Patterns Of Evidence: The Exodus

originally posted by: undo
hyksos = israelites

That what I always thought.

The time frame and descriptions are very similar.

Obviously there are differences between the Egyptians and Israelite accounts. But that standard for 2 hostile nations righting history's about each other.

Exodus Decoded and the Search for the True Mount Sinai: Documentary (2006)


This video attempts to explain the miracles scientifically. It does a good job of getting thru the fantasy elements and getting to what could have actually happened, and also some evidence that there was a spit of the peoples after the exodus.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Erm, there's still no evidence that the Exodus ever took place.

Erm no see below.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Yes, it's possible that it might be tied to the destruction of the Kingdom of the Hyksos in Lower Egypt.

I dont think its "possible" but a actual fact. The Hyksos ended expelled from Egypt. Hate to break it too you but that a exodus.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But there's no proof of a crossing of the Red Sea, no proof of an Egyptian army being destroyed

Maybe not. But its pretty standard at the the time for history being mixed up with myth and exaggerations. The basic story may be true, the more miraculous parts may be added for flavor customary for the time.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
and certainly no proof of a Pharaoh dying.

Actually during the Hykos war and expulsion 2 Pharaohs died over the years. Seqenenre Tao and his son Kamose. The former likely in battle and the later unexplained.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
However, it's possible that the old 'Pillar of Fire/Smoke' legend and the plagues might have been the result of the eruption of Thera, which might have happened at the same time. Maybe. It is thought. Kinda.

Likley.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It could have been 5 years .. it could have been hundreds of years .. or anything in between. The fact is that there is absolutely no archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands (more like 2 million by some estimates) of Hebrews were living in the desert. There are no pottery shards ... no bones of the dead ... no bones of the animals slaughtered for food ... no trinkets or clothing or anything (and the desert would have preserved these things). Not a single thing to show that large of a number of people lived in the desert for any significant length of time.

The part about the Egyptian Army being lost in the Red Sea is poppycock. Egyptian records show very conclusively that, right after the time that the wipe out was supposed to happen, the Egyptians won significant military battles. If the army and the weaponry and the chariots and horses were all wiped out like the Old Testament story claims, then Egypt couldn't have gone on to win battle after battle. They would have been invaded and overrun. But that didn't happen.

Depends

Egypt was not one united state the Hyskos left a pretty divided kingdom. They could very well have destroyed a army in there leaving BUT that may not have been the sole Egyptian army, just the one belonging to the city of Thebes.

It like A British army being wiped out in Afghanistan in the 1st Afghan war. sure it was a major and disastrous defeat but the empire did not collapse and remained strong as we still had other army s.

The whole Hyskos exodus and a destruction of one Army may well have been the thing Egypt actually needed to get it act together and why it went on to achieve military victory's.

Also to add after study of the Exodus account it doesn't even mention that Pharaoh was wiped out with the army he sent.
Now the Pharaoh Amoses at the time would have been around ten. So although he may have been with the rearguard he may not have been in the thick of any fighting or actions and escaped.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: FlyersFan

Remember that these stories were originally part of a vast oral tradition. Storytellers would add new stuff as time progressed and all experiments I know of tapping into orally transmitted storytelling, shows that the stories develop, sometimes into the absurd. The Exodus story may for all we know have been totally different in 1000 BC than when it was written down on paper a few hundred years later. The Midrash tradition does show good results in accuracy when it comes to transmitting stories though, so they had ways of securing story accuracy.

EXACTLY the Bible (the jewish and christian ones) is a collection of stories written down from oral accounts that probably got embellished to absurdity, so to believe anything in it as true is fallacious. The Exodus account is just a good example of this. There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert. We are talking about a people that were supposedly slaves in Egypt all of a sudden up and leaving to wonder the desert and managed to survive without losing large swaths of their population (no bodies found). Sorry a sedentary culture (especially and enslaved one) doesn't just learn how to survive in the desert without making mistakes.

If anything, it was a small hand full of Hebrews (probably moses' immediate family and friends). They would have an easier time getting away and it is easier to believe that MAYBE they outwitted a small contingent of troops. Like a platoon or something. A small group would also have a much easier time wondering the desert for 40 years. Easier to find food and water to feed 10 people rather than millions or thousands. This would also explain the lack of documentation in Egypt, lack of evidence for troops disappearing into the sea, lack of evidence for travel through the desert (probably be mistaken for any other band of nomads wondering the desert), etc.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I disagree.

sure the story in the bible may be exaggerated.

But Egyptian history does state how nomadic people from Canaan called the Hyskos (translation is Shepard people) settled and gained prominence in Egypt to the point were they basically ruled the north. after a hundred years the native Egyptians grew fearful and rose up and began a campaign of conquest beginning in the rule of Seqenenre Tao and oppression evetually resulting in the Hyskos being expelled under the Pharaoh Ahmoses.

Thats pretty much accepted fact.

Now the bible account boils down to Nomadic shepherds from Canaan moving into the Delta region, growing to great prominence and after 100 years the native Egyptians out of fear went on a campaign of oppression eventually resulted the expulsion of these people.

The basic story tally's up.

The issue is the plagues, miracles and the the fact the bible depicts the Jews in Moses times as only slaves rather than a rival ruling faction. Those could be put down to bias? And the Myths injected.

To me the Bible 100% is referring to Hyskos. To me there is no doubt. It just a case of who exaggerated what and how much myth has been injected into the tale.

a reply to: bjarneorn


That's absolutely untrue that nothing in the Bible can be trusted, please consider the archeology in the area, there are many truths
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

The stones cry out.
www.christianitytoday.com...

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

a reply to: crazyewok

Well that is just another possible origin of the story. I didn't say that my account was the honest to god truth or anything. I was just saying that I would accept an explanation along those lines as a possible REAL version of events. What you just said could also be true. In either case, both examples are cases where a more logical story would be embellished to absurdity through oral tradition.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Well that is just another possible origin of the story. I didn't say that my account was the honest to god truth or anything. I was just saying that I would accept an explanation along those lines as a possible REAL version of events. What you just said could also be true. In either case, both examples are cases where a more logical story would be embellished to absurdity through oral tradition.

I was just of the opinion that its seems that a Nomadic people settled in Egypt, grew powerful and then were expelled seems to be a accepted theme.

And that the Egypt recorded history and Bible match up on that.

For the other facts and what account is more biased and what myth been injected is what up for debate and personal opinion.

But to say the bible book of Exodus is complete BS and cant be corroborated is a lie. Something did happen. It pretty certain they must be a the Hyskos. Its just who embellished the facts more the Egyptians or Jews? Or both?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Well that is just another possible origin of the story. I didn't say that my account was the honest to god truth or anything. I was just saying that I would accept an explanation along those lines as a possible REAL version of events. What you just said could also be true. In either case, both examples are cases where a more logical story would be embellished to absurdity through oral tradition.

I was just of the opinion that its seems that a Nomadic people settled in Egypt, grew powerful and then were expelled seems to be a accepted theme.

And that the Egypt recorded history and Bible match up on that.

For the other facts and what account is more biased and what myth been injected is what up for debate and personal opinion.

But to say the bible book of Exodus is complete BS and cant be corroborated is a lie. Something did happen. It pretty certain they must be a the Hyskos. Its just who embellished the facts more the Egyptians or Jews? Or both?

Both. History is written by the victors. In this case we have two groups trying to save face, they will both downplay their own transgressions and embellish the other party's transgressions. This continues for generations until we get the crazy story we have today.

But because of this embellishment, I cannot take any bible story as true. I can't know what is true and what is fake. They are great stories, but I don't study Inglorious Bastards to get an idea of how WWII went down.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok I respect you opinion on that.

But if you take the bible with a grain of salt or those reasons then logically you have to take almost all writings and history at the time in the same way as all the cultures embellished there history and inject myths in the exact same way.

It not until circa 300 BC you got some sort of standardized history and even then it could still be exaggerated or based on earlier mythical accounts.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok I respect you opinion on that.

But if you take the bible with a grain of salt or those reasons then logically you have to take almost all writings and history at the time in the same way as all the cultures embellished there history and inject myths in the exact same way.

I do. Any story from ANY ancient culture that injects gods or myths into their telling is wrong and or embellished. But luckily we have more than just the ancients' writings to get an idea of how they lived. We also have archeology. It also helps when written accounts from multiple sources corroborate the same story, something that is most definitely lacking in the bible accounts.

It not until circa 300 BC you got some sort of standardized history and even then it could still be exaggerated or based on earlier mythical accounts.

All history is embellished or lies, even the stuff post-300 BC. Like I said, history is written by the victors. The losers don't get to tell their side of the story. That's why we view all nazi germany as this great big den of evil when in reality there was some particularly bad men at the top and a lot of people at the bottom just going with the flow out of fear or because they didn't know the larger picture. The Boston Massacre was really just propaganda from the rebels, the British soldiers were later acquitted of the charges.

But that is something you just have to accept as a historian, you have to be able to have a good BS detector and be able to separate the wild claims and embellishments from the actual truth and fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


I do. Any story from ANY ancient culture that injects gods or myths into their telling is wrong and or embellished. But luckily we have more than just the ancients' writings to get an idea of how they lived. We also have archeology. It also helps when written accounts from multiple sources corroborate the same story, something that is most definitely lacking in the bible accounts.

That were I disagree on this subject as the bible account of exodus is some what corroborated by Egyptian history in basic facts. And evidence of the Hykos reign has been found in artifacts, social changes and architecture. The Hykos rein is a accepted part of Egyptology. To say the book of exodus is a 100% uncorroborated is a lie. We can only say some of it is like the plagues, the red sea and the numbers of Hykos that left.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
All history is embellished or lies, even the stuff post-300 BC. Like I said, history is written by the victors. The losers don't get to tell their side of the story. That's why we view all nazi germany as this great big den of evil when in reality there was some particularly bad men at the top and a lot of people at the bottom just going with the flow out of fear or because they didn't know the larger picture.

I agree. I was just refreing that around that time less myths seem to be injected but yeah even now History can still be twisted.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Boston Massacre was really just propaganda from the rebels, the British soldiers were later acquitted of the charges.

Thank you! A American that understands that! Same with the Battle of Waxhaws. Some dip**** opened fired after they surrendered and nearly killed the British commander and so the British soldiers viewed it as a break in the surrender terms and a trick. Wasn't a deliberate war crime but a mistake caused by idiot.

But massacres are always good for propaganda.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But that is something you just have to accept as a historian, you have to be able to have a good BS detector and be able to separate the wild claims and embellishments from the actual truth and fact.

Yup why the more sources the better. And primary evidence in the form of buildings and picture can be far more valuable than a written text.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.

Have you heard about the Beduins? There are literally millions of them and they have lived nomadic lives in the area for thousands of years. And they are but one of many such nomadic peoples living in that area of Asia and Africa. If we are to discuss validity and differ between what serves truth and what is makebelieve, the first thing to acknowledge is that nothing is purely black and white. There are levels of truth and there are things like esoteria and epic structures, mythical stories often serve truth better than reality. That's why we keep these myths. They don't have to have any historical value to have valuable wisdom and profound truth to serve.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.

Have you heard about the Beduins? There are literally millions of them and they have lived nomadic lives in the area for thousands of years. And they are but one of many such nomadic peoples living in that area of Asia and Africa. If we are to discuss validity and differ between what serves truth and what is makebelieve, the first thing to acknowledge is that nothing is purely black and white. There are levels of truth and there are things like esoteria and epic structures, mythical stories often serve truth better than reality. That's why we keep these myths. They don't have to have any historical value to have valuable wisdom and profound truth to serve.

The Beduins are a good counterexample, but keep in mind they've had thousands of years to perfect their lifestyle. We are talking about a culture that was (according to the bible) enslaved and living under oppression. These people wouldn't have ANY training to survive for long periods of time in the desert, let alone be able to cooperate together to achieve this goal. Would you expect millions of suburbanites to be able to adequately survive in the desert for 40 years?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you take into account the Egyptian account though then that theory changes abit. According to there account many of these Hyskos were not slaves and practical owned a vassal state in the Nile region. Only those living in the thebes area where the native had primary control would likely have been slaves a good majority would have been freed men of various skills living basically in a rival state before there expulsion from Egypt. So likely down beaten slaves only made up a minority. even the bibles refers to the fact after they left many wanted to go back which indicates many likely had comfortable lives. also many of the slaves were likely not born slaves either but likely freemen before the Egyptian crackdown around Thebes and POW from the war between the Hyskos and the Egyptians. Also in both accounts of the bible and Egyptian chronicles if I remember both referred to the fact many Egyptians joined the Hyskos or Israelite in there exodus as during the 2nd intermediate period when they first arrived there war and exodus there was a lot of mixing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is literally NO way that millions or even thousands of Hebrews could have survived for 40 years wondering the desert.

Have you heard about the Beduins? There are literally millions of them and they have lived nomadic lives in the area for thousands of years. And they are but one of many such nomadic peoples living in that area of Asia and Africa. If we are to discuss validity and differ between what serves truth and what is makebelieve, the first thing to acknowledge is that nothing is purely black and white. There are levels of truth and there are things like esoteria and epic structures, mythical stories often serve truth better than reality. That's why we keep these myths. They don't have to have any historical value to have valuable wisdom and profound truth to serve.

The Beduins are a good counterexample, but keep in mind they've had thousands of years to perfect their lifestyle. We are talking about a culture that was (according to the bible) enslaved and living under oppression. These people wouldn't have ANY training to survive for long periods of time in the desert, let alone be able to cooperate together to achieve this goal. Would you expect millions of suburbanites to be able to adequately survive in the desert for 40 years?

Thing is that as for being a desert, well, the Sinai desert is a wilderness, and it would take you a few weeks to walk across it, a little longer if you are to walk round it. It's not the Atacama we're talking about here. Sinai is about the size of Denmark, not a very big place. The 'forty years in the desert' is to be understood thus:

After Moses et al bailed from Egyptian slavery, they spent innumerable years in the Sinai area where they lived as nomads, moving from camp to camp as water and grass ran out and there were no places left to take a dump. So they moved on, conquering one nation after the other as they progressed their migration.

And living in the wilderness isn't exactly rocket science. Not even rocket science is rocket science the way the term is used in popular speech. Both children and old farts alike excel in both after a few weeks. And you learn as you move, continually refining your ways of finding food, avoid snakes and critters, defend the group, how and where to dig for water and so on. Like I said, it's not a long shot from being in slavery into becoming a tribal nomad spread across the Sinai peninsula.

ETA: For all I know the Ark of the Covenant contained the mummified corpus of Moses and was but a sarcofagous. So the Hebrews may have spent several centuries living as nomads under Moses' rule, his law speaking into eternity from his casket. Just a though. Forefather worship was and is common in the area, necromancy too.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

All of what you say has a degree if truth to it. However it doesn't account for the utter lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus in the Sinai region. The holy books if the era speak of specific places the Israelites stopped and made camp yet no evidence exists of the vast numbers of individuals who are alleged to have made the Exodus from Egypt to the Levant.

a reply to: peter vlar

First let's see how many they were. The Hebrews lived in a small town in the delta of the Nile. There is no archaeological finds to support a city of millions of slaves and their masters, millions more-- in the area. Or in the world as a whole. We can assume they were at top 50-100,000 young and old, male, female, and with their effective slave-bred jungle telegraph they all agreed to leave Eastwards one Passover a few millennia ago and rendezvous at a given place, where Moses had arranged a trap that would give them a head start.

Because of the precession of the equinoxes Passover was mid-summer and monsoon season back in the time of the Exodus, where the Nile would flood because of the West-African Monsoon, and an elaborate system of sluices and floodgates, the annual flooding of the Nile was controlled (they used these dams and sluices for natural irrigation). Moses signalled with his staff to insiders at the floodgates, so they would close them and direct the flooding Nile elsewhere or as the Bible says: "...the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Thus the 'Sea of Reeds' became the 'Field of Reeds' or 'Paradise' to the Egyptians.

The Ankh was actually 'Key of the Nile' and it was a real key, used to open and close gates along the Nile and direct the water from pasture to pasture to exploit the life-giving source that made the whole of Egypt green, not just a thin line against the Nile, but the whole area was lush and green. In his prophecies Thoth says: "Egypt will be forsaken and desolate" -- In the latter days, Egypt will have become lifeless desert. As it is today.

Anyway, Moses et al crosses the field, signals again by raising his staff to his agents by the gates, and the gates open and the Egyptian soldiers are smashed to smithereens and are washed away.