...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Evidence of Hebrew enslavement or Exodus tradition i?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [qb] If the Hebrews are those who left KM.t in 1313 BCE, as they report it, after being there for 210 years, per their reckoning then their Hyksos affiliation is tenuous. In the Hebrew account found in B*reshiyth, Yoseph encounters Kmtyw smugness against his ethnicity typically displayed to the Aamu. If he was in Hyksos ruled KM.t, fellow Aamu would hardly have put on anti-Aamu airs with him. In the Kmty record neither Cheremon nor Manetho make Hyksos out of the leper expellees. They rather state the expellees recruited Hyksos descendants already living in the Levant to come and assist them. Then there's Merneptah's "Israel" stela. Doesn't say much except that Merenptah anihilated a beduin group with a name very similar if not identical to the Semitic word YSR'L. And the Hebrews do have a recollection of a fragment of a tribe leaving KM.t a generation before the Exodus. They say that tribal fragment was wiped out. Later Judaean commentary suggests the reason the Exodus wended through Sinai was to avoid the disheartenment of seeing the remains of that decimated host. There are later Kmty toponymic references to southern Judaean peoples and a notice of commissarying clans from Edom, a twin brother kinfolk to the Israelites and thus technically Hebrews too. But its as you say. Outside of the Hebrew's Joseph saga there's no historical evidence of any but a minor passive role for Hebrews in regard to KM.t where they were virtually unnoticed outside of one incident. [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow. If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned. [/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow. If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned. [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]Actually iy is a very difficult to estimate when Hebrews were in Egypt based on the oral tradition of us Jews. I found that kind of dicussion non-productive and certainly should not exclude evidence support the exodus in conjuction with the expulsion of the Hysoks. I think the story of the Hysoks is the best connection we have between Egypt and Jews in terms of the actual legend of the Exodus. I think the enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt was a reprisal for the Hyksos invasion. Perhaps when the new Kingdom was established, Asiatics were seen as a threat! 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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3