There’s decent evidence of the “exodus” occurring, but not how the Hebrews told it, which is highly unsurprising in my view.
We know ancient Egypt was subverted from within by an asiatic/semitic foreign power (known as Hyksos) that seized control for a couple hundred years. The Hyksos appear in all probability to be the same group that’d been referred to earlier on as habiru/apiru (both spellings were used in different languages) which was a common noun, basically meaning vagrant & often appearing to hold a negative connotation like outlaw/exile/bandit. Either way, the Egyptians were eventually able to retake control & drove out the “invaders” who operated more like infiltrators (integrated, sought influence, subverted order) than traditional invaders.
You can look up Hyksos & Hebrew, habiru/apiru & Hebrew, and Hyksos & habiru/apiru in relation to Egypt to determine for yourself whether you think these all overlap, but the evidence they do is pretty significant, IMO—especially compared to what’s typically accepted as evidence in support of OT legend. The appearance of habiru/apiru (as foreign laborers or merchants) was documented in Egypt, “Hyksos” seized power & Hyksos were driven out all within a span of about 500 years—circa 2000-1500 BC. I believe Egyptian records may even specify that the Hyksos raised mayhem on their way out which included the looting of gold & jewels, vandalism, etc. The Hebrews effectively admitted to having done exactly this—stealing gold & silver. Their actual claim is that they “asked” the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35), however, apparently expecting the reader to believe the pharaoh was amenable to gifting gold his supposedly fleeing slaves before he had a change of heart & sent chariots after them. If chariots did go after the Hebrews, it was because they plundered. If the chariots decided to turn back around, they’d likely decided to cut their loses, glad to just be rid of their civilizational vermin. I tend to think the Hebrews were simply expelled from Egypt under those conditions but that, if they were ever enslaved or imprisoned in Egypt for any period of time, it was for societally disruptive or otherwise nefarious behavior.
The historically accurate Passover tale would be a worse story still. It seems uncontroversial to state that if the Hebrews were essentially good and not misrepresenting God there’d be no stark contrast between the OT & NT representations of God (which there is) or any critical need for the savior (Christianity) for that matter—yet I feel as if Catholics are obliged to believe Exodus occurred as the Hebrews chronicled it. I simply cannot do that, so I’m hoping the pre-Vatican II stance would’ve permitted my understanding/interpretation of the event. Any knowledge of what notable people throughout history would’ve had to say about it?
We know ancient Egypt was subverted from within by an asiatic/semitic foreign power (known as Hyksos) that seized control for a couple hundred years. The Hyksos appear in all probability to be the same group that’d been referred to earlier on as habiru/apiru (both spellings were used in different languages) which was a common noun, basically meaning vagrant & often appearing to hold a negative connotation like outlaw/exile/bandit. Either way, the Egyptians were eventually able to retake control & drove out the “invaders” who operated more like infiltrators (integrated, sought influence, subverted order) than traditional invaders.
You can look up Hyksos & Hebrew, habiru/apiru & Hebrew, and Hyksos & habiru/apiru in relation to Egypt to determine for yourself whether you think these all overlap, but the evidence they do is pretty significant, IMO—especially compared to what’s typically accepted as evidence in support of OT legend. The appearance of habiru/apiru (as foreign laborers or merchants) was documented in Egypt, “Hyksos” seized power & Hyksos were driven out all within a span of about 500 years—circa 2000-1500 BC. I believe Egyptian records may even specify that the Hyksos raised mayhem on their way out which included the looting of gold & jewels, vandalism, etc. The Hebrews effectively admitted to having done exactly this—stealing gold & silver. Their actual claim is that they “asked” the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35), however, apparently expecting the reader to believe the pharaoh was amenable to gifting gold his supposedly fleeing slaves before he had a change of heart & sent chariots after them. If chariots did go after the Hebrews, it was because they plundered. If the chariots decided to turn back around, they’d likely decided to cut their loses, glad to just be rid of their civilizational vermin. I tend to think the Hebrews were simply expelled from Egypt under those conditions but that, if they were ever enslaved or imprisoned in Egypt for any period of time, it was for societally disruptive or otherwise nefarious behavior.
The historically accurate Passover tale would be a worse story still. It seems uncontroversial to state that if the Hebrews were essentially good and not misrepresenting God there’d be no stark contrast between the OT & NT representations of God (which there is) or any critical need for the savior (Christianity) for that matter—yet I feel as if Catholics are obliged to believe Exodus occurred as the Hebrews chronicled it. I simply cannot do that, so I’m hoping the pre-Vatican II stance would’ve permitted my understanding/interpretation of the event. Any knowledge of what notable people throughout history would’ve had to say about it?
