Ancient Israel what really happened?

I'm hardly aware of the facts in this case beyond what people have said in the thread, but going from "people talked about people that might be Hebrews, then they stopped" to "Exodus is correct" is one hell of a leap.

Maybe those Hebiri weren't Hebrews at all. Maybe there actually weren't very many, and they just traveled home normally. Maybe they integrated into the local population. Maybe they were slaughtered by some local ruler, but the record of this is lost. I don't know why you'd assume that Exodus is true because it provides a possible reason why Hebrews stop appearing in Egypt, when tons of other stuff in Exodus clearly didn't happen (Hebrews building pyramids, plagues of frogs, etc.).

The ancient Egyptian term Habiru is a generic term for non-sedentary people. It's definitely not the same as 'Hebrew'. If they stopped being mentioned it would be because no semi-nomads were present anmyore, or they had become settled people. That might refer to Hebrews, as it is assumed that is how they ended up in Palestine/Kanaan. The first Egyptian mention of Israelites indeed refers to a 'people', as opposed to a settled civilization. Since slaves often ended up in Egypt (and in general) following military campaigns, that again would explain the presence of Hebrews in Egypt. But, crucially, that would have been after Hebrews settled in Palestine, not before.

At any rate, the biblical Exodus stories most likely form the condensation of a series of developments rather than a linear telling of events. Most clearly this can be seen from the storyline itself (referring to trekking or nomadic movements), while most of the commandments refer to a sedentary population and are in very great detail recorded. (Interestingly, the preceding Genesis has more references to Sumerian sources, but this may simply be due to the fact that the entire writing down of the texts occurred after the so-called Babylonian exile.) Lastly, one should keep in mind that all the texts have been edited and collected for writing down by multiple authors, and that only a certain number of texts were intentionally written down in order to relate actual more or less contemporary history. The Bible as a whole was never meant as a 'history of events'.
 
timtofly said:
People survive windstorms and sandstorms in the dessert as normal every day occurrences even though they do not happen every single day of the year. These people were not out of their element.

Yeah, but they don't walk about in them with women, children and baggage.

timtofly said:
If you want to say that God used a sea breeze and miraculously held the water back for 4 hours.
It's not a sea breeze. It's a 12 on the Beaufort scale. The sea definition of a 12 on the Beaufort scale is as follows: Huge waves. Sea is completely white with foam and spray. Air is filled with driving spray, greatly reducing visibility. The land equivalent as noted is enough to rip up small structures. To provide some reference for what this does to ships: a 6 or a 7 on the Beaufort scale is enough for the US Coast Guard to advise small boats not to go out on the water while a 9 is enough to trigger Hurricane Force Wind Warning which means that all but the largest and most seaworthy ships have to go to port. (If only because the insurer wouldn't cover them). Even something like an Armidale Class Patrol Boat, which has 12 000 horsepower, is just rated to operate in a 12. And that's a warship.

timtofly said:
Or God used a gale force wind and the Hebrews did not even feel it, or some combination in between, it would not change the fact that it happened or not or that God was involved or not.

That at least is more plausible.

Dome said:
Does Exodus actually mention Hebrews building pyramids?
No it doesn't explicit mention them. Exodus 5 just talks about bricks made out of mud and straw. It was commonly assumed however (e.g. by Josephus) that the bricks were used to make pyramids.
 
You do realize that Plotinus and I are arguing from the opposite of each others belief system? I hope the unfruitfulness was from the point and not the ability to convince any one. :mischief:

Yes, I understand that you and Plotinus have different belief systems.* But it was an unusual situation, as the Rationalist line ("we can explain all the miracle accounts within the laws of nature") is usually held by people with his worldview and attacked by people with your worldview. So it seemed a good opportunity for eirenic agreement.

The only point I was trying to make incoherently was that God does not have to act in a supernatural way to prove to humans that God acted.

A sensible point, and everybody mangles their points sometimes.

*Although some might say they're both variations on Platonism.... :mischief:
 
But, crucially, that would have been after Hebrews settled in Palestine, not before.

Looks like people who argue that Exodus is a total fairy tale, don't actually know what it says.

The Bible (Genesis and Exodus) is clear that the Hebrews had been in Palestine before moving to Egypt.

That's what all Jewish texts say. They were already in Palestine (Canaan), then went to Egypt, later came back:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 46&version=NIV

(...) So Israel set out with all that was his, and when he reached Beersheba, he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac.

2 And God spoke to Israel in a vision at night and said, “Jacob! Jacob!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

3 “I am God, the God of your father,” he said. “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation there. 4 I will go down to Egypt with you, and I will surely bring you back again. And Joseph’s own hand will close your eyes.”

5 Then Jacob left Beersheba, and Israel’s sons took their father Jacob and their children and their wives in the carts that Pharaoh had sent to transport him. 6 So Jacob and all his offspring went to Egypt, taking with them their livestock and the possessions they had acquired in Canaan. 7 Jacob brought with him to Egypt his sons and grandsons and his daughters and granddaughters—all his offspring. (...)

And the Bible also gives its own explanation on why did the Hebrews migrate to Egypt - they escaped from the famine:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 47&version=NIV

(...) Joseph went and told Pharaoh, “My father and brothers, with their flocks and herds and everything they own, have come from the land of Canaan and are now in Goshen.” 2 He chose five of his brothers and presented them before Pharaoh.

3 Pharaoh asked the brothers, “What is your occupation?”

“Your servants are shepherds,” they replied to Pharaoh, “just as our fathers were.” 4 They also said to him, “We have come to live here for a while, because the famine is severe in Canaan and your servants’ flocks have no pasture. So now, please let your servants settle in Goshen.”

5 Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you, 6 and the land of Egypt is before you; settle your father and your brothers in the best part of the land. Let them live in Goshen. And if you know of any among them with special ability, put them in charge of my own livestock.” (...)

And if we read Exodus literally, then it turns out that rather not all of Hebrews, but only part of them migrated to Egypt:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 1&version=NIV

(...) These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy[a] in all; Joseph was already in Egypt. (...)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+46&version=NIV

These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his descendants) who went to Egypt:

Reuben the firstborn of Jacob.

9 The sons of Reuben:

Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi.

10 The sons of Simeon:

Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman.

11 The sons of Levi:

Gershon, Kohath and Merari.

12 The sons of Judah:

Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan had died in the land of Canaan).

The sons of Perez:

Hezron and Hamul.

13 The sons of Issachar:

Tola, Puah,[a] Jashub and Shimron.

14 The sons of Zebulun:

Sered, Elon and Jahleel.

15 These were the sons Leah bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram,[c] besides his daughter Dinah. These sons and daughters of his were thirty-three in all.

16 The sons of Gad:

Zephon,[d] Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi and Areli.

17 The sons of Asher:

Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah.

Their sister was Serah.

The sons of Beriah:

Heber and Malkiel.

18 These were the children born to Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leah—sixteen in all.

19 The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel:

Joseph and Benjamin. 20 In Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On.[e]

21 The sons of Benjamin:

Bela, Beker, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard.

22 These were the sons of Rachel who were born to Jacob—fourteen in all.

23 The son of Dan:

Hushim.

24 The sons of Naphtali:

Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem.

25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Rachel—seven in all.

26 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob—those who were his direct descendants, not counting his sons’ wives—numbered sixty-six persons. 27 With the two sons[f] who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy[g] in all.


So it is possible that Hebrews continued to live in Palestine, and that only some of them ever lived in Egypt.

The Bible is not clear on this, as it does not say what was the total number of Hebrews before their migration to Egypt.

But if we read this excerpt literally, then only ca. 70 clans migrated to Egypt in total (perhaps in several waves):

http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/01/how-many-came-out-of-egypt/

(...) the exact number of those who went down to Egypt with Jacob. In Genesis 46: 2-8, we find a detailed list of names and that number, 70 families in all. He then proceeds to enumerate methodically the offspring of the latter, by names and numbers, together with a detailed discussion of the number of generations that elapsed from the arrival of those “70” until the Exodus.

And the number of clans who migrated back from Egypt, was 600 (after several generations of multiplying in Egypt):

(...) In summary: some 600 families, or clans, left Egypt, consistent with the 70 that entered, the length of stay, and the births there.

Let's assume that one clan / family numbered - as that of Jacob - on average some 50 - 70 people.

This means that the number of Hebrews who migrated to Egypt was 3,5 - 5 k people, and of those who left 30 - 42 k people.

Not an impossible number for a nomadic tribe of cattle herders.

Also increasing their numbers from 5 k to 30 k during several generations of their presence in Egypt is not impossible.
 
Louis XXIV said:
IIRC, the biggest thing is absence of pig bones in settlements.
Louis XXIV said:
The main thing used to identify Hebrew settlements was the absence of pig bones

We don't know two things:

1) When exactly did the religious custom of not eating pork (definitions of kosher things) emerge among Hebrews.

2) Did Hebrews during their presence in Egypt live in separate settlements or in mixed settlements, next to locals.

If they lived next to Egyptians in mixed Egyptian-Hebrew settlements, then there is no reason for absence of pig bones.

And we don't know when exactly did they stop eating pork - maybe they stopped only after the Exodus.

Also let's remember that the Hebrews were only several up to a few dozen thousand people in a country of 3 - 5 million:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/



The ancient Egyptian term Habiru is a generic term for non-sedentary people.

Over time ethnic names can change their meaning into non-ethnic terms, and inversely.

The Welsh originally meant "foreigners", while the British originally meant only speakers of Brittonic Celtic.

Habiru could initially be the name for Hebrews, which later started to be used for all nomads.
 
You are assuming that all Hebrews at all times followed strict religious prescipts. They did not. Jews outside and inside Israel often followed their own customs. They did so in antiquity and they are doing so today.

Looks like people who argue that Exodus is a total fairy tale, don't actually know what it says.

The Bible (Genesis and Exodus) is clear that the Hebrews had been in Palestine before moving to Egypt.

That's what all Jewish texts say. They were already in Palestine (Canaan), then went to Egypt, later came back

Nothing new here. (Except your strange opening conclusion, which follows from nothing.)

And the Bible also gives its own explanation on why did the Hebrews migrate to Egypt - they escaped from the famine:

And if we read Exodus literally, then it turns out that rather not all of Hebrews, but only part of them migrated to Egypt

Again, nothing new here.

So it is possible that Hebrews continued to live in Palestine, and that only some of them ever lived in Egypt.

Which confirms what I said about this 'migration' taking place after Hebrews had settled in Palestine/Kanaan.

The Bible is not clear on this, as it does not say what was the total number of Hebrews before their migration to Egypt.

But if we read this excerpt literally, then only ca. 70 clans migrated to Egypt in total (perhaps in several waves):

And the number of clans who migrated back from Egypt, was 600 (after several generations of multiplying in Egypt):

Let's assume that one clan / family numbered - as that of Jacob - on average some 50 - 70 people.

This means that the number of Hebrews who migrated to Egypt was 3,5 - 5 k people, and of those who left 30 - 42 k people.

Not an impossible number for a nomadic tribe of cattle herders.

Also increasing their numbers from 5 k to 30 k during several generations of their presence in Egypt is not impossible.

Errr, no. You don't increase population from 5,000 to 30,000 in 'several generations'. But the most basic error is assuming that numbers in ancient texts should be taken literally. Secondly, that the storyline of Exodus should be taken literally; no serious historian does this. Finally, why are shepherds being put to work on construction? What would shepherds even be doing in an exclusive farming civilization such as Egypt? Except harass the locals, that is.
 
You are assuming that all Hebrews at all times followed strict religious prescipts. They did not. Jews outside and inside Israel often followed their own customs. They did so in antiquity and they are doing so today.

I assume this is a response to Louis XXIV not to me ???

You don't increase population from 5,000 to 30,000 in 'several generations'.

If you move from wilderness to much better living conditions in the Nile Valley or the Nile Delta, then you do.

But the most basic error is assuming that numbers in ancient texts should be taken literally.

I don't assume this, not sure why do you think so. I provided my estimate, you can agree or disagree with it.

Most of Native American tribes in North America also had numbers ranging from a few thousand to few dozen thousand.

Finally, why are shepherds being put to work on construction?

Can you show the relevant excerpt of Genesis or Exodus which says that they were put to work on construction?

