The Moses Puzzle

[Khaemwaset]

Moses pineapple

Edited November 23, 2017 by Khaemwaset

[kmt_sesh]

2 hours ago, Khaemwaset said:

Moses pineapple

I was going to say that pineapples aren't kosher so Moses and clan wouldn't have touched them, but then I had to go and Google it. Turns out in certain ways pineapples can be made kosher. That's disturbing, but I'm sure Moses never touched the stuff.

[Khaemwaset]

okay, okay.  Finding an image with two such disparate keyword parameters (moses and pineapple) was just too good for me to resist sharing.  Impulse control, in my case, has diminished along with hearing and eyesight...something which was unforeseen!

.Anyway, I have to be absent from these halls for a couple weeks.  I hope to have some more relevant postings then.  Ta-Ta. 

[Aldebaran]

14 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

"You reminded me: Amunmesse (Born of Amun) was also a very common name. But you're categorizing the biblical Moses as someone actually named Ahmose, which by its very nature is alternative history. It's not an insult, it's a standard categorization. Your idea lies outside the bounds of conventional historical research, so therefor it's alternative. You're right that Amunhotep (and derivatives) doesn't work for Moses, but choosing Ahmose because it does sounds more like Moses seems more like convenience than fact. And as far as that goes, Messe and Messes were both male names in Egypt, albeit not as common. Why not stick with that?"

"Amunmesse" was not at all a common name.  It is "imn ms sw", which means "Amun fashioned him", and was the name of a short-lived king toward the end of Dynasty 19.  How can you maintain that "categorizing Moses as someone named Ahmose" is alternative history?  There is no "conventional historical research" attached to any of this, nor any sort of convenience.  "Ahmose" was an extremely common name, but I chose it because it was found at the right time, according to the math.  Yes, a scholar named Rolf Krauss wrote a book some years ago [in French] with the title "Moise le Faraon" and chose Amunmesse as his Moses, but I fail to see how that establishes any sort of "standard" when it comes to analyzing the legend of Moses.  I can't agree with the choice of Krauss because his Moses, whom he believes was, at first, the viceroy of Kush, Messuy [and with that part I do agree] because Amunmessu lived too late,near the time of the Trojan War, in fact.  Eusebius put the chronology into a context.  He claimed that between Abraham and the 15th Year of Tiberias Caesar were 2044 years, which leads to a starting date of 2015 BCE for Abraham.  Now, if you want to talk "standards", that is roughly the time when most scholars place Abraham.  Between Abraham and Moses there are 505 years.  From Moses to the capture of Troy are 329, according to Eusebius and his viewpoint is very typical, if one knows anything about the reckoning of the ancient historians and the early church fathers, like Eusebius. Which I do.  In other words, Amunmesse, as Moses, is 300 years too late.

"If you've stated this clearly in a previous post, I've missed it and apologize. But exactly which Ahmose are you saying this was? Was it one of the Viceroys of Kush (there was more than one by that name), the famous general, the king and founder of Dynasty 18, or just some random dude with that name?"

It is the viceroy Ahmose called Tora.  His second appellation does not have a connection to "Torah", that I can see, and yet I feel that is the correct transcription of the name as written in hieroglyphs.

"But as far as the math goes, plenty of people have observed and played with that. The most obvious is 1 Kings 6:1, in which we are told Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon started his temple; Solomon is said to have begun temple construction in the fourth year of his reign, which was about 966 BCE. So counting back we get approximately 1446 BCE. This is smack dab in the middle of the reign of Tuthmosis III, the most powerful warrior pharaoh in dynastic history. During his reign Egypt had a solid hold over not only itself but all of the Lower Sudan and all of the Levant. So socio-politically speaking, an event anything like Exodus during the long reign of Tuthmosis III is entirely unrealistic."

Why?  According to the Book of Exodus, the event was not driven by socio-politics but by increasingly catastrophic happenings.  Those could occur at any time and the might of the reigning pharaoh still made him powerless to control them-- and he was superstitious enough to credit that the gods were against him and pro someone else.  

"The only good clues are in Exodus 1:11, where we're told the Hebrews built the store cities of Pithom and Ramses (Per-Atum and Per-Ramesses, respectively). Both of these were real places—but the site of Ramses was of little importance until the reign of Ramesses II, who made it the state capital. So this is ultimately a better clue because the math as provided doesn't work, unless you're inferring some different math. But in the end there is just no evidence for Exodus, as much as people have played with it, so for all of us it ends up being an exercise in debate, not one of historical accuracy."

