MBI Israel and the fall of cities Jericho and Ai

by Damien F. Mackey “Analysis of the archaeology directed Courville … to the fact that Israel entered the Promised Land at the close of Early Bronze III …. Widespread destruction of Canaanite population centers, especially Jericho and Ai, occurred at this time”. Ronald P. Long JOSHUA’S JERICHO Drs. Donovan Courville and John Osgood, both largely ignored, have nonetheless been able to demonstrate that a true pattern for the Joshuan Conquest, archaeologically, must be one that recognises the nomadic Israelite conquerors, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) people, as those who conquered the Early Bronze III (EBIII) cities of Palestine, such as Jericho and Ai. The popular model today, as espoused by the likes of Drs. Bryant Wood and David Rohl, arguing instead for a Middle Bronze Jericho at the time of Joshua, ends up throwing right out of kilter the biblico-historical correspondences. Ronald P. Long (MA) writes as follows when reviewing Dr. Courville’s historical revision set (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/BookReviews1949-1989/12-73.html): Analysis of the archaeology directed Courville … to the fact that Israel entered the Promised Land at the close of Early Bronze III …. Widespread destruction of Canaanite population centers, especially Jericho and Ai, occurred at this time. All acknowledge the parallelism between the end of the Old Kingdom (specifically Dynasty VI) and the end of Early Bronze III. It is at this juncture in Egyptian affairs that Courville rediscovered that the Exodus happened. The contemporaneity of the Exodus with the end of Early Bronze III and the end of the Old Kingdom has chronological ramifications which alter to a considerable degree the historic structure of the ancient world. Locating the Exodus in the fifteenth century B.C. gives chronological orientation to Early Bronze and the Old Kingdom. Courville brings the beginnings of Early Bronze and Dynasty I down to the post-Flood era towards the end of the third millennium B.C. This development confronts us with the realization that the accepted Manethonian dynastic scheme, of placing one dynasty after another while not admitting the existence of contemporary dynasties, is fallacious. Within the framework of Biblical chronology Courville concludes that the Old and Middle Kingdoms of Egypt were roughly equivalent in time - that this period was brought to climax and swift collapse with the intervention of God in the Exodus. …. Velikovsky over two decades ago drew similar conclusions regarding the Second Intermediate. It has been recognized that the Papyrus Ipuwer is the Egyptian version of what happened. …. Dr John Osgood, I find, brings a perspective to biblico-historical archaeology that is often quite lacking in other revisionist efforts. Regarding the MBI people, Dr. Osgood has written, correcting the conventional timetable (“The Times of the Judges - The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest”): http://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest Characteristics of MB I Middle Bronze I was primarily a nomadic culture between two settled cultures. This point seemed to bring some weight of unanimity earlier but is being disputed much today for complex reasons, and is now the subject of new theories embracing both nomadic parts and sedentary parts, a theory which itself does little to clear up the historical enigma of this archaeological culture. Kenyon strongly states this nomadic character in a discussion on Jericho: — “In one area seventeen successive stages in the town walls can be identified. The seventeenth was violently destroyed by fire and its destruction marks the end of the Early Bronze Age town, probably ca.2300 B.C. The catastrophe was the work of nomadic invaders who can be identified as the Amorites, and the succeeding period can best be described as Intermediate Early Bronze—Middle Bronze. The newcomers for long only camped on the site, and when they ultimately built houses, they were of flimsy construction. They never built a town wall.” …. Kenyon’s identification of the invaders as the Amorites is speculative and is here disputed. Indeed, this claim has fallen into some disrepute of late. However, we wish to put forward a new model based on the evidence to be presented. Ruth Amiram comments: “We have refrained in this discussion from dealing with the most intriguing problem of the MB I culture in Palestine, namely its nomadic character usually connected with the Amorites.” …. Albright also comments: “The settlements were clearly seasonal, since the only time of the year in which such arid districts could provide enough water for beasts, men and growing crops is during the months December–May (preferably January–April). Here people lived in round stone huts of “beehive” type, terraced small valleys and suitable hillsides, utilizing flash floods (suyul) to irrigate specially prepared fields. After the harvest, they probably did not remain long since…” …. To be sure, the nomadic nature of this has been challenged, (e.g. Cohen and Dever ….) but the belief still stands as Amiram has said: “This theory has long been contested, but much more stratigraphical evidence is required than available at present for any significant advance towards its verification.” …. Sadly, the biblical model of Israel’s wandering and conquest has not been consulted, yet it provides the logical answer, viz, a people nomadic for period, yet stationary in Sinai and the Negev I periods of up to a year at least, at any one spot, but, journeying for ultimate conquest, encampment and settlement. This model, which is the logical model fitting the facts, will continue not to be consulted so long as the present stubborn resistance to biblical historicity remains, and so the argument over the MB I culture will continue. One ought to read in full on this matter of the MBI people Dr. Rudolph Cohen’s authoritative, “The Mysterious MBI People” (BAR 9:04, Jul-Aug 1983). In part, he writes: I have been studying the MBI sites in the Central Negev for almost two decades now. The result of this study can, I believe, elucidate some of the outstanding issues. My own conclusion is that the MBI culture must be differentiated from those both preceding and following it. MBI is, in this sense, intermediate. But I also agree with Dever that some MBI pottery types represent a continuation of Early Bronze types. In this sense I see clear connections between the MBI and the Early Bronze Age which preceded it. But other new aspects of MBI culture, including burial customs and social structure, imply a new ethnic element. Thus, the MBI culture is also intrusive; migrating peoples who destroyed the existing urban centers must be involved. But this new ethnic element was neither Amorite nor “Kurgan” peoples who supposedly came from the north and east. In my view, the new MBI population came from the south and the Sinai, the route of the Israelites on that journey known as the Exodus. This is a new hypothesis published here for the first time. …. … Arad, until now assumed to have been destroyed at the end of EBII, was in fact destroyed at the end of EBIII. The excavator of Arad may have assumed there was no EBIII material at Arad because of the absence of Khirbet Kerak ware, but as noted above, Khirbet Kerak ware may not have penetrated this far south. Accordingly, the hole-mouth jars and other material from Arad may evidence EBII and EBIII settlement. If I am correct, Arad was destroyed at the end of EBIII by the MBI people—perhaps they were incipient Israelites, what we might call “proto-Israelites.” Incidentally, this destruction of Arad would coincide with the destruction of Jericho at the end of EBIII. The MBI newcomers, to be sure, transformed the basic nature of the Central Negev settlement. While the scattered EBII sites were closely connected with fortified urban centers such as Arad, the MBI people were self-sufficient without any connection with urban centers. If one accepts this reconstruction of events, we can demonstrate a northerly migration—from the Sinai—of the MBI population …. Note that a large concentration of MBI settlements existed in the Nahal Nissana-Be’erotayim-Be’er Resisim vicinity. From here, the settlements spread out across the southwestern part of the Central Negev to the area of Har Yeruham, then to the region of Horvat Telma and the Dimona Hills, and from there, on the one hand, along Nahal Dimona and Nahal Ef’e, northwards to the Arad environs, and on the other, eastwards into the southern Dead Sea district and Transjordan. There is evidence too for another route from the Avdat-Nahal Zin area eastwards into the Aravah and then into Transjordan. Another route led from the Kadesh Barnea area southward to the Uvdah Valley and from there eastward into Transjordan. It appears that the MBI people, as they went along, destroyed the EBII settlements, and for the most part, reoccupied the ruins. Although these settlements are customarily dated to the EBII period, in my view they continued to exist in the EBIII period, as I stated in my discussion of Arad above. A slow-moving invasion of this sort would explain some of the unusual characteristics of the MBI material culture, such as the use of EBII prototypes in its pottery repertoire. The MBI peoples apparently had few technical traditions of their own and adapted those they found in use among the settled population they conquered. Naturally, they adapted the EBII forms to their own way of life, and the result was the characteristic MBI vessels, which recall the earlier models but employ different techniques and decoration. This hypothesis, of course, contradicts the prevailing assessment, which describes the MBI sites in the Central Negev as a movement that came from the north. It is interesting, however, to note that this migratory drift, as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking similarity to that of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt to the Promised Land, as recorded in the book of Exodus. The concentration of MBI sites in the relatively fertile district east of Kadesh-Barnea recalls the tradition that the Israelites encamped near this oasis for 38 of their 40 years of wandering after leaving Egypt (Deuteronomy 1-46). If the EBII communities were still flourishing in the Negev and Sinai at the time of this MBI incursion, then the capital city of EB Arad with its satellites in the desert no doubt formed a kind of league like that of the Canaanite king of Arad, described in Numbers 21-1, and like that of the Amalekites in Exodus 17-8–13. Both no doubt offered fierce resistance to the northward-advancing MBI Israelites. The establishment of the MBI settlements directly over the ruins of the EBII–EBIII sites in the Central Negev is consistent with the tradition that the Israelites dwelled in the area previously inhabited by their Amalekite foes (Deuteronomy 25-17–19). The northeastward migration of the MBI population into Transjordan has parallels in the Biblical recollection that the Israelites remained in Moab before crossing the Jordan River and laying siege to Jericho (Deuteronomy 3-29). In this connection, it is interesting to note that Early Bronze Age Jericho was destroyed by a violent conflagration, and the site was thinly reoccupied by MBI newcomers, who were apparently unaccustomed to urban dwellings. In the central and northern parts of Israel, the EBIII urban culture flourished. The MBI invaders in the south overwhelmed this urban Canaanite civilization and destroyed their cities but thereafter persisted in a semi-nomadic way of life. This bears a striking similarity to the tradition of Joshua’s devastating campaign against the Canaanite centers in central Palestine and his ban on rebuilding some of them (e.g., Joshua 8-28). Both Jericho and Ai were fortified cities at the end of the Early Bronze Age. According to the Biblical account, they were both destroyed by the Israelites; God specifically instructed that these cities should not be rebuilt. Interestingly enough, after the EBIII destruction of Jericho and Ai, both cities lay in ruins for hundreds of years. Having successfully taken over Palestine, the MBI tribes were profoundly influenced by the mores of the people they conquered, and many of their artifacts and customs have their origin in the Early Bronze Age. I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not automatically be ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period. The migration of the MBI population from the southwest and their conquest of the Early Bronze civilization evidently made a very deep impression, and the memory