Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sole Controller · 03-21-2002, 06:48 AM

According to my understanding of history, the acient Egyptians were excellent keepers of records. With this in mind, Why are there no records of a mass exodus of Jewish slaves in acient egyptian history. Also would that not have put a black mark on Ramses rein.

Flynn McKerrow · 03-21-2002, 07:09 AM

Could it be that there was no mass exodus?

leonarde · 03-21-2002, 07:10 AM

This is merely speculation on my part (never looked into the matter):
1)history is always SOMEWHAT subjective.
2)historians of the past who worked for royalty
tended to praise their employers.
3)because of 2)triumphs are played up (glorified
in writing) and defeats are ignored or minimized

Soooo if we take Exodus seriously a significant
Jewish population managed to extricate itself from
bondage to the pharoah. Not something the pharoah's personal historian would want to emphasize.

If we take Exodus as an exaggeration then the
numbers of Jews fleeing were fewer and could easily been ignored by an historian....

Pandora · 03-21-2002, 07:19 AM

Author and historian Ahmed Osman has some interesting theories on this in his book "Out of Eygpt"

He believes that the biblical exodus is based on the exile of Pharoah Ahkanaten with his people the Semites.

Eudaimonist · 03-21-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sole Controller:
According to my understanding of history, the acient Egyptians were excellent keepers of records. With this in mind, Why are there no records of a mass exodus of Jewish slaves in acient egyptian history. Also would that not have put a black mark on Ramses rein.

The Egyptians were excellent keepers of records... for approved historical information. Didn't they try to wipe out records for Pharoahs they didn't approve of, such as Ahkanaten? I suppose the Egyptians were a little like the Soviet Communists in this way.

SirMonkey · 03-21-2002, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sole Controller:
According to my understanding of history, the acient Egyptians were excellent keepers of records. With this in mind, Why are there no records of a mass exodus of Jewish slaves in acient egyptian history. Also would that not have put a black mark on Ramses rein.

One interesting possible solution, not that I've investigated it fully, is found here: <a href="http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html" target="_blank">http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html</a>
Miller basically argues here that the only people in the Egypt at the time who both could and would write anything about it were the King's scribes. But that the Pharaonic dynasty in control of the scribes would have done everything possible to cover up the event. Enjoy!

RyanS2 · 03-21-2002, 10:57 AM

His argument is flawed in many areas:

"The Flood of Noah (with ark and survivors) is attested in over 100 cultures all over the world. The details are often different, but the basic elements of the story line are there. Would these constitute unambiguous evidence? (It is certainly pervasive enough to support a 'worldwide' event). Probably not for the skeptic."

Remember now that this is from the same man who argues that we cannot accept that Jesus is a copycat saviour because none of the saviours are EXACTLY identical to Jesus. That's his argument, not mine. However, in the cases where this kind of argument is in his favor, (that you don't need the exact same argument, so long as they have the same theme), he's more than willing to make it. He also forgets that these people he's talking about are outside of India, China, and Egypt, who don't have these records. Andrew White reports that nineteenth century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before the biblical Flood of Noah, and that no such flood had ever interrupted it.

Second, he incriminates himself. He notes that military attacks were of primary importance, and even the ones that went unsuccessfully were recorded. What else could you call 3 million slaves leaving and killing the Pharoah and his best men? Farrell Till makes a quote that:

"The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites."

Whatever happened we don't know, but both people recorded the battle. Is there any instance where this doesn't happen? He loves talking about the Sumerians, according to "Legacy: The Search for Ancient Cultures", (which is talking about epigraphic evidence), the fall of Sumeria was marked by literature and inscriptions talking about sorrow, the loss in battle, and how it was the end of the World. Why should we accept a different historical approach to this? Arabia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Assyria, and Egypt all recorded their historical losses in battle. Why should this be any different?

lpetrich · 03-21-2002, 12:59 PM

Also, they could have attempted to make their defeat seem like a victory -- a successful expulsion of some pesky slaves and their traitor of a leader.

03-21-2002, 01:07 PM

A lot of the OT seems like exaggeration of the part of the Hebrews (they liked big numbers of slain, etc.)They may have been god's chosen people, but they didn't strike their neighbours that way.

ShottleBop · 03-21-2002, 01:46 PM

<a href="http://www.ohr.org.il/special/pesach/ipuwer.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ohr.org.il/special/pesach/ipuwer.htm</a>

Quote:

In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus.

The link shows the chart referred to.

. . . of course, not everyone agrees that the papyrus relates to the Exodus:

<a href="http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm" target="_blank">http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm</A>

Quote:

Fringe historians often compare the contents of this papyrus with the second book of the bible, Exodus. Such comparisons between Egyptian texts and the bible are easily made and assuming Egyptian influence on the Hebrews is reasonable, given their at times close contacts. To conclude from these similarities that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: ShottleBop ]

03-21-2002, 06:48 AM	#1
Sole Controller Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 25	Why is there no record of an exodus in egyptian history According to my understanding of history, the acient Egyptians were excellent keepers of records. With this in mind, Why are there no records of a mass exodus of Jewish slaves in acient egyptian history. Also would that not have put a black mark on Ramses rein.

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

03-21-2002, 07:09 AM	#2
Flynn McKerrow Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: surrounded by fundies Posts: 768	Could it be that there was no mass exodus?

03-21-2002, 07:10 AM	#3
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	This is merely speculation on my part (never looked into the matter): 1)history is always SOMEWHAT subjective. 2)historians of the past who worked for royalty tended to praise their employers. 3)because of 2)triumphs are played up (glorified in writing) and defeats are ignored or minimized Soooo if we take Exodus seriously a significant Jewish population managed to extricate itself from bondage to the pharoah. Not something the pharoah's personal historian would want to emphasize. If we take Exodus as an exaggeration then the numbers of Jews fleeing were fewer and could easily been ignored by an historian....

03-21-2002, 07:19 AM	#4
Pandora Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: UK Posts: 367	Author and historian Ahmed Osman has some interesting theories on this in his book "Out of Eygpt" He believes that the biblical exodus is based on the exile of Pharoah Ahkanaten with his people the Semites.

03-21-2002, 10:57 AM	#7
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	His argument is flawed in many areas: "The Flood of Noah (with ark and survivors) is attested in over 100 cultures all over the world. The details are often different, but the basic elements of the story line are there. Would these constitute unambiguous evidence? (It is certainly pervasive enough to support a 'worldwide' event). Probably not for the skeptic." Remember now that this is from the same man who argues that we cannot accept that Jesus is a copycat saviour because none of the saviours are EXACTLY identical to Jesus. That's his argument, not mine. However, in the cases where this kind of argument is in his favor, (that you don't need the exact same argument, so long as they have the same theme), he's more than willing to make it. He also forgets that these people he's talking about are outside of India, China, and Egypt, who don't have these records. Andrew White reports that nineteenth century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before the biblical Flood of Noah, and that no such flood had ever interrupted it. Second, he incriminates himself. He notes that military attacks were of primary importance, and even the ones that went unsuccessfully were recorded. What else could you call 3 million slaves leaving and killing the Pharoah and his best men? Farrell Till makes a quote that: "The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites." Whatever happened we don't know, but both people recorded the battle. Is there any instance where this doesn't happen? He loves talking about the Sumerians, according to "Legacy: The Search for Ancient Cultures", (which is talking about epigraphic evidence), the fall of Sumeria was marked by literature and inscriptions talking about sorrow, the loss in battle, and how it was the end of the World. Why should we accept a different historical approach to this? Arabia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Assyria, and Egypt all recorded their historical losses in battle. Why should this be any different?

03-21-2002, 12:59 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Also, they could have attempted to make their defeat seem like a victory -- a successful expulsion of some pesky slaves and their traitor of a leader.

03-21-2002, 01:07 PM	#9
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	A lot of the OT seems like exaggeration of the part of the Hebrews (they liked big numbers of slain, etc.)They may have been god's chosen people, but they didn't strike their neighbours that way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.