kwrandolph at email.com
Sat Nov 5 14:43:46 EST 2005
Whether we believe that the text gives an accurate history
or not is irrelevant: stylistically the story is consistent with it
being a history of events with the exodus itself being at the
end of the Hyksos period.
If you remember from over a year ago, Marianne Luban
mentioned that an Egyptian princess going to the river
and calling the boy by a Semitic name were not consistent
with Egyptian history, but why not if she were Hyksos?
Personally, if I run across a document that claims to be a
history of events, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I
tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. Stylistically, Torah is
written as a history. It is written in prose, not verse, though
it includes a few snippets of poetry. There is no evidence
either internally or externally that it is anything other than
The only claims I have seen that ague against its
historicity are philosophic, not historical. It is for this
reason that arguments concerning history are to be
off list for this forum.
So in conclusion, whether you accept it as history or not
is irrelevant, stylistically we have a story taking place in
Egypt apparently during the Hyksos period, where it is
possible that the midwives were Hyksos with Semitic
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Karl, now you're back to advocating a 15th century Exodus. There is no
> reason to think that the author of Exodus had ever heard of the so-called
> "Hyksos". And that, as I wrote before, the real issue - what the author of
> Exodus intended his readers to think about the midwives, not who we, with
> our "understanding" of "real history" think they might have been.
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew