Talk:Evidence for the Exodus/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

For a moment there...

I was expecting another tumble-weed article. - π 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Akhenaten?

I recall hearing in my Ancient History class that aparently there was some sort of Plague going around during the reign of Akhenaten. Additionally, Akhenaten is the first recorded believer of Monotheism known to man (i.e. He replaced Egypt's entire religion with that of a single god - The Aten, which is also the first Egyptian god that had an abstract form, instead of an Anthromorphic form. Thuswise, it is believed by some people that Akhenaten was in fact the Moses of the Bible. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mot people, if they believe in the exodus account, will date it to the hykos or early new kingdom. Also, his aten system collapsed spectacularly and he was basicaly cosigned to damnation by the other egyptians for what he did. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Aardsma chronology and the Exodus

I recently came across this one website which posits an alternative Biblical chronology, made by a Dr. Aardsma. He recognizes the problem that conventional dating puts the Exodus in the time where Egypt was prospering, not being destroyed as the Plagues and Exodus would imply. In order to accompany this, he states that the Hebrew word corresponding for "one thousand" was accidentally left out in a very early copy, thereby pushing the date of the Conquest of Canaan and everything before it by a thousand years. Aardsma proposes the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 was supposed to be [[[1]]]480, the one in the thousands place being lost in the typo. This explanation makes things make a lot more sense. The Plagues and Exodus took place at the fall of the Old Kingdom. Rather than try to explain it myself, I'd like to show you two links from Aardsma's website.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/millennium.php

I think that mentioning the Aardsma chronology in the article should be included, as it helps the biblical and secular records sync much more nicely, up to the time of Abraham (before then we descend into the mythology of Babel, the Flood, etc.) What do you all think? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me as plausible on the surface, but I think there's very little evidence anyone cares about Dr Aardsma or his theory. It also ignores the archaeological evidence that the Israelites were just Canaanites who went feral. Perhaps in a list of other such alternate chronologies - is there such a list? Where did you find this one? - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So, by your first sentence, you mean that Aardsma is too obscure and his chronology too little-used to merit mentioning. I don't know what you mean by "the Israelites were just Canaanites who went feral", so if you could please explain what you mean by those words better, then I can respond. I found the Aardsma chronology when I decided to type in "Evidence of the Exodus" into Google and it came up on the first page, if that's what you mean by your first question. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is adequately explained by the second section of the article. I had a look around for anyone taking much notice of this chronology and couldn't see any. (And frankly, I think Velikovsky rubbish doesn't deserve mention in this article.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I am an atheist with a non-religious immediate family that accepts a modified form of the Exodus as real

Sorry for the long-winded title, but I would like to state that I see a modified (i.e. secularized) version of the Exodus as being a historical event, even though I am an atheist without a strongly religious background. For the record, I use the "late" chronology of the Exodus occuring in the thirteenth century before our era.

Only two parties were involved in the supposed Exodus: Egypt and Israel. Israel's testimony is the Book of Exodus. Egypt is silent on description of the actual event of the Exodus, but indicates a great Egyptian military victory at the time. However, it has been shown by archaeology that Ramses' claim of a great victory was just propaganda. It was known that in -1259, the earliest known peace treaty was signed between Ramses II and the Hittites, one year after when the Exodus would have occured. I would imagine that after losing most your army in battle and pursuit and nearly losing your life in the marshes (since Ramses obviously survived, I think it's plausible an Israelite thought that he saw Ramses die when he was really just unconscious), you'd want to make peace. I can see that Ramses, having already established himself as willing to make propaganda to make himself seem awezumz, would probably not want to report this encounter. Then there's the collapse of the Hittites around -1200, the time of the Conquest.

Now, don't get me wrong. I lack belief in any gods, and sure as hell don't buy into the world's best-selling shit parade. But given the evidence that points towards the Exodus with modification to the philosophy of science, I would conclude that a somewhat modified form of the Exodus did occur. There isn't the "absence of evidence" the article claims. And initially after reading the article, I did think the Exodus wasn't real. I don't think the seas were literally parted (the Israelites went through a marsh) or that an angel came down and killed the Egyptian firstborn (the Israelites themselves went through), but still: something recognizable as being similar to the biblical account did occur. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Тy^{Please do not click on this} 19:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The fact that the Torah was begun writing around -1200 also kind of synchronizes. Great job, you got that little thing from Regular Show stuck in my head. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

except the israelites had fuck all to do with the bronze age collapse; exodus is a national origin myth where the god of the hebrews was bad ass enough to take down egypt; not history. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the whole "I'm an atheist who knows the written account isn't literally true" thing went over your head. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is a wonderful and beautiful snowflake, but is worth a bit less than that of the Israeli archaeologists who went absolutely all-out to find evidence of the Exodus, with all the state backing they could ever want - David Ben-Gurion told them "find the title deeds to the Holy Land" - and who were still intellectually honest enough to present a ton of evidence that the story was all bollocks - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

HK - I think that most of your points are covered in this article from a well-known rationalist website.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To David, I am kindly asking for the citation. And to Bob, I've read the article. With the Egyptian recordkeeping, we already know about Ramses and writing off heavy losses as great victories, so it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to write a heavy loss from the Plagues as a great gain. We found in Pithom and Per-Ramses granite sculptures of Ramses II. The article claims "even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts", although the big wiki, which does not regard the Exodus as historical, says in the article on Pithom "was a large city east of the Nile Delta" according to the Greco-Roman records. The RW article only has a single sentence on Ramses II's reign "the same holds true for the period of Ramesses II". An expansion and citation is needed. With the Sinai, it says that there weren't any permanent establishment, just Neolithic settlements and nomads. But I think wandering through the desert for decades is a nomadic lifestyle, so it seems a red herring. A lot of times, history can be revised, sometimes as a result of confusing the way things are (e.g., Edom being a nation) with the way things were. Documents change over time, and I explicitly stated that I know the Hebrew account is not inerrant. But what is inerrant? Also, I don't accept Wyatt's claims of evidence: I don't believe the sea was parted, I know that the fort was Ottoman, the wheel was non-existent or modern, and the pillar wasn't really anything. But the issues don't hold water for me. It's like a perforated gallbladder: leaking a smelly fluid and needing replacement. Also note the earliest records go back to the 13th century before our era, i.e. the time when the Exodus would have occured. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the cited sources in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK kid. Bring on your evidence. Not your beliefs or conjectures - but your evidence.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, for one thing, my thoughts on the historicity of the Exodus have changed over time, although my lack of religion has not. So I can't really say I "believe" either way. I also don't really have a motivation to believe or disbelieve: I don't need to "go through the movements" of faith or anything like that, and my changing thoughts on the subject mean "I just want the truth". Now, I'm going to present a little analogy for you.

“”You hear of a dramatic legend from some local tribe's mythology. It involves some supposedly historical event where the enemy tribe was crushed by the gods with natural disasters. You are curious, so you look into it. Digging through the second tribe's records, you find that their leader says they were doing brilliantly at the time and had just had a great victory in battle against a third tribe. Looking at where the supposed battle takes place, you find that both sides sustained very heavy losses. Previous research has shown some naturalistic explanations of the events described in the original legend are possible. There is not very much other information regarding the situation, and this is understandable given these events occurred and were written down millennia ago. What do you feel about the historicity of the event?

I think it is a reasonable conclusion that a modified, secularized, etc., form of the event described occurred, would make sense. From the original event, things were attributed divinely, revised to meet changing ideologies, et cetera. Do you understand the analogy? If it is flawed in some way, let me know. When you get the analogy, the rest follows. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ha.... no. at 1200 BC they wouldnt have been organized enough to fight back one of the big 3 bronze age ANE empires; let alone inflict a disaster on them. I'm a former BL who looked at the account of exodus and said "bullshit". As a history major with a focus in europe and the NE, i still say bullshit. Whatever truth is in the exodus account, the jews were NOT in egypt, they didn't leave egypt in a great exodus, they certainly didnt strike down a bunch of the 1st born, and all evidence, by very respectable people your calling semi-liars at best, says they were in Canaan. Or do you want to argue how genesis is also a legendized event? back up your view with evidence, or stop arguing this point--il'Dictator Mikal 22:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One, I wasn't the one who started the argument. Reading the OP, at no point did I even want to incite an argument. Two, I never said anyone was a liar, semi- or not. The word "liar" implies a level of malice which I do not believe exists. I've seen all sorts of 100% secular books on history which mention a modified form of the Exodus as a historical event, and which were looked at by actual historians of all religious backgrounds. I would've expected them to have weeded out fictitious events even if they were cherished beliefs (and I might say the historicity of the Exodus is not a cherished belief of mine). Two, it doesn't surprise me very much when a nation goes from minor to ridiculously powerful in a couple decades. Personally, I see "nation gets destroyed, invaders supposedly arrived around the same time" kind of is a hint that the invaders destroyed the nation. I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you: think what you will, but I feel we've reached an impasse. I just wanted to state my opinion and nothing more. I feel that the evidence supports a modified form of the Exodus. Now please kindly click on the brain between four brackets on the upper left hand corner of your screen. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll debate this later, but not now. Let me explicitly state in the OP I want to debate. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You dont get to decide what starts a debate and what doesnt HBK; whowever told you you could was a idiot. now; again, give proof your idea is true, beyond "well we know x did y and C got made around the time T was wiped out by F, so jesus"--il'Dictator Mikal 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we demand proof and evidence! Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 00:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to associate myself with this hooting mob in demanding HBK provides proof and shit. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, evidence as opposed to opinion, belief, conjecture or speculation would be a nice addition to HK's posts.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Decided to just randomly go to pages, viewed this conversation again, read it over, looked into it a little, finally realised the Exodus is shit. Thanks for treating my claims of evidence critically. Sorry I was an irrational arse before ;) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Historicity of the Exodus being "dead"

I wrote this article under the talk page under the article on the Book of Exodus before I formally created an account. I am deciding to put it here: I don't regard the Exodus to be "historical" but I find it somewhat improbable that the story of the Exodus was simply conjured up out of thin air as this article suggests. The time the Exodus is supposed to have taken place is during the late bronze age and early iron age. The eastern Mediterranean was a complete mess during this time period. The bronze age collapse saw the end of every regional power except for Egypt and Assyria. There had been evidence of regional chaos even before the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses III defeated the Sea people. Furthermore the Exodus is not the only legendary story from this time period. The Iliad takes place at around the same time, which is something that the Jew and the Greeks both realized when they read each other’s stories. It is entirely believable that some form of the Exodus story took place (minus the mythical stuff). In addition Greek and Roman writers like Strabo and Tacitus seemed to believe the basic story of the Exodus took place. Tacitus lends the most to the story's credibility in recounting a minor historical event because he offers different far more believable versions of what he thought happened. I would venture to say that the reason why you won't find much in the way of archaeological evidence is because the Exodus wasn't nearly as giant as the Bible claims it was; it certainly wouldn't be the only time the Bible exaggerates its numerical values. Alsto003 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Alex

Title

The title seems a bit stubby. Any objections to my moving this to "Evidence for the Exodus". My understanding is that Exodus would normally be capitalised in the context of the Hebrews sojourn in the desert. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's "the Exodus" or just Exodus depends on whether it's specifically about the journey from Egypt or about the book of Exodus. Looking at the article it should probably be Exodus, as it relates to everything related in that Book. Either way, it should definitely be capitalised. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Ironically there's more evidence to support the journey of this article to it's new home than there is for the journey of the Hebrews. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing a much more scientific one in me sandybox. Basically, there is no real evidence for anything in Exodus at all. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible inspirations

Only for interest, not for the sake of apologetics: The context in which the w:Proto-Sinaitic script and the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions arose does point to the presence of Canaanites/Semites who were strongly influenced by Egyptian culture in early 2nd millennium BC Sinai and Egypt, although that date is certainly too early for the Exodus and it is usually assumed that these Semites were not slaves, but workers and officials, and miners, traders and mercenaries respectively. So the Israelites did not come out of Egypt, but at least their writing system did.

Moreover, according to w:Proto-Semitic language#Homeland a migration of early Semitic speakers from North Africa through the Nile Delta to what is now Israel/Palestine in the 4th millennium BC is posited by mainstream academics who place the (Pre-)Semitic homeland in North Africa. That is of course far too early for the immediate origins of the Canaanites themselves, as such, let alone anything resembling the traditional account of the Exodus, but a tradition that ancestors of the Jews came to the Middle East from the west via Egypt a long time ago could have existed in the 1st millennium BC, could plausibly have had a historical core and inspired the Exodus story. Origin traditions pointing to prehistoric migrations are generally taken seriously by ethnologists and anthropologists as they are often compatible with other independent evidence from linguistics, genetics and archaeology. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Skeptics Stack Exchange

The most up-voted answer to the question "Did the Hebrew exodus from Egypt ever happen?" claims that some kind of mass migration of Hebrews out of the Goshen area is much more plausible than this article seems to suggest. You can find the question here and the answer I'm referring to here. It may be worth checking out. Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Possssibly. Though in archaeologists versus Biblical scholars (Prof Berman), I'd put a bit more weight on the former. I see this is a month old, let's see what washes out - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Another argument against

Which is more plausible@

600 000 + people leave Egypt - this would be a sizeable percentage of the actual population (and a high proportion of the productive population), resulting in economic and social collapse worse than the Black Death in Europe. As this large population moves towards Canaan it causes massive environmental damage (for all the obvious reasons).

'A (self defined) tribe' decides to leave Egypt and the Pharaoh is annoyed (loss of productive population, and soldiers potentially going over to his enemies); the tribe makes use of 'excess of weather and illnesses arising' to leave regardless. They eventually reach Canaan and are incorporated along with their history tales into the local population (and the various historical narratives are put together at a later period). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Determining which is more plausible is irrelevant if the arguments are conjecture. I could argue, 'Which is more plausible: the universe is only 6000 years old, as the Bible says, or that God guided the creation of the universe over billions of years?' Well, the latter is the more plausible, but it's still not correct.

It still hinges on the idea that some people that can be in some way identified with the Israelites (or with whom the Israelites have a shared history) were in Egypt to begin with.--Jcvamp (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Tckenu

I was just wondering what the original source of the claim that Per-Atum was previously called Tckenu. The reference at the bottom says, 'Uphill, 1968', but that isn't enough information for me to identify the book in question. The only online references I've found to Per-Atum previously being called Tckenu seem to be citing this page (or quoting it verbatim). This makes the claim somewhat dubious in my view.

I am an atheist and I don't believe the Exodus story is factual, so please don't take this as apologist interference, I just think that the best way to refute an argument is with solid facts. When you start using half-truths or sketchy evidence, it just gives the other party a means to demolish your argument.

I think it would be fairer to say that there is debate about the actual location of the city. You could cite the various locations that have been suggested, perhaps giving arguments for and against.--Jcvamp (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

consensus of scholars

The article states that Mainstream history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened -- considering the majority of egyptologists say that the exodus did happen and that there were Hebrews in Egypt, according to a survey of egyptologists published in 2015 by James Hoffmeier,^[1] it looks as if this article needs fixing. The article can argue against the exodus, but if it does indeed do so, it's arguing against modern scholarship. It should not attempt to skew the facts and make it seem as if its speaking for scholarship.Korvexman (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC) ^{[1] Hoffmeier, James K. "Egyptologists and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt." Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 197-208.}

That paper chapter is blocked behind a paywall, though the abstract and first page doesn't do much to help your claim that "the majority of egyptologists say that the exodus did happen and that there were Hebrews in Egypt." Admitedly the alleged survey wasn't a part of the introduction or abstract. However, allow me to quote a few things from what I can read on the outset:

"The 1980s saw the rise of skepticism towards the [historicity of the Exodus]." "If there is no evidence of a new people who conquered the land coming from outside of Canaan, they [they being an undetermined amount of people proposing models of Israelite origins, headed by a few named people] reasoned, then it seems unlikely that Israel originated in Egypt as the Pentateuch would have us believe." And, finally, "From the outset allow me [the author of the book/chapter] to observe that I have not found the same level of skepticism among present-day Egyptologists toward the Egyptian origin traditions of the bible." (Emphasis mine on that last one)

Judging by that, it doesn't seem that the author is claiming the majority of Egyptologists accept the Biblical Exodus. I could be wrong as, again, the entire chapter is held behind a paywall. I will, however, make another observation. When searching the reference posted on Google, the top three results are the text from Springer.com. The fourth result is a Conservapedia article about the Exodus, with the phrase "An unofficial survey conducted by James K. Hoffmeier expamined the views of twenty-five Egyptologists on the historicity of the exodus" with a reference to, well, exactly what you posted above. In which case a) unofficial and b) I'd warrant there are a lot more than 25 Egyptologists out there, so even if 19 of the 25 polled agreed to the statement that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible, that's hardly evidence the majority of Egyptologists hold that view.

How was the survey conducted? How were those 25 people picked? Was the question worded in such a way as to eliminate bias? Who conducted the survey - Hoffmeier (which would implicitly introduce bias into the survey), or a third-party? As it stands, that unofficial survey holds about as much weight as someone claiming they held an unofficial survey of 3 climatologists, and 100% of respondents disagreed with anthropogenic climate change, and therefor 100% of climatologists don't support it. Onychoprion (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense

Is not 40 years too much time to go from Egypt to Israel, even assuming the biblical accounts were 100% true? --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Very much so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check this -is in Spanish, but the calculations (what matters) seem to be legit- --Panzerfaust (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

* dons Mod run of the mill janitor hat *

There's currently an edit war between David Gerard and Reverend Black Percy as to whether we should include a bunch of links in the opening quote of this article. Could you take it to the talk page? Christopher (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Chwayatyun, grasshopper. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think editorialising a quote is an obviously bad practice. Why do you think it's in any way a good idea? - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David on this one, not all links in quotes are bad but in this case it adds nothing. Christopher (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, lads... First things first. Compromise is going to be the way forward. I'll certainly concede that there can be such a thing as too many internal links inserted into a single quote.

Furthermore — while it seems DG finds all internal links in quotes bad — I maintain that so-called "editorialisations" can range between good or bad. As such, they're not "all bad", nor "all good", but vary both situationally and contextually.

An example of bad/overdone internal linking (for the Shermer quote) is the ones for the words "archaeological" and "historical". They are inane and distracting — a user needs no "help" finding those terms. As such, I'll remove those.

An example of a good internal link, however — i.e. one which helps the reader understand contextually relevant subtleties they otherwise very well might not — is where Shermer says "You'd think a people wandering the desert for 40 years would leave some evidence? There's absolutely none.", which links to negative evidence. This is patently useful, and not a twisting of neither words nor meaning. As such, I'd like it in.

I'll remove the extraneous stuff now, and we can all put on the kettle and reconverge on this in the morning. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Composition date

8th-7th Century BCE? Really? More like the Hellenistic era c.167 BCE onwards. See the Copenhagen 'Minimalists' for instance. --Scherben (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)