4 ms·

>I'm not sure I'm identifying the race they are referring to correctly (too many History Channel documentaries maybe). For example, I don't think the Hebrews ar

by netcan 6y ago

>I'm not sure I'm identifying the race they are referring to correctly (too many History Channel documentaries maybe). For example, I don't think the Hebrews are supposed to have had a homeland at that point in history. The relationships between biblical accounts of pre-classical periods is necessarily shaky. The pre-kingdom parts of the bible read very much like mythology, metaphor and heroic ancestor tales. That said, there are various points of intersection or allusion to actual known history. The migration of the Hyksos could relate to the biblical story of Joseph. It's basically an account of migration from Canaan to Egypt because of a famine. Like the article said, there do seem to have been migrations to egypt of various semitic people. The hyksos are the best known of them. Exodus relates to a later period. It's a story of a semitic slave migration out of egypt, becoming an independent nomadic tribe in canaan, midia & sinai. Historically, egypt had just lost these territories and receded to its core territory. Among many chaotic things happening, egypt was in conflict with various barbarian tribes from these regions... It's not that solid historical accounts from egypt confirm the biblical narrative. They make almost no reference to hebrews, escaped slaves, etc. But, the biblical account does make some sort of sense.

nobleach 6y ago
I've been fascinated by this argument for a few years. An "ask a historian" thread on Reddit asked an important question: "Would a kingdom, that chased slaves out of Egypt, only to be met with massive defeat, record that history?". I know nothing about Egyptology, so I'd ask, "did Egyptians, as a general rule, record any of their defeats?" From my limited Google searches, they did not. So the question becomes, is there any evidence of semitic people living in Egypt. That seems to be argued a bit more.
- netcan 6y ago
  There is lots of evidence of semitic people in egypt over various periods. Also egyptian conquests & long lived administrations in these regions. "Semitic," as a language group is pretty big. There are also semitic languages spoken to the south of egypt, who were also interacting a lot with egypt. The Egyptians glorified their history like any political culture does, but massive defeats don't go unrecorded. They just make them seem like wins.^ In the relevant period, egypt (and the whole region) went through extreme instability. Historians don't totally understand it, and people then may not have either. But, there's lots of historical record of chaos and defeat. There are even surviving letters between besieged nobles candidly admitting major losses. I think it's more likely that exodus was just a much bigger deal to the Israelites than it was to Egyptians. To Egypt, it was no big deal. If Pharoah really had witnessed the sea part, and an angry god destroying his army... there would be a relief. Egyptians recorded noteworthy events. That said, it was a declining period and the egyptian record is patchy during these times. ^EG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seev%C3%B6lker.jpg#/media/File:Seevölker.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seev%C3%B6lker.jpg#/...
  - KMag 6y ago
    By "there would be a relief", I presume you mean "they would have created a relief sculpture", rather than "they would have felt emotional relief". As written the sentence is ambiguous, and right at the point where you pivot from evidence supporting the slave escape narrative to evidence contradicting the slave escape narrative, so I can't be certain my reading is correct despite it fitting much better with the following sentence.
    - netcan 6y ago
      Yes. I meant statuary, obviously. I also meant it as a joke.
eternalban 6y ago
Pre-Kingdom? David and Solomon are larger than life figures in bible but afaik no contemporary neighbor recorded their existence. They are historic ghosts. Pure fiction.
- netcan 6y ago
  Sure. I didn't mean to draw a hard line. The monarchic period, even David and Solomon, reads a lot more political writing. The region enters into a historical period. The biblical stories start to relate more definitely to known historical events. David and Solomon are kind of transitional, it's really just gradual. It gets more mythical as you go back. Immediately following from the solomon period, the bible is referencing known assyrian emperors, pharaohs, and reporting on conquests that are historically known. There are dates. By the end of the kingdom period, it's already the babylonian era... At that point it's basically modernity.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Actually, as a student of Iranian history, those "Babylonian" era records are rather intriguing, to say the least. It seems to me Judaism (and associated myths) are a product of an aborted imperial social engineering project of the aborted first Persian Empire. Even the historic divide of religious Jews and "Greek Jews" reflects the sudden collapse of the first Persian Empire and its replacement by the Greeks. A reading of relevant biblical texts strongly suggests that the 'returnees' from Babylon were alien to whoever was living in Jerusalem. And the religion they brought back smacks of Zoroastrianism in its theological contours. Heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, angels, and good and evil: these are Iranian elements. (Egypt also had judgment, heaven, and hell.) It took a few attempts to get the inhabitants to change their religion -- it's in the book, as they say, so don't take my word for it. Those famous boundaries of lands promised to Abraham, for example, which stop right at the border of historic Greater Iran and Egypt, are basically the boundaries of the project 'temple state' the Persians attempted to create as a prepatory step to conquering Egypt. Heck, the Persian Emperor is even specially called "Messiah" (Divine King) in Isa. 45. It is my opinion (and just that) that the sudden cessation of [imported Jewish] religious leaders from Babylon -- a seat of Persian Empire at that time lest we forget -- due to the collapse of the empire, is the basis of the mutatation of the work-in-progress so that the "divine mandate" of the famous Abrahamic lands were now in fact given by none other than "GOD" itself. The irony of course, is the blowback of this Persian Imperial project 2500 years later. [minor corrective edits]

by netcan 6y ago

nobleach 6y ago

I've been fascinated by this argument for a few years. An "ask a historian" thread on Reddit asked an important question: "Would a kingdom, that chased slaves out of Egypt, only to be met with massive defeat, record that history?". I know nothing about Egyptology, so I'd ask, "did Egyptians, as a general rule, record any of their defeats?" From my limited Google searches, they did not. So the question becomes, is there any evidence of semitic people living in Egypt. That seems to be argued a bit more.

netcan 6y ago
There is lots of evidence of semitic people in egypt over various periods. Also egyptian conquests & long lived administrations in these regions. "Semitic," as a language group is pretty big. There are also semitic languages spoken to the south of egypt, who were also interacting a lot with egypt. The Egyptians glorified their history like any political culture does, but massive defeats don't go unrecorded. They just make them seem like wins.^ In the relevant period, egypt (and the whole region) went through extreme instability. Historians don't totally understand it, and people then may not have either. But, there's lots of historical record of chaos and defeat. There are even surviving letters between besieged nobles candidly admitting major losses. I think it's more likely that exodus was just a much bigger deal to the Israelites than it was to Egyptians. To Egypt, it was no big deal. If Pharoah really had witnessed the sea part, and an angry god destroying his army... there would be a relief. Egyptians recorded noteworthy events. That said, it was a declining period and the egyptian record is patchy during these times. ^EG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seev%C3%B6lker.jpg#/media/File:Seevölker.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seev%C3%B6lker.jpg#/...
- KMag 6y ago
  By "there would be a relief", I presume you mean "they would have created a relief sculpture", rather than "they would have felt emotional relief". As written the sentence is ambiguous, and right at the point where you pivot from evidence supporting the slave escape narrative to evidence contradicting the slave escape narrative, so I can't be certain my reading is correct despite it fitting much better with the following sentence.
  - netcan 6y ago
    Yes. I meant statuary, obviously. I also meant it as a joke.

eternalban 6y ago

Pre-Kingdom? David and Solomon are larger than life figures in bible but afaik no contemporary neighbor recorded their existence. They are historic ghosts. Pure fiction.

netcan 6y ago
Sure. I didn't mean to draw a hard line. The monarchic period, even David and Solomon, reads a lot more political writing. The region enters into a historical period. The biblical stories start to relate more definitely to known historical events. David and Solomon are kind of transitional, it's really just gradual. It gets more mythical as you go back. Immediately following from the solomon period, the bible is referencing known assyrian emperors, pharaohs, and reporting on conquests that are historically known. There are dates. By the end of the kingdom period, it's already the babylonian era... At that point it's basically modernity.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Actually, as a student of Iranian history, those "Babylonian" era records are rather intriguing, to say the least. It seems to me Judaism (and associated myths) are a product of an aborted imperial social engineering project of the aborted first Persian Empire. Even the historic divide of religious Jews and "Greek Jews" reflects the sudden collapse of the first Persian Empire and its replacement by the Greeks. A reading of relevant biblical texts strongly suggests that the 'returnees' from Babylon were alien to whoever was living in Jerusalem. And the religion they brought back smacks of Zoroastrianism in its theological contours. Heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, angels, and good and evil: these are Iranian elements. (Egypt also had judgment, heaven, and hell.) It took a few attempts to get the inhabitants to change their religion -- it's in the book, as they say, so don't take my word for it. Those famous boundaries of lands promised to Abraham, for example, which stop right at the border of historic Greater Iran and Egypt, are basically the boundaries of the project 'temple state' the Persians attempted to create as a prepatory step to conquering Egypt. Heck, the Persian Emperor is even specially called "Messiah" (Divine King) in Isa. 45. It is my opinion (and just that) that the sudden cessation of [imported Jewish] religious leaders from Babylon -- a seat of Persian Empire at that time lest we forget -- due to the collapse of the empire, is the basis of the mutatation of the work-in-progress so that the "divine mandate" of the famous Abrahamic lands were now in fact given by none other than "GOD" itself. The irony of course, is the blowback of this Persian Imperial project 2500 years later. [minor corrective edits]