Interesting how the scholar quoted on the show is a co-author of the book. You know, bold new theories about some historical event or other are a dime a dozen. I’m sure that the book is a good read and all that, but I was looking for whether the general opinion of modern archeology backs up your assertion that the Isrealites were never in Egypt. (I don’t want to get this thread tossed out of GQ either; maybe I should just let the issue drop.)
As for the show, honestly I didn’t see it, but from what has been said in this thread, it sounds like it was total crap. As was mentioned before, they don’t know that Ramses II was the pharoh of the Exodus; he’s just the most famous pharoh from that general time period. If I was looking to corroborate the Exodus, I’d look at those tombs where the corpse is missing, on the theory that the Pharoh probably never got a proper burial in the first place.
I’m trying to keep this in the GQ realm by keeping it as factual as possible. Because this is a GQ issue, really - whether the archaeological record supports the exodus (even if it does threaten to break out into a gd and definitely is a hijack)
I stand by the book as a good place to start. Finkelstein is one of the top scholars in the field. And he’s a popularizer so that’s why you’ll see him all over the place any time the topic of the archaeology of the old testament comes up. Yes, I know how it’s marketed as a “bold new theory” but that’s really referring to his take on the kingdoms of David and Saul. From what I can tell the part about the (lack of) evidence of the Exodus is not the controversial part (from an archaeological perspective).
Only scholarly article I could find online discussing the subject is here. It too mentions Finkelstein all over the place. I suspect that’s unavoidable. You probably won’t find a scholarly article that doesn’t reference him. Another top archaeological scholar in the field is William Dever who disagrees on the later periods but agrees with him on the issue of the Exodus.