There must be a better argument that Exodus is not accurate than to admit that certain details are actually plausible or fit what we know about Egypt from other sources. He does note that Hoffmeirer leaves out details that argue against claims of authenticity, but does not actually give any examples. Claims of Biblical inerrancy are certainly problematic, but just as it is true that the accuracy of some details does not make the story true, presumably minor errors in some details would not necessarily make it totally false. I think the biggest argument against Exodus is the total lack of archeological evidence of a large number of people spending 40 years in the desert.
I think the biggest argument against Exodus is the total lack of archeological evidence of a large number of people spending 40 years in the desert.
While this is certainly true it is very interesting that there are also textual reasons to be skeptical of the historical Exodus. Some of the Hebrew Bible writers don’t seem to know about it when they refer to the origins of Israel, and there are alternative traditions embedded in the text! For some discussions of the issues go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert