Exodus Archeology Evidence

[River Sea]

@Mrpp I opened and read what you shared.
Then I looked up Amarna letters tablets.
There's a lot of Amarna letters, showing each number is a letter tablet?

The Habiru/'Apiru

The mention of the Habiru shows the conflict of the time, as the takeover of city-states or regions by the Habiru. The map shows various cities and regions, and their respective dealings with the Habiru. (There are only 3 letters from Labaya of Šakmu/Shechem.)

@Mrpp from your info : The messages from the various regional Canaanite leaders to Egypt’s pharaoh are filled with desperate pleas for help. Tablet EA 286 is a plea from Abdi-Heba, the mayor of Jerusalem: “Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. … May the king [Egypt’s pharaoh] provide for his land! All the lands of the king, my lord, have deserted. … Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord. … The king has no lands. That Habiru has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain.”

 

[shunyadragon]

Exodus is one of the most spectacular event in Bible and I wanted to look it through archeological evidence and I found many interesting things that I wanted to share with you guys. First of all acording Bible Exodus happened around 14/15 century BCE and there are interesting finds from that period.

I am very aware of the history behind those letters, and your reference misrepresents and distorts them concerning the Hebrews in Canaan at that time. The Hebrews were minor payers at the time and the Egyptians dominated Canaan, and there is no known independent reference to Joshua's army invading and conquering Canaan. The Hebrew written language dud not even exist at that time, nor any known text of the Pentateuch, which was compiled after 600 BCE.

More to follow

 

[Mrpp]

OK so I checked the file and it didn#t explode in my face.
@Mrpp you raise an interesting interpretation of the Amarna letters, but they don't quite match what I've seen before (my most recent sources being Aidan Dodson's "Amarna Sunrise" and Dominic Perry's History of Egyot podcasts) - I will review these in light of your ideas and let you know what I think.

However, one thing that I noticed is that you bring forward Amenhotep III as the Pharao of the Exodus, and his son Thutmosis as the firstborn heir who died in the 10th plague.
Have you considered that the timeline does not match? Prince Thutmosis died around the first jubilee in year 30 of his father's reign. Amenhotep ruled another 8 years after this jubilee, well documented by dated documents and large-scale building projects. According to Exodus, the pharao would have died in the Red Sea shortly after the death of his son.
There is no indication of a serious crisis, just the opposite: the rule of Amenhotep III is considered the golden age of the 18th dynasty. The only less attested part of his reign is between years 11 and 20, there's some circumstantial evidence of a plague hitting Egypt in this time. But it's again 10 years too early to fit the Exodus timeline.

On the other hand, I fully agree with you in that the semitic migration into the eastern delta, the Hyksos-era as well as the taking of slaves/prisoners by the earlier 18th dynasty kings are all elements that show a historical base of the Exodus narrative.
But I would still insist that we are looking at bits and pieces from collective memories, that only at a later date were formed into one coherent narrative.

Just, for example, consider the Exodus story of how the Isrealites became slaves in Egypt:
They enter the country peacefully, being invited by Joseph and his king. they multiply inside the country, are considered a threat and get more and more enslaved.
Compare that to the historical development: They migrate - perhaps peacefully? - into the eastern delta some time in the late Middle Kingdom - so far, so good. Then they become the leading power of northern Egypt and even Rulers during the Hyksos time. (they become powerful, like in the bible, but the consequence is not enslavement, but rule!)
Then they are pushed out by the Theban rulers, the founders of the 18th dynasty (they are not fleeing slaves, they are losing a war).
And then, as the 18th dynasty gains power, the pharaos lead campaigns into the Levant and take prisoners back to Egypt - which is a storyline that does not show up in Hebrew scripture at all.
If the story of Joseph and the tribes settling in Egypt is correct, then we're looking at the Hyksos era. But if the story of being slaves in Egypt is right, that fits with 18th dynasty prisoners-of-war.
So the Hebrew narrative kinda conflates the two and thus misses the Hyksos leaving and the prisoners entering the country. So how would you explain that?

Okay first of all before addressing chronology main reason why I think Exodus happened was beacuse if such event happened it would skahe egyptian beliefs and would make changes into something like monotheism. This precisely what happened. This start was initiated by Amenhotep 3 and even Totmes 4 mentions great God. And we have also invasion on caanan in this period. To be said I admit I made mistake and didn't paid attention to chronology as much as I should so now I looked into chronology more. Since armana letters are written to amenhotep 3 and akhenathen and we know Akhenathen shared co rulership with his father going back 40 years from armana letters description of Caanan conquest it would mean Amenhotep 2 was pharaoh of Exodus. Beacuse of it there are more evidence for Exodus during his period.
- Massive abandonment
The same is true of his monuments, none of which, as Petrie wrote, can be “dated above the fifth year.” Furthermore, of the monuments we do have from Amenhotep ii’s reign, some of them are clearly only partially complete. “Nothing strikes us as more extraordinary than the condition of injury and confusion in which the most important buildings of Egypt seem to have remained,” Petrie wrote. “The most imposing works stood amidst half-ruined and unfinished halls for a whole reign; other parts were walled off to hide offensive memorials; other structures were either incomplete or half-ruined” (ibid). (Add to this the destruction of of Hatshepsut’s monuments at this time.)tying back to the above-mentioned Hyksos/Semites who immigrated into northern Egypt from Canaan. A site known as Avaris/Tell el-Dab’a has long been identified as a chief location of their occupation, from which they ruled during earlier centuries, and within which they continued to live following their overthrow at the start of the New Kingdom period. Dr. Manfred Bietak, chief excavator of Tell el-Dab’a, stated that following their overthrow in the 16th century b.c.e., “there is mounting evidence to suggest that a large part of this population stayed in Egypt and served their new overlords in various capacities” (article, “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?”).

But even more notable, for our purposes here, is when this city ceased to function—when it was finally abandoned by its Semitic inhabitants. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling highlights the following in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology and Theological Implications: “Bietak’s stratigraphic analysis [of Tell el-Dab’a] reveals a clear abandonment in the mid-18th Dynasty, during or after the reign of Amenhotep ii. … [T]he latest identifiable pottery dates to the reign of Amenhotep ii. … Much of Avaris Stratum d/1 (in Area F/I) to Stratum c (Area H/I-VI) points to the presence of a Semitic population until the mysterious abandonment.”
- sickness
n 1907, when Amenhotep ii’s mummified body was examined, scientists noticed the presence of unusual tubercles all over the body. Grafton Elliot Smith, who studied the corpse, wondered whether the tubercles developed during the embalming process or were, rather, the product of disease. As he wrote in “A Note on the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep ii at Bibân el Molouk” (1907): “The skin over the whole body [of Amenhotep ii] is thickly studded with small projections or tubercles from 0 m. 002 mill. to 0 m. 008 mill. in diameter. At present I am unable to determine whether they are the results of some disease or merely the effects of the embalmer’s salt-bath, but they are.
- Death of Firstborn
Why was Thutmose iv son of Amenhotep 2 compelled to publicly declare that he was divinely installed? Because he was not the firstborn, presumptive heir to Egypt’s throne. “It is unfortunate that the events surrounding the accession of Thutmosis iv
are so obscure,” writes Egyptologist Peter Der Manuelian, “especially since his Dream Stele between the paws of the Great Sphinx suggests that he was not the originally intended heir to the throne“ (Studies in the Reign of Amenophis ii)
- Decrease in military power.
There is also much more decrease in military power of Egypt. Many pharaohs in from that time are having much more peacefull politics. Not to mention Amenhotep 3 made a lot of statues to the goddess of healing as opposed to war.

 

[Mrpp]

Yes. None of it has anything to do with the Exodus. You could have looked up your various claims and linked to them The first two accounts at best would be of Hebrew invasion of Canaan. There is nothing about the Exodus there. Your last claim involved the Brooklyn Papyrus which was far too recent to describe events from the Exodus. The Brooklyn papyrus is dated to around 450 BCE roughly a thousand years after the mythical event:

Brooklyn Papyrus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 - Wikipedia You have mistake my findings. You picked wrong papirus

 

[Subduction Zone]

Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 - Wikipedia You have mistake my findings. You picked wrong papirus

It was your term. Find another 'Brooklyn Papyrus.".

 

[River Sea]

Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling highlights the following in Five Views on the Exodus:

From this screenshot, I learned that epigraphy needs to be in a row, and the epigraphy wasn't in the row. Please take a look at how it is not in a row but a mess. Also, please read below this.

Does epigraphy need to be in a row?
How come this epigraphy isn't in a row, and what does this epigraphy say?

The epigraphy needs to be in a row

I struggle to read five views of Exodus because of Dr. Scott Stripling's writing about the curse tablet.
I was extremely lost. I still don't understand what this curse tablet even is.

I've been learning from @Bharat Jhunjhunwala about the Exodus from Indus Valley due to drought and that the Yadavas left Indus Valley due to drought.

Then there's the book five view of Exodus, and I was so lost due to how Dr. Scott Stripling wrote immediately about the curse tablet. I do not understand why the curse tablet and when this happened and was found to be fake due to the epigraphy that wasn't in the row.

 

[Tamino]

Okay first of all before addressing chronology main reason why I think Exodus happened was beacuse if such event happened it would skahe egyptian beliefs and would make changes into something like monotheism. This precisely what happened. This start was initiated by Amenhotep 3 and even Totmes 4 mentions great God. And we have also invasion on caanan in this period. To be said I admit I made mistake and didn't paid attention to chronology as much as I should so now I looked into chronology more. Since armana letters are written to amenhotep 3 and akhenathen and we know Akhenathen shared co rulership with his father going back 40 years from armana letters description of Caanan conquest it would mean Amenhotep 2 was pharaoh of Exodus. Beacuse of it there are more evidence for Exodus during his period.
- Massive abandonment
The same is true of his monuments, none of which, as Petrie wrote, can be “dated above the fifth year.”

Uuuhhhmm, no offense to Sir Flinders Petrie, father of Egyptian Archaeology, but are you aware that he's a century out of date?

tying back to the above-mentioned Hyksos/Semites who immigrated into northern Egypt from Canaan. A site known as Avaris/Tell el-Dab’a has long been identified as a chief location of their occupation, from which they ruled during earlier centuries, and within which they continued to live following their overthrow at the start of the New Kingdom period. Dr. Manfred Bietak, chief excavator of Tell el-Dab’a, stated that following their overthrow in the 16th century b.c.e., “there is mounting evidence to suggest that a large part of this population stayed in Egypt and served their new overlords in various capacities” (article, “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?”).

So, according to the bible: Joseph invited the tribes in, they lived peacefully in Egypt for a time, then they were too many and the Pharao got scared and started oppressing them.
According to history: Hyksos settled in Egypt, probably a gradual process, maybe some violent invasion involved. Then they became kings and ruled most of Egypt and called themselves Lords of the Two lands and had a great capital city. And then there was a long and violent war with the Theban Rulers and they lost. But the local inhabitants just stayed in the country under the new rulers.
So, the period of them ruling Egypt and getting defeated again, and the Bible just says "then a new Pharao came into power and was worried about their numbers" and then starts talking about midwifes and birth rates? If we consider the bible to be an accurate historical source, why would it skip over the israelite's most glorious period as de facto rulers of Egypt?

But even more notable, for our purposes here, is when this city ceased to function—when it was finally abandoned by its Semitic inhabitants. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling highlights the following in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology and Theological Implications: “Bietak’s stratigraphic analysis [of Tell el-Dab’a] reveals a clear abandonment in the mid-18th Dynasty, during or after the reign of Amenhotep ii. … [T]he latest identifiable pottery dates to the reign of Amenhotep ii. … Much of Avaris Stratum d/1 (in Area F/I) to Stratum c (Area H/I-VI) points to the presence of a Semitic population until the mysterious abandonment.”
- sickness
n 1907, when Amenhotep ii’s mummified body was examined, scientists noticed the presence of unusual tubercles all over the body. Grafton Elliot Smith, who studied the corpse, wondered whether the tubercles developed during the embalming process or were, rather, the product of disease. As he wrote in “A Note on the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep ii at Bibân el Molouk” (1907): “The skin over the whole body [of Amenhotep ii] is thickly studded with small projections or tubercles from 0 m. 002 mill. to 0 m. 008 mill. in diameter. At present I am unable to determine whether they are the results of some disease or merely the effects of the embalmer’s salt-bath, but they are.
- Death of Firstborn
Why was Thutmose iv son of Amenhotep 2 compelled to publicly declare that he was divinely installed? Because he was not the firstborn, presumptive heir to Egypt’s throne. “It is unfortunate that the events surrounding the accession of Thutmosis iv
are so obscure,” writes Egyptologist Peter Der Manuelian, “especially since his Dream Stele between the paws of the Great Sphinx suggests that he was not the originally intended heir to the throne“ (Studies in the Reign of Amenophis ii)
- Decrease in military power.
There is also much more decrease in military power of Egypt. Many pharaohs in from that time are having much more peacefull politics. Not to mention Amenhotep 3 made a lot of statues to the goddess of healing as opposed to war.

Ok, I will have some fun after work and plot the supposed Moses story into the reigns of TIII and AII... let's see how that pans out.

But do you notice something about the relative strength of your arguments?
You propose "A III was Exodus Pharao because his firstborn died! " and next day you go "A II was Exodus Pharao because his heir died"
... Maybe the death of a child, firstborn or not, was just pretty common in antiquity, ever thought of that?
And then there's a huge can of worms that is princes and succession in the 18th dynasty. We know very little about the 18th dyn princes prior to their succession to the throne, it's often unclear how many sons a Pharao even had, the daughters are better attested. And we also don't know by what mechanism the next king was chosen among the princes. Hebrew scripture assumes it's the firstborn, because the firstborn has a huge significance in their culture. But in Egypt, primogeniture was far less important.

 

[Ajax]

The border between Canaan and Egypt was closely controlled. If a great mass of fleeing Israelites had passed through the border fortifications of the pharaonic regime, a record should exist. Yet in the abundant Egyptian sources describing the time of the New Kingdom in general and the thirteenth century in particular, there is no reference to the Israelites, not even a single clue. We know of nomadic groups from Edom who entered Egypt from the desert. The Merneprah stele refers to Israel as a group of people already living in Canaan. But we have no clue, not even a single word, about early Israelites in Egypt: neither in monumental inscriptions on walls of temples, nor in tomb inscriptions, nor in papyri. Israel is absent as a possible foe of Egypt, as a friend, or as an enslaved nation. And there are simply no finds in Egypt that can be directly associated with the notion of a distinct foreign ethnic group (as opposed to a concentration of migrant workers from many places) living in a distinct area of the eastern delta, as implied by the biblical account of the children of Israel living together in the Land of Goshen (Genesis 47:27).
There is something more: the escape of more than a tiny -group from Egyptian control at the time of Ramesses Il seems highly unlikely, as is the crossing of the desert and entry into Canaan. In the thirteenth century, Egypt was at the peak of its authority - the dominant power in the world. The Egyptian grip over Canaan was firm; Egyptian strongholds were built in various places in the country and Egyptian officials administered the affairs of the region. In the el-Amarna letters, which are dated a century before, we are told that a unit of fifty Egyptian soldiers was big enough to pacify unrest in Canaan. And throughout the period of the New Kingdom, large Egyptian armies marched through Canaan to the north, as far as the Euphrates in Syria. Therefore, the main overland road that went from the delta along the coast of northern Sinai to Gaza and then into the heart of Canaan was of utmost importance to the pharaonic regime. ' The most potentially vulnerable stretch of the road - which crossed the arid and dangerous desert of northern Sinai between the delta and Gaza was the most protected. A sophisticated system of Egyptian forts, granaries, and wells was established at a day's march distance along the entire length of the road, which was called the Ways of Horus. These road stations enabled the imperial army to cross the Sinai peninsula conveniently and efficiently when necessary. The annals of the great Egyptian conqueror Thutmose III tell us that he marched with his troops from the easrern delta to Gaza, a distance of about 250 kilometers, in ten days.

Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications into the desert and then into Canaan, in the time of such a formidable Egyptian presence. Any group escaping Egypt against the will of the pharaoh would have easily been tracked down not only by an Egyptian army chasing it frorn the delta but also by the Egyptian soldiers in the forts in northern Sinai and in Canaan. Indeed, the biblical narrative hints at the danger of attempting to flee by the coastal route. Thus the only alternative would be to turn into the desolate wastes of the Sinai peninsula. But the possibility of a large group of people wandering in the Sinai peninsula is also contradicted by archaeology.

Considering all these facts, including that the first Israelites were living in Canaan amicably with Canaanites and were speaking the same language, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Exodus as presented in the Bible, never really happened.

 

[Mrpp]

Uuuhhhmm, no offense to Sir Flinders Petrie, father of Egyptian Archaeology, but are you aware that he's a century out of date?

So, according to the bible: Joseph invited the tribes in, they lived peacefully in Egypt for a time, then they were too many and the Pharao got scared and started oppressing them.
According to history: Hyksos settled in Egypt, probably a gradual process, maybe some violent invasion involved. Then they became kings and ruled most of Egypt and called themselves Lords of the Two lands and had a great capital city. And then there was a long and violent war with the Theban Rulers and they lost. But the local inhabitants just stayed in the country under the new rulers.
So, the period of them ruling Egypt and getting defeated again, and the Bible just says "then a new Pharao came into power and was worried about their numbers" and then starts talking about midwifes and birth rates? If we consider the bible to be an accurate historical source, why would it skip over the israelite's most glorious period as de facto rulers of Egypt?

Ok, I will have some fun after work and plot the supposed Moses story into the reigns of TIII and AII... let's see how that pans out.

But do you notice something about the relative strength of your arguments?
You propose "A III was Exodus Pharao because his firstborn died! " and next day you go "A II was Exodus Pharao because his heir died"
... Maybe the death of a child, firstborn or not, was just pretty common in antiquity, ever thought of that?
And then there's a huge can of worms that is princes and succession in the 18th dynasty. We know very little about the 18th dyn princes prior to their succession to the throne, it's often unclear how many sons a Pharao even had, the daughters are better attested. And we also don't know by what mechanism the next king was chosen among the princes. Hebrew scripture assumes it's the firstborn, because the firstborn has a huge significance in their culture. But in Egypt, primogeniture was far less important.

Alright you don't seems do not understand my arguments at all. My main evidence I proposed Armana letters descriptions of conquest and also Egyptians change into monotheism and not to mention mountai sinai and Jericho. I only briefly mentioned at the end of who would be pharaoh of exodus could bed.This was never my main arguments and you only focused truly on my end assumption instead of all my evidences. You seems to misunderstand my text. And Jews mention ruling in Egypt.

As a reward, the pharaoh appoints Joseph to a high-ranking position—Joseph becomes the pharaoh's second in command and has authority over the entire land of Egypt ( Genesis 41:40-46 ).
You just barely scratch surface of my arguments and you call them weak. funny.

 

[Mrpp]

The border between Canaan and Egypt was closely controlled. If a great mass of fleeing Israelites had passed through the border fortifications of the pharaonic regime, a record should exist. Yet in the abundant Egyptian sources describing the time of the New Kingdom in general and the thirteenth century in particular, there is no reference to the Israelites, not even a single clue. We know of nomadic groups from Edom who entered Egypt from the desert. The Merneprah stele refers to Israel as a group of people already living in Canaan. But we have no clue, not even a single word, about early Israelites in Egypt: neither in monumental inscriptions on walls of temples, nor in tomb inscriptions, nor in papyri. Israel is absent as a possible foe of Egypt, as a friend, or as an enslaved nation. And there are simply no finds in Egypt that can be directly associated with the notion of a distinct foreign ethnic group (as opposed to a concentration of migrant workers from many places) living in a distinct area of the eastern delta, as implied by the biblical account of the children of Israel living together in the Land of Goshen (Genesis 47:27).
There is something more: the escape of more than a tiny -group from Egyptian control at the time of Ramesses Il seems highly unlikely, as is the crossing of the desert and entry into Canaan. In the thirteenth century, Egypt was at the peak of its authority - the dominant power in the world. The Egyptian grip over Canaan was firm; Egyptian strongholds were built in various places in the country and Egyptian officials administered the affairs of the region. In the el-Amarna letters, which are dated a century before, we are told that a unit of fifty Egyptian soldiers was big enough to pacify unrest in Canaan. And throughout the period of the New Kingdom, large Egyptian armies marched through Canaan to the north, as far as the Euphrates in Syria. Therefore, the main overland road that went from the delta along the coast of northern Sinai to Gaza and then into the heart of Canaan was of utmost importance to the pharaonic regime. ' The most potentially vulnerable stretch of the road - which crossed the arid and dangerous desert of northern Sinai between the delta and Gaza was the most protected. A sophisticated system of Egyptian forts, granaries, and wells was established at a day's march distance along the entire length of the road, which was called the Ways of Horus. These road stations enabled the imperial army to cross the Sinai peninsula conveniently and efficiently when necessary. The annals of the great Egyptian conqueror Thutmose III tell us that he marched with his troops from the easrern delta to Gaza, a distance of about 250 kilometers, in ten days.

Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications into the desert and then into Canaan, in the time of such a formidable Egyptian presence. Any group escaping Egypt against the will of the pharaoh would have easily been tracked down not only by an Egyptian army chasing it frorn the delta but also by the Egyptian soldiers in the forts in northern Sinai and in Canaan. Indeed, the biblical narrative hints at the danger of attempting to flee by the coastal route. Thus the only alternative would be to turn into the desolate wastes of the Sinai peninsula. But the possibility of a large group of people wandering in the Sinai peninsula is also contradicted by archaeology.

Considering all these facts, including that the first Israelites were living in Canaan amicably with Canaanites and were speaking the same language, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Exodus as presented in the Bible, never really happened.

Did you actually read armana letters they are esplicit. "all lands of king are lost" Name of Israel wasn't even invented yet it's like asking why no italians in rome it's beacuse name wasn't yet invented yet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Hebrew written language dud not even exist at that time, nor any known text of the Pentateuch, which was compiled after 600 BCE.

When do you think "Hebrew written language" came into being?

 

[Ajax]

Did you actually read armana letters they are esplicit. "all lands of king are lost" Name of Israel wasn't even invented yet it's like asking why no italians in rome it's beacuse name wasn't yet invented yet.

Read again please...with your glasses on this time.
"In the el-Amarna letters, which are dated a century before, we are told that a unit of fifty Egyptian soldiers was big enough to pacify unrest in Canaan."
Did I mention Israel anywhere?
No I haven't read them, but I believe that a team of reputable archaeologists, historians and scholars of biblical archaeology would not write BS.
Perhaps you omitted this, the same as you thought I had written Israel.

The Merneptah Stele which was created on about 1208 BCE, contains the first extrabiblical mentioning of Israel and confirms that Israelites were living in Canaan together with the Canaanites.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Okay first of all before addressing chronology main reason why I think Exodus happened was beacuse if such event happened it would skahe egyptian beliefs and would make changes into something like monotheism. This precisely what happened. This start was initiated by Amenhotep 3 and even Totmes 4 mentions great God. And we have also invasion on caanan in this period. To be said I admit I made mistake and didn't paid attention to chronology as much as I should so now I looked into chronology more. Since armana letters are written to amenhotep 3 and akhenathen and we know Akhenathen shared co rulership with his father going back 40 years from armana letters description of Caanan conquest it would mean Amenhotep 2 was pharaoh of Exodus. Beacuse of it there are more evidence for Exodus during his period.
- Massive abandonment
The same is true of his monuments, none of which, as Petrie wrote, can be “dated above the fifth year.” Furthermore, of the monuments we do have from Amenhotep ii’s reign, some of them are clearly only partially complete. “Nothing strikes us as more extraordinary than the condition of injury and confusion in which the most important buildings of Egypt seem to have remained,” Petrie wrote. “The most imposing works stood amidst half-ruined and unfinished halls for a whole reign; other parts were walled off to hide offensive memorials; other structures were either incomplete or half-ruined” (ibid). (Add to this the destruction of of Hatshepsut’s monuments at this time.)tying back to the above-mentioned Hyksos/Semites who immigrated into northern Egypt from Canaan. A site known as Avaris/Tell el-Dab’a has long been identified as a chief location of their occupation, from which they ruled during earlier centuries, and within which they continued to live following their overthrow at the start of the New Kingdom period. Dr. Manfred Bietak, chief excavator of Tell el-Dab’a, stated that following their overthrow in the 16th century b.c.e., “there is mounting evidence to suggest that a large part of this population stayed in Egypt and served their new overlords in various capacities” (article, “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?”).

But even more notable, for our purposes here, is when this city ceased to function—when it was finally abandoned by its Semitic inhabitants. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling highlights the following in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology and Theological Implications: “Bietak’s stratigraphic analysis [of Tell el-Dab’a] reveals a clear abandonment in the mid-18th Dynasty, during or after the reign of Amenhotep ii. … [T]he latest identifiable pottery dates to the reign of Amenhotep ii. … Much of Avaris Stratum d/1 (in Area F/I) to Stratum c (Area H/I-VI) points to the presence of a Semitic population until the mysterious abandonment.”
- sickness
n 1907, when Amenhotep ii’s mummified body was examined, scientists noticed the presence of unusual tubercles all over the body. Grafton Elliot Smith, who studied the corpse, wondered whether the tubercles developed during the embalming process or were, rather, the product of disease. As he wrote in “A Note on the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep ii at Bibân el Molouk” (1907): “The skin over the whole body [of Amenhotep ii] is thickly studded with small projections or tubercles from 0 m. 002 mill. to 0 m. 008 mill. in diameter. At present I am unable to determine whether they are the results of some disease or merely the effects of the embalmer’s salt-bath, but they are.
- Death of Firstborn
Why was Thutmose iv son of Amenhotep 2 compelled to publicly declare that he was divinely installed? Because he was not the firstborn, presumptive heir to Egypt’s throne. “It is unfortunate that the events surrounding the accession of Thutmosis iv
are so obscure,” writes Egyptologist Peter Der Manuelian, “especially since his Dream Stele between the paws of the Great Sphinx suggests that he was not the originally intended heir to the throne“ (Studies in the Reign of Amenophis ii)
- Decrease in military power.
There is also much more decrease in military power of Egypt. Many pharaohs in from that time are having much more peacefull politics. Not to mention Amenhotep 3 made a lot of statues to the goddess of healing as opposed to war.

Your entire post is about similarities in narratives. Such narratives can be found perhaps in Sumer, Indus Valley, China and other places. Also, what is required is that we need to establish that the match with Egypt is better than the other civilizations and I once again request you that please look at the geographical and archaeological evidences and do not rely only on the narratives such as slavery. The Bible uses the word slavery in this, which also means oppression. So, it is possible that if the Pharaoh had reduced the wages, then that could be taken as slavery. Furthermore, the Bible itself says that this was only the slavery was restricted only to one king. It was not a long-term affair, as it is often depicted. So, basically instead of looking at narratives, we have to look at geography, archaeology, etymology, ethnography, and other dimensions of evidence which simply do not match with Egypt. I am at a loss how to explain to you that the problem is that we do not have these evidences from Egypt. Hence, mainly relying on certain parallel narratives does not help.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I am very aware of the history behind those letters, and your reference misrepresents and distorts them concerning the Hebrews in Canaan at that time. The Hebrews were minor payers at the time and the Egyptians dominated Canaan, and there is no known independent reference to Joshua's army invading and conquering Canaan. The Hebrew written language dud not even exist at that time, nor any known text of the Pentateuch, which was compiled after 600 BCE.

More to follow

There are different views on whether there is evidence of Joshua's conquest or not. It is possible that there may have been small skirmishes between the Egyptians, Canaanites and the Hebrews and these have not been recorded by the host populations. That does not cancel the fact that the Bible does talk about these conquests, and unless proven otherwise, we should accept them as real. The fact that Hebrew language did not exist at that time is not relevant at all. It is well established that many religious traditions have been transmitted orally, and there is no reason to discredit them unless proven otherwise. Since absence of evidence is not the same as proof. Therefore, I think we should accept Joshua's conquest as real, irrespective of whether it is established by non-biblical sources or not.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

@Mrpp I opened and read what you shared.
Then I looked up Amarna letters tablets.
There's a lot of Amarna letters, showing each number is a letter tablet?

View attachment 93039

The Habiru/'Apiru

The mention of the Habiru shows the conflict of the time, as the takeover of city-states or regions by the Habiru. The map shows various cities and regions, and their respective dealings with the Habiru. (There are only 3 letters from Labaya of Šakmu/Shechem.)

@Mrpp from your info : The messages from the various regional Canaanite leaders to Egypt’s pharaoh are filled with desperate pleas for help. Tablet EA 286 is a plea from Abdi-Heba, the mayor of Jerusalem: “Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. … May the king [Egypt’s pharaoh] provide for his land! All the lands of the king, my lord, have deserted. … Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord. … The king has no lands. That Habiru has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain.”

There are different views as to whether the word Apriu in the Egyptian text refers to Hebrews at all. What is more important is that the geography of Exodus does not match with Egypt and if that does not match then pushing the similarities of one word here or there does not overcome the disconnect with geography, archaeology and ethnography. Therefore, I think this reliance on a mention of Apiru in Amarna letters is not relevant. That said, I think the important point of Amarna letters is the mention of the word Misr. It is baffling for me that the Amarna letters, dated to about 14th century BCE mention Misr, which has no earlier mention in West Asia. So, where they got this Misr and why this word was used for Egypt is the matter that we need to study more. Thank you for your nice comment.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, after analyzing in depth with powerful evidence the emergence of the first Israelites, conclude:

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan -they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people - the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -irony of ironies- themselves originally Canaanites!

+++

Modern scholarship considers that the Israelites emerged from groups of indigenous Canaanites and other peoples....Efforts to confirm the biblical ethnogenesis of Israel through archaeology has largely been abandoned as unproductive. Many scholars see the traditional narratives as national myths with little historical value, but some posit that a small group of exiled Egyptians contributed to the Exodus narrative....The Israelites used the Canaanite script and communicated in a Canaanite language known as Biblical Hebrew. The language's modern descendant, modern Hebrew, is today the only surviving dialect of the Canaanite languages....Gary Rendsburg argues that some archaic biblical traditions and other circumstantial evidence point to the Israelites emerging from the Shasu and other seminomadic peoples from the desert regions south of the Levant, later settling in the highlands of Canaan. Israelites - Wikipedia

This is for your information, because you asked for it. Not interested in debating..

I have heard a video by Israel Finkelstein. This hypothesis that the Hebrews emerged out of Canaan has become necessary only because there is no evidence for Exodus from Egypt. This hypothesis itself becomes unnecessary once we understand that the Exodus took place from the Indus Valley and there, we have enough evidence to establish it. So, relying upon secondary hypothesis such as that of Finkelstein, is not wise. While we ignore the primary evidence from the Indus Valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

From what I've read over the years, and per this thread, others have as well, it's a compelling hypothesis of human evolution. A great many physical and mental attributes of the species have gone through extensive metamorphosis. Bump that "thousands of years" to tens of thousands of years, or more. Surely you can see as humankind becomes more intelligent it becomes dumber.

I think there is a difference between cultural memory and inspiration. Cultural memory is the memory of events as transmitted by orally from generation to generation, which may be inspired or not inspired. By inspired here I mean that it is connected with the one who is writing has connected with his or her own unconscious which in turn has connected with the global unconscious. So, the inspired text connects with the original events through one's unconscious. Now there is no proof that the inspiration is correct, but certainly I think it is not same as cultural memory. So, there is a need to distinguish between the two.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Please consider the fact that this Book is outdated and many new hypothesis came out which are more reliable.Facts in History are never apsolute as not everything has been found.

How much archaeological evidence is their now of all the places where they had stayed over the years? A simple challenge… since when have Bedouin been living as nomads in the Sinai? Can we even tell that from the archaeological evidence? And this is not asking for evidence from over 3000 years ago (unless we have evidence of Bedouin in the Sinai from 3000 years ago… in which case my question would be, how do you differentiate them from the Israelites?).

Nomadic tent-dwellers do not leave the same level of archaeological remains as permanent settlements. Kadesh-Barnea only became settled (instead of being a stop-over for nomadic tribes) in the 6th-8th centry BCE. And this is assuming that the current archaeological site of Kadesh-Barnea truly is the same as that of the Biblical

It is probable that the term 'Kadesh' , though applied to signify a 'city', yet had also a wider application to a region in which Kadesh-meribah certainly, and Kadesh-barnea probably, indicates a precise spot.

In classical Hebrew it is called Qadesh-Barneʿa(קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ).Etymologically, the name has identifiable Aramaic, Hebrew and Syriac roots. Kadesh and Barnea, it seems, means 'holy' and 'wilderness wandering'.
Althrough we see in Numbers 20:1 where Kadesh only is used.
A desert is actually just a place that has very little precipitation. Subtropical deserts like the Sahara are what people generally imagine when they think about the desert. The Sahara has rocky plateaus as well as sand dunes.We have ta assume that it was place with many rocks if we consider the narrative in Numbers 20.

The name Kadesh-barnea occurs about ten times in the Bible as alternative for just Kadesh, which occurs about sixteen times. The city named Kadesh-barnea was situated in the far south of Canaan (Numbers 34:4), and would be part of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:3).

If it is a city , then why there is no water there?

They wanted to pass Edom , but Edom refused.That means they were trapped somewhere with rocks.

I don't think the Bible is outdated because that would stand against its value as an inspired text. Ultimately, at least I am interested in this topic only because the Bible is an inspired text and it carries weight with the consciousness of large numbers of people. Therefore, while it is possible that certain parts of the Bible may have been redacted or may be incorrect but it is not good to reject the entire text because of these reasons. Archaeologists have tools to discover Bedouin habitations. The bigger problem is that the entire area from Sinai to Canaan or Israel was under the control of the Egyptians. So, it is inconceivable that they would cross the Red sea only to be trapped by the Egyptians on the other side. The whole thing simply does not make sense and we have to look for other venues which I am again suggesting is the Indus River where the Indus River forms a natural barrier. The Hebrews were coming from the east. They crossed the Indus Valley and went westward and once the Indus River was flowing, it formed a natural barrier that saved the Hebrews from pursued by the pharaohs.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Please see my response to another in post #67.

I haven't given it thought as I take the book of Exodus as a story of mythology to encompass the migration of early humankind out of Africa. I don't assume the tale is a Hebrew/Egypt only oral tradition to be written down, but an accumulation of cultural memory reduced down fir substance over detailed facts.

The timing of the migration from Africa is about 160,000 years. The Biblical history of Exodus is dated to about 1500 BCE, so it is not fair to assume that the entire story of Exodus is from some earlier time about which we know nothing. There is no evidence of any exodus, any Pharaoh, and any parting of the water etc. in the migration from Africa. Instead of looking at such explanation, we should simply look at the evidence from the Indus Valley, where the parting of the Indus River provided a path to the Hebrews and the flow of the Indus River made a natural obstruction to the pursuit of the Pharaoh.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Excellent book, but it is controversial.

IMO, the Exodus is so controversial that I cannot take it as "gospel", nor does that particularly bother me. So, in my case, I take the position "Whatever happened, happened".

It is not desirable or even possible to simply shrug the exodus of as whatever happened, happened. We are into this thread only because the narrative of the Exodus is the rock bed on which the entire Jewish theology is based. If there was no exodus, if there was no manifestation of God's will, then the existence of God itself is brought into question. Therefore, let us apply our minds to the Exodus and where it may have happened instead of just dismissing it as an oral tradition which is not substantiated.