thirdwitness....A 40-year desolation and depopulation of Egypt is not something there is any evidence of other than a prediction of the future given in Ezekiel. Although you try to place the burden of proof on us to prove that there was no such period in Egyptian history (i.e. you want us to prove a negative), the burden is actually on you to substantiate the existence of this period in the first place. Dismissing out of hand all the historical evidence that contradicts this claim is no substitute for furnishing positive evidence in support of your claim. In other words, if a person from the year AD 4542 were to claim that the United States was completely desolated and uninhabited for forty years from 1940-1979, it is not enough to claim that all the documents and reminiscenes of WWII, Elvis Presley, Nixon, and Jimmy Hoffa that survive into the fifth millennium AD are mere attempts to cover up the embarassing truth that America was completely destroyed in 1940. One would also have to show that such an event did in fact happen. So how do you expect us to "explain the forty years" when there is apparently nothing to explain?
Now if Ezekiel were writing in the 520s BC about a 40-year period that had already elapsed, then that would be a very different matter. That would make him a very early witness to a historical period for which he gives potentially reliable chronological data. But a prediction -- or rather, a warning -- about the future cannot be used to construct a chronology; otherwise historians from the fifth millennium AD would struggle over trying to squeeze 1,000 years worth of Nazi history into the mere decade or so of the Fourth Reich, or trying to explain the evidence that the Iraq War had lasted for several years at least when it was predicted to take only a few months. To legitimize the use of warnings about the future as chronological data, you rely on a basic presupposition of biblical inerrency that presumes a priori (that is to say, a bias presumed from the start) that any and all prophetic statements in scripture must be recognized as having complete and literal fulfillment. Note that this presumption is not substantiated either and requires historians to have a double standard in approaching ancient sources (even a double double standard, since prophecies found elsewhere in ANE literature are not accorded this status). They would also have to forget that the language used in Ezekiel accords well with general ANE hyperbole about the complete and total defeat of one's enemies (cf. Merneptah's declaration that Israel's "seed is not"), and need not to taken fully literally. But even the Bible itself indicates that prophetic "oracles to the nations" were warnings that did not necessarily become realized. Jonah in particular depicts a prophet's disappointment that God decided not to bring his warned judgment on Ninevah when the people began to mend their ways. But your presumption about the historical validity of such oracles would require that Ninevah was in fact destroyed in the ninth century BC because Jonah said that it would be.
That the prophecies had to be later revised in the face of unfolding history can be seen in the very oracles against Tyre and Egypt in Ezekiel 26-30. The prophet described an utter and violent defeat of Tyre such that "your wealth will be seized, your merchandise looted, your walls razed, your luxurious houses shattered ... I will reduce you to a naked rock, and make you into a drying-ground for fishing nets, never to be rebuilt" (26:12-14). This prophecy was uttered in the 11th year of Ezekiel's exile (26:1), the same year as the second Egypt oracle in 30:20-26 and the year after the first Egypt oracle in 29:1-16. All these oracles date around the time of the siege of Jerusalem, e.g. 589-587 BC, and it was in the first Egypt oracle from this time that foretold a 40-year desolation of Egypt. This oracle did not assume that the desolation would not start until 18 or 19 years later; it declares that at that very time "I am sending the sword against you" (v. 8) and the devastation will then last 40 years (v. 11-13). This was aimed politically against the Jews who sought aid from Egypt to fight against Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jeremiah 37:5 which describes the events of the siege that year), who Ezekiel regarded as Yahweh's appointed agent of executing his judgment against Jerusalem, and against those who would seek refuge there. So it is interesting that the author inserted a third oracle against Egypt (29:17-21) dating to the 27th year of Ezekiel's exile smack in between the first oracle dating to the 10th year of his exile (29:1-16) and the second oracle dating to the 11th year of his exile (30:20-26). This is the latest dated oracle in the whole book and it is the chronological basis you cite for beginning the 40 years many years after the siege of Jerusalem despite the context of the first oracle which does not assume such a delay. The awkward insertion of the last prophecy in the whole book in between the two older Egypt oracles is clearly an attempt to update the prophecies to the situation as it existed in the 27th year of Ezekiel's exile, i.e. in March/April 571 BC. By that time, Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Tyre for thirteen years (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 1.21), i.e. from 586-573 BC, a protracted entente that ended not with the complete destruction of Tyre as foretold but with the Tyrians accepting the yoke of Babylonian domination. And instead of Nebuchadnezzar seizing all of Tyre's wealth, Ezekiel had to admit in his postscript that the Babylonian king "derived no profit from the expedition mounted against Tyre either for himself or for his army" (29:18). Meanwhile, Nebuchadnezzar had also failed to desolate Egypt as predicted, occupied as he was with the Tyrian siege. So the author updated both oracles by predicting a future expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt so that "he will levy his share of riches there instead and will loot it and carry off the booty to pay his army". And this prediction came true, if BM 33041 indeed depicts a campaign against Egypt (and against Amasis) in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. 568-567 BC. The undated addendum in 30:1-19 went further by restating the expectations of desolation expressed much earlier in 29:1-16. But note that BM 33041 does not describe a desolation of Egypt or an exile of the Egyptian people. You use this "secular text" to support your hypothesis of a 40-year period of Egyptian desolation beginning in 568 BC (= 588 BC in the Watchtower chronology you endorse), yet it does not furnish a factual basis for a presumed break in Egyptian history that purportedly followed this campaign and neither do you accept any other "secular" evidence that shows that Egyptian history continued thenceforth (i.e. you selectively utilize "secular" sources).
