[b-hebrew] Hyksos, Revisionism, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus
formoria at carolina.rr.com
Mon Dec 31 11:23:20 EST 2007
So how would your chronology solve the problem of the early dating of the
Hyksos expulsion ca 1525 BCE, as compared to the much later appearance of
"Israel" in the Merneptah Stela (after 1300 BCE) in Canaan? I guess what I'm
asking is, does your chronology take the same route as Rohl's in the sense
that it removes a 300 or so year gap from the Egyptian chronologies?
Further, what do you do with Thera, dated via C-14 to 1627-1620 BCE?
R. Brian Roberts
Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hyksos, Revisionism, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus
On Dec 29, 2007 7:50 PM, Brian Roberts <formoria at carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> Are you a proponent of Rohl's (or anyone else's) chronological revisions?
> not, then aren't you "marshalling facts to fit a predetermined
No, I am not a proponent of Rohl's revisions, rather I came to the
conclusion that the pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Hyksos long before I
heard of Rohl and his theories. My reasons were based on the actions listed
in Exodus of the pharaoh and his reasons listed.
> If so, then let us know how you would answer your own questions put to
> Yitzhak. I think you'd get a fair hearing.
I started with the proposition that Bible is accurate history, then looked
at what it said about that time: the pharaoh was one who did not remember
Joseph, fearful of the numerical strength of Israel, seemed to have his
capital near Israel apparently within easy walking distance, the reason for
Moses' name was Semitic and that the pharaoh would not be remembered; all of
these fit the Hyksos and the deliberate destruction of the records as
practiced by the native Egyptians, but not of any native Egyptian pharaoh
that I had heard of. It especially does not fit the theory that the pharaoh
of the Exodus was Raamses II.
When I years later heard of Rohl and his theories, my reaction was, "Yeah,
that makes sense." Notice, I did not start with theory, then marshal facts
to support the theory, rather I started with facts, then looked for an
explanation that fit the facts. Later reading revealed more facts that seem
to support the above explanation. Yet I also recognized that my conclusion
would require at least some temporal revisions and that it is not without
some question, but it seems to be a best fit, as far as I know.
> R. Brian Roberts
> Amateur Researcher in Biblical Archaeology
Karl W. Randolph.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:01 PM
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> There are questions that throw doubts on all your claims concerning dates.
> Who was the pharaoh of the Exodus? It is almost certain that the pharaoh
> the time that Moses was plucked out of the Nile was Hyksos, as recognized
> clues in the book of Exodus and that they had practices foreign to native
> Egyptians. I suspect that what broke the back of the Hyksos military might
> and allowed the Egyptians to drive them out was the loss of their best
> troops in the Red Sea.
> Given the deliberate destruction of Hyksos records by the native
> if the pharaoh of the Exodus was Hyksos, the surviving Egyptian records
> would be very, very unlikely to record the Israelite Exodus.
> There are Egyptologists who dispute the traditional dates given for many
> pharaohs: one claim being that Raamses II was the pharaoh who sacked
> Jerusalem after Solomon died, not the pharaoh of the Exodus. If that's the
> case, that would put the end of the bronze age/beginning of the iron age,
> about the time of King David. The greatly expanded settlements a
> of the peace and security afforded by the kings of Israel, Saul, David and
> Solomon, so would be dated at that time.
> Finkelstein/Mazar are just one strand of the discussion, and could very
> be wrong, as you well know.
> According to Joshua, only three cities were destroyed during the invasion;
> Jericho, Ai and Hazor. All the others were captured and looted, but not
> razed. Thus by the historical sources, there should be almost no
> archeological evidence of the invasion. Isn't that what we find for about
> 1400 BC?
> From the above, I conclude that there is a lot of sloppy, or is it
> ideologically biased, scholarship going on, marshaling facts to fit a
> predetermined conclusion. And that conclusion is that the Bible is
> historically inaccurate. So far the data you have provided are surrounded
> question marks, making them unable to disprove the historicity of the
> Karl W. Randolph.
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew