Egypt and the Exodus

As part of my graduation, I'm required to take a Hebrew Comprehensive Exam that involves preparing to read any selected passage in Hebrew from a book of my choice. I chose Exodus. One section of the test focused on the culture aspects of New Kingdom Egypt that Moses and the Israelites would have been exposed to during their enslavement. I came across some compelling cultural motifs; some are alluded to in the Biblical text and others we can infer based on literature and material culture discovered in Egypt from the New Kingdom Era. In no particular order:

Semites in Egypt

Israel was not the first nomadic people group to live in Egypt. The Prophecy of Neferti (20th BC) laments Semites infiltrating the Nile Delta and goes so far as to say the sun turned black because of them. Papyrus Anastasi 6 (13th BC) reports that an Edomite Bedouin tribe was allowed to pass through the Succot region to water their flock. Burial caves discovered in the Delta and Wadi Tumilat furnished with Canaanite artifacts also point to a Semitic presence in Egypt. The patriarchs of Genesis could very well have been one of many groups of nomadic shepherds who migrated and settled in the lush region of the Delta.  

Enslavement

We have records of people groups originating in the region of Israel who were carried off as POW's and brought to Egypt for work. Thutmoses III conducted military campaigns in Canaan and dragged back POW's for a labor force. During the New Kingdom Era, a two-tier control over laborers by supervisors and gang leaders became common. The Tomb of Rekhmire (15th BC) depicts a mixed race group of laborers (Canaanites, Nubians, and Egyptians) making bricks under the eye of an Egyptian over seer armed with a baton. Papyrus Leiden 348 shows Apiru (a Semitic name given to people living as nomadic invaders) dragging stones to build a temple for Ramses II at Memphis. The Tomb of Intef (18th Dynasty) at Thebes illustrates Apiru tending a wine press. Quotas were also instituted. A leather scroll from Ramses II reign (13th BCE) lists 40 junior task masters that were given a target quota of 2000 bricks for their gang. Israelites were not the only people group enslaved and may have worked alongside other people groups during their tenure in Egypt.

Moses

His name is legendary but not of Semitic origin. In fact, his name bears a theophoric (a name with a deity's appellation attached to it, i.e. Elijah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Joshua) Egyptian root. Moses looks and sounds like the names of other theophoric Pharaohs: Thutmoses, Ramses, Ahmose ,and Kamose. Mose in Egyptian means "son of" or "born of." Moshe is a Hebrew designation of Moses.

Canaanite and Nubian youths also served as court attendants, fan-bearers, cup bearers and butlers from the 15th-12th BCE. Moses may have undertook similar duties during his time in Pharaoh's court. He also may have been groomed to become a prince in a foreign land. Thutmoses III brought princes of subjugated kings from Western Asia to groom them to replace their fathers. The Amarna Letters (14th BC) admits that Aziru of Amurru sent his son to Egypt to be educated and Abd-Kheba (ruler of Jerusalem at the time) said Pharaoh put him on the throne. Under Seti II (13-12th BC), foreign children were brought into his court to be educated. Perhaps the Pharaoh of Moses time had motives to train him as an Egyptian ruler and export him to a nearby province to govern under Egyptian authority.

Moses' placement in the Nile River amongst the reeds and nursed by his mother shares similarities with the story of Isis and Horus. The "Tale of Sinhue" may also have influenced the story of Moses's flight to Midian-both share similar features.

The author of Exodus also appears to deify Moses (Exodus 7:1), with subtle hints of this in the text. One striking example is outlined in Exodus 34:29-30. After Moses descended from Sinai, English versions usually read something like, "...and the skin of his face shined." The Hebrew, however literally reads, "horned skin of his face." This phrase evokes images of Amenhoptep III and Ramses II wall reliefs at the Luxor Temple. Both have ram horns that cross their cheeks to symbolize sonship with the Egyptian god Amun-Re.  

Tabernacle and Its Contents
Scholars have noted similarities between the Tabernacle described in the book of Exodus and ancient Egyptian tents. The bedroom suite of Queen Hetepheres (2500 BCE) was composed of gilded wooden frames socketed together and covered with curtains, much like the description of the Tabernacle. Comparable structures also appear in tomb paintings as sacred embalming booths (1800 BCE). Exodus also describes how the tribes of Israel are to encamp around the Tabernacle, likely in battle array. Ramses II's war tent occupied the center of his army much like the Tabernacle occupied the center of the Israelite camp. The Ark of the Covenant has parallels with Egyptian sacred barks. In fact, King tut's tomb contained a box similar to the ark in Exodus. The measurements of the Tabernacle were built according to the cubit. The Hebrew word for cubit, "amah," is an Egyptian loanword. Solomon also built his Temple according to the "amah."

Why do I mention these motifs? What significance does this have for the Biblical narrative? The Bible isn't a book composed of ethereal realities. Social and cultural crossover of contemporary societies liter the pages of the Bible. God works within the limitations of culture. Any revelation, images, or symbolism God chooses to communicate must be attached to a context people will understand. Anything less, and it falls on ears incapable of comprehending the message. God's message to nascent Israel recorded in the book of Exodus defines how God took the culture they were familiar with and adapted the cultural norms to fit Israel's experience. Egypt's dominance of the geopolitical and cultural landscape during the Exodus story is one example of this.

Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque

What Changed Asia Minor?

My studies at JUC over the past year have centered primarily on Old Testament motifs-cultural backgrounds, historical geography, ethnography, archaeology, and a host of other disciplines. Rarely have I delved into New Testament books because of the emphasis placed on understanding what preceded it. A greater appreciation has developed as a result of this new investigation into Old Testament life. In fact, one of my teachers has pejoratively labeled everything after the Iron Age (think Saul through the Babylonian exile) "post-interesting."

Earlier this month, I was afforded the thrilling opportunity to attend a study trip to Turkey with Brad Gray (www.walkingthetext.com) to, in a sense, augment my Old Testament study with a New Testament flair. We visited the sites of the 7 churches of Revelation and other peripheral Greco-Roman cities.The trip centered around this question: What changed Asia Minor? How and why did Christianity explode early?

The following is a brief rundown why Christianity flourished early on despite the duress and persecution it faced. When Julius Caesar died in 44 BC, a comet appeared in the sky during games held in his honor, thereby providing confirmation that he was divine (according to Suetonius the comet was actually Julius ascending to the gods). This is the derivation of Emperor worship which became popular during the 1st AD. Part and parcel of the Emperor's duties was to promote the pax romana (Roman peace) across the entire empire. When an Emperor ascended the throne, his political initiative to set things in order under Roman rule was called his Gospel. All who fell in lockstep with his ideology (gospel), obeyed his decrees, and lived life according to his institutionalized Roman law received eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Sound familiar? Furthermore, the current ruling Caesar was hailed as "the divine son of god." All who worshiped him inherently proclaimed him as savior of Rome.

The authors of the New Testament ascribed the same political jargon to Jesus. Christian theology ran parallel to Roman theology. Early Christians likely struggled to win converts based on theological doctrines alone. Any informed Roman could counter a Christian argument by simply stating, " We have a savior, too. His name is Caesar." Both parties shared the same religious language. What set the Christians apart was their deeds. The Christian lifestyle ran perpendicular to Roman social conventions. In other words, what changed Asia Minor and sparked the explosion of Christianity early wasn't so much what they believed but what they did.

Exposing people to Christian faith today takes a lot more than simply spewing classical evangelical dogma-isms. I would argue, for the majority of non-followers of Jesus, the pontification of Jesus, at first exposure, by using phrases like "Jesus died for your sins" rarely wins peoples hearts. Ecclesiastical recitation works for those already in the game. What makes outsiders do a double take is how we live-for good and for bad. Theology asserts and practice converts. Here is one example Christians implemented to influence people in Asia Minor.

The Roman's propagated a stratified social system with no interaction between upper and lower classes. By contrast Christians ate meals together, inviting members of the Decurians, Freeborn, Freedmen, and Slaves to all interact as one group. Slaves were given the same privileges as the Decurians-full meals and no scraps. The value of slaves, women, and children were elevated and all social agendas among the Christians were based on love. Everyone was equal. And this was revolutionary to Roman society-not so much what they believed (although that informed their ethical and moral code) but how they treated those positioned on the lowest rungs of society. Paul appeals to Philemon to show mercy and welcome his slave Onesimus as a brother. Philemon carries every right to execute Onesimus for absconding. However, Paul subversively undermines the Roman social system by elevating Onesimus' status to a Freedman.

Christianity exploded on the scene in Asia Minor because the people on the ground lived out the life of Jesus. Believing isn't enough-even the demons believe God exists. A tangible, existential embodiment of Jesus changes lives. All the letters to the 7 churches of Revelation revolve around the concept of deeds. The letter to Ephesus in the book of Revelation was likely the first delivered on the mail route and sets the tone for the 6 that follow. Jesus praises their orthodoxy (theology) but critiques their orthopraxy (practice). Our actions are important to Jesus because they represent who he is. As James writes, "faith without deeds is dead."

Connected to the aforementioned idea and what may be the linchpin for the causation of a 180 in Asia Minor are Jesus' actions themselves. If Jesus only came to tell us what he believed but didn't accompany his message with healings, teachings, and other demonstrations of love, what good would he have been? According to Roman theology, the citizen sacrificed for Caesar. Jesus sacrificed for us, a work/deed self-referentially. And the early Christians of Asia Minor got it. 

Below are pictures of an early house church from Priene. It was in these types of settings where early Christians, the majority of whom were Jews, probably gathered.

Honor and Shame: An Addendum to Lesson's I've Learned

Given all the recent chaos that is now the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this seems like a well-placed addition to key concepts that have shifted my thought process in Biblical studies.Generally speaking, the Middle East is a rather traditional culture, fastidiously maintaining traditions that, more or less, have been in play for thousands of years; some reach back to the Biblical era. One of these prominent social conventions is the honor and shame model which dominates the family structure. If a family member is somehow shamed and loses his/her dignity, compensatory action is required to regain the lost honor. When the taking of life is involved, revenge must be administered otherwise disrespect and shame is dispensed towards the family. In other words, it is incumbent upon a family member to avenge the wrong committed against the family or the family is shamed. In ancient times, from what I understand, the eldest son was charged with implementing retaliation tactics. Today, if an honor killing is involved, typically the youngest son is given marching orders to slay the individual because of the potential for a lighter legal penalty if he is caught.

Precedent for this lies within a few episodes of the Bible. For instance, Lot is taken hostage during a war near Sodom. Abraham catches wind of this, summons 318 of his trained men (warriors), and gallivants into to battle to rescue his nephew. Blood runs thicker than water in the ancient near east. Another instance occurs when Dinah is raped by Shechem. After Levi and Simeon discover their sister's dignity has been stripped, they devise a plan and convince all the males of the city of Shechem to circumcise themselves. At their most debilitated state, the brothers charge with revenge on their minds and lay waste to all the inhabitants of the town. These two examples illustrate the deeply embedded cultural custom that still resonate today. As a fascinating side note, Jesus was the blood avenger (redeemer) for lost relatives. However, instead of instigating violence, Jesus absorbed it. This runs completely counter-intuitive to the mainstream model of exacting revenge. Jesus' acquiescence to shame directly before and during the cross event cuts against the grain of conventional thinking in his day. Through subtle details, the NT authors propagated a social commentary that was taboo for its time and place.

Fast forward to the present. The 3 kidnapped yeshiva boys were were murdered, apparently by Hamas members but no hard evidence indicting Hamas has surfaced, nor has Hamas accepted responsibility for the murders. A group of 6 Israelis with nationalistic leanings retaliated by kidnapping a 16 year old Palestinian and burned him alive. Since this incident, both sides have repeatedly attempted to kidnap innocent people simply to display their willingness to avenge the blood of their kinfolk. Juvenile rhetoric has been spewed by Israel and Hamas, both guaranteeing a "high price" for previous actions perpetrated against them. And so, the cycle continues.

The longer I live here, the more I understand why God implored His people to forgive one another. Without forgiveness, especially in this land, violence erupts pretty quickly. Jesus' message of loving your enemies and forgiving those who hate you now speaks volumes to me as I witness the current situation in Israel.

Lessons I've Learned

After a full 2 semesters at JUC, a handful of important themes have emerged that have heavily influenced my approach to the Bible. Some may be alarming or controversial. Here are the cliff notes in no particular order:

1. World view affects our sense of self and our existence before a divine entity. During our formative years, our social environment, the geographical terrain of our homestead, values disseminated to us from our parents (or lack there of), the current political climate, socio-economic status, religious dogma, and cultural axioms all leave an indelible impression upon our psychological state. This immutable predisposition affects how we perceive the world around us. Each author of the Bible wrote with a particular bent based on what he/she experienced in their individual lives or they wrote using themes decipherable to the audience they wrote to.

2. Geography and $$$$ dictates the flow of the Biblical stories. Israel's most coveted natural resource was it's road system. Stationed in the middle of the Ancient Near East (ANE), all traffic flowed through this economic turn style rendering it a hotly contested area. Empires could make a pretty penny by taxing imports and exports if they controlled Israel's roads and ports. David and Solomon expanded their empires because they wanted more money. The more territory they governed, the more revenue they could generate for their kingdom. Why did Putin invade Crimea? Seaports+Commerce=$$$$$. Not much has changed today.

3. The Bible is a book describing the relationship between God and Israel. The Bible is a book grounded in reality and historical events. It was not written in a vacuum, nor was it specifically intended to speak to 21st century Americans. Thus, as we impose our own theological grid on the Biblical text and neglect to let the characters and stories speak for themselves in their own time and place, we unknowingly dehumanize the participants in the epic story of God by flattening them out to 1 dimensional figures. Furthermore, we delegitimize the credibility of the authors if we think, being thousands of years removed from the actual events, to jettison the realities of the text in favor of garnering spiritual abstraction for applicable purposes. "Hyper-Spiritual Analytics" do a huge disservice to the purposes of the authors and the characters themselves. Moreover, it replaces psychologically motivated sentient beings with inanimate puppets aimlessly dancing across a stage, limbs robotically guided by cosmic fingers.

4. Our modern version of truth drastically differs from the ancient version of truth. Modernity suggests truth is based on verifiable empirical evidence. It must be proven to be true. Black does not equal white and A does not equal B. We live in a binary world. Conversely, truth in the ANE did not have to be 100% factual in order to be considered true. What is more important is the meaning of the story. In his book "The Art of Biblical Narrative", Robert Alter classifies Biblical narrative as "historical prose fiction." To simplify, the stories in the Bible are based on historical realities but the details, such as dialogue, may be the author's invention purposefully used to convey character traits, motivations, and irony. To some this may sound like blasphemy. But again, we must bear in mind the world view the ANE held-not ours. This idea circles back to point number 1 I mentioned earlier-world view. Perhaps not all canonized scripture was considered 100% true. The mechanisms and people through which God operated was held in higher regard.

5. Some core tenets of Evangelical theology are simply not true and are at best misguided. They are all recent phenomenon's that have little explicit textual foundation. Rapture theology AKA Dispensationalism was born out of John Nelson Darby's overzealous attempt to put flesh on a "vision" Margaret MacDonald experienced in 1830. The Reform movement's stance on original sin and the "total depravity" doctrine of mankind was based on Augustine's faulty interpretation of a corrupted Latin text of Romans 5:12. Moreover, Augustine's exegetical conclusions concerning Romans, especially Romans 7, acted in large part as an overreaction to Pelagius' polemic that sin is derived from man's free will to imitate Adam (i.e. we are not flawed human beings from birth who are genetically predisposed to sin) and sin can be overcome by imitating Jesus. The Reformation also introduced us to "Sola Scriptura" (by Scriputre alone) which ironically has no scriptural basis deeming it self-referentially incoherent.

6. I love a major portion of Orthodox theology. Mystery dominates certainty. Man possess infinite value. God invites man to be His partner in the work of creation. The goal is to attain oneness with God and recapitulate the primeval story of the Garden of Eden when we were fully one with God.

Cultural Backgrounds Field Study