Did ancient egypt have crucifiction?

[Aractus]

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.

Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was that 1480 becomes 480 with 1 single character dropped in Hebrew.

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.

That's because no one's bothered to look. If you don't excavate, then you don't find, it's that simple.

Second, there is no indication of mass slavery in the Old Kingdom.

Again we seem to be in agreement to a certain degree. There's no direct indication from within Egyptian sources, however that isn't to say that there wasn't slavery in Egypt. If there was no slavery in Egypt then it would have stood out as being well against the norm of the surrounding regions, and you would just about expect to see sources from those regions talking about how Egypt "didn't have slavery", which of course we don't find either. So we go back to the original facts: 1. slavery was well and truly established in the region, 2. there's no indication that there wasn't slavery in Egypt.

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.

No one, especially myself, is suggesting that slaves were used for building projects.

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.

We have an account where a king's daughter adopts Moses when he is still a baby and reigns for a further 80 years, and then the succeeding king dies by drowning in the Nile less than a year later. We have good evidence that there was a king that reigned for 96 years, followed by a king that reigns for less than 1 year. Tell me, how many other Egyptian kings reigned for just 1 year? The entire scenario is incredibly unlikely, yet it exists in secular records entirely separate to the Biblical accounts.

Your point, Min, only stands if the Exodus had to have occurred within a specific time period, and you can prove that it didn't. The simple fact is, as you agreed with at the start of your last post, from the Biblical accounts we cannot draw a positive conclusion as to when the Exodus occurred. If you like, you could say that it couldn't have happened "any later" than 1250 BC, but besides that, it could have happened 3000 BC, 4000 BC, 5000 BC, 8000 BC, 12000 BC ... you get the picture!

• 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

Shares barely any relation to the Biblical account. And for all we know, dropping your unwanted babies off in the river could well have been a tradition and wide-spread in the region! Seems more plausible than people murdering newborn unwanted babies - and yet we know as gospel truth that such a thing has indeed been widespread in certain cultures!

[Cheerful Charlie]

In exodus, it is plainly stated that God lead the Israelites through the wilderness to avoid the coast and the fierce and warlike Philistines. The Philistines were invaders during the 8th year of Rameses III. Disarmed and settled into camps in the Levantine, they were kept disarmed and harmless until the collapse of Egypt under later Pharoahs and the last Egyptian garrisons left during the reign of Rameses VI.

Note that the exodus tall tale's most notable characterization of the Egyptians
post-exodus is their absence in Canaan which only fits post Rameses VI.

The first notice of Israel in Egyptian sources is Merneptah's attack on Israel which is not to be found in the Bible. Merneptah established numerous fortresses and garrisons through out Canaan.

Nor does the Bible mention the wars between Rameses II and the Hittites that raged over Canaan for 20 years. That left no room for Joshua's invaders.


Trying to date the exodus from internal statements in the Bible is a fool's errand, which Near East archaeologists have been aware of for years now.

The settlement of hilltop farms that eventually became Israel started in 1200 BCE, long before Rameses VI, who reigned from about 1145 BC to 1137 BC.


Exodus 13
17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
18 But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.

Cheerful Charlie

[Owlix]

I've been looking for about 30 minutes now and can find nothing.
Don't know who Jesus is? Just search 'crucifixion'!

[Minimalist]

Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was that 1480 becomes 480 with 1 single character dropped in Hebrew.

But it hardly matters, there is no dating system to consult.

This comparison of various versions of 1 Kings 6:1 shows consensus on 480 years after exodus:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-kings/6-1-compare.html

There is no alternative but to try to back into the date and, as previously noted, the date this leads to is absurd. Egypt was at the peak of its power under Thutmose III.

That's because no one's bothered to look. If you don't excavate, then you don't find, it's that simple.

That is absurd. Jerusalem is the site of numerous archaeological digs. They are down to bedrock in places and have found neolithic tools.

This is not an argument from silence. The findings for 10th century Jerusalem are, at best, an insignificant little village. A more likely assessment is that rather than a village it was a manor house for the local ruler - a palace if you will to serve as his stronghold. In this respect it would have functioned as a medieval castle. We do not see clear growth of any sort of urban environment until the late 8th century.

