Hi,
The conclusion is that the Egyptian empire did weaken dramatically after Amenhotep III, and this is even understood by traditional Egyptologists with the fiasco of Akhenaten and his inability to aid vassal kingdoms desperately in need of Egyptian military aid. We know from historical sources that he did not save his crumbling empire with any military action, despite entreaties and letters from various threatened kingdoms.
Which historical sources confirm that Akhenaten failed to save his empire?
With this understanding, it’s important for you to realize that Akhenaten arrives on the scene soon after the Exodus (the son of Queen Tiy, who was the royal queen of Amenhotep III).
Well, if Tuthmosis III was the pharaoh of the Exodus then the Israelites would be well settled in Palestine before Akhenaten was ever anywhere near a throne.
The Exodus scenario that is being proposed rests on an entirely different version of chronological facts (meaning relations between names and an identical PharaohsINOW--simply different names corresponding to the same monarchs).
This is no big problem, pharaohs changed their names very frequently for various reasons. They may change it depending on which god they recognise, Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun for example, or they may change it on ascending the throne, or a foreing spelling may be given, but these changes are well recorded.
According to this theory, Thutmosis III was the reigning emperor during Moses’ forty year absence from Egypt and it would be at this time that Thutmosis III forged the mighty empire that Egypt is well known to have had during that time.
I need clarification here, are you saying that for the entire 40 years that Moses was in Midian that Tuthmosis III was in power, or was it only for part of that time?
According to the research conducted in this theory, it has been concluded that Amenhotep II was actually the same Pharaoh as Thutmosis III (which would be the name he assumed as co-regent).
You do know that this is impossible, the events attributed to these two pharaohs are not compatible. They even have two different tombs KV34 for Tuthmosis III and KV 35 for Amenhotep, their tomb inscriptions detail two different people, the proximity of numbers is because Amenhotep was Tuthmosis’ son. I suggest you study the two different tombs that were constructed for two different people before you believe that they were the same person.
Amenhotep’s (II) successor was Thutmosis IV who was unexpectedly elevated to the throne according to Egyptian accounts. Thutmosis IV was still the name Amenhotep III assumed while he was yet co-ruler, and finally became Amenhotep III when he took the throne. His son Tutankhamun was the victim of the 10th plague of Egypt, and this could explain his mysterious death, even though people speculate different causes, but with little certainty.
So you are saying that the pharaoh of the Exodus, in this hypothesis was Tuthmosis III AKA Amenhotep II, but the first born son who should die in the plague was the son of Amenhotep III? Am I reading this correctly?
All this is pretty shocking and mind altering in comparison to traditional thinking. I do not have time right now to expound on all the details, but it is essential for you to understand these differences so that your criticisms are taking into account these altering versions of chronology.
It is very mind altering, it is also very unsupported and very unlike mainstream scholarship. You make a lot of assertions here without supporting them, I really would like some supporting documentation please.
Am I also correct in concluding that you actually have Moses as the ruler of Egypt for some undetermined amount of time?
During the 18th dynasty the Pharaohs are said to have been called or entitled Amenhotep or Thutmosis.
They were also called Ahmose, Ay and Horemheb, as well as Hatshepsut.
This hypothosis can be questioned as the name alternates between Amenhotep and Thutmosis. The pharaoh was the embodiment of the most important god [Amun-Ra] and this god was then the highest god for the entire royal family reigning at the time.
Yes, they still recognised Amun-re as the most important god but they believed that they were born from a different god, that is what the ‘mosis’ part of the name means, Tuthmosis means ‘born of Tuth’. Tuthmosis III’s armies all marched under the banner of Amun.
Since the pharaohs during this dynasty belonged to t he same family it is hardly likely that one pharaoh would consider Thot (Thutmosis) was the highest god while another pharaoh considered Amen (Amenhotep) the highest.
As for hardcore evidence, read the book.
They didn’t consider these gods to be the highest gods, they considered themselves to be actually born from these different gods. This hypothesis also breaks down with the Amenhotep ‘heresy’.
Let me add Brian that you might save yourself a great deal of time if you just invest in the book and take careful time to read it.
I will be perfectly honest with you here, I have a set budget for books and I am careful which books I buy. Mostly I will buy books that I find referenced in the leading scholars’ books, or ones that are recommended to me by some of my friends. However, all the books I buy are of a very good academic standard, and what I have read of this book means it doesn’t qualify.
This way I don’t have to be wasting my typing already well written documentation.
Nothing is a waste of time, it is good for both of us to increase our knowledge of the subject. I frequently type out fairly large quotes from many different books, I usually reference them as well, so if I can do it then I should think it is reasonable for other people to do it.
quote:
How could 70 people become 2-3 million in 430 years it simply isn’t possible, this stuff has been through the mill so often it is extremely boring, read some of the academic literature, not the Wyatt claptrap.
How can 70 people become 2-3 million in 4 generations, Genesis 15:16
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Or was it 215 years as the Seder Olam 3:2 claims or the 215 years that Josephus claims in Antiquities 14:2?
Here we go again. So back to the book:
First lets discuss the number of people:
I have no problem with the number of people being claimed to be 2 million, this is a very commonly quoted number in all of the leading literature.
28.4. Is The Number of People Realistic In Relation to Growth Rate?
The question is whether an estimated population of 2 million is realistic based on possible growth rates. When Jacob’s family migrated to Egypt around the year 1706 BC they were 70 individuals (Gen. 46:27, Deut. 10:22) and the question then is whether it is realistic to think that they could have become 2 million during the 260 years until the Exodus around the year 1446 BC.
Where are you getting the 260 years from, you are quoting figures from the Bible (600 000), yet you are ignoring the biblical figures for the length of stay in Egypt. What is wrong with the 430 years, the 400 years, or event he 4 generations, why ignore these texts?
I notice you disregarded the Machir question, any particular reason why?
This information, and the fact that the Bible maintains the Lord granted them prosperity and wealth during the first eight years (long life when many lived over 100 years, and large families e.g. Joseph with his 12 siblings) indicate a high growth rate.
Do you have external supporting evidence that many people lived to over 100 years of age at this time? A high growth rate means a very high birth rate as there would be a very high infant mortality rate.
Today annual population growth varies from country to country, e.g. USA 1%, Germany 0.6%, Brazil 1.7% and India 1.9%. These figures are based on the yearly mean value during the period 1990-95. In certain countries in South America annual population growth has been up to 3% (figure 282). Around 1990 countries south of the Sahara and in the Arab world had an annual population growth of 3.5 — 4%. This means that the population doubles every 17 — 20 years. At the end of the 1980s global increase of the world’s population was 1.7% annually.
This is a big error, you cannot compare today’s growth rates with that of an ancient culture, the backgrounds are very different.
The population growth of the people of Israel was very vigorous, since they were very long-lived.
You have not established if they were long lived or not, this is unsupported.
We can assume that the growth was over 3%, which South America had during the 1980s when conditions were relatively hard.
We cannot assume anything, you have to provide plausible documentation.
Then now numerous were the people of Israel if they were 70 individuals when they arrived in Egupt, and were there for 260 years before the Exodus? A calculation shows that this corresponds to an average annual growth of approximately 4%.
Okay, we are now up to a 4% growth rate for no particular reason other than a 4% growth rate over 260 years gives a total population of 1 878 306 (70*1.04^260). What if we took the 1.7% that you gave earlier for the world population growth? We would get 70*1.017^260 giving a population of 5 604.
What would happen if we followed the Bible’s yearly total of 430 years at 4%, wow we get nearly 2 billion Israelites! Why did they have to run away they outnumbered the Egyptians by about a million to one!
But all joking aside, there has been several surveys done to try and determine the true amount of Hebrews in Egypt (if there ever was any), the most often quoted is A. Lucas’ in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1944, pp 164-166
Lucas starts the article off by stressing that the number of Israelites involved in the Exodus is very important because this has a direct bearing on the amount of food and water required by the group on their journey. He then gives the standard run down of biblical references that claim there were around 600 000 men of fighting age involved in the Exodus and adds to this women and children to arrive at a total of two million for the entire group.
Lucas then claims that not only is this figure of two million people far too high, but the numbers given in the census list of Num. 1:46 are also ‘very much too high (Lucas p.167).’
Lucas was working with official population figures from Annuaire Statistique, 1937-8 and informs us that between 1907 and 1937 the average annual rate of population increase per 1000 people was 11.69%. When he applied this growth rate to the 70 Israelites over a period of 430 years he arrived at a total population of
10 363 (70*1.01169^430) (Lucas, p.137).
Lucas also casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the number of men listed in the census of Numbers 1:46 and 26:51.
Quote:
The population of the whole of the Administrative Division or Province, of Sinai, from the Mediterranean Sea on the north to the apex of the peninsula on the south, was only 15,058 in 1927, and only 29 951 in 1937, and there could not possibly have been either water or food sufficient for the number of Israelites given (Lucas, p167-8).
