Was Senenmut the Biblical Moses?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- In the March-April 2024 edition of "Let the Stones Speak" magazine, Christopher Eames proposed that the Egyptian administrator Senenmut was the Biblical Moses. In this video, we closely examine that claim to see if it holds water in light of the Biblical text and the archaeology of ancient Egypt.
The original article can be read here, armstronginsti...
We are leading an Egypt and the Bible tour on March 2025. If you want to participate in the tour or would like more information, the link is www.jcbs.org/t... . The link to register is in the "Departure Dates" box.
If you feel like directly supporting the work of this channel, consider purchasing Ancient Egypt and the Bible merchandise from our store ( my-store-d6b41... ) or by becoming a patron on my Patreon account ( / egyptandthebible ).
You can also support us through Paypal using the address ( davidfalk@zoho.com )
Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers.
We are raising funds for a new book project on the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In this book, we plan to delve into the Egyptian culture context of the plagues of the Exodus so as to discover what those plaques would have meant to the Egyptians.
If you would like to help us with this project or wish to support our work financially and don’t want to be a Patreon member, please consider a donation to my a crypto currency wallet for Monero XMR ( 46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5 ) or Bitcoin BTC ( bc1qn4hykytwr4kh8c2z9w05mqcq040h9vgtwl0pt5 ). Or if you still trust GoFundMe, to my GoFundMe campaign ( www.gofundme.c... ).
If you want to continue on the conversation and meet other members of this community, you are invited to join us on our Discord community ( / discord )
The music for the open and closing credits was provided by Velocirabbit ( / velocirabbit - topic ).
Great video
Thank you.
The man himself
Sup ip
Woah
@@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9btwhy woah? They have had a good bit of interaction.
Isn't Christopher Eames the same guy who suggested that Terru from the Mari tablets is Terah from Genesis? Does the flawed methodology referenced here call his scholarship and thus the Terah / Terru connection into question?
The difference is that Eames provided the "smoking gun" for the Terah/Terru connection. If he had been able to provide a smoking gun in this case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem with the Senenmut/Moses parallels is that there is no necessary connection between the parallels--the names are not the same, the ethnicities are not the same, the siblings are not the same, their home territories are not the same, and then there are all the counterfactuals. With the Terah/Terru connection, the names are practically the same, they are from remarkably similar place name Ur Kashdim/Ur Kesh, at the same times both in 18th cent BC, the biographies are similar (e.g., death of a son at Ur), they both sojourn in the same place (Syria). The Terah/Terru connection is a strong inductive case. If you took one of those parallels away, you would still have a strong case for a Terah/Terru connection. On the other hand, without the early exodus date polemic, no one would think there was any connection at all between Senenmut and Moses.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleHi Dr. Falk, Is the name of Terru's son recorded historically?
@@AliNasser02 No, the name of Terru's son is not recorded historically. We only have the fact that his son died when Terru and his family had to flee Urkesh.
Thanks Dr Falk! Between your video regarding "Synchronisms for Terah" and IP's latest video arguing for a northern location of Ur, it would seem the case for the historicity of this part of Genesis is strong. Essentially the same name, location, time, and even biography! (A prominant man who left "Ur" to become a Hapiru towards the Shinak (spelling?) mountains. BTW... what is the modern name of this mountain range? I've had aa hard time tracking that down.)
Another additional piece of evidence the author of the video is leaving out is that the description by Josephus of Moses accomplishments, parallel that of Senenmut. There is your second smoking gun
I'm amatur Egypt-lover of the 18th Dynasty. My response to this question is Ha!Ha! No!.
10:27 Wow, I really didn't see the crocodile coming in this video!
There 's the truth catching up again.
Sneaky that truth.... 😂
It wasn't totally
I think Akhenaten is the biblical Moses.
Did you know that Akhenaten's body was found in the Valley of the Kings in KV55? So, Akhenaten cannot be the Biblical Moses.
@@ancientegyptandthebible yes from what I've read Akhenaten's DNA was tested and he was determined to be the father of the King Tut mummy as well as showing he had Semitic DNA. Why would finding a body that fits so much criteria for Moses's body not be his?
@@paulschuckman6604
> yes from what I've read Akhenaten's DNA was tested and he was determined to be the father of the King Tut mummy as well as showing he had Semitic DNA.
It's not just that. Akhenaten's DNA was also tested against Amenhotep III's DNA. So we know that Amenhotep III was father of Akhenaten and Akhenaten was father of Tutankhamun. Now, there is some Semitic DNA in Akhenaten because the Egyptians were a melting pot of a lot of ethnicities, which is why they are classified as an Afro-Semitic people. However, the fact that Amenhotep III was Akhenaten's father would exclude Akhenaten from being Moses, as Moses would not be an adopted son (of the daughter of the king), but a naturally born son of the king.
> Why would finding a body that fits so much criteria for Moses's body not be his?
Well, what criteria was that? Explain how you arrived at that conclusion, and perhaps we could figure out together where the mistake happened. There is value in forensic thinking as it can help us from making future mistakes.
Then you might want to look at the documented life of both men. There is no way they are the same person.
Moses is Golden Brown Ruddy Color the Exact Same Golden Brown ruddy Color as the Lion an the Pyramids of Egypt Built by the Hand of the Living Lord GOD Almighty Most High straight out of the Egyptian Golden Brown Ruddy Desert Sands Terrain Dirt Dusk along with the 1st Man Many Many Moons Ago
My Cup Runneth Over
bob marley / peter tosh
1970
That doesn't surprise me coming from Bob Marley... 😂
@@ancientegyptandthebible Redemption Songs by Melchizedek the High Priest of GOD
Red Gold Green the LORD is My Banner
Ma'ats law book 42 Moses copybooks from the 10 commandments.
Busket Boy Moses from the Nile River.
Egypt Moses growing up
Egypt Akhenaten made Moses the chief priest
Egypt Akhenaten made a deal with Moses
"One God was established' '
Akhenaten moved to armana
Moses moved to Exodus African Israel
Let's my people go 'african Hebrew 😮
No, no, and no. This is just messed up beyond all fan-fiction.
@@ancientegyptandthebible walking dead 😂
Moses part or Akhenaten part or Maat part or which part you don't understand?
You learn something today 😀
@@billyboasiako1775 Oh, I understand what you are saying, and it's just wrong in fabulous and ridiculous ways.
@@ancientegyptandthebible walking dead 😂
Throw away the Bible
Throw away the Quran
Throw away the Torah
Moses copybooks ,
10:02 - 10:17 Am I the only one who can’t unsee mr. empty conjecture staring down David Falk because instead of being used in the video David used a picture of him instead of the real puppet and is just staring down at David saying “….really” LOL.😅
Of course Petrovich was involved in this.
Of course.
🤣🤣🤣
@dannydement what is the issue with Petrovich? I’m out the loop, so I don’t know why his involvement brings red flags.
2:28 Kudos to Douglas Petrovic 🤣🤣🤣
2:58 The source of all manner of incompetence 🤣🤣🤣
I thought that was Ron Wyatt
@@CoranceLChandler It's not incompetence if you don't care whether or not what you say is true. 😂
@@ancientegyptandthebible oh dang, that's the truth. I used to believe everything that man said though my teens and early twenties. So embarrassed 🤦🏾♂️
@@CoranceLChandler Me too... me too...
Senenmut was born in a village close to modern day Luxor. The tomb of his parents was found. A large number of items from their tomb are on exhibit in the Met in New York City. Senenmut also had siblings.
Not Moses.
A popcorn review without popcorn ? What do we eat. … A pigs breackfast.
Speackingnif Pigs breackfasts, Amram reminds me of one, it’s called Surat 3.
Hey, at least there was a lot of pork. 🐖 We do popcorn reviews with primarily video content that is generally between 20 to 60 minutes in length. No video, no popcorn. 🙁
The answer is NO. Senenmut was NOT the biblical Moses
Saphon Mashe fits the Biblcial Moses better. Eusebius equates Saphon Mashe's brother Shubna Shur with Aaron (the name meanings are the same).
How do you know?
@@abc_12333 No sir. Saphon Mashe was NOT the biblical Moses either.
@@daviddrew3372 Because I know who the biblical Moses was…lol
@@soapman3064 YES! Saphon Mashe most definitely was Moses. The evidence is overwhelming and he is from the SAME era that David Falk is proposing. I have the evidence. Why don't you propose someone better instead of being so negative.!
Wonderful! I’ve been curious about this ever since it was mentioned. Thank you :)
What do you think about expeditionbibles video that Amenhotep 2nd was the exodus pharaoh?
I think Joel Kramer's arguments are exceptionally poor.
I see Saphon Mashe as the Biblical Moses. He also matches David Falk's era for Moses. You can find his name in the Sinai Tablets. Eusebius believed that his brother was Shubna Shur (same name meaning as Aaron).
The Saphon Mashe reading is contested. And frankly, I have not even been able to find a good published source for the reading.
Okay, but what if they are all the same person?
@@daviddrew3372 "What ifs" don't cut it. We need to base our opinions on evidence, not what we want to be true. If the evidence doesn't support a particular view, it is incumbent upon us to abandon that view and move on to greener fields.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Lack of evidence does not prove it's untrue. It simply means we don't know. Have a look a some of the evidence that's been dug in in the last 20 years, proving many things. Prior to that, according to you, we should have just rolled over and given up.
@@tomsawyer3947
Lack of evidence does not prove it's true either. Lack of evidence is nothing at all.
But let's look at the evidence that we do have. (1) Eames's foundation that the early exodus date with Amenhotep II as pharaoh is prima facie false. It is in no way supported by the chronological evidence. (2) Their hermeneutic of a wooden-literal reading of the number 40 leads to ridiculous conclusions, e.g., that Hatshepsut was seven-years-old at the time she adopted Moses. Reductio ad absurdum. (3) Senenmut (and his family going back 3 generations) are from Hermonthis, not Goshen. Simply put, Senenmut is from the wrong place. (4) Senenmut was an Egyptian, not a foreigner. (5) Senenmut's family history is well-known (father, mother, grandmother, 3 brothers, and 2 sisters), none of whom are a match with the Biblical narrative. (6) Hatshepsut was still on the throne and primary ruler over Egypt in 1483 (according to their distorted high chronology), even though Moses supposedly fled Egypt to escape Thutmosis III in 1486 BC. (7) There is a strong possibility that Senenmut was alive and living in Egypt into the reign of Thutmosis III.
So while a lack of evidence does not prove it is untrue, the above is not a lack of evidence. We have more than sufficient evidence to determine that the Senenmut/Moses connection is wrong. Moreover, there is no positive evidence to support the connection between Senenmut and Moses, and the burden of proof still rests with Eames to prove his claims, not just to shift the burden of proof onto his critics. Eames has simply made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that are contradicted by the evidence. Without the ever-dubious early exodus date claim, no one could possibly tie Senenmut to Moses. That is more than sufficient warrant to reject the claim.
So, the Sothic cycle is the reason most of the Early date exodus proponents' dates don't even match the High chronology? They appear to be 27-28 years too early. Somewhere in that 480 years they have to normalize to a Temple dedication date of 967 BC or that would be off by 28 years as well.
No, they claim that we should continue to use the standard high chronology because of the Sothic cycle, and they "tweak" the standard high chronology to make everything fit. It's a bait-and-switch. They bait you with the standard high chronology supported by the Sothic cycle, and then switch it out with their own distorted chronology.
Doctor David Falk, I currently have a very controversial question, it's about the merneptah stele: the stele says ysiriar and not Israel or ysiriar would be the transliteration of Israel into Egyptian, could you explain this to me linguistically?I couldn't find any books about this
It is usually read as "YSRIAR". Ancient Egyptians spell 'L' as 'R'.
@@tccchoirmember hmm, cool, but that solves 1 letter, but what about the rest?
Okay, the stela reads ys-ri-3r with the final-r being read as a letter-l. The double strokes under the letter-s are not diagonally orients, which is a less common variant of the letter-y. However, the letter-y is sporadically read as the letter-i but occasionally it can be read as sewa. The 3r syllable at the end of Levantine foreign place names is almost always the theophoric element "El." So, it should be read ys-ri-el, which is almost identical to the Hebrew pronunciation, ys-ra-el.
@@Palea-estudos The rest of it spells "Ysrael"
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thank you very much, doctor David Falk, this summary analysis, I'm very happy, I finally got the answer.
Thank you for posting this video. I also watched the Armstrong Institute's video and was waiting for someone to come out against them. (Chronology is a hobby of mine.) Although you misquoted them on several occasions I think I could understand what you were trying to say. I will now be investigating each of your claims. My interest is to get as close as possible to the truth. There have certainly been a host of "loony" claims in the past. Trust is not easy to come by.
I didn't base it on their video. I only used their published article, and kept my critique strictly to what Eames said in the article. So what was said in the article may have differed from the video. If I have misquoted him, I would be happy to issue a correction, but only if it is materially differs from what was said in the article.
You may have planned this already, but please do a pop corn review of Douglas Petrovich video on Joseph
What is the title of the video?
@@ancientegyptandthebible it’s called Jacob and Joseph at Avaris.
@@tylerx099 I will look into it.
Why not a Petrovich vs Petrovich. "TOWARD PINPOINTING THE TIMING OF THE EGYPTIAN ABANDONMENT OF AVARIS DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE 18th DYNASTY" University of Toronto 2013 vs. Is Genesis History video "What Israelite Secrets are Being Uncovered in Egypt? | Lesson 3" Phasing Scheme of Avaris 2023.
I'm sure you've talked about this before, but how much stock do you put in Josephus's account of Moses?
Great question.
Almost none.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Good future video topic perhaps?
@@marinanguish9928 Perhaps.
Haven’t read it, but whatever it is, we already have a better account of Moses written by Moses himself.
Fish Biologist, Egyptologist - one and the same really...... Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question: how is this not a Manna Machine Alert 😢😅
Because my producer hasn't read the article yet.
Could the Exodus have occurred during the Hyksos collapse at the hand of Ahmose? Could the Hyksos King Apophis (Chaos, devil) be a clue?
No, because the details of the Hyksos expulsion have almost no resemblance to the Israelite exodus. And the name of the Hyksos king (Apepi) is the Greek translation of Aa-qenen-Re (ˁ3 ḳn n rˁ) whereas the name of the serpent who at the sun Apophis was (ˁ3 pp). The two names are not in any way related.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thank you Professor Falk for clearing that up.
I know that this isn't your area of expertise, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on Petrovich's tower of babel paper/lecture
@@vanuaturly Petrovich believes that all humanity stems from the Uruk Expansion and that Eridu is Babel. I think that Petrovich lacks evidence and warrant for his theory. There is nothing to suggest that all written language came from Eridu.
I smell something fishy in his arguments.
Week-old fish.
@@ancientegyptandthebible 😂
AM AM AMrAM is the Secret Ancient Name of the Living Lord GOD Almighty Most High that He gave to Moses at the Burning Bush this is My Name Forever from Generation to Generation for i do Not change -
Exodus 3 vs 14 - 15
Moses birth, 1496bc...death 1376 (120yrs). There was a solar eclipse that year... Tut Moses the third destroyed anything about Queen Hapshepsut and Senenmut for being her close confidant
I believe she was born in 1506 BC and she was 11 when she found him... I believe Senenmut was Neterure father
Interesting
Why is the High Chronology for the 18th Dynasty still followed by anyone? Burna-buriash II addressed EA 6 to Amenhotep III, and the dates for Burna-buriash II (1359-1333 BC) are secure due to synchronisms with Assyria. Which means those who want to argue that Amenhotep II was the Exodus pharaoh are forced to adopt the the LXX reading of 440 years in I Kings 6:1. But that doesn't work either, because this means the Israelite Conquest occurred shortly before the Amarna period, yet the king of Hazor wrote two letters to Pharaoh (EA 227 and EA 228). There' would have to have been a quick post-destruction rebuild of the city, yet there's no indication in either of these letters that the city had recently been destroyed. An 18th Dynasty Exodus is untenable.
The only reason people still follow it is because of the early exodus date, and then only to bait-and-switch it with their own chronology.
Thank you Dr. Falk for all the work you do and for educating, it is greatly appreciated. If only 18th Dynasty Exodus advocates would actually take the time to read the Amarna letters carefully. If they did they would be struck by far more differences than supposed similarities between the post-Conquest/early Judges period and the Amarna period. These misalignments mislead people.
@@GisgoSBOL It's confirmation bias. That's a difficult thing to resist.
Thank you Dr. Falk!
I’m currently in a degree for computer science but I don’t really have any love for it just doing it for money. My true love is history and its proponents what should I do.
AMrAM named His Son Chabar at His Birth Book of Jasher 68 vs 25
Hey Dr. Falk, do you think overall most the Armstrong's other work is pretty sound or do you think there's many issues with the organization? Seems like they've had solid other work
It's very hit and miss. Sometimes they have good stuff. Sometimes it is dreadful. Organization has begun to lean towards more fundamentalist views and readings, and I don't think that's a good direction for an organization like this to take. The problem with the Armstrong Institute is that it can be very difficult for non-experts to separate out the wheat from the chaff.
The third smoking gun is the dream Stele
What do you think is the strongest archeological find for the exodus story
Whoop hooi here I am! Can't wait
10:05 why did that doll/puppet appear?
Most people in our audience know that puppet as "Mr. Empty Conjecture." He is appears on screen when someone mentions an conjecture without support or a sterile supposition.
Big up Dr Falk 💪
I’ve have the pleasure of seeing the mummy of the pharaoh Merneptah. Many believe that he was the Pharaoh from the Bible.
Yup, some people still believe that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the exodus. However, most scholars today would reject that view since Merneptah does his campaign into Canaan early in his reign (regnal year 4 or prior) and the Israelites are already residing there. If Merneptah was the Pharaoh from the Bible, the exodus would have had to have taken place in his regnal years 1 to 3, which would preclude the idea of an extended sojourn in the wilderness.
thanks!!
Is there any possibility that the exodus took place before Akhenaten? Before following you I believed that the pharaoh in Exodus was Amenhotep III because his firstborn Son Thutmoses died and his other son Akhenaten, lost faith in the traditional gods. It just seems the exodus would be a great reason why Akhenaten gave up on the gods of Egypt.
I don't think so. Almost the entire itinerary of the exodus mentions place names that were either founded or renamed during the 19th Dynasty. But if it is any consolation, Akhenaten was not a monotheist and didn't really give up on the gods of Egypt. He just made all the gods of Egypt a manifestation of the Aten. He was really a pantheist, not a monotheist.
@@ancientegyptandthebible yeah I think I read that before about him being a pantheist. But I thought he destroyed temples and Idols throughout Egypt.
@@MichaelStratton1993 No, he didn't destroy temples or idols. But he caused temples to close down by cutting off the royal endowments, and having those endowments redirected to Atenism. He also did some damnitio memorae of some divine names (primarily Amun and Osiris), but by no means all divine names.
@@ancientegyptandthebible thanks that information was very helpful.
@@MichaelStratton1993 My pleasure!!! ☺
Thank you!
My pleasure!!! ☺
Do you believe that this is most likely Moses, or most likely not?
No. I believe that this cannot be Moses.
@@ancientegyptandthebible ok
Looking at the subject objectively he probably is Moses. But he may have also been the Egyptian master whom Moses killed.
Why is Senenmut probably Moses?
Was he alive when the city of Rameses (Ex 1:11) was in existence?
The late date is at odds with two dates in the Bible. The temple constriction began either 480 or 440 years after the Exodus. Sure, you could try to explain that away as a symbolic number of 11 or 12 generations, but that fails to account for the 300 years mentioned by Jephthah, which really puts a damper on a late Exodus. Three archeological finds seem to support (indirectly) early date. You got the dream stele of Thutmose IV, attempting to legitimize his rule even though he wasn’t first born. The temple at Soleb mentions nomads who worshiped Yahweh. The Armana letters mention an invading people in Canaan. The stele of Ramesses II’s successor suggests that Israel was an established people group, not newly arrived in the land. Whether this guy wasn’t Moses does not make the late date more plausible. The Bible does contain updates to place names put in by later scribes. Ur of the Chaldeans doe not necessarily mean a different Ur from the Sumerian Ur. Dan is mentioned, despite the name of the town not being changed until Judges. Pi Rameses was a store city in Exodus, not the royal capital, and it was also the former Hyksos capital. Numbers 12:3 was a later edition than the original, added to remind people of the untruthfulness of the charge against Moses. Deuteronomy 34:10-12 was also later to show the prophet like Moses hadn’t appeared.
The recent discovery of the Jerub-baal/Gideon ostraca is dated to 1100BC. From the start of his Judgeship to that of Jephthah's is 106 years. Even if 1100BC was the middle of his 40-year term then 1100-106+20= 1014. Add 300 years to 1014 only gets you to 1314 BC. Sorry, no cigar.
If the pharaoh of the Exodus was Thutmose III or Amenhotep II the capital would have been at Thebes.
Dan in this case Danuna was mentioned by the mayor of Tyre in Amarna Letter EA151 when its king died.
The Amarna Letters make no mention of Hazor being destroyed by the Habiru where it would have been one of the first cities burnt.
The temple at Soleb mentions nomads who worshiped Yahweh. Correct. The nomads of Seir, i.e. Edom not the Habiru of the Amarna Letters.
Instead of running away from the Amarna Letters the early date exodus people appear to now be trying to incorporate it into their theory
> The late date is at odds with two dates in the Bible. The temple constriction began either 480 or 440 years after the Exodus. Sure, you could try to explain that away as a symbolic number of 11 or 12 generations,
Actually, the better explanation is that 1 Kings 6:1 is a temple dedication inscription. And there is no doubt that 1 Kings 6:1 is a temple dedication inscription as it follows the formula exactly. A lot of these inscriptions exist in the ANE, and all these inscriptions have in common that there is a count of years going back to an epoch event. But that count is always a numerological symbolic count which never accurate. So then why should the 480 years be read as accurate when in no other inscription of this kind there is an accurate count of years? And there is no doubt that 480 is a number with numerological significance. So, you cannot rely on the 480/440 years as an accurate count because that reading doesn't consider the genre or idiomatic expressions of the text.
> but that fails to account for the 300 years mentioned by Jephthah, which really puts a damper on a late Exodus.
Do you realize that practically everything that Jephthah mentions in his letter to the king of Ammon is wrong? How is almost every detail in that letter wrong, but somehow the 300 years is still correct? The point of this letter to the king of Ammon was to show that Jephthah was an ignorant and bad judge, but God was still faithful in securing the victory despite Jephthah's incompetence. If you are use that as a piece of supporting evidence, it is a terrible choice.
> Three archeological finds seem to support (indirectly) early date. You got the dream stele of Thutmose IV, attempting to legitimize his rule even though he wasn’t first born.
This doesn't show anything. A lot of kings lost their first born sons because infant mortality was so high in the ancient world. Thutmosis III lost his first born son. Amenhotep III lost his first born son. Aye lost both his sons. And so too did Ramesses II--he lost his first twelve sons. Unfortunately, this is not that helpful in establishing who was the pharaoh of the exodus.
> The temple at Soleb mentions nomads who worshiped Yahweh.
You realize that the Shasu of Yahu were located in Edom, right? You realize that those nomads cannot be Israelites because the Israelites were forbidden from entering Edom, right? You wouldn't want to contradict the Bible, would you?
> The Armana letters mention an invading people in Canaan.
Yes, those were Hapiru led by the king of Amurru (the Amorites). They invaded the northern Levant and conquered from the Heshbon to Byblos, Lebanon. Did the Israelites ever conquer north of the tribal holdings of Dan? Did the Israelites ever invade Lebanon? Did the Israelites ever fight for the Amorites? We know that the Israelites entered the land through the Heshbon in order to conquer the lands that the Amorites had previously conquered. So the Amarna letters must have occurred before the Israelite conquest. You wouldn't want to contradict the Bible, would you?
> The stele of Ramesses II’s successor suggests that Israel was an established people group, not newly arrived in the land.
Did you realize that the Merneptah Victory Stele uses the people-group determinative with the ethnonym "Israelite"? And not only that, but the stela pairs similar groups together in couplets? And the Israelites are paired with the Hurrians, a migratory people group. So the stele indicates that Merneptah encountered not a people established in the land, but a migratory people-group wandering the land. That sure sounds like the state of the Israelites newly in the land prior to the tribal divisions that were established at Shiloh.
> Whether this guy wasn’t Moses does not make the late date more plausible.
Didn't say it was. However, the late date happens to be not just a little more plausible than the early date, but a lot more plausible.
> The Bible does contain updates to place names put in by later scribes.
Wow, you believe in redaction criticism. That's special. It always amazes me that early daters want to take a wooden-literal reading of the text, until it doesn't work, and then they flip-flop into reading the text like progressive liberal scholars.
> Ur of the Chaldeans doe not necessarily mean a different Ur from the Sumerian Ur.
That's Urkesh, which is different from Ur of Sumer. But that's not a name change, but could involve a trascriptional error.
> Dan is mentioned, despite the name of the town not being changed until Judges.
Are you talking about the Dan in Gen 14:14? You do realize that's not the same Dan as what was renamed in Judges, right? They are two completely different Dans. The former is north of Damascus. The latter is the city of Samaria. So, that's also not a name change by a later scribe.
> Pi Rameses was a store city in Exodus, not the royal capital, and it was also the former Hyksos capital.
And yet the king is living there... how odd. Pi-Ramesses was not the former Hyksos capital. That's a myth perpetuated by early exodus proponents. Pi-Ramesses was located on an island, 2 km away from Avaris (the former Hyksos capital). It takes you a half an hour to walk and a boat to travel between the two cities. The two cities even co-existed for over two decades. No one in the ancient world thought they were the same city.
Furthermore, the Bible doesn't say that Pi-Ramesses was a store city--the Bible says that the Israelites built store cites for Pharaoh and names where they are: Pithom and Ramesses. This means that they built the storage magazines at Pi-Ramesses, not necessarily the entire cities.
Furthermore, these store cities were never built in isolation. No one builds storage magazines in the middle of nowhere--that wouldn't make any sense at all. They were always attached to other cities or temples. We know from Egyptian documents and the archaeology of Qantir that Pi-Ramesses was built by Ramesses II, the city is named after him, it was built on a virgin site, and it was his royal capital. Could you not figure out that this was the reason why Moses was able to keep going back and forth between Pharaoh and the Israelite elders? In the 18th Dynasty, the capital of Egypt was in Thebes, hundreds of miles from Goshen. During the reign of Ramesses II and after, the capital was locate to inside of Goshen, right next door.
During the reign of Ramesses II, the Israelites and the king became neighbours, making the exodus narrative possible. Remember, after the Passover, the message from the king to Moses leaves the king's hand after midnight (Exod 12:29) and arrives to Moses before dawn of the same night (Exod 12:31). The king and his son could not have lived at the 18th Dynasty capital at Thebes.
The problem with the whole date of the exodus debate is that the serious debate is long over. The early exodus date doesn't work with a proper exegesis of the text or the archaeology that has been discovered. It is a theory that is running on fumes. But like a lot of bad theories, it just lingers on supported by diehards that make stuff up hoping that it will someday be redeemed by some hopeful, shiny new discovery that will overturn everything that has been discovered to date.
"Diehards.....running on fumes.....make stuff up......"
These expressions do not necessarily appear to be a catchall fit to the approach of those who have the different viewpoint to yours. Where the absolute truth of the matter lies is of course known unto God. We all see through a glass darkly, and some place greater emphasis on a selection of facts as they perceive them than will others who will place greater emphasis upon a different set of competing facts. All of which requires contextual sifting, but above all a humble mind.
For it is written that " a scorner seeks for wisdom and finds it not". Also of the enemy that, "The pride of your heart has deceived you."
So I think we need to be wary about framing "our truth" to the disparaging of others.
@@matthewstott1661 Copium.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleIt is true enough that I have a different persuasion to you here. But I wrote not for the strength of my arguments, nor for disappointment to be challenged in my perspective. Truth always ought to be allowed to be the winner. If we take heed to the nuance we bring as an additive , as well as to the facts as we perceive them; then that will help both ourselves and our hearers from becoming polarised, unto the jeopardy of Truth.
Which is not to say that room for improvement is anything but the largest room in my house.
This is the kind of video analysis that I want to see.
Excellent podcast. Very informative.😊
The author of this video was leaving out one very important clue is that in the Bible the Pharoh Who thought to kill Moses reigned more than 40 years, which was the father of the Farrow of the Exodus and it only leaves one pharaoh and that would’ve been Thutmose 111 Which makes almond hot, the second the pharoh Of the exodus
The author left that out because that criterion is not found in the Bible. The idea that the father of exodus pharaoh had to reign 40 years is a criterion that was completely invented by early date supporters. At best, it is a misreading of the Bible.
@@ancientegyptandthebible exodus 2:11-12 and then Exodus 4:19 exodus 7:7 moses was fourscore years old( 80 yrs) when confronting Aaron, Acts 23 Moses was 40 when he fled Egypt, Acts 7:30 Moses spent 40 years in Midian , numbers 32:13 Moses & Israel made to wander 40 years in the desert. Deuteronomy 34:7 Moses died at 120 years old.
@@utubefreak7777 All you've shown with this is that Moses was in Midian for 40 years, and that is only assuming that 40 here is not being used as an idiom. How does any of that prove that "the father of exodus pharaoh had to reign 40 years"? You haven't shown why that must be so from the Bible. You've just thrown out a bunch of unrelated Bible verse quotes hoping something will stick. Show me in the Bible where it says that the father of the exodus pharaoh had to reign 40 years.
Faulk begins with ad hominem attacks and then he builds and attacks straw men. I have listened to Eames and Faulk. A debate would be interesting.
How have I done an ad hominen? Please, spell that out. Is pointing out that Crasto is a fish biologist incorrect? Or that Petrovich is incompetent is somehow incorrect? Spelling out the sources someone uses is not an ad hominem, even if it does discredit what he has to say. Ad hominem fallacies are fallacies of relevance. If they are germane to the argument, they are not ad hominems. If I said "Eames is wrong because he dresses funny," that would be an ad hominem because I am making an attack that is irrelevant to his argument. If I said "Eames is wrong because he uses bad sources," that would not be an ad hominem because using bad sources affects the quality of his argument and broaching that is, therefore, relevant to his argument. Just because a piece of information is unflattering, doesn't make it an ad hominem.
Moreover, we laid out exactly what Eames said in print and analyzed that. So how is that a straw man? Eames is a popularizer, not a subject-matter expert. Debates are enormous time sinks. So, I am very particular about who I am willing to debate. I don't normally debate people without PhDs, so it would have to be an exceptional circumstance before I would consider a debate with Eames.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Ad hominem attacks take a variety of forms. In this case, you are guilty of the Genetic Fallacy. An idea is not refuted because it originated in the mind of a fish biologist.
Eames lacks academic credentials, and if that was the issue, then, yes, you made your case. But your subsequent rebuttal is affected by your gratuitous attacks on the man himself.
After the personal attacks, you made a good argument, and I accept your overall point. However, as I'm sure you know when we discuss the history of the ancient Near East, we look at a puzzle with many missing pieces. This leads to conjecture when filling in the details because we don't know what the complete picture looks like. So, a bit more humility would be appreciated.
My main concern is how you have presented your case. Let me be specific. Your "consider the source" argument discounts the thoughts of anyone who lacks your credentials. However, as I'm sure you know, there have been discoveries by amateurs that have forced the scholarly community to abandon the scholarly consensus. For example, Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann was a businessman and an amateur archaeologist, yet he found Troy.
So this is my suggestion: In science, including archeology, accepted "knowledge" should be viewed as provisional, and room should be allowed for the heretics and the amateurs who dare to challenge the paradigm. This is why I would like to see further debate, either in writing or face-to-face. You have presented a powerful rebuttal. Now, I would like to see Eames' response.
@@markcarlton9103
> Ad hominem attacks take a variety of forms. In this case, you are guilty of the Genetic Fallacy. An idea is not refuted because it originated in the mind of a fish biologist.
I didn't refute his ideas on the basis of having originated from a fish biologist--I refuted them on the basis of the evidence, so what I did was not a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is when "arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content." The operative word here is "solely." If you doubt the credibility of a source and then proceed to evaluate the claim, that is not a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is only a fallacy because it dismisses an argument without evaluating the merits of the claim. If at any point in the argument I evaluated the merits of the claims, there is no genetic fallacy. And as you know, I thoroughly evaluated the claims.
> Of course, you made a case, and if Eames's lack of credentials is the issue, then, yes, you made your case. But your subsequent rebuttal is weakened by your gratuitous attacks on the man himself.
Pointing out that Eames is a popularizer is not a gratuitous attack on the man himself. It is merely a statement of fact. But Eames's lack of education and experience in the field does factor into his abilities to evaluate the evidence and his sources.
> After the personal attacks, you made a good argument, and I accept your overall point.
Again, not all unflattering information is a personal attack or an ad hominem. If information is unflattering and it is relevant to the argument, then it is not a personal attack but directly impacts the claims being made. In this case, Eames being a popularizer does impact his ability to properly evaluate the low-quality and dubious sources that he has used for his article.
> Let me be specific. Your "consider the source" argument discounts the thoughts of anyone who lacks your credentials.
That's ridiculous. Evaluating the sources is germane to whether the arguments presented are sound. This is whole reason why writers are supposed to cite their sources, so the reader can evaluate them. The use of low-quality or dubious sources used to support a claim can likewise undermine the validity of a claim. This is why we evaluate the sources of an argument, not just the argument itself. Not all sources and not all opinions are equal. Some people have better, more educated opinions than others. You may not like it, but that's the truth.
If a student had turned in a class paper to me with the sources that Eames had used, I would have flunked that student. Eames is not just some dude on the street with a personal opinion. He is trying to convince people of his position as the truth in published media--that demands higher scrutiny of his arguments (and sources) than would be applied to the average Joe on the street.
> However, as I'm sure you know, there have been discoveries by amateurs that have forced the scholarly community to abandon the scholarly consensus. For example, Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann was a businessman and an amateur archaeologist, yet he found Troy.
You mean Dr. Schliemann who retired from his business pursuits in 1858 to devote himself to full-time study of Greece and Troy, and was awarded a PhD by the University of Rostock in 1869, and then went on to discover Troy in 1870? That Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann? By the time Schliemann discovered Troy, he was in no respect an "amateur." People like to spin Schliemann as an "amateur archaeologist" in the same way they like to recount Einstein as having "flunked his math class," but neither story is actually true. Maybe, you should pick a different example.
> So this is my suggestion: In science, including archeology, accepted "knowledge" should be viewed as provisional, and room should be allowed for the heretics and the amateurs who dare to challenge the paradigm.
Why would we do something that unwise? Obviously, not all knowledge is provisional. There are some things that are known facts in history, just like there are known facts in science. Only a fool is so open-minded that he thinks all knowledge is provisional. That's not the way knowledge works. Sure, I think we can be open-minded towards more theoretical aspects of these disciplines, as long as the amateurs support their theories with the same rigour and command of the facts that the professionals would use. At the same time, not every aspect is theoretical or open to being contested. And where evidence exists, we should follow the evidence.
> This is why I would like to see further debate, either in writing or face-to-face. You have presented a powerful rebuttal. Now, I would like to see Eames' response.
And we're not quite done yet with Eames. I finally watched his video interview with the Armstrong Institute. I couldn't have imagined it, but it was worse than his published article.
@@ancientegyptandthebible, Thank you for your responses. It is very kind of you to respond to me. First, I only object to leading with the genetic fallacy, not your subsequent argument which, as I stated in so many words, was persuasive. I prefer an erenic approach.
Second, I agree with you that not all sources and not all opinions are equal, and that some people have better, more educated opinions than others. But this shot was not necessary: "You may not like it, but that's the truth." It has nothing to do with whether I like this (I happen to), but with an approach to these sorts of discussions.
Third, a question: Did Dr. Dr. Schliemann come up with his theories before or after he got his PhD, or while he was still a businessman?
Fourth: It wrote: "knowledge" should be viewed as provisional, and room should be allowed for the heretics and the amateurs who dare to challenge the paradigm." You responded, "Why would we do something that unwise?" I think you probably are familiar with Thomas Kuhn and his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I would refer to his work. This being said, yes, not all knowledge is provisional. However, since our knowledge is not exhaustive, and since some sciences, such as archeology, are as I said, puzzles with many missing pieces, and since the gaps are so often filled with speculation and conjecture, and since there are arguments even among the experts with respect to dates, chronology, and the interpretation of the data, then there needs to be an openness to the ideas of the heretics and amateurs. This does not mean heretics' and amateurs' thoughts should be given equal weight because, as you said, not all opinions are equal, and the expertise of the experts in the field should be respected. But I don't believe questions that challenge the consensus should be treated with scholarly disdain and dismissed because of the source, which brings us back to the genetic fallacy and another common fallacy committed by academicians, the appeal to authority.
Finally, you said, "And we're not quite done yet with Eames." Good. You have convinced me that Senenmut was not Moses, and I take back the straw man statement I made in my original post. As I rethink your post, I think you made a series of very strong arguments after your opening salvo, and I will be watching with interest as you continue to make your case. This being said, I don't think I am too out of line in saying I would like to see Eames' response, or perhaps the response of The Armstrong Institute too.
@@markcarlton9103
> First, I only object to leading with the genetic fallacy, not your subsequent argument which, as I stated in so many words, was persuasive. I prefer an erenic approach.
Again, there was no genetic fallacy. If I had called to dismissed the arguments ONLY based upon their origin, then you'd have a genetic fallacy. But I didn't do that. The fact there was a subsequent argument, by definition, means there was no genetic fallacy. Nevertheless, you may prefer an Irenic (as ironic as that term is) approach, but that's a low-content objection.
> Second, I agree with you that not all sources and not all opinions are equal, and that some people have better, more educated opinions than others. But this shot was not necessary: "You may not like it, but that's the truth." It has nothing to do with whether I like this (I happen to), but with an approach to these sorts of discussions.
That's an argument from style, which is a low content objection.
> Third, a question: Did Dr. Dr. Schliemann come up with his theories before or after he got his PhD, or while he was still a businessman?
How is that relevant? Schliemann came up with his theories as a seven-year-old, long before he became a businessman. However, it is irrelevant, because without all the education and study that he did, he would not have been able to prove any of his theories or even recognize that he had discovered something when he finally did dig. A theory is just an unproven idea until it is supported by evidence.
> I think you probably are familiar with Thomas Kuhn and his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I would refer to his work.
I am familiar with Kuhn. His analysis is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> However, since our knowledge is not exhaustive, and since some sciences, such as archeology, are as I said, puzzles with many missing pieces, and since the gaps are so often filled with speculation and conjecture, and since there are arguments even among the experts with respect to dates, chronology, and the interpretation of the data, then there needs to be an openness to the ideas of the heretics and amateurs.
Some of those fields are not nearly as speculative as you would suggest, chronology being one such field. With computer analytics, chronology is no longer the cottage industry it once was. Chronological theories are now testable by computer analysis for internal consistency. This has shut out many of the fringe theories proposed by the heretics and amateurs, because it showed in provable terms how inadequate those amateur theories really were. For example, we now know that the "New Chronology" of David Rohl contradicts itself in no less than 40 places.
The problem is, when we are dealing with the history of the ancient Near East, we are dealing with a field that engages tens of thousands of primary source texts and libraries full of archaeological reports. This creates an overwhelming barrier to entry for the heretic and the amateur because, if they had taken the time to learn the source material, they wouldn't be heretics and amateurs. Learning the source material precludes one from being an amateur. And unless they learn that material, any meaningful contribution they could make to the field will be incremental, not the sweeping grand revisionist nonsense that is so often proposed by amateurs and heretics. Will I consider an incremental theory proposed by an amateur? Sure, what harm is there in that? Will I consider an sweeping revisionist theory proposed by an amateur? Yes, if he has sufficient evidence to warrant such iconoclasm. But that is a very high bar. And if a theory lacks the support to give it warrant, I will shed no tears as I expose how it contradicts the evidence and the nature of the sources used to support that theory. That's all fair game.
> But I don't believe questions that challenge the consensus should be treated with scholarly disdain and dismissed because of the source, which brings us back to the genetic fallacy and another common fallacy committed by academicians, the appeal to authority.
Oh, I don't think they should be rubbished solely because of the source. However, it is still important to recognize the source while rubbishing those ideas based on the evidence. That again is the difference between a genetic fallacy and a sound critique. Sound critiques compare arguments with physical evidence AND evaluate the sources. You cannot just address points of physical evidence for a complete engagement of the argument because sources are a part of the evidence used to support a theory. You need to evaluate both. A source could be inappropriate or irrelevant, low-quality (e.g., when written by an amateur or by someone incompetent), old or obsolete, or even intentionally deceptive. The sources impact how well-researched a paper was and how reliable the content of the author is going to be. The problem with Eames's article is that the primary support of his thesis depends upon two amateurs and one highly-discredited [read: incompetent] scholar. That will affect the quality of Eames's writing. You cannot just address the evidence when critiquing Eames's article because there are deeper systemic problems with his scholarly methods, which only becomes evident through the evaluation of his sources.
So do we know who Joseph was in Egyptian history????? He should be easy enough to pick out. 2nd in power of the kingdom. Where Moses was just an adopted grandson.
Actually, none of the viziers from the Second Intermediate Period are known because the records didn't survive.
Jason Brashears of archaix who write a 1600 pg chronological history has the exodus at 1477 and lists many renown people saying 1446 and 1447. He calculated that date from many days sources.
Perhaps, but are those sources any good? And does he properly account for the counterfactuals? If he hasn't, all he has done is created a combination of the popularity and authority fallacies. You need evidence, not just famous people, in order to support a position. Without good evidence, it's not a good position.
Moses never existed to start..That was a story the Hyksos cooked up as they were leaving Egypt..
Hahaha good one that makes no sense whatsoever
So said the blind and the godless
Moses was Akhenaten (c. 1367-1361 BC). His father was Amenhotep III (Nubmaatre). His mother was Tiye. Moses would have been Amenhotep IV. He changed his name to Akhenaten, & closed all the temples of Ra, & made everyone worship the Aten. He did this for revenge on those who said he couldn't rule. Religious intolerance at the state level.
There are some big problems with that. Akhenaten's body was found in KV55, he is not a Levantine Semite, and the time frames are all wrong. Sorry, but that just won't work.
Amenhotep was indeed the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and Hatshepsut was indeed the "Pharaoh's daughter" who adopted Moses. I'm the prophesied return of the biblical prophet Elijah - not that you should believe that, but GOD has taught me many things in various ways, and these are two facts that I'm aware of. Was Senenmut Moses? That's not part of my education, but it looks to be very possible, considering the Hatshepsut/Moses connection. I have a lot of info to share, and you'll be hearing a lot from me in the future, once I'm empowered. (See Revelation Chapter 11).
Please, seek help from a qualified mental-health professional.
@@ancientegyptandthebible😂
@tomrhodes1629 This is just sad. Please get some help and speak to a pastor and a therapist about this. There is no shame in getting help, nor is it a lack of faith in God to get medication if needed.
Stop and ask yourself this. Prophets in the Bible did not go around and brag that they were prophets but just hadn’t been “empowered” yet before they were called. So the fact that you think this about yourself should raise some concern and let you ask yourself if this is really the Holy Spirit, or your own brain playing tricks on you.
I will pray for you, as will we all. Please get some help, and may God heal you.
😮 If you're the real Elijah, then please, tell us how ancient Hebrew or Mobite language was spoken back in the day? You've a great historical significance to us. 😂
@@warrior_of_the_most_high GOD says "Truth is simple." I'm a simple man who knows only what GOD has told and shown me. And those things are the most important things in this entire Universe! I know nothing of languages. But if you want to know the most important things in this entire Universe, GOD has made all of that info available, in published form, through "A Course in Miracles" and myself.