Moses in Egypt

[gnostic]

My personal view is that the Israelites have always lived in Canaan, as a tribe of Canaanites. When the rest of Canaanite cities began to weaken, the Israelites just took over as a dominant tribe, and absorbed all the lands and cities of the other Canaanites.

More and more archaeologists think or believe this to be the case.

The destruction of Jericho for example, showed that it was destroyed either in the late 17th century or early 16 century BCE. That's at least 2 centuries earlier than the construction of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses by Rameses II.

Take the history of Rome for example.

There are two legends concerning its origin (there are more than 2 legends, but there are two main ones. One they were foreigners - Trojans - who settled in Latinum, their ancestor being Aeneas, and the founder of Rome was his descendant Romulus. The 2nd main legend is that Romulus bears no relation to the Trojan Aeneas, but still of foreigner descent, possibly of Etruscans.

However, I think the 3rd and most likely possibility is that the Romans were simply the same indigenous people as the Latins, who became more predominant of the Latin people. However, the Romans wanted a more glorious past, so they adopted a Greek myth to mix with their own native legend.

I think it is the same way the Israelites were to the Canaanites. There is nothing that actually separate the Canaanites and Israelites. Both come from the Semitic branch of languages (West-Semitic group). The Israelites became more powerful by the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE.

 

[Levite]

My personal view is that the Israelites have always lived in Canaan, as a tribe of Canaanites. When the rest of Canaanite cities began to weaken, the Israelites just took over as a dominant tribe, and absorbed all the lands and cities of the other Canaanites.

More and more archaeologists think or believe this to be the case.

The destruction of Jericho for example, showed that it was destroyed either in the late 17th century or early 16 century BCE. That's at least 2 centuries earlier than the construction of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses by Rameses II.

Take the history of Rome for example.

There are two legends concerning its origin (there are more than 2 legends, but there are two main ones. One they were foreigners - Trojans - who settled in Latinum, their ancestor being Aeneas, and the founder of Rome was his descendant Romulus. The 2nd main legend is that Romulus bears no relation to the Trojan Aeneas, but still of foreigner descent, possibly of Etruscans.

However, I think the 3rd and most likely possibility is that the Romans were simply the same indigenous people as the Latins, who became more predominant of the Latin people. However, the Romans wanted a more glorious past, so they adopted a Greek myth to mix with their own native legend.

I think it is the same way the Israelites were to the Canaanites. There is nothing that actually separate the Canaanites and Israelites. Both come from the Semitic branch of languages (West-Semitic group). The Israelites became more powerful by the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE.

Yeah, this point of view is popular with a number of secular Bible scholars I know. It certainly is just as reasonable as anything else, given the paucity of evidence.

One of my primary motivations for thinking that the Israelites must have begun elsewhere is that ancient Hebrew has a higher proportion of roots taken from Chaldean, Ugaritic, and even Akkadian than would seem likely merely due to the influence of caravan merchants or Phoenician traders, who often carried a few foreign words into new populaces. But Hebrew seems to have a high enough proportion-- somewhat higher than Moabite, Edomite, Amonite, or pre-Philistine southern Phoenician-- of roots borrowed from Chaldean or Ugaritic, and Akkadian except in the case of Phoenician (who paid regular tribute to Akkad and Sumer, and thus would be expected to incorporate more Akkadian into their daily speech) that it seems likely that the earliest proto-Hebrew speakers actually first migrated southward from Mesopotamia, or at least fused their core population with a population immigrant from Mesopotamia.

And yet, at the same time, we have the peculiar phenomenon in early Hebrew of a large number of personal names that are distinctly Egyptian in root. And some of the cultic language of the E-text and earliest J-text is clearly influenced by Midianite cultic language-- and Midian was south and east of Canaan, roughly toward Egypt and the Sinai wilderness. To me, this seems to indicate that either the early Israelites spent some time wandering around the Sinai wilderness and parts of Egypt, or they at least fused their core population with a population immigrant from those parts.

 

[gnostic]

But you are forgetting that the Canaan was major route between the major civilisations of the Bronze Age - Egypt and Mesopotamia. Akkadian language was a predominate language of the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC, and early 2nd millennium BC. Babylonian dialect, as well as Assyrian dialect, came directly from Akkadian language.

A fragment of a tablet was found in Megiddo, that must have being part of Gilgamesh epic, showed how widespread the Akkadian-Babylonian culture have spread. The Akkadian-Babylonian deities have found their way in Canaan-Syria and in Egypt, by 2nd quarter of 2nd millennium BC. The thunder or storm god Baal is also called Hadad in Ugartic literature. This is clearly derived from the older Akkadian Babylonian thunder god Adad (who was developed from an older Sumerian god Iskhur). And the Canaanite-Ugaritic El (or Il) was clearly derived from one of the supreme triad of gods, the Babylonian Ellil (or Sumerian Enlil).

Similarly Egypt have asserted influence from Africa, both during the Middle Kingdom (particularly the 12th dynasty) and the dynasties of the New Kingdom, through both military campaigns and trades.

