Exodus, Hyksos, and History

[neocon_voter]

Neocon_voter, I don't have much time at the moment so I'll reply again later. Just a quick note to answer your later questions:



Yes, all we have are third hand accounts ... of Manetho. But our history of ancient Egypt does not depend upon Manetho, as I already told you. We have plenty of additional information now that means that the problems we have trying to figure out the original of Manetho do not leave us bereft of information on ancient Egyptian history and chronology.

As for Amasis, you may want to check out:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amasis.htm

"Now as the ruler of all Egypt, Amasis took on the traditional role of builder, and is attested to by quarry inscriptions at Tura and Elephantine, and with building projects at Memphis, including two granite colossi and a temple of Isis, Philae, Elephantine, Edfu, Sohag, Abydos, Koptos, Karnak and any number of Delta sites, including his tomb at Sais."

It is true that much of our information on the reign of Amasis comes from Herodotus but this is not very problematic as Herodotus was actually a pretty good historian for material more close to his own age. He only errs badly with really old history and that comes not from his own inventing unreliable details or anything of the sort. It merely reflects that his sources didn't know the earlier history that well, which is the case for pretty much all civilizations and histories. Thus, while Herodotus' account of the building of the Great Pyramid can't be considered overly reliable, his accounts of the Late Period of Egyptian history has been found to be quite accurate.

More information on the reign of Amasis is coming forth all the time, including recently underwater:
http://www.franckgoddio.org/Sitemap/...ument=0005.xml

There is a webpage that has a list of actual artifacts from his reign. I'll see if I can't find it for you. Incidentally, it is during the reign of Amasis that the 40 year desolation of Egypt prophesied by Jeremiah should have taken place. This demonstrably did not occur, demonstrating that your faith in the Bible is most definitely misplaced.

Incidentally, I cringed when I read this from you:

"Did you not see the problems I pointed out in POST 36 and POST 30 ?
I believe I have already admitted my faith in ancient Israelite history based on the Pentateuch is just that – faith."

Your faith in the historical veracity of the Bible, even before you've compared it to the history of ancient Egypt, demonstrates a fundamentally unscholarly and irrational approach. I must thus ask you a direct question. Do you think it is possible that your faith in the Bible is misplaced? Do you think it is possible that the Bible can be wrong about some things? If not, there is no point in me trying to discuss anything with someone so clearly irrational and for whom no amount of evidence could make you recognize the truth. Just let me know what your position really is so I don't waste my time here. Thanks.

Hi there, Bubbahotep
How much citation does one have to do to demonstrate a scholarly approach?

I am familiar with the touregypt website.

Here's the deal. I really do enjoy studying ANE material, otherwise I would never be able to go through these texts I cite. As far as credibility is concerned with the Egyptian chronologies, I actually do have a lot of confidence in them -- that is to say, I could go to the shelf and pick out most any text on ancient Egyptian history, look for the king list/chronology, and be fairly confident its quite accurate. I would rate them as better than simply good-enough.

But I still would like to put the Bible-minimalists on notice, that their material is not infallible.

As for my faith, take it or leave it. Its something between me and my Maker.

Neocon_Voter

[Bubbahotep]

Hi there, Bubbahotep
How much citation does one have to do to demonstrate a scholarly approach?

Posting photographs of your library doesn't demonstrate a scholarly "approach". I'm glad you enjoy studying ANE material but you do realize that there is a big difference between someone interested in ancient history and wanting to see evidence that aliens built the pyramids and someone who is truly interested in knowing the truth about who built them, someone who is willing to let the evidence determine who built them rather than just simple desire to have a pet hypothesis proven true. You have to be willing to put your own ideas to the test. Revisionist historians don't do that. They don't question the Bible; they question everything else and are willing to twist around all the rest of the evidence but heaven forbid anyone try to even suggest that perhaps we should consider the possibility that perhaps the Bible could be wrong on a few areas, that the writers of the Bible may have added some parts "for dramatic purposes" when they composed their histories of the ancient Hebrews. Why not consider that possibility? Until you can do so, you do not demonstrate a scholarly approach to this subject.

Here's the deal. I really do enjoy studying ANE material, otherwise I would never be able to go through these texts I cite. As far as credibility is concerned with the Egyptian chronologies, I actually do have a lot of confidence in them -- that is to say, I could go to the shelf and pick out most any text on ancient Egyptian history, look for the king list/chronology, and be fairly confident its quite accurate. I would rate them as better than simply good-enough.

But I still would like to put the Bible-minimalists on notice, that their material is not infallible.

I agree with you completely; Bible-minimalists are not infallible. In fact, I don't consider myself a minimalist. I don't believe that David and Solomon were likely fictitious and there may even have been a real historical personage behind the Moses character. But I am also not a maximalist. The Bible simply cannot be 100% true. Of that there can be no doubt, not to someone who does take a scholarly and skeptical approach to ancient history in general and who doesn't exclude the Bible from critical inquiry.

As for my faith, take it or leave it. Its something between me and my Maker.

The trouble is that your faith doesn't just revolve around the idea that there exists some spiritual realm and creatures therein who never interact with the real, natural world. Your Holy Scriptures also record many events of history. Why would you continue to put your faith in that religion when its Holy Scriptures get the ancient history just as wrong as most other ancient cultures?

[Bubbahotep]

There is no fantasy. There are tons of books on the subject, some in favor of a late exodus, some of an early exodus, some of none and some in between (mix of stories). The thread is "Exodus, Hyksos and history", I just wanted to briefly describe the theory of a pre-hyksos exodus which is supported by some NCers.

Yes, sadly there are tons of books on the subject, supported by interest such as that of yours. I have no problem with there being books on this subject but the large number is really saddenning as the revisionist position has been demonstrated to be erroneous so many times now that only those too desperate to save their faith from falsification would continue to try and slog down this path to nowhere. Oh well, you keep trying to describe your NC theory. You can't blame me, though, for demonstrating its fundamental problems and why the normal chronology is still far superior.

Your hard words and your disrespectful posts dont affect me. I learnt that when such reactions happen, its because people are afraid of being wrong.

I find this statement to be amusing and ironic; it is I who has been asking you to support your pro-NC claims and yet it is you who is running away, unwilling to examine the facts in detail. The evidence available suggests that it is you, not I, who is afraid at being proved wrong.

Its more and more accepted that the CC needs to be revised

By amateurs who profess the Jewish or Christian faith; not by scholars. The Egytpological community, those expert in this area, have as a whole rejected the revisionists. If you want your ideas to become accepted you'll need to actually come up with some evidence that the normal chronology can't accomodate and respond to the evidence that demonstrates that your "new chronology" is simply untenable.

the TIP chronology is super weak, there is zero synchronism with any of the nations around Egypt during the so-called dark ages except with the king list of Assyria (one of the actual debate of some NCers).

Sorry, the Shishak/Shoshenq I synchronism is as strong as ever.

Chronology is the weakest argument to reject an event. Figures in the hebrew bible should not be taken at face value.

You can say that again. The careless treatment of numbers and figures in the OT is good reason to treat the writings with caution, rather than accept them with blind faith as you do.

And there are plenty of evidences of semites settlement in Egypt (Goshen), ruins of a foreign vizier and his headquarters, etc. until MB IIA.

While the Exodus stories of the Jews derive ultimately from the Hyksos experience, the Hyksos don't match up with the description of the Hebrews in the OT.

And, what a coincidence, evidences of a conquest of the "Joshuan" cities in MB IIB, etc. The general political topography of the Levant in the Amarna period (+ mention of Habiru) closely corresponds to that described in the second book of Samuel, which deals with the beginning of the United Monarchy period in Israelite history.

I actually believe that the Habiru are the ancestors of the Hebrews but the OT stories weren't written centuries after the fact and are quite anachronistic. The political topography of the Levant doesn't fit the Amarna period overly well as the Bible records no incursions or even heavy influence from Egypt in the period in question, whereas we know that this was rife during the New Kingdom.

I warned Tladatsi that there already was a thread on the subject and there also is one on the OC/NC debate. So I just felt that I had to indicate the NC theories in this new thread (for the readers that may not be aware of).

It's Tladatsi's thread, so he/she can say where the topic should or shouldn't go. However, as I said, if you continue to post that NC is believable I will continue to respond and point out all the fallacies of your position.

Second, NC is still in the process of building chronologies and making synchronisms. Its an open debate. In NC, they do not apply a double standart on the jewish texts.

That is one of the most ironic things I've ever seen written. You guys are the ones employing a double standard. You refuse to consider the possibility that the OT stories include unreliable details and perhaps should be critically considered. Egyptologists and scholars reject the NC because they don't employ a double standard and look at both Egyptological records and the Bible as records that need to be critically evaluated.

The hebrew bible is secure up to the 9th BCE, there is no reason that everything else is complete fairy tale.

I'm not saying it is all myth. However, there are many inaccuracies and anachronisms showing clearly that the OT stories cannot be accepted as 100% accurate. So we have to be open to recognizing that parts of those stories aren't true and that the real picture is somewhat different.

Third, you apparently possess the absolute truth and refuse to keep an open mind. So for all these reasons, I dont see the point of continuing this discussion with you and it has nothing to do with me being afraid of anything. I have read many bible-nihilist* theories before.

And yet you continue to reply.

[runtmc2jc]

In a different thread, I had an exchange with squall about the relationship between the Canaanites and the Israelites and historical evidence. One element of the discussion was the connection between the Hyksos of Egypt, the Exodus, and the Israelites. I commented that this was much too big a topic for a thread on something really quite tangential. I said the topic deserves its own thread. So, here we are.

The story of Exodus is this; Joseph, a Semite from Canaan enters Egypt as a slave, become the Vizier to the King of Egypt. A drought hits Canaan and Josephs bothers and father flee to Egypt where Joseph gets them settled. Joseph and his tribe thrive under the favor of the King. A later king who did not know Joseph sees the growing number of Israelites as a threat, illegal immigrants who might support an outside invader, perhaps from Canaan. They are based in the north-eastern region of the Delta, near Goshen and Rameses. To curb their growth, the King enslaves the Israelites. Moses, under the direction of Yahweh, frees to the enslaved Israelites, and leads them back to Canaan where Joshua leads to re-conquer their homeland. This story is only known from the Bible.

From Egyptian records we know that Egypt was conquered by “Asiatics” (amu) from Canaan between 1684-1567 BCE. They are generally known to history as the Hyksos (heqa-khasut , rulers of foreign lands). They completely conquered lower Egypt, including Gesem and what would be Pi-Rameses. In this region they built their capitol at Avaris. upper Egypt was not conquered but was forced pay tribute and answer to their hegemon in Avaris. The Thebans, under the leadership initially of Kao II and Kamoses and later Ahmoses, rebelled and after many years of fighting drove out the Hyksos.

This has lead many to propose that the Israelites were somehow connected to the Hyksos. If they fled Egypt in 1567 BCE that would leave plenty of time to wander the Sinai, conquer Israel under Joshua, be ruled by the Judges, see the arrival and dominance of the Philistines, and have Saul and David unite the tribes and establish a Kingdom in 1000 BCE. The particular details don’t match but the general thrust of the stories are parallel.

There is a fatal flaw in this theory. The Egyptians, prior to the arrival of the Hyksos were completely uninterested in foreign conquest. They did slowly incorporate lands to the south, but they did not consider Kush and Nubia to be “foreign” lands, they were a rough and tumble southern tier of their own land. However, after the Hyksos, the Egyptians swore they would never again be conquered by the Semites. They crossed the Sinai and conquered it and ruled as foreign province. Thutmoses III defeated Canaanite kings at a battle at Megiddo in 1456 BC. Egypt’s clients in Canaan wrote letters complaining to Amenhotep IV (1353-1336 BCE aka Akhenaten) about the lack of Egyptian strength in the Amarna letters (including complaints about those pesky ‘Apiru). Merenptah (1207 BC) likewise claims great defeats of Canaanites. We know exactly when the Philistines arrive in Canaan. The Egyptians recorded their (whom they called the “Sea People”) southward march from Greece along the Mediterranean coast. Archeology can follow their path of destoried and burnt cities. In the first ever recorded combined sea-land battle, Ramesses III completely routed the Sea People in Canaan, hundreds of miles from Egypt proper. They were able to do this because forts and troops (and ships at sea) in Djahy in 1176 BCE. (The Hittites likewise record the arrival of the "Shikalayu who live on boats" and complain about the Habiru who are an annoying presence near Canaan).

What may have happened was the Egyptians “contracted” the rule of Canaan to the Sea People / Philistines or Egypt may have won the battle but lost the war and left the Philistine in control of Canaan.

In any event, it would have been impossible for a tribe of run-away slaves to flee Egypt and find refuge in the Sinai and then conquer Canaan anytime before the arrival of the Philistines as both the Sinai and Canaan were controlled by Egypt. Egypt had a “great wall” along the length of it’s border with Sinai. Along the route to Canaan, the Egyptian army maintain a series of forts to protect the “Great Route of Horus” and allow rapid movement of troops from Eygpt to Canaan (as witnessed in 1176 BCE). Egypt also had a sizeable presence in central Sinai at the turquoise mines at Serabit el-Khadem. There are only eight oasis in the Sinai, and the largest at Wadi Feiran was control by Egypt as well. The two being near one another (west central Sinai) and one being the water source for the other this is not a surprise.

Even if they some how got over the wall and around the various military posts, Canaan itself was controlled by Egypt. It would be if a much of New Yorkers fleeing the oppression of George Bush went off to Puerto Rico to gain their freedom via Florida.

We might wish to say that is all without the power of Yahweh and that all of Exodus was a chain of miracles that both defy physical laws and contradict human expectations. Of course, no one can argue with that.

The Velikovsky take on the matter is derived from the assumption that the causal agent resulting in the Exodus affected large areas (perhaps global ?) and cause mass migrations of peoples and the subsequent falling of kingdoms. The Hyksos were the Amalekites from Arabia & parts of Canaan.... they met and battled the Hebrews fleeing from Egypt.... Ultimately they overthrew Egypt and ruled ruthlessly for several centuries (???). The one who eventually aided the Egyptians to overthrow the Hyksos/Amalekites at Avaris was none other than Saul. (see "Ages in Chaos - vol 1")

[Mattsterpiece]

I certainly wish there would be less emphasis of religious-inspired dichotomy on here. It tends to be a distraction, and implies a lack of style. Both sides can be guilty of it.

Now, in the limited research I've committed to (some K.A. Kitchen, Cyrus Gordon, Hoffmeier, Walton, Bruce, etc), I've tried to remain cautious in my understanding of the Bible in it's ANE context.

Some of it is propagandistic and didactic. However, only when this comes at a cross-section with actuality does it compromise the historical authenticity of a text.

We saw this in Egyptian texts provided by neocon_voter.