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?

[Pytine]

Second, I have not done a deep dive into Exodus and archaeology. I do have some initial thoughts on these points, though.

I would like to respond to some of the points you brought up here.

Such as the decline of Egyptian military power under Amenhotep II, that his firstborn son doesn’t take over for him and he disappears from the records. Amenhotep II seems to have only had one military campaign early in his reign (the previous pharaoh led at least 17), and then later on leads a slave raid. Or the the death of Tuthmosis IV around 1406 BC and the subsequent collapse of the Egyptian dynasty after that, especially pulling out their presence in Canaan, even including one pharaoh abandoning the Egyptian pantheon of gods for monotheism.

I'm assuming Dr. Titus Kennedy holds to the traditional date of the exodus based on 1 Kings 6:1, which is that it started in 1446 BCE. It should be noted that Amenhotep II was not the Pharaoh that reigned in 1446 BCE, he reigned from 1427 BCE to 1401 BCE. In other words, the traditional date of the exodus is not supported by the facts about Amenhotep II. As far as I know, Thutmose IV died in 1391 BCE or 1388 BCE, not in 1406 BCE. Similarly, the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt reigned until 1292 BCE. During the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dynasties, the Egyptians reached the peak of their power. The collapse only happened during the Late Bronze Age collapse.

Some talk of evidence of Hebrew slaves around 1700 BC in the Brooklyn Papyrus through Semitic names on the list, 9 of which match biblical Hebrew names (I’m not saying people, just names that were used). So, this seems to point to Hebrews being in Egypt prior to both the early and later dates academics argue for.

Unfortunately, there are two papyri with very similar names. One is the Brooklyn Papyrus, and the other is the Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446. You're talking about the latter. It is dated between 1809 BCE and 1743 BCE. It contains 95 names, of which 45 are of Asiatic origin. It points to Asiatic, and therefore Semitic, slaves in Egypt. There is no indication that these people would specifically be Hebrew rather than just Canaanite. This shouldn't be too surprising, Egypt was powerful enough to have foreign slaves.

The Tomb of Rekhmire has wall paintings showing Semitic slaves making mud bricks and building buildings with them.

How do we know if the slaves are Semitic?

There is the Ipuwer Papyrus which seems to have parallels to the plagues that is dated at least earlier than 13th century BC because that is the date of the papyrus we have. It is a lamentation of various disasters that have struck Egypt. There is a river of blood, blood throughout the land, fields burned, pestilence throughout Egypt, death of children, burying people all over Egypt, the power of Ra (the sun god) not being seen, slaves that took gold and silver.

The dating of the Ipuwer Papyrus is extremely uncertain. I can't find a smaller range than somewhere between the twelfth and the twentieth dynasty, which is a range of over 500 years. It follows the genre of national disaster literature which was popular during the Middle Kingdom. It contains many disasters, only a small fraction of which match the exodus narrative. It also describes Asiatics arriving in Egypt, rather than leaving. Thus, this documant only supports the exodus narrative if you cherry pick a couple disasters and ignore the rest of the text. You need to simultaneously assume that the texts dates to the time of the exodus, which is pure speculation. You can read the Ipuwer Papyrus here yourself.

Evidence of an influx of people in Canaan after 1400 BC through evidence of war, destruction, and upheaval. And a demographic shift where it was growing up to that point, then a big drop, then new settlements of different architecture.

What is the source for this? This doesn't seem to correspond to what I've read about this.

The Amarna tablets supposedly are correspondence between the Canaanite kings and Egypt during this time and speak of the Habiru (which means marauding nomads and some scholars connect to Hebrews) people overtaking areas, and requesting help, but Pharaoh doesn’t respond with help. Another tablet also seems to speak of Lab’ayu, King of Shechem, allying with these people which matches the description in the Bible of Joshua not attacking Shechem.

I consider the Amarna letters to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the exodus. There are 382 Amarna letters between the Pharaoh and local rulers in the region. About 150 of these come from Canaan. They are writte between 1360 BCE and 1332 BCE. Some of those letters indeed speak about the Habiru, but their connection with the Hebrews is speculative. Note that the time of the letters is decades after the traditional exodus date ad decades after the reign of Amenhotep II, so the Israelites would already be in Canaan by that time according to the narrative. In Numbers 1:17-47, we find that there are 603 550 men from age 20 or up at the start of the exodus, excluding the tribe of Levi. In Amarna letter EA 289, Abdi-Heba requests for help from the Pharaoh as he is under attack. He asks the Pharaoh for a grand total of 50 soldiers to protect his land. If 50 soldiers is the most they had to worry about ecades after the exodus, that's pretty clear evidence against the narrative of the conquest of Canaan.

The Merneptah Stele, dating from 13th BC, is a piece by a Pharaoh talking about his conquests over Canaan, mentioning that he laid waste to Israel, noting 3 cities conquered, one each in the north, center, and south, which shows us they were already there and the most powerful group there because why else would that be why the Pharaoh would single them out as the only mention?

I don't see how it would follow from this that the Israelites would be the most powerful group. Ascalon and gezer are in the center of Canaan, and the location of Yenoam is unknown.

A recent book connected to much of this I was coming across is Unearthing the Bible, by Dr. Kennedy, that I think would be worth checking out for anyone truly interested in this topic.

I see Dr. Titus Kennedy more as an apologist than an archaeologist. He starts with a conclusion and then he tries to find data to support it. We have a few Semitic slaves, a document that describes different events and dates within a range of half a millenium, a local ruler afraid of a couple dozen looters, and a Pharaoh that's less active than his father. If you start with this data, would you ever propose an event like the exodus?


I would also like to add a couple poit I haven't see so far. According to Numbers 1:17-47, there must have been around 2-3 million Israelites in the exodus. The total population of Egypt during the New Kingdom is estimated between 3 and 5 million. It's simply not possible that there were 2-3 million Israelite slaves in the Land of Goshen when the total population of Egypt was 3-5 million. This would also lead to a bigger populatio decline than the black death did in Europe, yet we see none of that. The population estimates for Canaan are even worse, with no estimates of the population in Canaan coming even close to a million people during the Late Bronze Age.

The biblical narrative names several places such as Kadesh Barnea, Arad, Heshbon, Ai, Gibeon and Hebron. Archaeologists have looked at these and other places to see if it matches the biblical account. It turns out that none of the towns I just mentioned even existed in the Late Bronze Age. Other places such as Lachish did exist during the Late Bronze Age and were even destroyed, however the time of destruction is incompatible with the exodus/conquest narrative.

Aside from this, we can see a development in the narrative in the Bible itself. Psalm 78 and 105 both describe the exodus, but they have fewer and different plagues. If we keep reading Psalm 105, we find that “Egypt was glad when they departed” (v38). Yahweh then leads the Israelites out of Egypt. A crucial part of the story is missing here; the parting of the Sea of Reeds. The parting of the Sea of Reeds was only inserted later into the narrative. This can be seen in the book of Exodus itself as well. In chapter 11 verse 1, we read that there will be one more plague and then the Israelites will be free. Then Exodus 12:1-28 explains the origins of Passover. The start of the calendar is based on the tenth plague. In verse 17, it says that the tenth plague is when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt. This is clearly not the case, they only leave Egypt during the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In chapter 15 we find the Song of the Sea. This is one of the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible, which can be seen by the archaic language used in it. It is later inserted in the book of Exodus, with a narrative around it to connect it with the rest of the narrative. The song itself mentions no slavery or plagues or violent conquest of Canaan. Yet it does mention the Philistines, showing that the song was composed after the Philistines appeared in Canaan. Thus the plague narrative and the crossing narrative were two different traditions in which the climax of the story was either the tenth plague or the crossing of the Sea of Reeds.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Pytine in post #91]

That's good work. It of course rebuts type 1 apologetics: scientific/historical evidence supposed to support the Bible. I now expect type 2 apologetics - fiddling the evidence. Something like "The scientific view is wrong on dates, you can't prove the brickmaking slaves are not semitic (As I recall they show Nubian an Libyan slaves, likely taken in war) and various methods of trying to make the evidence fit the Bible. As I recall, the Tanager is too polite to do type 3 apologetics.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

No worries. The points I initially got was through a quick google search and various sites. I never trust these sites simply because they are done by Christians (whether apologists or interviews with archaeologists or whatever), but I also am not going to distrust something because of that either. That goes for Christians or non-Christians. It was offered as a starter to look at some points out there that people usually bring out of academic scholarship, but I always then try to dig deeper and read the actual academic works to come to my own conclusions.

I approve all that, and (trying to avoid bias) egyptology (like other science) does ot set out to disprove the Bible but construct the 'best model' for what happened. Chronology is not perfect but the rough dates apply and the order of history: you cannot have an Exodus avoiding a country or state (Philistia) that didn't yet exist. The argument to try to create a Philistia before Merneptah just doesn't fit the order of history. Philistia does show a link to the aegean segment of the sea peoples, and they are post Israel as referenced by Merneptah.

It is a small poin.t but the more I discuss it the more it seems to show an anachronistic error that debunks the Exodus.

[POI]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history?

I haven't through the read the thread, but even I know it is not safe to conclude that "the exodus" was not an actual event in history.

I do not know what evidence may or may not have been found (outside of testimonials - such as those contained within in the bible, or anything given in the spirit).

But I do know that a lack of evidence is not evidence that something never happened.

Perhaps people are looking for the wrong things?
Perhaps people are looking in the wrong place altogether?
Perhaps the evidence has been overlooked?

I think the most that could be said is that physical evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt has not been found (or has been overlooked).

People then draw conclusions based upon that.



Peace again.

[POI]

But I do know that a lack of evidence is not evidence that something never happened.

However.....

a) Perhaps people are looking for the wrong things?
b) Perhaps people are looking in the wrong place altogether?
c) Perhaps the evidence has been overlooked?

Perhaps you could start by watching the video in post 12. Not because it provides THE answers, but because this guy did a lot of work and his points seem merited and worthy of discussion. Here it is again

Further, to your statements above:

a) This was a really large and long running claimed event. It would be quite hard not to find all sorts of relics and other findings to substantiate the claim.
b) ditto
c) ditto

As one of the debate questions asks, if it should turn out that the Exodus did not happen, does that change anything about what you believe regarding what the Bible claims about 'Jesus/god'?

[tam]

Peace to you,

But I do know that a lack of evidence is not evidence that something never happened.

However.....

a) Perhaps people are looking for the wrong things?
b) Perhaps people are looking in the wrong place altogether?
c) Perhaps the evidence has been overlooked?

Perhaps you could start by watching the video in post 12. Not because it provides THE answers, but because this guy did a lot of work and his points seem merited and worthy of discussion. Here it is again

Didn't some of you give other posters are a hard time at the start of this thread for providing books, links, or videos instead of presenting the information themselves?

Further, to your statements above:

a) This was a really large and long running claimed event. It would be quite hard not to find all sorts of relics and other findings to substantiate the claim.

Maybe, maybe not. I can think of many factors that would make it harder to find physical evidence: time eroding or burying evidence; few items being discarded (as would be the case if everything was designed to be packed up and taken with). Do we always have evidence of the presence of nomadic people?

b) ditto

If a person is not looking in the right place (or even the right region) how will they find evidence of something that happened in a different place or region?

As one of the debate questions asks, if it should turn out that the Exodus did not happen, does that change anything about what you believe regarding what the Bible claims about 'Jesus/god'?

Unless I have misunderstood my Lord, that cannot happen.

But for the sake of argument, all that would mean to me is that the stories were used to teach the same lessons that we (are supposed to) learn from the actual events.

It would not mean that God does not exist. It would not mean that Christ does not exist (or that He is not alive even now). It would not change the truth in His words or His (and His Father's) promises.

Before I knew my Lord, I leaned toward the possibility that many of these accounts might just be stories meant to teach a lesson. But the more I have learned from my Lord, and the more I have come to know Him, I no longer lean toward that possibility. My Lord does not speak (neither in the spirit nor in what is written) of these events as being mere stories, but as actual events (manna from heaven feeding the ancestors of the Jews to whom He spoke, for instance)

If there are any physical remains from that event and time, then I am sure those remains are out there. Even if people have not found them (or are even looking in the right place.)


Peace again to you.

[POI]

Didn't some of you give other posters are a hard time at the start of this thread for providing books, links, or videos instead of presenting the information themselves?

I laid some of the video out in post 75. 1213 offered nothing when asked for any follow up. Below, in italics, is part of the points from the video (i.e.):

- Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but no mention of keeping Israelite slaves, no plagues, no Moses, or no Exodus?
- Thousands of artifacts, preserved by the hot and dry desert, but nothing related to the slaves which inhabited this area for hundreds of years -- (they left no signs at all)?
- No mass graves/bones with Israeli DNA?
- Any path taken, from Egypt to "Canaan", shows no signs of a 40 year migration, where thousands would have died over the course of 40 years?
- Both Jewish and Egyptian archeologists concluded, after years of research, that there exist no findings for a Jewish slave populous during this era?
- During this era, Egypt stretched to what is currently modern-day Turkey. Their 40-year migration to "Canaan" would have landed them into more Egypt?
- Millions wandered this path for 40 years, while others did it in under 2 weeks?
- Millions more remained in Egypt and still no trace of their existence?
- The Pharaohs tried to wipe out history of opposing singular gods and singular mothers and failed. How could they wipe out the existence of millions who inhabited the same land for centuries?
- Who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible? Likely not Moses, being he recorded his own death and stated he was the most humble man on the planet? No, the person who wrote the book is referring to a town of Dan, which was the modern name, not associated with the time 'Moses' would have been alive.
- Why follow a book with little/no evidence, with evidence against it?

Unless I have misunderstood my Lord, that cannot happen.

But for the sake of argument, all that would mean to me is that the stories were used to teach the same lessons that we (are supposed to) learn from the actual events.

Great. Thus, I lump you in with The Tanager. If it should turn out this story line was not real, you will then move the goalposts. "It was not meant to be an actual event." Got it. Thanks.

[brunumb]

But I do know that a lack of evidence is not evidence that something never happened.

On the other hand, a significant event that should have left a great deal of recognisable evidence but for which none has been found anywhere, is a good indicator that the event most probably did not occur.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Didn't some of you give other posters are a hard time at the start of this thread for providing books, links, or videos instead of presenting the information themselves?

I laid some of the video out in post 75. 1213 offered nothing when asked for any follow up. Below, in italics, is part of the points from the video (i.e.):

- Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but no mention of keeping Israelite slaves, no plagues, no Moses, or no Exodus?

Or they told a different story with a different viewpoint.

(Keep in mind that those Egyptians who believed in the God of Israel left with Israel. Keep in mind also that people are capable of rewriting things to suit themselves. I don't necessarily mean on paper, but in their heads.)

Seems from some of the comments on this thread and even just from a quick google that there may be some outside accounts that cover events similar to these ones.

- Thousands of artifacts, preserved by the hot and dry desert, but nothing related to the slaves which inhabited this area for hundreds of years -- (they left no signs at all)?

Hundreds of years or forty?

But again, if the location is incorrect, what could they hope to find? And how do they know to whom those thousands of artifacts belong in the first place?

- Millions wandered this path for 40 years, while others did it in under 2 weeks?

I believe Tanager responded to this point. They weren't lost; they were simply not permitted to leave the wilderness and enter the promised land.

- The Pharaohs tried to wipe out history of opposing singular gods and singular mothers and failed. How could they wipe out the existence of millions who inhabited the same land for centuries?

If Pharaohs were in the habit of wiping out history, then you have a possible explanation why this account (and others) are not recorded by Egypt (at least not recorded with the same details as is in the bible).

- Who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible? Likely not Moses, being he recorded his own death and stated he was the most humble man on the planet? No, the person who wrote the book is referring to a town of Dan, which was the modern name, not associated with the time 'Moses' would have been alive.

Moses as the author is just tradition; not fact.

Unless I have misunderstood my Lord, that cannot happen.

But for the sake of argument, all that would mean to me is that the stories were used to teach the same lessons that we (are supposed to) learn from the actual events.

Great. Thus, I lump you in with The Tanager. If it should turn out this story line was not real, you will then move the goalposts. "It was not meant to be an actual event." Got it. Thanks.

You're welcome. (I see that you were looking more for people whose faith was based on sola scriptura; which mine is not. Even so, my response was just for the sake of argument. I fully accept that the Exodus from Egypt happened. Also, the law repeatedly reminds the people of Israel not to oppress the alien among them because they were aliens in Egypt; as well as reminding them that they were slaves/bondmen in Egypt. But like I said, I accept it because of the things my Lord has taught concerning those times.)




Peace again to you.

[1213]

Okay Christians, I've let this topic marinate long enough. Is it safe to now conclude "The Exodus" was not an actual event in history? If so, what else was not an actual event in history, as told from the Bible?

Sorry, you have not convinced me yet.