the exodus revisitied

[marduk]

oh man now its time for my confession
when i was 12 years old I stayed at my grandmothers house for a weekend
she knew i liked sci fi so she went to a fete and got me a book
it was 12th planet
i read it that weekend and really shat my pants at the thought that soon (according to him) the gods would return and they would be unhappy with us
i bought all of it
now having studied the Bible (just a little) i understand this much

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I am a child no more
in fact I'm a hell of a man (personal proof provided to any interested in finding out (ladies only please)

[oldarchystudent]

Good conversation whle we wait for Archy's proofs on the Exodus, but we should maybe have another topic for this?

[Guest]

i was afraid this was going to happen, even with a strict outline of what is wanted here. i just stopped in to check to see if i was going to be right and wheella! i am. the wingnuts ignored everything i posted in the original post and went ahead and ruined it before it got started.

i will still try to post what i am intending, but as a preamble, here is a little background on Velikovsky as montgomery relies on him quite a bit:

http://home.flash.net/~cjransom/vel.html

this is just background nothing more. i will be back later to start this thing, i just hope the lunatics can be kept from their continual abuse of this thread.

apologies to minimalist, starflower & tech who also have to endure such stupidity.

[Minimalist]

Your mistake was in announcing what you were going to do instead of just doing it, Arch.

C'est la vie. I'll wait.

[Minimalist]

A survey of other sources around the world convinced Velikovsky that a global cataclysm had indeed overtaken the Earth, and that Venus played a decisive role in that cataclysm.

Ouch.


I sprained my eyebrows on that one.

[Guest]

okay,here goes. i am only dealing with part of the paper, that part where he talks about his theory and probably Velikovsky's. to me it makes more sense than most theories i have come across.

Montgomery returns the exodus back to the 12th dynsaty and presents the evidence to support thatmove. i will post the link to the complete paper but will begin at the sub-section called: Exodus in the 12th Dynasty

http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/exod2b.html

Our new assumptions result in dating the Exodus at the end of the 12th Dynasty. This, however, is only a chronological juxtaposition. We must ask the question: does this make historical and archaeological sense. The 12th Dynasty was rich and powerful but the 13th Dynasty had impoverished remains. This is one of the Exodus archaeological conditions we are seeking. The Turin Canon gives about 60 kings for the 13th Dynasty. Most of the reign lengths are missing but the average for the dozen that are known is less than 7 years. Several pharaohs are known to have reigned months not years. This indicates great instability over a considerable period. This is another condition we are seeking. The reason for drastic economic decline and political instability is unknown according to Egyptologists.

Excavations in the Goshen region reveal occupation by large Semitic populations in the Middle Kingdom. Excavations by Bietak at a site called Tell ed-Daba revealed that Egyptianized Semites dwelt there during the 12th Dynasty at Level H [Bietak, 1996. p 9-10]. Bietak identified the site as Avaris the ancient Egyptian capital of the Hyksos. Unlike Egyptians, these 12th Dynasty Semites attached their graves to their homes in Middle Bronze Levantine fashion. Pictures and sculptures show these Semites with peculiar mushroom style hairstyle [Bietak, p. 19]. The same Semites also lived in nearby Ezbet Rushdi in Level d/2. Rohl proposed that these Egyptianized Semites were Israelites [Rohl, 1995]. The13th Dynasty began in Levels d/1 and G where a significant change in the Semite population occurred. There were no longer any images of people with mushroom hairstyle. The new burial practices began. The Semitic graves now abounded in weaponry. Pairs of donkeys were found buried at the entrances to the their graves. This kind of burial is paralleled only in southern Canaan, especially at Tell el-Ajjul [Bietak p. 25]. Tell el-Ajjul is usually identified with the Sharuhen which was the Hyksos centre of influence in Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period (SIP). Also, the pottery that had been imported from northern Canaan and the Levant was replaced in Levels d/1 and G by Tell el-Yehudiyah ware and pottery from southern Canaan [Bietak p. 31].

I propose that these Semites are the Hyksos. Velikovsky identified these Hyksos as Amalekites. The Israelites met the Amalekites in Sinai. As the Israelites were proceeding towards the East, the Amalekites were proceeding West toward an Egypt that was economically, militarily and emotionally exhausted. The Exodus would explain why they have met little resistance to their invasion

now this is just the beginning and i have bold printed the areas i would like to start with, plus add a couple questions.

1. what do we know about these semites in egypt? if they were egyptianized, then that would lend credence to my thinking posted in another thread. Where did they go? Why the Change?

2. how accurate is the turin canon?

3. i am leaning towards tthe possibility that velikovsky may be right in identifying the hyksos with the amalekites as it makes sense. egypt is weak after the plagues and it would be possible for the israelites to have had an encounter with them while wandering. what do you think?

4. this return to the 12th dynasty brings to items backinto contention-- the ipuwer papyrus and thera's eruption. both would become almost contemporary's with the exodus lending credibility to the papyrus while allowing for the plagues to be a product of its disruptive power.

hopefully you can post credible sources sources with your answers so we can have a good discussion and not denegrate into gutter talk as i said i am having a open mind on this topic. {except for the denial & dismissal of the events}

[Minimalist]

1. We know that Manetho called them Hyksos but he was writing 1,200 years later. Bietak's finds at Tell-El-Daba seem to suggest that the Hyksos were foreign rulers and maintained such separation.

2. At least for the period of the 12th Dynasty, it seems to be accurate.

All kings listed in the Turin King-list are also attested by contemporary sources and monuments.

From the same source as in #4, below.

3. http://209.157.71.50/bibleorigins*net/A ... Sinai.html

This brief article first notes a few gleaned facts on Amalek from Mattingly's research, which observed that the name is unattested in any source outside of the Bible.

The so-called Amalekites seem to exist only in the bible which, as you can imagine, doesn't mean a lot to me. Without some proof that they actually existed I equate them with fictional 'bad guys' like Klingons or Romulans. They are needed in the story to give the good guys someone to fight.

4. This seems to indicate that Egypt's problems were dynastic in origin which may have led to a civil war and a division of the kingdom into north and south, with the Hyksos gaining control of the north.

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/11_12/12.html

Amenemhat III appears to have died without any male offspring to succeed him. Towards the end of his reign, he therefore appointed a man of non-royal birth, Amenemhat IV, to be his coregent and later successor. Oddly enough, there are no indications that Amenemhat IV married into the royal family to justify his claims to the throne.

Eventhough Amenemhat IV was survived by several sons, which would later become the first kings of the 13th Dynasty, he was succeeded by Nefrusobek, a daughter of Amenemhat III. This may perhaps hint at a refusal of some members of the ruling elite to accept the family of Amenemhat IV as the new royal family. A local potentate may even have taken advantage of the dynastic troubles at the end of the 12th Dynasty, to seize control over the eastern Nile Delta, thus founding the 14th Dynasty.

Nefrusobek herself also appears to have died without any male offspring, and was succeeded by the eldest son of Amenemhat IV. With her death, the 12th dynasty came to a definitive end.

Okay. I answered your 4 questions. Now, if exodus occured earlier than the Hyksos, how does Montgomery explain the utter failure to find a reference to any Israelites in the Amarna library which covered events in the 18th dynasty under Akenaton?

[Guest]

okay you answered someof them but thats okay, i willwait till tomorrow to see if Tech and Starflower add anything before responding

[Guest]

how does Montgomery explain the utter failure to find a reference to any Israelites in the Amarna library which covered events in the 18th dynasty under Akenaton?

i got impatient and given the time difference i would be in school tomorrow and unable to answer till the evening so here goes:

i looked through the paper and montgomery is only dealing with evidence directly related to their presence in egypt. so in that regard i can't answer your question BUT in doing some research here is what i can answer:

1. egyptians rarely recorded their defeats (menatho is an exception) and i doubt the egyptians would record the defeat and death of a pharaoh at the hands of escaping slaves. (r.k. Harrison, Old Testament Times, reference for support)

2. they only found 380 tablets and most were of a non-historical nature:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... marna.html

3. given the condition they were in and how they were written, it is no real problem if the Israelite name is omitted: {from the same web site}

The Canaanite correspondence includes tablets sent from (and to) rulers of city-states under direct Egyptian domination, such as Damascus, Byblos, Acco, Razor, Shechem, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Gezer, and Ashkelon. Thirty-two tablets are school texts. Many letters are fragmentary and do not disclose the name of their writer, his city or both. Others do not record the ruler's city. Some tablets bear the name of a city, but its location is either unknown or disputed. A century of textual, geographical, historical and archaeological research has clarified some of these problems. However, many issues remain unsolved and the traditional methods for identifying the place of origin of the tablets seem to have reached a stalemate.

4. from the same web site:

Letters from securely identified cities in Canaan, such as Byblos, Tyre, Hazor, Megiddo, Shechem, Jerusalem and Gath have, in most cases,

since jerusalem was not an israelite city till David conquered it, why would these letters mention the israelites when noneof these letters are talking about military action. there would be no need to mention Israel if they were living peacebly withtheir neighbors.

i think that answers your question

[Guest]

i am interested in what is known about this group of semitic people that lived in the same area as the Israelites did and just disappeared. taken from the montgomery's paper:

In summation, in the region of Goshen at the end of the 12th Dynasty, lived a Semitic race who disappeared, like the Israelites, and were replaced in the 13th Dynasty by the Hyksos (Amalekites). At that time a prosperous and powerful 12th Dynasty became the weak and impoverished 13th Dynasty.

so who were they? why did they disappear? where did they come from?

this group of people are identified by Rohl as 'egyptianized semites' (quote posted earlier) which would make sense if they were Israelites because they would have adapted to the culture of their hosts since at that time, they were not given their own identity or culture till Mt. Sinai.

[Guest]

Wiki says there are Arab traditions that Amalek was the namesake of that tribe, and of course, the grandfather of Amalek was Esau, who's father was Issac, who was also the father of Jacob, these generations were born in the 1900 B.C. timeframe.

[Minimalist]

"Arab" traditions would never conflict with the Koran which includes the OT so it has no more reliability as a historical document than the OT itself.

[Minimalist]

i think that answers your question

Indeed. It's the same wishful thinking that you indulge in all the time. You are trying to convert "absence of evidence" into "proof of existence."
That's not going to work.

BTW, I also got tired of waiting and found the whole article. I especially loved this comment from Montgomery even though he draws the wrong conclusion from it.

Finally, in Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh there are almost no Late Bronze sites in the hill country. This is the well-documented conclusion of Finkelstein who states, "Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II between Jezreel and Beer Sheba." [Finkelstein, I. 1988]. This is in contrast with almost 200 Middle Bronze sites and over 300 Iron I sites in the same area. Over 80% of the Middle Bronze sites are abandoned. He insists that this supports a view that the Israelites entered into an essentially empty Canaan occupied mostly by nomadic groups during the Iron Age.

[Guest]

Indeed. It's the same wishful thinking that you indulge in all the time. You are trying to convert "absence of evidence" into "proof of existence."

i am doing no such thing as i hav mentioned the group of semitic people that disappeared, twice now. thus there is evidence which needs to be explored.

you on the other hand, take normal day to day letters, a miniscule amount at that, which omitted the name of the Israelites and consider that proof that they did not exist. that is just poor reaoning.

the minoans aren't mentione either, so by your thinking they did not exist at all because they were not included in the writings.

I also got tired of waiting and found the whole article

i posted the link to the whole article. and i will use it to post more evidence now:

In the area of biblical Goshen the Israelites were building two store cities, Rameses and Pi-Thom. Archaeologists have identified Rameses as Pi-Rameses in the district of Qantir. Bietak's excavations showed that it was occupied both in the Hyksos and Middle Kingdom. Tell Retabeh and Tell Maskhuta, the two candidates for Pi-Thom also had Hyksos and Middle Kingdom layers. Thus the two biblical cities of the Exodus are represented in the appropriate strata.

Was there a powerful Vizier in the 12th Dynasty who could have been Joseph? Courville identified Joseph as Vizier Mentuhotep under Senusret I, the most powerful Vizier of the 12th Dynasty [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.142]. His many impressive titles were

Such titles were unprecedented either before or after this time. Particularly the epithet, "Sustaining Alive the People", brings some deed of national salvation to mind.

then he goes to refering to the Ipuwer Papyrus, which makes more sense when viewed as a document written at the time of the plagues than as a prophetic utterance.

in the sub-section "the conquest after the 12th Dynasty, he quotes Finkelstein again and uses his words to support the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land.

which i am leaning to agre with montgomery as it explains why there was such an influx of people to leave such remains for finkelstein to find.

twice now i asked the question about what is known about this group of egyptianized semitics who disappeared. so far no one has offered anything as an answer.

you should be happy as he makes Kenyon look better than i would:

Kenyon's discovered other interesting facts about the MB Jericho. The MB upper walls of Jericho, which were situated on top of the Early Bronze walls, toppled outward (almost unique in archaeological sites). The fallen bricks provided the attackers with a convenient ramp to enter the city

while making Wood look bad:

Wood's attempt to redate Level IV does not seem to have succeeded.

so if the exodus is dated properly it is beginning to look like there is evidence for it and the israelites. now back to my question, what is known about these egyptianized semites based in the land of Goshen before they disappeared?

[Minimalist]

The Amarna letters include letters from the local rulers to their Egyptian overlords in a number of cases asking for assistance in the form of miniscule numbers of troops to keep order. In total, they give a fairly detailed description of Canaan under the 18th Dynasty pharoahs.

There are NO Israelites mentioned.

Moreover, if Montgomery's dating is to be accepted then it is far too long to Solomon's building the temple c 950 BC so the bible is still wrong.

Montgomery is doing the same thing Rohl did. He is trying to overcome the fact that there is no evidence for an Israelite presence in the Late Bronze Age by redrafting the history of far more important nations at the time to account for them....but, when he does so he screws up the bible account on the other end.

Occam's razor, Arch. The simplest explanation for no Israelite presence is that there were no Israelites until the end of the LBA.

By the way, there was no Egyptian Pharoah by the name of Rameses until Rameses the first c. 1300 BC. He was a minor king who ruled for only a couple of years. It is not likely that any cities were built for him. Traditionally, biblical scholars attempt to use the Pi-Rameses argument to cite Rameses the Great as the pharoah of the exodus, but, of course, that does not work either.