Proof of Jewish exile and escape from Egypt?

[Glaurung]

To my knowledge, most scholars argue that the account as given in Exodus could not have happened. For one, the claimed numbers alone far exceed what would have been realistic. But even if that's true that does not mean the story is a complete fabrication. There's a scholar named Richard Friedman (look him up on YouTube) who posits that the Exodus did happen but at a much smaller scale that involved only the Levites.

According to this theory, the Levites left Egypt and joined what would become the Israelites in Canaan. The traditions and history of the Levites (who became the priestly caste) would then go on to be accepted by the Israelites as a whole, which of course included the story of their leaving of Egypt as an account that included the whole Israelite people. If Friedman is onto something then the story as recorded in the Torah is an exaggeration serving as a national myth, but it is nonetheless built on a genuine historical memory.

 

[Heyo]

To my knowledge, most scholars argue that the account as given in Exodus could not have happened. For one, the claimed numbers alone far exceed what would have been realistic. But even if that's true that does not mean the story is a complete fabrication. There's a scholar named Richard Friedman (look him up on YouTube) who posits that the Exodus did happen but at a much smaller scale that involved only the Levites.

According to this theory, the Levites left Egypt and joined what would become the Israelites in Canaan. The traditions and history of the Levites (who became the priestly caste) would then go on to be accepted by the Israelites as a whole, which of course included the story of their leaving of Egypt as an account that included the whole Israelite people. If Friedman is onto something then the story as recorded in the Torah is an exaggeration serving as a national myth, but it is nonetheless built on a genuine historical memory.

How many exaggerations and falsehoods has one to subtract from a story before it becomes more wrong than right?

 

[Glaurung]

How many exaggerations and falsehoods has one to subtract from a story before it becomes more wrong than right?

I think you meant more right than wrong. But in any case perhaps this is a misplaced question. Is the Torah to be taken as history in the modern sense of the word? Probably not. Unless you want to commit to the idea that God created the world in a six day period six-thousand years ago. But that doesn't mean it was composed as a lie. I don't like the conspiratorial view of religion that many atheists seem to have.

The creation account for example, may have more to do with justifying the Sabbath observance than it does as a face value account of the world's creation. Likewise, the Exodus account was perhaps intended to serve as giving context to the Passover observance. So asking if the narrative is one-hundred percent accurate in recounting everything that literally happened is to miss the point. It simply was not concerned with that. The Torah is a religious narrative of an ancient people. That doesn't make it a mendacious falsehood even if it isn't all 'true' in a strict factual sense.

I remember one point from one scholar (perhaps Friedman) that claimed that the incongruencies in the Torah is evidence that it was put together in good faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Give us some examples. I know there is a camp found where Egyptian Soldiers who were hired to build the pyramids are there, so it would suggest they did not use Jewish slaves to build the pyramids, and what else?

Israelites - Wikipedia

Based on the archaeological evidence, according to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[9][10][11] through a gradual evolution of a distinct monolatristic—later cementing as monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.

The evidence suggests that Israelites did not at all conquer canaanites. Instead, the evidence suggests that Israelites ARE canaanites who merely reinvented their own history. They didn't need to conquer and invade the land, because they were already there.

The further back you go, the more dificult it is to distinguish an israelite from a canaanite.

Then there's also the total lack of any evidence that SHOULD exist, fi the exodus story is true. The fact that such evidence does not exist, is a prime example how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

No trace at all of large groups of jewish slaves in egypt. No artefacts, no writings, nada. Not from Egypt, not from neighbouring states, not from their enemies or friends.

No trace at all of large groups of slaves that left egypt overnight. This would have had ENORMOUS economic repercussions. There's no trace of this at all. It also would have been big news in the region. There's no way that such an event would go unnoticed by economics, by regional stability, by Egypt's enemies / adversaries, etc.

No trace at all of large groups wondering the desert. We find the traces of nomad tribes of a dozen of people, but apparently 100s of thousands of israelites left no trace at all.

Literally everything about history screams that this event never occured.

 

[firedragon]

Liberals not only use textual criticism to better understand the text, they also use literary analysis to identify genres such as myth and legend, and archeology to inform them.

This is the first time academics like wellhausen are called liberals.

What you mean is liberal scholars. And you are not right to say this. Because even conservative scholars take the same critical approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Israelites - Wikipedia

Based on the archaeological evidence, according to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[9][10][11] through a gradual evolution of a distinct monolatristic—later cementing as monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.

The evidence suggests that Israelites did not at all conquer canaanites. Instead, the evidence suggests that Israelites ARE canaanites who merely reinvented their own history. They didn't need to conquer and invade the land, because they were already there.

The further back you go, the more dificult it is to distinguish an israelite from a canaanite.

Then there's also the total lack of any evidence that SHOULD exist, fi the exodus story is true. The fact that such evidence does not exist, is a prime example how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

No trace at all of large groups of jewish slaves in egypt. No artefacts, no writings, nada. Not from Egypt, not from neighbouring states, not from their enemies or friends.

No trace at all of large groups of slaves that left egypt overnight. This would have had ENORMOUS economic repercussions. There's no trace of this at all. It also would have been big news in the region. There's no way that such an event would go unnoticed by economics, by regional stability, by Egypt's enemies / adversaries, etc.

No trace at all of large groups wondering the desert. We find the traces of nomad tribes of a dozen of people, but apparently 100s of thousands of israelites left no trace at all.

Literally everything about history screams that this event never occured.

What I have a hard time understanding is that the fact that much of the Old Testament is fictitious or mythical should be seen as a good thing by Christians and yet they reject that. Their God is not the incompetent vile complete awhile that the Old Testament claims that he is. Yet that is the one that they demand is real and then they get mad at the people that refute that version of God.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Well, I studied a lot of archaeological books, some dating from the 1850's, and the latest 10 years ago.
I also found that Archaeological interperetation depends on what ideology the archaeologist holds.
Take for instance Kathleen Kenyon who declared that Jericho was destroyed 200 years before Israel supposedly arrived in Palestine.
Her words rings in history books as :" there was no Jericho for Israel to destroy for 200 years!"

Her observations was relayed throughout the Atheist world for many years, and is even today used as evidence that the Exodus never happned.

Kenyon's dating in the Conquest was incorrectly ascribed to have happned in 1300BC.
And according to her, Jericho was destroyed in 1500BC.

However, if we look at the date of Israel's Conquest by Biblical dating, we find that the Exoducs was 1445 Bc, and the conquest 1400 Bc.

This means that Kenyon should have said that Jericho was destroyed less than 100 years before the supposed conquest.
Unfortunately for her, there was much more facts which she did not know about, or wanted to exclude in her bias.
First, untill 1868, the idea that Jericho even existed, was presumed a myth amongst Biblical critisizers.
Further studies concluded that kenyon's excavation was insufficient to prove her findings.
Therefore, Jericho was not only an attestation that the Bible spoke of a city which was thought not to exist, but in stead of being evidence of no Conquest, changed into a reality that Israel did destroy jericho in 1400Bc, and the ruins correlates to the Biblical description of it's destruction.

Biblical Sites: Three Discoveries at Jericho

 

[SA Huguenot]

Then, just for interesting sake.
The Jews were never in Egypt, and never participated in the Exodus.
The Jews did not even exist for another 1200 years.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses were not Jews.
They were Israelites.
The Israelites were 12 tribes, of which Judah was one.
470 years after the Conquest, these 12 tribes split up into 2 Kingdoms in 930 BC.
The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.
219 years later, the Kingdom of Israel (10 tribes) wereremoved in captivity in 721 by Shalmanezzer, and never returned to Canaan.
and another 120 years later, the remaining Kingdom of Judah was removed to Babylon in 605 - 595 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.

70 years later, only a fraction of Judah (42 360 people) returned to Jerusalem and surroundings.
Over the next 200 years they intermarried with the Edomites, and became one "nation" with the name Idomae.
Linguistically the name was interwoven with the Iuhudae, and the people called Jews was identified in about 300BC.

Therefore, to say that the Jews were in Egypt, went on the Exodus, and Conqured Canaan, is as equal to say that the marines of the USA fought in the battles against the Moors in spain in the 1300's
or that the Boers of South Africa fought against the Roman Empire with the Germanic tribes 2 000 years ago.

That there might be a little blood in the DNA of the 12 tribes of Israel in the Genepool of the Jews is possible, but to say Moses was a Jew is historically and totally incorrect.

As I said, just some information.
Not to break our heads about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I have a hard time understanding is that the fact that much of the Old Testament is fictitious or mythical should be seen as a good thing by Christians and yet they reject that. Their God is not the incompetent vile complete awhile that the Old Testament claims that he is. Yet that is the one that they demand is real and then they get mad at the people that refute that version of God.

I think entire books could be written on the psychology that underpins that.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What I have a hard time understanding is that the fact that much of the Old Testament is fictitious or mythical should be seen as a good thing by Christians and yet they reject that. Their God is not the incompetent vile complete awhile that the Old Testament claims that he is. Yet that is the one that they demand is real and then they get mad at the people that refute that version of God.

Why would you say:" Their God is not the incompetent vile complete awhile that the Old Testament claims that he is."

1. Their God?
2. And where do you find that He is vile and incompetent in the OT?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you say:" Their God is not the incompetent vile complete awhile that the Old Testament claims that he is."

1. Their God?
2. And where do you find that He is vile and incompetent in the OT?

I see that you have not read the Old Testament From the beginning the God of the Old Testament is incompetent and blames others for his own errors. He makes a couple that does not know right from wrong, sets them up to fail, and then punished not only them but all of their descendants for one error that was his fault to start with. he commits or orders genocide multiple times, he kills or has people killed for the mildest of "offenses". One has to do some very very very creative interpretation of the Bible to excuse those acts. There is no excuse if one reads it literally at all.

 

[Riders]

I see that you have not read the Old Testament From the beginning the God of the Old Testament is incompetent and blames others for his own errors. He makes a couple that does not know right from wrong, sets them up to fail, and then punished not only them but all of their descendants for one error that was his fault to start with. he commits or orders genocide multiple times, he kills or has people killed for the mildest of "offenses". One has to do some very very very creative interpretation of the Bible to excuse those acts. There is no excuse if one reads it literally at all.

It depends on how you interpret those scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on how you interpret those scriptures.

If one interprets those verses at all literally the God of the Old Testament is quite the richard.