OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

So it would seem. Unless the Apiru/Habiru are indeed the Hebrew as I discussed above. I feel we have to think the Apiru/Habiru are the Hebrew for one very important reason which I think you might accept....

We know ... or at least believe ... that the Israelites were in the area from Egypt to Babylon during the time of Biblical history. There is NO contemporaneous text which mentions "Isrealites" - most notably in Egypt - which I discuss more in a second. Now, there are Bablylonian records which acknowledge the Egyptians.. Egyptians texts which show awarness of Assyrains, Babylonians... Nubians.. and so on... but still, no where do we see any mention of the peoples of the Bible... UNLESS they are the Apiru/Hebiru "nomads" which are mentioned by several contemporaneous sources

The importance of the Egyptian failure to mention Isrealites is this. While I think we could agree that Egyptian scribes wouldn't write a lot about their failures, they sure don't seem to have had any problems writing about their successes and activities over people they dominated.... including, of course, the Apiru. Now, I would doubt that the Slaves of the Exodus would have written about their having been slaves. That is to say, I believe the Biblical account that these people were being forced to work for the Egyptians. Now then... wouldn't the Egyptians mention this? They mention other slaves... quite proudly, actually.. but.. never the Isrealites.

I would argue they do, and they call them Apiru. Hebrew. A "class" of nomdic folks (Without a country). As I noted above, Abraham was advised by G-d to leave his people and wander to where G-d told him to go, and was eventually promised the land of Canaan. But.. it was not until Jacob that Isreal was born... and even then, it was by name only, and not necessarily nation (as a plot of land). I want to tread lightly here on Jacob, because I'm going to try and explore the possibility that the Jacob of the Bible is the Jacob-Baal of the Hyksos rule in Egypt.

Anyway.... my point is, I think it's all but certain the Apiru/Habiru are talking about the very same people who the Bible discusses. I am aware that there is much schollarly debate on the issue, and it's not the least bit settled... but, I can't fathom another possibility.

I do share your interest in many of these possibilities. Unfortunately, it has been years since I last looked at this issue, I certainly need to refresh myself on the subject.

Just another fact out there, the earliest person in the Bible we currently have mentioned by an outside source in contemporary historical documents to their existence is King Jehu of Israel who reigned around 841-814 BCE. He is shown on an Assyrian obelisk submitting to Shalmanenseser III.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This much is true and I do share in the possibilities you raise about Egypt.

Just another fact out there, the earliest person in the Bible we have mentioned by an outside source in contemporary historical documents to their existence is King Jehu of Israel who reigned around 841-814 BCE. He is shown on an Assyrian obelisk submitting to Shalmanenseser III.

In my compilation of ancient Kings, I have run through a list of Egyptian Pharaoh's, Babylonian Kings (though I need to re-examine that list, because it includes Akkadians, Assyrians, Kassites, and Sumarians etc. as each "ruled" the area during various periods.) and Hittite Kings. I have not yet done a Biblical chronology of persons yet. Partly because I wasn't actually interested in who the people were when I started this project, more so the dates of Exodus and the Flood and partly because it's difficult for me to piece together the Bible where it concerns dates. It doesn't say, for example, Saul ruled from xxxx to xxxx.. instead it says stuff like "In the 4th year of Solomon, 430 years after the Exodus...." or whatever.. which makes dating more than what I've been willing to get in to. Of course, I am aware that others have already done this work, and I'll probably simply end up on relying on those people's work.

What I tried to do when I started this project is find a "firm" cross reference. I picked Nebuchadnezzar (605 BCE) and worked backwards from him to Sargon of Akkadia. Then, I found the Egyptian Pharaoh from 605 and worked backwards from him. I made a chart of years which shows the span of each King's rule, color coded even. Along the way, I made sure that Kings and Pharaoh's who communicated - for example Burna-Buriash II from Babylon and Amenhotep IV (AKA Akenaten_ of Egypt - matched up on the timeline (which they did). What I found once I looked at the whole chart during "relevant" time frames was really quite cool...

For example, as I noted above, Hammurabi's rule in Babylon (normally dated as 1792-1750) coincides with the Hyksos rise in Egypt. From there I concluded that it was possible (though surely not "proven") that the Isrealites (not yet really Isrealites, just Hebrew nomads) left the area in favor of more favorable pastures politically. That's not to say EVERY Hebrew left - indeed, I'd expect that many stayed (which may well account for some Biblical law mirroring that of Hammurabi) - but that many did... and were well recieved by the Hyksos. (This is where the Jacob and Jacob-Baal thing I mentioned above comes in... Jacob, from the Bible, sounds like a foreigner in a new land who rises to considerable power. That, to me, sounds a lot like "Hyksos King of Egypt" but it's only a preliminary thought as of yet.) Of course, the Egyptians would be none-too-pleased about being dominated by foreigners, and eventually re-secured Egyptian rule... with Ahmose I in some time around 1539 BCE. This would make the time of Egyptian Bondage of Isreal something on the order of 200 years, but there are more problems with that than simply not matching the Bible's claim of 400 some-odd years. Still, I'm trying to look at it objectively without worrying too much about claimed dates. Part of this is due to my understanding that Jewish dating is "suspect" inthe first instance (Pre-deluvian people living WAY too long) as well as some things I've learned about Ancient Hebrew writing, notably their propensity to "round things off" (for example, a generation, which might be any number of years, is always a specific amount of years in Hebrew timekeeping) These rounding errors might account for "real time" gaps... but, again, I can't say with any authority right now.

As fate would have it, last evening at about midnight, the History Channel was showing a show on Babylonian Kings... and they were talking about how Hammurabi was originally pretty "peaceful" but then decided he should emulate Sargon and build an empire. This leads me to think that the possibilities of Semite "nomads" in the area running for cover is more likely. But, again, I'd have to examine the issue more closely to be more sure. The show also mentioned a particular people - the Amorites - who were "tent dwellers" assimilating in to early Sumarian/Babylonian society (Pre-Assyrian domination) and it makes me wonder if the Amorites were one of the 12 tribes... as they sound "Hebrew" in the Apiru/Habiru sense of the word. This would fit nicely with some other ideas I've hinted at here - for example, not all Habiru leaving Babylon for Egypt as well as my early note that the similarities between some Sumerian and Biblical accoutns (Floods, timing and the like). There was also some interesting stuff on Assyrian domination of the area, their particular cruelty and violence, and that struck me as appropriate for the "Babylonian Captivity" described in the Bible.... But, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here (probably too late for that, though )

Interestingly enough, there is also indications that Canaan was under Egyptian control post Exodus and that the local Governer of Canaan wrote to his Pharoah that the intent of the 'Apiru/Habiru is to seize all the land of Canaan to the border of Egypt to make it their own. I think this is exactly what the Bible says happened. Abraham was promised the land, the Exodus happened and off they went to their land... and no doubt tried to take control of it.

 

[Gatorubet]

To suggest that the inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud somehow indicate that the Israelite's earliest beliefs were polytheistic is to dismiss the only account we have of what was occurring at that time, which gives quite a different understanding.

Why I said "perhaps." To me it is just as likely that they were monotheists that "lapsed" as a sub-group of Israelis that had not yet wholly adopted the majority monotheistic view.

Even monotheist Muhammad acknowledged the existence of three pagan goddesses (Lat, Uzza, and Manat) for a time when it was expedient, and the Meccans mad at him for dissing their Goddess.

 

[Bleed S & G]

You may notice how "Ahmose" resembles "Moshe" or "Moses" There is a reason for that. Moses is an Egyptian name. I've heard (and am trying to confirm) that Ahmose translates in to Hebrew as "brother of Moses"... but, now I'm leaning towards the idea that Moses is simply Ahmose - and is he who expelled the Hyksos.... or, from the Hyksos perspective, he who set in motion what would be their exodus from Egypt to Canaan.

BKB that was an awesome post.. the only thing that dosen't add up for me is this (and lets see if i can put my thoughts into words here..)

If Moses was infact Ahmose I and set in motion the exodus from Egypt.. how could Jewish tradition be so wrong about one of their biggest leaders?

Moses was a 13th century BCE[1] Biblical Hebrew religious leader, lawgiver, prophet, and military leader, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed. He is also an important prophet in Judaism[2], Christianity[2], Islam[3], the Bah?'? Faith [3], Mormonism[2], Rastafari[2], Raelism[4][5][6], Chrislam[3][2] and many other faiths.

Moses is a huge figure in many traditions.. he led the israelites to the promised land, while being one of the greatest prophets and recieving the 10 Commandments from the LORD himself.

I would think a mix-up between a Pharoh who kicked them out and from a prophet of God who led the people to the promised land of Abraham would be such a huge mistake it borders on incredibly unlikely.. IMO.

I was looking at the early Genesis texts where polytheism is implied "3:22Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

In re-reading the books I've found several examples like the one above where Polytheism is implied.. thus the 1st commandment (which is written by the Hand of God Himself according to the scripture) changing the way the Israelites worship.

 

[Bleed S & G]

BKB I found this and thought you may like it.. it's attempting to track down who Pharoah was at the time..
.............................................................................................
First let's look at what we know about Moses from scripture.

Moses died at age 120 (about 1405 B.C.)

Deu 34:7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

After the exodus, Moses and Israel wandered in the wilderness 40 years:

Num 32:13 And the LORD'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed.

So Moses was 80 at the time of the first Passover and exodus from Egypt.

The first Passover and Exodus is dated by the reign of Solomon

1 Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

With Solomon's 4th year estimated at 967/966 B.C. - 480 years earlier places the Exodus at about 1445 B.C.

Moses spent 40 years in Midian / Madian:

Acts 7:29 Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons.

Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

So Moses was 40 years old when he smote the Egyptian (about 1485 B.C.):

Acts 7:23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

Acts 7:24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:

So Moses was born about 1525 B.C., and the daughter of the reigning Pharaoh (Tutmoses I) who found him in the Nile was princess Nefure, who later became known as Queen Hatshepsut, Pharaoh of Egypt.

.............................................................................................
Now lets see if I can reproduce this chart..
.............................................................................................

Pharaoh.....................................Moses.....................................
Ahmoses Founder of the 18th
dynasty. Defeated the Hyksos
and regained all Egypt. Initiated
building work at Karnak

Amenhotep I Son of Amoses........Aaron Brother of Moses is born
...............................................around 1533 BC

Tutmoses I Issues decree...........Moses is born around 1525 BC
that all first born sons be
thrown into the Nile

Tutmoses I dies.........................Moses turns down chance to be
..............................................Pharaoh (Heb. 11:24)

Princess Nefure.......................At Deir El Bahri, there is a wall
Hatshepsut Daughter of............which depicts the birth of theTutmoses I.
It is thought she....................... future heir to the throne, one scene
was about age 15 when her........shows a baby boy in the arms of
father died. She is the one who...Hatshepsut (thought to be Moses)
found Moses in the river.
Hatshepsut married her half-.......Moses slays an egytpian and flees
brother, Thutmose II, who had....due to Thutmose II wanting to kill
a son, Thutmose III. Thutmose....him
II co-ruled with his only child.

In 1488, six years prior to her
death, all official records of
Hatshepsut ceased.​

Tutmoses III Assumed the......Moses is in Midian
position of Pharoah with the
demise of Hatshepsut.
(Moses was his competitor
for the position of pharaoh).
Tutmoses III was "The
Napoleon of ancient Egypt
and captured over 350 cities.​

Tutmoses IV Pharaoh of the.......Moses returns to Egypt
Exodus. He was not a first..........and leads them to the
born son but killed his................promised land. The first
brother for the throne................passover occurs.​

Tutankaten son of Tutmoses IV.
Supposedly reigned from an age
of only 9 until his death at about
18. Dies "mysteriously". Tomb
found in the Valley of the Kings
by Howard Carter in 1922, said to
be a "cursed" tomb. His burial looks
rushed, and in a tomb generally
too small - not designed for a
reigning pharaoh's burial.​

Akhenaten abruptly abandons.................In a song written by
the worship of the previous gods..............Akhenaten to his god,
of Egypt. Amenhotep IV changed.............there are seventeen
his name to Akhenaten, ........................ verses which correspond
symbolizing the change from Amun.......... with Psalm 104.
worship to monotheistic Aten (Sun)
worship. (Moses showed the former
gods of Egypt to be powerless,
hence the change to monotheism)​

Shifted his capital from Luxor to a
new capital Akhetaten.

The Hidden Moses

 

[buckeyegrad]

This would make the time of Egyptian Bondage of Isreal something on the order of 200 years, but there are more problems with that than simply not matching the Bible's claim of 400 some-odd years.

You may be interested in reading the following article that argues the Bible actually does teach a 215 year period in Egypt though it does not explicitly state it as such.

Apologetics Press - How Long Was the Israelites? Egyptian Bondage?

I have also heard that Jewish sages often numbered the years in Egypt to 210. I don't have a source to back this one up, but I will look for it.

 

[stowfan]

Which OT passages support the notion that a Jewish Messiah would come twice?

See Luke 4 17-21: Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah reads what is now known as Isaiah 61. He reads all of vs 1 but He stops half way thru vs 2. Jesus then states that what He has read He is fulfilling.

In plain English, Jesus was saying He was the fulfillment of prophesy of the suffering servant. What He stopped short of reading was He was the vengeance of God to comfort those who mourned (under Roman rule). The implacation is when He returns He will fulfill that part of the prophesy.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The first Passover and Exodus is dated by the reign of Solomon

1 Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

With Solomon's 4th year estimated at 967/966 B.C. - 480 years earlier places the Exodus at about 1445 B.C.

Moses spent 40 years in Midian / Madian:

Acts 7:29 Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons.

Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

So Moses was 40 years old when he smote the Egyptian (about 1485 B.C.):

Acts 7:23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

Acts 7:24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:

So Moses was born about 1525 B.C., and the daughter of the reigning Pharaoh (Tutmoses I) who found him in the Nile was princess Nefure, who later became known as Queen Hatshepsut, Pharaoh of Egypt.

This may be correct, but one thing to consider is that the 480 years between the beginning of the Exodus and the builing of the Temple may have some missing years. If you add the years Exodus, Johua, the Judges, Saul, David, the first 4 of Solomon, you get 480 years. However, the Book of Judges also speaks of years when the Israelites fell under the dominion of their neighbors.

I have read two ways to account for this. The first is that the reigns of the Judges overlap with the years of subjection of the Israelites to their neighbors, thus resulting in an actual 480 years passing. The second is that they do not overlap, but the Israelites did not count those years of subjection and therefore there is more than 480 years between the two events. Personally, I have not decided which one I think is correct.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB that was an awesome post.. the only thing that dosen't add up for me is this (and lets see if i can put my thoughts into words here..)

If Moses was infact Ahmose I and set in motion the exodus from Egypt.. how could Jewish tradition be so wrong about one of their biggest leaders?



Moses is a huge figure in many traditions.. he led the israelites to the promised land, while being one of the greatest prophets and recieving the 10 Commandments from the LORD himself.

I would think a mix-up between a Pharoh who kicked them out and from a prophet of God who led the people to the promised land of Abraham would be such a huge mistake it borders on incredibly unlikely.. IMO.



In re-reading the books I've found several examples like the one above where Polytheism is implied.. thus the 1st commandment (which is written by the Hand of God Himself according to the scripture) changing the way the Israelites worship.

My comments on that would be two fold. One, if it turns out Ahmose translates to "Brother of Moses" then I'll have to walk down that path in discerning who Moses "really" was. This would not be exclusive, however, of the theory that things change in history. What I mean by that is, the documents refered to here were not written contemporaneous with the events (I understand, of course, that most would believe Moses physically wrote the Books attributed to him. However, this is hard to believe in as much as Moses apparently writes about life after him as well... but, I'm still open to the idea) So, anyway, it could well be that through the "operator game" (If you will) the figure of Moses could be a compilation of people, including Ahmose. Or, it could well be that it is exactly as you suggest... a mistake. I'm not sure of the theological implications, as they really don't concern me... but, I certainly appreciate a believer's rejection of such a contention.

You may be interested in reading the following article that argues the Bible actually does teach a 215 year period in Egypt though it does not explicitly state it as such.

Apologetics Press - How Long Was the Israelites? Egyptian Bondage?

I have also heard that Jewish sages often numbered the years in Egypt to 210. I don't have a source to back this one up, but I will look for it.

I'm familiar with some of the theories for a 200 or so year captivity. I was reading a theory just last night about it. (I'd link it, but it's at home not here). I suppose the problem with this is - at least in terms of Biblical literalism - that's not what the Bible says. Anyway, I'll check the link out... maybe it addresses the "literalism" issue. thanks.

See Luke 4 17-21: Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah reads what is now known as Isaiah 61. He reads all of vs 1 but He stops half way thru vs 2. Jesus then states that what He has read He is fulfilling.

In plain English, Jesus was saying He was the fulfillment of prophesy of the suffering servant. What He stopped short of reading was He was the vengeance of God to comfort those who mourned (under Roman rule). The implacation is when He returns He will fulfill that part of the prophesy.

Might I argue that the Suffering Servant passage applies to me? I understand I asked upon what verse is Christianity based, so I'm not trying to be evasive or combative. In any event, whether or not the Suffering Servant passage even refers to the Messiah is a matter of some debate. See earlier discussion on this thread (Here)

To be sure, I have no doubt Christians use the passage in the manner you suggest. I find it problematic in as much as the Jews - to whom the passage was written for the benefit of - fail to agree.

Finally, Bgrad - on the timing issues you've identified in response to S&G... a couple notes. First, there seems to be Pauline problems placed in to the problem as well, as one accounting he makes ends up being something on the order of 500, almost 600 years between Solomon and the Exodus. (I may have that wrong, it was part of the link I mentioned above that I was reading last night and do not have at the ready here) Second, and this is a little more in response to S&G and his post which I did not quote which outlines Pharaohs and dates of rule.... When dealing with this dating issue, it's clear to me that the best we can hope for is approximations. I've seen Hammurabi's rule as early as the 19th century BC and as late as the 14th. The "accepted" date - though one apparently falling under more scrutiny, is 1792-1750. But, I would be surprised if Hammurabi actually ruled those specific times. But, I would be shocked if he didn't rule at a time near those dates.

Point is, when looking at this, you have to use some sort of calibration method to "time up" the various time lines offered. There is surely nothing definitive, but I have found that pairing up time lines in certain ways yields interesting results. But, at the end of the day, it's nothing more than supposition. I guess I'm not out to "prove" anything as a matter of fact (though that'd be nice) but am out to find a sensible description for all this information. Your time line suggests Thutmoses IV as the Pharaoh of Exodus, and that may well be the case... I don't know. Still, I'd note the time frame you list conflicts with other frames which say Ahmose was Pharoah in 1525, not Thutmose II.

As I said, I can't be sure... But, I can say having looked at all those Pharoahs you listed, there are interesting stories about each of them, as they relate to Moses of the Bible. For example, some of those guys had step sons (Moses was "adopted" after having been pulled out of the river), some of them had lost first born sons (10th Plague) and so on. As I said above, if I'm correct that Moses may have been (if not Ahmose) a compilation of people, it stands to reason that the Pharoahs in this time frame (in and around the Exodus) may have parts of their stories preserved in the Bible, as if they were a single Pharoah. It's important to note, the Bible never names Pharaoh. This could be because it was written well after the fact (which would be supported by the realization that certain Babylonian Kings are clearly named in the Bible - when the events were being recorded by contemporary authors (ie Daniel)), or it could be because it didn't matter, or even because it was Pharoahs being talked about. I simply don't know the answer for sure. But.... despite all that, in the language of recruiting, there seems to be enough "smoke" for their to be a "fire" in my view of whether or not the Exodus happened factually.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

...Point is this... I believe the Exodus is a real event. I believe the Pharaoh of Exodus was most likely Ahmose I. You may notice how "Ahmose" resembles "Moshe" or "Moses" There is a reason for that. Moses is an Egyptian name. I've heard (and am trying to confirm) that Ahmose translates in to Hebrew as "brother of Moses"... but, now I'm leaning towards the idea that Moses is simply Ahmose - and is he who expelled the Hyksos.... or, from the Hyksos perspective, he who set in motion what would be their exodus from Egypt to Canaan.

Great posts, BKB. Forgive me if some of this is obvious, but I think what?s important to point out is the tremendous overlap of the many, many cultures in the ancient world. From the Eastern Mediterranean through the eastern edge of Ancient Babylon, there were many languages and a great number of peoples that believed in a number of things. Names, names of places, names for god(s), ways of counting, and descriptions of events are all dependent on points of view, language differences and when the events were actually recorded (or edited/reedited). Could variations of the word ?Hebrew? or ?Moses? show up in different cultures with variances on who the people really were. In my mind, absolutely.

The OT is generally thought to be fairly accurate in many of its accounts. That?s why for historical studies it is still used in tandem with other great works of ancient literature/historical records. Of course, in a historical reading it?s all about perspective ? so were the ancient Israelites (or whatever you want to call them) enslaved by Egypt. Probably. Did the Red Sea actually part so they could walk across its sea bed? probably not.

...At an archaeological dig at a site "Kuntillet Ajrud" pottery was found that had inscriptions that were translated as "YHWH and his Asherah", which suggests that at that time Yahweh was worshiped with a consort, or as a couple. In any event, not as the only Deity. Asherah was the consort of El, so maybe that reflects the transition and substitution of Yahweh for El as the Supreme being. In any event, perhaps the old testament gives us a glimpse into the earliest beliefs of the ancient polytheistic Israelis.

Again, I think this is completely plausible. In modern times, think of Hollywood types that were raised Christian, but now believe in Kabala. What about mixed Jewish/Christian couples? Or Buddhist/Christian couples. I think its wrong to assume orthodoxy from every ancient Israelite. If people are undecided or creative about their belief structures today, why wouldn?t they have been thousands of years ago when there was significantly less religious education available to regular people? Of course, Judaism is defined by monotheism, I just don?t think that means that everyone who lived within ancient Jewish communities would have been that exact in their beliefs.

From the Old Testament we would would expect to find such evidence. Kuntillet Ajrud is believed to have been settled in the 7th to 9th centuries BCE. This places it right at the time of the two kingdom period, which Chronicles, Kings, and the prophets show to be a time that the Israelites strayed from the true faith given through Moses and introduced all forms of idolatry into their worship. Remember that G-d told Elijiah that there was only a faithful remnant of 7000 who remained in Israel at his time. We also know that Asherah polls were erected in the First Temple. It was this mixing of foreign gods that the prophets primarily decried, that lead to the Israelites being conquered by Assyria and Babylon, and resulted in YHWH's shekhinah glory departing from his temple (as shown in Ezekiel).

To suggest that the inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud somehow indicate that the Israelite's earliest beliefs were polytheistic is to dismiss the only account we have of what was occurring at that time, which gives quite a different understanding.

Again, Judaism is defined by its monotheism, but I don?t think this means that every person within its communities or the ancient Jewish Diaspora would have been orthodox in their beliefs. This would have naturally been worth lamenting for religious leaders (i.e. those that wrote the OT), but amongst very diverse populations of people in the ancient world, this might have only been as upsetting as a modern Jew who doesn?t keep Kosher, or those of us that don?t attend church regularly. I have Jewish friends that put up Christmas trees in the winter because its what the local culture does.

I should have been more clear. When I said the only source, I did not mean to dismiss other accounts in terms of what was occurring at that time in the history of civilization, rather I was specifically speaking of the history of the Israelites. As far as I am aware, the writings from other civilizations at the time, which we still have, do not mention what was occurring among the ancient Israelites.

Agreed ? but not to beat a dead horse, the OT was written by religious leaders. So it would be heavily focused promoting a Jewish belief system. So, naturally, the OT would not make great pains to discuss those that were more lax in their faith, except to condemn or scold.

The importance of the Egyptian failure to mention Isrealites is this. While I think we could agree that Egyptian scribes wouldn't write a lot about their failures, they sure don't seem to have had any problems writing about their successes and activities over people they dominated.... including, of course, the Apiru. Now, I would doubt that the Slaves of the Exodus would have written about their having been slaves. That is to say, I believe the Biblical account that these people were being forced to work for the Egyptians. Now then... wouldn't the Egyptians mention this? They mention other slaves... quite proudly, actually.. but.. never the Isrealites.

This may also be a point of view issue. The Egyptian empire lasted thousands of years. One slave uprising in the middle of their tremendous history might not have been that big of a deal. It certainly wouldn?t be as big of a deal as it was to the ancient Hebrews, for whom it was the defining moment of their faith/culture.

I would argue they do, and they call them Apiru. Hebrew. A "class" of nomdic folks (Without a country). As I noted above, Abraham was advised by G-d to leave his people and wander to where G-d told him to go, and was eventually promised the land of Canaan. But.. it was not until Jacob that Isreal was born... and even then, it was by name only, and not necessarily nation (as a plot of land). I want to tread lightly here on Jacob, because I'm going to try and explore the possibility that the Jacob of the Bible is the Jacob-Baal of the Hyksos rule in Egypt.

Anyway.... my point is, I think it's all but certain the Apiru/Habiru are talking about the very same people who the Bible discusses. I am aware that there is much schollarly debate on the issue, and it's not the least bit settled... but, I can't fathom another possibility.

There?s a lot of debate because, as you?ve pointed out, there?s a lot of evidence to support such a claim, and probably lots to the contrary. In my mind its certainly plausible. In trying to translate subtle differences in ancient languages with regard for a people that would have been thought of in very different ways from opposing points of view, I?m sure a lot can be misunderstood.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'm familiar with some of the theories for a 200 or so year captivity. I was reading a theory just last night about it. (I'd link it, but it's at home not here). I suppose the problem with this is - at least in terms of Biblical literalism - that's not what the Bible says. Anyway, I'll check the link out... maybe it addresses the "literalism" issue. thanks.

Actually, that link follows a "literalist" perspective of the Bible, but makes the point that what we think it says when we read a translation in plain (i.e. no context) English is not actually what is being said. It also deals with the issue of Paul's dating that you mention.

 

[Bleed S & G]

(I understand, of course, that most would believe Moses physically wrote the Books attributed to him. However, this is hard to believe in as much as Moses apparently writes about life after him as well... but, I'm still open to the idea)

..

Authorship tradition
Main article: Mosaic authorship
According to classical Judaism, Moses was the author of the Torah, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation together with the Oral Torah. However, over the years several questions have arisen, one popular example being the record in Deuteronomy 34 of Moses' death. The Talmud explains this by saying that Moses wrote it in tears in anticipation of his death. Another tradition is that Joshua added these words after Moses died, which seems to be supported by the facts that Moses' death is recorded in the last chapter of the last book that Moses supposedly wrote, that the next book is 'Joshua' (which, according to Jewish tradition, was written by Joshua himself), and that the final verses of the book of Deuteronomy read like an epitaph to Moses.

 

[Gatorubet]

Richard Friedman's excellent "Who Wrote The Bible?" is a great read for an understanding of what modern biblical scholars think about the authorship and date of the various Old Testament Chapters and verses.

See the link below for a quick synopsis.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PlanetFrnd]

We were required to read A History of Israel in undergrad OT class. I obviously didnt read the whole thing, but its a pretty good (old) reference that covers tons of the basics.

edit: Just realized what a dumb post that was, there must be thousands of books with that title... I'll have to look up the publishing later tonight - my bad

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

..

Yes, I am aware of all that. Consider:

Documentary Hypothesis