MemberJanuary 17, 2021 at 12:59 am
Frederick, I would like to be directed to where Aqaba-crossing proponents have made serious efforts to reconcile all the itinerary data (i.e. all the geographical data, both biblical and extra-biblical). What success have they had? How has their Mount Sinai identity improved the clarity of the wilderness narrative?
ISTM, and I may be forgetful here, that much is made of favorable features of the various mountain candidates, and the few exodus stations are reidentified between Egypt and the preferred crossing sites, but then it all stops there. The wilderness itinerary in large part remains unresolved beyond the first stage (Goshen-to-Sinai).
And what has been achieved? Let’s keep in touch with what is at stake here. We are not interested in these questions just for the fun of controversy, of being ‘right’ over some biblical mystery, or of being fans of this or that maverick archaeologist. IF YOUR MOUNT SINAI IDENTITY does not release considerably more new information from the biblical texts… if it does not resolve more intractable geographical puzzles of the biblical narratives of the exodus and wanderings era… then:
1. the biblical texts continue to appear inauthentic and historically unreliable and nothing has been gained
2. the biblical texts may still be authentic and historically reliable but we have the wrong mountain and nothing has been gained.