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?

[Difflugia]

The extant tablets are physical evidence that somebody wrote down a story.

Which is the rebuke to say the Bible has no evidence,

Nobody said that. It's certainly not the kind of evidence that you want to assert that it is, but it's not nothing, either. You've created a straw man by equivocating on "no evidence."

The rules of evidence in law and historiography is that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and secondhand testimony is indirect evidence. The Bible is direct evidence of an eyewitness to a flood over the whole earth,

No, it isn't. Genesis 6-9 is a story about the Flood.

A person in a court can offer eyewitness testimony.

If an eyewitness is deposed, we might treat the written transcript as eyewitness testimony, but that presumes a chain of custody that we trust. If the court recorder and attorneys affirm that the transcript is a true and accurate copy of the eyewitness testimony, then we'll treat it as though the eyewitness made the statements directly in court.

The Bible has no such chain of custody or even provenance. We don't know who wrote it or when. We don't have any corroborating evidence that the narrative events reflect history. We don't even know if the characters in the story existed. Claiming that the legal standard of eyewitness testimony applies in any way to the Bible is a ludicrous equivocation.

Once again, you're confusing following analysis of what is recorded, with first acknowledging the evidence recorded: The Code of Hammurabi is written evidence of law in ancient Babylon during the reign of Hammurabi. It is like an eyewitness account, and may even be written or dictated by Hammurabi himself.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that's confused and you're once again being vague about what you mean by "evidence." The Code of Hammurabi in the strictest sense is evidence that somebody wrote about laws. That is consistent with many conclusions, such as that those were actual Babylonian laws, but it's also consistent with Babylonian law being looser and the Code being a series of examples of how judges should rule.

This is the agreed point, in the context of the lie that the Bible has no evidence, because the Bible is not evidence, then

And it is technically, scientifically, and legally evidence.

Sure, if we accept the technical point that even the poorest, most absurd evidence is still evidence. If we talk about evidence without equivocating, then we have to judge the quality of each piece of evidence and support that judgement.

Eyewitness and indirect witness testimony is evidence entered into the findings of historiography and law.

And here's the equivocation. You're simply asserting that the Bible is any of these things. So far, all you've got is a collection of stories. Exodus is evidence of a historical event in the same way that Winnie the Pooh is evidence of sentient stuffed animals. It's evidence, but it's not necessarily good evidence. You'll have to do more than just assert that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #516]

The rules of evidence in law and historiography is that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and secondhand testimony is indirect evidence.

Eyewitness accounts are "testimonial evidence". Physical evidence is objective. Testimonial evidence is subjective.

Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/un ... dence.html

The Bible is also direct evidence of an eyewitness of Exodus, as well as secondhand indirect evidence repeating the eyewitness. The epic of Gilgamesh only has indirect evidence repeated from an eyewitness. The law of evidence is on the side of the evidence given by the Bible, over that of Gilgamesh's epic. Therefore, the objective critic must favor the Bible's eyewitness account of the flood, rather than that of a secondhand testimony.

The earliest surviving written literature is from ancient Mesopotamia. The Epic of Gilgamesh is often cited as the first great composition, although some shorter compositions have survived that are even earlier (notably the “Kesh Temple Hymn” and “The Instructions of Shuruppak”). Apart from its length, the Epic of Gilgamesh may be considered the earliest significant composition because of its enduring impact on literature through the ages. It is believed to have influenced other ancient literary works, including the Iliad, the Odyssey, Alexander romance literature, and the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), all of which continue to have significant literary impact in their own right.
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-w ... k%E2%80%9D).

[otseng]

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?

A better first question would be, were "the Hyksos" Israelites? Well, were they? If so, how do you know? If you can demonstrate that they were, then we can move on to Q2.

That's not the first question, it's the entire thesis that I'm claiming and it's in answering the 6 questions that would support that thesis.

Since you won't answer my first question and give a definition of the Hyksos, just give me a response if agree or disagree with my definition of who were the Hyksos.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

[otseng]

Until an alternate explanation is presented that is backed with evidence, it's the only explanation on the table. When one is offered, then we can compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

If the exodus story did not take place as told in the Bible, what evidence do you suggest we will find?

I know of contrary evidence to the Hyksos being the Israelites, but it's not my job to argue for the skeptics side.

There is also the option that a much smaller event took place that later morphed into what we now read in the Exodus story.

This could be the case.

If they actually wandered in the desert for 40 years, should we expect remains to have survived for so long?

Yes. Pottery and graves should remain as well as other artifacts. To date, numerous ancient settlements, fortresses, and other structures have been found in the Sinai.

The typical view of the wandering in the wilderness is they lived in tents and were constantly on the go. They did not build any settlements or structures during the 40 years. Pottery finds are typically deep within tells. Any pottery left on the surface thousands of years ago is doubtful would have anything left for us to find now. Unless they built elaborate graves, doubtful we'd find anything left if they just simply buried their bodies in the sand.

The record will show that I did leave it at 'I don't know'. What I expected was an education.

If you want an education, then there's no room for you to debate me. I'll just simply teach you my position with no challenge from you. But, if you want a debate, then each side should present and defend their position. My position is the Hyksos is the candidate group for the Israelites in Egypt. A skeptic should present an alternative view and explain why that view is better than mine.

If it turns out my explanation is more reasonable, then we can go on to questions after they left Egypt, like how many people left and what did they do in the wilderness. If the skeptics explanation that the Hyksos were not Israelites is more reasonable, then it's immaterial to debate what they did in the wilderness.

And which part of my response did you consider degrading?

"It's not like the Hyksos were a mythical group of people. Information on them should easily be found by a simple Google search."
No harm was done obviously, I was just surprised by such a response.

What is surprising to me is that no skeptic has attempted to answer my first question.

Here's my guess. The skeptics have actually done a search on who were the Hyksos. But since it aligns with them being the Israelites, they do not want answer the question.

I certainly don't claim that the Exodus didn't happen, but I do currently find it not likely to have happened as told. For that to be believed, I await evidence..

That's why I'm attempting to look at the evidence of them actually being in Egypt.

However, there is evidence of them entering Canaan that matches the Biblical account. We can go through that after the evidence of the Hyksos.

Is that the evidence we have that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai?

Again, I'm not sure remains would even be possible if people were wandering in a desert. But if we have evidence of them being in Egypt and evidence of them being in Canaan, so somehow they must've travelled between the two. Why would it be necessary to have a complete archaeological record of every place they've been in order to accept the Biblical account?

To attempt to clarify. Look at all the evidence that is lacking to suggest that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai. I wonder if the Hyksos are responsible for all this stuff we don't find? To wonder if the Hyksos are responsible for what hasn't been found, I see as putting the cart in front of the horse. That is all I meant.

You are implying then you accept the Hyksos were the Israelites by asking what happened during the desert wandering. If you agree they were, then we can then debate what happened after they left Egypt.

Personally I would start with found observations

That's what I'm doing with the Hyksos in Egypt.

I fully understand that suggesting the Hyksos, is the best we have so far. I wish there were graves or pottery or something more to suggest that the story took place as told and entered this debate in hopes some would be put forth.

Yes, I'll eventually get to archaeological evidence of the Israelites in Egypt. But we need to get past question one. So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked POI:

Since you won't answer my first question and give a definition of the Hyksos, just give me a response if agree or disagree with my definition of who were the Hyksos.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

[POI]

Otseng, this answer is going to be long. I apologize in advance. However, I feel quite a bit of reflection may be necessary here.

That's not the first question, it's the entire thesis that I'm claiming and it's in answering the 6 questions that would support that thesis.

You assume that you HAVE to ask 6 questions. You don't. Your first question is a big one. I would agree, it is an important one. When you ask, who are they? We need context for this question. Well, in this context, we are wondering who they are, in relation to any possible Bible account? Hence, common sense would also include their ''race' to the answer in question 1). If they are not the expressed group of folks, it's already game over. No more questions needed.

When enquiring minds want to know something these days, how do they go about doing it? Decades ago, one was limited to asking someone (like a professor, a parent, or someone in the profession). Or, one might look it up in an encyclopedia, or a dictionary, or a textbook, or maybe other?. But now, these days, we mostly just do internet searches, or ask 'Seri', or ask "Elexa", or maybe other. We have more information available right at our fingertips.

As I told RealJack, when I simply 'Google' "Were the Hyksos the expressed Israelites from the Exodus account?", I'm met with the answer of "likely not!", and reasons are also given. This might infuriate the Bible believer -- which requires this storyline to be both literal and factual. Hence, like I've been saying, anyone can debate almost anything. You don't like that answer. Therefore, you have opted to find alternative answers. And of course, you can find almost any <answer> you want if you look hard enough.

No one is coming to your defense here, because "shoehorning" the Hyksos in, as the expressed group of folks, seems far-fetched. Just like it seems far-fetched about many other fringe views still in circulation. Now, MAYBE you are on to something? Anything is possible, as we are dealing with claims from ancient antiquity. However, we also know the claims from these series of books are not the most trustworthy, as well as we know they may very well be politically/religiously motivated, as well as bias.

Since you won't answer my first question and give a definition of the Hyksos, just give me a response if agree or disagree with my definition of who were the Hyksos.

I did. You just don't like it. I informed you that your answer is too general, and too incomplete. When anyone asks, who are they? This question needs context. See my response above.

My research tells me these folks were not the expressed folks in question, and were from an earlier era of time. Which begs the question... Why do some' people still argue for the Hyksos? Well, maybe the Bible author(s), whoever they were, used these folks as 'inspiration' to catapult their own inspirational/fictional tale/story? Who really knows? But it seems mental gymnastics is required to associate the two groups as one in the same.

In conclusion, "the Exodus" is likely a mythical tale entirely. Meaning, the skeptic is not only limited to questioning the claimed supernatural parts in the claimed storyline, but in this case, ALSO the claimed natural parts. Since we can research natural/physical claims, here is where the rubber meets the road. In the end, we have about 2 years of nothingness in this thread, alongside one Lone Ranger -- who is attempting to stick a square peg into a round hole.

Why is this damning for the believer? Because, like you admit, if 'the Exodus' account is not factual and literal, then the entire Bible might as well not be.

[POI]

This could be the case.

If this is the case, then one should ditch the Bible. But I have a sneaking suspicion you are going to be banking on 'ancient antiquity.' Meaning, we cannot really 100% prove or disprove virtually any claim.

The typical view of the wandering in the wilderness is they lived in tents and were constantly on the go.

A typical view is also that established trade routes were in place to Canaan. Which begs the question, why were these folks so stupid, especially if "God' was on their side?

Here's my guess. The skeptics have actually done a search on who were the Hyksos. But since it aligns with them being the Israelites, they do not want answer the question.

You are welcome to guess again.

[RBD]

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. 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.

What we keep finding are false comparisons, such as that of Exodus and a flat earth. Exodus has no contrary evidence, while the flat earth is proven round. It's the old failed argument of false equivalence, or apples and oranges. No argument about apples can be argued from oranges.

In this case, the false equivalence is more like apples and worms, where Genesis believers are compared to flat earthers. Just because some apples have worms, doesn't mean an argument about apples is the same for worms. And, the insult of course is not by chance, since that has been a throwaway claim by senseless intellectuals, who say Bible believers are 'uneducated' country bumpkins, that haven't yet believed the earth is round...

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

Case in point. Also, fringe can be in the eye of the beholder. To the pygmies encountered in deep central Africa by western explorers, it's the whole western civilisation that was 'fringe' in deep central Africa. So it is with the archaic intellectuals, who may still think believing the Bible is the same as believing the earth be flat, and she not be a' round...

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.

What can be endless is the myriad false equivalence arguments, that can be made out of empty arguments. Such as, comparing an argument for evidence, that is not contradicted anywhere on earth, with arguing for evidence, that is contradicted by the whole earth.

Once anyone begins to make no sense in their argument, we know the argument is failed, and all that remains is irrelevant nonequivalence.

[RBD]

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.

Not sure who is talking about the Hyksos, nor what it has to do with Exodus. But the children of Israel were not invaders, nor rulers over Egypt. Joseph was 3rd in the nation at one time, but Jacob and his children and household were invited into Egypt. They did rise in social status, but were never rulers over Egyptians.

[RBD]

Which you have not provided any evidence for yet. The Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites from the story of 'the Exodus.'

This is only the first step of my arguments. We have the existence of the Hyksos in Egypt. The question is who were they? If they contained the Israelites, then we have a necessary element for the Exodus. If they are totally different, then my entire argument falls apart.

Not sure what your argument is, but you're barking up a wrong tree. The Hyksos are better associated with the 'new king' of Egypt, that knew not Joseph. Which means important Egyptian history, which means a stranger to the throne of Egypt.

A Canaanite people ruling Egypt, that begin to oppress the prosperous and peaceful people of Joseph in Goshen... Exodus is the beginning of pay-back time.

[RBD]

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?

Marke: Historical records and archaeological discoveries either support the Biblical record of the exodus or not but no evidence exists to refute the Biblical record.

Which is the whole point. Have you heard the argument, that no archeological evidence disproving Exodus, is archeological evidence disproving Exodus?

How does a court accept no evidence against the accused, as evidence against the accused??