What is the Jewish enslavement in Egypt about?

[DrZoidberg]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

 

[ideologyhunter]

A narrative of overcoming through faith in God? Interlaced with horrible violence inflicted by God on their enemies. The same could be said of the Book of Joshua, with the Israelites winning battle after battle and thinking they covered themselves in glory, when the legend really has to do with exterminating whole peoples. A lot of the OT is about walking in righteousness with God, in which case the people prosper, or languishing in agony because the people have turned away from God. Not all that different from Pat Robertson telling us why certain cities get smashed with hurricanes (never mind that they're coastal cities and shit happens.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A narrative of overcoming through faith in God? Interlaced with horrible violence inflicted by God on their enemies. The same could be said of the Book of Joshua, with the Israelites winning battle after battle and thinking they covered themselves in glory, when the legend really has to do with exterminating whole peoples. A lot of the OT is about walking in righteousness with God, in which case the people prosper, or languishing in agony because the people have turned away from God. Not all that different from Pat Robertson telling us why certain cities get smashed with hurricanes (never mind that they're coastal cities and shit happens.)

I think the question isn't asking as much about the finer details of the Exodus, but the tiny detail that nothing remotely like the Exodus happened, nor centuries long enslavement.

So... where did the plot come from?

I ponder if Egypt is the final origin story (or maybe even a parallel one). Potentially the first alleged historical part of the Tanakh.

Genesis lines up the ancient pre-Hebrews and their respective derivative El gods, with Yahweh. Despite the advertisement, the land of milk and honey that God is to lead his people to was actually abandoned... often... by the people to become the Hebrews for greener pastures further south. The fact that there are no names or even places specifically mentioned until Moses high tails it to Midian, implies the writers are completely making it up or don't know a thing about the migration that became the Exodus. They just know that they came from the west.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A narrative of overcoming through faith in God?

Isn't that what the Babylonian captivity is about? Why the need to add a fictional Egyptian captivity?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Wikipedia article is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus

Here's a theory from the article. Moses coming from Egypt is based on the Babylonian myth of Sargon of Akkad. It's essentially the same story. Since the commandments are lifted from the code of Hammurabi, it's possible that they also lifted other Babylonian things into the Bible. Exodus is then just a narrative way to transport Moses from Egypt to Canaan.

 

[DBT]

Faith in the Lord God...look how we have suffered, look at our wretchedness, yet the Lord our God has prevailed, the Lord has come to our aid, the Lord has uplifted us, praise the Lord.

 

[Learner]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

Depending on how one sees it (and being a tad pendantic). There were NO Jews during the time before the exodus, assuming you mean around that time - obviously because Judah didn't exist then.

Interestingly regarding Israelites, there is a possible explanation as to "what the section of the bible is about" using an excerpt from the British Library, their viewpoint of that section narrative:

Thousands of years ago, according to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Israelites had been in Egypt for generations, but now that they had become so numerous, the Pharaoh feared their presence. He feared that one day the Isrealites would turn against the Egyptians. Gradually and stealthily, he forced them to become his slaves.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/goldhaggadahstories/enslave/enslavement.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

Depending on how one sees it (and being a tad pendantic). There were NO Jews during the time before the exodus, assuming you mean around that time - obviously because Judah didn't exist then.

Interestingly regarding Israelites, there is a possible explanation as to "what the section of the bible is about" using an excerpt from the British Library, their viewpoint of that section narrative:

Thousands of years ago, according to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Israelites had been in Egypt for generations, but now that they had become so numerous, the Pharaoh feared their presence. He feared that one day the Isrealites would turn against the Egyptians. Gradually and stealthily, he forced them to become his slaves.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/goldhaggadahstories/enslave/enslavement.html

I don't understand what that explains? That's an attempt to explain how an event that didn't happen took place. What does that explain? Exodus is a complete fantasy. That's well established. My question is, why is it in the Bible? It seems redundant, since the Jews really were enslaved in Babylon.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

 

[Harry Bosch]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

Depending on how one sees it (and being a tad pendantic). There were NO Jews during the time before the exodus, assuming you mean around that time - obviously because Judah didn't exist then.

Interestingly regarding Israelites, there is a possible explanation as to "what the section of the bible is about" using an excerpt from the British Library, their viewpoint of that section narrative:

Thousands of years ago, according to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Israelites had been in Egypt for generations, but now that they had become so numerous, the Pharaoh feared their presence. He feared that one day the Isrealites would turn against the Egyptians. Gradually and stealthily, he forced them to become his slaves.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/goldhaggadahstories/enslave/enslavement.html

I don't understand what that explains? That's an attempt to explain how an event that didn't happen took place. What does that explain? Exodus is a complete fantasy. That's well established. My question is, why is it in the Bible? It seems redundant, since the Jews really were enslaved in Babylon.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

There are lots of bizzarre stories in the bible that can be demonstrated didn't happen (Noah's Ark and etc).

 

[Swammerdami]

The words 'Apiru and Hebrew are almost certainly cognate; Egyptian records tell us that the 'Apiru were bandits who were driven away. Perhaps Jewish writers later "put a spin on this", saying that the Israelites weren't driven out, but were fleeing enslavement.

I think it likely that some Canaanite hostages did flee from Egypt, but their number was MUCH tinier than suggested in Exodus.

The origin of the Jewish people and their religion is an interesting puzzle for which there are useful clues. Here are some possibly relevant comments from an earlier thread.

Note that the Hymn to Aten, allegedly written by Pharaoh Akhenaton himself, and Psalm 104, allegedly written by King David himself, are extremely close: much of Hymn 104 is almost a word-by-word translation of the Hymn to Aten.

This is not to say that the early Jewish religion was identical to Atenism, but it is likely that the idea of monotheism was borrowed. And it is recorded that some followers of Atenism fled Egypt after Akhenaton's death: this might have been a mini-Exodus that got conflated into the Moses narrative.
...
Here's a paper that further tightens the strong connections between the early history recorded in the Old Testament and the history revealed in the Armana Letters. The paper points out that the towns first conquered by Joshua are precisely the towns no longer corresponding with Pharaoh.

Working backwards, this researcher places the Exodus during the reign of Amenhotep III's grandfather, Amenhotep II; but I think the "Exodus" may have been mostly fictional anyway.
...
I've also browsed a very small portion of Donald B. Redford's Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, viewable on-line for free. That's where I learned that, for example, Egyptian inscriptions like "Yahweh in the Land of the Shasu" can be dated to about 1420 BC. (Wikipedia dates it to the reign of Amenhotep III, but Redford has a footnote making it a century earlier.) The Shasu may or may not have been identical to the 'Apiru/Hebrew; their "Land" was in northern Edom, or possibly a bit farther South near the Petra site.

The only reasonable conclusion is that one major component in the amalgam that constituted Israel, and the one with whom the worship of Yahweh originated, must be looked for among the Shasu of Edom already at the end of the fifteenth century B.C.

 

[Learner]

Depending on how one sees it (and being a tad pendantic). There were NO Jews during the time before the exodus, assuming you mean around that time - obviously because Judah didn't exist then.

Interestingly regarding Israelites, there is a possible explanation as to "what the section of the bible is about" using an excerpt from the British Library, their viewpoint of that section narrative:

Thousands of years ago, according to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Israelites had been in Egypt for generations, but now that they had become so numerous, the Pharaoh feared their presence. He feared that one day the Isrealites would turn against the Egyptians. Gradually and stealthily, he forced them to become his slaves.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/goldhaggadahstories/enslave/enslavement.html

I don't understand what that explains? That's an attempt to explain how an event that didn't happen took place. What does that explain? Exodus is a complete fantasy. That's well established. My question is, why is it in the Bible? It seems redundant, since the Jews really were enslaved in Babylon.

I should have pointed out a little more clearly from the British Library link, their view that the Israelites were not always slaves, which is not disagreeing with what you previously posted, i.e., Jews 'aka' Israelites lived and settled in Egypt... for a time:

“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”(Ex.22:20).

“You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex.23:9).

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev.19:34).

“You too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut.10:19)

“You shall not hate an Egyptian, for you were stranger in his land” (Deut.23:8).

Exodus as a fantasy I'll take as your prefered take of the narrative, at least for the moment, as I'm not sure of which study established the impossibility (also currently quite busy). I know there are a few ideas.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

I'm happy to agree to the defined terms you give above. I see now under this clarification where you were coming from in your OP.

There was always Christianity through the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites by this understanding.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

I would not find this contradictory to some extent (in bold), depending on how you read in context, 'only' free men would be given the honour to build.. etc..

Slavery mistakenly interpreted in context to chains and whips, so to speak, doesn't say this was the kind of slavery in the verse below:

“Always remember that you were a "slave" in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment” (Deut. 24:22)

But in this context below..

"And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing." (Deut. 24:22 KJV )

Bondman interpreted as in Bond-servant, known and understood in the theology, as a form of employment or servitude for a period of time, paying off debts.

Even though we were to say these servants were not quite "free." Would that mean bondmen wouldn't have that honour too, being part of the great build? I would think they would.

 

[steve_bank]

As there is no evidence of the alleged biblical events it is probably a myth. Like Moses and the Jews roaming the fesert between Egypt and Palestine for 40 years with no one seeing them and leaving no trace.

The ancient Hebrews were not in one group and were not homogeneous. There were factions in the gospel times.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't understand what that explains? That's an attempt to explain how an event that didn't happen took place. What does that explain? Exodus is a complete fantasy. That's well established. My question is, why is it in the Bible? It seems redundant, since the Jews really were enslaved in Babylon.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

There are lots of bizzarre stories in the bible that can be demonstrated didn't happen (Noah's Ark and etc).

The Bible isn't a random collection of stories. The Bible collected reworked earlier stories or tweaked things from Jewish history. There is a reason why the stories in the Bible were included as they were

 

[DrZoidberg]

I should have pointed out a little more clearly from the British Library link, their view that the Israelites were not always slaves, which is not disagreeing with what you previously posted, i.e., Jews 'aka' Israelites lived and settled in Egypt... for a time:

“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”(Ex.22:20).

“You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex.23:9).

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev.19:34).

“You too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut.10:19)

“You shall not hate an Egyptian, for you were stranger in his land” (Deut.23:8).

Exodus as a fantasy I'll take as your prefered take of the narrative, at least for the moment, as I'm not sure of which study established the impossibility (also currently quite busy). I know there are a few ideas.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

I'm happy to agree to the defined terms you give above. I see now under this clarification where you were coming from in your OP.

There was always Christianity through the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites by this understanding.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

I would not find this contradictory to some extent (in bold), depending on how you read in context, 'only' free men would be given the honour to build.. etc..

Slavery mistakenly interpreted in context to chains and whips, so to speak, doesn't say this was the kind of slavery in the verse below:

“Always remember that you were a "slave" in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment” (Deut. 24:22)

But in this context below..

"And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing." (Deut. 24:22 KJV )

Bondman interpreted as in Bond-servant, known and understood in the theology, as a form of employment or servitude for a period of time, paying off debts.

Even though we were to say these servants were not quite "free." Would that mean bondmen wouldn't have that honour too, being part of the great build? I would think they would.

If I remember correctly, Egypt had four levels of slaves, and each had different legal protection. Egypt was also fabulously wealthy compared to anywhere else in the Middle East. Free foreigners willingly going to Egypt to become slaves was a thing that happened. A bit like poor South Americans travelling to USA to work as day labourers. Life in Egypt was relatively less stressful than other places. Even for slaves.

Egypt had Jewish communities of free Jews right back before Jews was a concept. And did so all through their history.

So perhaps Moses was an exiled Egyptian, which is why the Sargon of Akkad myth was reworked for Moses.

Its an idea?

 

[OLDMAN]

I think most of the Jewish bible is simply accounting for the atrocities they committed. They were allowed to own slaves, so a simple justification is they were slaves themselves once and earned their freedom. Most of the wars and rape are condoned by their god and they are the chosen people after all...pretty simple might makes right thinking.

 

[Tharmas]

DrZoidberg, I recommend Robin Lane Fox: The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, which contains a rational approach to the Old Testament, much of which was written after the Babylonian captivity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think most of the Jewish bible is simply accounting for the atrocities they committed. They were allowed to own slaves, so a simple justification is they were slaves themselves once and earned their freedom. Most of the wars and rape are condoned by their god and they are the chosen people after all...pretty simple might makes right thinking.

That doesn't sound right. Why the need to justify slavery? It wasn't until the Enlightenment in the 1700-hundreds the idea that slavery would be immoral popped up. Before that it was assumed as normal and natural. Nobody would have felt it needed justifying. They were also totally fine with raping women of other tribes. The Torah is amazingly ethnocentric. These rights and rules only apply to Jews themselves.

The Torah is a part pagan book, and in pre-Roman pre-Babylonian pagan religion there was an in group and an outgroup. The ingroup could do what they wanted with whomever they conquered. This belief was shared by Judaism and is in the Torah. It doesn't change until they are conquered by the Achaemenid empire and the Babylonian captivity. The Acheamenid's introduce the Jews to a more modern and civilized way of running an empire. To the great surprise of the Jews the Acheamenid's not only permitted the Jews to continue to pray to their God, but they encouraged it. They gave Jews special status as the official religion in Judea. They allowed the Jews enslaved in Babylon to continue being Jews and to practice their religion. This was unheard of before the Achmeanid's. Toleration for other people's religion and gods was something they invented.

The Torah was later reinterpreted a Judaism where Jews are supposed to treat non-Jews with respect.

 

[steve_bank]

The OT embellishes the Hebrew culture, why is that so hard to grasp? All colures create myths that embellish and justify. We have our American myths that are not quite true and are exaggerated.

We study Rome and Greece knowing there were abuses. Sparta was slave based. They were aggressive, yet we have an heroic image of Spartans fighting to the last at Thermopoli in the cause of freedom.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The OT embellishes the Hebrew culture, why is that so hard to grasp? All colures create myths that embellish and justify. We have our American myths that are not quite true and are exaggerated.

We study Rome and Greece knowing there were abuses. Sparta was slave based. They were aggressive, yet we have an heroic image of Spartans fighting to the last at Thermopoli in the cause of freedom.

It's basically a hero's journey. The hero starts out as weak and scrappy, has some trials and then comes out as victorious. I get that. It makes sense that the exodus narrative is written that way.

But it doesn't explain why it's in the Bible. Why did they invent this narrative in particular and put it in the Bible?

We know why the Noah story is in the Bible. It's a reworking of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was a story already in circulation and well known when the Jews were inventing stories about themselves. Travelling bards would have come to Palestine replaced the Babylonian gods and characters with the Jewish God characters and then electrified the audience with a riveting tale that then became part of the Jewish mythic tradition.

But where does the Exodus story come from? It's unique to Judaism. And seems to lack any historicity. It seems to just pop up out of nowhere and become a thing. Things don't just pop up out of nowhere. Not even in religion.

It might be that the true story is lost in history. But there has to be some reason it did pop up in Judaism. That's what I'm asking about.

 

[steve_bank]

I thought the original Christian canon came out of the Council Of Nicaea, along with the creed as a form of a loyalty oath to the new synthesis.