Deciphering the Biblical Text – 2

The Egyptian Saga

At some point in time, semi-nomadic Israelites [1]  arrived in Egypt. The story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 focuses on the individual family members and thus is an example of “heroic history,” but the overall picture is confirmed by Egyptian records. In the New Kingdom in particular, peoples from Asia arrived in the Delta in unprecedented numbers. Some came as captives, the prize of Egyptian military success in Western Asia under the conquering Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th Dynasties; some were sent to Egypt as slaves, either by Canaanite city-state kings loyal to the Pharaoh or even by their own kinfolk (as with Joseph!); while still others came freely, either as merchants seeking to ply their trade or as Bedouin seeking grazing land for their animals.[2] It is this last group of individuals that interests us most, for the biblical account emphasizes the animal husbandry of the newly-arrived Israelites in Egypt (Genesis 46: 31-47: 6). There is, moreover, a striking parallel to the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt in an Egyptian document from the reign of Merneptah (1214–1205). The text, alluded to above, Papyrus Anastasi VI 4: 11-5: 5, reads as follows: [3]

The scribe Enana greets his master, the treasury scribe Qa-ga[b] … Life, prosperity, health! This is a dispatch of information for my master, to wit: I have carried out every commission placed upon me, in good shape and strong as metal. I have not been lax. Another communication to my master, to wit: We have finished admitting the Shasu tribes of Edom at the fortress of Merneptah Hotephirmaat, life, prosperity, health, which is
in Tjeku, to the pools of Per-Atum of Merneptah Hotephirmaat, which are in Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their flocks alive, by the great Ka of Pharaoh, life, prosperity, health, the good sun of every land, in the year 8, day 5, of [the birth of] Seth. I have had sent a report to my master, with the other days specified when the fortress of Merneptah Hotephirmaat,
life, prosperity, health, which is in Tjeku, may be passed.

The parallel between this text and the general picture portrayed in the Bible is obvious. [4]  In the former, a group of Shasu from Edom are allowed to pass the fortress that marked the Egyptian border with the Sinai desert and settle (at least temporarily), along with their flocks, in Per-Atum. In the biblical account, we read that the Israelites are given the same permission and that eventually they are resident in the city of Pithom (Exodus 1: 11), no doubt the Hebrew equivalent of Per-Atum. [5]  When one keeps in mind that the aforecited Egyptian topographical lists refer to Shasu of Yahweh and Shasu of Seir, and that Seir equals Edom in the Bible (Genesis 32: 4, 36: 8-9, etc.), and that Yahweh is portrayed as shining or marching forth from both Seir and Edom (Deut 33: 2, Judg 5: 4), the parallel is even more striking (though one should resist the temptation to invoke the law of transitivity and to associate the Shasu of this frontier official’s report with the Israelites of the Bible). Clearly, the two references, the one about the Edomites in Papyrus Anastasi VI and the one about the Israelites in the Torah, are part of the same general movement of Shasu arriving in the eastern Delta to sustain both themselves and their animals. Here it is important to keep in mind the strong biblical tradition that Israel and Edom were closely related kindred nations, descended from twin brothers according to the epic tradition (Gen 25: 23-24, Num 20: 14). The Torah naturally focuses on Israel’s experiences, but Edom’s must have been very similar, as we learn from Papyrus Anastasi VI.

Accordingly, we conclude that a group of Israelites, whom the Egyptians would have classified as Shasu along with other semi-nomads settled in Egypt sometime in the New Kingdom period. Exactly when in the New Kingdom period cannot be determined with certainty, but a suggestion can be made here. The Israelites must have arrived in Egypt sometime earlier than the reign of Rameses II, for this king is the leading candidate for the Pharaoh represented in Exodus 1 as the Pharaoh of the slavery (see next paragraph). If the statement in Exod 1: 8 is interpreted to mean immediate succession, then the Pharaoh during whose reign the Israelites arrived in Egypt must have been Seti I (1291–1279), father and immediate predecessor of Rameses II. The book of Genesis suggests this in several ways. First, the text implies that the Israelites’ settlement in Goshen, that is, the eastern Delta in general or the Wadi Tumilat in particular, was near the pharaoh’s residence (see Genesis 45 especially); and the 19th Dynasty monarchs ruled from this region. [6]  Second, the expression “land of Rameses” occurs in Genesis 47: 11, and while this term could be an anachronism, it may be noted that the name Rameses already was in use by the founder of the 19th Dynasty, Rameses I (1292–1291), father of Seti I.

