Amy Coney Barrett

[Leonhard]

Hypatia when you make a massive cite like that, you can write it in [CITE] tags

Then it looks like this

Source: Lester L. Grabbe's Historical Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It

No event of the size and extent of the exodus could have failed to leave significant archaeological remains. much of the 40 years of 'wandering' was spent near Qadesh-Barnea. This and related sites in Sinai and southern Palestine should yield ample evidence of a large population in this region. Yet nothing has been found. There is no mention of such an event in any New Kingdom Egyptian source, and there is no trace of the early Hebrews in Egypt. The northern coast of Sinai was protected by formidable Egyptian forts that could have easily prevented an escaping people from crossing the desert; there is no trace of Late Bronze remains in the rest of the Sinai peninsula, not even in a place like Kadesh-barnea, where the Israelites are supposed to have camped for a long time. At that time Canaan was an Egyptian province, administered by Egyptian garrisons where, according to the Amarna letters fifty Egyptian soldiers were enough to pacify an area.

Furthermore, many of the places mentioned in the story of Exodus and the wandering in the desert were not inhabited before the eighth or even seventh century BCE Hence and despite efforts made by some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way in which the biblical text may be considered as a description of a historical event. A large population of Israelites, living in their own section of the country, did not march out of an Egypt devastated by various plagues and despoiled of its wealth and spend 40 years in the wilderness before conquering the Canaanites.

Deuteronomistic (D) and Priestly (P) texts in the Torah purport to describe acts of worship that took place as early as the era of the exodus from Egypt but this event cannot be substantiated historically. However, it has always been clear that the story of the Conquest of Canaan in the Deuteronomistic History was put in writing much later and neither the Deuteronomistic History [D] nor the Priestly texts [P] were composed prior to the late eighth century, with much of P dating to the exilic era [i.e. sixth century BCE].

As to the development of Israel as a state/nation that was a slow process and it may be suggested that the history of Israel begins in many ways with Merneptah. From evidence it appears that something called Israel existed in the Palestinian region about 1200 BCE, and it appears to have been comprised of one group of people. However, where these people lived, what constituted it, and from where it acquired its name along with its relationship with the Biblical Israel are all questions.

Despite those who regard the later redacted Hebrew texts as proof that is not the same as attested archaeological evidence and although archaeological excavations have uncovered certain innovations among the central highland peoples, design of houses, terracing, plastered cisterns, and an absence of pig bones there is no list of technologies or practices that is exclusive to this region and time or that can serve as 'Israelite ethnic markers'.

On the contrary, it seems that a variety of ethnic groups [Hittites, Hurrians, Jebusites, Girgashites, Amorites, Shasu [?],etc], as well as social elements ('apiru, Shasu [?], pastoralists settling down, peasants fleeing the lowlands, etc.], settled the hill country on both sides of the Jordan in Iron I, judging from extant written sources. Some of the tribal and other groups known from biblical genealogies may also have originated in this period, though we know that others are probably much later creations. Local leaders might have given rise to some of the stories in the book of Judges, but it is doubtful if much historical memory remains here, even if the general picture of a disunited series of autonomous (or partially autonomous) peoples is considered to be possibly believable.

© Copyright Original Source

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia when you make a massive cite like that, you can write it in [CITE] tags

Then it looks like this

Source: Lester L. Grabbe's Historical Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It

No event of the size and extent of the exodus could have failed to leave significant archaeological remains. much of the 40 years of 'wandering' was spent near Qadesh-Barnea. This and related sites in Sinai and southern Palestine should yield ample evidence of a large population in this region. Yet nothing has been found. There is no mention of such an event in any New Kingdom Egyptian source, and there is no trace of the early Hebrews in Egypt. The northern coast of Sinai was protected by formidable Egyptian forts that could have easily prevented an escaping people from crossing the desert; there is no trace of Late Bronze remains in the rest of the Sinai peninsula, not even in a place like Kadesh-barnea, where the Israelites are supposed to have camped for a long time. At that time Canaan was an Egyptian province, administered by Egyptian garrisons where, according to the Amarna letters fifty Egyptian soldiers were enough to pacify an area.

Furthermore, many of the places mentioned in the story of Exodus and the wandering in the desert were not inhabited before the eighth or even seventh century BCE Hence and despite efforts made by some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way in which the biblical text may be considered as a description of a historical event. A large population of Israelites, living in their own section of the country, did not march out of an Egypt devastated by various plagues and despoiled of its wealth and spend 40 years in the wilderness before conquering the Canaanites.

Deuteronomistic (D) and Priestly (P) texts in the Torah purport to describe acts of worship that took place as early as the era of the exodus from Egypt but this event cannot be substantiated historically. However, it has always been clear that the story of the Conquest of Canaan in the Deuteronomistic History was put in writing much later and neither the Deuteronomistic History [D] nor the Priestly texts [P] were composed prior to the late eighth century, with much of P dating to the exilic era [i.e. sixth century BCE].

As to the development of Israel as a state/nation that was a slow process and it may be suggested that the history of Israel begins in many ways with Merneptah. From evidence it appears that something called Israel existed in the Palestinian region about 1200 BCE, and it appears to have been comprised of one group of people. However, where these people lived, what constituted it, and from where it acquired its name along with its relationship with the Biblical Israel are all questions.

Despite those who regard the later redacted Hebrew texts as proof that is not the same as attested archaeological evidence and although archaeological excavations have uncovered certain innovations among the central highland peoples, design of houses, terracing, plastered cisterns, and an absence of pig bones there is no list of technologies or practices that is exclusive to this region and time or that can serve as 'Israelite ethnic markers'.

On the contrary, it seems that a variety of ethnic groups [Hittites, Hurrians, Jebusites, Girgashites, Amorites, Shasu [?],etc], as well as social elements ('apiru, Shasu [?], pastoralists settling down, peasants fleeing the lowlands, etc.], settled the hill country on both sides of the Jordan in Iron I, judging from extant written sources. Some of the tribal and other groups known from biblical genealogies may also have originated in this period, though we know that others are probably much later creations. Local leaders might have given rise to some of the stories in the book of Judges, but it is doubtful if much historical memory remains here, even if the general picture of a disunited series of autonomous (or partially autonomous) peoples is considered to be possibly believable.

© Copyright Original Source

Thank you for that but the text is adapted from different academic works. Hence the suggested reading at the end of my post. Incidentally, I would hardly describe the above as a "massive cite"!

[Mountain Man]

No event of the size and extent of the exodus could have failed to leave significant archaeological remains. much of the 40 years of 'wandering' was spent near Qadesh-Barnea. This and related sites in Sinai and southern Palestine should yield ample evidence of a large population in this region. Yet nothing has been found.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But to say there is no archeological evidence is, shall we say, not entirely correct.

For example, scholars such as Rosalie David and Flinders Petrie have noted the following from that era in Egyptian history:

• Pyramids built of mud-and-straw bricks (Exodus 5:7–8), and both written and physical evidence that Asiatic people were enslaved in Egypt.

• Skeletons of infants of three months old and younger, usually several in one box, buried under homes in a slave town called Kahun (Exodus 1:16), corresponding to Pharaoh’s slaughter of Hebrew infants.

• Masses of houses and shops in Kahun, abandoned so quickly that tools, household implements, and other possessions were left behind. The findings suggest the abandonment was total, hasty, and done on short notice (Exodus 12:30–34,39), consistent with the sudden exit ordered in the wake of Passover.

• The Pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhat III, had no surviving sons, and his daughter Sobekneferu had no children; this would explain why she took in a Hebrew child—Moses—as her own son (Exodus 2:5–10). After Moses fled (Exodus 2:11–15), there would have been no heirs, and the 13th Dynasty began after Sobekneferu died.

• The 13th Dynasty, in which the exodus would have occurred, is often described by later records as one of bedlam and confusion, and few monuments from this period survive.

• Court advisors used rods that look like snakes (Exodus 7:10–12). This partly corroborates the magical opposition against Moses performed by Pharaoh’s advisors.

• The Ipuwer Papyrus, most recently dated to the 13th Dynasty, is a work of poetry stating, in part, “Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere. . . . Nay, but the river is blood . . . gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire . . . the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized. . . . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt. . . . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere.”

• When Egypt was invaded by the Hyksos—possibly the “stranger people” mentioned by Ipuwer—the Egyptians offered little or no resistance, something that makes sense only if Egypt’s armies and economy had been recently devastated (Exodus 12:35–36; 14:26–28).

• Neferhotep I, Pharaoh of the 13th Dynasty, was not succeeded by his son, Wahneferhotep, but by his brother Sobkhotpe IV (Exodus 11:45). This harmonizes with the Passover death of Pharaoh’s firstborn.

• The lack of a mummy of Neferhotep I (Exodus 14:28) indicates he could have been among those wiped out at the Red Sea.

These points are detailed in various excavations, monuments, and physical remains.

GotQuestions.org

There is, in fact, a lot of other evidence that correlates with the Biblical record.

https://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Anyway, this is all WAY off topic, so I'm not going to pursue this line of discussion any further.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well by that logic pixies and gnomes exist.

But to say there is no archeological evidence is, shall we say, not entirely correct.

The following comments you have provided are a tissue of unsupported speculation and the confusion of various different periods and events in Egyptian history.

I quite agree all this is quite off topic for the thread but you did raise the issue when you interjected in my reply to CD [your post # 56] wherein you wrote about a real theocracy not existing "since the days of ancient Israel." The comments you have posted are also a tissue of confusion that muddles up events from completely different periods in Egyptian history, along with wild and unsupported speculation.

I would also point out that your link is from a Christian site and while it appears [from a cursory look around it] to be a reasonably liberal site, it has that unquestioning acceptance of scripture. Its Doctrine contains the statement "We all believe II Timothy 3:16 which states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That automatically indicates a predisposition towards a particular bias.

[Sparko]

It is not a claim, idiotic or otherwise, it is a textual fact.

Paul never describes himself as a Jew. He is an “Israelite” or “Hebrew”, or “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” but never a Jew. Why he does not employ the Greek Ioudaios when referring to himself we do not know.

He says he is from the tribe of Benjamin, which is one of the two tribes that the name "Jew" came from (from Judah)
But hey, he didn't say some specific sentence that you think he should have said, so he wasn't a Jew.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

He says he is from the tribe of Benjamin, which is one of the two tribes that the name "Jew" came from (from Judah)
But hey, he didn't say some specific sentence that you think he should have said, so he wasn't a Jew.

Irrespective of your flailing attempts at derision, what I stated is a textual fact. As to why Paul never employed the Greek Ioudaios to describe himself is entirely unknown. However, the fact remains that he never did employ it when referring to his own origins.

[Sparko]

Irrespective of your flailing attempts at derision, what I stated is a textual fact. As to why Paul never employed the Greek Ioudaios to describe himself is entirely unknown. However, the fact remains that he never did employ it when referring to his own origins.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew or that he didn't claim to be Jewish. He did in Acts, but you don't accept that because he didn't personally pen it

[Mountain Man]

I would also point out that your link is from a Christian site and while it appears [from a cursory look around it] to be a reasonably liberal site, it has that unquestioning acceptance of scripture. Its Doctrine contains the statement "We all believe II Timothy 3:16 which states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That automatically indicates a predisposition towards a particular bias.

Right, only an anti-Biblical bias is allowed.

[CivilDiscourse]

Irrespective of your flailing attempts at derision, what I stated is a textual fact. As to why Paul never employed the Greek Ioudaios to describe himself is entirely unknown. However, the fact remains that he never did employ it when referring to his own origins.

Hence why it's called the "Bible Trivia Game". The fact that one book of the bible doesn't use a specific word is pure trivia. Worse yet, when the "Bible Trivia Game" is played by an atheist it's really done to try and have a **** measuring contest over something that the Atheist literally doesn't care about. (After all, why care about a specific bit of Trivia in the bible, if you don't believe it to be true.) It just shows a need to feel superior in ones knowledge over irrelevant facts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew or that he didn't claim to be Jewish.

Has it taken you so long to finally realise that point? I have made it on on several occasions.

He did in Acts, but you don't accept that because he didn't personally pen it

Paul does not state anything in Acts. The writer of Acts puts the words into his mouth, along with the allegation that Paul studied under Gamaliel. Paul never makes that claim even when he is at greatest pains to stress his Pharisaic credentials.

It is amusing that you will challenge allegations made by various journalists and/or former employees about things Donald Trump may have said because of the lack any recorded evidence of Trump actually saying those things.

Yet you are remarkably quick to accept the word of another in this particular instance. Why?

[Sparko]

Hence why it's called the "Bible Trivia Game". The fact that one book of the bible doesn't use a specific word is pure trivia. Worse yet, when the "Bible Trivia Game" is played by an atheist it's really done to try and have a **** measuring contest over something that the Atheist literally doesn't care about. (After all, why care about a specific bit of Trivia in the bible, if you don't believe it to be true.) It just shows a need to feel superior in ones knowledge over irrelevant facts.

Did you know that the word "Bible" never appears in the Bible?

iRzZ5a.gif

[Sparko]

Has it taken you so long to finally realise that point? I have made it on on several occasions.

Paul does not state anything in Acts. The writer of Acts puts the words into his mouth, along with the allegation that Paul studied under Gamaliel. Paul never makes that claim even when he is at greatest pains to stress his Pharisaic credentials.

It is amusing that you will challenge allegations made by various journalists and/or former employees about things Donald Trump may have said because of the lack any recorded evidence of Trump actually saying those things.

Yet you are remarkably quick to accept the word of another in this particular instance. Why?

You were the one who created a thread on the topic based solely on an argument from silence (well, actually after hand-waving away any evidence to the contrary as not authentic)

[Mountain Man]

Paul never makes that claim even when he is at greatest pains to stress his Pharisaic credentials.

The Pharisees were Jews, so when Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, he was implicitly claiming Jewish heritage, and his readers would have clearly understood that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You were the one who created a thread on the topic based solely on an argument from silence (well, actually after hand-waving away any evidence to the contrary as not authentic)

I have just looked back through Apologetics and can find no thread started by me on Paul or Paul's allegations about himself.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Pharisees were Jews, so when Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, he was implicitly claiming Jewish heritage, and his readers would have clearly understood that.

Yes but you have to understand to whom Paul was addressing his letters. These small enclaves in places such Corinth, Galatia, or Rome were quite a long way from Jerusalem and would have had, among their members, possibly Hellenised Jews and certainly Gentiles [the latter being Paul's main audience for his gospel]. It is unlikely that a Corinthian or Roman gentile would have been particularly au fait with the practises of Judaism.

However, creating personal prestige and status is important for a cult leader who wishes to impress those joining his cult.