WI: Ancient Egypt doesn't oppress the Hebrews?

What exactly would have to happen to have the Egyptian people not oppress the Hebrews? What would happen to Egypt itself?

An interesting thought, what happens to the biblical story of moses?
 
What exactly would have to happen to have the Egyptian people not oppress the Hebrews? What would happen to Egypt itself?

An interesting thought, what happens to the biblical story of moses?


Is there any truth to the claim that the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians?

Was there really even an "Exodus" event?
 
If we go with the rather shaky theory that the Jews were even in Egypt, I’d assume they would eventually become more and more Egyptian until they eventually become indistinguishable from native Egyptians.
 
-There's no hebrew settlement in Egypt before the persian conquest
-There's no mass slavery in Egypt, only prisoners of war servility, carceral servility-like, domestic slavery.
-As all the Exodus is heavily influenced by mesopotamian mythos, with an original late palestinian influence, nothing change.
 
It's better than that, we have proof of the total contrary of the biblic story.
Seriously, why is that topic occurs so often?
Ya, isn't there evidence that immigrants from Isreal marched in and took over a good chunk of Egypt before being kicked out?
 
According to Josephus, a Greek-Egyptian historian named Manetho (whose works have been since lost) said that one explanation of the Exodus account was as a garbled version of an actual revolt led by Akhenaton's high priest HRMS (probably "Harmose", but understood by Manetho as "Hermes") after his Aten cult was surpressed. Note that the diminutive form of Harmose is in fact "Moses". HRMS's personal name apparently was "Osarseph" or "Osareph" (note the similarity to another Egyptian-Hebrew name, "Joseph")

From Chapter One of "The Moses Mystery" by Gary Greenberg

A New Model for Israel's Origins

In this book I offer a radical new solution to the puzzle of Israel's origins, one that places its earliest roots in fourteenth century Egypt during the reign of the monotheistic Pharaoh Akhenaten. I call this the "Atenist" theory, after the unique deity that he worshipped. It holds that the refugees departing Egypt during what later became known as the Exodus were native Egyptians, devoted followers of the pharaoh Akhenaten.

This king's monotheistic religious reforms triggered massive resentment throughout the country. Less than two decades after Akhenaten’s death Pharaoh Horemheb launched an aggressive counter-revolution aimed at suppressing all memory of the hated predecessor. Akhenaten's loyal followers suffered greatly. They were removed from office, stripped of honor and property, and in many instances banished from the country. These persecuted Egyptians united together, rose in rebellion and formed the House of Israel.

Moses

In this book I will argue that Moses was the chief priest of the Aten cult and that at the time of Akhenaten's death Moses fled from Egypt to avoid execution. Upon Horemheb's death he returned to Egypt and attempted a military coup, the purpose of which was to restore the Aten cult to the throne. His allies included the persecuted remnant of Akhenaten's following, large numbers of badly treated sick and diseased Egyptians, assorted opponents of Ramesses I, and an army belonging to the Canaanite kingdom of Shechem, whose rulers were openly hostile to Egypt's demands for submission.

Moses' actions brought the nation to the brink of civil war. The confrontation ended with a negotiated truce that guaranteed the insurgent army safe passage out of the country. This negotiated truce and safe passage out of Egypt was the Exodus.

As the centuries passed, like most immigrant groups, the refugees identified increasingly with the language, culture, and traditions of their new neighbors. At the same time they lost touch with their own roots. As the biblical authors wrote repeatedly, Canaanite culture had a powerful pull on the Israelites and they frequently succumbed to its enticements. Despite unrelenting apostasy, however, one truth remained with them. In Egypt they were oppressed and a god like no other delivered them from bondage.

Corollaries

This new model of Israel's origins has several corollaries. 1) Israel's appearance in Canaan occurred suddenly in the late fourteenth-early thirteenth century BC, and not after several centuries of evolution from tribes of Semite-speaking nomads; 2) the first Israelites spoke Egyptian and adhered to Egyptian cultural practices and beliefs; 3) no confederation of Semitic tribes preceded the Hebrew monarchy; and 4) the "ten lost tribes" disappeared not because of the Assyrian conquest but because they never existed.

The Earliest Archaeological Evidence for Israel

The Merneptah Stele


Although history does not tell us of the Exodus, it does supply some help in setting the latest possible date. The earliest non-biblical reference to the name Israel appears on an Egyptian stele dating to the latter half of the thirteenth century BC, about 100-125 years after Akhenaten's death. It is unique in that Egypt never used the name again. One has to skip forward almost four hundred years, completely bypassing the reigns of David and Solomon, before its next appearance outside the bible.

<snip>

A curious feature of this inscription is that Israel is the only name with a grammatical determinative signifying people instead of land. The grammar suggests to almost all biblical scholars that we have here a picture of ancient Israel in its post-Exodus pre-Conquest stage.

<snip>

The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti is the Hittite kingdom, Hurru is the Hurrian kingdom, Ashkelon and Gezer are two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn't have been listed if it weren't thought to have been worthy of mention as a defeated force. Its presence as a large powerful force without a territory of its own suggests that this Israel came from somewhere else.

It should not have arrived there much earlier than the middle of the reign of Ramesses II. Otherwise it would have likely been identified with the territory where it was found. This suggests a time frame for its arrival within forty years of the death of Horemheb. That time frame would be consistent with both the biblical claim that it was about forty years after the Exodus that Israel entered Canaan and the Atenist theory that holds that the Exodus occurred shortly after the death of Horemheb.

It is also interesting that the very first mention of the name Israel occurs in Egyptian writing. That name does not appear again in the historical record for almost four hundred years afterward.

The evidence, then, suggests that at a time consistent with both biblical chronology and the "Atenist" model, Israel, previously unknown in the historical record, suddenly appeared in Canaan or in its neighboring territories with a powerful military force. What we do not have is evidence that this Israel, at that time, was a Semite-speaking people or ever inhabited Asia prior to its departure from Egypt.
 
Ya, isn't there evidence that immigrants from Isreal marched in and took over a good chunk of Egypt before being kicked out?
The Hyksos aren't came from Canaan, they're ruled the upper nile and didn't have hebrew names, topology, etc. The only evidence of jewish/hebraic presence in Ancient Egypt we found is the settement in Elephantine island, in the southern border, as they served as mercenaries to guard the nubian border.

According to Josephus, a Greek-Egyptian historian named Manetho...
The Manetho story is really created for the occasion.
Egyptians had read in ptolemaic era the Exodus, and they're shoked that a bunch of goat-keepers dared tell that they defeated Egypt.
Manetho had so invented a counter-story.

And using Manetho story to criticize biblic story is as mad than using Superman comicbook to said that the germans have stolen their sur-human being stuff from americans
 
It's better than that, we have proof of the total contrary of the biblic story.


Agreed. There isn't any actual archaeological evidence for much of anything written about in the Old Testament prior to roughly the seventh century BCE or around reign of Josiah. Judges, Moses, the Patriarchs, Abraham, Solomon, David, all of it is basically unsupported.

Seriously, why is that topic occurs so often?

Increasingly shitty school systems whose coverage of Western History, if they still teach it at all, begins with the Thirty Years's War or the French Revolution. This means that the only exposure too many people have to the Ancient or Classical Periods comes through religious instruction and not being taught factual history.
 
Top