is the bible really a historical book? did the exodus really happen?

More than a century of archaeological research has discovered nothing which could support the narrative elements of the book of Exodus - the four centuries sojourn in Egypt, the escape of well over a million Israelites from the Delta, or the three months journey through the wilderness to Sinai. The Egyptian records themselves have no mention of anything recorded in Exodus, the wilderness of the southern Sinai peninsula shows no traces of a mass-migration such as Exodus describes, and virtually all the place-names mentioned, including Goshen (the area within Egypt where the Israelites supposedly lived), the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses, the site of the crossing of the Red Sea, and even Mt Sinai itself, have resisted identification. The archaeology of Palestine has equally failed to substantiate the bible's account of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites arriving from Egypt some forty years later - of the 31 cities supposedly conquered by Joshua, only one (Bethel) shows a destruction level that equates to the Biblical narrative, and there is general agreement that the origins of Israel lie within Canaan itself. Even those scholars who hold the Exodus to represent historical truth concede that the most the evidence can suggest is plausibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus

Did the exodus really happen as a historical event? the bible which puts naming people and cities at the center of its narratives FAILs to give the name of the Pharaoh that was ruling egypt during the exodus. . .the egyptians have no record of what is written in the bible. . .such a mass migration of millions of slaves would have had a devastating effect of the Egyptians but there is no historical or archaeological evidence to show that the it ever happened. . . .according to Rabbi David Wolpe, " virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all" (April 13, 2001). other archaeologist like Zeev Hertzog and Israel I Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, who are Jewish themselves say that it never happened as a historical event. . . do nairaland christians take the bible as a history book or a book of faith. . . and if they take the bible as a book of faith why have faith in events that have no historical backing?

The Old Testament does contain some historical fact. There can be no doubt about that.

As for Exodus? There are many, many theories. To get to the bottom of it, we have to look away from the Bible and at Egyptian history.

I believe that the Hebrews who escaped Egypt were the Hyskos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

There is so much in the Bible that backs this theory up, it looks like the only logical one.
Things like Moses' name (it's Egyptian), Joseph's position, the fact they originally came from Canaan, etc. There are other apsects we'll never know entirely for sure as the Egyptians totally wiped the records clean once they deposed them and forced them out (could point to the reason for the lack of evidence though)


There is one major problem with it though. One problem why it will never be accepted by the mainstream.
The Hyskos worshipped the Egyptian god Seth. Now Seth had all the attributes of Yawheh - it is easy to see how one became the other. Literally all they had to do was change the name. The problem is, Seth was the template for Satan.

These are interesting for further research:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
Especially chapter 3.

This is interesting too:
http://www.icejusa.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9431&news_iv_ctrl=0

The Exodus narrative lack all sense of verisimilitude. Check out the following:

1) There is no record of this event in any of the Egyptian records (I know this is argument from silence, but in this case, this silence is very loud)

2) The entire region from Egypt right up to the Promised Land was under Egyptian rule at the time. The Egyptian army had tens (maybe hundreds) of garrisons stationed in the desert and along the well know routes from Egypt right up to present day Turkey (then the kingdom of the Hittites). The Jews could not have been escaping Egypt by going into the desert and Canaan, for these territories were criss-crossed by Egyptian soldiers who could easily have tracked them down. It is a bit like trying to escape US influence by going from Washington to Texas. Does not make any sense at all.

3) Logistics. How could 1.2+ million people and their livestock survive is such a desolate and destitute region for 40 years? Highly unlikely.


Incidentally, modern archeology cast plenty of doubts on the biblical narrative. Check out the book by Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed .

@ Pastor AIO.

The second link looks a bit unreliable to me when making concrete claims that there was a Hebrew military invasion.
What little evidence there is suggests the Hebrews leaving Egypt and slowly taking over the land by means of integration rather than by warfare. That's not to say that there weren't the occasional tribal battles, but in general, the "Promised Land" was settled in a far more orderly fashion than stated in the OT. If this was the case, they were probably so successful because they were able to introduce elements of Egyptian technology and also it's social system.
I have to admit that my jury is out - I don't know wether the evidence can be totally trusted - the Hyksos were certainly easily capable of taking the "Promised Land" by force and it was in their character to do so. But it's a moot point - the overwhelming evidence does show that the early Hebrews were Hyksos.

If we look at the Hyksos, they were driven out of power in a nationalistic revolt but may not all have left Egypt straight away. In fact, evidence shows that a lot of them just moved or stayed to the North-East of the country where their main power base had been when they ruled (which just happens to border Israel). These could have been the Hebrews that Exodus talks about - the inidigenous Pharoahs didn't trust them, saw them as a threat to stability and decided to kick them out when they finally had the strength to. Some scholars are quick to dismiss the Hyksos theory on the basis that the civil war that kicked them out was not in the Exodus time-frame. They completely fail to take into account that the Hyksos did not leave Egypt immediately - although the native Egyptians regained the throne, it took years for them to control the whole country and there is no reason why the Hyksos should have left immediately once the Pharoahs recaptured the land. In fact, probability is that the Hyskos, now being a defeated people, were now treated like second class citizens - exactly as Exodus tells us they were!! This discrimination (although probably justified) may have been the trigger for the Exodus.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

Even Jewish scholarly bodies do not dispute the argument that the early Hebrews were Hyksos:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09361.html



@ Huxley.

  There is no record of this event in any of the Egyptian records (I know this is argument from silence, but in this case, this silence is very loud)

Exactly. The silence is very loud because we know that once the Hyksos were deposed, the Egyptians systematically went around removing all evidence of them. Coincidence?

The entire region from Egypt right up to the Promised Land was under Egyptian rule at the time.

As already stated, the border region was the Hyksos stronghold. Their capital was at Avaris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris
Incidentally, Avaris was also known as Goshen - the land that the Bible states Joseph and his family moved to. It was also known as Rameses - the starting point for the Exodus in the Bible:
Exodus 12:37 (King James Version)
37And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

Logistics.  How could 1.2+ million people and their livestock survive is such a desolate and destitute region for 40 years?  Highly unlikely.

There were probably Hyksos already settled in the area. These would have been the people who had left during and after the Egyptian war of independence. It's doubtful the area was as hostile as we are led to believe.

Bastage:

The Old Testament does contain some historical fact. There can be no doubt about that.

As for Exodus? There are many, many theories. To get to the bottom of it, we have to look away from the Bible and at Egyptian history.

I believe that the Hebrews who escaped Egypt were the Hyskos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

There is so much in the Bible that backs this theory up, it looks like the only logical one.
Things like Moses' name (it's Egyptian), Joseph's position, the fact they originally came from Canaan, etc. There are other apsects we'll never know entirely for sure as the Egyptians totally wiped the records clean once they deposed them and forced them out (could point to the reason for the lack of evidence though)

there is no evidence to back up the exodus narrative. . .there is no evidence to show that the egyptians deposed over a million jews. . . .

Bastage:

@ Pastor AIO.

The second link looks a bit unreliable to me when making concrete claims that there was a Hebrew military invasion.
What little evidence there is suggests the Hebrews leaving Egypt and slowly taking over the land by means of integration rather than by warfare. That's not to say that there weren't the occasional tribal battles, but in general, the "Promised Land" was settled in a far more orderly fashion than stated in the OT. If this was the case, they were probably so successful because they were able to introduce elements of Egyptian technology and also it's social system.
I have to admit that my jury is out - I don't know wether the evidence can be totally trusted - the Hyksos were certainly easily capable of taking the "Promised Land" by force and it was in their character to do so. But it's a moot point - the overwhelming evidence does show that the early Hebrews were Hyksos.

If we look at the Hyksos, they were driven out of power in a nationalistic revolt but may not all have left Egypt straight away. In fact, evidence shows that a lot of them just moved or stayed to the North-East of the country where their main power base had been when they ruled (which just happens to border Israel). These could have been the Hebrews that Exodus talks about - the inidigenous Pharoahs didn't trust them, saw them as a threat to stability and decided to kick them out when they finally had the strength to. Some scholars are quick to dismiss the Hyksos theory on the basis that the civil war that kicked them out was not in the Exodus time-frame. They completely fail to take into account that the Hyksos did not leave Egypt immediately - although the native Egyptians regained the throne, it took years for them to control the whole country and there is no reason why the Hyksos should have left immediately once the Pharoahs recaptured the land. In fact, probability is that the Hyskos, now being a defeated people, were now treated like second class citizens - exactly as Exodus tells us they were!! This discrimination (although probably justified) may have been the trigger for the Exodus.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

Even Jewish scholarly bodies do not dispute the argument that the early Hebrews were Hyksos:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09361.html



@ Huxley.

Exactly. The silence is very loud because we know that once the Hyksos were deposed, the Egyptians systematically went around removing all evidence of them. Coincidence?

As already stated, the border region was the Hyksos stronghold. Their capital was at Avaris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris
Incidentally, Avaris was also known as Goshen - the land that the Bible states Joseph and his family moved to. It was also known as Rameses - the starting point for the Exodus in the Bible:
Exodus 12:37 (King James Version)
37And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

There were probably Hyksos already settled in the area. These would have been the people who had left during and after the Egyptian war of independence. It's doubtful the area was as hostile as we are led to believe.

I don't quite get it. I need to do some research into this area. But first, are you saying that the Hyksosians are the Israelites? Are they the very same people or are the Hyksosians immigrants from Cannaan who were later forced back into Cannaan by the Egyptians?

huxley:

I don't quite get it.  I need to do some research into this area.  But first,  are you saying that the Hyksosians are the Israelites? 

Absolutely.
Do the research. You'll find it very interesting.
It's quite possible that some of them came from Canaan (many of the Egyptian Hyksos had Canaanite names) but in general they are referred to as a Semetic Asiatic race - possibly also coming from Syria and the Lebanon. It's also argued that they may have originally been an Indo/Aryan race.

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/10367/Hyksos.html

Not Biblical evidence but Egyptian evidence:

The details of his military campaigns are taken from the account on the walls of the tomb of another Ahmose, a soldier from El-Kab, a town in southern Upper Egypt, whose father had served under Seqenenra Tao II, and whose family had long been nomarchs of the district. It seems that several campaigns against the stronghold at Avaris were needed before the Hyksos were finally dislodged and driven from Lower Egypt.
After the fall of Avaris, the fleeing Hyksos were pursued by the Egyptian army across northern Sinai and into southern Canaan.

Go take an in-depth look at Set (or Seth) too. You'll see that just like the early Yaweh god, he was a Desert God, God of Storms and War and God of High Places. You'll also find that Set's arch enemy was Osiris, the god represented by the Apis bull. When Moses came down from the mountain and had a load of followers put to death, there is the possibility that they were making Apis bulls (the OT says golden calves). Not suprising then if Set was the fore-runner of Yaweh that Moses went mad and had them executed - they were worshipping the rival god.
Or it's possible that they were making red oxen and because of the ban on graven images he went crazy.

http://sacred-texts.com/sex/ipi/ipi08.htm

That Seth had some special connection with the Hebrews is proved, among other things, by the peculiar position occupied in their religious system by the ass--the firstborn of which alone of all animals was allowed to be redeemed 80--and the red heifer--whose ashes were to be reserved as a "water of separation" for purification from sin. 81 Both of these animals were in Egypt sacred to Seth (Typhon), the ass being his symbol, and red oxen being at one time sacrificed to him, although at a later date objects of a red color were disliked, owing to their association with the dreaded Typhon. 82 That we have a reference to this deity in the name of the Hebrew lawgiver is very probable. No satisfactory derivation of this name, Moses, Mosheh (Heb.), has yet been given

@Mazaje.
There's no evidence of the exact Biblical narrative, but the circumstantial evidence coupled with what is contained in the Bible makes the Hyksos theory very compelling.

Bastage:

@Mazaje.
There's no evidence of the exact Biblical narrative, but the circumstantial evidence coupled with what is contained in the Bible makes the Hyksos theory very compelling.

i know that there is absolute no historical evidence for the biblical narrative that was why i asked if christians take the bible as a historical book or not because most nigerian christians take it has a book that records historical facts. . . .

In the case of the Hyksos it has recorded historical fact.
Maybe not as accurately or as precise as one would like, but when we compare it with what we know from other records, it's still pretty convincing. You've also got to bear in mind that the people who wrote about these events did so, hundreds of years later.

I've often said, that the Bible has to be put up there and looked at with other contemporary works to understand it. Exodus is one of those examples.
To understand the OT, you've got to look at Egyptian, Hebrew, Canaanite and Babylonian religious practices and history, etc. With the NT, you've got to study up on Roman, Judaic, Pagan and Egyptian practices and their accompanying histories.
Often, when you do this, you can see what the authors were up to.

Bastage,

I must thank you for bring the Hyksos to my attention for their involvement in Egypt sounds fascinating. I have got the book, The Bible Unearth, by Israel Finkelstein, in which they are mentioned, but I just had not read that far. In fact I have bearly read the book. Incidentally, I found the following on the web:

The Hyksos

The Hyksos were a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. In about 1630 they seized power, and Hyksos kings ruled Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630-1521 BC).

The name Hyksos was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (fl. 300 BC), who, according to the Jewish historian Josephus (fl. 1st century AD), translated the word as "king-shepherds" or "captive shepherds." Josephus wished to demonstrate the great antiquity of the Jews and thus identified the Hyksos with the Hebrews of the Old Testament. Most scholars do not now support this view, though it is possible that Hebrews came into Egypt during the Hyksos period or that some Hyksos were the ancestors of some Hebrews. "Hyksos" was probably an Egyptian term for "rulers of foreign lands" (heqa-khase), and it almost certainly designated the foreign dynasts rather than a whole nation. Although traditionally they also formed the 16th dynasty, those rulers were probably only vassals of the 15th-dynasty kings. They seem to have been connected with the general migratory movements elsewhere in the Middle East at the time. Although most of the Hyksos names seem to have been Semitic, there may also have been a Hurrian element among them.

The Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot, the compound bow, improved battle axes, and advanced fortification techniques into Egypt. At Avaris (modern Tall ad-Dab'a) in the northeastern delta, they built their capital with a fortified camp over the remains of a Middle Kingdom town that they had seized. Excavations since the 1960s have revealed a Canaanite-style temple, Palestinian-type burials, including horse burials, Palestinian types of pottery, and quantities of their superior weapons.

Their chief deity was the Egyptian storm and desert god, Seth, whom they identified with an Asiatic storm god. From Avaris they ruled most of Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt up to Hermopolis directly. South to Cusae, and briefly even beyond, they ruled through Egyptian vassals. When under Seqenenre and Kamose the Thebans began to rebel, the Hyksos pharaoh Auserre Apopi I tried unsuccessfully to make an alliance with the rulers of Cush who had overrun Egyptian Nubia in the later years of the 13th dynasty (c. 1650 BC).

The Theban revolt spread northward under Kamose, and in about 1521 Avaris fell to his successor, Ahmose, founder of the 18th dynasty, thereby ending 108 years of Hyksos rule over Egypt. Although vilified by the Egyptians starting with Hatshepsut, the Hyksos had ruled as pharaohs and were listed as legitimate kings in the Turin Papyrus. At least superficially they were Egyptianized, and they did not interfere with Egyptian culture beyond the political sphere.

Source: http://history-world.org/hyksos.htm

From the above, it appeared that the Hyksos actually ruled Egypt, in fact for about 108 years, until their rule was overthrown (Just like the Nubian foreigners who also rules Egypt). This is a stack contrast to the bible narrative which does not make any claims that the Israelites ruled Egypt. Instead, the bible portray them as slaves in Egypt. How does your view that the Hyksos were Isarelites tally with this discrepancy?

huxley:

This is a stack contrast to the bible narrative which does not make any claims that the Israelites ruled Egypt. Instead, the bible portray them as slaves in Egypt.  How does your view that the Hyksos were Isarelites tally with this discrepancy?

Yes, they ruled. And if you look at characters like Joseph you can see them up there in the ruling class.
Joseph worked as Grand Vizier, interpreting the Pharoah's dreams (a very, very important job) but then you'll notice that the new Pharoah comes along who "knows him not". This was probably one of the Pharoah's after the Hyksos had been deposed. He wouldn't have "known" Joseph because he was the opposition. Moses, on the other hand, seemed to have a hand in both the Hyksos and Egyptian camps although he eventually turned to the Hyksos.

The actual date that the Hyksos were deposed predates Exodus calculations by a hundred years or so. So there was plenty of time for them to get deposed and turned into slaves - although I reckon they were discriminated against and treated as the lowest caste rather than properly enslaved. The actual flight of Exodus could have taken place when a mini rebellion broke out against the Egyptian pharoahs due to this treatment, was put down and they were either forced to flee or thrown out for good. The Egyptians destroyed many records and tried to wipe the Hyksos from the history book but we do know that it took them many attempts to subjugate them on the Egypt/Israeli border before they chased them into Sinai.

Keep reading. Like I said - it's a really interesting subject. So much tallies with what's in the Bible. Not only with what we could consider to be pretty good evidence but we can also see where things have been twisted and manipulated - for example, Moses and his followers took the mantle of victimhood, but the fact is that they were probably the instigators. So in answer to your question "Why do the authors of the Bible not mentiion the Hyksos as rulers", I would reply "Would you?"
It simply wouldn't fit into the politics of the book - the Bible story has the Hebrews starting from nothing and becoming powerful due to their god. It wouldn't be half as powerful if it turned out that they were tyrants who got defeated and deposed because of their god!!!

Bastage:

Yes, they ruled. And if you look at characters like Joseph you can see them up there in the ruling class.
Joseph worked as Grand Vizier, interpreting the Pharoah's dreams (a very, very important job) but then you'll notice that the new Pharoah comes along who "knows him not". This was probably one of the Pharoah's after the Hyksos had been deposed. He wouldn't have "known" Joseph because he was the opposition. Moses, on the other hand, seemed to have a hand in both the Hyksos and Egyptian camps although he eventually turned to the Hyksos.

The actual date that the Hyksos were deposed predates Exodus calculations by a hundred years or so. So there was plenty of time for them to get deposed and turned into slaves - although I reckon they were discriminated against and treated as the lowest caste rather than properly enslaved. The actual flight of Exodus could have taken place when a mini rebellion broke out against the Egyptian pharoahs due to this treatment, was put down and they were either forced to flee or thrown out for good. The Egyptians destroyed many records and tried to wipe the Hyksos from the history book but we do know that it took them many attempts to subjugate them on the Egypt/Israeli border before they chased them into Sinai.

Keep reading. Like I said - it's a really interesting subject. So much tallies with what's in the Bible. Not only with what we could consider to be pretty good evidence but we can also see where things have been twisted and manipulated - for example, Moses and his followers took the mantle of victimhood, but the fact is that they were probably the instigators. So in answer to your question "Why do the authors of the Bible not mentiion the Hyksos as rulers", I would reply "Would you?"
It simply wouldn't fit into the politics of the book - the Bible story has the Hebrews starting from nothing and becoming powerful due to their god. It wouldn't be half as powerful if it turned out that they were tyrants who got defeated and deposed because of their god!!!

The idea of being deposed and becoming the slaves or lower caste of society sounds very plausible and that would explain their lowly status and their eagerness to leave Egypt. But the sources I have check does say the the entire 15th Dynasty was made of Hyksos rulers. It cannot be the case that all these rulers have been wipe out from history. Further, the positions of Joseph and Moses seem to be relatively minor ones compared to that of kings/rulers.

huxley:

It cannot be the case that all these rulers have been wipe out from history.  Further,  the positions of Joseph and Moses seem to be relatively minor ones compared to that of kings/rulers.

The Egyptians were masters at eradicating the history books and did it on a few occasions that we know about.
Atenism is an example - at one time the dominating religion in Egypt but when it was deposed, nearly everything that was recorded about it was destroyed - temples were torn down, reliefs defaced, even the Pharoah's name was changed from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamen. There are Pharoahs in the Valley of the kings whom we know nothing of, simply because they fell foul of the system and everything about them was erased.

Moses was probably Hyksos aristocracy but Joseph's position certainly wasn't minor. The Grand Vizier was the senior minister and the Chief of all priests answerable to only Pharoah himself. When the position first opened, it was only the son of the King who could hold it. If Joseph held the position stated in the Bible, he was the most powerful person in the whole of Egypt after the Pharoah and his immediate family.

http://www.king-tut.org.uk/ancient-egyptians/vizier.htm

The Role of the Vizier
The vizier was traditionally the head of the government administrators, the court officials. However as his power grew a vizier might also be the chief priest. One of the later titles held by a vizier was the High Priest of Heliopolis. Important documents were only considered legal if they had the seal of the vizier. The role of the vizier was therefore quite varied and changed through the various generations. The Vizier Ay himself became Pharoah (incidentally, he was one of the guys who went about rewriting history books). Through the ages of Ancient Egypt the Vizier was responsible for the following:

    *

      The appointment of government officials
    *

      Master of Works for the royal monuments including labor and resources
    *

      Hearing major legal disputes
    *

      Controlling civil order
    *

      Controlling the food supply and distribution
    *

      Conducting a census of the population in order to collect taxes
    *

      Taxation
    *

      Managing important industries
    *

      Controller of the Archives - All important legal issues were documented including wills, trials, deeds, census lists, conscription lists and inventories
    *

      Recording rainfall and water levels of the Nile - Nilometers were gauges which were set up to measure water levels. Levels above and below the average indicated catastrophes such as floods or famine. Good years indicated the level of taxes which could be obtained from the farmers

An example of how the Egyptians erased their history.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/lost-queen/program/program.html

More powerful than Cleopatra or Nefertiti, Hatshepsut stole the throne from her young stepson, dressed herself as a man, and in an unprecedented move, declared herself Pharaoh. Though her power stretched across Egypt and her reign was prosperous, Hatshepsut's legacy was systematically erased from Egyptian history — historical records were destroyed, monuments torn down and her corpse removed from her tomb.

But the Hyksos kings are documented. They weren't wiped from history and we know a bit about them.
Exodus wasn't entirely wiped from Egyptian records either. It is told in a different way by the Egyptians.
To the Jews, Exodus has them fleeing slavery. To the Egyptians, it is the eviction and victory over a race of tyrannical invaders.

Bastage:

An example of how the Egyptians erased their history.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/lost-queen/program/program.html

But the Hyksos kings are documented. They weren't wiped from history and we know a bit about them.
Exodus wasn't entirely wiped from Egyptian records either. It is told in a different way by the Egyptians.
To the Jews, Exodus has them fleeing slavery. To the Egyptians, it is the eviction and victory over a race of tyrannical invaders.

Interesting. Also interesting by its absence is the fact that the Jews did not seem to record the fact that they had held such exalted positions in Egypt (besides Joseph's). No mention of the names of their kings of Egypt when such mention would have served their purposes very well. If it was not for the Egyptian who themselves recorded this, it might never have been known that the Hyksos were once kings in Egypt.

There are some tantalising glimpses in the Bible.

8Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:
10Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
11Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

The Hebrews were "more and mightier". Back in those days, "more and mightier" meant you ran the country!!! I believe that the Israelites that the Pharoah is talking about are those left in Egypt after the War of Independence. The same group who made the Exodus. Notice also that this new King doesn't have time for Joseph - the Hyksos have been overthrown and the natives have retaken Egypt. This new king "arose up". This would seem to point to his taking over the throne by force. This new king was probably Ahmose I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I#Conquest_of_the_Hyksos

Numbers 13:22
And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

Zoan was also known as Tanis. This was another seat of the Hyksos kings. Why would Zoan be important enough to use as a comparison to Hebron?

Returning to Moses and his position in society. There are many, many claims that Moses was not just aristocracy but Egyptian/Hyksos royalty.


If we look at Exodus we can perhaps read between the lines.

2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Notice there that he is Hebrew.

2:19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew [water] enough for us, and watered the flock.

But there he is Egyptian.

Wouldn't "Egyptian Hebrews" be the Hyksos? The Bible claims that Moses had Hebrew parents but that he was adopted by the Pharoah's daughter. Could this just be a metaphor for being Hyksos - we know that the story about him in the basket on the river is not true as it has been lifted from Babylonian myth.

We've also got to remember that according to the Bible, Moses was able to speak to the Pharoah. No ordinary man would ever be given the opportunity to speak directly to the king. You had to wield real power to be able to talk to him personally. Maybe Moses was deposed Hyksos royalty?


Let's also not forget that the first monotheists (or at least monolatrics) are generally regarded as being the Hyksos. Once they were deposed, the Egyptians demonised their god (Set) and slowly returned to thier polytheistic ways. Many scholars agree that the main reason the Hyksos were kicked out of Egypt was because they tried to systematically eradicate all traces of other gods. The comparison to the Hebrews and their monotheism cannot be overlooked.

Did you all check this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html

It throws a lot of research light on what you're talking about.

Unfortunately, the videos in the links don't work for me.

We're sorry, but due to rights restrictions this program is only available for online viewing in the United States. You appear to be connected to the Internet from outside this area.

Am watching it right now from the UK

Bastage:

Unfortunately, the videos in the links don't work for me.

Where are you?

Same as Huxley - UK.

Not to worry. There is plenty more out there on the same subject.

The Bible is so true that it is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper!!!  You cannot compare the inspired word of God to the distorted word of man.

The book of Exodus means exit or departure which Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is the second book of the Pentateuch, a continuation of the story in the book of Genesis.  Where 70 descendants of Jacob journeyed to Egypt, but after increasing abundantly in number they became oppressed as slaves to "Egyptian leaders" who did not remember Joseph (Jacob's son).  The Scripture tells us that a pharaoh came to power who did not know Joseph.  This pharaoh was not even an Egyptian.  In Acts 7:18 when Stephen was giving his presentation before the Sanhendrin, he spoke of "another king who knew not Joseph."  The word "another" in Greek is heteros (not allos), meaning "of a different kind."  Isaiah 52:4 tells us that the pharaoh of the oppression was an Assyrian.  He became insecure and threatened as this race of Hebrews multiplied and became powerful, so he enslaved them.

The oppression of the nation of Israel brings us to the advent of Moses, probably the most remarkable man who has ever lived, next to Jesus Christ.  He stands out in the pre Christian world.  He was born during, but delivered from the government-ordained genocide.  Moses would take a race of slaves (about 3 million people) and mold them into a powerful nation that altered the course of all history.   

Archaeology supports the Bible as you will find out in the link below as you cannot compare the word of the dead with that of the living God.  If you need information and understanding about the historical facts and truth then read the Bible with an open mind willing to know and obey the truth coming from the way, the truth and the life.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

I believe it is 600, 000 Israelites that leave Egypt.

Pastor AIO:

I believe it is 600, 000 Israelites that leave Egypt.

When you add the number of women and children to the figure of men you mentioned what do you feel the approximate population would be?

OLAADEGBU:

The Bible is so true that it is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper!!!  You cannot compare the inspired word of God to the distorted word of man.

The book of Exodus means exit or departure which Moses wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is the second book of the Pentateuch, a continuation of the story in the book of Genesis.  Where 70 descendants of Jacob journeyed to Egypt, but after increasing abundantly in number they became oppressed as slaves to "Egyptian leaders" who did not remember Joseph (Jacob's son).  The Scripture tells us that a pharaoh came to power who did not know Joseph.  This pharaoh was not even an Egyptian.  In Acts 7:18 when Stephen was giving his presentation before the Sanhendrin, he spoke of "another king who knew not Joseph."  The word "another" in Greek is heteros (not allos), meaning "of a different kind."  Isaiah 52:4 tells us that the pharaoh of the oppression was an Assyrian.  He became insecure and threatened as this race of Hebrews multiplied and became powerful, so he enslaved them.

The oppression of the nation of Israel brings us to the advent of Moses, probably the most remarkable man who has ever lived, next to Jesus Christ.  He stands out in the pre Christian world.  He was born during, but delivered from the government-ordained genocide.  Moses would take a race of slaves (about 3 million people) and mold them into a powerful nation that altered the course of all history.   

Archaeology supports the Bible as you will find out in the link below as you cannot compare the word of the dead with that of the living God.  If you need information and understanding about the historical facts and truth then read the Bible with an open mind willing to know and obey the truth coming from the way, the truth and the life.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

How could Moses have achieved that when the Jews were such lawless and barbaric people who would kill anyone at the drop of a fart?

OLAADEGBU:

Isaiah 52:4 tells us that the pharaoh of the oppression was an Assyrian.  He became insecure and threatened as this race of Hebrews multiplied and became powerful, so he enslaved them.

We have the records of the Egyptian kings at that time. There wasn't an Assyrian amongst them.

There was an Assyrian pharaoh almost a thousand years later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esarhaddon

52:4 probably speaks of two separate oppressions. The one by the Egyptians and one by the Assyrians at a later date.
The author is basically saying that Babylon is no different to Egypt or Assyria in terms of oppression.
History tell us that Israel was first a subject state of Egypt, then of Assyria and then of Babylon.

Archaeology supports the Bible as you will find out in the link below as you cannot compare the word of the dead with that of the living God

There is no archeaological evidence whatsoever that shows a mass migration as written in Exodus. Instead, it shows a steady infiltrating back into Israel from Egypt over a number of years.

The link below contains the works of Josephus and the Egyptian scribe Manetho.
Both equate the Hyksos with the Jews.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/manetho_hyksos.htm

@ Huxley. The strange thing here is that Josephus says the Hyksos were Jews even though he must have known about their worship of the god Set. You've mentioned Marcion before, possibly this is why he saw the OT god as evil and how he formulated his doctrine.

OLAADEGBU:

When you add the number of women and children to the figure of men you mentioned what do you feel the approximate population would be?

Not knowing the number of women and children any speculation would just be wild nonsense.

mazaje:

is the bible really a historical book? did the exodus really happen?

Did the exodus really happen as a historical event? the bible which puts naming people and cities at the centre of its narratives FAILs to give the name of the Pharaoh that was ruling egypt during the exodus. . .the egyptians have no record of what is written in the bible. . .such a mass migration of millions of slaves would have had a devastating effect of the Egyptians but there is no historical or archaeological evidence to show that the it ever happened. . . .according to Rabbi David Wolpe, " virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all" (April 13, 2001). other archaeologist like Zeev Hertzog and Israel I Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, who are Jewish themselves say that it never happened as a historical event. . . do nairaland christians take the bible as a history book or a book of faith. . . and if they take the bible as a book of faith why have faith in events that have no historical backing?

There is plenty evidence for Israelite slavery in Egypt–the sudden disappearance of these slaves, the devastation of Egypt by the ten plagues, the destruction of the Egyptian army–if we look for it at the right time, and time is a vital element in the interpretation of ancient history.

According to the Biblical records, the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon laid the foundations of his temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 6:1). This would place the Exodus about 1446 BC. God’s covenant with Abraham was 430 years earlier (Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:16, 17) about 1850 BC. From the ages of his predecessors back to Noah, given in Genesis 12 and 13, it can be calculated that the great universal flood occurred 427 years earlier, about 2302 BC. But according to most authorities on Egyptian chronology the pyramids were built about 1550 BC, and the first dynasty of Egypt ruled about 3100 BC.23

Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified.

It depends on whether you believe the fallible words of men or the infallible word of God.  See what the cause of this discrepancy is in the link below.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

OLAADEGBU:


Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

A ridiculous argument.
One has to discard all scientific evidence and rely on a Babylonian myth to believe your theory.

Taking the Bible's figures into account, the Biblical account of Exodus would mean that 2 million Hebrews fled. That's half the population at that time. Yet nowhere was this noted. The Egyptian economy would have been utterly devastated yet the evidence points totally the other way - Egypt flourished.

There is plenty evidence for Israelite slavery in Egypt–the sudden disappearance of these slaves, the devastation of Egypt by the ten plagues, the destruction of the Egyptian army.

No there isn't.

@OLAADEGBU

stop copying rubbish from apologist sites that have no evidence what so ever. . . .

OLAADEGBU:


According to the Biblical records, the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon laid the foundations of his temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 6:1). This would place the Exodus about 1446 BC. God’s covenant with Abraham was 430 years earlier (Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:16, 17) about 1850 BC. From the ages of his predecessors back to Noah, given in Genesis 12 and 13, it can be calculated that the great universal flood occurred 427 years earlier, about 2302 BC. But according to most authorities on Egyptian chronology the pyramids were built about 1550 BC, and the first dynasty of Egypt ruled about 3100 BC.23

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

that is because you believe that there was a global flood that has NO scientific evidence what so ever. . .there was never a global flood only in the imaginations of the writer of the legend of noah. . . .history and science does not support any thing that is written in exodus. . . mass migration, israeliets as slaves most of the wars after the exodus etc. . .