Explusion of the Hyksos and redating the Exodus (request)
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Explusion of the Hyksos and redating the Exodus (request)
Is there anyone on the board who has studied the explusion of the Hyksos and the redating of the Exodus who can tell me if the theory flies historically or doesn't? What have you learned about this and what are your conclusions?
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Here's a wiki entry about it. Just google on "The Exodus" to find the wiki entry. I'm not supplying the link.
"Hyksos possibilities
Perhaps, the Conquest of Israel corresponds to the destruction layers around 1550 BCE.
One idea that has enjoyed occasional support among scholars suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the expulsion of the Hyksos around year 1535 BCE. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion of classical writers such as Josephus, who possibly gets the identification from Manetho.
Like Israelites, the Hyksos were a Semitic people. The Hyksos ruled Egypt for roughly two centuries before the Eighteenth Dynasty. Plausibly, the Hyksos may be associated with the Habiru socio-ethnic mercenaries or bandits, which seems to have given rise to the Hebrews of the Bible (although this link is disputed).
Egyptian renderings of the Hyksos often depict them in boldly colored and patterned robes while the Hebrew story of Joseph and his "Coat of Many Colors" concerns the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt.
Exodus 12:40 records 400 years between the arrival of Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, perhaps synchronizing the arrival of Jacob in Egypt with the Hyksos.
However to synchronize the Exodus with the end of the Hyksos era around 1535, requires an explanation for why the proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan only emerges around 1250. Around 250 years later discounting 40 years of wandering in desert. (The earliest remains associated with Israelites appear in the central highlands no earlier than about 1400 BCE, but in the southern Judaite area no earlier than 1250.)
A difficulty with identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, is the difference between the biblical and Egyptian narratives. According to the eyewitness account of an Egyptian soldier, Ahmose, son of Ebana, the Hyksos left Egypt as defeated foreigners - not as escaping slaves. Despite the meaning of the word, only a tiny minority of the Hyksos were rich or noble.
If we suppose the Israelites to have fled before then, we do not encounter any notice that their captors were soon overwhelmed, nor any notice that the Pharaoh they were slaves under was not actually an Egyptian, but Semitic like themselves.
Placing the Exodus before the expulsion of the Hyksos increases the difficulty of synchronizing the evidence with the arrival of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan. Placing it shortly afterward does not allow for a very long Oppression, and also fails to explain why the Bible does not say that Pharaoh was not Egyptian for much of this time, or that the Egyptians had come back to power. Thus it is that there are two main categories that most Exodus theories fall into: Early and Late Exodus theories. Those requiring the veracity of I Ki. 6:1, or otherwise having an Exodus at or before ca. 1446 BCE (which include the many works by Bimson, who is not a fundamentalist, and more recently Redford and Herzog), are generally known as Early Exodus Theory supporters. Those maintaining that the building of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be associated with Rameses II or later (Rameses I ruled for only a year or so), are termed supporters of a Late Exodus theory. Rameses II began his reign ca. 1290-1272 (the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannia differ on Egyptological dating, and Bietak places them later yet), as opposed to the ca. 1446 BCE I Ki. 6:1 would require. Most archaeologists, for their part, if they believe the Exodus to be a historical event at all, support a late conquest of the "Joshua" cities, thus suggesting Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. This fits well with the equation of the city of Rameses of Ex. 1:11 with the Pi-Rameses of archaeology; and Pithom with Pi-Atum; both of which Egyptian documents from the time of Rameses II report construction on. Although Bietak reports finding remains from nearby Tell el-Dab'a from the time of the Hyksos (see below) until well after that of Thutmose III, he associates Pi-Rameses with Qantir instead of Tell el-Dab'a, but shows a hiatus at Qantir during the time of the traditional Exodus. It is widely held that this supports a Hyksos era or a Late Exodus better than a traditional Exodus date. Remains from Pithom are less helpful in narrowing the Exodus date down.
Alternate hypotheses concerning synchronizing the Exodus with volcanic eruptions are at least possible, but we are under no compulsion to require synchronization with any such eruption until we have at least isolated the correct century to search for the Exodus in. Some arguments try to demonstrate a date for the Exodus using astronomical or calendrical back-projections, so that the day the sun was claimed to have stood still over Gibeon might coincide with an eclipse, or the Exodus might coincide with a Jubilee. Sometimes these methods are used to try to prove something about when the Exodus was, but they cannot tell us what century the Exodus happened in.
Rabbinical tradition typically tells a different version of events than that of the Bible. Typically, they speak of the Red Sea being divided up into twelve pieces; some in a miraculous context, but sometimes with no miraculous trappings at all. As the channels between the Bitter Lakes may have been silting up like the channel linking the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean sea had in the time of Rameses II, all we need do is imagine a brief drought which resulted in a silted up channel to have become dried up in one or more places in order to explain the received traditions.
Although many theories are possible, while archaeology has demonstrated no evidence for any miracles, as details from Exodus evidently preserve memories from the Second Millennium BCE, Exodus theories most often fall into either a Traditional or Late Exodus theory category, while a minority of scholars either support a Hyksos Exodus, or else may be biblical Minimalists, who either deny the historicity of the traditions altogether, or else place them so late as to require wholesale revisions to mainstream Egyptian and Israelite chronologies."
"Hyksos possibilities
Perhaps, the Conquest of Israel corresponds to the destruction layers around 1550 BCE.
One idea that has enjoyed occasional support among scholars suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the expulsion of the Hyksos around year 1535 BCE. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion of classical writers such as Josephus, who possibly gets the identification from Manetho.
Like Israelites, the Hyksos were a Semitic people. The Hyksos ruled Egypt for roughly two centuries before the Eighteenth Dynasty. Plausibly, the Hyksos may be associated with the Habiru socio-ethnic mercenaries or bandits, which seems to have given rise to the Hebrews of the Bible (although this link is disputed).
Egyptian renderings of the Hyksos often depict them in boldly colored and patterned robes while the Hebrew story of Joseph and his "Coat of Many Colors" concerns the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt.
Exodus 12:40 records 400 years between the arrival of Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, perhaps synchronizing the arrival of Jacob in Egypt with the Hyksos.
However to synchronize the Exodus with the end of the Hyksos era around 1535, requires an explanation for why the proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan only emerges around 1250. Around 250 years later discounting 40 years of wandering in desert. (The earliest remains associated with Israelites appear in the central highlands no earlier than about 1400 BCE, but in the southern Judaite area no earlier than 1250.)
A difficulty with identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, is the difference between the biblical and Egyptian narratives. According to the eyewitness account of an Egyptian soldier, Ahmose, son of Ebana, the Hyksos left Egypt as defeated foreigners - not as escaping slaves. Despite the meaning of the word, only a tiny minority of the Hyksos were rich or noble.
If we suppose the Israelites to have fled before then, we do not encounter any notice that their captors were soon overwhelmed, nor any notice that the Pharaoh they were slaves under was not actually an Egyptian, but Semitic like themselves.
Placing the Exodus before the expulsion of the Hyksos increases the difficulty of synchronizing the evidence with the arrival of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan. Placing it shortly afterward does not allow for a very long Oppression, and also fails to explain why the Bible does not say that Pharaoh was not Egyptian for much of this time, or that the Egyptians had come back to power. Thus it is that there are two main categories that most Exodus theories fall into: Early and Late Exodus theories. Those requiring the veracity of I Ki. 6:1, or otherwise having an Exodus at or before ca. 1446 BCE (which include the many works by Bimson, who is not a fundamentalist, and more recently Redford and Herzog), are generally known as Early Exodus Theory supporters. Those maintaining that the building of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be associated with Rameses II or later (Rameses I ruled for only a year or so), are termed supporters of a Late Exodus theory. Rameses II began his reign ca. 1290-1272 (the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannia differ on Egyptological dating, and Bietak places them later yet), as opposed to the ca. 1446 BCE I Ki. 6:1 would require. Most archaeologists, for their part, if they believe the Exodus to be a historical event at all, support a late conquest of the "Joshua" cities, thus suggesting Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. This fits well with the equation of the city of Rameses of Ex. 1:11 with the Pi-Rameses of archaeology; and Pithom with Pi-Atum; both of which Egyptian documents from the time of Rameses II report construction on. Although Bietak reports finding remains from nearby Tell el-Dab'a from the time of the Hyksos (see below) until well after that of Thutmose III, he associates Pi-Rameses with Qantir instead of Tell el-Dab'a, but shows a hiatus at Qantir during the time of the traditional Exodus. It is widely held that this supports a Hyksos era or a Late Exodus better than a traditional Exodus date. Remains from Pithom are less helpful in narrowing the Exodus date down.
Alternate hypotheses concerning synchronizing the Exodus with volcanic eruptions are at least possible, but we are under no compulsion to require synchronization with any such eruption until we have at least isolated the correct century to search for the Exodus in. Some arguments try to demonstrate a date for the Exodus using astronomical or calendrical back-projections, so that the day the sun was claimed to have stood still over Gibeon might coincide with an eclipse, or the Exodus might coincide with a Jubilee. Sometimes these methods are used to try to prove something about when the Exodus was, but they cannot tell us what century the Exodus happened in.
Rabbinical tradition typically tells a different version of events than that of the Bible. Typically, they speak of the Red Sea being divided up into twelve pieces; some in a miraculous context, but sometimes with no miraculous trappings at all. As the channels between the Bitter Lakes may have been silting up like the channel linking the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean sea had in the time of Rameses II, all we need do is imagine a brief drought which resulted in a silted up channel to have become dried up in one or more places in order to explain the received traditions.
Although many theories are possible, while archaeology has demonstrated no evidence for any miracles, as details from Exodus evidently preserve memories from the Second Millennium BCE, Exodus theories most often fall into either a Traditional or Late Exodus theory category, while a minority of scholars either support a Hyksos Exodus, or else may be biblical Minimalists, who either deny the historicity of the traditions altogether, or else place them so late as to require wholesale revisions to mainstream Egyptian and Israelite chronologies."
-
_CaliforniaKid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Jersey Girl,
In my opinion, the late date makes a lot more sense of both biblical and archaeological data. Aside from minimalists like Israel Finkelstein who don't believe in an Exodus at all, the premiere Exodus scholar is James K. Hoffmeier. I recommend looking into his books if you're interested in this subject.
-Chris
In my opinion, the late date makes a lot more sense of both biblical and archaeological data. Aside from minimalists like Israel Finkelstein who don't believe in an Exodus at all, the premiere Exodus scholar is James K. Hoffmeier. I recommend looking into his books if you're interested in this subject.
-Chris
-
_huckelberry
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4559
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am
thestyleguy wrote:I think the exodus is a myth created by northern tribes to give them something to be proud of - most likely created in exile when they had time to think and write.
If it was created by nothern tribes in exile how did it ever get mixed back up in the record we have? The northern tribes have not been contributing to Jewish culture after they were conqured.. It might be also wondered how they would have more liesure after being conquered by Assyrians.
It would seem more believable to think Judah in their later exile would be the source. They maintained identity and put together the Old Testament. One can imagine Jewish leaders augmenting the Jewish story to help maintain Jewish identity. I do not think that would work very well by inventing entirely new stories. It would be difficult for the Jews in exile to adopt a new story. How would they identify with it? Would Mormons leaving Navoo suddenly decide to keep their identidty by adopting a story of Mormon origins consiting of it starting in Cuba and traveling to Mexico and finding that snake fellow? No the old familiar story would serve to hold them together much better.
I think that is a fairly fundamental reason to think that the stories that were put together in exile, the Old Testament. were familiar materials. There is good evidence that the Old Testament particularly Torah was put together in the time of the exile. I just find it very difficlt to believe that the stories would have been newly minted at that time however. People would not accept them without connection to the familiar.
My own picture of Exodus is that it is composed of old traditions that have some basis in events but have been put together iin a form which is a mystical story of participation. Through the story all Jews participate in the journey. I think much more likely that the composite story developed over many centuries. I think that because the purpose of this strory telling is stronger than actual historcal knowledge about how the particulars fit together there is little hope of distilling the real events out of the story.
I am familiar with various speculation about the facts. I have seen no indication that one speculation, such as Hyksos connection has gained an extensive priority over other possiblities. Some people see Isreal as a very mixed group of people who slowing became a group over a period of many centuries. Actually that view has serious reflection in the Old Testament itself. The book of Judes pictures the land as full of all kinds of people with Isrealites being a sort of poor minority. The developement of Kings brings various groups together. Well the story after Solomon is so divisive that together may be a bit of a stretch.
Leaving Egypt may have happened to some people. A Moses may have lead them. Seperating fact and fiction in that Exodus seems with present knowledge impossible.
-
_karl61
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2983
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm
huckelberry wrote:thestyleguy wrote:I think the exodus is a myth created by northern tribes to give them something to be proud of - most likely created in exile when they had time to think and write.
If it was created by nothern tribes in exile how did it ever get mixed back up in the record we have? The northern tribes have not been contributing to Jewish culture after they were conqured.. It might be also wondered how they would have more liesure after being conquered by Assyrians.
They brought the torah with them - some went south quickly when their friends went to provide "service".
I want to fly!
-
_huckelberry
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4559
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am
thestyleguy wrote:huckelberry wrote:thestyleguy wrote:I think the exodus is a myth created by northern tribes to give them something to be proud of - most likely created in exile when they had time to think and write.
If it was created by nothern tribes in exile how did it ever get mixed back up in the record we have? The northern tribes have not been contributing to Jewish culture after they were conqured.. It might be also wondered how they would have more liesure after being conquered by Assyrians.
They brought the torah with them - some went south quickly when their friends went to provide "service".
Thestyleguy, your response was so cryptic that I sort of doubted you were looking for a response. But just in case you did not mind a response,,,
I was puzzled by the phrase bringing Torah, Exodus is part of Torah. The story of the exodus runs all through the Torah. But perhaps you ment they broght some legal traditions to which invention added the story. That idea does sort of fit the standard documenatary hpypothesis. The Torah being edited together early on in the Babylonian captivity where Northern and Southern traditions were combined. That all seems quite plausible to what I am aware of. I still am doubious that a whole new story got invented at that time and somehow everybody was convinced this brand new story is real. You see I think people know their own story. They do not know everything about it but they know what story is theirs. I can imagine that story growing or being changed through time. I do have some difficulty imagining it just being invented.
On the other hand I know of no proof that your theory is wrong. We do not have any 9th centery bc documents for any of Isreal except the pieces to be found in the Old Testament. There is no way to compare earlier and later versions. I can even imagine that there could have been different starting places for Isreals story. Elijah could have been a starting point at one time one might speculate. I can see that if one is wishing to add to a story that a people have there is always the location of saying that before the story you already know these things happend which you didn't know about. There is just enough disconnect between the history starting with Judges and the story of Exodus and conqust to make one wonder if the latter was added to the previously know history which starts with Judges.
I think that the Exodus is a bit to obseessed with sin and disastrous failure to completely qualify as a feel good response. The centeral motif of the story is the gold calf matter and the narrowness of their escape from Gods destructive wrath.
Should I find it ironic how close I am to agreeing with you?