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

[Sassy]

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



http://betinews.com/?p=3661

I just found this.... not in the mood right now to read through, thought other others here could
examine it.

[Owlswing]

Sorry to prick your bubble Sassy, but it is a hoax!

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/remains-egyptian-army-red-sea-hoax.shtml

[Shaker]

Whoops! 

[Owlswing]

Whoops! 

I must admit I thought it a bit suspect as soon as I saw the website it came from - one of those that you instinctively look for details of the owner/operator - nether were visible - so I headed for Hoax-Slayer!  Jackpot!

[Anchorman]

Yep, hoax. The closest we've come to identification of sites mentioned in Exodus is that of Pi-Ramese (Tel Quantir) Biblical 'Ramses'. That was a stonking great new capital city built by Ramesses II in the Delta....but when that branch of the Nile silted up three or four centuries later, all the stone structures were moved in a fantastic effort, to the 'new' city capital, Djanet (Tanis) What remained was found in the last two decades. Unfortunately, with the rise and fall of the Nile in that area, any remnants of mud brick structures are lost completely, so we can't study them.

[Shaker]

One has to wonder however whether somebody who thinks something as well-documented as the moon landings were a hoax will insist that an actual hoax from a spoof site is the real deal.

[floo]

I find it extremely strange anyone could think the moon landings were a hoax, but believe in the veracity of the less than credible stories in the  Bible.

[Anchorman]

Actually, floom there is much archaeology which corroborates the later Old testament, and linguistic analysis which sheds some light on the earlier, and none of it from certain 'Biblical archaeology' sites, which most scholars wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

[Brownie]

One has to wonder however whether somebody who thinks something as well-documented as the moon landings were a hoax will insist that an actual hoax from a spoof site is the real deal.

Why hark back to that?

Sassy said:
"...not in the mood right now to read through, thought other others here could
examine it."

So she only gave it a quick glance, not saying she believed it.

I couldn't open the link but will have a look at the link Owl posted.

[floo]

Actually, floom there is much archaeology which corroborates the later Old testament, and linguistic analysis which sheds some light on the earlier, and none of it from certain 'Biblical archaeology' sites, which most scholars wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Give examples, please.

[Sebastian Toe]

One has to wonder however whether somebody who thinks something as well-documented as the moon landings were a hoax will insist that an actual hoax from a spoof site is the real deal.

Why hark back to that?

Sassy said:
"...not in the mood right now to read through, thought other others here could
examine it."

So she only gave it a quick glance, not saying she believed it.

I just thought that Shaker was pondering if the Sasster might insist?
That's what I got from the 'whether' bit of his post anyway.

[jeremyp]

Give examples, please.

The stories in the Bible from the Two Kingdom period (after the reign of Solomon) have some external corroboration. For example, there is some Assyrian documentation relating to how they destroyed the Northern Kingdom. There are some Babylonian documents relating to the downfall of Judah.

Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence that the Noerthern Kingdom existed as a political entity at the time the Bible says it did. Similarly for Judah in the period after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed.

[Anchorman]

Give examples, please.

1. First nention of YHWH on a relief in the Temple of Luxor from riegn of Amenhotep III 2 First mention of Jerusalem (Admittedly from the Caananite period) on a tablet from the 'Amarna cache' of Akhenaten. 3. First mention of Hazor and Hebron from same cache dated to Tutankhaten/amun. 4 First mention of Israel as a state - from victory stela of Merenptah. 5 First corroborated evidence of Egypt invasion (Sheshonq I, Biblical Shishak) from both Scripture and the walls of Karnak. 6. Analysis of gold from the face mask of Sheshonq IIsuggests a northern, rather than the usual southern, origin.....possible (tenuous) link to gold looted by Sheshonq I. Followwing this, numerous Biblical events from the eighth century onward confirmed by inscriptions from Egypt, Ninevah, Babylon, etc. Do you wish the relevent site details?

[Dicky Underpants]

Actually, floom there is much archaeology which corroborates the later Old testament, and linguistic analysis which sheds some light on the earlier, and none of it from certain 'Biblical archaeology' sites, which most scholars wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Anchorman

But you have to admit that such archaeology (stone prisms and the like), whilst they may corroborate certain historical OT details, don't go very far to substantiate the invention of angels (siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib) or pillars of fire in the desert.

[Anchorman]

If you google "Elephantine Papyri" you'll find numerous sites - many of them serious academic sites - dealing with the Temple of YHWH which existed AFTER the Biblical Solomonic Temple was destroyed. This one was in Egypt, in the far south, and was staffed by a colony of Jewish mercenaries brought in by Saite kings to guard the southern borders. It's mentioned in Scripture, but its iexistance was doubted untill the papyri turned up. There were actually a further two Temples in Egypt to YHWH in Ptolemaic times.

[Anchorman]

Anchorman

But you have to admit that such archaeology (stone prisms and the like), whilst they may corroborate certain historical OT details, don't go very far to substantiate the invention of angels (siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib) or pillars of fire in the desert.

Plenty of stuff found in Jerusalem to substantiate the Assyrian assault, DU - considering they got as far as the Egyptian Delta in the same campaign.
Not sure about evidence for angels, though....damn feathers orf dem wings don't last long!

[Dicky Underpants]

The stories in the Bible from the Two Kingdom period (after the reign of Solomon) have some external corroboration. For example, there is some Assyrian documentation relating to how they destroyed the Northern Kingdom. There are some Babylonian documents relating to the downfall of Judah.

Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence that the Noerthern Kingdom existed as a political entity at the time the Bible says it did. Similarly for Judah in the period after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed.

The 'linguistic analysis' to which Anchorman refers includes, I assume, the whole foundation of the 'Documentary Hypothesis', which directly involves the assumption of the existence of the Northern and Southern kingdoms and their separate stories on the same topics.

[Dicky Underpants]

Plenty of stuff found in Jerusalem to substantiate the Assyrian assault, DU - considering they got as far as the Egyptian Delta in the same campaign.
Not sure about evidence for angels, though....damn feathers orf dem wings don't last long!

Oh yes, the Assyrian assault is well documented in very hard to ignore artifacts from non-biblical sources. However, the Bible does say that the siege was relieved by the intervention of an angel - whereas the other side said that Hezekiah had to pay off the Assyrians with a huge tribute of silver, gold and jewels.

[Anchorman]

Actually, DU, I was comparaing names from Scripture to those found at the 'Ebla Library', and Tell el Dab'a (The captil of the Hyksos, a confederation of Asiatic tribes who ruled lower (Northern) Egypt from c1800-1700 BC, and spoke a Semitic language. There's also a woman- quite a looker by what's left of her mummy - who was a minor wife of Thutmose III and bore the name we equate in English as ' Martha' - her face, mummy mask and decor of coffin suggest a non Egyptian origin (not that that was rare)

[jeremyp]

The 'linguistic analysis' to which Anchorman refers includes, I assume, the whole foundation of the 'Documentary Hypothesis', which directly involves the assumption of the existence of the Northern and Southern kingdoms and their separate stories on the same topics.

I wasn't aware that the Documentary Hypothesis had anything to do with the two kingdoms. I think the current consensus is that most of the OT was written down after Israel (the Northern Kingdom) had already been destroyed by Assyria.

I also don't think the existence of the two kingdoms is an "assumption". I think the evidence they existed is fairly strong. I would differ with Anchorman in what their origins are but we would probably agree that the history as told in the Bible (book of Kings mainly) is based on the truth although I would argue is also heavily spun.

[Anchorman]

Oh yes, the Assyrian assault is well documented in very hard to ignore artifacts from non-biblical sources. However, the Bible does say that the siege was relieved by the intervention of an angel - whereas the other side said that Hezekiah had to pay off the Assyrians with a huge tribute of silver, gold and jewels. [/quote Certain posters might accuse me of being a heretic, but I'd wonder where a relatively tiny country like Israel/Judah got its hands on vast quantities of gold. That's where the typical Middle Eastern thing about exaggerating figures comes in. Whether we like it or not, Israel was never more than a very minor player in international events at this time.

[Dicky Underpants]

I wasn't aware that the Documentary Hypothesis had anything to do with the two kingdoms. I think the current consensus is that most of the OT was written down after Israel (the Northern Kingdom) had already been destroyed by Assyria.

It certainly has. The Elohist accounts and the Jahvist accounts are believed to derive separately from the two kingdoms in question, before a redactor combined their narratives.

[Anchorman]

This would be at the same time the Pentateuch was heavily re-written, DU  - I'd argue at the time of Jeremiah in the OT.

[jeremyp]

It certainly has. The Elohist accounts and the Jahvist accounts are believed to derive separately from the two kingdoms in question, before a redactor combined their narratives.

OK, that would be further evidence that the two kingdoms existed.

[Anchorman]

The names of both Northern and Southern kings are found written in cuneform tablets - several on one tablet, actually - from Babylon itself. The problem is that they are jumbled up. Of course, I'd argue that this is a marker for the dual kingdoms existing and known outside the area - but I'd say that anyway. The fact that these names do occur together in the same tablet, fragmented as it is, is significant, though. I'll try to find a reference to it....I think it's in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY.