The Exodus: What are we looking for?

[JustWondering]

No, I'm trying to lead you to responsibly study rather than ignorantly assert. In your case, the concept seem to have little or no appeal.

This is a debate. Please tell me what you found in all these books you've read that is so convincing. I'm waiting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I would say that the Exodus can not be disproven on a lack of evidence here mainly because we should not expect any physical evidence here.

What, in your opinion, is the minimum criteria for defining a demographic shift as "the Exodus"?

 

[fallingblood]

When do you think Leviticus was authored, by whom, and after how many centuries of Egyptian activity in the Levant?

The who, I think is a little easier. Most likely it was by a priest, who put the work into the final form. As for when, looking at the final, probably during the Persian period. However, the Laws themselves were probably compiled over a long period of time, starting from their earliest time.

I think that the laws that mention the Egyptians, probably were written earlier on.

 

[fallingblood]

I suppose you can paint anything on a blank canvas.

Or one can take all of the evidence, examine it, and then make an informed decision, while remaining cautious.

 

[fallingblood]

What, in your opinion, is the minimum criteria for defining a demographic shift as "the Exodus"?

After reading what Levite said, I do like that position. Groups of 50-100 people would probably be large enough, if there were multiple such waves. Even a couple hundred, in just one wave, would be enough, in my opinion.

The main thing for me is that there was some movement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After reading what Levite said, I do like that position. Groups of 50-100 people would probably be large enough, if there were multiple such waves. Even a couple hundred, in just one wave, would be enough, in my opinion.

The main thing for me is that there was some movement.

But if all you are saying is that some Semites migrated from Egypt to the highlands, you've said exceedingly little, and suggesting that this might have occurred more than once hardly improves matters.

 

[oldbadger]

Please anybody! Can anyone tell me what the moon phase was at during the Israelite's 'Exodus' crossing of the Reed-Sea? The Israelites were the people who knew the 'wades' and 'channels' of the Reed-Sea, because they were the slaves who farmed the papyrus. If the moon phase was 1-2 days after full or new moon then there was the lowest mean astronomical low-water, and highest astronomical High-water. Add a good gale from the South-East and bingo, you have your low-water crossing, together with the tidal-bore type flood which 'took-out' the Egyptians (something like a tsunami). If a reasonable estimate can be gained of the crossing point, then I reckon that the bronze and brass weaponry will still be there for the finding, albeit way down in the silt by now. Wouldn't it be great to find it all!? So, who knows about the moon phases, the Jewish debaters WILL KNOW!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, who knows about the moon phases, the Jewish debaters WILL KNOW!

 

[oldbadger]

OK! So (some of) the Jewish debaters don't know! New angle.... THe 'passover'... is it held at any particular moon phase? That would have been shortly before the agreement to leave? A day or two? Come on then..... how do you lot expect a friggin' pantheist to know anything? !

 

[outhouse]

After reading what Levite said, I do like that position. Groups of 50-100 people would probably be large enough, if there were multiple such waves. Even a couple hundred, in just one wave, would be enough, in my opinion.

The main thing for me is that there was some movement.

as stated earlier and missed


no scholar really doubt this could have happened, I think some people did come from egypt.



semetic people came pouring into the highlands after 1200 BC from many different areas, that started with the Canaanite civilizations slowly filling the area and evolving into Israelites, as well as the other semtic people.

 

[outhouse]

Regardless we do have facts

the Exodus as written in the 5th and 6th century as theology that reflects that time period and was never a historical account.

to even begin to place it in this context is the first mistake, it was written so far removed from the formation of the Israelite culture, it is known mythology at this point that has been proven over and over again to have never happened.


view the work for the beauty in its allegory and metaphors and lessons, but when it comes to history, it must be realized its theology not history in any way shape or form

 

[oldbadger]

I still think that the Exodus did happen as reported in the bible. The Christian Easter is linked to the passover feast which falls just after a full moon. That fits exactly correctly for the escape through the Reed-Sea that I mentioned earlier. The Egyptians would not have known the 'wades' and channels like the Israelites. No Egyptian would have entered into such a mosquito/insect infested bog when slaves were available to do so. I reckon this is a real account, and maybe archaelogy will one prove this.

 

[fallingblood]

But if all you are saying is that some Semites migrated from Egypt to the highlands, you've said exceedingly little, and suggesting that this might have occurred more than once hardly improves matters.

But if the possibility is acknowledged that such a migration could have occurred, it does open the door for a larger exodus. It also opens the possibility that some of the proto-Israelites, or even Israelites made such a voyage.

One of the main arguments against such an occurrence has been based on the idea that since there is a lack of evidence, there simply can't be any historicity behind the story. However, if that lack of evidence is what we should expect, it really can't be used against the story.

 

[outhouse]

I still think that the Exodus did happen as reported in the bible. The Christian Easter is linked to the passover feast which falls just after a full moon. That fits exactly correctly for the escape through the Reed-Sea that I mentioned earlier. The Egyptians would not have known the 'wades' and channels like the Israelites. No Egyptian would have entered into such a mosquito/insect infested bog when slaves were available to do so. I reckon this is a real account, and maybe archaelogy will one prove this.

you have failed, on th egrounds no Israelite slaves have ever been known to exist in Egypt

the translation of "reed" instead of red is only a possibility and a weak one at that.



the exodus was written as theology, not history, and roughly 700 years after the israelites already existed removing them so far from the real events, and the real cultures that existed then.

we know more today about israelite history then the authors of the exodus mythology knew

 

[Levite]

the translation of "reed" instead of red is only a possibility and a weak one at that.

Actually, that is simply incorrect. The Hebrew word suf absolutely does not mean "red." It is completely unrelated to the usual word for red, adom, or to any of the less usual words for red things or shades of red.

It clearly means "reed" or "rushes" or "seaweed." That is the meaning that makes the most sense; that is how it has been consistently understood in every generation of scholars; that is how the word is most commonly used in other contexts, both Biblical and later. If a case can be made for any other meanings, they would be such meanings as "bounded" or "contained," or possibly "pulling" (as in, strong tides), or "stormy." But even so, it is quite clear that the name yam suf means "Sea of Reeds."

 

[outhouse]

Actually, that is simply incorrect. The Hebrew word suf absolutely does not mean "red." It is completely unrelated to the usual word for red, adom, or to any of the less usual words for red things or shades of red.

It clearly means "reed" or "rushes" or "seaweed." That is the meaning that makes the most sense; that is how it has been consistently understood in every generation of scholars; that is how the word is most commonly used in other contexts, both Biblical and later. If a case can be made for any other meanings, they would be such meanings as "bounded" or "contained," or possibly "pulling" (as in, strong tides), or "stormy." But even so, it is quite clear that the name yam suf means "Sea of Reeds."

its not "quite clear" by any means

Yam Suph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The appropriate translation of the phrase remains a matter of dispute, as does the exact location referred to.

More conjecturally, it has also been suggested that suph may be related to the Hebrew suphah ("storm") or soph ("end"), referring to the events of the Reed/Red Sea escape itself:

The crossing of the sea signaled the end of the sojourn in Egypt and it certainly was the end of the Egyptian army that pursued the fleeing Hebrews (Ex 14:23-29; 15:4-5). After this event at yam suph, perhaps the verb soph, meaning "destroy" and "come to an end," originated (cf. Amos 3:15; Jer 8:13; Isa 66:17; Psa 73:19). Another possible development of this root is the word suphah, meaning "storm-wind"...The meanings "end" and "storm-wind" would have constituted nice puns on the event that took place at the yam suph.[4]
​

 

[Levite]

its not "quite clear" by any means

Yam Suph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The appropriate translation of the phrase remains a matter of dispute, as does the exact location referred to.

