StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm interested in finding out what modern historians think might have actually happened at the time when the events of Exodus were supposed to have taken place. I've heard some vague theories, for instance; 'Israel was in Egypt' means Judea was an Egyptian vassal, 'blood on the Nile' was red clay washed into the river in Ethiopia, '3 days of darkness' was a really bad sandstorm, and so on (by far the most amusing is that the 'red sea' was actually the 'sea of reeds'). But I've never really seen a detailed account of these theories or a source for them, anybody know where I might find such a thing?

speaker-to-trolls wrote:I'm interested in finding out what modern historians think might have actually happened at the time when the events of Exodus were supposed to have taken place. I've heard some vague theories, for instance; 'Israel was in Egypt' means Judea was an Egyptian vassal, 'blood on the Nile' was red clay washed into the river in Ethiopia, '3 days of darkness' was a really bad sandstorm, and so on (by far the most amusing is that the 'red sea' was actually the 'sea of reeds'). But I've never really seen a detailed account of these theories or a source for them, anybody know where I might find such a thing?

The most plausible explanation I've read is that the "Ten Plagues" never actually happened in the sense that they're described in Exodus. However, there is an interesting coincidence that, at the time Exodus was supposed to have happened, Egypt was in the middle of a massive civil war. Essentially what had happened was that one Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten had decided that the existing Egyptian polytheistic state religion was wrong and there was only a single god, the Sun God Aten. This put him against the entire religious and state machinery of Egypt and the result was a massive religious civil war. In the course of that war, virtually the whole of Egyptian society collapsed and the so-called ten plagues were more or less the effects of that civil war and societal disintegration. Most of the cities in Egypt were deprived of workers for their estates and plantations, that created starvation and disease.

After 18 years Akhenaten had pretty much lost the civil war. He was killed in some of the fighting and was followed by a series of short-lived Pharaohs who tried to carry on his beliefs. One by one they were all killed. It took fifty years before the fighting ended and the cult of Aten eliminated in favor of the old religion. Egypt was a ruin, bankrupt, starving, diseased. The older buildings and records had been destroyed and defaced so, post-war, the mainstream religious and civil war regained power and started to rebuild society. In doing so, they used the defeated army and supporters of Akhenaten as slave labor, pretty standard behavior for the time, with the intent of working them to death. There appears to have been a slave revolt/mass escape a few years later when the surviving slaves rose up against their overseers and made a break for the border. Chasing after escaped slaves was beneath a Pharaoh's dignity so he sent his eldest son, Amenhirkhepeshef, out with teh Royal Guard cavalry to kill them. The battle took place in the Reed Sea. In Egyptian, any salt marsh is called a Reed Sea but there was a huge one just east of Pi-Ramesses that was always called The Reed Sea. It was a maze of semi-submerged paths, of swamps and marshes, seething with poisonous snakes and quicksand that could swallow a man in seconds. The battle between the escaped slaves (hard cases all of them, to survive a civil war and then 10 - 20 years of slavery requires that) and the Royal Guard was a military catastrophe for the Egyptians, there was only one way through the swamp, the escaped slaves blocked it and the rest is, as they say, history. What history depends on who wrote it

Oh yes, the story of Moses? Direct lift from the story of Osiris in The Book Of The Dead. The similarities between the two stories are so strong that its painfully obvious that "Moses" is Osiris and the whole "Moses" story is just a rewrite of the Osiris legend. Try reading The Book Of The Dead" translated by E.A. Wallis Budge (British Museum 1910) for the original legend. It's eye-opening. There was a Discovery Channel program that went into all of this called "The Wrath of Ramses"; it was very much pop-history but it did do a good job of tying Exodus to what we know of the history of the era.

Oh by the way, one neat little thing. Do you know what the Egyptian word for an escaped slave was? It's "Hibaru"

My guess is that the Hibaru didn't wander in the desert for 40 years, rather there was a sustained period of emigration from Egypt that lasted around 40 years.

Finally, is Exodus good history? In a way it is, if its read the right way. Remember that its an oral legend that has been transcribed centuries after the event and used as a basis to recreate a destroyed state. Treat it like any other similar propaganda and it can actually make sense.

So these Hibarus ended up all over the place, like Canaan, and their Big Damn Stories became really popular with other people. And then, eventually, their story got mixed with all sorts of other stories from that period's pop-culture, including things like the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story, and this messy combination of stories and people eventually developed the things we see in modern Judeochristianity?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:So these Hibarus ended up all over the place, like Canaan, and their Big Damn Stories became really popular with other people. And then, eventually, their story got mixed with all sorts of other stories from that period's pop-culture, including things like the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story, and this messy combination of stories and people eventually developed the things we see in modern Judeochristianity?

Pretty much, yes.

One can speculate as to what mixture of pop-cultures existing today could get mixed up to form a religion in 3,000 years time. Perhaps then the catchetism might include the words "Luke, I am your father." By the way did you know that Vader is Afrikaans for father? I wonder if that was a hint right from the start from the Great Creator Lucas (on whom we heap our praises) as to the relationship between Darth Vader and Luke?

A Star Wars-based religion, now there's a thought to conjure with

"Exodus" was written long after the events it claims to chronicle occurred and contains no end of absurdities. Saying that the written story is based on ancient and distorted legends is being generous. Similarities in mythology aren't surprising, especially over such a comparatively small region and over so much time.

Interesting, that actually makes it sound much less historical than I'd originally thought. I also didn't know the time coincided at all with Akhenatens reformation. Do you know any papers/books or anything on the subject, besides the Discovery program you mentionend?

So is there any evidence for a historical Moses at all? As many people have noted before, Moses is an Egyptian name so I always assumed he was a rebellious governor or a Jewish king who'd taken an Egyptian name to fit in with his overlords.

A Star Wars-based religion, now there's a thought to conjure with

"Be cautious, my son, for in the Book of New Hope, did st Ben not say, upon coming into the field of stones; That is no moon, 'tis a space station!"

So is there any evidence for a historical Moses at all?

No. There's no evidence.

Moses is an Egyptian name so I always assumed he was a rebellious governor or a Jewish king who'd taken an Egyptian name to fit in with his overlords.

Because of the paucity of evidence, the Biblical account could easily and equally be as true as your scenarios.

for instance; 'Israel was in Egypt' means Judea was an Egyptian vassal,

1) I've reread late Genesis and early Exodus and I can't find the phrase 'Israel was in Egypt'.
2) The Biblical account assumes this was literal, that Israel/Jacob was a real person who went into a specific part of Egypt called Goshen with his children (Genesis 47), and that the proto-Israelites were within the borders of Egypt.
3) Judea didn't exist during the timeframe which most Christians/Jews/apologists reckon the Exodus occurred. Unless you mean that Judea was conquered or made a vassal of Egypt sometime more recently and people back-edited the Biblical stories to make their ancestors slaves? Either way, the Egyptians would have written something like that down.

(by far the most amusing is that the 'red sea' was actually the 'sea of reeds').

That's the most plausible one. Yam suf can actually mean sea of reeds.

Stuart wrote:
The most plausible explanation I've read is that the "Ten Plagues" never actually happened in the sense that they're described in Exodus. However, there is an interesting coincidence that, at the time Exodus was supposed to have happened, Egypt was in the middle of a massive civil war. Essentially what had happened was that one Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten had decided that the existing Egyptian polytheistic state religion was wrong and there was only a single god, the Sun God Aten. This put him against the entire religious and state machinery of Egypt and the result was a massive religious civil war. In the course of that war, virtually the whole of Egyptian society collapsed and the so-called ten plagues were more or less the effects of that civil war and societal disintegration. Most of the cities in Egypt were deprived of workers for their estates and plantations, that created starvation and disease.

After 18 years Akhenaten had pretty much lost the civil war. He was killed in some of the fighting and was followed by a series of short-lived Pharaohs who tried to carry on his beliefs. One by one they were all killed. It took fifty years before the fighting ended and the cult of Aten eliminated in favor of the old religion. Egypt was a ruin, bankrupt, starving, diseased. The older buildings and records had been destroyed and defaced so, post-war, the mainstream religious and civil war regained power and started to rebuild society. In doing so, they used the defeated army and supporters of Akhenaten as slave labor, pretty standard behavior for the time, with the intent of working them to death. There appears to have been a slave revolt/mass escape a few years later when the surviving slaves rose up against their overseers and made a break for the border. Chasing after escaped slaves was beneath a Pharaoh's dignity so he sent his eldest son, Amenhirkhepeshef, out with teh Royal Guard cavalry to kill them. The battle took place in the Reed Sea. In Egyptian, any salt marsh is called a Reed Sea but there was a huge one just east of Pi-Ramesses that was always called The Reed Sea. It was a maze of semi-submerged paths, of swamps and marshes, seething with poisonous snakes and quicksand that could swallow a man in seconds. The battle between the escaped slaves (hard cases all of them, to survive a civil war and then 10 - 20 years of slavery requires that) and the Royal Guard was a military catastrophe for the Egyptians, there was only one way through the swamp, the escaped slaves blocked it and the rest is, as they say, history. What history depends on who wrote it

To be polite, the above is complete crap. There was no civil war. Akhenaten's reforms were peaceful and gradual, though certainly there was opposition. When he died (it's not known how), the following Pharoah's reversed the course of the heretic king. That's it. All this shit about devastating civil wars is unhistorical. Where in the hell did you get your information?

Stuart wrote:The most plausible explanation I've read is that the "Ten Plagues" never actually happened in the sense that they're described in Exodus. However, there is an interesting coincidence that, at the time Exodus was supposed to have happened, Egypt was in the middle of a massive civil war. Essentially what had happened was that one Pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten had decided that the existing Egyptian polytheistic state religion was wrong and there was only a single god, the Sun God Aten. This put him against the entire religious and state machinery of Egypt and the result was a massive religious civil war. In the course of that war, virtually the whole of Egyptian society collapsed and the so-called ten plagues were more or less the effects of that civil war and societal disintegration. Most of the cities in Egypt were deprived of workers for their estates and plantations, that created starvation and disease.

After 18 years Akhenaten had pretty much lost the civil war. He was killed in some of the fighting and was followed by a series of short-lived Pharaohs who tried to carry on his beliefs. One by one they were all killed. It took fifty years before the fighting ended and the cult of Aten eliminated in favor of the old religion. Egypt was a ruin, bankrupt, starving, diseased. The older buildings and records had been destroyed and defaced so, post-war, the mainstream religious and civil war regained power and started to rebuild society. In doing so, they used the defeated army and supporters of Akhenaten as slave labor, pretty standard behavior for the time, with the intent of working them to death. There appears to have been a slave revolt/mass escape a few years later when the surviving slaves rose up against their overseers and made a break for the border. Chasing after escaped slaves was beneath a Pharaoh's dignity so he sent his eldest son, Amenhirkhepeshef, out with teh Royal Guard cavalry to kill them. The battle took place in the Reed Sea. In Egyptian, any salt marsh is called a Reed Sea but there was a huge one just east of Pi-Ramesses that was always called The Reed Sea. It was a maze of semi-submerged paths, of swamps and marshes, seething with poisonous snakes and quicksand that could swallow a man in seconds. The battle between the escaped slaves (hard cases all of them, to survive a civil war and then 10 - 20 years of slavery requires that) and the Royal Guard was a military catastrophe for the Egyptians, there was only one way through the swamp, the escaped slaves blocked it and the rest is, as they say, history. What history depends on who wrote it

To be polite, the above is complete crap. There was no civil war. Akhenaten's reforms were peaceful and gradual, though certainly there was opposition. When he died (it's not known how), the following Pharoah's reversed the course of the heretic king. That's it. All this shit about devastating civil wars is unhistorical. Where did you get your information?

Oh by the way, one neat little thing. Do you know what the Egyptian word for an escaped slave was? It's "Hibaru"

I can't read ancient Egyptian, but I'm pretty sure the word for escaped slave was not 'hibaru'. The word habiru is common in Ancient Near Eastern literature (just check the Wikipedia article), and seems to be a general term referring to nomads of various ethnicities and occupations. Perhaps a catch-all phrase?

1) I've reread late Genesis and early Exodus and I can't find the phrase 'Israel was in Egypt'.

Sorry, I was paraphrasing there.

3) Judea didn't exist during the timeframe which most Christians/Jews/apologists reckon the Exodus occurred. Unless you mean that Judea was conquered or made a vassal of Egypt sometime more recently and people back-edited the Biblical stories to make their ancestors slaves? Either way, the Egyptians would have written something like that down.

What I meant by Judea was essentially 'a spot in the Levant inhabited and controlled by the Jews(hebrews, Israelites, whatever they were called at that point). I'd also been led to believe the Egyptians had subjugated large areas of the Levant during, I think the early New Kingdom.

hongi wrote: To be polite, the above is complete crap. There was no civil war. Akhenaten's reforms were peaceful and gradual, though certainly there was opposition. When he died (it's not known how), the following Pharoah's reversed the course of the heretic king. That's it. All this shit about devastating civil wars is unhistorical. Where did you get your information?

The Discovery Channel program called Wrath of Ramses. If' it's a load of rancid dingo's kidneys, sorry but it seemed plausible. I've done a brief literature search (don;t have time for much more) and there seems to be great uncertainty. I'm no Egyptologist so I'll go with any expert advice offered

I can't read ancient Egyptian, but I'm pretty sure the word for escaped slave was not 'hibaru'. The word habiru is common in Ancient Near Eastern literature and seems to be a general term referring to nomads of various ethnicities and occupations. Perhaps a catch-all phrase?

The two aren't exclusive. For example "Mob" means an unruly crowd of people in general but also has a specific meaning of "The Mafia".

I'd also been led to believe the Egyptians had subjugated large areas of the Levant during, I think the early New Kingdom.

Yeah. The Egyptian empire under Thutmose III and the 18th Dynasty conquered Canaan. The various Caananite kings were vassals of the Pharoah.

What I meant by Judea was essentially 'a spot in the Levant inhabited and controlled by the Jews(hebrews, Israelites, whatever they were called at that point).

The Israelites/Hebrews didn't exist at that point when the Egyptians took Canaan (Judea wouldn't be around for a long while yet). Although, since most archaeologists believe the Israelites were actually Canaanites, I guess you could say their ancestors did exist...

***

The earliest mention of Israel (seemingly not the state but a group of people) we have is in the Merneptah Stele which dates from the late 13th century. If an Exodus did happen, it'd have to be before this date. Perhaps in the 13th century and as people have suggested, in the reign of Ramses II.

However, there's no evidence for the Exodus as described in the Bible and there's a lot of evidence against such an event. A most devastating line of attack is the absence of evidence. The account in the Bible is patently ridiculous. If there were over a million Israelites picking up and leaving from Egypt, the entire kingdom would collapse as its economy would go down the shitters. Moreover, those 1 million Israelites wandered around a relatively small area for over fourty years and yet there is not one potshard, not one archaeological artifact that we can pin to this group. We have no accounts from the Egyptians, or their neighbours the Hittites or Assyrians about such a momentous event.

speaker-to-trolls wrote:So is there any evidence for a historical Moses at all? As many people have noted before, Moses is an Egyptian name so I always assumed he was a rebellious governor or a Jewish king who'd taken an Egyptian name to fit in with his overlords.

Remember that even according to the Bible and the story of Exodus, Moses was raised in the Pharaoh's court; although he was not a prince of Egypt (like the film Prince of Egypt claimed in order to create dramatic tension between Moses the servant of God and Pharaoh Ramses) it is very unlikely, even within the confines of the Second Book of Moses, that he would be given a Hebrew name.

Threads discussing this very same subject from the past:

History and the Bible
Thanks alot, Mr. Wong. . . .I used to be a good Christian.
Does history support the bible?
Any Egyptologists on this board?
Moses and the Exodus

All of them cover this, but to quote the salient points I posted there myself:

Edi wrote: you should go an read AlphaBeta by John Mann asap. It is a history of the alphabet, and for obvious reasons it devotes a lot of time to the history of Egypt and the Middle East.

It also touches on this issue. Apparently the domain of Egypt reached quite far into the lands that are now Israel and Lebanon, and there is quite a bot of evidence that the events of Exodus would coincide with Egyptian defeats in war and unrest at home leading to the abandonment of the outlying territories. Moses and his followers probably never were in Egypt proper, and broke away from the outer edges, and the pharaoh described in the Bible was probably just the minor lord in charge of the outlying territories. As for the Sinai accounts, I don't remember exactly what Mann said about that, but there are ancient Egyptian mica mines there where very early versions of Hebrew writing have been found, which points to there having been Israeli slaves there. IF some of these escaped and later ended up with Moses's bunch, it would go a long way toward explaining the Biblical events.

Then there is the well known issue of backward projection where Biblical accounts are concerned. A good example is the walls of Jericho being shattered. Archaeological evidence does not support there having even been walls at the time the events would have taken place, but at the time the previously oral accounts were written down, the cities of Israel were far greater than they had been before. Those who wrote the Biblical accounts took a look around them, assumed things had been the same during the events described, and presto, you have some major historical inaccuracy from the get-go, because they did not know any better. I don't see why much the same would not also apply to the Exodus stories.

Remember also that stuff in the Bible has been influenced by a lot of things in the region. For example, Abraham was born in the city of Ur in Ancient Sumeria/Babylon, so there is quite a bit of unaccounted for geographical spread that can only be explained by cultural interaction. The ancients did not live in isolated cultural bubbles any more than we do, their interactive spheres of influence were just smaller than ours and the influence took a longer time to become visible.

Read the previous threads if you like, people, but this is essentially a dead topic of discussion.

^Thanks for the links, I've saved those for reference, and sorry for dredging up a dead topic.

Remember that even according to the Bible and the story of Exodus, Moses was raised in the Pharaoh's court; although he was not a prince of Egypt (like the film Prince of Egypt claimed in order to create dramatic tension between Moses the servant of God and Pharaoh Ramses)

Hey, I may have displayed my considerable ignorance of history here, but at least credit me with not drawing my information from a cartoon

If you want to entertain yourself with 'plausible' versions that make Exodus make sense, there's a Discovery Channel show (was on just the other day) of battles of the Bible, based off a book by the same name I think. Anyway, looking at Exodus from a military perspective, gives some of the theories people here have put forth; Israeli tribes on the outskirts of Egypt, as vassals and leaving. March through the 'Reed Sea' instead of Red Sea, a temporary base in Sinni to build and train an army to invade Canaan, etc...

The actual "Biblical Archaeology" class I took from Professor Steve Rosen at Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva pointed out pretty much beyond any other interpretation that there is 100% ZERO evidence of a mass migration through the Sinai at any point described-- due to the extremely arid conditions, they can find evidence of standard nomadic crossing of the region back beyond the point of the Bible, and even into well-preserved Neolithic times. It is one of the most archaeologically-covered areas of the world precisely because of people trying to prove Exodus, and it just can't be done. Even the same people who are excited about the destruction layers at Jericho, which seem to coincide with some of the events mentioned, cannot find any trace of the Exodus.

The Bible is made up of a lot of different stories from the past-- some have basis in real events, some are made up and inflated years later, some take real events and add layers of different interpretations on them.