Written Evidence For The Exodus

[slave2six]

yes, i am trying to test a talking snake and a talking ass,,,,,, so far they are not co operating,,,,,

 

I think that you will, however, find it very simple to locate a Typing Ass.

[slave2six]

Kris and Ravenstar are my heroines. You two are amazing not only for your knowledge and scholarship but also for your capacity to continue to engage someone who has already made up his mind and refuses to look at evidence and then come to a conclusion.

 

You are better people than I am.

[florduh]

Kris and Ravenstar are my heroines. You two are amazing not only for your knowledge and scholarship but also for your capacity to continue to engage someone who has already made up his mind and refuses to look at evidence and then come to a conclusion.

 

You are better people than I am.

 

This is why they want the women to keep silent in the churches 

[Ravenstar]

It's quite a nice bit of sophistry and grasping at straws. The Hyksos ruled in Avaris (in the Nile Delta - northern Egypt), as Kings/Pharaohs for this period. They were basically Canaanite/Semites and would have had Semitic names - though they also adopted Egyptian names.

 

They were not the Hebrews though, as their religion was based on the God Seth which corresponded with their Canaanite Storm God (which I have stated before). They were not slaves, but conquerors and traders. They were driven from Egypt later, but not as slaves. So other than the fact that they were Semitic/Asiatic and they were in Egypt - the resemblance to the Exodus story ends there.

 

Traditionally,^[who?] only the Fifteenth Dynasty rulers are called Hyksos. The Greek name "Hyksos" was coined by Manetho to identify the Fifteenth Dynasty of Asiatic rulers of northern Egypt. In Egyptian Hyksos means "ruler(s) of foreign countries", however, Josephus mistranslated Hyksos as "Shepherd Kings".^[16]

 

^{Scarabs of Yaqub-Har}

The dynasty to which Yaqub-Har belongs is debated, with Yaqub-Har being seen either as a 14th dynasty king, an early Hyksos ruler of the 15th dynasty or a vassal of the Hyksos kings. Yaqub-Har is attested by a no less than 27 scarab-seals. Three are from Canaan, four from Egypt, one from Nubia and the remaining 19 are of unknown provenance.^[2] The wide geographic repartition of these scarab indicate the existence of trade relations between the Nile Delta, Canaan and Nubia during the second intermediate period.^[2]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqub-Har}

 

The Hyksos had Canaanite names, as seen in those with names of Semitic deities such as Anath or Ba'al. They introduced new tools of warfare into Egypt, most notably the composite bow and the horse-drawn chariot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

 

In 1885 the Swiss Édouard Naville started the first excavations in the area around Tell-el-Daba. Between 1941 and 1942 Labib Habachi, anEgyptian Egyptologist first forwarded the idea that the site could be identified with Avaris. Between 1966 and 1969 and since 1975 the site has been excavated by the Austrian Archaeological Institute.^[4] Using radar imaging technology its scientists could identify in 2010 the outline of the city including streets, houses, a port, and a side arm of the River Nile passing through the city.^[5]

The site at Tell el-Dab'a, covering an area of about 2 square kilometers, is in ruins today, but excavations have shown that at one point it was a well-developed center of trade with a busy harbour catering to over 300 ships during a trading season.^[6] Artifacts excavated at a temple erected in the Hyksos period have produced goods from all over the Aegean world. The temple even has Minoan-like wall paintings that are similar to those found on Crete at the Palace of Knossos. A large mudbrick tomb has also been excavated to the west of the temple, where grave-goods, such as copper swords, have been found.

Towards the end of the Seventeenth dynasty, Kamose, the last king of the Seventeenth Dynasty, besieged Avaris, but could not dislodge the Hyksos, who were finally expelled some 18 years later (c. 1550 BC) by Ahmose I, the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty.^[7] The Eighteenth Dynasty based themselves in Thebes and Avaris was largely abandoned, its former citadel becoming the site first of enormous storage facilities, including numerous silos and then a military camp, until finally a new palatial compound of the 18th Dynasty was constructed on top of the camps and soldier graves.^[4] Avaris was absorbed into the new city of Pi-Ramesses constructed by Ramesses II(1279 – 1213 BC) of the Nineteenth dynasty when he moved the capital from Thebes back to the Delta.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris

 

I can't find any information that there was a PRIMARILY Hebrew building in Avaris. Canaanite and Egyptian and Minoan influences, yes. I believe this is conjecture, but I will keep looking. I like architecture.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_El-Dab'a

[Ravenstar]

Oh.. the origin of the Hyksos is in debate.. some think they were from Canaan originally, some believe they came from farther north.. Anatolia, Syria, etc. No one is exactly sure. They did not however come from Sumeria, Akkadia, Persia or Mesopotamia - because of their language… Semitic. (derived from Canaanite/Phoenician roots)

 

Etymology is really cool

[Kris]

Look at Mandred Beitak's work to find info on the alleged Hebrew structure in Aravis. It's providence is debated

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Kris and Ravenstar are my heroines. You two are amazing not only for your knowledge and scholarship but also for your capacity to continue to engage someone who has already made up his mind and refuses to look at evidence and then come to a conclusion.

 

You are better people than I am.

Seconded.

[MerryG]

Kris and Ravenstar are my heroines. You two are amazing not only for your knowledge and scholarship but also for your capacity to continue to engage someone who has already made up his mind and refuses to look at evidence and then come to a conclusion.

 

You are better people than I am.

 

+100.

 

Damn, why don't we get more upvotes to hand out? I keep running out of the things before breakfast!

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

In order to show that I'm not using proper methodology, all you would have to do is demonstrate one instance where the bible made a claim that archaeology was capable of testing-- and then the bible didn't pass that test. 

Here are two quickies, no time to cite the relevant verses:

 

1. The NT, incl. Jesus as he's portrayed, says that the Second Coming will be in the lifetime of the disciples. This has not occurred; 2 Peter tries to put spin on the problem of the non-event by redefining words (a clue that this text is quite late). The bible fails to pass this test.

 

2. the OT prophecied that the city of Tyre would become a wasteland - a bare rock, I think. this didn't happen.

 

 

Remember, the traditional scientific method focuses on testable details.  If you wouldn't mind, would you:

 

1)  Cite what the text claims happened (or when it was suppose to happen).

2)  What archaeology ought to dig up as a result of it actually happening.

 

And, if its not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind starting a new thread.

 

Too many threads already, I'm not starting another one!

 

1. We don't need archeology for the first one. Jesus says, "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) "This generation shall not pass away until all these things take place" is repeated: Matt. 24:34, Mk. 13:30, Luke 21:32. There are more verses; for more, cf. here: http://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/jesus-failed-prophecy-about-his-return/

 

The Second Coming did not happen within the lifetime of anyone in the audience to whom Jesus is portrayed as speaking.

 

2. I may be off in suggesting the example of Tyre; I don't know enough archaeological method to know what archaeologists would look for. In Ezekiel 26, it is prophesied that God is bringing Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon against Tyre. After a list of things N. will do to Tyre, the section on him (vv. 7-14) ends with the statement, "I will make you [Tyre] a bare rock; a drying place for nets shall you be" (NAB). Although N. took the city areas on the mainland, he never succeeded in taking the island citadel. Tyre never became "a bare rock" as a result of his invasion or afterwards, although the southern part of the island was described as bare rock in the earlier 19th cent., on which fishermen did spread nets. Anywhere there were fishermen, they did this; the entire place did not disappear, and the town had 3500 people in around 1860 [W.M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (London 1861) 168, description on 178]. The "bare rock" thing was not accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar, as Ezekiel wrote it would be. I don't know whether archaeologists might be able to excavate the island at the level of 586-573 BCE to see whether everything was leveled to bare rock, but I doubt it; we have literary sources and aerial photography and other means.

In addition, v. 14 also says of Tyre, "never shall you be rebuilt." But even the island part underwent rebuilding, as archaeological excavations show:

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

In order to show that I'm not using proper methodology, all you would have to do is demonstrate one instance where the bible made a claim that archaeology was capable of testing-- and then the bible didn't pass that test. 

 

 

The Bible claims half a million fighting men left Egypt (along with their families, animals and possessions) and wondered the desert for 40 years before invading Canaan and conquering it.  Archeology has found no evidence of this multitude wandering in the desert.  Rather instead archeologists found that the Hebrews rose peacefully from among the Canaanites and settled virgin land on the hilltops and mountain regions.  The cities claimed to have been destroyed during by Joshua's military campaign were found to have fallen at completely different times from each other.  Along the coast the Sea People were the ones doing the conquering.  Some of the inland cities attributed to Joshua's victory fell long before the Hebrews arrived.  The books of Exodus, Joshua and Judges are propaganda.  They have no merit.

 

 

Everything you've written is incorrect.  But we'll get to the point of showing why one fact at a time.

[Guest SteveBennett]

ignores the fact that Yaqub-Har is a well-attested to Egyptian pharaoh of the Second Intermediate Period;

 

 

Thank you for your diligent research.

 

But the quoted fact you stated is absolutely untrue.  One may look up every Pharaoh that is attested to in primary sources-- you won't find any of them named "Rock of Jacob."

 

That would make sense only if the scarab were a symbol of authority of someone who was not actually ever a ruler, but rather second to the actual Pharaoh (the vizier) as Genesis 37-Exodus 1 claims Joseph was.

 

Here is a quick compilation of all the Pharaoh's attested to in primary sources.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

 

I can see that you are an excellent thinker and researcher.  So if I'm right, your next question will be, "why would Joseph, as a Vezier, be given a scarab-- but other Veziers in ancient Egypt are not?"

 

Well. . . what does the text from Genesis 37-Exodus 1 say?  Read Genesis 41:42.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Look at Mandred Beitak's work to find info on the alleged Hebrew structure in Aravis. It's providence is debated

 

The excavation is very well known.  Bietak was purposefully digging in the richest area.  The structure was selected for excavation because of how big it was compared to other structures.

 

See here:

 

http://www.auaris.at/

 

The excavated areas are highlighted.  The largest of these areas (the water front property with surrounding livestock areas) is where the Hebrew architecture along with three "rock of Jacob" scarabs were found (inside the prominent structure itself).

[Guest SteveBennett]

Oh.. the origin of the Hyksos is in debate.. some think they were from Canaan originally, some believe they came from farther north.. Anatolia, Syria, etc. No one is exactly sure. They did not however come from Sumeria, Akkadia, Persia or Mesopotamia - because of their language… Semitic. (derived from Canaanite/Phoenician roots)

 

Etymology is really cool

 

Yep.  The Hyksos were a motley crew.  I'm just speculating here, but I personally think Jews during this time would have been henotheistic or polytheistic-- and would not have had any strong sense of ethnicity.  They probably would not have even called themselves "Jews."  They probably would have accepted the broad label of "Hyksos" like every other Asiatic did.

 

Many of them may have had some sense of Jacob (Israel) simply because of Joseph, but how much. . . who can say.

 

Either way, all that (if Exodus passes historical testing) was about to change.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

In order to show that I'm not using proper methodology, all you would have to do is demonstrate one instance where the bible made a claim that archaeology was capable of testing-- and then the bible didn't pass that test. 

 

 

The Bible claims half a million fighting men left Egypt (along with their families, animals and possessions) and wondered the desert for 40 years before invading Canaan and conquering it.  Archeology has found no evidence of this multitude wandering in the desert.  Rather instead archeologists found that the Hebrews rose peacefully from among the Canaanites and settled virgin land on the hilltops and mountain regions.  The cities claimed to have been destroyed during by Joshua's military campaign were found to have fallen at completely different times from each other.  Along the coast the Sea People were the ones doing the conquering.  Some of the inland cities attributed to Joshua's victory fell long before the Hebrews arrived.  The books of Exodus, Joshua and Judges are propaganda.  They have no merit.

 

 

Everything you've written is incorrect.  But we'll get to the point of showing why one fact at a time.

 

 

This is going to be your answer for every fact that conflicts with the Bible.  You are going to deny that fact.  Now you are going to go against the entire body of archeology?  I can't wait to see the fallacy cluster you come up with for that.

 

quote

• The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

  Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

/quote

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

 

 

So you would have us believe that Joshua conquered Ai in 2400 BC which was during Egypt's 5th dynasty and all of this was after Joseph rose to power during the 15th dynasty in 1500 BC?

[Kris]

The Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt was the first Hyksos dynasty, ruled from Avaris, without control of the entire land. The Hyksos preferred to stay in northern Egypt since they infiltrated from the north-east. The names and order of kings is uncertain.

 

It is likely that Jacob-har fell into this period. I read your bible passages. I am but sure why if Joseph was the one out in power, there would be scarabs with Jacobs name on them.

[Kris]

Steve---- I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye---- you always feel that the evidence you read or hear about leads to proof of the bible--- while I believe it provides alternate explanations not related to the bible at all. We choose to look at the evidence differently.

[Kris]

Yaqub Har

Meruserre Yaqub-Har (Other spellings: Yakubher), also known as Yak-Baal was a pharaoh of Egypt during the 17th or 16th century BCE. As he lived Egypt's fragmented Second Intermediate Period, it is difficult to date his reign precisely.

Meruserre means 'strong is the love of Re.' The 14th Dynasty of Egypt was an Asiatic dynastic which ruled in the Delta region—like the Hyksos.

Ryholt has suggested that the name Yaqub-Har had a West Semitic origin.

The truth may have been a somewhat more benign and gradual process of integration.-----

 

This explanation is just as likely as your tenuous link to Jacob in the bible. Besides, wasn't Jacob's son Joseph actually the one who held power?

[florduh]

I'd like to thank and encourage those who are providing detailed, scholarly rebuttals to Steve's apologetic parrot droppings. Steve will likely never allow the light of day into his Christian closet, but others are watching and learning.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

+1 Florduh

[Ravenstar]

 

Oh.. the origin of the Hyksos is in debate.. some think they were from Canaan originally, some believe they came from farther north.. Anatolia, Syria, etc. No one is exactly sure. They did not however come from Sumeria, Akkadia, Persia or Mesopotamia - because of their language… Semitic. (derived from Canaanite/Phoenician roots)

 

Etymology is really cool

 

Yep.  The Hyksos were a motley crew.  I'm just speculating here, but I personally think Jews during this time would have been henotheistic or polytheistic-- and would not have had any strong sense of ethnicity.  They probably would not have even called themselves "Jews."  They probably would have accepted the broad label of "Hyksos" like every other Asiatic did.

 

Many of them may have had some sense of Jacob (Israel) simply because of Joseph, but how much. . . who can say.

 

Either way, all that (if Exodus passes historical testing) was about to change.

 

Are you dense? The early Hebrews were polytheistic…that is pretty much the consensus though more investigation needs to be done. IF you read your Bible their first god wasn't Yahweh at all, it was EL (El, El Shaddai, El Elyon, the Elohim is his pantheon, his court)- the creator god of the Canaanites. (Ugarit texts support this) It's right there, in your bible. Ba'al and Yahweh came later as SONS of the most high god, El. Yahweh was most likely the patron god of JUDAH. 

 

They even had a mother goddess, Asherah…(probably corresponds with Astoreth, Ishtar, Innanna) who was actually worshipped in the temple up until a certain time… these things disprove the entire claims of the Bible right there (and totally negates the early stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, etc..). (At least from Abraham on down) They were not called JEWS at all… that is only the tribe of Judah, and being called JEWS is based on the word JUDAH… one tribe of 13. The kingdom of Judah, from where they were captured by the Babylonians, are what is left of the Tribes of Israel.. the rest were conquered, scattered and absorbed by the Assyrians.

 

The Judeans are the ones we get the Torah from.. the rest are lost to history.

 

The story of Joseph is a parable.

 

The Hyksos were not the Hebrews (probably nomadic hill people in Canaan - kind of like the Bedouin), unless.. you are willing to place the Hebrews in Canaan, as Canaanites in the levant at the time they were supposed to be in captivity in Egypt. The Hyksos were never slaves of Egypt… they were conquerors. Do you not think that the Hebrews would have been all over being PHAROAHS in northern Egypt? Rather than slaves?

 

Oh.. and thanks for cherry-picking my contribution.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Yak-Baal was a pharaoh of Egypt during the 17th or 16th century BCE. As he lived Egypt's fragmented Second Intermediate Period, it is difficult to date his reign precisely.

 

Primary sources Kris.

 

Your secondary source (I'm not sure which one) told you that the scarab inscription must be that of a Pharaoh. 

 

You need to ask yourself, though, what is that assumption actually based on?

 

Think. . . think like a historian.

 

How many other scarabs are found that can't be linked to a Pharaoh? 

 

THINK!  Why is this Yaqub scarab the only scarab that no one can link to a Pharaoh? *Hint Hint*  see Genesis 41:42.

 

How many veziers, do you suppose, would ever get a chance to wear the King's signet ring?

 

Don't fight where the evidence leads.  Dig up the evidence. . . but don't fight it.

[Ravenstar]

You don't know much about Egyptian hieroglyphics do you? ROYALTY is always written differently than commoners names (yes, even high ranking ones). Geez, I knew that by the time I was 9.

 

Language…etymology is one of the primary ways we know things, because it reflects not just the history but the mindset. origin, influences and culture of those using it.

[Guest SteveBennett]

You don't know much about Egyptian hieroglyphics do you? ROYALTY is always written differently than commoners names (yes, even high ranking ones). Geez, I knew that by the time I was 9.

 

Language…etymology is one of the primary ways we know things, because it reflects not just the history but the mindset. origin, influences and culture of those using it.

 

 

Your saying that upper class and lower class have different styles of hieroglyphs.  I agree.

 

---------

 

The question still remains, though, 

 

 

Why is this Yaqub scarab the only scarab that no one can link to a Pharaoh?

 

*Hint Hint*  see Genesis 41:42.

 

How many veziers, do you suppose, would ever get a chance to wear the King's signet ring?

 

Don't fight where the evidence leads.  Dig up the evidence. . . but don't fight it.  And don't cover it up with pedanticism-- everyone eventually becomes intelligent enough to make a judgment by themselves anyways.

[MerryG]

 

 And don't cover it up with pedanticism

 

And a great big AMEN to that, Steve.

 

But -- just an aside -- are you listening to yourself when you speak? For high comedy (or irony, or hypocrisy, or plain old self-blindness; take your pick) that quoted remark is almost on par with your categorical statement that nobody can make any categorical statements.

[mymistake]

 

You don't know much about Egyptian hieroglyphics do you? ROYALTY is always written differently than commoners names (yes, even high ranking ones). Geez, I knew that by the time I was 9.

 

Language…etymology is one of the primary ways we know things, because it reflects not just the history but the mindset. origin, influences and culture of those using it.

 

 

Your saying that upper class and lower class have different styles of hieroglyphs.  I agree.

 

---------

 

The question still remains, though, 

 

 

Why is this Yaqub scarab the only scarab that no one can link to a Pharaoh?

 

*Hint Hint*  see Genesis 41:42.

 

How many veziers, do you suppose, would ever get a chance to wear the King's signet ring?

 

Don't fight where the evidence leads.  Dig up the evidence. . . but don't fight it.  And don't cover it up with pedanticism-- everyone eventually becomes intelligent enough to make a judgment by themselves anyways.

 

 

When are you going to apply the same standard to the Bible?  When are you going to stop fighting where evidence leads?  When are you going to discard what has no primary sources?  This hypocrisy stinks.

 

 

Edit:

Oh and can you name the fallacy you used when you imply not knowing which Pharaoh is linked to a scarab is evidence that Joseph was real?  Perhaps you should stop accusing others of using fallacies and worry more about not using them yourself.