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?

[otseng]

Though the 'exact' size cannot be confirmed, scholarship unanimously agrees the numbers of said Israelites would be in the millions.

Some points about this. This is the argument from authority fallacy. Just because someone believes something, including a scholar, does not necessarily make it true. Further, not all scholars agree on the number, so there is no "unanimous" agreement on it. Also, since I'm arguing from extra-Biblical sources, there's no evidence to point to any exact number, so I'm not claiming any particular number, but there is evidence to point to it being a significant number of people.

The question is what group of people were these? And whose story is the correct one? And how are we to decide who is correct?

All interesting questions, and yet, scholarship has reached the conclusion that the said Israelites, from the Bible's claim(s), weren't there.

Again, it's fallacious to appeal to authority. What is more important is the evidence and logical argumentation.

But you have yet to answer my interesting questions. We can continue, but I know this issue will come back up and so will have to eventually address this.

40 pages of what exactly? Again, please come forward with your best piece of evidence to support the claim that millions were enslaved in ancient Egypt for centuries?

40 pages of evidence that the Exodus took place. You asked in your OP, "Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?" And I provided the extra-Biblical evidence. So, pretty much end of the discussion and we can end the debate here since I've answered the OP.

Here's a significant piece of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt - the Hyksos.

Why is this significant? Also, why is it considered "evidence" to support the claim that millions of Israelite slaves inhabited ancient Egypt for centuries?

Because I believe the Hyksos were much, if not all, of the Hebrews in Egypt.

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine. Then we'll compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

How about you just give me yours.

I asked you first.

I've asked for evidence, for countless pages.

And I've provided it. But, I can go into the details of the Hyksos again here in this thread.

Further, scholars generally don't equate the Hyksos with the Israelites in the Exodus story due to conflicting timelines, the Hyksos' status as rulers -- not slaves, and also the lack of direct evidence linking them to the biblical narrative.

It goes back to deciding whose explanation is likely to be true, whether it be from scholars, from archaeologists, or from a lay person.

Let's just start with the first question - Who were the Hyksos?

[POI]

(EDIT) To move this discussion along, I have to ask: Do you agree that some topics are no longer legitimately debatable, even though there will still always be debate on them eternally anyways -- (for whatever reason(s)? Assuming you agree there exists some topics, which do not any longer render serious debate, I ask a follow up Q:

Is the Bible's claim for 'the Exodus' still a legitimate scholarly debatable topic? (yes or no). Assuming you select (yes), why?

Though the 'exact' size cannot be confirmed, scholarship unanimously agrees the numbers of said Israelites would be in the millions.

Some points about this. This is the argument from authority fallacy.

I'm aware of why this is what you believe me to be doing, but I'm not. Allow me to explain... I'm not appealing to a person or persons and their own opinion(s) -- and passing them off as 'fact'. Nor, am I simply stating that because a majority of scholarship agrees, therefore, it's correct. Instead, since I know I'm speaking to you (Otseng), and in an effort to cut to the chase, and to save time, I know you are already well-versed in this topic matter. To give you an example, if I was to argue with a well-versed 'flat-earther', rather than to address the points related to why we 'know' the earth is not a flat disk, I might instead use the same response, to save time. Meaning, I would use some of the same terms and similar responses. The flat-earther, if well-versed, would already know it is their burden of proof to produce a logical conclusion as to why the overwhelming conclusion, based upon known evidence, or in the case of the Exodus, the lack-there-of, renders a logical conclusion that supports their position. I hope this sheds a little more light? In THIS case, the lack of actual evidence to point to this claim is the compelling factor. This is why RBD is trying, really really really hard, to use the time-old Carl Sagan slogan -- "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". (S)he realizes we likely have no founded 'evidence' to support the claim. You somehow think we do, and I would like to know why?

I'll elaborate more below. But I'm trying to keep these responses a bit shorter, so peeps will actually follow along. In essence, your position, (that an actual Exodus took place), is about as fringe as the flat-earther's position. And yes, the flat-earther can also give 40 pages of evidence, but does anyone really take it seriously? Almost any/all 'conclusions' can still be debated, no matter what. This one included. But as I see it, it is not a debatable topic, and I raise it here to demonstrate that the claims for the veracity of the Bible are kaput. Which is why terms like 'open theology' or 'minimal facts Christians' were later invented -- to keep this collection of beliefs relevant in the face of later discovery to the contrary. Christian apologetics must do some very heavy lifting to make sense of all this mumbo-jumbo. I'll elaborate below.