However... we have found the model which later writers used for their so-called temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_temple

The Ain Dara temple, located near the village of Ain Dara, northwest of Aleppo, Syria, is an Iron Age Syro-Hittite temple noted for its similarities to Solomon's Temple as described in the Hebrew Bible

Too bad its in Syria!

however that isn't to say that there wasn't slavery in Egypt.

Good, because that is not the argument. There was no "mass slavery" of entire populations. An occasional house hold slave is one thing but an entire nation enslaved is something quite different. The economic impact of this kind of slavery is significant. In Rome, the influx of masses of slaves during the Second Century BC meant that peasant farmers were displaced by great plantations. The displaced farmers moved to the city where they became the city mob and an adverse impact on Roman politics which led eventually to the collapse of the republic. Its a fascinating subject for discussion but it did not happen in LBA Egypt and so has nothing to do with the current discussion.

No one, especially myself, is suggesting that slaves were used for building projects.

Good. Glad we can put that one to rest.

We have an account where a king's daughter adopts Moses when he is still a baby and reigns for a further 80 years, and then the succeeding king dies by drowning in the Nile less than a year later. We have good evidence that there was a king that reigned for 96 years, followed by a king that reigns for less than 1 year. Tell me, how many other Egyptian kings reigned for just 1 year? The entire scenario is incredibly unlikely, yet it exists in secular records entirely separate to the Biblical accounts.

Again, you have to move the story back 1,000 years to the Old Kingdom in order to do that. How many xtians are willing to do that? Every indication we have is that the settlements which eventually grew to become Israel and Judah began in the eastern hill region of Canaan at the end of the LBA (c 1200). So an argument for Pepi II ( who died c 2200 BC) would mean that "Solomon" was building a temple c 1720 BC or half a millennium before there were any "Israelites" or even proto-Israelites, to use William Dever's phrase.

It makes no sense.

Shares barely any relation to the Biblical account.

Irrelevant. The literary motif of a future leader being threatened by the current king also shows up in Romulus and Remus as well as numerous other places. Sadly, the bible is one more form of literature!

[Polaris]

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.

I actually don't take for certainty the use of 480 years since it is a multiple of 40, which was their definition of a generation. That would be 12 generations (abnormally low for a span of 480 years) so I assume someone mixed up the arithmetic down the road. Not unexpected since the Bible was not compiled until the 6th century BCE. Just imagine composing a history of the Revolutionary War (not even three centuries ago) only having limited documentation.

The Bible's depiction of their movement out of Egypt could indicate that they left during a strong Egypt....they avoided all the Egyptian outposts on the Sinai.

[Minimalist]

I actually don't take for certainty the use of 480 years since it is a multiple of 40, which was their definition of a generation.

Well....fine. You have one story and every translator of this story comes up with 480 years. There is no other story for you to point to as the source of your discomfort. The NT stories all agree that your boy was crucified. If you now come along and say "I don't think he was crucified...I think he was run over by a chariot" there is nothing in the literature to point to which sustains that idea, either.

Remember, I don't think either event is historical for a variety of reasons. But this is what your books say.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

40 does seem to be the bibles favourite number. It seems to me that in a biblical context, 40 = many

[Aractus]

But it hardly matters, there is no dating system to consult.

This comparison of various versions of 1 Kings 6:1 shows consensus on 480 years after exodus:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-kings/6-1-compare.html

Here's a better example:

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/13-1.htm

[Minimalist]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there.

The problem of Saul is well known and leads to lots of apologetic scrotum twisting to try to make "sense" of it.

I.e. :

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet....98.08.htm

The thing is that there is no archaeological attestation for "Saul." It's like looking for King Arthur.....or Emperor Palpatine.

[Clueless Morgan]

Crucifixion seems to have developed in the ANE.

You mean the network Breaking Bad was on?

Oh, no. That was A&E...



Sorry, back to intelligent conversation.