What do you think?
Rate this book
Secrets of the Exodus: Did the Pharaohs Write the Bible?
This fascinating reference fuels the passionate debate about the biblical Exodus with a provocative Not only was Moses an Egyptian but so were the Hebrew people who followed him to Canaan. Through linguistic, philologic, and religious explorations, the authors prove that the "Chosen People" were not slaves from a foreign country but high-ranking Egyptian priests and the adherents of the monothiest pharaoh Akhenaton. During a counterrevolution against monotheism, his followers were forced to move to the Egyptian province of Canaan.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2000
3 people are currently reading
82 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 12, 2009
I meant to finish this book before writing a review. It's so awful, though, that I don't know whether I'll ever make it to the end, so I thought a word of warning might be helpful to other people.
First, let it be known that I approached this book with an open mind. The idea that Moses et al. were (Egyptian) followers of Akhenaten, the pharaoh who temporarily imposed monotheism on Egypt, is a plausible one. Plenty of evidence for Akhenaten's monotheism exists, while there's no evidence for a huge exodus of slaves from Egypt.
Unfortunately, the author of this book seems to make no distinction between what's plausible and what actually happened. In his view, if something could have happened, then it really did happen. The book is full of leaps of logic of this sort, with few arguments that are actually convincing or even coherent.
I'm not sure who the intended audience of this book is, but I suspect that it may be for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Exodus. At least, that's the most charitable justification I can give for the fact that much more time is spent explaining why the exodus as described in the Bible didn't actually take place, as opposed to explaining why his own theory is correct. The less charitable view is that it's much easier to disprove the Biblical exodus than to prove his alternative theory, and by equating possibility with reality, proof isn't necessary anyway.
Either way, this book has an interesting premise and presents some interesting, if not conclusive, evidence; but for me at least, the faulty logic made it an extremely painful read.
First, let it be known that I approached this book with an open mind. The idea that Moses et al. were (Egyptian) followers of Akhenaten, the pharaoh who temporarily imposed monotheism on Egypt, is a plausible one. Plenty of evidence for Akhenaten's monotheism exists, while there's no evidence for a huge exodus of slaves from Egypt.
Unfortunately, the author of this book seems to make no distinction between what's plausible and what actually happened. In his view, if something could have happened, then it really did happen. The book is full of leaps of logic of this sort, with few arguments that are actually convincing or even coherent.
I'm not sure who the intended audience of this book is, but I suspect that it may be for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Exodus. At least, that's the most charitable justification I can give for the fact that much more time is spent explaining why the exodus as described in the Bible didn't actually take place, as opposed to explaining why his own theory is correct. The less charitable view is that it's much easier to disprove the Biblical exodus than to prove his alternative theory, and by equating possibility with reality, proof isn't necessary anyway.
Either way, this book has an interesting premise and presents some interesting, if not conclusive, evidence; but for me at least, the faulty logic made it an extremely painful read.
April 9, 2012
The Bible and Egyptology seem to be studied as two separate disciplines, probably because the former forms the basis of Christianity and has not been dealt with in the same unrestricted way that other ancient areas of study are open too, there is too much at stake and too many people to offend. Well, thankfully in these more scientifically enlightened times, where religion plays a lesser part in many peoples lives, the barriers are beginning to come down around the hallowed ground of Biblical archaeology, and thus this book, which probably would not have got published fifty years ago, is allowed to see the light of day.
The Sabbah`s research starts with a very broad question. If a major part of the Old Testament is set in Egypt, why is there no trace of the likes of Abraham, Joseph and Moses as described in the books of Exodus and Genesis. If these stories happened as laid out by the bible authors, why are there no recorded tales and eyewitness accounts amongst the Egyptian sources, a people who were very good at recording the most basic of day to day routine. The bottom line of their argument is why is there no sign of a Hebrew presence in Ancient Egypt?
Sigmund Freud himself very interested in Biblical texts and Egyptology, speculated many years earlier that Moses was not a hebrew but an Egyptian, and the Sabbahs book follows this same tack. Without giving too much of their argument away, they put forward the idea that if these major Biblical characters were in fact Egyptians, then you should be able to find their parallel story in Egyptian records. To support this theory they draw on a period of religious upheaval, the one time that there was a major Exodus, of Egyptians, not Hebrews, from the Nile lands. That period was the end of the reign of the Heretical Pharaoh Akhenaten. This Pharaoh had tried to introduce a new Monotheistic religion into a country traditionally governed by many hundreds of gods, the land was bankrupted as a result and the king and his followers sent packing and order was finally restored. The Monotheist were sent to the out reaches of Egyptian control where they could be no more trouble to the stability of Egypt, those fringes being the eastern colonies and dependencies in what is today termed the Holy Land, the land that later produced the Hebrew Bible. The exodus was led by two generals Rameses and Horemheb, both destined to become Pharaohs at a later date.
So this parallel story runs thus, a large group of people are sent out of Egypt for their religious beliefs, that they follow only one God, and are led by two leaders, both men of prominence and are taken east to a new land, but first must travel a vast wilderness. Sound familiar, If you change the names then Moses and Aaron and their people can be seen heading for their promised land.
The Sabbahs do put up a persuading argument to their theories, but they are only theories, in this field of study, where evidence is spares and can be twisted to support a whole range of possibilities there is room for a number of convincing arguments. But I must say this one does appeal to me. The problem with history is that names change and chronology gets distorted especially when you are dealing with such ancient subjects. But this theory doesn't have to bring too much new evidence to the table, it just needs to convince you that the names of the characters need only to be changed. The story as written by the exiled Egyptians who would settle and form the ancestors of the Hebrew people will obviously be different to that written by those that stayed in control of Egypt itself, a case of history being written by the winners. Both versions of the story however contain enough parallels to be more that a coincidence.
As new theories go this is one of the most exciting ones that I have read about in this field for a long time, and one that requires no great leap of faith to take on board, all you need to accept is that the Hebrews are the descendants of exiled Egyptians and you are half way there. On the basis that Akhenatens religious ideas resulted in the ancient middle east's first Monotheistic religion, that is one with one god, and you can see the basis of the Hebrew faith coming together.
All in all a compelling book, with a fascinating argument, much more in depth that the scant outline I have laid out in this review, and well supported with evidence from a range of disciplines, religious, historical, linguistic to name a few, at every stage. For those how revel in this sort of thing, the appendices contain break downs of evidence found in Hebrew text and Hieroglyphics, this makes interesting if somewhat heavy reading, but is not essential to the overall value of the book. A wealth of diagrams and photographs of tomb drawings, maps and people help colour the books arguments as well. For anyone interested in revolutionary new ideas in Biblical studies then this book is a must.
The Sabbah`s research starts with a very broad question. If a major part of the Old Testament is set in Egypt, why is there no trace of the likes of Abraham, Joseph and Moses as described in the books of Exodus and Genesis. If these stories happened as laid out by the bible authors, why are there no recorded tales and eyewitness accounts amongst the Egyptian sources, a people who were very good at recording the most basic of day to day routine. The bottom line of their argument is why is there no sign of a Hebrew presence in Ancient Egypt?
Sigmund Freud himself very interested in Biblical texts and Egyptology, speculated many years earlier that Moses was not a hebrew but an Egyptian, and the Sabbahs book follows this same tack. Without giving too much of their argument away, they put forward the idea that if these major Biblical characters were in fact Egyptians, then you should be able to find their parallel story in Egyptian records. To support this theory they draw on a period of religious upheaval, the one time that there was a major Exodus, of Egyptians, not Hebrews, from the Nile lands. That period was the end of the reign of the Heretical Pharaoh Akhenaten. This Pharaoh had tried to introduce a new Monotheistic religion into a country traditionally governed by many hundreds of gods, the land was bankrupted as a result and the king and his followers sent packing and order was finally restored. The Monotheist were sent to the out reaches of Egyptian control where they could be no more trouble to the stability of Egypt, those fringes being the eastern colonies and dependencies in what is today termed the Holy Land, the land that later produced the Hebrew Bible. The exodus was led by two generals Rameses and Horemheb, both destined to become Pharaohs at a later date.
So this parallel story runs thus, a large group of people are sent out of Egypt for their religious beliefs, that they follow only one God, and are led by two leaders, both men of prominence and are taken east to a new land, but first must travel a vast wilderness. Sound familiar, If you change the names then Moses and Aaron and their people can be seen heading for their promised land.
The Sabbahs do put up a persuading argument to their theories, but they are only theories, in this field of study, where evidence is spares and can be twisted to support a whole range of possibilities there is room for a number of convincing arguments. But I must say this one does appeal to me. The problem with history is that names change and chronology gets distorted especially when you are dealing with such ancient subjects. But this theory doesn't have to bring too much new evidence to the table, it just needs to convince you that the names of the characters need only to be changed. The story as written by the exiled Egyptians who would settle and form the ancestors of the Hebrew people will obviously be different to that written by those that stayed in control of Egypt itself, a case of history being written by the winners. Both versions of the story however contain enough parallels to be more that a coincidence.
As new theories go this is one of the most exciting ones that I have read about in this field for a long time, and one that requires no great leap of faith to take on board, all you need to accept is that the Hebrews are the descendants of exiled Egyptians and you are half way there. On the basis that Akhenatens religious ideas resulted in the ancient middle east's first Monotheistic religion, that is one with one god, and you can see the basis of the Hebrew faith coming together.
All in all a compelling book, with a fascinating argument, much more in depth that the scant outline I have laid out in this review, and well supported with evidence from a range of disciplines, religious, historical, linguistic to name a few, at every stage. For those how revel in this sort of thing, the appendices contain break downs of evidence found in Hebrew text and Hieroglyphics, this makes interesting if somewhat heavy reading, but is not essential to the overall value of the book. A wealth of diagrams and photographs of tomb drawings, maps and people help colour the books arguments as well. For anyone interested in revolutionary new ideas in Biblical studies then this book is a must.
July 9, 2012
Fascinante, é insuficiente.
Um livro revolucionário para a História do Ocidente.
Sente-se atraído pelo Antigo-Egipto? E se viesse a saber que os antigos-egípcios estão aqui connosco em carne e osso?
Messod and Sabbah demonstram que os judeus eram Egípcios - não escravos, mas os crentes, a nobreza e o clero de Akhenaton, que deixaram a cidade do Sol e o Egipto depois da morte do Faraó monoteísta, aquele que provocou a queda do Egipto com a sua nova religião.
Foram expulsos do Egipto pelo general Ay, que mais tarde será faraó, e que foi o que levantou o Egipto de novo, depois da enorme crise provocada pela revolução de Aten, único deus, o sol.
O Antigo Testamento como o conhecemos será o livro dos egípcios monoteístas, registando a nova religião e as leis principais, durante os anos em exílio em Canaã, de forma a que os povos a que estavam submetidos e aqueles que os cercavam, não soubessem quem eles eram.
A história de Akhenaten é, na Biblia, a história de Abraão.
Ay, será José - e Adon-ay, o Senhor dos exércitos, que comanda o exílio a Moisés, (que mais tarde será eleito) faraó Ramsés I.
A língua Hebraica foi a língua que o clero de Akhenaton inventou para que pudessem comunicar entre si, os príncipes e princesas, os altos dignatários e sacerdotes que habitavam a maravilhosa cidade cosmopolita de ouro e do Sol. O alfabeto hebraico, é uma simplificação enorme dos hieróglifos do Antigo Egipto.
Outra análise interessante é a dos Massai: africanos monoteístas que conservam tradições dos antigos Egípcios.
Pessoalmente só não acho plausível a hipótese de que Moisés tivesse morto Akhenaten.
