zhivago6 t1_j3sear7 wrote
Reply to comment by TamerSpoon3 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom
There is no evidence for the events described in Egypt in Exodus at all, none. Avaris was the Hyksos capitol, and as the Hyksos were from the Levant it is likely that they were semitic people, but there is no evidence that the Hebrew ethnicity had split off from the other Canaanites at the time of the Hyksos. Egyptian loan words makes a lot of sense, because Egyptians controlled and dominated the Levant for the vast majority of the Bronze Age, and never once noticed the Hebrew people or religion until after the Bronze Age Collapses. The people who would eventually become Hebrews likely picked up the language and customs from the empire that ruled over them and that they paid tribute to. The oldest seals for Hebrew kings use Egyptian symbolism, indicating they were still beholden to the Egyptians even into the Iron Age around 700 BCE. Arab and Aramaic peoples arrived in the Iron Age and were more influenced by Assyrian culture.
The Mernephtah Stele does not mention the defeat of Isreal, it mentions the defeat of nomadic foreign people called Isiriar, among others. This might or might not he Israel, but if so this is rhe first ever mention in all of written history of Israel or the Hebrew people. This would be the first time that anyone in Egypt, despite extensive record keeping and despite controlling all the land of Israel for thousands of years, ever mentions anyone who MIGHT be Hebrew. There is nothing at all that indicates Rameses lost his chariots or that they have anything to do with his campaigns or why he went on them.
It's not conclusive and it isn't even compelling, it's wishful thinking by people who are desperate for confirmation bias.
TamerSpoon3 t1_j3tzkrt wrote
> Avaris was the Hyksos capitol, and as the Hyksos were from the Levant it is likely that they were semitic people,
Yes, and the Hyksos were overthrown by the Ramesside dynasty and they did their damndest to erase them from Egyptian history, hence why Exodus says a Pharaoh arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph (who would have been a Vizier under the Hyksos) and then the Hebrews became slaves.
> but there is no evidence that the Hebrew ethnicity had split off from the other Canaanites at the time of the Hyksos.
Cool, and I never said they had. Obviously they would have been as Egyptian as the Hyksos were until the Thebans took power. The previous theory was that the Hebrews split off from the Canaanites, which is laughably false. Israelite material culture is clearly distinguishable from all other Canaanite material culture and it just appears suddenly during the early Iron Age. A complete coincidence, I'm sure. It was probably just placed there by a later redactor, isn't that the typical minimalist response? When in doubt, make up another redactor.
> Egyptian loan words makes a lot of sense, because Egyptians controlled and dominated the Levant for the vast majority of the Bronze Age, and never once noticed the Hebrew people or religion until after the Bronze Age Collapses.
You missed the part where I pointed out that the percentage of loan words is much higher than literally everybody else living in the Levant, even in correspondence sent TO the Egyptians. Some languages have 0 Egyptian loan words and even later books of the OT have less than the Pentateuch. And then you get the absolutely laughable conjectures of the Documentary Hypothesis with omniscient redactors who know 19th dynasty Egyptian place names and customs that fell out of use 400 years prior but who also can't see blatant "contradictions" in the text.
Of course they wouldn't have recognized them until after the Bronze Age Collapse, since Israel didn't exist yet and Yahwehism was largely unknown prior to the Israelite adoption of it.
> The people who would eventually become Hebrews likely picked up the language and customs from the empire that ruled over them and that they paid tribute to.
Ok, so you have no clue what you're talking about. There was never an Egyptian empire. The only direct control of the Levant Egypt exercised was a few small garrison towns. That is why so many kings went on campaign to bring back tribute to Egypt and is also why Ramses II lack of campaigns after the proposed Exodus is consistent with the Exodus narrative. Even by the time of his reign Egypt was unable to oppose the incursion of the sea people, but Ramses still went on campaign. After his 25th year however, he stopped. Obviously something happened, and the loss of his chariot core could be a reason why he lacked the military strength.
> There is nothing at all that indicates Rameses lost his chariots or that they have anything to do with his campaigns or why he went on them.
Except for the Exodus account and that such a blow is an explanation for why Ramses stopped going on military expeditions as opposed to "we don't know lol, but it definitely wasn't the Exodus". Like I said in my other comment "except for the evidence, there is no evidence".
I also like how you ignored my refutation of "extensive record keeping". If they kept such extensive records, then where are they? All of our sources for the 19th dynasty are inscriptions. Those records would have been kept at Pi-Ramses and Avaris which are close to the Nile in an extremely wet environment, not in sealed jars in a cave out by the Dead Sea. There's no reason to expect that they would have survived until today, if they even existed.
What's really wishful thinking is the lengths skeptics go to to invent imaginary sources so they can cling to the dying dregs of crap 19th century German higher criticism.
> The Mernephtah Stele does not mention the defeat of Isreal, it mentions the defeat of nomadic foreign people called Isiriar, among others.
Just completely glossing over the fact that the majority of scholars agree it mentions Israel. Yeah, people didn't think it was Israel back in the 1960s.
> The oldest seals for Hebrew kings use Egyptian symbolism, indicating they were still beholden to the Egyptians even into the Iron Age around 700 BCE.
Yes, which is consistent with my position and not yours, since nobody else in the Levant did that as you go on to point out. Did you even read my comment where I said that the Israelites have much more in common with the Egyptians than anybody else living in the Levant does, even though they were all supposedly beholden to the mighty Egyptian Empire which never existed?
Do some basic reading before commenting on this again. Like I said, people spouting off this nonsense are completely ignorant of the last 50 years of Scholarship.
zhivago6 t1_j3uc098 wrote
>Yes, and the Hyksos were overthrown by the Ramesside dynasty and they did their damndest to erase them from Egyptian history, hence why Exodus says a Pharaoh arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph (who would have been a Vizier under the Hyksos) and then the Hebrews became slaves.
Good try sport, you only missed it by a few centuries and an entire dynasty. It was Ahmose I that overthrew the Hyksos. His dynasty, with pharaohs like Thutmose I and Hatshepsut and Tutankhamun, came before the Ramesside. I do appreciate your wishful thinking about your bible myths though.
>The previous theory was that the Hebrews split off from the Canaanites, which is laughably false. Israelite material culture is clearly distinguishable from all other Canaanite material culture and it just appears suddenly during the early Iron Age.
I am afraid the archeology doesn't support that. The archeology of the Hyksos areas in Egypt shows that they were similar to Canaanites, and Canaanites in the Levant worshiped Yahweh and El among their gods, and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. The consensus among scholars is that Hebrews are a branch of Canaanites, and the Hebrew religion is an offshoot of Canaanite religion. I am sure it is painful to learn this for people who are emotionally invested, but that has no bearing on the evidence.
>You missed the part where I pointed out that the percentage of loan words is much higher than literally everybody else living in the Levant, even in correspondence sent TO the Egyptians. Some languages have 0 Egyptian loan words and even later books of the OT have less than the Pentateuch.
What other languages are you talking about here? Aramaic? Greek? Arabic? I didn't consider it before because it's something that doesn't mean anything without context, which you have not provided.
>Ok, so you have no clue what you're talking about. There was never an Egyptian empire.
There can be a debate about the meaning of Empire, but in general it is a position above king, a king of kings, as the Persians would say. The first pharaoh was Narmer, who united the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Over the millennium the land of Egypt would fragment into smaller kingdoms and then be united again. Various pharaohs would extract tribute from and station troops in the Nubia and the Levant and Libya. If you don't understand that to be an Empire, then fine, pick a different word, but Egypt still had a massive presence in what later became, for very short periods of time, an independent Israel.
I could go on but there is a lot of reading you need to do before you can catch up. Good luck buddy. Maybe don't get your information from "Biblical Archeology", because those folks start out with the answers and try to find evidence they can force to support.
[deleted] t1_j41r7e6 wrote
[deleted]
TamerSpoon3 t1_j41tjb5 wrote
> Good try sport, you only missed it by a few centuries and an entire dynasty. It was Ahmose I that overthrew the Hyksos. His dynasty, with pharaohs like Thutmose I and Hatshepsut and Tutankhamun, came before the Ramesside. I do appreciate your wishful thinking about your bible myths though.
Yes, I meant the 18th dynasty. Whatever. The point remains. Everybody knows that the Pharaoh of Exodus 1 is a composite figure and not just 1 guy. Well, maybe you don't.
> I am afraid the archeology doesn't support that. The archeology of the Hyksos areas in Egypt shows that they were similar to Canaanites, and Canaanites in the Levant worshiped Yahweh and El among their gods, and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. The consensus among scholars is that Hebrews are a branch of Canaanites, and the Hebrew religion is an offshoot of Canaanite religion. I am sure it is painful to learn this for people who are emotionally invested, but that has no bearing on the evidence.
More debunked 1960s nonsense from people who can't even read the text and more imaginary sources. Israelite sites are clearly distinguishable from Canaanite sites in the stratigraphy. This comes from the idiots who can't read Joshua properly and think the Israelites are said to have destroyed and rebuilt all of their settlements.
Joel Hoffman points out that Yahweh isn't attested anywhere other than in Israelite sources. The claim that he was worshiped by Canaanites is absolute fantasy. And you have the audacity to accuse me of "misrepresenting the evidence". You're literally just making shit up.
> What other languages are you talking about here? Aramaic? Greek? Arabic? I didn't consider it before because it's something that doesn't mean anything without context, which you have not provided.
The other Bronze age Levantine languages like Akkadian and Moabite. All of them have Egyptian loanwords and, but none have as much as are used in the Pentateuch. Later Hebrew writings don't even have that much.
> There can be a debate about the meaning of Empire, but in general it is a position above king, a king of kings, as the Persians would say. The first pharaoh was Narmer, who united the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Over the millennium the land of Egypt would fragment into smaller kingdoms and then be united again. Various pharaohs would extract tribute from and station troops in the Nubia and the Levant and Libya. If you don't understand that to be an Empire, then fine, pick a different word, but Egypt still had a massive presence in what later became, for very short periods of time, an independent Israel.
The point is that Egypt never ruled over it directly like you implied. No, they didn't have a "massive presence." They had influence, and even that was waning by the 19th dynasty.
> I could go on but there is a lot of reading you need to do before you can catch up. Good luck buddy. Maybe don't get your information from "Biblical Archeology", because those folks start out with the answers and try to find evidence they can force to support.
This entire field is "Biblical Archeology", idiot, since the OT is one of the largest written sources we have for the this region at this time.
But just keep sticking to your 20th century nonsense. Whatever makes you feel better.
We're done here.
pauciloquentpeep t1_j45v7v3 wrote
It would be awfully nice if both of you cited your sources.
Makaneek t1_j3tdn8r wrote
Something something absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Adlach t1_j3tezzw wrote
I've always thought this statement is ridiculous. I could claim anything with it. Russell's teapot.
PapaRacoon t1_j3ttwzx wrote
What’s ridiculous about it?
[deleted] t1_j3tu67p wrote
[deleted]
PapaRacoon t1_j3vkv79 wrote
In what way does it do that? Seems to say unless you’ve got evidence, you’ve got nothing?
Makaneek t1_j3tj6dn wrote
Be my guest, not sure why it should affect me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[deleted] t1_j3tjxve wrote
[deleted]
Makaneek t1_j3tnjds wrote
Interesting theory but it doesn't follow the theorem, evidence of absence is evidence of absence. Going by language Hebrew is West Semitic, putting the ancestral culture of both Hebrews and Arabs solidly in Eurasia when they lost mutual intelligibility.
If you're talking genetics nothing is debatable, I agree that a prehistoric Inuit man once journeyed back out of Alaska and is an ancestor to everyone alive by virtue of his genes having so long to spread around the earth.
zhivago6 t1_j3teqa3 wrote
That is correct, you can invent any silly story you want and pretend it is true just like people do with the Exodus myth.
Makaneek t1_j3tkste wrote
Adjectives aside, its explanatory power makes "pretending" a lot more like "assuming". I believe u/TamerSpoon3 already mentioned the abundance of Egyptian loanwords in the Torah but I know of no reason why events of an important story having roots in some foggy part of history should be a taboo idea.
The modern era got so enlightened that "bible bad" hardly flies anymore.
zhivago6 t1_j3u4ma9 wrote
If you read the bible, and then read the historical documents from other kingdoms and cultures who lived in the middle east, it becomes very clear that the bible is a combination of copied Mesopotamian myths and a fictionalized history of Iron Age Hebrews. Anyone in who reads it in the modern era can figure out its not bad, it's just like any other myth.
Makaneek t1_j3u8ulf wrote
Ah that's what you mean. I raise you the absence-of-evidence thing again, copying is a poor explanation for a picture better fit by a common cultural context. Huge differences abound in any example you can pick, so the best assumption is that the variations are derived from older versions of the stories with different cultures remembering what they found relevant:
zhivago6 t1_j3ug4qo wrote
Noah is a cheap copy of the far older Akkadian Altrahas. The 8 patriarchs correspond to the 8 ancient Sumerian kings. Moses' birth story is a variation of the far older Sargon of Akkad's birth. Moses commandments are a lesser copy of the far older Hammurabi's code. Solomon is a copy of Amenhotep III. After David it might be an actual record, a very loose one with lots of embellishments and some editing of prophecies, Egyptian style. But millions of clay tablets and monument inscriptions very clearly show that Israel was a tiny political entity with little significance to the events of the wider world.
Makaneek t1_j3ukdxo wrote
I can answer some more with this video and this one. But where does the count of 8 patriarchs come from? Or any specific resemblance between Solomon and Amenhotep? Insisting on plagiarism seems a bit cherry picked and self fulfilling.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments