Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group.
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 121 of 142 (408737)
07-04-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 10:11 AM


So what your saying is, yes - the Israelites did dwell with ancient egypt in the date described - but certain factors are exaggerated or mythical?
No. What I am saying is that calling something a myth is not making a truth judgement on any part of it. A myth could be 100% true or 100% false or it could be anywhere in between, it would still be a myth if matched the description (or suitable varieties thereof) I gave in the post you were replying to here.
My understanding of a verification is that if the surrounding details are authentic and vindicated - the overall report is credible.
Each detail should be examined on its own merit. Sure, if a documenter wrote about three volcano eruptions that can be verified archaeologically and one that cannot, we might be tempted to accept that a fourth one he describes also occurred despite a lack of archaeological evidence to confirm it. However, if he said that the volcano's eruptions were so severe the dead awoke and roamed the land, terrifying the living and drinking their blood...we might not assume that report is credible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 10:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:12 PM Modulous has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 142 (408794)
07-04-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
07-04-2007 11:14 AM


quote:
if a documenter wrote about three volcano eruptions that can be verified archaeologically and one that cannot, we might be tempted to accept that a fourth one he describes also occurred despite a lack of archaeological evidence to confirm it. However, if he said that the volcano's eruptions were so severe the dead awoke and roamed the land, terrifying the living and drinking their blood...we might not assume that report is credible.
This is a fair arguement. What you are saying, the inclusion of miracles in the exodus story signifies a proportion of myth, while the historicity factors are most probably true and correct. I stay away from reported miracles, and go by what's provable: I find the provables in the OT are all credible, while I see the provables in most other theological documents as not credible, relyling solely on miracles (belief); this is not the case with the OT. It is a significant factor, and says the OT is unique in this regard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2007 11:14 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2007 5:49 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 123 of 142 (408826)
07-05-2007 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 11:12 PM


This is a fair arguement. What you are saying, the inclusion of miracles in the exodus story signifies a proportion of myth, while the historicity factors are most probably true and correct.
No, Exodus is a myth. Exodus is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
I'm saying those two sentences above mean the same thing. By calling it a myth I have made no claims about the accuracy of some parts or about veracity of others. I am simply saying its an ancient story about supernatural beings and ancestors/heroes and that it is a reflection of the culture and ideals of the Bronze Age Hebrew people.
I will say again - my central point is that the word 'myth' is not a measure of veracity. My second point was that confirming one detail in a report is not enough to be confident of other details - each detail's credibility must be examined separately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 11:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 10:54 AM Modulous has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 124 of 142 (408854)
07-05-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Modulous
07-05-2007 5:49 AM


quote:
modulous:
No, Exodus is a myth. Exodus is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
'Ancient' does not mean myth, though: in this case it has the back-up of the world's first (with negligible disputing) record of alphabetical books, chunks of ancient vindicated historical reportings not available elsewhere, the oldest, scientifically based calendar, and judiciary and moralistic laws which govern all bona fide worldly institutions today. This seems to make the myth or ancient factor very weak, and unlike the myth of hellenism and divine emperors. Thus I asked if you referred to 'miracles'.
To make your premise more credible, it requires explaining what ancient document is NOT a myth, all things being relative, and how is this exercise performed: is it limited to bits of commerce reciepts and tombstones, head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy, or names of pharoahs on granite pyramids, devoid of any historical output?
I am trying to understand your point here. Aside from miracles and such FX, the other aspect which would come under myth is the introduction of Creationism and the Creator premise, and Monotheism - which is a reasoning based premise: it would be unsubstantiated to conclude this is myth. We have no clue, even in today's cutting edge of science, of anything's origins, with all debates being polarised against Creationism, thus far inconclusively. I find there is a huge rejection of theology in general terms, and mostly I concur with this, but I nonetheless also see a difference in kind than degree with the OT - it is not exclusively based on 'belief' but it also gives a foundational premise of its statements - as with its Creator premise being expounded by the creation chapter in Genesis. Whether one accepts or rejects, this is not a mythical account of the universe origins: there is great science, maths and historicity here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2007 5:49 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2007 12:46 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 142 (408866)
07-05-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by IamJoseph
07-05-2007 10:54 AM


A case of mythtaken identity
'Ancient' does not mean myth, though
No ancient does not mean myth. Myth means a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors or heroes...explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. Exodus is a story, it is both traditional and ancient. It deals with supernatural beings and ancestors, and possibly hero archetypes. It explains the customs and ideas of the Bronze Age Hebrews.
To make your premise more credible, it requires explaining what ancient document is NOT a myth, all things being relative, and how is this exercise performed: is it limited to bits of commerce reciepts and tombstones, head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy, or names of pharoahs on granite pyramids, devoid of any historical output?
No, commerce receipts are clearly not traditional stories, they are not about supernatural beings or ancestors or heroes. Tombstones may contain mythology, it depends on the tombstone, documents that tell of stories of deities battling for supremacy sounds like mythology to me.
Mythos means approximately: 'narrative' so obviously you can write off receipts and other similar documentation. One of the definitions in the OED is:
quote:
A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures , which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon
Others like to draw lines between folktales, legends and myths. Here is wiki:
quote:
Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests. Once this link to the spiritual leadership of society is broken, they lose their mythological qualities and become folktales or fairy tales
Then it lists various different types of myth. One of them being: Prestige myths which are 'usually associated with a divinely chosen king, hero, city, or people'. And it goes on:
quote:
Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" (see above) imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. (For instance, a scholar may call Christian and Muslim scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Christianity and Islam.) However, this scholarly use of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, due to the popular use of "myth" to mean "falsehood".
I am trying to understand your point here. Aside from miracles and such FX, the other aspect which would come under myth is the introduction of Creationism and the Creator premise, and Monotheism - which is a reasoning based premise: it would be unsubstantiated to conclude this is myth.
I have given you the definitions, you have the internet at your disposal to look up more. If you feel that Exodus is still ill described then so be it. I however have definitely substantiated the definition now through two dictionaries and an encyclopaedia. My only point was that the word should not be thought of as a word which is used to pass judgement on the truth value of a narrative but only describe the nature of the narrative.
Whether one accepts or rejects, this is not a mythical account of the universe origins: there is great science, maths and historicity here.
Hopefully now you know that mythical does not inherently mean 'false'. I don't agree with your assessments with regards to the book, but have no desire to debate them with you at this time. Given that this is inherently a debate thread I feel our subtopic should now come to a close. If you feel strongly about the topic enough to continue debating it, perhaps it is time for a new thread? Perhaps I will contribute to that, it seems preferable to clogging up this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 07-05-2007 10:54 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Nighttrain, posted 07-06-2007 2:02 AM Modulous has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 126 of 142 (408928)
07-06-2007 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by IamJoseph
07-04-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
The 89,000 was a tribute of prisoners Amenhotep II claims to have brought back from his conquest in Canaan, c. 1420 BC. Certainly Egypt enslaved thousands of Asiatics in the New Kingdom, even if these numbers were sometimes inflated. The seventy souls in the Exodus story is a rough figure, and the 600,000 is likely symbolic, as "six" is the number of man in Hebrew numerology. Three million is an absurd figure, and wholly unsupported for the ancient region of the LB population of Syro-Canaan.
As to the Merneptah Stele, this is certainly strong proof of a tribe called Israel in the hills of c. Canaan 1200 BC, hinting at some genuine history in the OT narratives.
Amorite king Og a survivor of the flood is later Hebrew lore, not incorporated in the OT. The original texts call him a Rap'im, a title that parallels the Ugaritic R'pum, a generic term for warrior gods/kings. The 13th century BC Ugarit texts do seem to place this cult in S. Syria near Astartu, the capital of king Og in the OT text--evidence to support the biblical mention of Bashan, as "land of the Rap'im!" 1st century Historian Josephus considers the Rap'im and Greek Titanes, or Gigantes, to be synonymous. The OT seems to use the name Anaq, and Rap'im interchangeable, but Anaq was originally an ancient tribe or cult indigenous to S. Canaan, known for strength and stature. Perhaps the megalithic dolmens and tombs of the Jodran valley and Hebron region helped inspire the legends of giants, or more likely, larger than average men like Goliath and his elites, who were probably not much larger than modern WWE heavyweights like Paul Wight, Dalip Singh Rana,or Glen Jacobs. Size and strength were important in ancient close combat warfare, and genuine giants were feared and revered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by IamJoseph, posted 07-04-2007 9:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 1:59 AM John Williams has not replied
 Message 130 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 9:12 AM John Williams has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 127 of 142 (408937)
07-06-2007 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by John Williams
07-06-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
[quote] Amorite king Og a survivor of the flood is later Hebrew lore, not incorporated in the OT. [quote] You are correct here. This particular entry is not historically based and can be seen as lore/legend, and serves only a further indicative background. Strangely though, it is an old writing (Medrash), and aligned with the date Sarah died. If the report has substance, its absence in the OT would be due to its lack of critical application.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by John Williams, posted 07-06-2007 12:31 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 128 of 142 (408938)
07-06-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
07-05-2007 12:46 PM


Re: A case of mythtaken identity
Hi, Mod, the 'myth' may be more mythic than it seems. Since scholars generally identify the 'book' that came through the Josiah/Hilkiah bottleneck as Deuteronomy, where did the rest of the Torah spring from? Did those exiles in Babylon get the idea of re-writing the legends to reestablish tribal pride? The OT then disappears in the quicksands of the 3-5th centuries B.C. Just like the NT dissolves pre-Eusebius.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2007 12:46 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 07-06-2007 8:41 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 129 of 142 (408969)
07-06-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Nighttrain
07-06-2007 2:02 AM


Re: A case of mythtaken identity
quote:
the 'myth' may be more mythic than it seems. Since scholars generally identify the 'book' that came through the Josiah/Hilkiah bottleneck as Deuteronomy, where did the rest of the Torah spring from?
That's an even greater debacle than that other scholarly classic, king david is a myth. Things have graduated since that one was toppled. The Josiah debacle rested on a single verse that a book of Israel's history was found - that's about all it took to shout Eureka! No one cared that there was no name given of that book (Dueteronomy was selected because it also contains a summary of the first four books); no one asked if Israel always had a vast library of books in the temple; nor if there was any previous evidence all five books existed. Then they concluded that Ezra the Scribe put it all together in 586 BCE, with perfect recall of all the millions of stats spread in the OT's passages. Wow.
But the Tel Dan discovery pointed the finger to this great folly: king david wrote the psalms over 3000 years ago - which contains numerous mentions of Moses, and aligns with the entire narratives of the five books!
One must hope these scholars don't make conclusions in science the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Nighttrain, posted 07-06-2007 2:02 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 130 of 142 (408972)
07-06-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by John Williams
07-06-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Exodus Myth
quote:
The seventy souls in the Exodus story is a rough figure, and the 600,000 is likely symbolic
This appears an almost unanimous mindset, and I usually do not like to get into whatever is aligned with FX miracles. However, the issue here is not without questions:
1. The 600K men noted, are backed by what is the world's first recording of a scientific cencus, with sub-counts of gender, ages and names of the 13 tribal heads. What would be the motive for such an exhaustive description, involving so much detailed and pristine calcs, to sustain a greater population? The cencus is later repeated 39 years later in the desert, and the figures are not in contradiction with the first.
2. The 3M total is based on an estimation derived from the ratio of men:women, aged and children. It also includes a multitude of non-israelites who also joined the exodus.
3. I understand that egypt's population then was estimated as 3-4M, which renders its slave population greater. But this is not an anomoly, considering Egypt was dedicated for centures in acquiring nations as slaves, was continually involved in mega projects which required great slave populations, and that the texts makes pointed reference the Hebrew population had become alarmingly huge and intollerable, even incurring fear in Egypt.
The authentic descriptions of the cencus, including the placement of key figures to their host tribes (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Dathan, Korach, etc) does not come across as a fake - despite the issue of populations - it in fact appears a very credible reporting.
Many also question equally such a vast humanity crossing the sea and sustaining themselves in the deserts 40 years. Even the name of the first person to enter the sea is known, and that 12 pathways opened the sea, and the date it occured! What is forgotten or not factored in, is that there was no possibility of the Israelites being freed from Egypt under any circumstances: slaves were never given any compromises, as with Rome, because this was the main asset of a nation, and a domino effect was avoided at all costs. Thus, if it is accepted that Israel, whatever the real population, was embedded in Egypt, how was her freedom obtained?
Here only two options can apply. It never happened - or that a miracle of sorts occured. If the latter, then the exodus and the populations debate become muted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by John Williams, posted 07-06-2007 12:31 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 131 of 142 (408976)
07-06-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by John Williams
07-04-2007 12:34 AM


Re: Where is the archaeological evidence?
John Williams said
Well, is there any archaeological evidence that Amenhotep II brought back 89,600 prisoners from Canaan to Egypt around 1420 BC? Certainly a number so large would have some hard evidence.
Not really.
Those are 2 seperate issues.
The 89,000 prisoners you mention were in a heavily populated areas which mainly included norrth-Palestine and south-Syria near Lebanon plus other places (in addition to Jezreel, Galiee,and coastal Palestine, the also included trans-Jordan and I think perhaps some in the south near Lachish though most would disagree).
There were no town destructions during that campaign and Palestine alone had a sedentary population of about 200,000 at the time (later Late-Bronze Age 1)in the coastal & extreme-northern regions (Jezreel and Galiee), not to mention a hugh amount of pastoralists& semi-nomads that numbered perhaps 50,000.
It could be 250,000 people total population.
Infact captured included quite a large number of clearly nomadic peoples (bedouin, shashu, apiru, etc.) which were over 25,000 alone in the report I believe.Minus town destructions, the sedentary population reduction-which would have dropped from perhap 200,000 to around 150,000 during the campaign- wouldnt really be noticed.Nomadic peoples (invisible to archaeology) could have taken over empty land and houses as well and thus their newly-"visible" presence in the archaeological record would further erase whatever little could have been detected as a population reduction.
NOW, what you are trying to do is compare THAT 1420BC archaeological event to the hypothetical issue (though generally accepted) of 100,000 urban Egyptians (of mainy Semitic and Hurrian extraction) traveling to ALL of Palestine and not be noticed archaeologically during the terminal Middle Bronze Age (or toward the early Late Bronze Age of roughly 1550 to 1520 between the 2).The case becomes impossible to make when the supposed migrations are claimed (as you are doing)to take 100,000 urban Egyptian's to the highland regions of Palestine where the destructions are rampant.The total sedentary population was only about 10,000 to 20,000 (though Israel Finkelstein argues that the MBA population of about 100,000 didnt reduce as much as the visible archaeological record would indicate, instead they somehow decided to become pastoralists which would become "archaeologically invisible").
Finkelstein's idea has alot to be commended (though I think the "invisible" pastoralists were incoming Israelites from Egypt who had Palestinian cultural contacts and werent Egyptianized AND the majority of the sedentary highland Canaanites were driven away to other regions in part), but the hypohetical issue of 100,000 Egyptian urbanites invading(which Finkelstein and I DONT propose) would be at least a 500% visible population increase in the highland regions.
It would be detected very easily.The 90% of MBA sites that discontinued would frankly be replaced pretty quick if urban Egyptians settled.Instead the situation of a 90% permanent site reduction n highland Palestine remained till about 400 years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by John Williams, posted 07-04-2007 12:34 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by John Williams, posted 07-06-2007 10:53 PM Nimrod has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 132 of 142 (409040)
07-06-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Nimrod
07-06-2007 9:49 AM


Re: Where is the archaeological evidence?
Very good points there.
Could it be that the "expulsion" Manetho is refering to is nothing but the Hyksos rulers and remnants fleeing the destruction of Avaris and meeting up with a Hyksos garrison at fortified Sharuhen? The inscription of Ahmose son of Abana doesn't mention any huge mass exodus of the Hyksos, and infact mentions the despoil of Avaris and the taking of many slaves.
Perhaps Ahmose I, was simply securing his boundaries by laying seige to Sharuhen, and there's no way Sharuhen was going to hold 100,000 people even if it were 50 acres in size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Nimrod, posted 07-06-2007 9:49 AM Nimrod has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 133 of 142 (409087)
07-07-2007 9:46 AM


Amenhotep II's Military Campaigns.
Egypt: Amenhotep II, 7th Pharaoh of Egypt's 18th Dynasty
As a king, Amenhotep II's athletic abilities may have served him very well, for within a short period after gaining the throne, his metal would be tested. Various sources disagree on how many military expeditions he made into Syria, and in what year of his reign these occurred. These military actions are recorded on stele erected at Amada, Memphis and Karnak. Yet it is clear that there had been a revolt in the Syrian region, and possibly even in the ports on the Mediterranean sea. His father was well recognized as a military leader, sometimes referred to as the "Napoleon of ancient Egypt". Therefore it is perhaps not surprising that when a region in Syria known as Tikhsi heard of his father's death, they decided to test the new pharaoh (apparently not an uncommon practice).
Some references refer to his first expedition taking place as early as his 2nd year of rule, though others provide that it was during his 7th. Still other references indicate that he made both of these campaigns. Regardless, he fought his was across the Orontes river and claims to have subdued all before him. One city, Niy, apparently had learnt their lesson under his father, and welcomed Amenhotep II. But at Tikhsi (Takhsy, as mentioned in the Theban tomb of Amenemheb - TT85), he captured seven prices, returning with them in the autumn. They were hung face down on the prow of his ship on the return journey, and six of them were subsequently hung on the enclosure wall of the Theban temple. The other was taken south into Nubia where his was likewise hung on the walls of Napata, "in order to cause to be seen the victorious might of His Majesty for ever and ever".
According to the Stele recording these events, this first campaign netted booty consisting of 6,800 deben of gold and 500,000 deben of copper (about 1,643 and 120,833 pounds respectively), as well as 550 mariannu captives, 210 horses and 300 chariots.
All sources agree that he once again campaigned in Syria during his ninth year of rule, but only in Palestine as for as the Sea of Galilee.
Yet these stele, erected after year nine of Amenhotep II's rule, that provide us with this information do not bear hostile references to either Mitanni or Nahrin, the general regions of the campaigns. This is probably intentional, because apparently the king had finally made peace with these former foes. In fact, an addition at the end of the Memphis stele records that the chiefs of Nahrin, Hatti and Sangar (Babylon) arrived before the king bearing gifts and requesting offering gifts (hetepu) in exchange, as well as asking for the breath of life. Though good relations with Babylon existed during the reign of Tuthmosis III, this was the first mention of a Mitanni peace, and it is very possible that a treaty existed allowing Egypt to keep Palestine and part of the Mediterranean coast in exchange for Mitannian control of northern Syria. Underscoring this new alliance, with Nahrin, Amenhotep II had inscribed on a column between the fourth and fifth pylons at Karnak, "The chiefs (weru) of Mitanni (My-tn) come to him, their deliveries upon their backs, to request offering gifts from his majesty in quest of the breath of life". The location for this column in the Tuthmosid wadjyt, or columned hall, was significant, because the hall was venerated as the place where his father received a divine oracle proclaiming his future kingship. It is also associated with the Tuthmosid line going back to Tuthmosis I, who was the first king to campaign in Syria. Furthermore, we also learn that Amenhotep II at least asked for the hand of the Mitannian king, Artatama I, in marriage. By the end of Amenhotep II's reign, the Mitanni who had been so recently a vile enemy of Egypt, were being portrayed as a close friend.
After these initial campaigns, the remainder of Amenhotep II's long reign was characterized by peace in the Two Lands, including Nubia where his father settled matters during his reign. This allowed him to somewhat aggressively pursue a building program that left his mark at nearly all the major sites where his father had worked. Some of these projects may have even been initiated during his co-regency with his father, for at Amada in Lower Nubia dedicated to Amun and Ra-Horakhty celebrated both equally, and at Karnak, he participated in his father's elimination of any vestiges of his hated stepmother, Hatshepsut. There was also a bark chapel built celebrating his co-regency at Tod.

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 134 of 142 (410045)
07-12-2007 11:25 PM


Exodus Population.
A majority of New Kingdom pharaohs led campaigns into the orient, whether for tribute, show of power, or to secure borders. This is the climate in which the early tribe of Israel had its origins. That the later generations would have stories regarding Egypt and its "oppressive" regime is not that surprising.
The Hebrew version of their origins:
*N. Mesopotamian Hebrew origins
*Early migrations between Syria-Canaan, and Egypt
*Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, early patriarchs in Canaan-Syria
*Joseph and Jacob, the house of Israel rule in Egypt.
*Pharaoh oppresses the house of Israel, and make the Hebrews slaves for 400 years.
*Moses the liberator, saves Israel from bondage, and they escape Egypt to Canaan.
*Joshua succeeds, and conquers Canaan, installing Judges to rule over the tribes.
*The monarchy begins.
*House of David. 1000 BCE
Historical facts:
*Egypt 3000-2000 BC, pyramids built.
*2000-1900 Asiatics among Egyptian population
*1900-1700 Asiatics settle in Nile Delta
*1700-1550 Syrian-Canaanite kings rule the Nile Delta over 100 years
*1550 Culminating a 30 year war, Ahmose liberates the Egyptians from the Syrian rulers, expelling them from Egypt, and defeating them in several major battles, Canaan becomes Egyptian tribute territory.
*1550-1150 Four hundred year Egyptian control over Canaan.
*1200 Israel a people in Canaan, attacked by Pharaoh Merneptah.
*1200-600? Kingdom of Moab
*1200-600? Kingdom of Ammon
*1175 philistines occupy the Gaza coast
*1050-720 Kingdom of Israel
*920-586 Kingdom of Judah

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 4:36 AM John Williams has not replied
 Message 136 by Nimrod, posted 07-13-2007 7:12 PM John Williams has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 135 of 142 (410069)
07-13-2007 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by John Williams
07-12-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Exodus Population.
Re: 2000-1900 Asiatics among Egyptian population.
Do you mean India, which brought 'color' (paint), used in painting the Pyramid drawings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by John Williams, posted 07-12-2007 11:25 PM John Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024