Wednesday, August 30, 2017

.... against "Exodus didn't happen" revisionism

Here is a video which needs answering all over the place:

Exodus Didn't Happen

And here are my answers:

1:00 If it is a historical archaeological event, it should be very easy to prove, you said?

Most historical events are without archaeological traces. The battle field of Waterloo, like many others, seems to have been during the heighday of industrial capitalism, "progress" been scoured for human and equine bones to use as ... dung on fields, after grinding.

But supposing that had not happened, even more, an intact archaeological site at Waterloo could not possibly tell you which side one. For many corpses, the uniforms would have rotted, so you could not tell which was French and which was German or Russian or English. But even having the side with most dead doesn't mean you are the side with least surviving and fit for fight soldiers, and therefore does not mean you are the side that lost.

Only NARRATIVE can tell you who won at Waterloo.

This event had several parties gaining glory from it, and the one not doing so was also a Christian country admitting defeats, a corps of writers who were writing for people who remembered, and not just for a small élite chosing what it wanted to remember.

So, at Exodus, one side gained glory, other side wanted to forget its shame, was perhaps even overmanned soon after by Hyksos so as to have other issues than recalling it. And of the massive shame of Hyksos era - supposing as I do these were Amalekites, not Israelites, that Joseph was not among Hyksos - we get ... the Ipuwer papyrus. Which also involves hints at what may have happened just before Hyksos came, and hints which get somewhat close, in places to Exodus account of Ten Plagues.

You claim it should be easier than that to make a case? You don't get what historiography is like.

Abdulrahman Kheder
you are right

1:30 "400 years of slavery in Egypt"

Actually, it was more like 215 years in Egypt, not all of it as slaves.

2:02 You have not told us what you base it on that Egypt had 7 million inhabitants at the time.

And 25 % of a population - or more - are possible to keep down if the determination is very ruthless. And those facing it very ill organised.

And a large chunk (I felt like haggling over 20 - 25 % but let's not, we don't know from sources comparable to Numbers what Egyptian population was like), a large chunk leaving would imply a loss which would involve a defenselessness against Hyksos, just after.

2:19 Now you are speaking of "Hebrew slaves" as a merchandise, i e as privately owned slaves.

I will give you one more evidence we don't have for that one : we have no Biblical evidence for it either.

The case is that the Egyptian state treated Hebrews as slaves in the end : which would mean as slaves of the state, not of any particular buyer or seller.

2:27 "if you are looking for Hebrews in Egypt, you are not going to find them"

Except some claim we already just recently did that!

File not found [for the link I gave, which functioned yesterday.]

3:25 Since it was the first born of each family, he would have been buried in the family grave. [No mass grave, as per false inference falsified as fact.]

No people writing of this? You realise that scribes were functionaries of the régime and in general of the élite? Egypt had no free authors.

And, as said, if Hyksos came in just after, the death of the first born would have been dwarfed by ensuing traumatisms.

3:36 A huge media outcry?

But Egypt had no private media, basically. Scribes were not authors in the sense we know them, there was no journalism.

The outcry there was, was oral. Scripta manent, but verba don't, as you know, they volant instead. On the Egyptian side, that is.

3:41 If people were lamenting all over Egypt, first for firstborn, then for army, last for Hyksos, how would we know?

There is exactly one papyrus reflecting lamentation over the Hyksos invasion, the famous Ipuwer one!

We can access more material for one single year, probably, even just for Egypt (if you know Arabic) than we can for the 2000 year (Biblical chronology) or 3000 year (secular chronology) history of Egypt from Narmer to Cleopatra.

4:10 Traces left by beduins 100's of years ago, 1000 of years ago etc. may well have effaced anything of the footprint type trace of Israelites.

4:18 you don't find all that many dead bodies in Sinai, of all that passed through and probably died there.

Perhaps because dry is not enough, you need burial too. To preserve them.

And buried bodies are obviously not too likely to be found over the surface.

4:20 "There would be kitchens"

From a people whose only cookery chore for most of the 40 years was collecting manna for the day Sunday to Thursday, manna for day and day after Friday.

5:26 Egypt occupying Canaan 2000 BC to 1150 BC ... according to their own administrative evaluation.

This would probably partly correspond to the time of Judges - with carbon rising, fewer centuries in real story would look like more in carbon dated chronology. And during Judges period, you do find lots of times that Canaaneans - very possibly as vassals of Egypt - were occupying Israel.

6:50 Ramses III has been considered as identic to Biblical Shishak (time of Solomon or just after).

7:31 Suddenly the account given by one side - Merneptah's bragging - is credible to you in absence of evidence from the other side.

What if Merneptah's bragging was ... bragging?

7:50 Merneptah wiping out Israel might be, kind of, not mentioned in the Bible, because it didn't happen.

Remember, his people had few scribes, a very élite corps, from which expulsion was probably very painful (a bit like some are now trying to make expulsion from academia, or supposed such).

They could be counted on not to contradict the Pharao.

8:01 "as if the tribe of Israel were bandits"

Pagans would probably see Hebrew monotheists as such, especially after them destroying so many idols.

Also, if Egypt was occupying Canaan, an independist movement of any sort could be counted on as being described like that.

Also, some vendettas by Israelites against Canaanean and Philistine (possibly Egyptian vassal) occupiers would include a fairly distinct glamour of banditism.

  • 1) Mernaptah could have described Israelites like that for these reasons;
  • 2) the reading which makes Israelites ONE tribe could be a misreading for bandits being ONE tribe OF Israel - there was a time when the Benjaminites were nearly wiped out (saving 600 men) for a gang rape / murder case. Judges 19-20. Merneptah could have taken glory for Israelites punishing that gang rape.

8:06 Messing with the Egyptian trade routes, so he wiped them out.

He could have bragged about that as a short term solution, while the next long term one could have been a trade agreement.

Also, since Merneptah was an old man when assuming the throne (65 sth) people could have been telling him what he wanted to hear. Hoping to clear things up when he died.

8:33 "The Hebrew we have now is dated back to 700 - 800 BC"

On what exact grounds?

8:39 "Palaeo-Hebrew ... can go back to 1000 BC"

On what exact grounds?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jesus Er, no.

Apart from your impersonation attempt (unless you forgot the accent on ú, and are Spanish), you have another bluff factor : saying "history" when in fact there is not clear cut historic evidence for this.

9:36 Erasing history for Moses may be done without erasing whatever name he was known under other than Moses, so without actually hacking.

If for instance Moses was Amenemhat IV (succeeded by his sister .... the daughter of Pharao who had raised him?) that would be Moses prior to hitting the Egyptian overseer.

Moses' entry into Egyptian history 40 years later was intense, but also brief, and followed by such chaos that no monuments would have been there to erase after it anyway.

Other possibility, as Rohl identified a Vizeer of one Amenahmhat as Joseph due to similarity of his name to Zaphnah paaneah. It could have been a name given Moses as he was, like Joseph, a Hebrew.

No comments: