A lack of Egyptian records

[GloriousOrder]

Friends

I’ve often heard claims that there are no Egyptian claims of an Exodus of Jews at any time. I didn’t know it was so massively silent that there are literally no records at all. How can ~600 000 people just up and leave with no record? That’s about 1/4 or 1/5 of the population of Egypt. These great imperials recorded every last event, every last deal, on stone or clay tablets that we find, still relatively polished like samples in Mesopotamia, after 3500 years.

We cannot claim that the evidence must be lost. Where is it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you realize how much is destroyed during an invasion. Do you realize how catastrophic the destruction of the Library of Alexander was? All that information!!!

 

[Rolltide]

Friends

I’ve often heard claims that there are no Egyptian claims of an Exodus of Jews at any time. I didn’t know it was so massively silent that there are literally no records at all. How can ~600 000 people just up and leave with no record? That’s about 1/4 or 1/5 of the population of Egypt. These great imperials recorded every last event, every last deal, on stone or clay tablets that we find, still relatively polished like samples in Mesopotamia, after 3500 years.

We cannot claim that the evidence must be lost. Where is it?

I work as a professional historian. The problem with studying Egyptian records is that for propaganda purposes, pharaohs only ever recorded victories. To record a defeat or a failure would be unworthy of a god-king. This is most noticeable when discussing the Second Intermediate Period, when a group called the Hyksos invaded Egypt. This was one of the most important and defining events in 3,000 years of Egyptian history, and yet the records are virtually silent on it. In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that the final victory against them was so great, that it had to be written down, we wouldn’t have even known that this invasion occurred. Even then, they only tell of the victory. No mention is made of who the Hyksos were, where they came from, or how they happened to be in Egypt. This was only discerned through archaeology and a few scant Mesopotamian references. To make a long story short, the lack of any information on Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt is precisely what historians would expect to find. If there really was a Moses that humiliated the pharaoh and led a successful rebellion to free the Hebrews, there is no way on earth they would have let any record of it survive. The fact that we find virtually no record of the Hyksos invasion, a FAR greater event from the Egyptian point of view, tends to back this up. So, sadly, the absence of record neither proves nor disproves anything about Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt.

 

[melbanglican]

I work as a professional historian. The problem with studying Egyptian records is that for propaganda purposes, pharaohs only ever recorded victories. To record a defeat or a failure would be unworthy of a god-king. This is most noticeable when discussing the Second Intermediate Period, when a group called the Hyksos invaded Egypt. This was one of the most important and defining events in 3,000 years of Egyptian history, and yet the records are virtually silent on it. In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that the final victory against them was so great, that it had to be written down, we wouldn’t have even known that this invasion occurred. Even then, they only tell of the victory. No mention is made of who the Hyksos were, where they came from, or how they happened to be in Egypt. This was only discerned through archaeology and a few scant Mesopotamian references. To make a long story short, the lack of any information on Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt is precisely what historians would expect to find. If there really was a Moses that humiliated the pharaoh and led a successful rebellion to free the Hebrews, there is no way on earth they would have let any record of it survive. The fact that we find virtually no record of the Hyksos invasion, a FAR greater event from the Egyptian point of view, tends to back this up. So, sadly, the absence of record neither proves nor disproves anything about Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt.

The biggest single problem appears to be the lack of credible archaeological evidence that the Exodus ever occurred. See, for example, Eric H Cline, ‘Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction’, OUP, 2009, p.76, and the bibliography for the relevant chapter (especially Finkelstein and Silberman). It is looking increasingly likely that there is no evidence to be discovered.:nope:

There is a DVD in the ‘Empires’ series, as I recall, on the Kingdom of David which posits an interesting and credible alternative view on the origins of the Ancient Israelites.

 

[DevoutOne]

That’s war for you. The winner writes the story in their own favor. Did you know that in ancient roman times if an emperor was deemed unjust by the new emperor all record of his kingship would be destroyed upon his death?

 

[Ahimsa]

There are no Egyptian records because the Egyptians used mp3s.

 

[melbanglican]

There are no Egyptian records because the Egyptians used mp3s.

Hmmm, possible! My own belief is that they used a very early version of M***soft on PC’s, and paid the price. Egyptian history probably collapsed every few days/weeks for no obvious reason, other than the inherent instability of their record-keeping systems!

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, perhaps BSOD* was an extra but unspeakable plague.

*Blue Screen of Death (for those not familiar with Windows crashes)

 

[nordskoven]

There was no evidence King David existed until the Aramean king’s bragging rights about conquering the king of Israel and the king of the “House of David” was found at Tel Dan. So now what? One modern problem is “history.” Egyptians perverted their “history” to an embarrassing degree. Greek historian Herodatus knew he was getting his leg pulled by the Egyptian scribes and took everything with a grain of salt. Our notion of history as reflecting fact comes from the Greek tradition and the scrupulosity of Hebrew scribes who were under a curse for changing one iota of text.

This can be contrasted with visual representations of movers and shakers that became increasingly corrupted. Noah was depicted as “man with animals” and got changed into “animal-man” and later the red devil we see today. Yet even Egyptian art had more realism than Egyptian history had accuracy; that is, what ever wasn’t chiseled away by a successor. Here’s an article on tracing the Habiru. We are reminded that Abraham deferred to Melchizedek, so he was “one of them” before Abraham and Sarah’s lineage was blessed; and Abraham was offered the twin caves, Machpelah, as a prince among “their” people; so the lineage was a little more diverse than we have presumed, i.e., there were Habiru before there were discreet lineages holding to monotheism.

Akhenaton, the radical monotheist hubby of Nefertiti, who may have succeeded him for a short time, granted generous concessions in the Middle East to Habiru for no reason whatsoever. Was he supporting the monotheist remnant that was likely the first belief of Egypt before the bad guy priests scrambled the records? I’m off to look at the herringbone twill of the Shroud of Turin which may show another link to this weave generally seen elsewhere only in Egypt, possibly weaving passed on from Hebrew slaves liberated from Egypt.

imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

 

[steve53]

I work as a professional historian. The problem with studying Egyptian records is that for propaganda purposes, pharaohs only ever recorded victories. To record a defeat or a failure would be unworthy of a god-king. This is most noticeable when discussing the Second Intermediate Period, when a group called the Hyksos invaded Egypt. This was one of the most important and defining events in 3,000 years of Egyptian history, and yet the records are virtually silent on it. In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that the final victory against them was so great, that it had to be written down, we wouldn’t have even known that this invasion occurred. Even then, they only tell of the victory. No mention is made of who the Hyksos were, where they came from, or how they happened to be in Egypt. This was only discerned through archaeology and a few scant Mesopotamian references. To make a long story short, the lack of any information on Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt is precisely what historians would expect to find. If there really was a Moses that humiliated the pharaoh and led a successful rebellion to free the Hebrews, there is no way on earth they would have let any record of it survive. The fact that we find virtually no record of the Hyksos invasion, a FAR greater event from the Egyptian point of view, tends to back this up. So, sadly, the absence of record neither proves nor disproves anything about Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt.

Do you buy the six hundred thousand figure? Seems a tad high.

I’ve always thought that the Jewish tribes didn’t wander in the desert, as much as bided their time building up their stock of fighting men over two or three generations. Moses, an Egyptian prince, knew exactly where he wanted his Jews to end up, and how much of an army he would need.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Hyksos were ultimately defeated by the Hykups.

 

[Rolltide]

Do you buy the six hundred thousand figure? Seems a tad high.

I’ve always thought that the Jewish tribes didn’t wander in the desert, as much as bided their time building up their stock of fighting men over two or three generations. Moses, an Egyptian prince, knew exactly where he wanted his Jews to end up, and how much of an army he would need.

Although I am by no means an expert in Egyptian history, I would also suspect that the 600,000 figure is high.

 

[NotWorthy]

Although I am by no means an expert in Egyptian history, I would also suspect that the 600,000 figure is high.

Why would this number be considered “high”.

Can’t God take care of 600,000 men (and families) at His leisure?

 

[promethius]

Why would this number be considered “high”.

Can’t God take care of 600,000 men (and families) at His leisure?

It’s not high because God can’t take care of 600,000 men and families. It’s high because it’s entirely unlikely that there were really that many Israeli slaves in Egypt at that time.

I’d also like to point that there IS historical evidence for the exodus: the scriptures themselves. Like it or not, the scriptures ARE historical documents. We can’t take the word of the Egyptians and their priests and scribes without ALSO giving weight to the word of the Jews, their priests, and their scribes. Granted the degree to which Egyptian history is horrible marred or incomplete, we really SHOULD consider alternate sources.

As to archeological evidence… I was under the impression there was a good supply of chariots and such under the dead sea… has that been proven to be something else?

 

[Ahimsa]

As to archeological evidence… I was under the impression there was a good supply of chariots and such under the dead sea… has that been proven to be something else?

It was the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea, that the Exodus crossed.

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s not high because God can’t take care of 600,000 men and families. It’s high because it’s entirely unlikely that there were really that many Israeli slaves in Egypt at that time.

I’d also like to point that there IS historical evidence for the exodus: the scriptures themselves. Like it or not, the scriptures ARE historical documents. We can’t take the word of the Egyptians and their priests and scribes without ALSO giving weight to the word of the Jews, their priests, and their scribes. Granted the degree to which Egyptian history is horrible marred or incomplete, we really SHOULD consider alternate sources.

I don’t understand. You use Scripture to prove you’re right, but then doubt the population count, even though its in Scripture? Am I missing something?

As to archeological evidence… I was under the impression there was a good supply of chariots and such under the dead sea… has that been proven to be something else?

I think the findings were made by the same guy that claims to have found the burial box of James, brother of the Lord. His authenticity is in serious doubt, I think.

 

[melbanglican]

It’s not high because God can’t take care of 600,000 men and families. It’s high because it’s entirely unlikely that there were really that many Israeli slaves in Egypt at that time.

I’d also like to point that there IS historical evidence for the exodus: the scriptures themselves. Like it or not, the scriptures ARE historical documents. We can’t take the word of the Egyptians and their priests and scribes without ALSO giving weight to the word of the Jews, their priests, and their scribes. Granted the degree to which Egyptian history is horrible marred or incomplete, we really SHOULD consider alternate sources.

As to archeological evidence… I was under the impression there was a good supply of chariots and such under the dead sea… has that been proven to be something else?

The utility and veracity of the Scriptures as historical documents is still very much an open question. Only a little of what is written therein has so far been verified by archaeology (see Cline, ‘Biblical Archaeology’, for a quick but informative demonstration).

Regarding the archaeological evidence, that was my point. There IS NO such evidence for the Exodus. Hundreds of professionals have poured a great number of hours into exploring all the traditional routes that the Israelites might have taken and have found nothing.

Much as I’m sure that we would all like to regard the Scripture as infallible in FACT, as well as Faith and Morals, it just ain’t necessarily so. Historians in the Ancient world did not really write their history in the same manner as a modern historian.

This Biblical Literalism seems to many of us around the Western world like such a hard right, fundamentalist American Protestant attitude. Is it widespread in Catholicism? Moreover, I personally don’t understand why it’s so essential to people that the Bible be regarded in this way. For me, the message is far more important than the (beautiful) packaging in which it is contained. The essence of God’s Word is to be found in Ex. 20:2-17, Mk. 12:27-31, Mt. 5:1-11, 22:35-41 and Lk. 18:19-20. Why fuss over what Rabbi Hillel described as ‘commentary’?

Peace be with you.

 

[Rolltide]

Why would this number be considered “high”.

Can’t God take care of 600,000 men (and families) at His leisure?

The problem is that in virtually all cases, ancient peoples were utterly terrible when estimating large numbers of people. A huge proportion of ancient documents, from almost all societies, tend to greatly inflate and exaggerate numbers of people, especially in battles and armies. In fact, this was one of the things that made Thucydides so remarkable with his “History of the Peloponessian War”. He actually took great pains to at least attempt to accurately estimate large numbers of people.

 

[NotWorthy]

The problem is that in virtually all cases, ancient peoples were utterly terrible when estimating large numbers of people. A huge proportion of ancient documents, from almost all societies, tend to greatly inflate and exaggerate numbers of people, especially in battles and armies. In fact, this was one of the things that made Thucydides so remarkable with his “History of the Peloponessian War”. He actually took great pains to at least attempt to accurately estimate large numbers of people.

Except that Moses went through great detail doing a census. I don’t buy the “inflated” theory, although I understand it was common in those days… not like today, eh? You yourself even show that it was possible to give an accurate account, thanks to Thucydides.

 

[patrick457]

It was the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea, that the Exodus crossed.

Rashi in the 11th century had already pointed out that the correct translation of* yam suph* is ‘Reed Sea’ (the word suph by itself means ‘reed’, and is used thus in Exodus 2:3). That being said, there are other conjectures such as suphah (‘storm-wind’) or soph (‘end’), which would refer to the events of the Reed Sea escape itself.