of these events was preserved from one generation to the next. The late Yohanan Aharoni … made a similar suggestion when he noted that the Biblical tradition concerning the destruction of the two Canaanite cities Arad and Horma could not be placed, archaeologically speaking, in the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age (there were no cities there then)—although this is the period to which the arrival of the Hebrews is normally ascribed—but had remarkable parallels in MBII, when these two strategic outposts in the Beer-Sheva basin guarded the country’s southern approaches. (Aharoni identified Biblical Arad with MBII Tel Malhata and Horma with MBII Tel Masos.) He maintained that the recollection of these two important sites was perpetuated among the local populace and appeared in the Biblical saga of the conquest. The similarity between the course of the MBI migration and the route of the Exodus seems too close to be coincidental, and a comparable process may have operated here. The Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.)—the period usually associated with the Israelites’ flight from Egypt—is archaeologically unattested in the Kadesh-Barnea area (as elsewhere in the Central Negev, for that matter), but MBI remains abound and seem to provide a concrete background for the traditions of settlement. Whether the Israelites’ trek from Egypt actually occurred in this period or was based on a dim memory of an earlier migration and conquest along this route cannot yet be determined with certainty. But the background of the journey seems clearly to be related to that mysterious archaeological period we so dryly call MBI. …. Dr Osgood likewise will show, with the use of various maps, how the archaeological distribution of the MBI people substantially accords with that of the invading Israelites at the time of Joshua. Further on, Dr. Osgood will present this argument for the EBIII Jericho as being the level attacked by the forces of Joshua, before concluding that: “The correspondence is exact”. …. Region 4—The Conquest of Palestine The MB I people of Palestine were a new people, a new civilization, and a new culture. Some have disputed this, but the evidence remains strong. For example, Kathleen Kenyon says: “The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry using old and broken bricks and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed, for all the finds show that there was an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows the same break. The newcomers were nomads, not interested in town life and they so completely drove out or absorbed the old population perhaps already weakened and decadent that all traces of the Early Bronze civilization disappeared.” …. Ruth Amiram also presses very hard the point that the MB I was a new culture: “The break with the preceding period was indeed a sharp one and allowed only few left–overs of previous traditions to persist. The succeeding period, however, follows a normal course of development. The MB IIA period, epitomised in the strata G–F at Tell Beit Mirsim and Strata X1V–XIIIB at Megiddo, constitutes the link between the culture of the period under discussion and the ‘true Middle Bronze Age’ (Kenyon’s description of the MB IIB loc.cit.). Some of the characteristic types of pottery have been arranged in Table form in Figure 1 to show their development from MB I through its Megiddo family to MB IIA. This line of continuity constitutes our main reason for retaining the old term and rejecting the new.” …. The end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, starting with Middle Bronze I therefore, is the most serious contender for the period of the Conquest, and if that be the case, then Middle Bronze I pottery must be a serious contender for the pottery of the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and in their first settlement of the land. Likewise, Ruth Amiran rejects a distinct cultural break at the end of Late Bronze as needed by the accepted chronology, and clearly places the new beginning at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age after the end of Early Bronze III. I quote: “In the discussion pertaining to the transition from the Early Bronze period to the Middle Bronze, we have emphasized the sharp cultural break between these two worlds. From the MB I onwards, the development from the material culture (to judge by its reflection in the pottery) is continuous, gradual and evolutionary to the end of the Iron Age or even later.” …. Not that Ruth Amiram was proposing a new chronology. On the contrary, she accepted the belief that the Israelite invasion occurred at the end of Late Bronze, and sadly I believe has missed the significance and poignancy of her own words, as has Kenyon before her. Let us look at the biblical narrative of the Conquest and follow it step by step, looking at what cities have been excavated to see the consistency with the biblical narrative both historically and geographically. JERICHO The first conquest of Joshua in Palestine was Jericho. Garstang originally identified the destruction period of Jericho’s Canaanite city as the end of Late Bronze Age. However Kathleen Kenyon in her monumental excavation of Jericho has identified the destruction level which Garstang uncovered as the end of the Early Bronze Age III. Of this, she says that it came with “catastrophic completeness” …. This was succeeded by a temporary occupation by the MB I people (Kenyon’s Early Bronze—Middle Bronze). She says: “It is thus probable that there was a phase of occupation of the tell in which there were no solid structures. That there was such a camping phase would fit the evidence from the tombs of the nomadic and tribal organization of the newcomers.” …. Such a description matches exactly what we would expect of some of the Israelite host camping on the site after its destruction, until they were finally settled elsewhere. Jericho at the end EB III is the logical place to see Joshua’s conquest. The same holds true for Ai, Joshua’s next battle zone (Joshua chapters 7 and 8). AI Ai has been identified with Et Tell, west of Jericho. This site has been excavated by several expeditions which have concluded that occupation of Et Tell occurred as follows: …. Early Bronze Ib Early Bronze Ic—destruction Early Bronze II—destruction—? earthquake Early Bronze IIIa Early Bronze IIIb—destruction Iron Age I Et Tell was left a ruin for a long period of time at the end of Early Bronze III. “Violent destruction overtook the city of Ai ca.2400 B.C. during the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt and a ‘dark age’ fell upon the land with the appearance of nomadic invaders from the desert. The site was abandoned and left in ruins.” …. This was the end of EB III. As Calloway, the Biblical Archaeologist author just quoted, has accepted the Israelite conquest placed at the end of the Late Bronze Age due to his reliance on the Egyptian and evolutionary–based chronology currently held, an absence of a Late Bronze period at Et Tell was a problem. This has resulted in many doubting that Et Tell is in fact biblical Ai. To quote Calloway: “It will be seen that the absence of any Canaanite city later than EB greatly complicates interpretation of the biblical Israelite conquest of Ai, for the mound was unoccupied at the time and had not been occupied since before the end of the third millennium BC.” …. The time referred to as “the biblical conquest” in that author’s view was the end of Late Bronze. No question is raised by the author as to the correctness of that currently held chronology, but simply a strained interpretation of the biblical narrative and thus a question of its credibility as an historical document is inferred. “Whether the tradition in Joshua claims for Israel a conquest in reality attributable to her predecessors in the land (over 1,000 years before!) or whether Israel’s conquest of a different site has in the tradition been transferred to Ai can only be conjectured.” …. Not even the slightest question of the credibility of the accepted chronology is raised. Its hold on the discipline is too great. Had the biblical documents been taken at face value and allowed to be the prime measure, the end of EB III at Ai, as well as at Jericho and other sites, would have confirmed the record of Scripture so vividly that all questions would have dissipated. But the confusion of the accepted chronology is allowed to continue. It is my claim that the biblical documents must be the rule and these allow the profound destruction of EB III all across Palestine to be identified as the destruction of Joshua’s conquest. It is so at both Ai and Jericho. The correspondence is exact. …. Back in 1986, I, still early in the process of trying to come to grips with the conflicting revisionist models for the Conquest (whether (EBA or MBA), wrote to the Journal of Creation as follows: https://creation.com/techlets I have just finished reading your excellent Journal of Creation, vol.2, 1986, and I decided to send you some material and some contacts which should be of special help to you. I am very taken with your re-arrangement of stratigraphy and your new model for the Stone Age. I had been convinced that Bimson’s MBA = Conquest was the correct one, but lately half of the revisionists overseas have been developing a new scheme of EB III = Conquest, and they too, like Bimson, come up with some very telling arguments. All revisionists of course reject the conventional placing of the Conquest in Late Bronze. I note that your references in your revised history include Velikovsky, Courville, Dr Taylor and Bimson (one book only). I wonder if you are aware of the tremendous amount of research that is going on overseas—and has been for about a decade—on the revision. Scholars from all over the world have been examining, analysing and revising Velikovsky’s work in minute detail and have corrected many mistakes and have brought the revision to a greater perfection. Unfortunately in your excellent work you have not tackled the major criticisms which have been levelled at the revised stratigraphies of Conquest = EBA, or MBA. Some of these difficulties I hope to point out in the course of this letter. I think that your articles would have been much more encouraging had you tackled and overcome these apparent anomalies. I should like to put before you the following queries, not by way of criticism, but for my own enlightenment: Jericho The Bible says that there was no city at Jericho between the Conquest and the reign of Ahab. I think in your scheme that you would run into the strongly fortified MB II city filling what should be an empty period. Hazor Hazor was burned to the ground, yet there is no evidence of destruction by burning of this city at the end of EBA. Megiddo The Bible says that the Israelites were unable to take this city, yet EBA shows evidence of devastation and a hiatus. Ai and Bethel I strongly recommend that you read D. Livingston’s ‘Location of biblical Bethel and Ai reconsidered’, Westminster Theological Journal, 33 (1970), pp.20–44), if you have not already done so. Livingston uses biblical data to show that the conventional location of Ai (and consequently Bethel) at Et-Tell contradicts biblical evidence. Ai must be re-located. My supervisor, who is not necessarily a fan of Velikovsky (Dr Noel Weeks), has been to Et Tell and believes that Livingston is right in saying that this is not biblical Ai. I think too that Shechem might be a problem in your scheme of things. From the Bible it would seem that Shechem was a small settlement at the time of Abraham, but a city at the time of Jacob. It seems to me that according to your scheme Shechem would be the same size in Jacob’s time as in Abraham’s. Correct me if I am wrong. Also Prof. Stiebing, who has criticised at various times the schemes of all revisionists (see Biblical Archaeological Review, July/August 1985, pp.53–69), raises the problem of the absence of LBA remains at Samaria as regards the EBA Conquest Reconstruction. Dr. John Osgood was kind enough to answer my queries: Dr John Osgood responds Thank you for your comments. I will endeavour to answer the queries you raise. Jericho:- You point out that by my revision I would be confronted with a strongly fortified city at Jericho during MB II, and of course you are correct. This, however, is not such a problem as it would at first seem. For while the Bible makes it clear that the old EB III city of Jericho (destroyed by Joshua in my scheme) was not rebuilt until the days of Ahab, 1 Kings 16:34 (beginning of Iron I in my revision), it does make it clear that a fortress city, with a palace, capable of stationing 10,000 troops was built somewhere associated with the site of old Jericho, ‘the city of palm trees’, by Eglon, king of Moab; who in turn was driven out by Ehud ben Cera, no comment being made about the fate of the city so built (see Judges 3:12–30, and Deuteronomy 34:3 and 2 Chronicles 28:15). This is the end of MB IIA—beginning of MB IIB by my scheme, and is detailed in ‘Times of the Judges’, part 2(b) (this volume). One can assume that some repopulation by Israelites took place in this strong city, and it is certain that there was a place of habitation at Jericho during David’s reign (see 2 Samuel 10:5) MB IIC/LB I by this scheme. The MB II city of Jericho fits these characteristics exactly. Moreover, Eglon assumed power with the help of Amalek. The equation Amalek = Hyksos of Egypt I fully accept, as suggested by Velikovsky and Courville, and I have detailed this in my papers in Journal of Creation, vol. 1 (1984) and this volume. It is certain that this MB II city was heavily associated with Hyksos artifacts, as one would expect under such circumstances. Regarding the destruction of Hazor,—there are no findings at the end of EB III Hazor that are inconsistent with the Israelite conquest. It is true that no destruction by burning has been found, but a brief consideration of the likely historical scenario and the excavation details should dispel any insurmountable problem. First, the EB III strata were deep, the uppermost being stratum XIX, found only on the Tell and not on the Plateau. Consequently the chance of getting a fully representative area of any size was small, so arguing from the silence has difficulties. Second, the biblical record only tells of burning, not of any other type of malice committed against the superstructure. The Israelites would have camped over a wide area of the Plateau and not necessarily the Tell to any great extent, so the amount of deposit available for encapsulating in time is totally speculative and most likely small considering the size of the Plateau available for habitation. Assuming the correctness of my identification of the MB I people (Albright nomenclature) with the conquering Israelites, then it is clear that their habitation through MB II and LBA also included the Plateau. It is highly likely therefore that the density of people on the Tell may have been as scanty as the number of MB I artifacts testify. Furthermore the elements (rain, etc.) may well have taken their toll over a significant period of time. It is clear, however, that the population of Hazor EB III disappeared from the Tell. I find, therefore, no difficulties whatsoever in accepting the end of EB III Hazor as being consistent with the biblical record of the Israelite conquest. Megiddo. This city rather than contradicting the EB III conquest, confirms the details of scripture in a remarkable way. The excavators of Megiddo originally identified stratum XVI as the last of the EB III and this was totally destroyed. However, subsequent study has confirmed that stratum XV, originally dated by the excavators to MB IIA also belonged to the EB III (Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land III, p.837), so that the destruction of stratum XVI dates to a time during the EB III and not at the end. I suggest that Jabin may well be a candidate for that destruction in the course of his taking control of Megiddo. (I believe the Khirbet Kerah ware should be understood against the background of Jabin’s hegemony.) Moreover, Megiddo is distinguished by the absence of a clear stratum dating to the MB I. Stratum XII is MB IIB. The intervening strata (XIII–XIV) show admixture of more than one type of culture. In my papers in Journal of Creation, vol. 2 (1986) and this volume I have attempted to show that the pottery culture represented from Megiddo during these periods, which is Amiram’s family C, shows features of EB III and MB I–II giving a late culture called by some EB IV which I have insisted is a syncretic culture that represents the compromised Israelite culture with Canaanite admixture described in Judges 1. I believe Megiddo confirms the biblical details. The Bible indicates that Megiddo became a compromise culture. The excavations at Megiddo confirm elements of a new culture, MB I, and yet the continuation of the EB III traditions in some respects, e.g. the continuation of the use of the EB III sacred precinct (Encyclopaedia III, p.841 and signs suggestive of a return to pottery traditions of earlier periods (Amiram, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, p. 81; also Oren, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 210]. Ai and Bethel are a different situation altogether, and I do not believe we can be assured of a solution at this point in time. I have not seen a copy of Livingston’s paper as yet, but certain other details are worth mentioning. W. Ross in Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1941), p.22–27 reasoned, I believe correctly, that the Bethel of Jeroboam must be Shechem, since it alone fills the requirements. The Bethel of Jacob, and of Joshua-Luz, was found on the border of Benjamin, so it is this Bethel around which our argument must revolve. The question is whether Beiten is this Bethel and hence Et Tell is Ai, or whether we look for another. Another location may be needed, but it does not particularly affect the revised chronology I have presented. Beiten did appear to have some EB occupation, but the findings were not up to the expectation of the Judges 1 narrative. Major occupation with the MB I culture began and continued thereafter. It is Et Tell, however, which I feel should have some comment. If the MB I people were the Israelites, then Et Tell in isolation would fit the narrative extremely well. It shows termination of occupation at the end of EB III, and no reoccupation until Iron II (perhaps Aiath in Isaiah 10:28; see also the exiles in Ezra 2:28). Its topography fits the story of Joshua, with a northern Wadi a small distance away enabling Joshua to draw the people out of the city, and a close western slope near the city where the ambush could hide, yet quickly enter the city as needed. I am not entirely convinced with the arguments I have seen rejecting it on either excavation details or topography, although I sense that geographical argument may carry more weight. In any case, those who have rejected it on excavation grounds have done so on the basis of an end of LB conquest, which is here rejected. Whatever may be the truth of the identities of Ai and Bethel, at this point in time it does not materially affect the chronology here espoused. Shechem: This is no problem to the revised chronology presented here, since the passage concerning Abraham and Shechem, viz. Genesis 12:6, does not indicate that a city of any consequence was then present there. On the other hand, Jacob’s contact makes it clear that there was a significant city present later (Genesis 33 and 34), but only one which was able to be overwhelmed by a small party of Jacob’s sons who took it by surprise. I would date any evidence of civilisation at these times to the late Chalcolithic in Abraham’s case, and to EB I in Jacob’s case, the latter being the most significant. The Bible is silent about Shechem until the Israelite conquest, after which it is apparent that it developed a significant population until the destruction of the city in the days of Abimelech. If the scriptural silence is significant, then no evidence of occupation would be present after EB I until MB I and no significant building would occur until the MB IIC. Shechem was rebuilt by Jeroboam I, and continued thereafter until the Assyrian captivity. Moreover, Shechem was almost certainly the Bethel of Jeroboam, during the divided kingdom. So I would expect heavy activity during the majority of LB and all of Iron I. This is precisely the findings at Shechem, with the exception that the earliest periods have not had sufficient area excavated to give precise details about the Chalcolithic and EB I. No buildings have yet been brought to light from these periods, but these periods are clearly represented at Shechem. MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction, so almost certainly it was the city of Abimelech. The population’s allegiance to Hamor and Shechem could easily be explained by a return of descendants of the Shechem captives taken by Jacob’s son, now returned after the Exodus nostalgically to Shechem, rather than by a continuation of the population through intervening periods (see Judges 9:28, Genesis 34). For Jeroboam’s city and after, the numerous LB and Iron I strata are a sufficient testimony (see Biblical Archaeology, XX,XXVL and XXXII). Samaria again is better explained by this revised chronology. Cultural periods must show blurring into one another depending on conditions. On my revision the Omri Dynasty would occupy a LB II/Iron I position, with more likely emphasis on Iron in view of the newness of the building at Samaria, whereas in Judah at the same time, which did not have the turbulent politics of the northern kingdom, we may expect some carry over from the LB II. Hence, by my revision I would expect a beginning of Samaria to be dated to the beginning of the Iron I period, with the first buildings being dated to both Omri and Ahab. Absence of LBA remains at Samaria therefore do not trouble me. I believe that the nexus Ahab/Jehoshaphat defines the turnabout to the early Iron I period, and that the frequent casemate walls found throughout this part of the Iron I are to be seen against the building activities of these two kings, especially those found throughout Judah (see 2 Chronicles 17:12—storage cities), particularly in the Negev. They are not Solomon’s cities as so frequently assumed. ….

Exodus Israelites march into Transjordan

by Damien F. Mackey It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI ON MIDIAN After we read about the death of the patriarch Isaac, aged 180 (Genesis 35:28-29), the narrative proceeds, in Genesis 36, to list the descendants of Esau. Verses 31-43 are about the various Kings of Edom (v. 31): “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned ….”. Professor Emmanuel Anati, when discussing the Midianites in the context of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, will refer to one of the Edomite kings (The Mountain of God, 1986, p. 202). Midian, he said, consisted of five tribes (Genesis 25:1-4), “the Midianite confederacy”, as he described it, and Midian was “defeated by Hadad, son of Bedad (36:35)”. Most relevant will be the first king mentioned in the Edomite list (36:32): “Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah”. He is the famous seer, “Balaam son of Beor”, of Numbers 22-24 – a true historical character. Also, in the Book of Numbers we read about a census taken “of the whole Israelite community” (1:2). Verses 5-15 list the heads of each tribal family. Two names in particular stand out for me (v. 6), “from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai”. These names recur again in the Book of Judith, which work commentators tend to dismiss as a ‘didactic’ or ‘historical fiction’ (Judith 8:1): “… Salamiel, Sarasadai”. The pair are listed towards the end of a sixteen-generation long Simeonite genealogy. Professor Anati also makes a point here about Egyptian dynastic chronology. It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. One’s opting for, for instance, pharaoh Amenemes IV, the presumed last king of the Twelfth Dynasty, for the stubborn ruler of the Exodus (a recent suggestion), would not have taken into account that clue from Exodus 2:23 which seems to hint at a change of dynasty. Poor old Amenemes so-called IV has been variously touted by revisionists as the Exodus ruler, or his first born son, or even as Moses himself. Professor Anati, who has hypothesised that the location of Jethro’s Midianite tribe at the time of Moses’ sojourn was in and near the Uvda[h] Valley, believes that he has found archaeological evidence for their settlement there (op. cit., p. 204): My hypothesis is that Jethro’s tribe lived in the Uvda Valley as well as in other places in the southern Negev north of Eilat … recently archaeological explorations in these areas has brought to light important concentrations of small dwellings from the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Ages … huts, agricultural structures, threshing-floors, and livestock enclosures, as well as the cult sites, altars and boulder-menhirs …”. Jethro, professor Anati had noted (p. 202) was also called Reuel, “shepherd of God”. The root of the name “Jethro” is itr, he says, “and implies superiority, as a superior man”. Jethro was undoubtedly the