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?

[Clownboat]

Right. The humiliated Pharaoh had a historical 'obligation' to ensure the record was properly preserved. The problem is when people get caught up in theoretical games, at the expense of historical realities.

One more time: Ancient powers only took time and expense to record victories, not defeats. Their objective was not objective historical posterity.

The plagues, if historical would have been recorded. You are correct that they may have left out or tried to cover up defeats if that happened, but that has nothing to do with the plagues.
Here is what you seem to be suggesting:
Egypt: "Holy monkeys, we suffered a defeat." "We better not record that the rivers turned to blood and I sure hope no other civilization makes note of that either."

According to the story, the Nile river, canals, tributaries, ponds and pools all turned to blood. Such an event wasn't recorded though.
Meanwhile: Ancient Egyptians meticulously recorded not only grand events and religious matters but also the mundane details of daily life, including things like food rations, work schedules, and even personal belongings. These records, often found on papyrus scrolls or inscribed on stone, offer insights into the lives of ordinary people, including workers who built the pyramids and yet nobody recorded 'blood waters' nor any of the other claimed plagues.

I hope I have sufficiently addressed why I find your words hard to believe. I predict that you will continue to assert that I just want to disbelieve the Bible though so my reasoning won't be addressed.
Hoping I'm mistaken!

[POI]

So then. Unless I see something new from you, then we are done on this topic.

What I really enjoy about accusations of Bible errancy, is what I learn from the Bible that refutes them. Things not come to mind before, are revealed based upon the issue at hand.

A good example is Jesus stating that Exodus is the book of Moses, making him the eyewitness writer and autobiographer. I've read that Scripture many times, and something so simple did not dawn on me, because I was only focused on His rebuke to the unbelieving Sadducees.

Thanks much.

Post 490.

[RBD]

the stories of the plagues weren't intended to be accurate in historical detail.

If so, then it's not accountable to accuracy, and so can't be accused of contradiction.

Exactly. If I'm right, then the contradiction doesn't matter. If the Bible is inerrant as you have so far claimed, then factual and historical contradiction matter.

Do you then agree with me that the Bible "isn't accountable to accuracy?"

There are times, when you begin to make sense to me, but then revert back to something nonsensical from it.

If something is written as a myth, then taking it as fact, contradicts the author's intent. Such as with J.R. Tolkien, or even Aesop's Fables. They are not written to be taken literally, and so not accountable to accuracy, other than as a smooth and intelligible read.

If something is written as fact, then it is accountable to accuracy. The eyewitness accounts in the Bible are written as fact, and so are accountable to internal and external accuracy.

So long as no inaccuracy is proven, then the record can be accepted as witnessed...

When trying to make a general rule about literary analysis, you need to really try suspend your own bias against any books beforehand. Logical rule requires objectivity. Your personal angst against any book, forbids you making any logical argument about the natural difference between nonfiction and fictional books....

[RBD]

The real-life practice of replacing dead livestock with live livestock, does not need to accuse the record of being contradictive, whether by error or on purpose...

And pretending that this "real-life practice" is somehow viable on the scale of an entire nation

Really? So, now your argument shifts from no more Egyptian livestock to 'die again', to not enough from the Hebrews to go around for the whole nation. Which once again is only the 'expert' opinion of no evidence, nor any knowledge of the record:

Exo 1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

So now you can argue against that Bible record, what the whole world knows about the Hebrews and Jews...We can also add, that the cause for Hebrew production, especially in their bondage, was the promised Messiah by the seed of a woman to come and deliver them. Which at that time was Moses, but not yet Christ.

And the second time around, some of those Egyptians that went to the Hebrews for resupply, had converted to the fear of the LORD God of the Hebrews, and obeyed His warning to save their newly replenished animals.

Exo 9:20 He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses:

We even see that Pharaoh's own servants heeded the warning, not to lose their new cattle like last time. So it was also in the household of Caesar, that there were them converted to the faith of the eternal Messiah, the risen Lord God of Israel, Jesus Christ:

Phl 4:22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.

[otseng]

Yes, this seems to be a very important point you like to bring up, (again and again).

Right, because you keep on stating:

If you look throughout my history here in this arena, you will see I have no problem(s) defending my position(s).

So, rather than me making a judgment on if you've been defending your position, I'll let other judge for themselves.

Not only are skeptics unconvinced by your given fringe position, but so are the believers who frequent this arena.

Fringe or not is irrelevant. Many of our commonly held beliefs were once fringe positions. As I've mentioned multiple times, what is important is rational arguments and evidence to support it.

My point is the Biblical account of the Exodus matches better than any other explanation of the Hyksos.

Bingo. This is a claim, not evidence. What evidence supports this claim? Remember, I asked you for the best piece of evidence. Not another claim.

Of course it's my claim. And I'm methodically bringing up the evidence to support my claim. What claim do you make? What evidence have you brought forth?

Here's what we have so far:

By answering question one, the Hyksos matches being the Israelites since they were from Canaan and were Semitic.
The Hyksos also entered Egypt in the land of Goshen, which also matches the Biblical account.

I'll go ahead and answer questions 2 and 3:

2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?

For thousands of years, the view was the Hyksos invaded the land and took it over by force. This is the view presented by Manetho, an Egyptian priest and history, in 3rd century BC.

In the Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt written by the Greco-Egyptian priest and historian Manetho in the 3rd century BC, the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin. While Manetho portrayed the Hyksos as invaders and oppressors,

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

But after the excavation at Tell el-Dab'a by Manfred Bietak in the 1980s, it was confirmed this account by Manetho was wrong.

Instead, the Hyksos peacefully settled into the land of Goshen. This matches the Biblical account. Because Joseph was second in command of Egypt, his family was given permission by Pharaoh to settle in lower Egypt.

Genesis 47:5-6
And Pharaoh spoke unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:
The land of Egypt [is] before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest [any] men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

In this thread, let's find out why? So far, RBD is against your position. RealJack remains agnostic to your claim. Radio silence speaks for itself, as for the rest of believers who do not come to your defense.

And what evidence have they presented that the Hyksos were not the Israelites?

1. Chronological Differences: The Hyksos ruled Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, while the biblical narrative of the Exodus and the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt is generally placed within the 18th Dynasty, which came later.

Actually, the timeline perfectly matches with the early dating.

2. Distinct Roles: The Hyksos were rulers of Egypt, while the Israelites, according to the Bible, were initially enslaved in Egypt.

No, the Bible does not say they were initially enslaved. This is a common misunderstanding of the text. Here's what it says:

Genesis
1:6 - And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.
1:7 - And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
1:8 - Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
1:9 - And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:
1:10 - Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.
1:11 - Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.
1:12 - But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

There was a period of time that they grew in numbers and the "land was filled with them." Obviously it must take some time for them to grow in numbers to fill the land. At this point, the Egyptians felt threatened by them because the Israelites were becoming too powerful. It was only then that they enslaved them.

3. Different Names: While the Hyksos are known as "foreign rulers" in Egyptian (Heka-chasut), the Israelites are referred to as "Hebrews" or "Israelites" in the biblical narrative.

A single entity can be called by multiple names. Just because one thing is called by different names doesn't mean they point to different entities.

English: Jesus
Hebrew: ישוע (Yeshua)
Greek: Ιησούς (Iēsous)
Latin: Iesus

4. Different Narratives: The biblical narrative focuses on the Israelites' enslavement, Moses' leadership, and their exodus from Egypt, while the historical narrative of the Hyksos focuses on their rule and subsequent expulsion.

It's more like different focus of the same narrative.

5. Historical Context: The Hyksos were a distinct group of rulers who came from the Near East and settled in the Nile Delta, not the same people who later migrated to Canaan, according to scholars like Jan Assmann.

Of course there are people that have different views. But what is the evidence to support their view?

6. Modern Scholarship: While some scholars like Josephus and Manetho suggested a connection between the Hyksos and the Israelites, modern scholarship generally distinguishes between the two groups.

Actually, Manetho's account is contrary to the archaeological evidence at Tell el-Dab'a. For Josephus, he believed the Hyksos were the Israelites.
So, which account is right? Manetho or Josephus?

In summary, while there may be some connections between the Hyksos and the Israelites in terms of their Semitic origins and shared history in the Nile Delta, the two groups are distinct in terms of their roles, timelines, and narratives, according to most scholarly sources.

What we have so far is the evidence of the Hyksos and the exodus account line up very well. Whereas there is no alternative explanation of the Hyksos even being presented. Again, why were the Hyksos able to reside in Egypt and take over the best land? The only view has been Manetho's account that they were a marauding group. But the archaeological evidence is against that.

If scholars cannot agree, as to the exact timing in where-abouts of the Hyksos, is the Bible then the deciding factor?

Archeological evidence is the deciding factor.

