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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #78]

I think we can dismiss the efforts at misrepresentation, accusations of bias (either way) and appeals to science getting it wrong.

The situation is that not even (as some skeptics might have said) 'Why should we believe the Bible?' matters. And it isn't a view I take. I credited the Exodus in some form (give or take legendary and miraculous elements) and it was only in a deep discussion on the previous board that I piled up some doubts. Since then it has appeared that others have had the same doubts.

The problem seems to be that Bible believers takes scraps of evidence and try to make it work as relics or records of what they believe on Faith anyway. Take the many, many relics from wall paintings of semitic sheep herders arriving in Egypt to what is hopefully called 'proto Hebrew' writing which is rather the tail wagging the dog as it is Canaanite for sure, and was adapted by Canaanites, from Phoenicians to Hebrews later on. To state the case, we know Canaanites were in Egypt. They ruled the Delta as the 15th dynasty and fought wars with the dynasties of upper Egypt until expelled. This accounts for all the semitic elements without the slightest indication that Hebrew as a tribal entity (never mind a group of tribes) were significant within Egypt. In fact the Canaanite rule - Hyksos episode rather dismisses the Exodus at that time.
I don't know whether the Joseph episode is being argued, but reference to storage facilities somehow proving the Bible is an awful stretch and is really only comprehensible as believing the Bible and finding 'illustrations' of what is in it. Like Joseph being sold for shekels and finding that the shekel was in use from the earliest times. It is not a problem for the story, but it is certainly not evidence for it.

So references to first sons dying is not evidence for the passover slaughter of the first born. It is evidence for first sons dying at times. The fact is that kings are sometimes succeeded by rulers with the same name and sometimes not, but whether this is because of a custom of not giving your son the same name or of a first son dying is not always known and I have seen no egyptologist saying there was a hard and fast rule.

The problem with the Exodus is not so much lack of evidence - I am aware that mass graves are the exception rather than the rule - or the lack of any real evidence of a enslaved tribal demographic in Egypt put to brick - making is 'negative evidence' (and the excuse that there was an efficient cover up is the ultimate misuse of negative evidence) but it is chronological and historical problems.

We can already rule out anything before the 18th dynasty because of the references to chariots. Egypt only had them after they back - engineered them from the ones used by the Hyksos. The records and remains show that Egypt governed the Sinai and Canaan from then on until the 9th c BC really. The Israelites could not have got away with it while Egypt ran the whole place.

I have said that the only time one could smuggle in the Exodus and conquest is the Amarna period and there might even be a first son dying to explain why Amenhotep III was succeeded y Amenhotep IV. One can even point to the sudden appearance of one god in Egypt, the sudden flurry of complaints by Canaanite vassals about the depredations of the 'Habiru' and even the bad conditions of the workers in making the brick - built new city of Akhetaten. Otherwise, it really is tough to wangle in an Exodus and conquest before - or after.

Because, even if we can argue for the temporary lapse of Egypt under Ankhenaten as related to the Exodus, we have problems afterwards. The later rulers were controlling Canaan up to the Bronze age collapse of 12th -11th c. BC. Which is really when the Iraelites first appear in the record, with the son of Ramesses II recording a campaign in Canaan that mentions Israel for the first time as a demographic group in Canaan.

And here I have to mention the point that no -one else seems to have picked up, but I trust they will. The Exodus diverted into Sinai to avoid the Philistines, but the Philistines weren't there until after the bronze age collapse. This anachronism totally rules out any Exodus before the time of Ramesses III and by then Merneptah says they were already in Canaan.

This anachronism to me is the strongest proof that attempts to link the Exodus with the Hyksos (1) the Tuthmosids or he Amarna period require too much denial and dismissal of the historical context to work.

Now, I have a question for the Manager - I have seen a few of these arguments before. How do you do your exegesis? Just lift a few arguments from an apologetics website without paying too much attention to the archaeological or historical context? Something like that? Quote the 'Ipuwyer papyrus' without caring much about what it actually says?

Let me have a look.... Ah. 'river of blood'. "Ipuwer and the Book of Exodus
Ipuwer has often been put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the biblical account of the Exodus, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away. This assertion has not gained acceptance among scholars. There are disparities between Ipuwer and the narrative in the Book of Exodus, such as that the papyrus describes the Asiatics as arriving in Egypt rather than leaving. The papyrus' statement that the "river is blood" phrase may refer to the red sediment colouring the Nile during disastrous floods, or simply be a poetic image of turmoil.[Wiki]"
There are no other 'plagues' or anything to do with Moses or the Exodus, and is considered to be more a copy of older writing referring to earlier unsettled times (first intermediate for instance), and I have already argued that the Exodus has to be later than this time, let alone Merneptah's reference to Israel already being in Canaan. In short, Bible apologist have jumped on 'River of blood' out of context as Pinging in their head as something in the Bible.
This is faithbased bias in action and will not work on any but those who don't know (but we'll tell 'em ) or who don't want to know.

(1) other than as garbled history (indeed as found in Josephus, who sees the 'Shepherd kings' as the Hebrews) used by the later OT writers to concoct an origin for the Hebrews. That this probably dates to the Exile is suggested by the use of Babylonian material in Genesis and Exodus. E.g Sargon of Akkad 'in the bullrushes'.

[The Nice Centurion]

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?

Yes, the Exodus of christians out of christianity and churches happens all the time !

[The Tanager]

Now, I have a question for the Manager - I have seen a few of these arguments before. How do you do your exegesis? Just lift a few arguments from an apologetics website without paying too much attention to the archaeological or historical context? Something like that? Quote the 'Ipuwyer papyrus' without caring much about what it actually says?

As I said in my post which you are responding to, I’m just beginning to look into this more in depth, so I was offering arguments from the other side without saying I agreed (or disagreed) with all of it. It was a starting point, not me making that case. You are following along with me as I start to test (with the help of others if they can) their arguments and the arguments from the other camp.

I think we can dismiss the efforts at misrepresentation, accusations of bias (either way) and appeals to science getting it wrong.

What efforts at misrepresentation are you talking about? By me? And are you saying I appealed to science getting it wrong?

The problem seems to be that Bible believers takes scraps of evidence and try to make it work as relics or records of what they believe on Faith anyway

That’s just a conclusion of someone who doesn’t think it works, not evidence for that conclusion. And no one is saying the wall paintings prove the Exodus, they make a cumulative case from all the evidence, with the wall paintings pointing to a Semitic presence that could include Hebrews and even make it easier for the Hebrews (since they were of similar racial stock to the Hyksos) to be accepted into the area. No one is saying the storage facilities prove the Exodus, just that it is one evidence among others (which would counter the “absence of evidence” claim that you seem to agree should be countered) that helps to date the Exodus story as presented in the Bible to an earlier period. No one is saying that references to first sons dying is evidence for the Passover slaughter, either.

As to the Philistines, the arguments I know of go that they are ethnically indistinguishable in archaeological work in Egypt from the Canaanites and have a possible ethnic identification with the Hyksos as well. That the Biblical Philistines involved a series of colonization by these sea peoples from the supposed time of Abraham to the coalition that pressed through the area toward Egypt until finally halted by Rameses III around 1176 BC. I’m not saying these arguments must be true and definitely not to “save my faith” or anything silly like that since I clearly stated that my faith doesn’t rest on the Exodus being true. But this does make me question your belief that this supposed anachronism (instead of just the way the authors referred to people that’s different from current historian’s categorizations) is a strong proof that calls the earlier date for the Exodus into question. If that’s the strongest point of your case, then it’s just not a strong case, even if your conclusion is true.

As to the Ipuwer text, here is a translation I found: https://web.archive.org/web/20190113210 ... ipuwer.htm.

I think it obviously describes Egypt in a time of chaos and uncertainty. It talks of a river of blood, fields being destroyed, lamentation throughout the land, pestilence, children of various classes dying, the kingship being overthrown, slaves taking gold and silver, that I can see. Dr. Kennedy mentioned the power of Ra not being seen and that this could refer to darkness, but I am not seeing that in the text myself; I’d have to get my hands on his book to see if he gives a reference. So, yes, these things could be speaking of Egypt during and (mostly) after a Biblical Exodus, but it could fit different periods as well. The dating of it could fit the earlier suggested time of the Exodus or a time earlier than that. To say it is definitely the Exodus time or not is faith based bias in action. Even the statement about Asiatics arriving rather than leaving, do we have evidence that no Asiatic peoples came into Egypt during the 15th and 14th centuries BC?

I see nothing that means it can’t be an earlier date for the Exodus, where there does seem to be evidence that would fit with the Exodus. This, of course, doesn’t prove the Exodus happened or that it happened exactly how the Bible records it, with or without the miraculous elements or that Christianity is true or that God exists. But the claim that I came here to talk about was the very strong claim that the Exodus did not take place and, therefore, it should change the Christian believer’s position in a powerful way. I don’t see good support for that claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now, I have a question for the Manager - I have seen a few of these arguments before. How do you do your exegesis? Just lift a few arguments from an apologetics website without paying too much attention to the archaeological or historical context? Something like that? Quote the 'Ipuwyer papyrus' without caring much about what it actually says?

As I said in my post which you are responding to, I’m just beginning to look into this more in depth, so I was offering arguments from the other side without saying I agreed (or disagreed) with all of it. It was a starting point, not me making that case. You are following along with me as I start to test (with the help of others if they can) their arguments and the arguments from the other camp.

I think we can dismiss the efforts at misrepresentation, accusations of bias (either way) and appeals to science getting it wrong.

What efforts at misrepresentation are you talking about? By me? And are you saying I appealed to science getting it wrong?

The problem seems to be that Bible believers takes scraps of evidence and try to make it work as relics or records of what they believe on Faith anyway

That’s just a conclusion of someone who doesn’t think it works, not evidence for that conclusion. And no one is saying the wall paintings prove the Exodus, they make a cumulative case from all the evidence, with the wall paintings pointing to a Semitic presence that could include Hebrews and even make it easier for the Hebrews (since they were of similar racial stock to the Hyksos) to be accepted into the area. No one is saying the storage facilities prove the Exodus, just that it is one evidence among others (which would counter the “absence of evidence” claim that you seem to agree should be countered) that helps to date the Exodus story as presented in the Bible to an earlier period. No one is saying that references to first sons dying is evidence for the Passover slaughter, either.

As to the Philistines, the arguments I know of go that they are ethnically indistinguishable in archaeological work in Egypt from the Canaanites and have a possible ethnic identification with the Hyksos as well. That the Biblical Philistines involved a series of colonization by these sea peoples from the supposed time of Abraham to the coalition that pressed through the area toward Egypt until finally halted by Rameses III around 1176 BC. I’m not saying these arguments must be true and definitely not to “save my faith” or anything silly like that since I clearly stated that my faith doesn’t rest on the Exodus being true. But this does make me question your belief that this supposed anachronism (instead of just the way the authors referred to people that’s different from current historian’s categorizations) is a strong proof that calls the earlier date for the Exodus into question. If that’s the strongest point of your case, then it’s just not a strong case, even if your conclusion is true.

As to the Ipuwer text, here is a translation I found: https://web.archive.org/web/20190113210 ... ipuwer.htm.

I think it obviously describes Egypt in a time of chaos and uncertainty. It talks of a river of blood, fields being destroyed, lamentation throughout the land, pestilence, children of various classes dying, the kingship being overthrown, slaves taking gold and silver, that I can see. Dr. Kennedy mentioned the power of Ra not being seen and that this could refer to darkness, but I am not seeing that in the text myself; I’d have to get my hands on his book to see if he gives a reference. So, yes, these things could be speaking of Egypt during and (mostly) after a Biblical Exodus, but it could fit different periods as well. The dating of it could fit the earlier suggested time of the Exodus or a time earlier than that. To say it is definitely the Exodus time or not is faith based bias in action. Even the statement about Asiatics arriving rather than leaving, do we have evidence that no Asiatic peoples came into Egypt during the 15th and 14th centuries BC?

I see nothing that means it can’t be an earlier date for the Exodus, where there does seem to be evidence that would fit with the Exodus. This, of course, doesn’t prove the Exodus happened or that it happened exactly how the Bible records it, with or without the miraculous elements or that Christianity is true or that God exists. But the claim that I came here to talk about was the very strong claim that the Exodus did not take place and, therefore, it should change the Christian believer’s position in a powerful way. I don’t see good support for that claim.

Whichever approach one has (and yours is pretty obvious) the 'cumulative evidence' apologetic is a false one. A truckload of no - evidence does not add up to a scrap of Evidence. The reference to chariots in Joseph in the Bible being pre - Hyksos is ruled out because Chariots, and a few other military innovations, were needed by Egypt before they could fight the Hyksos. The effort to smuggle a tribe of Hebrews in with the delta semites is something you wat to find to back up the Bible. Otherwise there would not be a scrap of a reason to think that a demographic of Hebrews were identifiable to be singled out for slavery before God spoke to Moses. It is anachronistic to see the Israelites in a state they became later on combined with an apparent ignorance of who they were singled out by the Egyptians for slavery, especially as the Egyptians did not even rule the Delta in about the 15th c BC. (Hyksos between c. 1638–1530 BCE.)

I'll skip over asiatics migrating in or out, you seem to be confused, but Canaanites are known as migrant workers in the Sinai mines (Sinai was controlled, governed and patrolled by Egypt)and sure there were Asiatics coming and going and eventually set up their own Rule. There is not a scrap of reason to see the Israelites of the Bible in any of that.What more you got. Pilistines> I suggest you learn more of them before you start telling me I am talking a weak case. The evidence - not positive proof - but evidence is that after Merneptah's carving said the Israelites were in Canaan, the sea people Acchiya, Teklet, Peleset and Shardana etc atcked egypt. Ramesses III defeated them and settled the Peleset in Gaza. While there seems conflicting report I have seen potterry of the Philistines in Helladic III (Early Greek) style, and I recall DNA from Philistine graves confirming Aegean origin. These Peleset on current evidence seem the Philistines and could not have been in Gaza until after the Israelites were already in Canaan.

Your rejection is dismissal of the current evidence, or just not knowing it, and you wouldn't be doing it if you were not arguing Bible - bias.

What more? You can Translate - shop the Ipuwer papyrus as much as you like, it is still nothing more than a record of upset in Egypt (there were three such intermediate periods) and you need to use the eye of Faith to find the Exodus in that.

'Looking into it' is all good, and I don't even mind a Biblical bias, which you clearly have, but I have to rebut claims of evidence which in fact it not more than 'vaguely sounds like' or 'possibly could be' or 'can't prove it isn't'. The evidence points to only the Amarna window of an exodus being feasible, never mind no mention of it or the Israelis, and the reference to chariots, the Philistines and Sinai limits the options, unless you follow the rocky path of denial of evidence that doesn't suit the Bible.

There is evidence of Babylonian material and I may post or link Josephus and the Hyksos, which makes for an identiication with the Exodus, even after I suspected the Bible writers might be using Babylonian historical records, because Josephus got that from somewhere other than the Bible.

There's also archaeology that suggests that the hebrews lived in the NE hills of Canaan and appeared in the plain after the devastation of the sea - peoples. It's just a small bit of evidence that doesn't fit coming up from Sinai.

[TRANSPONDER]

Jewish virtual library has this to say

"The horse and chariot made their appearance in Egypt during the rule of the Hyksos, but there is no evidence that they were introduced specifically by the Hyksos. Distinctively Hyksos is a new type of ceramic, called "Tell al-Yahudiyeh ceramics," named after a center of Hyksos population, now called Tell al-Yahudiyyeh, where this type was first discovered. The vessels which characterize this group of ceramics are small juglets and bowls, brown-gray in color, decorated with geometric designs, and made of punctures filled with white chalk. As might be expected, the Hyksos initially retained their Levantine religious traditions including the royal ancestor cult. Gradually, Egyptian elements were borrowed and synthesized, so that Baal types were identified with the Egyptian god Seth, brother and enemy of Horus, but in addition to him they also worshiped Canaanite gods, such as Resheph, Ashtoreth, and Anath. In Contra Apionem, Josephus, attempting to establish the great antiquity of the Jews, quotes the history of the Ptolemaic Egyptian writer Manetho, who describes a brutal, savage invasion of Egypt by a people from the east, their period of domination in Egypt, and their subsequent expulsion by the rulers of the 18th dynasty. Manetho called these Asiatic invaders "Hyksos" and interpreted their name as meaning "king-shepherds" (1:82), although Josephus claims Manetho also had an alternative interpretation, "captive shepherds" (1:83, 91). Josephus identified the Hyksos as the patriarchal Jews, equating their appearance in Egypt with the *Joseph story in Genesis and their subsequent expulsion with the biblical tale of *Exodus. He made this identification partially following Manetho who made the expelled Hyksos, together with a host of lepers, the founders of Jerusalem, and partially because the Hyksos were "shepherds" and "captives" and, indeed, "sheep-breeding was a hereditary custom of our remotest ancestors" (1:91) and "Joseph told the king of Egypt that he was a captive" (1:92). Following assumptions of Manetho and Josephus some scholars have attempted to set the Exodus within the chronological framework of the 18th Dynasty, but with little success. There is no warrant either in the Bible or outside it for simply equating the Hyksos with the later Hebrews, although it is not impossible that some of the latter may have been ultimately decended from some of the Hyksos. Of special significance is the fact that some of the Hyksos rulers bore names echoed in the Bible, e.g., Yaʿqb-hr; and that one of the kings of the period is named Shesha which is similar to the name Sheshai, one of the ruling families in Kiriath-Arba (Judg. 1:10)."

[The Tanager]

Your rejection is dismissal of the current evidence, or just not knowing it, and you wouldn't be doing it if you were not arguing Bible - bias.

I am not claiming any final conclusions. Much of the stuff you seem to think I’ve claimed, I haven’t. I simply offered some points that the other side brings up for people to look into and saying I'd be looking more into both sides. Your conclusions may be correct, but your summary posts here aren't enough to convince me. I will be looking into it further. Thank you for the thoughts you have shared.

[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?

Yes, the Exodus of christians out of christianity and churches happens all the time !

Yet another Christian <non-response> to the debate questions.

[The Nice Centurion]

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?

Yes, the Exodus of christians out of christianity and churches happens all the time !

Yet another Christian <non-response> to the debate questions.

So what the heck else did you expect, when placing questions in a christian forum ???

[TRANSPONDER]

Your rejection is dismissal of the current evidence, or just not knowing it, and you wouldn't be doing it if you were not arguing Bible - bias.

I am not claiming any final conclusions. Much of the stuff you seem to think I’ve claimed, I haven’t. I simply offered some points that the other side brings up for people to look into and saying I'd be looking more into both sides. Your conclusions may be correct, but your summary posts here aren't enough to convince me. I will be looking into it further. Thank you for the thoughts you have shared.

More than welcome. I'll be happy to discuss and dig further. I also do not claim it is all done and dusted especially in detail, but I reckon I was correct to point out that before dismissing the Philistines or indeed appearance of chariots as a useful 'no earlier than' mark, it is useful to be acquainted of what the current state of evidence is.

Your post :

the arguments I know of go that they are ethnically indistinguishable in archaeological work in Egypt from the Canaanites and have a possible ethnic identification with the Hyksos as well. That the Biblical Philistines involved a series of colonization by these sea peoples from the supposed time of Abraham to the coalition that pressed through the area toward Egypt until finally halted by Rameses III around 1176 BC. I’m not saying these arguments must be true and definitely not to “save my faith” or anything silly like that since I clearly stated that my faith doesn’t rest on the Exodus being true. But this does make me question your belief that this supposed anachronism (instead of just the way the authors referred to people that’s different from current historian’s categorizations) is a strong proof that calls the earlier date for the Exodus into question. If that’s the strongest point of your case, then it’s just not a strong case, even if your conclusion is true.

Now, you may have been misledby apologetics sites (I have asked whether you get your points from there) or you try to make a case based on some understanding (credit to you) of the sea peoples as being migration from the north as well as invasion by the sea. The Egyptian record is clear that the Peleset came by sea and were the ons settled in Gaza which they might already have occupied. But the mention of Israel in Canaan by Merneptah before the problems (See the panic in Ugarit as the ships first appear) makes it unfeasible for the Philistines to be in Gaza before the Israelis were in Canaan.

Most scholars agree that the Philistines were of Greek origin,[79][80] and that they came from Crete and the rest of the Aegean Islands or, more generally, from the area of modern-day Greece.[81] This view is based largely upon the fact that archaeologists, when digging up strata dated to the Philistine time-period in the coastal plains and in adjacent areas, have found similarities in material culture (figurines, pottery, fire-stands, etc.) between Aegean-Greek culture and that of Philistine culture, suggesting that they were originally one and the same people (Wiki)

I understand that "the arguments I know of go that they are ethnically indistinguishable in archaeological work in Egypt from the Canaanites and have a possible ethnic identification with the Hyksos as well." might be based on Bible apologetic misinformation, but a little more checking might have corrected this (1)

I have never denied that the suggestion that Exodus (and indeed Genesis) are Exile -period retrospective histories, not to say inventions, using Mesopotamian material, is quite hypothetical, though I have seen some others arguing the point. But the case of evidence for the exodus seems to rely (where not Bible - based bias) on trying to make Canaanites involved in Egypt look like the 12 tribes of Israel, frankly, who don't seem to know whether they are God's people or not. It is rather that the later hebrews look like them in some ways, but in other ways, not at all, like their setting up of an imitation Egyptian dynasty, worshipping 'Seth' - a sort of mythical doglike creature, and making war on southern Egypt. This is nothing like the enslaved Hebrews, and the expulsion hardly looks like 'Moses' though I still think tat 'Ahmose I' does, rather.

(1) I am apologetic if I came across too harsh. Your posts are always polite. And I could be wrong as i said I had seen both claims about the Philistines - that they were linked with the Aegean or that they were not. However I have seen no link of any kind to the Hyksos, or an unfeasible idea that the Hyksos in the Gaza area became the Philistines before the Ramessids (and in time for the exodus to avoid them as a known Philistine state). Rather like the Chariots - there is no evidence to place them before a certain time (12th -11th c BC), and every reason not to, and only replacing the state of evidence with Bible faith will justify doing so.

p.s a quick look suggests that DNA points to an Aegean origin in some parts. But the video though on Archaeology rather than apologetic is not too long.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

No worries. The points I initially got was through a quick google search and various sites. I never trust these sites simply because they are done by Christians (whether apologists or interviews with archaeologists or whatever), but I also am not going to distrust something because of that either. That goes for Christians or non-Christians. It was offered as a starter to look at some points out there that people usually bring out of academic scholarship, but I always then try to dig deeper and read the actual academic works to come to my own conclusions.