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]

In regard to a "historical account", an autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, and a soldier under Ahmose I, describes the military campaigns, including the siege and capture of Avaris, the Hyksos capital, and the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.

I already pointed out the archaeological record conflicts with the Egyptian historical record on this. If there's a conflict, which would be more likely to be the truth?

In regard to archaeological evidence, excavations at Tel Habuwa, (believed to be ancient Tjaru), show destruction, such as burned buildings, dating to the late Second Intermediate Period, consistent with Ahmose I's campaigns and the Hyksos expulsion.

The Egyptians had fought with the Hyksos prior to Ahmose I, so yes, there would be evidence of campaigns.

One Pharaoh that had fought the Hyksos was Senebkay. Interestingly, he's not recorded in Egyptian records as being a Pharaoh. It was only recent archaeological findings that discovered this.

“Unlike these numbered dynasties, the pharaohs of the Abydos Dynasty were forgotten to history and their royal necropolis unknown until this discovery of Senebkay’s tomb.”
https://www.sci.news/archaeology/scienc ... 01698.html

Why was he excluded from Egyptian records? Because he was an embarrassment to the Egyptians. He was the first Egyptian king to die in battle.

“The new results suggest that Senebkay might be the first Egyptian king who died in battle.”
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/ ... in-battle/

And he was brutally mutilated in battle as well.

"The analysis shows that the king received eighteen wounds reaching his bones including major cuts to his feet, ankles and lower back. There are also a number of blows at the skull which give us some ideas about the shape and type of battle axes and weapons used during that time. Also the angle and direction of the King’s wounds imply that he was in an elevated position (may be on horseback or on a chariot) relative to his attackers. The assailants probably wounded his lower part first (feet, ankles and lower back) in order to drag him on the floor then finished him with axe blows to the skull."
https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/ ... e_vignette

He died fighting against the Hyksos.

“Possibly the king died in battle fighting against the Hyksos kings who at that time ruled northern Egypt from their capital at Avaris in the Nile Delta.”
https://www.penn.museum/about/press-roo ... c-evidence

“King Senebkay lived between 1650 and 1550 B.C. near the ancient Egyptian cemetery of Abydos, about 300 miles (483 kilometers) south of Cairo. He was one of four mysterious pharaohs whose tombs were discovered in January 2014 and who belonged to a previously unknown royal dynasty.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/cult ... rchaeology

I never said 'immediate'. But before Ahmose I dies, in 1527 BCE, he expelled them.

If they were not immediately expelled, what did he do with the Hyksos until they were?

He wanted the Hyksos gone, as they were a ruling class. He had plenty of others to enslave.

The Hyksos was not a small group of people. It's doubtful he could've found any larger group of people to enslave.

Attempting to enslave a former ruling group could have presented significant challenges and risks of resistance

No more of a challenge than any other ruling group in another country. It would've been easier also since there's no need of logistical issues with transporting slaves from a foreign land. Also, the confluence of the rise of massive chattel slavery at this time in Egyptian history explains this as well. Otherwise, what explains this change in Egyptian history?

Expulsion was a common practice for removing unwanted groups or threats from a region, especially if they were viewed as a destabilizing force.

I would think annihilation would be the ultimate way to remove any potential future threat. And this is not an uncommon tactic in ancient warfare. Why was this not done if they really wanted to prevent them from regaining power? If they simply expelled them, couldn't they have eventually restrengthened and come back?

The Bible does not avoid revealing embarrassing things

I couldn't agree more...

Then it lends more credence that the Bible is not fake news, rather, it shows the Bible gives honest reporting and doesn't try to twist facts just to make people look good.

[POI]

I already pointed out the archaeological record conflicts with the Egyptian historical record on this. If there's a conflict, which would be more likely to be the truth?

I don't think it is quite this black and white Otseng. Seems you are presenting a false dichotomy here, in that if the Egyptian's account is not 100% on point, then the Bible is correct. Of course, the victor, who writes a tale, will likely make events more favorable. However, the timeline, regardless of any given leniency related to ancient historical antiquity, does not point to a claimed Biblical account of events. Remember what we are discussing here... According to Genesis 15:13, the 'Isrealites" were enslaved for 400 years. In order to self-fulfill such prophecy, quite a bit of creativity looks to have been provided. And so far, you state the "Israelites" were not enslaved for nearly this long, which already discounts Genesis's claim by ~300 years. But we cannot even grant you this much. See below...

One Pharaoh that had fought the Hyksos was Senebkay. Interestingly, he's not recorded in Egyptian records as being a Pharaoh. It was only recent archaeological findings that discovered this.

See above....

If they were not immediately expelled, what did he do with the Hyksos until they were?

They were not immediately expelled because the Hyksos retreated to Sharuhen after their defeat. Ahmose pursued them there in Sharuhen for another few years before he could ultimately expel them.

The Hyksos was not a small group of people. It's doubtful he could've found any larger group of people to enslave.

Though I agree enslavement took place, we do not know how many folks Ahmose I enslaved.

It would've been easier also since there's no need of logistical issues with transporting slaves from a foreign land.

It's easier to just expel them. As stated prior, he had plenty of others to enslave, when he needed them.

No more of a challenge than any other ruling group in another country.

All opponents aren't equal in measure.

It would've been easier also since there's no need of logistical issues with transporting slaves from a foreign land.

Ahmose I's military campaigns led to the acquisition of some slaves. However, his main goals were expelling the Hyksos, reunifying Egypt, and restoring Egyptian power. The capture and enslavement of people in conquered territories was likely secondary.

I would think annihilation would be the ultimate way to remove any potential future threat. And this is not an uncommon tactic in ancient warfare. Why was this not done if they really wanted to prevent them from regaining power? If they simply expelled them, couldn't they have eventually restrengthened and come back?

Ahmose I's army further weakened the Hyksos, when his army again defeated them in Sharuhen. Ahmose also likely recognized the need for a strong military to deter future threats. His reign and the subsequent New Kingdom period are characterized by a more powerful and professional army.

Then it lends more credence that the Bible is not fake news, rather, it shows the Bible gives honest reporting and doesn't try to twist facts just to make people look good.

The Bible likely is "fake news". The 'Israelites' were not enslaved in Egypt for 400 years, only to wander the desert for another 40 years, etc... These facts are twisted.

[otseng]

I already pointed out the archaeological record conflicts with the Egyptian historical record on this. If there's a conflict, which would be more likely to be the truth?

I don't think it is quite this black and white Otseng. Seems you are presenting a false dichotomy here, in that if the Egyptian's account is not 100% on point, then the Bible is correct.

I'm not claiming the Egyptian records has to be totally true or the Bible is true. What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?

When facts are twisted, there is a kernel of truth in the claim, but it's been a bit distorted. Manetho's account of the Hyksos says they came from Canaan and settled into Goshen. Everyone agrees with that. However, what is incorrect is how they settled into Goshen. He claims they forcibly came into the land. But archaeology says they came into the land peacefully. Manetho also says they left Egypt and resettled back into Canaan. Everyone agrees with that. But the issue is how they left - were they expelled or were they enslaved and then freely left?

Given the Egyptians had a habit of historical revisionism to avoid recording embarrassing events, we have to be suspicious of everything they claim. But when a scenario that aligns with archaeology and the Bible and even parts of the Egyptian record, then it makes it reasonable the Bible's account is then correct.

Remember what we are discussing here... According to Genesis 15:13, the 'Isrealites" were enslaved for 400 years. In order to self-fulfill such prophecy, quite a bit of creativity looks to have been provided. And so far, you state the "Israelites" were not enslaved for nearly this long, which already discounts Genesis's claim by ~300 years.

No, the Bible does not say they were enslaved for 400 years. Only AI says that, which is another example where it goes wrong.

I've already covered this at:

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

Here's the text:

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.

Obviously the Israelites were not immediately enslaved when they entered Egypt. They grew in numbers until the "land was filled with them." They were not enslaved during this time. And it must've taken some time for the population to increase to fill the land.

It was only when the number of grew so large that the Egyptians felt they were too powerful that they took action. It was during the reign of Ahmose I (~1570-1514 BC.) that the Hyksos lost power.

Warfare between the Hyksos and the pharaohs of the late Seventeenth Dynasty eventually culminated in the defeat of the Hyksos by Ahmose I, who founded the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt.[16] In the following centuries, the Egyptians would portray the Hyksos as bloodthirsty and oppressive foreign rulers.

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

So, the Israelites were free and not enslaved prior to Ahmose I. And it was 350 years after they entered Egypt that Moses was born (1526 BC).

They were not immediately expelled because the Hyksos retreated to Sharuhen after their defeat. Ahmose pursued them there in Sharuhen for another few years before he could ultimately expel them.

If they retreated, that's not necessarily a defeat of the Hyksos. So, what you are still claiming is they were immediately expelled after they were defeated.

Though I agree enslavement took place, we do not know how many folks Ahmose I enslaved.

We don't know the exact numbers, but we do know it was his reign that mass chattel slavery started:

And it was in the New Kingdom that the start of widespread chattel slavery started. Even the great pyramids of Egypt, built centuries earlier, were not built by slaves, but by paid workers.

It was a long-held belief in science that oppressed slaves built these pyramids and were subjected to horrible working conditions. However, a recent study found that most workers who built the pyramids were paid laborers, not slaves.

https://www.historydefined.net/what-was ... ent-egypt/

It was during the New Kingdom that mass chattel slavery from war prisoners in Egypt blossomed.

It seems that the slave population consisted of prisoners of war, usually foreigners. Dr. Cwiek mentions that the population of slave workers swelled during the Imperial Period (1550-1069 BC) due to several successful campaigns. These individuals would have been of Asian, Nubian, and Syro-Palestine descent.

https://www.historydefined.net/what-was ... ent-egypt/

During the New Kingdom period, the military and its expenses grew and so additional coerced labor was needed to sustain it. As such, the "New Kingdom, with its relentless military operations, is the epoch of large-scale foreign slavery".

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

It's easier to just expel them. As stated prior, he had plenty of others to enslave, when he needed them.

Makes no sense to be lenient to the Hyksos when they maligned them, removed them from list of the Pharaohs, and cast them as marauding invaders.

And as I pointed out, if they expelled them, what's to stop them from regaining power and reentering Egypt to conquer them again? The ancient tactic of permanently solving problems with a group of people was to kill them all.

As being nice to them just because they have a bunch of other slaves already, is there any culture that had that mentality? Esp when they've just conquered them?

All opponents aren't equal in measure.

No, they aren't. And the Hyksos were not pushovers as we see with the battle with Senebkay.

Ahmose I's military campaigns led to the acquisition of some slaves. However, his main goals were expelling the Hyksos, reunifying Egypt, and restoring Egyptian power. The capture and enslavement of people in conquered territories was likely secondary.

Doubtful slavery was not a major issue if it was during his reign that mass chattel slavery started. And again missing is an alternative explanation of what caused this shift in Egyptian practice.

His reign and the subsequent New Kingdom period are characterized by a more powerful and professional army.

Actually, subsequent Pharaohs had relatively little campaigns:

Another alignment that better fits with the early date than the late date is the drowning of the Egyptian army. With the loss of most of the Egyptian military in the Red Sea, it would've been a blow to their military power. And what we see in the early dating of the Exodus is the lack of military exploits during and after Amenhotep II.

The beginning of his reign, he went on many campaigns and then ceased campaigns after his ninth year.

"Amenhotep's last campaign took place in his ninth year, however it apparently did not proceed farther north than the Sea of Galilee.[29] According to the list of plunder from this campaign, Amenhotep claims to have taken 101,128 slaves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

Thutmose IV succeeded Amenhotep II and had a reign around 10 years and only had one minor campaign.

"He suppressed a minor uprising in Nubia in his 8th year (attested in his Konosso stela) around 1393 BC and was referred to in a stela as the Conqueror of Syria, but little else has been pieced together about his military exploits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_IV

Amenhotep III was the next Pharaoh and reigned for around 38 years. He only had one campaign during his reign and even that was hyped up.

"Despite the martial prowess Amenhotep displayed during the hunt, he is known to have participated in only one military incident. In Regnal Year Five, he led a victorious campaign against a rebellion in Kush. This victory was commemorated by three rock-carved stelae found near Aswan and Saï in Nubia. The official account of Amenhotep's military victory emphasizes his martial prowess with the period-typical hyperbole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_III

And the lack of campaigns was not just because there was peace in the land. The Amarna letters covers the reign of Amenhotep III and his successor Akhenaten. These letters came from vassal states and included requests for military help against invaders, but Egypt gave no assistance.

"Under Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, Egypt was unable or unwilling to oppose the rise of the Hittites around Syria.The pharaohs seemed to eschew military confrontation at a time when the balance of power between Egypt's neighbors and rivals was shifting, and the Hittites, a confrontational state, overtook the Mitanni in influence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

[POI]

I'm not claiming the Egyptian records has to be totally true or the Bible is true. What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?

Archeology does not support the claim that the Hyksos were enslaved. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Hyksos, who ruled northern Egypt for a period, were not enslaved, but rather a foreign, Semitic ruling class who established an independent dynasty. Excavations at the Hyksos capital, Tell el-Dab'a, reveal a clearly foreign population with Canaanite-style housing and Levantine weapons and pottery. Hence, here is another shining example of Biblical 'fake news'.

When facts are twisted, there is a kernel of truth in the claim, but it's been a bit distorted. Manetho's account of the Hyksos says they came from Canaan and settled into Goshen. Everyone agrees with that. However, what is incorrect is how they settled into Goshen. He claims they forcibly came into the land. But archaeology says they came into the land peacefully. Manetho also says they left Egypt and resettled back into Canaan. Everyone agrees with that.

This is why I have brought up this claimed event. The mundane and natural events, as claimed from the Biblical account, HAS to be true. In that 'Israelite' enslavement and desert dwelling really happened, as told from the Pentateuch. Otherwise, the believer in the Bible is in deep doo doo. The Christian does not have the liberty here in hand-waving away certain claimed 'facts', such as enslavement and desert dwelling.

were they expelled or were they enslaved and then freely left?

Human discovery states they were expelled. Hence, case closed. Another prime example of Biblical 'fake news', in need of Christian apologetics to the rescue. Most opt for the Carl Sagan slogan. You have instead gone rogue and are attempting to link another tribe.

Given the Egyptians had a habit of historical revisionism to avoid recording embarrassing events, we have to be suspicious of everything they claim.

Given the Biblical authors also had a habit of historical revisionism, which do not align with naturalism, archeology, and other "science(s)', we have to be suspicious of everything they claim too right? And since we can be confident the Hyksos were expelled and not enslaved, it is just yet another example of Biblical fake news.

But when a scenario that aligns with archaeology and the Bible and even parts of the Egyptian record, then it makes it reasonable the Bible's account is then correct.

I already covered this a few responses ago. Evidence suggests the Hyksos were expelled and not enslaved. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/).

No, the Bible does not say they were enslaved for 400 years.

You missed a key element in my last response. They were not enslaved for even 100 years either. They were instead expelled. "Experts" believe they may have only been enslaved up to ~200 years, even though Genesis 15:13 stated another number. However, the reality is that the Hyksos were likely not enslaved at all. Hence, you are going to need to find another group to link the 'Israelites' to. Maybe instead study up on the Habiru tribe, and maybe try to link then to the claimed 'Israelites' in Egypt?

So, the Israelites were free and not enslaved prior to Ahmose I. And it was 350 years after they entered Egypt that Moses was born (1526 BC).

Many scholars. and some Christians, consider Moses to be a symbolic figure or an amalgamation of different leaders, rather than a historical person. Are you claiming Moses was a real person? If so, what makes you so sure? Because if Moses did not really exist, then this is another possible giant problem for the Bible.

If they retreated, that's not necessarily a defeat of the Hyksos.

They were defeated in battle, and ultimately lost the war entire. Which is when they were expelled.

We don't know the exact numbers, but we do know it was his reign that mass chattel slavery started

Mass slavery started (after) Ahmose I. The Hyksos were long gone, even IF later leaders began mass enslavement. And I've already explained why Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos. I understand why you cannot accept this conclusion, as it completely annihilates the "Biblical narrative".

Makes no sense to be lenient to the Hyksos when they maligned them, removed them from list of the Pharaohs, and cast them as marauding invaders.

I already answered as to why it makes sense to expel them. Simply repeating yourself does not refute my prior response.

And as I pointed out, if they expelled them, what's to stop them from regaining power and reentering Egypt to conquer them again?

Already explained here too... Simply asking the same question again puts us into a perpetual loop. 

The ancient tactic of permanently solving problems with a group of people was to kill them all.

Already addressed... But here we go again:

Ahmose I's decision not to kill the Hyksos after defeating them wasn't a reflection of a lack of traditional methods, but rather a strategic choice driven by political and military realities. The Hyksos were expelled and ultimately driven out of Egypt.

Here's why:

Strategic Advantage: Expelling the Hyksos and taking their territory was more beneficial than eliminating them. This allowed Ahmose to solidify his power and expand Egyptian control in the region.

Cultural Exchange and Innovation: The Hyksos brought new technologies and ideas to Egypt, which ultimately benefited the Egyptian civilization.

The Hyksos were not simply conquerors: They were a Semitic people who integrated into Egyptian society and played a role in shaping the course of Egyptian history. While the Hyksos may have been seen as enemies by some Egyptians, Ahmose's decision to expel them rather than exterminate them reflects a more pragmatic and long-term vision for the future of Egypt.

[otseng]

Archeology does not support the claim that the Hyksos were enslaved.

Here's a painting of a group of people which include Canaanite people enslaved during that period:

The biblical description of slaves making bricks is affirmed by a painting in the tomb of Rehkmire (ca. 1470-1445 BC), the vizier of Egypt under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. The painting depicts Nubian and Asiatic slaves (Egyptians called people from Canaan “Asiatics”) making bricks for the workshops of the Karnak Temple.21 Slaves are seen collecting and mixing mud and water, packing the mud in brick molds, and leaving them to dry in the sun. Nearby Egyptian officials, each with a rod, oversee the work.

https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021 ... he-exodus/

Given the Biblical authors also had a habit of historical revisionism, which do not align with naturalism, archeology, and other "science(s)', we have to be suspicious of everything they claim too right?

No, the Biblical authors did not have a habit of historical revisionism, as we've seen in the example of Manetho's account of portraying the Hyksos as marauding invaders. This was accepted as fact for thousands of years up until recently with archaeological findings. Now, we know they peacefully entered the land, just like the Bible states.

Who says naturalism is right? As a matter of fact, as we've discovered in cosmology, naturalism is no longer a held belief.

They were not enslaved for even 100 years either. They were instead expelled. "Experts" believe they may have only been enslaved up to ~200 years, even though Genesis 15:13 stated another number.

This is claimed by the proponents of the late dating of Exodus. So, what is the evidence for the late dating?

However, the reality is that the Hyksos were likely not enslaved at all. Hence, you are going to need to find another group to link the 'Israelites' to.

As I've argued, the Biblical account best explains the six questions. Whereas there has been no viable alternative explanation offered. So, the Biblical account aligns with the Hyksos.

Many scholars. and some Christians, consider Moses to be a symbolic figure or an amalgamation of different leaders, rather than a historical person. Are you claiming Moses was a real person? If so, what makes you so sure? Because if Moses did not really exist, then this is another possible giant problem for the Bible.

Of course I believe Moses was a real person...

Moses is believed to be an actual person that delivered them out of slavery. There's even a relief of Moses in the US Capital alongside 22 other lawgivers throughout history. And note Moses is singled out to be the only one facing head on. Both of these are examples of where it would make no sense if it was based on a mythical event and person.

[POI]

The biblical description of slaves making bricks is affirmed by a painting in the tomb of Rehkmire (ca. 1470-1445 BC), the vizier of Egypt under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. The painting depicts Nubian and Asiatic slaves (Egyptians called people from Canaan “Asiatics”) making bricks for the workshops of the Karnak Temple.21 Slaves are seen collecting and mixing mud and water, packing the mud in brick molds, and leaving them to dry in the sun. Nearby Egyptian officials, each with a rod, oversee the work.

Neither of these groups/tribes, in red, depicts the "Hyksos". Why? Because the Hyksos were instead expelled. And I've explained why, repeatedly.

"The Nubians" were defeated after the Hyksos were defeated. The Theban kings, including Ahmose I, first drove out the Hyksos from Egypt, and then marched south to defeat and drive back the Nubians.

The "Asiatic" slaves in question were primarily Shi'a Muslims from northern Iran. The slave trade in this region was also fueled by the capture of Armenians, Kalmyks, and others. Before the 16th century, the majority of slaves in Central Asia were trafficked from India.

As stated repeatedly, the timeline is damning for your claim(s). Ahmose I reigned king at the end of the Hyksos's known defeat. And Ahmose I gets credit for their expulsion (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ahmose-I).

No, the Biblical authors did not have a habit of historical revisionism

Yes, which is one of the reason(s) why Christian apologetics later flourished and continues to be so necessary for the Bible believer.

as we've seen in the example of Manetho's account of portraying the Hyksos as marauding invaders.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with addressing the given evidence and reasoning that the Hyksos were expelled and not enslaved after their defeat. Which in turn, renders the Biblical account of their enslavement false.

This is claimed by the proponents of the late dating of Exodus. So, what is the evidence for the late dating?

Your question here is irrelevant because the Hyksos were expelled. The point being that Hyksos enslavement was not a thing. This renders Biblical revisionism, or fake news, regardless of which timeline you want to address/calculate regarding how long they were actually "enslaved".

As I've argued, the Biblical account best explains the six questions

The Biblical account demonstrates fake news here, and nothing more. Which is a very damning blow for your present epistemological position, given the necessity for this 'fact' to be supported.

Whereas there has been no viable alternative explanation offered.

False. The most logical and viable alternative is that the Bible delivers fake news. Which is why most offer up the Carl Sagan slogan here. You understand this slogan is damning, so you instead try to link another historically documented group of folks to 'fit' the likely fictional narrative.

Of course I believe Moses was a real person...

Moses is believed to be an actual person that delivered them out of slavery. There's even a relief of Moses in the US Capital alongside 22 other lawgivers throughout history. And note Moses is singled out to be the only one facing head on. Both of these are examples of where it would make no sense if it was based on a mythical event and person.

This response requires its own entire topic.

[otseng]

Neither of these groups/tribes, in red, depicts the "Hyksos". Why? Because the Hyksos were instead expelled. And I've explained why, repeatedly.

No, you haven't repeatedly explained anything, you've only been repeating your claim. It goes back again to my question which you haven't answered - "What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?" It is Egyptian history that claims the Hyksos were expelled, particularly from Manetho. Here we have archaeological evidence of Canaanite and Nubians making bricks as slaves. If the Canaanites were not the Hyksos, then who were they?

As stated repeatedly, the timeline is damning for your claim(s). Ahmose I reigned king at the end of the Hyksos's known defeat. And Ahmose I gets credit for their expulsion

What timeline are you referring to? The late date of the Exodus? Have you even presented any evidence for it?

And constantly repeating your claims adds zero value to the debate.

Yes, which is one of the reason(s) why Christian apologetics later flourished and continues to be so necessary for the Bible believer.

Christian apologetics flourishes because it's often attacked by skeptics and because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and rational arguments to support it.

as we've seen in the example of Manetho's account of portraying the Hyksos as marauding invaders.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with addressing the given evidence and reasoning that the Hyksos were expelled and not enslaved after their defeat. Which in turn, renders the Biblical account of their enslavement false.

Of course it has to do with it. It shows Manetho's reporting of the Hyksos is fake news. Why should we trust his description of how the Hyksos left when he got it wrong of how they entered Egypt?

