Posted on 07/22/2008 2:37:05 AM PDT by Man50D
The Biblical thesis is that Abraham lived around 1800 BC (using the dating that puts Moses around 1200 and David around 1000), was from the city of Ur in Sumer and eventually traveled to Hebron in Canaan.
We know historically that the population of Sumerian speakers had been in sharp decline in the Ur region for centuries and that Semitic speakers had become the majority. By 1800 the Semitic Amorites were ruling the land and the population was declining as thousands moved north toward Syria because of the exhaustion of the soil and the failure of the barley crops.
It is perfectly plausible that a Semitic-speaking herdsman of Ur around 1800 could and would move from the Ur area to Canaan south of Syria.
No detail of the story is impossible.
To include it would be giving it a weight and influence that was completely out of proportion to any historic influence that the Egyptian captivity had upon Egypt, which was negligible.
It would be like writing a history of Rome without mentioning Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf...the story is a part of the history. It can be addressed as a legend and debunked. NOT mentioning it at all is effectively to mock the story.
Pointing it out in a Historic context one might be inclined to mention that there is no historic evidence, and that would be a more direct mocking of the story than leaving it unmentioned.
Besides, if the article in National Geographic was about the time period of the building of the great monuments of Egypt the Jewish captivity wasn't even during the same time period.
Maybe they should have mentioned that Elizabeth Tailor played Cleopatra? Was not mentioning that mocking her contributions as an actress?
ping
#59
Ah. This is where we disagree. Mentioning the well-known legend, and setting it aside with evidence, would be IMHO an honest way to deal with this.
Millions of folks around the world devote an elaborate annual ceremony to commemorating the Exodus, after all, and did so long before Yul Brenner donned a loincloth.
While a clinical academic discussion of this topic could arguably ignore the proverbial Jewish question, a mass market documentary that fails to address the dominant narrative at all is just weird.
There is a contemporary Egyptian recordation of the plagues.
The papyrus manuscript, now called the Ipuwer Papyrus, was discovered by someone named Anastasi in the area of Memphis, near the pyramids of Saqqara in Egypt.
The museum of Leiden in the Netherlands acquired the papyrus in 1828. It was translated and published in English for the first time in 1909 by Professor Alan H. Gardiner. Gardiner wrote that the manuscript was one that recorded a genuine historical catastrophe when the whole country of Egypt was in distress and violence. “It is no merely local disturbance that is here described, but a great and overwhelming national disaster.”
Gardiner suggests that Ipuwer was an Egyptian sage who directed his writing to the king as a complaint that the national catastrophe was in part caused by the king’s failure to act and deal with the crisis.
A comparison of several key passages from the Biblical Book of Exodus with the ancient Egyptian papyrus reveals remarkable correspondences and parallels that point to a real historical catastrophe.
1. The Plague of Blood
In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:5-6, it says: Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. Compare this with the Book of Exodus 7:21: There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10, it says: The River is Blood. Compare with Exodus 7:20: All the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10, it says: Men shrank from tasting...and thirst for water. Compare with Exodus 7:24: And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.
2. The Plague of Hail
Ipuwer papyrus 9:23: The fire ran along the ground. There was hail, and fire mingled with the hail. Exodus 9:25: And the hail smote every herb on the field, and brake every tree in the field.
3. The Plague of Darkness
Ipuwer Papyrus 9:11: The land is not light. Exodus 10:22: And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.
4. The Plague of Egyptian Cattle
Ipuwer papyrus 5:5: All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan. Exodus 9:3: Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be grievous murrain (disease).
5. The Plague of the Firstborn of Egypt
Ipuwer Papyrus 2:13: He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. Exodus 12:27: He (the angel of the Lord) smote the Egyptians. Ipuwer Papyrus 4:3: Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls. Exodus 12:29: At midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. Ipuwer Papyrus 6:12: Forsooth, the children of the princes are cast out in the streets, Exodus 12:30: There was not a house where there was not one dead.
6. Response of the Egyptians to the Loss of their First born
Ipuwer Papyrus 3:14: It is groaning that is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations. Exodus 12:30: There was a great cry in Egypt.
Plus archaeologists believe they have located GOSHEN, the area mentioned in the bible as where the early Jews lives, and it’s in the very north near the Nile Delta, not south near Giza. They also believe GOSHEN may have been an area the Egyptians set aside/reserved for any non-Egyptians. It may have been the original place Pharoah gave to Josephs family/tribe, which again could have been a metaphor for any non-Egyptian.
Apparently the Pharoahs wanted/needed the labor and skills of the non-Egyptians but was concerned about them mingling with the locals and polluting their religious beliefs.
Note - In Egypt archaeologists have found written references to non-Egyptians who were allowed to stay and work in the country and contributed to it’s economic health through their labor and crafts, and the name used was HABIRU. Pretty close to “Hebrew”.
It’s possible “habiru” was the name given to all non Egyptians (foreignor, immigrant?) ...refugees, bedouin, anyone looking for a better life or work that were allowed to settle in the Nile delta area because Egypt needed the labor, you know, to do the jobs Egyptians didn’t want to.
Kind of like how we “allow” immigrants to come in on work visas or just ignore the illegals already here.
“It’s getback fueled by the silly self absorbed guilt of some descendants and the wrath of other descendants who don’t consider themselves inheritors of said western civilization.”
Western Civ was derived out of Greece and Rome...2 pagan societies predating Jesus and Christianity. By the time Constantine declared all of Rome to be Christian, it was pretty much overrr.
And that is its weakness.
The weakness of Western Civilization is because it came from Greece and Rome. Sure. That is a good one! What culture and government system do you think would be a better one to base Western Civilization upon?
The weakness of Western Civilization is because it came from Greece and Rome. Sure. That is a good one! What culture and government system do you think would be a better one to base Western Civilization upon?
I'm not a "civilizationist" at all (that's for "palaeos" like the "VDaredotCom" crowd). I'm not interested in social utility (the root of all morality and purpose for atheists). I am interested only in the G-d Who created the universe and Who alone is the purpose for everything that exists and Who Alone determines what is right and what is wrong (and apart from Whom those terms are meaningless).
Screw the ancient Greeks and Romans. They worshiped false "gxds" while the Israelites worshiped HaShem who "made Heaven" (ki kol 'elohey ha`ammim 'elilim . . . veHaShem Shamayim `asah!). I can see where a bunch of eighteenth century rationalist Lockeans and Voltaire wanna-bes would swoon over ancient Greece and Rome, though.
I don't know why you don't seem to get it. Everyone else on this board knows, or should, that I am an avowed Noachide Theocrat. I've never hidden that fact, and you act like you're going to "out my big secret." It's never been a secret!
I know you think that law grounded in G-d is scary, but the fact that you have no objections to those same laws when grounded in absolute nothingness shows that you and your fellows are hypocrites.
Western Civilization wouldn't be Western Civilization if we had based it upon the Priest Kings of ancient Israel; luckily they based it upon the most successful society that they were familiar with, the Romans; and it seems to have worked out pretty good so far - especially the part about elections for representatives who fulfill a limited government power for a limited time.
And I find tyranny scary, even if the tyrant claims to be ruling by God's law.
Oh please. Why does every critic of Theocracy think that the fact that there are more than one claimant to the title of "one true religion" by itself proves there is no such thing? I guess it does provide an excuse to be lazy and not to any investigating, however.
Western Civilization wouldn't be Western Civilization if we had based it upon the Priest Kings of ancient Israel; luckily they based it upon the most successful society that they were familiar with, the Romans; and it seems to have worked out pretty good so far - especially the part about elections for representatives who fulfill a limited government power for a limited time.
Wow, elections . . . what was I thinking of? Elections are a reason to get up out of bed every morning! No siree, no need for a Creator with an Ultimate Purpose when you can crusade for Limited Government (though you forgot the part about keeping your own money; that seems to be very important to rightwing atheists, though not to leftwing ones).
To answer your question, Mashiach will come and the Sanhedrion reestablished, probably with smaller bodies all over the world in union with it. The Divinely-commissioned authority will decide all these things (and no, I'm not going to be a member!).
Now blow me away with some ingenious argument like "oh yeah, the moslems think they're right too!" C'mon . . . you know you want to!
And I find tyranny scary, even if the tyrant claims to be ruling by God's law.
I am going to say this one more time and you are going to ignore it again because you have no answer to it: the laws already exist!!! Do you live in a "tyranny" because murder is a capital offense? Of course you don't. But it isn't the laws or penalties that scare you. For some reason it's the very idea that there is something more to them than the lowest social utility that gets you all up in arms.
You're more threatened by G-d's existence than by his rules (many of which you gladly submit to on the theory that they have their origin in "human reason").
Boy, now your a mind reader as well. I am a believer in God and the Bible.
The Bible has many laws. Who gets to interpret which get enforced and who gets to RULE? Razors creasing your flesh? Trimming the corners of your beard? Mixing meat and dairy? According to some this would mean outlawing surgery, barber shops, and pizza parlors. Who gets to decide? Who gets to rule? How do we organize Western Civilization while we are waiting for the Messiah to return? What about those that think he already returned? Death penalty for them?
Abram or Abraham found the land of Canaan filled with CANAANITES!
Now, Post Exodus, William Dever, an esteemed scholar is having trouble discerning who was who around 13th Century - 12th Century B.C.
My question stands.
How do you, with pick and shovel - digging through the layers of history - tell the difference among these tribes of people?
I answered your question. The duly constituted Halakhic authorities (Mashiach, the Beit Din HaGadol, and the lesser Battei-Din will determine these things just as they do today. Only there will be no distinction between religion and state.
And come on, are you that out of it? Don't you know the difference between the Mosaic Law that binds Jews and Noachide Law that binds non-Jews? You sound like that guy from "The West Wing" talking about what happens if you touch a football. Egad!
Torah and Noachide Law already exist and theoretically are already in force. But when Mashiach comes these things will be evident.
Do you actually not understand that Orthodox Jews already have a full elucidation of the details of all Biblical laws for Jews and non-Jews in their Oral Tradition? And what questions that are unresolved will be answered by Mashiach.
I apologize for thinking you were an atheist. I think I had you confused with somebody else.
In that case, you would know that non-Jews only have to obey the laws that God gave to Noah. All the other rules in the Bible are only apply to Jews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.