boss. Whilst on the subject of the Midianites and the Holy Mountain, professor Anati, commenting on the Divine name, will take a swipe at the JEDP version of it (p. 203): The term Elohim defines Yahweh as the God of the fathers, which is the third title after Elohim and Yahweh. The term Yahweh embraces the three tenses of the verb “to be”: was, is, and will be. The number three is repeated once again, for the third time, in the title of “God of the three fathers”, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God revealed himself three times in this narrative as the one and triune God, in three different manners: three names, three tenses, and the God of the three patriarchs. It is difficult to accept the hypothesis of those who see this extremely compact and coherent text as the merging of two distinct sources, the Elohim and Yahwetist traditions. …. In Numbers 13, Moses will send men “to spy out the land of Canaan”, one man from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Here we are given an eye-witness account of the Promised Land at the time (vv. 21-25): So they went up and spied out the land from the Wilderness of Zin as far as Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath. And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs. The place was called the Valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the men of Israel cut down there. And they returned from spying out the land after forty days. Spooked by the giants in the land, though, and by the large, fortified cities, the spies will advise against entering (vv. 27-29). Not so Joshua and Caleb, the only two of the Exodus generation who will ultimately enter the Promised Land (v. 39): “Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, ‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it’.” Dr. David Rohl writes that the name of Caleb (tribe of Judah) has been found at Gezer etched in Proto-Sinaitic script (From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible, p. 227): A potsherd from the MB II-B stratum at Gezer (conquered by the Israelites) bears three Proto-Sinaitic signs scratched onto its surface. The letters k-l-b spell out the name Caleb (‘dog’), and, as we have seen, this was the name of the Israelite chieftain who led the war against the cities of the south. DR JOHN OSGOOD ON TRANSJORDAN Dr. John Osgood has provided a sound archaeological reconstruction of the Transjordanian region at the time of Israel’s incursion, meanwhile showing that the sites of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. - claimed by some to be Pentapolis (Sodom) – belonged, instead, to the Conquest era: https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest Historical Framework Numbers 21 fills in some fascinating history about Trans Jordan. The following facts emerge, from the north downwards …: 1. The Amorite king, Og, ruled in Bashan in the far north. 2. It appears that the original kingdom of Sihon, the Amorite, was just north of the Wadi Zerqa, known in the Bible as the River Jabbok (Numbers 21:24) 3. It appears originally that the former king of Moab had ruled the area south of the River right down to the Wadi el Hasa (Wadi Zared) 4. Prior to Israel conquest of this area, Sihon had conquered the area between the River Jabbok and the Arnon River from the former king of Moab. It appears, importantly for our discussion, that he did not totally drive out the Moabites from this area but they served him (Numbers 21:29, where captivity is mentioned). 5. In the days of Israel’s conquest, Moab under Balak, king of Moab, was the territory between the Wadi el Hasa and Wadi Mujib (Arnon). …. The conquest by Israel of Trans Jordan extended from the Wadi Mujib right up north to include all the area of Bashan—in other words, all the area of Sihon and all the area of Og, king of Bashan. It explicitly did not include the main area of Moab, south of the Wadi Mujib …. These facts will give us the following guide archaeologically …: 1. The northern kingdom of Bashan should show evidence of Amorite civilization, here equated with EB III, which was ended by the MB I peoples, here called Israel. 2. The area of Gilead north of the Jabbok River but south of Bashan should have exactly the same pattern as that of Bashan EB III superseded by MB I civilization, where Israel settled. 3. The area between the Wadi Mijib (Arnon) and the Wadi Jabbok will show evidence of three phases, the lower phases representing Moabite culture, here defined as EB IV, a second layer representing Sihon’s civilization holding Moabites captive, here it will continue to be EB IV and then a third culture representing the Israelite conquerors (MB I). 4. In Moab south of Wadi Mujib we will meet with an EB IV culture which has arisen from a previous EB III culture, and which will continue on in that vein without explicit conquest by the MB I people. …. This pattern … is, in fact, exactly what we find from the archaeological reports presently at hand. EB IV in Trans Jordan is, in fact, defined most clearly in the area of ancient Moab. It will, however, include a portion which was occupied by the group known as the Midianites mentioned in Number chapter 31. The area where these Midianites lived can logically be identified if one bears in mind that the Midianites were associated geographically with the Moabites, and close to Israel’s encampment north of Moab in such a way that the social intercourse with the Midianite women at Beth–Peor could occur. And if one bears in mind that when Moses lived in the northern Sinai–Negev region during his forty years of exile from Egypt, he came in contact with this Midianite group and married one of their women. Then clearly the only geographical spot where these Midianites could have lived is in the western portion of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, and perhaps at its southern end …. It is just there that the cities of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. have been excavated, all of which show signs of destruction at the end of EB I and subsequent poor repopulation by the EB IV people (here defined as Moabites). …. These cities, five in all, have been suggested as possible candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah, the five cities of the plain. However, the narrative of Numbers 31, Moses’ attack on the Midianite