The world around the old.., p.29
The World around the Old Testament, page 29
2. Egypt and Israel
This brief historical outline has shown that the fortunes of Israel were inextricably linked to the political dramas constantly unfolding along the course of the Nile. As Egypt moved back and forth along the political spectrum between unity and diversity of power, the entire Near East felt the effects. When Egyptian political power was centralized, its leaders were invariably drawn toward military adventurism in the Levant. When power was decentralized, the Levant was left to its own devices. During these times, petty kingdoms and mighty empires fought among themselves to establish their authority.
The decline of centralized power in Egypt during the Third Intermediate period essentially provided the opportunity for the kingdom of Israel to come into existence. Egypt also played a role in the division of the kingdom into North and South as Sheshonq I encouraged Jeroboam’s rebellion and then sacked Jerusalem in its weakened state. As the Third Intermediate period wore on, Israel and Judah found themselves in and out of alliances and vassal relationships with Egypt: Hezekiah sought assistance from Taharqo; Josiah opposed Nekau II; Zedekiah looked to Psamtek II for support. In virtually every instance, Israel and Judah suffered for their decisions about how to position themselves in relation to Egypt. Such is life in the shadow of empires.
The Old Testament raises many questions about the relationship between Egypt and Israel. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the biblical tradition of the exodus from Egypt, particularly in the Pentateuch. However, it is also difficult to establish the historicity of these events. Most Egyptologists contend that there is a complete lack of historical evidence to corroborate the accounts of an Israelite exodus from Egypt. Similarly, no Egyptian evidence points straightforwardly to the monumental figures of Joseph and Moses, characters who play such an important role in these narratives.17 To be sure, Egyptian history reveals that numerous persons of West Semitic origin rose to great power in Egypt (e.g., the Hyksos or Bay, the Syrian courtier of Tausret). Yet any connection to the particular figures in the Pentateuch remains elusive.
Accordingly, historians of ancient Israel have approached the exodus story with a great level of caution—indeed, suspicion. James Hoffmeier is right to point out that the Bible’s status as an authoritative text for modern people of faith actually encourages some historians to be more suspicious of its claims than they might be under other circumstances.18 With that point granted, one must admit that there remain significant and seemingly intractable problems for locating the Egyptian sojourn historically. And unfortunately, discussions about the historicity of the exodus often do little more than reinforce one’s preconceptions about the Bible’s historical credibility or lack thereof.
A word of caution is in order at this point. It is unwise and unhelpful to import modern expectations about the genre of “history” back to the biblical text. Biblical authors and editors worked from a very different set of expectations about the world, God’s relationship to natural and societal events, and even the function and role of writing. Those ancient expectations rarely match those of modern history writers. The more one recognizes these differences, the better one will be equipped to adjudicate the “historical” claims that an ancient text makes. Thus, the most critical tool for exploring the historicity of the exodus account or any other biblical text is the recognition of the ancient genre(s) to which a text belongs. The modern reader should ask: What fundamental questions is this text seeking to address? And how has the writer chosen to address these questions? Is the text attempting to explain a situation in the writer’s current context (an etiological narrative)? Is the text providing some real or ideal accounting of a particular king’s reign (a royal annal)? Is the text a poetic work meant to stir its readers/hearers by employing exalted rhetoric? Or is the text some mixture of these or other well-established genres?
The historical survey above indicated a number of texts from 2 Kings that provide strong correspondences to Egyptian history. The authors of the book of 2 Kings made explicit use of sources to create a narrative accounting of the past in the mode of other ancient Near Eastern royal annals. Thus one can profitably compare these biblical texts with Egyptian royal annals. Doing so yields corroboration for some (but not all) of the biblical accounts of Israel’s and Judah’s relationship to Egypt. The exodus narratives, however, belong to a different genre, one that is more concerned with establishing the origins and, thus, the identity of a people and their unique relationship with God. One should read such etiological narratives with a different set of expectations about the historicity of the events the text purports to describe. Put simply, when exploring the relationship between Israel and Egypt, one cannot take the claims of a biblical text simply at face value. Neither can one discount the historical value of a text just because it appears in the Old Testament. Careful attention to genre helps one decide how much historical credibility one can give to the claims of a text.
While fierce debates regarding the exact locations of biblical Pithom and Rameses or the most likely “pharaoh of the exodus” are not without some merit, there are many more promising and generative ways of exploring the interactions between Egypt and Israel. Using comparative analysis, scholars have identified numerous links between Egyptian and Israelite literature. With regard to the Joseph story, for example, scholars have identified remarkable similarities in the scene of the seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife and the Egyptian Tale of the Two Brothers. In both stories a handsome young man suffers a false accusation of abuse after he rebuffs the sexual advances of the wife of his master. Another classic example of a profitable comparison between Egyptian and Israelite literature comes through juxtaposing the Song of Songs to Egyptian love poetry.19 While there is little evidence that the Song of Songs relies directly on the Egyptian love poetry, reading the two in tandem has yielded a better understanding of the various features of the genre of ancient “love songs.” The similarities between the Instruction of Amenemope and Proverbs 22:17–24:22 provide some of the most telling evidence of the interaction of Israelite and Egyptian wisdom traditions. The passages from Proverbs almost certainly drew from the Egyptian wisdom text. In some places, in fact, it seems that the book of Proverbs simply gives a Hebrew translation of the Egyptian proverb. One should also note that Psalm 104 shares many striking features with the much earlier Great Hymn to the Aten from the Amarna period. Both present a supreme god in his solar aspect, creating and sustaining entire ecosystems that consist of plants, animals, and humans. In this case, the biblical text seems to represent a once- or twice-mediated version of the hymn because of the great span of time between the two works.
Figure 5.6. Ivory plaque, Megiddo, 1250–1150 BCE (after Gordon Loud, The Megiddo Ivories) [Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago]
The specific correspondences between Egyptian and Hebrew texts are only part of the evidence of interaction between Egypt and Israel. The interaction of imagery presents a still more promising means of comparison. Levantine iconography exhibits a strong Egyptianizing tendency in many periods from the Late Bronze Age to the Persian period. Thousands of scarab-shaped stamp seals from Levantine sites amply testify to the profound influence of Egyptian images.20 One of the most complex and beautiful examples of local artists adopting and adapting Egyptian styles comes from Late Bronze Age Megiddo. The so-called Megiddo Ivory (ca. 1250–1150 BCE) presents a scene that is meant to be read from right to left (fig. 5.6). At right, the king is returning from a chariot battle with bound, nude (and thus humiliated) prisoners walking in front of him. The public display of conquered foreign peoples and the victorious king in his chariot all reflect standard Egyptian displays of royal power. In this ivory plaque, one can recall, for example, the chariot battles of Thutmose III at Megiddo and the public display of enemy bodies by Thutmose I and Amenhotep II in Thebes and Nubia. On the left side of the plaque, the king enjoys the benefits of his victory over his foreign enemies. He celebrates a royal feast with ministers and music. While the object exhibits a degree of local adaptation of styles, the Egyptian elements pervade the entire composite scene: the positioning of bodies, the weaponry, the throne, the luxury items, and the vegetation. The winged sun disk suspended over the chariot is another Egyptian symbol indicating the sun god’s blessing and empowerment of the king in his military activities.
During Egypt’s Third Intermediate period, when its sphere of influence did not consistently include the Levant, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had extensive interaction with Phoenicians on the coast of the Mediterranean (see 1 Kings 5). Because of the Phoenicians’ long-standing maritime trade relationships with Egypt, Phoenician art shows extensive emulation of Egyptian styles. Thus, Egyptian imagery also found its way into Israel and Judah via Phoenician intermediaries. One representative example of such imagery comes from Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. In this ivory carving, the two Egyptian goddesses Isis and Nephthys spread out their wings in a gesture of protection to the djed pillar, a symbol of the god Osiris (fig. 5.7). It is not clear whether the image was produced by a Phoenician or Israelite craftsman, but in either case the object shows the prevalence of Egyptian and Egyptianizing imagery well beyond the banks of the Nile.
Figure 5.7. Ivory inlay of Isis and Nephthys flanking a djed pillar, Samaria, 9th–8th cent. BCE (after Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel)
Over the past thirty years, scholars have increasingly turned to exploring the complex interactions of imagery in the Levant as Egyptian hegemony variously extended and receded.21 As we have seen, royal imagery was particularly important in ancient Egypt since so much of Egypt’s history turned on the ability of strong centralized governments to unite the reaches of the Nile. As a result, there are numerous correspondences between the powerful imagery of kingship in Egypt and Israel. A sampling of just a few biblical texts points to the myriad ways that Egyptian imagery supplies the background for the development of Israelite notions of kingship.
In both art and text, Egyptian royal ideology consistently maintains that the king is the image and offspring of the deity. Psalm 2:7 presumes the same notions, portraying the king as a divine son at his coronation: “I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.’” Psalm 110:1 also reflects an ideology of kingship that resonates with Egyptian imagery in its description of the king’s dominance over his enemies: “The LORD says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’”
One can compare this literary imagery with a New Kingdom tomb painting in which King Amenhotep III displays numerous symbols of kingship (fig. 5.8). The crook and the ankh, the symbol of life, show his power and ability to sustain and promote the prosperity of the people under his dominion. The bull tail running down his leg also indicates his royal status by associating the king with one of the most fearsome beasts of the ancient world. And, finally, in a specific connection to Psalm 110, beneath Amenhotep III’s feet is a footstool with the images of nine prostrate enemies, indicating the forces of chaos over which the king has triumphed. In fact, in Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 more broadly, one can discern the Egyptian idea of foreigners as the forces of chaos personified. Thus, in Egypt as in Israel, the king demonstrates his commitment to the divine ordering of the world by subduing these foes.
Figure 5.8. Tomb painting from Abd el-Qurna, during the reign of Thutmose IV, Theban Tomb 46, 1400–1390 (after Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms)
Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger have suggested that the kings of Judah explicitly adopted the imagery of Egyptian kingship to affirm their own authority, especially during the time of Hezekiah. The systematic adoption of the symbols of Egyptian kingship also served to associate the Judean king more closely with the pharaoh Taharqo, to whom he was looking for support amidst the threats of Assyrian attack.22 During this time, Egyptian imagery appears in a number of artifacts from the kingdom of Judah, including the famous lmlk seals that bear the image of various winged beings along with the Hebrew inscription lmlk, meaning “of the king” or “belonging to the king.” The imagery on these seals clearly stands in the tradition of Egyptian royal iconography: the winged scarab beetle, the Horus falcon, or a winged solar disk (fig. 5.9). All of these images are linked with the Egyptian sun god, the divine sponsor of the king. In fact, these Egyptianizing images may be a representation of the king, or even, more provocatively, the divine sponsor of the king, Yahweh himself in a solar aspect.23
Figure 5.9. Judean lmlk seals, late 8th–early 7th century (after Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel)
Whatever one makes of the Egyptianizing imagery on the lmlk seals, it is clear from all of this literary and iconographic evidence that the shadow of Egypt loomed large in the cultural consciousness and the symbolic systems of Israel and Judah. The pervasive spread of Egyptian imagery throughout the Levant attests not only the power of Egypt but also the compelling distinctiveness of its imagery. Even today, thousands of years after Egypt’s golden age, many laypersons can identify an image as Egyptian at a simple glance. The distinctiveness of ancient Egypt has always endowed it with a certain mystique. Perhaps this compelling singularity of Egyptian culture contributed to the fact that the authors of the Hebrew Bible chose to portray Egypt as an archetypal foe. For Israel, no other foreign people had such a powerful and cohesive identity, one which they both emulated and vilified.
For Further Reading
Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Hoffmeier, James K. “The Exodus and Wilderness Narratives.” In Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess, 46–90. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Hornung, Erich. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated by John Baines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–80.
Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Redmount, Carol A. “Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt.” In The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael David Coogan, 58–89. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Robins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Shaw, Ian, ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Silverman, David P., ed. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Teeter, Emily. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Yamauchi, Edwin. Africa and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
1. The question of the plurality and unity of Egyptian deities features prominently in most discussions of ancient Egyptian religion. For a classic exposition, see Erich Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982). See also Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).
2. Throughout this chapter, all dates are BCE and are approximate prior to 664. In the main, they follow those presented in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Egyptian chronology is fraught with problems and debates. In short, the so-called High and Low Chronologies stem from uncertainty as to whether certain astronomical observations were made in Memphis (High Chronology) or Thebes (Low Chronology) during the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties.
3. On the general cultural homogeneity of ancient Egypt and its relationship to the static climate and geography of Egypt during the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate period, see David O’Connor, “New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552–664 BC,” in Ancient Egypt: A Social History, ed. B. G. Trigger, Barry J. Kemp, David O’Connor, and Alan B. Lloyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 183–278, esp. 188–190.
4. The term “Hyksos” comes from the Egyptian phrase meaning “rulers of foreign countries.” Thus, it is more accurate to refer to the Hyksos as the rulers of Lower Egypt rather than its inhabitants. That larger group included both West Semitic peoples and ethnic Egyptians during this period. Note, too, that establishing the “ethnicity” of the inhabitants is only possible on the basis of the names preserved during this time. See Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 98–129.
5. See Donald B. Redford, “An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative,” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. Anson Rainey (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987), 137–61.
6. Carol A. Redmount, “Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 58–89, esp. 74.
