Yoseph and The Departure from Egypt

[bluethread]

I pretty much stay away from this thread, because I believe that scientifically proving the details of historical events is a fools errand. However, examining claims that certain things are scientifically impossible can have value. A case in point is a recent examination of previous discoveries discarded due to archeological orthodoxy.

Most archeologists and even many rabbis, reject the idea that Yoseph ever existed and Israel originated from a population of Semitic people who were delivered from slavery in Egypt and effected a conquest of the land of Canaan. However, upon closer examination it has been proposed that, like the location of Mt. Sinai, the reason why no evidence of such things have not been found was because archeologists were looking in the wrong place, based on orthodoxy and not scientific skepticism.

patternsofevidence.com (also available on Netflix)

The thesis is that, based on the references to the region and city of Rameses, archeologists erroneously presumed that Israel was delivered in the time of Ramesses the Great. However, those references might have been inserted in the text for the sake of the reader at a later date. Though there is no significant population of Semites in Egypt at the time of Ramesses the Great, there is evidence of a significant number of Semites and a swift departure of same in the middle kingdom, some 500 years earlier. Now, there is more to the thesis than that and I am not addressing the grandeur of the miracles on this thread. The only question is does this put to rest the assertion that there is no historical basis for Yoseph, the deliverance from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

There are reasons to dismiss it. As has been pointed out certain elements of the story should leave certain archeological evidence behind. The 40 years wandering in a desert should have produced massive amounts of archaeological evidence but didn't. There is no pharoah that matches the description in the bible. There has been no army of artifacts recovered in the Red Sea.

That is an argument for more evidence, not an argument against presented evidence.

While there is some evidence pointing to semantic slaves at one point never to the number described and they were not builders. The pyramids and other monuments required skilled labor.

Well, as the reference points out, the Scriptures do not say that they built pyramids and other monuments. I think you are thinking of the Hollywood version. It merely says that they took part in the building of cities and the making of bricks.

There is no mention of God or any plagues in Egyptian artifacts during the time period(s) in question, which directly contradicts the will of God to be know. Throughout Egypt.

Again that is an argument for more evidence, not an argument against evidence. Also, as I stated in the OP, I am not addressing the grandeur of the miracles on this thread.

If there is any grain of truth to the story it is most likely an exaggeration. A myth, a morality tale, a warning not to turn your back on God tale, or a foundational tale. We can't find the evidence because the story has been so exaggerated and mythologized that it simply is no where near close to what actually happened.

Well, do these artifacts give us any clue as to what might have actually happened?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

Well, yes, the Nile delta has been populated since the dawn of man. Certainly one would find it incredible difficulty making a claim for any people of any group.

It that enough?

I mean, the Jews did not escape Egypt, they weren't ever there. The people whom Jews claim to be continuously have been victims of successful genocides and decimations, so the people they claim to be, weren't them... The people whom they are, sort of, no lineage could survive the diaspora of 70AD, were those people of Canaan they claimed to have committed genocide on.

So, even if your story did pick out some lost people, they weren't whom the OT claims they were.
History is rapidly obviating Judeo-Christianity.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

Well, yes, the Nile delta has been populated since the dawn of man. Certainly one would find it incredible difficulty making a claim for any people of any group.

It that enough?

I mean, the Jews did not escape Egypt, they weren't ever there. The people whom Jews claim to be continuously have been victims of successful genocides and decimations, so the people they claim to be, weren't them... The people whom they are, sort of, no lineage could survive the diaspora of 70AD, were those people of Canaan they claimed to have committed genocide on.

So, even if your story did pick out some lost people, they weren't whom the OT claims they were.
History is rapidly obviating Judeo-Christianity.

Who said anything about people after 70AD? Ok, who were these Semitic, not Egyptian, people in the middle kingdom, who had rapid population growth followed by a swift disappearance leaving behind stores of grain? Also, who is the red headed Semite who's courtyard is filled with twelve tombs, one of which is in the shape of a pyramid and contains a statue, but no bones?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

Well, if you don't know why it is germane in the face of your hopes, maybe I can help you out...
You do know semitic is not identically Jewish, right, >90% of semitic peoples at an easy guess, are not Jewish.

So, who were they? I hate to cast such a wide net as to say "anyone," but give me an idea, and I'll look 'em up for you...

Obviously they knew nothing about Egypt, or genetics. I have to mention to you, that those peers of Ramses, are not the semitic people you are hoping for, they just, aren't.

