Eric Cline (From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible
) approaches the lost tribes theme from three angles, the biblical account, the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions and the archaeological remains."[W]e know that between the efforts of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V, and Sargon II, more than 40,000 people were carried off from 733 to 720 BC... Archaeologists say that at least five times and perhaps nearly ten times that many people were living in the region during that time... Either way, 80 to 90 percent of the Ten Tribes of Israel would have been left to either stay on the land or flee to Judah... [E]xcavations... provide evidence for a tremendous explosion of growth not only in the city of Jerusalem but in all of Judah... just after the fall of Israel's northern kingdom"
Referring to the much used apocryphal passage in 2 Edras and comments by Josephus (both first century) Cline notes: "Clearly, by the first century AD (if not long before), the myth of the Ten Lost Tribes had already begun."
The mysterious land of Arzareth (2 Edras) is not a placename but "a corruption of two Hebrew words, Eretz Aheret, and simply means "another land.""
"This deportation and repopulation, known in politically correct terms as "population exchange" was a standard and very deliberate practice of the Neo-Assyrians."
"So what happened to the so-called Ten Lost Tribes of Israel? The answer is simple: They are not lost and never were. Yes, the northern kingdom of Israel itself officially ended by 720 BC, when it was incorporated into the Neo-Assyrian Empire. And yes, inhabitants of Samaria and Israel were indeed deported... However, only 20 percent... at most, were sent into exile."
"Even if 40,000 people were taken into exile and 80,000 fled south to Judah, at least 100,000 more - and perhaps as many as 230,000 people - would have remained in what was once Israel's northern kingdom... the fate that befell [Israel]... mirrors exactly the fate that would befall the people of Jerusalem and Judah a little more than a century later..."
"[E]ven if 40,000 people were carried off... this number pales in comparison with the number of people reportedly deported from Judah... Sennacherib says that he deported 200,150 people from its cities and villages..."
The detail can best be appreciated by reading the book
, but hopefully there's enough here to whet the appetite of some readers for a discussion of this subject that has much greater credibility than anything churned out from those that still promote the racist ideologies of Herbert W Armstrong and his jingoistic predecessors.
36 comments:
The man who write about "Ten-Tribes-Founded!" Izrail do not know the history. He should know what was population of Izrail in about 700 B.C. When Izrail come from Egipt there was 2-3 milion of them. Then the stay in promiss land for another 1000 years. Wonder what the population was when they fall-went in to Babilon captivity?
The Israel out of Egypt as found in the Bible is highly suspect tale weaving. The inhabiting of the land was probably more slowly done by natural means and Israelites were probably glorified Canaanites to begin with.
In the centuries before and after 1000 BCE, the Israelites took over Canaan politically and culturally. The Canaanite population was assimilated into the Jewish states in the following centuries. Through this process, a distinction grew between the Canaanites and Phoenicians to the north — 2 groups that had been more or less one before.
Even the New Testament offers support for Cline's thesis.
Luke 2:36 says that Anna was of the tribe of Asher. So, she was probably descended from people who fled to Jerusalem from the north and passed on their tribal identity to their descendants.
If there were 2-3 million people who came out of Egypt, they must have been invisible because no one else knew about it and they left no evidence.
Since they can find ancient caravan trails in the Sahara thousands of years old, you would think they could find the trail of 2-3 million people in a much smaller desert.
There should be tons of relics laying around out there because deserts are good preservers of relics but nope, not a thing.
Canaan was also a part of Egypt at the time and there were Egyptian outposts all within a day of each other throughout the Sinai. So, how do you slip 2-3 million people back and forth and up and down that desert for 40 years without being seen?
They were invisible, they would have to be, and they are still invisible because we have never found their bones.
There were not 2-3 million Israelites who left Egypt.
Those interested in a novel answer can review my father's research on this issue via the www.askelm.com website searching for the article, "population of Israel and the exodus."
In short, it is good not to assume that we understand exactly what Moses means by his use of the word "census." What Moses thought a census was compared to our understanding of a census today, were two very different things.
Samuel Martin
Samuel Martin said...
There were not 2-3 million Israelites who left Egypt.
I knew that from common sense. However, even if there were only 40,000 people and their animals roaming the Sinai for 40 years they would have left lots of evidence. A lot of bones too, both human and animal and there are none.
Plus that's still too many people to have avoided all those Egyptian outposts in the Sinai for 40 years.
Of course, Egypt was supposed to have been wasted by ten plagues and the destruction of Pharoah's whole army but the Egyptians weren't impressed enough about it to record the events.
It seems to have slipped the attention of the Assyrians too. As the mortal enemy of Egypt, you'd think that they wouldn't let an opportunity like that escape them.
The whole thing just went unnoticed by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and the Phoenicians. You'd think, surely, the Egyptians would have noticed but according to all their writings at the time, it was business as usual.
I'd vote the Exodus never happened in the way the Bible records and so we need not agonize over how many didn't leave Egypt that way and we don't need novel ways to explain that which never happened.
Kinda like the Star of Bethlehem being planets and three really wise men seeing a Star in the East when they were heading west to find a house south of Jerusalem. It's not real history.
"...and we don't need novel ways to explain that which never happened."
Hear, hear! Imagine people sitting around arguing as to whether Gandalf really took the Fellowship through the Mines of Moria after a try at the Redhorn, or whether the Fellowship really crossed over the Redhorn and never went through Moria in the first place. The reason we don't see this debate is because everyone understands that the Lord of the Rings is fiction and isn't real.
Paul
The entire Armstrongite edifice collapses if the BI stone is pulled out. Not only is the Armstrongite interpretation of prophecy invalidated, but HWA's bona fides as an apostle is called into question. How could someone so close to God make such a large mistake.
So you will find Armstrongites defending BI with their last, dying breath. Which means that they will not read the book that you cited, though they have a desperate need to.
My recollection is that anyone who is educated in "The World's" education system, is suspect. Only Herman Hoeh's Compendium can be trusted as a source of truth about history. This, even though Hoeh renounced the Compendium long ago. Although I am not sure how much of it he renounced and, before his death, he seemed very tight-lipped about what he believed, at least in my correspondence with him.
-- Neo
Send for your free booklet:
"Just What Do You Mean? Dr. Hoeh"
:)
2 Chronicles 15:9 speaks of a mass migration of Ephraim, Manasseh, Simeon to the southern kingdom of Judah in the days of King Asa. Yet the northern kingdom still existed with its own even greater population.
That many later escaped Assyrian captivity should be obvious from observing fleeing peoples in our lifetimes, whether from Bosnia, Iraq, Darfur or even New Orleans. We run when our lives are endangered--but we don't all escape.
A large number of Israelites was taken captive into Assyria, and later disappeared. Prior to their disappearance there should be no doubt that they became valuable to their Assyrian captors, given their knowledge of agriculture and all the other livlihoods that enrich a nation. They must have reproduced abundantly, as was the pattern, the characteristic precedent set in Egypt.
To conclude that most returned to Judah is absurd; that didn't even happen when Cyrus allowed his Jews to go home. After 70 years, life had become too comfy-cozy in the fertile crescent to risk starting over in the Holy Land. Jews are free to return now, and how many have done so? Why write off 2 Esdras and Josephus as if their testimonies were insignificant?
When a Samaritan woman referred to her father, Jacob, building the well by which they were conversing, Jesus said nothing to contradict her stated provenance. Yet there is no record, to my knowledge, of Samaritans returning, en masse, to the covenant of their fathers. They certainly aren't there today, and wherever they are, their influence should be felt significantly. Is it too much to call them "lost tribes"?
I think it would be foolhardy to jump on a scholarly bandwagon that insists upon finding the bulk of scattered Israelites among Jews. Jews are still a tiny minority of Jacob's progeny,and by no means do they reflect the vast global power and influence envisioned by the Patriarch, Jacob, on his deathbed.
This is not to discredit Eric Cline's acknowledged scholarship. He has done a mountain of creditable work. But the record insists that there is yet more work to be done.
My intention is to keep the door open--not to any group with a racist or anti-Semitic agenda--but to the vision of the great patriarch, Jacob/Israel. Jacob foresaw a vast and influential body of Israelites, prominent on the world scene, and in the case of Joseph, embracing the entire family, defending them, and providing not only for them but for the world. I'd caution against writing off Jacob's vision just yet. Mr. Cline has admirably advanced the search for Israel, but there is much more work to be done before the case can be considered closed.
but to the vision of the great patriarch, Jacob/Israel. Jacob foresaw a vast and influential body of Israelites, prominent on the world scene, and in the case of Joseph, embracing the entire family, defending them, and providing not only for them but for the world. I'd caution against writing off Jacob's vision just yet.
It wasn't a "vision" it was a blessing (a well-wishing) to his sons and not a prophecy that need be fulfilled. This is, of course, given that it was even said to start with and not a post-exilic made up story.
There are no "lost 10 tribes". That has been proven biblically and genetically (Mormonism type denial not excepted).
"So what happened to the so-called Ten Lost Tribes of Israel? The answer is simple: They are not lost and never were. Yes, the northern kingdom of Israel itself officially ended by 720 BC, when it was incorporated into the Neo-Assyrian Empire. And yes, inhabitants of Samaria and Israel were indeed deported... However, only 20 percent... at most, were sent into exile."
Eric Cline says "They are not lost and never were." But he offers no supporting history or archaeological evidence. That is a grave weakness in scholarship.
Cline offers us a "hail Mary" pass. He basically says take my word for it. Just like HWA offered limited support for the United States being Mennasah. The both argue from bias.
If you notice Cline uses the phrase "ten lost tribes". That phrase is loaded with theology. A genuine scholar would not use this phrase. Cline is arguing against the "ten lost tribes", he has an agenda or he would not use the phrase.
My guess is he is an Evangelical and he is working to debunk the "lost tribes" theory that goes back hundreds of years. He knows the theory or he would not use the words.
So... if you want to read a book written from and Evangelical bias with some good history, then buy this one.
I will pass thank you.
"I will pass thank you."
Me too. I might as well read a book purporting to explain how the colony of Roanoke went on to build a vast empire on Pluto and defeat the Zorgons. I know the truth. I know what really happened to the Roanokians; they defeated the Martians and thus fullfilled the prophecy in the OT.
Paul
Paul
Uh no, not an evangelical. Cline lays his cards out in the intro. and he's certainly not into apologetics (if he was I wouldn't be giving it press). Bear in mind that I quoted selectively, so I'm not sure how anyone who hadn't read the book could conclude "he offers no supporting history or archaeological evidence." This is a "popular" work (i.e. readable!) by a well regarded scholar, published by National Geographic, not Zondervan or IVF.
When I referred to Jacob's "vision," I referred to him as a visionary, not as a man in prophetic trance. That should have been clear from the statement two paragraphs earlier, referring to the future greatness of the twelve tribes, "envisioned" by Jacob, their father.
His pronouncements were indeed blessings, and predicated upon the natural gifts and performances during their lifetimes of his 12 sons. That "the lives of the patriarchs foreshadow the lives of their descendants" has been often observed, and the prophetic nature of Jacob's blessings should be discernable from this quote, and from the fact that character is destiny.
Quite obviously, I accept Moses' writings as perfectly accurate, right down to the decorations on the letters themselves. If that is a sticking point, then so be it. I'm convinced to the marrow of my bones.
All the best.
The archeologists Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical interpretation, Ename Center for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium) summarized the archeological findings and latest corrections regarding the historical origins of the Jewish nation.
In their words,
"The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan."
Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua.
There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt.
There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years.
According to the Bible, 38 of these 40 years were actually spent encamped at Kadesh-barnea. This area has been turned upside down for decades, looking for even a tiny piece of pottery from this supposed time. It is not likely that this many people would have lived here this long and not left archeological evidence.
The archeological evidence contradicts the Biblical theme of Joshua taking control of the Israelites from Moses and conquering Canaan. The Egyptians had a strong presence in Canaan at this time, yet the Biblical accounts make no mention of this.
The Biblical themes of the origins of Israel are myths. Like the gospel accounts of the New Testament, they were fabricated in later times and inserted into earlier times as a tool of religious and political propagandists
Disconcerting I know. It makes literalists dig in even deeper with a big "NO" or leaves the openminded with the uncomfortable quest for meaning outside the Sunday School approach to Theology and truth that goes beyond mere beliefs.
So, three sons of Jacob (Judah, Benjamin and Levi) were Semites and the others were Aryan.
How can anyone believe that and be convinced to the marrow of their bones? Notwithstanding all the other evidence to the contrary?
Is there something about DNA that is not believed?
Since when did any of the other prophecies of Armstrong ever happen? Why should that nonsense be any different?
The Bible tells that Jacob-Israel had 12 sons (Genesis 35:22-27) and that each of these became the founder of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the people of God (Genesis 49:28).
Jesus chose Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4) for the beginnings of the Church.
There were 24 classes of priests and Levites (1 Chronicles 24:4) and 48 Levitical cities (Numbers 35:7).
In the Book of Revelation, there are 24 elders around the throne of God and 144,000 of the saved (Revelation 4:4; 7:4).
The perfection of the new Jerusalem is seen in its 12 gates, each "a single pearl," and 12 foundations, each adorned with jewels. Its circumference is 12,000 furlongs, and its walls are 144 cubits high (Revelation 21:10-21; Ezekiel 48:30-35).
Does anyone ever get the idea any of this is somewhat contrived?
Re Finkelstein et al.'s assertions, "anonymous" wrote:
Disconcerting I know.
Not disconcerting to people who want to believe it. It makes them feel extra comfortable. Blind faith in Finkelstein is just as sad as blind faith in Armstrong. It's amazing to me that so many who KNEW THE TRUTH (tongue-in-cheek) are now blindly confident that they were wrong and NOW know the truth. Seems like the psychological baggage of Armstrongism is alive and well, just with a different name and a different theology.
Alan..seems like you have somekind of strange aversion to reading, rethinking one's perspectives and moving on to explanations that make more sense than previous ones.
"extra comfortable"
"Blind faith"
"blindly confident"
"NOW know the truth."
"psychological baggage"
Childish, judgemental and meaningless words to use in an intelligent conversation.
"Finkelstein and Silberman point out that there is still no evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, "Jacob, Lot, Moses, and Joshua.
There is no evidence that Jewish people existed as an identified people that were enslaved in Egypt.
There is no evidence that over 600,000 men (plus women and children - the number could have been over a million) had an exodus from Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years."
The book is extraordinary in that Finkelstein and Silberman (F&S) are honest with their history.
I applaud that!!!
There may not have been 10 northern tribes. F&S do mention the tribe of Dan and Ephraim. They were the closest to Judah. They always refer to the Northern kingdom as just that... the Northern Kingdom. Then never refer to it as the "ten tribes".
The core of the history in the Tanakh is probably mostly true. But it has been GREATLY embellished for political reasons.
We can surmise
1) Israel and Judah did come from Egypt.
2) They did settle in Canaan.
3) There was some kind of exodus, but not a crossing of the Red Sea.
4) There may have been some kind of trauma that made them leave; maybe not.
5) There may have been someone like "Moses" who led this effort.
6) There was no Passover as described in the Tanakh.
7) There was a divided kingdom; one
in the North and one in the South.
But F&S do point out there is no archaeological record of the Patriarchs.
However the patriarchs may have come from India. There is an interesting book "Jesus in Kasmir, the Lost Tomb" by Susan Olson. It is really "different", but it is fascinating and worth reading. There is a great deal of circumstantial history that ties the Patriarchs, Abraham and Sarah, back to India.
Susan Olson also shows there is history tying Jesus to Tibet and Kashmir. Here is a web site that claims a tomb of Jesus is in Kashmir.
http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html
I would also recommend "The Jesus Sutras" by Martin Palmer and while your at it may want to read "The Unknown Life of Jesus" by Nicholas Notovitch.
I have met Dr. Kline and have his two previous books on Megiddo and Jerusalem. I look forward to reading this one.
Having said that, I will comment that it's common for scholars (and Web pundits) to have their blind spots.
In this case, to conclude there was no massive deportation of the northern 10 tribes one must overlook what the oldest primary sources clearly state:
"Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone . . . The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His sight . . . as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day" (2 Kings 17:18-23).
Josephus, writing in the first century, was a dedicated historian with access to all kinds of documents and records still existing at that time. He clearly distinguished between the Jews and the northern 10 tribes and wrote: "The ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now [his time, the first century], and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter V, Section 2). Did Josephus, a Jew and from a family of priests, simply make this up? Who do you suppose is more knowledgeable and closer to the facts, Josephus or a scholar writing today?
James, half-brother of Jesus, wrote his epistle “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). James was Jewish and knew that the tribes were still scattered in his time and hadn't been incorporated into Judah, nor were they still living in the in the old Israelite territory a day or two's walk to the north of Jerusalem.
Anyone who ignores such sources to claim that there was no exile and scattering of the northern tribes should have some pretty compelling evidence to overturn the weight of first-person statements that predate him by 2,000-2,700 years.
I find it surprising that so many commenting on this thread so casually dismiss these witnesses. Even if one doesn't believe the Bible is inspired, one should at least acknowledge this was the common understanding at the time these documents were written. That fact alone carries considerable historical weight.
I might also comment regarding Israel Finkelstein that he is something of a pariah among archaeologists working in Israel. I can't think of a single one who agrees with his interpretation of Israelite history and have heard a number of them denounce it.
We know from recent history where the Assyrians are. (Iraq). Do you, as an archaeology student happen to believe that Assyria is in reality Germany, and the lost ten tribes are the Germanic tribes which eventually migrated into, and settled the various nations of Europe? If so, do you have historical or archaeological evidence to support this belief?
Also, how do semitic people, who basically look like Arabic or Jewish middle easterners, morph into Aryan types who then parlay the alleged special talents and intelligence into some of the most advanced nations in the history of planet Earth? And, more importantly, why do the dna tests fail to detect anything other than casual resemblance between Anglo-Saxons and the Jews with whom they supposedly share ancestral relationship?
BB
Alan..seems like you have somekind of strange aversion to reading, rethinking one's perspectives and moving on to explanations that make more sense than previous ones.
Not at all. I just find it highly ironic that certain people, like Finkelstein, get cited over and over to prove things, just like we were once taught to do with Armstrong. I read a great variety of books from a great variety of different viewpoints, and what intrigues me is the absolute certainty with which people such as yourself uphold Finkelstein as some sort of truth savior. He makes some good points, but so do people who disagree with him, and as others have said, there are many. One of the big attractions of Armstrongism is that you can become one of the CHOSEN, one of those who KNOW, one of the elite. This desire doesn't always go away when people leave Armstrongism. Some simply attach their worship to a different philosophy. The more I read, the more skeptical I am of those such as yourself who confidently declare things on faith, of which they cannot be certain.
"The more I read, the more skeptical I am of those such as yourself who confidently declare things on faith, of which they cannot be certain."
I hope you don't confidently declare the Bible on faith of which you cannot be certain then.
Of what in this world can we be certain? You will live until you die, that is certain. You will pay taxes in the meanwhile, that is also certain - add it up!
Even the New Testament offers support for Cline's thesis.
Luke 2:36 says that Anna was of the tribe of Asher. So, she was probably descended from people who fled to Jerusalem from the north and passed on their tribal identity to their descendants.
"Probably" is an appropriate word.
The mere mention of Anna of the tribe of Asher does not prove that the tribe of Asher mostly returned to Jerusalem. The mere presence of a some Bosnians in the US does not prove that most Bosnians are in the US.
Please think of a more imaginative way to discredit BI.
BB said:
Also, how do semitic people, who basically look like Arabic or Jewish middle easterners, morph into Aryan types who then parlay the alleged special talents and intelligence into some of the most advanced nations in the history of planet Earth? And, more importantly, why do the dna tests fail to detect anything other than casual resemblance between Anglo-Saxons and the Jews with whom they supposedly share ancestral relationship?
BB seems to have great faith in DNA tests. Is DNA test reliable?
Read the following reports:
truthinjustice.org/labs-flawed.htm
paternitytestflaw.com/Product.html
sciencenews.org/pages/sn_edpik/ms_1.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282131.html
For the anon. defender of U.B.C.I.P-ism, a.k.a "BI" I've read thru those 4 links you posted. And none of them has anything to do with anthropology. They either discuss flaws in identifying criminal suspects, ethical considerations of genetic testing, or faulty evolutionary genetic theories. None of them touch upon the fact that researchers have found little genetic evidence that, e.g. Englishmen have anything in common with Jews.
If your BI theory had any credibility (other than in the minds of Armstrongologists) some genetic evidence somewhere would demonstrate this.
And please, let's not start the argument that Armstrong would make about the most educated people being the most ignorant. That was just his way of papering over the fact he had no real academic education, not in the sciences anyway. (And his knowledge of Hebrew and eschatology wasn't so hot either).
But, if you really want to discuss this BI theory with some genuine wackos and religious nut-burgers, you could always get an audience over on the WCG Alumni forum, where the spiritual crackpots have great sway.
But, if you really want to discuss this BI theory with some genuine wackos and religious nut-burgers, you could always get an audience over on the WCG Alumni forum, where the spiritual crackpots have great sway.
I see. I should speak then, in this forum, about things that will reassure you of your rejection of anything "Armstrongite".
James was Jewish and knew that the tribes were still scattered in his time and hadn't been incorporated into Judah, nor were they still living in the in the old Israelite territory a day or two's walk to the north of Jerusalem.
St. James evidently expected that his letter would be read by the people he was writing to. He assumes that the twelve tribes in the Diaspora are not "lost," but were scattered among the Gentiles -- not disguised as Gentiles.
Anyone who argues that the northern tribes mostly remained in the Holy Land has got about as much history and archaeology to explain away as the British Israelists.
To the anon. BI believer:
When you assert that the links that you post support your theories you should at least READ those links before you post them.
As is, I did -- and they don't.
Once again, if you want to peddle faulty Armstrongological theories, please visit the Alumni forum, where many there will make you welcomed with their crack pot ideas and their links to nothing but mostly more Armstrongology.
If Armstrong said the earth encircles the sun, that the universe is huge, and that chickens lay eggs, should all of that be rejected because Armstrong said it? This is getting absurd. What's good is good and what's bad is bad, no matter the source.
Armstrong hired the Vienna Symphony to open Ambassador Auditorium. They played Beethoven, Stravinsky, Brahms and Strauss. Must we forevermore reject those composers on grounds that Armstrong had them played in Pasadena?
Prince Charles and Lady Diana told him they believed they were descended from the royal house of Israel. It's an opinion. Should Charles reject it because he knows Armstrong believed it? Eventually truth will out, and we'll all know. Until then opinions are just opinions.
Personally, I believe the earth encircles the sun, the universe is huge, and chickens lay eggs. I also believe that life developed ever so slowly on this ancient planet and that the fossil record bears witness to that fact. Mr. Armstrong may or may not have shared those beliefs. Whether he did or didn't, he is gone now, may he rest in peace.
Syke's 2006 DNA enquiries show the British people are predominantly R1b haplogroup, and the Welsh are closely related to the Basques.Nothing new but it confirms what we suspected; that the British people are not Israeli.
E3B and J range are less than 10% amongst the British.So there goes the herbal BI down the gurgler.
Seamus
"byker bob" wrote: "Also, how do semitic people, who basically look like Arabic or Jewish middle easterners, morph into Aryan types who then parlay the alleged special talents and intelligence into some of the most advanced nations in the history of planet Earth?"
One of the most intriguing things I've come across in studying Middle Eastern archaeology is an Egyptian tomb painting showing slaves making bricks. Guess what? One of the several slaves shown is clearly depicted as light skinned with blue eyes and blond hair--he looks rather like your typical Swede.
Anyone who has every seen the tomb paintings is struck by how accurate and lifelike they are and how well they depict various ethnic and cultural groups. So who are the blue-eyed, blond-haired people? And how did they come to be slaves to the Egyptians? The painting doesn't identify them. Anyone want to hazard a guess?
For that matter, the people in the famous tomb painting showing Semitic nomads coming into Egypt also have distinctly light skins, in contrast to the Egyptians.
www.bible-researcher.com/beni-hasan2.jpg
Much remains to be sorted out about this part of the world.
Post a Comment