Any Egyptologists on this board? . . .

[Magnetic]

Is there an Egyptologist on this board, or someone who has one for a friend?

I'm curious as to how detailed their written history is, mainly in terms of documenting failures on their part. I'm curious as to how they would have (that is, IF they would have) documented what happened in Exodus, with the plagues, the death of the first born, the escape of Hebrew slaves, and the drowning of a pharoah and soldiers.

[Edi]

Is there an Egyptologist on this board, or someone who has one for a friend?

I'm curious as to how detailed their written history is, mainly in terms of documenting failures on their part. I'm curious as to how they would have (that is, IF they would have) documented what happened in Exodus, with the plagues, the death of the first born, the escape of Hebrew slaves, and the drowning of a pharoah and soldiers.

Your premise in asking this question is flawed. You are assuming that the events depicted in the Bible are true as stated and that there should be a record of them in the major Egyptian histories.

The actual existing archaelogical evidence suggests that the Exodus events transpired in one of the outlying provinces of Egypt, near Gaza and the areas already close to Israel, during a time when the nation was having trouble with unrest and invasions from neighboring kingdoms in the north. It is likely that the pharaoh described in the Bible was in fact the regional governor of that area and that once the Israelites (far fewer in number than the Bible suggests) escaped, there was not enough incentive to use substantial military resources to chase them with all the other troubles going on.

Given that the Exodus and related stories were passed down orally before being written down, and in the light of archaelogicak evidence suffer from massive backward projection (assumption that because this is how things are *now*, they also were so *then*) that inflates the stories. The Sinai myths are likely the result of stories of Israelite slaves who escaped from Egyptian mica mines in the Sinai (the mines exist and the presence of Israelites is verified by precursor Hebrew writings found on the site).

So, no historical record supports the events as depicted in the Bible, and the accuracy of Egyptian record keeping is not the question; the accuracy of the Bible is. And we know that it's anything but accurate.

I recommend that you read the book AlphaBeta by John Mann. It's a history of our current alphabet, and because that alphabet originates in Egypt and the surrounding regions, it perforce deals with a lot of the history of the area. Furthermore, you are not likely to find a lot of the stuff in that book anywhere else, because it deals with a very specific and narrow subject that takes you off the beaten track and offers quite a few surprising viewpoints. It's no more than three hundred pages or thereabouts, but I guarantee you that every word is worth reading. I'd almost go as far as saying that the whole book is worth committing to memory.

Edi

[Bounty]

Egyptians didn't have our modern concept of history as a sequence of events. They believed that beverything was cyclical - understandable, since their survival depended on the cycle of flooding of the Nile - and as such, you'll often see whole chunks of written history repeated for subsequent pharaos. They were also quite unscrupulous is editing their historical data to better fit the current mood, portraying events in a different light depending on who was on the throne and which nation needed to be appeased/provoked.

An event on the scale of Exodus would've been a landmark, something never before seen, and would have found it's way into the collective consciousness one way or the other. They might've shifted the blame or retold the story, but they would've recorded something.

[SecondStorm]

A close friend of mine is working on his Master's degree in Egyptology. Ill ask him but have patience.

I vaguely recall asking him the same question and him answering that some awful stuff did happen but not precisely as depicted in the Bible.

[Broomstick]

An event on the scale of Exodus would've been a landmark, something never before seen, and would have found it's way into the collective consciousness one way or the other. They might've shifted the blame or retold the story, but they would've recorded something.

Your premise is flawed - but it's likely not your fault. For a people who left behind extensive written records they are amazingly misunderstood.

Last I heard, there was one and only one reference to a tribe with a name similar to "Hebrew" in the writings of ancient Eypt. They were mentioned in passing along with a lot of other small tribes. I'd also like to note that at that point in history they would not be referred to as "Isrealites" since they had not yet been to Isreal at that point. The Egyptians make no mention of slave rebellions, uprisings or mass migrations.

And that's because, as others have pointed out, they did not conceive of history as we do. In their world-view everything repeated in a cyclical manner, and Pharoh always won every battle. They did NOT record unique events, as a rule, because unique events were aberrations from "true" history as they saw it. Even when a unique event was recorded, there was a tendency for later generations to obliterate the writings and re-write over the walls, monuments, etc. They certainly would not have recorded the escape of a bunch of slaves - not only would it be shameful, but by writing it down they would risk it becoming part of the next cycle, and the next.... The Egyptians has a hugely powerful belief in the magic of the written word and would write things untrue or not yet realized in hopes of forcing the world to conform to their writings.

Also - the Bible, being the history book of the Abrahamic religions, tends to overinflate the importance of the Hebrews. During the Egyptian exile - and quite likely there were a lot of them living in Egypt at one time, why not? - they were no more than another minor group of people, most likely some enslaved and some, like Moses, doing pretty well for themselves under the Egyptian system. Until he got involved in all that prophet business. There were a lot more important and more powerful gorups in the region which would capture Egyptian attention long before a bunch of impoverished, unarmed, and largely powerless Hebrews.

[Superman]

The only thing mentioned on the part of the Egyptians was written in a text dating to the time of Menerptah (r. 1213 - 1203 B.C.)., who was the successor of Ramses II (no need to explain who he was). The text notes a group of people called "Isreal" along with others in a list of people conquered in Palestine by the Egyptians.

The Egyptians mention nothing else about the events in the Biblical Exodus, and the text I mentioned above would seem to contradict it (given the dates and Pharoah involved are accurate).

It's sort of like the resurrection of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels: Romans were awed, dead people came out of the ground and walked around, the sky darkened, etc., but we can't confirm it through any written history from the Romans. Since we know the Romans were quite adept at recording events of the time, it's interesting that none of these supernatural events associated with Jesus, like the dead rising from the grave when he died on the cross, were ever recorded.

[Superman]

Actually, it's not really interesting that no other sources can confirm this stuff. If anything, it casts more doubt.

[Bounty]

Your premise is flawed - but it's likely not your fault. For a people who left behind extensive written records they are amazingly misunderstood.

Just to be clear : I am not claiming that anything remotely like Exodus happened. My point was that an event like that would've left some written trace, even if it was only in correspondence.

[Broomstick]

Hmm.... yes, perhaps correspondence, but even there the Eqyptians weren't much on current events. More likely, we'd see it in the writings of one of the other literate peoples' of the region. Which we never have.

[Broomstick]

The only thing mentioned on the part of the Egyptians was written in a text dating to the time of Menerptah (r. 1213 - 1203 B.C.)., who was the successor of Ramses II (no need to explain who he was). The text notes a group of people called "Isreal" along with others in a list of people conquered in Palestine by the Egyptians.

[nitpick] As I mentioned before, these people would not have been referred to as "Isreal" at that point because it was before Isreal existed. "Isreal" is a modern translation of an ancient Egyption word referring to the tribe that later founded Isreal. It's been 20 years since I took Ancient Middle Eastern history, but I believe the Egyptian word would have been something like "Hebiru" [/nitpick]

[NecronLord]

And that's because, as others have pointed out, they did not conceive of history as we do. In their world-view everything repeated in a cyclical manner, and Pharoh always won every battle.

This is of course, not true - if they had believed themselves undefeatable, they would never have for example, expelled the Hyksos. Successful military planning requires a realistic understanding of enemy capabilities. It appears that way because the sources we have are mostly from tomb and temple inscriptions, with very, very few if any genuine military records surviving.

You don't create monuments to your losses. Hence, what we have suggests that the Egyptians commonly distorted the truth to match such a world view, but this is no different from modern people. The BBC, for example, has a refrain on its domestic television that particularly annoys me; "The British Army is the best in the world! The British Army is the best in the world! The British Army is the best in the world!" ... ad infinitum. They say it over and over again, but it certainly doesn't mean that their command structure is deluded enough to believe it.

The bias of the egyptian sources is not all that different from ours - it's just that we, as plebs, have greater access to realistic assessments of battles than the people of previous ages. If all the archeologists of the future have on Americans civilisation was Fox News, people might conclude that Americans are unable to imagine defeat.

Anyway, it's been done to death, right from early translations, there's no evidence that the book of Exodus's account is even remotely true. It is perhaps based on some hebrew tribes escaping egyptian domination at some stage, but if you're looking for a kernel of truth in it, I suggest you go practice on finding a needle in barn full of haystacks.

[Coyote]

I'm not an Egyptologist... I don't even play one on TV. But I did do some history and archaeology of ancient Israel in Beer-Sheva and the Negev Desert from 1998-2000, and there's not yet been found any records of the events.

In fact, there is some debate as to who, exactly, the Pharaoh is supposed to be in Exodus. The odds-on favorite is Ramses II, the era from whom we have a great deal of records (comparitively speaking)... but the Hebrew legend and events around them don't take center stage.

Still, check with a devoted Egyptial specialist to be sure-- my involvement was from the Hebrew side of things and how to figure out their story (one thing is for sure-- there is zero evidence in the Sinai Desert of any mass migration that set up camp there for 40 years)...

[Jaepheth]

I remembered a bit of hearsay I heard once, did a bit of digging, and found this

Of course, I'd like to see a full translation of this "Papyrus of Ipuwer" instead of just "relevant" snippets.

[NecronLord]

I think those guys are probably proceeding from the solution, and trying to get the facts to fit the scripture.

[Jaepheth]

ok, here's the entire thing: Link


Seems that most scholars/historians consider it unrelated to the story of the Exodus.

[NecronLord]

ok, here's the entire thing:

The previous post was directed at Coyote, not you.

[Magnetic]

The only thing mentioned on the part of the Egyptians was written in a text dating to the time of Menerptah (r. 1213 - 1203 B.C.)., who was the successor of Ramses II (no need to explain who he was). The text notes a group of people called "Isreal" along with others in a list of people conquered in Palestine by the Egyptians.

The Egyptians mention nothing else about the events in the Biblical Exodus, and the text I mentioned above would seem to contradict it (given the dates and Pharoah involved are accurate).

It's sort of like the resurrection of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels: Romans were awed, dead people came out of the ground and walked around, the sky darkened, etc., but we can't confirm it through any written history from the Romans. Since we know the Romans were quite adept at recording events of the time, it's interesting that none of these supernatural events associated with Jesus, like the dead rising from the grave when he died on the cross, were ever recorded.

Perhaps we should change this topic to the Romans then. Were THEIR record keeping methods more advanced, . . . . to the point where they'd mention such things as depicted in your Superman's last paragraph?

[Bounty]

Perhaps we should change this topic to the Romans then. Were THEIR record keeping methods more advanced

Romans were very good at recordkeeping. Despite the loss of some important archives and historical works, we still have oodles of written material from all sorts of sources on all sorts of subjects.

Yet there are no contemporary records of anything even resembling the resurrection.

[Bounty]

EDIT :

to the point where they'd mention such things as depicted in your Superman's last paragraph?

The only source that covers the resurrection is from nearly a century after the fact, was not written by an eyewitness, and it's authenticity is far from certain. Christianity pops up once or twice in other sources, but not in detail, and always described as a fringe Jewish sect.

[NecronLord]

Perhaps we should change this topic to the Romans then. Were THEIR record keeping methods more advanced, . . . . to the point where they'd mention such things as depicted in your Superman's last paragraph?

To a degree. Also, Latin, as a language, was preserved, whereas middle-egyptian died out. This resulted in Roman information being kept alive through to the present, though not necesserily always as originals.