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]

Thank you for encouraging me to learn more about the Hyksos. I have determined that they are not likely the Israelites from the Exodus story (as told). Perhaps they influenced the story, but I'll reserve judgment on that for now since it cannot be shown that millions of Israelites ever wandered the said area.

Glad you're looking into it. And I hope you're willing to continue debating about the Hyksos.

I'll extract portions of who the Hyksos were from your post:

- The Hyksos were a dynasty of foreign rulers who seized control of Lower Egypt (the northern part) during the Second Intermediate Period (around 1640-1530 BC), before being expelled by Ahmose I.
- Their origins are debated.
- They introduces horse drawn chariots and the compound bow.
- Their capital was in lower Egypt and they adopted many Egyptian traditions.
- They adopted some Egyptian religious practices.
- They were a small group.

"we know the Hyksos comprised a small group of West Asian individuals who ruled Northern Egypt, especially the Delta, during the Second Intermediate Period."
https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/#:~:te ... e%20Period.

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.

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

As a word, Hyksos is simply the Greek version of an Egyptian title, Heka Khasut, meaning “rulers of foreign lands/hill countries.

I generally accept these statements of who were the Hyksos.

One point of clarification is Hyksos can refer to only the rulers of the Second Intermediate Period. I'm using the term in a generic sense of not just the rulers, but all the people of the same ethnic origin as the rulers that lived in Egypt.

How about we just grant that they were in Egypt.

You might accept that, but most skeptics do not. So, I'll need to back up the claim that the Israelites were in Egypt.

I do wonder if the Hyksos inspired the Exodus story. Do you find that possible?

Of course that's possible. But, the details line up too well to have invented an entire story. It makes more sense the story actually happened.

I must wonder why all six would not be Semitic and how this is evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible.

Just because they don't have a Semitic name doesn't mean they were not Semitic.

I'm looking for evidence that millions of Israelites wandered the Sinai for 40 years though. Archeologists have looked for such a thing and so far have found nothing I note.

I'm not claiming we have any evidence for that. But I am claiming it's not unreasonable to not find any evidence since they didn't build any permanent structures during their 40 years of wandering.

On to the more interesting questions:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

[POI]

I'm not asking for a definition of the Hyksos based on the context of the Bible.

And as I stated, this is your problem. Asking who someone is/was, or who a group of people is/was, needs context in this debate exchange. Your provided response is incomplete.

I'm asking for a definition from any secular source.

Your given definitions only provide generals and no specifics, in context to this debate exchange. It's incomplete.

Sure, if the race of the Hyksos is not Semitic, then my argument is already lost.

We've covered this. "Semitic" is too general. I never argued they were not Semitic.

do you have any evidence they were not? I've already given you three sources that say that they were.

I agree they were "Semitic". See above.

Because you're not even answering the first question,

I've answered it many times. Hopefully, this time will stick.

but trying to jump to the conclusion without even looking at the evidence and the line of arguments.

Your given answer to the first question is incomplete. I've explained why.

I'm asking for a "agree" or "disagree".

I disagree they were the expressed folks, as told from the Bible's account. The timeline is only one of the giveaways. but I agree they were likely 'Semitic' however. But this means little to nothing, as being "Semitic" does not mean they must be the correct 'race' of people. In actuality, they were likely a mix of differing "races"? We cannot know for sure though. This is one of the pitfalls of "ancient antiquity".

If you disagree, then you have to provide evidence who the Hyksos were that is different than what I gave.

The answer you gave is incomplete and does not propel the discussion forward.

Google AI:

"were the Hyksos Israelites?"

No, the Hyksos were not the Israelites. While there are some parallels and a historical connection, they were distinct groups. The Hyksos were a Semitic, "Canaanite" group who ruled northern Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, while the Israelites are the people mentioned in the Bible.

Elaboration: The Hyksos, meaning "foreign rulers" in Egyptian, were a group of Semitic people who established a dynasty in northern Egypt (Avaris) around 1650 BCE. They were known for their military prowess and their unique culture, which included a blend of Egyptian and Near Eastern elements.

