3200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gezer † and possibly Lachish † have yielded objects naming Merengtah. At Gezer, a destruction level dated to Late Bronze II B (1300–1200 B.C.E.) probably is the work of Merenptah’s campaign. † Sety II’s name is attested at Tell el-Fara (South), † at Tell Beit Mirsim † and possibly at Tel Masos. † The names of other Egyptian rulers from this time are attested at Acco, † Beth Shemesh † and Deir ‘Alla (Jordan). † † Ivory sundial, see Kitchen, KRI , vol. 4, p. 24, no. 7B; R.A.S. MacAlister, The Excavation at Gezer (London: John Murray, 1912), vol. I, p. 15 and vol. 2, p. 331, fig. 456 (described as a pectoral). First identified as a sundial by E.J. Pilcher, “Portable Sundial from Gezer,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1923), pp. 8589. See also Singer, “An Egyptian ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Gezer,” Tel Aviv 13 (1986), pp. 26–31. † Kitchen, KRI , vol. 4, p. 37, no. 17 (bowl), dated year 4, king unnamed. Merenptah has been proposed as the pharaoh under whom this bowl was inscribed partly based upon another similar bowl dated year 10 (or higher?), Mordechai Gilula “An Inscription in Egyptian Hieratic from Lachish,” Tel Aviv 3 (1916), pp. 107–108, also Redford “Egypt & Asia in the New Kingdom: Some Historical Notes,” JSSEA 10, no. I (December, 1978), pp. 66–67. This dating, however, has been challenged by Orly Goldwasser (“The Lachish Hieratic Bowl Once Again,” Tel Aviv 9 [1982] pp. 137–138), who would read the texts in a different order and date them to Ramesses III. As the bowl’s texts concern tax collection Ramesses III seems the probable date. Regardless of this problem with the dating of the bowls, Lachish remained firmly in Egyptian control at least into Ramesses III’s reign; see also David Ussishkin, “Lachish—Key to the Israelite Conquest of Canaan,” BAR 13:01. † Stager, “Merenptah, Israel, and Sea Peoples,” p. 62, n. 2, William G. Dever et al., “Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II,” Annual of the Hebrew Union College Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), p. 52 and n. 26. See also, Singer, “An Egyptian ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Gezer,” pp. 26. † Kitchen, KRI , vol. 4, p. 242, no. 1, inscribed jar fragments, see Eann MacDonald, J. L. Starkey and G.L. Harding, Beth Pelet II , British School of Archaeology, vol. 52 (London: British School of Archaeology and Bernard Quaritch, 1932), pp. 28–29, and pls. 61, no. 3, and 64, no. 74. † Trude Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), p. 43 and n. 109. † Scarab: Giveon, “A Monogram Scarab from Tel Masos,” Tel Aviv I (1974), pp. 75–76; another from Tel Taanach, now in the Dayan Collection, p. 76 and n. 3; also Giveon, “The Impact of Egypt on Canaan,” Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis , vol. 20 (Freiburg: Universitats Verlag, 1978), pp. 107–109, and fig. 58b. † Moshe Dayan, “Akko, 1980,” IEJ 31 (1981), p. 111. † Scarab: Kitchen KRI , vol. 4, p. 341 no. 1 Alan Rowe, Catalogue of Scarabs, Scaraboids, and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Museum (Cairo: Institut francais d’archeologie orientale, 1936), p. 164, no. 690, and pl. 18. † Kitchen, KRI , vol. 4, p. 341 no. I, and p. 351, no. 17 (faience vessel naming Tawosret, misident;fied as Ramesses II), in H.J. Franken “The Excavations at Deir ‘Alla in Jordan,” Vetus Testamentum ( VT ) 11 (1961), p. 385, and pls. 4–5. Correctly read as Tawosret by
In addition, a papyrus ( Papyrus Anastasi III) dated to Merenptah’s third year † shows the Egyptians in possession of strategic places in the highlands of Canaan very shortly after the Canaanite campaign. All of this suggests the following scenario: By this campaign, Merenptah reaffirmed Egyptian dominion over the Canaanite coastal towns and northern Canaan. His Transjordanian vassals, previously conquered by Ramesses II, † did not invite attack and so probably remained loyal. The chief trouble was found to be in the hill country west of the Jordan, where the Israelites had been settling in considerable numbers. † Very probably enboldened by the long period of quiet and absence of military activity that marked the last phase of Ramesses II’s reign, some of these Israelites, now coalescing into a group identifying itself as Israel, attempted to penetrate into the lowlands held by Canaanite vassals of pharaoh. † Some of these vassals may have thrown their lot in with the Israelites, even enabling the Israelites to get some chariots. Pharaoh Merengrah, however, was not willing to let Canaan slip away, so that after he had dealt with the rebelling vassals on the coast and inland, he turned to the hill country and dealt a heavy blow to the Israelites. The defeat must have been quite heavy to emerging Israel, for the Israelites could not take advantage of the struggle between Merenptah’s successors. Ramesses III then imposed a tight Egyptian hold on Canaan, which was not broken until Sea Peoples (including Philistines) settling in Canaan weakened the Egyptian hold sufficiently for the Israelites to begin to overcome the Canaanite strongholds. But this occurred only in the 12th century B.C.E., after the death of Ramesses III (1151 B.C.E.). Merenptah thus delayed Israel’s emergence onto the lowland areas for at least a generation. One final note: There may be a garbled reference to Merenptah’s Canaanite campaign in the Bible itself. Joshua 15–19 records the allotment of the land to the various tribes. In Joshua 15:9 , the border of Judah near Jerusalem is drawn from a hilltop at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim to “the spring of the waters of Nephtoah” and then goes on to the cities of Ephraim. In Joshua 18:15 , the southern boundary of Benjamin is drawn west from Kiriath-jearim “to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah.” These Hebrew passages probably refer to a well, or spring, at Lifta near Jerusalem. It is possible that Nephtoah in both of these Biblical references is actually a garbled version of Merenptah’s name. Papyrus Anastasi III, which I mentioned above, dates from Merenptah’s third year and describes the Egyptians as possessing strategic places in the Jean Yoyotte, “Un Souvenir du ‘Pharaon’ Taousert en Jordanie,” VT 12 (1962), pp. 464– 469. † Papyrus Anastasi III, verso 6, 4 to 6, 6. Caminos, Late Epyptian Miscellanies , p. 108; and Wilson, “Journal of a Frontier Official,” ANET , p. 258 and n. 6. † Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant , pp. 67–68. † Stager, “Merenptah, Israel and Sea Peoples,” pp. 60–62; Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985), pp. 1–24. † Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia, Westminster, 2nd ed., 1979) pp. 183–184, 195 and 218–220. Contra Aharoni, the Israelites did not conquer Lachish at the end of the XIXth Dynasty, see note 24 above.
Page 1 and 2: Editor, H. S. (2002;2002). BAR 16:0
Page 3 and 4: Frank J. Yurco Peace in their time.
Page 5 and 6: expected Ramesses II (1279-1212 B.C
Page 7 and 8: started the decoration of this wall
Page 9 and 10: The stele in the Cairo Museum, whic
Page 11 and 12: From Atlas zur Altagyptischen Kultu
Page 13 and 14: From Atlas zur Altagyptischen Kultu
Page 15 and 16: provide an important clue to Israel
Page 17 and 18: in the forested and wild hill-count
Page 19 and 20: were in the highlands and that they
Page 21: of Merenptah dated year two or earl
Page 25 and 26: Understanding the Wall of Reliefs N
Page 27 and 28: Usurped Cartouches Key to Discovery
Page 29: his nomen. From Merenptah’s preno

3200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?