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

[Spud]

Damn paracetamol - I'll use Mead - it tastes better!

Right, I will pretend the flood was local, then.

[floo]

Right, I will pretend the flood was local, then.

There is no evidence to suggest anything else.

[Spud]

There is no evidence to suggest anything else.

The point is that even if the flood was local, the 40/ 150 day supposed contradiction doesn't exist.

[Anchorman]

Right, I will pretend the flood was local, then.

-
Good idea - 'cos there's not a shred of archaeology to show otherwise.

[Spud]

(you will probably know that the Priestly author is supposed to have written Genesis 1, whilst the Jahwist author wrote G2).

Regarding the DH in general, here is a quote from Peter Leithart in an article entitled "Umberto Cassuto and the Documentary Hypothesis":

Let me summarize a few examples of Cassuto’s approach. If the Documentary Hypothesis has a central pillar, it is that the use of different names for God is evidence of different sources. If we find a section of the Pentateuch that uses the name "Elohim" for God, then we have a text that comes from the "E" source. If we find a text that uses "Yahweh," we have a text that comes from the "J" source. (The "P" source is also said to use "Elohim.")

While acknowledging the obvious fact that the Pentateuch uses different names for God, Cassuto showed that each name had a specific meaning. The name "Yahweh," he argued, is the covenant Name of God, and is used when His relationship to Israel is in view. The name "Elohim," by contrast, points to God as the God of the whole world, and is used when God’s relationship to the nations or to the universe is in view. Thus, Psalm 47:1, when it exhorts "all nations" to praise God uses the name "Elohim." In the prophetic literature, which is directed to Israel, the name Yahweh is predominant.

This becomes especially striking in the first chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 uses the name "Elohim" since it is describing God’s creation of the universe. Genesis 2, however, uses the unique combination "Yahweh Elohim," showing to the Israelite reader that the God who entered into a covenant with Israel is also the God who created all things. The different names of God, then, are not evidence of separate sources. Instead, they are used to call attention to different attributes and activities of God.

http://tinyurl.com/nzvnwtw

[Dicky Underpants]

Regarding the DH in general, here is a quote from Peter Leithart in an article entitled "Umberto Cassuto and the Documentary Hypothesis":

http://tinyurl.com/nzvnwtw

Unfortunately, the name Yahweh appears many times in the hypothesised Yahwist text in the early chapters of the Bible, whereas in the Elohist text it does not appear until Exodus 3, where God appears to Moses in the burning bush. The Priestly text at Exodus 6:3 underlines the point quite specifically (first appearance of 'Yahweh' in the P text) where God says:
" I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

[Dicky Underpants]

If this is gonna develop into a YEC thread, I'm going to need paracetamol.

I must share a deal of the blame, since I introduced the matter of the Documentary Hypothesis as a further indication of the existence of two separate ancient Jewish kingdoms.
Perhaps if we tried to bring things back to the purported existence of the two kingdoms, we might then proceed back to the question of evidence for evidence of the Exodus etc.?
Pious hope

[Anchorman]

I must share a deal of the blame, since I introduced the matter of the Documentary Hypothesis as a further indication of the existence of two separate ancient Jewish kingdoms.
Perhaps if we tried to bring things back to the purported existence of the two kingdoms, we might then proceed back to the question of evidence for evidence of the Exodus etc.?
Pious hope

-
The problem is that some don't see an issue in accepting Scripture as unedited historical fact, which was never its' purpose.
They analyse word-for-word without noticing the lack of actual extrabiblical evidence to back up the 'literal fact'.
As posted earlier, I have absolutely no issues with Semitic populations - even small communities - in Egypt from as early as 2000 BC; there's ample evidence from Beni Hassan tomb paintings to show Semitic contacts at court lrevel, and the peaceful incursion of Semitic tribes which became something of a takeover of the Delta around 1800 cannot be disputed.
All ancient peoples had a habit of exaggerating stats - the Egyptians were experts at it; so, it appears, were the editors of the Pentateuch. The numbers suggested for the Hebrew Exodus were simply impossible - Even the whole of Lower Egypt had no such population at that time!
That a group of Semites left Egypt to enter Canaan is perfectly possible - even that a Semitic official  was a high ranking courtier in the Egyptian state is very plausable; many examples of non-Egyptians  making it big exist, some marrying into the ruling family and fathering future kings.
I have no doubt that some sort of migration of a small number of Semitic tribesmen occurred....but the rest is conjecture for which there is no proof.

[Spud]

The short sentences which have been attributed to one author or the other do not detract from the main argument, which depends much more on large swathes of narrative.
Can't see the joins? They're much easier to spot than those on Donald Trump's wig!

As an example, the Documentary Hypothesis supposes that the whole of Genesis 5 was written by the "Priestly" author except verse 29, presumably because of the use of the word "Yahweh". Here it is in context:

28When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29He named him Noahc and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.

No joins here, it is all one flowing text.

[Walter]

As an example, the Documentary Hypothesis supposes that the whole of Genesis 5 was written by the "Priestly" author except verse 29, presumably because of the use of the word "Yahweh". Here it is in context:

28When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29He named him Noahc and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.

No joins here, it is all one flowing text.

I know none of this is true because of the spelling of 'labor'. IT'S JUST SO WRONG.

[Spud]

Can't see the joins? They're much easier to spot than those on Donald Trump's wig!

If it looks like hair, the likelihood is it is hair!

[Walter]

If it looks like hair, the likelihood is it is hair!

it could be carbon fibre , glass or even nylon. who knows?

[Dicky Underpants]

As an example, the Documentary Hypothesis supposes that the whole of Genesis 5 was written by the "Priestly" author except verse 29, presumably because of the use of the word "Yahweh". Here it is in context:

28When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29He named him Noahc and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died.

No joins here, it is all one flowing text.

If that were the only reason, it would be a pretty poor argument. In any case, the Priestly author certainly knew the name "Yahweh", since it is clear that his narrative is written as a response to the earlier one, and he or a later redactor may have slipped the name into the text. I suggest that the main reason why this is (by some) attributed to the Yahwist narrator is because the painful, fallen condition of humanity is stressed here: "the ground that the Lord has cursed". This is in marked contrast with the whole of the tenor of the purported Priestly narrative, which has a more optimistic feel about human nature, of humans 'made in the image of God' and blessed by him (Gen 5:1,2).

And far from being one flowing text, you will note that the whole chapter is simply a list of the generations up to Noah, until the point you mention, where there is a sudden switch of mood and direction, totally out of keeping with the rest of the writing.

[Spud]

If that were the only reason, it would be a pretty poor argument. In any case, the Priestly author certainly knew the name "Yahweh", since it is clear that his narrative is written as a response to the earlier one, and he or a later redactor may have slipped the name into the text. I suggest that the main reason why this is (by some) attributed to the Yahwist narrator is because the painful, fallen condition of humanity is stressed here: "the ground that the Lord has cursed". This is in marked contrast with the whole of the tenor of the purported Priestly narrative, which has a more optimistic feel about human nature, of humans 'made in the image of God' and blessed by him (Gen 5:1,2).

And far from being one flowing text, you will note that the whole chapter is simply a list of the generations up to Noah, until the point you mention, where there is a sudden switch of mood and direction, totally out of keeping with the rest of the writing.

I agree that Lamech's saying is unique in the passage, so you could hypothesize that it is inserted by another author.

It's a bit over my head. But here is one piece of evidence that refutes a late authorship of the Pentateuch: the absence of any reference, especially in Deuteronomy, to Jerusalem/Zion.

Deuteronomy: Geographical Considerations

If Deuteronomy was composed during the late kingdom period, we would expect its geographical expressions to reflect the political geography of Israel of the 7th century, not the geography of the 15th century, of which the Deuteronomic author would have no insight. Yet the descriptions of Moabite country and the descriptions of the wanderings of chapters 1-3 bear much more resemblance to the geography of pre-conquest Canaan than late-kingdom Judah. The omissions are also telling; if Deuteronomy was written in the days of Josiah, we would expect some sort of hint of the importance of Jerusalem (remember, the Documentarians say the whole purpose of Deuteronomy was to centralize worship in Jerusalem). Yet there is no hint of Jerusalem in Deuteronomy; nor is Ramah mentioned, which was the center of religious life during the long life of Samuel, nor is there any mention of Shiloh, where the Ark and Tabernacle stood for generations during the period of the judges. How could a document of the 7th century evidence such familiarity with the geography of the 15th century whilst simultaneously omitting all references to contemporary geography? The answer, of course, is that the document was written in the 15th century, when it claims to have been written.

Antiquity of Legislation

Another argument in favor of a late date for Deuteronomy is the complexity of the legislation, which Documentarians say is more advanced and reflects and more refined moral and community life than that underlying the Exodus; essentially, that the Israelites of the Exodus were too primitive to have produced such a complex law code.

Of course, we can retort that the law is given by God, not developed by man. Still, man must be sufficiently cultured to receive, understand and implement that law. Again, here the early origin of Documentarian theories before the great age of archaeology hurts their theory. The complexity of the Mari Tablets (c. 1700 B.C.), the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750), the Iraqi Nuzi Tablets (c. 1500 B.C.), and Ebla Tablets (c. 2250) and the wealth of material out of Egypt prove that the moral, literary and cultural achievements of the second millennium B.C. rendered their civilizations perfectly capable of receiving a law such as that found in Deuteronomy.

The P Source and Post-Exilic Judaism

The P source - mainly Leviticus, Numbers and those parts of the law associated with priestly ritual - is said to be the last part of Pentateuch to be composed, around 450 B.C., according to the Documentarians. Thus, the ceremonial law reflects not any prescriptions from the 15th century B.C., but rather the post-Exilic period. If this were true, it is difficult to understand why the P texts speak so much about things like the Urim and Thummim, Nazrites, the tabernacle, Ark of the Covenant, cities or refuge, the test of adultery by ordeal, wave offerings and many other things that were complete anachronisms by the post-Exilic period. It also would not explain why there are several features present in post-Exilic Judaism which find no reference in P, like liturgical singing and music, prominence of scribes, designation of the central sanctuary as the "Temple", and of course, the importance of the City of Jerusalem. If P really were written in the post-Exilic period, we would not expect it to contain so many features that were completely absent from post-Exilic Judaism; similarly, we would expect P to contain references to other features that were prominent in post-Exilic Judaism. The fact that we see neither indicates that Leviticus was composed exactly when it claims to have been - during the time of the Exodus.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/472-deconstructing-documentary-hypothesis.html

[Anchorman]

Spud: If Leviticus - or any of the Pentateuch as we now have it - was composed at the time of the Exodus, I assume you have a whole raft of unequivocal archaeological evidence for a slave population and high ranking adopted Hebrew courtiers in Egypt at a specific time frame to back your assertion up?

[Harrowby Hall]

...  have absolutely no issues with Semitic populations - even small communities - in Egypt from as early as 2000 BC;... to show Semitic contacts at court lrevel, and the peaceful incursion of Semitic tribes ...
That a group of Semites left Egypt to enter Canaan is perfectly possible - even that a Semitic official  was a high ranking courtier in the Egyptian state is very plausable; ... a small number of Semitic tribesmen occurred....but the rest is conjecture for which there is no proof.

Why do you constantly use "semite" and "semitic" when you are referring to Hebrews?

"Semitic" is a linguistic term, it does not identify a particular ethnicity or culture. The largest "semitic" group are surely the people who speak Arabic, which is easily the largest semitic language.


As for the Biblical account of the Exodus, I suggest that the lack of coprolites in the Sinai Peninsular is evidence of the lack of truth of the story. A crowd of more than million (600,000 plus wives children and hangers-on) each having a daily bowel motion during 40 years would have left some trace.

[Anchorman]

Actually, HH, it does. I don't refer to 'Hebrews' specifically because the tribes who traded with Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and 'ruled' the Delta during the second Intermediate Period were not specifically Hebrew. Their language structure bears a very similar profile to that of Hebrew; many of the names are very evocative of Hebrew; the pottery and statuary are very similar to those of Canaan and the pottery of the first identifiable Hebrew cultures of the area niow known as Israel. The religion, however, was a syncretism between 'native' Egyptian religion, Baal and other extant Middle Eastern religion. In other words, they were Semites, rather than Hebrews.

[Harrowby Hall]

That is interesting, Anchorman. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that other stories and legends arising in the region than those which specifically related to the people usually identified as the Biblical Hebrews were conflated into "The Bible"? I know that that appears to be true of Babylonian legends and the Gilgamesh story.

Related to this (I suppose) - the Ten Commandments are adapted from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

I have also heard of speculation that the "closing of the Red Sea" (which should be Reed sea?) was possibly inspired by events subsequent to the eruption of Santorini.

[Anchorman]

 The 'Book of the Dead' was never really set in stone (though bits of it were inscribed on it!) It was really a corpus of texts which dated back to the sixth dynasty, just after the great 'pyramid age'. It doesn't deal with things on earth, but is supposed to be a manual filled with get out clauses to enable the deceased to get a free pass to the afterlife. I don't see a correlation with the Ten commandments, HH. As for Thera, it probably erupted around the time of the reunification of Egypt under Ahmose I - at least, that's when there's a tailing off of Mycenaean Greek pottery found in the Delta - which had enjoyed great trade links under the (Semitic) Hyksos rulers from Avaris (Tell Dab'a). There really isn't much geological evidence to suggest any problems from the fallout of the eruption - quite the opposite - the Delta seems to have excelled itself in terms of food production, meaning that the eighteenth dynasty kings could start empire building in the Middle East and far south.

[Anchorman]

 If you're interested in the 'book', here's the Wiki entry for that belonging to Ani: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Book_of_the_Dead_spells And if you want a bit more info on the Ani example, here's the British Museum entry - and the real thing's definitely worth seeing, by the way. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=113335&partId=1

[Spud]

Actually, HH, it does. I don't refer to 'Hebrews' specifically because the tribes who traded with Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and 'ruled' the Delta during the second Intermediate Period were not specifically Hebrew. Their language structure bears a very similar profile to that of Hebrew; many of the names are very evocative of Hebrew; the pottery and statuary are very similar to those of Canaan and the pottery of the first identifiable Hebrew cultures of the area niow known as Israel. The religion, however, was a syncretism between 'native' Egyptian religion, Baal and other extant Middle Eastern religion. In other words, they were Semites, rather than Hebrews.

We know from Joshua 24 that the Hebrews did not necessarily worship Yahweh when they lived in Egypt:

13'I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you have lived in them; you are eating of vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant.' 14"Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

[Anchorman]

We know from Joshua 24 that the Hebrews did not necessarily worship Yahweh when they lived in Egypt:

13'I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you have lived in them; you are eating of vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant.' 14"Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

-
Hang on, though.
The first mention of 'Yah' ('Yh'. since the Egyptians didn't write vowells in hieroglyphs) occurs in the time of Nebmaatre Amenhotep III, around 1370 BC, on the walls of Karnak. Presumably the scribes got the Name from somewhere, Spud. The same name is used when describing the Jewish Temple at Elephantine in the Saite period - nearly eight centuries later.

[Anchorman]

 There's also the famous YHWH reference at the enigmatic Temple of 'Nebmaatre-in-Jubilee' Amenhotep III in his thirtieth regnal year) which clearly mentions the 'Shashu in the land of Yahweh' . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu I've seen arguments that the 'Yahweh' refers to the Egyptian lunar deity Ah - sometimes spelled Yah - but I'm not convinced; Soleb was concerned with the promulgation of the solar cult, which Amenhotep III promoted above the pre-eminent Amun cult, and would reach new heights under his son, Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.

[Spud]

-
Hang on, though.
The first mention of 'Yah' ('Yh'. since the Egyptians didn't write vowells in hieroglyphs) occurs in the time of Nebmaatre Amenhotep III, around 1370 BC, on the walls of Karnak. Presumably the scribes got the Name from somewhere, Spud. The same name is used when describing the Jewish Temple at Elephantine in the Saite period - nearly eight centuries later.

That and your other yhwh reference suggest that yhwh wasn't heard of in Egypt during the Israelite sojourn there, but was known after the exodus at the time when Israelites made Canaan their home.
Regarding the numbers of Israelites who escaped: how could a small number of them capture entire cities and regions in Canaan?

[Anchorman]

Sorry, it might suggest thatto you, Spud, but the 'Yh' reference on the walls of Karnak and the 'land of Yahweh' reference in the Soleb 'heb-sed' Temple suggest otherwise. Both names are preceded by a 'netjeru' sign. Just as the name of the ruling king (names, actually) was enclosed in a cartouche, so the names of deities, both native Egyptian and foriegn, were preceded (in the New Kingdom, anyway) by a 'netjeru' sign. Netjer was the word the Egyptians used for a major deity. Therefore both 'Yh' and 'Yahweh' must have been acknowledged as a name of a major, non Egyptian, deity by the priestly scribes responsible for the inscriptions.