> is there not historicity in ancient things like the Epic of Gligamesh?

I would say there is a historical base. For instance, I believe there actually was a large, regional flood in which many people died, described hyperbolically by both the Bible and the Gilgamesh Epic (though they tell very different theological interpretations of the event). That might be as far as I would venture. No historicity in Gilgamesh has ever been verified.

> If there was historicity in the EoG, then your same logic of “if there’s historicity then we should lean towards calling it truth rather than myth” should apply.

So, as you can see, considering EoG as leaning us toward historicity is more than a stretch. One possible event out of twelve tablets doesn't imbue me with confidence. Nor would I even venture to call it historical fiction. Instead, it's mythography.

>many in this forum are saying that some incredible things in Exodus should be taken only as stories, not accurate events— thus at least partially fictional.

Yeah, I know they do.

> But... doesn’t historicity + stories (stories equalling something that’s not an accurate event) sound a lot like historical fiction?

No. Harry Potter is set in London, but nothing more. It's not even historical fiction, but fantasy set in London. Spiderman is in NYC, but nothing more. Again, comic book fantasy. These are vastly different from the Bible, where fact after fact has been confirmed, and there has never been any discovery to prove a part of the Bible to be false. Where there is a discovery, it affirms the Bible. Obviously, there are many things in the Bible that have not been confirmed or are unconformable, but the fact that its has thousands of people, geography, cities, cultural tidbits, etc. that HAVE been confirmed has to open us to the possibility that the author was writing historiography through his theological lens.

Where is there anything that has been shown to be "not an accurate event"?

> To me, “myths” seem like they could easily equate to historical fiction if they happen to include real historical things

Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how the cosmos works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant or trying to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world. Dr. John Walton writes, "Mythography has a different referent than historiography, yet is considered no less real. It may, however, be considered to pertain to a different plane of reality. ... each has a different focus in its expression of reality."

Mythography was cultural imagery set in fantastical language to express theological concepts. Though mythography often adopts a narrative form by recounting events (Zeus having a battle, for instance), it is generally not interested in those events as events that can be connected with the real world. They use mythographical narrative to explain the core reality of their beliefs and perspectives (Wisdom, fertility, life, death, anger, naturalism, etc.). It was not an attempt to portray historical events but rather theological concepts. Mythography deals with ideology.

The Bible is greatly different from other ancient and religious texts. It is vastly different from mythography, and presents historiography as representing actual events in the human realm. The supernatural realities of which the Bible speaks are of a different character than the ones of other cultures and their myths.

Thanks for your replies and entertaining my thoughts. A sincere question— is there not historicity in ancient things like the Epic of Gligamesh? Ill admit that I haven’t read it, and certainly can read it sometime, but you seem knowledgeable of ancient literature and seem confident about how things truly were then, so figured Id just ask.

If there was historicity in the EoG, then your same logic of “if there’s historicity then we should lean towards calling it truth rather than myth” should apply.

If there is historicity in the EoG, but a modern Christian would in the end still say that the EoG is fiction despite its historicity (as it doesn’t support their theology), then that seems like you could summarize that it’s historical + fiction = historical fiction. If that’s not true, then it seems like what’s called historical fiction and what’s not is based on which gods are being supported more so than the historicity of the writings.
Perhaps one could argue that the differentiation between what is historical fiction and what is not is all about the sincere belief of the writers— one could say that the EoG is not historical fiction because the writers really believed all of it was true— but why couldnt the same be said of a modern writer who really believes that what they’re writing about the holy events and new god in Chicago is true (even if in hindsight readers find out that it’s not true) and it includes historicity. It seems like an inconsistency in reasoning.

In addition, many in this forum are saying that some incredible things in Exodus should be taken only as stories, not accurate events— thus at least partially fictional. Yet “there’s so much historicity in these stories”. But... doesn’t historicity + stories (stories equalling something that’s not an accurate event) sound a lot like historical fiction?

To me, “myths” seem like they could easily equate to historical fiction if they happen to include real historical things— it seems like two names that are referring to the same thing.

> I could make a fictional story that takes place in Chicago, using real details about Chicago's economics/religious systems/governmental systems/infrastructure/etc.

Of course you could, but a story of historiography and historical fiction would lead you to the firm conclusion that historical fiction was not an ancient genre. It didn't exist in their day as it does in ours. No one at the time wrote historical fiction or fictionalized accounts using historical places, people, dates, and names. That's why your argument doesn't work. Such fictional stories are part of our era and culture, but were not part of theirs.

> There's so much historicity in the story that we actually have reason to lean towards historicity than fiction or legend

I don't agree with this train of thought-- for example, I could make a fictional story that takes place in Chicago, using real details about Chicago's economics/religious systems/governmental systems/infrastructure/etc. I'll include very important statements about what I think about God in this story, also. Then I'll let 3000 years pass. Future people could verify that the details about Chicago are true based on what remains that alludes to the ancient Chicago and its people, but just because the real historical details I had included in my story are true, and perhaps verifiable still in the future, doesn't mean the whole story is true. Especially when there are really incredible claims in my story such as a plague killing many many of a heavily populated metropolis' firstborn sons, yet no extrabiblical mention of this incredible thing having occurred.

> Archaeologists have not found a single Egyptian record of the 2 million Israelites (conservative estimate) that lived there.

You're correct. I think the number is wrong. In Moses, the word for “thousand” was vocalized “elep” but was written “lp” (Gn. 20.16). But a similar word vocalized “alup” (meaning clan, or troop, or chief) was also written “lp” (Gn. 36.15; Judges 6.15). If the word is "groupings" rather than "thousands," we end up with a size of Israel about 25,000 people, not over 2.5 million, a much more reasonable and explaining idea.

1. With only 5,550 fighting men they would certainly have had reason to fear the Egyptian army. If they had a population of 2.5M and an army of 600K, Egypt would have been easily conquerable.

2. The land of Goshen, where the Israelites lived, could support survival for no more than 25K people.

3. Israel crossed the Reed Sea in one night (Ex. 14.12)—impossible if they are 2.6M people.

4. The path to Sinai is rugged, with many places where only a few people abreast could walk. If they were 2.6M, the line would be over 100 miles long. There's no sense in this, but there is if they are 25K.

5. Water from the rock (Ex. 17) would make a massive large lake to quench the thirst of 2.6M. More sensible if it was 25K.

6. Jericho is only 4 miles from the Jordan River. There is absolutely not enough room for 2.6M campers. It doesn't make sense that 2.6M is the accurate figure.

7. Ancient Jericho was only 10 acres. The entire population of 2.6M could not have marched around it 7 times on the 7th day (Josh. 6.5).

8. Ex. 23.29-30; Dt. 4.37-38; 7.7 say that Israel couldn't occupy the whole land all at once because there weren't enough of them. If they were 2.6M, it would have been simple.

Everything points us to a mistranslation by the Masoretic text. If we simply go with different vowels (which were not part of the original), we end up with a completely reasonable picture.

> No mention of the locusts

The devastation from locusts was a common occurrence in the ancient world, and is even to this day. They often struck in March/April when the prevailing winds brought them. There's no expectation that every locust catastrophe of history was recorded somewhere.

> or the sea turning into blood

If you're familiar with ancient records, they didn't record things that made the king or the gods look bad. Temple inscriptions were publicity and praise, not the evening news. There are various natural explanations: a volcano, an infestation of red algae bloom, red clay, etc. Any thick red fluid would fit the bill. The changing of the water into blood is to be interpreted in the same sense as in Joel 3.4 where the moon is said to be turned into blood. It doesn’t require a chemical change, but a change in color as to assume the appearance of blood (2. Ki. 3.22). I wouldn't expect such an event to be recorded on the wall of the temple.

> Why did the book not mention the name of the Pharaoh?

Good question. We'd all like to know. But it was normal for people in Egypt to refer simply to "the pharaoh" in the New Kingdom period, when the Exodus presumably occurred.

> Why are there chronological errors in the myth?

What are the chronological errors to which you are referring?

Archaeologists have not found a single Egyptian record of the 2 million Israelites (conservative estimate) that lived there. No mention of the locusts, or the sea turning into blood, which would have completely devastated the country. The old testament is also largely unspecific. Why did the book not mention the name of the Pharaoh? Why are there chronological errors in the myth?

I've had plenty of these dialogues, for sure. As far as a book is concerned, your comments spanned subjects such as the Documentary Hypothesis, Bible history, Noah's Ark, whether the Bible derived from Mesopotamian/Canaanite culture, and the Exodus. What kind of book are you looking for? I doubt you'll find one (a single volume) that covers all of these.

Thank you for your responses! The response you mentioned was deleted wasn't from me-- but ironically your subsequent conversation with that poster was helpful for me too haha. I'll be reflecting on the things you've said-- thanks again. It seems like you've had dialogue like this in the past-- do you have any books you'd recommend that might help me with questions like these?

1. Archaeologists have uncovered the well-preserved village of Deir el-Medina, showing us the exact conditions under which Egypt’s own laborers worked, and it matches the conditions described in the Exodus. This village was inhabited for over 400 years, which is also how long the Israelites were in Egypt. It confirms that large groups of ethnic slaves (corvee labor) worked in Egypt for centuries.

2. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrants such as the Israelites regularly entered and settled in Egypt. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (1850 BC). The best known large-scale immigration involves a group of Asiatics we know as the Hyksos who actually ruled Egypt, at least over the northeast Delta, as Dynasties XV & XVI (1650-1550 BC). Their position did not differ much from that of Joseph as described in the Bible. It confirms that immigrant populations settled in Egypt and even rose to power.

3. About 400 years after the Hyksos, Dynasty XIX came to power in Egypt, including Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The 430-year Egyptian sojourn could have spanned the era from Hyksos to Ramesses. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta (where the Israelites stayed) and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate, the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice, just as the story of Joseph relates. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic roots, as indicated by the choice of the name Seti. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

4. In the 13th c. BC, during the reign of Ramesses the Great (aka Ramesses II), the old Hyksos capital of Avaris in the northeast Delta was rebuilt and expanded under the new name of Pi-Ramesses (Ex. 1.11). This confirms the Exodus account.

5. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region. This confirms the Exodus account.

6. The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the 2nd millennium BC. The ark of the covenant may be compared with the portable clothes chest found in the tomb of King Tut (1336-1327 BC). There is no reason to believe that such an artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites, confirming the truthfulness of the Exodus account.

7. The accounts of the Exodus accurately describe nomadic life: nomads living in the Nile delta who were exploited for cheap labor, Moses's flight to Midian was a common escape route, Bedouins knew how to find water in the wilderness, even by striking certain rocks, Matzah had origins in Bedouin life, etc. These give credibility to the narrative and confirm the details of it.

8. A pillared, 4-room Israelite house has been found along the Nile near the biblical city of Ra'amses. It bears no similarity to any Egyptian structure, but is identical to the houses of Canaan after the Israelite presence is known. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC. This gives credibility to the narrative.

9. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area, confirming the truthfulness of the account.

10. The Merneptah stele clearly shows that before the last quarter of the 13th century BC there existed an "Israel" as distinct from Egypt and outside of it, though there is a strong Egyptian presence in the land of Canaan.

11. There is abundant evidence in all eras that Egyptians were slave owners. Scholars previously thought that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures. Foreigners, captured in war, were enslaved. Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) brought back almost 90,000 prisoners from his campaign in Canaan.

12. In a surviving Egyptian document called Leiden Papyrus 348, orders are given to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the 'Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." This brings to mind Exodus 1:11, which says the Hebrews "built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh." While hotly debated, 'Apiru is believed by some scholars to refer to the Hebrews, the 'Ibri. If a future discovery of an inscription could link this word to the Hebrews, this document would prove to be our first direct extrabiblical reference to the children of Israel in slavery in Egypt.

13. Recent discoveries of military outposts on a road leading from Egypt into Canaan, built by Pharaoh Seti I and earlier kings in the 13th c. BC, shed new light on why a northern route for the Exodus would have meant war for the Israelites. Exodus 13:17 states: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, 'If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.' " Instead, the Bible explains, "God led the people by the roundabout way of the wilderness." The Bible tells it correctly.

14. While it is virtually impossible 3,000 years later to retrace the footsteps of a people who escaped over a sand swept wilderness, an Egyptian letter (Anastasi III) from guards at a "border crossing" between Egypt and the Sinai helps explain Moses's insistent cry, "Let my people go!" The text indicates that in the 13th c. the Egyptians maintained a tight border control, allowing no one to pass without a permit. The letter describes two slaves who—in a striking parallel to the Israelite escape—flee from the city of Rameses at night, are pursued by soldiers, but disappear into the Sinai wilderness. "When my letter reaches you," writes the official to the border guard, "write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them." Another inscription from the same cache of documents (Anastasi VI) records that an entire tribe gained permission to enter Egypt from Edom in search of food.

15. No one knows the exact location of Mt. Sinai, and archaeological remains are scarce in the Sinai Peninsula. There is in Midian, however, a "holy" mountain surrounded by literally THOUSANDS of artifacts and carvings relating to the time period and the situation of the Exodus. Perhaps, as scholars are still evaluating, Moses led the people in their wanderings through Midian (a theory that would make sense given that he had spent 40 years there) rather than the Sinai Peninsula, and perhaps these abundant remains are exactly what people are looking for.

The conclusion of the matter is that the Exodus is an incredibly believable narrative. The text is loaded with cultural and historical accuracies. There's so much historicity in the story that we actually have reason to lean towards historicity than fiction or legend.

My follow up question to you: Has anything ever been discovered that disproves the Exodus account?

> Correct, but neither is there evidence showing the narrative to be false. Every detail in the Exodus story that is confirmable has been confirmed to be true, so there's no stunning reason to assume the narrative is legendary. There's so much historicity in the story we actually have reason to lean towards historicity rather than fiction or legend.

Which parts are confirmed to be true?