And what is this evidence of continued history? Bear in mind that what you are postulating is a complete devastation (e.g. "desolate waste, devastated cities") and depopulation (e.g. "removed from its soil," "without an inhabitant") of the country, an event unprecedented in Egyptian history. Your argument that Egyptian scribes hid this event from their history due to shame is especially weak; what would have shamed the Egyptians, the Babylonians would have gloatedly boasted in their inscriptions and histories. Yet there is no trace anywhere that such an event had in fact occurred as Ezekiel had warned. And if several million Egyptians were relocated, where did they go? What evidence is there of their exile in whatever land they were assigned to? Again, Babylonian sources are completely silent about this. What the evidence does show is that Egyptians continued living in their land throughout the whole Neo-Babylonian period. And this fact is not established merely by the witness of Herodotus, whom you dismiss with prejudice. It is certainly true that Herodotus, like most ancient historians, passes on legend and otherwise unreliable information and should be used critically. But no historian regards Herodotus' description of the reign of Amasis II as a total fiction devoid of any reliable information. Yet this is what is demanded by your hypothesis, which claims that the Egyptians were an exiled people living in a foreign land during most of Amasis' reign. Yet in addition to the witness of Herodotus we also have:
- Herodotus (Historia, 2.30, 178-179) mentions Greek settlement at Naucratis and Daphnae in the Nile delta during the reigns of Psammetichus II and Amasis and archaeological excavations have shown that Naucratis and Tell Defenneh (= ancient Daphnae) had sizeable Greek settlements in the sixth century BC. With respect to the pottery found at Daphnae in particular, the Attic dates to the middle of the sixth century, the Fikullura style dates to c. 560-530 BC, and later Clazomenian style dates to the Persian period. This is at odds with Herodotus' claim that Amasis relocated all the Greeks to Naucratis, but does show that he was correct that Greeks continuously lived in Egypt throughout the whole period. Your hypothesis however claims that the entire land was "without any inhabitant".
- Stelae monuments of the Apis bull cult in Memphis show a continuity of religious practice throughout the period. Apis XXXIX was born in the 16th year of Necho II, installed in the first year of Psammetichus II, died in the 12th year of Apries, and lived for 17 1/2 years (Serapeum Stela), i.e. from 595 to 577 BC. This is during the time when Egypt supposedly became "depopulated," tho since we know that the 27th year of Nebuchadnezzar was during the reign of Amasis, you would have to also wholly revise the independent Egyptian chronology by twenty years to make it fit with this synchronism. Then another Apis epitaph (for Apis XLI) records another Apis bull as born and installed in the 5th year of Amasis (i.e. 565 BC) and died and was buried in the 23rd year of Amasis (i.e. 547 BC), and then the epitaph for Apis XLII (Louvre IM.4133) notes that the bull was born in the 27th year of Amasis (i.e. 543 BC) and died in the 5th year of Cambyses and was buried in the 6th year (i.e. 525/524 BC).
- Other monumental inscriptions date to the reign of Amasis, such as the Elephantine Stela that describes the conflict between Amasis and Apries in the 3rd year of Amasis (cf. Herodotus on the same conflict) and the Pefnefdineit Statue which depicts the prosperity and religious zeal in Abydos for the Osirus cult during the reign of Amasis (compare Herodotus). The Besmaut Stela was erected in the 23rd year of Amasis (i.e. 547 BC), and the Priest Psamtik Stela (Leiden V, 18-19) was set up in the 27th year of Amasis (i.e. 543 BC) for a priest named Psamtik. One cannot fit 40 years in between the 5th and the 23rd year of Amasis, the two years with dated inscriptions in the stelae.
- And then there are the dated papyri, such as Papyrus Louvre E 7861 from the third year of Amasis (i.e. 567 BC), Papyrus Louvre E 7848 from the 12th year of Amasis (i.e. 558 BC), Leiden I, 431 from the 14th year of Amasis (i.e. 556 BC), BM 10432 from the 15th year of Amasis (i.e. 555 BC), Papyrus Louvre E 7846 from the 22nd year of Amasis (i.e. 548 BC), and Cairo CG 30657 from the 24th year of Amasis (i.e. 546 BC). These attest the reign of Amasis as a whole.
It is also interesting that the main support you cite (in your post #42) is without attribution and not to a historian on the matter:
As one investigator of the matter says: "To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families could afford the expense. Historians have mistakenly taken the Egyptian priests at their word. They think they find supporting evidence in the rule of Pharaoh Amasis on the Isle of Cyprus. Without exception every ancient history text portrays Egypt militarily strong during this period. Amasis is acclaimed as the builder of an empire that included Cyprus, while Nebuchadnezzar was limited to the mainland. No one, it seems, has ever noticed that Amasis was sent into exile to Cyprus by Nebuchadnezzar's command!
The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon.
"My enemies thou usedst to destroy; thou causedst my heart to rejoice ... in those days thou madest my hands to capture; thou gavest me rest; ... thou causedst me to construct; my kingdom thou madest to increase ..."
And this document says: "... the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king tof Bab- ... Egypt to deliver a battle .... -sis of Egypt called up his army .... distant regions which are amidst the sea ... many ... who are in Egypt ... carrying weapons, horses and ... he called up to assist him" (Compare "Egypt and Babylon" by George Rawlinson, pages 90-91 with Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", page 30. The remainder of the cylinder is unintelligible."
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 588-587. Amasis was sent into exile. Forty years later he returned to Egypt with his people and made an alliance with Babylon sometime after that.
The statements indicated in bold are either pure speculation or are patently false. It is not true that archaeologically the history of Egypt in the period is a "complete blank". The excavations at Tell Defenneh, for instance, show continued settlement and activity. The Serapeum stelae of Memphis show that the Apis cult continued unhindered during the reign of Amasis. There is no evidence that the records of burials in the reign of Amasis are only "later reburials" of those who "died in captivity"; this is stated as a fact tho the claim is nothing more than speculation motivated by seeing the predicted 40 years of Egypt's desolation as history. As I said before, rather than trying to dismiss all this evidence on the basis of your presumption, you should try to substantiate the claim with positive evidence. Your quotation claims to do this by quoting BM 33041 as recording the "total destruction of Egypt". Does it? Of course not. This is another dishonest statement. Similarly, the statement that Amasis was sent into exile is not based on this document and represents another speculation.
Who wrote this quote? thirdwitness here is quoting Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong's church) author Herman L. Hoeh who developed his own idiosyncratic chronology in his Compendium of World History, written in 1962, in an effort to show when 6,000 years of human history would end and when the advent of Christ would occur which Armstrong had claimed to occur in 1975 (with Hoeh also later claiming that the Gentile Times would end in 1982 and the Great Tribulation starts in 1972). In other words, it is another writer with views akin to the Society who developed his chronology for the purpose of date-setting. But what is especially interesting is how Hoeh uses Ezekiel's prophecy about Egypt. Believe it or not, he uses this to explain why the people of Africa are so culturally "backward":
For the first 2000 years of human history, Africa -- and Egypt in particular -- was the vortex of world politics. Today Africa is militarily a void. Its native population borders on savagery in many areas. Its culture is universally primitive. Egypt and Ethiopia -- once the world's leaders -- are today backward, unprogressive nations. Why? Numerous answers have been offered. None of them is the key to the sudden decline of Egypt and of Africa. The answer to the riddle of the Dark Continent lies in the book of Ezekiel, in a little-understood prophecy.
This is why Hoeh believes that Egypt was "totally destroyed" in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. It serves to explain why Africans are just so backward, primitive, and savage. As if I didn't need to point it out again, there is not a whit of historical evidence indicating that such an event occurred.
just like this thread...it keeps going and going and ...