Written Evidence For The Exodus

[DrNo]

Ravenstar, there are no words. Excellent scholarship. A++

[RipVanWinkle]

What an incredible job, Ravenstar. I's a privilege to be a member here. What a valuable as set you are. Your posts are top notch.

 

Thank you for contributing so much.   bill

[MerryG]

What an incredible job, Ravenstar. I's a privilege to be a member here. What a valuable as set you are. Your posts are top notch.

 

Thank you for contributing so much.   bill

 

Really, Ravenstar. These guys are speaking the truth.

 

I keep coming back here to try to upvote your post. But as usual, I've run out of points. Sigh.

 

So ...

[Ravenstar]

You know what guys.. I learn SO much debunking their crap…. that's my pay-off I guess. I hope that others get as much out of it as I do (especially the lurkers and new members). I also learn so much from all of you… you are all amazing people.

 

Love you all!  This is the bestest forum evah!

 

Plus we have the FLord! and sweet Margee, the venerable Deva, the gentle Antlerman, brilliant BAA and Ficino! and all the other wonderful mods and friends who watch out for us.    ….and the noobies, whose trust in us at such a difficult time in their lives is a gift that touches me deeply. I am very grateful to be a part of this forum.

 

Group hug!  Wish we could have a reunion somewhere, sometime.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

What an incredible job, Ravenstar. I's a privilege to be a member here. What a valuable as set you are. Your posts are top notch.

 

Thank you for contributing so much.   bill

 

Really, Ravenstar. These guys are speaking the truth.

 

I keep coming back here to try to upvote your post. But as usual, I've run out of points. Sigh.

 

So ...

 

I got you covered, MerryG. 

[MerryG]

 

 

What an incredible job, Ravenstar. I's a privilege to be a member here. What a valuable as set you are. Your posts are top notch.

 

Thank you for contributing so much.   bill

 

Really, Ravenstar. These guys are speaking the truth.

 

I keep coming back here to try to upvote your post. But as usual, I've run out of points. Sigh.

 

So ...

 

I got you covered, MerryG. 

 

 

More great teamwork! Thanks, Prof! (And I know you don't reward reputation points lightly.)

[Guest SteveBennett]

Again, one has to stay focused on the facts.  Allow the facts speak for themselves.

 

Don't presume the text either true or untrue from the outset. . . that is simply bias that both Christian's and non-Christians have a terrible habit of falling into when they talk to each other.

 

The subject matter in question means we need to remain detached. This is incredibly hard to learn to do, but we have to try and compartmentalize our desire to be right-- because we all (myself included) endure that desire.

 

We need to ask:

 

"Are the archaeological finds consistent with the facts that we do actually find in the archaeological record."  It's simple. . .   does the archaeological record corroborate or falsify the testable claims of the text?"

 

To put it another way-- if one engages in the thought experiment of taking the text seriously-- could the text lead an archaeologist to Manfred Bietek's dig site?  Does Genesis 37-Exodus 1 lead us to dig in the richest part of the Hyksos capital?

 

Yes, of course it does-- since the Hyksos era is the only possible era that someone like Joseph-- a foreigner-- could have ruled-- therefore it is reasonable to think he would have hailed from the Hyksos capital.

 

But the Hebrew architecture, the prominence of the building itself, the fact that three scarabs were found inside this most prominent building, the "Rock of Jacob" reference as the source of authority, these three facts are just "extra icing" which, when one puts them all together, creates very powerful evidence which eludes red herrings, or ad lapidem responses.

 

Its a simple issue:

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

Arachaeology is our experiment by which to test the historically testable facts that the Bible claims.  Now remember, this is only the first example of it passing a test.  And I've no intention of cherry picking (a form of confirmation bias)-- certainly not.  No, I'm going to proceed linearly from here and go to Exodus chapter 1 next.  

 

If the text continues pass again and again and again. . . then we need to be humble in focusing on step 5, and revise our views somehow.  If we don't, then we have to ask ourselves "why" and that is only a question that each of us may answer for ourselves.

[Kris]

It could also be that a lot of people have dug with a spade in ine hand and a bible in the other and made evidence fit their agenda.

[Guest SteveBennett]

In regards to Ravenstar's post,

 

You are citing a critique of Jacobovici's analysis.  I think I've already stated that I agree that Jacobovici did a terrible job.

 

His entire "Exodus Decoded" is Hollywood and special effects all over it.  He never develops any of his ideas, he just makes all of these assertions based on single pieces of data and then makes haphazard attempts to link them together-- he even does some certain calculations wrong.

 

If you watch his "Exodus Decoded" film-- you will spot the part where he just wantonly "throws out there" the idea of the scarabs being linked to Joseph-- then he offers absolutely no support for this.

 

The reason he does this, is because he knows that other's had already posited this view-- and he knows how controversial the view is.

 

Remember Jacobovici's target audience-- he's pure Hollywood.  Hollywood knows that controversy sells-- and Jacobovici knows that even whispering the notion of linking Joseph to Bietak's findings would be enough for the Egyptian authorities to kick Bietak and his entire team out of Egypt.

 

Jacobovici's intentions are simply to entertain, and stir the pot-- both of which sell.

 

Don't bite down on red herrings.

[Guest SteveBennett]

It could also be that a lot of people have dug with a spade in ine hand and a bible in the other and made evidence fit their agenda.

 

It could also be that we are all just brains in the matrix-- and a supercomputer is feeding us information.  

 

But a big idea of step 3, in the scientific method, is that we mainly want try and pick out the view that fits ALL of the facts-- without violating lex parsimonia.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Again, one has to stay focused on the facts.  Allow the facts speak for themselves.

 

Don't presume the text either true or untrue from the outset. . . that is simply bias that both Christian's and non-Christians have a terrible habit of falling into when they talk to each other.

 

The subject matter in question means we need to remain detached. This is incredibly hard to learn to do, but we have to try and compartmentalize our desire to be right-- because we all (myself included) endure that desire.

 

We need to ask:

 

"Are the archaeological finds consistent with the facts that we do actually find in the archaeological record."  It's simple. . .   does the archaeological record corroborate or falsify the testable claims of the text?"

 

To put it another way-- if one engages in the thought experiment of taking the text seriously-- could the text lead an archaeologist to Manfred Bietek's dig site?  Does Genesis 37-Exodus 1 lead us to dig in the richest part of the Hyksos capital?

 

Yes, of course it does-- since the Hyksos era is the only possible era that someone like Joseph-- a foreigner-- could have ruled-- therefore it is reasonable to think he would have hailed from the Hyksos capital.

 

But the Hebrew architecture, the prominence of the building itself, the fact that three scarabs were found inside this most prominent building, the "Rock of Jacob" reference as the source of authority, these three facts are just "extra icing" which, when one puts them all together, creates very powerful evidence which eludes red herrings, or ad lapidem responses.

 

Its a simple issue:

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

Arachaeology is our experiment by which to test the historically testable facts that the Bible claims.  Now remember, this is only the first example of it passing a test.  And I've no intention of cherry picking (a form of confirmation bias)-- certainly not.  No, I'm going to proceed linearly from here and go to Exodus chapter 1 next.  

 

If the text continues pass again and again and again. . . then we need to be humble in focusing on step 5, and revise our views somehow.  If we don't, then we have to ask ourselves "why" and that is only a question that each of us may answer for ourselves.

This is basically all a repeat of the instructions about methodology, etc., that you gave us more than once before. It does not answer Ravenstar's detailed study at all, nor does your #134.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

Does not answer Ravenstar's detailed study at all, nor does your #134.

 

 

If one reads Ravenstar's study, one will see that it is simply a critique of Jacobovici that I already agreed with.

 

Honestly. . . the man is pure hollywood.  And I say that knowing that "hollywood" is a standard by which I implicitly agree to being judged.

[Guest SteveBennett]

"I say that knowing that "hollywood" is a standard by which I implicitly agree to being judged."

 

Correction:

 

"My standard of judging the label 'hollywood' is one that I implicitly consign myself to being judged by.

 

Its kind of like calling a person a "fraud."  If one assigns that label on a basis that the person made a mistake with regard to what certain secondary sources claim, then that (implicitly) consign themselves to be judged by the same standard.

 

Now if one assigns a label of "fraud" on the basis that someone deliberately manufactured, primary source data as though it came from 2000 or 3000 years ago? Then they are truly a "fraud."

 

By whatever standard one judges, they implicitly consign themselves to being judged by that same standard.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Also, the standards of judging a fraud (not simply accusing them of being a fraud) are another issue.

 

 

See here as an example:

 

http://c795631.r31.cf2.rackcdn.com/james_brother_of_jesus_the_forgery_trial_of_the_century.pdf

[♦ ficino ♦]

Steve, it was uncivil of me to use the word "fraud," and I apologize for it.

 

I stand by, however, my objection to your MO, and I do think that MO has involved a pose. In #96 above you took a very condescending and tendentious tone toward Kris, telling her, "Primary sources, Kris," and saying "THINK", etc. So when I saw that you had not used primary sources in your announcements about the "very recent" epigraphical discoveries re Lysanias and "first man of the island" in Acts, I called you on your inconsistency. You had not even used academic secondary sources, but clearly were relying on one or more popularizing Christian websites. You present yourself as a primary sources man, but you don't control the material of those sources; you don't even know Greek, as far as I can tell.

 

Ravenstar's magisterial (to me anyway, who know little of Egypt) #123 is not just to discredit Jacobovici but is directed against your assertions about a scarab mentioned in Genesis and about names. You began your reply with tendentious instructions about how to do research, and those sorts of instructions constitute most of your #132.

 

Unrelated:

 

a while up on this thread you asked for cases where the Bible asserts something testable. I offered two; haven't seen a response. Here's a third, which is out of my area:

 

Jeremiah 43, 46 and elsewhere in that book prophecies that Nebuchadnezzar will come to lay waste utterly to Egypt and lead the Egyptians into captivity. As I understand it, this did not happen; Neb. did far less damage, and pharaoh Apries seems not to have been captured by him.

 

Cf. this secondary source:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ku4OKVrEd4MC&pg=PA199&dq=apries+nebuchadnezzar+amasis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjHyUvXtK6OEygHlyIH4Cg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=apries%20nebuchadnezzar%20amasis&f=false

 

I have read that Flinders Petrie excavated the pavement of which we read in the passage in Jeremiah, but the bulk of what Jeremiah prophecies appears not to have been fulfilled.

 

Some more liberal interpreters may say that Jeremiah is using invective and poetic embellishment as standard elements of prophetic rhetoric, which aims at moral, political and theological messages more than at exact foretelling of the future. I am guessing that you do not share this sort of approach to prophetic texts in scripture.

[Ravenstar]

You, sir, are an idiot. What the critique says, in essence, in case you have comprehension problems is that Simcha is a liar. He has consistently taken legitimate archaeological findings and put his own interpretation on them. Not once but consistently. Interpretations that are patently FALSE.

 

These are probably because he uses YOUR method of making the facts fit the hypothesis and not the hypothesis fit the facts.. which is the very essence of good science.

 

He is a fraud. Ron Wyatt is a fraud… why in the hell would I put ANY weight on the words of liars? Neither of them are qualified to judge these findings either. Not even close. I don't need your permission to judge a fraud, nor your 'method'. I am quite capable of ascertaining bullshit, especially when it's exploitative. Mama didn't raise no fools here.

 

None of the 'facts' that you have supplied are in any way legitimate.. they are projections of wishful thinking. Not the scarabs, not the wheels, not the inscriptions.. you get them ALL WRONG because you WANT them to fit your pet theory (and I am not using theory in the scientific sense). 

 

The archaeological record DOES NOT support the Bible… it just doesn't. Trying to make it fit doesn't make it better. I have shown, in detail, some of the ways WHY it doesn't fit.

 

Does that mean no person ever mentioned in the Bible ever existed? Or that some of the places didn't? Or even that some events may have occurred? No.. that's absurd - these people actually lived during (or at least shortly after - in historical terms) and probably did witness or at least hear about some historical events. But the way it was written? The elevation of the Hebrews as movers and shakers of the ancient world? Hell no!…, science does not support that so far… on the contrary archaeology is finding that the record shows the Hebrews to be a minor group of people in a sea of giants…who eventually had provincial Kingdoms (Israel and Judah) that probably existed for about 500 years before being basically wiped out by the Assyrians and Babylonians.. Judah existed a bit longer, sort of…after being 'Babylonianized'…and absorbing Hellenistic culture until the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

 

It shows that they came from Canaan (probably hill-dwelling nomadic goat-herders/cattlemen/sheep-herders - basically husbandmen like the Bedouin) and were, at least etymologically, identical to the Canaanites and Phoenicians…. it shows they were polytheistic.. and had a the least a god and goddess…(and maybe an entire pantheon). It shows they traded with those around them… it shows they didn't even have any complicated system of writing or culture until long after the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians had sophisticated civilizations… their pottery and art was crude in comparison. They were NOT the people the Bible purports they were. The record shows that their religion most likely came out of the Canaanite religion and split off after a time. The similarities are far too close to be coincidence.

 

It suggests the very early Hebrews practiced child sacrifice(bones of infants have been found in the foundations of early hebrew buildings) and had to be told to be decent people. They were barbarians in contrast with some of the others around them. Even their patriarch is a lie…. Chaldea had nothing to do with UR, Ur was long gone by the time of the Chaldeans.. OH, and the Chaldeans were HUGE on astrology… their systems are still being used to this day by astrologers and ceremonial magicians. 

 

The stories in the Torah, specifically the creation story, the flood, and the Moses story are borrowed from Mesopotamia and Akkadia, we know this because we have PHYSICAL copies of those stories in their original form long before the Torah was written…(like 2000 years or more) and NOT in Hebrew, because it didn't exist yet - but cuneiform.

 

The 'saviour' child, the 'son(sun) of god' is an EGYPTIAN idea,(Horus) as is the divine birth..(Isis becoming pregnant with Horus after the death of Osiris) as is resurrection (Osiris). The 10 commandments are totally taken, sometimes almost verbatim, from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which has it's roots in the Pyramid Texts, from the 25 Principles of Ma'at.(truth) Only, in the Principles… rape is also a sin. Wonder why they edited that one out?

 

You can't even tell the difference between Isis and Horus and the Virgin Mary and Child in art… they are identical. For thousands of years there have been sculptures of the 'mother and child'.. and it's ISIS.

 

Another common idea was rivalry of brothers, it is a common theme in ancient religions.. Osiris and Seth, En.lil and En.ki, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau , etc… probably comes from the much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh where Gligamesh and Enkido struggle - a PARABLE of a royal [read divine child of the gods - yet human] man fighting against his civilized and animal nature. Or from the rivalry of the Sumerian god-brothers Enlil and Enki, when their father the great Anu gave them the earth to govern, together.

 

The early Hebrews had no concept of a dichotomy in their religion.. there was no 'evil entity' - except for the rivalry of 'god' and Ba'al (which you can read about in your Bible - Ba'al was the fertility god of Canaan.. a son of El - symbolized by a bull - or calf.. wearing the horns of power. But he wasn't 'evil'. THAT idea didn't show up until the Hebrews were exposed to the Persians and Zoroastrianism. Who has at it's core duality… Ahura Mazda is the 'good god' and Ahriman is the 'evil god' and they are locked in a struggle over the earth/world/universe. It's about this time we see this concept creep into the biblical texts with the demonization of God's servant, the satan. (NOT capitalized… it's a title, not a name until much later). Jews laugh at the idea that any being could rival Yahweh.. it's a christian concept. They also laugh at the concept that any HUMAN could be god. It's very anti-jewish.. it's idolatry… you know - the very first commandment? Human god-men are a pagan idea.

 

The serpent was worshipped very early as a symbol of wisdom, also as a symbol of the goddess, as was the tree (ask any Kabbalist - the tree and wisdom [sophia] are female in nature) The story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor for the rise of patriarchy and consciousness (as in the change from a more animalistic hunter/gatherer society to an agricultural base - which is why the sacrifices that were accepted and rejected don't really make much sense.) Prometheus is another similar story.. so similar it's kind of freaky. The serpent is not the devil - it's women's wisdom, it's consciousness itself. Look at the Minoan sculptures of the goddess.. easy peasy to see that the goddess and serpents are related. (this is a huge subject and I'm only touching on it here)

 

The goddess Asherah was worshipped in the temple, as Yahweh's consort..(she was symbolized by a TREE) this is interesting because she was originally El's consort, then Ba'als.. then Yahweh's… and then she was systematically ERASED from biblical history (though the hints are still in the bible) BUT we have found NUMEROUS Hebrew votive figures of her, and even posts and at least one very early inscription that identifies her with Yahweh, as his goddess.

 

The Bible is NOT a primary source… not even close.

 

This is just the textual and mythological underpinnings of your collection of texts called the Bible, not even the etymological analysis of each text which shows they were written by different people at different times, in different styles, and heavily edited. (Karen Armstrong). This is LONG before the Council of Nicea where it was again, heavily edited and then there are the translation issues (ancient Hebrew is NOT easy to translate - there being no vowels, and some of the concepts do not have modern equivalents). We don't even have a Torah earlier than the 9th Century AD to translate from. Oh, there are some scraps here and there, but not much. Contrast that with the original (clay tablet) texts of the Epic of Gilgamesh - 2500 BCE.. now THAT is a primary source.

 

It's not even the scientific baloney in the Bible.. bats are birds…insects have 4 legs and rabbits chew cud… no, they don't and aren't (fail). It's full of the interpretations of a iron-age and bronze-age people who didn't know any better - not the revelation of an omniscient being. That is absolutely ridiculous. Because if it were it would be MUCH MORE ACCURATE. That's just basic logic. The flood is physically impossible.. as in it CAN'T happen.. the laws of physics preclude it. Genetics precludes it.. it's just wrong on so many levels it isn't funny. Exodus never happened as reported… unless you can demonstrate MAGIC. I don't know if you accept the TOE, but it's a fact… people who are creationists are just fucking stupid. However.. evolution really has nothing to do with the existence of any supernatural beings. It just shows we were not poofed into existence from dirt.

 

The Bible is cruel, bloody and backwards and EXACTLY what would be expected of a barbarian people living in the backwoods of a small country trying to make sense of their world. Is there good stuff in it? Sure.. why not?, people learned things that helped them get along and survive and wanted to pass that on… you can find that in any ancient texts. Not really very special though.. we see it in all cultures.

 

See Steve.. I've already done all this work, and I continue to do it. I didn't start trying to rip the Bible apart… I tried at first to be able to defend it (which is what I was supposed to be able to do according to god's word) but with an OPEN mind I found out that it isn't what it says it is.. and now I CAN rip it apart because it's a lie - it's basically Hebrew propaganda - though I don't believe that was any kind of conspiracy through the ages - it just happened… and lies don't stand up well to truth.

 

I have only given you the tip of the iceberg of the issues.. I can back up each of these points I have presented.. and go much deeper if necessary. I've studied ancient history and mythology for a very long time… Ficino is much MUCH better with the NT and 1st century history… but the OT?  That's mine, because it's the basis for the rest… and it is constructed of sand.

 

Your rebuttals suck… by the way. You have no idea how to debate or even address presented information. For all your big words  and insistence on methodology, it's obvious you really don't have a grasp on critical thinking or the scientific method - BUT!  Anyone can learn! I have faith that even you can.

 

You do not want to be like Ken Ham last night.. "but, but, I have a BOOK!"  LOL   Frankly, I think you are capable of more.

 

So.. if you have more smoking guns details in ancient archaeology, bring it on!  I like doing this… it helps with my own education.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Yet you do not dispute anything in our first fact set. . . correct?

[mymistake]

Again, one has to stay focused on the facts.  Allow the facts speak for themselves.

 

Don't presume the text either true or untrue from the outset. . . that is simply bias that both Christian's and non-Christians have a terrible habit of falling into when they talk to each other.

 

 

When are you going to take your own advise?  You come across extremely biased in every post.  No sooner do you say these words then you violate them.  Your Exodus Decoded style of apologetics is the opposite of allowing the facts to speak for themselves and not presuming the Bible text is true.

 

 

To put it another way-- if one engages in the thought experiment of taking the text seriously-- could the text lead an archaeologist to Manfred Bietek's dig site?  Does Genesis 37-Exodus 1 lead us to dig in the richest part of the Hyksos capital?

 

That is presuming the Bible it true.  What you propose is not science.  To be unbiased would be to dig at many sites with no agenda and then see what can be observed.  Not see what can be observed about the Bible.  Just see what can be observed period.  Real scientists are looking for fact, not support for the Bible.

 

You are not fooling anybody with your game.

[Guest SteveBennett]

The point is that I see a lot of conclusions-- a lot of jumping around from topic to topic to topic.  Your range of conclusions is so incredibly broad that no one has any reasonable ability focus on what those conclusions are based on.

 

This linear approach is only concerned with one testable claim at a time.  No cherry picking, no jumping around to find some other issue.

 

The train just moves forward-- testing what the bible claims.

 

This is a hard thing to endure.  Believe me. . . I know.  This whole idea of structuring one's approach.  The mind tends to want to shift the focus onto all kinds of other things.  It's human nature. . . and it is an incredibly hard habit to break.

[mymistake]

Also, the standards of judging a fraud (not simply accusing them of being a fraud) are another issue.

 

 

See here as an example:

 

http://c795631.r31.cf2.rackcdn.com/james_brother_of_jesus_the_forgery_trial_of_the_century.pdf

 

 

Very funny.  And if somebody claimed to be the brother of the Easter Bunny then would we need to investigate?  Surely you don't mean anybody who has an ordinary guy named Jesus for a brother.  I've worked with several men named Jesus.  You mean mythical, fly through the air, walk through walls, five extra holes in his body, universe ending, lich Jesus.

[mymistake]

The point is that I see a lot of conclusions-- a lot of jumping around from topic to topic to topic.  Your range of conclusions is so incredibly broad that no one has any reasonable ability focus on what those conclusions are based on.

 

 

 

Ravenstar and Kris have dumped a ton of facts on you but you are happy to ignore all of that.  Perhaps it is because you are afraid of what those facts lead to.

 

 

 

This linear approach is only concerned with one testable claim at a time.  No cherry picking, no jumping around to find some other issue.

 

The train just moves forward-- testing what the bible claims.

 

This is a hard thing to endure.  Believe me. . . I know.  This whole idea of structuring one's approach.  The mind tends to want to shift the focus onto all kinds of other things.  It's human nature. . . and it is an incredibly hard habit to break.

 

But you do cherry pick.  You choose what fact will be tested.  If somebody wants to look at a fact you didn't choose then they are going too fast and they are jumping around.  When we point out how the fact you choose fails the test you question our methods.

 

You are not our teacher and you are not a science teacher.  Stop acting like you are some kind of authority.  The facts you choose fail when tested.  All the other facts in the Bible fail when tested, with the exception of geography and political entities at that time.  People keep trying to treat the Bible like it is a history book.  It is not.  It can be a geography book.  The writers of the religious propaganda knew about the local political and demographic entities and had no reason to lie about those so that is something true that wound up in the Bible.  The rest of it is trying to make a myth seem true.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The train just moves forward-- testing what the bible claims.

 

This is a hard thing to endure.  Believe me. . . I know.  This whole idea of structuring one's approach.  The mind tends to want to shift the focus onto all kinds of other things.  It's human nature. . . and it is an incredibly hard habit to break.

Are you perhaps posing now, or trolling? Some test cases have been presented by various people. You continue to dodge them. You are the one making the positive assertive claims, so the burden is on you to provide proof that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, not just that it contains a number of facts.

 

You shift focus by throwing out your continual methodological sermons and ducking the demands to provide proof.

 

Tyre?

 

Nebuchadnezzar devastating Egypt?

 

Jesus returning w/in lifetime of audience?

 

Genesis 1:1?

 

even, definition, or failing that, description of your personal relationship with Jesus?

 

genuine methodology in history, which I posted and you ignored?

[florduh]

I want to have your babies, Ravenstar. 

[Kris]

Be careful with Flanders petrie. He looks like another one of those folks that went over to the holy land and found all kinds of biblical ruins---- or at least that is what was often claimed back in the day.

[Kris]

Steve--- I have stayed on track with you. But we disagree. You claim you are using primary sources to support your claim that the scarabs are Joseph's--- but you are really using the bible. And it doesn't say that there were a bunch of scarabs made up with Jacobs name because Joseph respected him so much. Rather, there is just somebody named Jacob in the bible.

 

I showed an alternative explanation in which Jacob-har was a pharaoh appointed over the area. There is solid documentation that there were hyskos rulers at the time and he was likely one. This was a time of disarray so the record may not have what you want it to in order to feel it meets your evidence standards, but this theory just as likely as yours.

 

As far as the structure you keep referring to, Beitak has asserted that the house was built for the ruler of the area, likely Semitic. Jacob was a common name back then. Just not who you want it to be. I don't see where he advocates your theory.

 

The evidence in a way supports both our theories to a certain extent-- but yours is based on the bible being true and mine isn't. I can easily see Jacob-har being romanticized into the mighty Jacob of the bible. I do think the bible has kernels of history-- but the history was twisted to make a group of people look more powerful than they really were.