Within a relatively short period, the Israelites who had settled in the Delta, became slaves to the Egyptians.[7]  The Torah, of course, ascribes this change in status to a change in royal administration in Egypt (Exodus 1: 8-11). We cannot place this next stage of Israelite history within known Egyptian history, but again we are able to cite Egyptian texts that corroborate the general picture. Exodus 1: 11 informs us that the Israelites were put to work building the store cities of Pithom and Rameses. Based on the latter name, Myself (along with many other scholars) assume that the Pharaoh of Egypt at this time was Rameses II (1279–1214), the great builder whose major achievement in the Delta region was the construction of the city Per-Rameses. [8] From this king’s reign comes a text, P. Leiden p. 348, a collection of letters (probably model letters) discussing building activities. Recto 6: 6 reads as follows: “Issue grain to the men of the army and to the ‘cApiru who are drawing stone(?) for the great pylon of the [house?] of Rameses.” [9]  Much has been written about a possible connection between the term “‘Apiru” in Egyptian texts (equals “abiru” in cuneiform texts) and the term “Hebrew” of the Bible. Simply stated: there are too many hurdles (philological, ethnic-social, and historical) to equate the two. [10] Yet in an example such as the Egyptian text before us, with the specific reference to ‘Apiru building the city of (Per-)Rameses, I see a more direct correlation in this instance. Also of interest is the fact that the biblical account utilizes the term “Hebrew” at times (Exodus 1: 15, 16, 19; 2: 11, 13; 5: 3), though of course this is not unique to this narrative.  [11]

A second Egyptian text which is germane here is the Merneptah Stele. This victory stele of Merneptah is concerned mainly with his defeat of Libya to the west. But at the end of the inscription comes a short passage boasting of Merneptah’s victories over peoples in Canaan. The names of all of the defeated peoples in this portion of the text are accompanied by the determinative indicating “foreign land” (thus for large entities such as Hatti and Canaan, and for smaller entities such as Ashqelon, Gezer, and Yano‘am). The exception, as is well known, is Israel, which is determined by a group of signs indicating “people.” This peculiarity demonstrates that at the time of the inscription Israel was a people without a land.

Most scholars conclude that this refers to Israel during the wandering period, that is, after the Exodus from Egypt. I prefer to interpret the mention of Israel in the Merneptah Stele as a reference to the slavery.[12]  It is important to note that the “people” determinative following the phonetic writing of Israel includes the “woman” determinative. This unique usage points to the fact that the Israelites are not just another people defeated in battle (at the Reed Sea or in the desert, as most scholars would suggest), but are a people in the true sense of the word, that is, with women (and children), though without a land. While this would be true of Israel even during the wandering, that is, with women (and children) accompanying the men, other considerations, mostly chronological ones to be treated below, argue in favor of the Merneptah Stele as a reference to Israel enslaved in Egypt. The scribe of this inscription knew that the Israelites had associations with Canaan, and thus he mentioned them in the course of describing Merneptah’s victories in Canaan. But he was careful to distinguish Israel as an enslaved people in Egypt from the locales mentioned in the rest of the passage.

