Is this me, or the main narrative is a tad confuse in the ''Exodus'' ?

[Barsoom]

Give a specific reference to that please, I'd be interested to hear it. I'm more or less familiar with the modern Bible, and I can't see where that shows up anywhere.

What Abdul Goatherd said.

Except the Exodus is about an entire people fleeing from another kingdom and eventually conquering and founding their own. Which is historically quite plausible since this happened several times throughout history. Even if you take the stories of literal miracles with a grain of salt, the fundamental narrative of the Exodus is pretty solid. We know that there's a strong Egyptian inflience in Hebrew society and technology. We know that this kind of migration was very common in the Middle East throughout history, from the Sea Peoples to the Phoenecians to the Greeks to the Turks, there's a vast history of exactly the kind of migration as the Hebrews describe.

Effectively the deep story of the Exodus is an Egyptian nation that exploited the Hebrew people with slavery and forced labor, then through a series of catastrophes lost control of their Hebrew slaves, who escaped, lived for a period of time as a nomadic people, and invaded and conquered a space for themselves in the Middle East. Is that really so different from what the Turks did centuries later?

Now personally as a Christian, I believe in the mythological stuff too, but that certainly doesn't change the histprical significance of plausibility of the story of Exodus. Discussion of this Biblical book belongs in a historical forum

Exodus is extremely implausible history. The theology I leave up to you (personally I have a hard time crediting a story in which God kills children because of something their parents' ruler did). But as a historical source, Exodus is not confirmed by any other source and contradicts the archeology of Israel. There may well have been movements of individuals and tribes from Sinai into Canaan but entire peoples on the move as depicted in Exodus should leave an archeological trace. There isn't one, Israelite culture as a whole developed in Canaan without interruption. There was no conquest either, as described in the book of Joshua. Various towns were destroyed at different times, consistent with normal levels of infighting. Egyptian overlordship over the ancestors of the Israelites is historically well-attested (before the Bronze Age Collapse) but it took place in what is now Israel because Egypt extended its influence there.

Of course, if the story appears exaggerated or even invented, one would ask why that was done. The answer is in the Documentary hypothesis mentioned by Abdul. It says different parts of the Bible were composed or edited at different times to suit the needs of the editors. In the case of Exodus and Joshua the decisive edit coincides with the return of Jewish elites from Babylonian exile, and the story helped justify their rule over the population that remained in Judea.

 

[thedarkendstar]

Wait I thought there was no evidence of jews even being in Egypt and it was well documented the Egyptians paid the works who built the pyramids very well.

 

[The-Doc]

Wait I thought there was no evidence of jews even being in Egypt and it was well documented the Egyptians paid the works who built the pyramids very well.

Maybe not Jews in Egypt, but Caananites certainly.

 

[Arilou]

What Abdul Goatherd said.



Exodus is extremely implausible history. The theology I leave up to you (personally I have a hard time crediting a story in which God kills children because of something their parents' ruler did). But as a historical source, Exodus is not confirmed by any other source and contradicts the archeology of Israel. There may well have been movements of individuals and tribes from Sinai into Canaan but entire peoples on the move as depicted in Exodus should leave an archeological trace. There isn't one, Israelite culture as a whole developed in Canaan without interruption. There was no conquest either, as described in the book of Joshua. Various towns were destroyed at different times, consistent with normal levels of infighting. Egyptian overlordship over the ancestors of the Israelites is historically well-attested (before the Bronze Age Collapse) but it took place in what is now Israel because Egypt extended its influence there.

Of course, if the story appears exaggerated or even invented, one would ask why that was done. The answer is in the Documentary hypothesis mentioned by Abdul. It says different parts of the Bible were composed or edited at different times to suit the needs of the editors. In the case of Exodus and Joshua the decisive edit coincides with the return of Jewish elites from Babylonian exile, and the story helped justify their rule over the population that remained in Judea.

I think there's also the possibility that the story has been more or less completely warped over time, there are a few oddities in Exodus (eg. they give a hebrew etymology for Moses name... Which makes no sense since he was raised by egyptians, there *is* however an egyptian etymology for the name: Namely a name element meaning "born" (like in Ramesses, "Born of Ra" or Thutmosis, "Born of Thoth") so seems that at the very least it was written first by someone familiar with egypt and then rewritten by someone who was not.

 

[olm]

Whole thing could have been also multiple separate events merged together. Like for example some Caananite kingdoms conquering others with political involvement of Egypt, and few centuries later (or earlier) some Jewish mercenaries led by Moses being in Egypt and later returning. Eventually both events could have been merged and warped into a single story, even though one may have been related to other about as much as Napoleonic Wars are related to Cold War.

 

[Kovax]

Some books also seems to be combinations of different stuff (like the famous double creation narrative in Genesis)

Triple, actually. The first 3 books of Genesis are three slightly different accounts of creation, with the first being the most detailed, the second somewhat abbreviated except for the differences (mainly the order of creation of man, animals, and woman, versus that of man and woman, then the animals), and the third account considerably shortened. In essence, the 12 tribes of Judea couldn't agree on the details, so they put all three versions into the book, with the most heavily supported version being most prominent, and the minority view getting only a brief mention.

One needs to take the entire book with the proverbial "grain of salt", but with the expectation that the authors were forbidden to lie outright, since the populace would likely have revolted if a blatant lie were introduced. That doesn't mean that the book tells the WHOLE truth, that it doesn't embellish a few things, or that subtle changes haven't been introduced over time, but the general outline of the events is more or less true, at least as far as the authors could tell.

The other issue is that our own interpretation of the words and concepts may be erroneous, because many of the ideas that were understood by a sheep herding culture are lost upon an industrial society, and the intended meanings behind the phrases may be completely incomprehensible today. Consider the likely outcome of some future historian trying to make sense of the references to "Uncle Sam", and not finding any documentation about his political or military service....WE know what the name means, but someone outside of the society might not.

In other words, the Bible is at least about as accurate as any other "historical" work of antiquity, and more extensive than most. It definitely belongs in a historical discussion, whether you agree with the religious theme underlying it or not.

 

[Barsoom]

One needs to take the entire book with the proverbial "grain of salt", but with the expectation that the authors were forbidden to lie outright, since the populace would likely have revolted if a blatant lie were introduced.

Obviously acceptance of one's writing among the intended audience plays a role but I don't see how that rules out lies. Constituencies can be pretty flexible with the narrative if it supports their party, as Trump, Putin, and Orban all demonstrated in just the past few months.

 

[Yakman]

You really think a Hollywood epic made in 2014 is remotely concerned with the theological arguments involved?

The thing is entirely unwatchable - I gave up after five minutes, just like that Noah travesty - let alone unfathomable.

eh. the Noah movie was an epic fantasy flick in biblical dress. i thought it was pretty good.

the christian bale 10 commandments film was a complete disaster.

 

[Yakman]

For large periods of time from 3000BC onwards were not Judah and Israel part of the Egyptian empire? Is it not therefore a strong possibility that the original Israelite aristocracy / priesthood were Egyptians. At a later point as Judah and Israel diverged into a separate cultural / political entity or entities, the Exodus story would be invented / developed to explain away the aristocracies residual Egyptianness.

no, this isn't a possibility - you don't find hieroglyphics in Judah/Israel.

If the Egyptians were there state building, they'd have, you know, built stuff. They clearly didn't.

 

[Arilou]

no, this isn't a possibility - you don't find hieroglyphics in Judah/Israel.

If the Egyptians were there state building, they'd have, you know, built stuff. They clearly didn't.

Err, what?

Gaza was a major egyptian fortress starting really early (though they lost and regained control a couple of times) at least one etymology for the name "Canaan" as meaning "The subjugated", IE the province conquered by the egyptians. They also held at least loose overlordship over Juda at points. (which is actually mentioned in the Bible)

Egyptian texts uses "Canaan" for a rather wide area under their subjugation, that goes at least up to the Jordan (and thus comfortably includes all of what is today Israel, and is actually wider than what the Bible uses for the same lands)

This is of course way before "biblical" times, even insofar as it can be ascertained. But the Egyptians were a constant factor all the way untikl they were themselves conquered (and arguably even afterwards, any serious egyptian state tended to include syria/palestine , ptolemids, the fatimids, the ayyubids and the Mamluks all at least tried and were at least temporarily successful)

 

[Yakman]

Err, what?

Gaza was a major egyptian fortress starting really early (though they lost and regained control a couple of times) at least one etymology for the name "Canaan" as meaning "The subjugated", IE the province conquered by the egyptians. They also held at least loose overlordship over Juda at points. (which is actually mentioned in the Bible)

Egyptian texts uses "Canaan" for a rather wide area under their subjugation, that goes at least up to the Jordan (and thus comfortably includes all of what is today Israel, and is actually wider than what the Bible uses for the same lands)

This is of course way before "biblical" times, even insofar as it can be ascertained. But the Egyptians were a constant factor all the way untikl they were themselves conquered (and arguably even afterwards, any serious egyptian state tended to include syria/palestine , ptolemids, the fatimids, the ayyubids and the Mamluks all at least tried and were at least temporarily successful)

Judah and Israel aren't Gaza.

Judah and Israel are the highlands. Gaza is the coast. There's no evidence that the Egyptians sent priests and notables to Judah and Israel to set up Egyptian satrapys over the locals. They might have gone and beaten up the highlanders but there's no hieroglyphics up there... which there would have been had they gotten set up.

 

[Arilou]

Judah and Israel aren't Gaza.

Judah and Israel are the highlands. Gaza is the coast. There's no evidence that the Egyptians sent priests and notables to Judah and Israel to set up Egyptian satrapys over the locals. They might have gone and beaten up the highlanders but there's no hieroglyphics up there... which there would have been had they gotten set up.

No, they set up tributaries. (though as mentioned, the egyptian province goes up to the Jordan river)
The most intense period is way before the Two Kingdoms period though.

EDIT: This is also your reminder that Israel is tiny. "The highlands" isn't some vast zone. Even with ancient transport technology the Jordan is just a short hop from the coast.

 

[Yakman]

No, they set up tributaries. (though as mentioned, the egyptian province goes up to the Jordan river)
The most intense period is way before the Two Kingdoms period though.

EDIT: This is also your reminder that Israel is tiny. "The highlands" isn't some vast zone. Even with ancient transport technology the Jordan is just a short hop from the coast.

oh, I concur.

the point i was arguing was not that egypt made imperial inroads into the area - they clearly did. the point i was arguing was

the original Israelite aristocracy / priesthood were Egyptians

there's no evidence for this.

 

[Barsoom]

No, they set up tributaries. (though as mentioned, the egyptian province goes up to the Jordan river)
The most intense period is way before the Two Kingdoms period though.

EDIT: This is also your reminder that Israel is tiny. "The highlands" isn't some vast zone. Even with ancient transport technology the Jordan is just a short hop from the coast.

Not for an army, it isn't. Traversing the Judean highland with an army took weeks and ran risks of ambush as well as disruption of supply lines. Besides, going east didn't lead anywhere interesting, Transjordan and the Arabian deserts were poor and unsuited for military campaigns. Egyptian dominance focused on the coastal area, both because it was more accessible and because it was more profitable. The main concern was to protect the roads to Phoenicia and the Euphrate. These led away from the coast only at the pass of Meggido, north of the area where eventually Israel and Judah emerged. (The city was so strategically located that it became the location of many battles, including some of the largest of the era. The locals were so impressed that they expected the great battle of the end times to take place there, hence Armageddon.)

Egypt's main interest in the highlands was to make sure no one came out of them to disrupt the coastal road. We have solid evidence of Egyptian habitation in Gaza and other places on the coastal plains, some for the Jezreel plains near Meggido, none at all for the highlands. We do have some records of punitive expeditions into the highlands but that's not the same as extending control there.

After the Bronze Age Collapse, the situation changed. Both Egypt and its rivals to the north (Babylon and the Hittites) faced enormous difficulties at home and proved unable to extend effective control over Canaan for a while. The states of Israel and Judah emerged during this power vacuum. Israel, the northern kingdom, emerged first, consolidating first the highland valleys, then expanding into the Jezreel plain. Judah formed somewhat later and remained the weaker of the two until Israel was destroyed. The two kingdoms shared many customs and religious beliefs but there is no evidence for a united kingdom, that appears to be a later propaganda piece by Judah aimed at winning over the remnants of Israel after its destruction by the Assyrians. External sources confirm that the kings of Judah were from the House of David, what's disputed is whether David ever ruled over more than (a part of) Judah. The evidence (archeological including inscriptions from neighboring areas, Egyptian and Mesopotamian records, and philological reconstruction of Bible editing) fits historical models of state formation from a tribal society. It doesn't fit a hypothetical hugely successful large-scale invasion, followed by nearly complete loss of political cohesion, followed by an improbably strong early state with aggressive foreign policy and a huge fortress-building program.