The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Diopolis]

You think Egypt would be interested in corroborating a story where they are utterly destroyed by another people, a slave people's God?

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward?

You know the Egyptians experimented with monotheism and utterly destroyed the evidence for it, right? And that we can only barely find any evidence for it today?

You might as well believe the Talmud's claim that Nero converted to Judaism, it has about the same historical evidence.

Nero may well have converted to Judaism; he certainly had a Jewish wife who encouraged his persecution of Christians.

[The Blaatschapen]

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward? You might as well believe the Talmud's claim that Nero converted to Judaism, it has about the same historical evidence.

Because religions then, aren’t the same as they are now, at least in terms of “1 true religion”. That’s a very post Christian viewpoint. Back then, religions were tribal. All gods were more or less considered real by everyone, but you had your gods and they had theirs. YHWH demolishing Egpyt wouldn’t he seen as “wow our Gods are clearly false and their God is real”rather “WOW our Gods are getting their teeth kicked in.” It would be a national embarrassment for their Gods to be so devastated on their own turf.

F

So it's more like Football then in a way?

Nobody denies the existing of the English national football team, but it sure is nice to win from them

[Reikoku]

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward? You might as well believe the Talmud's claim that Nero converted to Judaism, it has about the same historical evidence.

Nero converted to Judaism?

Now the Emperor sent Nero against Jerusalem. When he came to the Holy Land he tried his luck in manner as follows: He shot an arrow eastward and it fell upon Jerusalem, he discharged his shafts towards all four points of the compass and every time they fell upon Jerusalem. After this he met a Jewish boy and said unto him, "Repeat me the lesson thou hast learned to day." The boy repeated "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom (ie Rome) by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek xxv 14)." Then said Nero "The Holy One blessed be He has resolved to destroy His Temple and then to avenge Himself upon the agent by whom its ruin is effected." Thereupon Nero departed and became a proselyte to Judaism and Rabbi Meir was a descendant of his. Then the Emperor sent Vespasian against Jerusalem and he besieged the city three years.

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward? You might as well believe the Talmud's claim that Nero converted to Judaism, it has about the same historical evidence.

Because religions then, aren’t the same as they are now, at least in terms of “1 true religion”. That’s a very post Christian viewpoint. Back then, religions were tribal. All gods were more or less considered real by everyone, but you had your gods and they had theirs. YHWH demolishing Egpyt wouldn’t he seen as “wow our Gods are clearly false and their God is real”rather “WOW our Gods are getting their teeth kicked in.” It would be a national embarrassment for their Gods to be so devastated on their own turf.

F

People adopted new gods all the time in the time period. It wouldn't have been farfetched for the Egyptians to have wanted to adopt the god that utterly destroyed the ones that they worshiped.

[The Archregimancy]

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.

[Luminesa]

Nero converted to Judaism?

Now the Emperor sent Nero against Jerusalem. When he came to the Holy Land he tried his luck in manner as follows: He shot an arrow eastward and it fell upon Jerusalem, he discharged his shafts towards all four points of the compass and every time they fell upon Jerusalem. After this he met a Jewish boy and said unto him, "Repeat me the lesson thou hast learned to day." The boy repeated "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom (ie Rome) by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek xxv 14)." Then said Nero "The Holy One blessed be He has resolved to destroy His Temple and then to avenge Himself upon the agent by whom its ruin is effected." Thereupon Nero departed and became a proselyte to Judaism and Rabbi Meir was a descendant of his. Then the Emperor sent Vespasian against Jerusalem and he besieged the city three years.

Because religions then, aren’t the same as they are now, at least in terms of “1 true religion”. That’s a very post Christian viewpoint. Back then, religions were tribal. All gods were more or less considered real by everyone, but you had your gods and they had theirs. YHWH demolishing Egpyt wouldn’t he seen as “wow our Gods are clearly false and their God is real”rather “WOW our Gods are getting their teeth kicked in.” It would be a national embarrassment for their Gods to be so devastated on their own turf.

F

People adopted new gods all the time in the time period. It wouldn't have been farfetched for the Egyptians to have wanted to adopt the god that utterly destroyed the ones that they worshiped.

Maybe some did, maybe some did not.

[The Blaatschapen]

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.

You didn't reply to my remark.


Must be a manic monday

[The Archregimancy]

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward?

You know the Egyptians experimented with monotheism and utterly destroyed the evidence for it, right? And that we can only barely find any evidence for it today?

The archaeological evidence of the Egyptian 'experiment' with monotheism under Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is extensive; the damnatio memoriae (if I can use an anachronistic Latin turn of phrase) against him following the restoration of the old religion under Tutankhamun was only partially successful. Akhenaton's capital city Akhetaton (modern Amarna) is one of the most famous archaeological sites in Egypt, and has supplied one of the most extensive surviving sets of New Kingdom diplomatic correspondence.


There significant misconceptions about Egyptology floating around this thread, misconceptions being used to buttress both sides of flawed arguments; I lack the time to address them all.

[The Archregimancy]

You didn't reply to my remark.


Must be a manic monday

I can affirm that 'Walk Like An Egyptian' is not an accurate representation of ancient Egyptian civilisation. It anachronistically and inaccurately conflates modern Islamic Egypt with ancient Egyptian culture.

Manic Monday is a far superior song.

[Diopolis]

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.

From your description it sounds as if Egyptian control of Canaan was mostly theoretical during the time period, and for most of the OT period the Israelites are stated not to have control over the entirety of the land of Canaan(or even most of it). It's certainly possible to reconcile a mostly semi-nomadic people who got beat up by the Egyptians living in the hinterlands of Egyptian control with the OT depiction of... a mostly seminomadic people living in the shadow of Egyptian power with on-again, off-again central authority and a tendency to get invaded.

[Luminesa]

A question for Arch then, after reading through his long response that was quite intriguing, so if we put this information against the story of the Israelites in the desert for 40 years...did they keep traveling around then, even after they had reached The Promised Land? Was the Promised Land one specific place? Would it matter if the Promised Land was one place, or whatever places in which God promised to place His people? This is actually a set of questions, I dunno if these are dumb questions, but I am curious. If you answered one of these questions in your post, I may have missed it.

[Diopolis]

You know the Egyptians experimented with monotheism and utterly destroyed the evidence for it, right? And that we can only barely find any evidence for it today?

The archaeological evidence of the Egyptian 'experiment' with monotheism under Amenhotep IV / Akhenaton is extensive; the damnatio memoriae (if I can use an anachronistic Latin turn of phrase) against him following the restoration of the old religion under Tutankhamun was only partially successful. Akhenaton's capital city Akhetaton (modern Amarna) is one of the most famous archaeological sites in Egypt, and has supplied one of the most extensive surviving sets of New Kingdom diplomatic correspondence.


There significant misconceptions about Egyptology floating around this thread, misconceptions being used to buttress both sides of flawed arguments; I lack the time to address them all.

So it doesn't fit with the idea of a mass escape of (monotheistic)slaves from Egypt during the period being covered up?

[The Blaatschapen]

You didn't reply to my remark.


Must be a manic monday

I can affirm that 'Walk Like An Egyptian' is not an accurate representation of ancient Egyptian civilisation. It anachronistically and inaccurately conflates modern Islamic Egypt with ancient Egyptian culture.

Manic Monday is a far superior song.

Thank you

*bows out again*

[The Archregimancy]

From your description it sounds as if Egyptian control of Canaan was mostly theoretical during the time period

Then you've either misread my post, or I haven't clearly outlined my position. If the latter, I can only apologise.