Just because someone believes something, including a scholar, does not necessarily make it true. Further, not all scholars agree on the number, so there is no "unanimous" agreement on it. Also, since I'm arguing from extra-Biblical sources, there's no evidence to point to any exact number, so I'm not claiming any particular number, but there is evidence to point to it being a significant number of people.

I agree! But we must adhere to an educated acceptable range. And even if we select the lowest number, the believer still has major problems.

Again, it's fallacious to appeal to authority. What is more important is the evidence and logical argumentation.

Right, it would be fallacious. And yet, this is not what I'm doing here. Without going much further, the sheer number alone presents enough problems for the believer. Which is likely why you want to suggest that we cannot know the actual number. It's a theist's way to keep the absurd storyline relevant -- in the face of discovery to the contrary.

40 pages of evidence that the Exodus took place.

As expressed above, the flat-earther can also issue 40 pages as well. 3rd request. Please give me your best piece of 'evidence', and we can go from there. I'm not going to sift through 40 pages again, only to find nothing worth addressing on my own. But if you highlight one you feel stands out, I'd be interested to see what it is and why it points towards your conclusion?

You asked in your OP, "Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?" And I provided the extra-Biblical evidence. So, pretty much end of the discussion and we can end the debate here since I've answered the OP.

It depends on what we consider to be actual 'evidence' to support the claim? Most interlocutors here already know nothing really seems worthy to provide, which is why they have offered so many alternative responses, as I already expressed to you in a prior response.

Because I believe the Hyksos were much, if not all, of the Hebrews in Egypt.

I don't disagree. But it is likely not relevant to the Biblical account. The number alone presents problems, which is why you wish to point out that we can never know the actual number(s).

Who were the Hyksos?

Well, we are pretty sure they weren't the expressed Israelites, as told from the fictitious story from the Bible.

[Difflugia]

Further, not all scholars agree on the number, so there is no "unanimous" agreement on it. Also, since I'm arguing from extra-Biblical sources, there's no evidence to point to any exact number, so I'm not claiming any particular number, but there is evidence to point to it being a significant number of people.

What are you calling the Exodus, then? Let's quantify it so that we might know what data may or may not disconfirm your Exodus.

Richard Elliott Friedman begins chapter 2 of Exodus with these paragraphs:

The principal points that people generally bring up in doubting the exodus are mostly about numbers: We have found no remnant of the two million people in the Sinai region. We have found no widespread material culture of Egypt in early Israel: no Egyptian style pottery or architecture. We have found no records in Egypt of a huge mass of Israelite slaves or of a huge exodus.

True. But none of this is evidence about whether the exodus happened or not. It is evidence only of whether it was big or not. For heaven’s sake, did we need archaeological work to confirm that an exodus of two million people was, shall we say, problematic? It had already been calculated long ago that if the people were marching, say, eight across, then when the first ones got to Mount Sinai, half of the people were still in Egypt. And I think it was Bishop Colenso who calculated around 150 years ago the amount of, let us say delicately, residue that that many people would have deposited in the Sinai over a period of forty years, and he figured that the Sinai wilderness should be fertile! Did we really need archaeologists combing the Sinai and not finding anything to prove what we knew anyway? The absence of exodus and wilderness artifacts questions only whether there was a massive exodus.

Do you agree with Friedman that a small exodus would fit your claim? If you do, then you and POI might be discussing different things. What is "a significant number of people" that would distinguish it from "some people?"

[POI]

Further, not all scholars agree on the number, so there is no "unanimous" agreement on it. Also, since I'm arguing from extra-Biblical sources, there's no evidence to point to any exact number, so I'm not claiming any particular number, but there is evidence to point to it being a significant number of people.

What are you calling the Exodus, then? Let's quantify it so that we might know what data may or may not disconfirm your Exodus.

Richard Elliott Friedman begins chapter 2 of Exodus with these paragraphs:

The principal points that people generally bring up in doubting the exodus are mostly about numbers: We have found no remnant of the two million people in the Sinai region. We have found no widespread material culture of Egypt in early Israel: no Egyptian style pottery or architecture. We have found no records in Egypt of a huge mass of Israelite slaves or of a huge exodus.

True. But none of this is evidence about whether the exodus happened or not. It is evidence only of whether it was big or not. For heaven’s sake, did we need archaeological work to confirm that an exodus of two million people was, shall we say, problematic? It had already been calculated long ago that if the people were marching, say, eight across, then when the first ones got to Mount Sinai, half of the people were still in Egypt. And I think it was Bishop Colenso who calculated around 150 years ago the amount of, let us say delicately, residue that that many people would have deposited in the Sinai over a period of forty years, and he figured that the Sinai wilderness should be fertile! Did we really need archaeologists combing the Sinai and not finding anything to prove what we knew anyway? The absence of exodus and wilderness artifacts questions only whether there was a massive exodus.

