Osarseph and Exodus

[kmt_sesh]

Frist of all I like to study and make up my own mind on all the opinions.

As Osman points out, Yuya is the only Egyptian mummy to have his hands placed under his chin rather than across his chest, he has what appears to be Semtic features, and a beard style similar to that of the ancient Hebrews, whereas Egyptian officials were known to shave their facial hair.

And this article( not from wikpedia:) convinces me that the habiru were perhaps the hebrews.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

There's nothing wrong with using your mind when considering historical issues, but opinions are something else. Opinions do not reflect facts—they reflect one's personal beliefs outside the sphere of what is known, so in most cases opinions aren't exactly reliable.

Equally important to consider is the sources to which you turn when considering historical issues. Ahmed Osman, for example, should be one of the last sources on your list. I know of what I speak because I've read Osman's work and have one or two of his books in the fringe section of my own library. Osman is a pretty decent writer but exists well outside the boundaries of rational and reliable historical inquiry. He is a fringe writer, not a real historian or researcher. Osman is out to sell books, not to contribute to our overall body of knowledge.

There's a reason Osman is not taken seriously. Why would you want to?

For example, take the information you're drawing from Osman. Hand placement of male mummies—and in numerous cases, female mummies—tended to follow a variety of traditions. There was no "fixed" rule, in so far as the archaeological evidence can tell us. Male mummies tended to have their hands placed over or above the chest in some fashion or, alternatively, over the genitals. Most importantly for our debate, however, is that hand placement in no way, shape, or form reflects the ethnicity or race to which the individual belonged.

Consider the mummy of Tutankhamun, for instance. His hand placement seems a bit odd, especially for a royal mummy. There are any number of plausible explanations for this, but hypothesizing that Tut must have been a foreigner because of it is certainly not one of them.

As for Semitic features, Osman is missing the very obvious fact that many Egyptians were of Semitic origin. The society in general is referred to as Afro-Asiatic, as is the ancient language. An Egyptian possessing Semitic features doesn't mean much of anything interesting when the culture was heavily influenced by Semitic roots to begin with.

Also, don't confuse the word Semitic with Hebrew. Yes, the Hebrews were (and are) Semitic, but so were (and are) a great many other peoples, the Canaanites included. Other examples from the times of the ancient Near East include the Akkadians, Ugarites, Phoenicians, Arameans, and Chaldeans. There were (and are) also many Ethiopians of Semitic stock.

Lastly on the list is Yuya's beard:

What beard? It's more stubble than anything. Osman is freely exaggerating a fact of ancient history and skewing it for his fringe agenda, and that fact is the Egyptians carefully rendered the appearances of foreigners in their artwork, to the extent that one can to this day distinguish the land of origin of the foreigner simply by the way he's depicted. This is true of Asiatics (people from the ancient Levant, where the Hebrews would later emerge), and the Egyptians often depicted Asiatics with their tell-tale hair, head ornaments, and long, pointed beards:

Does this look like Yuya? Really?

[docyabut2]

I guess you right smt, beards were important to the egyptians..

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=amcient+egyptain+beards&qpvt=amcient+egyptain+beards&FORM=IGRE

However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown, didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

[cormac mac airt]

I guess you right smt, beards were important to the egyptians..

http://www.bing.com/...eards&FORM=IGRE

However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown, didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

No the Hebrews didn't have the same deity as their god YHWH, usually shown as Yahweh, was not unknown. It was for the most part not written or pronounced, but usually substituted with words like Adonai or El Shaddai to name a few.

cormac

[Peter Cox]

I have to agree, the timing issue and the lack of written facts do not support the OP's statment.

Egypt would have kept records of an event like this, im sure of it.

[questionmark]

However what of the Habiru article of who`s god was unknown, didn`t the hebrew have a same deity, where as they were never allow to mention his name.

The Hebrews could mention the name of the god given certain circumstances, but do the precept that the name of the lord should not be used in vain were very careful to mention it.

And yes, we know Yahweh from before the Hebrews, as weather god of some nomadic herder in the uplands of the Sinai.