Tammuz

Is often used as evidence that the exodus never happened that the Egyptians didn't write about it, despite that they made numerous references to Canaan.

However, an apologist (actually a Jewish one) claimed that ancient peoples didn't wrote down their losses, like losses in battles (and losing a host of slaves would certainly be a loss). Thus, the Egyptians would have not written about the Israelite exodus because it was an embarrassing event for them. What do archeologists and histoerians say about that?

Also, the Biblical chronology is usually assumed (by those who believe they are historical figures) to have Abraham living about 2000 B.C.E and Moses about 1400 B.C.E or 1200 B.C.E. Would it be possible to place Moses and the exodus from Egypt some time before 2000 B.C.E? Would findings then fit better with the Biblical stories (or at least the exodus)?

I think that the historicity of the OT (or Tanakh as the Jews call it, because to them it has never been abrogated) interesting for history reasons, and also because it is (sadly) the most influential book in the history of humankind. And still is, through its offsprings...

-Jay-

This topic turns up a lot here. You'll get some good answers.

In a nutshell, there are many reasons to conclude that the Biblical Exodus never occurred. Some highlights:

1) There is no attestation of the events in the Egyptian chronology. The claim that the Egyptians didn't record unfavorable events is largely specious. More importantly, the scenario of the Egyptians enslaving a nation (the Hebrews) numbering upwards of 2 million people is highly implausible on its face.

2) There is a total lack of archaeological evidence of any trek through the wilderness by 2 to 2.5 million people, and no evidence whatsoever of a 38 year encampment at Kadesh-Barnea. 2 million people don't spend 38 years in one spot and leave absolutely no footprint.

3) Cities (such as Ai) that figure prominently in the conquest stories were already ruins by the time the conquest was alleged to have occurred.

4) There is considerable archaeological evidence (see, for example, Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed (or via: amazon.co.uk)) to suggest that the Hebrews arose from the indigenous Canaanite peoples. They didn't come in and conquer - they were already there.

These are, to my mind, some of the biggest points against the story. Others will no doubt bring up other points.

The bottom line is that there isn't any of the sorts of evidence we'd expect to see if the event occurred, and there is a lot of the sort of evidence we'd expect to see if it didn't.

regards,

NinJay

Roland

Isn't the Bible itself an example of ancient literature in which its own people "suffer losses"and defeats? Were the Jews unique in recording such events?

I also find it hard to believe that a group that had been enslaved for hundreds of years in a foreign country would have been able to hold onto its cultural and religious identity over such a long period of time. Most would certainly have adopted the "Egyptian ways" during that time. Look at how African-American slaves converted to the religion of their white masters over a far shorter stretch of time. Could the Hebrews have resisted doing the same for so much longer?

Civil1z@tion

The Romans recorded the sacking of Rome by the Gauls in 390 bce.

The conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos is recorded, by Egyptians no less (granted, they focused on their eventual victory, but their intitial defeat is there).

The Greek loss at Thermoplye is recorded (granted it was a glorious defeat, but a defeat none-the-less).

The Romans also recorded their defeat at the Teutoburg forest (the Romans recorded a lot of defeats in their history).

Plenty of defeats are recorded in history by the losers. They are focused in their histories less, but they are there.

Minimalist

When xtians have a problem with history they always make up reasons why there is no evidence for their claims.

The Amarna library contains diplomatic correspondence of the 14th century (the time of Akenaten) covering Canaan among other places. Although the king of Jerusalem (Abdi-Heba) is mentioned there is not a single reference to any Hebrews, Israelites, Judahites, etc. Egyptian hegemony of Canaan was complete at this time and remained so until c 1150. There is no room for any "Israelites" to go trotting around knocking down non-existent walls and engaging in their holy genocide against the Canaanites.

It was all made up later.

Tammuz

That makes sense. Also worth noting it that the Hyksos adopted Egyptian culture to a large degree, even though they were the conquerors. Same with the Mongols, who gradually adopted the cultures and religions of their conquered peoples, and eventually assimilated.

I've recently started to read a book called "Den Jesus som aldrig funnits" ("The Jesus That Never Was"), which also covers the historicity (or for much part, the lack thereof) of the Old Testament. Very interesting. And written in Swedish too

mens_sana

The Merneptah stele also raises a problem for the traditional Exodus story. This 7.5-foot-high monolith from Pharaoh Merneptah's funerary temple in Thebes recounts the Pharaoh's military campaigns in Canaan where he defeated a people called Israel in the central highlands. The second line from the bottom reads:


Merneptah ruled Egypt from about 1213 to 1203 BCE. The campaign is dated to about 1207. This doesn't leave much time from the Hebrews to have managed the flight from Egypt, the camp at Kadesh Barnea and the conquest of the highlands — before being "laid waste" by Merneptah.

Of course, the stele is also solid evidence of Israel's presence in Canaan in the latter 13th century BCE (200 years before David) and in numbers great enough to induce Merneptah to brag about his victory. But that's a different problem.

Toto

Roger Viklund's website.

Minimalist

Anyone ever read the full text of the Merneptah stele?

http://books.google.com/books?id=uoA...hl=en#PPA73,M1


Most of the translated text begins on page #74 of the excerpt.
It's approximately 150 lines long. The first 140 lines deal with Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans and their Sea People allies. Merneptah is not at all shy about proclaiming his victory and his heroism and his favor from the gods. He is, in every respect, a properly bragging Egyptian pharaoh.

Then comes the last 10 lines....one of which supposedly mentions "Israel."


Note that nowhere does dear old Merneptah actually say that HE conquered all these areas.

Contrast this with the bombast of the preceeding 140 lines and it sure as hell does not seem that he is making much of a claim of victory.

The word usually translated as "Israel" is apparently something like "Ysrir" according to Egyptologist Donald Redford. One wonders what ysrir really meant in Egyptian?