Presentation

[] [] []
 * PRESENTATION: CHILDREN'S BOOK**
 * THE HEBREWS IN EGYPT/LEADING INTO THE EXODUS - by Maddie**
 * Sources:**

Once upon a time, about three thousand five hundred years ago, there were many tribes of people living and working in ancient Egypt who were not Egyptian. They were Semitic, which means that they were from many different places, and they spoke many different languages. Some of these people would eventually call themselves Hebrews. []
 * PAGE 1:**

According to the Bible, the Hebrews lived in Egypt until the Pharaoh was so cruel to them that they followed a man named Moses and left Egypt in an event called the Exodus. Since we're historians here, this is a little puzzling, because the Hebrew records don't always line up with Egyptian archaeological evidence. If we want to figure out how and why the Hebrews left Egypt, we need to find information from different points of view and compare the evidence! When we're reading our sources, though, we need to remember the bias that might show up in them because of who they were written by. Egyptian sources probably make the Egyptians seem like the good guys, and Hebrew sources probably make the Hebrews seem like the heroes of the story. Reading sources from different points of view helps you balance out what is bias and what is a good, true, historical fact! []
 * PAGE 2:**

Egyptian archeological evidence says that there were lots of foreigners living in Northern Egypt. (Which is technically called Lower Egypt.) This matches up with what the Bible says about the Hebrews living in Egypt - "But the descendants of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land [Egypt] was filled with them." (Exodus 1:7) []
 * PAGE 3:**

The Bible also says that the Hebrews wanted to leave Egypt because of the hard labor the Pharaoh was forcing them to do. This also lines up with Egyptian sources! The ruler of Egypt would often force unwanted foreigners to do hard labor in building monuments and other buildings for the good of the country. Some of those foreigners would have probably been the Hebrews! It's only about the time of the big breakout called 'the Exodus' that our Egyptian and Hebrew sources start to disagree, and we need to make some educated guesses. [] Some Egyptian laborers doing the kind of hard work that the Hebrews would be forced to do - while being watched over by the Pharaoh. The Bible talks about the Hebrews following a man named Moses out of Egypt, and plagues being sent down from God on the behalf of the Hebrews onto Egypt. However, in our Egyptian sources, there is no mention of a big group of Hebrews moving out. In fact, there isn't any mention of the Hebrews at all! We need to look at our evidence and present our best //historian// guess as to what happened: []
 * PAGE 4:**
 * (WHERE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE OVER, RACHEL?)**
 * PAGE 5:**



Mixing together our evidence from both Egyptian archaeology and the Bible, we can say that the Hebrews started off as a group of Semitic tribes in Northern Egypt, but when the labor taxes from the Pharaoh became too much, they chose to leave. The Hebrews either left slowly, bit by bit, following Moses, in a way that would not attract too much attention, or they //did// leave all at once, and the Egyptians destroyed records of it to save themselves the embarrassment of having lost so many of their workers. And once the newly-united Hebrews were out of Egypt, they began their journey called the the Wanderings before eventually settling in Canaan. http://www.myuniquegiftidea.com/72-names-of-god-part-2
 * PAGE 6:**

[] [] [] []
 * THE OCCUPATION OF CANAAN**
 * THEORY ONE (VEENA'S THEORY)**:
 * __//sources used://__**

1st Theory: CONQUEST!!! This theory was developed by William Albright and his students. This theory is heavily based off of the Bible's account of what happened, as well as a pattern of destroyed cities discovered in the area. According to the Bible… In the Bible, in the book of Joshua, **Joshua**, ruled the Israelites for 20 years, and led them in their **fight against the Canaanites** to take control of the promised land. It says that they used **guerrilla warfare** to fight the Canaanites, and describes the long **struggle** against the Canaanites, who had much **better weapons as well as chariots**. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost, but their wins were only when they were fighting on uneven land filled with hills where the Canaanite chariots couldn't easily move.
 * __PAGE ONE:__**
 * __PAGE TWO:__**

But, **the bible contradicts itself**. In the **book of Joshua**, it talks about a **complete military conquest**, but in the **book of Judges**, it tells you the **unconquered territory**. Did they win all of the land or not?

There are also parts of the Bible that indicate that the Hebrews were not the only ones living in Canaan after the battles. The Bible talks about other tribes living in other parts of the land with them later, after the battle. If they had won, why would they bother to share their land and let other groups of people live there like the Bible indicates?

This doesn’t make any sense. Not only does the Bible contradict itself, but what it says hasn't been proven to be 100% true.
 * __PAGE THREE:__**

There doesn't seem to be any archaeological evidence of a large invasion or battles between the Israelites and Canaanites. Wouldn't they have left something behind? Weapons or other tools to survive that they would need when invading? If the Israelites had truly invaded, they would have needed a LOT of people. How can such a large group of people move into Canaan and leave **nothing behind as evidence**?

If the only times they were able to win were when they were fighting on hilly land, then the **Canaanites were probably still in control of all of the flat, fertile land**. This means that they also probably had control of the **caravan routes**. How is that considered a complete conquest and victory?

If the Hebrews had really won, wouldn't they have settled on the best land? Yet there is no archaeological evidence of settlement in the more fertile, flat land. Weird right? It is believed that they settled in the highlands, which doesn't fit.

The probable time period of the conquest is around the 15th century (B.C.), or the end of the Middle Bronze period. In the book of Joshua, the Bible mentions 16 cities. Out of those 16 cities, only about 9 seem to fit the Bible's account of what happened, based on whether they were active during that time period, had fallen during that time period, were walled, or were even cities with significant populations. Depending on how people look at each individual case for each city, they can be made to fit or not. The Amarna letters also seem to suggest a time of chaos or turmoil about when the Israelites supposedly attacked Canaan.
 * __PAGE FOUR:__**

Two examples of the problems with these cities are... The Bible said that the **cities** of Jericho and Ai were prominent in the battle.

In reality, Jericho...

according to archaeological evidence, should not have been a thriving city at that time.

And Ai... was really only a small village...
 * __PAGE FIVE:__**

In the Bible, the Israelites also interact with groups of people that historically, were not supposed to exist in the 15th century.

While there is some evidence of turmoil during that time period (15th century B.C.), like the Amarna letters and fallen cities, there are many features of the Bible's account that do not add up. Certain faults in this theory cause us to turn to other possibilities and questions like...
 * __PAGE SIX:__**

How this theory doesn't explain why the Israelites and Canaanites are so alike. The earliest descriptions of both their religions have large similarities. How could two supposedly entirely separate races and cultures have so many common traits? This has caused people to develop a second theory of the Occupation of Canaan...

That the Israelites came to Cannan in small groups So if there is little evidence that there was a conquest between the Israelites and the Canaanites. And the bible talk about the Hebrews and the Israelites being two different people... then are there anyother theories?
 * THEORY 2: **
 * sorry this is sooo late.... **
 * Page 7: **



YES!!! Another theory about how the Israelites came to Canaan is the “peaceful migration theory”. This theory is that the Israelite settlement was due to a slow migration of different nomadic groups who were seeking pastors for their sheep and goat herds.

Albrecht Alt and Martin North, Albrecht developed his theory in the 1920’s based upon Biblical and Egyptian sources without archeological data. Using the Bible as a reliable historical reference they use the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who have memories of nomadic people. Their theory is also based on the idea that civilization progresses from nomadic to agricultural to urban settlements.

Page 8: Nomadic groups would settle in areas far from the city allowing the urban Canaanites to peacefully coexist with the Israelites living beyond the city in the Highlands. Archeological evidence does agree with the idea that nomadic groups settled in the unpopulated high lands. They lived peacefully with the Canaanites. Eventually, the Israelites over took the urban Canaanite city. This theory believes that the Israelites had no distinct traditions or materials which differed from the Canaanites.



However, other archeological evidence suggests that if a large population of people came to a new land they would bring their own traditions and materials which would continue with their lives. Pottery and tools indicate that the Israelites were had the same material cultures, which agrees with Duncan’s theory.

Duncan's theory 3

THEY WERE THE SAME PEOPLE!!!! 

Page 9: The authors of the bible liked to make it sound as though the meek Hebrews, through guerilla warfare and by the grace of God, heroically conquered the Canaanites and took the land of Canaan as their own... but we've already discovered that there is little archeological evidence of epic battles through which the hebrews might have seized Canaan, nor any biblical references to their actually winning... so what else might have happened?

Page 10: Some historians suggest that the Hebrews and the Canaanites were, in fact, the same people, and the theory is a reasonable one. The book of genesis is peppered with stories of friendly interactions and even intimate relationships between hebrews and Canaanites. Israelites were marrying canaanites all over the place. Esau and Judah both married Canaanite women. Judah had a canaanite daughter in law. Shaul, one of the sons of Simeon married and had scads of children with a canaanite woman. As far as their relationship with the Cannanites went, the Hebrews were almost poster children of social diversity.

Page 11: (Text only) But wait a second, why does the bible simultaneously describe the Hebrews as the victors of the heroic conquest of Canaan, as well as the loving acceptors, indeed integrators of canaanite culture? Furthermore, if the Canaanites and Hebrews were indeed the same people, or the Hebrews were a product of Canaanite culture, why does the bible distinguish between the two? If they were indeed one huge loving family, why do they exist as separate historical entities? Page 12: There is certainly strong evidence suggesting close connections between the Hebrews and Canaanites, but when forming an opinion, one must remember that correlation, and cultural syncretism do not necessarily imply that two groups of people are the same. Cultures can certainly influence one another without actually being one and the same.


 * //__Theory 3: Pheobe:__//**


 * //__Judges and Deliverers:__//**

So during the whole invasion process and settling in their new land, how did such a large group of people not turn into CHAOS??? There needed to be someone in charge!

During the period of entering Canaan (however they actually accomplished it), the tribes did not all get along perfectly, so there needed to be somebody to keep the peace.

There were the Judges, and the Deliverers...

The Judges were the authority for all the tribes of Israel during the invasion and settlement of Canaan, before they chose a king. They were recognized by all of the tribes and were used to settle disputes between them. They had some judicial and legislative control. Unlike the patriarchal age, the judges were not gender specific, they could be women as well.

The Deliverers were probably military commanders. They formed the armies within each tribe and led them into battle. During times of oppression, they were supposed to rise up and help the tribes fight. SAMUEL: Samuel represents a pivotal point in hebrew history. He was the last of the judges, and ruled ancient Israel during the books of Samuel. He represented the end of one era, and the beginning of the next. He was the first prophet of the land of israel. He anointed kings Saul and David.