What is the Jewish enslavement in Egypt about?

[DrZoidberg]

I think I've figured it out. It's simply a question of timeline. The Moses story is based on the story of Sargon of Akkad. His myth is basically the same as Moses' birth. Sargon lived 2200 BC and it's anyone's guess when this popped up in Jewish oral tradition. It still doesn't explain where the exodus story comes from. As I hypothesized earlier, it could simply be a way to transport Moses from Egypt to Canaan.

The reason why they both have the story of Exodus and the Babylonian captivity is because Exodus was already a part of Jewish oral mythical tradition well before the Babylonian captivity.

I'd also misunderstood something about the Babylonian captivity. The Jews were never slaves in Babylon. The Babylonian Captivity was that after king Nebuchadnezzar II had defeated Egypt in Jerusalem, (a region a vassal of Egypt) in order to ensure Judean loyalty the sons of the nobles, (along with all their servants, slaves and rabbis) were taken to Babylon. Their they were treated as the princes and nobles they were. They had a nice life and received a stellar Babylonian education. They were allowed to practice their own religion. The purpose of them being there was to convince them of the greatness and magnitude of the Babylonian king, to keep them loyal to Babylon for generations to come. That's a quite different story than them being forced into degrading manual labour. It's a very important difference. This also explains why, after the Babylonian captivity, so many Zoroastrian theological concepts were blended into Jewish theology. This is when angels (Spentas) and Satan (Angra Mainyu) shows up. Two concepts that make no sense in a theology with a pantheon consisting of only one guy, who is omnipotent and omniscient. I digress. When they got a Babylonian education. This would have been their curriculum.

Bottom line. The Babylonian captivity is too late and is a completely different story than the Egyptian (mythical) captivity.

For the Exodus they would also have good info on Egyptian society since there was revolving doors between Egypt and Canaan. It was popular for Canaanites to go there and work. Egypt was rich and paid well. They'd often come home to Canaan rich.

 

[Swammerdami]

... The reason why they both have the story of Exodus and the Babylonian captivity is because Exodus was already a part of Jewish oral mythical tradition well before the Babylonian captivity.

I'd also misunderstood something about the Babylonian captivity. The Jews were never slaves in Babylon. The Babylonian Captivity was that after king Nebuchadnezzar II had defeated Egypt in Jerusalem, (a region a vassal of Egypt) in order to ensure Judean loyalty the sons of the nobles, (along with all their servants, slaves and rabbis) were taken to Babylon. Their they were treated as the princes and nobles they were. They had a nice life and received a stellar Babylonian education....

For the Exodus they would also have good info on Egyptian society since there was revolving doors between Egypt and Canaan. It was popular for Canaanites to go there and work. Egypt was rich and paid well. They'd often come home to Canaan rich.

Interesting. I think the Jewish elite were kept in Babylon in part as hostages, to help ensure the loyalty of Jews still in Judaea.

Earlier, the Egyptians also kept the sons of Canaanite chieftains^* in Egypt as hostages, but gave them a good Egyptian education in hopes they would be loyal to Egypt when returned to be chief of their Canaanite town. I think Moses (and perhaps even Joseph ben Jacob) may have been one of these hostages — that explains why a Canaanite would be treated as nobility in Egypt. So Moses' story may have been based loosely on a real figure, though the details of Exodus are invented.
* - These chieftains are variously referred to as "mayors" or "kings", though "King" seems an odd title for the vassal lord of a small town.

I still think the key to understanding Exodus is Pharaoh's "change of mind": eventually consenting to the Hebrew's departure, but then chasing them with his army. This makes little sense, I think. We KNOW the Egyptians waged war from time to time against the 'Apiru' bandits, and that 'Apiru' is cognate to 'Hebrew.' When telling of this, the writers of Exodus did not want to admit their ancestral heroes were bandits driven away by Pharaoh, so transmuted them into slaves seeking freedom.

(But there is confusion. Sometimes 'Apiru' seem to be associated with the Shasu of Edom; other 'Apiru' operated in northern Canaan. Perhaps 'Apiru' was a generic word applied to more than one tribe.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting. I think the Jewish elite were kept in Babylon in part as hostages, to help ensure the loyalty of Jews still in Judaea.

That too.

Earlier, the Egyptians also kept the sons of Canaanite chieftains^* in Egypt as hostages, but gave them a good Egyptian education in hopes they would be loyal to Egypt when returned to be chief of their Canaanite town. I think Moses (and perhaps even Joseph ben Jacob) may have been one of these hostages — that explains why a Canaanite would be treated as nobility in Egypt. So Moses' story may have been based loosely on a real figure, though the details of Exodus are invented.
* - These chieftains are variously referred to as "mayors" or "kings", though "King" seems an odd title for the vassal lord of a small town.

Yes, Egyptians did this to conquered enemies. The problem is that Canaanites weren't in this category. Canaan was too insignificant and weak to warrant hostage taking.

Timeline
3000 BC To 1250 BC
Egypt completely dominates Canaan. Hittites and Egyptians squabble over Canaan a bit but Egypt wins.

1725 - 1250 Bronze age collapse.
Migration of people from Asia into the Mediterranean region completely overwhelms every empire and they all collapse into chaos. During this period Egypt falls apart into city states ruled by a mysterious people called the Hyksos who worship Canaanite pre-Jewish gods.

It's during this period the Jewish identity is born. There's a power vacuum in Canaan which is filled by a couple of tribes of goatherders. The pre-Jewish Canaan pagan pantheon starts evolving over time into just one God. The Jews move into the then abandoned Jericho. King David's temple is built. King Solomon rules, etc.

1400 BC

Egypt had driven out the Hyksos and was back in full swing and swiftly took back Canaan. It wasn't much of a fight. Once the pharaos had established full control in Egypt, they could just steamroll the Jews completely. There was no need to take hostages. Jews went back to being backwater day laborers to Egypt and it was business as usual. This would not change until Greece conquers Egypt in 350 BC.

600 BC

The book of Exodus is compiled. Jews harbored fantasies about the glory days of Israel would come back.



The first mention of Israel outside of Jewish texts is this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

There's just no space in the timeline to fit something like the Exodus in.

 

[Swammerdami]

Interesting. I think the Jewish elite were kept in Babylon in part as hostages, to help ensure the loyalty of Jews still in Judaea.

That too.

Earlier, the Egyptians also kept the sons of Canaanite chieftains^* in Egypt as hostages, but gave them a good Egyptian education in hopes they would be loyal to Egypt when returned to be chief of their Canaanite town. I think Moses (and perhaps even Joseph ben Jacob) may have been one of these hostages — that explains why a Canaanite would be treated as nobility in Egypt. So Moses' story may have been based loosely on a real figure, though the details of Exodus are invented.
* - These chieftains are variously referred to as "mayors" or "kings", though "King" seems an odd title for the vassal lord of a small town.

Yes, Egyptians did this to conquered enemies. The problem is that Canaanites weren't in this category. Canaan was too insignificant and weak to warrant hostage taking.

Timeline
3000 BC To 1250 BC
Egypt completely dominates Canaan. Hittites and Egyptians squabble over Canaan a bit but Egypt wins.

1725 - 1250 Bronze age collapse.
Migration of people from Asia into the Mediterranean region completely overwhelms every empire and they all collapse into chaos. During this period Egypt falls apart into city states ruled by a mysterious people called the Hyksos who worship Canaanite pre-Jewish gods.

It's during this period the Jewish identity is born. There's a power vacuum in Canaan which is filled by a couple of tribes of goatherders. The pre-Jewish Canaan pagan pantheon starts evolving over time into just one God. The Jews move into the then abandoned Jericho. King David's temple is built. King Solomon rules, etc.

1400 BC

Egypt had driven out the Hyksos and was back in full swing and swiftly took back Canaan. It wasn't much of a fight. Once the pharaos had established full control in Egypt, they could just steamroll the Jews completely. There was no need to take hostages. Jews went back to being backwater day laborers to Egypt and it was business as usual. This would not change until Greece conquers Egypt in 350 BC.

600 BC

The book of Exodus is compiled. Jews harbored fantasies about the glory days of Israel would come back.



The first mention of Israel outside of Jewish texts is this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

There's just no space in the timeline to fit something like the Exodus in.

Your timeline is very confused. For starters, you show

"3000 BC To 1250 BC: Egypt completely dominates Canaan
1725 - 1250 : Collapse ... Egypt falls apart into city states ruled by a mysterious people ..."​

Does this seem consistent to you? Egypt collapses but still completely dominates Canaan? (Anyway, I'm not sure Egypt dominated Egypt in 3000 BC, let alone Canaan.)

Your "Bronze age collapse" in 1725-1250 BC due to "migration from Asia" baffles me. This term "Bronze age collapse" is usually used to refer to a collapse after 1200 BC due to migrations via the Sea. Babylon did fall during the period you speak of, but due to Hittites from its West.

That Canaanite "mayors" sent their children to Egypt's 18th Kingdom as hostages is clearly shown in some of the Amarna letters. See https://books.google.co.th/books?id=G9PgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198

I've no idea what "There's just no space in the timeline to fit something like the Exodus in" means. There was no "Exodus." There probably were events during the 18th Kingdom that somehow got twisted, conflated and exaggerated into the Exodus myth.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That too.



Yes, Egyptians did this to conquered enemies. The problem is that Canaanites weren't in this category. Canaan was too insignificant and weak to warrant hostage taking.

Timeline
3000 BC To 1250 BC
Egypt completely dominates Canaan. Hittites and Egyptians squabble over Canaan a bit but Egypt wins.

1725 - 1250 Bronze age collapse.
Migration of people from Asia into the Mediterranean region completely overwhelms every empire and they all collapse into chaos. During this period Egypt falls apart into city states ruled by a mysterious people called the Hyksos who worship Canaanite pre-Jewish gods.

It's during this period the Jewish identity is born. There's a power vacuum in Canaan which is filled by a couple of tribes of goatherders. The pre-Jewish Canaan pagan pantheon starts evolving over time into just one God. The Jews move into the then abandoned Jericho. King David's temple is built. King Solomon rules, etc.

1400 BC

Egypt had driven out the Hyksos and was back in full swing and swiftly took back Canaan. It wasn't much of a fight. Once the pharaos had established full control in Egypt, they could just steamroll the Jews completely. There was no need to take hostages. Jews went back to being backwater day laborers to Egypt and it was business as usual. This would not change until Greece conquers Egypt in 350 BC.

600 BC

The book of Exodus is compiled. Jews harbored fantasies about the glory days of Israel would come back.



The first mention of Israel outside of Jewish texts is this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

There's just no space in the timeline to fit something like the Exodus in.

Your timeline is very confused. For starters, you show

"3000 BC To 1250 BC: Egypt completely dominates Canaan
1725 - 1250 : Collapse ... Egypt falls apart into city states ruled by a mysterious people ..."​

Does this seem consistent to you? Egypt collapses but still completely dominates Canaan? (Anyway, I'm not sure Egypt dominated Egypt in 3000 BC, let alone Canaan.)

Your "Bronze age collapse" in 1725-1250 BC due to "migration from Asia" baffles me. This term "Bronze age collapse" is usually used to refer to a collapse after 1200 BC due to migrations via the Sea. Babylon did fall during the period you speak of, but due to Hittites from its West.

That Canaanite "mayors" sent their children to Egypt's 18th Kingdom as hostages is clearly shown in some of the Amarna letters. See https://books.google.co.th/books?id=G9PgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198

I've no idea what "There's just no space in the timeline to fit something like the Exodus in" means. There was no "Exodus." There probably were events during the 18th Kingdom that somehow got twisted, conflated and exaggerated into the Exodus myth.

The Bronze age collapse is a period that encompasses the entire Mediterranean region. It was like a slow wave of people pushing towards the south west from Asia over a long time. It created a domino effect. Meaning that the people who showed up in Egypt was a mixture of Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Medes, Caucasian step nomads. Different mixes at different time. It was a mess. It was an ongoing disaster outside Egypt's borders for two centuries after the Egyptian had stabilized matters inside Egypt.

The term "sea people's" is the term Egyptian ancient historians used for these people. It doesn't really mean these were literally sea borne migrants.

Thanks for the info on the Amarna letters. Their mention here is new to me. I'll check it out

 

[Swammerdami]

The Bronze age collapse is a period that encompasses the entire Mediterranean region. It was like a slow wave of people pushing towards the south west from Asia over a long time. It created a domino effect. Meaning that the people who showed up in Egypt was a mixture of Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Medes, Caucasian step nomads. Different mixes at different time. It was a mess. It was an ongoing disaster outside Egypt's borders for two centuries after the Egyptian had stabilized matters inside Egypt.

I still don't know what you're talking about. The emergence of the "Sea People" after 1200 BC was sudden, not like a slow wave at all — The Hittite Empire, among others, vanished in a flash. (The cause-effect relationship is unclear.) This occurred during Egypt's 21st dynasty, long after the 1725-1250 BC time you posit, and after the putative "Exodus."

I'm afraid you're conflating separate "waves." Please be specific about dates and places.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Bronze age collapse is a period that encompasses the entire Mediterranean region. It was like a slow wave of people pushing towards the south west from Asia over a long time. It created a domino effect. Meaning that the people who showed up in Egypt was a mixture of Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Medes, Caucasian step nomads. Different mixes at different time. It was a mess. It was an ongoing disaster outside Egypt's borders for two centuries after the Egyptian had stabilized matters inside Egypt.

The term "sea people's" is the term Egyptian ancient historians used for these people. It doesn't really mean these were literally sea borne migrants.

Thanks for the info on the Amarna letters. Their mention here is new to me. I'll check it out

I had nothing to do with that.

The Exodus story is not that difficult to understand, if one understands the fundamental principle of story telling. Everybody likes a good story and they like a better story even more. This means stories always improve over time. They become more entertaining and detailed, but more importantly, they become more relevant to the present time and the present audience. Stories grow and evolve, until one day literacy freezes it in place. Thousands of years later, we're hearing it for the first time and it doesn't make any sense to us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Bronze age collapse is a period that encompasses the entire Mediterranean region. It was like a slow wave of people pushing towards the south west from Asia over a long time. It created a domino effect. Meaning that the people who showed up in Egypt was a mixture of Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Medes, Caucasian step nomads. Different mixes at different time. It was a mess. It was an ongoing disaster outside Egypt's borders for two centuries after the Egyptian had stabilized matters inside Egypt.

I still don't know what you're talking about. The emergence of the "Sea People" after 1200 BC was sudden, not like a slow wave at all — The Hittite Empire, among others, vanished in a flash. (The cause-effect relationship is unclear.) This occurred during Egypt's 21st dynasty, long after the 1725-1250 BC time you posit, and after the putative "Exodus."

I'm afraid you're conflating separate "waves." Please be specific about dates and places.

What are you basing the idea that they showed up suddenly on? This is the first time I hear that said

 

[Swammerdami]

The Bronze age collapse is a period that encompasses the entire Mediterranean region. It was like a slow wave of people pushing towards the south west from Asia over a long time. It created a domino effect. Meaning that the people who showed up in Egypt was a mixture of Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Medes, Caucasian step nomads. Different mixes at different time. It was a mess. It was an ongoing disaster outside Egypt's borders for two centuries after the Egyptian had stabilized matters inside Egypt.

I still don't know what you're talking about. The emergence of the "Sea People" after 1200 BC was sudden, not like a slow wave at all — The Hittite Empire, among others, vanished in a flash. (The cause-effect relationship is unclear.) This occurred during Egypt's 20th dynasty, long after the 1725-1250 BC time you posit, and after the putative "Exodus."

I'm afraid you're conflating separate "waves." Please be specific about dates and places.

What are you basing the idea that they showed up suddenly on? This is the first time I hear that said

I don't know what you want. Cunliffe writes "In the brief period from 1250 to 1150 the entire edifice of centralized, bureaucratic, palace-based exchange [including Hittites. Egyptians, and Mycenaeans] fell apart."

Other texts offer similar comments, and use the word "sudden." Manco: "... centers destroyed and abandoned ... sharp drop in population. Writing ceased."

All at once the lands were on the move, scattered in war. No country could stand before their arms.

Meanwhile, would you like to answer some of my questions? The connection between your outline and my learnings is quite unclear.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What are you basing the idea that they showed up suddenly on? This is the first time I hear that said

I don't know what you want. Cunliffe writes "In the brief period from 1250 to 1150 the entire edifice of centralized, bureaucratic, palace-based exchange [including Hittites. Egyptians, and Mycenaeans] fell apart."

Other texts offer similar comments, and use the word "sudden." Manco: "... centers destroyed and abandoned ... sharp drop in population. Writing ceased."

I don't think any reputable modern historian has made the claim it was sudden. As the theory goes, a bunch of displaced, starving people showed up on their doorstep and were either allowed to settle or would fight. Their sheer number overwhelmed Egypts ability to manage them.

Its similar to the Goths and how it led to the fall of the Western Roman empire. Its the exact same story. Stopping the Goths from entering Roman territory was not an option. But since all the Goths wanted was food and shelter, the Roman government made a deal with them allowing them to stay. Over time Goths didn't see why they should be second class citizens in Rome and started demanding rights. This led to ethnic conflicts which eventually led to the Western half of the empire falling apart.

Its a similar story. Its just more detailed since we have more records.

 

[Swammerdami]

What are you basing the idea that they showed up suddenly on? This is the first time I hear that said

I don't know what you want. Cunliffe writes "In the brief period from 1250 to 1150 the entire edifice of centralized, bureaucratic, palace-based exchange [including Hittites. Egyptians, and Mycenaeans] fell apart."

Other texts offer similar comments, and use the word "sudden." Manco: "... centers destroyed and abandoned ... sharp drop in population. Writing ceased."

I don't think any reputable modern historian has made the claim it was sudden. As the theory goes, a bunch of displaced, starving people showed up on their doorstep and were either allowed to settle or would fight. Their sheer number overwhelmed Egypts ability to manage them.

Its similar to the Goths and how it led to the fall of the Western Roman empire. Its the exact same story. Stopping the Goths from entering Roman territory was not an option. But since all the Goths wanted was food and shelter, the Roman government made a deal with them allowing them to stay. Over time Goths didn't see why they should be second class citizens in Rome and started demanding rights. This led to ethnic conflicts which eventually led to the Western half of the empire falling apart.

Its a similar story. Its just more detailed since we have more records.

(Your take on the Visigothic conquests of Italy seems novel. But let's stick to the Late Bronze Age Collapse.)

Your claim that the Bronze Age Collapse wasn't sudden is baffling. (That's why I've asked you, 3 or 4 times, what you're even talking about. You're now focused on the Sea People but I almost wonder if you've combined them with the centuries-earlier Hyksos into some grand reductionist vision of history! ) In fact, the collapse of the Hittite Empire (and other powerful states in the region) was so sudden that its cause is regarded as a great mystery! (Climate change, or drought specifically, is the usual assumption.) Google "sudden 1177 BC" and see what you learn.

I quoted from Barry Cunliffe and you respond with something about "any reputable modern historian." Sir Barry's credentials don't seem so awful:

• Professor of European Archaeology at the University of Oxford (1972-2007)
• Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford (2007-present)
• President, Council for British Archaeology (1976–1979)
• Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 1994 Birthday Honours for services to archaeology
• Original Chair of Steering Committee for the e-journal Internet Archaeology
• Grahame Clark Medal of the British Academy (2004)

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think any reputable modern historian has made the claim it was sudden. As the theory goes, a bunch of displaced, starving people showed up on their doorstep and were either allowed to settle or would fight. Their sheer number overwhelmed Egypts ability to manage them.

Its similar to the Goths and how it led to the fall of the Western Roman empire. Its the exact same story. Stopping the Goths from entering Roman territory was not an option. But since all the Goths wanted was food and shelter, the Roman government made a deal with them allowing them to stay. Over time Goths didn't see why they should be second class citizens in Rome and started demanding rights. This led to ethnic conflicts which eventually led to the Western half of the empire falling apart.

Its a similar story. Its just more detailed since we have more records.

(Your take on the Visigothic conquests of Italy seems novel. But let's stick to the Late Bronze Age Collapse.)

Your claim that the Bronze Age Collapse wasn't sudden is baffling. (That's why I've asked you, 3 or 4 times, what you're even talking about. You're now focused on the Sea People but I almost wonder if you've combined them with the centuries-earlier Hyksos into some grand reductionist vision of history! ) In fact, the collapse of the Hittite Empire (and other powerful states in the region) was so sudden that its cause is regarded as a great mystery! (Climate change, or drought specifically, is the usual assumption.) Google "sudden 1177 BC" and see what you learn.

I quoted from Barry Cunliffe and you respond with something about "any reputable modern historian." Sir Barry's credentials don't seem so awful:

• Professor of European Archaeology at the University of Oxford (1972-2007)
• Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford (2007-present)
• President, Council for British Archaeology (1976–1979)
• Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 1994 Birthday Honours for services to archaeology
• Original Chair of Steering Committee for the e-journal Internet Archaeology
• Grahame Clark Medal of the British Academy (2004)

Yes, the government can collapse suddenly even though the cause isn't sudden. Its simply a question of resource management. Food is in short supply. Initially there are buffers. But those get eaten up. The government struggles to keep it all going. At some point the government can't pay their troops. At some point the troops start doubting they will ever get paid. They turn on the king and start fighting amongst themselves. That's when there's a sudden dramatic collapse along the entire chain of command.

I think it's just as simple as you not reading what the historians are saying carefully enough.

But nobody in modern times has made the argument that the hyksos or sea people's was a large scale sudden invasion. It was just a refuge crisis that was so massive the Egyptian government couldn't deal with it. Wave upon wave of armed refugees who had nothing left to lose.

No government in the Mediterranean could deal with it. They all collapsed. The only societies that survived intact were isolated communities of goat herders. Because they could take everything they owned and fuck off, out of the path of the refugees.

Another popular theory is that the period before the bronze age collapse was very stable and peaceful which created societies that assumed times would always be good. So they had low resilience. When the wave of refugees showed up all of a sudden the societies didnt have the buffers to deal with it.

These refugees wouldn't only have been step nomads. They would mostly be their neighbours. The, collapses caused a domino effect, pushing ever outwards. Which is why the Hyksod rulers in Egypt worshipped Canaanite gods

 

[Swammerdami]

We're talking past each other. But I can't let all this disinformation stand!

First: You insist on some reductionist vision: The Hyksos, Sea People, and Visigoths all get conflated together in your perspective. Try working one topic at a time!

AFAIK, nobody thinks the Hyksos or the Sea People came from the steppes, let alone from "the steps." Anatolia is a big place with lots of tribes; I think the Sea People (who were NOT a homogeneous group) came from Anatolia or other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. Connecting back to ancient Jewish history, it is likely that the Philistines began as "Sea People." In one theory. Ramesses III arranged for the Philistines attacking Egypt to settle in northern Canaan.

Yes, the government can collapse suddenly even though the cause isn't sudden.

I pointed out already that drought is the most popular explanation of the Bronze Age collapse. If drought isn't "sudden" enough for you, I give up.

I think it's just as simple as you not reading what the historians are saying carefully enough.

I've linked to scholarly books. So far, you've provided zero evidence for your claims.

But nobody in modern times has made the argument that the hyksos or sea people's was a large scale sudden invasion. It was just a refuge crisis that was so massive the Egyptian government couldn't deal with it. Wave upon wave of armed refugees who had nothing left to lose.

There you go again, conflating Hyksos and Sea People, separated in time by several centuries. Your description of the Sea People invasion is partly correct. As you imply, it was "sudden", though that word turns you off for some reason.

No government in the Mediterranean could deal with it. They all collapsed.

You assume that the invasions CAUSED the Hittite Empire collapse. Actual historians tend to think it was the collapse which CAUSED the invasions!

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're talking past each other. But I can't let all this disinformation stand!

Or you could just pay attention to what I'm saying

First: You insist on some reductionist vision: The Hyksos, Sea People, and Visigoths all get conflated together in your perspective. Try working one topic at a time!

I don't think anybody but you think I am conflating them

AFAIK, nobody thinks the Hyksos or the Sea People came from the steppes, let alone from "the steps." Anatolia is a big place with lots of tribes; I think the Sea People (who were NOT a homogeneous group) came from Anatolia or other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. Connecting back to ancient Jewish history, it is likely that the Philistines began as "Sea People." In one theory. Ramesses III arranged for the Philistines attacking Egypt to settle in northern Canaan.

Also, nothing that I wrote. I repeatedly tried to explain this. You still haven't grasped what I said.

I pointed out already that drought is the most popular explanation of the Bronze Age collapse. If drought isn't "sudden" enough for you, I give up.

We don't really know why there was a South Western migration. We only know that it happened.

I've linked to scholarly books. So far, you've provided zero evidence for your claims.
.

You don't seem to understand that books you linked to. I don't think scholarly books are helping you here.

But nobody in modern times has made the argument that the hyksos or sea people's was a large scale sudden invasion. It was just a refuge crisis that was so massive the Egyptian government couldn't deal with it. Wave upon wave of armed refugees who had nothing left to lose.

There you go again, conflating Hyksos and Sea People, separated in time by several centuries. Your description of the Sea People invasion is partly correct. As you imply, it was "sudden", though that word turns you off for some reason.

Sea peoples is an ancient Egyptian term for a group that attacked Egypt. But we have no idea what group they refer to. Its unlikely that a new invasion force pops up out of nowhere and fail to make an impact in the DNA. The sea people's must have been local to the Mediterranean. Secondly. The Hyksos was a ruling people who established a dynasty and who worshipped Canaanite gods. We have no idea how this group was constituted or from where they came. But it wasn't a Canaanite kingdom ruling Canaan. This was people who had left Canaan or some other place.

You seem to have a problem with calling them refugees? Is that your hang up?

No government in the Mediterranean could deal with it. They all collapsed.

You assume that the invasions CAUSED the Hittite Empire collapse. Actual historians tend to think it was the collapse which CAUSED the invasions!

Nope. Nobody knows what caused what. All we have is correlation. You are adding speculation. I see no point in speculating about things nobody knows anything about

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

From Thutmoses III on, Egypt held hegemony over Palestine. Possibly, dim memories of this era may have
been at the root of the tall tales of Exodus. Amenhotep II did go on a military tear and sent lots of Canaanites back to Egypt as slaves. But no Israelites, which did not exist in Canaan at that time.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to archeology the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. Plenty of Jews lived in Egypt right back to the first mentions of Jews ca 600 BC. But they were mostly mercenaries, traders or even settlers. Apart from the odd war here and there, they were always welcome in Egypt and never suffered mass enslavement.

So wtf is this section of the Bible about? Why is it there? Jews were actually enslaved en masse to Babylon. That's historically accurate and is in the Bible. But what's the fictional Egyptian captivity about?

Does anybody have a good explanation for that?

Depending on how one sees it (and being a tad pendantic). There were NO Jews during the time before the exodus, assuming you mean around that time - obviously because Judah didn't exist then.

Interestingly regarding Israelites, there is a possible explanation as to "what the section of the bible is about" using an excerpt from the British Library, their viewpoint of that section narrative:

Thousands of years ago, according to the Old Testament, the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Israelites had been in Egypt for generations, but now that they had become so numerous, the Pharaoh feared their presence. He feared that one day the Isrealites would turn against the Egyptians. Gradually and stealthily, he forced them to become his slaves.

https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/goldhaggadahstories/enslave/enslavement.html

I don't understand what that explains? That's an attempt to explain how an event that didn't happen took place. What does that explain? Exodus is a complete fantasy. That's well established. My question is, why is it in the Bible? It seems redundant, since the Jews really were enslaved in Babylon.

I disagree that Jews didn't exist back then. The group of people that later became Jews must have been a coherent group spanning back many thousands of years prior to anyone mentioning the word Jehova.

There's no reason to believe any group of slaves fled Egypt en masse at any point in history. So it's a moot point that they were called something else back then.

Edit: fun fact is that the idea that slaves were used to build the Egyptian pyramids came from the Jewish historian Josephus. That was also a fabrication. Helping to build the pyramids was an honour and only free men would be given that honour

The point of all of this was,Moses was appointed by God to lead the Isralites to Canaan. God gave these lands to Israel. Moses stopped along the way to receive the 613 laws from God. Explaining where they came from and why Jews must follow them. God will not kill Israel's enemies, the Israelites must do that them selves. No other God than Yahweh may be worshipped. How the sacrifices were to be done, and what parts of the sacrifices did the priests get to eat.

It was about establishing theological claims.