tmh@ihldt.UUCP (Tom Harris) (01/05/84)
Herodotus makes no mention of the Hebrews, because I seriously
doubt that the events of Exodus took place. My guess is that the
Isrealites, if they did indeed reside in Egypt, were not slaves.
Egypt was traditionally a pretty slaveless society. Almost all
the monuments were built by conscripted labor (i.e. peasants
tapped for the job). No whole people would have been made slaves
(especially if they had come to Egypt freely, if they were
overworked it probably meant that the Egyptians considered them
as locals). The Hebrews may not have been allowed to leave
freely, but I doubt that force would have been used to stop them
(land is scarce in Egypt and nobody would protest foreigners
getting off it). If the administration changed for the worse,
they would have fled to the desert then, rather than wait around to
be made slaves. We have fairly good records from Egypt during the
period that Exodus must have occurred (it has to be a century or so
on either side of Ramnes I). I have read a theory that the Pharaoh
of Exodus was Ramnes II son of Ramnes I (who was Joseph's pharaoh).
Ramnes II was a prolific builder and to the inhabitants of Egypt
it may indeed have seemed that they were worked like slaves. If
we assume Exodus to be somewhat accurate, my guess is that Moses
asks permission to leave is denied, decides to make a run for it
(plagues, Passover and parting of the Red Sea are added later for
dramatic effect) and they become desert tribesmen. I doubt that
Exodus is any more accurate than Herodotus. Certainly the loss of
an Egyptian army and a pharaoh (not to mention the parting of the
Red Sea) would have left visible traces in Egypt (if nothing else
Egyptian priests would have gone out to the Red Sea every few
years trying to do a repeat). At any rate Ramnes II lives to be a
old man ruling for over 40 years.
By 450 B.C. the Jews were one of a hundred or so two bit tribes
overrun by the Persian Empire. They had, at that point, no impact
on Greece and so Herodotus had probably never heard of them. If
he had run into one on his travels we may well have had the Exodus
story included in his Histories (probably tempered by whatever the
Egyptians would have told him about their side). There are no
traces of the Hebrews in Egypt either. If we assume that they did
indeed sneak off into the desert one night I doubt that the
Egyptians would even have remembered them 20 years later (much
less several centuries). Oral history has a tendency to exaggerate
the deeds of the forefathers (vis the Illiad and the Odyssey) and
much of the exaggeration comes early on. So if you assume even
a generation or two passes before somebody gets around to writting
Exodus down I sure you would get plenty of exaggerations. Also
written history as we know it (nonfiction) doesn't exist until
Herodotus (Herodotus does try, but of course since his is the first
it leaves a lot to be desired by modern standards). Almost all
writting before that time has either religious (doesn't attempt to
be nonfiction) or government (generally accounting) significance.
To sum up had the Egyptians indeed lost an army and a pharaoh when
the Red Sea closed, or even if the first son of the pharaoh (not to
mention every other Egyptian family) had died in Passover
Egyptologists would probably have found evidence of it.
Therefore, we have to take the more dramatic parts of Exodus as
being 'Deus ex machina' for the benefit of those who read it
later (much as Herodutus' giant ants, or the Cyclops from the
Odyssey).
There is no God but Allah
and John Calvin is his prophet,
or
Hoot Man Swazei,
Tom Harrisamigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (01/05/84)
Herodotus, in fairness to him, did differentiate between things that he had seen himself, and things that were told to him. He also would frequently make judgements on the reliability of things that other people told him, and some things would get prefixed with a remark to the effect of "You can believe this if you want to." Also, one problem is definatly(sp?) the way that things were transmitted at that time and even later. I once saw a medaeval traveller's acount of a pilgrimage that he took to the Holy Land, with several stopovers in Africa. There was a picture of something that was labeled as a "cameleopardus" (giraffe to all you unsophisticated yahoos out there, cameleopard to the sophisticated ones), that looked like a spotted llama. However, on reading the description under the picture (rather difficult to do unless you read Latin), it was obvious that the person writing the description had actually seen a giraffe; it was just that the illustrator had not. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/06/84)
While I'm not qualified to debate Tom Harris' comments regarding
historical records of the Exodus, I do take issue with his
comment that no people could be made slaves against their will.
Exactly that happened to the Jews about 45 years ago in Europe.
Before the death camps and gas chambers came slavery. My in-laws
were both slaves in a concentration camp in Poland - making uniforms
and ammunition respectively.
It's a gradual process. First you're only allowed to live in certain
areas. Then you're only allowed to work in certain areas. Then you're
told to work at a given factory, but paid for it. Then the pay goes
down. Then it stops. And you're a slave. Believe me, it can happen.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davemat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (01/08/84)
As far as the Red Sea episode: I seem to recall reading that from time to time water level and wind conditions combine to leave vast areas of the Sea's floor exposed, usually in a couple of well-know places. I do not recall where I read it, so I must be taken with all the authority of Heroditus! To a small tribe, a couple companies of soldiers would look like an army and their fall to a vagary of nature that preserved the tribe would indeed be a miracle. If freak conditions were familiar, the loss of the soldiers might not have caused too big a stir. I don't have the text of the incident before me, but as I have read it in the Revised Standard Edition, I am not convinced that Pharoah attributed the plagues to the Jews. He may have just counted them as one more trouble. But then I am going by memory again. Statement intended to light flames: All in all, until the Christian Era, Jews played a relatively small part in world affairs. It was only after hristianity took root that large--scale attention was, for better or for worse, paid to them. I have read historians who believe that the Jewish understanding of G-d the One (and Only) was shaped/influenced by contact with the Zoroastrians/ Zarathustrians/Parsi/whatever-you-are-calling-them-today, who prevailed in Persia. Does anyone proprely versed in Jewish history and tradition have anything to say on that point (even to deny it)? Mark Terribile Duke Of deNet