TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 11:45 am The problem about reading Canaanite or Semitic as ‘Israelite’ is like your ‘Israelite house’ of the claim (that I had presented on a former Forum) of ostracon ‘notes’ found at the Egyptian -owned Timnah mines as ‘proto Hebrew’ which are actually Canaanite.
We agree they are Canaanite. However, Canaanite is a nebulous term. It does not refer to a specific ethnic group, but rather signifies a group of people where they came from.
“The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan.”
But certainly Israelite is included as a Canaanite. It’d be difficult to argue if someone is a Canaanite, but not Israelite, since I would argue they share similar characteristics, particularly at this point in time.
Those names, (which in Egyptian writing can be open to interpretation of pronunciation) are perhaps too eagerly Interpreted as ‘Israelite’. The Wiki article does not make any such claim.
I don’t claim that either, but some names are Semitic.
I’d point out that a couple of the names of Hyksos kings who really don’t support the ‘Israelite’ Thesis
The Bible never mentions any Israelite as being a Pharaoh and I don’t claim it either.
It also strikes me that it is not stated that these are even slaves, let alone slaves employed in brick -making (never mind sabotaging their own building materials by depriving the Hebrews of straw) but may well be hired and paid servants.
Of course, they were not enslaved as this point to make bricks yet I will post later about the time they became slaves making bricks.
The point being that even if Israel even existed in the 13th dynasty as a place where you’d have immigrant workers from, that does not in itself support the Exodus even as an event with Biblical ‘spin’,
I have not gotten to the point of the exodus out of Egypt yet. I’ll post about that later.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:07 pm Which does sound like slaves. So Given that slavery was common at this time (everywhere) but also that public works do not appear to have been carried out by slaves, the papyrus does suggest Semitic persons owned or imprisoned by Egyptians. It remains to show that these are Hebrews or are only being made to look like it.
Yes, there’s no evidence public works (and the bricks to make those public works) were made by slaves at this point in time. This will come later.
Edomites are descendents of Esau, so they would be close cousins with the Israelites.
“The Hebrew word Edom means “red”, and the Hebrew Bible relates it to the name of its founder, Esau, the elder son of the Hebrew patriarch Isaac, because he was born ‘red all over'”
In terms of the written language of the Canaanites, it’s all related to Hebrew, which I will post on later.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:36 pm I’ll look into Manetho. As you say,there ought to be reasons to suppose that Josephus altered it. I would imagine it’s because we have the Egyptian etymology of Hyksos which is NOT ‘shepherd kings’ but foreign kings, so that indicates that Josephus altered it.
Actually, I would agree that the Hyksos were foreign kings. That is, they were not Egyptian, but Canaanite people. I don’t know if Josephus claims all the Hyksos were Hebrew, but I would not claim that. I believe only a subset of the Hyksos were.
The seal of Khamudi shows what I call the ‘water bars’ in a vertical position, whereas it is horizontal under the Bull. This suggests that it is symbolic of some royal or divine image particular to Hyksos kings and not (as our taliss -wearing apologist argued) a symbol of a Hebrew tribe. The point being that the cylinder seal works better as a Hyksos item than a Hebrew one.
Nobody really knows what the “water bars” mean. And anybody can assign any meaning to any particular symbol, whether it’s is a bull, boat, snake, antelope, lion, etc. But, what is more convincing is a narrative that explains all the images on the cylinder in a single coherent message. The Biblical account does that, unlike other theories, which have disjointed explanations for individual symbols.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:42 pm It is a truly -strained apologetic. Like a Pharaoh’s canal – building project, internal reorganisation, good relations with the Priests (ask Akhenaten what happened when you made enemies of them) and trade, claim that Joseph suggested it all and thus you prove the Bible.
This is simply an assertion made without any counter-evidence. Again, to refute my claims, counter-evidence is required.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:50 pm P. s. Look…I could say ‘Joseph said unto Pharaoh,’…paint ye the walls of your hose afresh in at least three colors..’ or ‘And Joseph “Suggested” to Pharaoh, who dids’t everything he was told, to lay out gardens…’ and I could find evidence of painted houses, palaces and temples, and palace gardens. That you can point out all sorts of claims for Joseph (even aside that the Bible writers knew of things the Egyptians did and ascribed it all to Joseph) is no evidence for Genesis being correct. I’d bet you could find the same claims fitting a king of Babylon or Assyria, if Genesis had said so.
It is the preponderance of evidence presented that makes the case the Biblical account is true. If it was just one or two things plucked out of Egyptian history to support the Bible, yes, I agree it’d be a weak argument. But as more evidence are presented that matches the Bible, it strengthens my case.