[bluethread]

Obviously they knew nothing about Egypt, or genetics. I have to mention to you, that those peers of Ramses, are not the semitic people you are hoping for, they just, aren't.

These are not peers of Ramses, that is the point. The only Scriptural reference to Ramses is in referring to one of the cities as Ramses. This could be a reference for those who were familiar with the area being referred to that way some time after those people lived there. The idea that the departure took place in the time of Ramses is speculation on the part of archeologists, that has become archeological orthodoxy. If Israel never was in Egypt, why insist that the only evidence countering that must come from the New Kingdom(Ramses) and not the Middle Kingdom(Mentuhotep)?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

'K, speculation that a huge Excedus may have occurred, vs no evidence to support it.

OK,so I meant contemporaries of Ramses. Ramses decimated the people in the region you are concerned about. That's why...

It's a sad story, but no contemporary Jewish ancestors were harmed by Ramses - they didn't survive to complain...

With me yet?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]

A need for more evidence can be a reason to dismiss something though. I don't need to argue against the evidence to have reasons to dismiss it. I gave my reasons why I don't find these theories worthy of research. The quest to prove a negative can be a tough one.

I'll admit to skimming through the movie but the production is kinda cheesy and they edit it a lot of the interesting bits. Just when a speaker starts talking about a subject the film cuts away from it to something else or the narrator reflecting his own thoughts.

Perhaps you can list the archeological sites and artifacts that support this theory and we can discuss those?

There is another more direct reason to dismiss the dates discussed. Even at 1200 BCE we are talking about proto-Semitic peoples. Archeological sites at Ugarit also show that from 1450-1200BCE the Jewish religion still had not fully formed and Baal was still the primary deity with elements of Judaism beginning to spring into place.

Whatever people's the film refers to likely were only at best ancestors to semetic speaking people which could be any culture in the Middle East and likely did not worship Yawhe.

It's just grasping at straws.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to bluethread]

Several reasons for dismissing it out of hand have been presented...
The latest, the city being the wrong name - is a typical literary device for fiction...

That is the only one presented and the person proposing the theory is the one who presented it. It is also common to use names that current people are familiar with rather than the names of the places at the time of the event. I seem to recall someone on this site repeatedly making the argument that the Scriptures should have been written using terms and language that modern people can easily understand. Place names are transient, so the name used is not necessarily the most useful piece of evidence.

So, apart from that, is there any reason why what has been discovered in the Nile delta could not have contributed to the Scriptural account of the departure from Egypt?

I've heard of this thesis before, and I think one of the major stumbling blocks is that pushing this back 500 years doesn't match the dating of everything else. It would mean the dates of ancient Egypt are all wrong, including the pyramids being built. The evidence of the first proto-Jewish settlements in Canaan don't even go back that far. There is also no evidence of the Egyptians using slaves as builders. In fact there was a discovery a few years ago of massive food processing areas that showed the pyramid workers were well fed and supported. There is no evidence of the Egyptian economy suffering from a significant loss of it's working population, either in Egyptian records or records of their trading partners. There is no record of major natural disasters, either in Egyptian records or the records of their trading partners. If a nation had plagues of locusts destroying its crops, slaves leaving by the hundreds of thousands debilitating the economy, it's waters turning to blood, the first born males in every household dying, and so forth there'd not only be mention of it but Egypt would've been attacked in such a weakened state. No mention of it anywhere, no evidence to be found.

Here's an interesting refute of the film:
http://biblicalremains.com/another-brok ... -evidence/

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

'K, speculation that a huge Excedus may have occurred, vs no evidence to support it.

OK,so I meant contemporaries of Ramses. Ramses decimated the people in the region you are concerned about. That's why...

It's a sad story, but no contemporary Jewish ancestors were harmed by Ramses - they didn't survive to complain...

With me yet?

So, Ramses decimated the people in the region before he was born. Now, there is a miracle. I might take your complaints seriously, if you were to seriously address what is being discussed.

[bluethread]

Whatever people's the film refers to likely were only at best ancestors to semetic speaking people which could be any culture in the Middle East and likely did not worship Yawhe.

It's just grasping at straws.

Well, I appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to address the information presented. Would you at least acknowledge that these things could have been part of a cultural memory that was used in constructing HaTorah? I understand that it one can not prove a negative. However, the current argument is there is NO evidence. Though it speaks of a something not existing, it is a positive assertion. That is like someone saying that there is no evidence of the big bang. Just because one rejects the evidence of the big bang, does not mean that there is NO evidence.