Israelites: The Israelites are the people described in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, as the descendants of Jacob (also known as Israel) and his twelve sons. They are believed to have lived in ancient Canaan and later migrated to Egypt, where they were enslaved for a period before being led out of Egypt by Moses in the Exodus.

Parallels and connections: Some scholars have drawn parallels between the Hyksos and the Israelites, including the fact that both groups had Semitic origins and were associated with the Nile Delta region of Egypt. Some have even suggested that the Exodus story could be based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

Distinctions: Despite these parallels, it's important to note that the Hyksos and the Israelites were distinct groups. The Hyksos were a ruling class in Egypt, while the Israelites were a group of people who lived under their rule. The Hyksos were also not mentioned in the Bible, while the Israelites are the central characters of the Old Testament narratives.

Josephus and Manetho: Josephus, a Jewish historian of the 1st century CE, identified the Hyksos with the Israelites, citing the writings of the third-century BC Egyptian priest Manetho, according to Jewish Virtual Library. However, this identification is not widely accepted by modern scholarship.

No, it's not like everything in the Bible has to be literally true or we ditch the entire Bible.

What is your play here Otseng? Are you arguing that the Bible provides veracity because the Bible's given storyline presents vague resemblances to another set of events? Please clarify your position exactly.

OK, the only other option is skeptics have not done a Google search on who were the Hyksos.

You are welcome to keep trying.

[POI]

(Edited). Thank you Otseng!

Those who reject the Biblical account of the Exodus do not have a coherent narrative to explain all of this. So, given the evidence of the Hyksos, it is reasonable to accept the Exodus account.

- The Bible has no problem expressing groups and tribes, by name, but omits the 'Hyksos' by name.
- The Hyksos were expelled, not released, in the 1500's BCE, while Moses's clan was released, not expelled, in the 1200's BCE.
- In the 1200's, the "Promised Land' was still owned by Egypt. This storyline makes about as much sense as arguing that some Jews escaped a WW2 death camp and sought refuge in Auschwitz.

We know the Bible is not trustworthy. We know the Bible is politically/religiously motivated. We know the Bible possesses bias. We can speculate, until the cows come home, as to what the authors of the Exodus were intending. They are long dead, and we cannot ask them. Did they use the Hyksos as inspiration for their own wild tale? Other? Who knows? But this does not mean we still cannot confidently and logically rule the Hyksos out, as a viable option. Which then means, we are back to square one...

~2 years of nothingness, in defense of claiming "the Exodus" actually happened.

[RBD]

Marke: Those who 'know' the Bible is false are deluded.

This is actually what the challenge to prove Bible errancy is all about. It's the believers that have just cause to accept the Bible witness as true, since there is no evidence contradicting the it. It's only the blind disbelievers, that have no cause to say the Bible testimony can't be true.

They are not objective critics, who seek supplemental evidence to confirm the evidence given in the Bible. Rather they are false accusers of the Bible witness, who would change the rules of evidence, so as not to exclude eyewitness testimony as evidence of anything.

That is the delusion, that no judge would allow...

[RBD]

Marke: I simply do not agree that finding no evidence of the exodus after 4,000 years over limited shallow sections of a large expanse of desert means the Bible is a lie.[/b]

There are also possible reasons why the evidence witnessed to in the Book, is not there in Egypt nor the Sinai wilderness.
1. The plagues of course don't leave records in the water and the dirt. (Some have theorized some evidence of a temporarily wasted land in Egypt at the time, but it's not proven)
2. Bone of the period cannot be identified by race. Therefore, it can't be proven and remaining bones are Egyptian or Hebrew or some other foreigner.
Also, the bones of Joseph and Jacob were returned to the land of Abraham, which was by commandment as a matter of faith in their God to bring them to the promised land. There is every reason to believe returning the bones of all the forefathers was as unto the LORD...
3. There of course would be no evidence of their travels through Sinai, and once again any bones found of the generation that died, would be strewn across the land, and also unidentifiable as Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, or other travelers through the trade route.
4. No Egyptian king would record a humiliating defeat, especially at the hands of slaves.
5. And since the Exodus events were recorded by eyewitness, and they were known by other nations, then if it were a lie and false rumor, the Egyptian king could not remain silent to such enemy propaganda. He would be compelled for national security alone, to make of record exposing it as a fraud. Also, it was be reasonable to find records of others, who also knew the events and witness of Exodus to be false. No such record exposing such a 'great lie' is ever recorded.

And so, rather than expecting to find evidence, there is good reason not to. And more importantly, the only evidence we could really expect to find, is a record of the contrary evidence made first by Egyptians, and then by others of the day. I.e. the evidence against Exodus, that anti-Exodus crusaders desperately search for, ought to exist but does not.

The lack of recorded evidence exposing Exodus as a lie, is confirmation that the Exodus and testimony of the Hebrews is recieved as true, the same as when a lack of rebuttal concedes an argument. The ancient events and record of Exodus was never refuted by anyone hearing or reading of it, including the very ones that could be most damaged by such news getting out to their surrounding enemies: The Egypt king and his gvt ministers.

[otseng]

Google AI:

"were the Hyksos Israelites?"

Let me extract the definition from your post:

The Hyksos, meaning "foreign rulers" in Egyptian, were a group of Semitic people who established a dynasty in northern Egypt (Avaris) around 1650 BCE. They were known for their military prowess and their unique culture, which included a blend of Egyptian and Near Eastern elements.

This is all I've been asking from you and I accept this definition. So, the only point I'm making with the first question is the Hyksos were a Semitic people and they were from Canaan. This checks the first box that the Hyksos could be Israelites. At this point, I'm not claiming they actually were Israelites.

What is your play here Otseng? Are you arguing that the Bible provides veracity because the Bible's given storyline presents vague resemblances to another set of events? Please clarify your position exactly.

I'm slowly building the case the Hyksos is the evidence of the Israelites being in Egypt. This is just the first link in a long chain of evidence. When I've finished laying out my complete chain of evidence, we can then compare that with the evidence that the Hyksos were not the Israelites and see which one is more reasonable and has more explanatory power.

So, please address the next links in the chain:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

Again, use secular sources and there's no need to present it in a Biblical context.

Established trade routes were already in place when Moses's clan were released to wander the desert for decades. Since Moses and friends occupied Egypt for 100's of years, seems they would have already known that. These trade route(s) to Canaan, which was still also occupied/ruled by Egypt by the way, were either the best kept secret - (away from Moses and God), or, they were really hard to find, while millions wandered the desert for decades.

- The sheer size alone of this expressed clan would logically negate the claim that they could have been lost for decades

Nobody is claiming the Israelites were lost in the wilderness.

They first went to Mt Sinai and then in less than a few weeks later, they reached Canaan. Then they spied out the land of Canaan.

Numbers 13:2
Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.

The spies brought back a back report (except for Joshua and Caleb) and said they are not able to fight against the Canaanites.

Numbers 13:31
But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they [are] stronger than we.

All the people did not have faith they could conquer the land and then said they'd rather die in the wilderness.

Numbers 14:2
And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!

God then brought them back into the wilderness to die as they asked for.

Numbers 14:28-29
Say unto them, [As truly as] I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,

Numbers 14:33
And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness.

So, they did not wander because they were lost, but because they'd rather go back into the desert and die than believe God could give them victory over all the people in the land of Canaan.

We know the Bible is not trustworthy. We know the Bible is politically/religiously motivated. We know the Bible possesses bias. We can speculate, until the cows come home, as to what the authors of the Exodus were intending. They are long dead, and we cannot ask them. Did they use the Hyksos as inspiration for their own wild tale? Other? Who knows? But this does not mean we still cannot confidently and logically rule the Hyksos out, as a viable option. Which then means, we are back to square one...

How can you claim the Bible is not trustworthy when you don't know what the Bible says?

[POI]

Great. A continuation of furnished excuses as to why you can provide no evidence to support the claim from the Bible...

There are also possible reasons why the evidence witnessed to in the Book, is not there in Egypt nor the Sinai wilderness.
1. The plagues of course don't leave records in the water and the dirt. (Some have theorized some evidence of a temporarily wasted land in Egypt at the time, but it's not proven)

Since the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, did they speak about such plagues to at least corroborate the claim(s) of the Bible here?

2. Bone of the period cannot be identified by race. Therefore, it can't be proven and remaining bones are Egyptian or Hebrew or some other foreigner.
Also, the bones of Joseph and Jacob were returned to the land of Abraham, which was by commandment as a matter of faith in their God to bring them to the promised land. There is every reason to believe returning the bones of all the forefathers was as unto the LORD...

You have bigger fish to fry here. This expressed "promised land" was still owned by the Egyptians. Why would they take the bodies to another part of occupied Egypt?

4. No Egyptian king would record a humiliating defeat, especially at the hands of slaves.

We have evidence of Egyptians trying to cover up all typed of evidence. Millions of Jews, for centuries of time, would have left a mark. See the video in post 12. Further, the Egyptians also would never record something that never actually happened.

5. And since the Exodus events were recorded by eyewitness,

"The Exodus" was written centuries after the claimed event. So no. Sorry buddy.

rather than expecting to find evidence, there is good reason not to.

No there isn't. See above, and the video in post 12.

And more importantly, the only evidence we could really expect to find, is a record of the contrary evidence made first by Egyptians, and then by others of the day. I.e. the evidence against Exodus, that anti-Exodus crusaders desperately search for, ought to exist but does not.

The claim was not made, by the Bible, until many centuries later. Hence, no one would logically attempt to refute any claims of the day, because there weren't any.

[POI]

This is all I've been asking from you and I accept this definition. So, the only point I'm making with the first question is the Hyksos were a Semitic people and they were from Canaan. This checks the first box that the Hyksos could be Israelites. At this point, I'm not claiming they actually were Israelites.

Then you continue to miss my point. Let me give you an example. When someone asks, "tell me about so-and-so"? Does context matter? Yes. If a perspective employer asks, verses a perspective blind date candidate, verses a perspective investigator in a criminal case, etc...

Without any context, your answer may suffice. But you are trying to "shoehorn" the Hyksos in there. So, we need details about the Hyksos, like their "race(s)", timeline in question for the claim, etc... This is still before you get to your other questions.

You are asking me to tell you about the Hyksos, as they relate to the Bible. The chopped definition above is too general, or irrelevant. Which is why I added more context in my response, while bolding and red-highlighting some necessary points of reference.

I'm slowly building the case the Hyksos is the evidence of the Israelites being in Egypt. This is just the first link in a long chain of evidence. When I've finished laying out my complete chain of evidence, we can then compare that with the evidence that the Hyksos were not the Israelites and see which one is more reasonable and has more explanatory power.

Then the first question is not fully answered, or is not relevant, in the context of this debate. I've explained why.

So, please address the next links in the chain:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

Question one is not answered.

2. Irrelevant.
3. Irrelevant.

Nobody is claiming the Israelites were lost in the wilderness. They first went to Mt Sinai and then in less than a few weeks later, they reached Canaan. Then they spied out the land of Canaan. The spies brought back a back report (except for Joshua and Caleb) and said they are not able to fight against the Canaanites. All the people did not have faith they could conquer the land and then said they'd rather die in the wilderness. God then brought them back into the wilderness to die as they asked for. So, they did not wander because they were lost, but because they'd rather go back into the desert and die than believe God could give them victory over all the people in the land of Canaan.

Thank you for correcting me here!

****************************************************

The Hyksos left Egypt around the 1550's BCE, while Moses's clan left a century later, or much more. How do we know? (i.e.):

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/

The expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt is believed to have occurred around 1535 BCE, when the Theban pharaohs, according to Biblical Archaeology Society, expelled them from Avaris, their capital.

(VS)

https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/pinpoi ... rom-egypt/
https://www.thetorah.com/article/we-wer ... s-in-egypt

Moses left Egypt during the Exodus, which scholars estimate occurred between the 15th and 13th centuries BCE. The exact date is debated, but most accept a date within this range. Some theories place it at around 1440 BCE, based on a literal interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1. Other theories suggest it was around 1225 BCE, coinciding with a famine at the end of Ramses II's reign.

(and)

Since mass settlement of the Judean and Samarian highlands took place in the 12th century B.C.E., they assume that the exodus from Egypt must have taken place shortly before. The most commonly suggested time is during the reign of the 19th dynasty ruler Ramesses II (ca. 1279–1213 B.C.E.)

[POI]

Sorry to butt in here...

As for your position, it seems like what you're saying is the Hyksos and the Israelites were independent groups. Yet, coincidentally they entered Egypt at the same time, settled in the land of Goshen, avoided any resistance from the natives of them moving into the best land, eventually fought against the Egyptians, and then left at the same time. Would that be your view?

No. This is not my view. Even if one was to grant (some) similarities, the timeline does not match, which makes your argument irrelevant regardless.

As already stated, we can speculate, until the cows come home, as to the motivation(s) of these author(s) from the Bible. Or, where they obtained their source information? But their accounts do not jive with discovery and instead speak more to possibly 'borrowing' some elements of fact.

Seems the best you can argue, is one of a 'technicality.' Meaning, debate question one can 'technically' somewhat be answered with a fast-and-loose (yes), in that some type of an event happened between Egypt and another group. But, we both know better than this, don't we?

[RBD]

See 380 response.

See posts 384 and 385.

Both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh are taken as recorded evidence of a great flood. The Code of Hammurabi is taken as recorded evidence of early law in Babylon. The stele of Simonides is take as recorded evidence for the Battle of Thermopylae.

Then your use of the word 'evidence' differs from mine.
That's because you limit your definition

evidence - "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

proposition - "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion"

That's because your definition of evidence excludes the great majority of all evidence in law and historiography, which is eyewitness testimony and historical record. And the Bible is both, especially that of Exodus written by Moses.

You are excluding such evidence, in order to exclude the Bible from giving direct evidence of historical events. You are either a inconsequential reviewer of judicial and historical review, or you only apply your gaping definition of evidence to this one particular historical eyewitness testimony of Moses, due to your own personal animus.

For example, the "standard version" of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest surviving literary work, was written in Akkadian on cuneiform tablets found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, which is in modern-day Iraq. And outside of this claim/assertion/statement, do we actually have evidence to support it?

Gilgamesh's Epic is indirect evidence by secondhand testimony, not direct evidence of an eyewitness as with Exodus.

This is a rhetorical question.

No, it's very limited professional resume, that excludes your research to physical objects alone, such as bones, artifacts, structures, etc... Since you exclude the greater part of historical and judicial evidence by testimonial witness and written documents, then you exclude yourself as a factual analyzer of the Bible and the epic.

But is to drive home the point that your standard for 'evidence' is quite low.

The only low, or at least very limited, standard is to dismiss eyewitness accounts and written documents as evidence of anything, and so exclude the greatest majority of historical evidence, especially with the distant past.

For example, the Code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest known legal codes, is said to have been given to Hammurabi by Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the god of justice.

This is why you do need to limit yourself to seeing and touching physical objects, rather than analyzing written evidence: You don't know how.

The inscribed record of the code makes no such claim, and it is direct evidence of law in old Babylon under king Hammurabi. Whether it's judged as good or bad law, or fabled to be written by a god, has nothing to do with the written record itself.

You have not learned to make difference between recorded evidence, and what you and others think about it, which is irrelevant to the record at hand. That's why you're definition of evidence is skewed, since it's not about the record at hand, but all about your personal opinion, which no properly objective review of an evidential record cares about...

I'll no longer argue about what constitutes recorded evidence for something.

'
Oops. I respond to these things one step at a time, without reviewing them first. There are several people who are ignorant, whether willfully or not, of much legal and historical evidence. Next time, I'll make sure I don't uselessly instruct you again.

(Although, I do enjoy setting the record straight, when I can, and so it hasn't been a complete waste of time here...)

Your argument is that we will find evidence someday. If we never find actual evidence, just keep waiting. Talk about faith.

Also, there are several people telling this lie about me and others believing the eyewitness evidence given in Exodus, that I have corrected. I'm not sure if you are one I've told before, but this will also be another thing I don't waste time with you about.

My argument is, that only direct evidence contradicting the Bible interests me, and I'm still waiting for any against Exodus. I'm not interested in the absence of such evidence.