Evidence of Hebrew Slavery in Egypt?

[2PhiloVoid]

So, the Exodus. What can I say? Here's the short of it. As many of us already know, the tendency among secular historians today
is to firmly recognize that there is no evidence for the Exodus account in the Book of, Exodus. They don't see any evidence, and thus, they don't feel confident that any of it ever happened. They often simply take it as an ancient interpolation that a few Semitic groups were jumbled around and moved.

The following video, though, seems to offer up some interesting historical items for our consideration, and it applies to the possible historicity of the Exodus.

Let's watch, and feel free to comment:

Signs of Israelite Slavery in Egypt - The Exodus​

by PatternsOfEvidence​

​

 

[public hermit]

We shouldn't expect the Egyptians to corroborate the Hebrew account. The winners write history, and so on, but this is interesting. The biblical account could be tracking truth and we still should not expect to find Egyptian corroboration. Why would the Egyptians recount their own defeat? That is not the stuff of Egyptian history. lol. I wonder about the use of "Semitic peoples." As a term, it hardly;y makes sense pre-Exodus, extra-biblical. That term included Arabs and a whole host of folks in the relevant time period, according to antiquated ways of tracking such things..

 

[public hermit]

We shouldn't expect the Egyptians to corroborate the Hebrew account. The winners write history, and so on, but this is interesting. The biblical account could be tracking truth and we still should not expect to find Egyptian corroboration. Why would the Egyptians recount their own defeat? That is not the stuff of Egyptian history. lol. I wonder about the use of "Semitic peoples." As a term, it hardly;y makes sense pre-Exodus, extra-biblical. That term included Arabs and a whole host of folks in the relevant time period, according to antiquated ways of tracking such things..

The slave list has names that were biblical and Semitic. Okay, biblical names were also very often Canaanite. If the name includes "El" that is Canaanite in origin.These people lived and mixed together. That doesn't mean Hebrews were not salves in Egypt, but it is far from a definitive showing they were as understood by the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We shouldn't expect the Egyptians to corroborate the Hebrew account. The winners write history, and so on, but this is interesting. The biblical account could be tracking truth and we still should not expect to find Egyptian corroboration. Why would the Egyptians recount their own defeat? That is not the stuff of Egyptian history. lol. I wonder about the use of "Semitic peoples." As a term, it hardly;y makes sense pre-Exodus, extra-biblical. That term included Arabs and a whole host of folks in the relevant time period, according to antiquated ways of tracking such things..

That's a good point. Historical accounts, as remnants from the Past, shouldn't be expected to always sync up together being that they are human products.

I wonder about the use of "Semitic peoples" too. Some of the way this term is denotated and parsed depends on the historical frame of analysis we choose to apply. Do we study the ancient Egyptian swath of history solely as Secular Humanists or, instead, do we do so as Biblically mindful investigators?

I thought it was interesting in the video how David Rohl mentioned that when contrasting sets of evidence appear that "don't fit" with historical expectations, rather than being held with acknowledgment, they sometimes are set to the side and forgotten or ignored. Like him, though, I'd rather just acknowledge that we have a jumble of fragments that still exist and are there for our re-consideration.

 

[Chesterton]

We shouldn't expect the Egyptians to corroborate the Hebrew account. The winners write history, and so on, but this is interesting. The biblical account could be tracking truth and we still should not expect to find Egyptian corroboration. Why would the Egyptians recount their own defeat? That is not the stuff of Egyptian history. lol. I wonder about the use of "Semitic peoples." As a term, it hardly;y makes sense pre-Exodus, extra-biblical. That term included Arabs and a whole host of folks in the relevant time period, according to antiquated ways of tracking such things..

Yeah, I've read that although most peoples do it to some extent, the Egyptians were especially bad about exaggerating their victories and achievements, and downplaying or not recording their losses and failures.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say the Egyptians didn't do it--that's a Mandela effect.

Isaiah 52:4 For thus says the Lord GOD: “My people went down at first Into Egypt to dwell there; Then the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.

The Pharaoh of the Oppression was an Assyrian. This verse has nothing to do with the Assyrian captivity which God allowed for a cause. This event is specific to the Exodus account. Pharaoh's people said, "Know you not Egypt is destroyed", which must place this at the end of a dynasty.


The Exodus and Revelation are book ends because the Beast Power will have Assyrian roots and oppress Israel again, but instead of Moses, Christ will come to redeem His people and instead of coming down on Mt. Sinai, He will come to the Mt. of Olives.

The only time an Assyrian could have ruled Egypt was during the Hyksos period, placing the Exodus c. 1550 BC. Ancient Writers claim Ahmose was the Pharaoh of the Exodus; I believe he was contemporary with it, but not the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That would have been the final Hyksos Pharaoh.

There are indications in Exodus that the Pharaoh was not Egyptian, such as stating Israel was more and mightier than him and his people. Israel could never outnumber the Egyptians at that time. Pharaoh himself must have been a miniority. The second indication is in the following passage:

Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, “It is not right to do so, for we would be sacrificing the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. If we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, then will they not stone us?

Who does Moses have to explain to Pharaoh the punishment for sacrificing the abominations of the Egyptians (sheep/goats). Pharaoh is suppose to be a type of high priest of the Egyptians gods and should know this already, so why say, "will they not stone us"; just saying, we will be sacrificing lambs and goats should have been enough. Pharaoh should have been like, "Oh, hm, yeah that would be a problem if you did that in the land", but he seemingly doesn't care and Moses has to explain what an offense this would be.

 

[Kylie]

So, the Exodus. What can I say? Here's the short of it. As many of us already know, the tendency among secular historians today
is to firmly recognize that there is no evidence for the Exodus account in the Book of, Exodus. They don't see any evidence, and thus, they don't feel confident that any of it ever happened. They often simply take it as an ancient interpolation that a few Semitic groups were jumbled around and moved.

The following video, though, seems to offer up some interesting historical items for our consideration, and it applies to the possible historicity of the Exodus.

Let's watch, and feel free to comment:

Signs of Israelite Slavery in Egypt - The Exodus​

by PatternsOfEvidence​

​

The guy who made this, Timothy Mahoney, is a film maker. He is not a theologist, and he is not a historian. So why is his opinion being treated as valid?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The guy who made this, Timothy Mahoney, is a film maker. He is not a theologist, and he is not a historian. So why is his opinion being treated as valid?

Ok. And? What does your citation about Timothy Mahoney have to do with the cogency or lack thereof of historical theory presented in the video?

It's not as if my presenting of a SINGLE video is meant to be some kind of definitive answer. No, the MERE presentation of a single video is but an ice breaker, not some finishing conclusion .......................................................................

 

[Kylie]

Ok. And? What does your citation about Timothy Mahoney have to do with the cogency or lack thereof of historical theory presented in the video?

It's not as if my presenting of a SINGLE video is meant to be some kind of definitive answer. No, the MERE presentation of a single video is but an ice breaker, not some finishing conclusion .......................................................................

What dioes it have to do?

Simply that I'd like to get my history from an actual HISTORIAN.

Can you show me a HISTORIAN who agrees with the claims he makes?

This video is about as reliable about a plumber making a video about heart surgery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What dioes it have to do?

Simply that I'd like to get my history from an actual HISTORIAN.

Can you show me a HISTORIAN who agrees with the claims he makes?

This video is about as reliable about a plumber making a video about heart surgery.

I think your focus here is misplaced since, if you watch the video, there are two historians presented within it whom you can hear out. Like you, and being the academic that I am, I also prefer to get my information from "actual" Historians of all kinds (as well as Historiographers and Philosophers of History).

That's the point of the video, despite whatever questionable fact remains about its producer. I mean, what you're proposing as a criticism of the video's producer is, as far as I can tell, very nearly an Ad hominem. But for now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you don't like what the two historians in the video have to say, then you can feel free to disagree with them.

 

[Neogaia777]

Bump/following, cause I haven't completely given up on this subject yet, and would like to hear "all views" before definitively concluding, etc.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bump/following, cause I haven't completely given up on this subject yet, and would like to hear "all views" before definitively concluding, etc.

God Bless.

If you're interested in views, then the next thing for you to do is to get current on the historical and archaeological positions on the presence of Israel in history: Minimalists, Centrists, and Maximalists.