osirion

I will ignore the political aspect of your reply.

Hebrews in Egypt.

The only non-religious accounts that I am aware of comes from Josephus. You might want to read about it. I am not sure what happened to Hebrews in Egypt. The problem is that Lower Egypt seems to have been ruled by a Semitic group during the Middle Kingdom. Apparently the Hyksos were essentially Hebrew that by successives waves had essentially taken control over Lower Egypt. I am really not sure but Josephus claims that Hyksos means "Shepherd Kings".
However, the Hyksos never really ruled Egypt completely. Their expansion southwards was eventually checked. In fact, at least early on, this may have been the result of a massive plague. Which again fits into the mythological account of the exodus.

Well, it could also be explained as just small captives from Western Asia that were settled in the Delta and then migrated out. The pressence of Asiatic captives as early as the Middle Kingdom is well recorded. Such a number of people would have not caused much alarm though. What we see in the Torah/Old Testament might be a fabrication or over-exageration of overall facts.

Yes, I have read Finkelstien's works and also his critics like Amon-Ben-Tor. There were a whole back issues of Biblical Archaeologist magazine that discuss the following debates.

Many people talk about oral history being inaccurate yet not enough is said about the inaccuracies of written texts. For example, it well know that our Biblical texts were translated from Hebrew and that the first European language it was transcribed in before Latin was Greek. The Greeks really weren't good at pronouncing Hebrew terms that well which is how we got 'Jesus' from Yeshua and etc.

The problem I have in general is with the entire story of Hebrews in Egypt seemingly missing. Also, Moses does not appear to have been Egyptianized as one would think. He appears to be significantly influenced by Mesopatamian culture rather than Egyptian. The stories he supposedly documented is not from Egyptian lore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

There are also discussions that it was the Red Sea not on the Egyptian side but on the other side of the Sinai peninsula at Nuweiba. Apparently there have actually been recoveries of Ancient Egyptian spears from the bed of this sea.

The problem I have in general is with the entire story of Hebrews in Egypt seemingly missing. Also, Moses does not appear to have been Egyptianized as one would think. He appears to be significantly influenced by Mesopatamian culture rather than Egyptian. The stories he supposedly documented is not from Egyptian lore.

---

In a word, it appears that the biblical, historical, and archaeological data are perhaps best served by theorizing that it was a Hyksos monarch before whom Joseph stood as an interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:14-37) and who later ceded a choice parcel of land (Goshen) to Joseph's family (Gen. 47:6). According to such a theory, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 would have been one of the native Egyptian monarchs of the New Kingdom who, as part of his Hyksos purge, resolutely refused to recognize the validity of the Goshen land grant. Discerning in the Israelites a multitude who might very well join with his Asiatic enemies in war, this new king moreover acted quickly to enslave the Israelites.

The above-mentioned theory also fits well with the historical profile attested in the book of Genesis. The patriarchs moved in and through Palestine for some 215 years (cf. Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), seemingly with the greatest of ease, mobility and freedom. Yet, it is inconceivable that their movements should have gone unnoticed (e.g., Gen. 14:14). That bespeaks a political climate in Palestine that would have been free from any sort of national or international domination, which is truly characteristic of that period between 1850 and 1550 B.C. The theory might also humanly explain how Joseph, a non-Egyptian, was able to rise to a position of Grand Vizier in a foreign land -- the court itself would not have been Egyptian, but Hyksos. It also might explain why there is no historical mention of Joseph.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The problem with putting the Exodous story early is that you have top deal with Egyptian control over Palestine through at least the reign of Ramses III. I don't see how it could have poosibly happened before that. Ausar makes a good point about the story of a much much smaller out migration growing into a saga over the centuries.
The appeal of Filkenstein's work is that his dates seem to work better.

---

The story of Joseph gives good indication of Egyptian control in the Palestine area! If you remember, Joseph was sold into slavery by his own brothers to the Egyptians and during the great famine, the various tribes of the Levant flocked to Egypt for food. These things right here give good credance to Egyptian eminence in the Levant.

All of you are forgetting that ancient Egyptian chronology is not set in stone. Most of it is fragmented based primarily off kings lists,the sothic calender,annal stones,papyri, and Manetho.

Manetho calls the people of the Exodous leapers. Leapers that were lead out of Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep. Look in the archives there was a post by a previous poster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

All of you are forgetting that ancient Egyptian chronology is not set in stone. Most of it is fragmented based primarily off kings lists,the sothic calender,annal stones,papyri, and Manetho.

Manetho calls the people of the Exodous leapers. Leapers that were lead out of Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep. Look in the archives there was a post by a previous poster.

---

You are absolutely right Ausar! Which shows the flaws in some ancient Egyptian recording.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
You are absolutely right Djehuti!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

I am not following the issue with timing. The theory I presented doesn't suggest Egyptian control of Palestine but rather Palestinian control of Egypt during the time the story of Joseph had its roots.

---

It's a good theory however, I think the strongest argument for the existance of Joseph in Egypt comes from Ahmed Osman who says Yuya, the father of Queen Tiye of the 18th dynasty, was the real Joseph. Yuya is believed to have been a foriegnor and he basically was the prime minister of Egypt during the reign of Thuthmose IV and Amenhotep III. He's buried in the Valley of Kings, an honor that was rarely ever given to foriegnors in Egypt.

If Yuya was Joseph, it would place the Exodus somewhere early in the 19th dynasty.

The name, Yuya, sounds very semitic. It's close enough to Yusef to make you wonder...

The best way to figure out which dynasty was in power during the Exodus is to trace backwards from a known Pharoah. The only Pharoah described by name in the Bible, interestingly enough, is Taharqa.

2 Kings 19:9 - And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah.

So we know that during the time of Hezekiah it was the 25th Dynasty in Egypt: more specifically - 689 B.C.

There's almost a thousand years between Jospeph and Hezekiah based on estimations.

Do you know what was happening in Egypt 1600 BC?

1630- 1520 BC 2nd Intermediate Period
(15th-17th Dynasties) Hyksos kings seize power in the north.

This fits squarley inline with my theory that it was Hyksos who were in power during the time of Joseph. It was during the New Kingdom ( or New Kings as the Bible puts it) that the Hebrews were enslaved by Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

The best way to figure out which dynasty was in power during the Exodus is to trace backwards from a known Pharoah. The only Pharoah described by name in the Bible, interestingly enough, is Taharqa.

2 Kings 19:9 - And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah.

So we know that during the time of Hezekiah it was the 25th Dynasty in Egypt: more specifically - 689 B.C.

There's almost a thousand years between Jospeph and Hezekiah based on estimations.

Do you know what was happening in Egypt 1600 BC?

1630- 1520 BC 2nd Intermediate Period
(15th-17th Dynasties) Hyksos kings seize power in the north.

This fits squarley inline with my theory that it was Hyksos who were in power during the time of Joseph. It was during the New Kingdom ( or New Kings as the Bible puts it) that the Hebrews were enslaved by Egyptians.

This is really interesting stuff since we also see the rise of monotheism during this time. An influence of the Hebrews in Egypt perhaps?

---

AWW!!!! The beauty of the "North African CaucaZoid!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omugabe:
lol... yeah, Taharqa was Nubian.

You'd have to be off your rocker to even think he was Caucasoid. I doubt anybody's that dumb, though with some Eurocentrics I have to wonder.

---

Actually, since the Egyptians are closely related to the Nubians bioanthropologically -it is critical to Eurocentrists to make the Nubians 'caucaZoids'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
How did this turn into another stupid race thread?

---

Just ignore it, keep it going. Even you accept Nubians as being black so no point worrying about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

The best way to figure out which dynasty was in power during the Exodus is to trace backwards from a known Pharoah. The only Pharoah described by name in the Bible, interestingly enough, is Taharqa.

2 Kings 19:9 - And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah.

So we know that during the time of Hezekiah it was the 25th Dynasty in Egypt: more specifically - 689 B.C.

There's almost a thousand years between Jospeph and Hezekiah based on estimations.

Do you know what was happening in Egypt 1600 BC?

1630- 1520 BC 2nd Intermediate Period
(15th-17th Dynasties) Hyksos kings seize power in the north.

This fits squarley inline with my theory that it was Hyksos who were in power during the time of Joseph. It was during the New Kingdom ( or New Kings as the Bible puts it) that the Hebrews were enslaved by Egyptians.

This is really interesting stuff since we also see the rise of monotheism during this time. An influence of the Hebrews in Egypt perhaps?

---

You're right Nubian Pharaoh Taharqa is the only Egyptian ruler mentioned by name in the Bible but the Bible acually has a very direct verse as to when the Exodus happened.

1 Kings 6:1

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

If scripture is to be taken literally or atleast accurately then this verse gives us an exact date for the Exodus.

Solomon’s reign began 985 B.C. so if the temple was constructed in his fourth year that would be 982 B.C.

This would put the date of the Exodus at approximately 1094 B.C.

The Hyksos expulsion is recorded in Egyptian record and backed by archeology to have happened in 1570 B.C. a much earlier date.

The book of Exodus also records how long the Israelites were in Egypt.

Exodus 12:40

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.

That would put the time period of the Israelite presence in Egypt at:

1524 B.C.E - 1094 B.C.E

Following these verses the Israelite experience in Egypt happened entirely in the New Kingdom era (1570 BC - 1070 BC).

So during the time of Joseph the Asiatic Hyksos had already been expunged from Egyptian land and Pharaoh Ahmose had reunited Upper and Lower Egypt. The Egyptians were in full control of their own land.

This link gives in interesting analysis of the evidence for the Biblical account of the Exodus.
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/Exodus.htm

[This message has been edited by Mansa Musa (edited 05 October 2005).]

1 Kings 6:1

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

Solomon's reign begins in 985 BCE the temple is constructed 3 years later during the 4th year of his reign in 982 BCE.

That puts the date of the Exodus in the year 1462 BCE.

Exodus 12:40

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.

That makes the time period from Joseph's entry into Egypt to Moses and the Israelites Exodus from Egypt:

1892 B.C.E. - 1462 B.C.E.

That would mean that the Hebrew entered Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (2040 B.C.E.- 1782 B.C.E.) time period and left during the New Kingdom Period. The entire Second Intermediate Period would have come and gone with the Hebrew in Egypt years before the Hyksos came and left Egypt years after the Hyksos had already left themselves.

Here is an interesting Christian source that uses scripture, archeology and Egyptian history to not only find the date of the Exodus but also the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Yeah so... I calculated that completely wrong, I don't know how that happened.....Let's try that again....

[b]1 Kings 6:1

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

Solomon's reign begins in 985 BCE the temple is constructed 3 years later during the 4th year of his reign in 982 BCE.

That puts the date of the Exodus in the year 1462 BCE.

Exodus 12:40

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.

That makes the time period from Joseph's entry into Egypt to Moses and the Israelites Exodus from Egypt:

1892 B.C.E. - 1462 B.C.E.

That would mean that the Hebrew entered Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (2040 B.C.E.- 1782 B.C.E.) time period and left during the New Kingdom Period. The entire Second Intermediate Period would have come and gone with the Hebrew in Egypt years before the Hyksos came and left Egypt years after the Hyksos had already left themselves.

[/B]

---

Very interesting post and far more supportive of my position than what I had come up with. Thanks, you are just a bit misinfomed of the Biblical story of Joseph. Hebrews had been living in Egypt for hundreds of years before Joseph. Also, the fact that Hebrews remained in the land of Egypt after the expulsion of Hysoks was my initial point. During the New Kingdom, Hebrews were enslaved by Egyptians. This is the time of the New Kings and fits rather squarely with the time line you so nicely supplied. Essentially my argument was that Joseph was allowed to rise to such prestige as a foreigner because the Hysoks were in power at the time. This is also why Joseph fit in as an Egyptian since the ruling class of Egypt was Asiatic people.

Legends such as the Exodus are often built upon some actual event. I think it is quite likely that during the reign of the Hysoks, a Semitic people, Hebrews would have indeed found themselves in positions of authority and also would have established communities. It would not be the first time Hebrews and moved into an area, became influential and properous and then be persecuted.

The Hykos were probably expelled through a series of minature attacks from the south.Most Egyptologist claim that the Ahmose was the 17th dyansty pharaoh that drove out the Hykos.

Osirion, have you read Manetho? He is the main tool that Egyptologist use to reconstruct ancient Egyptian history. You have other things like papyri,kings lists,and annal stones.