Old Testament History

[Pablo Sanchez]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed--I recently read a Harper's magazine article from a few months back, on the subject of biblical archaeology. The main report was to the effect that some archeaologists are now discovering a lack of evidence of any human migration from Egypt to Israel in the period described by Exodus; further, that there is also evidence of a Hebrew culture existing continuously in the area of Palestine up to the time of the Diaspora (excepting the Babylonian interlude).

The report is that the history of the Hebrews of a conquering nation of exiles is a simple fabrication, probably conjured up to intimidate neighbors. What do you folks think?

[Mr Bean]

Consider when they came back they went on a muder spree to make Hitler look like Martin Luther King Jr its not suprizing.

[weemadando]

I remember watching a doco about early egypt and the hebrew people. It started off well. Then it began bending dates and contradicting itself merely so it could fit in with biblical canon.

I couldn't believe that it even made it to air.

[HemlockGrey]

I think I can hear all the fundies covering their ears and screaming 'Lala! The Bible is perfect! Lalala! I can't you, you evil, Satan-influenced pieces of eviloutionist monkey feces!'

[lgot]

I remember well that they never found any evidence of Moses for example. Also the slavery in the Egypt (which may be our interpretation mistake anyways) is beng revised, since many archeologists are now pointing out evidences that the "slaves" that build the pyramids and suchs are the population that freely (for "salary" of course) did that.
But i rememeber there is some hebrew words in the OT that had the ethymologic (sp?) origem similar as words of the old idiom in the egypt, and its not that odd to find both have contact, since one of the faraos actually conquered and did some militar actions in the territory where the jews would live.
But they being powerful and stuff...of course it seems a heroic way to portrait a nation. After all, even with all the effort the writters did, the hebrews had lived always in the slavery.
Funny thing is that some archeological research that could help to found important facts and artifacts of the NT are not possible because the authorits there do not allow deeply research due the warlike state in the region caused by the same religious bigotony...
Indiana Jones villains in the Raiders of the Lost Ark should never been the nazis, but NT fundamentalists "Put the damn ark back"

[Lagmonster]

Here we go...

The best evidence, so far, POSSIBLY, for the Hebrew invasion of Canaan are the Amarna Letters, written by various princes to the pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV, and unearthed in the 1880's. I quote from the translation:

"The king's whole land, which has begun hostilities with me, will be lost. Behold the territory of Seir as far as Carmel: It's princes are wholly lost. Now the Habiri are occupying the king's cities...let the king take care of his land...and send troops...if no troops come in the year, the whole territory of my lord will perish."

If we're talking about the same thing, this puts the Hebrew conquest in the reign of Amenhotep IV, around 1380-1360 BC.

Ironically, Amenhotep IV was the same as Akhenaton, the heretic pharaoh, who believed there was only ONE god. So...is this a coincidence? Or did Akhenaton influence Moses? Or vice versa? Or did they 'drink from the same well'? At that time, the Egyptian court was crwaling with foreigners and foreign ideas.

Anyway, it's all shrouded in history, so take that for speculation. There's always the question of how much of the Bible to take seriously, anyway.

[Johonebesus]

With all the bad sources out there, it is very difficult for the casual student to get accurate information. The best evidence, I believe, is that the Hebrews were one of many groups of nomadic tribes roaming around Canaan and the Sinai. Without written records, it is difficult to distinguish Hebrews from other Semitic tribes.

During the New Kingdom, Semites were conquered and pressed into labor in the Sinai. This would not have been the enslavement of an entire nation. Some would be slaves, but many were simply taxed in labor. Some might have been brought into the Delta to help construct new cities and monuments, but many of them would have been invited in as contract workers. There may well have been a group of Hebrews who left the Nile delta or the Sinai and established themselves as the leaders of Hebrews in Canaan, but even if there departure was due to Egyptian oppression, as it could well have been, it would little resemble the Exodus described in the Bible.

Of course, lack of evidence does not mean that the story of Moses was a complete fabrication. The fact is that fairly suddenly most of Canaan was brought under the control of Hebrews, whose rulers adopted a monotheistic religion with a political center at Jerusalem. It is quite possible that there was a Moses, maybe coming out of Egyptian rule, who preached the new Judaism and whose followers, like the followers of Mohamed, conquered for themselves a country.

[Next of Kin]

The report is that the history of the Hebrews of a conquering nation of exiles is a simple fabrication, probably conjured up to intimidate neighbors. What do you folks think?

It doesn't bother me at all and I consider myself to be somewhat religious. I think that most religious fundies who cling to the bible as their history book are going to be upset. But I pause to think why they would be upset? Do they lack faith?