Another piece of Egyptian evidence is relevant here. I refer to the battle scenes on the outer western wall of the Cour de la Cachette [13]  at Karnak depicting Merneptah’s military victories. There is a debate between Frank Yurco and Anson Rainey as to which individual scene or scenes depicts the Israelites. Yurco argued that the fourth scene portrays Israelites, in which case they are an urban people, not distinguishable from other Canaanites. [14]

The Karnak temple complex, universally known only as Karnak, describes a vast conglomeration of ruined temples, chapels, pylons and other buildings. It is located near Luxor in Egypt. This was ancient Egyptian Ipet-isut (”The Most Selected of Places”), the main place of worship of the Theban Triad with Amun as its head, in the monumental city of Thebes. The complex retrieves its current name from the nearby and partly surrounding modern village of el-Karnak, some 2.5km north of Luxor

Rainey, on the other hand, argued that the Israelites are to be found in the fifth through eighth scenes, which portray Shasu folk.[15]  From what I have written above, it is clear that I agree with Rainey on this point. But even if Yurco’s position is accepted, there is no major problem, because, as intimated above and as I shall discuss below in greater detail, Israel was of diverse origins and there is evidence that a portion thereof was settled in Canaan and never participated in Shasu culture or, as the Torah story tells it, in the sojourn in and exodus from Egypt.

After several generations as slaves in Egypt, the Israelites left Egypt upon gaining their freedom. The Torah describes these events as “heroic history” in the extreme, with Moses as Yahweh’s prophet before Pharaoh. What actually occurred I cannot say with any certainty. But chronology is helpful in allowing me to speculate. 

NOTES:

[1]  An objection might be raised that “Israel” is specifically a name reserved for the nation after it emerged as a national entity in the land of Canaan, and that these seminomads of the desert should be called something else, such as “proto-Israelites.” But I prefer to eschew such terms and to keep matters simple by using the term “Israel-(ites)” to refer to the semi-nomads as well. Moreover, the name “Israel” is attested already in the Merneptah Stele, on which see further below, so that the entity already existed in the late thirteenth century BCE
[2]  See Redford (1992) 214-29 for an overview.
[3]  For the text, see Gardiner (1937) 76-77. For translations and comments, see Caminos (1954) 293-96, Redford (1992) 228, and ANET 259.
[4]  The attempt by Goedicke (1987) to deny the similarity, to place these “Edomites” near Suez, and to assume that they were allowed to enter Egypt for only one day, is quite unsatisfactory.
[5]  In Late Egyptian, final r was weakened, as reflected in the Hebrew pîtôm . For the phonological process, see Loprieno (1995) 38.
[6]  The preceding 18th Dynasty monarchs ruled from Thebes in Upper Egypt. The earlier Hyksos also ruled from the eastern Delta, and thus many scholars consider this period as the most likely one for the Israelite arrival in Egypt (especially if there is any historicity to the figure of Joseph, a Semite elevated to high station in the Egyptian royal administration). But the Hyksos period is far too early for the origins of Israel, especially as it would place the Patriarchs (again, assuming any historicity for them) even earlier. Everything points to the Late Bronze Age, not the Middle Bronze Age, for the era of the Patriarchs (literary parallels from Ugarit, socio-legal parallels from Nuzi, etc.); see Gordon (1954).
[7] I do not treat here the exact nature of that enslavement. Most likely it was a corvée system.
[8]  See Bietak (1984).
[9] See Wilson (1933) 276, and Greenberg (1955) 56. For the original text, see Leemans (1843) Plate 148.
[10] See the summary discussion in Greenberg (1955) 91-96.
[11]  The term “Hebrew” is typical in contexts between Israelites and non-Israelites in the biblical corpus.
[12]  This interpretation was offered by some scholars already in the years immediately following W. M. F. Petrie’s discovery of the stele. For discussion, see Engel (1979) 396-97.
[13]  Cour de la Cachette – A large court between the Seventh Pylon and the main axis of the temple so called because of the hundreds of statues were buried there in the Late Period and discovered in the early twentieth century. The west wall adjoins the Hypostyle Hall. Ramesses II carved part of the unfinished Battle of Kadesh scenes there, but later abandoning the project. He later carved his Hittite Peace Treaty stela there. A later set of war sceens on either side of the treaty were carved later and are the work of Merenptah.
[14]  Yurco (1990), and Stager (1985).
[15]  Rainey (1991).