Let's look at the nature of evidence, the same as any detective, lawyer, or scientist would. Every case has liabilities, even true cases. The questions is how big and strong are the liabilities.

First consideration: Is the distinction between what is possible and what is reasonable? Almost anything is possible. Maybe you’re in an alien trance and what you think is real and where you think you are is all planted in your brain. Is it possible? I guess. But is it reasonable? Just about anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable. When you camp on possibilities for which you have no evidence, it’s called speculation. There’s a difference between possible and reasonable. We don’t try people on a possible doubt, but on a reasonable doubt. Reasonable is the judicial standard.

Having said that, there are different kinds of evidences: Direct (material, physical, forensic), and indirect (circumstantial). Given that this is a "cold case" 3300 years old, we have to use everything at our disposal. We look to build a persuasive case by assembling collaborating elements of indirect evidence. The question is whether it is both possible and reasonable. We build cases by assembling circumstantial evidences to a reasonable conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is quite compelling and at times stronger than direct evidence, because people and witnesses lie. Circumstantial evidence doesn’t have any less merit in a court than direct evidence.

So let's see what we have:

1. Were the authors present? Traditionally, yes; critically, it's greatly debatable and under great doubt, so that doesn't do anything for us. It can't be verified that the author was an eyewitness. Some of the written material has been proven to be of extremely early origin, dating to the proposed time of the event in history. It's only indirect evidence, and gives weight, but doesn't prove anything.
2. Direct evidence: At present there is no documentation of a people of Israel living in Egypt. But we also know that no documents of any kind from that era from northern Egypt have survived. Arguing from absence is weak.
3. Indirect evidence: Massive. I had only written some of it—there's more. It's convincing to some, and obviously unconvincing to others, but it's there. There is hard evidence speaking to the possibility of the event, but no hard evidence verifying the event.
4. Corroborative evidence: Absent. There is none.
5. Internal evidence: Almost every book of the Bible mentions something about the Exodus event, and all treat it as if it was historical.
6. Motive: Would the authors have motive to fabricate the story, or to be biased? Possibly, but not necessarily, so that doesn't take us anywhere.

The honest conclusion: Can we have confidence beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but neither can we be quick to pass it off as fictional. There is much to speak in its favor, but nothing to prove it to us.

Just trying to be honest.

> As I've written, there is an immense amount of indirect evidence

And I have written, the same reasoning can be applied to Harry Potter. 'Indirect evidence' in of the sort you cited isn't evidence for any specific event (e.g Exodus). The story seems contemporaneous, but none of that contemporaneity implies that the events describes actually happened.

> It's too early to consider it fiction, especially with such an abundance of indirect evidence as I've listed.

I disagree. If all there is is 'indirect evidence' of the type you have listed then it would be irrational to consider it to be anything other than fiction (as we have no rational reason to consider it fact). Once a story is corroborated we give it credence - not before.

> At present there is NO documentation of a people of Israel living in Egypt.

True. This is to my mind another good reason to not assume the Exodus actually happened.

(NB: every fossil found is a member of a 'transitional species', the same as every living thing around today.)

> Without some kind of corroboration, the story of Exodus must surely be considered fiction as well?

As I've written, there is an immense amount of indirect evidence. Direct evidence, however, is still wanting. Just being honest. At present there is NO documentation of a people of Israel living in Egypt. There is also no direct evidence of transitions between species in the geological and fossil record. But we do see a few transitional forms, and the rest are "inferred." For the most part, there is no DIRECT evidence of that either.

Direct evidence of the Exodus is still wanting, as I said, but remember that most of the Sinai Peninsula (if that's even where they were) is not dug up. If they were in the Midian area, there is some evidence there, but most of Midian isn't dug up either. Archaeologists will gladly tell you that we know so much more than we used to, but still have only tiny knowledge of the whole picture. There is an archaeological dig going on at Pithom (Egypt) right now, and hopefully that will bring more to light, but nobody's really digging in Sinai and Midian. They dig at the tells, and where they thought cities were, not in the middle of wilderness. They only dig (and can get financing) when there's a pretty good chance they'll find something. Nobody just digs out in the wilderness.) Perhaps the increase of radiomagnetometry by archaeologists will help to bring more information to the fore without digging. Also, the field of archaeology is relatively new on the science spectrum, maybe only 150 years old, and is really only coming into its own in the past 40 years or so. But I feel that historical texts should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. If you go the other route, we can't prove anything, because nobody lived back then. It's too early to consider it fiction, especially with such an abundance of indirect evidence as I've listed.

> The conclusion of the matter is that the Exodus is an incredibly believable narrative.

That is a very thorough exposition. However, the same reasoning could be used to demonstrate Harry Potter is 'an incredibly believable narrative' (references to London etc etc). Obviously it is still fiction though.

Without some kind of corroboration, the story of Exodus must surely be considered fiction as well?

Some scholars believe that Amenhotep II's foray into Canaan in the 9th year of the reign was to bring back captives to replace a lost work force. According to his records, he brought back 101,128 captives. It's a staggering number, and hard to believe it isn't exaggerated. But still, some scholars interpret that campaign as a "Hebrew replacement" effort. There's no way to know any such thing (and we don't even really know the date of the Exodus), but it could easily coincide with the traditional date of the exodus.

> You're right that there is no record of them suddenly leaving. Pharaohs recorded things that made them look divine, not ones that made them look dopey.

This has been over stated by several historians. Do you have any records of a corresponding drop in economic production that would go along with the loss of over 500,000 laborers? Something? Anything? Or just another series of "here is why it's normal not to see it" type arguments?

We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrants 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).

Amenhotep II campaigned in Canaan early in his reign. He brought south 800 captives. In the 9th year of his reign he went north again. This time he only went as far as Jezreel, but he writes that he brought back a large number of captives: "princes of Retenu: 127; brothers of princes 179; Apiru 3600; living Shasu 15, 200; Kharu 36,300; living Neges 15, 070; the adherents thereof 30, 652; total 89,600 men; similarly their goods, without their limit."

Robert Littman, in the *Biblical Archaeology Review* (July/Aug 2014, p. 69) wrote: "There is abundant evidence in all eras (including the 2nd millennium BC) that Egyptians, like the ancient Israelites and virtually all ancient Mediterranean cultures, 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. A letter survives, sent from Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1391-c. 1354 BC) to Milkilu, the Canaanite ruler of Gezer, ordering 40 beautiful concubines for 40 kits of silver each."

You're right that there is no record of them suddenly leaving. Pharaohs recorded things that made them look divine, not ones that made them look dopey. And nothing—no records of ANY kind—on parchment from that era in north Egypt have survived. It is simply too moist for parchment to endure.

> Do you also believe Genesis is literal?

I think "literal" is a problematic word that doesn't contribute to our understanding or conversation, and that's sort of the premise of your question.

The Bible is a rich literary collection, containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

But I don't think the Genesis record is "allegorical and metaphorical," though there is some metaphor here and there in the Pentateuch, along with other literary genres.

> "I am aware, but to me the evidence gives the story plausibility."

Do you mean except the parts about magical talking burning bushes and such? You are completely ignoring what the lack of evidence speaks to, and focusing simply on the parts that line up with what could have been possible. What about the lack of any record of that many slaves period, let alone them suddenly leaving? How about the fact that surveys of ancient settlements, pottery remains and so forth, make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE).

Let me ask you this. Do you also believe that Genesis was literal? Both the creation and the flood? If your answer is "yes I do" then I really don't know what to say, if your answer is "no, those are allegorical or metaphorical" then I wonder why you would then think Exodus to be anything different.

That's quite a presumption on your part, and rather prejudicial and judgmental. You can actually say with confidence that the experts I named are "warping evidence to fit a preconceived answer"? You've read their works? Conversed with them? Been privy to interviews? And you can tell me with 100% confidence that the minimalist experts have no bias, but every expert on the other side does? Hm. Something about your quick brush-off is extremely academically suspect.

You said, "Because I am siding with the experts for the exodus,"

"The problem with your "experts" is that they are almost entirely either explaining why it's okay that there is no evidence, or warping evidence to fit a preconceived answer. That's a shitty way to go about something. They should be ashamed to call themselves experts if that's how they approach questions. You should never ask a question that you already know the answer to and then try to make the evidence fit, or explain why there is no evidence. You should look at the evidence and ask "what is this really evidence of".