New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Buckeye]

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham

[bluebell]

After reading the OP title i was trying to figure out how a boa constrictor fit in with anything LDS.  

[David T]

Beat me to it! Some highlights of this major new essay:

 

 

 

Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.

 

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

 

The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.

 

There is also time given to the Missing Papyrus Theory, connections with Abraham stories of antiquity (which, they do acknowledge in a footnote that "Some of these extrabiblical elements were available to Joseph Smith through the books of Jasher and Josephus. Joseph Smith was aware of these books, but it is unknown whether he utilized them." - one thing they don't mention is that contemporary and popular 19th Century american Masonic lore had a lot to say about Abraham and Priesthood that has substantial and strong parallels with the Book of Abraham story - this has a been a topic of a growing number of recent Mormon Studies papers and recent books as of late).

 

I see this paper as a substantial move forward in expanding the acceptable/orthodox LDS view of "inspired translation", while still not throwing out to dry the traditional approach and its supporters! This is really big! Very pleased.

Edited July 8, 2014 by David T

[Buckeye]

After reading the OP title i was trying to figure out how a boa constrictor fit in with anything LDS.  

 

For some reason the system changed "BOA" to "Boa."  Doesn't the BOM refer to snakes devouring lamanite soldiers who wandered off?  They could be boas.  At least if you allow for the BOM to take place outside the 'heartland' model. 

[stemelbow]

I like it.

[David T]

That's right - while the new Seminary Church History manuals provided room for the Catalyst theory, I believe this is the very first official correlated Church publication to explicitly lay out the Catalyst theory as an acceptable option. Orthodoxy just got expanded. Catalyst theory can be officially taught as an option in Church courses with an authoritative source to back it up. This is awesome.

Edited July 8, 2014 by David T

[stemelbow]

That's right - while the new Seminary Church History manuals provided room for the Catalyst theory, I believe this is the very first official correlated Church publication to explicitly lay out the Catalyst theory as an acceptable option. Orthodoxy just got expanded. Catalyst theory can be officially taught as an option in Church courses with an authoritative source to back it up. This is awesome.

It is awesome. I am amazed by that which we don't know. It's nice to see the Church acknowledge issues, acknowledge the notion that alternative ideas present possibilities rather than demonstrate someone is unfaithful and not listening or something.

[Rob Osborn]

I think it is safe to assume that the book of Abraham is an authentic historical record translated by Joseph Smith. The Lords church has a strange way of testing peoples faith and blessing those who hold fast to the iron rod alone. Let us hold fast to the BoA as just another step of the rod of iron and press forward saints.

[Scott Lloyd]

It may not get much attention in the discussion, but a substantial part of the value of this new Gospel Topics entry, as I see it, is to reaffirm the scriptural authenticity and divinity of the Book of Abraham, regardless of what one believes to have been the means or method by which it was translated.

 

I was part of a discussion here on this board some years ago in which an ostensibly active and faithful Church member opined that the Genesis account in the Bible is paramount over the Book of Abraham. She gave as her rationale her uncertainty regarding how the Book of Abraham was translated.

 

That is a wrong-headed view, in my opinion.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

That's right - while the new Seminary Church History manuals provided room for the Catalyst theory, I believe this is the very first official correlated Church publication to explicitly lay out the Catalyst theory as an acceptable option. Orthodoxy just got expanded. Catalyst theory can be officially taught as an option in Church courses with an authoritative source to back it up. This is awesome.

 

You say that like it's a good thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

You say that like it's a good thing.

Good for the defenders, who can champion the divinity of the record without binding the Latter-day Saints to one theory or another about how it came forth.

 

Bad for the critics, who tie their attacks to an inflexibly held theory.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I think it is safe to assume that the book of Abraham is an authentic historical record translated by Joseph Smith. The Lords church has a strange way of testing peoples faith and blessing those who hold fast to the iron rod alone. Let us hold fast to the BoA as just another step of the rod of iron and press forward saints.

 

Why do you consider it a safe assumption that the BOA is historically accurate? Why should history ever be an assumption?

 

It sounds as if you're concerned that members will lose belief in the spiritual teachings of the BOA if they choose to view the scripture as something other than historical. So while the catalyst theory may help keep some members believing in the short-term, it may lead to greater disbelief in the long. Is that accurate?

 

If so, I kind of share your feeling. I work with the youth in my ward and in my exprience it's rather tough to say to them, "look, we don't know how or why the book came to Joseph, but it's really really important to follow it's teachings." The youth/young adults want to know why. They appreciate the church's honesty in saying "we don't know" in regards to, pick your issue - BOM translation, BOA translation, blacks/priesthood, women/priesthood - but in the long run that honesty doesn't keep them in the church. They want answers. They want a prophet who actually gives prophesy and can provide answers the world cannot. The more we say, "we don't know," the more they respond, "so why should we care?"

 

And that's the feeling I get from the BOA essay. I'm fairly ignorant of the BOA issues (at least for this board), so I can't parse whether the statement is blatently omitting some key information here, or is making a misrepresenation there. For me, reading through the statement, my overall impression was, "so why should I care about the BOA again?" I'm worried that I'm not alone and the trend is accelerating. If the BOA still "works" as scripture even if its not a real translation and not real history, does a catalyst BOM also work? What about a catalyst Christ? Maybe there never were nephites and never was a resurrection. It's just all stories to provide - in the words of the BOA essay - "important information" and "saving truths."

[Buckeye]

FWIW, I'm not so sure the approach of the BOA essay is anything new.  Consider the below "I Have A Question" entry in the July 1988 Ensign: 

 

Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?

03228_000_015

Michael D. Rhodes, researcher in ancient scriptures, Brigham Young University. The papyri in question are a part of the collection of Egyptian mummies and papyri that the Prophet Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in 1835. After the Prophet’s death, the papyri were lost to the Church. But in 1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Utah, discovered some twenty-two separate papyri fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which were clearly part of Joseph Smith’s original collection. The papyri were acquired by the Church, and they are now located at Brigham Young University.

 

Perhaps the most famous of these papyri fragments is the one depicted in the book of Abraham as facsimile number one [Facsimile 1]. It is said to represent Abraham being sacrificed on an altar by the priest of Elkenah. This picture can be connected with several of the other papyri fragments that relate to the text of an ancient Egyptian religious document known as the “Book of Sensen” or “Book of Breathings.” Abraham refers to a picture in the text of the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), and this picture is presumed to be the one we call facsimile one; therefore, some people have concluded that this Book of Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of Abraham.

 

However, there are some serious problems associated with this assumption. First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60—much too late for Abraham to have written it. Of course, it could be a copy—or a copy of a copy—of the original written by Abraham. However, a second problem arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same. Enemies of the Church have noted this and, without considering any other facts, have assumed that this proves the Prophet’s translation to be a hoax.

 

Actually, there are two possible explanations why the text of the recently discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl of Great Price.

One explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. In other words, we don’t have all the papyri Joseph Smith had—and what we do have is obviously not the text of the book of Abraham. The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith’s day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri. In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile two [Facsimile 2] in the book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted in it.

Although the picture found as facsimile one in the book of Abraham stands at the beginning of the Book of Breathings, this does not necessarily mean that it belongs to the text. The Egyptians often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them. J. C. Goyon, in his study of the Louvre papyrus number 3279 (a Book of Breathings text, incidentally), says that the vignettes of religious papyri often have only a very distant connection with the subject of the accompanying text. (Bibliotheque D‘Etude, Vol. XLII, “Le Papyrus du Louvre N. 3279,” Cairo, 1966, p. 2.) Edouard Naville, in his invaluable publication of the Theban version of the Book of the Dead, also notes that the vignettes of many Book of the Dead papyri have absolutely nothing to do with the text they accompany and are clearly not meant to illustrate that text. (Das Aegyptische Totenbuch der XVIII, bis XX, Dynastie, Einleitung, Berlin, 1886, p. 39.) Thus, the text that gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the same papyrus or even on another.

 

But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by—or attributed to—Abraham doing with a bunch of pagan religious texts some two thousand years after his time? This is really not as unlikely as it may seem. The Egyptians had a mania for things of the past. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Abraham’s ancient record could have been copied many times through the generations and treasured for its antiquity centuries later. Perhaps it was just such a multigeneration copy that finally ended up with the mummies and documents that came into Michael Chandler’s possession, a text that we do not now have.

 

A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word translation. While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language. Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process than using the tools of scholarly research.

Section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants provides us with a good example of that process. It is a revelation given to the Prophet through the Urim and Thummim of a translation of a “record made on parchment by John [the Revelator] and hidden up by himself.” (See section heading to D&C 7.) In other words, the document being translated wasn’t even in the Prophet’s possession; yet by means of the Urim and Thummim he was able to translate it.

 

His translation of the Bible, parts of which are in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, was also done without having the original text before him. Instead, while he was using the King James Version of the Bible, the correct meaning or content was revealed to him, including extensive revelations of both Enoch and Moses that are not found in the King James Version.

We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler. Instead of making a literal translation, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation. Even though a copy of Abraham’s record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little resemblance to the original, the Prophet—with the Urim and Thummim, or simply through revelation—could have obtained the translation—or, as Joseph Smith used the word, he could have received the meaning, or subject-matter content of the original text, as he did in his translation of the Bible. This explanation would mean that Joseph Smith received the text of our present book of Abraham the same way he received the translation of the parchment of John the Revelator—he did not even need the actual text in front of him.

In reality, the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced. But here the Prophet’s critics prefer to ignore the evidence of the text itself. The book of Abraham should be evaluated on the basis of what it claims to be: a record of Abraham. A wealth of material on Abraham has come to light since the Prophet’s text was published, and the book of Abraham compares astoundingly well with these documents. (Hugh Nibley has discussed in detail the correlations between the book of Abraham and the subsequently discovered texts on Abraham. See Abraham in Egypt, 1981, and The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An Egyptian Endowment, 1975, both published by Deseret Book Company.)

In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means. As with all aspects of the restored gospel, “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) I have studied the book of Abraham, and the truth of it has been made known to me in a way I can’t deny. I know that anyone who earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also receive this same witness and knowledge from God.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[Rivers]

These essays are just repeating stuff that apologists have been saying for years. It's good for the apologists to have the church backing their claims.

[Buckeye]

Maybe this is an odd question, but why is Joseph's Egyptian "grammer" not also used as scripture by the church?  The essay says the grammer was translated by Joseph at the same time as the papyrii (see below).  So regardless of whether the grammer is an accurate translation, if Joseph made the grammer by the spirit it stands to reason that God wants us to learn important truths from it just as He does with the BOA. 

 

 

 

Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”²⁰ This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations.²¹

[wenglund]

Maybe this is an odd question, but why is Joseph's Egyptian "grammer" not also used as scripture by the church?  The essay says the grammer was translated by Joseph at the same time as the papyrii (see below).  So regardless of whether the grammer is an accurate translation, if Joseph made the grammer by the spirit it stands to reason that God wants us to learn important truths from it just as He does with the BOA. 

 

The question is still very open whether or not the Egyotian Alphabets and Grammar (EAG) were primarily a product of Joseph Smith, if not also whether the so-called translation of the 40 something characters was divine or not, or a product of educated guessing, or otherwise.

 

Besides, their is strong evidence that the text associated the various characters for the EAG was derived from existing scriptures.

 

Furthermore, there is no practical use to which the EAG may be employed in fulfilling the mission of the Church.

 

So, there would be no point in putting EAG up for a vote as scripture.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

FWIW, I'm not so sure the approach of the BOA essay is anything new.  Consider the below "I Have A Question" entry in the July 1988 Ensign: 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

This is hardly surprising.

 

What the Gospel Topics entries tend to do, in large measure, is to assemble -- or codify, if you will -- existing scholarship and thought with regard to the topics addressed. The value is in having this material compiled together under one cover -- and with the Church's imprimatur.

[cinepro]

Good for the defenders, who can champion the divinity of the record without binding the Latter-day Saints to one theory or another about how it came forth.

 

Bad for the critics, who tie their attacks to an inflexibly held theory.

 

Being open to alternate theories doesn't make it more likely to be "true".  In fact, I think someone could make a good argument for the opposite.

 

God is a god of knowledge, and knowledge is a fruit of the spirit.  "We don't know" might be the best answer available to apologists (and apparently the Church), and an improvement over promoting what appears to be a wrong answer, but that doesn't mean it's the best answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

Being open to alternate theories doesn't make it more likely to be "true".  In fact, I think someone could make a good argument for the opposite.

 

What it does do is keep the question open, thus thwarting the critic's intent to slam it shut.

 

God is a god of knowledge, and knowledge is a fruit of the spirit.  "We don't know" might be the best answer available to apologists (and apparently the Church), and an improvement over promoting what appears to be a wrong answer, but that doesn't mean it's the best answer.

 

While "we don't know" may or may not be the best response, that position is not hampered in any way -- and may even be strengthened -- by a suggestion or two of plausible theories. Again, it keeps the question open.

 

I'll reiterate here what I've said on prior occasions: Of the defender and the antagonist, the defender has the easier job. The defender does not set out to prove a proposition, but merely to keep an open environment where a sincere seeker may investigate and seek a spiritual witness for him/self or herself. The antagonist, on the other hand, has set the task for himself to prove Mormonism false, something no one yet has been able to definitively accomplish.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

I'll reiterate here what I've said on prior occasions: Of the defender and the antagonist, the defender has the easier job. The defender does not set out to prove a proposition, but merely to keep an open environment where a sincere seeker may investigate and seek a spiritual witness for him/self or herself. The antagonist, on the other hand, has set the task for himself to prove Mormonism false, something no one yet has been able to definitively accomplish.

 

You have it flipped.

 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.  

 

If one claims that crystal heals cancer... the burden is not the people that don't believe in healing crystals to go out and fund research and provide evidence that crystals don't heal... the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence that it does.  The "antagonist"  or critic is simply is pointing out flaws in the arguments and evidences put forth by the crystals-believers.  But the non-crystal-believers don't have the task in front of them to prove healing crystals false.

 

In your scenario, the "defender" is actually the one making the claim (God exists, Joseph Smith is a prophet, BoA, etc), and thus they are the ones with the task in front of them to provide evidence.

 

You can say that spiritual witnesses is your evidence, and I'm not arguing that... but the burden is not on the critic.

[Mystery Meat]

Why do you consider it a safe assumption that the BOA is historically accurate? Why should history ever be an assumption?

 

Buckeye, I think you are reading something into the entry that wasn't there. In fact, I think the opposite of what you are suggesting is implicitly stated (if not out right made explicit from start to finish). Even if the text does not match the BOA as we have it today, the Lord could have provided the text to Jospeh Smith via revelation (as you read in the entry). However, this does not mean the revelation is not based on accurate history. I think the Church is saying that the BOA is accurate history. The Lord would not need the text to match the BOA to give an accurate history to Jospeh Smith.

 

He is omniscient afterall. In otherwords, I am arguing (and I think the Church is arguing it too) that no matter the process of the translation (exact match from the text or a mediation/revelation inspired by the text) the BOA is historically accurate. In that regards I agree with Rob. I do not get his handwringing and thinking this is a trial for members. It is not. Like others have said, this is a very logical not to mention faith based explanation that many (including myself...#humblebrag) have been suggesting for years.

 

As far as people not liking the answer I don't know...in the Gospel they better get used to it. There are a lot more "We don't know" answers then there are "we know" answers. That is why we have: FAITH. Faith is uncomfortable at times, and if they (or anybody else) don't like it, they are probably not cut out for Celestial Glory. It's a sad fact, but thats not the Lord's, his prophets, or anyone else's fault but their own.

[mormonnewb]

You have it flipped.

 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.  

 

If one claims that crystal heals cancer... the burden is not the people that don't believe in healing crystals to go out and fund research and provide evidence that crystals don't heal... the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence that it does.  The "antagonist"  or critic is simply is pointing out flaws in the arguments and evidences put forth by the crystals-believers.  But the non-crystal-believers don't have the task in front of them to prove healing crystals false.

 

In your scenario, the "defender" is actually the one making the claim (God exists, Joseph Smith is a prophet, BoA, etc), and thus they are the ones with the task in front of them to provide evidence.

 

You can say that spiritual witnesses is your evidence, and I'm not arguing that... but the burden is not on the critic.

 

In any other area, I would agree with you, Brian.  The person making the extraordinary claim normally has the burden of proof, but possibly not in the religious context.  Given that NO religion can fully support its claims, it often come down to a gut feeling (testimony) and the plausibility of the truth claim.  So long as the claim isn't demonstrably false or patently ridiculous, the believer can hold on to their faith.  In fact, I joined this Church with full knowledge of some of the "difficulties" with our truth claims, but was in the end able to say, "Well, it's POSSIBLE that JS didn't make it all up and the saints seem to embody what Christ told us His Church should look like.  I can swing with that."

 

However, I'm not so sure that this would work with my kids because I think they might have a different expectation of whether or not truth is knowable.  Growing up as a kid, there was so much that we simply didn't know and we just dealt with not knowing.  And I'm not referring to weighty matters.  If I was talking to a friend and we couldn't remember the name of the actor who played Paulie in the Rocky movies, then we would simply move on.  What else could we do?  Take a trip to the library?  Would we even find the answer there?

 

However, with my kids, this would be unacceptable.  They would immediately hop onto IMDB and not only get his name, but every film or movie in which he ever appeared.  Having immediate access to the store of human knowledge at all times might change their perspective about how much certainty they should expect from a religious belief.  I think we're seeing this to some extent with the young people who are leaving the Church today.  They tend to follow the rabbit hole much deeper than their parents do.  As a result, if they hear someone talk about seer stones or the Egyptian papyri, they are more prone to investigate the matter.  Why not?  It takes just a few clicks of a mouse.  However, if it required a trip to BYU or even just to the local library, they'd be less likely to make the effort, but rather shrug and say, "Who knows?  And what does it matter anyway?"

 

But the next generation might not be so blasé about not knowing.  After all, they know everything else (or at least, think they do).

[Hamba Tuhan]

What it does do is keep the question open, thus thwarting the critic's intent to slam it shut.

 

And keeping the question open provides people with the opportunity to exercise genuine agency and choose according to their desires, compelled neither to accept nor to reject:

 

What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions which can allow us to reveal fully who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is and knowing that a thing is not. This is the realm where faith operates; and when faith is a freely chosen gesture, it expresses something essential about the self. --Terryl Givens

Edited July 8, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

You have it flipped.

 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.  

 

If one claims that crystal heals cancer... the burden is not the people that don't believe in healing crystals to go out and fund research and provide evidence that crystals don't heal... the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence that it does.  The "antagonist"  or critic is simply is pointing out flaws in the arguments and evidences put forth by the crystals-believers.  But the non-crystal-believers don't have the task in front of them to prove healing crystals false.

 

In your scenario, the "defender" is actually the one making the claim (God exists, Joseph Smith is a prophet, BoA, etc), and thus they are the ones with the task in front of them to provide evidence.

 

You can say that spiritual witnesses is your evidence, and I'm not arguing that... but the burden is not on the critic.

The burden of proof is on the attacker, in this case, the critic.

 

Mormons and Mormonism don't purport to be able to prove anything, not in the conventional, academic sense of that word. All they endeavor to do is invite a seeker to go to God in prayer and ask for a spiritual witness from Him. Defenders of Mormonism may put forth evidence, but only with the intent of keeping the question open so that a truth seeker may with some measure of confidence take the question to God.

 

The task of the critic, on the other hand, is to shut the door completely on any possibility that the truth seeker will obtain that witness. The critic is therefore the one who, in your words, is "making the claim," i.e. that Mormonism is false and thus there is no reason for anyone to make the effort to pray about it. As the one making that claim and attack, the critic is thus the one who bears the burden of proof.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

I am curious about this line in the essay.

 

 

But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be, cannot prove the truthfulness of the book of Abraham any more than archaeological evidence can prove the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. . .

 

Why wouldn't it be possible to prove the exodus through archaeological evidence? Or did it mean to say that at this time it is not possible to prove the exodus happened due to a lack of archaeological evidence? In any case it is a strange example to use, because obviously if physical evidence of the exodus was discovered (or exists?) it would be possible to prove it happened.

Edited July 8, 2014 by CA Steve