The Exodus: What are we looking for?

[fallingblood]

Excellent post. As I've said before, "What evidence are you looking for exactly"?

And yes, the Egyptians would likely not record a terribly embarassing piece of history that made them look like idiots.

But there's the Ipuwer Papyrus, and I fail to see any other reason the Egyptologists say it was "Mythic poetry" other than their blatant bias against the idea it could possibly conform to Exodus.

I can't really say much for the Ipuwer Papyrus, as I simply am not too familiar with it.

But I do agree that much of the rejection is based on a bias. I would also add that a lot of the rejection is also based on a failure to understand what mythology really is. Too often something is called mythology, and then thrown out, while never actually understanding what is being discussed, or the fact that mythology can and often does contain historical facts.

I would say another problem is that some simply don't realize that the Hebrews, for quite some time, were an oral society. They, like pretty much every other society in ancient times, didn't write down everything. It was passed on orally. That, and the texts we do have in the Bible are compiled from older texts, which could possibly be compiled from even older texts, which then originate in stories that have been passed down from one member of the tribe to another. So even though the texts, in their final form, maybe quite late, it hardly means anything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, that is simply incorrect.

He does that frequently. His is a preposterous and transparent arrogance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But there's the Ipuwer Papyrus, and I fail to see any other reason the Egyptologists say it was "Mythic poetry" other than their blatant bias against the idea it could possibly conform to Exodus.

As well as any number of other things. Your methodology is atrocious.

 

[Shermana]

As well as any number of other things. Your methodology is atrocious.

PLease by all means share your opinion on the Ipuwer Papyrus and the reasons and methodology of the Egypotolists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I do agree that much of the rejection is based on a bias.

No. Much of the rejection is based on a definition of the Exodus that more fully conforms to the Biblical narrative and is persistently contraindicated by the available evidence. If you move the goal post by diluting the definition all manner of possibilities emerge - possibilities which, so far as I know, no one with any credibility disputes.

Again, if you merely tell me that some Semites transferred from Egypt to the north at some point between 1650 and 1200 bce, your 'claim' is so underwhelming as to be entirely worthless.

 

[Shermana]

Exodus that more fully conforms to the Biblical narrative and is persistently contraindicated by the available evidence. I

Ah now there's evidence that contradicts the account as opposed to the idea of lack of evidence? Are you referring to things like the supposedly 100-year-off carbon dating of the Walls of Jericho? (As if they know the exact date it happened). That episode has to be one of the most blatant displays of blatant bias ever.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

< ignore list >

< much, much better >​

 

[Shermana]

< ignore list >

< much, much better >​

Not the first time you make unsupportable claims and refuse to answer for them. But thanks for playing.

 

[fallingblood]

No. Much of the rejection is based on a definition of the Exodus that more fully conforms to the Biblical narrative and is persistently contraindicated by the available evidence. If you move the goal post by diluting the definition all manner of possibilities emerge - possibilities which, so far as I know, no one with any credibility disputes.

Again, if you merely tell me that some Semites transferred from Egypt to the north at some point between 1650 and 1200 bce, your 'claim' is so underwhelming as to be entirely worthless.

That may be true for the academic circles; however, for non-academics (and even some academics) there are clear biases working. The biggest one being that the Bible is myth.

Now, I'm not necessarily moving the goal posts. I'm simply trying to start with one of the main opposition points, and tearing it down. If it works on a minimal level, I don't see why it wouldn't work on a larger level. And really, I think it makes sense that we would be looking at a smaller movement. Even a couple of thousand of individuals would work. And it could very well be that these individuals were Israelites (or proto-Israelites).

 

[greentwiga]

One of the problems is that we look in the wrong places. Another is that we ignore the evidence or try to explain it away as something else so we can ignore it.

Several points that we have:

1) a drawing of israelite/semites coming to Egypt to trade. This does show coats of many colors like Joseph.

2) There are some shadowy Pharaohs named that we are not sure where to place in history. Many have Semitic names. One is even named Son of Jacob.

3) Using an alternative reading for the time in Egypt gives 215 years. If we put the Exodus as somewhere in 1400 to 1450 BC, we get an entrance (the third year of famine) as 1615-1665 BC. In 1628 BC, Santorini or some other volcano erupted giving one of the worst volcanic winters on record. This would fit the seven years of famine.

4) Jacob would have died about 1575 BC. About 1650 BC, The southern Pharaoh Ahmose reconquered the Northern Egypt and drove out the Semitic rulers. This would have satisfied the statement about a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.

5) If Moses was born around 1490 BC, this fits the time period of the persecution of the Hebrews.

6) The Pharaoh who was born before 1610 BC had an older brother who died unexpectedly.

7) The Ipuwer Papyrus describes a set of events similar to the ten plagues and may be the same event. At a minimum, it shows the ten plagues as possible.

8) The Semites, while in Egypt, took the Egyptian hieroglyphics and especially the shortcut of using a word symbol for a sound. With the symbol for water, instead of using the Egyptian sound, they used the semitic sound. They created the ProtoSinaitic script. They had to have taken it out of Egypt and to Canaan. From there, it spread to many scripts. "A" came from Aleph, meaning Ox, and still looks like an Ox. B=Beth, house and looks lkie a two room house. Greek and English kept the same shapes and sounds, thouth Alpha Beta and Alphabet are meaningless sounds in both languages. This is extremely strong evidence for Semites in Egypt around 1700-1400.

9) Though there is no evidence for Israelites in Sinai, that is because we are looking in the wrong place. Mt Sinai is close to Petra. There is a high place of sacrifice on one Mountain which may be related. Though Petra was reworked extensively in history and so unlikely to have any evidence for a short visit of Israelites, The Muslims call the entrance, "Wadi Musa." A major spring is in the Wadi, right where it fits the Exodus story. Since the list of camps mentions the depression, the major depression to the east of Petra might show some evidence.

10) An examination of the term Hebrew in the Bible shows two uses almost exclusively. One is when talking to Pharaoh. Pharaoh thought of them as Hebrews and they called themselves that when talking to Pharaoh. They don't seem to have referred to themselves an Hebrews. The other use is Hebrew slaves. It could mean that when the Israelites captured non-Israeli Semites, they called them Hebrew, and brothers.

11) The Amarna tablets refer to the Apirus. Though it does mean bandits, Pharaoh thought of the Hebrews as belonging to that group. The king of Jerusalem describes the destruction of the towns around him, similar to the description in Joshua. One puzzle is there is no description of the capture of towns in the lands of Ephraim and Manassah. The description in the Amarna tablets of the towns in that region signing treaties with the Apiru fits the lack of warfare in Joshua in that area.

12) There is a problem with Jericho, but there is also a clear discrepancy between carbon dating and archaeological dating. If our dating of Jericho follows the archaeological dating, it won't agree with the carbon dating.

Is any of this absolute proof? No, but it does fit, and it is even shows it is very possible.

 

[Levite]

actually it states one probable meaning

not he most probable

It specifically notes that the word suf means "reeds." And it fails to produce any alternate meanings beyond the couple they attribute to James K. Hoffmeier (which, again, Ibn Ezra pointed out a thousand years ago)-- which roughly line up with potential alternate meanings I mentioned earlier. It is also utterly devoid of any support for the translation of "Red Sea."

Pretty much every Jewish translation of Torah worth its salt in the last 50 years will render yam suf as some variation of "Sea of Reeds."

I haven't read James Hoffmeier, so I don't know how strongly he raises his theories of meaning for the name, but Ibn Ezra, at least, when he raised more or less the same bunch of possibilities, had the sense to dismiss them as unlikely, given that the name in Hebrew is comparatively straightforward, and not unduly esoteric or obscure.

But to give an analogy to English usage, saying that yam suf means "Sea of Reeds" because suf means "reeds" is like saying that "sky blue" means "the color of the blue sky" because "sky" in English means "the sky." Saying that suf here is actually a unique form of sof or sufah (which would make the usage a hapax legomenon) is like saying that "sky blue" in English has nothing to do with the sky itself-- it actually is a poetic term derived from the blue banners posted on certain trails through the Swiss Alps as a warning, and originally it would have been "ski blue."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, I'm not necessarily moving the goal posts. I'm simply trying to start with one of the main opposition points, and tearing it down. If it works on a minimal level, I don't see why it wouldn't work on a larger level. And really, I think it makes sense that we would be looking at a smaller movement. Even a couple of thousand of individuals would work. And it could very well be that these individuals were Israelites (or proto-Israelites).

That is precisely the methodology employed in good historical fiction and good historically grounded fiction.

But, again: Yes, there was movement of peoples from throughout the Levant to and from Egypt; yes, folklore and folk history often incorporate nuggets of real history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, The Parting of the Sea by Sivertsen is a fascinating bit of informed speculation. An earlier and similar work by Pellegrino, Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, is lighter reading but also fun. Whatever the truth, it's hard to imagine Thera not leaving an indelible mark on the folklore of the receding Hyksos, 'Apiru, and others.

 

[oldbadger]

Hello... I'm back. I see this debate as above my abilities/knowledge now, in all but the simple stuff. Here are some conditions which I believe in..
1. Sea levels were much higher then (Britain may well have still been connected to Europe), and so the Reed marshes were much further North. The present marshes were sea, then. So the 'diggers' will need to look further North?
2. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They did the tough jobs, and farming the tidal marshes was one them. They knew the waters and the 'wades'
3. The Egyptians did not know the waters and 'wades'.
4. The Israelites knew of, and picked the right time and tides to go. They knew this stuff!
5. The Egyptians, slow to react, slower to find the ways, and caught out, got hammered by incoming tidal bores or waves. Big ones!
6. Fast incoming tides often turn marshes into quick-sands. Our Morecombe Bay is a typical example. So first they got stuck, and then they drowned. Game over.
I honestly reckon that this is about the easiest historical report to believe. It's a 'dead cert'!
All the best, oldbadger

 

[fallingblood]

It specifically notes that the word suf means "reeds." And it fails to produce any alternate meanings beyond the couple they attribute to James K. Hoffmeier (which, again, Ibn Ezra pointed out a thousand years ago)-- which roughly line up with potential alternate meanings I mentioned earlier. It is also utterly devoid of any support for the translation of "Red Sea."

Pretty much every Jewish translation of Torah worth its salt in the last 50 years will render yam suf as some variation of "Sea of Reeds."

I haven't read James Hoffmeier, so I don't know how strongly he raises his theories of meaning for the name, but Ibn Ezra, at least, when he raised more or less the same bunch of possibilities, had the sense to dismiss them as unlikely, given that the name in Hebrew is comparatively straightforward, and not unduly esoteric or obscure.

But to give an analogy to English usage, saying that yam suf means "Sea of Reeds" because suf means "reeds" is like saying that "sky blue" means "the color of the blue sky" because "sky" in English means "the sky." Saying that suf here is actually a unique form of sof or sufah (which would make the usage a hapax legomenon) is like saying that "sky blue" in English has nothing to do with the sky itself-- it actually is a poetic term derived from the blue banners posted on certain trails through the Swiss Alps as a warning, and originally it would have been "ski blue."

I just want to add to this.

I checked through my collection of Bibles, and they also agree that the proper translation is Sea of Reeds. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bible both state in the text that it is the Sea of Reeds. The American Bible place it in the notes. The Revised and New Revised Standard also place it in the notes, as does the New International Version (I believe they keep Red Sea in the text because of tradition, yet acknowledge that it simply isn't the correct translation).

So Christian scholars have acknowledge that the proper translation is also Sea of Reeds, so I don't get why there is opposition to that translation.

 

[gnostic]

4) Jacob would have died about 1575 BC. About 1650 BC, The southern Pharaoh Ahmose reconquered the Northern Egypt and drove out the Semitic rulers. This would have satisfied the statement about a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.

Ahmose' reign in 1549-c 1525 BCE, not 1650 BCE.

Yes, Ahmose did conquer the northern Egypt (Lower Egypt) and drove out the Hyksos from Egypt, but it was a war that began with his father Seqenenre Tao II (c 1558 BCE) and his brother Kamose (c 1555-1550 BCE), both of which belong to the 17th dynasty. Ahmose's reign marked the start of the 18th dynasty.

If you think Ahmose I was the ruler, during the Israelite exodus, thereby linking the Israelites with the Hyksos, then there are lot of problems with this associations.

For one, the Hyksos weren't slaves in Egypt.

The Hyksos were also polytheists.

In Exodus 1, it specifically stated that the Israelites were builders of 2 cities in Goshen: Pithom (Pi-Atum or Per-Atum in Egyptian, "House of Atum") and Rameses (Egyptian Pi-Ramesses, "House of Ramesses, Great in Victory"). Neither names to these cities exist till the 19th dynasty, by Ramesses the Great or Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE). This is 3 centuries after the Hyksos expulsion during Ahmose's reign.

The other important thing to know is that the Ahmose had destroyed Hyksos capital called Avaris. Pi-Ramesses was built on top of this Avaris.

And Ramesses II was the greatest ruler of the 19th dynasty, when Canaan was part of the Egyptian empire as a province and vassal state since the time of Ramesses' father, Seti I (1290-1279). Both father and son were renowned builders of cities and temples.

The Israelites could not have possibly "conquer" Canaan during or after Ahmose I (because of series of strong rulers after Ahmose I, for over 100 years, in the early 18th dynasty), nor during that of Ramesses II (of the 19th dynasty).

As to the rest of your post, greentwiga. All the claims you've made, including the datings, would seem to put the exodus occurring between 1550 and 1300 BCE, which are rather vague.

Like the Minoan eruption for example in Thera. There is 95% certainty that the eruption occurred between 1627 and 1600 BCE, which is way too early for claim of the plagues and exodus somewhere in 1450-1400 BCE.

