Greetings!
I'm mosty concerned with the Ahmenhotep IV / Ahkenaten - Moses connection, but I was reading up on Yuya-Joseph and had a minor question.
Assuming that the Hebrew account of Joseph's life is fiction based upon historical events, what disqualifies Yuya as a possible literal source? (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/01/ahmed-osman-no-stranger-to-revisionist-paleobabble/)
Redford seems pretty adamant that there isn't evidence to support Yuya being Jospeph. I'm sure that's true, since many/most/all of the elements of Joseph's story are fictional.
For example, one of the things Redford didn't like was the Biblical claim that Joseph's body was exhumed and moved. I don't see why we should accept that particular claim at face value? Or the genealogy concerns where Osman put's someone being born before his father?
More importantly, in a similar vein, is it impossible that Ahkenaten is the inspiration for the fictional Moses?
This has more support from other people, and I like the feel of it, but still seems like fringe BS.
I obviously don't trust Osman's credentials, but I'd like to know more about the subject.
Article links, books, youtube videos, or discussion here. Don't hurt me, I'm just asking!
what disqualifies Yuya as a possible literal source?
Did you mean literary? Nothing particularly disqualifies him, but nothing particularly qualifies him either. Attempts at finding a historical background to the story end up playing a little fast and loose with the data, although there are some interesting parallels - it's a question of whether the parallels are more persuasive than the parts that are not. There is a general historical reference throughout the story arc from Joseph to the Exodus, but it's a question of whether the parts that do fit (Asiatics in high places during the New Kingdom, Joseph's death at 110 being mostly a New Kingdom Egyptian number, etc.,), are more plausible than the parts that aren't (issues with the Exodus numbers, problems with the conquest narratives etc.,).
Most of those who try to argue for some historical background do so within the confines of accepted Egyptology, but Osman completely disregards some fundamentals (chronology for one) to get to his conclusion. I've read through about 3-4 other reviews of him, and they're all blistering attacks on his methodology and his cherry-picking of things he wishes to see. Redford's critique is spot on here too, and it's interesting that he references at least two biblical-history friendly Egyptologists (Bietak and Millard) as people Osman could have used- such courtesy is generous, but also prudent as Bietak is the prime Hyskos excavator at Avaris.
For example, one of the things Redford didn't like was the Biblical claim that Joseph's body was exhumed and moved. I don't see why we should accept that particular claim at face value?
I can't see that in the text- I had a look on BAR but there's nothing about Redford disliking the exhumation. Our knowledge of Levant burials is poor (see Kletter on this) and if memory serves me, coffins are rather Egyptian, not Israelite, so it is an interesting detail that is more Egyptian than Israelite. That might lend some credibility to the story as history, or might just be a historical fact put into a fictitious story as some argue.
is it impossible that Ahkenaten is the inspiration for the fictional Moses? This has more support from other people, and I like the feel of it, but still seems like fringe BS.
I haven't heard any modern Egyptologists argue this, and Redford is quite opposed to the link. Try his *Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times", or Akhenaten, the Heretic King and perhaps Erik Hornung's Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. Pro-biblically friendly scholars obviously won't argue this mostly from a theological viewpoint, but even the henotheism/polytheism crowd doesn't appear to support this either, as it's mostly a Freudian relic - Jan Assman's Moses the Egyptian has a brief run down of the purported links.