The Exodus

[DogmaHunter]

Did Jews live in Egypt before?

"Jews" certainly not. "Israelites" - perhaps, I don't know.

What has that got to do with what I posted?

 

[juvenissun]

"Jews" certainly not. "Israelites" - perhaps, I don't know.

What has that got to do with what I posted?

Yes, Israelites.
If they were in Egypt, are they still there now? If not, where did they go?

 

[Tree of Life]

Did the Exodus really happen? I've read article both pro and con, and shades in between. Are there any good scholarly articles that support the Biblical account, or at least show its reasonably possible?

I'm about to enroll in a Master's course on Exodus through my Seminary. I'll get back to you on this one! Let me know if you've got more specific questions and I'll be sure to have my antennas up for answers.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Depends on what timeframe you use. If you use Rohl's shortened criteria there is some evidence for movement of peoples or if you subscribe to Velikovsky's view there is a little.
On traditional timelines there is slim evidence, but they are based on only two fixed points which might be incorrect (a dating of an eclipse and the assumption that Shishaq in the Bible is the same as Soshenq I) and then correlated based on these dates with fixed greek timelines.

If we assume Shisaq is Ramesses II, a possibility based on Hebrew shortening of his reign name, and therefore adopt Rohl's shortened timeline, we eliminate the Greek dark age thus making both the Ancient Greek view of history and Homer more plausible and we get a lot more biblically supported evidence (not just for population movement at the appropriate time, but also for Saul and David).
This is a minority view in Egyptology and Assyrology, but it is a view held by secular Egyptologists, not just seminarians.

Sufficed to say, Egyptology has not ruled out the Exodus at all, it is just held to be unlikely by the majority of scholars based on the traditional dating.

 

[nightflight]

Depends on what timeframe you use. If you use Rohm's shortened criteria there is some evidence for movement of peoples or if you subscribe to Velikovsky's view there is a little.
On traditional timelines there is slim evidence, but they are based on only two fixed points which might be incorrect (a dating of an eclipse and the assumption that Shishaq in the Bible is the same as Soshenq I) and then correlated based on these dates with fixed greek timelines.

If we assume Shisaq is Ramesses II, a possibility based on Hebrew shortening of his reign name, and therefore adopt Rohm's shortened timeline, we eliminate the Greek dark age thus making both the Ancient Greek view of history and Homer more plausible and we get a lot more biblically supported evidence (not just for population movement at the appropriate time, but also for Saul and David).
This is a minority view in Egyptology and Assyrology, but it is a view held by secular Egyptologists, not just seminarians.

Sufficed to say, Egyptology has not ruled out the Exodus at all, it is just held to be unlikely by the majority of scholars based on the traditional dating.

Yet you are a Protestant. Does not doubt about the historicity of the Exodus cast doubt upon your faith as a Christian?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yet you are a Protestant. Does not doubt about the historicity of the Exodus cast doubt upon your faith as a Christian?

Not at all. The historicity or not of most of the Old Testament would not materially change my faith at all. For if it is myth, it was necessary myth to create the theological milieu for the Incarnation to take place. It is similar to the fact that ideas of dying and reborn gods amongst certain ancient peoples has no impact upon the Christian view of Jesus' Resurrection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, Israelites.
If they were in Egypt, are they still there now? If not, where did they go?

People move all the time.

This however changes nothing about the evidence I gave you.
There's no reason to believe that an event like the exodus every took place in ancient Egypt. Especially not as described.

 

[juvenissun]

People move all the time.

This however changes nothing about the evidence I gave you.
There's no reason to believe that an event like the exodus every took place in ancient Egypt. Especially not as described.

There is no reason not to believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no reason not to believe it.

Yes, there is. I just gave you one (and there are more). You just ignored it.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, there is. I just gave you one (and there are more). You just ignored it.

You did not give me any.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You did not give me any.

Post 19.

I'ld say that a good piece evidence against the exodus story is the fact that withing the timeframes that this event supposedly took place, there isn't a single shred of evidence or sign of chaos or civil unrest in Egypt at around the same time.

The plagues and the leaving of a massive amount of slaves would have seriously destabilised Egypt. But there is no sign of this at all. In fact, it seems like the opposite is true. In this timeframe, Egypt prospered, expanded and mounted effective military campaigns on both land and sea.

None of its enemies seem to have recorded such humilation either.

In short: this story only exists in the religious scriptures.

If exodus is even only remotely grounded in truth, one would expect to see signs of civil unrest, chaos or military disruption in Egypt for this period.

Instead, we see the opposite: a stable nation that not only is prospering, it even is expanding through several military successes.

None of its enemies are reporting on the humiliation of several thousands (let alone hundreds of thousand) of slaves simply walking out of Egypt either.

The only place where this event seems to be reported on, is in the religious lore of the Israelites. The most logical conclusion here, is that it is just religious myth. It never actually happened.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Post 19.



If exodus is even only remotely grounded in truth, one would expect to see signs of civil unrest, chaos or military disruption in Egypt for this period.

Instead, we see the opposite: a stable nation that not only is prospering, it even is expanding through several military successes.

None of its enemies are reporting on the humiliation of several thousands (let alone hundreds of thousand) of slaves simply walking out of Egypt either.

The only place where this event seems to be reported on, is in the religious lore of the Israelites. The most logical conclusion here, is that it is just religious myth. It never actually happened.

Actually, if you adopt the new Chronology of Rohl as I described above, a minority view in Egyptology, it moves the Exodus from the 19th to the 13th dynasty, thus from the New Kingdom into the Second Intermediate period.
There is chaos, military disruption, large scale population movement, mention by neighbours and it fits the first mentions of the Tetragrammaton in Sinai amongst the Shasu in Egyptian sources.
This chronological revision fits quite nicely the Exodus narrative. It remains a minority view though as Egyptology is still investigating and refining the New Chronology versus the standard dating. It takes time for Academia to make conclusions so both sides of the argument are still investigating regarding the need to redate the timeline.

As an aside, the Exodus fitting better is actually a side effect as Rohl initially set out to redate Ramesses to the 10th based on doubt of Champollion's Shisaq connection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, if you adopt the new Chronology of Rohl as I described above, a minority view in Egyptology, it moves the Exodus from the 19th to the 13th dynasty, thus from the New Kingdom into the Second Intermediate period.
There is chaos, military disruption, large scale population movement, mention by neighbours and it fits the first mentions of the Tetragrammaton in Sinai amongst the Shasu in Egyptian sources.
This chronological revision fits quite nicely the Exodus narrative. It remains a minority view though as Egyptology is still investigating and refining the New Chronology versus the standard dating. It takes time for Academia to make conclusions so both sides of the argument are still investigating regarding the need to redate the timeline.

It rather seems to me as a deliberate attempt at making the story forcefit the actual data.

Having said that, there is no reason at all to assume that the turmoil in the 13th dynasty was due to "plagues" or a massive amount of slaves simply walking out of the territory. Neither is there any data to support this.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It rather seems to me as a deliberate attempt at making the story forcefit the actual data.

Having said that, there is no reason at all to assume that the turmoil in the 13th dynasty was due to "plagues" or a massive amount of slaves simply walking out of the territory. Neither is there any data to support this.

There are mentions of plague and famine and the disturbances of the Hyksos in the delta area which all fit the narrative. You are mistaken. There is evidence of slave uprisings in the period, but the major Egyptian 'driving out' of the Hyksos doesn't fit perfectly, I agree, but I have heard it argued that this is because we have the biased Egyptian propaganda to work from.

I am not saying we have conclusive evidence for the Exodus in the New Chronology, it just becomes more likely. There is some evidence in support thereof.

 

[juvenissun]

Post 19.

It is not an evidence at all.

 

[Tree of Life]

@nightflight If you're not familiar with the broader conversation concerning the origins of the Pentateuch then it would be helpful to learn a bit about it. The question that you're asking fits within that conversation. You can get a good introduction to the various positions by listening to these two lectures:

Historical, Theological, and Literary Critical Theories Part 1
Historical, Theological, and Literary Critical Theories Part 2

 

[Root of Jesse]

You just answered your own question, there's no archaeological evidence it ever happened.

Anthropologists have looked at known, real historical cultures, and using those metrics to determine whether they existed or not, are applied to the exodus story in the OT, there simply isn't any evidence. Not even a little. To suggest that approx. 6,000,000 Israelite's lived in a ten square mile of desert, for forty years, would, according to anthropologists / archaeologists - the ones who study these things - have concluded that the story as told in the OT never occurred. There is not one contemporary historical corroboration of these events either. It's been suggested that if 6,000,000 Israelite's were to stand shoulder to shoulder, they would have found their way out of the wilderness. So as one begins to look at the mundane details of this story, it quickly falls apart. In fact, the Israeli government sponsored an official archaeological investigation into the exodus story, and they had to cancel it because there was no evidence to be found.

From Wiki:

The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.[4] The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[6] The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,[7] although the traditions behind it are older and can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[8] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[3]

Well the truth is that, after the Exodus, the Hebrews annually celebrated the Passover. Immediately after. Every year, without fail, and do, to this day. That suggests one of two things, either it happened, or 6,000,000 people deluded themselves. I don't think that's possible. Secondly, our Christian Lord and Savior celebrated it just prior to His crucifixion, and equated himself with the Passover lamb. I'll believe him, regardless of what archaeologists have to say about it.

Then you'll start making equivocations about the manna and the quail. I've heard Christians try to explain those scientifically, saying that the wind blew the quail off course and the manna was an aphid excretion. At any rate, I could care less what archaeologists have to say.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well the truth is that, after the Exodus, the Hebrews annually celebrated the Passover. Immediately after. Every year, without fail, and do, to this day.

Unfortunately the record of Scripture says otherwise. Though the Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover every year they very rarely did. They celebrated it under David, but not again until Hezekiah and then not again until Josiah. After Josiah it was not celebrated until after the return from exile.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Unfortunately the record of Scripture says otherwise. Though the Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover every year they very rarely did. They celebrated it under David, but not again until Hezekiah and then not again until Josiah. After Josiah it was not celebrated until after the return from exile.

Point out to me, please, where it says they didn't celebrate the Passover. I'm looking for any quote which says along the lines of 'they didn't celebrate the Passover those years...'.

 

[Tree of Life]

Point out to me, please, where it says they didn't celebrate the Passover. I'm looking for any quote which says along the lines of 'they didn't celebrate the Passover those years...'.

2 Chronicles 30:5
2 Chronicles 30:26