Originally posted by andre18
Archaeology experts have found absolutely no evidence what so ever that Hebrew Jews lived as slaves in Egypt or of their exodus from Egypt......
Originally posted by andre18
As much evidence as there was, it’s not enough to suggest it as a factual account, a story, yes.
Though I couldn’t find anything on the Heiress Lamentation, do have any good links
Look, I can give you factual accounts that do support my theory….go look up
- The unknown life of Jesus Christ
- Antonio Lebolo
- Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: The True History of Religion Revealed
Originally posted by VelvetSplash
Originally posted by Acidtastic
thing is,even before the Egyptians,the story was there.
Which story are you referring to?
Neighbors in a Very Strange Land: A Survey of the Biblical Account from Exodus to the Divided Monarchy in Light of the New Egyptian Chronology
One of the striking characteristics of the scholars who have approached the Bible primarily through literary analysis [e.g., the documentary hypothesis] is the non use of at best the grudging use they have made of archeological evidence. � A few scholars who hed accepted the views of higher criticism, such as A.H. Sayce, revised their positions because of the impact of the early archeological discoveries, but most higher critics chose not to make use of the new data.
A whole cottage industry has grown out of the debate over the historicity of the Bible from the Book of Exodus to the United Monarchy. Sensationalists are found on both sides of the debate; Grant Jeffreys and the late Ron Wyatt scream about chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea while Rabbi David Wolpe gives newspaper interviews denying the Exodus ever happened. Among scholars, Israel Finkelstein and Ze'ev Herzog sell books touting the idea that the entire period between the Patriarchs and the divided monarchies is legend. It is this "conventional wisdom" that prevails currently among scholars; the Exodus, and the bulk of Israelite history as recorded in the Bible up to the divided monarchies, is bunk. But a challenge to the "conventional wisdom" has arisen from an unlikely but related source - Egyptology - and it reconciles nearly all of the difficulties that lead to the current dismissal of the Exodus account with relatively few pushbacks. If this new theory proves correct, not only is there a wealth of evidence for the Exodus, but for the entire period of Israelite history between Joseph and Solomon.
The Level of Evidence: Who Gets to Say How Much is Enough?
Recent archeology has destroyed much nonsense and will destroy more. And I use the word nonsense deliberately, for theories and speculations find currency in biblical scholarship that would not be tolerated for a moment in any other brancy of literary or historical criticism.
Nahum Sarna describes the position of most modern scholars on the historicity of the Exodus account as succinctly as could be done. On page 40 of the Shanks book, he writes "It must be admitted that there is no direct evidence of Israel in Egypt." This general opinion was confirmed recently when the Chief Archeologist for the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, after being asked by journalists his opinion of the Exodus account, was quoted as saying "Really, it's a myth... If they get upset, I don't care. This is my career as an archeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem."
Yet Sarna goes on to describe a number of archeological and literary items that are suggestive that the Exodus account is historical. The Leiden Papyrus 348, a record of 13th century BC construction work done in the city of Pi-Ramesses, show orders for feeding a group of ethnic workers called the 'Apiru, which some scholars connect with the Biblical word "Hebrew". This Papyrus parallels Exodus 1:11, which says the Hebrews "built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh." The rise of the Hyksos, an Asiatic people from Canaan who settled in Egypt and founded their own dynastic empire in the upper Nile valley, is suggestive of details found in the story of Joseph. The later expulsion of the Hyksos, in the 16th century from an area that included Pi-Ramesses are also suggestive. The Anastasi III letter indicates that in the 13th century the Egyptians kept guard posts on their borders with Canaan, allowing no one to pass without a permit. This letter, very reminiscent of the story of the Exodus, describes two slaves who flee from the city of Pi-Ramesses at night and disappear into the Sinai wilderness. Another letter (Anastasi VI) records that an entire tribe from Edom gained permission to enter Egypt in search of food. Other scholars note the Greek account of the Danite Exodus (from roughly the same time period as the Hebrew Exodus), as also being of curious interest. While intriguing many historians with their parallels to the Biblical narrative, due to dating issues these written references are not considered evidence of the Exodus story.
The ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in 10 BC and relying exclusively on accounts from Egyptian Priests, details a story known among the natives of the region about the miraculous drying up of the Red Sea. A search of two academic databases turned up no papers discussing this reference. Diodorus also relates a description of a religious shrine in the area around Wadi Sidri, near the Red Sea, where, in the 1700's six different cave inscriptions in an (then) indecipherable language were found. In 1862, Rev. Charles Forster is said to have translated the cave inscription by recognizing them as a mixture of high and low Egyptian and Hebrew characters. Scholars at the turn of the 20th century dated the find to the 13th century BC, but interest in the site waned in the years following WWI, and later scholars simply dismissed the site as a forgery by Crusader pilgrims despite the pre-Crusader references.
This dismissal of evidence, even second hand evidence such as the writings of Diodorus, is problematic; as Yamauchi points out little of what was made or written in ancient times survives. In addition, much of what has been found has not been seriously scrutinized by archeologists and historians, and still fewer have had serious academic papers written about them.
But a bigger problem lies in scholarly bias. The current prevailing view among Biblical scholars is that prior to the period of Persian captivity, none of the Biblical records are reliable, and as such any archeological evidence that might confirm the Biblical account is considered suspect. Referred to as minimalists or deconstructionists, by opponents (referred to as maximalists who believe the Bible is fundamentally sound historically), they have even been accused of actions best described as "conspiratorial" by someone considered one of their own:
If you understand the origin of these recent contentions, go back to the Deists, Like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, who scoffed at the Bible's inconsistencies and contradictions. The defenders of the faith discovered source criticism and claimed Moses and some subsequent figures relied on divergent sources. The Higher Criticism was in fact invented as a defense against attacks on the Church.
The Deist critique of the reliability of biblical narrative focused on the Pentateuch. The modern "minimalist" simply extends this rationalist critique to the books of Kings. But there is an enormous distinction between legend presented as though it were historical fact (much of the Pentateuch) and history presented as such (the books of Samuel and Kings).
So the significance of items such as the Merneptah Stele - a seven-foot high, black granite stone containing a victory hymn for Pharaoh Merneptah, which mentions Israel by name, "Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more." - is downplayed because of a perceived bias against the Biblical text.
For their part, minimalists accuse maximalists of accepting the Biblical record uncritically, or of even being motivated in their scholarship by religious piety. When Dr. Bryant Wood examined the technical notes of Dr. Kathleen Kenyon's famous archeological dig at Jericho, he discovered inconsistencies that called into question Kenyon's conclusions that the account in the Book of Joshua was inaccurate. He suffered professional and personal criticism as a result of his findings and even found that avenues of publication for his research in peer reviewed journals were being blocked on charges of religious motivation.
While there may be politically and religiously motivated scholars on both sides pushing agendas and heating up rhetoric, the core of the issue is typical of any contentious academic debate, with challenges and invectives being thrown freely. What is clear is that the Chronology Problem gives both sides of this debate a convenient weapon to bludgeon the other with.
Survey of the Chronology Problem
Archeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has been shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development�
Modern scholars use a method of dating ancient objects, events and writings by using a standard to measure against. In the case of Biblical scholars, the standard used is the history of Egypt. Egyptian history is divided into periods corresponding to the ruling Pharonic dynasties in power at that time. Divided into eleven periods, it covers the history of Egypt from the first formation of towns to the Roman Period. The order of the rulers and dynasties are well known.
This Egyptian chronology is not without problems, as has been noted by scholars as far back as Isaac Newton. The Egyptians themselves did not have a single standard for measuring long periods of time. While we have a complete list of the Pharaohs, the Egyptians did not include the names of every Pharaoh when compiling their own history; in keeping with Ancient Near Eastern practices, political or religious disagreements between previous rulers often resulted in deliberate omissions in the historical records, creating gaps in the historical narrative. Pharaohs also had the habit of giving themselves ceremonial names, which confuses the record historians work with today. All of these contribute to a series of inconsistencies between the archeological records and the chronology of Egyptian history based on firsthand Egyptian accounts.
The biggest problem centers on the period called the Second Intermediate Period, traditionally dated 1759 BC (the first year of Pharaoh Wegaf) and 1525 BC (the fourteenth year of Pharaoh Ahmose). It is often referred to as the "Egyptian Dark Ages" , and it is during this period that the Hyksos appear on the Egyptian scene.
The Hyksos was the name Egyptians gave to a tribe of Semitic people who settled in Egypt roughly 1700 BC. Around 1675 BC they had come into a leadership role in Egypt, controlling the Lower Nile river valley from the city of Avaris (the city that would later become known as Pi-Ramesses). The Hyksos dynasty proved to be short lived (about 100 years) and they were expelled from Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Ahmose I (most likely by his regent mother Ahhotep), sometime in the middle of the 16th century BC.
While there are stories of an invasion by the Hyksos, using horse-drawn chariots and composite bows, the more likely scenario according to scholars is a slow migration of people from the Canaan region into Egypt that was either ignored or badly managed by the Pharonic leaders. This fits very nicely with the theme of the Biblical story of Joseph, in that Joseph�s brothers migrate into Egypt from Canaan looking for food, and even has some late corroboration in the Amarna VI letter. If the story of Joseph has a historical core, either by a real Joseph existing or as a legend or myth that grew up around the migration, then this would be confirmation of that part of Israelite history. However, the chronologies - Egyptian and Biblical - do not match; there is a 250+ year gap between the time the Bible says Joseph lived and the dates attributed to the Hyksos migration. This same 250+ gap/lack of synchronization with Egyptian history is true for other events in the Biblical timeline; for example:
1. The Hyksos expulsion from Egypt is suggestive(in light of the Egyptian practice of "whitewashing" historical events to portray Egypt in a positive light, such as the Battle of Qu'desh) of an Exodus-type event, right down to the �outcasts� heading to the correct region suggested by the Bible.
2. The Amarna correspondence tells of the political realities in Canaan at the time of Akhenaten's reign in Egypt. The Amarna correspondence writes of wandering mercenaries from Canaan willing to sell their services to whomever will purchase them. The description is similar to that of David's band of men in service to the Philistines in I and II Samuel. It also tells of a tribal king named Labayu that bears a striking similarity to descriptions of Saul.
Sarna notes this lack of synchronization between Egyptian and Biblical records, but also says this does not affect the plausibility of the Exodus account. If this is the case, why then is there so much skepticism about the Exodus?
Part of the reason is perceived inconsistencies in the Biblical account of how long the Israelites were in Egypt. Sarna notes three different Biblical traditions as well as two different extra-biblical traditions. Maximalist scholars are divided as to whether the Bible suggests a 13th or 15th century Exodus, based in large part on these inconsistencies. Attempts to rebuild an accurate chronology starting with a verifiable date, such as the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple, run into the problem of the use of ceremonial numbers and hyperbole. Minimalist scholars simply declare the problem irreconcilable and evidence of the unreliability of the Biblical text.
A Test of Time: David Rohl and the New Chronology
It is very evident that the biblical records have their roots firmly in general world history.
Into the quagmire comes David Rohl, an Egyptologist who was looking into the time of the Egyptian Dark Ages for a resolution to the problems with the internal Egyptian chronology. He began to look at the problem o the inconsistencies between the archeological records and the chronology of Egyptian history by comparing the Egyptian historical narrative with the Biblical narrative. Presenting his work at the Glasgow Conference for the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies (for whom Rohl was editor fo their journal), his work attracted numerous supporters, including controversial historian Peter James, who had been doing work along similar lines.
Rohl noticed the many similarities already stated in this paper (as well as others), and working backwards from an known and established fixed date in Egyptian history (the destruction of the city of Thebes in 664 BC), he was able to complete his new Chronology. Rohl hypothesized that when the first Egyptologists began working they accepted uncritically certain parts of the narrative composed by the Egyptian Priest Manetho, causing misinterpretations of the data that later became codified as factual. Using the reference of an eclipse visible from the city of Ugarit as a guide to test his theory, he used astronomical data to show that the eclipse, dated traditionally to the reign of Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhenaten), in fact could not have occurred until almost 300 years later.
Rohl's research suggested that aside from minor adjustments to the chronology of other dynastic eras, it was the period of the 20th and 21st dynasties � the end of the Hyksos era, at the heart of the Dark Ages � which needed the most adjustment. The discovery of 21st century Dynasty Pharonic mummies in the 20th Dynasty tombs suggested that instead of these dynasties ruling in consecutive order of succession, they were concurrent with each other. This eliminated the 250 year gap in the Egyptian chronology and brought the Bible and Egyptian history into general alignment, but forced a rethinking of certain key factors long taken for granted.
The most controversial of these is attributing the Biblical references to the Egyptian King Shishak, found in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 not to Pharaoh Shoshenq I, but to Ramesses II. The most vocal of Rohl�s critics, Dr. Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool, points out that if Ramesses II were the Biblical Shishak, this would require a reinterpretation of most of Hittite and Assyrian history, as well as a rethinking of the date of the Battle of Qu'desh. But this may not be as big a problem as Kitchen thinks; if historical assessments of Hittite and Assyrian history used Egypt as its chronological reference (which would have been common practice) then those historical narratives would need to be reexamined and adjusted anyways.
To say that the New Chronology fixes more problems than it causes is an understatement, but it does require a fine tuning of some existing interpretations. One example is the story found in Exodus 1:8-22. If the Israelites were part of the Hyksos Empire, but were left behind following the expulsion, the passage "Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph" becomes a reference to the reuniting of the Upper and Lower Nile. The remnants of the Hyksos remaining behind (possible a subgroup of a particular tribe - call them "proto-Hebrews") are oppressed under the new leadership because of their affiliation with the previous ruling dynasty. This oppression would likely take the form of slavery and heavy bondage, and possibly attempted genocide or near genocide, such as the killing of the male children in Ex. 1:22. But this also means that the Israelites were not in Egypt as long as the Bible states, which means the 430 year figure is most likely a ceremonial number.
The New Chronology would also affect how certain archeological finds are dated and interpreted. A tomb found at Pi-Ramesses could very likely be Joseph's tomb, since the remains of the funeral tribute satue show the occupant was an Asiatic who was given royal authority, and the tomb was broken into and the body stolen (a very strange thing for tomb robbers to do) at about the time the Bible recounts Joseph's body being retrieved in Exodus 13:19. Amanrna correspondences from the Canaanite leader Labayu would in fact be from Saul's own hand . And in Amarna letter EA 256, written by Labayu's son Mutbaal, David, his father Jesse, and David�s general Joad are mentioned by name:
He has been in the field for two months. Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya.
While it is still too early to tell whether Rohl's work will prove conclusively the historical veracity of the Biblical accounts of the Period between Joseph and David (if such a thing is even possible), it will still have a profound impact on both Egyptian and Biblical studies for years to come. From the standpoint of taking into account both major streams of data (archeological and literary/historical), no other previous attempt to synchronize the divergences in the Biblical and Egyptian timelines has been so successful and thorough.
This is not to say that everyone accepts it; Rohl's work has divided Egyptology scholars into two bitterly divided camps, and among Biblical scholars even some Maximalists are skeptical. However, even those who would reject Rohl�s conclusions cannot ignore them. The reconciliation of the two timelines has opened up countless archeological finds as plausible confirmations of the Biblical narrative, and fixed many of the problems that have plagued Egyptian historians for centuries.
Rohl did not start out to find or confirm the Exodus or any part of the Bible. The fact that many Pastors/Priest/Rabbis have taken his work seriously upsets many scholars, who dislike when religious individuals cite scholarship as proof of theological matters. When a work such as Rohl's seems to offer confirmation of the historical accuracy of the Exodus - a seminal event in two major religious traditions which would have profound effect on how adherents view and interact with the world around them - controversy seems natural, particularly when it is realized that Biblical scholarship is more politicized than most academic disciplines. Yet, at least on First examination, it seems that Rohl has established that for the period in question the Bible is accurate after all.