Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 08/08/2004 12:12, Walter R. Mattfeld wrote:

> ...
>
> As you may be aware, many proposals have been made for the siting of Mount
> Sinai (over a dozen), but to date, ALL have been rejected because NONE have
> the _required pottery debris_ evidence of the Late Bronze Age (1560-1200
> BCE) in which the Exodus is understood to have occured. ONLY HAR TIMNA
> (Arabic: Gebel Mene'iyeh) has the REQUIRED Late Bronze Age evidence of
> Amalekite, Midianite and Egyptian pottery- I have thus argued that this site
> is Mount Sinai. ...

But what if the Exodus took place late in the Middle Bronze Age, as 
postulated by David Rohl?

> ... However, it does not have the shattered stone tablets- that
> site is Serabit el Khadim in the southern Sinai, which was ALSO occupied in
> the Late Bronze and Ramesside period. ...

This is a ridiculous example of the argument from silence taken to an 
absurdity. According to the Exodus account, there were only two 
shattered stone tablets, small enough that one person could carry both. 
If their remains haven't been found at any proposed site for Sinai, that 
proves only that they haven't been found. And anyone who has been to the 
traditional site as I have will realise how easy it would be for such 
fragements to be lost forever in the rocky mountains or among the scree, 
alluvium and sand which fills the valleys - or for that matter 
underneath St Catherine's monastery or any other ancient site which has 
not been excavated. In fact such places could easily hide not only two 
broken stone tablets but also large amounts of broken pottery. The whole 
thing is an argument from silence.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/