Book One: CHAPTER II: From Egypt to Exile

CHAPTER II

 

From Egypt to Exile

 

                        Ancient Egypt was apparently blessed by the gods long before Joseph and his family ever arrived. The Nile river, the center of Egyptian life overflowed in an orderly fashion each year, leaving behind a rich, black soil (which was the reason for its designation as “The Black land”), allowing the Egyptians to develop an agricultural economy, and therefore the development of cities, in spite of the fact that there was very little annual rainfall. Egypt was also blessed with natural barriers. The Mediterranean Sea to the northwest, the Red Sea in the East, and vast stretches of desert provided for a level of protection and isolation that few cultures possessed.

 

c. 3100 B.C.E.                Egyptian society developed into two major power blocks, the Upper Kingdom in the south and the Lower Kingdom in the north. The naming of the kingdoms is derived from the fact that the Nile flows north, so to travel “up river” is to travel south and to travel “down river” is to go north. The two kingdoms were united through conquest. There is debate as to who actually was the first king of Egypt. Some Egyptian records state that a ruler named Menes was the first to rule; yet, Narmer is the first Egyptian represented in art to wear the two crowns of the two kingdoms. It may be that Menes and Narmer were the same person. On the other hand, it may be that Egyptian unification was a gradual process, beginning with Menes and finding its completion with Narmer. This, of course is speculation. What is clear is that Egyptian unification happened sometime between c. 3100 B.C.E. and c. 2920 B.C.E.  

 

c. 2650 B.C.E.                The advent of the third dynasty of Egypt brought about a change in how Egypt was ruled, ushering in the period referred to as the Old Kingdom. The second king of this dynasty, Djoser, centralized authority, thus increasing state power. The kingdom was divided into provinces, referred to by scholars as nomes, that were administered by provincial rulers, referred to as nomarchs. In addition to governing the nomes, the nomarchs were responsible for raising an army when needed. This presented a potentially dangerous situation for the king in that armies and citizens would become loyal to their local nomarchs rather than to the king. Djoser resolved this potential danger by rotating the nomarchs on a regular basis so that they never remained in an area long enough to gain a local following. 

 

                        It was during the Old Kingdom that the belief in the divinity of the Egyptian king began to assert itself. He was believed to be the son of the Sun god, and therefore, a god himself. Since he was a god who lived among mortals, he also served as the chief priest of Egypt, whose job it was to be the mediator between humans and the gods. It was also during this period that the pyramids were constructed. The pyramids appear to have had the same purpose as Mesopotamian ziggurats, functioning as artificial mountains for a divine being. The difference was that the ziggurats served as a temple for a god, while the pyramids served as a "god’s" burial place (or the final resting place for the god’s earthly body). 

 

c. 2150 B.C.E.                It was once believed that the pyramids were constructed by forced labor. It is now generally accepted, however, that the construction of the pyramids was an act of devotion, and thus voluntary. Nevertheless, the construction of the pyramids did require economic prosperity and public support, not to mention a stable, centralized administrative system. All of these conditions began to wane in the early 22nd century B.C.E., ushering in a time known as the First Intermediate Period. During this period, government revenues became exhausted, due in part to the vast cost of pyramid construction. Crop failures also contributed to the general sense of economic instability. Eventually the centralized authority of the king disintegrated and Egypt slid into rivaling provinces, ruled by the nomarchs, who behaved as warlords, contending with each other for regional, and if possible, national control.

 

c. 2050 B.C.E.                Nebhepetre-Mentuhotep, the ruler of Thebes, conquered the last remaining rival for power, reuniting Egypt under centralized governance with Memphis functioning as the new capital. It was during this period that Egypt began to dismantle its longstanding policy of isolationism. During the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom, Egypt had largely ignored the rest of the world. The logic was that Egypt was the center of the world and the seat of civilization; therefore, anything outside of Egypt was outside the boundary of civilization and of little consequence. During the Middle Kingdom, Egypt involved itself in diplomacy with other nations. There had been attacks on Egypt by foreign invaders during the First Intermediate Period, and the kings of the Middle Kingdom apparently decided that they could supplement Egypt’s natural protections with diplomatic ones as well.

 

c. 1650 B.C.E.                If it was their plan to protect themselves from foreign attack through diplomatic means, their plan ultimately failed. Invaders, known simply as Hyksos, “rulers of foreign lands,” carved out a piece of northern Egypt for themselves, ruling much of Egypt from the delta region. This was a blow to Egyptian national pride. The instability caused by the Hyksos invaders precipitated another collapse into rivaling principalities. 

 

c. 1550 B.C.E.                The migration of the Israelites to Egypt is generally accepted as occurring during this period. It may be that the pharaoh in the biblical narrative is actually a pharaoh--that is he may have been one of the many rivals positioning for power within the Second Intermediate Period. It is clear from the biblical story that the pharaoh grew exceedingly powerful as a result of Joseph’s assistance. It is even stated that everyone in Egypt sold their land to the Pharaoh in exchange for grain. If this is a description of Egyptian reunification, then the pharaoh that favored Joseph would have been Ahmose I, the founder of the 18th dynasty, who finally drove out the Hyksos, and who initiated the New Kingdom.

 

                        The New Kingdom differed from the preceding Kingdoms in that it was not content with maintaining traditional Egyptian isolationism, but rather set out to create an empire. It was during this period that the term “pharaoh” became the designated title for the Egyptian monarch. The term means “big house” and originally referred to the palatial residence of the king. The nature of the monarchy was changing. In addition to the restoration of centralized authority, New Kingdom pharaohs abandoned the time-honored practice of relying on nomarchs for raising an army, choosing to keep a large standing army that was directly answerable to them.

 

c. 1290 B.C.E.                This aggressive, militaristic, imperially focused New Kingdom was the historical setting for the enslavement and exodus of Israel. Ramses II (c. 1290 to c.1224 B.C.E.) has been identified by many biblical scholars as the Pharaoh whom Moses confronted, making Seti I the pharaoh who enslaved Israel. Yet this does not match up with the biblical account. According to the story, when the Israelites were enslaved, they were used as forced laborers in building projects. One such project was the building of the city Ramses, built during the reign of Ramses II. The story also states that after Moses fled from Egypt, the pharaoh died and a new pharaoh was sitting on the Egyptian throne when Moses returned to free Israel. This suggests that Ramses II was the pharaoh who enslaved Israel and that his son, Merenptah, was the pharaoh whom Moses confronted. The case that Merenptah, and not Ramses II, was the pharaoh of the Exodus is supported by the fact that during Merenptah’s reign, around 1220 B.C.E., a poem that described various defeated enemies in Palestine, stated “Israel has perished, its seed is no more.” Israel is marked in the text of the poem by a hieroglyph that signifies “foreign people” rather than “foreign land.” This strongly suggests that by around 1220 B.C.E. there was a nomadic group known as Israel who had not yet settled in a particular region, but who were migrating around the area that they would one day come to inhabit.

 

                        The reason why Ramses II enslaved the Israelites, according to the Bible, was that he was afraid that they had grown too numerous and that they would ally themselves with one of Egypt’s enemies. The purpose of enslavement appears to have been twofold: (1) keep the Israelites busy so that they could not plot with Egypt’s enemies, and (2) keep the Israelite population in check by subjecting them to harsh labor. The forced labor had the opposite effect on the Israelite population than Ramses had in mind. He decided to actively limit their population by killing large number of Israelite children. Moses was one of the many children who was marked for death; however, he was spared and raised in the pharaoh’s own palace. When Moses grew to adulthood, he killed an Egyptian who was abusing one of the Hebrew slaves. Moses was forced to flee Egypt and spent many years in exile in the region of Midian. It was while he was living in Midian that Moses had an encounter with a god who identified itself as YHVH, who was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses returned to Egypt as the mouthpiece of YHVH for the purpose of obtaining the liberation of the Israelites.

 

                        The story of the confrontation between Moses and Merenptah does not simply relay the events of an ancient power struggle among political figures. It describes a confrontation among divine beings. Pharaoh was a god to the Egyptians and he apparently believed that his divine powers were a match for any shepherd god that Moses brought from Midian. The god Merenptah claimed not to know YHVH, as a result he did not know the extent of YHVH’s power. YHVH, however, clearly knew who Merenptah was and knew the extent (or lack thereof) of his strength. The conclusion of the contest, according to the story, was the death of the firstborn for the Egyptians and the foundation of the Passover celebration for the Israelites. Merenptah not only freed the Israelites, he chased them out of Egypt.

 

                        From this point of the story of Israel there are two differing climaxes. Both climaxes essentially employ the same biblical texts (Genesis through Joshua) and they both center on Israel as a “chosen” people. Yet, what they are chosen to receive differs. In one telling of the story, the focal point is clearly the reception of the “promised land” in Canaan. Until the point of their removal from the land by the Babylonians, there was a clear identification of Israel with the land they inhabited. The whole point from Abraham to the Exodus was the “conquest” of Palestine. This was the fulfillment of the promise of property and progeny. When the Israelites lost their land, they lost a large part of their identity, which most likely accounts for the development of the second telling of the story. In this version, Israel was chosen to receive the Torah. In this telling, YHVH chose the Israelites to receive a set of instructions that would enable them to receive divine blessing and become a blessing to the other nations of the world.

 

                        The Bible presents post-Exodus Israel with a high degree of unity. It does maintain that there are twelve distinct tribes, but it also suggests a level of unity that is unlikely until the period of the monarchy. It is most likely that the individual tribes functioned independently of one another, while maintaining a loose confederation, hinting that there was no formalized national government during this period. The Book of Judges supports this reconstruction. Governance was local, managed by various charismatic, war-heroes, referred to as judges. In the course of about two centuries, this antecedent, tribal confederation evolved into a fairly united monarchy.

 

c. 1025 B.C.E.                The cause of this greater political cohesion was the arrival of a group of people who settled along the Palestinian Coast, the Philistines. The Philistines did not merely seek to conquer the Israelites, they seemed intent on destroying them. It became clear that a tighter national form a government was needed to face the Philistine threat. The Israelites chose Saul to be the ruler of Israel, although the Hebrew word is not the standard word for king (melech), designating, perhaps, that he was chosen to be more of a commander-in-chief rather than a king. Regardless of his actual political designation and function, he soon provoked the resentment of Samuel, an influential tribal judge, who threw his support behind a young warrior named David. From that point, Saul faced the dual threat of Philistine invasion and civil war. 

 

c. 1000 B.C.E.                The matter of kingship was ultimately settled when Saul and his immediate heirs were killed in battle by the Philistines. David was anointed king, spending his long reign securing his position as monarch of a united Israel, establishing the cult of YHVH as the official religion, and breaking the back of Philistine power. It is for these reasons that David was considered the model of what a good king should look like. In spite of his obvious personal flaws, he saved Israel from extinction while expanding its borders.

 

c. 961 B.C.E.                After forty years of David’s rule, the monarchy was an established fact. This is evinced by the relatively smooth transition of power from David to his son, Solomon. The reign of Solomon marks the peak of Israel’s power and influence. The united monarchy would not survive another transition of power. Cracks were beginning to form in the national unity of Israel during Solomon’s reign. Although Solomon is said to have received the gift of wisdom from YHVH, he apparently misplaced that gift during the latter years of his reign. The Bible presents him as coming under the influence of his foreign wives. He imposed high taxes and treated his subjects as forced laborers. Solomon also attempted to stamp out the last vestiges of tribal affiliation by partitioning the nation into twelve districts that ignored traditional tribal boundaries

 

722 B.C.E.                When he died around 922 B.C.E., the kingdom split into the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. The divided monarchy was no match for the political entities forming in Mesopotamia. The kingdom of Judah had the advantage of being insulated from the large empires that were forming in the region, but this insulation could not keep it from becoming a vassal of the Assyrian Empire along with the Kingdom of Israel. In 722 B.C.E. the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians. The Israelite people were exiled from their homeland and non-Israelites were imported into the region. This is the beginning of the hatred of the Samaritans, who were considered the impure mixture of foreign importees and Israelite peasants. 

 

                        The Kingdom of Judah was blockaded by the Assyrian army, but a battle never took place between the two nations. It is interesting to see the ancient spin-doctors at work. The Bible states that the Assyrians intended to attack Jerusalem, but YHVH sent a plague among their army and Assyrians fled home in a panic. The Assyrian documents state that they had made their point by blockading Jerusalem, hemming the king of Judah in like “a bird in a cage”; and therefore, there was no reason to conquer the city. Regardless of what may actually of happened during that encounter, Judah ultimately survived by cultivating an alliance with an emerging power in the region, the Neo-Babylonians. 

 

586 B.C.E.                A joint army of the Neo-Babylonians and the Medes rebelled against the Assyrians, capturing their capital of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. The Kingdom of Judah soon found itself a vassal of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Judah attempted twice to free itself from Babylonian dominance. Both attempts were unsuccessful, the second attempt bringing about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The people of Judah were exiled to Babylon.

 

                        In spite of passages in the Bible that suggest that the entire population was removed from Judah and transported to Babylon, the historical evidence, as well as statements in other biblical accounts make it clear that only a portion of the population was carried off to Babylon. Exile was a common practice in the ancient world. As previously mentioned, the Assyrians practiced it over a century before when it conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel. The logic of exile seemed to be that if troublesome ethnic groups were forced to settle with other ethnic groups, outside their cultural-comfort zone, the various ethnic groups would intermarry, blending ethnic distinctions and identities. This is what happened to the Kingdom of Israel. Their nobles and leaders were moved away, others were moved into Israel and both groups lost their distinct identities.

 

                        This appears to have been the goal of the Babylonian overlords who destroyed Jerusalem. The nobles, rulers and anyone thought to be potentially dangerous in their national homeland were transplanted to Babylon. In fact, the captivity of 586 B.C.E. was the second time that the Babylonians resorted to the process of exile in Judah. The first time occurred in 597 B.C.E. when Babylon deported members of the royal family, including king Jehoiachin, as well as important military personnel and leaders. The Babylonians placed Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, on the throne, but did not transfer other captives into Judah. It was Zedekiah’s attempt to free himself from Babylonian dominance that brought Jerusalem’s destruction. Again the royal family and prominent members of society were removed from Judah and taken to Babylon. Once more Babylon refrained from importing other captives into Judah. The Babylonians did, however, merge the former Kingdom of Judah with the province of Samaria, the former Kingdom of Israel, perhaps hoping that the Samaritans and the Judeans would intermingle as the Israelites had done.

 

                        Based upon the historical precedent of the northern kingdom, this should have been the end of any remnant of Israel. Those who remained in Palestine would slowly lose their ethnic identities through intermarriage with the surrounding peoples, and those who were carted off to Babylon would soon lose their identities in their new surroundings, becoming good Babylonians. Yet, unlike their northern cousins, the Jews of Judah did not lose their collective identity. To be sure, some Jews accommodated themselves to Babylonian culture and subsequently lost their Jewishness, and some of the Jews who were not exiled did intermarry, but these appear to be the minority. When the Babylonian Captivity ended fifty years later in 539 B.C.E., there was a considerable population who had retained their Jewishness and who were ready to reoccupy their ancestral homeland.