Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 09-30-2002, 03:18 PM

When considering the immense resources of biblical archaeology, there appears to be an inordinate amount of flippant dismissal or ridicule on these boards regarding biblical reliability. Perhaps this comes from an ignorance that in many, many cases, the biblical record has been corroborated by substantial external evidence.

What follows is an excerpt from the book "Pharoahs and Kings", written by egyptologist David Rohl, who is currently Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS) and President of Sussex Egyptology Society (SES).

<a href="http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/CV/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/CV/index.html</a>

In reading this, you will see one example of convincing evidence which corroborates the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt as recorded in Exodus.

Please feel free to submit your comments and criticisms concerning this specific evidence as it relates directly to Exodus.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Quote:

The Brooklyn Museum possesses a tattered papyrus roll, whose uninspiring catalog number is Brooklyn 35.1446. The papyrus was originally purchased by Charles Wilbour, intrepid "secret agent of Emil Brugsch sent to Thebes in 1881 on a mission to ferret out the tomb robbers believed to have found an intact royal tomb. (As you now know that the turned out to be the famous Royal Cache.) Wilbour's papyrus roll is dated to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I, and therefore the king who reigned in Egypt generation before the birth of Moses in the New Chronology. The biblical narrative tells us that, prior to the birth of Moses, the Israelite population was subjugated by the native Egyptians and forced into slavery.

The recto [front] of the Brooklyn Papyrus contains a copy of a royal decree by Sobekhotep III which authorizes the transfer of ownership of a group of domestic slaves/servants (Egy. khenmu) to an estate in the Theban area. The verso [back of the papyrus] then contains a list of household servants which can probably be identified with the slave group mentioned on the recto. Analysis of the list of servants reveals that over fifty percent of the ninety-five names are Semitic in origin. These foreign servants are each clearly designated as aamu-- the Egyptian term for "Asiatic". Their Egyptian names are also separately listed -- the names given to them by their owners. For example we read: "The Asiatic Dodihuatu, who is called Ankhuemhesut".

So, half of the domestic slaves of this Egyptian estate where Asiatics who had been given Egyptian names. What is more, when we study the actual appellations themselves we find that several are biblical names.

(a) Thus we see at position 11 the name "Menahem" later recorded for the sixteenth king of Israel (743-738 BC);

(b) At 13, 14, 16, 22, and 67 we have variants of the tribal eponym "Issachar" the name of the two sons of Leah by Jacob;

(c) At 23 the name of the clan "Asher" occurs, named after its eponymous ancestor, the second son of Zilpah by Jacob;

(d) and finally at position 21 we read "Shiphrah", the name carried by one of the two Hebrew midwives instructed to kill the Israelite newborn males in exodus 1:15-21.

The Egyptian term Apiru, which as we have noted in the Amarna period has clear historical affinities with the biblical term "Hebrew" (Heb. sing. ibri pl. ibrim), also appears in the Brooklyn Papyrus. Thus we read "Apiru-Rishpu" at position 9.

If the verso of the Brooklyn Papyrus is representative of a typical Egyptian estate in the mid Thirteenth Dynasty, then at least half the total servant population in Egypt at this time was of Syro-Palestinian origin. The great American philologist William Foxwell Albright long ago recognized that the names of these Asiatic people belong to the northwest-semitic language group which includes biblical Hebrew. Bearing in mind that the Brooklyn Papyrus lists the domestic slaves of an Upper Egyptian estate, we may logically conclude that the Asiatics slave population in the North (Lower Egypt), and especially the delta nearest the Levant, would have been much larger and may have constituted the vast majority of the bonded workforce. Other documents confirm that the size of the Asiatic community in Egypt at this time was significant. This state of affairs accords well with biblical tradition.

But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they became so numerous and powerful that eventually the whole land was full of them [Exodus 1:7]

In the previous chapter I noted that an analysis of the graves at Tell ed-Daba has shown that there were more females than males in the burial population of Avaris. I suggested this could conceivably reflect the story of the culling of the Israelite males described in Exodus 1:15-22. A similar picture emerges from the Brooklyn Papyrus. In his commentary William Hayes (the editor of the document) remarks on the problem of determining the origins of this large Asiatic slave population and then goes on to ponder the high proportion of female slaves listed in the papyrus:

"Perhaps the most surprising circumstance associated with these Asiatic servants is that an Upper Egyptian official of the mid Thirteenth Dynasty should have had well over forty of them in his personal possession. If a comparable number of servants was to be found in every large Egyptian household, one wonders by what means such quantities of Asiatic serving people found their way into Egypt at this time and how they chanced to be available as domestic servants for private citizens. ... The ratio of women to men, which is here about three to one, might further suggest that they were the spoils of war taken during military campaigns on raids in which most of the local male population went down fighting. We know, however, of no large-scale Egyptian military operations in Western Asia at any time during the Middle Kingdom and certainly of none during the Thirteenth Dynasty."

... the reduction in the male Asiatic population is not due to a series of (unattested) wars in the north, but rather as a result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Egyptian state to reduce the perceived Israelite threat by means of male infanticide (as described in Exodus 1:15-22). The origin of these foreigners is also explained: they entered Egypt in the years following the arrival of Jacob and his immediate bretheren into the land of Goshen. During their long sojourn these disparate Asiatic groups (which we could give the overall classification of "Hebrews/Habiru/Apiru"-- including the Israelites themselves) would gradually forge nationhood through the common burden of slavery under the late Thirteenth Dynasty Pharaohs.

Conclusion Twenty-Five

The bonded Asiatics servants recorded in the various documents of the Thirteen Dynasty (especially Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446) are to be identified with the "mixed multitude" of Asiatics who eventually left Egypt under the leadership of Moses [Exodus 12:38]. The Israelite population, descended from Jacob, formed the major part of this group and a number of Hebrew/Israelite names can be recognized within the documents of this period.

-- David Rohl, Pharoahs and Kings, 1995, Chapter 13 (p. 275-278)

Hayden · 09-30-2002, 03:43 PM

In the film The Mummy, as he is about to be killed by Imhotep, Benny runs through a series of prayers and religious symbols before finding the Star of David and chanting in Hebrew. Imhotep exclaims, "Ah! The language of the slaves!". Therefore, this is already corroborated.

Seriously though, have you an example of someone denying that (at least some) Israelis were slaves in Egypt? Further, is there any (non-biblical) evidence of every first-born child (son?) dying mysteriously, or a mass exodus of the slaves?

Most people accept that Pontius Pilate, Bethlehem and the Roman Empire existed 2002 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the story of Jesus is literally true.

HR

lpetrich · 09-30-2002, 03:59 PM

An especially fun example of the contortions that many apologists put themselves through is how they explain the absence of any Egyptian records of Moses and the Exodus.

Although it is true that ancient Egyptian chroniclers were not fond of recording defeats, something like the Exodus was too big to ignore. And in fact, it could be made to seem like some great triumph, the expulsion of some pesky slaves or something like that.

Hayden · 09-30-2002, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
And in fact, it could be made to seem like some great triumph, the expulsion of some pesky slaves or something like that.

"So, you got rid of your slaves, then?"

"Yeah, their god killed all of our firstborn."

"Unbelievable"

"What's worse, they spread blood over their walls! That's gonna take me hours to clean off!"

Please excuse cheap comedic interruption

HR

Vorkosigan · 09-30-2002, 04:27 PM

The Wilbour Papyrus deals with tax assessments on land owned by temples and other corporate land owning bodies. A description may be found <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn20b.htm" target="_blank">. The verso and recto sides consist of two different texts</a>.

Rohl's chronology is highly controversial, and the name affinities, even if correct, cannot be taken as evidence for Hebrew slaves in Egypt because his assumptions are suspect. Here are some links to <a href="http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/RS.html" target="_blank">David Rohl</a>. I believe the papyrus is conventionally dated to the reign of Ramses V, c 1150

Vorkosigan

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Vanderzyden · 09-30-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


Rohl's chronology is highly controversial, and the name affinities, even if correct, cannot be taken as evidence for Hebrew slaves in Egypt because his assumptions are suspect.

Indeed, the New Chronology is controversial among the old guard egyptologists. But the arguments from his meticulous research are quite compelling. It is easy to dismiss someone categorically when vanity raises its ugly head or when a career is perceived to be in jeopardy.

Vork, I would be most interested in an elaboration of your claim that his "assumptions are suspect." Have you read his work, or are you relying on critiques?

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Kosh · 09-30-2002, 05:41 PM

Here's your suspect assumption right here, Vanderhyzen:

Quote:

If the verso of the Brooklyn Papyrus is representative of a typical Egyptian estate in the mid Thirteenth Dynasty, then at least half the total servant population in Egypt at this time was of Syro-Palestinian origin.

You cannot, from one sample, make an assumption about the population. If you believe that, you need a refresher in basic statistics. Now, a sample of at least 30 (the Central Limit Theorem) taken randomly from the entire population would allow you to make such a statement. But not one.

Edited to add: That of course would only work for a normally distributed population, which in itself is not necessarily a good assumption.

Those Hebrews. Always getting lost in the crowd with the Chinese...

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kosh ]

Jayhawker Soule · 09-30-2002, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Indeed, the New Chronology is controversial among the old guard egyptologists. But the arguments from his meticulous research are quite compelling.

What meticulous research? Where peer reviewed? Why compelling? How is it received by scholars such as Mazar, Derver, and Redford, and why. This is getting very tiresome, very fast.

Vorkosigan · 09-30-2002, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Vork, I would be most interested in an elaboration of your claim that his "assumptions are suspect." Have you read his work, or are you relying on critiques?

Thanks,
Vanderzyden

Rely on critiques, of course. People have been trying to "revise" Egyptian Chronology since Newton first wrote massively on the topic. The accepted position, backed by archaeological evidence, and strong methodology, is that the papyrus dates from after the Hebrews left Egypt.

<a href="http://www.free-essays-free-essays.com/dbase/6e/rfh11.shtml" target="_blank">On Rohl's book</a>

Hayden · 10-01-2002, 12:16 AM

If you happen to pop back in, Vanderzyden, would you mind addressing my serious questions in the first response to the OP?

Cheers,
HR

09-30-2002, 04:27 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The Wilbour Papyrus deals with tax assessments on land owned by temples and other corporate land owning bodies. A description may be found <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn20b.htm" target="_blank">. The verso and recto sides consist of two different texts</a>. Rohl's chronology is highly controversial, and the name affinities, even if correct, cannot be taken as evidence for Hebrew slaves in Egypt because his assumptions are suspect. Here are some links to <a href="http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/RS.html" target="_blank">David Rohl</a>. I believe the papyrus is conventionally dated to the reign of Ramses V, c 1150 Vorkosigan [ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

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

09-30-2002, 03:43 PM	#2
Hayden Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 712	In the film The Mummy, as he is about to be killed by Imhotep, Benny runs through a series of prayers and religious symbols before finding the Star of David and chanting in Hebrew. Imhotep exclaims, "Ah! The language of the slaves!". Therefore, this is already corroborated. Seriously though, have you an example of someone denying that (at least some) Israelis were slaves in Egypt? Further, is there any (non-biblical) evidence of every first-born child (son?) dying mysteriously, or a mass exodus of the slaves? Most people accept that Pontius Pilate, Bethlehem and the Roman Empire existed 2002 years ago, but that doesn't mean that the story of Jesus is literally true. HR

09-30-2002, 03:59 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	An especially fun example of the contortions that many apologists put themselves through is how they explain the absence of any Egyptian records of Moses and the Exodus. Although it is true that ancient Egyptian chroniclers were not fond of recording defeats, something like the Exodus was too big to ignore. And in fact, it could be made to seem like some great triumph, the expulsion of some pesky slaves or something like that.

10-01-2002, 12:16 AM	#10
Hayden Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 712	If you happen to pop back in, Vanderzyden, would you mind addressing my serious questions in the first response to the OP? Cheers, HR

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.