Was the city of Per-Ramesses-Meryamun built at the time of Joseph and the Book of Genesis?  I don't see how it would be possible and, yet, "the land of Raamses" [or however it's spelled there] is mentioned in Genesis.  What was there at the time was the fortified city of Avaris, which was later partially incorporated into Per-Ramesses-Meryamun, the latter being a short-lived city.  Yes, the Book of Exodus mentions it--but otherwise, in antiquity, the exodus and Moses are connected to Avaris.  But, in the final analysis, the only ones "playing with the numbers" are those who would like to see Moses in a 19th Dynasty time frame.  Besides which, the kings of this dynasty were no less mighty than Thutmose III so, if you want to use that as an argument, an exodus is "unrealistic" while they ruled, as well,

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Aldebaran

[atalante]

17 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

.....But as far as the math [for Exodus] goes, plenty of people have observed and played with that. The most obvious is 1 Kings 6:1, in which we are told Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon started his temple; Solomon is said to have begun temple construction in the fourth year of his reign, which was about 966 BCE. So counting back we get approximately 1446 BCE. This is smack dab in the middle of the reign of Tuthmosis III, the most powerful warrior pharaoh in dynastic history. During his reign Egypt had a solid hold over not only itself but all of the Lower Sudan and all of the Levant. So socio-politically speaking, an event anything like Exodus during the long reign of Tuthmosis III is entirely unrealistic.

The only good clues are in Exodus 1:11, where we're told the Hebrews built the store cities of Pithom and Ramses (Per-Atum and Per-Ramesses, respectively). Both of these were real places—but the site of Ramses was of little importance until the reign of Ramesses II, who made it the state capital. So this is ultimately a better clue because the math as provided doesn't work, unless you're inferring some different math. But in the end there is just no evidence for Exodus, as much as people have played with it, so for all of us it ends up being an exercise in debate, not one of historical accuracy.

kmt,

The influential Gary Rendsburg 1992 paper that calculates and explains an Exodus-and-Conquest in the 1100s BCE is:  http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/80-the-date-of-the-exodus-and-the-conquest-settlement/file

 

 

A popularized, and shortened, explanation by Rendsburg is:

http://thetorah.com/the-pharaoh-of-the-exodus-rameses-iii/

[Piney]

1 hour ago, atalante said:

kmt,

The influential Gary Rendsburg 1992 paper that calculates and explains an Exodus-and-Conquest in the 1100s BCE is:  http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/80-the-date-of-the-exodus-and-the-conquest-settlement/file

 

 

A popularized, and shortened, explanation by Rendsburg is:

http://thetorah.com/the-pharaoh-of-the-exodus-rameses-iii/

Rendsburg? Meh....I'll let Kmt pick this apart. 

[Truthseeker007]

I think the story of Moses was created by using older stories such as the Syrian story of Misis.

[Piney]

I know Rutgers and I know Rendsburg's rep.     Another hammerhead. He's not a archaeologist. He just p***es them off.

[kmt_sesh]

3 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

"Amunmesse" was not at all a common name.  It is "imn ms sw", which means "Amun fashioned him", and was the name of a short-lived king toward the end of Dynasty 19.  How can you maintain that "categorizing Moses as someone named Ahmose" is alternative history?  There is no "conventional historical research" attached to any of this, nor any sort of convenience.  "Ahmose" was an extremely common name, but I chose it because it was found at the right time, according to the math.  Yes, a scholar named Rolf Krauss wrote a book some years ago [in French] with the title "Moise le Faraon" and chose Amunmesse as his Moses, but I fail to see how that establishes any sort of "standard" when it comes to analyzing the legend of Moses.  I can't agree with the choice of Krauss because his Moses, whom he believes was, at first, the viceroy of Kush, Messuy [and with that part I do agree] because Amunmessu lived too late,near the time of the Trojan War, in fact.  Eusebius put the chronology into a context.  He claimed that between Abraham and the 15th Year of Tiberias Caesar were 2044 years, which leads to a starting date of 2015 BCE for Abraham.  Now, if you want to talk "standards", that is roughly the time when most scholars place Abraham.  Between Abraham and Moses there are 505 years.  From Moses to the capture of Troy are 329, according to Eusebius and his viewpoint is very typical, if one knows anything about the reckoning of the ancient historians and the early church fathers, like Eusebius. Which I do.  In other words, Amunmesse, as Moses, is 300 years too late.

I'm not talking about the king named Amunmesse (Amenmesse). Pegging Moses as a king would be fairly ridiculous, like the wingnuts who claim Moses and Akhenaten were the same person. I'm talking about a regular proper name, and yes, it was very common. No matter how you spin it, and although Ahmose was a popular male name, derivatives of Amun were a lot more common. That's just a simple fact. There are still more I haven't bothered to list. The exception might be during the reign of Ahmose I, given the propensity to name one's son (or one's self) after the reigning king.

There is no conventional research about Moses as Ahmose, I grant you that, but there are mountains of research and literature about Moses and his place in Egypt. And if you're pegging Moses as a viceroy, that is indeed alternative history (more on that presently). And yet the person you've selected as Moses lived no later than the reign of Tuthmoses I (1596-1493 BCE), and probably no later than early in this king's reign. There is no evidence for the Hebrews emerging as an identifiable culture, however, until the Late Bronze Age. The earliest textual record of them is the Merneptah victory stela, dating to about 1208 BCE. Archaeology of the Highlands of Judah concur with this timeframe as the earliest appearance of the Hebrews, so you're placing Moses almost 300 years too early. But this is a common mistake in alternative histories: the propensity to place the Hebrews too early in history.

