I recently posted about “Scientists Recognize Biblical Plagues, Sort Of”, but I also see COGWriter Dr Robert Thiel recently remarked on the Jewish Journal article “Passover proof lies in Egyptian hieroglyphs”.
One item I found particularly interesting:
Of course, there are those who disagree. Among them is Sinai’s Rabbi David Wolpe, who led a Q-and-A discussion following Dayan’s lecture. Wolpe famously disputed the historicity of the Exodus in a 2001 sermon.
Did Dayan’s presentation change Wolpe’s mind — even a little?
“Not at all,” Wolpe said during the discussion. “But not because it doesn’t convince me that there’s evidence that makes the story plausible, because I think there is. … The reason that modern scholars dispute the historicity of the Exodus doesn’t have anything to do with the first two parts of the story [slavery in Egypt, the journey through the desert]; it has to do with the third part [when they arrive in the land].
“If, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Jews left Egypt, then you should be able to see new settlement patterns in Israel — and archaeologists have excavated Israel, and they don’t see a change in the building structure, in the pottery, all the things you think would change if there was a huge immigrant influx,” Wolpe said.
Um, excuse me, but perhaps you would like to read “Has an Archaeologist Discovered Evidence of Israelite Entrance into Canaan?”
Spelling error report
The following text will be sent to our editors: