The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[POI]

Christians, is it really this easy to call 'checkmate'? I'm moving the debate questions back to the top here:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence for an Exodus? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians, is it really this easy to call 'checkmate'? I'm moving the debate questions back to the top here:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence for an Exodus? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

There is a lot of material proffered to underpin the Exodus. Of course the Jesusquotes don't help as much as Believers think they do as it just makes us think that Jesus was just a man who believed myths that were not true, or they are words put into Jesus' mouth by writers who believed them.

So we might start with the Ron Wyatt Moses site. This attaches claims of trail tracks and wells in Sinai, but these are dubious. There is the supposed Land bridge across the Eastern branch of the Red sea, but I haven't seen that verified, nor is it clear that Moses is supposed to have left Sinai and got into present Arabia.

There is the rather famous Bull carving on the 'calf altar', but this is cropped just to show that carving. There is a pile of boulders with a lot of carvings on, and this is deception, it has to be said. The split rock with the supposed water flow is surely caused by wind blowing through the split and making the 'flow' in the sand or dust. It would hardly survive for 3,000 years. The chariot wheels in the sea (1) need to be examined, but I guess are coral formations all through. The Solomon's pillars are one blank pillar on the Western side and the one on the Arabian side is supposed to have been removed for some reason. The translated text is written by Wyatt - no photo, (nor copy of the hebrew text I recall) and the excuse that every letter was eroded from the other column is a tall tale to swallow. The boundaries of the Moses camp are scattered scree - they could not even agree whether it was a straight line or semicircular. And never mind the smoke blackened peak.

There was talk of Jewish graffiti on Sinai rocks but this was overzealous reporting by an old explorer.

The 'Tempest scroll' or it may be a stele or both was (I recall) a text by Ahmose I saying how the Hyksos caused damage and defilement before he threw them out. This was not Biblical plagues. There was a discussion pointing to Semitic elements before and during the Hyksos period. While some Hebrew slaves or indeed traders, might have been amongst the Hyksos, they were not an enslaved nation with an identifiable ans enslavable) identity (forget 'tribes' as supposed to be on a Hyksos cylinder - seal) and the various semitic elements (names, script, architecture, are rather Canaanite elements borrowed by Hebrews, rather than making the Hyksos even substantially Hebrew. I have already said that a skilled and supported workforce rather than driven slaves was used for public works. (aside paintings of Nubian and Lybian prisoners put to brickmaking)

There are various attempts to find Joseph in Pharaoh's service, but not impossible is not the same as evidence for The Exodus itself has to be post Hyksos (New Kingdom) as chariots were only used by the Hyksos until Egypt copied them. It is true that Egypt did oversee Sinai and Canaan and the Israelites could not escape Egypt, but, donning my Theist hat, I could make a case for the Exodus before the time of Akhenaten (even arguing his monotheism had something to do with Moses showing God's power (2) and during his rule, Egypt lost control over Canaan with vassals writing about being attacked by 'Habiru'. True, these 'scruffs' seemed to be all over Syria and were more general bandits taking advantage of the lapse in Egypt keeping order in Canaan.

But after Tutankhamen, Horemheb and the Rammesids regained control, and there is no sign of Hebrew conquest, and even the Merneptah stele only says the Israelites were there in Canaan. Clearly they hadn't conquered anything and wouldn't until after Ramesses III - V and the collapse of the Bronze age and the Canaanite states, and the settlement of the Hellenic peleset (Philistines) in Gaza, and as I seem to be the only one to note, the Bible places the Exodus after the appearance of the Philistines, when Merneptah says they were already in Canaan.

Of course there is evidence that the account was written long after the time (various) assigned to Moses, but there is no Checkmate, atheists, rather, no evidence that supports the Exodus, but rather makes it doubtful.

Bible apologists are adroit in making the story fit the facts, or adapting the fact to fit the story, like the 'Tempest' scroll which is hardly Biblical plagues. But the believer will find it fits ok and the unbeliever will find it is awkward. I think chronology with the appearance of the (necessary to the story) chariot in the New Kingdom as the oldest date for Exodus, though Joseph might be earlier with a Hyksos statue of a god or ruler with more than one color on the robe of course means it's Joseph works if you already believe it but could just be a Canaanite ruler's coat, Hebrew or not. I still think that anachronism of Philistines is a significant Problem for the Exodus.

(1) the collections of metal wheels we sometimes see don't even Look like chariot - wheels)

(2) with Nefertiti finding Moses in the Bulrushes and queen Tiye (played by a strong influential Nubian) making a play for Joseph. Make a great film.

[TRANSPONDER]

While looking up the Tempest stele (in pieces) of Ahmose I, who ejected the Hyksos and founded the New Kingdom 18th dynasty, I came across the only mention I have seen (outside mine) of the possibility that Ahmose is the Biblical Moses.

If this was a description of the same events, however, it might initially seem that Ahmose I would then have to be a pseudonym Moses! It is highly unlikely that Ahmose I is being confused with Moses, although the name is undeniably similar Ahmose I was not Hyksos and he did not flee Egypt as far as we are aware, thus it is unlikely that Ahmose I would have required a mobile temple as the fleeing Hyksos would have done. As a possible explanation of the similarity between the texts, this version has too many problems attached to it and a more plausible explanation is required. (an Egypt tour site - not Biblical archaeology as such, but with a Biblical inclination, here).

The acceptance of a sort of Mobile Temple carted around during the Exodus strikes me as anachronistic, frankly. And I don't have the slightest supposition that Ahmose I was anything like the Biblical Moses. No. If one was taken from the other it was (I have a hypothetical suggestion) a record that the Hebrews came across (Probably in Babylon during the exile) when they were looking for material to base their Creation story on, notably borrowing the Mesopotamian flood - story. If they had a record of Ahmose ejecting the Canaanite Hyksos, could that idea and name have been borrowed for a story intended to show the origin of the Hebrews from anywhere but a common origin with Canaan? (I propose that the Hebrew religion and ethos is based on a tribal need to keep a separate identity, which is still the case today)

But why the roaming around Sinai? The Hyksos were pushed back to Gaza and no messing. I might suggest that the history the Hebrew scribes had showed their conquest fighting the states in the east to begin with and the Philistines later on. That might explain why they used the Philistines as a reason Moses did not go up the coast and attack Canaan from the West. He avoided the land of the Philistines and eventually they conquered from the West. The scribes had no knowledge that the later Exodus dating would put it before the Philistines were even there.

So nobody is suggesting that Pharaoh Ahmose led the Hebrew-Hyksos into Canaan and taught them about the God they had apparently forgotten. No, it is just the name and the loose tale of Canaanite dwellers being sent back there. I hope a few experts ponder the idea.

[TRANSPONDER]

A couple of things.

First there is no 'Tempest papyrus'. but a broken stele of Ahmose. The bit about a tempest reads as follows:

"[. . . Now then,] this great god desired [. . .] His Majesty [. . .] while the gods complained of their discontent. [Then] the gods [caused] that the sky come in a tempest of r[ain], with [dark]ness in the condition of the West, and the sky being in storm without [cessation, louder than] the cries [lit., “voices”] of the masses, more powerful [than . . .], [while the rain howled] on the mountains louder than the sound of the underground source of the Nile that is in Elephantine.

Then every house, every quarter that they (scil. the storm and rain) reached [. . . their corpses(?)] floating on the water like skiffs of papyrus outside the palace audience chamber for a period of [. . .] days [. . .] while no torch could be lit in the Two Lands.

Then His Majesty said: ‘How much greater this is than the wrath of the great god, [than] the plans of the gods!’ His Majesty then descended to his boat, with his council following him, while the crowds [on] the East and West had hidden faces, having no clothing on them after the manifestation of the wrath of the god. His Majesty then reached the interior of Thebes, with gold confronting gold of this cult image, so that he received what he desired.

Then His Majesty began to reestablish the Two Lands, to give guidance (or “a conduit”) for the flooded territories. He did not f [ail] in providing them with silver, with gold, with copper, with oil and cloth comprising every bolt that could be desired. His Majesty then made himself comfortable (= seated himself) within the palace (life! prosperity! health!)."

Undoubtedly a tempest and flooding in the land. But there is just that one storm and such things happen. There are no other plagues and no real sign that this relates to the Exodus story.

The other thing is a talk I followed on whether the Joseph story could be historical. The talk hints at a timeline of Joseph being in Egypt as an official under Pharaoh before inviting his family to come to Egypt where it looks like they started the Hyksos occupation of the Delta.

The talk noted that camels seems to be anachronistic. They were not introduced until later.(I did check shekels, and they had been in use long before those times). But he didn't mention the account of Pharaoh and Joseph parading in their chariots. The Egyptians didn't use chariots until the wars with the Hyksos obliged them to update their war equipment.

The point was made that the tale of Joseph knows Egyptian customs like shaving before being presented to Pharaoh and even Egyptian names, like Potiphar and Joseph's Egyptian wife Asenath (1). So very well, the writer had to know Egyptians customs, but that only means the writer knew Egyptian customs or had access to writings that did. The Tale of Sinuhe has the hero shaved and combed when presented to Pharaoh.

So I already got two hints that this story of Joseph is written with anachronisms, meaning it is a late story, not a reliable record, even with some knowledge of Egypt and its' customs.

(1) I am more doubtful about Potiphar's wife, Zuleika. That doesn't sound Egyptian. Ah, I see she is not named in the OT. That name was made up later.

[The Nice Centurion]

The other thing is a talk I followed on whether the Joseph story could be historical. The talk hints at a timeline of Joseph being in Egypt as an official under Pharaoh before inviting his family to come to Egypt where it looks like they started the Hyksos occupation of the Delta.

The talk noted that camels seems to be anachronistic. They were not introduced until later.(I did check shekels, and they had been in use long before those times). But he didn't mention the account of Pharaoh and Joseph parading in their chariots. The Egyptians didn't use chariots until the wars with the Hyksos obliged them to update their war equipment.

The point was made that the tale of Joseph knows Egyptian customs like shaving before being presented to Pharaoh and even Egyptian names, like Potiphar and Joseph's Egyptian wife Asenath (1). So very well, the writer had to know Egyptians customs, but that only means the writer knew Egyptian customs or had access to writings that did. The Tale of Sinuhe has the hero shaved and combed when presented to Pharaoh.

So I already got two hints that this story of Joseph is written with anachronisms, meaning it is a late story, not a reliable record, even with some knowledge of Egypt and its' customs.

(1) I am more doubtful about Potiphar's wife, Zuleika. That doesn't sound Egyptian. Ah, I see she is not named in the OT. That name was made up later.

But the Joseph story HAS to be historical, for dost thou not know that the other great Joseph, Joseph Smith Found on the Same papirus from which He gave US THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM also the BOOK OF JOSEPH ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_JosephIt

is an unbearable loss for humanity that Joseph found Not the time to translate Joseph from unreformed egyptian, only Abraham.
But there is a translation by someone out there, to the disdain of Mormons.
Once IT was found by me on the web:

[TRANSPONDER]

The other thing is a talk I followed on whether the Joseph story could be historical. The talk hints at a timeline of Joseph being in Egypt as an official under Pharaoh before inviting his family to come to Egypt where it looks like they started the Hyksos occupation of the Delta.

The talk noted that camels seems to be anachronistic. They were not introduced until later.(I did check shekels, and they had been in use long before those times). But he didn't mention the account of Pharaoh and Joseph parading in their chariots. The Egyptians didn't use chariots until the wars with the Hyksos obliged them to update their war equipment.

The point was made that the tale of Joseph knows Egyptian customs like shaving before being presented to Pharaoh and even Egyptian names, like Potiphar and Joseph's Egyptian wife Asenath (1). So very well, the writer had to know Egyptians customs, but that only means the writer knew Egyptian customs or had access to writings that did. The Tale of Sinuhe has the hero shaved and combed when presented to Pharaoh.

So I already got two hints that this story of Joseph is written with anachronisms, meaning it is a late story, not a reliable record, even with some knowledge of Egypt and its' customs.

(1) I am more doubtful about Potiphar's wife, Zuleika. That doesn't sound Egyptian. Ah, I see she is not named in the OT. That name was made up later.

But the Joseph story HAS to be historical, for dost thou not know that the other great Joseph, Joseph Smith Found on the Same papirus from which He gave US THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM also the BOOK OF JOSEPH ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joseph

It is an unbearable loss for humanity that Joseph found Not the time to translate Joseph from unreformed egyptian, only Abraham.
But there is a translation by someone out there, to the disdain of Mormons.
Once IT was found by me on the web:

Nay, nay and thrice nay, I dust not knew that the prophet had the Book of Joseph in his hands but was Martyred before he could translate it as wunderfully as he translated a pretty common funerary text which are known to be about how to get through the various afterlife tests.

Thoth "What is your name?"

Soul "Hetupher of Mimpi."

Thoth, "What is your quest?"

Soul, "To get to the afterlife."

Thoth "What...is the capital of Assyria?"

Soul. "What do you mean? The first Assyrian empire or the second?"

"Thoth "What...I don't know that" Smashes the glass ceiling but from the wrong direction.

Anubis "Looks like we have a vacancy for a Thoth."

But Joseph Smith came up with something quite different and of course we must believe him.

[POI]

is an unbearable loss for humanity that Joseph found Not the time to translate Joseph from unreformed egyptian, only Abraham.
But there is a translation by someone out there, to the disdain of Mormons.
Once IT was found by me on the web:

Pardon my intrusion here. However, virtually no believers are engaging the actual intent of this thread/topic. I will post them again here:

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]
Only Persons Who are Experts in the language"Reformed Egyptian" are allowed to criticize The Prophet and his holy scriptures!

[POI]

The silence, from the Christian populous here, remains deafening. Do you folks have an answer here? I posited a video, via post 12, which ultimately states that if "The Exodus" story line happened, we would have all sorts of evidence(s) to support this claimed event. But we really don't?.?.?. The lack in evidence, is what suggests this story line did not happen. Aside from the Bible's say-so, there exists little else to grab on to...?

Christians, I again offer the debate questions:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]
Only Persons Who are Experts in the language"Reformed Egyptian" are allowed to criticize The Prophet and his holy scriptures!

There are no experts in Reformed Egyptian.

The silence, from the Christian populous here, remains deafening. Do you folks have an answer here? I posited a video, via post 12, which ultimately states that if "The Exodus" story line happened, we would have all sorts of evidence(s) to support this claimed event. But we really don't?.?.?. The lack in evidence, is what suggests this story line did not happen. Aside from the Bible's say-so, there exists little else to grab on to...?

Christians, I again offer the debate questions:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

The debate I had with Otseng pretty much looked at all that there is. There is nothing other than Canaanite and Hyksos stuff that can be presented as 'Hebrew', for example a style of architecture particular to the middle east, the 'proto Hebrew' characters and language and names that sound Hebrew, as some Hyksos rulers did. It is arguable whether this is Canaanite culture adopted by the Hebrews or evidence of Hebrews. The discussion about whether Hyksos contained a significant element of Hebrews or not became pretty lively, but it is - arguable. A Hyksos cylinder seal with various symbols such as a lion and a Bull had been interpreted as the tribes of Israel. Some symbols could be fitted to Hebrew tribes, others not.

The thing is that the story has the whole of the Hebrew population forming from Joseph's relatives, and where twelve tribes came from is anyone's guess as they would be a bunch of people in Egypt before and after the claimed slavery. Though they supposedly knew God, the worship and laws had hardly been established until the Law and Tabernacle was set up, so I find it hard to credit the 12 tribes in the Hyksos situation. The Hyksos worshipped Seth, not God.

The effort to slot an Exodus into Egyptian history (which is known even if the chronology is arguable) struggles to find a place, but must be after the wars between the 17th dynasty and the Hyksos because of Pharaoh having chariots, which Ahmose had to use because the Hyksos had them.
So we can try to make the Hyksos (1650 - 1550 BC) the Exodus but Egypt defeating them and expelling them is hardly like the Exodus, though of course Bible apologists can accuse the Egyptian record of lying about it. But it can't be denied that the Egyptians were frank about initially losing battles with the Hyksos who at one time ruled or at least conquered all Egypt. That hardly fits with enslaved Hebrews making bricks under the lash.

So if you want to find a place for the Exodus, Amenhotep III and Akhenaten would do (1353-1322 BC). Though there is no record of enslaved Hebrews let alone an Exodus, one could argue that Moses showing the power of God could explain why Akhenaten changed the religion to one god. And his disinterest in political matters might allow the Israelites to get away with conquering Canaan. And much might be made of the Canaaite rulers begging for help against the 'Habiru' which got no reply or help.

So there is not a lot of evidence For it, and that is Arguable, but in the right place - and it really doesn't look like the Hyksos, you can't find definite disproof.

What we do find however is that with Ramessids, Israel is there (Merneptah stele) (1275 -1203) but Canaan is not conquered, and the Egyptians after the battle of Kadesh pretty much rule Canaan. This does not really admit the Conquest in the previous dynasty. So really even the slender evidence for the Exodus and conquest looks pretty shaky, and the evidence is stronger - in the Bible and without - for the expansion of Israel after the Bronze age collapse 1200 - 1150 BC), which is neither the Exodus or conquest but land grabbing in rivalry with Edom and Moab.

As for Christians, I expect either denial, if it contradicts the Bible, it must be wrong. Or it can be shrugging it off as metaphor if not Myth and it is only the NT that matters.