Well, since it’s Sunday, I decided to upload another positive finding relating to the Bible.
We have the Old Testament to provide us with the complete story from the viewpoint of the Hebrews under Moses who left Egypt, but nothing (supposedly) from the Egyptian side. In fact, most scholars try to assure us that the Hebrew people were never there at all, according to the evidence.
But there is evidence, in written form, on ancient tablets (382 of them) created by the Egyptians themselves, in fact, just after the dates given for the Exodus of Moses.
The Amarna tablets are a collection of letters between the Pharaoh in Egypt and his representatives in the Canaan and Amorite (Palestine and Syria) areas that they governed.
They also contain the first mention of a Near Eastern group known as the Habiru, whose possible connection with the Hebrews—due to the similarity of the words and their geographic location—remains a possibility (probability in my opinion) but is debated (by Israeli scholars and by Biblical Archaeologists because they cast aspersions upon the Hebrews). From other records of the Egyptians we find confirmation that they perceived the Habiru as representing roving bandits, mercenaries and thieves. And that’s their opinion, not a fact.
The tablets are written in Cuneiform, and our scholars tell us the underlying language is Akkadian. I have my doubts about that, since the only way in which each of
the letters matches a meaning is by using Sumerian as the underlying language, or the spoken language that the signs are transliterated and then translated in.
However, they refer to Jerusalem as “u-ru-sa-lim”, all of which are clearly Sumerian words. This is confirmed with the Syriac form of Urishlem, and in the neo-Assyrian form of Urslaimmu. So both the Syrians and the later Assyrians agreed with the Sumerians as to the spelling of the name Jerusalem.
The tablets include correspondence from Akhenaten’s reign (Akhenaten who was also titled Amenhotep IV, 1350s–1330s BC), as well as his predecessor Amenhotep III’s reign. So we can be fairly sure that the Exodus did not happen during Akhenaten’s reign, but it could have been during the reign of his father, Amenhotep III, which might also help pin down the dates of the Exodus to a known historical period if we research this further. In any event, something like 80 years prior to the 1360s BC, give or take.
To the Egyptians, the occupants of Jerusalem in 1360 BC (shortly after the reported dating of the Exodus of Moses and his people in the Old Testament – perhaps 80 years later), were described thus:
U = to overwhelm, to spread over, to envelop, to cloud over
ru = to release, to let go, to walk along, to lead away, to pour out
sa = to roast, to parch
lim = dishonest, to be bad or evil, to be criminal, to be false.
Something like: Those who overwhelmed the lands of Egypt, and that we then released to roast (in the desert) because they were dishonest criminals and evil.
This of course is the history [his-story] from the Egyptian side, and it is slanted towards their own opinions, perhaps because they were sore losers.
But let’s carry this idea forward a bit because it is important.
Are we not told that, according to the official historical records, the Egyptians never had any Hebrews in captivity, and that they do not know what the Jews are talking about when they speak of an Exodus?
Are we not told by (atheist?) scholars that the story of the Captivity in Egypt is not supported by any evidence? That it’s a child’s tale?
How about written evidence from the lips of the Egyptians themselves? Does this not count?
By the way: If one insists on using Akkadian as the underlying language, which is false but the only hope they have of disproving my work above, here’s what we get from that language:
u = and, but, also
rasu = to be rich, to acquire, well-off
lemnu = to be criminal, false, dishonest.
Jerusalem = Rich from acquisitions but criminally dishonest.
You can see that it does not match nearly as well, letter for letter, as the Sumerian example, and since the Egyptians had more contact through trade with the Sumerians than the
Akkadians (by far), the language is very probably Sumerian and not Akkadian.
It does confirm the slanderous remarks in the first example, but doesn’t mention the “letting them go to roast in the desert”. I wonder why our scholars decided on this version over the other one? Hmm. Curious, indeed.
You really won’t find too much evidence …. if you don’t look, and then ignore it when you do find it.
Does this information add to Biblical knowledge, and tend to support the idea that at least some portions of the Biblical text are based upon factual events? It seems to do so. And yet I am fairly sure that you never learned of this until today – and neither did I until I happened across this in my research.