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?”