Historical veracity of Exodus

There were Semitic kingdoms in Egypt during the second intermediate period. They got BTFO around the same time as the exodus is presumed to happen.

>>2697721
Ah, so not becessarily slaves but a population displacement nonetheless

>>2697686

Jews don't consider their holy texts to be infallible, nor do they treat them as history. They're the story of the Jews relationship with their god, so the fact that large parts (all of it) are fiction doesn't matter, theologically speaking.

For ~40 years Israeli archeologists have looked for evidence of Exodus, and found nothing. Most Israelis consider the whole story to be a myth, personally I think it's the story of Moses and the Levites, who came from Egypt to rule over the other tribes (who were already in Israel, since they were just regular Canaanites before they converted to Moses' religion).

>>2697721

The Hyksos were a mixed tribal federation, they're not the ancestors of the Hebrews. The idea that Jews were slaves in Egypt is a myth based on a misremembering of history: Israel was under the domination of Egypt for many centuries and this was later reinterpreted as slavery, and later still was transferred to slavery INSIDE Egypt. Why this happened, is probably because after the collapse of Egyptian power, the old stories about being "slaves of the Egyptians" didn't make any sense, so were re-interpreted as denoting a period of actual slavery within Egypt.

>>2697761
That is odd of a religion to not make any sorts of historical claims to legitimacy, i think? At least Buddhism and perhaps Christianity base their major players on real people

>>2697820

I'm sure in ancient times they made such claims, I'm speaking about modern Jews.

>>2697686

/1

Alright, the historicity of the Exodus, though been in many controversial discussion over the years has been considerable been an annoyance of mine.

When people talk about no archaeological evidence, they are arguing from silence and rather ignorant of the location in which the Israelites were in and what happened to the text and archeological material.

1. All written evidence of where the Exodus took place would have been lose due to the moisture and weather degrading the region. 99% of all written material doesn't exist in that region, it's usually in the Northern region (which is south of north africa) where we find more material.
2. Historically the exodus wouldn't have been recorded due to the embarrassment of such a defeat by the hands of the Israelites. No great kingdom ever admitted their faults and even in Egyptian history would fabricate or lie about battles that they've lost
3. The regions where the Israelites were located in was a trade and worker city, they were no capital city where major buildings were produced but rather food silos and smaller buildings.
4. The Exodus narrative is rooted in ancient oral tradition that goes further back to an origin point. The extra-biblical evidence does show however of a group of 'shasu' in the land of Yhw (Yahu/Yaho) located in the south of Midian/Edom region, it is likely that the Egyptians knew of a region where YHWH was worship. Though scholars are divided.
5. The tradition of YHWH bringing the people out of Egypt lend more credibility since it is mention multiple times in the prophetic message, beginning around the 9th-8th century BC. There's no reason for the Israelites to fabricate an embarrassing story of their origins, especially since ANE cultures (see above) didn't do that.
6. The Exodus has been exaggerated by oral traditions and writers to make it seem like the Israelites came out in a big number. Assyrian literature is the perfect parallel for this.

/2

7. The event between Aaron, Moses and the magicians of Pharaoh reflects a pre-10th century style of magic only in the period when the Exodus happened. The main trick was the changing of the staff to a snake which magicians around the 13th century BC were present.

>>2697974
>>2697981

Overall, denying the Exodus is a position that can be defended. Though scholars outside of the minimalist and very liberal circles would discuss whether this narrative has some historicity rooted in it. Whether it be from migration or a less exaggerated narrative of the biblical exodus story. Anachronism will not always work as a denial of the existence of the event, there must be very powerful grounds for rejecting it other than argument from silence or anachronism.

>>2697974
>>2697981

Yeah, no. The Israelites were never slaves in Egypt, that part is wholly myth. Moses came from Egypt, so the story might be an echo of HIS origin, but the Hebrews themselves lived in Canaan before they became Jews, there is overwhelming archaeological evidence for this and zero (0) evidence of the 40 years of wandering, or the movement of a whole people thru Sinai. No evidence, at all. And don't think the Jews haven't looked, because they have, and the conclusion is that Exodus is a myth.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844

>Rabbi Zev Farber declared categorically that “given the data to which modern historians have access, it is impossible to regard the accounts of mass exodus from Egypt… as historical.”
>Others, while conceding that the massive Exodus as described in the Torah probably never happened, posit that the Biblical narrative nevertheless rests on a kernel of truth, suggesting that only a core group of exiles from the tribe of Levi suffered enslavement in Egypt.

>>2697822
How do they not feel that delegitimizes their faith entirely?

>>2698040

Because >>2697761
>Jews don't consider their holy texts to be infallible, nor do they treat them as history. They're the story of the Jews relationship with their god, so the fact that large parts (all of it) are fiction doesn't matter, theologically speaking.

>>2698029

Most of this stuff I've already address in my previous comment and I'm quite surprise by the lack of knowledge the author has on the issue. He seems to not backup any data rather bases on anachronism and on literalistic reads of the text (which didn't deny nor did I dismiss it), than paralleling them with ANE material. Especially on the size of the migration, no confessional scholar I know of (maybe Hoffmire) has argued for a totally large population as described in the biblical text.

>but the Hebrews themselves lived in Canaan before they became Jews, there is overwhelming archaeological evidence for this

Never denied it. In fact you need to argue your case that they did arise in Canaan despite other model proposed by scholars in this field. I suspect Dever and Finkelstein are the most common and their works are much appreciated though Dever admits that there was a migration period right at the time when Israelites were considered to be present.

>evidence of the 40 years of wandering, or the movement of a whole people thru Sinai

never argued for it, rather I argued that the Exodus was more likely a distant memory, likely with some credibility.

>And don't think the Jews haven't looked, because they have, and the conclusion is that Exodus is a myth.

Who?

>Moses came from Egypt, so the story might be an echo of HIS origin

>>2698043
No mean if they originally considered them to be truth and somewhere along the way wrote off entirety of their holy scripture as myth. If for example, you pushed that Jesus wasn't a real person and the crucifixion was a myth, you'd probably get excommunicated from some Christian establishments

>>2698069
Actually now I'm curious about the historical veracity of Jesus