So you should understand that the Canaanites and Israelites have been in contact with both greater civilisations on either side of their borders, either in war or peace. It didn't require Israelites to move from Ur (according to the Genesis) or from Egypt (according to the Exodus), to borrow words or personal names from either civilisations.

And beside that. The Chaldeans did not exist as a people or language prior to the 1000 BCE. The Chaldeans or their land, Chaldea was a name coined by the Greeks that later inhabit the territory. The Chaldeans certainly didn't exist in the region of southern Mesopotamia during the supposed time of Abraham, supposed living in the 19th and 18th century BCE.

 

[Levite]

But you are forgetting that the Canaan was major route between the major civilisations of the Bronze Age - Egypt and Mesopotamia. Akkadian language was a predominate language of the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC, and early 2nd millennium BC. Babylonian dialect, as well as Assyrian dialect, came directly from Akkadian language.

A fragment of a tablet was found in Megiddo, that must have being part of Gilgamesh epic, showed how widespread the Akkadian-Babylonian culture have spread. The Akkadian-Babylonian deities have found their way in Canaan-Syria and in Egypt, by 2nd quarter of 2nd millennium BC. The thunder or storm god Baal is also called Hadad in Ugartic literature. This is clearly derived from the older Akkadian Babylonian thunder god Adad (who was developed from an older Sumerian god Iskhur). And the Canaanite-Ugaritic El (or Il) was clearly derived from one of the supreme triad of gods, the Babylonian Ellil (or Sumerian Enlil).

Similarly Egypt have asserted influence from Africa, both during the Middle Kingdom (particularly the 12th dynasty) and the dynasties of the New Kingdom, through both military campaigns and trades.

So you should understand that the Canaanites and Israelites have been in contact with both greater civilisations on either side of their borders, either in war or peace. It didn't require Israelites to move from Ur (according to the Genesis) or from Egypt (according to the Exodus), to borrow words or personal names from either civilisations.

And beside that. The Chaldeans did not exist as a people or language prior to the 1000 BCE. The Chaldeans or their land, Chaldea was a name coined by the Greeks that later inhabit the territory. The Chaldeans certainly didn't exist in the region of southern Mesopotamia during the supposed time of Abraham, supposed living in the 19th and 18th century BCE.

I think that this is simply the point where I must respectfully agree to disagree. I do understand about the location of Canaan in the midst of a major trade route, and I agree that their language and literature spread wide.

But I also see not only what is commonly called Chaldean influences in ancient Hebrew root structures, but late Sumerian influences also (which is sometimes referred to in Hebrew scholarship by the old name of Ur Kasdim, signifying that Ur later claimed by the Chaldees), and certainly in early Israelite literature and poetry, also, which to my mind do indicate something more than trade influence and the wide spreading of a culture to the fringes of its imperial sphere of influence, but a more direct linking.

I know that there is certainly a large group of academics whose thinking is close to yours. I simply happen to side with a smaller group of academics, whose thinking is otherwise. But I greatly respect the scholarship of your position.

 

[gnostic]

I think that this is simply the point where I must respectfully agree to disagree.

That's fine by me.

I know that there is certainly a large group of academics whose thinking is close to yours. I simply happen to side with a smaller group of academics, whose thinking is otherwise. But I greatly respect the scholarship of your position.

There are number of different perspectives, works and researches being done, and they disagree with each other data and conclusions. There will always be debate on particular issue, especially when comparing a scripture with history. There are some archaeologists who want to make anything relating to the biblical Genesis, Exodus and Kings to correlate with historical and archaeological time-lines only to be disappointed when they don't relate.

But I also see not only what is commonly called Chaldean influences in ancient Hebrew root structures, but late Sumerian influences also (which is sometimes referred to in Hebrew scholarship by the old name of Ur Kasdim, signifying that Ur later claimed by the Chaldees), and certainly in early Israelite literature and poetry, also, which to my mind do indicate something more than trade influence and the wide spreading of a culture to the fringes of its imperial sphere of influence, but a more direct linking.

I do think what happen in the Mesopotamian regions (whether political, cultural or religion) do affect or have impact on the Levant regions. I don't dispute that.

The Creation myth and Flood legend, for example, have been adopted (and of course, modified) by the Hebrew authors from the Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian literature that were originally derived from the Sumerian literature, before the supposed time of Moses and his Torah. That the Middle Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic, have found its way to Meggido and Ugarit, as well as in the Hittite capital of Hattusa, or in Akhenaten's Egyptian capital of Tel el-Amarna, speak of the popularity of Akkadian-Babylonian literature and religion.

With regards to the Chaldean Ur, mentioned by Genesis about Abraham's original homeland. The thing is that the Chaldees was never the name of southern Babylonia, until the mid-1st millennium BC, which lead me to suspect that the Genesis wasn't written by Moses at all, if Moses lived around the 14th or 13rd century BC. Or alternatively that it was edited or inserted (Chaldees) by one of the DH sources that you've mentioned (E and J, but most likely the P source).

I have actually not read the Documentary Hypothesis; I only know the basic outline of what the DH is, so, I can't really comment on it. From my own research on history, I know that the Chaldea, Chaldees or the Chaldeans don't exist Abraham's time, nor that of Moses' time, which mean any time of the 2nd millennium BC Bronze Age. The Chaldee inclusion in the Genesis (11:31) would suggest to me that it would fall under the Priestly Source (P), because the name (Chaldea) wasn't coined until the Hellenistic period.

And yet, at the same time, we have the peculiar phenomenon in early Hebrew of a large number of personal names that are distinctly Egyptian in root. And some of the cultic language of the E-text and earliest J-text is clearly influenced by Midianite cultic language-- and Midian was south and east of Canaan, roughly toward Egypt and the Sinai wilderness. To me, this seems to indicate that either the early Israelites spent some time wandering around the Sinai wilderness and parts of Egypt, or they at least fused their core population with a population immigrant from those parts.

I can't really comment on the link between the Israelites and the Midianites, because I don't know much about the Midianite culture nor their religion.

 

[gnostic]

To stillsearching:

Though the construction of Pithom and Pi-Ramesses (Ramesses in the Bible) were done in the reign of Rameses II (c. 1279-1231 BCE). There are several problems, historically and archaeological:

1. The destruction of Jericho happened couple of centuries earlier than Rameses II (19th dynasty), dating to about 1575-1550 BCE. And Jericho was supposed destroyed when Joshua began the invasion of Canaan.
2. There is a strong Egyptian military presence during the reigns of Rameses II and his son, Merneptah. Though, there were internal problem after Merneptah's death, the Egyptian presence lasted to at least the reign of Rameses III (1185 - 1153 BC) in the 20th dynasty.

If you put the Exodus to coincide with the time of Hyksos expulsion (in 1530 BCE) by the first king of 18th dynasty, then you have even more problem, historically and archaeologically:

1. The first one is that Pithom and Pi-Ramesses didn't exist at that time.
2. During much of the 18th dynasty, from Ahmose I (c. 1550-1524 BCE) to the early part of Akhenaten's reign (1360 - 1343), Canaan was pretty much in the hand of the Egyptian empire, so the invasion of Canaan could not have happen in this early part of 18th dynasty. Canaan had independence between Akhenaten and the end of the dynasty (18th). Seti I (1290-1279 BCE, 19th dynasty, Rameses II's father) had regain the land of Canaan.
3. Again, archaeologically, the destruction of Jericho happened before the expulsion of Hyksos.

The third possible dating of the Exodus. In 1 Kings 6:1, the date would put the Exodus in about 1447 BCE:

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

480 years between the Exodus to the beginning of Solomon's construction of the temple.

(It is generally believed that Solomon began his reign in 971 or 970 BCE. The 4th year of Solomon's reign would either be 968-967 BCE. Hence 480 years would put the date 1448-1447 mark.)

This date (c. 1447 BCE) has the same problem with Hyksos theory. The cities mentioned in the Exodus didn't exist at this time, and there were strong Egyptian presence in Canaan, would make it difficult for Joshua to carry out the Israelite invasion of Canaan. Joshua's invasion would have occured about 1407 BCE, and this would put in the reign of Amenhotep II (c. 1427–1397 BE). Both Amenhotep and his father, Thutmose III (1479–1425 BC), were strong leaders, and consolidated their hold on both Syria and Canaan. There would have been no way for Joshua' invasion to occur at this time. Thutmose's stepmother was the famous Hatshepsut, who was his co-ruler of Egypt (1479–1458 BCE). Thutmose, Hatshepsut and Amenhotep II are quite famous. The beginning of the exodus would have occurred in Thutmose III, which is high unlikely.

 

[Youtellme]

That nullifies the whole point of discussion, then. If you are willing to maintain a belief regardless of the lack of supporting evidence, then discussion is wholly superfluous. A belief must be formed from the present evidence; the evidence should not be judged based on a preconceived belief.

The Egyptians also didn't leave any evidence or explanation of how they built the pyramids...

 

[gnostic]

The Egyptians also didn't leave any evidence or explanation of how they built the pyramids...

True.

But the physical evidences are there, and many of the these pyramids all around have been dated to the Old Kingdom period, regardless on how they build them. The pyramids didn't just build by themselves, unless you think aliens or giants built them.

There are earlier pyramids built in places in the 3rd dynasty, in Sakkara (or Saqqarah), Dahshur and other necropolis not far from the capital, Memphis, demonstrating the evolution and progress of pyramid-building.

Beginning with the step-pyramid of Djoser (27th century BCE), supposedly designed and constructed by Imhotep, the chief architect of Djoser. A statue of Djoser, found in this Step Pyramid can also be dated to the time of the construction of the pyramid.

This was followed by other not-quite-true pyramids (like the Bent Pyramid), to true pyramids (like those of Giza).