Uhh...confrontational, are we?
Exodus DOES have some mythological elements. However, one should not make the mistake of saying "mythological = didn't happen".
Who say that? Of course, mythological history of a people is based on the historical AND geographical context of its.
But, as the report of both coming and exodus by the Bible are totally based non on egyptian context, but on mesopotamian one, giving several indications on life on Euphrate's shore at this time, and by the total lack of informations from Egypt, we have to considers the only source (furthermore a religious one) as mythical.
Exodus as a fleeing from Egypt simply never happened, too much facts are contradictory to it.
There is insufficient evidence to support such a wide statement. In fact, there ARE circumstantial evidences of an influx into Cana'an - though scholars (those of them that do support the basic tenets of the Exodus) disagree on when exactly it took place. The earliest (and traditional) date is around 1440 BC; the last around 1200 BC.
There's no indication that this
supposed influx (as you said, we're talking about circumstantial evidences here) modified the demography or the ethny of Palestine. On the other hand, the indigenous thesis have the merite to resolve more issues that it poses and to be based on more solid evidences, until of course anothers and contradictories are discovered, but so far it was not the case.
Furthermore, your "inuit"-statement made absolutely no sense. Of course Joseph isn't an inuit name.
(the fact that the name isn't all that uncommon in Greenland is another matter entirely, as that is due to Danish influence)
You're irony-proof, aren't you?
And mormons claim that satan and Jesus are brothers, flying in the face of all Christendom. Doesn't mean that mormonism can be seen as a genuine, but different, expression of Christian beliefs.
But the Mormon's beliefs are not coming from oblivion, and can even be related to Christianity heresies so far as dualism. The same for isolated hebrew communauties. You can't dismiss these beliefs only because you're not agreeing with, or you find it retarded.
Furthermore, if you could provide some documentation of that claim, I'd appreciate it. The Hebrews made a big deal out of declaring the belief in YHWH as the only deity.
Certainly : the papiry in aramean discovered in the island (there's is a translation
here, but as i'am not an expert, i can't judge of its quality).
Cowley and Grelot have published them, it's mainly aspects of current life (including rites) but aslo correspondence with Palestinian jews who wanted to apply the reforms regarding religion to the isolated communauties : sign that and these communauties were cut from Palestine, in the case of Yeb, between their installation in Sait Egypt and this correspondence date from after a Darius (probably Darius II).
Interestingly, there was no such reform in Yeb/Elephantine and it was only after the destruction of Yeb Yahou's temple that the local rites disappered (even if the jews asked for the reconstruction, in vain as not the Palestinians nor the king allowed so).
You can find a reference to the cult of Yahou (Yahve), associated with "paedres" (i don't know the english term, and i'm not sure of the translation i recieved).
Joseph Meleze-Modrzejewski worked on that as Bezalel Porten. (I've only read Meleze-Modrzejewksi but he makes references to Porten's work.)
...and that claim is also very much a subject of debate. I see no tell-tale signs of monolatrism in either the pre- or post-exilic writings. Sure, they mentions the gods of other peoples - but they do so in a way that we might mention Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. To take those mentions as evidence that Israel recognized the existence of other gods, but only allowed worship of YHWH is blatantly unscientific.
The existence, and the workship of sister and/or wife of Yawhe, again attested in documents show that if this god was at the center of a cult (while the other were only recongnized because of their proximity to him), there was a recongition of this god as reserved (and it was quite novator for these times) to a people.
Interestingly, it was only around X-IX B.C. that the neighbouring nations and people recongized Yawhe as "proper" to Hebrews, as the king of Moab intentionaly plundered his temple to give the goods that it contained to its own god.
Of course that the sole study of Bible can't bear a total proof. But the concordence of the study of the text with archeological proofs make the theory (that can be disputed, yes, but the most disputes i've saw so far are on the fact that Hebrews would have worshipped other goods as polytheism) is one of the strongest existing on the pre-Rabbinic judaism.
Samaritanism isn't monolatric, AFAIK.
And once again: There's no solid evidence that monotheism is an exilic development.
I've said samaritanism was monolatric? I used this exemple to show that between 1)The isolated communauties 2)The main part of Hebrew people that stood in Palestine 3)The exiled, there were many difference regarding both culture and religion and that Hebrews were all except a monolithical people after the exile.