The whole question of the two million or so people in the Exodus group is simply impossible, another interpretation has to be more acceptable. John Bright, in his History of Israel p.130 suggests the word used for ‘thousand’ (‘elef) can be used to refer to a tribal subunit, which would make the figure a bit more realistic.
I believe that Lucas gives a better explanation when he reveals:
‘Another suggestion is that made by Flinders Petrie, namely, that the Hebrew word alaf (elef ), which is translated " thousands," should be " families," " tents," or " clans." In this manner of reckoning, the first census would mean 598 families with a total of 5 550 men, and the second census would mean 596 families with a total of 5,730 men. But, since the totals, whatever they are, are stated to represent only men of twenty years old and upward who were able to fight, the Levites being excluded, therefore, with women, girls, boys, children and Levites, the total for the whole of the Israelites would have been many times 5,550 and 5,730, and probably at least about five times as many, which would represent 27 750 and 28,650 respectively, a great reduction on the 603,550 and 601,730, but still far too many (Lucas, p.166).
The growth rate required was utterly impossible, the populations simply didn’t grow that that fast a rate for that sustained a period of time:
The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.
Page 673.
Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high. Then, during the 1700’s and 1800’s, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly.
page 674
In the industrial countries of Europe and North America, many people flocked to the cities and took jobs in factories. In cities and in many rural areas, it was difficult to support a large family. People began to see reasons for having smaller families. As a result, birth rates in these countries began to fall. In the agricultural countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, declines in death rates plunged quickly without corresponding declines in birth rates. As a result, the population of low-income nations and the world increased rapidly.
Andd
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica explains better: Volume 25, Macropaedia, 1993.
Entry Population
Page 1041
Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages. By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This. means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality. Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures.
I had this reference recommended to me from the Social Sciences dept at Uni as a good introduction to world population growth.
Massimo Livi-Bacci
A Concise History of World Population Blackwell, Malden MA 1997.
pp 30-32
In many parts of the world before this century, in Europe prior to the late Middle Ages or in China before the present era, one can only estimate population size on the basis of qualitative information - the existence or extension of cities, villages, or other settlements, the extension of cultivated land - or on the basis of calculations of the possible population density in relation to the ecosystem, the level of technology, or social organization. The contributions of paleontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists are all needed.
The data on world demographic growth in tables 1.2 and 1.3 are largely based on conjectures and inferences drawn from non-quantitative information. Table 1.2 presents a synthesis of these trends. The long-term rates of growth are, of course, an abstraction, as they imply a constant variation of demographic forces in each period, while in reality population evolves cyclically. Following Biraben's hypothesis, according to which human population prior to the High Paleolithic era (30,000 -35,000 BC) did not exceed several hundred thousand, growth during the 30,000 years leading up to the Neolithic era averaged less than 0.1 per 1,000 per year, an almost imperceptible level consistent with a doubling time of 8,000-9,000 years. In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilization spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of increase, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the Industrial Revolution (an overall rate of growth of 0.6 per 1,000). It was, however, the Industrial Revolution which initiated a period of decisive and sustained growth. During the following two centuries population increased about tenfold, at an annual growth rate of 6 per 1,000 (doubling time 118 years). This process of growth was the result of a rapid accumulation of resources, control of the environment, and mortality decline, and has culminated in the second half of the current century. In the four decades since 1950 population has again doubled and the rate of growth has tripled to 18 per 1,000. In spite of signs that growth may be slowing, the present momentum will certainly carry world population to eight billion by about the year 2020 and ten billion some time during the upcoming century. The acceleration of the growth rate and shortening of the doubling time (which was expressed in thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution and is expressed in tens of years at present) give some indication of the speed with which the historical checks to population growth have been relaxed.
It looks as if the consensus of opinion is that a sustained growth rate, of the amount needed for the Bible to be accurate, simply wasn’t possible before the advances made by science.
Yet another factor supporting the size of the population is that the super power of that era, Egypt mobilized its entire super power army of around 250,000 soldiers to bring the people of Israel back to Egypt.
Can you provide evidence for this 250 000 soldiers, and why would Egypt’s entire army be in Egypt? Also, why would a group ‘Armed and ready for Battle’ run from a army an eighth the size of it?
28.6. Other Hypotheses
Dealt with this earlier.
1. Copying the texts was extremely careful, a single mistake and the whole copy was thrown away.
Evidence?
2. One completely disregards later events when first 3000 (Ex. 32:28) and then 14,700 were killed (Numb. 16:49). It is difficult to reconcile this with almost 18,000 killed of the 5500 available, and yet have the entire people more or less intact.
But are these figures reliable?
So Brian, did this wet your appetite any to get a hold of this book?
Not in the slightest, sorry. This reminds me of Von Daniken’s ‘flight path of the gods’, it is unsupported nonsense.
I suppose the true Mt. Sinai means nothing to do.
Mount Sinai has not be found though.
Just the fact that evidence points to Jabal Al Lawz as being the true Sinai should be another indicator that they crossed the Gulf of Aqaba.
They allegedly crossed the Reed Sea, the Red Sea is too far away and it contradicts the biblical account.
What about the blackened peak (pillar of fire by night)?
The mountain moved around?
What about the 12 pillars found (Ex. 24:4)?
What about them? Is Wyatt incapable of lifting a few rocks? Were the Hebrew scribes incapable of writing aetiologies?
What about the golden calf inscriptions on the stones?
A golden calf, how did they inscribe stones with gold?
A dozen giant boulders are stacked in the encampment area and reveal 12 ancient Egyptian petroglyphs of bulls.
And there are no petroglyphs of bulls anywhere else in the entire near east?
It is believed the golden calf was placed upon these rocks.
Belief and reality is not always the same thing.
Large altars are found on the east and west sides of the mountain. What about the fact that the bottom of the mountain can hold a lot of people, whereas the traditional Mt. Sinai cannot? Do you not connect the dots?
Oh I can connect the dots, it spells out a lot of people being taken for a ride.
You do not seem to be aware that these guys are simply selecting bits and pieces of what they think is good evidence and ignoring all contrary evidence. They jump to some humorous conclusions.
How does it follow that a large area of land at the bottom of a mountain automatically means the Israelites were there?
Why are there no contemporary records of this event?
Why is there no evidence of Israelites in Egypt?
There is a great deal of background that hasn’t been covered, I do not see any concrete connections being made at all.
In fact, the authors do not deal with any problems of logistics with the two million people, there are many huge problems with this amount of people,
Timothy R Ashley, (
The Book of Numbers , Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1993 pp 60-61) gives a brief summary of the problems with taking these numbers literally:
The numbers in Num. 1:20-46 appear rather straightforward. The totals are clear and there are no significant textual problems. The only problem is that these numbers (just over 600,000 fighting men) seem much too large for a variety of reasons.
(1) Such a number of males from twenty years of age and up would give a total populace of about two to two and one-half million. It is hard to believe that such a number could be sustained for forty years in the wilderness without constant, day-to-day, miraculous intervention. The miraculous intervention and provision that do occur seem to be the exception rather than the rule (see, e.g., Num. 11).
(2) Such a number would have, indeed, caused Egypt's Pharaoh consternation, for not only would there have been very little room for them in Egypt, but a group of this size could likely have taken over Egypt with or without weapons. (For some comparative figures on ancient Near Eastern armies, see G. Mendenhall, "The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26," Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958) pp 64-65) they would hardly have had to fear Pharaoh's army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men.
(3) Current estimates of the population of Canaan at the time of the Exodus are well below three million. Exod. 23:29 and Deut. 7:7, 17, 22 indicate that the Israelites were far fewer in number than the Canaanite population that they were to conquer.
(4) It is well known that two midwives are said to have served the entire number of Hebrews (Exod. 1:15), that the entire number could gather around the tent of meeting to hear Moses (Exod. 16:9; 19:17; 33:18; Deut. 1:1; etc.), and that the whole number could march around Jericho seven times in one day (Josh. 6:15) with enough time left in the day to fight a battle.
(5) According to Num. 3:40-43 the number of firstborn males among the people was 22,273, out of a population of about 600,000 adult males. This is a ratio of about 27:1. This means that a firstborn male must had had, on average, 26 brothers, not to mention sisters. Unless polygamy was the common practice in this period (and no evidence suggests that it was), this kind of ratio is not likely on a wide scale.
(6) Such a massive group would have taken up a great deal of space on the march, especially when one considers their animals and possessions.
Finally, and most amusing of all from John Bright
‘The reader can figure that two and a half million people marching in an old fashioned column of fours would extend for some 350 miles!’ We know that this would stretch all the way across the Sinai Desert and back again. (Bright p.130).
These problems need to be explained, they need solid evidence to dismiss them. The two million in the Exodus group would take about two weeks to move between any two points, the first column would leave Egypt two weeks before the final column arrived that the first columns departure point, it needs serious revision.
Brian.
PS, I will be unable to post until Saturday or Sunday due to work commitments.
Mr. Jack).
™ Version 4.2
