Cege

Lars, I've been trying to research the claims you make and the resulting theory you set out in your first post of this thread. I'm left with quite a few questions, based on what I've found:

Do you realize that the tomb KV22 of Amenhotep III didn't contain his mummy? and that the mummy in KV35 that might be his, is disputed by some to be so? and that injuries found on the mummified body that might be Amenhotep III's probably happened when tombs were plundered, and then the mummy removed, none too carefully, to KV35 in the 21st dynasty?

If that's actually Amenhotep III, his mummified body's plunder and mishandling does not reflect injuries you suggest happened as a result of drowning in the Red Sea. And since the injuries are post-mortem, they don't lend to your suggestion that the embalming method was unusual in order to deal with those injuries.

As for Manetho's 'book', there are no remaining copies, and all that is available is what was written about some of his writing describing Osarsiph the "priest of Heliopolis", chiefly by Josephus in Antiquities and Against Appio . The names "Osarsiph" and "Moses" apparently have the same meaning.

Did you know that Manetho described (according to Josephus) Osarsiph as an Egyptian who led a group of Hebrew lepers out of Egypt? and that Osarsiph was the founder of monotheism?

That sounds less an argument for the reality of a mass Exodus lead by Moses as the Bible describes than an Egyptian story that was borrowed and greatly exaggerated by a group of people who later became Israelites.

Your celebration of gaining credibility for an archaeophistorical Exodus just seems a real stretch given the information you've based it on.

I'd love to find evidence to support the stories of Exodus, Judges, and Numbers but I've yet to find it.

Cege

I know this has strayed off topic, but I have to ask if that's your own personal translation of Gen 21:14-20? I've never heard a reference to water 'breasts' that Ishamel suckled when he and his mother wandered into the desert.

Asha'man

It's blank archaeologically because it didn't exist. The entire Exodus and conquest of Canaan is pure fiction, and fictional tales rarely leave archaeological evidence behind. You can make up stories about the Hebrews 'cleaning up after themselves' in order to explain a lack of evidence, or you can face the music and realize that there is a much simpler explanation for an utter and complete lack of evidence.

Let's bring up another quote from Finklestein in The Bible Unearthed:
There was no Exodus, there was no conquest of Canaan. Jericho was uninhabited and unfortified (no walls!) at the time the Hebrews were supposedly sacking the city and knocking down the walls.

The Hebrew people essentially didn't exist in the 13th century BCE, because they evolved gradually out of native Canaanites during the 10th thru 7th centuries BCE.

spin

This incidentally explains why the Hebrew language is closer to other Canaanite languages than Phoenician was and why Hebrew shows no signs of extended direct influence from the Egyptian language, as one so frequently finds when people of one language come under the influence of a language whose culture is more technologically sociologically developed. From the evidence Hebrew left the Canaanite fold and became a distinct language after Phoenician. This underscores the Canaanite origin of the Hebrews. So, why would they need an exodus to put them where they already were?


spin

Larsguy47

Well, actually, I was just thinking in comparison of what a nomadic, tent dwelling society is expected to leave behind for archaeologists compared to the great societies that sometimes enslave others to get great buildings built, leaving plenty of evidence they were here.

Now I agree, it certainly seems reasonable, especially with the numbers and children, etc. that they should have DROPPED something or broken something. But even that we presume they would have left it there in place where it would have remained without anyone subsequently retrieving it or anything. Further some known historial cities have completely disappeared apparently, perhaps because of the materials used, not stone but wood? So I'm just tempering a bit so that we know it's like studying the Egyptians versus the Arabs living in the desert and what you expect to find. People living in tents and grass huts compared to brick and stone dwellings, etc. People writing on clay vs skins and papyrus.

Now that doesn't work. The EXODUS is fully confirmed. We have the EA29 letter from Tusratta to Akhenaten that has "sorry your father died in the Red Sea with 1000 others, I wish 10,000 had died rather than the king himself" written all over it. And Akhenaten's sudden focus on an imageless god, right after the date of the Exodus? Amenhotep III's special embalming? Sorry, I can go with the argument that the conquest of Canaan suffers archareologically but please don't include the EXODUS in that catch-all. As I said before, the Exodus does well and from Shishak and Especially Ahab right through to the Persian Period the records of those in the region, who did write on stone and clay for the most part confirm the state of things precisely as the Bible does for the most part (sans whatever few years of manipulation there are); many of the people and events are consistently mirrored. So it's just this wilderness and early conquering of Canaan Period represented archaeologically that's of focus now. I'm going to reread the accounts from Joshua through David to get a better picture of specifics and then get back with you. I'm holding out for a logical explanation for this exception.


Well, that's certainly not true. But let's go with "Where's all the evidence of these very clean, tent-dwelling nomads whose clothing didn't wear out in 40 years at? Someone should have dropped something that wasn't picked up in 3300 years for us to know they were there!" Something metallic, or clay, right?

Investigation continues for the conquering of Canaan details. The Exodus and Ten Plauges are a historical reality.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

It's a "read between the lines thing."

So yes, it appears I did get a bit away from the details. But the main elements remain. She was given water and was carrying her 19-year son. The skin water bottle was situated on her shoulder, presumably so that Ishamael could have access to it and continue to drink from it. When the water was exhausted she threw him down, presumably believing that he was soon to die. Thus the between-the-lines context is that it appears Ischmael was actually condemned to death, maybe because Abraham was reluctant to send his son and concubine away over this matter, so God forced his hand. Hagar carrying Ishmael and his suckling from the bottle reflected what a mother and child would do if they thought it was lifesaving, so Hagar got a chance to nurse her son again and Ishmael became dependent upon his mother for his life, both to carry him and upon his nursing from the bottle of water she was carrying.

That's my take on it, anyway. Thanks for the refinement!

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Regarding this, the specifics, this is both out of date and presumptuous. For one, we know the Exodus occurs at the time of Akhenaten's 1st year. That brings the evidence back to the Late Bronze Age period where there is actually evidence of an occupation at Jericho. It then ceased to exist down until the time of the Iron Age as the Bible does note. So Jericho fits the timeline perfectly once you get the chronology right, which Finkelstein chooses not to. It's quite interesting that an archaeologist who would ate the fall of Jericho by the Israelites specifically from 1350-1325BCE wouldn't invoke the apparently dating of the Exodus 40 years earlier to 1390-1325BCE, even just as another potential dating! Finkelstein and most others address the 12th or 15th center Exodus scenarios, but what about the apparent one implied in relation to the fall of Jericho?

So with all due respect, if use the fall of Jericho per Kenyon's dating, Finkelstein's volume about Jericho gets turned way down. As far as what was left of the city and the walls are concerned, again, this was supposed to be a miracle when the walls fell flat. But what was the precise mechanism for that? Was it an earthquake that shook the walls down? Or did they turn into clay and just crumble? If it was the latter than the traditional walls left after a destruction wouldn't be in evidence anyway. Further, there's the issue if the walls collapsed but the bricks were still in intact, that they might have been scavenged for building materials elsewhere. That was quite a common practice. In this case, there was no demolishing work to be done, just pick and carry nicely available stones from the famous walls of Jericho. Maybe they were kept as souvenirs even to commenorate the event since it was associated with a miracle.

Point being, we don't know enough to expect the "norm" here in this case so the absence of the walls just might confirm something unusual rather than this event not happening.

A chief criticism of Finkelstein, though I'm a big fan, is that he doesn't include enough of the apparent scenarios before he stakes a whole big argument on something. Like coming up with his own idea as to why Shishak, if he wasn't attacking Rehoboam per the Bible, would attack all those northern cities, thus having "no geopolical" reason to do so. But in fact, Shishak's invasion was during the reign of Solomon, likely his 39th year and so the attack on the northern cities was an attack on Rehoboam's domain at the time. That completely takes the wind out of the sails of his theory that Shishak was coming to these really underdeveloped cities (yeah right, that's why he listed 100 of them in his inscription? just small rural towns of some nobodies--jot cha!). So that doesn't work. Plus when you correct the chronology, either by the timing for Jericho and the Exodus at with Akhenaten or the specific RC14 dating from Rehov, dating Solomon to a later period and Shishak as well, then these were powerful, fortified cities 54-60 years later, so Shishak was attacking a different region entirely. So alot of Finkelstein's arguments seem to work best when he has the wrong chronology but fall flat when the corrected Biblical chronology is actually applied.

So I don't know. If the Jews in the wilderness were super "neat freaks" (not a derogatory term) and picked up every little piece of anything they dropped and then when they left had a special crew to really clean up the place, maybe even replant some trees or something, then I'm wondering what would be left for archaeologists to find after all these years? The only nonbiodegradable things are metal and clay, right? So I don't know. Maybe the total lack of evidence proves just that, that they were far cleaner and neater than we imagine them to be.

People living in tents usually travel light, have few uncessary "decorative" possessions and take everything with them when they move from place to place.

Larsguy47

spin

This is a pure falsehood. There is nothing of the kind. What you'll find is:

EA 29.55f
When Nimmuriya [ie Amenhotep III] went to his destiny, he spoke (and I heard) what he said, "cook in the caldron", but I fasted that day [..] sat, food and drink that day not taken, I was saddened, and I (said): "let 10,000 in my land and 10,000 in the land of my brother die, so that he who loves me may live in heaven and earth."

Who is responsible for this deceit you are spreading, Larsguy47?


spin

xaxxat

With 2 million people walking on the ground for 38 years at Kadesh-Barnea, don't you think the ground would have been heavily impacted? Once again, read about the roads to Ubar...

(I know, I know... the Jews had helium ballons up their asses so they were light on their feat...)

:huh:

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
Not reasonable, inevitable. We are talking about over a million people for 38 years.

Larsguy47:
Take the course. Do some reading. The fact that you are making remarks like this makes this whole discussion, in which you are pretending to some kind of serious knowledge, to be rather ridiculous.
Start your reading here.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=68469

Larsguy47:
A statement like this shows that you have no concept of scientific method. To accept, with out proof, a miracle, is simply ridiculous. And, by the way, a text several thousand years old, without supporting evidence, is not proof that will be accepted by historians.

Larsguy47:
Dude, this is unconscienceable in a serious discussion. You need to drop out of this thread and do some research on Middle Eastern archeology of the Bronze Age. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke out your ass.

Larsguy47:
The fact that you’re making statements like this the middle of this discussion demonstrates that, basically, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Larsguy47:
Go do your homework. You have no business making the kind of statements you’re making about pottery, metal, wood, tents, remnants, slit trenches, etc., without having done some research in Middle East archeology. Religious belief is no replacement scientific study.

From RED DAVE:
Larsguy47:
No, we do not. When we hear about so-called miracles, we immediately, according to the scientific method, as applied to history, say, "No way without proof." And you ain't got any.

Larsguy47:
It does no such thing. What you are suggesting is that because the Egyptians were, allegedly, defeated by their slaves, they adopted some semblance of their religion. Without a detailed analysis of the content of these two religions, which you have not provided, such a statement is unfounded and ridiculous.

Larsguy47:
The only thing miraculous is that you believe in them.

Larsguy47:
As demonstrated in spin's post 98, above, your so-called report is based on distortion of the text.

Larsguy47:
We dismiss it because there is no evidence.

Larsguy47:
If you believe, on the basis of a single text that is thousands of years old, that the ancient Hebrews had garments that didn't wear out, I invite you to come visit in New York. There's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I know we Jews are in the garment industry, but garments that don't wear out, we never got to. Blue jeans, yes. Garments that don't wear out, no.

Larsguy47:
Start with the link provided above.

RED DAVE