Echoes of Egypt

In the last few articles, I’ve reviewed the archaeological evidence that the Israelites emerged from the existing Canaanite population. There was no military conquest in which migrating Israelites displaced an indigenous Canaanite people as recounted in the biblical book of Joshua. The only thing that seems to set “Israelites” apart from “Canaanites” is their distinctive style of house and a lack of pig bones in their garbage dumps.

Examining the source traditions that make up the Bible, the Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) traditions insist that the divine name of Yahweh was revealed in Egypt. While the deity may have been known under the Canaanite name of El in the past, his real name is Yahweh. The worship of Yahweh as the chief deity is another distinctive belief of the Israelites.

Is there any evidence that a small group of people may have migrated from Egypt to Canaan, bringing with them some of their religious traditions, including a belief in a god named Yahweh?

Egyptian Names

The exodus and wilderness narratives mention several individuals with names that seem to be Egyptian in origin: Hur, Phinehas, Merari, Mushi, and of course Moses.

As odd as it may seem, one of the most frequently-mentioned names in the OT is not Hebrew in origin. The name Moses derives from the Egyptian mose, “is born.” We see it frequently in the names of the Egyptian pharaohs like Thutmose (“Thoth is born”) and Ramesses (“Ra is born”). In the case of Moses, the name of the Egyptian deity was lost.

Hur was the companion and assistant of Moses and Aaron. His name derives from the Egyptian god, Horus. Phinehas was the grandson of Aaron. His name derives from the Egyptian words meaning “the southerner.” Merari was the third son of Levi and Mushi was his son. The name Merari derives from the Egyptian words meaning “to love.” Mushi has the same derivation as Moses.

To be clear, Egyptian names alone mean nothing. Someone composing the stories centuries later could have made up Egyptian names to provide verisimilitude to the story. But when it comes to Moses, it does not seem as though the tradition realized his name was Egyptian in origin.

In the story of Moses being rescued from a basket (Ex2:3b-10), the Pharoah’s daughter called him Moses (Hebrew mosheh) “because I drew (Hebrew, mashah) him from the water.” She’s making a pun on the name as though it were of Hebrew origin, not a shortened form of an Egyptian name. It’s as though she is saying, “I’ll name him ‘Drew’ because I drew him from the water,” not realizing that “Drew” is a shortened form of the name “Andrew”.

The evidence suggests the name of Moses was handed down in the tradition but not its Egyptian origin. Those who later wrote it down came up with a Hebrew derivation for the name. This militates against the idea that Egyptian names were created to provide local color to the story.

Pharaoh’s daughter finding baby Moses by Konstantin Flavitsky (1830–1866) 

Egyptian Artifacts

Seven chapters in Exodus (25-31) provide the blueprint for the Tabernacle and its furnishings and six chapters (35-40) describe how those instructions were followed in its construction. As the Bible relates it, the Tabernacle was the center of Israelite religion in the pre-monarchial days just as the Temple was central to worship in the days of Solomon and beyond.

As befitting a people on the move, the Tabernacle was essentially a fancy tent with the Ark of the Covenant in its inner sanctum. As Moses and his people left one campsite, they would disassemble the Tabernacle and carry its furnishings (the Ark, lampstand, altar, etc.) to the next campsite where they would then reassemble it until it was time to move again. Once the Israelites reached Canaan, the Tabernacle was eventually established at Shiloh until David had the Ark moved to Jerusalem.

Just as the Exodus is questioned as historical fact, biblical scholars and archaeologists have doubted if such a Tabernacle ever existed. Some think it was the Priestly author’s idea for a scale model of the Jerusalem Temple adapted for desert wanderings. Others have found parallels in tent shrines built by neighboring people.

Perhaps the best comparison for the Tabernacle as described in Exodus may be the battle tent of the Pharaoh Ramesses. Both feature the main tent situated inside a courtyard. The battle tent is divided between a larger reception area and the inner sanctum where the Pharaoh resides. This matches the Tabernacle with its larger Holy area and the inner Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant, the footstool of YHWH resides. The 2:1 proportions between the inner and outer sanctums are roughly the same in both.

The Ark, too, has an Egyptian parallel in the sacred bark, a ritual object resembling a boat, usually carried on poles by priests in procession. Its main purpose was to transport gods and mummies.

A Tribe Called Levi

Looking back on the evidence so far, a pattern begins to emerge. References to Egypt as the location where God revealed his name as YHWH only come from the E and P sources, both of them of Levite origin. Of the individuals mentioned with Egyptian names, the Bible tells us most belonged to the tribe of Levi. The Tabernacle and Ark are strongly tied to cultic practices which could only be undertaken by members of the tribe of Levi.

Could it be that a small group who escaped from Egypt became known as the tribe of Levi?

References to the Levites in the Bible are not consistent and somewhat confusing, but two points stand out: the Levites were not given a territory of their own in Canaan and were the only tribe allowed to serve as priests. These are not unrelated.

Outside the urban economy of the Canaanite city-states, there was little opportunity for artisans, craftsmen, and so on. Most of the residents of the Canaanite hill country needed land to grow food for subsistence. If an incoming group from Egypt arrived after territory had already been doled out to various clans and tribes, they would have found themselves landless and in need of a way to make a living. Serving as priests of the central sanctuary of Shiloh and at local shrines throughout the countryside would have sufficed.

These Egyptian refugees would accommodate their religious beliefs and practices to those of the indigenous Canaanite population. The god Yahweh that they had worshipped in Egypt (and perhaps earlier if they were originally from Midian) would be recast as another name for the Canaanite god El who the locals already worshipped. As the official teachers of religion, the Levites could instruct the Israelites in the Egyptian practice of circumcision, the kind treatment of slaves, and tales of the plagues.

Because they were resident aliens, perhaps it is not surprising that the Levite sources in the Bible commands 52 times that resident aliens are not to be mistreated “because we were once aliens in Egypt.”

The Conquest Defeated

Biblical archaeology began about 150 years ago with the goal of proving the veracity of the biblical stories. The adage is that these early pioneering scholars had the Bible in one hand and a spade in the other. And the early discoveries indeed seemed to verify events described in the Bible. But as a fuller picture emerged, confidence in the Bible as a reliable guide to history was shaken to its foundations.

Digging up the Past

Let’s begin with a brief lesson on how the science of archaeology works. In ancient times, when a city was rebuilt after having been destroyed by war or natural disaster, the inhabitants would construct new buildings atop the ruins of the old. Over time, these layers would build up into something resembling an artificial hill. Scientists realized they could dig down through the layers and, the deeper they dug, the further back in time they could go.

What the archaeologists lacked, however, were the proper reference points. For example, they could identify the various levels – or strata – of the ruins of a city, but unless they had inscriptions or texts that were datable, they would have no idea how much time passed between the city in level 2 and the one in level 3. The invention of radiocarbon dating provided a method for establishing a fixed date, but it required finding organic material like wood or grain.

The major breakthrough was the discovery that pottery provided a fairly accurate clock for establishing dates. Unlike inscriptions or organic material, pottery fragments were plentiful at excavation sites. Scientists were able to create a relative sequence of pottery styles from oldest to youngest and then plug in any absolute dates provided by radiocarbon testing of organic material. Since pottery styles changed frequently enough, a well-trained archaeologist could identify the date of any strata based on the pot shards found within it.

The Missing Conquest

Naturally, the first sites to be excavated were cities mentioned in the Bible, cities like Megiddo, Shechem, and Jericho. Jericho is well-known from the Book of Joshua where, forty years after the exodus, Joshua led the Israelites in a systematic campaign of genocide against the Canaanites. First on their list of conquests was the walled city of Jericho (Joshua 6) where, after the walls came down, the entire population was put to the sword and the city destroyed. This was followed by the destruction of the city of Ai (Joshua 7-8). Seeing what happened at Jericho and Ai, the people of Gibeon made a treaty with the Israelites (Joshua 9) to avoid the destruction of their town.

Digging at ancient Jericho in the 1930s, John Garstang found destroyed mudbrick city walls that he attributed to the battle mentioned in the Book of Joshua. He dated the level to 1400 BCE, fifty years or so after the traditional date for the exodus.

In the 1950s Kathleen Kenyon re-visited the site with more refined techniques and was able to date the destruction of Garstang’s wall to 1560 BCE, a century and a half earlier. Not only that, but she discovered that the city had remained unoccupied for several centuries after its destruction. Not only was Jericho unoccupied during the traditional 15th century date for the exodus and conquest, but also for the currently accepted 13th century date as well.

Kathleen Kenyon discovered the remains of 23 cities at Jericho, the earliest dating back to the 8^th millennium BCE, making Jericho the oldest city in the world. At the 9000-year old stratum, Kenyon unearthed this circular tower built of stone and mud. (Photo by author, 1993)

Jericho is not the only such case. Archaeological evidence at the site of Ai shows that it was unoccupied from the 15th century BCE to the 12th. At Gibeon, no remains at the site were found earlier than the 8th century BCE. In short, at Ai there was no occupied city in the 13th century for Joshua to destroy and at Gibeon no city had yet been built to surrender to Joshua.

And on it goes. Joshua 12 lists the kings of 31 cities defeated by the invading Israelites. With only a few exceptions (e.g., Hazor, Bethel), the cities were either not occupied or not destroyed in the 13th century. Of the few cities that were destroyed, there is no evidence of who destroyed the city.

The Israelites were Canaanites

Just as we saw with the exodus, the scientific data does not square with the biblical accounts. But whereas with the exodus the problem primarily was the absence of evidence supporting the Bible, in the case of the conquest of Canaan, the evidence contradicts the Bible.

Indeed, the Bible itself is inconsistent when it comes to the conquest. For example, Joshua 12:10 says the king of Jerusalem was defeated by Joshua and the Israelites. But the Book of Judges begins with the death of Joshua and describes how the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took the city (Judges 1:8). Then again, 2 Sam 5:6-9 describes how David took the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites. The Bible provides three different stories naming three different conquerors of the same city.

The traditional “conquest” model as portrayed in the Book of Joshua has been dismissed by all but fundamentalists. What, then, can archaeology tell us about the formation of Israel?

The facts on (and underneath) the ground show rapidly-growing communities in the hill country during the 13th to 12th centuries. The material culture (architecture, pottery, etc.) of these open villages were in continuity with the Canaanite material culture of the walled cities of the lowlands. The Hebrew language is essentially a Canaanite dialect and worship of Canaanite gods continued for centuries in Israel. Had an invading people defeated and supplanted the indigenous one, you would expect to see a sharp break in the culture from what went before. Also, you would expect the invaders to take the best lands in the lowlands, not the poorer land of the hill country.

The prevailing explanation today is that the early Israelites were Canaanites who had resettled from the lowland cities to the rural highlands. Archaeology can’t provide the reason for the move – perhaps to escape warfare or high taxation – but the theory does explain the continuity of architecture, pottery, language, religion, etc. If the refugees fled the cities for political or economic reasons (the kings seizing the resources of the poor), it could explain the strong resistance to a king cited in biblical passages such as 1 Sam 8:10-18.

Perhaps at some point, a group of migrants settled in the area, bringing with them their story of having escaped persecution in Egypt and their worship of the god Yahweh as well. The origin story and religion slowly caught on, providing a national identity to a people who became known as Israel. We’ll go into this theory in more detail in the next article.

We are Family

Chapter 10 of Genesis has been called the “Table of Nations,” consists of almost nothing but a list of 70 names (some of them repeated), and is a strong contender for one of the most boring parts of the Bible. The purpose of Gen 10 is to list the descendants of Noah’s three sons – Shem, Ham and Japheth – to show how the tribes, nations and peoples surrounding Israel derive from them. It is a mixture of a monotonous enumeration of names from the Priestly (P) source along with more names and scraps of narration from the Yahwist (J) source.

While scholars cannot identify every single name mentioned in Gen 10, they have been able to identify enough to get a rough idea of the lay of the land. As you can see in the accompanying map, the descendants of Japheth are the peoples to the north of Israel in Europe and Asia Minor. Ham’s descendants populate the northern-most parts of Africa and the area immediately surrounding the land of Canaan. The peoples descending from Shem occupy the lands of Mesopotamia and Arabia. These far-flung areas encompassed the known world in Solomon’s day (10th century BCE) but, for the modern reader, fail to take into account the Indian subcontinent, China and other Far Eastern nations, and the indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas. The great flood is dated by biblical literalists to 2350 BCE, so all of these migrations and racial diversity would have had to take place since that time.

A rough approximation of where the various peoples mentioned in Gen 11 would have been located in the ancient world.

The literary genre may be that of a genealogy, but the names are not really individuals; they are the names of tribes and regions. In some instances, the writer doesn’t even pretend to provide the name of an individual. In v. 15, J states that Canaan is the father of Sidon (one of the ancient cities of Phoenicia) and Heth (representing the Hittites), as well as the father of several Canaanite tribes (Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites). And, as if that wasn’t enough, Canaan was also the ancestor of the inhabitants of five Phoenician cities (Arkites, Sinites, etc.).

As mentioned above, there is some duplication of names due to different traditions in the two sources. According to P Lud (assumed to be a reference to inhabitants of Lydia in Asia Minor) are descended from Shem (v. 22), but according to J the Ludites are descended from Ham (v. 13). According to P Havilah and Sheba are descended from Ham (v 7), but J has them descended from Shem (vv. 28-29). It’s all quite confusing.

Presented graphically, the mind-numbing list of names is a little easier to digest.

The backbone of the Table of Nations is provided by P. He lists the sons of Noah in reverse order, from youngest to oldest. P announces the sons of Japheth, Ham or Shem and then selectively names some grandsons. The passage citing the sons of Japheth (10:2-5) is pure P. P ends each genealogical list with a formulaic conclusion: “These are the descendants of Japheth/Ham/Seth in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations.” A similar formula concludes the chapter.

The list of Ham’s sons (vv. 6-20) is longer because it includes a lengthy addition (vv. 8-19) from the J source. This insertion breaks the monotony by providing us with a few lines (vv. 8-12) describing Nimrod, a mighty warrior and hunter and also the founder of the kingdom of Babel in Shinar (Babylonia) which expanded into Assyria and led to the building of Nineveh. Scholars are not in agreement as to whether the figure of Nimrod can be identified with either a mythological god or hero (like Gilgamesh) or some historical figure. Perhaps he just stands as the representative of the Babylonian nation. It is a bit odd, though, that Nimrod is included in the Hamite list but is said to have established a kingdom in Babylonia which is a Sethite region.

Two brief verses (13-14) relate the origins of the Philistines and the rest of the first J insertion (vv. 15-19) lists various tribes in the land of Canaan and its vicinity. While the division of peoples and nations appears to be along ethnic lines, there are curiosities. The Philistines were of Aegean origins, so they should be listed with Japheth’s descendants, not Ham’s. And the Canaanites were ethnically Semitic, so by all rights they should be counted among the descendants of Shem. Scholars believe that because the Canaanites were under the political control Egypt, the P source listed them as sons of Ham.

Shem is introduced at the ancestor of Eber (v. 21), who we will later see in Gen 11 is the ancestor of Abraham. Without the link to Eber provided by J, we would not know from reading P’s genealogy where to place Israel among Noah’s sons. In a J insertion (v. 26) we further learn that Eber is the father of Peleg during whose lifetime “the earth was divided” (Hebrew palag). This would have been about a hundred years after the flood event and seems to be a reference to the confusion of languages and scattering of peoples across the earth in the following episode of the Tower of Babel (11:1-9). That the descendants of Shem are to be found in Mesopotamia is consistent with the Bible’s claim that Abraham’s home town is Haran (or Ur, depending on the source).

The purpose of the Table of Nations seems to be rather straightforward. The biblical authors are demonstrating that all the known tribes, nations and ethnicities derive from the family of Noah. Therefore, all people are part of an extended family. But the rest of the OT stands diametrically opposed to this notion. Canaanites are not considered “cousins” of Israel, but abominations that needed to be driven out of the Promised Land or exterminated. Perhaps the writer is recalling an older tradition that acknowledged the ties between Canaanite and Israelite civilizations. In fact, archeologists cannot distinguish between Canaanite and Israelite culture; the two blend seamlessly from one into the other. 

Either that or the writer is speaking to his audience, an audience that is returning from exile in Babylon to the Promised Land, much as Abraham made that journey. When Abraham arrived in Canaan, he peacefully co-existed with the tribes there. The returning exiles would also arrive to find the land occupied by descendants of the Canaanites. Perhaps the writer wanted to remind his audience that they, too, could peacefully co-exist with the inhabitants if they remembered that they are all descendants of Noah.