Egypt and the Bible: Q+A #9, How does the Dialogue of Ipuwer relate to the Exodus?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Today we talk about the Dialogue of Ipuwer and how it relates to exodus. Ipuwer was one of several Middle Kingdom prophetic texts, while the exodus took place during Egypt’s New Kingdom. Tune in and find out the connection between this interesting text and the event that shaped the beginnings of Israelite history.
If you wish to support this channel and my research into Ancient Egypt and the Bible, please subscribe to this channel. And if you wish to support us in another way, please consider pre-ordering my forthcoming book the “Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey,” amzn.to/2NE6J1U.
And if you feel like directly supporting the work, also consider becoming a patron on my Patreon account / egyptandthebible .
Beautiful articulation at the end. And Moses, _a_ prophet of God, was certainly a prototype of _the_ prophet of God, Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 18:18; Acts 3:22).
Moses is the ultimate and supreme prophet for all time.
Your video quality has gone up significantly in three years! WOW!
We try to improve the quality of our videos. Thank you so much. 😊
Never saw this till now. Awesome job, doc.
First, the Bible never ever mentions "Egypt", it mentions "Mizraim". If the Torah says Mizraim, you have no right of changing the name to Egypt. How did the term "Mizraim" become "Egypt"?
Second, you say that the exodus took place during Egypt's new Kingdom, says who? Your opinion is not a fact. The exodus never ever took place in modern day Egypt and here is why. Moses supposedly led the Israelites from Egypt to the promised land (modern day Israel/Palestine) as claimed, well guess what? The promised land was under the control of the Egyptians, so he led them from Egypt to an area under the control of the Egyptians??? Please cite the name given in the Torah to the promised land back then!!!
So, you’re saying that the reintroduction of the Ipiwur and “prophetic” literature into the Rameside period society established the framework for the role of the Prophet of God, which Moses was able to readily step into?
So God used the Ipiwur papyrus and other texts to ready the Egyptians and Israelites for the deliverance by Moses? I need more elaboration on this lol. I feel like that last point was a bombshell, but it wasn’t expanded upon a lot.
Where does the text say the water turned thick and black....?
It doesn't say in the text what the colour or the viscosity is. Only that is like blood. The fact that it is thick and black is a cultural understanding of what blood looks like when it is on the ground or in water. And that is what you see should you ever have the misfortune of visiting a day-old battle or crime scene. We do something similar. Is white wine white? No, it's yellow. But we call it white wine. Are white grapes white? No, they are green. But we call them white grapes.
Thanks for the video. I now find the relationship between the Ipuwer Papyrus and Exodus even more interesting than before. Would it be fair to say that in a way, the Hebrews are saying in the Book of Exodus that their prophets are greater than the Egyptian ones, and brought about the things they feared the most, or did I misunderstand you?
Hi OrthodoxofUSA, I think that's pretty much spot on. I'm glad you enjoyed the video and found it helpful. :)
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks! I ordered a book you contributed to, "Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?" It just arrived today and I'm excited to read it.
@@OrthodoxofUSA Thank you for buying that book. It's a great book and very scholarly too. If you like that book, I would encourage you to consider buying my forthcoming book "Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey" (amzn.to/2NE6J1U). This book has cutting edge research and avoids all the junk (dubious) archaeology normally associated with the ark. It will also be lavishly illustrated with over 90 original illustrations and photographs. I guarantee that no book like it has ever been published on the Ark of the Covenant. My publisher and I are really excited about this project.
@@ancientegyptandthebible You're welcome. So far, I really like it. I would like to buy your forthcoming book. Is it only available on Amazon?
@@OrthodoxofUSA I'm so glad you like it. :) And my forthcoming book will be available at other booksellers besides Amazon. However, if you use the affiliate link to buy the book, it helps us more. It is a quirk of academic publishing that the publishers and the booksellers receive a lot more money than the authors. For example, with the book you just bought, I received nothing ($0.00) except the pleasure that you are reading something I wrote. You might begin to see where it can get difficult to pay your landlord on profits like that. ;) If you use the affiliate link to buy the book, this channel gets a small percentage of Amazon's share of the profits. I believe that share is less than a dollar, but less than a dollar is better than nothing--if you get my drift. Now if you find the book for less at another bookseller, by all means buy it there. I wouldn't want to deprive you of substantial savings. But if all else is equal, please consider buying the book with the link, we really could use the support. Thanks again!!!
Old video, but, you seem to be implying at the end of the video that the Ipuwer text became very popular again in the late Rameside period. Is that accurate?
Actually, the early to mid Ramesside period.
Can you do an episode on the elaphantine documents?
I may do something on Elephantine. I'll put it in my ideas file.
5:25 👀 ah
Why didn't the Egyptians mention the freakish events and what happened?
Honestly just confused how that didn't convince people to write about the Exodus those events or overthrow Rameses.
> Why didn't the Egyptians mention the freakish events and what happened?
Because they weren’t that freakish. While these events were extreme, they were within the normal phenomena of the Nile’s inundation. Vexing, yes. Freakish, not really.
> Honestly just confused how that didn't convince people to write about the Exodus those events
Almost no personal correspondence has survived from the Nile delta. The Nile Delta has an archaeological context that is notorious for poor preservation. Only two dozen texts have survived from the Nile Delta for all periods of pharaonic history. The likelihood that any personal correspondence would have survived for this region/period is next to nil.
> … or overthrow Rameses.
That’s not likely to happen. Egypt was a brutal military dictatorship. Even without it’s chariots, Egypt still had a sizable force of infantry that could be used to suppress the population should there ever be the slightest hint of insurrection.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I mean the blood is obviously supernatural.
And I think some other stuff were. Also wow you're up late!
@@deiansalazar140 Yup, I suffer from insomnia.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleNormal events? Can you point to other times that the Nile turned red? From clay or blood or... Then all the other plagues to the point that slaves were let go? You are sounding more like a charlatan thsn a scholar
@@kaptaink1959
> Normal events? Can you point to other times that the Nile turned red? From clay or blood or...
It happened during the First Intermediate Period.
> Then all the other plagues to the point that slaves were let go?
They are hypernatural events.
> You are sounding more like a charlatan thsn a scholar
Perhaps because you don't know the history of Egypt all that well.
Ramses 2 was not the pharaoh of the Exodus. That distinction belonged to Amenhotep 2.
Neither Ramses nor Amenhotep were ever called "Pharaos". The exodus never took place in modern day Egypt because the Torah mentions "Mizraim" not "egypt".
@@josephbel Exodus 1 from 4Q [Qumram]1:
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt,
Splain dat.
@@josephbel amigo, I think you missed 1 Kings 6:1. The PHARAOH was Amenhotep 2.
@@ernee100 The Bible is a book of faith not a book of science. The bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. Lets see what anthropologist Ze'ev Herzog said:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells."
I have two questions for anyone to answer and the correct answer that is historically proven by the Israelis themselves, will demolish the Exodus story, lets see if you can answer it. What was the name of the land where Moses took the Israelites? And what power controlled that place?
@@ernee100 The bible is a book of faith, not science, here is what Ze'ev Herzog said:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells."
Most will date the Exodus to roughly 1446 BCE---not in the 1300's BCE. The name of the exodus Pharoah is either Amenhotep II or Thutmose II---not Rameses Ii. If you actually knew your Bible, you'd know that the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon built the Temple in the 4th year of hi s reign.
> Most will date the Exodus to roughly 1446 BCE---not in the 1300's BCE.
Ad populum fallacy. The early exodus date is no longer the majority position among scholars. Sorry, to break that to you. Most, who still believe in an exodus as a historical event, will now place it in the 1200s. But even if "most" do place it in roughly 1446 BC does not mean that they are correct. We have to go by the evidence, not what the majority believes. If you actually knew the current academic field on this issue and the nature of academic controversies, you'd know that.
> The name of the exodus Pharoah is either Amenhotep II or Thutmose II---not Rameses Ii.
Neither Amenhotep II nor Thutmosis II lived in 1446 BC. Amenhotep II reigned from 1425 BC till 1401 BC, and Thutmosis II reigned from 1482 till 1479 BC. If you actually knew Egyptian chronology, you'd know that too.
Moreover, the Biblical evidence strongly suggests that it was Ramesses II. The Bible mentions the cities of Ramesses, Pithom, and Migdol, which were all established or renamed by either Ramesses II or his father Seti I. Furthermore, the Amarna Letters thoroughly refutes the notion that Israelites was in Canaan during an early conquest date. Those issues are going to be problems if you want to hold to an early exodus date or Mosaic authorship.
> If you actually knew your Bible, you'd know that the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon built the Temple in the 4th year of hi s reign.
If you actually knew your Bible, you'd know that 1 Kings 6:1 is a temple dedication inscription and that temple dedication inscriptions use idiomatic expressions that have numerological significance not intended to be read literally. Several temple dedication inscriptions are extant and they all follow that pattern. But since you know the Bible so well, I assume you already know all about the idiom 40 and its multiples.
You see, the problem with being condescending is that, if you are badly wrong, it can really come back to bite you. Wouldn't you rather drop the condescending tone and have a civil conversation instead?
@@ancientegyptandthebible And I will have to reply to you; _"If you only knew your Bible."_
Yet first off: The 18th dynasty is *New Kingdom* not Middle Kingdom!! Do your homework please!!
Using Egyptian archeological data, Senusret III as the counterpart of the Joseph story, you go forwards in time by 430 years. _(Biblical data, and the sole event that is similar to the Joseph story in any way, shape or form.)
Using Egyptian and Biblical dating, you go 542 years back from Shishak _(925BC)._ A very well known date for both Egyptian and Biblical chronology. Btw; Yes, the 480 is a Kairos date and not a Chronos. But, it's also in 1 Kings 6:1 as when Solomon *started* building the temple, not the inauguration. We look to Isaiah and we find that the temple inauguration ceremony was on the Passover of the 10th Jubilee year, or 7x7x10 = 490. Thus yes, the 480 is a 12x40 Kairos date. _(12 generations for the 12 tribes, and 40 years for a generation.)_ It should be, since the construction took 7 years, 483 years. But since we have the Shishak date, 480 or 483, makes absolutely no difference. It's simply a matter of knowing if you're looking at a Chronos or a Kairos date. _(Like Moses's age is also Kairos, not Chronos. But the sojourn in Egypt is Chronos, not Kairos... as in divisible by 1, 5, and 10. So, nothing there... though could be rounded up or down by a maximum of 5 years... rounding off is different than Kairos.)_
Add in +/- 30 years for differences in archeological dating of pharaohs, and you come up with a clear timeline for the Exodus of 1497BC to 1408BC. The Pharaohs of that time are: Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II. The Ipuwer papyrus is clearly dated to the reign of Amenhotep II. The late Amenhotep II time, same as the Magi papyrus. Both of which together, point to the Exodus as being a real event, *not* a fictional one. _(As clear a statement of such a bad event having happened, as you'll get from an ancient Egyptian.)_
So yes, if you want to consider Scripture to be purely fictional, of course you can make up any timeline you want. But, if Scripture has meaning for you, then stick to it, until solidly proven otherwise!
@@michaelwittkopp3379
> And I will have to reply to you; "If you only knew your Bible."
Sigh... if you must... just remember, you started this with the "if you actually knew your Bible" crack. 🙄
> Yet first off: The 18th dynasty is New Kingdom not Middle Kingdom!! Do your homework please!!
Straw man. I never said that the 18th Dynasty was in the Middle Kingdom. Are you always this obtuse? Or are you just trying to impress me?
> Using Egyptian archeological data, Senusret III as the counterpart of the Joseph story, you go forwards in time by 430 years. _(Biblical data, and the sole event that is similar to the Joseph story in any way, shape or form.)
Here we go again. If you knew your Bible, you'd know that the Egyptian Sojourn was 430 years in both Egypt and Canaan, not just Egypt. This can be deduced from Exod 12:40 in the LXX and SP. And this reading is confirmed by Paul in Gal 3:17 which states that the law came 430 years AFTER the promises spoken to Abraham in Canaan. Furthermore, if you add up the years of Moses's genealogy in Exod 6, you'd realize that the Israelites could not have been in Egypt more than 350 years. So it is impossible for Joseph to have been in Egypt at the time of Senwosret III.
Besides, if Joseph lived during the time of Senwosret III, how is it that Joseph drove chariots [Gen 41:43; 46:29]? The introduction of the chariot to Egypt is really well-documented, and was not introduced to Egypt prior to Dynasty 15. That's a major difficulty for the idea that Joseph lived during the Middle Kingdom. You did do your homework to discover that yourself, right?
> Using Egyptian and Biblical dating,
Because you've been so adept at using that so far....
> ... you go 542 years back from Shishak (925BC). A very well known date for both Egyptian and Biblical chronology.
Why would you do that when the 966/967 BC date for the beginning of Solomon's temple is accepted by everyone? Appealing to Shishak just muddies your argument.
> Btw; Yes, the 480 is a Kairos date and not a Chronos. But, it's also in 1 Kings 6:1 as when Solomon started building the temple, not the inauguration.
In the ancient Near East, Temple building projects are inaugurated, that is, timed according to the epoch event when they are begun, not when they are finished, even if the dedication text itself is written after completion years later. But you'd know that if you knew all about ancient Near Eastern culture. Do you still want to play the condescension game?
> We look to Isaiah and we find that the temple inauguration ceremony was on the Passover of the 10th Jubilee year, or 7x7x10 = 490.
You are confused. Isaiah wrote in the late 8th century and says nothing about the temple inauguration ceremony. I think it's clear who hasn't done their homework.
> Thus yes, the 480 is a 12x40 Kairos date. (12 generations for the 12 tribes, and 40 years for a generation.)
That's eisegesis. No one knows exactly what the "12" of the 480th year means. It could be the 12 tribes; it could be the 12 judges; it could be the 12 periods of peace; it could even be a number symbolizing completeness like what is found in Mesopotamian culture. No one knows, and the Bible doesn't say. And 40 years is just an idiom meaning an extended long time. Generations generally average around 25 years. But I thought you would have been consulting critical reference works that are newer than 150 years old. My mistake.
> It should be, since the construction took 7 years, 483 years. But since we have the Shishak date, 480 or 483, makes absolutely no difference.
Not really sure, what you are driving at here with Shishak's date. Your point is not clear.
> It's simply a matter of knowing if you're looking at a Chronos or a Kairos date. (Like Moses's age is also Kairos, not Chronos. But the sojourn in Egypt is Chronos, not Kairos... as in divisible by 1, 5, and 10. So, nothing there... though could be rounded up or down by a maximum of 5 years... rounding off is different than Kairos.)
This argument makes no sense at all. There is no suggestion that a number divisible by 1, 5, and 10 necessarily makes a number Kairos. Nevertheless, the Sojourn in Canaan and Egypt was 430 years, and the last time I checked that is divisible by 10, 5, and 1. Of course, what number is not divisible by 1? Bad math and a nonsense criterion.
> Add in +/- 30 years for differences in archeological dating of pharaohs,
Out of date scholarship. Modern chronology has narrowed the dates down to +/-5 years for the Egyptian New Kingdom. You really need to keep up with the scholarship. But then again you'd know that if you knew anything about Egyptian chronology.
> and you come up with a clear timeline for the Exodus of 1497BC to 1408BC. The Pharaohs of that time are: Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II.
You have not engaged my objection that Amenhotep II could not have reigned in 1446 BC. You just dribbled on with your inane assertions. Show me how it all fits, or I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about yet again.
> The Ipuwer papyrus is clearly dated to the reign of Amenhotep II.
Nonsense, there is not a shred of evidence that Ipuwer dates to Amenhotep II. That's just the fantasy of incompetent fringe clowns. All the evidence for Ipuwer shows it to be a late Dynasty 12 document. Of course, if you knew anything about how ancient documents are dated, you'd know that.
> The late Amenhotep II time, same as the Magi papyrus. Both of which together, point to the Exodus as being a real event, not a fictional one. (As clear a statement of such a bad event having happened, as you'll get from an ancient Egyptian.)
It's just impossible for the exodus to have taken place during the reign of Amenhotep II. It's not that Amenhotep II being the pharaoh of the exodus is simply unlikely--it is actually impossible, as in there is zero possibility that Amenhotep II was on the throne at the time of the early exodus date. Amarna Letter 6 has completely discredited the idea. But if the sky is a different color in your world, then I guess you can believe the impossible but that's not reality.
Furthermore, what exactly is the "Magi papyrus" supposed to be? That is not a nomenclature used with ancient Egyptian papyri. Please use a standardized document name when referencing a papyrus.
> So yes, if you want to consider Scripture to be purely fictional, of course you can make up any timeline you want. But, if Scripture has meaning for you, then stick to it, until solidly proven otherwise!
Another straw man. I don't consider the exodus account to be fictional in any way. I think the exodus account is completely historical.
However, in your interpretation, you have misrepresented Scripture by forcing the Biblical text to fit into a Western reading and into historical events for which a fit is impossible. If our interpretation makes the Bible seem impossible (not because the Bible is inherently saying something impossible, but because we have been intransigent in our interpretation), does that not open the Bible to needless ridicule? I don't think either one of us wants that.
Do you still think being condescending is good idea? BTW, I'm ready to forego the reciprocal condescension any time you are. Just let me know when you want have a serious conversation, and I'm all game.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Okay, let's go through this again:
My comment of ; _“If you only knew your Bible”_ was in quotation marks. I was quoting *You,* and a comment *you* used on a poster here... to obviously brow-beat them. I was pointing this out, as in, _“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”_ You don't do such. It's a piss-poor way to debate. It's attacking the debater, not the subject matter. _(And obviously, you didn't like being the bunt of such. Let's pray you learned your lesson.)_
Even *if* someone brings up some nutty conspiracy theory, you don't blast them. You take them through it step by step, showing them why that conspiracy is wrong. Be productive, be a teacher.
Sojourn in Egypt:
Genesis 15:13. “ And he [the Lord] said unto Abram, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” _(KJV)_
Exodus 12:40-41. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” _(KJV)_
Where is there any reference to the sojourn being both in Egypt and Canaan? It's as clear as day that *_The Sojourn_* is in Egypt only, and of a length of around 4 centuries.
My point about this 430 years is that it is *not* Kairos. It *is* clearly Chronos, and should be accepted, until evidence proves it incorrect... beyond a shadow of a doubt. _(Which has never been done yet.)_
Your point about Joseph and the Chariot is interesting, and _could point_ to the Hyksos. Were it not for the fact that _Chariot_ is a general term for a mode of transportation for humans, having only two wheels. _(Look into such usage and depiction by many ancient cultures, centuries before.)_ It's a fancy version of a two-wheeled cart. _(Heck, even today, sometimes people call a motorbike a chariot.)_ It can be pulled by oxen, donkeys, or even humans, not only horses. It was commonly used in processions, even after the Hyksos brought the Indo-European war-chariot to the Fertile Crescent. That verse is inconclusive, and thus proves nothing.
But all this back and forth is non-productive, yet the very example I'm trying to make. There are very rarely smoking-guns in archaeology. Most everything stays within the realm of a hypothesis. You can't prove it, you can't disprove it. _(And, there will always be more than one way to see things.)_
You can only order them, going from a most likely to a least likely. And as far as the Joseph story goes, Senusret III is most likely, Hyksos are less likely. And as far as the Exodus pharaoh is concerned, Amenhotep II is most likely, Rameses II is less likely. Without further evidence, I'd bite my tongue off, before saying anything definitive and conclusive.
You do the science of archaeology a disservice, you do Biblical research a disservice, when you state options as _“set in stone.”_ Give a rundown of option A, a rundown of option B, then you can go into the nitty-gritty of why you like the one option over the other. That's perfectly fine then. You have the right to your opinion, so long you express it as; _"your opinion."_
But remember, archaeology is wroth with opinions. *All* of them, and $1.75, should buy you a cup of coffee.
@@michaelwittkopp3379
> My comment of ; “If you only knew your Bible” was in quotation marks. I was quoting You, and a comment you used on a poster here... to obviously brow-beat them. I was pointing this out, as in, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” You don't do such. It's a piss-poor way to debate. It's attacking the debater, not the subject matter. (And obviously, you didn't like being the bunt of such. Let's pray you learned your lesson.)
My apologies for attributing that to you. However, louistenaglia410 did start this with "if you actually knew your Bible" crack to brow-beat me, and you decided to insert yourself into this, so I can't really feel sorry for you either. If either one of you is going to act like a jerk, then can your really expect to be treated otherwise?
> Even if someone brings up some nutty conspiracy theory, you don't blast them. You take them through it step by step, showing them why that conspiracy is wrong. Be productive, be a teacher.
Hey, if you want to broach something nutty, that's fine. I have no problem with that. Being a condescending jerk when there's no warrant for it, that gets my hackles up. louistenaglia410 had no warrant to being condescending, and you had no warrant for stepping into his place. But I am willing to set all that aside to have a civil conversation.
> Genesis 15:13. “ And he [the Lord] said unto Abram, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” (KJV)
That not proof that they were in Egypt for 400 years. Galatians 3:17 shows that the prophetic clock begins with the promises given to Abraham, and Isaac lives his entire life in Canaan, a land not yet theirs. So the Israelites could not have been in Egypt for the entire 400 years. It's impossible.
> Exodus 12:40-41. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” (KJV) Where is there any reference to the sojourn being both in Egypt and Canaan? It's as clear as day that The Sojourn is in Egypt only, and of a length of around 4 centuries.
The LXX and SP both state that Israel dwelt in Egypt and Canaan for 430 years, not just in Egypt. The KJV is not authoritative here. The majority of text type witnesses include Canaan in the text. It is mentioned explicitly in the LXX, SP, and in Galatians.
> My point about this 430 years is that it is not Kairos. It is clearly Chronos, and should be accepted, until evidence proves it incorrect... beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Which has never been done yet.)
I accept that it's Chronos. However, I think where that time is being served is a point of contention.
> Your point about Joseph and the Chariot is interesting, and could point to the Hyksos. Were it not for the fact that Chariot is a general term for a mode of transportation for humans, having only two wheels. (Look into such usage and depiction by many ancient cultures, centuries before.) It's a fancy version of a two-wheeled cart. (Heck, even today, sometimes people call a motorbike a chariot.) It can be pulled by oxen, donkeys, or even humans, not only horses. It was commonly used in processions, even after the Hyksos brought the Indo-European war-chariot to the Fertile Crescent. That verse is inconclusive, and thus proves nothing.
Yeah, that itself is a problem since the Egyptians also didn't have the wheel until the period of the Hyksos. The wheel itself was invented around 2300 BC in Mesopotamia around the same time as the composite bow, and imported to Egypt around 1600 BC. Prior to that everything in Egypt was transported by pack animal or by boat. We have a lot of tomb reliefs show agricultural and domestic life and extant texts to demonstrate this.
> You can only order them, going from a most likely to a least likely. And as far as the Joseph story goes, Senusret III is most likely, Hyksos are less likely.
Why is Senwosret III more likely than the Hyksos? I've already shown that, according to the Bible, the dating doesn't work. What makes Senwosret III a better option?
> And as far as the Exodus pharaoh is concerned, Amenhotep II is most likely, Rameses II is less likely. Without further evidence, I'd bite my tongue off, before saying anything definitive and conclusive.
Again why is Amenhotep II more likely than Ramesses II? What's the evidence? Do you not know that most of the places mentioned in the Book of Exodus date to either Ramesses II or his father Seti I? That seems like pretty good evidence to me.
> You do the science of archaeology a disservice, you do Biblical research a disservice, when you state options as “set in stone.” Give a rundown of option A, a rundown of option B, then you can go into the nitty-gritty of why you like the one option over the other. That's perfectly fine then. You have the right to your opinion, so long you express it as; "your opinion."
I think I've weighed the evidence pretty fairly. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a exodus during the time of Ramesses II. Moreover, the evidence excludes Amenhotep II as being a possibility for being the pharaoh of the exodus. That's not my opinion. That's what the evidence demands. I'm not going to say something is "my opinion" when the evidence forbids something in the strongest possible way. I'd be happy to explore why that is with you, but I'm not going claim something as merely an opinion when it is actually a fact. Mischaracterizing the evidence to make someone feel better about their position would be intellectually dishonest.
> But remember, archaeology is wroth with opinions. All of them, and $1.75, should buy you a cup of coffee.
But also remember, archaeology is also based upon evidence and facts. It's best not confuse fact with opinion.
It crazy how people who dont even speak the MEDU NETCHR can interpret our history...shout out ghana ethiopia sudan.. Ankh oojd senb
Ankhw wdjw snbw n-k. Ms ntf kh3ini. Swt nn ink wnn q3 khrw bin? Mk ma tjw djd r pf p3y sdjm iswt nt t3wy? N djdt m-wḥm mdw nhy mi 3aa is di n-k iqr n djbaw.
@@ancientegyptandthebible ok say that in the first place...tell the world this is AFRICAN HISTORY..Hotep
@@curtssallee9807 Why should I front every video with "I know the ancient Egyptian language"? Wouldn't that sound silly? Those familiar with my work already know that I hold a PhD in Egyptology and am well-versed in the languages. Besides, if I were to start conversing in ancient Egyptian, how would this help you as you don't seem to have the foggiest idea of what I just said in Egyptian? And how would you even know if a person understands the ancient Egyptian language or is just faking it? Just be aware that not every white dude that speaks on Egypt's history is a rube. I would invite you to listen to my other videos so that you learn something about ancient Egypt and the Bible before commenting further.
@@ancientegyptandthebible i dont have a phd no need i was born into this.making sure the teachings are told right and not from a biased paradigm...hotep.
@@curtssallee9807 No one living today was born into a historical context that has not existed for two millennia... htp hna shlm.
i have problems with the accuracy of your intersection of the biblical and historical texts you use...i have problems the way you interplay with the children of israel, moses and ipuwer....long story short: the bible was heavily redacted to promote a point of view about God and how God saved this band of nomads from eastern asia...ipuwer accurately documents the radical revolution in black egypt taking place in the old kingdom...how this document validates the authority of a world religion is another issue
Okay, I have problems with the _ad hoc_ reasoning that the Bible was heavily redacted, when this happened to no other piece of Ancient Near Eastern literature. I also have a problem with construing Ipuwer with a "radical revolution in black egypt taking place in the old kingdom," which is that this a historical revisionism that flies in the face of everything we know about Egyptian language, history, and ethnography.
@@ancientegyptandthebible read cheikh ante diops book "civilization or barbarism"...his chapter on the osirian revolution happened at the time of ipuwer's so called "lament"...
@@drkrobinson I've read some Diop. What I have read was pseudoscience. His idea of an anarchist Dynasty 5 preceding his "osirian revolution" is complete baloney. And it's not like I haven't given afrocenterism a fair hearing. I was once very taken by the ideas of Martin Bernel. However, I don't think the data supports these fringe ideas.
@@ancientegyptandthebible i specifically pointed you to a chapter in his book regarding the subject you claim to know something about and you call it "pseudoscience", but you can't refute him when other competent archeologist collaborate what he is pointing out...so who is more pseudo?
@@drkrobinson Which competent archaeologists corroborate Diop? And you may have pointed out a specific chapter. So what? I don't engage other people's books because that is a sleezy way of offloading your argumentative responsibilities on your opponent. If you think an argument is so strong, make it yourself. Stop being so lazy.