The Genesis Fraud

[michaelsherlock]

Then you agree we can't determine either way. That's the way history thousands of years ago works--don't make definitive statements unless you have definitive support. In his argument, Herzog uses lack of evidence as his proof that the Israelites weren't in Egypt.

I agree. We cannot make definitve statements about ancient history (in most cases) because the types of tests and evidences available to the historian and archaeologist are often less than 100%. So yes, I agree. This is why I find 'historically grounded' religions (religion's whose stories have been woven into human history) ridiculous.

Hershel takes the supposed gap and fills it with evidence Herzog either ignored or did not know.

A little cheeky, "Un-deceived". You can fill any gap with evidence, yet can you fill it with good quality evidence? This, for me, is the most important part of what you did not say.

All this does is creates a plausibility. Hershel himself admits this when he says,
Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there.

I agree, both ways of looking at the situation should remain open to investigation. Recently, I have begun reading a brilliant book by a guy called Gmirkin, on the priority of the Septuigant. He provides some very sound evidence that many of the books from the OT, especially Gen and Ex. were written after the Septuigant, by authors who used the Library of Alexandria as thier source for many of the names, prices of slaves, and other pieces of historical information found within the OT. I would highly recommend this book.

Hershel is not out to prove the Israelites were in Egypt, only that there is a space for them in history and no conclusive evidence against their being there.

Why? What is his motivation? One cannot overlook this question, for it, in my mind, is the most important with regards to assessing the quality of his arguments.

I might add that there are indications the Hyksos were Israelites. They mingled with the Egyptians in the 11th dynasty, and ruled by the 15th. At the end of the 17th, they were "expelled" (wikipedia). The name "Hyksos" means "ruler(s) of foreign countries," and Manetho, a 3rd century BC Egyptian, called them "Asiatic." This fits with the story of Joseph, who marked the change from original to Hebrew rulership. Generations later, the Egyptians saw how quickly the Hebrews were multiplying and made them slaves to keep the land pure. The 15th dynasty lasted from ~1650-1550 BC, which is about the time Joseph lived, according to Biblical analysis. This evidence is by no means conclusive, but it fits.

By golly gosh, it is them! The bible is true! Quick run, lock up your daughters, the Hebrews are comming!

No, it fits because you want it to! When looking into such matters, the best place to start, is the self. Look at some of the psychological pressures which cause your mind to perceive information in the way you do. Investigate cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, adaptational strategies, rationalization, etc, and investigate how these pressures effect perception. this is, I think, a good place to start.

Saying the Israelites were never in Egypt puts a whole new burden on the 6th century writers to research and basically hijack a couple Egyptian dynasties to make the Bible convincing.

Again, I agree with you re; definitive statement.