More conjecturally, it has also been suggested that suph may be related to the Hebrew suphah ("storm") or soph ("end"), referring to the events of the Reed/Red Sea escape itself:

The crossing of the sea signaled the end of the sojourn in Egypt and it certainly was the end of the Egyptian army that pursued the fleeing Hebrews (Ex 14:23-29; 15:4-5). After this event at yam suph, perhaps the verb soph, meaning "destroy" and "come to an end," originated (cf. Amos 3:15; Jer 8:13; Isa 66:17; Psa 73:19). Another possible development of this root is the word suphah, meaning "storm-wind"...The meanings "end" and "storm-wind" would have constituted nice puns on the event that took place at the yam suph.[4]
​

The opening paragraphs of that Wikipedia article (and let's note that all you've cited on this is a Wikipedia article) state that the probable meaning is "Sea of Reeds" or "Sea of Seaweed."

It quotes one alternate theory that cites possible meanings from exactly the same root-developments that I noted myself. And while it doesn't surprise me to see that a scholar has offered those ideas-- especially given that Ibn Ezra offered them first, a thousand years ago-- it doesn't change the fact that all those poisoner interpretations involve far less common uses of the word suf, or more grammatically challenging alterations of related words into uncommon forms. Ibn Ezra, while noting those other possibilities, sticks with "reeds" as the most likely. I see no reason to doubt him, or any of the other countless scholars of the last two thousand years who all concurred with that understanding.

It is the simplest and most direct understanding of the word. Anything else requires far more grammatical or syntactical acrobatics to satisfy the usage in all contexts. There is not anything close to adequate reason to suppose it to mean anything but "reeds" or "rushes" or possibly "seaweed."

 

[Shermana]

Over the last week, I have been traveling quite extensively for work. During most of that time, I spend listening to various scholars. One of them made the comment that if the Hebrews did in fact make the Exodus, what would we expect to find left behind?

The statement has been made quite often that we can be sure there was no exodus as there is no physical evidence of it. This usually also relies on taking the account quite literally, which just is a mistake anyway.

But, if we assume (and it is a safe assumption) that the number of individuals who participated in this exodus, and the total time period in which it occurred for, were exaggerated, would we actually expect to find any physical evidence?

I would argue that we wouldn't. If we were talking about a relatively small group, even for a long period of time, there really is no reason to assume we would find much. The articles that would have been taken with (clothing, jars, possibly food, etc) either would have deteriorated quickly (such as the clothing if they would loose it) or simply would not have been discarded (such as jars or personal items).

So I would say that the Exodus can not be disproven on a lack of evidence here mainly because we should not expect any physical evidence here.

Excellent post. As I've said before, "What evidence are you looking for exactly"?

And yes, the Egyptians would likely not record a terribly embarassing piece of history that made them look like idiots.

But there's the Ipuwer Papyrus, and I fail to see any other reason the Egyptologists say it was "Mythic poetry" other than their blatant bias against the idea it could possibly conform to Exodus.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, that is simply incorrect. The Hebrew word suf absolutely does not mean "red." It is completely unrelated to the usual word for red, adom, or to any of the less usual words for red things or shades of red.

It clearly means "reed" or "rushes" or "seaweed." That is the meaning that makes the most sense; that is how it has been consistently understood in every generation of scholars; that is how the word is most commonly used in other contexts, both Biblical and later. If a case can be made for any other meanings, they would be such meanings as "bounded" or "contained," or possibly "pulling" (as in, strong tides), or "stormy." But even so, it is quite clear that the name yam suf means "Sea of Reeds."

This was one point I found very interesting when I actually started doing more scholarly work. It does seem as if Jewish scholars have been ahead on this. Looking at some Hebrew Bibles (such as the JPS Study Bible, which I am still thankful that you suggested to me), it has the term Sea of Reeds instead of Red Sea.

Really, I have no idea why various Christian scholars (and it is definitely turning around) ever translated it differently.

 

[outhouse]

The opening paragraphs of that Wikipedia article (and let's note that all you've cited on this is a Wikipedia article) state that the probable meaning is "Sea of Reeds" or "Sea of Seaweed."

actually it states one probable meaning

not he most probable