Between Thutmose III and Ramesses VI (at least) Egyptian control of Canaan was firm, unequivocal, and recognised by all of the great powers of the period, as shown in the surviving diplomatic correspondence of the period; a few minor occasional rebellions that were easily crushed and forays by neighbouring empires notwithstanding.

A question for Arch then, after reading through his long response that was quite intriguing, so if we put this information against the story of the Israelites in the desert for 40 years...did they keep traveling around then, even after they had reached The Promised Land? Was the Promised Land one specific place? Would it matter if the Promised Land was one place, or whatever places in which God promised to place His people? This is actually a set of questions, I dunno if these are dumb questions, but I am curious. If you answered one of these questions in your post, I may have missed it.

I'm not sure I can answer that.

It seems likely that the Israelites were a nomadic people before developing a more settled culture at some difficult to define point from the 10th century BC onwards. It's likely not a coincidence that this happens after the collapse of Egyptian power and the fall of the New Kingdom. But I'm only narrowly looking at the history of the issue, not the theology.

So it doesn't fit with the idea of a mass escape of (monotheistic)slaves from Egypt during the period being covered up?

This comment is so out of the blue that I'm not sure how to react. Are you suggesting that the suppression of Aten worship is somehow connected to the Exodus narrative? If so, on what basis?


Anyway, I have to go to bed, so that's it from me this evening.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Hey, it's almost Jesus's birthday!
Now is a good time to donate to charity. Not that any other time to donate is a bad time mind.
https://www.cancer.org/
https://www.habitat.org/where-we-build/united-states-america
https://semperfifund.org/
https://www.habitat.ca/
https://getbettergifts.sickkidsfoundation.com/
https://www.redcross.org/
http://www.cancer.ca/en/?region=on

[Menassa]

Nero converted to Judaism?

Now the Emperor sent Nero against Jerusalem. When he came to the Holy Land he tried his luck in manner as follows: He shot an arrow eastward and it fell upon Jerusalem, he discharged his shafts towards all four points of the compass and every time they fell upon Jerusalem. After this he met a Jewish boy and said unto him, "Repeat me the lesson thou hast learned to day." The boy repeated "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom (ie Rome) by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek xxv 14)." Then said Nero "The Holy One blessed be He has resolved to destroy His Temple and then to avenge Himself upon the agent by whom its ruin is effected." Thereupon Nero departed and became a proselyte to Judaism and Rabbi Meir was a descendant of his. Then the Emperor sent Vespasian against Jerusalem and he besieged the city three years.

I don't think this is understood to be the emperor Nero that we all know and hate "Now the Emperor sent Nero" Would that be Augustus sending Nero? Furthermore, even if it was the fiddler himself this entire portion of the Talmud is not intended for a literal reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah

[Luminesa]

From your description it sounds as if Egyptian control of Canaan was mostly theoretical during the time period

Then you've either misread my post, or I haven't clearly outlined my position. If the latter, I can only apologise.

Between Thutmose III and Ramesses VI (at least) Egyptian control of Canaan was firm, unequivocal, and recognised by all of the great powers of the period, as shown in the surviving diplomatic correspondence of the period; a few minor occasional rebellions that were easily crushed and forays by neighbouring empires notwithstanding.

A question for Arch then, after reading through his long response that was quite intriguing, so if we put this information against the story of the Israelites in the desert for 40 years...did they keep traveling around then, even after they had reached The Promised Land? Was the Promised Land one specific place? Would it matter if the Promised Land was one place, or whatever places in which God promised to place His people? This is actually a set of questions, I dunno if these are dumb questions, but I am curious. If you answered one of these questions in your post, I may have missed it.

I'm not sure I can answer that.

It seems likely that the Israelites were a nomadic people before developing a more settled culture at some difficult to define point from the 10th century BC onwards. It's likely not a coincidence that this happens after the collapse of Egyptian power and the fall of the New Kingdom. But I'm only narrowly looking at the history of the issue, not the theology.

So it doesn't fit with the idea of a mass escape of (monotheistic)slaves from Egypt during the period being covered up?

This comment is so out of the blue that I'm not sure how to react. Are you suggesting that the suppression of Aten worship is somehow connected to the Exodus narrative? If so, on what basis?


Anyway, I have to go to bed, so that's it from me this evening.

That makes sense. Thank you for giving my questions a look anyway! Have a good night! :3

[Luminesa]

If Moses had so utterly discredited the Egyptian religion like the Book of Exodus claims he did, then why did the religion remain in existence hundreds of years afterward?

You know the Egyptians experimented with monotheism and utterly destroyed the evidence for it, right? And that we can only barely find any evidence for it today?

You might as well believe the Talmud's claim that Nero converted to Judaism, it has about the same historical evidence.

Nero may well have converted to Judaism; he certainly had a Jewish wife who encouraged his persecution of Christians.

...All of his wives seem to have been devotees of the Roman pantheon.

[Tarsonis]

Nero converted to Judaism?

Now the Emperor sent Nero against Jerusalem. When he came to the Holy Land he tried his luck in manner as follows: He shot an arrow eastward and it fell upon Jerusalem, he discharged his shafts towards all four points of the compass and every time they fell upon Jerusalem. After this he met a Jewish boy and said unto him, "Repeat me the lesson thou hast learned to day." The boy repeated "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom (ie Rome) by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek xxv 14)." Then said Nero "The Holy One blessed be He has resolved to destroy His Temple and then to avenge Himself upon the agent by whom its ruin is effected." Thereupon Nero departed and became a proselyte to Judaism and Rabbi Meir was a descendant of his. Then the Emperor sent Vespasian against Jerusalem and he besieged the city three years.

Because religions then, aren’t the same as they are now, at least in terms of “1 true religion”. That’s a very post Christian viewpoint. Back then, religions were tribal. All gods were more or less considered real by everyone, but you had your gods and they had theirs. YHWH demolishing Egpyt wouldn’t he seen as “wow our Gods are clearly false and their God is real”rather “WOW our Gods are getting their teeth kicked in.” It would be a national embarrassment for their Gods to be so devastated on their own turf.

F

People adopted new gods all the time in the time period. It wouldn't have been farfetched for the Egyptians to have wanted to adopt the god that utterly destroyed the ones that they worshiped.

Individual people did sure,”Peoples” more or less did not, unless they got conquered. And even then they usually kept their religions depending on who their captors were. Also under Egyptian theology Pharaohs were more or less living gods. I doubt they would have embraced a system of belief that says there is no god but YHWH. Kind of a step down innit?

[Reikoku]

I don't think this is understood to be the emperor Nero that we all know and hate "Now the Emperor sent Nero" Would that be Augustus sending Nero? Furthermore, even if it was the fiddler himself this entire portion of the Talmud is not intended for a literal reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah

I make it a point not to debate rabbis about the Talmud, so I'll take your word for it.

People adopted new gods all the time in the time period. It wouldn't have been farfetched for the Egyptians to have wanted to adopt the god that utterly destroyed the ones that they worshiped.

Individual people did sure,”Peoples” more or less did not, unless they got conquered. And even then they usually kept their religions depending on who their captors were. Also under Egyptian theology Pharaohs were more or less living gods. I doubt they would have embraced a system of belief that says there is no god but YHWH. Kind of a step down innit?

A foreign god's worship could spread extensively even without military conquest, like the cult of Cybele in Greece or Rome, or the prevalence of Indian deities in East Asia, and none of these completely wrecked their rivals like Jehovah is said to have done in Egypt. It was a step down, sure, but it's not as though sacred kings haven't renounced their status before with the advent of monotheism, and none of them were supernaturally humiliated like Pharaoh was.

[Menassa]

I don't think this is understood to be the emperor Nero that we all know and hate "Now the Emperor sent Nero" Would that be Augustus sending Nero? Furthermore, even if it was the fiddler himself this entire portion of the Talmud is not intended for a literal reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah

I make it a point not to debate rabbis about the Talmud, so I'll take your word for it.

Don't let me stop you thinking you have a point to make! The homiletic interpretation of this Talmud piece is not applied to Exodus is the important distinction.

[Tarsonis]

I don't think this is understood to be the emperor Nero that we all know and hate "Now the Emperor sent Nero" Would that be Augustus sending Nero? Furthermore, even if it was the fiddler himself this entire portion of the Talmud is not intended for a literal reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah

I make it a point not to debate rabbis about the Talmud, so I'll take your word for it.

Individual people did sure,”Peoples” more or less did not, unless they got conquered. And even then they usually kept their religions depending on who their captors were. Also under Egyptian theology Pharaohs were more or less living gods. I doubt they would have embraced a system of belief that says there is no god but YHWH. Kind of a step down innit?

A foreign god's worship could spread extensively even without military conquest, like the cult of Cybele in Greece or Rome, or the prevalence of Indian deities in East Asia, and none of these completely wrecked their rivals like Jehovah is said to have done in Egypt. It was a step down, sure, but it's not as though sacred kings haven't renounced their status before with the advent of monotheism, and none of them were supernaturally humiliated like Pharaoh was.

Those cults were engaged in evangelization though, while the Hebrews were not. It could happen but it just as easily could not have happened.

[Diopolis]

From your description it sounds as if Egyptian control of Canaan was mostly theoretical during the time period

Then you've either misread my post, or I haven't clearly outlined my position. If the latter, I can only apologise.

Between Thutmose III and Ramesses VI (at least) Egyptian control of Canaan was firm, unequivocal, and recognised by all of the great powers of the period, as shown in the surviving diplomatic correspondence of the period; a few minor occasional rebellions that were easily crushed and forays by neighbouring empires notwithstanding.

A question for Arch then, after reading through his long response that was quite intriguing, so if we put this information against the story of the Israelites in the desert for 40 years...did they keep traveling around then, even after they had reached The Promised Land? Was the Promised Land one specific place? Would it matter if the Promised Land was one place, or whatever places in which God promised to place His people? This is actually a set of questions, I dunno if these are dumb questions, but I am curious. If you answered one of these questions in your post, I may have missed it.

I'm not sure I can answer that.

It seems likely that the Israelites were a nomadic people before developing a more settled culture at some difficult to define point from the 10th century BC onwards. It's likely not a coincidence that this happens after the collapse of Egyptian power and the fall of the New Kingdom. But I'm only narrowly looking at the history of the issue, not the theology.

So it doesn't fit with the idea of a mass escape of (monotheistic)slaves from Egypt during the period being covered up?

This comment is so out of the blue that I'm not sure how to react. Are you suggesting that the suppression of Aten worship is somehow connected to the Exodus narrative? If so, on what basis?


Anyway, I have to go to bed, so that's it from me this evening.

More along the lines of that suppression of the record of Aten worship doesn't necessarily suggest the ability to suppress the record of Exodus.

[Auristania]

Battle of Qadesh is the point.

isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh;

Pharoah lost the battle and wrote big stele saying he won it.

If Exodus, then there would be big inscriptions the Israelites caused plagues so I, Pharoah, wise and mighty, drove them into the desert.

or even better the Great god Thoth came to me in a dream and warned me, so I drove out the Israelites before they could cause any plagues at all.

[Menassa]

Battle of Qadesh is the point.

isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh;

Pharoah lost the battle and wrote big stele saying he won it.

If Exodus, then there would be big inscriptions the Israelites caused plagues so I, Pharoah, wise and mighty, drove them into the desert.

or even better the Great god Thoth came to me in a dream and warned me, so I drove out the Israelites before they could cause any plagues at all.

Not all A are B.

[Salus Maior]

Probably one of the more inspiring things I've heard from a clergyman in a while.