How believable is the Book of Exodus?
By John Welford
@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
October 13, 2018 9:42am CST
The Old Testament Book of Exodus tells the story of Moses, in the 13th century BC, leading the people of Israel away from their former life of slavery in Egypt and towards the Promised Land of Canaan. The story continues in the Book Of Joshua with the somewhat blood-drenched conquest of that land and the slaughter of all the previous residents.
But can it be believed?
It is all extremely dubious. For one thing, Canaan was hardly a satisfactory destination at the time, given that the Egyptian Empire extended across the whole of it. The Hebrews would have escaped from Egypt - to Egypt!
For another, it is a fact of history that the Egyptians were meticulous record-keepers - so how come there is not a single mention in their archives of a massive slave revolt, or even of there having been a vast number of Hebrew slaves in the Empire at the time? Not surprisingly, there is no mention of Moses either.
There is also absolutely no evidence of a conquest of Canaan that could coincide with the exploits of Joshua.
One has to conclude that the whole story is a much later invention, written at the time of the exile in Babylon as a means of uniting the Hebrews by giving them a history of which they could be proud.
3 people like this
5 responses
@NormanDarlo (1071)
• Ireland
13 Oct 18
In a response below, you talk about putting religious belief aside. That concept is hard one. If people have strong religious beliefs, how can they set them aside? The truth is, you cannot logically argue with faith, since faith means believing something despite the lack of evidence.
2 people like this
@NormanDarlo (1071)
• Ireland
13 Oct 18
@indexer Oh, in fairness, we all try to persuade others that our point of view is the more correct one. I don't think anyone can be criticised for that. The problems start when someone tries to change your position despite the evidence, rather than with it.
@1creekgirl (40523)
• United States
13 Oct 18
I choose to believe it because it's in the Holy Bible. I trust God. Maybe one day scientific evidence will prove you're wrong.
2 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
13 Oct 18
I prefer to believe history provided by sound evidence, rather than myth.
What scientific evidence did you have in mind? Everything hangs together if you accept that much of the Old Testament derives from the desire of the exiles to create the Jewish religion based on an invented history. This also accounts for much of Genesis, with stories such as that of the Flood having been taken from Babylonian legends - the parallels are extremely close.
2 people like this
@1hopefulman (45123)
• Canada
13 Oct 18
I accept the Bible as accurate when it comes to what it has to say about Moses and the exodus in spite that we might have little archaeological evidence at this time
Some nations have changed the facts when historical events proved to be embarrassing to their nation or when they went against political interests.
Example: for the longest time we all viewed Columbus as a great hero. Today, he is not viewed that way.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
13 Oct 18
On what grounds do you accept Biblical accuracy? Most people who say this do so from religious belief. but if you set that aside - as I do - then the story can look very different. If you treat the books of the Bible in the same light as any other ancient text, then they become fascinating in other ways.
I am always wary when somebody claims truth from a single source, with absolutely nothing to support that source, which is the case here.
Of course, people are free to believe what they like - I prefer my beliefs to be based on reason.
2 people like this
@1hopefulman (45123)
• Canada
13 Oct 18
@indexer My belief in the Bible as an historically accurate book is not based on one account but on the totality.
You state: "For another, it is a fact of history that the Egyptians were meticulous record-keepers"
Were they? Did they ever change the facts?
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
13 Oct 18
@1hopefulman If history is rewritten, one has to ask what purpose is being served by so doing. In other words - why bother?
The Bible as it has come down to us contains many examples of conflicting facts - historical accuracy is impossible under such circumstances. It also contains many stories - especially in the early parts of the Old Testament - that have all the characteristics of myth. That does not mean that they do not have value - they do, but not at the level of telling the truth of what actually happened.
1 person likes this
@cmoneyspinner (9221)
• Austin, Texas
18 Oct 18
I believe the Bible. PERIOD! If you really want to get technical about the account of Exodus, why not just say the man Moses never even existed? Where's his grave? Where are his traces? He's the one who wrote Exodus. Nobody else claimed authorship. Were it not for his writings there are a lot of events we would not even know happened. "One has to conclude"? WHY? Why do I have to conclude that? Why should I accept the records of the Egyptians or the Babylonians as accurate? It is a fact that the Egyptians destroyed a lot of their own records. Or is that a fact? Maybe there was a story about the Egyptians destroying their own records which was concocted or contrived at a later date.
Sharing a link. Just sharing it. Not saying I believe it. Just sharing because I know you like history. 
The biblical story of the Israelites’ Descent and Exodus speaks about important events that took place in Egypt, so we should expect to find records of these events in Egyptian sources – t
@cmoneyspinner (9221)
• Austin, Texas
18 Oct 18
@indexer - There's no evidence that proves there was a Garden of Eden or a couple named Adam and Eve who lived there and who had 2 sons and one son killed the other. The Bible is not a history book. The Bible is holy book with some history in it. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. To disbelieve it ... any of it ... is to believers like me tantamount to calling God a liar. In my life, God has never given me any reason to believe He is a liar.
There are many things people don't have "evidence" for. That doesn't mean those things never happened or didn't exist or whatever. If I wait to rely on evidence presented to believe something is true, I probably wouldn't believe a lot of things. Something can be true even though you don't have the evidence.
When it comes to the Bible I can't and won't be dissuaded from my conviction that it is truth, simply by saying it can't be believed because there is no evidence. I stand where I stand and I know you know that about me. You stand where you stand. I learn a lot from reading your posts and chatting with you. Thanks for not insulting my faith and speaking to me respectfully and rationally.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
18 Oct 18
@cmoneyspinner I certainly do respect your position, although I find it more difficult to accept the position of diehard fundamentalists who insist that the world must be less than 10,000 years old because you can work that out by counting back the generations as given in the Bible!
Of course people can believe what they like, but sometimes those beliefs fly in the face of reason. For me, reason and logic will always prevail. If that means disbelieving in an entity called God, then I'm perfectly happy with that, as are at least 70% of the world's scientists.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
18 Oct 18
Interesting! Ancient texts pose an awful lot of questions, and it is always important to keep an open mind. People in the past had a very different attitude to history than we do today, and the reason why something was written, and its intended audience, must always be borne in mind.
There are indeed conflicting accounts about Moses and the events told in Exodus. Which should be given most credence? It hardly helps when people say tnat the Biblical account must always be believed - one has to ask why this is the case, and the answer usually given is "because it's the Bible"! That does not actually get us anywhere in terms of establishing historical accuracy.
Was Exodus written by Moses? As the book has reached us today, the answer has to be No, because it is clear that it was composed over a period of time - around 700 years - far in excess of one person`s lifetime. Is there a core of text that might have dated from the time that Moses might have lived? That is possible, but there is absolutely no evidence that proves the person who wrote the earliest parts of the book to have been Moses.
1 person likes this
