Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihldt.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!tmh From: tmh@ihldt.UUCP (Tom Harris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: re: Herodotus and the Jews Message-ID: <2174@ihldt.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 10:47:58 EST Article-I.D.: ihldt.2174 Posted: Thu Jan 5 10:47:58 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 02:42:55 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 64 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 Harris