BBS Karnak Wall Texts
Introduction
We rejected the BBS working hypothesis after showing
evidentiary, logical, and scientific cause.
We examined the Redford working hypothesis; found partial support for it;
tentatively rejected it; yet with further evidence and reflection realized that
it was correct from the point of the Egyptian political earthly perspective. Additional support for Redford was drawn from
Genesis 36 and Psalm 105.
We also examined Astour’s claim for a widely dispersed Shasu
existence. The only known group that
fits the geographically dispersed and diverse behavior of the Shasu, is the
extended family of Abraham, so this became a core element of our working
hypothesis, by default.
Finally, we examined the Name, Yahweh, YHWH, or Yhw. We concluded that the origin of the name
could not be determined from presently available evidence. Although, it would be nice to know the origin
of the Name, it’s not essential: for we understand that He is eternally the
Living God of the Universe, revealed as such to Abraham and all the patriarchs
and matriarchs. Hence, the disclosure of
the Name, was immediately offensive to Egyptians: for Yahweh was the God, above
all gods, and he expected to be obeyed.
The Egyptians were just not accustomed to obeying anybody else.
Script[1]
Karnak
Wall Texts (time 43:30)
N: But
Yahweh only appears in the Hebrew Bible, His name is nowhere to be found in
Canaanite text or stories.[2] So where do the Israelites find their
God? The search for the origins of
Yahweh leads scholars back to ancient Egypt.
Here in the royal city of Karnak[3] for over a thousand years,
pharaohs celebrated their power with statues, obelisks, and carved murals on
temple walls.
Redford: Here on the north wall of Karnak, we
have scenes depicting the victories in battle of Seti I,[4] the father of Ramesses the
Great. Seti here commemorates one of his
greatest victories over the Shasu.[5]
N: The Shasu[6] were a people who lived in
the deserts of southern Canaan, now Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia, around
the same time as the Israelites emerged.
Egyptian texts[7] say one of the places
where the Shasu lived is called Y-H-W, probably pronounced Yahu,[8] likely the name of their
patron god.[9] That name Yahu is strangely similar to
Yahweh, the name of the Israelite God.[10] In the Bible the place where the Shasu lived
is referred to as Midian.[11] It is here, before the Exodus the Bible tells
us Moses first encounters Yahweh in the form of a burning bush.
R: “Come no closer.
Remove the sandals from your feet.
For the place on which you are standing is holy ground. God also said to Moses, thus you shall say to
the Israelites: YHWH the God of your ancestors… has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this My title for
all generations.” — Exodus 3:5 and 15[12]
Coogan: So we have in Egyptian sources something that appears
to be a name like Yahweh in the vicinity of Midian.[13] Here is Moses in Midian, and there a deity[14] appears to him, and
reveals his name to Moses as Yahweh.
N: These tantalizing connections are leading biblical
scholars to reexamine the Exodus story.
While there is no evidence to support a mass migration, some now believe
that a small group did escape from Egypt.[15] However, they were not Israelites, but rather
Canaanite slaves.[16] On their journey back to Canaan they passed
through Midian, where they are inspired by stories of the Shasu’s god, Yahu.[17]
Faust: They were probably a group of … who fled from Egypt and
had some divine experience, probably a small group demographically, but it was
important at least in ideology.[18]
N: They find their way to the central hill country where they
encounter the tribes who fled the Canaanite city-states. Their story of deliverance resonates in this
emerging egalitarian society. The
liberated slaves attribute their freedom to the God they met in Midian, who
they now call Yahweh.[19]
Meyers: They spread the word, to the highlanders, who
themselves, perhaps, had escaped from the tyranny of the Canaanite
city-states. They spread the idea of a
god who represented freedom; freedom for people to keep the fruits of their own
labor. This was a message that was so
powerful that it brought people together and gave them a new kind of identity.[20]
N: The identity of Israelites. They are a combination of disenfranchised
Canaanites, runaway slaves from Egypt, and even nomads settling down. The Bible calls them a mixed multitude.[21]
Dever: According to the Hebrew Bible, early Israel is a
“motley crew.” And we know that’s the
case now. But these people are bound together
by a new vision.[22] And I think the revolutionary spirit was
probably there from the beginning.[23]
N: The Chosen People may actually be people who chose to be
free.[24] Their story of escape, first told by word of
mouth and poetry, helped forge a collective identity among the tribes.[25] Later, when written down it will become a
central theme of the Bible, exodus, and divine deliverance.[26] Deliverance by a God who comes from Midian,[27] exactly where the Bible
says, adopted by the Israelites to represent their exodus from slavery to
freedom.[28] So is this the birth of monotheism?[29]
Coogan: The common understanding[30] of what differentiated
the ancient Israelites from their neighbors was that their neighbors worshiped
many different gods and goddesses and the Israelites worshiped only the one
true God. But that is not the case.[31]
N: This bull figurine, likely representing El, the chief god
of the Canaanite peoples, is one of thousands of idols discovered in Israelite
sites.[32]
Coogan: The Israelites frequently worshipped other gods. Now, maybe they weren’t supposed to, but they
did. So at least on a practical level
many, if not most Israelites were not monotheists.[33]
N: The Bible’s ideal of the Israelite worship of One God will
have to wait. About two centuries pass,
after the Merneptah Stele places the Israelites in Canaan.[34] Families grow into tribes, the population
increases.[35] Then about 1000 BC, one of the Bible’s larger
than life[36]
figures emerges to unite the twelve tribes of Israel against a powerful new
enemy.[37]
R: “David put his hand into the bag: he took out a stone and
slung it. It struck the Philistine in
the forehead: the stone sank into his forehead and he fell down on the ground.”
— 1 Samuel 17:49
N: The Bible celebrates David as the shepherd boy who
vanquishes the giant, Goliath; the lover who lusts after forbidden fruits; and
the poet who composes lyric psalms still recited today. Of all the names in the Hebrew Bible, none
appears more than David. Scriptures say,
David creates a kingdom that stretches from Egypt to Mesopotamia. He makes Jerusalem his royal capital. And in a new covenant, Yahweh promises that
he and his descendants will rule forever.[38] David’s son, Solomon builds the Temple where
Yahweh, now the national God of Israel,[39] will dwell for
eternity. The kingdom of David and
Solomon, one nation, united under One God according to the Bible.
Dever: Now some sceptics today have argued there was no such
thing as a united monarchy, that it’s a later Biblical construct, and
particularly a construct of modern scholarship.[40] In short, there was no David, as one of the
Biblical revisionists have said, David is no more historical than King Arthur.
BBS
Hypothesis
The BBS working hypothesis surfaced clearly in the previous
time segment. The salient points of this
working hypothesis are: 1. The Bible
says one thing; archaeology says the opposite thing. 2. The Bible must be rejected in favor of
archaeology. 3. Generally, there is no
biblical historicity prior to 1010, at best there are only historical
kernels. 4. Specifically, there is no
Exodus under Moses, and no Conquest under Joshua. 5. Rather, some unhappy Canaanites, primarily
from Hazor, the largest city-state of the period, transition to becoming
Israelites. 6. With this transition they
create a false history and a false god to distinguish and separate themselves
from other Canaanites. 7. On a parallel
thread a few Canaanites drift through Midian where they pick up the name sh3sw
for themselves, and the name yhw for their deity. 8. In the north, the migrating Canaanites
mingle with the unhappy Canaanites; where, the deity name yhw becomes
universally accepted, even though many other idols are retained among them,
even a bride for yhw.
The opening statement is false for expressions like t3
sh3sw yhw (“the land of the Shasu of Yahweh”)[41] are commonly found on
Egyptian monuments associated with Seti I (1290-1279) at Karnak (which
evidently omits the term yhw), and as far south as Soleb and Amarah-West,
in association with Amenhotep III (1388-1350) and Ramesses II (1279-1213). A very common word like t3, meaning
“the land” or “the land of” is found in numerous other contexts; the slightly-less
common sh3sw, meaning the “Shasu” or “walkers” is also found in many
places;[42] not-quite-rare words like
yhw, meaning Yahweh, are not so rare as to have much dispute about
meaning. The Canaanites may not have
known Yahweh, but the Egyptians almost certainly did.[43]
“There are two Egyptian texts,
one dated to the period of Amenophis III [Amenhotep III (1388-1350)], the other
to the age of Ramses II [(1279-1213)] which refer to ‘Yahu in the land of the
Šosū-Bedouins’,(t3 š3św jhw3), in which
Yahu is a toponym.[44] Regarding the Shasu of Yhw, Michael Astour[45]
observed that the ‘hieroglyphic rendering corresponds very precisely to the
Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, and antedates the hitherto oldest
occurrence of that Divine Name – on the Moabite Stone – by over five hundred
years.’”[46]
The BBS working hypothesis must be rejected out of hand as
unscientific because it begins by eliminating data. It also arbitrarily decides that some data is
better than other data: in science the induction must be formed by considering
all of the data. Then BBS invents a false
explanation from the reduced data set. A
valid working hypothesis must give complete credibility to all the data: that
is what is required by the scientific method.
Conflicts in the data must be a failure on our part to correctly
understand one set of data, or another set of data, or pieces of some sets of
data, or any combination of these, including the whole or the universal set of
data. We may not be able to resolve the
difficulty for centuries or millennia, but we have no scientific authority to distort
or modify the data either. We must hold
our reservations until better solutions present themselves. In the meanwhile we confess that we are
ignorant of many things.
Redford
Hypothesis
Donald B. Redford is really not permitted to explain his
working hypothesis. It is possible that
Redford, who may be the leading Egyptologist in the English speaking world
today, has changed his mind; or perhaps Redford is not really the author of
this idea. In any case we will give him
full credit for originating this hypothesis.
“Redford identifies the Shasu
of Yahweh with the Edomites and argues that Yahweh was at first worshipped as
an Edomite god.[47] He also argues that one tribe of Edomites
split from the main body of Edomites, moved northwest, and became one of the
tribes of the Israelites, taking their god Yahweh with them. For Redford, this
explains how Yahweh became the God of the Israelites.”[48]
Simply put, the idea is that the expression t3 sh3sw yhw (“the land of the
Shasu of Yahweh”) or its alternate spelling t3 š3św jhw3 is
commonly found in relationship with Edomites.
Moreover, some of the Edomites transitioned into Israelites.
“Another communication to my
Lord: We have finished letting the Shasu tribes of Edom pass the fortress of
Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat…which is in Tjeku, to the pools of Per Atum of
Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are in Tkeku, to keep them alive and to keep
their cattle alive…”[49]
Since we have substantiated this quote in ANET, as a quote
from part of British Museum’s document, Papyrus Anastasi 6 (1230-1201, 1192?), we
have now moved beyond hypothesis and into the realm of archaeological and
historical fact.[50] This information is at least as valuable as
the Merneptah Stele. The Edomites do
belong to a class of people known to the Egyptians as Shasu. These Shasu are clearly distinct from
Canaanites and Hyksos.
- The Shasu are classed as Egyptian adversaries, not as allies.[51]
- The Shasu are Semitic and not Hamitic.
- The Shasu dress differently.
- The Shasu may speak and write differently.
Nevertheless, we reject this hypothesis as well, because it
is not consistent with all of the data.
It leaps to the conclusion that “some of the Edomites transitioned into
Israelites.” This conclusion is neither
necessary nor sufficient to explain all of the data. On the other hand, the factual identification
of the Shasu as a group of people of whom the Edomites were a part is a vital
factual key to resolving the problem.
Our
Hypothesis
We have no choice to accept the idea that Edomites are
members of the Shasu group or class of people.
Having accepted this fact we note immediately that the Shasu are
commonly understood to be a much larger group, containing far more than
Edomites in their number.
“Shasu (from Egyptian Š3sw, probably pronounced Shaswe) were Semitic-speaking cattle nomads in the Levant
from the late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age or Third Intermediate
Period of Egypt. They were
organized in clans under a tribal chieftain, and were described as brigands
active from the Jezreel Valley to Ashkelon and the Sinai.
“The name evolved from a transliteration of the Egyptian word š3sw, meaning “those who move on foot”, into the term
for Bedouin-type wanderers. The term originated in a
15th-century BCE list of peoples in Transjordan. It
is used in a list of enemies inscribed on column bases at the temple of Soleb
built by Amenhotep III. Copied later by either Seti
I or Ramesses II at Amarah-West, the list mentions six groups
of Shasu: the Shasu of S’rr, the Shasu of Rbn, the Shasu of Sm’t,
the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, and the Shasu of Pysps.”[52]
In this context
some passages of Scripture may be overlooked as being unimportant: namely
Genesis 36 and Psalm 105. Genesis 36 in
its entirety is the Toledoth of Esau.[53] Toledoth is a motif in Genesis, where the
expression is found eleven times, each time introducing an important new aspect
of the book.[54] Some people believe that this motif is so
powerful that it forms the internal outline of the book.[55] It has always perplexed me that of the eleven
repetitions of Toledoth, two should be devoted to Esau, which Hebraic form of
literary emphasis by repetition, would seem to make Genesis 36 and “Esau,
who is Edom” the most important chapter and topic in Genesis.
