Did ancient egypt have crucifiction?

[Minimalist]

I'm glad to see that atheists are no longer trying to claim that crucifixion never happened!

It didn't happen to your imaginary godboy.

[Anomalocaris]

Crucifixtion use to be more wide spread than you think.

Even in medieval Japan, although to be fair, it was only used there for christians for the purpose of mocking them.

I'm glad to see that atheists are no longer trying to claim that crucifixion never happened!

There were actually many different methods of crucifixion, and the way in which it was used by the Romans at the time of Christ was to nail the feet together (one nail through both feet), and nail the wrists as well with the arms folded over the crossbeam. There was also a piece of wood for a "seat" that the executed person would have to push up on their legs to use. They also used rope in place of nails (although I'm not exactly sure how of if it would work for the feet, but it would certainly work fine for the arms), or also possibly in addition to nails.

Crucifixion of slaves who killed their masters and of particularly despised rebels against the emperor definitely happened. Crucifixion of any one name Jesus? We don't know for certain but given how many jesi there had been in the centuries, almost certainly a few manage to become slaves killers of their masters, or rebels that particularly ticked off the Romans and end up on the cross

As to crucifixion of some son of god? Never happened. There was never a god.

As to exactly how the Romans crucified people, don't be so sure. Lots of people took fiendish delight in speculating with air of certainty how the Romans must have done it. But the only potentially direct archeological evidence we have is one single heel bone with and iron nail in it. Josephus stated the Romans sometimes amused themselves by crucifying their victims in all sorts inventive postures.

[Polaris]

Assyria conquered Egypt in the early 7th century BC and the Persians conquered it in the late 6th BC so certainly by then....coincidentally getting close to the time that this bible bullshit was written....the idea of crucifixion may have been known in Egypt. But at the period of history which the OT pretends to describe (New Kingdom....in some cases Middle Kingdom if the fuckers get desperate enough) we have this sort of relief of Seti I dispatching prisoners in the time-honored Egyptian method.



So, no. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything written in the koran or any of the other ancient shit from which it was derived.

Middle Kingdom? Do you mean the Second Intermediate Period?

[Aractus]

Crucifixion of slaves who killed their masters and of particularly despised rebels against the emperor definitely happened. Crucifixion of any one name Jesus? We don't know for certain but given how many jesi there had been in the centuries, almost certainly a few manage to become slaves killers of their masters, or rebels that particularly ticked off the Romans and end up on the cross

Firstly let me correct myself, the feet were not on top of each other, and I realized my error pretty soon after I made it. This is "kind of" how they were nailed, but using the one nail:



The legs were actually together contorted on the one side and nailed.

The fact that neither you, nor Min, noticed my error and instead began attacking me on some other tangent I think proves that you don't really know anything about what you're talking about.

Sorry, you were always a loser and your hopes that we will suddenly let you forget it is in vain.

Your personal insults are pathetic mate.

[Cinjin]

For that matter, what is there in that particular verse that suggests anything to do with Egypt at all?

That was my first thought too.

[Minimalist]

No, Seti I was 18th Dynasty which is New Kingdom.

So was Thutmose I shown below similarly smiting a prisoner....



This sort of stylized almost ritualized killing does make one wonder if it ever really happened en masse or if one poor dumb bastard was chosen to take the hit for his whole team?

The Merneptah stele depicts a campaign against Libya and their Sea People allies but Merneptah was a son of Rameses II who ruled until he was 90. Merneptah was in his 60's when he came to the throne and the realities of life get in the way of the story that is told of him being the strong right arm of Ra smiting his enemies left and right. I'm in my 60's and the thought of smiting anyone with a bronze axe is enough to make me want to go take a fucking nap.

Nonetheless, this was the image that the Egyptians carried down throughout the centuries...bullshit or not.

[Polaris]

What I meant is you said the Biblical scholars want to have it so that their story of Joseph (I assume that is what you mean about going back to that period) thought of it in the Middle Kingdom (maybe some do, I don't really know about their assertions and think it would be off since the Egyptians were too strong during the Kingdom eras), but from what I studied, if there ever was a presence of the ancestors of Israel in Egypt of a meaningful extent, it would have come from the Second Intermediate Period when the Hyksos invaded Lower Egypt since I doubt Egypt would have tolerated them migrating into their country at any other time, getting stuck when the Egyptians retook their empire.

Just one of many secular theories for how the Hebrew people came about. The next best being the Sea Peoples hypothesis ~1200 BCE.

[Minimalist]

Middle Kingdom

Ah, okay. Actually a good question. It depends on how literal they are and there are degrees of literalism as there are of everything else.

"Solomon" is supposed to have built the temple 480 years after the Exodus. The Exodus itself took 40 years and before that they were supposed to have spent 400 years "in bondage." So 480+40+400= 920.

Traditionally Solomon's reign was supposed to have begun around 970 BC ( tenth century BC). If you just take the 480 years you are back to 1450 BC which is the reign of the 18th Dynasty king, Thutmose III. If you want to add in the 40 years of the Exodus story itself you are back to the reign of Thutmose I or II (dates vary) but still 18th Dynasty. As a historical aside, Egypt under Thutmose III reached the zenith of its military might and influence. Thutmose III gained an empire that reached the Euphrates River and stretched into Nubia and Libya. There is no indication that Egypt was "laid low" by god or anyone else at this time. It was their golden age.

However, you still need to account for the first 400 years of bondage.
So one has to go back to at least 1850 BC and the reign of Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhet III or possibly Senusret II, his father. Both had highly successful reigns but Senusret's military targets were in Nubia and Amenemhet seems to have been a builder who ruled at a time of peace. In either case, these were 12th Dynasty rulers and thus solidly Middle Kingdom. There is absolutely nothing linking either to any "Hebrews" but fundies who are stuck with the 880 or 920 year period in the second millennium are stuck having to push their story back that far.

[Aractus]

What I meant is you said the Biblical scholars want to have it so that their story of Joseph (I assume that is what you mean about going back to that period) thought of it in the Middle Kingdom (maybe some do, I don't really know about their assertions and think it would be off since the Egyptians were too strong during the Kingdom eras), but from what I studied, if there ever was a presence of the ancestors of Israel in Egypt of a meaningful extent, it would have come from the Second Intermediate Period when the Hyksos invaded Lower Egypt since I doubt Egypt would have tolerated them migrating into their country at any other time, getting stuck when the Egyptians retook their empire.

Most people look for the Exodus around 1450-1250 BC (18th Dynasty/19th Dynasty), after the Second Intermediate Period, but as you well know there is a complete lack of corroborating historical evidence from that period. People generally reach 1450 by taking the date in 1 Kings 6:1. However, names and numbers (especially numbers) in the OT can not be relied upon 100%. An error in transmission easily changes 1450 to 2450, for instance.

In saying that, consider the following verses. Exodus 1:8 "Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph." Ex 2:5: "Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman, and she took it." Ex 2:23 "During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God." Ex "Now Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh."

Moses is born, adopted by the king's daughter, when he 80 the king dies, and then he meets the new king. And to top it all off, that new king drowns in the Red Sea: Ex 14:6-7 (the King himself pursues the Israelites) "So [Pharaoh] made ready his chariot and took his army with him, and took six hundred chosen chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them." Ex 14:28 "The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained."

So we have the interesting situation where Moses is adopted when he is just 3 months old by the king's daughter, and then the king dies and a new king rules when he is 80 years old! What a reign, and more importantly, the first king had to have been old enough to 1. have a daughter, and 2. reign for at least 80 years. The second king had to have reigned for maybe a year at the most and then drowned in the Red Sea!

Pepi II is the only known king of egypt to reign for at least 80 years, and incredibly he reigned for 94 years and died when he was 100! Let me emphasize again the word "known", because the truth is that we do not know how long a lot of the Egyptian king's ruled for. Pepi II's "94 year" figure is recorded by two seemingly independent sources, hence why it is generally accepted. His reign was sometime c. 2300-2100 BC, and it coincides with the decline of the Old Kingdom which is what one would expect if tens of thousands (/hundreds of thousands) of slaves up and left all at one time. Merenre Nemtyemsaf II was the succussing king of Egypt and reigned for just 1 year (or less)! Exactly what would be expected if the Exodus had occurred then.

Pepi II then would have had to have been 20 when his daughter adopts Moses, this is perfectly plausible since the account in the Bible is completely consistent with the daughter being "too young" to immediately raise the child herself, instead having a servant/slave do the duties: Ex 2:9-10: "And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.' So the woman took the child and nursed him. When the child grew older, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses, 'Because,' she said, 'I drew him out of the water.'"

So they fit together very well for this time period. Now this isn't to say 100% that the Exodus didn't happen 1450 BC, and one day no doubt we may discover other kings who ruled for at least 80 years. But with the facts fitting together so well - long reign, short reign, economic depression (end of old kingdom), it's difficult to ignore this period as being when the Exodus might have occurred. Especially when we consider the fact that we do not have any firm understanding of why the old kingdom ended into depression so.

[Minimalist]

However, names and numbers (especially numbers) in the OT can not be relied upon 100%. An error in transmission easily changes 1450 to 2450, for instance.

While I certainly agree with your first sentence...probably even more than you would like me to agree with you!.... the second part is over the top.
There is no date reference at all. The "anchor point" is the mythical Solomon building the mythical temple. Xtians and jews point to the early 10th century for this and then date the Exodus to 480 years earlier.
They are trying to back into the dates by postulating as a fact the building of a temple which has not yielded a single artifact...ever.

Second, there is no indication of mass slavery in the Old Kingdom. It was simply not the economic model they used. Peasant farmers were recruited for building projects during the annual Nile flood periods. It functioned as a virtual social welfare program.

But you simply cannot adjust the chronology by 1,000 years in order to try to make something fit. Occam's Razor comes into play and it is easier to decide that the bible stories are bullshit. It is not as if they are even original.

Sargon, the mighty king, King of Agade, am I. My mother was a vestal, my father I knew not, while my father's brother dwelt in the mountains. In my city Azuripani, which is situated on the bank of the Euphrates, my mother, the vestal, bore me. In a hidden place she brought me forth. She laid me in a vessel made of reeds, closed my door with pitch, and dropped me down into the river, which did not drown me. The river carried me to Akki, the water carrier. Akki the water carrier lifted me up in the kindness of his heart, Akki the water carrier raised me as his own son, Akki the water carrier made of me his gardener. In my work as a gardener I was beloved by Ishtar, I became the king, and for forty-five years I held kingly sway.

-- Sargon I c. 2800 birth myth