Reading Exodus now , seems to me old Jews were worse than new Jews.
Why so much Egyptian hate in the Bible? Are there any records of the Jewish-Egyptian relations besides the bible?
I think i know at some point Egypt conquered Palestine ,is that the source of the hate?
Let my people goooooooo
>>1253156
The jews descend from Canaanites too and all of Canaan was under Egyptian control for some centuries untill the Philistines invaded.
>>1253156
Egypt during the early Iron Age, when most of the Old Testament was authored, was a waning power but still influential in the Levant. For example, the Egyptians killed the Judean king Josiah at the Battle of Mediggo in 609 BC and put the Judeans under their suzerainty (until the even worse Babylonians took over). Earlier the Egyptians had ruled the Levant with an iron fist. In fact, the earliest recorded use of the term 'Israel' come from an Egyptian stele celebrating its destruction at the hand of the Pharoah.
The Egyptians, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians and other all vied for power while the Judeans were mostly just a backward sheep-herding chiefdom that gradually grew into a small kingdom. The Judeans who wrote most of the Bible naturally demonized all of these groups. It's not really a treatment unique to Egypt; the Canaanites according to scripture were pretty much subhumans who needed to be genocided. Only the Persians really get a positive treatment.
That said, much of the Exodus story probably reflects earlier patterns of Egyptian/Levantine populations that had been going on for millennia. Egypt had always been interacting with Levantine populations throughout its existence, often ruling the weak Canaanite kingdoms, while Levantine populations often migrated into and out of the Nile Delta. The Exodus didn't happen, but similar events did (such as the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, where they had been rulers rather than slaves) and the story is probably a vague memory of this.
>>1253156
>Are there any records of the Jewish-Egyptian relations besides the bible?
Yes.
>Be Egypt
>BY RA, WHY CANT THOSE IDIOTS IN CANAAN STOP FIGHTING. FOR FUCKS SAKE. ARE WE SERIOUSLY PROPPING UP ANOTHER PUPPET KING/CHIEF OVER THOSE NIGGERS SO THEY CAN STOP FIGHTING AND LET TRADE PAST THROUGH?
Pretty much along those lines.
>>1253156
Hyksos and Ahmose I, then Hormheb and Merneptah. Actually, in NT, Egypt became the go-to place, " I " think because Jesus and his cousin John the Baptist were Essenes, and they had settlements from Jerusalem to the Sinai and beyond.
Those weren't jews though.
They were about as jewish as Homo Sapien is a Homo Neanderthalenis
>Are there any records of the Jewish-Egyptian relations besides the bible?
Yes.
This is long before Judaism was a thing btw. But the Hebrews were already around. They were known as the Habiru, which is an Egyptian word for "robber, murderer" and various scum. They were a group of people of various ethnicities who lived like Gypsies across the Middle East and were typically criminals, mercenaries, or slaves, and were universally despised. Eventually they merged into a single people and developed their own twist on Mesopotamian religion, and when the New Kingdom of Egypt fell, they carved themselves the Kingdom of Israel out of the formerly Egyptian-ruled Canaan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru
>>1253289
Who weren't Jews?
>>1253294
Moses and his people.
>>1253292
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru
>Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium inscriptions mentioning the Habiru there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews of the Bible.
Encyclopædia Britannica states: "Many scholars feel that among the Hapiru were the original Hebrews, of whom the later Israelites were only one branch or confederation."[11]
Anson Rainey has argued that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking."[12] The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[13]
Way to jump into conclusion, Christcuck
>>1253311
Well, they were people descended from the tribes of Israel who would later be known as Jews for Judah. Some Jews argue the Exodus Hebrews "became Jews" when they began the practices of ritual washing, observing the "10 words" Moses brought down the mountain, and other practices, although that goes against standard academia. Certainly, these were the people and stories surrounding an integral part of the origin of the Jews. I'd probably agree with you that they, themselves, were "not yet Jews".
>>1253323
Not understanding your argument with what the poster, to whom you replied, said. You think Hebrews were of Ibri? or you think because not all Habiru were later Israel Hebrew, this means the whole connection should be forfeit? What are you saying?
>>1253292
The Hebrew weren't the Habiru. It even says that in your link.
>Anson Rainey has argued that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking."[12] The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[13]
The Hebrews were the descendants of pastoral people of the Palestinian highlands who, after the collapse of the Canaanite cities during the Bronze Age collapse began to settle down in permanent villages. The ones in the north had access to important trade routes and founded a fairly prosperous kingdom, Israel, and had a fairly cosmopolitan Canaanite-derived culture. Meanwhile southern Hebrews of Judah were comparatively poor, more like a chiefdom than a kingdom, and only rose to prominence when Israel fell to the Assyrians around 730 BC. The Judeans, who eventually turned the worship of their patron god Yahweh into henotheism and then monotheism, became the Jews. It's possible that the name Hebrew comes from Habiru, but the ethnogenesis of the Hebrews and Jews really has nothing significant to do with them. Hebrews just didn't exist as a culture before the Iron Age.
>>1253350
It says one guy, with specific insight and credentials, among hundreds, has a counter-point view. It doesn't "say anyone is anyone", it says this guy has an argument with the conclusion, here is why.
>>1253360
Why are you clinging to this idea so much? There's no evidence for it beyond a name sounding vaguely similar. The fact is that the Habiru was just a name given to a bunch of different groups around the Middle East without any ethnic or cultural unity. There's nothing linking them with the shepherds who became the Hebrews, who's origins are pretty well understood.
>>1253350
This is too simplistic of an explanation. We know, during Ahmose I, that various tribes of Canaanites were captured and placed into "slavery" (which wasn't exactly like 18th century western hemisphere slavery, but not alot better). We know after the peace treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittites, neither empire had sufficient military to exercise military occupation of the region, and many powerful city states sprang from this era in the late 13th/early 12th century BC, including all the ones referred as "Phoenician" by Greeks. This "rose to prominence in 730bc" might be a relative statement. They were paying tribute by that era to Assyria, but Assyria was a powerhouse and by no means lessens the state of surrounding vassals to "less than substantial kingdoms".
tl;dr I don't think you're right.
>>1253156
Egypt is a picture of the world in the bible; when Jerusalem gets irreligious it gets called Egypt.
And let's not forget that Egypt was killing all of the Hebrew babies as a form of population control prior to the Exodus. That garners significant hatred. As does being made into slaves.
Wait, why are you confused again?
>>1253378
It's a desperate attempt to minimize the bible's accuracy.
>>1253378
Why should I not? I think it's fine that the people to whom we today consider "Hebrews" were one part of "Habiru". That is the idea to which I would cleave. Certainly I don't believe "all Hapiru or Habiru were tribes of Israel", but I think very much some were.
I think Hapiru was a generic catch-all for semi-nomadic tribes of Amorites in Canaan. I think Ammonites and Moabites were probably also considered Hapiru because the other places didn't really care about those peoples' semantic or ethnic difference. I think it's like, to the west, how all Chinese are Chinese when there are actually who-knows-how-many ethnic variations.
>>1253401
If the Habiru people were nomadic raiders from 1800 to 1400 BC, that rules them out of being Hebrews, as that is the time the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt.
>>1253156
The bible is fiction and Jews were always bad.
>>1253385
>Ahmose I, that various tribes of Canaanites were captured and placed into "slavery"
Yeah, so? The Egyptians, like everyone ever, kept slaves. These came from neighboring regions like Canaan and Nubia. What are you trying to imply by this?
>We know after the peace treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittites, neither empire had sufficient military to exercise military occupation of the region, and many powerful city states sprang from this era in the late 13th/early 12th century BC, including all the ones referred as "Phoenician" by Greeks
Again, I don't know what your point is or what this has to do with my post. The Canaanite city states of the late Bronze Age grew up in the Levantine lowlands (not the highlands of the Hebrews) and then fell during the Bronze Age collapse. The highlanders were pastoralists who raised sheep and exchanged them for Canaanite agricultural produce. When the Canaanites collapsed, this trade was interrupted and they began to settle down to grow their own crops instead. This culture we know purposely avoided raising pigs; this is the earliest archaeologically attested Hebrew cultural practice. The Hebrew kingdom of Israel then rose to power over the neighbouring Canaanites, while Judah remained a backwater until the collapse of Israel.
>This "rose to prominence in 730bc" might be a relative statement. They were paying tribute by that era to Assyria, but Assyria was a powerhouse and by no means lessens the state of surrounding vassals to "less than substantial kingdoms".
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no archaeological evidence that the Judeans before about the mid-8th century were anything but a loose confederation of villages. The northern Kingdom of Israel that was a prosperous kingdom with cities and palaces, while Judah was rural and isolated. Only after around 730, when Assyria destroys Israel, does Judah gain any prominence.
>>1253427
Are you stupid? Hebrews were never collectively slaves in Egypt, that's an Old Testament legend. Although some Habiru were slaves as already stated.
>>1253427
>as that is the time the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt
Lol
>>1253433
There are no legends in the bible, only facts.
>>1253401
>Why should I not?
Because there's no evidence for it? We know where the Hebrews came from. You don't seem to understand that. There is archaeological evidence for their origins. They came from the pastoralists of the Canaanite highlands who settled down after the Bronze Age collapse. The term 'habiru' did not refer to Canaanite highland pastoralists.
>>1253437
There are no legends in the Koran/bhagavad Gita/book of Mormon/Tao the Ching only facts.
>>1253437
Shlomo please.
>>1253451
>muh moral equivalence
>>1253455
100% inerrant.
>>1253427
>>1253432
>>1253449
Were the Hebrews slaves in Egypt under the Hyksos, then? or were Hebrews slaves, with other Canaanites, under Thebans? Both? Neither?
I say Hapiru was just another term as "Amorite" and Hebrews were part of that. Not all Amorites were Babylonians in the era of Hammurabi. Not all Amorites were Hyksos. Some Amorites were Hapiru. Some Hapiru were Hebrew. Why does this somehow not make sense? Were Hebrew supposed to be something different or special before the Merneptah stele?
>>1253432
>Only after around 730, when Assyria destroys Israel, does Judah gain any prominence.
Oh, come on. Jerusalem has archaeology dating far, far back, before the 8th century BC. You know this, I know this. Why would you say that?
>>1253613
No one replies, because all these know-it-alls don't know the meaning of the words "amorites", "hyksos", "merneptah", or the significance of calling certain Egyptians as "Thebans" from the period, and they probably also don't know "amarna", either, or to how early the term "house of david" may have been applied. They're regurgitating nonsense from past /his/ threads from bigots and zealots on both sides.
>>1253704
>or to how early the term "house of david" may have been applied
educate us..
>>1253613
>Were the Hebrews slaves in Egypt under the Hyksos, then?
The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt and didn't exist in the time of the Hyksos.
>were Hebrews slaves, with other Canaanites, under Thebans? Both? Neither?
Neither. Levantine slaves existed in Egypt, but no entire Canaanite population was enslaved. The population which became the Hebrews always lived in the Palestinian highlands. Slaves were surely taken from this region, but there was never some mass deportation of slaves nor any huge return of former slaves.
>I say Hapiru was just another term as "Amorite" and Hebrews were part of that.
They weren't. Amorites were an ethnicity. Hapiru were more of a social class or caste.
>Not all Amorites were Babylonians in the era of Hammurabi. Not all Amorites were Hyksos. Some Amorites were Hapiru.
Sure.
>Some Hapiru were Hebrew
No, Hapiru didn't exist at the same time as Hebrews.
>Were Hebrew supposed to be something different or special before the Merneptah stele?
They didn't exist before then.
>>1253655
Jerusalem has older archaeology in the middle bronze age. It does not in the early Iron Age. The Palestinian highlands have phased between periods of settlement and nomadic pastoralism throughout its history. Jerusalem was inhabited during the earlier phases of settlement, but during the final phase of settlement, which saw the birth of the Hebrews, Jerusalem was not initially important. It didn't grow to significance until the 8th century.
>>1253704
I didn't reply because the thread had been inactive for almost an hour before you posted and I hadn't been constantly watching the threat to reply to your autistic bullshit. The rest of your post is a bunch of self-indulgent garbage.
>>1253784
cite proof there were no Hebrew, descendant of Abraham, slaves in Egypt, please.
>>1253825
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed#Origin_of_the_Israelites
Why are all Semites subhuman trash?
Why is everything that originated on the Arabian peninsula so fucking awful?
>The Jews are a race born for slavery
What did Tacitus mean by this?
>>1253837
Suppositions from a couple guys in one book. ok thanks. They say Ramesses II scribes were meticulous, yet fail to discuss his claim to victory in Qadesh was not exactly a victory, which is significant to the development of independent kingdoms from the 12th century bc forward, because Egypt's military occupation lacked the power to maintain occupation, and it fails to discuss the 19th dynasty revisionist history alteration to the reign of Horemheb, who was expressly against monotheism, died suddenly and buried in a unfinished tomb, and whose wife was found with a mummified stillborn child, no other progeny to continue his lineage.
>>1253884
negativity bias in a young mind which may never fully develop for autism?