Quote

It is the viceroy Ahmose called Tora.  His second appellation does not have a connection to "Torah", that I can see, and yet I feel that is the correct transcription of the name as written in hieroglyphs

Now we arrive at the Ahmose you've selected as Moses. It should be pointed out that "Tora" is a very fanciful interpretation of the actual glyphs, which are properly transliterated as Tw-ra (pronounced something like "Tchu-rah"). In conventional literature the name is usually rendered as "Tura" or even "Thura" (the "th" representing a "tch" sound we don't quite have in English). In truth we can't really know the vowel sounds in Tw-ra: the "w" is a weak consonant more approximating "oo" in "food," and the "a" is the ayin, so common to Semitic languages (not not at all to Western languages). For all we know there were additional vowel sounds before, inside, and/or after the consonants. I wholly agree that the name dosen't (and can't) have anything to do with the Hebrew Torah, but I disagree with how you're transcribing it.

In any case, in selecting this individual as Moses, you're ignoring certain facts. First, as mentioned, Ahmose called Tura lived too early in history to have been associated with Hebrews; there was no Hebraic culture in his time. Second, we know from this Ahmose's few monuments (stelae, funerary cones) the name of his father: Ahmose called Si-Tayit, who was possibly a viceroy during the reign of Ahmose I. That does not work at all with biblical lore. Now, the Bible is not a history book and mustn't be regarded as such, but the fact is, the one and only source for the person of Moses is the Bible (writers such as Manetho, Josephus, and Eusebius were drawing straight from the Bible, of course, even if some of these writers took a lot of liberties with the facts). So, the question is, how do you reconcile these discrepancies?

Quote

Why?  According to the Book of Exodus, the event was not driven by socio-politics but by increasingly catastrophic happenings.  Those could occur at any time and the might of the reigning pharaoh still made him powerless to control them-- and he was superstitious enough to credit that the gods were against him and pro someone else.  

You're correct, catastrophes can occur at any time. However, we can usually find evidence for them, and there is no evidence for stability during the reign of Tuthmosis III. His long reign was stable and prosperous, or he obviously wouldn't have been able to carry out so many costly and lengthy military campaigns. Much the same is true during the reigns of Amunhotep I and Tuthmosis I, who ruled a stable and prosperous Egypt. In fact, more than any of the other kings, Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III made Egypt the empire it became. A better selection for such a situation might be the epidemics that seem to have occurred during the reigns of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten, and in fact this is one reason alternative writers like to stick Moses during one of these kings' reigns—but, again, in reality that would be too early in time.

Quote

Was the city of Per-Ramesses-Meryamun built at the time of Joseph and the Book of Genesis?  I don't see how it would be possible and, yet, "the land of Raamses" [or however it's spelled there] is mentioned in Genesis.  What was there at the time was the fortified city of Avaris, which was later partially incorporated into Per-Ramesses-Meryamun, the latter being a short-lived city.  Yes, the Book of Exodus mentions it--but otherwise, in antiquity, the exodus and Moses are connected to Avaris.  But, in the final analysis, the only ones "playing with the numbers" are those who would like to see Moses in a 19th Dynasty time frame.  Besides which, the kings of this dynasty were no less mighty than Thutmose III so, if you want to use that as an argument, an exodus is "unrealistic" while they ruled, as well,

These sites tended to change hands multiple times, but Ramses (modern Qantir) had little importance prior to Ramesses I, who established it as a palace site. It was nearby Avaris, the old Hyksos capital. But once Ramesses II settled on the throne, he turned Qantir into the capital of Egypt; that's when it became Ramses (also commonly rendered as Pi-Ramses and variants). It was the capital of Egypt for the rest of the New Kingdom, for over 200 years. It was abandoned only when that branch of the Nile was drying up.

Kings like Ramesses II were indeed powerful—but not like Tuthmosis III. In fact, under Ramesses II, Egypt lost a lot of its holdings in the Levant, under the rising power of the Hittites. 

I have to stress that I do not see Exodus as an actual historical event. I just enjoy debating what's known and what's not known, like we're doing. I've spent more than thirty years researching dynastic Egypt, and a lot of that research has involved biblical lore. As much as I've read, I've never seen an argument that sways me toward the historical veracity of Exodus, and of course many have tried. Now, something may have happened that gave inspiration to later Hebrew writers, but there was nothing like Exodus in true history. It's a story, or foundational myth if you prefer. I definitely see no convincing evidence for the biblical Moses.

Whew, this was a long one. But I have the day off and am at home for Thanksgiving, so why not?

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm not talking about the king named Amunmesse (Amenmesse). Pegging Moses as a king would be fairly ridiculous, like the wingnuts who claim Moses and Akhenaten were the same person. I'm talking about a regular proper name, and yes, it was very common. No matter how you spin it, and although Ahmose was a popular male name, derivatives of Amun were a lot more common. That's just a simple fact. There are still more I haven't bothered to list. The exception might be during the reign of Ahmose I, given the propensity to name one's son (or one's self) after the reigning king.

There is no conventional research about Moses as Ahmose, I grant you that, but there are mountains of research and literature about Moses and his place in Egypt. And if you're pegging Moses as a viceroy, that is indeed alternative history (more on that presently). And yet the person you've selected as Moses lived no later than the reign of Tuthmoses I (1596-1493 BCE), and probably no later than early in this king's reign. There is no evidence for the Hebrews emerging as an identifiable culture, however, until the Late Bronze Age. The earliest textual record of them is the Merneptah victory stela, dating to about 1208 BCE. Archaeology of the Highlands of Judah concur with this timeframe as the earliest appearance of the Hebrews, so you're placing Moses almost 300 years too early. But this is a common mistake in alternative histories: the propensity to place the Hebrews too early in history.

Now we arrive at the Ahmose you've selected as Moses. It should be pointed out that "Tora" is a very fanciful interpretation of the actual glyphs, which are properly transliterated as Tw-ra (pronounced something like "Tchu-rah"). In conventional literature the name is usually rendered as "Tura" or even "Thura" (the "th" representing a "tch" sound we don't quite have in English). In truth we can't really know the vowel sounds in Tw-ra: the "w" is a weak consonant more approximating "oo" in "food," and the "a" is the ayin, so common to Semitic languages (not not at all to Western languages). For all we know there were additional vowel sounds before, inside, and/or after the consonants. I wholly agree that the name dosen't (and can't) have anything to do with the Hebrew Torah, but I disagree with how you're transcribing it.

In any case, in selecting this individual as Moses, you're ignoring certain facts. First, as mentioned, Ahmose called Tura lived too early in history to have been associated with Hebrews; there was no Hebraic culture in his time. Second, we know from this Ahmose's few monuments (stelae, funerary cones) the name of his father: Ahmose called Si-Tayit, who was possibly a viceroy during the reign of Ahmose I. That does not work at all with biblical lore. Now, the Bible is not a history book and mustn't be regarded as such, but the fact is, the one and only source for the person of Moses is the Bible (writers such as Manetho, Josephus, and Eusebius were drawing straight from the Bible, of course, even if some of these writers took a lot of liberties with the facts). So, the question is, how do you reconcile these discrepancies?

You're correct, catastrophes can occur at any time. However, we can usually find evidence for them, and there is no evidence for stability during the reign of Tuthmosis III. His long reign was stable and prosperous, or he obviously wouldn't have been able to carry out so many costly and lengthy military campaigns. Much the same is true during the reigns of Amunhotep I and Tuthmosis I, who ruled a stable and prosperous Egypt. In fact, more than any of the other kings, Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III made Egypt the empire it became. A better selection for such a situation might be the epidemics that seem to have occurred during the reigns of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten, and in fact this is one reason alternative writers like to stick Moses during one of these kings' reigns—but, again, in reality that would be too early in time.

These sites tended to change hands multiple times, but Ramses (modern Qantir) had little importance prior to Ramesses I, who established it as a palace site. It was nearby Avaris, the old Hyksos capital. But once Ramesses II settled on the throne, he turned Qantir into the capital of Egypt; that's when it became Ramses (also commonly rendered as Pi-Ramses and variants). It was the capital of Egypt for the rest of the New Kingdom, for over 200 years. It was abandoned only when that branch of the Nile was drying up.

Kings like Ramesses II were indeed powerful—but not like Tuthmosis III. In fact, under Ramesses II, Egypt lost a lot of its holdings in the Levant, under the rising power of the Hittites. 

I have to stress that I do not see Exodus as an actual historical event. I just enjoy debating what's known and what's not known, like we're doing. I've spent more than thirty years researching dynastic Egypt, and a lot of that research has involved biblical lore. As much as I've read, I've never seen an argument that sways me toward the historical veracity of Exodus, and of course many have tried. Now, something may have happened that gave inspiration to later Hebrew writers, but there was nothing like Exodus in true history. It's a story, or foundational myth if you prefer. I definitely see no convincing evidence for the biblical Moses.

Whew, this was a long one. But I have the day off and am at home for Thanksgiving, so why not?

Yeah that was a long but good one. Maybe that is what happen to Moses and would explain the 40 years that he wandered in the wilderness perhaps he was reading your blog and lost track of time?

[kmt_sesh]

52 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah that was a long but good one. Maybe that is what happen to Moses and would explain the 40 years that he wandered in the wilderness perhaps he was reading your blog and lost track of time?

Nah, that couldn't happen. Reading my blog? He would've died from boredom long before forty years.

[jmccr8]

Guys, Moses is my bartender at the gentlemans club that I frequent when I am not going to the Derailers Anonymous thread for treatment. I was down at the Boobie Trap telling Moses about this thread and he just laughed and we got drunk and sang obscene songs till Myth Woo came out to shake her fringe for us.

jmccr8

[kmt_sesh]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Guys, Moses is my bartender at the gentlemans club that I frequent when I am not going to the Derailers Anonymous thread for treatment. I was down at the Boobie Trap telling Moses about this thread and he just laughed and we got drunk and sang obscene songs till Myth Woo came out to shake her fringe for us.

jmccr8

Well, you're not on the DA thread all that much these days, so I can only assume you and Moses are really tying one on. But you do realize you're just seeing him, right? He's not really there. You're drinking alone (until Myth Woo comes around).

[jmccr8]

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Well, you're not on the DA thread all that much these days, so I can only assume you and Moses are really tying one on. But you do realize you're just seeing him, right? He's not really there. You're drinking alone (until Myth Woo comes around).

Ahh have you forgotten about my research in the Ka of the Grain? I am in the spirit world duh. Myth Woo is merely a distraction remember sje has the hots for you and I have the raven haired beauty in the short tight red dress that stacks my ice cubes and takes notes.

jmccr8

[atalante]

On 11/23/2017 at 1:46 PM, Piney said:

I know Rutgers and I know Rendsburg's rep.     Another hammerhead. He's not a archaeologist. He just p***es them off.

 

Avraham Faust (2015) catalogued a large number of archaeology scholars, in their views about the early origins of iron age Israel.  For instance, he discusses Finkelstein and Rendsburg, plus many others. 

 

I believe the Faust article does NOT cite "Documentary Theory" people like Richard Friedman (although I might have missed a mention of the name Friedman, in Faust's long paper). 

 

 

To avoid being overwhelmed by Faust's data dump, I recommend focusing on Faust's summary section, which is on pages that are numbered 476-477 in Faust's article.     

 

 

https://www.academia.edu/11906343/Faust_A._2015_The_Emergence_of_Iron_Age_Israel_On_Origins_and_Habitus_in_T.E._Levy_T._Schneider_and_W.H.C._Propp_eds._Israel_s_Exodus_in_Transdisciplinary_Perspective_Text_Archeology_Culture_and_Geoscience_Springer_pp._467-482

quoting from Faust's article, pages 476-477: 

 

While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (cf.Bietak 2003; Gottwald 1979; Herrmann 1985: 48; Mazar  2001: 76; Na’aman 1994: 245; Stiebing 1989: 197–9; Friedman 1997: 82–83; Halpern 1992: 104, 107; Halpern 2003; Dever  1993: 31*; 1995: 211; Tubb 1998: 169; Williamson 1998: 149–150; Hoffmeier 1997; Weisman 1984: 15–16; Malamat 1997; Yurco 1997: 44–51; Machinist 1991: 210; 1994; Hendel 2001, 2002; Knohl 2008; see also Levy and Holl 2002; and see many contributions to [these written proceedings of the 2013 conference titled Exodus: Out of Egypt]. 

 

 

In this, I am not referring to the various traditions of Israel’s interaction with Egypt resulting from the era of Egyptian control in Canaan or from some relations with the Hyksos, which found their way into the Bible (Russell 2009; see also Hendel 2001; Knohl 2008; Na’aman 2011; more below), but to the possibility that there was a group which fled Egypt, and brought this story of Exodus with it. Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds (some give it more weight, e.g., Hoffmeier  1997).

 

Still, despite the limited size of this group, it appears that during the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis its story became part of the common history of all the Israelites.  Most of those who accept some historical core for the story of the Exodus from Egypt, date it to the thirteenth century (e.g., Hoffmeier, Chap.15), at the time of Ramses II, while others date it to the twelfth century, during the time of Ramses III (e.g., Halpern 1992; Rendsburg 1992; cf. Bietak, Chap. 2).

 

Archaeology does not really contribute to the debate over the historicity or even historical background of the Exodus itself, but if there was indeed such a group, it contributed the Exodus story to that of all Israel.

 

While I agree that it is most likely that there was such a group, I must stress that this is based on an overall understanding of the development of collective memory and of the authorship of the texts (and their editorial process). Archaeology, unfortunately, cannot directly contribute (yet?) to the study of this specific group of Israel’s ancestors.

 

So was this Exodus group also Merneptah’s Israel, or at least part of it? Clearly, if there was an Exodus in the thirteenth century this group of people could have been part of Merneptah’s Israel.

 

However, despite the assumed significance of this group (the Exodus as a "national" epic, more below), it is likely that this group was incorporated at a later stage, only after Merneptah’s time, or at least that it was distinct from Merneptah’s Israel. After all, although this group clearly brought with it some of what became the history of Israel, it wasn’t Merneptah’s Israel, or any "Israel" for that matter. While many scholars agree that the Exodus group brought with it YHWH as a new deity (Cross 1988; Knohl 2008; cf., Romer, Chap.22), the name Israel has the component "El,"rather than "Ya" or "Yahu."

