Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Exoheretic · 08-17-2006, 01:58 PM

Hello everyone, I've been lurking on this site for some time. I was prompted to register in order to start this topic. I'm sure most of you have heard of a film called Exodus Decoded, which claims to show that the Exodus actually happened and that the Israelites were in fact the Hyksos. I'm skeptical; however, the case presented in the film seems, at least superficially, pretty compelling. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Egyptian Archaological Evidence

* The Hyksos Expulsion, contemporaneous Egyptian records of the departure of the mysterious Semitic Hyksos people. Jacobovich suggests that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one and the same, a thesis he supports with Egyptian-style signet rings uncovered in the Hyksos capital of Avaris that read "Yakob," the Hebrew name of the Biblical patriach Jacob

* The 2A Ahmose stele, a stone tablet unearthed in Karnak by Henri Chevalier in 1947, the only Egyptian tablet ever found which mentions "GOD" in the singular. In it, "God" incurs some of the same plagues described in the Biblical account(i.e. darkness, a great storm). The Exodus Decoded official website quotes the stele, "How much greater is this the impressive manifestation of the great god, than the plans of the gods!"

* Ahmose. Jacobovitch suggests that the name of the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus may have been a paronomasia. In Hebrew, the Egyptian name Ahmose would mean "Brother of Moses." The documentary also examines the mummy of Ahmose's son Sapair, who appears to have died at the age of twelve. In the Bible, the pharaoh loses a son to the Plague of the Firstborn.

* 6A Serabit el Khadim turquoise mine, a slave labour camp in the Sinai with a Semitic aphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." The use of "El" suggests that it was written before the revelation at Sinai, supporting the thesis that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt when the Bible says they were.

As I understand it, the general consensus around here is that the Exodus is purely fictional. However, I think that this archaeological evidence makes a pretty good case that, at the very least, the Exodus was based on a historical event. Then again, I'm not very familiar with Egyptian history; could someone who is explain whether or not Exodus Decoded's thesis is valid, and why?

Toto · 08-17-2006, 03:31 PM

This was most recently discussed here in this thread.

Toto · 08-17-2006, 03:40 PM

Distinguish between "the Exodus really happened" - which has no evidence for it and a lot against it - and "the Exodus story is based on some historical events, reworked and reinterpreted" - which might have something to it, but does nothing to prove that there was an Exodus as described in the Bible.

As pointed out in the previous thread, the Hyksos were rulers, not slave, and the timing is wrong.

Note also that the filmmaker is Jacobovici, not Jacobovich.

Exoheretic · 08-17-2006, 04:11 PM

Okay, let me clarify. The thesis I'm asking about is something like "The Hyksos and Israelites were one and the same, and they left Egypt through the Sinai Peninsula into Palestine." The first clause is the most important one, and I'm certainly not asking if this amounts to a case for Biblical inerrancy.

And thanks for the link.

Kosh · 08-17-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoheretic

Okay, let me clarify. The thesis I'm asking about is something like "The Hyksos and Israelites were one and the same, and they left Egypt through the Sinai Peninsula into Palestine." The first clause is the most important one, and I'm certainly not asking if this amounts to a case for Biblical inerrancy.

And thanks for the link.

As Finkelstein points out in The Bible Unearthed, archeological evidence shows that the Isrealites evolved out of a sub-culture of Canaanites, and were native to Canaan. No conquest, no displacement.

Just a bunch of hillbillies who forgot who their daddies were...

rob117 · 08-17-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoheretic

Egyptian Archaological Evidence

* The Hyksos Expulsion, contemporaneous Egyptian records of the departure of the mysterious Semitic Hyksos people. Jacobovich suggests that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one and the same, a thesis he supports with Egyptian-style signet rings uncovered in the Hyksos capital of Avaris that read "Yakob," the Hebrew name of the Biblical patriach Jacob

* The 2A Ahmose stele, a stone tablet unearthed in Karnak by Henri Chevalier in 1947, the only Egyptian tablet ever found which mentions "GOD" in the singular. In it, "God" incurs some of the same plagues described in the Biblical account(i.e. darkness, a great storm). The Exodus Decoded official website quotes the stele, "How much greater is this the impressive manifestation of the great god, than the plans of the gods!"

* Ahmose. Jacobovitch suggests that the name of the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus may have been a paronomasia. In Hebrew, the Egyptian name Ahmose would mean "Brother of Moses." The documentary also examines the mummy of Ahmose's son Sapair, who appears to have died at the age of twelve. In the Bible, the pharaoh loses a son to the Plague of the Firstborn.

* 6A Serabit el Khadim turquoise mine, a slave labour camp in the Sinai with a Semitic aphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." The use of "El" suggests that it was written before the revelation at Sinai, supporting the thesis that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt when the Bible says they were.

*Yakob was a common Northwest Semitic name. Both the Hyksos and Hebrews were of Northwest Semitic origin. This does not mean they were one and the same.

*Never heard of this. I suspect the claim is exaggerated. A great storm is not one of the biblical plagues. The "plagues" you mention are probably general attributes of the deity mentioned as manifestations of his power. The Ipuwer papyrus, a theodicy poem from the late Middle Kingdom, refers to "God" in the singular-probably the abstract divine concept, i.e. that held by Herodotus, who was certainly a polytheist. The singular use of the term "God" to signify the godhead does not signify monotheism, but, a la Herodotus and modern Hinduism, can be used as a metaphor for "the Divine" in general.

*"Ahmose" means "The Moon God is Born." The element -mose means "born of" in Egyptian and is also the root of the name Moses (probably meaning "Son"). The speculation about Ahmose's son is without basis.

*El was the chief god of the early Northwest Semitic pantheon. In the Iron age he was supplanted by Hadad among the Aramaeans, by various city gods among the Phoenicians and Philistines, and was absorbed by the national deity in the Palestinian nations (Yahweh in Israel and Judah, Chemosh in Moab, Milcom in Ammon, and Qos in Edom). It is probable that the exodus story rests on a memory of the Egyptian use of shasu-bedouin as slaves, some of whom formed a component of the early Israelites; but the Israelite population as a whole was largely indigenous to Canaan.

Seems like crackpot scholarship to me.

jayh · 08-18-2006, 09:49 AM

The premise proposed in 'The Bible Unearthed' by Finkelstein and Silberman seems profoundly sensible.

In a nutshell:

There never was a real exodus as described, and that the Isrealites were really just another Canaanite tribe. No copies of these accounts appear till the 7th century BCE when king Josiah 'finds' a copy of the book of the law (convenient, as the nation was falling apart). He suggests that the accounts really represent 7th century sensibilities (such as the reference to Abraham from Chaldea... an exotic location to the 7th century mind) and pulled together a lot older tales into a single more or less coherent tale.

Suddenly the Isrealites had a history, and a kind of national pride that did not exist before.

There is a hell of a lot more detail in that book, well worth it even if you have doubts.

[As I've pointed out in earlier posts, it's a mistake, even when looking for historical basis, to assume all these things happened at the times specified, or in the order specified. Oral histories had a habit of becoming very fluid chronologically and events that didn't occur at the same time wind up being represented together]

rob117 · 08-18-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayh

The premise proposed in 'The Bible Unearthed' by Finkelstein and Silberman seems profoundly sensible.

In a nutshell:

There never was a real exodus as described, and that the Isrealites were really just another Canaanite tribe. No copies of these accounts appear till the 7th century BCE when king Josiah 'finds' a copy of the book of the law (convenient, as the nation was falling apart). He suggests that the accounts really represent 7th century sensibilities (such as the reference to Abraham from Chaldea... an exotic location to the 7th century mind) and pulled together a lot older tales into a single more or less coherent tale.

Suddenly the Isrealites had a history, and a kind of national pride that did not exist before.

There is a hell of a lot more detail in that book, well worth it even if you have doubts.

[As I've pointed out in earlier posts, it's a mistake, even when looking for historical basis, to assume all these things happened at the times specified, or in the order specified. Oral histories had a habit of becoming very fluid chronologically and events that didn't occur at the same time wind up being represented together]

A problem I have with Finkelstein and Silberman's reconstruction is that they don't allow for earlier written sources. Yes, the 7th century is when the Deuteronomistic History was first composed, but it used older sources. The author of Deuteronomy knew the combined JE text intimately, as Moses' flashback in Deuteronomy follows the combined JE narrative. E is unlikely to have been written after the fall of Samaria as it focuses on the northern tribes; J and E are unlikely to have been Josianic propaganda because they endorse multiple cult places. J and E are written in an earlier form of Hebrew than P and D, and much of the material in Samuel is earlier still. The tribal structure found in Samuel is very different from the artificial "12 tribes" of the later sources- the Gileadites are treated as a distinct tribe (as opposed to a clan of Manasseh) the Arielites are treated as a Moabite tribe (as opposed to a clan of Gad); the line between Israelites and Gibeonites is very fluid, and the Judahites seem to be only halfway integrated into the "Israelite" identity, and seem like a very newly-formed entity; several clan names appear that are not mentioned in other sources; and some of the Samuel material depicts idolatry among the Israelites without condemning it- I suggest reading David's Secret Demons by Baruch Halpern for a convincing defense of the antiquity of most of the Samuel material in comparison even to J and E. The biblical text underwent a long process of development and redaction; Finkelstein makes it seem like it emerged fully-formed from the mind of Josiah's scribes in the seventh century.

This is not to say that there was an exodus. Even J and E (c.830-770 BC?) are usually dated long after the event would have taken place. The archaic Song of the Sea (c.1100-1050?) in Exodus 15 describes a battle by the sea between Yahweh-worshippers and Egyptians, and some historical event may lie behind it that gave rise to the exodus tradition, but this is far from the mass exodus postulated by the prose sources.

Sven · 08-19-2006, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

A problem I have with Finkelstein and Silberman's reconstruction is that they don't allow for earlier written sources. Yes, the 7th century is when the Deuteronomistic History was first composed, but it used older sources. [...] The biblical text underwent a long process of development and redaction; Finkelstein makes it seem like it emerged fully-formed from the mind of Josiah's scribes in the seventh century.

It's been some time since I read the book, but I don't remember anything which does not allow for earlier written sources. Could you provide some citations, please?

Toto · 08-19-2006, 10:52 AM

An interesting review, which seems to praise Jacobovici's artistic technique while labeling his content as delusional.

TV Review: 'The Exodus Decoded': A Biblical Theory in Video Game Graphics

Quote:

... A groovy Emmy-nominated filmmaker in a bob and a hip yarmulke, Mr. Jacobovici presents theories of ancient religious history that in a less stentorian voice might sound like baloney. You might even feel sorry for him, as if he were one of those guys whose tender intellect has been sandbagged by notions about Atlantis or Area 51. But because he’s sometimes right, and because he’s charismatic and never daunted, you don’t feel pity at even the most mad hypotheses. You feel rapt.

. . .

This mind-bending argument is made with dutiful reference to hieroglyphs, interviews, scholarship and archaeology. But don’t expect to follow it. The voice-over — Mr. Jacobovici’s — strives for the ring of lucidity, and he certainly sounds positive, but sentence by sentence he busies himself so adamantly, connecting one dot to the next, that you often forget where you are in the master plan. (This, to me, is one hallmark of a conspiracy theory.) He also does not entertain competing arguments. He has his story, and it explains the ways of God to man, and he’s sticking to it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2006, 03:31 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This was most recently discussed here in this thread.

08-17-2006, 03:40 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Distinguish between "the Exodus really happened" - which has no evidence for it and a lot against it - and "the Exodus story is based on some historical events, reworked and reinterpreted" - which might have something to it, but does nothing to prove that there was an Exodus as described in the Bible. As pointed out in the previous thread, the Hyksos were rulers, not slave, and the timing is wrong. Note also that the filmmaker is Jacobovici, not Jacobovich.

08-17-2006, 04:11 PM	#4
Exoheretic Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: United States Posts: 7	Okay, let me clarify. The thesis I'm asking about is something like "The Hyksos and Israelites were one and the same, and they left Egypt through the Sinai Peninsula into Palestine." The first clause is the most important one, and I'm certainly not asking if this amounts to a case for Biblical inerrancy. And thanks for the link.

08-18-2006, 09:49 AM	#7
jayh Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 4,606	The premise proposed in 'The Bible Unearthed' by Finkelstein and Silberman seems profoundly sensible. In a nutshell: There never was a real exodus as described, and that the Isrealites were really just another Canaanite tribe. No copies of these accounts appear till the 7th century BCE when king Josiah 'finds' a copy of the book of the law (convenient, as the nation was falling apart). He suggests that the accounts really represent 7th century sensibilities (such as the reference to Abraham from Chaldea... an exotic location to the 7th century mind) and pulled together a lot older tales into a single more or less coherent tale. Suddenly the Isrealites had a history, and a kind of national pride that did not exist before. There is a hell of a lot more detail in that book, well worth it even if you have doubts. [As I've pointed out in earlier posts, it's a mistake, even when looking for historical basis, to assume all these things happened at the times specified, or in the order specified. Oral histories had a habit of becoming very fluid chronologically and events that didn't occur at the same time wind up being represented together]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.