Indeed, as the chapter unfolds, we discover the record for
eight significant kings, and thirty-two major tribal chiefs. About these, Scripture makes the terse
comment, “before any king reigned over the children of
Israel.”[56] Lest we should miss the
point Psalm 105:6-23 says:
“O you seed of Abraham His servant, you
children of Jacob His chosen. He [is] the Lord our
God. His judgments [are] in all the earth. He
has remembered His covenant forever, the word He commanded to a thousand
generations: that He made with Abraham, His oath to Isaac. [He]
confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, to Israel, an everlasting covenant:
saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:”
“When they were few men in number, yes, very
few, and aliens in it. When they went
from one nation to another, from [one]
kingdom to another people. He suffered
no man to do them wrong. Yes, He
reproved kings for their sakes, “Touch not My Christ. Do My prophets no harm.”
“Moreover, He called for a famine on the
land. He broke the whole staff of
bread. He sent a man before them. Joseph was sold for a slave, whose feet they
hurt with fetters. He was laid in iron:
until the time that his Word came. The
Word of the Lord tried him. The king sent and
released him. The ruler of the people,
and let him go free. He made him lord of
his house, ruler of all his substance: to bind his princes at his pleasure, and
teach his senators wisdom. Israel also
came to Egypt. Jacob sojourned in the
land of Ham.”
Is it not clear from these two passages of Scripture that
the Edomites are a dominant political force, a massive highly developed
culture, while the other relatives of Abraham are comparatively insignificant
nomadic shepherds?
Abraham, though somewhat influential, is a shepherding nomad;
who, because he had a beautiful wife, was once lucky enough to meet the current
pharaoh. Isaac is little more than Abraham. Esau is the son who moves to visible martial
and political prominence. Joseph is a slave. Israel is a beggar who needs Egyptian bread. Moab and Ammon are incestuous children. The Ishmaelites and Keturahites are the renegade
offspring of second class wives.
Once the Egyptians and Redford have cracked open the door
for the Edomites, it becomes virtually impossible to shut the rest of the family
of Abraham out of the house.[57]
In our hypothesis we take the Egyptian word Shasu to be a
synonym for Semite, Hebrew, or relative of Abraham, which includes the
trans-Jordan children of Lot: Moab and Ammon, who are Abraham’s grandnephews,
and grandnieces. This agrees with Astour’s
idea that the Shasu are widespread,[58] but it also recognizes
the Egyptian/Redford perspective that to be a Shasu, par excellence, was to be
an Edomite, and this respect was accorded beyond any controversy or doubt. Thus the Israelites were not a spinoff group
of Edomites; but rather the progeny of their nearly insignificant younger
fraternal twin brother. A small tribe of
seventy people is dwarfed next to a significant nation.
Moreover, when Israel/Jacob returns from Padanaram or Padan
Aram (Genesis 31), upon his return to the Promised Land, he immediately
submitted himself to the governmental authority of his elder brother (Genesis
33). So Israel remains under the
governmental authority of Esau all his life.
Israel is in fact a citizen of Edom.
However, just as Christians have a King and are citizens of
the Kingdom of heaven, they are at the same time citizens of an earthly nation,
such as the United States. In the very
same way, Israel is a citizen of earthly Edom at the same time as he is a
citizen of heavenly Yahweh.
So it turns out that the Redford Hypothesis was correct all
along, at least partially and politically correct. As far as human affairs are concerned, Israel
did break off from Esau, as a group of only seventy people, did submit to the
rule of Egypt, not as Hyksos adversaries, but as servants and friends. In the passage of time under the protection
of Egypt, they grew to become a very numerous people, when political
adversaries turned Egypt against them.
At that time they escaped from Egypt and after forty years of hardship
were able to establish settlements in the Promised Land, as a new kingdom,
situated to the northwest of Edom.
Redford has nailed the situation but pieces of the record got reversed.
YHW
The name Yahweh is widely known outside of the Bible:
recorded on the Moabite Stone (830),[59] Lachish Ostraca II, III,
IV, V, VI, VIII, IX (circa 589),[60] and from Arad Ostraca
(circa 598).[61] There is no question that this is the name of
God. That being said, the Egyptian term yhw
is somewhat hotly contested.
Since the Soleb list previously quoted “mentions six groups of Shasu: the Shasu of S’rr, the Shasu of Rbn,
the Shasu of Sm’t, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw,
and the Shasu of Pysps,” we might anticipate some parallelism of
structure in the names. “Yahu is
[assumed to be] a toponym”, which would tend to make all of these words
toponyms or place names.
Shasu is thought
to be a classification name, pedestrians, walkers, footmen (for example: as
opposed to horsemen, or charioteers), or semi-nomadic “Bedouin-type wanderers.” So it is not difficult to equate with the Israelites,
a tribal body of people without certain earthly residence.
This seems to make the identity Yhw ≡ Yahweh, an absurd impossibility. BBS dodges this problem by making the place Yhw,
take its name from its patron god, Yhw.
This creates other problems. It
makes Yhw into just another idol. It
denies that Yahweh appeared in His Glory or Shəkinah and physically
led the Israelites out of Egypt. It
fails to admit that no place named Yhw has ever been found.
On the other hand,
if we accept the identity Yahu ≡ Yahweh; then we anticipate that S’rr, Rbn, Sm’t,
Wrbr, and Pysps are all names of deities in parallel with Yhw. Since no evidence for such deities has ever
been adduced, this seems to lead to a dead end: even if it did not fail we
would be left with names for five more lifeless idols.[62]
Having rejected the idea that Yhw is either a toponym or a local
deity that became a toponym, we are left with the intriguing possibility that Yhw
really is God, is the Yahweh of the Bible.
Our only objection is that this construct seems to bring Yahweh to
Abraham and Israel via Midian, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, we fail to see why Redford
and his kin might just have gotten the story slightly backwards.
“For half a century it has been generally admitted that we
have here the Tetragrammaton, the name of the Israelite god “Yahweh”; and if
this be the case, as it undoubtedly is, the passage constitutes the most
precious indication of the whereabouts during the late 15th century BC of an
enclave revering this god.”[63]
“By the
14th century BC, before the cult of Yahweh had reached Israel, groups of
Edomite and Midianites worshipped Yahweh as their god.”[64]
However,
according to Ostrand, the Egyptians readily absorbed other deities.
“All of this
illustrates that the Egyptians were perfectly willing to worship foreign gods,
including building temples to them, giving them Egyptian attributes,
emphasizing their similarities to their own gods and goddesses, and even
sometimes to completely equating them with them with their own deities.
“By studying the
general syncretistic acceptance by the ancient Egyptians of the gods of other
nations and by comparing their syncretistic acceptance of foreign gods with the
treatment afforded Yahweh, one recognizes that Yahweh was for some reason
treated very differently. Clearly the
Egyptians knew about Yahweh as can be seen in the Soleb, Amarah-West, and
Medinet Habu topographical lists, but they did not worship him, and they
apparently did not want to worship him.
“Nor was Yahweh
equated to or identified with any Egyptian deity. There were no temples to Yahweh built by the
Egyptians, nor were there any artistic representations made of him, or in fact
even any discussions of him in Egyptian texts. There are no other mentions of him in any
Egyptian texts besides the topographical references found at Soleb,
Amarah-West, and Medinet Habu. It
appears that the ancient Egyptians placed Yahweh into a category all by
himself. To say the least, this is very
strange for the syncretistic Egyptians. A possible explanation is that Yahweh was seen
by the Egyptians as an enemy God, of an enemy tribal group which was a part of
the hated Shasu peoples who lived north of Egypt.”[65]
Contrary to
Ostrand, we observe that the Shasu peoples
were not generally and universally hated by the Egyptians. The Shasu were welcome and resident in the
Nile Delta. They were treated with
kindness by Egyptian border guards when returning to Edom with their
cattle. Ostrand has made a minor error
here. It is Yhw Himself who is
despised.
Perhaps we can
discover a way whereby both Redford and Astour can be correct, each
viewing the problem from differing perspectives. We have demonstrated that Astour is correct
in observing that the Shasu were scattered all over the place. We have also demonstrated that as far as
recognizable government entities are concerned, the Edomites are the dominant
entity. Younger brother, Israel/Jacob
certainly appears to be an Edomite citizen, under the protection of his elder
brother. The other descendants and
relatives of Abraham are scattered and politically insignificant.
On the other hand, the message of Yahweh is reversed. There is no real reason to believe that for
all of the many branches of Abraham’s family a, perhaps small, remnant did not
retain fidelity to father Abraham’s faith.
Whether any of them knew the name Yahweh is another matter.[66]
Why, then, is Yhw
so despised?
What was
intolerable to the Egyptians was not the idea of another tribal deity, or
household idol. Egypt adopted these
without compunction and even intermarried them with their own gods. What was intolerable was that there could be
a God above all gods, a Lord of the Universe.
This is why Yhw was despised.
This is why Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten was so ostracized; and soon after his
death, marginalized. Akhenaten imitated the
faith of Yhw. The ultimate
Egyptian heresy was the claim that there was a supreme eternal God, by any
name.
“Not to us, Lord,
not to us, but to Your name give Glory, for Your mercy, [and] for Your truth’s
sake. Why should the heathen say, “Where
[is] now their God?” But our God [is] in
the heavens. He has done what He has
pleased.
“Their idols [are]
silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not.
Eyes have they, but they see not.
They have ears, but they hear not.
Noses have they, but they smell not.
They have hands, but they handle not.
Feet have they, but they walk not.
Neither speak they, through their throat. Those who make them are like them. [So is] everyone that trusts in them.[67]
After all, the priests can manipulate all the local and
household gods, these are no threat whatsoever.
The God of the Universe is a different matter; He must be obeyed:
therefore, He cannot be recognized without the loss of authority and control
inherent in corrupt systems.[68] This is precisely why Yhw is so despised.
Conclusion
We rejected the BBS working hypothesis after showing
evidentiary, logical, and scientific cause.
We examined the Redford working hypothesis; found partial support for it;
tentatively rejected it; yet with further evidence and reflection realized that
it was correct from the point of the Egyptian political earthly perspective. Additional support for Redford was drawn from
Genesis 36 and Psalm 105.
We also examined Astour’s claim for a widely dispersed Shasu
existence. The only known group that
fits the geographically dispersed and diverse behavior of the Shasu, is the
extended family of Abraham, so this became a core element of our working
hypothesis, by default.
Finally, we examined the Name, Yahweh, YHWH, or Yhw. We concluded that the origin of the name
could not be determined from presently available evidence. Although, it would be nice to know the origin
of the Name, it’s not essential: for we understand that He is eternally the
Living God of the Universe, revealed as such to Abraham and all the patriarchs
and matriarchs. Hence, the disclosure of
the Name, was immediately offensive to Egyptians: for Yahweh was the God, above
all gods, and he expected to be obeyed.
The Egyptians were just not accustomed to obeying anybody else.
[1]
What is for the most part an exact copy of the script follows. There are a few places where individual
speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for this we apologize. Every effort was made to be precise: there
were just spots that defeated us. Since
this is a quote in its entirety it seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation
marks. The notation for each speaker is
tedious enough: Narrator, Reader, etc.
If you discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point
them out. You may verify the script more
easily by starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion
begins. The second of these links is
free from advertising and thus easier to use.
This blog is found at:
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
[2]
Proof enough: the Israelites are not transitioned Canaanites. If the Israelites were transitioned
Canaanites who adopt the name of Yhw we would expect some traces of this
in their legends and other literature.
[3]
Yet here, BBS misdirects our attention: for it is not at Karnak where we will
find the pertinent evidence; rather Soleb and Amara West are the places where
we must search.
[5]
The problem with this monument is that it is not at all clear from the BBS
discussion that the specific words, t3 sh3sw yhw3,
are written here. They may
be written at Karnak but we have been unable to verify any such claim. However, these words are
written at Soleb and Amara West: this appears to be information of which
Redford is very well aware, but not permitted by BBS to state. It is the testimony of Soleb that connects
the words, t3 sh3sw yhw3, to Amenhotep
III (1388-1350), supporting evidence for a 1446 Exodus.
Here are the result of a computer search of one collection of
Seti I texts.
·
t3: pages 69, 72, 73,
78, 109, 143, 210, 350
·
sh3sw: not found
·
ya-h-wa, yhw:
not found
Note that Pepi I
Meryre (2331-2287) and his General, Weni commonly speak of Sand Dwellers, which
group name, as with Shasu, is usually construed to mean Bedouin. A term also used by Thutmose III (ANET: page
240). Now surely the Egyptians knew the
difference between Canaanites, Philistines (both Hamitic), and others. So who are the Sand Dwellers? Are they identical to the Shasu? The answers to these questions may very well
expand our concept of who the Shasu were, where they lived, and during which
times they were prominent in Egyptian cultural, martial, and political affairs.
Here is a very up-to-date and informative article on the Shasu of Yhw:
And another informative article on the Shasu in general:
[7]
BBS never stipulates which Egyptian texts or where they are located; yet, here
they concede the existence of such texts.
The location of such texts is found at Soleb on a monument belonging to Amenhotep
III (1388-1350), which places these words, t3 sh3sw
yhw3, soundly in a fourteenth century context, which is fatal to
the BBS chain of logic.
[8] We
actually resent the vocalization of Yhw as Yahu. It appears
to be a deliberately pejorative epithet aimed at associating the name of God
with characters from Gulliver’s Travels.
The Yahoos are humans, especially debased humans. The philosophical point is hard to miss.
[9]
The Shasu may be dated from late Bronze (1500-1200) to early Iron ages
(1200-476), and even more broadly.
Again, all the evidence suggests that Shasu is also a class name and not
a tribal identity. We will address the
dodge that the toponym Y-H-W (Yhw)
derives from a patron deity later on in this paper. Note that BBS is arguing for the existence of
a name, Yhw, which
they have not in fact referenced at Karnak.
[10]
The identity, Yhw ≡
Yahweh, does not seem to be disputed any longer, in spite of its linguistic
difficulties.
[11]
The Bible nowhere refers to the Shasu (walkers) living in Midian. Not one single reference to the word Shasu
can be found anywhere in the Bible. Nor
is Shasu cognate with the Hebrew, halak, in any of its forms. The potential connection to שׇׁסוּ, שׇׁסׇה,
or שׇׁסַס seems
farfetched, yet not impossible. Neither
is there any biblical Greek word that resembles Shasu. Nor is there any connection in or out of the
Bible between the Shasu, who are Semitic, and the Canaanites, who are Hamitic. There is an Egyptian reference to t3 sh3sw s`r
(or S’rr) which would
be Edomite. Both the Edomites and the
Midianites are Semitic. Once the idea
takes root, exclusively from Egyptology, that Shasu is a pejorative Egyptian
term for Semites, Hebrews, or any of the descendants, grandnephews or
grandnieces of Abraham, we begin to understand a possible reason for how and
why Shasu are found all over the Promised Land, throughout Edom, and far into
trans-Jordan. However, this idea of Shasu
is strictly Egyptian. The idea limiting
and linking the Shasu to Midian is a far too restricted view of either the
biblical witness concerning Semites or of known Egyptian references to the sh3sw. We are not denying that the Midianites are
Shasu: we believe that they are. We are denying
that this is stated in either the Bible or in Egyptian source documents or
monuments.
[12]
Moses does not merely “encounter” Yahweh.
Yahweh, a speaking, visible person in the form of fire and smoke
confronts Moses at the Burning Bush. The
bush does not burn, it is Yahweh’s Presence that burns without consuming. One technical name for this Presence is the
Shəkinah.
Falsification of this presence invalidates all of the Old
Testament for exactly the same reason that falsification of the Resurrection
invalidates all of the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:12-15, 19). Philosophically, denial of either the Shəkinah
or the Resurrection is an error of magnitude on the same order as refusing to
believe in atomic theory, neutrinos, or Higgs particles, simply because no one
has ever seen them. Well, 2.5 million
and more people, over a period of 860 years, were said to have seen the Shəkinah,
while the Resurrection was witnessed by over 500 people (1 Corinthians
15:5-8). This is not the sort of
evidence that can be falsified. Nor is
it the kind of evidence that can be cast overboard just because we don’t like
it.
[13]
Coogan has distorted the facts. What “we
have in Egyptian sources [is] something that appears to be a name like Yahweh,”
Yhw that is not
connected to any specific location. Yhw is paralleled to toponyms
elsewhere, so the realization that Yhw is not a toponym, but a personal name, is only discovered
with great difficulty, by a process of elimination. There is no place named Yhw.
On the other hand, the sh3sw are found all over the
place: in S’rr, Rbn, Sm’t, Wrbr,
and Pysps. Indeed the previous
narration in BBS places the sh3sw in both southern Canaan, and northern
Saudi Arabia. Other references place the
sh3sw in Edom and trans-Jordan. They participated as spies in the Battle of
Kadesh against, Ramesses II. Kadesh is
eighty miles north of Damascus, as the crow flies; around one-hundred-seven
miles on foot. They seem to be
everywhere: in the Nile delta, in the Promised Land (both north and south), and
in trans-Jordan. This known widespread
habitation of the sh3sw requires a broader definition of
their identity than Midianite. The
broader definitions that fit are Semite, Hebrew, or family of Abraham, of which
Midian is only a very small part. By the
way, the Midianites are clearly Semitic, not Canaanite. The idea that Moses met with Yahweh in Midian
is biblical, not Egyptian. “Egyptian
sources” do not locate Yhw anywhere.
The Shasu are located in Edom and many other places.
[14]
Not just any deity; the only living Deity appears.
[15]
“There is no evidence [that refutes] a mass migration.” “There is no evidence!” In science we do not deny one kind of
evidence, the biblical evidence, simply because it is not confirmed by other
methods. What sort of evidence is
expected from nomadic people living exclusively in tents for forty years and
never camped at any one spot for more than a few days? The absence of evidence is exactly what we do
expect. What would be truly alarming,
even earth shattering, a cosmic reality, and totally inconsistent
scientifically would be that any evidence were found. That would give everybody a heart
attack. The evidence at Soleb supports
an early fourteenth century or late fifteenth century Exodus.
Egypt is very possibly the dominant world empire of this
era. If the claims of Thutmose III
(1479-1425) are even half true, Egyptian world domination would be the
universal realty during his reign. As a
sophisticated world empire, border control and customs management were constant
necessities. Random groups from many
nations crossed Egyptian borders every day.
The observation “that a small group did escape from Egypt” is comparable
to noting that the sun arose: it is a moot observation. ANET: 234-243
[16]
There is no evidence that these were Canaanites. There is no evidence that this even
happened. This conjecture will be
clearly refuted later in this paper.
[17]
This is just subjective conjecture. There is not even enough evidence from which
to draw a scientific induction. Such
miscellaneous random groups, coming and going all the time, either met Yhw
or they did not meet Yhw.
Generally speaking, stories about Yhw were violently repulsive to
many Egyptians: most other pagan groups would be equally repulsed.
[18]
That Faust would glorify his opinion with the word, probably, surprises us in a
scientific discussion like this.
Probably requires a statistical calculation or at least a meaningful
estimate of chance. Here that
probability is zero. We know nothing
about the size or origin of such a group from archaeology, and even less about
its supposed ideology and its importance.
The whole house is built out of conjecture.
[19]
This supposed random chance encounter is based on supposition for which no
shred of evidence exists. Once again,
the chain of logic is based on “resonance” rather than reason. In a scientific discussion, this is science
fiction. There is no evidence that such
“liberated slaves” ever existed. All the
evidence from Hazor contradicts such a liberation movement among
Canaanites. Canaanites were not Hyksos,
and there is no evidence that they were involved with the troublesome fifteenth
Hyksos dynasty at Avaris (1674-1535).
Canaanites were, for the most part, loyal Egyptian allies.
Had Canaanites in fact fled into the hills from places like
Hazor the population shift would have been massive, easily fifty thousand, or
even hundreds of thousands. It never
happened. There is no evidence that it
ever happened.
Please note the emphasis on the egalitarian nature of this
society. BBS is building a mythic
structure of free, self-determined and independent society. This is not the society of Yahweh with its
central regnal shrine at Jerusalem. This
is not a society that confesses its very existence as being completely
dependent upon Yahweh. This does not
correlate with a society that pauses in the middle of a military campaign to
correct lapses of worship (Joshua 7), and establish its first central regnal
shrine at Ebal (Joshua 8:30-35). What
the evidence shows is that there is nothing remotely egalitarian about
Israelite culture and society. Freedom
is the gift conferred on those who walk with Yahweh.
[20]
Yet for Meyers, such a deity does not really exist. The only deity that exists for Meyers is the
idol named Freedom. The idea that power
resides in messages is magic, voodoo, the genie in the bottle. Authority is a derived property of messages,
power is not. Power depends on whatever
force that an author of a message may exert, and how quickly he may exert that
force. There is no such thing as a
powerful message of freedom, separated from Yahweh, Who alone has the power to
make freedom happen. Freedom requires
the powerful works of God, and the eternal vigilance of people to become
effective.
Meyers builds a false model of escape from Egyptian/Canaanite
tyranny, in order to empower and enable the construction of the equally false
model of escape from Yahweh and His tyranny.
That which the Egyptians loathed, and humanity in general loathes, is
that Yahweh has a Law, and He expects it to be obeyed. This is why it is so necessary to the whole
BBS chain of logic to attempt to eviscerate the evidence of Torah. Humanity cannot stand being told that it is
wrong.
[21]
Repeating the error only compounds it; repeating the error can never make it
true.
[22]
The “new vision” is simply that they watched Yahweh lead them out of Egypt and
into the Promised Land.
[23]
Associating the Israelites with the Mötley Crüe heavy metal band does not make
the BBS hypothesis any more logical or evidence centered. The 600,000 fighting men, plus the elderly,
women and children that left in the Exodus were not all pure blooded ethnic
Israelites. What they held in common was
that, service to Yahweh is freedom, and made more sense than continuing in
slavery in Egypt. All of them,
regardless of ethnicity were subsumed under one of the thirteen Israelite
tribes.
The “revolutionary spirit” comes from the dark side of Eden.
[24]
This is a bald-faced lie. It shamelessly
insists that powerless people become free, merely by the exertion of the will,
without any necessity of assistance from God, or need of His power. The Israelites made no such choice. Yahweh had to urge them on their way. Frequently their “choice” was to turn back to
Egypt.
[25]
The reassertion of the claim of dominant oral tradition related to events
between 1526 and 1010, and its attendant claim that these events are
pre-historic, having only a minimal historical kernel, does not make either of
these claims true. We have refuted both
of these claims in every one of our previous papers. We utterly reject the subjective invention
that there is any Old Testament oral tradition of any substance outside of
Genesis, possibly Job, and maybe a few Psalms and Proverbs.
[26]
The claim that these acts were not documented immediately, flies in the face of
the evidence. Subliminally, this
suggests a case for the existence of “later” writing in 950, 850, 600, and 500;
it is not a proof for such a false claim.
[27]
The offhanded reference to Habakkuk 3:3 does not refer to Midian, it refers to
Teman. See Numbers 22, where the
biblical evidence exposes the fact that only a handful of Midianites, like
Jethro, were actually faithful to Yahweh.
The highly apocalyptic language of Habakkuk compares God’s coming to
judge the world with the terrifying experience of Moses at Sinai (Exodus
19-20). Yahweh does not come from
Midian: the evidence does not suggest that He ever did come from Midian.
[28]
Rather, the Bible teaches that Yhw adopted Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and
Israel; through leaders such as Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, and others;
employing prophets, priests, and kings as His instruments in the dissemination
of His message.
[29]
The birth of the monotheism of Yahweh is Creation. Obedience to the monotheism of Yahweh is
another matter: for some people it does not appear to ever come. There are other forms of so-called
monotheism, but all of these relate to forms of idolatry, which are better known
as henotheism.
[30]
The fundamental problem here is that common knowledge is wrong. Ignorance of the Old Testament has bred an
idealized, but false impression of what it really says. When we begin to read it for its plain
meaning, we discover this description of mixed Yahweh-ism and idolatry
perfectly fits the description of practices in upper Canaan both during the
period of Judges; and, again, after the death of Solomon, under the leadership
of Jeroboam I, who had formed alliances with and trained in Egypt (1 Kings
11:40).
[31]
The Bible makes it perfectly clear that the Israelites were unfaithful to
Yahweh throughout most of their history.
Their false repentance is revealed in repeated cycles of pretended
remorse, followed by Yahweh’s patient deliverance. This is the natural course of humanity. Mankind is incapable of
self-deliverance. Even after the
so-called development of monotheism after 516, the Jews quickly found other
idols, they just stopped making them out of earthy materials such as clay. The new idols were, a false nationalism,
Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, and the like.
Nor is the New Testament community freed from idolatry. This is a heart problem, and the heart must
be dealt with every day. Idolatry does
not come and go simply because we do or do not have figurines in our houses.
[32]
Most “likely” this is true.
[33]
Which is exactly what the Bible records “on a practical level.” In talk, they were almost always
monotheists. Talk is cheap. Like us, in practice they were rampant
idolaters.
[34] We
already know and concede that the Israelites are in Canaan; yet, not because
the Merneptah Stele says so. The
Egyptian word ysrỉꜣr
or ysrỉ3r
or I.si.ri.ar does not an Israelite make: not
necessarily, even though we suspect that the Egyptians had no l sound and may
have substituted r for l. Nor do the
cities named unquestionably put the Israelite in the Promised Land; it is the
biblical record that firmly establishes both of these things.
[35] We
take issue with the word, after. The
Israelite population growth took place in Egypt (1661-1446). The population growth rate in this period was
about 5%, doubling in size every fourteen years. The Israelite population was already large. The population growth for the forty years in
the desert was virtually zero. Likewise,
the population growth during conquest and settlement was very low.
On the other hand, there were roughly 20,000 Canaanites in
Hazor alone. Roughly 7/8 of them were
from the lower city, about 17,500 people.
The construct that the population of the central hills amounted to 25
settlements, and 3,000 people is false. No
matter what the ethnic consistency of the population was, the numbers do not
concur with the evidence. A Canaanite population
shift of 60,000 or more in 1200 would be more consistent with all the facts:
there is no evidence to support such a Canaanite population shift.
Barring famine or other disasters, populations almost always
increase. The thirteen tribes were in
existence from 1661; other Semites, even other ethnicities who came to believe
in Yahweh were subsumed under the thirteen tribe, skeletal organization. These were already monotheists at the start:
perversion was a later development.
[36]
What BBS means by “larger than life” is exaggerated and magnified out of all
proportion to reality. For BBS,
exceptional and extraordinary historical people simply do not exist: Noah,
Abraham, Thutmose III, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Alexander, Cleopatra, Julius,
Napoleon, George Washington, and the like.
Any unusual human performance is branded as “larger than life”,
marginalized, trivialized, and finally denied.
The introduction of David is irrelevant to the claim that the
Israelites were Canaanites who escaped the tyranny of life in Egypt and Hazor
to amalgamate under the rubric of Yhw modified to become Yahweh. The lives of either David or Solomon do not
speak to these issues in an evidentiary way: they are simply emotional filler.
[37]
Note that this “powerful new enemy” is neither Egyptian nor Canaanite. BBS never pauses long enough to draw a
logical connection between the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines: yet the
biblical evidence does draw such a connection.
This “powerful new enemy” supposedly arises during a period that is
generally claimed to be non- or pre-historical.
[38]
The existence of a “new” covenant under David, presupposes the existence of a
prior “old” covenant. From the
perspective of writing in 950 (during the reign of Solomon), 850, 600, and 500
in documents called J, E, D, and P, what can the contents of David’s covenant
and its “old” covenant predecessor possibly be?
This is a covenant (David’s), which, like all the others, is
broken and therefore supposed to be untrue in any historic sense, which is
exactly the complaint of Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89). The God of such a covenant must, therefore,
be a mythic figure. Thus, it’s alright
to be a monotheist, as long as God doesn’t actually exist. The problem for Ethan is that he cannot
possibly see the birth of Christ as the resolution to his problem. If the covenant with David is falsified, then
so are the claims of Christ. The way the
word Bible is bandied about in this discussion, one might be misled to suppose
that the biblical evidence is actually being respected.
[39]
Yahweh was the “national God of Israel” ever since Israel was constituted as a
nation around 1446. Yahweh simply moves
His visible earthly cult center from a tent at Shiloh (Psalm 78:60, 67),
disciplining the Philistines along the way (Psalm 78:61, 66), to a temple at
Jerusalem (Psalm 78:68-69), which has its foundation in the covenant which
Yahweh chose for David (Psalm 78:70-72).
[40]
“Some sceptics today have argued there was no such thing as a” mass Exodus of
2.4 million Israelites, led by Yahweh and His vicegerents, Moses and Aaron,
beginning in 1446 and arriving in the Promised Land under a new vicegerent,
Joshua in 1406. “Some sceptics today
have argued there was no such thing as a” historicity for Adam, Noah, Shem,
Heber, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israelites, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Judges,
Eli, Saul, or Samuel. “Some sceptics
today” will argue anything that gets them any form of public notoriety.
[41] “The
best discussion of the place names in Egyptian topographical lists that are
related to the location of “the land of the Shasu of Yahweh” is that of Michael
Astour in his chapter in the Festshrift Elmar Edel published in 1979. Astour
points out that the place names listed at Soleb and Amarah-West include both
Egyptian possessions in Syria-Palestine as well as non-Egyptian controlled
ethnic groups and regions in that area.” http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/03/08/The-Name-Yahweh-in-Egyptian-Hieroglyphic-Texts.aspx
[42]
ANET: Pritchard, James B., Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, third edition with supplement (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1969: 710 pages), pages 242-243 provides a
chart, “Lists of Asiatic Countries Under the Egyptian Empire.” This chart is compiled from the conquest
lists of various pharaohs beginning with Thutmose III, who may have originated
the custom of making such lists. The
word Shasu appears in the lists of Thutmose IV (1398-1388), Amenhotep III
(1388-1350), Horemheb (1319-1292), Seti I (1290-1279), Ramesses II (1279-1213),
and Shoshenq I (943-922). Thus the Shasu
are known across the fourteenth through tenth centuries; as well as throughout
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-second dynasties.
[43] “The
Asiatic Campaign of Amenhotep II (1425-1398)” lists 15,200 Shasu men, prisoners
with goods, small cattle, cattle, … , and weapons. ANET: 247
Among the “Campaigns of Seti I”, “On the north exterior wall
of the great hypostyle hall at Karnak Set I … has left … at least four
objectives: against the Shasu-Bedouin of Sinai and southern Palestine….” ANET: 254
NB: the divergence of opinions about Egyptian dates between
the scholarly opinions of 1969 at Princeton, and the more modern views
expressed on Wiki: nor do all Wiki articles agree on dating.
[44] As
far as toponyms are concerned, the Egyptian term for the Promised Land appears
to be Retjenu, which was subdivided into Djahy, Lebanon, Amurru.
[45]
Michael Czernichow Astour (1916-2004) had a long career as Professor of Yiddish
and Russian Literature at Brandeis University and as Professor of History
(Classical cultures and Ancient Near East) at Southern Illinois University
(Edwardsville).
We search in vain for technical details about the two Egyptian
texts: they appear to be the same texts found at Soleb and Amara West. These texts appear to coordinate, at least
geographically, with the record of Moses sojourn in Midian (1486-1446), where
and when Jethro or Reuel, a priest of Midian becomes Moses’ father-in-law. Previously (1525-1486), Moses was under the
authority of Egyptian education, where he would have learned hieroglyphics (the
Egyptian language) and probably cuneiform (the Akkadian and international language of diplomacy in 1388-1332). However, Moses may have been denied any real
knowledge of Israel’s history during this period. In the providence of God it is entirely
conceivable that Moses relearned the Israelite family history from Jethro,
which was later certified and completed by JHVH at the burning bush. It is certain that Moses learned a great deal
from Jethro, but how much is not specifically known. It is equally certain that Moses learned much
more from his conversations with JHVH; conversations, which because of their
miraculous context, are either indisputably free of error, or totally falsified
frauds and hoaxes; frauds and hoaxes that are so cleverly conceived and
constructed that they deceived a reported 2.5 million people. There is no archaeological, philosophical, or
theological middle ground here. We are
either confronted with the copied remnants of absolute truth, or we are
confronted with a horrendous lie. Based
on this history, in the context of more miracles, JHVH leads the Exodus, with
His vicegerent, Moses. The Egyptians
witness all of these first events.
However, the Egyptians have every motive for rewriting history as all
politicians do. The evidence for such
spinning of Egyptian history is not difficult to find. The Merneptah Stele itself is recorded on
both sides, precisely because Merneptah was perfectly willing to rip it out of
the wall of the temple of Amenhotep III and put it, face-to-the-wall in his own
temple, and inscribe his own version of history on the rough back side of the
massive stone. [The ancestral sequence
is: Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare or Neferneferuaten, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb,
Ramesses I, Seti I, Ramesses II, and Merneptah.
Merneptah evidently had so little respect for his tenth predecessor that
he didn’t mind effacing an important monument from (1388–1351).
In Merneptah’s defense, Egyptians evidently thought of
monuments as we think of chalkboards: they were written upon, only to be erased
and written upon repeatedly, again. The Lighthouse of Alexandria (280) has a
similar story. Ostensibly, Sostratus
left his name inscribed under the plaster dedicated to Ptolemy. Evidently, by 280 BC the Egyptians had gained
a reputation for altering monuments.
Moses is thus an
eyewitness for all of the Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Most of
Deuteronomy. After Moses’ death (1406)
scribes add details concerning his departure.
It is perhaps convenient that scholars are willing to suppress the
specific technical details of these two Egyptian texts: for if a solid
connection can be made between the Shasu (1400-1301), it might firmly establish
the historicity of the Exodus. These
Egyptian texts witness a history that is nearly 200 years older than Merneptah. Why was this not explored in greater detail
in BBS?
[47] We
agree and will prove that the Shasu have an Edomite identity. We do not agree “that Yahweh was at first
worshipped as an Edomite god.”
[48] Redford,
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, pp. 272-273, quoted in:
[49]
From a letter, dated 1192 BC, found in, Siegfried Herrmann, Israel in
Egypt (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1973). p. 25, quoted in:
[50]
ANET: page 259
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh#Hittite_allies
(see note at bottom of list).
Kadesh is about 80 miles north of Damascus
A third, partial list at Medinet Habu near Luxor is attributed
to Rameses III.
[53]
Genesis 36:1, 9;
[54]
Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2
[55]
Unfortunately, such an outline omits a few very significant events or movements
in Genesis that are not specifically identified by the word, toledoth: so well
constructed outlines must think beyond this single motif: for other factors are
at play, principal of which is death.
[56]
Genesis 36:31
[57] If Redford’s claim
identifying “the Shasu of Yahweh with the Edomites” has any weight in
convergence or for resonance with the biblical text, we would be forced to
conclude that Shasu is a reference to the family of Abraham: including all the
Edomites, Israelites, Ishmaelites, Moabites, Ammon, Keturahites, and possibly
others. We are forced to take such a
possibility very seriously. Shasu may be
the common Egyptian pejorative term for any Semite, Hebrew, or descendent of
Abraham; now the claim for trans-Jordanian Shasu makes sense: for most of these
peoples are either direct descendants or grandnephews of Abraham.
[58]
“The term Shasu is almost exclusively used in New Kingdom texts for
semi-nomadic peoples living in parts of Lebanon, Syria, Sinai, Canaan, and
Transjordan. When used for nomads living in these areas, the term Shasu seems
to have been used by the Egyptians almost exclusively for people groups that
can clearly be identified as Semitic herders.”
[59]
Dated from the reign of King Mesha of Moab to around 830. ANET: page 320
[60] Wiki
dates at 590. NB that these dates are
firmly in advance of the 586 destruction, and yet the writer dares to use the
unspeakable name of Yahweh in an almost common or colloquial manner, without
protecting it from speech. This seems to
fly in the face of some things: namely, silence in the use of Yahweh, and the
exclusive development of monotheism after 500.
ANET: page 322
[61]
ANET: page 569
[62]
It is important to realize that the term, Shasu, is never used on the Merneptah
Stele. The debate in this article is
about the dress of people depicted on the Stele. The dress is ostensibly Canaanite, which is
supposed to prove that ysrỉꜣr
or ysrỉ3r
or I.si.ri.ar must
mean Israel; so from the picture, the Israelites must be Canaanites, with which
idea Redford himself disagrees. The
material of the Merneptah Stele is about the topic of battle campaigns against Libya to the west and Sea People. The discussion of ysrỉꜣr or ysrỉ3r or I.si.ri.ar is a two line afterthought about battles in the
east. It is ludicrous to suppose that
the pictorial representation at the top of the stele is of anyone other than
Libyans.
[63] Redford, Egypt,
Canaan, and Israel, pages 272-273, quoted in:
[64]
The phrase “before the cult of Yahweh had reached Israel” is the only thing to
which we object. One could get the
mistaken impression that Yahweh was first worshipped in Edom and Midian. However, the Toorn comment, properly construed
does not mean or even imply any such thing.
Toorn, K. Van Der, Family
Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms
of Religious Life (BRILL: 1996), pages 282-283, quoted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu#Shasu_of_Yhw
[65] Kenneth Ostrand, “Aliens
in Egypt,” KMT. 17.2, Summer 2006, pp. 71-76, quoted in: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/03/08/The-Name-Yahweh-in-Egyptian-Hieroglyphic-Texts.aspx#Article
[66]
There are several theoretical ways to resolve this problem, without resorting
to the Documentary Hypotheses. The
references to the name Yahweh in Genesis could have been inserted by Moses to
clarify the record. Yahweh could have
been known throughout Genesis, but the Israelites in general, and Moses in
particular lapsed under the weight of Egyptian indoctrination. In either case Moses may have first learned
of Yahweh from Jethro, or they could have both learned together from the
communications at the Burning Bush.
Neither possibility presents insurmountable difficulties. Theories are nice; yet it would be nicer
still to find evidence. Did the
monotheist worshippers of the Living God of the Universe, Abraham and his
extended family, know Him by His name Yahweh?
This is a question that we cannot answer with certainty. However, the origin of the first human use of
His Name, does not indicate the origination of His existence or worship. Whether He was Yahweh to Abraham, or not; He
was eternally the Living God of the Universe.
His worship flowed from Abraham down to Moses and not the other way
around. The revelation of the Name was
merely part of the worship development.
[67]
Psalm 115:1-8
[68]
Romans 1:18-19
[69] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment