The Bible Unearthed - Exodus

A translation of the Ipuwer Papyrus can be found athttp://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htmIt is certainly questionable that it concerns the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty as Setterfield says, and the main concern seems to be famine and civil strife - not the plagues of Exodus.
"How comes it that every man kills his brother? The troops whom we marshaled for ourselves have turned into foreigners and have taken to ravaging"Setterfield's claim that the disasters mentioned by Ipuwer were associated with the arrival of the Hyksos is speculation - it is not explicit in the text which refers only to "foreigners" - not even specifying that these are Asiatics rather than, say, Libyans. In the translation referenced above it does not seem to refer to any specific people, rather it refers to foreigners in general.Manetho is a late source and it is possible that his account is influenced by the propaganda of the Hyksos' enemies. We don't really know much about how the Hyksos takeover happened. We don't even have the original of Manetho - all we have is quotations from other sources (this one is from a Jewish apologetic, _Contra Apion_) and it seems that these secondary sources did not have entirely reliable material to work with. I have heard it said that the Hyksos were immigrants to Egypt who took over mainly by outbreeding their neighbours. (As Exodus 1 says it was feared that the Israelites would - it seems to me that the oppression of Exodus would fit in rather better with the period immediately following the expulsion of the Hyksos where Asiatics would likely be persecuted and kept on a tight reign).As I have pointed out Setterfield's case on the matters discussed above is not that strong, but it is in the section on Pithom and Raamses where he goes seriously wrong. He does not give any dates for the structures at Pithom - but the original excavators attributed it to Rameses II based on the archaeology. It is unlikely that Setterfield is unaware of this - if he is it represents a serious gap in his research - yet he does not mention it at all. Yet still he tries to use bricks laid centuries after the date he assigns to the Exodus as evidence for the reliability of the Exodus account.Of course, dates established 100 years ago are subject to revision - and the dating of that site has been revised. However, in this case the revision went the wrong way for Setterfield, moving that part of the site to the reign of Necho II in the 7th Century BC. Moreover a Hyksos settlement has been found lower down in the site.(A brief description of the site may be found on this page
Egypt: Minor Temple and Other Ruins of the Nile Delta, Part II )

Are you really suggesting that only the plagues of Exodus could produce the civil disturbances mentioned in the Ipuwer papyrus ? In that case surely you have to move the Exodus even further back to the collapse of the Old Kingdom (circa 2160 BC) - since we know that there were such disturbances then and that the Ipuwer papyrus may well be about those.
I am afraid that if you want to link the Ipuwer papyrus to the Exodus you need more than the idea that the plagues of Exodus (which are NOT historically confirmed) might have caused the situation, unless you can show that they are the only likely cause. So the Ipuwer papyrus can refer either to the situation at the end of the Old Kingdom, or the end of the Middle Kingdom but neither is necessarily associated with the plagues of Exodus.I also have to ask why I would have to show that the Ipuwer papyrus's foreigners are Libyans. Surely it is for Setterfield to show that these foreigners are specifically the Hyksos since that is what he claims. So far as I can tell it refers to foreigners in general - Libyans and Nubians as well as Asiatics.Here is a page on Manetho, confirming that he is a late source and that his text was confused even by the time the quotatiosn we have were written - this may be significant "Josephus knew both the original Aegyptiaca or its epitome, and the fake Manethoan literature, but he was often unable to distinguish between them."Page not found | The Ancient Egypt SiteThis page deals with the origins of the Hyksos
Who Were the Hyksos"One hypothesis is that the basic population of Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus. The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a. Indeed, parallels for the foreign traits of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab'a have been found at southern Palestinian site." (More on site)
So on this view the Hyksos were immigrants allowed into Egypt who gradually asserted control of the Delta region. (more on the page)Egypt: History - Second Internediate Period (13th to 17th Dynasties) states
"The invasion of the Delta by a specific new race is out of the question; one must think rather of an infiltration by Palestinians
glad to find refuge in a more peaceful and fertile environment.My aside that the Opression would fit in well with the removal of the Hyksos is on the grounds that the Delta area was taken over by invaders from the South and that the new rulers of all Egypt would likely have been poorly disposed towards Asiatics (who would be automatically associated with the Hyksos - think of how ethnic Japanese were treated in the U.S. during WWII). Also they may have been concerned about avoding a repeat of the original Hyksos takeover which would explain concern over the numbers of Israelites - which is an well-known part of the Moses story. We don't really have any evidence that that is the case with the XIIIth dynasty and if the Hyksos took command from within, especially if intermarriage with native Egyptians was involved, it would seem unlikely that there was any general opprssion of Asiatics and it seems implausible that the Israelites would be specifically singled out while other related peoples were allowed to take high posiitons in society.

The datign of the Ipuwer papyrus is relevant but even a firm date putting it at the end of the Middle Kingdom (which you don't have) is not sufficient since it may REFER to conditions at the end of the Old Kingdom (as mentioned in one of the links I supplied), and even if it does not we DO have similar conditions at that time without any Biblical plagues.All we can say is that there were civil disturbances leading to a partition of Egypt at the end of the Middle Kingdom. There is nothing in the Egyptian records to make any firm connection with the Exodus story.

So where is the support for your claim that the Aztecs were slaves ?They seem to have been without a homeland for a signifiant period of time, perhaps exploited as migrant workers still are today, but not actually slaves.As for the Israelites the archaeological evidence has ruled out the idea of an invading horde and the generally accepted view is that Judah and Israel formed from Canaanite people already living in the area.

You generally don't give slaves weapons.Sure the Aztecs worked as mercenaries - but that doesn't make them slaves. And if they got given the dangerous jobs that fits my comparison with migrant workers just as well.

Any indication of any real parallels between the Janissaries or your Chinese units and the Aztecs ?I stand by my comment as a generalisation.And no, I am not talkign about 19th century slavery and it seems that you are raising that issue as a smokescreen. Did I say anything about manumission ? No. (And Roman slavery certainly was "chattel slavery" - see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~thurley/home.html). And the Aztecs were certainly not land-slaves (they got kicked out FAR too often for that).So perhaps you would like to refer to Meso-American forms of slavery - any records of slave-warriors there ? I've seen none in Aztec society.So are you going to offer any real evidence that the Aztecs were slaves ?

So you are reduced to asserting that requesting you to support your assertion is a "radical claim"All your posturing, red herring and strawmen don't change the fact that you have failed to show that the Aztecs were slaves.And no, I don't accept that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt either as should be clear from what I wrote.

I am no advancing the claim that the Aztecs were not slaved - I am simply pointing out that you have not shown that they were - even by Aztec standards.You haven't even shown that your examples of armed slaves have any bearing on the matter (the Jannisseries were given heavy indoctrination form a young age, and gladiators weren't soldiers so at least two are exceptional). And why you would assume that I was thinkig of 19th century America rather than, say, the Spartan helots (who come far more readily to my mind) I have no idea.And to accuse me of "ridiculous ad hominem" after you drag up all sorts of irrelevancies - 19th Century slaver for a start. I never mentioned it - you just asserted that that was what I was thinking of for no reason at all. Why not AZTEC slavery ? Were the Aztecs slaves in the sense that they held others as slaves ? You have produced no evidence that they were.And if you had read my post 128 (which you replied to !) to you would see that I pointed out that the archaeolgical evidence has Israel and Judah coalescing from the resident population - not some external group.And can you explain how I can concede that the Aztecs were slaves without conceding that they were as you are insisting ? I haven't been discussing any other point with you.

No, you have produced no evidence that the Aztecs were slaves - certainly not in the sense that they kept slaves.Your point a) is false
b) is irrelevant (why would the Toltecs keeping slaves be relevant)
and c) works against you since we can use Aztec slavery as a model.Their legends only says that they lived for a time in land controlled by other people and did relatively menial work for those people (but it included fighting - a relatively high class occupation in Aztec society).Secondly you are the one with the obsession with 19th Century slavery. I hardly think of it at all (here's a hint - I am not an American).The question of identity formation is not one that I have been discussing.So the only point you could legitimately claim victory on is one I was not even disputing.And I would like to know why you think that I am recanting a posiiton that I have never espoused. Please quote the post number where I claimed that "ideology-formation in response to subjugation" was not plausible.

YOur post 134 shows that the Aztecs kept slaves. It does not show that the Aztecs AS A PEOPLE were enlaved in that sense.Therefore your assertion is false. You have not shown what you claimed. Yet you accuse me of lying.That the Aztecs kept slaves was never an issue.My assertion that point b) is irrelevant is therefore confirmed.
And you do not even understand that since you cannot show that the Aztecs as a people were slaves in the sense that the Aztecs kept slaves works against your claims. You cannot claim that Aztec slave keeping is irrelevant.So my objection is uphheld. You have not shown evidence that the Aztecs as a people were enslaved.I riased my objections in post 128 - my first contribution to the discussion of the Aztecs.And quite frankly I do not find the fact that you are misrepresenting my position to be grounds for declaring ME dishonest. But that is what you are doing.It is all quite clear. Rather than admit that cannot back up your claim that the Aztecs were enslaved you are relying on bluster and personal attacks.

I asked for genuinine parallels.Again you are using bluster and bluff to get past the objection that it is unusual to use slaves as soldiers.We both know that Roman gladiators were not soldiers, and the Jannissaries were raised in - and throughly indoctrinated - by he society they worked for. The Aztecs appear to have been used as mercenaries.We both know that you have no examples of slave-soldiers from Meso-America.Stopp blustering and making false accusations. Either produce real evidence or admit that you do not have any.

My position is quite coherent. You have shown no evidence that the Aztecs were enslaved. None. And that remains a fact despite all your evasions and lies.When you say that my position is incoherent what you REALLY mean is that your attempts at misrepresenting my position are an incoherent mess.