Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red

[jeremyp]

Low numbers fits with no archaeological findings. However, the four-generation genealogy from Levi to Moses is in the same book, Exodus, as the estimated number of 600,000. So they are clearly serious about both.

Are you claiming the 600,000 figure is accurate?

A group that size could not possibly move about without leaving archaeological evidence. For example, assume everybody lived to be exactly 70 years of age (three score years and ten). That would mean twenty three people dying every day. Where are the bodies?

[Anchorman]

In case you were under the impression that the Sinai desert was some vast unpopulated no mans land, Spud, just ripe for a vast nomadic tribe to camp in, then think again. From before the Pyramid age, trade routes were common in the area,. By the Middle Kingdom -c2100-1900, Egypt already had trading colonies at Byblos, reached by guarded trade routes. By the Nwe Kingdom, Egypt ruled the area right up to, and including, bits of what is now Turkey. A well policed series of military outposts and forts built by the likes of Amenhotep II, Thutmose III, Sety I, Ramesses II,even Shoshenq I, are well attested. Here's a site linking to Chicago uni excavations in the area. It's out of date, though, as a massive fortress complex was discovered only last year, with evidence of occupation from Thutmose III untill Ramesses VI -three centuries and more, covering the time when Exodus is set. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25066962?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnvISGiJjnAhWDtXEKHXFXCWc4ChAWMAF6BAgJEAE&seq=1

[Harrowby Hall]

Are you claiming the 600,000 figure is accurate?

 Where are the bodies?

And where is th coprolite?

[jeremyp]

And where is th coprolite?

Even worse. That 600,000 discounts the children and livestock and other hangers on.We must be talking about more than  million individuals living things.

And yet there is no trace of them.

[Spud]

In case you were under the impression that the Sinai desert was some vast unpopulated no mans land, Spud, just ripe for a vast nomadic tribe to camp in, then think again. From before the Pyramid age, trade routes were common in the area,. By the Middle Kingdom -c2100-1900, Egypt already had trading colonies at Byblos, reached by guarded trade routes. By the Nwe Kingdom, Egypt ruled the area right up to, and including, bits of what is now Turkey. A well policed series of military outposts and forts built by the likes of Amenhotep II, Thutmose III, Sety I, Ramesses II,even Shoshenq I, are well attested. Here's a site linking to Chicago uni excavations in the area. It's out of date, though, as a massive fortress complex was discovered only last year, with evidence of occupation from Thutmose III untill Ramesses VI -three centuries and more, covering the time when Exodus is set. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25066962?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnvISGiJjnAhWDtXEKHXFXCWc4ChAWMAF6BAgJEAE&seq=1

The Hyksos dynasty might have been a period when Egyptian hegemony over Canaan would have lapsed, making it theoretically possible for Israel to invade. Wasn't the Exodus traditionally associated with the Hyksos (Josephus etc)?

[Anchorman]

The Hyksos dynasty might have been a period when Egyptian hegemony over Canaan would have lapsed, making it theoretically possible for Israel to invade. Wasn't the Exodus traditionally associated with the Hyksos (Josephus etc)?

If you trawl through this thread, you'll note that: 1) the Hyksos never ruled the whole of Egypt, therefotre there was no vizierate of the whole of Egypt for Joseph to occupy. 2) Even the bit of Egypt the Hyksos controlled was not unified. Two, three - even at one point four kinglets ruling parts of Lower Egypt simultaneously...we found a whole 'dynasty' ruling from Abydos, calling themselves 'Lord of the Two lands' but who were less than local chieftains at best. Evejn the areas controlled by the Hyksos were never totally secure, and relied on importing goods from the Levant and trade with the princelings who would later form the Theban Kingdom which would expel the Hyksos. The seventy or so years whehn the Hyksos actually ruled were known for erratic Nile flooding - too low or too high, never really stable, meaning that the storehouses - in the temples - which held the grain for emergencies - were certainly never in a position to export to other area, nor dole out supplies to needy petitioners. Famine in Egypt is well known; surfiet is not. Whenever the Exodus happenhed, you can rule out the 'hyksos period straight away. Besides this, given their religious practices - a syncretism between imported Canaanite deities such as Reshep, Astarte, Ball, etc, and the Eastern desert Egyptian deity St, the las thing the Hyksos would tolerate would have been some monotheists.

[Anchorman]

 An anchor...well, my username IS 'Anchorman'. This looks to me to date to around the reigns of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut or Thutmose III, in the early to mid Eighteenth dynasty. I'm comparing it with similar examples from the British Museum and the Louvre. It shows the expansionist policy of the eighteenth dynasty kings AS THEY CREATED AN Empire in the Turkey/Syria/Palestine area. It also indicates the Egyptian hegemony over what is now Israel around 1550 BC; showing that no distinctive non-Egyptianised culture would be allowed to thrive under the Thutmosid dynasty. https://khentiamentiu.blogspot.com/2020/02/mysterious-egyptian-artifact-from.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1DUYVyHkCiY8GzlVvH82lZcSx-qx8wpTG4a-QilpfIfgzly_ehGqL6G9g

[Spud]

An anchor...well, my username IS 'Anchorman'. This looks to me to date to around the reigns of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut or Thutmose III, in the early to mid Eighteenth dynasty. I'm comparing it with similar examples from the British Museum and the Louvre. It shows the expansionist policy of the eighteenth dynasty kings AS THEY CREATED AN Empire in the Turkey/Syria/Palestine area. It also indicates the Egyptian hegemony over what is now Israel around 1550 BC; showing that no distinctive non-Egyptianised culture would be allowed to thrive under the Thutmosid dynasty. https://khentiamentiu.blogspot.com/2020/02/mysterious-egyptian-artifact-from.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR1DUYVyHkCiY8GzlVvH82lZcSx-qx8wpTG4a-QilpfIfgzly_ehGqL6G9g

Not related to this post, but while browsing various verses relating to 'bond service' I came across this:

"So Joshua did this and delivered them from the hands of the Israelites, and they did not kill the Gibeonites. 27On that day he made them woodcutters and water carriers, as they are to this day, for the congregation of the LORD and for the altar at the place He would choose." Joshua 9:27

Here is the Pulpit Commentary's note on that verse:

And for the altar (see note on ver. 21). In the place which he should choose. This phrase, and especially the use of the imperfect tense, implies that Solomon's temple was not yet built. The ark of God, and the tabernacle which contained it, had several resting places before its final deposition in the temple (see note on Joshua 24:1). And the grammatical construction just referred to also implies that there was more than one place. It is also clear, from the language of 2 Samuel 21:1-6, that this narrative was already in existence when that chapter was penned. It is equally clear that the author of this passage knew nothing of that (see Introduction).

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/joshua/9.htm

So would you agree that the book of Joshua was written before Solomon's temple was built?

[Anchorman]

Not related to this post, but while browsing various verses relating to 'bond service' I came across this: "So Joshua did this and delivered them from the hands of the Israelites, and they did not kill the Gibeonites. 27On that day he made them woodcutters and water carriers, as they are to this day, for the congregation of the LORD and for the altar at the place He would choose." Joshua 9:27 Here is the Pulpit Commentary's note on that verse: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/joshua/9.htm So would you agree that the book of Joshua was written before Solomon's temple was built?

Since I have already stated - on numerous occasions - that I believe the Pentateuch - and probably Jusges and Joshua - were edited or rewritten during the exile, we cannot anchor those events in history. Only with Samuel and Kings can we glimpse something approaching history, when the events in Israel/Judah coincide with events outside their borders.

[Spud]

Since I have already stated - on numerous occasions - that I believe the Pentateuch - and probably Jusges and Joshua - were edited or rewritten during the exile, we cannot anchor those events in history. Only with Samuel and Kings can we glimpse something approaching history, when the events in Israel/Judah coincide with events outside their borders.

Sure. There is more to dating the book of Joshua than just one verse, but that verse might be evidence that the particular passage about the Gibeonites was written earlier than the time of the Kings.

[Anchorman]

Sure. There is more to dating the book of Joshua than just one verse, but that verse might be evidence that the particular passage about the Gibeonites was written earlier than the time of the Kings.

   



Why?
Where's your evidence, either in documentary or archaeology, other than the Scriptures?
You've been shown that, up untill the time of the kings, there is little or no evidence to confirm the historicity of the text.

[Spud]

   



Why?

Because the author of Joshua 9:27 refers to the permanent place for the altar as if it hadn't yet been chosen.

Where's your evidence, either in documentary or archaeology, other than the Scriptures?

I only have various ideas based on potential 'windows' for the Exodus. You have rejected all the evidence I have given. But the above verse suggests at least part of Joshua was written in the form we have it. There is also 1:8, a reference to "this book of the Law" (Genesis-Deuteronomy) suggesting that those books existed at the time of writing of Joshua.

You've been shown that, up untill the time of the kings, there is little or no evidence to confirm the historicity of the text.

I know you would like extra-biblical evidence to confirm its historicity - who wouldn't? But the Jews believed that God rescued their ancestors from Egypt not on the basis of evidence, but by faith.

[Roses]

Verifiable evidence is much more reliable than faith, which can lead you up the garden path.

[Anchorman]

Because the author of Joshua 9:27 refers to the permanent place for the altar as if it hadn't yet been chosen. I only have various ideas based on potential 'windows' for the Exodus. You have rejected all the evidence I have given. But the above verse suggests at least part of Joshua was written in the form we have it. There is also 1:8, a reference to "this book of the Law" (Genesis-Deuteronomy) suggesting that those books existed at the time of writing of Joshua.
I know you would like extra-biblical evidence to confirm its historicity - who wouldn't? But the Jews believed that God rescued their ancestors from Egypt not on the basis of evidence, but by faith.

Spud;
This thread was started by Sass to show a putative chariot discovered in the Red sea...evidence which is simply hogwash.
Whilst faith is, of course, vital, the fact - repeat, fact - that there is no evidence to confirm the events portrayed in all the books of the Pentateuch must make them very unreliable as far as real historic events goes.
You bang on about numbers, tribes, stats, etc, containd within the first seven books of the OT - yet t5he Bible is not evidence for the Bible, Spud - far from it; indeed there is much to show that what we now have may not be what was written down before the Exile.
Since there is no extra-Biblical evidence to confirm, or even to locate, the events described, they cannot be examined scientifically or with the eye of the historian.

[Owlswing]

Spud;
This thread was started by Sass to show a putative chariot discovered in the Red sea...evidence which is simply hogwash.
Whilst faith is, of course, vital, the fact - repeat, fact - that there is no evidence to confirm the events portrayed in all the books of the Pentateuch must make them very unreliable as far as real historic events goes.
You bang on about numbers, tribes, stats, etc, containd within the first seven books of the OT - yet t5he Bible is not evidence for the Bible, Spud - far from it; indeed there is much to show that what we now have may not be what was written down before the Exile.
Since there is no extra-Biblical evidence to confirm, or even to locate, the events described, they cannot be examined scientifically or with the eye of the historian.

I am no biblical scholar, but whilst I was in the British Library doing some research into the history of my religion and some practices within that religion I came upon the belief that Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not allow a witch to live - was, in fact, a deliberate re-writing of the original OT by King James VI/I whose wife Anne of Denmark's ship suffered a severe storm on her way to England.

When the Septuagint, the translation from Hebrew into Greek was taking place the scholars discovered that Hebrew was a seriously colloquial language and some words might have more than half-a-dozen meanings, contradicting each other.

In Exodus 22:18 the word translated aS 'WITCH' in the Greek at the time of translation meant 'a maker of potions'. This was used as it was the closest the Greeks could come to the word used in the Hebrew bible which had no direct translation into the Hebrew of the time of translation so the Hebrew word meaning 'someone who communed with spirits' was deemed the closest possible and was translated as 'a maker of potions'.

James was a rabid anti-witch fanatic and was convinced that Francis, 5th Earl of Bothwell, kept an active witch coven in East Lothian and that they had raised a storm to kill both the King and his Queen, thus, in the King James version, 'poisoner' became 'witch' to give James' execution of 300 'witches' for their part in the 'plot' was sanctioned by God.

This is not my version of events but that of a Rabbi who I went to for help with the translation puzzle.

How accurate is the translation in the rest of the King James version? I don't know - but if this is the case with 22:18 who knows what else was mixed up in the Hebrew/Greek translation of the Septuagint?   

 

[Anchorman]

I am no biblical scholar, but whilst I was in the British Library doing some research into the history of my religion and some practices within that religion I came upon the belief that Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not allow a witch to live - was, in fact, a deliberate re-writing of the original OT by King James VI/I whose wife Anne of Denmark's ship suffered a severe storm on her way to England.

When the Septuagint, the translation from Hebrew into Greek was taking place the scholars discovered that Hebrew was a seriously colloquial language and some words might have more than half-a-dozen meanings, contradicting each other.