 

[The Fog Horn]

Hello... I'm back. I see this debate as above my abilities/knowledge now, in all but the simple stuff. Here are some conditions which I believe in..
1. Sea levels were much higher then (Britain may well have still been connected to Europe), and so the Reed marshes were much further North. The present marshes were sea, then. So the 'diggers' will need to look further North?
2. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt. They did the tough jobs, and farming the tidal marshes was one them. They knew the waters and the 'wades'
3. The Egyptians did not know the waters and 'wades'.
4. The Israelites knew of, and picked the right time and tides to go. They knew this stuff!
5. The Egyptians, slow to react, slower to find the ways, and caught out, got hammered by incoming tidal bores or waves. Big ones!
6. Fast incoming tides often turn marshes into quick-sands. Our Morecombe Bay is a typical example. So first they got stuck, and then they drowned. Game over.
I honestly reckon that this is about the easiest historical report to believe. It's a 'dead cert'!
All the best, oldbadger

Waters also recede due to tsunamis, which can be caused by submarine or land volcanoes.

 

[The Fog Horn]

One of the problems is that we look in the wrong places. Another is that we ignore the evidence or try to explain it away as something else so we can ignore it.

Several points that we have:

1) a drawing of israelite/semites coming to Egypt to trade. This does show coats of many colors like Joseph.

2) There are some shadowy Pharaohs named that we are not sure where to place in history. Many have Semitic names. One is even named Son of Jacob.

3) Using an alternative reading for the time in Egypt gives 215 years. If we put the Exodus as somewhere in 1400 to 1450 BC, we get an entrance (the third year of famine) as 1615-1665 BC. In 1628 BC, Santorini or some other volcano erupted giving one of the worst volcanic winters on record. This would fit the seven years of famine.

4) Jacob would have died about 1575 BC. About 1650 BC, The southern Pharaoh Ahmose reconquered the Northern Egypt and drove out the Semitic rulers. This would have satisfied the statement about a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.

5) If Moses was born around 1490 BC, this fits the time period of the persecution of the Hebrews.

6) The Pharaoh who was born before 1610 BC had an older brother who died unexpectedly.

7) The Ipuwer Papyrus describes a set of events similar to the ten plagues and may be the same event. At a minimum, it shows the ten plagues as possible.

8) The Semites, while in Egypt, took the Egyptian hieroglyphics and especially the shortcut of using a word symbol for a sound. With the symbol for water, instead of using the Egyptian sound, they used the semitic sound. They created the ProtoSinaitic script. They had to have taken it out of Egypt and to Canaan. From there, it spread to many scripts. "A" came from Aleph, meaning Ox, and still looks like an Ox. B=Beth, house and looks lkie a two room house. Greek and English kept the same shapes and sounds, thouth Alpha Beta and Alphabet are meaningless sounds in both languages. This is extremely strong evidence for Semites in Egypt around 1700-1400.

9) Though there is no evidence for Israelites in Sinai, that is because we are looking in the wrong place. Mt Sinai is close to Petra. There is a high place of sacrifice on one Mountain which may be related. Though Petra was reworked extensively in history and so unlikely to have any evidence for a short visit of Israelites, The Muslims call the entrance, "Wadi Musa." A major spring is in the Wadi, right where it fits the Exodus story. Since the list of camps mentions the depression, the major depression to the east of Petra might show some evidence.

10) An examination of the term Hebrew in the Bible shows two uses almost exclusively. One is when talking to Pharaoh. Pharaoh thought of them as Hebrews and they called themselves that when talking to Pharaoh. They don't seem to have referred to themselves an Hebrews. The other use is Hebrew slaves. It could mean that when the Israelites captured non-Israeli Semites, they called them Hebrew, and brothers.

11) The Amarna tablets refer to the Apirus. Though it does mean bandits, Pharaoh thought of the Hebrews as belonging to that group. The king of Jerusalem describes the destruction of the towns around him, similar to the description in Joshua. One puzzle is there is no description of the capture of towns in the lands of Ephraim and Manassah. The description in the Amarna tablets of the towns in that region signing treaties with the Apiru fits the lack of warfare in Joshua in that area.

12) There is a problem with Jericho, but there is also a clear discrepancy between carbon dating and archaeological dating. If our dating of Jericho follows the archaeological dating, it won't agree with the carbon dating.

Is any of this absolute proof? No, but it does fit, and it is even shows it is very possible.

It's sad but not suprising that your post was almost completely ignored.

Have you ever considered the possibility the Hebrews were known as Habiru, that the Hebrews migrated to Saudi Arabia (my money is on a place called Hail) and that there is so little evidence of the Exodus because firstly the numbers were exagerated (much like lifespans in the Bible), the gaggle was innitially very disconnected (twelve tribes) and Egypt was not in a position to be able to record events (it was decimated by the fallout of Santorini) and, as stated elsewhere, was not willing to record the fact they had been fooled out of their gold, not being keen on looking anything less than superior?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's sad but not suprising that your post was almost completely ignored.

Or dismissed as superficial rehash.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Actually, "superficial rehash" is far, far too kind.)