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?

[RBD]

If I missed one, then repeat it

At least one of the Bible authors thinks the world is flat. Remember?

I remember your effort to say so.

I just state the obvious, that I have learned by experience.

But it makes no sense to state that an unbeliever would even care what an imaginary agency thinks.[/quote]
Unless they spend so much time arguing against Him. That makes no sense. Unless wasting time is a favorite past time.

The fact that so many people spend so much time trying to disprove a book, is proof that the book matters to people's lives.

I've explained why. This religion in intrenched within many of my own family members and friends. Rather than to raise any discord with them, I come here in anonymity to debate observations.

Because you don't care. Got it.

I've cared about these psychological exchanges, because they've been interesting. But now their getting old, and I don't care anymore. I'll return to addressing challenges to the Bible.

[RBD]

The point is that the Bible doesn't need material proof, in order to believe it. So long as there is no verifiable proof against it.

So no proof should be required in order to believe that the bodies of hundreds of saints got out of their graves and walks Jerusalem, appearing to many? Nothing, just the words from one of the gospels is good enough? You sure about that?

Of course. So long as the unverifiable things don't conflict with that which can be proven, then they remain believable.

No one cares if someone then chooses to believe or not. That has nothing to do with the flawlessness and believability of the Bible itself.

Noting that there is no evidence for the event as told is to criticize the claim and is rational.

True for an objective skeptic, who neither accepts nor rejects a record, until evidence proves one or the other. Not true for unobjective disbelievers, who say a record must be rejected, whether proof is given or not.

I'll be staying on point now. Psychological issues were only interesting for a time.

[POI]

I remember your effort to say so.

Please recall what you stated:

I only care about any proof of Bible errors

I gave proof. The author was in obvious error about the shape of earth. So now what?

Unless they spend so much time arguing against Him. That makes no sense. Unless wasting time is a favorite past time.

I'm not arguing against 'Him', because there likely is no "him". I'm instead debating the believers in 'him, and also addressing the demonstrated cognitive dissonance.

And I'm not wasting my time. I've explained plenty as to why I come here:

1) To avoid family discord, in topics I have unanswered question(s) about.
2) Debating religion and politics opens up the dialogue to many topics, which keeps my mind sharper.
3) It's fun to debate
4) I like to test my current positions against other educated folks who ponder these topics as well.
etc etc etc

Because you don't care. Got it.

Negative. Please read what I actually wrote.

I've cared about these psychological exchanges, because they've been interesting. But now their getting old, and I don't care anymore. I'll return to addressing challenges to the Bible.

Great! I don't blame you, since all you are demonstrating is avoidance, ad hominem attacks, strawman attacks, etc., anyways...

Since we are back to square one:

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]

Faith is also necessary if you want to believe that something false is actually true.

Being a disbeliever, your idea about faith is nonsensical.

My statement about faith was and is 100% correct. If it wasn't, you would have shown where my thinking was wrong, but instead, all you have done is to slap a label on me as if that would make your words correct. Sorry, but my words about faith are true and your slander only proves its truthfulness.

Furthermore, I'm not the one saddled with soul beliefs and heaven and hell that dictate how I must view the Bible (not any longer that is as I have been set free). That is your baggage. I'm free to read the Bible and discuss it without my emotions being involved, therefore we are not equal when it comes to studying the Bible.

Bible faith is believing in the possible, and doing it.

I reject this definition because it is wrong, demonstrably so.
Blind faith is the unquestioning belief in something without requiring or considering evidence or proof. Like how you read the Exodus story that comes from our Bibles.

Bible faith is the forerunner of all faith, whereby people have done great things, that were thought to be impossible.

Bible faith is just normal faith, but applied specifically to the Bible. Therefore, Bible faith is not special.

Once again. A disbeliever talking about faith, is the same as desert dweller talking about living on the sea. They only mock such a thing as impossible.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
In reality, you have no idea just how well I happen to understand faith and how/why it is used.

If faith is not lived by, then the Bible calls it dead faith without works, being alone.

You should not live by faith. As you have learned, faith is a required mechanism that is employed in order for people to believe in false things, like Allah and Big Foot. When there is no evidence for Allah or Big Foot (or the Exodus), faith is then required and a false belief can then feel justified.

Faith is not needed in order to believe in real things, like black holes, the wind and quarks for a few examples (things we can't see, but can detect there interactions with reality). Believing that fairies are real requires faith.

When you praise faith as if it was some noble virtue when it isn't, I see it as someone bragging about a disability they have. What's worse is that I don't get a valid argument for why faith should be employed, but instead I get a label slapped on me as if that were meaningful. You might as well call me a doody head and tell your mommy on me as that would be just as effective when it comes to defending this debate position.

My position is that faith should be avoided in our lives.
If you disagree, you can:
A) Argue as to why I'm wrong and why we should embrace faith as a method for arriving at truths.
or
B) Call me names.

It's not faith at all, but only vain imagination.

What is? Please be specific.

[Clownboat]

Not caring about what what a book says, while arguing against it, is not the same as not caring about it at all. It's self-evident that someone cares much about something, by the abundance of time spent arguing against it.

Um, ok...
Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

Blindly arguing against something without understanding it first, is by fear.

Wrong and demonstrably so.
fear
verb
be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening.

You are referring to ignorance, not fear.

People who refuse to at least understand the truth of something, are afraid of it. It's the fearful and unbelieving...

Provide truthful evidence for the Exodus story as claimed in the Bible.
One thing that has been demonstrated here many times over is that you are afraid to answer this question: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

No. You are only an authority on what you write about such things.

