PHQuora ang source mo. Pwedeng magpost ng kahit ano jan pero kung walang external sources na nakalagay walang credibility ung post. O eto mismong ISRAELI website na ang source. Fiction lang ang exodus.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., studied religion at Harvard, Chicago, & IU, I offend people ecumenically
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. · Author has 826 answers and 2.8m answer views
Originally Answered: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
There is no academic consensus about the relationship between the Hebrews and the Pharaonic Egyptians. The best evidence we have, though, is pretty strong that the master/slave relationship depicted in Exodus is inaccurate.
This is to say that the "Maximalist" interpretation of Exodus is very unlikely; the authors of the Torah were at least 500 years removed from the events they were describing and some elements seem patently invented. However, this is not sufficient to automatically assume a "Minimalist" interpretation that posits all the described events as completely fictitious.
Before we even consider the testimony of the Torah, the plain facts of archaeology and geography support the idea that the two cultures had mutual influence, but were not likely to have been in a constant state of war toward another. Most likely, what actually happened was that there was some kind of arrangement or polity between the two cultures during the Bronze Age. At that point, Egyptian society was relatively stationary while the Hebrews were one of many mobile, quasi-nomadic tribes. Before we even consider the testimony of the Torah, the plain facts of archaeology and geography support the idea that the two cultures had mutual influence, but were not likely to have been in a constant state of war toward another.
So, it's reasonable to assume that Exodus describes a sudden interruption in relations between Egyptian and Hebrew society. That is, there was a long period of exchange or cooperation between them, then things went sour and a new status quo arose out of the ashes. This process was considered vital to Jewish identity during the period when oral traditions were being collected into scripture (mostly coincident with the Babylonian Captivity half a millennium later) so historical details were smudged around and poetic licenses were taken.
To get into some specifics of your question, there's practically zero chance that the Hebrews were slaves who built the pyramids. There is something to be said about the role that religious views may have played, but it's not likely that the Hebrews were just persecuted for having different mythologies than the Egyptians. In general, the Egyptians were strongly polytheistic while the Hebrews were polytheists who ρáíd special attention to a single national god, Yahweh. Over the centuries, as Hebrew identity formed a proto-nationality, this evolved into monotheism. This process seems to have had a synergistic relationship with Egyptian religion. In particular, the Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) is often credited with the "invention" of monotheism. This is really a glossing over of a more complicated process, but basically Akhenaten created a religion where the Sun (Aten) was the supreme god and the only one worth worshiping. There is very strong evidence that there was a relationship between Atenism and early Judaism, but the nature of this relationship is not understood very well at all. Furthermore, Atenism was rebuked by Akhenaten's successors and it lasted as a state religion for only about two decades. It's important to note that this happened very early in the history of the Hebrew people, in the 14th Century BCE (a century before the events of Exodus are supposed to have happened).
Given that the Egyptians had a reliable, fixed social structure that maintained records, one would hope to find validation in their accounts for Hebrew existence. The problem here is that, while it's possible we'll find something here or there, it's not particularly likely. This is because the Egyptians were major league players during the time in question while the Hebrews were one of many small, inconsequential players. The Egyptians had no way of knowing that the Hebrews, among all the others neighbors of theirs, would go on to create a religion that would be a definitive feature of Western Civilization millennia later. So, to posit that a lack of Egyptian records of the Hebrews is to commit the historian's fallacy.
For example, think of it like the meeting between a very young Bill Clinton and President Kennedy. Bill Clinton was just an ambitious student at the time, so the event was highly remarkable and memorable for him. Kennedy, at that point in his life, was meeting hundreds, maybe thousands, of kids just like Bill Clinton. Once Clinton became president, a photo of the two of them shaking hands circulated.
Now, imagine that we didn't have this photo and that Kennedy hadn't been assassinated. During his campaign, Clinton says a special moment in his life was when he met Kennedy. Kennedy has no recollection of that event whatsoever. Some spin doctors would hype that up to mean that Clinton was lying. People with fallible memories (read: everyone) would be able to reason, well, why SHOULD Kennedy remember an inconsequential event like that?
So, with Hebrew-Egyptian Relations, we're stuck with many theories that range from plausible to insane, from minimalist to maximalist with regard to Exodus. And we're probably going to be stuck here forever, but that's not stopping anyone from throwing out new interpretations of the evidence. That's what makes it fun.
ayan oh so basically nag meet ang mga Hebrew at mga Egyptian when ung time reign of the Egyptians is on it's last days.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.