Tell el-Dab'a is the modern name for the ancient city of Avaris, an archaeological site in the Nile Delta region of Egypt where the capital city of the Hyksos, once stood. Avaris was occupied by Asiatics from the end of the 12th through the 13th Dynasty consisting a mixture of cultures of Near East and Egyptian. Avaris became one of the largest city and capital of the Near East during the 14th Dynasty under the Hyksos King Nehesy, consisting of a large Asiatic population. Avaris, geological was placed within a strategic location becoming a military rival to the Egyptians. The Hyksos stayed militarily rivals to the Egyptians till their defeat and partial abandonment of Avaris at the end of the Second Intermediate Period when Ahmoses I reunified Egypt at the end of the 17th Dynasty and start of the New Kingdoms 18th Dynasty.[1] Avaris still contained a large population of Asiatic until its full abandonment following the construction of Pi-Ramesses under Ramesses II during the 19th Dynasty.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_el-Dab%27a

So, what we see is the timing of the Bible matches the archaeological evidence of Tell el-Dab'a.

a) Two distinct groups existed in this region simultaneously.
b) Two distinct groups existed in this region at differing times.
c) Only one group existed, and it was the 'Israelites', as told from the Bible.
d) One group actually existed, the Hyksos, and the other group, the 'Israelites', is likely fictitious.

Both the Israelites and the Hyksos overlap in:
1) Who they were - Semitic people
2) Where they came from - Canaan
3) Where they went to - land of Goshen
4) How they were able to take over the land - peacefully inhabited it
5) When they occupied lower Egypt - 12th dynasty to 19th dynasty
6) They both grew in number to threaten the Egyptians

Given the evidence of the Bible and archaeology, the answer is e) The Hyksos and the Israelites are the same.

[otseng]

The Bible record of the Hebrews in Egypt is not the historical record of the Hyksos in Egypt:

The Bible timeline: Hebrews in Egypt 1877-1447 B.C. Egyptian timeline: Hyksos in Egypt 1650-1550 B.C.

Technically, Hyksos means the rulers of Egypt. So, this is compatible with the Biblical timeline. But Hyksos can also mean the group as a whole, not just the rulers. I refer to the Hyksos as the group of Semitic people that dwelled in the land of Goshen.

The Hebrews were invited into Egypt, and prospered peacefully in Goshen until enslaved. Then they were delivered without war, and departed willingly with spoils from Egyptians.

Though the Bible does not explicitly mention being in a war, it does not preclude it.

Genesis
1:7 - And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
1:8 - Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
1:9 - And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:
1:10 - Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.
1:11 - Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.

The Egyptians most likely initiated a war to enslave them. Otherwise how would they have enslaved them when they had filled the land? Would they have all just willingly be enslaved?

The Hyksos invaded, conquered southern Egypt, oppressively ruled the southern Egyptians, and after a period of boundary warfare and a final series of battles, they were defeated by Ahmose 1, and driven out.

There is no archeaological evidence they oppressively ruled, this is only Manetho's account, which is dubious.

The Hebrews were shepherds worshipping the God of their fathers. The Hyksos were warlike with chariots, sharing gods and customs of between Canaan and Egypt.

We're not too sure how much they worshipped Yahweh. Since the Torah was not even written yet, it was most likely just a simple belief and practices.

The Hebrews were shepherds worshipping the God of their fathers. The Hyksos were warlike with chariots, sharing gods and customs of between Canaan and Egypt.

The only similarity is they were both Semitic, and the Hyksos were in Egypt during quarter of the time of the Hebrews. No one can possibly equate the Hebrews with the Hyksos, unless the Bible timeline and record of children of Jacob in Egypt is disregarded.

Actually, the commonalities are uncanny:

Both the Israelites and the Hyksos overlap in:
1) Who they were - Semitic people
2) Where they came from - Canaan
3) Where they went to - land of Goshen
4) How they were able to take over the land - peacefully inhabited it
5) When they occupied lower Egypt - 12th dynasty to 19th dynasty
6) They both grew in number to threaten the Egyptians

And in such cases of obvious error, a good question is why try?

Because I believe in the historicity of the Bible. I also believe if an event is historical, there should exist some evidence outside the Bible to corroborate it. And if evidence is found, then it upholds the reliability of the Bible.

What is the alternative? Simply believe in the Bible by faith and there's no extra-Biblical evidence?

[otseng]

So, please address:
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?

Gen 45:16 And the fame thereof was heard in Pharaoh's house, saying, Joseph's brethren are come: and it pleased Pharaoh well, and his servants.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye; lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan; And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.

I'm asking how were the Hyksos able to reside in the best land.

So, are you then afterall trying to revise the history, and make the Hebrews the unjustified invading conquerors and oppressive rulers of Egyptians, and it's the Egyptians that were the aggrieved innocents, that justifiably retook their ancient lands and drove out the hated usurpers? That would be the natural conclusion. Is that your intended point in the argument?

No, I'm not revising the Biblical account. The Israelites were given the land by Pharaoh.

My question is if the Hyksos were not the Israelites, then how were the Hyksos able to reside in Egypt and take over the best land?

[POI]

Right, because you keep on stating:

False. I stated this one time, after you accused me of not defending my position(s).

So, rather than me making a judgment on if you've been defending your position, I'll let other judge for themselves.

Then you missed my point. You say this at the end of your exchanges. My point is that no one seems to be siding with your specific position(s). In part, it's almost impossible, as Bible interpretation alone is vast and wide. In another part, because no one seems to embrace your specific position, unless they choose to remain unannounced.

Fringe or not is irrelevant.

Not in the context in which I use it. Believers, in this forum, are not backing you either. Your view is fringe, very fringe. By letting the readers here decide, it looks like your view is not convincing to the believers either. Hence, you cannot only say that "skeptics will categorically reject it.". No, it looks like all here, reading these exchanges, reject it. Which means your argument is not very compelling or convincing.

Many of our commonly held beliefs were once fringe positions. As I've mentioned multiple times, what is important is rational arguments and evidence to support it.

I would agree here. My point is that this is a debate arena, and you mention how you will let readers decide. Well, no one is deciding to side with you for this position. And you cannot accuse them of being a biased skeptic.

Of course it's my claim.

Great. Now you see why I was asking you for evidence to support it, and you instead insisted I answer questions.

What evidence have you brought forth?

To this point, I haven't brought any evidence. I asked you for your best piece, and you never provided it. Instead, you backed a claim with another claim

By answering question one, the Hyksos matches being the Israelites since they were from Canaan and were Semitic.
The Hyksos also entered Egypt in the land of Goshen, which also matches the Biblical account.

According to the Bible, the "Israelites" are the descendants of Jacob, a patriarch who was later renamed as Israel. The Hyksos were primarily rulers in the northern Delta region of Egypt, while the Israelites were concentrated in the southern part of the country, near the Goshen region, as mentioned in the Genesis narrative. While some Hyksos rulers had names similar to those mentioned in the Bible, like "Yaʿqb-hr" and "Shesha," the overall cultural practices and religious beliefs of the Hyksos do not strongly align with those of the Israelites described in the Bible. While some scholars have proposed a possible connection between the Hyksos and the Israelites, there is no definitive archaeological or textual evidence to support a direct lineage. Some scholars suggest that the Hyksos might have originated from the Northern Levant, which is a different region than the one where the Israelites were primarily located in Egypt.

And this is without establishing timelines. If we are even 100 years off, then it would be equal to thinking the Jews are in concentration camps today. According to you, and the Bible, these folks entered and left at a specific time. -- (The Israelites entered Egypt in 1876 BC and left Egypt in 1446 BC.). What does the evidence state?

Google AI:

The Hyksos' entry into the Goshen region was likely a gradual process, not a single peaceful event. They likely arrived in Lower Egypt around 1700 BCE, during a period of instability and weakness for the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. While some accounts, like those of Manetho, portray them as invaders, others suggest a more gradual assimilation, possibly with some Egyptians even welcoming them.

About 150 years off... This would be like scholars thinking slavery is just now being abolished in the U.S.

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

I will stop here for now, so people do not lose interest. To be continued....

[RBD]

The story in Exodus still couldn't be inerrant because there are more problems with the narrative than mere improbability, but if supernatural things were known to happen, it could at least be argued that the story is plausible.

Unbelief in a narrative is not a narrative problem, but a reader problem.

While it's true that something new and unheard of, is by nature less believable if not seen for ourselves, that does not make any new thing untrue.

That is unique indeed. I've never been accused of contradicting the Bible, by believing it's true.

That's probably because fundamentalist and evangelicat echo chambers tend to falsely equate their invented theologies with "the Bible." Saying that the Bible is true isn't the same as saying that it's historically accurate or inerrant. Claiming that no two verses may contradict each other when treated as inerrant history is a theological position, not a biblical one. If you've never heard that your theological views contradict the Bible as it's written, then you don't talk to many people outside of your particular, narrow brand of Christianity.

I see now. You're merely arguing for the allegorical interpretation of symbolic Christianity: Gnosticism. Many unbelieving-believing Jews did the same with the Torah.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

And believing the Bible as written, when written as fact, is called 'narrow-minded' Christianity.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

And so, the symbolic Christian says the foundational Christian is contradicting their Bible. Which is true. We reject their symbol-man's Bible as being the Bible at all.