I'm the author about what I wrote! Being an author doesn't make a person an authority as I demonstrated to you with my scenario about writing a book about delusional Christian beliefs. I would be the author of this book, not an authority on delusional Christian beliefs.

The Author of the Bible is the authority of what's written therein.

False! The author of any book is the author of said book. The author may or may not be an authority on the subject.

No reader has more authority over the Bible, than the Author.

You speak more nonsense. What does having authority over the Bible even mean? Can I tell the Bible its bed time? I must be missing something...

The problem once again here, is that for the purpose of judging validity of the Bible, I only care what the Bible says. I don't care what people believe about the Book itself.

You have demonstrated your blind faith in the Bible already, but I do appreciate you displaying it here again for all to see.
Imagine a Muslim saying such a thing about their preferred holy book and just how unimpressed you would be, yet here you are.

You're so caught up in your disbelief in the Book, that you can't separate yourself from it long enough to at least understand what Bible is saying.

This is just your emotions talking and is certainly not evidence that the Exodus story as told in the Bible happened in reality.
Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

Therefore, your fearful disbelief prevents you from being an objective critic of the Book itself.

It has already been demonstrated that I don't have a dog in this fight. Due to this fact, I can objectively review the Book. In reality, it is your fear of what your religions tells you will happen to your eternal soul if you disbelieve. Even a little (lukewarm) disbelief is used to control you. I am no longer saddled with such things, therefore there is no fear in what I chose to withhold belief in.

Currently I withhold belief in the Exodus story as told. Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?

You attack the Bible for saying things, that are only in your own unbelieving mind about it.

This reads as delusional to me and there certainly doesn't seem to be a God helping you to form replies such as this.
Again, you charge me with some emotional response to this book when I'm offering a valid criticism of it. Specifically, that there currently isn't any evidence that the story happened as told. These words are true. You don't like that I speak the truth, so your defense is to pretend I'm just some guy attacking the Bible that has an unbelieving mind. I must assume you don't understand just how weak of a defense that is.

You don't have the necessary objectivity to report only what the Book says.

Not my pig, not my farm. This provides me with the ability to be objective.
This is your clown and is your circus. This in fact hinders your ability to look at it objectively.
Any part of that, that you feel is wrong? If so, I would love to hear a reasoned argument. Or just call me names, that works too.

If you were reporting on Plato's Republic or Milton's Paradise Lost, then you would only be talking about what the author's say in their books.

What! Why would I reject scholarly opinion or evidence that is provided about such a thing? Is it because I'm a doody head with an unbelieving mind, or can you make a rational response?

Imagine that in one of these books there is a claim that millions of people wandered an area for many decades, but no evidence (geographically or in documents) could be found to support such a claim. Would that make me a Plato disbeliever with a disbelieving mind, or someone acknowledging that we haven't yet found what we should yet?

You wouldn't be wasting so much time reporting your personal opinions about them. Which once again, proves you care about the Bible, but only to attack it, not report on it honestly.

You look foolish pretending to know the motives of others. I do care about the Bible and find it fascinating, but you just go on pretending whatever it is you are required to pretend in order to not deal with my criticisms about the Exodus story as claimed in the Bible.

And we see here, that your refusal to understand what the Bible says, extends to accurate arguments about it.

Now I have a refusal to understand the Bible! Did you tell your mommy on me?

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You are blindly arguing against that which you don't understand.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You refuse to understand the truth and are afraid.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You're so caught up in your disbelief in the book and can't understand it.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You're so caught up in your disbelief in the Book, that you can't separate yourself from it long enough to at least understand what Bible is saying.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: your fearful disbelief prevents you from being an objective critic of the Book

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You attack the Bible for saying things, that are only in your own unbelieving mind about it

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: You don't have the necessary objectivity to report only what the Book says.

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: you care about the Bible, but only to attack it, not report on it honestly

Clownboat: Do you think we will ever find evidence for the Exodus story as told in the Bible?
RDB: your refusal to understand what the Bible says, extends to accurate arguments about it.

[Clownboat]

Of course. So long as the unverifiable things don't conflict with that which can be proven, then they remain believable.

That long dead bodies don't reanimate to life, exit their graves to then walk the streets of Jerusalem is a well known fact. You can now show that I'm wrong, or just call me names while avoiding debating while being on a debate site.

No one cares if someone then chooses to believe or not.

Wrong and demonstrably so. Those that do care (if they are believable), care. I would advise you to make believable claims in your life that others will see as reliable, but you are free to make claims and not care of course.

That has nothing to do with the flawlessness and believability of the Bible itself.

The Bible is not flawless and some of it is in fact believable.

Noting that there is no evidence for the event as told is to criticize the claim and is rational.

True for an objective skeptic, who neither accepts nor rejects a record, until evidence proves one or the other. Not true for unobjective disbelievers, who say a record must be rejected, whether proof is given or not.

Got it. You think me to be an unobjective disbeliever. Your slander in place of debate is noted, but it did fail to address what I typed. Have you corrected your thinking about how it is rational to note that a claim has no real world evidence?

[otseng]

This seems to be your (go-to) answer in many cases. Which is why I adopted it too in many of these exchanges with you. The readers have decided that the "Hyksos hypotheses' likely has no legs. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is also exactly why I pasted almost an entire publicist's entry, so they can decide themselves if a Hyksos expulsion makes more sense.

Here's what readers can assess:
Who is the one that is presenting the evidence and rational arguments?
Who is the one presenting logical fallacies, like appealing to authority?
Who is the one asking off-topic and red herring questions?
Who is the one constantly posturing?

Well, if your position makes more sense, then why the heck does "academia" not unanimously agree with a direct Hyksos/Israeli link?

Academia has no unanimous agreement on many things about Egyptology. So why should it be a requirement that there be unanimous agreement for the Hyksos being the Israelites?

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims. Also, as your OP states, all it's asking for is evidence of the Exodus. Now your requirement is there needs to be unanimous acceptance of it?

Enquiring minds want to know?

It's all a guess on both your part and mine why scholars hold a position even though there's a lack of evidence to support it.

You admitted that if "the Exodus" was not a factual event, then the Bible is in deep doo doo.

Where did I say that? Please cite it. If I didn't say that, then it's another fallacy of putting words in my mouth.

Most believers have opted to go with the position of "absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.", and then go from there to give excuse after excuse as to why we have no evidence...

Again, ironic that you want say this since I'm the one presenting evidence, whereas all your sources are scant and dubious. And in the case of AI, even incorrect.

I'll be presenting the summary of the argument the Hyksos were the Israelites in my next post. After this, present your summary argument and give your answers to the six initial questions about the Hyksos. After you've done this, if you want, I can go into other lines of evidence the Israelites were in Egypt.

[otseng]

The OP states:

Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

Note the OP does not ask to prove or to convince a skeptic the Exodus is true, but simply to provide extra-Biblical evidence to support the Exodus account. My position is we do have evidence to support the Exodus narrative in the Bible. It is not my intention to prove my position is correct, but that my position is a reasonable position to hold given historical and archaeological evidence.

The primary evidence I provide is the alignment of the Hyksos with the Israelites in Egypt. The alignment fits so well that it's difficult, if not impossible, to provide a viable alternative explanation.

I posed six questions to start off the examination of the Hyksos...

Whatever explanation that can explain these things is more likely to be true:
1. Who were the Hyksos?
2. How were they able to reside in Egypt?
3. Why were they able to take the best land?
4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long?
5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved?
6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt?

Give me your answers and then I'll give mine. Then we'll compare and see which explanation is more reasonable.

1. Who were the Hyksos?

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt c. 1782 BCE at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c. 1570 BCE).

https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

Hyksos, dynasty of Palestinian origin that ruled northern Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–c. 1530 bce.
Modern scholarship has identified most of the Hyksos kings’ names as Semitic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos ... an-dynasty

the term Hyksos is used ethnically to designate people of probable West Semitic, Levantine origin.
The Hyksos period marks the first in which foreign rulers ruled Egypt.
The Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs alongside Egyptian ones

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

So, from question 1, we have several alignments between the Israelites and the Hyksos:
- Semitic people
- From Canaanite
- Migrated into Egypt

A point of debate is when were the Israelites in Egypt. There are two main views - an early date and a late date. I argued the case for an early date...

There are two positions on when the Israelites entered Egypt - the early dating and the late dating.

"There are two main alternatives for the date of the Exodus. An early date in the 15th century around 1450 BCE and a late date in the 13th century around 1270 BCE."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exodus_date.html

The Early Date Theory sees the Exodus occurring in the mid-15th century B.C.E., followed by an invasion of Canaan roughly a generation later.

The Late Date Theory places the Exodus in the 13th century B.C.E., during the reign of Ramesses II (1279–1213 B.C.E.).

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org ... he-exodus/

I believe in the early date where the Israelites entered Egypt in 1876 BC and left Egypt in 1446 BC.

Here are dates according to the Bible...

1Kgs 6:1
1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

"The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are about 970–931 BCE, normally given in alignment with the dates of David's reign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

So, given these dates, the year the Israelites came out of Egypt is 1446 BC (970 - 4 + 480).

There is not a consensus on the dating of the Pharaohs at this time, but it could be Amenhotep II or Thutmose III of the 18th Dynasty during the time of the Exodus.

As usual, different resources provide different time frames for Amenhotep II's reign. While the Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton gives his reign lasting from 1453 until 1419 BC, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt provides a reign between 1427 until 1400 BC.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm

Thutmose III reigned from 1479 BC to 1425 BC according to the Low Chronology of Ancient Egypt. This has been the conventional Egyptian chronology in academic circles since the 1960s,[9] though in some circles the older dates 1504 BC to 1450 BC are preferred from the High Chronology of Egypt.[10] These dates, just as all the dates of the Eighteenth Dynasty, are open to dispute because of uncertainty about the circumstances surrounding the recording of a Heliacal Rise of Sothis in the reign of Amenhotep I.[11]

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

Bible says they were in Egypt for 430 years.

Exod 12:40
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).

During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC
Amenemhat III - 1818–1770 BC

Also want to add the caveat that Egyptian dating is not precise.

"It will be clear that much of the chronology of Egypt is uncertain. Groups of Egyptologists and even individual scientists disagree about many details, which has resulted in a variety of dates. Of course, about the most recent years the discrepancies are less than for dates that are further away."
https://www.alexanderancientart.com/chronology-eg.php

I then addressed 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.

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.

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.

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

Josephus also believed the Hyksos were Israelites...

Actually, even Josephus believed the Hyksos were "our people".

"Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was a reliable Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_a ... the_Exodus

Population estimates during ancient Egypt can fit with the Israelite population...

OK, here are some sources on the population estimates during that time:

The size of the population has been estimated as having risen from 1 to 1.5 million in the 3rd millennium bce to perhaps twice that number in the late 2nd millennium and 1st millennium bce.

https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Egypt

1800 BC (height of the Middle Kingdom)

Agricultural efforts by Middle Kingdom kings significantly increased the amount of cultivable land and density of occupation in the Faiyum and in the Delta, together with a slight rise in population density in all areas.

Total population of Egypt = c. 2 million.

1250 BC (reign of Ramesses II, New Kingdom)

Significant increase in cultivable land in the Delta (to about 10,000 sq. km, or 3,861 sq. miles) and rise in population density in all areas.

Total population of Egypt = c. 2.9 million.

https://brewminate.com/estimating-popul ... ent-egypt/

Egyptologists tend to dodge the issue of population numbers, as there are no statistics available and all such numbers are based on more or less educated guesswork:
♣ Edward S. Ellis put the New Kingdom population at 5 millions.
♣ The author of the Royal Ontario Museum website gives an estimate of between 1.5 and 5 million Egyptians during the Pyramid Age, a rather non-committing number for a nicely vague and long time period.
♣ Dominic Rathbone estimates that Roman Egypt had a population of 3 to 5 millions, and Bagnall and Frier concur.
♣ According to the Harris papyrus somewhat in excess of 100,000 people belonged to the temple estates during the reign of Ramses III. James Henry Breasted thought that they had been less than 2% of the population, which would give an upper limit of 5,000,000 towards the end of the New Kingdom.
♣ In 1880 CE the total land under cultivation was estimated to amount to 25,000 square kilometres, and one may suppose that the cultivated area in antiquity did not exceed this amount. If a person needed half a hectare of irrigated land for survival the maximum number of inhabitants would have been five million. Based on Achaemenid tributes levied on Egypt (650 talents) and Mesopotamia (1,150 talents), the supposition that the per capita tribute was equal, and the fact that according to archaeological surveys the Mesopotamian population counted four to five million, the Late Period Egyptian population was significantly smaller than the seven million suggested by some ancient authors. Aperghis gives the number of three and a half million. (G. G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration , Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN 0521837073, pp.56f.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110310184 ... index.html

In Ancient Egypt Population Estimates: Slaves and Citizens, Mark Janzen cites the works of Karl Butzer and David O’Connor. Butzer’s (1976) estimate is around 2.5 to 3 million for the New Kingdom while O’Connor’s (1983) is higher at 2.9 to 4.5 million.

https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... nd-1446-bc

Started addressing the claim the Hyksos were expelled...

The 'Hyksos' were expelled from Egypt around 1535BCE.

Let's look at this more in depth.

The Hyksos ruled over Lower Egypt and the Nile Valley around 1650–1550 BCE, although the actual dates are unknown. They were expelled from Egypt around 1550 BCE.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/were-th ... d-in-egypt

Eventually, they waged war against the Hyksos and expelled their last king, from Egypt around 1550 BCE. The saga of the Hyksos was recorded by the Egyptian historian Manetho, a chief priest at the Temple of Ra in Heliopolis, in the 3rd century BCE. In his “History of Egypt,” Manetho described the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their invasion, their dominion over Egypt, their eventual expulsion, and their subsequent exile to Judea, where they established the city of Jerusalem and its temple.

https://efinne1540.wordpress.com/2023/0 ... he-hyksos/

This date of 1550 BC (or even 1535 BC) is not necessarily the date they were expelled, but the date of the end of the Hyksos rule.

The Second Intermediate Period of ancient Egyptian history lasted from around 1640 to 1550 B.C. and embraced Dynasties 14 to 17. During this time, the central government in Egypt once again collapsed and a group called the "Hyksos" rose to power, controlling much of northern Egypt.

https://africame.factsanddetails.com/ar ... -1046.html

The Second Intermediate Period dates from 1700 to 1550 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... d_of_Egypt

Details of what happened to the Hyksos after the end of their reign is sparse from Egyptian records. Manetho claimed the Hyksos were expelled, but given Manetho incorrectly explained how the Hyksos entered Egypt, his reason of why they left Egypt is also suspect.

Quoting from Manetho's Aegyptiaca, Josephus states that when the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, they founded Jerusalem (Contra Apion I.90).

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

The Hyksos are well known from ancient texts, and their expulsion was recorded in later ancient Egyptian historical narratives. The third-century B.C.E. Egyptian historian Manetho–whose semi-accurate histories stand out as valuable resources for cataloging Egyptian kingship–wrote of the Hyksos’ violent entry into Egypt from the north, and the founding of their monumental capital at Avaris, a city associated with the famous excavations at Tell ed-Dab’a. After the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, Manetho reports that they wandered the desert before establishing the city of Jerusalem.

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

Manetho acknowledges the Hyksos came from the Levant originally and eventually left and went back to the Levant and founded Jerusalem.

The Exodus occurred in 1446 BC. Most likely the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II according to the high chronology.

These sightings limit the date of Thutmose's accession to either 1504 or 1479 BC.[16] Thutmose died after 54 years of reign,[17] at which time Amenhotep would have acceded to the throne. Amenhotep's short coregency with his father would then move his accession two years and four months earlier,[7] dating his accession to either 1427 BC in the low chronology,[18] or in 1452 BC in the high chronology.

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

As usual, different resources provide different time frames for Amenhotep II's reign. While the Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton gives his reign lasting from 1453 until 1419 BC, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt provides a reign between 1427 until 1400 BC.

https://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm

Thutmose IV succeeded Amenhotep II, however he was not the first born of Amenhotep II. Apparently Thutmose IV had an older brother that we know little about and died under unknown circumstances.

Thutmose IV was born to Amenhotep II and Tiaa, but was not actually the crown prince and Amenhotep II's chosen successor to the throne. Some scholars speculate that Thutmose ousted his older brother in order to usurp power and then commissioned the Dream Stele in order to justify his unexpected kingship.

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

More on Amenhotep II:
viewtopic.php?p=1073946#p1073946

If the first born son was killed by the 10th plague, could that be why we know so little of his first born son?

Though Amenhotep II reigned for 26 years, he suddenly stopped his military pursuits in his ninth year. And after that, subsequent Pharaoh's had few military campaigns. Thutmose IV had one minor campaign and Amenhotep III had one. Even in the Amarna letters, vassal states requested Egypt for help against invaders, but they were not able to send help. What could explain the sudden decrease in military activity during Amenhotep II's reign and for several kings afterwards? If most of the military were destroyed during the Exodus, then it can easily explain it.

More on the fall of the military at:
viewtopic.php?p=1077895#p1077895

So, the timing of the fall of the Hyksos aligns well with the early dating of the Exodus. The Hyksos fell from power around 1550 BC. They were enslaved. Moses was born. When Moses was 80 years old, he led them out of Egypt in 1446 BC.

There are several reasons why it doesn't make sense the Hyksos were expelled and why it makes more sense they were enslaved...

The expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1535 BCE is supported by several sources

It doesn't make sense the Egyptians expelled the Hyksos after they were defeated by Ahmose I. Ahmose I was the first Pharaoh of the New Kingdom. 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

So, this contradicts Manetho's account that the Hyksos were expelled. It makes no sense to expel a huge number of defeated foes while at the same time they were greatly increasing in enslaving war prisoners.

Records show Ahmose I and Thutmose III enslaved people in large numbers.

The tomb of Ahmose I contains a biographical text which depicts several boasts regarding the capture of foreign Asiatic slaves. Egyptian servants were treated more humanely as employees, whereas foreign slaves were the objects of trade. The foreigners captured during military campaigns are, for example, referred to in the Annals of Thutmose III as "men in captivity" and individuals were referred to as "dependents" (mrj). In reward for his services in the construction of temples across Egypt, Thutmose III rewarded his official Minmose over 150 "dependents".

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

What makes more sense is the Biblical account that the Israelites (Hyksos) were enslaved. Just as Manetho incorrectly explained why the Hyksos were able to enter Egypt, he incorrectly explained why they left.

Archaeological evidence is against Avaris being destroyed and the Hyksos from being expelled...

Records of Kamose cease after his third regnal year, and his brother (or son) Ahmose took up the campaign. The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose and later kings, records a destruction of Avaris and expulsion of the Hyksos. But no solid evidence supports such destruction.

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/

As the source points out, there is no archaeological evidence for the destruction of Avaris.

Instead, archaeological material at Tell el Dab’a indicates a West Asian population continued to live there into the New Kingdom, raising questions about how many people were actually expelled.

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/

What is left out in your quote is "into the New Kingdom". Ahmose I defeated the Hyksos, but it was under Amenhotep II that they left. So, the Hyksos were still in Egypt for about 100 years into the New Kingdom. So, archaeological evidence shows they were not immediately expelled by Ahmose I.

This makes no sense if the Hyksos were conquered by a war. Again, I pointed out it was during the reign of Ahmose I is when we see the rise of mass chattel slavery. But if the God of Israel was shown victorious over the gods of Egypt, then any who chose to remain in Egypt would not be as a status of slaves.

The Hyksos continued to live for some time in Tell el Dab’a for some time after the New Kingdom started...

As pointed out before, the Hyksos did not leave immediately after their defeat by Ahmose I. You even stated:

Archaeological findings at Tell el-Daba' (Avaris) show that a West Asian population continued to reside there even after the Hyksos were allegedly expelled. This suggests that the expulsion may not have been a complete removal of the Hyksos, and that some may have remained in Egypt.

Archaeological Evidence: Archaeological discoveries in Egypt, particularly in the Eastern Delta, provide evidence of continued production of Hyksos-style pottery and the worship of Canaanite cults, suggesting that the Hyksos and their culture persisted in some form even after their expulsion.

The Hyksos continued to live for some time in Tell el Dab’a for some time after the New Kingdom started:

Instead, archaeological material at Tell el Dab’a indicates a West Asian population continued to live there into the New Kingdom, raising questions about how many people were actually expelled.

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/

Even Manfred Bietak, who lead the excavation at Tell el-Daba', says the Hyksos were not expelled, but were enslaved:

“Avaris was conquered and partly abandoned by the 18th Dynasty,” around 1550 B.C., Bietak says. “Its people were not expelled, but distributed all over the country as slaves and soldiers.”

https://archaeology.org/issues/septembe ... n-dynasty/

Another confirmation with the Bible is when the Egyptians fought the Hyksos, the Hyksos aligned with the Nubians during the war.

According to contemporary inscriptions and Nubian pottery found in Avaris, the Hyksos seem to have forged an alliance with the Nubians, far to the south in what is now Sudan, in a vain attempt to crush Thebes from two sides.

https://archaeology.org/issues/septembe ... n-dynasty/

Exodus 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.

An indication of the numbers involved with the Hyksos is during the initial battle with the Egyptians:

Manetho, the same source who had described the Hyksos as invaders, claims Ahmose, the first New Kingdom pharaoh, marched on Avaris at the head of an army 480,000 men strong—yet still failed to take the city.

https://archaeology.org/issues/septembe ... n-dynasty/

If your army is almost half a million men and fail to take the city, how many in the military would be on the defensive side? One would think at least on the same order.

“The Hyksos came to represent a trauma for the Egyptians, a trauma so heartfelt the Egyptians were still writing about this in the third century B.C.,” Ryholt says. “It would be interesting to know why.”

https://archaeology.org/issues/septembe ... n-dynasty/

Given the Bible's account, we know why the Hyksos was so traumatic for the Egyptians.

More evidence the Hyksos were not expelled...

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.

The Egyptians lost an early battle under the command of Senebkay against the Hyksos and they tried to remove it from their history...

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

After the Israelites left Egypt, subsequent Pharaohs had relatively little campaigns...

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

More archaeological evidence Canaanite people 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/

The Egyptians had experimented with a form of monotheism after the Hyksos left...

The reign of King Akhenaten stands out in ancient Egyptian history for artistic innovation, the creation of a new religious capital and intrigue surrounding royal succession. Above all, though Akhenaten is known for his development of a kind of early monotheism that stressed the uniqueness of the sun god Aten, and of Akhenaten’s own relationship with this god. For this king, there was only one god and only one person who now knew the god: Akhenaten himself.

https://arce.org/resource/akhenaten-nef ... -gods-one/

The only evidence we currently have the Hyksos were expelled is from Manetho's account...

As for expulsion, it only mentions Manetho as a source. It is relying on Manetho's account for the expulsion, not on archaeological evidence.

The Hyksos are well known from ancient texts, and their expulsion was recorded in later ancient Egyptian historical narratives. The third-century B.C.E. Egyptian historian Manetho–whose semi-accurate histories stand out as valuable resources for cataloging Egyptian kingship–wrote of the Hyksos’ violent entry into Egypt from the north, and the founding of their monumental capital at Avaris, a city associated with the famous excavations at Tell ed-Dab’a.

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

Though the tomb inscription of Ahmose, son of Ebana, is often cited as evidence for their explusion, it is actually the opposite. The term "explusion" was added by a translator for a chapter title. Instead, it only mentions the captives were taken as slaves and does not mention anything about an expulsion...

In the soldier's testimony, what it says is "Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought spoil from there: one man, three women; total, four persons. His majesty gave them to me as slaves." The only mention of an expulsion is what the translator added in the paragraph title.

Instead of this being evidence for expulsion, it's actually evidence of the Hyksos being enslaved. It was common practice for soldiers to acquire slaves as spoils of battles. Would it make any sense for only this soldier to get slaves and all the other Hyksos to be expelled? No.

2. Kamose Victory Stelae: Kamose, Ahmose I's predecessor, erected two stelae in the Karnak Temple. These stelae boast of campaigns against the Hyksos and the battles fought, including a dramatic attack on Avaris. They provide insights into the early stages of the Hyksos expulsion campaign.

Kamose was Senebkay's son. I already pointed out his father's battle with the Hyksos was a huge embarrassment. Kamose tried a campaign to paint the Egyptians as victorious, but it's just propaganda.

Kamose's records on the Carnarvon Tablet (in the text also parallelled in the Thebes stelae of Kamose) relate the misgivings of this king's council to the prospect of a war against the Hyksos:

See, all are loyal as far as Cusae. We are tranquil in our part of Egypt. Elephantine [at the First Cataract] is strong, and the middle part (of the land) is with us as far as Cusae. Men till for us the finest of their lands. Our cattle pasture in the Papyrus marshes. Corn is sent for our swine. Our cattle are not taken away... He holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt..."[11]

However, Kamose's presentation here may be propaganda designed to embellish his reputation since his predecessor, Seqenenre Tao, had already been engaged in conflict with the Hyksos (for unknown reasons), only to fall in battle.

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

The narrative of the expulsion of the Hyksos away from Egypt to Canaan is contrary to evidence of the fall of Tjaru...

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

"Excavations at Tel Habuwa, thought to be ancient Tjaru, reveal evidence of the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I at the end of the Second Intermediate Period"

"Excavations at the site, located two miles east of the Suez Canal, have uncovered evidence of battle wounds on skeletons discovered in two-story administrative structures dating to the Hyksos and New Kingdom occupations. The site showed evidence of burned buildings, as well as massive New Kingdom grain silos that would have been able to feed a large number of Egyptian troops. After Ahmose took the city and defeated the Hyksos, he expanded the town and built several nearby forts to protect Egypt’s eastern border. Tjaru was first discovered in 2003, but until now, the excavation only uncovered the New Kingdom military fort and silos. This new discovery confirms a decisive moment in the expulsion of the Hyksos previously known from textual sources."

This says nothing about expulsion of the Hyksos, but the defeat of Tjaru. The sequence also doesn't make sense. Tjaru was attacked before Avaris. "A daybook entry in the famous Rhind Mathematical Papyrus notes that Ahmose seized control of Tjaru before laying siege the Hyksos at their capital in Avaris." But Tjaru would've been between Avaris and Canaan. If they were expelled out of Egypt, one would think cities would be attacked towards the direction of Canaan.

After Senebkay's defeat, his son, Kamose, launched a propaganda campaign to show Senebkay was victorious...

Kamose was Senebkay's son. I already pointed out his father's battle with the Hyksos was a huge embarrassment. Kamose tried a campaign to paint the Egyptians as victorious, but it's just propaganda.

Kamose's records on the Carnarvon Tablet (in the text also parallelled in the Thebes stelae of Kamose) relate the misgivings of this king's council to the prospect of a war against the Hyksos:

See, all are loyal as far as Cusae. We are tranquil in our part of Egypt. Elephantine [at the First Cataract] is strong, and the middle part (of the land) is with us as far as Cusae. Men till for us the finest of their lands. Our cattle pasture in the Papyrus marshes. Corn is sent for our swine. Our cattle are not taken away... He holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt..."[11]

However, Kamose's presentation here may be propaganda designed to embellish his reputation since his predecessor, Seqenenre Tao, had already been engaged in conflict with the Hyksos (for unknown reasons), only to fall in battle.

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

Hatshepsut implies she viewed a large part of the Hyksos positively...

There's an interesting phrase in the Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut:

"For I have raised up what was dismembered beginning from the time when the Asiatics were in the midst of the Delta, in Avaris, with vagrants in their midst, toppling what had been made."
https://web.archive.org/web/20070403234 ... midos.html

What does "with vagrants in their midst" mean? It seems to imply there's a group of renegades in the midst of the Asiatics in Avaris. And that implies those outside of that group within the Asiatics are not vagrants. So, Hatshepsut seems to not have looked at all of the Asiatics negatively, but only a small group of them.

Additional sources the Hyksos came in peacefully and the timelimes align with the early dating...

But yes, there is still other evidence(s) to suggest the Hyksos are not the Israelites. A matter of fact, I posted two links in my last response:

(https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/enigm ... say-635601)
(https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-is ... the-hyksos)

The first source confirms the Hyksos came in peacefully:

According to a paper published in the academic journal PLOS ONE last week, the Hyksos were not invaders, but rather Asiatic immigrants who settled in Egypt – specifically in the Nile Delta region – lived there for centuries and eventually managed to stage a takeover of power.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/enigm ... say-635601

The only argument they present the Hyksos were not the Israelites makes no sense:

The Hyksos and their people were Canaanites who lived 500 years before the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan; therefore, they do not share the same ancestry, Goldwasser said.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/enigm ... say-635601

If anything, it'd confirm the Hyksos were Israelites since it would've been around 470 years between the time the Israelites entered Egypt and when they left and started to conquer Canaan.

It also admits others believed the Hyksos were the Israelites:

The tradition of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, however, induced the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus to construct a connection between these two people.

The concept has been frozen in the Egyptian memory to the point that to this day, the average person in Egypt thinks the Hyksos were Jews and associates them with destruction and chaos.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/enigm ... say-635601

He then claims, "But this is not part of real history, the archaeologist said." But his argument that he presented actually supports it, rather than rejects it.

Addressing the article 'The Israelites Are Not the Hyksos!'...

But yes, there is still other evidence(s) to suggest the Hyksos are not the Israelites.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-is ... the-hyksos

The Israelites Are Not the Hyksos!
The hidden polemic in the Torah’s note that “Israel did not escape by way of the Philistine coastal route”
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-is ... the-hyksos

The article gives a convoluted argument, but the main crux of his argument is about the route the Israelites and the Hyksos took when they left Egypt.

There's the assumption the Hyksos were expelled after these attacks. But the text doesn't mention that. Rather, it only mentions taking slaves, not expelling them. So the attack on Sharahen being a sequence of expelling the Hyksos towards Canaan is only an assumption.

Interestingly, the author also states:
"Many modern scholars believe that Manetho is preserving an authentic, ancient tradition, and thus identify the Israelites with the Asiatic rulers of Egypt, the Hyksos."

It sounds like it says the Israelites were the Hyksos.

"If this were so, then the Israelite claim that they were enslaved in Egypt and the Egyptian claim that they were conquered by the Israelites contradict and are in direct tension with each other."

There's no conflict. Both happened.

In summary:

1. Who were the Hyksos? They were the Israelites.

2. How were they able to reside in Egypt? They peacefully came into the land.

3. Why were they able to take the best land? Pharoah gave them the land.

4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long? They lived peacefully in the land. Eventually the Israelites grew so numerous and powerful the Egyptians felt threatended and decided to take action and attacked them.

5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved? Yes.

6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt? They were enslaved and then freed.

[POI]

Who is the one that is presenting the evidence and rational arguments?

As stated prior, more than once, posting evidence regarding "the Hyksos" is doing just that, which is, posting more evidence about "the Hyksos". Without actually linking "the Hyksos" to the "Israelites", you can post all the 'evidence' in the world, which is merely posting additional information about "the Hyksos", and not the said "Israelites". They need to be linked. Here is one of the latest quotes you cited:

Bart Ehrman states:

It is impossible to speak about a single scholarly opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis today. Some scholars reject the idea that J and E were separate sources; some think that there were far more sources than the four; some propose radically different dates for the various sources (for example, one increasingly popular proposal is that the earliest sources were written in the 7th century; other scholars maintain that none of the sources was produced before the Babylonian exile in the 6th century). A number of scholars have produced mind-numbingly complicated proposals that try to take better into account all of the nuances of the data.

https://ehrmanblog.org/modern-views-of- ... entateuch/

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

Who is the one presenting logical fallacies, like appealing to authority?

You either continue to deliberately misrepresent me, or, are still failing to discern the meaning of my replies in the context of this exchange. Luckily for you, you can actually interact with the author of these writings - (which is me). As you say, I'll let the readers decide, as continuing to explain the purpose of what I say will instead likely be more-so 'rubberstamped' to avoid actual context.

Who is the one asking off-topic and red herring questions?

Drawing direct parallels, like the claims of the Mormons, further demonstrates my position. Meaning, one has to actually link the said "Laminites" to the said "Israelites". Same goes for "the Hyksos" and the "Israelites". Until they are actually linked, urban legend exists for both the ("Israelites" in the Americas), as it is for the ("Israelites" in Egypt).

Who is the one constantly posturing?

LOL! You say this even after I informed you of my use of the historical method.

I think I hit the final nerve when I lumped in the Bible with all other "fake news", which is the legacy media. But yes, even 'fake news' can have nuggets of truth. But, is the account of an "Exodus" one of them? Well, so far, readers are not siding with you about a "Hyksos/Israeli" linkage. Readers are instead opting for the claim from the Bible itself, and that's all. And since we can confidently lump in the Bible with all other legacy news, then there we go. Because again, if the source has deep political/religious ties, and if the source also expresses unfalsifiable supernatural events to boot, it IS to logically warrant higher scrutiny.

Academia has no unanimous agreement on many things about Egyptology. So why should it be a requirement that there be unanimous agreement for the Hyksos being the Israelites?

As I told RBD, it depends on the claim. Would you agree this claim is a very large claim, in that the claim involves millions of Israelites to be enslaved for centuries, only to later also claim millions wandered the desert for decades, etc..? Even if you only partially agree, I'm simply making a very basic observation, in that such a large claim would leave tons of evidence. Enough so where 'academia' would be more-so unanimous regarding the conclusion.

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims. Also, as your OP states, all it's asking for is evidence of the Exodus. Now your requirement is there needs to be unanimous acceptance of it?

As stated above, about the historical method, if the source has deep political/religious ties, and if the source also expresses unfalsifiable supernatural events to boot, it IS to logically warrant a higher bar.

Again, until you LINK the (2) tribes, it can continue to be NO evidence at all. And again, even IF you were to successfully link the 2 tribes, as a skeptic, I would then just lump it into all the other Biblical claims. Meaning, to question all the supernatural claims also imbedded into all these claimed historical events. The reason I bring up this claim, is because even the mundane/natural events are seriously called into question. Which is why "the Hyksos" MUST be who the Bible is really referring to.

It's all a guess on both your part and mine why scholars hold a position even though there's a lack of evidence to support it.

Why do you avoid this question? You must have a position. What is it? You seem to care what others think. Well, I care what you think? I laid my cards on the table, in expressing how I lump the Bible into all other fake news platforms. It's your turn.

Why the heck does "academia" not unanimously agree with a direct Hyksos/Israeli link? You must have some idea? Is "academia"...

a) jumping to conclusions to soon, as there is not enough data?
b) denying the obvious, to spite a Bible narrative?
c) just plain ignorant to the Bible story, otherwise, they would unanimously side with a Hyksos/Israeli narrative?
d) other?

(Answer key)

a) If you select this option, then your proposed summary question #1 is pointless, and the exchange is already over, as we have no starting point.
b) I have a hunch this is, at least, part of your assumption.
c) If you select this option, then this would mean the many scholarly believers, who reject the Hyksos/Israeli link, don't know their own Bible book?
d) Remains to be seen?

Where did I say that? Please cite it. If I didn't say that, then it's another fallacy of putting words in my mouth.

This is why is used the bracketed term (paraphrased). The inspiration for creating this thread was in your honor. Long ago, you stated that the Exodus has to be an actual event, otherwise the Bible is not trustworthy, (or something to this effect). This is exactly why I asked the follow-up question #2 in the OP.

[POI]

Your entire argument unravels quickly, by applying the basic historical method. See below for details...

Who were the Hyksos?

I'll wait until you respond to my repeated question to you, in the response above, before fielding this one. And I already spoke to this anyways. Meaning, we may have no starting point?

Josephus also believed the Hyksos were Israelites

Kool. 2 things here to note:

1. Josephus was already a Bible believer.
2. Josephus recounts a tale where the Egyptian ruler Thummosis laid siege to the Hyksos, who, upon despair of taking the city, made a deal with the Egyptians that they would leave Egypt without harm. Josephus, quoting Manetho, relays that after this agreement, the Hyksos left Egypt in large numbers and journeyed through the wilderness to Syria, eventually founding Jerusalem. So, if Manetho's historical account is compromised, then you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was a reliable Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'.

Hmm? Is Manetho reliable, or not? Remember, apparently, the sole source account for a Hyksos expulsion is from Manetho, right?

There are several reasons why it doesn't make sense the Hyksos were expelled and why it makes more sense they were enslaved..

When I responded to those "reasons", you labelled them "ad hoc." I could address them again, but I'm getting tired of the misplaced rubberstamps.

https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/cgi/ ... '%20phases.

"At last, the fortified Avaris was fallen, from its southern suburb, and it is suggested that through the archaeological evidences, the Hyksos capital was taken (not captured), so, the invaders were evacuated outside the country forever."

In summary:

1. Who were the Hyksos? They were the Israelites.

2. How were they able to reside in Egypt? They peacefully came into the land.

3. Why were they able to take the best land? Pharoah gave them the land.

4. Why did the Egyptians tolerate them for so long? They lived peacefully in the land. Eventually the Israelites grew so numerous and powerful the Egyptians felt threatended and decided to take action and attacked them.

5. Were the Hyksos ever enslaved? Yes.

6. What happened to the Hyksos and how did they leave Egypt? They were enslaved and then freed.

Again, we can stop at question one. Egyptology admittedly doesn't know, but you do?