 

Thus, Israel could have preceded the arrival of the Exodus group, and it is likely that the latter was not Israel’s "core" group.

 

 

The Exodus story and all Israel. 

 

The process by which all these groups came to share this history is illustrated by Dever (1995: 211):

"The Exodus-Conquest" story is perhaps really about a small group....A simple analogy may help us to understand this phenomenon.  In mainstream American tradition, we all celebrate Thanksgiving as though we ourselves had come to these shores on the Mayflower.  That is the myth; although in fact, most of us got here some other way..."

While Dever’s words seem to give a general idea on how an important story of one group can become that of a much larger one, we still need to ask WHY was the story of a late-coming group accepted by the earlier components of Israel, and turned into a "national epic."

 

[See also Halpern 1992: 107; Dever 203; for another reconstruction, see Knowl 2008.] 

 

We have seen (also Faust 2006) that Merneptah’s Israel defined itself against the Egyptian empire (which forced them to settle) and its subordinated Canaanite city states, and this in itself made the Exodus story easy to accept by the original "core" group. As suggested by Hendel (Chap. 5), Egyptian oppression of Canaan, which lasted until about 1150BCE, made the Canaanite groups also prone to accept the story. Memories of oppression in Egypt, or by Egypt, were therefore shared by all components of emerging Israel (and to this one can also add the memory of the Hyksos expulsion; Redford 1992, and Chap. 34), so this made the reception of the Exodus story quite easy, regardless what constituted the story at the early stages.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by atalante

[atalante]

Richard Friedman is the expert on Documentary Sources (and Documentary Theory) in the bible.  Friedman wrote the following.

quoting from http://thetorah.com/the-historical-exodus/

 

In the hypothesis that we’re testing, that it was the Levites who came from Egypt and brought the worship of the God YHWH with them, we can understand why Levite authors would want to tell this:  a story to establish that YHWH was the God of old, the God of Israel’s ancestors, and not a new and different deity.

Arriving in a place that had long worshipped El as chief God, the Levites and the resident Israelites didn’t need to decide that they would now worship two chief deities, and they didn’t need to fight over choosing one and rejecting the other.  What E and P reflect is a decision to say rather that El and YHWH were one and the same God.  Meanwhile, J, the indigenous, non-Levite source, doesn’t bother with the story.  It just treats YHWH as God’s name from time immemorial, and its narrator, when writing in his or her own voice, never once uses the word Elohim.

There is more.  It is in fact only the Levite sources — E, P, and also D — that tell the entire story of the plagues and exodus from Egypt.  J, the non-Levite source, doesn’t tell it.  If you read J, it jumps from  Moses’ saying “Let my people go” in Exodus 5:1f. to the people’s already having departed Egypt in Exodus 13:21.^[4]  Who knows what [J] story, if any, came in between.

....William Propp’s commentary on Exodus makes a strong case on the etymology of the very word “Levi” that its most probable meaning is an “attached person” in the sense of resident alien.

Conclusion

The scenario is that the Levites were in Egypt, and it was the Levites who worshipped the God YHWH.  The Song of Miriam in our parasha names God nine times, and in all nine it is YHWH.  And this name has been found in Egypt in two inscriptions from the 14^th and 13^th centuries.  These Levites brought their story and their God to Israel.

So on one hand this archaeological and critical model challenges traditional beliefs, and on the other it challenges those critics who argue that the exodus isn’t historical.  As for their arguments, as the Song itself says, “You blew with your wind.  They sank like lead.”

Note:  This is just a brief sample of the case that the exodus was historical.  The full treatment will be part of a coming book.

endquote

[Harte]

The inscriptions of YHWH found in Egypt aren't evidence of any Hebrew presence.

They refer to the "Shasu of YHWH," a people that worshipped YHWH and that lived beyond the Jordan River (and not in Egypt.)

Harte

 

[jaylemurph]

10 hours ago, atalante said:

Richard Friedman is the expert on Documentary Sources (and Documentary Theory) in the bible.

...and I know people who speak Klingon and read Gallifreyan. We all interact with our favoured fictions in different ways.

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

3 hours ago, Harte said:

The inscriptions of YHWH found in Egypt aren't evidence of any Hebrew presence.

They refer to the "Shasu of YHWH," a people that worshipped YHWH and that lived beyond the Jordan River (and not in Egypt.)

Harte

 

You are correct. There is no agreed reference to the Hebrew YHWY in the 14th or 13th century BCE. The Shasu are certainly evidenced in Egyptian inscriptions, but I've come across research arguing that "Shasu of YHWY" might refer to a specific region in the Levant, and not to the Hebrew god. In other words, "Shasu of YHWY" might be a toponym.

[Harte]

Even if it wasn't a toponym, YHWH was one of the gods of the Canaanite religion, IIRC.

The Shasu probably practiced some version of that religion.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

Even if it wasn't a toponym, YHWH was one of the gods of the Canaanite religion, IIRC.

The Shasu probably practiced some version of that religion.

Harte

AFAIK Yahweh (YHWH) was a god of the Midianites while EL was a god of the Canaanites. Later they were merged under Yahweh’s name.

cormac

[Harte]

Midianites are as good a guess as any. The actual origin of YHWH has yet to be determined.

He likely came out of the ancient Canaanite religion though. There were many variations of it spread around the Levant back then - all originating from the Babylonian, I believe.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

Midianites are as good a guess as any. The actual origin of YHWH has yet to be determined.

He likely came out of the ancient Canaanite religion though. There were many variations of it spread around the Levant back then - all originating from the Babylonian, I believe.

Harte

While you may consider that likely there is no actual evidence that such was true, i.e. that Yahweh existed from the earliest time within the Canaanite pantheon. As to the Shasu, it is my understanding that they originated in Moab/northern Edom which aligns well IMO with the Biblical text of Yahweh being worshiped originally by the Midianites (Jethro's people)

cormac

[Aldebaran]

On 11/23/2017 at 4:12 PM, kmt_sesh said:

 

"Kings like Ramesses II were indeed powerful—but not like Tuthmosis III. In fact, under Ramesses II, Egypt lost a lot of its holdings in the Levant, under the rising power of the Hittites."

And yet, the Hittites found Ramesses II powerful enough to be anxious to have good diplomatic relations with him, even send him a king's daughter for a wife.  There is no basis for maintaining Thutmose III was mightier than Ramesses because the former never had a foe to face as strong as the Hittites.

"I have to stress that I do not see Exodus as an actual historical event. I just enjoy debating what's known and what's not known, like we're doing. I've spent more than thirty years researching dynastic Egypt, and a lot of that research has involved biblical lore."

But that doesn't give you an advantage over me.  Far more than thirty years on this end.  Well, your skepticism is nothing that I can debate.  

I wrote:

It is the viceroy Ahmose called Tora.  His second appellation does not have a connection to "Torah", that I can see, and yet I feel that is the correct transcription of the name as written in hieroglyphs

"Now we arrive at the Ahmose you've selected as Moses. It should be pointed out that "Tora" is a very fanciful interpretation of the actual glyphs, which are properly transliterated as Tw-ra (pronounced something like "Tchu-rah"). In conventional literature the name is usually rendered as "Tura" or even "Thura" (the "th" representing a "tch" sound we don't quite have in English). In truth we can't really know the vowel sounds in Tw-ra: the "w" is a weak consonant more approximating "oo" in "food," and the "a" is the ayin, so common to Semitic languages (not not at all to Western languages). For all we know there were additional vowel sounds before, inside, and/or after the consonants. I wholly agree that the name dosen't (and can't) have anything to do with the Hebrew Torah, but I disagree with how you're transcribing it."

That's because you're a bit deficient in your understanding of the Egyptian graphic system and so are a lot of Egyptologists it may surprise

you to know.  The name is written "twri", "twrA" and "TwrA".  There's no possibility of a "Tchu-rah" because of the spelling with the /t/.  At this point the graphemes /t/ and /T/, while once different, were interchangeable.  And /w/ was just like Hebrew vav., it could stand for "w", "u" and "o" in no order of preference.  Obviously /w/, when seen between two other consonants is going to have the agency of a "semi-vowel".  Egyptian /i/ most often had a "a" sound and, in this case, that, too, is borne out by the alternative spelling.  Trust me, it's "Tora".  What in the world makes you so sure that you should confidently be able to tell a person like me that you know more about the subject of my book than I do?  Are you just assuming that one day I got an idea and started writing without any preliminary research?  I'm not going to debate this any further with you because it's obvious that your own presumption of your knowledge is greater than the reality.  However, you probably know more than anyone else here.  If you're really interested in the subject beyond wanting to be a naysayer and correct me, then I suggest you read my book and learn something about the math of the Bible that mandates an exodus where I put it and very miuch more.  I am not going write my entire book here just to argue with you.  Once again, it's  "The Life and Times of Moses Viceroy of Kush".  Even if you don't believe in Moses as a figure of history, you'll learn a lot about the viceroys of Nubia of the 18th Dynasty.

 

 

On 11/23/2017 at 4:12 PM, kmt_sesh said:

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Aldebaran

[atalante]

6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

While you [Harte] may consider that likely there is no actual evidence that such was true, i.e. that Yahweh existed from the earliest time within the Canaanite pantheon. As to the Shasu, it is my understanding that they originated in Moab/northern Edom which aligns well IMO with the Biblical text of Yahweh being worshiped originally by the Midianites (Jethro's people)

cormac

The bible utilizes some geographical terms that have have been borrowed from ancient Egypt.

 

The "shasu" of ancient Egypt correlate with biblical "Esau".

"Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.  And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir..." (Gen 36:8-9).

 

 

 

quote about Esau, the shasu and their YHWH from: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/yhwh-god-of-edom.143739/

 

....Hopefully this catalyzes some discussion.

I'm doing some research related to the earliest history of the Israelite deity Yhwh, and I think some of the material merits sharing. A lot of people may not be aware of the evidence that exists that Yhwh was originally a deity from the southwestern territory of Edom, on the west of the Arabah, a large valley running south from the Dead Sea down to the gulf of Aqabah. The evidence begins in the Hebrew Bible with a small number of early biblical texts that suggest Yhwh originated in that area:

 

Deut 33:2: Yhwh came from Sinai, and rose up unto us from Seir; he shined forth from mount Paran.

Judg 5:45: Yhwh, when you went out of Seir, when you marched forth from the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped; yea, the clouds dropped water. The mountains quaked before the presence of Yhwh, the one of Sinai; from before Yhwh, the God of Israel.

Hab 3:3: God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran.

Seir is understood to have been located on the east side of the Arabah, where the Edomites were originally settled. They would later expand into the west, displacing the Horites. Mount Paran is likely to be located near the wilderness of Paran, located west of the Arabah. No one knows the exact location of Mount Sinai, but guesses range from the south of the Sinai peninsula up and over the gulf of Aqabah into the east, Midianite territory. Given Moses stumbles upon the mountain while tending to his Midianite father-in-laws sheep, its probably not too far from the eastern side of the Arabah. Teman is on the western edge of the Arabah.

Now, the exodus tradition has Yhwh first reveal himself in this territory to a man who just married into a Midianite priests family. That priest, Jethro/Reuel, calls upon Yhwhs name and even presides over sacrifices offered to him (Exod 18:1012). Could the Midianites and Edomites have worshipped Yhwh? The Bible warns the Israelites not to hate the Edomites, since they are your brothers, and there is no mention of an Edomite deity anywhere in the Hebrew Bible (nor can I find a reference to a uniquely Midianite deity). This stands in contrast to the polemic leveled against the patron deities of the other nations surrounding Israel, including to the south. It also stands in contrast to the approbation of violence perpetrated against the Edomites and Midianites elsewhere in the Bible. Phineas, for example, was championed for slaughtering an Israelite who brought a Midianite woman into the camp (Num 25:19), but Moses, who commanded the Israelites not mix with Midianites, was married to the daughter of a Midianite priest! This suggests the larger exodus tradition dates to a much later period than the tradition associated with Moses early family life, when the Midianites and Edomites were enemy peoples.

We also have non-biblical references to Yhwh's location in Edomite territory. At Kuntillet Ajrud, a way station west of the Arabah, an inscription was discovered that calls the Israelite deity Yhwh of Teman. Some Egyptian sources also link Yhwh with the territory. Two texts, one from the fourteenth century BCE and another from the thirteenth century BCE, mention the land of the Shasu, namely Yhw. This casts the Tetragrammaton as a toponym associated with the Shasu, who were nomads (the meaning of Shasu) located in the region of Edom, according to other Egyptian texts. Scholars generally agree that the Shasu contributed stock, if not the primary line, to the subsequent Israelite ethnos. That ethnos is first attested at the end of the thirteenth century BCE in a victory stela erected by the Egyptian Merneptah. That stela describes Israel as a people, and likely locates them in the central hill country of northern Israel.

This may all help explain why no other culture of Canaan worshipped Yhwh. Baal, El, and Asherah seem to be deities acknowledged and revered by multiple ethnicities in Canaan, but Yhwh is Israels alone. They were indigenous, he was imported.

 

The conflict that is constantly highlighted in the Bible between Yhwh and Baal is intriguing in light of the complete absence of any such conflict between Yhwh and the Canaanite patriarchal deity El. Judg 5:45 gives us clues. Yhwhs power is described with imagery associated with the storm deity motif. The same can be said of numerous other texts. Psalm 29, for instance, refers repeatedly to thunder and lightning as expressions of Yhwhs glory. Baal was also a storm deity, and while deities performing the same function within the pantheon could be tolerated across national borders (see chapter 1 here), in the same region, there would be room enough only for one. Baal and Yhwh were thus in constant competition for devotees of the local storm deity. Yhwh did not bring imagery associated with the patriarchal deity to Canaan, but rather he appropriated that imagery, along with the station, from the local Canaanite patriarchal deity. There was no need to combat his influence.

Thus, an Edomite deity from around the Arabah was brought north to the central highlands around the end of the thirteenth century. At some point a federation or coalition of tribes dedicated to this deity coalesced, perhaps as described in the Song of Deborah in Judges 5, and developed into a state.

Here are some scholarly articles for further reading, if youre interested in the topic:

N. Amzallag, Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404.

J. Blenkinsopp, The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah, JSOT 33.2 (2008): 131-53.

J. Kelley, Toward a new synthesis of the god of Edom and Yahweh, Antiguo Oriente: Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009).

T. Schneider, The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton Roll 5&#8242, JANER 7.2 (2007): 113-20.

N. Shupak, The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3-7, JANES 28 (2001): 97-116.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by atalante