However, once again, that sophistic accusation can only be made by those who do not believe the Bible is recorded fact, but only allegorical myth.

So, like all myths, the Bible cannot really contradict itself, but the only ones 'contradicting it' as not being myth,

That's right.

Got it. And if the Bible were myth, I'd certainly agree:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For, We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

The problem with equating the Bible and ancient myth, is that it's based upon an amicable ignorance to the strong antagonism between the two. A mythographer would never accept the Bible into the canon of mythography, because no myth would, nor does, condemn any other mythical god as no god. The reason being, that if any one of the mythical gods fall as nothing, then they all fall together:

Jer 16:20 Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?

2Ki 19:18 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.

Jer 2:11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

Jer 5:7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods:

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

1Co 12:2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.


Mythology is all about consensus of belief in the gods, and not about inerrancy between them. By their inherent consensual disagreements among themselves, their unified preservation of the mythical gods did reject the Bible as anti-myth, even as the early Christians were rejected as unbelievers and deniers of the gods.

Modern pseudo-classicists are ignorant of the old pagan enmity with the Bible, and would be rejected for daring to say the Bible is a myth like one of their own. As T.S. Eliot says, when anyone begins to argue the Bible as ancient myth, he doesn't ask them what they know about the Bible, but rather what do they know about myths and mythographers. Because they are ignorant of the mutual enmity between one another.

are the neo-superstitious, prehellenistic, counter-enlightenment, concatenatiously a-scientific, rural rubes, that laughably ( ) believe those supernatural events, that are written exactly as witnessed by other neo-superstitious, prehellenistic, counter-enlightenment, concatenatiously a-scientific, rural Hebrew rubes...

Hold on... straw man... poisoning the well... BINGO!

It's your poisonous straw, or at least you quote it:

From Propp's Exodus 1-18 volume of The Anchor Bible, pp. 347-348:
Any rigorous attempt to explain the whole Plagues narrative as a naive but basically accurate report of a chain of natural calamities is doomed from the start. Rationalistic explanations for miracles, common in Hellenistic times (e.g., Artapanus) and revived to counter Enlightenment skepticism, are anachronistic today. To believe that the Bible faithfully records a concatenation of improbable events, as interpreted by a prescientific society, demands a perverse fundamentalism that blindly accepts the antiquity and accuracy of biblical tradition while denying its theory of supernatural intervention.

People need to remember what they write and quote, so they don't later contradict their own words, or condemn their own propaganda.

[POI]

Actually, the timeline perfectly matches with the early dating.

Hmm? We have the verified timeline? See my prior response. (Kind of a rhetorical question).

No, the Bible does not say they were initially enslaved. This is a common misunderstanding of the text.

AI Overview
Learn more
Were the Israelites in Egyptian Slavery for 430 years ...
Yes, according to the Bible, the Israelites were initially enslaved in Egypt

The story of the Israelites settling in Egypt during a famine and their subsequent enslavement is found in around chapter 42, and Exodus.

Genesis 42 tells the story of Jacob's sons traveling to Egypt to buy grain during a famine. Specifically, it recounts how Jacob, after learning there was grain in Egypt, sends ten of his sons (excluding Joseph's younger brother, Benjamin) to obtain it. They arrive in Egypt and bow down before Joseph, who is the governor, unaware that he is their brother. Joseph, recognizing them but not revealing his identity, tests their character and eventually places them in custody. The chapter concludes with the brothers, filled with guilt over their past actions towards Joseph, being told to return with Benjamin and that a test is pending.

A single entity can be called by multiple names. Just because one thing is called by different names doesn't mean they point to different entities.

Remember when I told you anyone can argue almost anything? We'll let the readers decide here.

It's more like different focus of the same narrative.

It's more like 'shoehorning.'

Of course there are people that have different views. But what is the evidence to support their view?

What does one consider as 'evidence'?

Actually, Manetho's account is contrary to the archaeological evidence at Tell el-Dab'a. For Josephus, he believed the Hyksos were the Israelites.
So, which account is right? Manetho or Josephus?

As you would say, it would not matter. Follow the 'evidence.' I guess most of modern scholarship are wrong when they conclude these two groups are distinct, and that the 'Israelites' are one of myth.

What we have so far is the evidence of the Hyksos and the exodus account line up very well. Whereas there is no alternative explanation of the Hyksos even being presented. Again, why were the Hyksos able to reside in Egypt and take over the best land? The only view has been Manetho's account that they were a marauding group. But the archaeological evidence is against that.

Your use of the term 'very well' seems to be doing some heavy lifting.