Do you agree with Friedman that a small exodus would fit your claim? If you do, then you and POI might be discussing different things. What is "a significant number of people" that would distinguish it from "some people?"

I already know his only play here is to somehow shoehorn in the Hyksos. But even granting (much much) leniency, you are correct. Their existence is not compatible with 'the Exodus' storyline, in numerical values alone. Theists will try and wiggle out, by stating that the Bible does not technically express the exact number. But that never stops them with other topics, like in Genesis. Basic math alone dispels the story and renders it mythological -- which is completely damning for the believer, who necessitates for the veracity of this story. And this is before we explore the other problem(s).

[otseng]

(EDIT) To move this discussion along, I have to ask: Do you agree that some topics are no longer legitimately debatable, even though there will still always be debate on them eternally anyways -- (for whatever reason(s)? Assuming you agree there exists some topics, which do not any longer render serious debate, I ask a follow up Q:

I have no idea where you are going with this. Are you saying this topic is not legitimately debatable? Why did you even create this topic in the first place?

Is the Bible's claim for 'the Exodus' still a legitimate scholarly debatable topic? (yes or no). Assuming you select (yes), why?

Who says a topic needs to be a "scholarly debatable topic" to be debated here? The only requirement is arguments presented should be based on evidence and logic.

I'm not appealing to a person or persons and their own opinion(s) -- and passing them off as 'fact'.

Then on what basis can we decide if something could be true or not?

Instead, since I know I'm speaking to you (Otseng), and in an effort to cut to the chase, and to save time, I know you are already well-versed in this topic matter. To give you an example, if I was to argue with a well-versed 'flat-earther', rather than to address the points related to why we 'know' the earth is not a flat disk, I might instead use the same response, to save time.

A flat earth is not an equivalent topic so your analogy is irrelevant.

In essence, your position, (that an actual Exodus took place), is about as fringe as the flat-earther's position.

No, the position that the Exodus took place is the standard position of evangelical Christians. In my history as a Christian, I've never met any Christian who has believed it never took place. And I've never personally met anyone (Christian or not) who believes in a flat earth.

But we must adhere to an educated acceptable range. And even if we select the lowest number, the believer still has major problems.

As I've said, it could be on the order of hundreds of thousands.

Please give me your best piece of 'evidence', and we can go from there.

We're trying to debate that right now - the Hyksos.

It depends on what we consider to be actual 'evidence' to support the claim?

In this context, it would be archaeological and extra-Biblical textual evidence.

But it is likely not relevant to the Biblical account.

And on what basis do you make this conclusion? How can you reach this without having presented your answers to my questions and then comparing our explanations?

Who were the Hyksos?

Well, we are pretty sure they weren't the expressed Israelites, as told from the fictitious story from the Bible.

I'm asking a simple question. Saying, "well they sure ain't candidates for the Hebrews in Egypt" is not answering my question. Obviously the Hyksos existed in Egypt. So, they must have come from somewhere.

Do you agree with Friedman that a small exodus would fit your claim? If you do, then you and POI might be discussing different things. What is "a significant number of people" that would distinguish it from "some people?"

I guess I'll go ahead and jump ahead in my arguments. The Hyksos were large enough to rule Egypt, so it was definitely not a small number. I believe it could've been on the order of hundreds of thousands.

[POI]

I guess I'll go ahead and jump ahead in my arguments. The Hyksos were large enough to rule Egypt, so it was definitely not a small number. I believe it could've been on the order of hundreds of thousands.

Please give us the absolute largest number possible? And even if you opt for 999,999, you are still at least 1 million short of the absolute lowest calculated minimum number required -- to comply with the "the Exodus" storyline.

I'm asking a simple question. Saying, "well they sure ain't candidates for the Hebrews in Egypt" is not answering my question. Obviously the Hyksos existed in Egypt. So, they must have come from somewhere.

I'll say it again. I know who they weren't. They logically were not the expressed enslaved Israelites in ancient Egypt. Numbers are numbers. The Hyksos - (who were a far smaller group -- any way you slice it), inhabited the said space 100's of years prior to the claimed "Exodus" storyline. Trying to shoehorn in a completely separate smaller group, from a different time/era, ain't gonna cut the mustard. Sorry.

[otseng]

I guess I'll go ahead and jump ahead in my arguments. The Hyksos were large enough to rule Egypt, so it was definitely not a small number. I believe it could've been on the order of hundreds of thousands.

Please give us the absolute largest number possible? And even if you opt for 999,999, you are still at least 1 million short of the absolute lowest calculated minimum number required -- to comply with the "the Exodus" storyline.

No, there's no requirement to give the absolute largest number possible. This is just more goal shifting and avoidance of answering my questions.

First you ask in your OP for any evidence. Which I then provided links to the evidence. Then you modified it so that evidence needs to support millions of Israelites. Which I answered it could be on the order of hundreds of thousands. Now you're asking for the absolute largest number possible. It's not like if there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites, instead of millions, then it would disprove an Exodus occurred. Would hundreds of thousands be considered "small" and so invalidate the possibility of an Exodus?

But here's my answer for maximum number according to Numbers 11:21:

(LEB) But Moses said, “There are six hundred thousand on foot, among whom I am in the midst, and you yourself said, ‘I will give meat to them, and they will eat for a whole month.’
(NET) Moses said, “The people around me are 600,000 on foot; but you say, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month.’

So, I would say the maximum is 600,000.

I'm asking a simple question. Saying, "well they sure ain't candidates for the Hebrews in Egypt" is not answering my question. Obviously the Hyksos existed in Egypt. So, they must have come from somewhere.

I'll say it again. I know who they weren't. They logically were not the expressed enslaved Israelites in ancient Egypt.

Repeating yourself is not answering my question. Again, how do you know who they were not? We haven't even started to compare possible explanations of who they were.

The Hyksos - (who were a far smaller group -- any way you slice it), inhabited the said space 100's of years prior to the claimed "Exodus" storyline. Trying to shoehorn in a completely separate smaller group, from a different time/era, ain't gonna cut the mustard.

If you would have read my posts in the other thread, you'll find that actually the dates line up very well.

[POI]

No, there's no requirement to give the absolute largest number possible. This is just more goal shifting and avoidance of answering my questions.

It most certainly is not 'goal post shifting'. I will elaborate below.

First you ask in your OP for any evidence.

Which you have not provided any evidence for yet. The Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites from the story of 'the Exodus.' You are arguing for oranges while I'm asking for apples. I will elaborate below.

Which I then provided links to the evidence.

You provided evidence for oranges. But I'm asking for evidence for apples.

apples = 'the Exodus'
oranges = 'Hyksos'

Then you modified it so that evidence needs to support millions of Israelites. Which I answered it could be on the order of hundreds of thousands. Now you're asking for the absolute largest number possible. It's not like if there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites, instead of millions, then it would disprove an Exodus occurred. Would hundreds of thousands be considered "small" and so invalidate the possibility of an Exodus?

Common knowledge is that the number of involved Israelites, from an asserted 'Exodus' storyline, ranges from 2 million (plus). Speaking about a former group, where the number is a fraction of this size, is damming. And this is before we address anything else.

But here's my answer for maximum number according to Numbers 11:21:

(LEB) But Moses said, “There are six hundred thousand on foot, among whom I am in the midst, and you yourself said, ‘I will give meat to them, and they will eat for a whole month.’
(NET) Moses said, “The people around me are 600,000 on foot; but you say, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month.’

So, I would say the maximum is 600,000.

Great, then you are at least 1.4 million short of the lowest number calculated, for the claims from "the Exodus" storyline. Exodus 12:37 states "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children". "The Exodus" states that around 600,000 Israelite men, plus women and children, left Egypt, potentially totaling 2 to 3 million people. It's game over already.

Repeating yourself is not answering my question.

Actually, I answered it twice. Allow me to explain it in another way, for a third time, as I already alluded to prior. Just because we do not know something for sure, does not mean we still cannot effectively rule out option(s). I'm not going to speculate the details about the reality of the Hyksos. However, based upon the storyline of the Bible, they are not applicable. I know you would like to merge them together as one in the same, but this is not likely the reality. I'll briefly explain more below.

Again, how do you know who they were not? We haven't even started to compare possible explanations of who they were.

Yes, we have. Common sense suggests a minimum of 2 million for the claims to 'The Exodus', and you admit the Hyksos' highest number is no more than 600,000. Clearly, you are referring to a different topic, but are maybe instead attempting to merge it into the expressed likely fictitious topic -- (ala "the Exodus" from the Bible).

If you would have read my posts in the other thread, you'll find that actually the dates line up very well.

A story of 600K <vs> a story of 2 million (plus) do not line up, before we start to address anything else at all.

[face2face]

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?

And it will happen a second time!

F2F

[POI]

Rather than to type a text wall, in which most may not read anyways, due to boredom/other, below is instead a 6-minute video outlining just some of the logical reasons interlocutors should no longer argue that "the Hyksos" correspond to "the Exodus" storyline in any way:



In other words, 'the Hyksos' and 'the Exodus' are likely not compatible.