The excerpt I quoted says that the Pharaoh put them in charge of his livestock - good job for experienced shepherds.

What would shepherds even be doing in an exclusive farming civilization such as Egypt?

This "exclusive farming" civilization considered cows to be near-sacred animals and even had a bull-deity, Apis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apis_(god)



 
Can you show the relevant excerpt of Genesis or Exodus which says that they were put to work on construction?

The excerpt I quoted says that the Pharaoh put them in charge of his livestock - good job for experienced shepherds.

Exodus 1:11 --

King James Version: "So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses."

New International Version: "So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh."​

Sounds like Pharaoh might have found a better use for the descendants of shepherds than shepherding.
 
Well, just because your parents are experienced shepherds doesn't mean you will be. Perhaps the younger generation spent more time partying on the Nile than working pastures, so pharaoh said, "Enough! I've got a real job for you to do."
 
Does Exodus actually mention Hebrews building pyramids?
The pyramids were ancient even by this time, so no, they wouldn't have been built by the Hebrews.
 
Well, just because your parents are experienced shepherds doesn't mean you will be. Perhaps the younger generation spent more time partying on the Nile than working pastures, so pharaoh said, "Enough! I've got a real job for you to do."

Yeah, that's very probable. :) Actually Jewish texts complain that they started to become culturally Egyptianized, and started to abandon the amazing shepherd culture of their ancestors:

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols43-45/chs2631.pdf

They were content to be in Egypt and they were quite willing to be "Egyptianized." To a large degree, they began to adopt the superstitions, idolatries and iniquities of Egypt. And these things clung to them, in later years, to such a terrible extent that we can easily imagine that their heart must have turned aside very much towards the sins of Egypt. Yet, all the while, God was resolved to bring them out of that evil connection. They must be a separated people—they could not be Egyptians, nor yet live permanently like Egyptians, for Jehovah had chosen them for Himself, and He meant to make an abiding difference between Israel and Egypt.

So - no surprising - the Bible proposes explanation that Pharaoh's change of attitude towards them was God's punishment for their sins, and for abandoning their previous nomadic culture.
 
Well, there's no telling whether God turned pharaoh's heart, or pharaoh just saw a group of wastrels who should be contributing to his kingdom more than they were.

Actually, Exodus 8-10 does offer a rationale:

8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

9. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.

10. Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
 
Maybe let's start from the beginning.

Jews are one of Semitic-speaking peoples, who (Semites as a whole - not Jews) are believed to have originated ~6000 years ago. Today there are two main theories as to the place of origin of Proto-Semites - either Eastern Levant or Western Mesopotamia (they are actually in close proximity to each other). The earliest attested Semitic language was Akkadian, spoken by people who conquered Sumerians and founded the Akkadian Empire.

There are two theories regarding the relationship between Akkadian language and other Semitic languages - one of them says that all other Semitic languages originated from groups of Akkadian-speakers who migrated west from Mesopotomia into Levant, the other theory (which assumes that Semitic languages originated in Eastern Levant, not in Western Mesopotamia) claims that those Proto-Semites who migrated east became Akkadian-speakers and Eblaite-speakers, etc. (Eastern Semites), while those who migrated west and south formed other Semitic languages (Central Semites and Southern Semites). Of course the 2nd theory doesn't exclude the possibility that some of Non-Akkadian Semitic peoples could have originated from Akkadian anyway.

Semitic migration to Palestine (or rather Western and Southern Levant in general) was not a single event, but it took place in at least 3 major waves of peoples migrating from the east (from Eastern Levant or from Mesopotamia) arriving to the same place and overlapping with previous Semites who had migrated there before.

The Biblical story which says that Abraham was born in Ur is of course a legend and we don't know whether it is true or not, but undoubtedly it reflects the eastern origin of Hebrews (Israelites) and the fact of their migration from the east is true. It should not be surprising anyway that various groups of people were migrating from Mesopotamia to other places, considering that Mesopotamia was the most densely populated area in entire Western Eurasia at that time.

Theory about Eastern Levantine origins of Proto-Semites and their early divergence for Eastern Semites (mostly Akkadians) and others - of whom Akkadians migrated east and others migrated mostly west and south - is probably the correct one, but - as I wrote - it doesn't exclude the Mesopotamian origin of Hebrews.

That early divergence of Semites took place shortly before the 1st wave of Semitic migrations to Palestine, while Hebrews arrived to Palestine much later - during the 3rd wave of Semitic migrations. This suggests that early on they could have indeed lived somewhere far away from Palestine, perhaps in Mesopotamia.

There are also written sources which seem to support Mesopotamian origins of Hebrews. One of them mentions the Habir peoples (could they be Hebrews? most probably yes) living in Mesopotamia, near the city of Ur, ca. 2750 - 2600 BC. Later sources mention such names like Habiri and Ibrim (could both or at least one of these names be Hebrews? most likely yes) migrating to Palestine during the 15th century BC, as part of the 3rd wave of Semitic migrations.

Then we have Egyptian sources mentioning some Hebiri (once again: most probably Hebrews) in Egypt during the 13th and the 12th centuries BC. Of course they were not building pyramids, because their presence in Egypt took place centuries after the end of "pyramid-building movement" (according to the link posted below, the last of Egyptian pyramids were constructed in the 18th century BC - almost 500 years before the beginning of Hebrew presence in Egypt):

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/time/explore/pyr.html

After settling in Palestine, Hebrews mixed with local peoples - other Semitic tribes who had arrived there before them (as I wrote, Semitic migrations started at least 5500 years ago, while Hebrews first visited Palestine only around 3500 years ago, and ~3300 years ago visited Egypt, just to come back to Palestine some 3100 to 3050 years ago). Even the Bible gives examples - grandmother of King David was an ethnic Moabite. So when Jews emerged as a nation (and they emerged as such perhaps only in their own kingdom* - established in year 1020 BC), they were no longer descendants of just Hebrews alone. They also assimilated or absorbed many other Semitic tribes. Among tribes absorbed by Hebrews / Israelites - and thus taking part in ethnogenesis of Jews - were for example Kenites, Rechabites, Kenisites, etc. They were also intermarrying with Edomites, Egyptians, Moabites, etc. And Moses even had an Ethiopian wife. Only centuries later Jewish laws concerning marriages of Jews with Non-Jews became much more restricted. But already at that time, Jews were a mix of many tribes.

*But already before establishing a kingdom (1020 BC), Jews had been a loosely united tribal union:

It consisted of many tribes, both with immigrant Hebrew and local Non-Hebrew background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederated_Tribes_of_Israel#Main_text

So ethnogenesis of Jews took place in Palestine, even though one of major parts of their ancestors - Hebrews - migrated to Palestine from other places.

As for the Hebrew language - it belongs to Canaanite subdivision of Semitic, which included for example Hebrew and Phoenician. Canaanite subdivision - together with Aramaic, Ugaritic and Amorite subdivisions - were parts of Northwest Semitic languages, which were parts of Central Semitic languages:



Amorites had migrated to Western Levant long before Hebrews and founderd the Kingdom of Yamhad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamhad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#Semitic-speaking_peoples



Yes, Judaism did evolve from Canaanite religion, but at the beginning they most probably worshipped many gods. It evolved from Polytheism through Monolatrism (recognizing the existence of many gods but believing that only one is the chosen god worth worshipping) to Monotheism.

==============================================

One of variants of the theory about Eastern Levantine origin of Semites ca. 6000 years before present:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839953/


Very interesting.
But please don't use the term Jews for the pre-930BC. They weren't Jews.
They were Israelites. Or Hebrews in times they were not ethnically mixed.

And about the Semitic divergence:
1. We assume that Hebrews immigrated from somewhere around southern Mesopotamia (if not the specific city of Ur).
2. You say that there had been eastern and western Semitics.
So does you mean that Hebrews are actually eastern Semitics? It really is surprising.
And if so - how could Hebrew be related to Canaanite? It should have originated from eastern languages.

sources mention such names like Habiri and Ibrim (could both or at least one of these names be Hebrews? most likely yes) migrating to Palestine during the 15th century BC, as part of the 3rd wave of Semitic migrations.
Is the actual migration of Habiri people mentioned in those sources? Or is it their existence in Egypt?
Because the migration itself has probably been a private tribal journey, not something to be found in historical records (while, according to the bible, they grew into a greater tribe during their centuries in Egypt).
And the next question should be - are there any proposed ideas of what happened to the rest of the Hebrew people, who remained in Mesopotamia? Most likely they were mixed with the Akkadian / Kassite / Chaldean population, but still interesting.

Another thing important to mention - the stories of "Hebrews building pyramids" is a myth built on a myth. Pyramids are not mentioned in the bible, nor any other colossal monument. According to the bible, Hebrews could have been regular street constructors in Egypt.

IIRC, the biggest thing is absence of pig bones in settlements.

Egyptian slavery is a lot different from how we normally think of slavery. With the exception of household servants (who could never amass in the way described in Exodus and, at a minimum, wouldn't really have a separate house to place lamb's blood over the door), they would appear to be closer to tenant farmers or serfs. Meaning they had established land. On this established land, they would certainly leave archaeological traces. There's no such thing as nomad slaves. That would be inconvenient to the owners.
I would think of the Hebrews in Egypt as people who lived in the edge of the towns, beside Egyptian population, not in separate settlements.
I don't see any reason to find archaeological records for that.
Very small population compared to Egyptian population.
What are do you think you could have found? A specific Hebrew house?
The pig method can work in Palestine, where Hebrews established a wide and firm existence. Not in Egypt.
Had Hebrews indeed lived as sub-citizens in Egypt for 2 or 3 centuries, do you understand how unlikely it would have been to find any remnants of them?
Of course it doesn't tell that they did live there, but you can't use it as an argument at all.
 
@ Domen

Would you call the sons of Ishmael Hebrews? Abraham's nephew Lot was allegedly the father of the Moabites and Ammonites. Would they be considered Hebrews? Jacob's brother Esau was the founder of the Edomites.

I would not say that Abraham was the only leader of a group of people who migrated west or southwest from the northern sections of Mesopotamia. There was also a people group known as the Hitites in the Bible, which may be the Hyksos of Egypt. I am not sure of any argument that would say otherwise. When the Akkadian empire broke up the Assyrians also migrated west, and the Babylonians migrated south.

I am not sure about the issue of not finding pig remains. The prohibition was to not eat the meat, or touch a dead carcass. There was nothing about killing them and using the body parts, as long as they did not leave the dead carcass just laying around. A dead carcass prohibition would probably be if one found it dead in the wild, they would not be able to harvest any usable parts, but there is nothing against capturing them and using them in other ways. Having them as livestock may not have been very efficient as they could not eat the meat, but they could have sold the meat to non-Jews if such a market was available. The Israelites were not the only people group living in Palestine.
 
We know a lot about the Hittites and they certainly weren't the Hyksos, or some wandering group. They were an empire that rivaled Egypt.

The empire was Hittite, but the Hittite rulers in Egypt could have been who are referred to as the Hyksos. What objection is there that the Hyksos were not adjuncts of the Hittite empire who kept the tribute going between Egypt and the Hittite empire?

It seems to me that the Hyksos were not fully Egyptian, but they ruled in Egypt and thus part of Egyptian history. They were from the Hittite empire, or Assyrian, or Akkadian, take your pick.

Now one can theorize as did Josephus who lived closer to the event, that the Hyksos were the ancient Jews, who did rule over Egypt, until they were either forced back to the Levant or migrated back. One could claim there was no Law, given, but it begs to explain how such a meticulous practice could be refined without any frame work for it to flourish in.
 
The empire was Hittite, but the Hittite rulers in Egypt could have been who are referred to as the Hyksos. What objection is there that the Hyksos were not adjuncts of the Hittite empire who kept the tribute going between Egypt and the Hittite empire?

I have no idea what you mean by the Hittite rulers in Egypt since at their extent the Hittites only conquered some of Egypt's holdings in the Canaan. The Hyksos dynasties were founded centuries before the Hittite kingdom, and by the time the Hyksos were defeated the Hittites had only just started campaigning in Syria. And from the amount of propaganda we have from Egypt during their later wars with the Hittites, I don't believe the Egyptians would have missed the chance to claim such a victory over the Hittites.
 
Top Bottom