>>1253896
>Suppositions from a couple guys in one book
Yeah, I suppose books are all bullshit (except the Bible of course).
>They say Ramesses II scribes were meticulous
Yes, because they recorded any population movements into or out of Egypt.
>yet fail to discuss his claim to victory in Qadesh was not exactly a victory
Are you such an idiot that you can't see the difference between scribes calling a stalemate a victory and scribes failing to record a massive population movement out of the Nile Delta and into the Levant?
>which is significant to the development of independent kingdoms from the 12th century bc forward, because Egypt's military occupation lacked the power to maintain occupation
Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Bronze Age collapse and the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
>and it fails to discuss the 19th dynasty revisionist history alteration to the reign of Horemheb, who was expressly against monotheism, died suddenly and buried in a unfinished tomb, and whose wife was found with a mummified stillborn child, no other progeny to continue his lineage.
Because it's irrelevant and as nothing to do with anything discussed in the book?
I really can't figure out what's going on in your head.
>>1253929
I think Horemheb was pharaoh of the Exodus. If he died in about 1292bc, Ramesses II signed the Hittite treaty in 1258bc, beginning less capacity to maintain occupation of the Levant (for troops loss at Qadesh), 40 years after Horemheb, in 1252bc, Hebrews wander back into Canaan and establish Israel, and we know for sure Israel is a "place" by 1208bc, from the Merneptah stele. There were no migrations from or around Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II, because it's the end of the period Hebrews were wandering around somewhere southeast of the Sinai.
>>1253929
>I really can't figure out what's going on in your head.
Christianity.
>>1254057
I don't need it to fit, for confirmation bias, because I have an ideological view of Genesis. It just "can" work the way I depicted above. Ramesses II was not the pharaoh of Exodus, but Horemheb, and some of his history was intentionally erased/changed because of the Amarna period's infatuation with monotheism, which Horemheb hated, and the idols and monuments of which he destroyed, using the materials in his own constructions.
>>1253156
Reminder that Exodus is correct
>>1253156
First thing you have to understand is that Exodus is a fictional account. Secondly you must understand that ancient egypt was the rome of it's time as far as the near east is concerned. The canaanite peoples had all sorts of reasons for hating on the people who invaded, conquered and ruled them for an extended period of time.
>>1254110
>Exodus is a fictional account
I don't think this is true. At best you could say "dramatized" or even "embellished", but Exodus gets quite a number of things right, which I don't believe would have been able to have reckoned by, for example, people living in exile in Babylon 700 to 800 years later.
How would they have had a concept from that earlier period that it would even have been possible to establish a new homeland? Why didn't they just make up a story about fighting Egyptians for Israel, since it basically was "Egypt" from around 1510bc until 1258bc? (250 years is longer than the USA has existed). I'm not going to cite a bunch of things like that to keep the post brief, but I don't imagine they had access to that kind of history in the 6th and 7th centuries bc.
>>1253613
My understanding of the Hyskos is that they walked into Egypt unchecked and took it over @ 1440 BC, which would have been right after the Exodus, which left Egypt destitute.
>>1253784
Look ma! I'm lying on the internet again!
>>1253837
Written by Jews who abandon their God, abandoned their torah, and place their faith in archaeological digs.
Dismissed.
>>1254046
Hebrews were out of there @ 1446 BC.
>>1254110
The wickedest people in the area are your heroes.
Given 400 years to repent, while the Chosen People were kept as slaves in Egypt, and failed to do so.
Anyone who tries to argue abscense of evidence is evidence of absence is an idiot.
Anyone who claims the exodus story is false because we didn't find 6000 year old jars with inscriptions on it telling about how some slaves embarrassed the pharaoh and his God is delusional. Why would they write this on to a monument to said pharaoh. If they did write this 6000 years ago why would you think we could find it now?
>>1254301
Jews worldwide have celebrated their escape from Egypt faithfully, every year, for over 3600 years.
There is pottery found in Goshen thought to belong to the Hebrews. And there are other things, like chariot wheels at the bottom of Al Aqaba, a stone monument on the other side of the Al Aqaba crossing erected by King Solomon, the effortless Hyskos invasion right afterwards, as Egypt was defenseless, and of course the Ilwur papyrus detailing the horror of all of the plagues called down on them by Moses.
It's not a matter of evidence; it's basic holocaust denial aimed at the Exodus. Aimed at eradicating the Jews.
>>1254251
Hyksos began culturally infiltrating at least 3.5 centuries prior to that date, and they were in the eastern Nile delta, very populated and not far from the, still-existing, pyramids. The first Semitic king in northern Egypt was 2 centuries prior to that date.
Some people tried to associate the emigration of disenfranchised Hyksos with the Exodus. I don't think that's right because very few Canaanites escaped, and many who did was brought back as war spoils to soldiers into slavery.
What makes you think 1440bc is a date for the Exodus? That was, like, just after Hapshepsut, in a period of great military conquests for Egypt. Anyone messing around then would have gotten their butts kicked.
>>1254272
Why do you pick that date? It doesn't make sense to anything in Egyptology. There were rulers in Egypt of that era that took over hundreds ( literally hundreds) of cities. They didn't put up with some slave revolt, biblical or otherwise.
>>1254311
But those dates aren't right. Hyksos didn't really just militarily invade, it was a gradual thing until they came to cultural and economic power over 1.5 centuries. The Pharaoh during Jacob and his sons were probably Semitic Hyksos.
>>1254319
>>1254328
Solomon Builds the Temple
6 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.
Judges 11
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities along the banks of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?
Acts 13
The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
“After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
"We are able to harmonize the 18th dynasty Pharaoh's directly with the reign of Solomon. The Exodus occurred exactly 480 (479 literal BC years when adjusted for inclusive counting) years before the temple was built by Solomon. Looking at the many candidates for Pharaoh in 1446, we were able to conclude, with a high level of confidence, that the 18th year of Thutmoses III's reign after his step mother Hatshepsut died, is the date of the exodus in 1446 BC. It is a truly stunning fit! The New Chronology creates a solid anchor between the 18th year of Thutmoses III as being the date of the Exodus and the 480 years to the time Solomon started the temple. (1 Kings 6:1). This has never been done before."
>>1254369
is this the same dating given in the patterns of evidence movie?
>>1254416
I don't know what that is.
Exodus + 480 years = Solomon begins building the Temple.
40 years after the Exodus + 450 years of Judges = Samuel the prophet, and therefore Saul the King, and therefore David the King, time wise.
The last bit is from an archaeologist who thinks Thutmoses III is the pharaoh of the Exodus.
>>1254456
That is the era of Thutmose (not moses, you wouldn't put an s after mose for any reason) III. and it would have been over a decade after Hapshetsut's passing, who indeed was co-reagent.
The Hyksos were long gone by that time. Egypt was re-unified and Thutmose III was cruising around Nubian lands and west capturing cities into Egyptian rule. Nothing to that period even resembles plagues, a slave/peasant revolt, or an exodus. 1446bc is actually may be the most unlikely time around any of egyptology that might have happened.
480 years after Ahmose united Egypt following the defeat of the Hyksos, some of which escaped, most were brought back to slavery, would have been the mid 11th century bc. By that account, then. Solomon was building temples to YHWH and ba'al around 1040bc.
It was Sigmund Freud who famously postulated that Moses was actually an Egyptian priest in the cult of Aten.
He was exiled after the cult was banished and then murdered in the wilderness of Israel, which accounts for Judaism's monotheism and father guilt complex, so Freud argued.
>>1254531
Temple commenced @ 970 BC, finished @ 964 BC, demolished @ 586 BC.
The Hyskos may be the people who came to power when Joseph was appointed to whatever position he had, "who did not know Joseph".
>>1254925
Cocaine is a hellova drug.
>>1253250
>when most of the OT was authored
For the Deuteronomical source, yes
But otherwise most of the Torah (not the Tanakh) is 3-4 different sources put together, each of them likely to be pretty old (references to YHWH as El, to polytheism, to ancient Canaanite practices, etc)
Story of Moses may just be fanfiction or an embellished story to complete Abraham's, but either way it wasn't just made up around 600BC
>>1254234
>>I don't think this is true
>>2.6 million people flee from a state that only had some 3 million or so people living in it and there is no mention in this in any egyptian record
Exodus simply didn't happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae#Similar_practices_in_other_societies
>>1254110
>Exodus is a fictional account
What evidence do you have to back this up?
It's part of the Dead Sea Scrolls that Edgar Cayce said would be found 21 years after his death.
Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest books of the Bible, which is the world's leading authority on historical recounting.
So tell me, Mr. Non-Psychic, what evidence you have to say it didn't happen, other than your anecdotal living experience and personal conjecture. Would I that you respond with some do-nothing atheist scientist's word, so I can laugh at the state of modernity that you and every other contrarian have brought the world to. WOULD I.
