RE: Literal Bible

One consideration may be that the numbers represent not the amount at any
specific point, like a current day census, but rather a cumulative total
from the start out of Egypt until the entering into the land of Canaan. If
so then during this period there would be some additional births resulting
in a larger number.

Don P

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Debbie Mann
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 09:00
To: Asa
Subject: Literal Bible

Are you familiar with Alfred Edersheim? He was a Jewish scholar who
converted to Christianity who taught at Oxford 1884-1889.

In reading other works, the main issue scholars have with the Biblical
account of the Exodus is the numbers.

I have always been interested in other cultures, and in story telling, and
one thing that seems to be a common trait in story telling is embellishment.
However, the numbers in Exodus are reiterated several times.

This makes me think of the current political argument over Highway 69 in
Indiana. A politician was reading arguments 'pro' and asked in the marging
'How much time will this save (between Indianapolis and Evansville) 20
min.?'
He pulled 20 minutes from the air to illustrate that the pro argument was
deficient in not including this data. But the con team jumped on this and
began with a 'We don't need a highway that will only save 20 minutes'
campaign. It would actually probably save close to two hours. Just a modern
case of erroneous numbers being propagated.

I don't really see a similar case, here, since there was a census. I wonder
if a number for tens could have been translated 'hundreds' or something like
that. The Exodus itself was miraculous. As far as the sojourn in the
wilderness not leaving archeological remains - if the clothes weren't
wearing out, presumably everything was being preserved by God. However,
where did all the bones of all these people go? Would archeologists have
attributed a find of just bones as being evidence of the Exodus?

Edersheim provides explanations, based on knowledge of his time, for much of
the OT. His account states that Joseph would have entered the country
shortly (within two Pharoah's) of the rule of the Hyksos. The Hyksos were
Semitic people known as the Shepherd Kings. Edersheim believed that since
the Hebrews were of a similar race, they would have been unmolested during
this rule - perhaps even given preferential treatment. However, after the
expulsion of the Hyksos, they would have been subject to racial prejudice by
the new Pharoahs. He says the shepherd prejudice which continued on may have
had its origins here. Aahmes I employed 'bearer's of the shepherd's staff'
as his slaves.

Edersheim goes on to say that the Pharoah Thothmes II began a brilliant
reign and then disappeared from history. Was he drowned in the Red sea? (Or
whatever sea it really was?) His widow reigned after him according to this
book.

Does the Bible become literal? Is Genesis embellishment around pithy truths?
Does the embellishment fall off as we approach the time of Jesus?
Received on Fri Apr 7 07:46:28 2006