In Exodus 22:18 the word translated aS 'WITCH' in the Greek at the time of translation meant 'a maker of potions'. This was used as it was the closest the Greeks could come to the word used in the Hebrew bible which had no direct translation into the Hebrew of the time of translation so the Hebrew word meaning 'someone who communed with spirits' was deemed the closest possible and was translated as 'a maker of potions'.

James was a rabid anti-witch fanatic and was convinced that Francis, 5th Earl of Bothwell, kept an active witch coven in East Lothian and that they had raised a storm to kill both the King and his Queen, thus, in the King James version, 'poisoner' became 'witch' to give James' execution of 300 'witches' for their part in the 'plot' was sanctioned by God.

This is not my version of events but that of a Rabbi who I went to for help with the translation puzzle.

How accurate is the translation in the rest of the King James version? I don't know - but if this is the case with 22:18 who knows what else was mixed up in the Hebrew/Greek translation of the Septuagint?   

 

     
Most Scholars, whilst recognising the poetry of the KJV, won't use it as an an accurate translation.
James VI positively influenced the translators in order to bolster his 'divine right of kings' idea.
This negates its usefulness when trying to be accurate.
Of course, given the shifting sands of English as a language, the translators have had to 'move with the times' when dealing with modernity - but on the whole, have kept to the sense of the original, giving footnotes where necessary.
I can't believe the Hebrew concept of witchcraft and that of seventeenth century 'thinking man' were the same.

[Owlswing]

     
I can't believe the Hebrew concept of witchcraft and that of seventeenth-century 'thinking man' was the same.

I know I am, yet again, showing my ignorance but, in what way?

[Anchorman]

I know I am, yet again, showing my ignorance but, in what way?

   
Well, if, as most assume, the Pentateuch was edited  during exile, what was 'witchcraft'? Much of the seventeenth century persecution was aimed at 'wise women' who were little more than herbalists, with much more being spurious add on to 'get rid' of annoying or feuding neighbours.
Healing in the sixth century BC would have been bound up with religion; my knowledge of Assyrio-Babylonian religious healing is scanty at best, but if it was anything like that of Egypt, it depended on available drugs, unlikely ingredients, statues and recitation of prayers.
Whether that was 'witchcraft' - Wicca - I'm not sure.
We know little of Hebrew medical practice at this  time; presumably it was similar to other cultures of the day.
Necromancy, however, is a bit unusual - most of the cultures in that area were happy that the soul in whatever form(s) left this plane of existence and only returned to scoff whichever funeral feast or offerings the relatives left in the tomb or outside it.
That the concept of raising spirits was considered witchcraft was almost unique to the Hebrew culture, and had no parallel in Babylon as far as I know.

[Owlswing]

   
Well, if, as most assume, the Pentateuch was edited during exile, what was 'witchcraft'? Much of the seventeenth-century persecution was aimed at 'wise women' who were little more than herbalists, with much more being spurious add on to 'get rid' of annoying or feuding neighbours.

Healing in the sixth century BC would have been bound up with religion; my knowledge of Assyria-Babylonian religious healing is scanty at best, but if it was anything like that of Egypt, it depended on available drugs, unlikely ingredients, statues and recitation of prayers.

Whether that was 'witchcraft' - Wicca - I'm not sure.

We know little of Hebrew medical practice at this  time; presumably, it was similar to other cultures of the day.

Necromancy, however, is a bit unusual - most of the cultures in that area were happy that the soul in whatever form(s) left this plane of existence and only returned to scoff whichever funeral feast or offerings the relatives left in the tomb or outside it.

That the concept of raising spirits was considered witchcraft was almost unique to the Hebrew culture, and had no parallel in Babylon as far as I know.

Sorry, but I was merely pointing out that 22:18 in English is a translation that is probably highly inaccurate. Nothing more than that, and thus it is quite possible that there are (many?) more incidents of inaccurate translation for the same reason. So, the Bible in English may bear little resemblance to the Bible, in places, in either Greek or Hebrew.

As to the rest, I am well aware of the nature of the witch-hunts of the 14th to 17th centuries, referred to by some witches as The Burning Times, having been given the task of writing as essay, 40,000 words of it, on the matter as my 'Year-and-a-day' task prior to my initiation into my Coven.

As to your mention of Wicca, Wicca did not exist until Gerald B Gardner invented it in the 1950's, and gave it a faked history to give it authenticity. His followers still claim Wicca (capital W) is the only true path of witchcraft and require that witches who do not follow the Gardnerian Rules refer to themselves with a lower-case w and are quite forceful in their methods of dealing with those who break the 'Rule'!