Em segundo lugar também tenho alguma dificuldade em achar suficientes provas de que o génesis seja referente à cidade do Sol, enquanto que não tenho dúvidas de que o êxodo dos israelitas, na Bíblia escravos dos judeus, não eram escravos mas a classe dos Sacerdotes, os Levis, e a população que é obrigada por Ay a deixar o Egipto, para que a religião de Athen não continue a provocar a catástrofe do País. As provas oferecidas são muitas.
Ay pertencera também ele aos adoradores do disco solar, símbolo do deus criador que dá a vida, mas, para salvar o Egipto, desenvolve uma política dupla, (como aparentemente também o faz José israelita entre os egípcios e lado ao Faraó), banindo os monoteístas, restaurando a antiga religião do Egipto, reconstruindo templos e estátuas que tinham sido destruídas, e impondo-se como deus-faraó.
A questão do disco solar não surgir nunca no antigo testamento, também poderia ser talvez porque se o escrevessem, seriam imediatamente identificados.
Amenophis III, pai de Akhenaten tinha sido elevado ao estatudo de deus, deus-pai. O general Ay tinha a mesma pretensão — e foi a força do Egipto posteriormente ao período de Amarna. Depois da morte do Faraó Amenophis IV, que mudou o nome para Akhenaten, Ay é co-regente durante os reinados dos filhos de Akhnaten, ainda crianças, Smenkhare e Tutankhamun, e é chamado, tal como Amenophis III, o Pai Divino.
Um livro revolucionário para a História do Ocidente.
Sente-se atraído pelo Antigo-Egipto? E se viesse a saber que os antigos-egípcios estão aqui connosco em carne e osso?
Messod and Sabbah demonstram que os judeus eram Egípcios - não escravos, mas os crentes, a nobreza e o clero de Akhenaton, que deixaram a cidade do Sol e o Egipto depois da morte do Faraó monoteísta, aquele que provocou a queda do Egipto com a sua nova religião.
Foram expulsos do Egipto pelo general Ay, que mais tarde será faraó, e que foi o que levantou o Egipto de novo, depois da enorme crise provocada pela revolução de Aten, único deus, o sol.
O Antigo Testamento como o conhecemos será o livro dos egípcios monoteístas, registando a nova religião e as leis principais, durante os anos em exílio em Canaã, de forma a que os povos a que estavam submetidos e aqueles que os cercavam, não soubessem quem eles eram.
A história de Akhenaten é, na Biblia, a história de Abraão.
Ay, será José - e Adon-ay, o Senhor dos exércitos, que comanda o exílio a Moisés, (que mais tarde será eleito) faraó Ramsés I.
A língua Hebraica foi a língua que o clero de Akhenaton inventou para que pudessem comunicar entre si, os príncipes e princesas, os altos dignatários e sacerdotes que habitavam a maravilhosa cidade cosmopolita de ouro e do Sol. O alfabeto hebraico, é uma simplificação enorme dos hieróglifos do Antigo Egipto.
Outra análise interessante é a dos Massai: africanos monoteístas que conservam tradições dos antigos Egípcios.
Pessoalmente só não acho plausível a hipótese de que Moisés tivesse morto Akhenaten.
Em segundo lugar também tenho alguma dificuldade em achar suficientes provas de que o génesis seja referente à cidade do Sol, enquanto que não tenho dúvidas de que o êxodo dos israelitas, na Bíblia escravos dos judeus, não eram escravos mas a classe dos Sacerdotes, os Levis, e a população que é obrigada por Ay a deixar o Egipto, para que a religião de Athen não continue a provocar a catástrofe do País. As provas oferecidas são muitas.
Ay pertencera também ele aos adoradores do disco solar, símbolo do deus criador que dá a vida, mas, para salvar o Egipto, desenvolve uma política dupla, (como aparentemente também o faz José israelita entre os egípcios e lado ao Faraó), banindo os monoteístas, restaurando a antiga religião do Egipto, reconstruindo templos e estátuas que tinham sido destruídas, e impondo-se como deus-faraó.
A questão do disco solar não surgir nunca no antigo testamento, também poderia ser talvez porque se o escrevessem, seriam imediatamente identificados.
Amenophis III, pai de Akhenaten tinha sido elevado ao estatudo de deus, deus-pai. O general Ay tinha a mesma pretensão — e foi a força do Egipto posteriormente ao período de Amarna. Depois da morte do Faraó Amenophis IV, que mudou o nome para Akhenaten, Ay é co-regente durante os reinados dos filhos de Akhnaten, ainda crianças, Smenkhare e Tutankhamun, e é chamado, tal como Amenophis III, o Pai Divino.
February 4, 2023
Un livre qui offre une thèse très ambitieuse (voir même révolutionnaire) sur l’un des épisodes bibliques les plus fascinants que l’on peut capter dans l’ancien Testament: l’exode des Hébreux hors de l’Égypte.
Les auteurs débutent avec une exposition sur la tombe de Toutankhamon, révélant des symboles hiéroglyphiques qui apparaissent très similaires aux lettres hébraïques (dont le ה Hé = souffle de Dieu) et mettant en scène le récit d’un pharaon ayant marqué sa place dans l’histoire comme étant le « premier monothéiste »: Akhénaton. Ce dernier a réussi à renverser le status quo polythéiste que son père Aménophis III et les pharaons précédents ont maintenu durant la plupart de la XVIIIème dynastie, mettant en place un culte lié au Dieu-Soleil Aton et fondant une ville dédiée à cette divinité unique, Akhet-Aton. Selon l’hypothèse que les auteurs tentent de prouver, l’Exode biblique ne serait qu’un récit mythique d’un événement historique où une partie de la population égyptienne devenue monothéiste (mené par les prêtres Yahouds) est chassée par le Père Divin Aï en raison de leur impiété envers Amon, dieu suprême de la tradition polythéiste. S’enchaîne ensuite une séries d’analyses étymologiques de certains mots égyptiens qui, suivant une lecture hébraïco-hieroglyphique, doit mettre en évidence quelques liens auparavant cachés entre les personnages historiques de l’ancien Égypte et les figures mythologiques de la Bible (le père Divin Aï serait Adonaï, Abraham est Akhénaton, Aaron est Horemheb, Moïse est Ramses Ier, Josué est Séthi Ier etc.). Le récit de la création biblique est comparé avec celui de l’Égypte antique, retrouvant beaucoup de similarités (quatre éléments terrestres, séparation des eaux, création de l’homme) ainsi que le jardin d’Eden qui est supposé être localisé au bord du Nil selon le commentaire du rabbin Rachi. On y trouve aussi dans les traditions du peuple Massaï un récit s’approchant presque mot pour mot (bien qu’il s’agit d’une tradition purement orale) du récit des Hébreux et des coutumes vestimentaires ressemblant celles des anciens égyptiens (y’aurait-il eu lieu un second exode?). Finalement, on termine avec un retour au tombeau de Toutankhamon et son sarcophage, dont la description (encore) ressemble à celle de l’Arche sainte biblique, fournissant davantage de preuves de l’origine égyptienne des Hébreux.
Rarement on assiste à des recherches historiques et des investigations linguistiques de haut calibre qui nous poussent à remettre en question nos convictions et cherchent à problématiser nos conceptions de l’histoire telle qu’elle nous est présentée. Bien que la lecture a tendance de s’alourdir lorsque l’on essaye de décortiquer le sens étymologique précis d’un mot quelconque (ce qui peut traîner pour une dizaine de pages), il faut applaudir les frères Sabbah pour leurs efforts dans la quête de la vérité historique d’un récit qui nous est très familier.
Les auteurs débutent avec une exposition sur la tombe de Toutankhamon, révélant des symboles hiéroglyphiques qui apparaissent très similaires aux lettres hébraïques (dont le ה Hé = souffle de Dieu) et mettant en scène le récit d’un pharaon ayant marqué sa place dans l’histoire comme étant le « premier monothéiste »: Akhénaton. Ce dernier a réussi à renverser le status quo polythéiste que son père Aménophis III et les pharaons précédents ont maintenu durant la plupart de la XVIIIème dynastie, mettant en place un culte lié au Dieu-Soleil Aton et fondant une ville dédiée à cette divinité unique, Akhet-Aton. Selon l’hypothèse que les auteurs tentent de prouver, l’Exode biblique ne serait qu’un récit mythique d’un événement historique où une partie de la population égyptienne devenue monothéiste (mené par les prêtres Yahouds) est chassée par le Père Divin Aï en raison de leur impiété envers Amon, dieu suprême de la tradition polythéiste. S’enchaîne ensuite une séries d’analyses étymologiques de certains mots égyptiens qui, suivant une lecture hébraïco-hieroglyphique, doit mettre en évidence quelques liens auparavant cachés entre les personnages historiques de l’ancien Égypte et les figures mythologiques de la Bible (le père Divin Aï serait Adonaï, Abraham est Akhénaton, Aaron est Horemheb, Moïse est Ramses Ier, Josué est Séthi Ier etc.). Le récit de la création biblique est comparé avec celui de l’Égypte antique, retrouvant beaucoup de similarités (quatre éléments terrestres, séparation des eaux, création de l’homme) ainsi que le jardin d’Eden qui est supposé être localisé au bord du Nil selon le commentaire du rabbin Rachi. On y trouve aussi dans les traditions du peuple Massaï un récit s’approchant presque mot pour mot (bien qu’il s’agit d’une tradition purement orale) du récit des Hébreux et des coutumes vestimentaires ressemblant celles des anciens égyptiens (y’aurait-il eu lieu un second exode?). Finalement, on termine avec un retour au tombeau de Toutankhamon et son sarcophage, dont la description (encore) ressemble à celle de l’Arche sainte biblique, fournissant davantage de preuves de l’origine égyptienne des Hébreux.
Rarement on assiste à des recherches historiques et des investigations linguistiques de haut calibre qui nous poussent à remettre en question nos convictions et cherchent à problématiser nos conceptions de l’histoire telle qu’elle nous est présentée. Bien que la lecture a tendance de s’alourdir lorsque l’on essaye de décortiquer le sens étymologique précis d’un mot quelconque (ce qui peut traîner pour une dizaine de pages), il faut applaudir les frères Sabbah pour leurs efforts dans la quête de la vérité historique d’un récit qui nous est très familier.
December 23, 2023
لا اعرف كيف اقيم هذا الكتاب
فعلي الرغم من وجود عيوب كثيرة في الاستنتاج (الكاتبان بيوصلوا لنتائج كبيرة وغريبة بدون مقدمات معتبرة) ومع ذلك فالكتاب غاية في الامتاع.
لو اعتبارنا هذا الكتاب رواية، ستكون رواية غاية في الروعة.لكن المعلومات والمعطيات للربط بين اخناتون وديانته واتباعه مع وصلها باصل العبرانيين وقصص المقدس تحتاج لاعادة نظر كبيرة
فعلي الرغم من وجود عيوب كثيرة في الاستنتاج (الكاتبان بيوصلوا لنتائج كبيرة وغريبة بدون مقدمات معتبرة) ومع ذلك فالكتاب غاية في الامتاع.
لو اعتبارنا هذا الكتاب رواية، ستكون رواية غاية في الروعة.لكن المعلومات والمعطيات للربط بين اخناتون وديانته واتباعه مع وصلها باصل العبرانيين وقصص المقدس تحتاج لاعادة نظر كبيرة
March 15, 2012
Somewhat entertaining with engaging ideas, yet poorly supported. This book brought up a number of questions which allowed me to explore topics further but in itself, the book is worthless.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews