vijeno

Hi,

This is a rather specific question, and possibly quite hypothetical - but I've come across it, I found it fascinating, and I didn't find any answers yet... so here goes...

Assuming that the biblical information about the exodus is indeed correct and duly interpreted, and that 600.000 male slaves left Egypt overnight (cf. Num 1,46) - plus families and kettle (probably about 1-1.5 Mio people) - what would the economic and social impact of such a scenario be?

Also, perhaps even more importantly, how can we even begin to figure out any such impact?

I'm not a historian, and I just don't find any event that is similar enough to this to get any meaningful estimation.

Thanks
vijeno

Joan of Bark

Only the most orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians believe the number of 600,000 any more (with women and children, the total number would be over 2 million). The economic impact would obviously be immense, which is just one reason the number is considered ludicrous and you can't find any information on the subject.

There is actually no evidence for the exodus at all. For more on the subject, see The Bible Unearthed (or via: amazon.co.uk).

vijeno

We should, though. Every single person I asked came up with the same shoulder-shrugging no-answer.

Why are the numbers impossible?

- Because I can't believe that you can support that many people in the desert.

Yes, that's your personal estimation - is that proof that no-one has ever made it? NO.

- There is no evidence outside the bible.

Yes, that might be true, but it's an argument from silence. One might come up with numerous explanations as to how that came about.

- Because the exodus should have had such an enormous impact on the egyptian economy.

Should it? Prove it! Otherwise, it's just subjective estimation again.

Joan of Bark

Or maybe friendly aliens came down into the Sinai and delivered food and water, and then cleaned up after the Hebrews so that it just appears as if they were never there! I defy anyone to prove that's not what happened!

Vijeno, you need to learn how these historical speculations work. It's not the job of the skeptics to disprove a claim -- it's the job of the believers to present credible evidence for an event, especially a fantastic event like the exodus of two million people from Egypt. In this case, the believers of exodus have absolutely no evidence outside of the book of Exodus for the events described therein. Again, I suggest you check out The Bible Unearthed for a more complete explanation.

vijeno

Well, maybe I'm being naive here - I just think that it's not a question of "They need to prove it, not us". It's a question of, hey, let's get together and think in many different directions, amassing as much information as possible. And maybe learn a lot along the way.

And one of those directions, one that I find intriguing, because it's not only about the biblical exodus, but about economy and history in general (two subjects I really suck at), is the question about the hypothetical impact of the exodus on egypt. Honestly, I find it rather saddening to see how there seem to be two groups of people throwing the burden of proof at each other, instead of trying to gather as much data as possible.

vid

If you don't have access to the book (like me), check out the Bible Unearthed video

Starts with part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Oe1UAEATE

go on through all (10, i think) parts, it should give you good idea about archaeologic view on books of Moses, including Exodus.

vijeno

Excellent. Pretty thanks!

Huon

First of all, should we look at the "Red Sea" or at the "Reed Sea" ? There can be a confusion in english (one letter), but it is not possible in german or in french.

What should we do of this translation of Exodus 13,18 by Elberfelder :

The French Jerusalem Bible says the same word (Reed Sea). Hebrew Yam-suph.

Atheos

It's already been mentioned that the book of Exodus is the only evidence of any mass exodus of over 2 million slaves from Egypt. If one is going to accept that the Exodus account is true in spite of the incredible dearth of supporting evidence then any intellectually honest assesment of the economic impact of that event must account for the impact of the entire Exodus account, not just the part where the slaves actually leave.

It strains the limits of credibility to imagine that that many people could have evacuated the area and traveled in the desert for 40 years without leaving copious evidence of their journey. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence is signifigant and cannot be dismissed with a brush of an apologetic hand.

But if the exodus itself would have had major economic impact, the events surrounding the exodus would have left even more severe economic impact.

In the first "plague", all the water in Egypt was turned into blood. According to the Exodus account this even included water that was stored separately in wood or stone vessels. All the fish in the Nile river were destroyed. Interestingly, Pharoah's magicians were able to do this trick as well although it is unclear where they would have obtained water to turn to blood if all the water had been turned to blood already. This event alone would have left a major economic impact on the entire area. Drinking water would have skyrocketed in value and it would be decades before the natural ecosystem of the Nile River was restored so fishing could resume.

While "Frogs", "Lice" and "Flies" wouldn't have necessarily caused the sort of economic impact that the first plague caused they would certainly have been noticed if at the magnitude suggested by the story.

But the next plague, which destroyed all the livestock of the Egyptians (cattle, horses, asses, camels, oxen, sheep) would have had tremendous impact. Now they had neither fish nor meat to eat. It's difficult to imagine the amount of commerce that would have arisen as surrounding countries bartered lucratively with Egypt to replenish their livestock. But once again there is not even a single scrap of evidence that this massive shipping of livestock occurred.

The next plague, "boils and blains" supposedly stopped the entire commerce of Egypt as every egyptian was completely debilitated with boils and blains. Even the magicians couldn't stand up. How long this lasted and how much work stoppage occurred as a result is a mystery. But what's more of a mystery is, if every Egyptian was in this condition, what was to stop the Israelites from just going ahead and taking their leave then and there? Not one Egyptian soldier would have been in a position to attempt to crawl in front of them and block their path. But Pharoah said, "No", and I guess some folks just wanted to hear "Yes, and I really, really, really mean it this time".

Interestingly enough, in the next plague (fiery hail) all the cattle of Egypt get killed again. But this time all the plants were destroyed as well. It's understandable why the Israelites would worship a cow later as the cows seemed to have the uncanny ability to come back from being completely destroyed at least three times during the 10 plagues. But the economic impact of every fish, every piece of livestock and every crop in the field being destroyed would begin to add up. At least one would think so.

But the wheat and the rye wasn't destroyed in the plague of fiery hail (which seems peculiar as fire consumes plants whether they're shoots or bearing fruit). Just to be thorough, a plague of locusts is sent and the locusts finish all the rest of the crops off. Not so much as a blade of grass is left. Even assuming some cows remained after the second time they were all destroyed, what would they pasture them on?

But wait! The final plague, "death of the firstborn" once again involves all the firstborn of the Egypt (including Egyptian cattle) dying. Those pesky cows. You try murrain. You try fiery hail. Seems nothing you try will get rid of the damn things.

So, after losing all their fish, all their livestock, all their crops, no telling how many days of labor for "boils and blains" leave, the Egyptians now lose 2 million slaves. But wait, that's not all! If you act now we'll throw in 600 "Chosen" chariots, all the rest of the chariots of Egypt, captians for all the chariots, horses and the entire Egyptian army! And we'll toss the lot of them into the Red (or Reed?) sea!

Call me crazy, but I can't help thinking there would be abundant archaeological evidence that would be easy to uncover using modern methods of the entire egyptian army's demise in the Red Sea. Not to mention the incredible economic impact that would be suffered by Egypt as invading marauders came in to rape, pillage and plunder everything of value, knowing there was no army there to repel them.

Unless, of course, none of this ever actually happened.

Which it didn't.

vijeno

Hi,

thanks for that detailed account! I thought about the plagues before, but never in such detail. I found the bit about the ecological after-effect of the water turning to blood especially fascinating.