The Biblical account demonstrates fake news here, and nothing more.

Why should Manetho's account be accepted when he's been proven to have a wrong view of the Hyksos? And it's not just Manetho, but the entire Egyptian culture has had a habit of revising their history.

Whereas there has been no viable alternative explanation offered.

False. The most logical and viable alternative is that the Bible delivers fake news.

Then how were the Hyksos able to take over Goshen peacefully? Why did Manetho report it incorrectly?

This response requires its own entire topic.

It's actually relevant to this thread, so go ahead and address it here.

[POI]

No, you haven't repeatedly explained anything, you've only been repeating your claim. It goes back again to my question which you haven't answered - "What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?" It is Egyptian history that claims the Hyksos were expelled, particularly from Manetho. Here we have archaeological evidence of Canaanite and Nubians making bricks as slaves.

False. If you prefer evidence and reasoning (over) a questionable 'historical account(s)', then I already provided that too. As I already provided, both evidence and reasoning explain why the Hyksos were likely expelled after their defeat. Which means this debate is now likely over. Which then means, do not pass-go, do not collect $200.00, and this topic is kaput. Which means the Hyksos are likely not really the claimed 'Israelites'. For which all others here in this thread have already known. Which then means, you are left with the following choice(s):

a) Jump on the 'Carl Sagan slogan' band wagon, (like all other believers who have opted to respond to this topic)
b) Maybe try another group to <link or shoehorn> to the claimed 'Israelites', like maybe the Habiru
c) Abort Christianity
d) Retain your current unfounded position anyways....

If the Canaanites were not the Hyksos, then who were they?

This would be like a Mormon asking, "If the native Americans were not really the Lamanites, then who were they?" In this case, the claim of 'Lamanites in America' is equal to the claim of 'Israelites in Egypt'.

Well, they likely weren't the claimed 'Israelites', as you wish for them to be.

What timeline are you referring to?

The early one.

Have you even presented any evidence for it?

Yes, as well as reasoning.

And constantly repeating your claims adds zero value to the debate.

The only thing I'm repeating are the conclusion(s), based upon the already given evidence and reasoning.

Christian apologetics flourishes because it's often attacked by skeptics and because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and rational arguments to support it.

Not for the claim that the Hyksos are really the 'Israelites'.

Of course it has to do with it. It shows Manetho's reporting of the Hyksos is fake news. Why should we trust his description of how the Hyksos left when he got it wrong of how they entered Egypt?

We don't have to. We instead have both evidence and reasoning to support the conclusion that the Hyksos were expelled, and not enslaved, after their defeat. Which then means we can now move on to other very unlikely claims from the Bible itself, beyond the claim(s) from the Exodus account.

It's actually relevant to this thread, so go ahead and address it here.

Then just add it to the list of 'tabled' topics in this exchange. Such as why there is no evidence of their 4 decades of wandering...

[POI]

To put this fringe position to bed, meaning, the fringe position that "the Hyksos are actually the expressed Israelites from the Bible", we instead have evidence and reasoning to conclude the Israelites are most likely not the Hyksos. Why do I say most likely and not certainly? Well, because we are dealing with ancient antiquity here. Which then means virtually no conclusion is 100% founded:

1. The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose I, records the destruction of Avaris and the expulsion of the Hyksos. (https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/). Since Ahmose I was proudly known to enslave and kill some folks after he defeated them, like the Nubians, it's not logical or reasonable for this autobiography to lie about instead expelling the Hyksos. Ahmose I would have had no problem expressing how he enslaved or even executed all of the Hyksos.

2. Excavations at Tell Habuwa, possibly ancient Tjaru, have revealed evidence supporting the Hyksos expulsion by Ahmose I. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/). Which means the Hyksos left around 1500BCE or sooner. Which ultimately means it does not correlate with the account from the Bible.

3. Ahmose I's campaigns are said to have culminated in the siege of Avaris and the retreat of the Hyksos to Sharuhen in Palestine. Ahmose then pursued them, besieging Sharuhen for six years before finally driving them out (https://www.egypttoursportal.com/en-za/ ... s-invasion). This is more evidence that the Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites, as told from the Bible.

[otseng]

No, you haven't repeatedly explained anything, you've only been repeating your claim. It goes back again to my question which you haven't answered - "What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?" It is Egyptian history that claims the Hyksos were expelled, particularly from Manetho. Here we have archaeological evidence of Canaanite and Nubians making bricks as slaves.

False. If you prefer evidence and reasoning (over) a questionable 'historical account(s)', then I already provided that too.

Still haven't answered my question - "What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an Egyptian historical record and the archaeological record, which is then right?". But we both know why you won't answer it. Egyptian historical records say the Hyksos were expelled, but the archaeological evidence is against it. As I've pointed out:

Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos before he died, which was 1527BCE.

Archaeological evidence is against this:

Dr. Manfred Bietak, chief excavator of Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris), is one of the foremost experts on the Hyksos. He states that despite Manetho’s overly simplistic claim that the Hyksos were expelled to Canaan following their defeat in the mid-16th century b.c.e., there is no archaeological evidence for this. “[W]e have no evidence that the Western Asiatic population who carried the Hyksos rule in Egypt was expelled to the Levant,” he writes in his research article “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?” Instead, following their defeat, “there is mounting evidence to suggest that a large part of this population stayed in Egypt and served their new overlords in various capacities” (emphasis added). Evidence of this can be found throughout Egypt, including an “uninterrupted” production of Hyksos-style pottery in the Eastern Delta, as well as a degree of continued worship of “Canaanite cults.”

https://armstronginstitute.org/835-the- ... ient-egypt

So, they were not immediately expelled after they were defeated.

Which means this debate is now likely over. Which then means, do not pass-go, do not collect $200.00, and this topic is kaput.

Posturing is not helping your position either.

As for evidence of the Exodus, I'm only just focusing on the Hyksos as my primary evidence of the Exodus, there are other pointers as well. So I can go to other evidence besides the Hyksos.

But it's not the goal of this thread to provide a comprehensive argument for the Exodus happening. Rather, the OP only asks if there is any evidence to support the Exodus - "Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?" I have provided evidence for it with the Hyksos. So technically the debate could be over because I've presented positive evidence for it.

If the Canaanites were not the Hyksos, then who were they?

This would be like a Mormon asking, "If the native Americans were not really the Lamanites, then who were they?" In this case, the claim of 'Lamanites in America' is equal to the claim of 'Israelites in Egypt'.

Nobody is asking about the Lamanites, so it's another red herring. Unlike the Lamanites, both the Canaanites and Hyksos were real people mentioned by history books. And if the Canaanites depicted in the tomb of Rehkmire were not the Hyksos, then they've got to be somebody. Where did these Canaanites come from? Why are these Canaanites making bricks as slaves?

Have you even presented any evidence for it?

Yes, as well as reasoning.

When I say evidence, I'm asking for links to sources, not just providing summaries from Google AI. How many links have you provided since we've been debating this topic?

And constantly repeating your claims adds zero value to the debate.

The only thing I'm repeating are the conclusion(s), based upon the already given evidence and reasoning.

Repeating your conclusion adds zero value as well.

Of course it has to do with it. It shows Manetho's reporting of the Hyksos is fake news. Why should we trust his description of how the Hyksos left when he got it wrong of how they entered Egypt?

We don't have to. We instead have both evidence and reasoning to support the conclusion that the Hyksos were expelled, and not enslaved, after their defeat. Which then means we can now move on to other very unlikely claims from the Bible itself, beyond the claim(s) from the Exodus account.

I might as well can also say I don't have to show why the Bible is reliable. What the Bible says is true no matter what.

Such as why there is no evidence of their 4 decades of wandering...

Since you accept Manetho's account, even he says the Hyksos travelled through the wilderness from Egypt to Judea after they left.

Ultimately, the Hyksos were overthrown and eventually, according to Manetho, “took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness … [and] they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem” (as quoted by the first-century c.e. historian Josephus in Against Apion, 1.14).

https://armstronginstitute.org/835-the- ... ient-egypt