves.

[archaeopteryx]

The Book of Mormon claims that ancient Hebrews came to North America and used horses. Archeology has not found one trace of ancient Hebrews anywhere in North America nor have they found any fossil evidence of horses in North America prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

To gently correct you if I may, Gary - I used to raise horses, and have spent a bit of time studying them. The horse actually originated in the Americas; fossils detailing their evolution have in fact been found. Some traveled across the land bridge between Northwestern America and Eastern Europe, where they ultimately became domesticated. Those on the North American continent then became extinct. Just as you say, the Spanish then reintroduced the horse to the Americas.

Still, the Mormon theory is clearly nonsense - if ancient Jews had domesticated American horses, there would have been no reason for the American horse to become extinct.