cities, fits the details better, particularly when one views the nature of the destruction at these cities. It was not the type of geological destruction that the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah would suggest, but far closer to that which would be wrought by human agency. The area between the Jabbok and the Wadi Mujib is the most interesting of these areas, especially as a number of sites have been excavated in this area providing consistent results, particularly at the sites of Iktanu and Tel Iskander. Prag … while discussing Tel Iktanu, points to two phases, both particularly emphasising red coloured ceramics, essentially of an EB IV phase with similarities to the Moabite area EB IV, and also states that these red slipped or burnished pottery of Iktanu phase 1 and southern type are not to be found in the areas north of the Wadi Zerqa (Jabbok). She saw the Jabbok as a border area, so that what in essence is occurring in this part of Trans Jordan is two phases of what might be called EB IV followed then by MB I, often built on different sites. Now this corresponds exceedingly well with the phases suggested for this area (see Figure 11 again), which was conquered from the former king of Moab by Sihon and then reconquered from Sihon by Israel. Down in the south, however, the red burnished wares continue on through all phases: “The essential point of interest for all these southern sites is that red slipped and burnished wares continued right through the pottery of early and late phases, though there does seem to be an increase in plain and non–red slip wares towards the end of the period at the expense of the red wares.” …. However, north of the Jabbok or the Wadi Zerqa, we meet the situation where Middle Bronze I sites are often built straight on sites that previously had to have Early Bronze III habitation, the Early Bronze IV of the south now being absent. “They indicate that in the region north of the Zerqa River in Trans Jordan, significant proportion of EB–MB sites (approximately half) were founded on the same position as a previous EB III or EB II settlement.” …. EB–MB in this discussion is the same as MB I. It is Kathleen Kenyon’s terminology. The sites in the north consistently show the evidence of destruction at the end of EB III wherever excavations have occurred, and a supplanting by the MB I people, a picture that is thoroughly consistent with the biblical narrative of the– Exodus and Conquest. This, however, identifies EB IV Trans Jordan pottery culture as Moabite (and also possibly Ammonite). The MB I people of Trans Jordan were the Israelites, who conquered the area of the former Amorites and settled instead in their place. From this Trans Jordan area under Moses, the Children of Israel next thrust across the Jordan River into Palestine under Joshua after the Reubenites, Gadites and the tribe of Manasseh had built cities and shelters for their families and their cattle (Numbers 32). The evidence of a relationship between the Trans Jordan MB I people and the Palestinian MB I has been obvious to several. Prag reports: “This raises the interesting point that settlement on the open Valley floor as in the Chalcolithic, EB–MB parts of the Iron Age, etc. may indicate a degree of unity, cultural or political on both sides of the Jordan, while a retreat to defensive positions as in the EBA and the rest of the Iron Age may indicate periods when the Jordan River was a political frontier between the hostile groups. It might be inferred therefore that Palestine and Transjordon belong to one political unit in the EB MB period and that there were no difficulties in passing the Jordan fords.” …. This is completely consistent with the biblical narrative, and the revised chronology here presented allows the biblical narrative to find its true place against the archaeological artifacts. Dever notes not only a cultural unity between the two, but also presupposes that the Trans Jordan people preceded the conquest of Palestine, an incredibly ironic statement in view of the fact that the Bible’s narrative of Israel’s conquest was not consulted for this. “The ER 1 V/MB I transitional phase in Transjordan was brief and rapidly gave way to a culture which expanded vigorously, chiefly into Palestine, where its fully developed expression is seen in the numerous sedentary and semi–sedentary MB I sites of southern Palestine. Elsewhere I have attempted to document this expansion and to distinguish geographical and cultural ‘Families’ in MB I.” …. It is most ironic that Dever can take this view and still not consult the Israelite conquest narrative, which is certainly the only written illustration of a culture that behaved in this manner in that part of the world. The next act of the Children of Israel prior to the Conquest across the Jordan River was the destruction of the Midianite enclave, apparently on the western side of Moab. This is narrated in Numbers chapter 31 and I believe illustrated archaeologically by the five cities in the southern Ghor of the Dead Sea. These five cities are known today as Bab edh Dhra, Numeira, es–Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir …. All the sites discovered or visited by Rast and Schaub belong to the Early Bronze Age (3150 2200 BC). Even more interesting is the fact that all of them came to an end in virtually the same period: Bab edh Dhra—from EB I to late EB III/beginning of EB IV. Numeira—EB III es Safi—EB I to EB III Feifeh—EB I to EB III Khanazir—EB III to EB IV Thus three of these cities existed from EB I to the end of EB III of EB IV. The other two were founded during EB III and came to their end at the end of EB III/beginning of EB IV. The Rast and Schaub survey also focuses our attention on the similarity in location and layout of these five cities. Moreover, at least three of these cities were destroyed by fire.” …. These five cities are cited as possible candidates for Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela by reference to the accepted chronology. However, their destruction was the type that man would create and not the fiery geological catastrophe that Genesis speaks of in reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is thus consistent with these five cities being the Midianite cities of Numbers 31. ….

Exodus Pharaoh could still gather sufficient horses after the Plagues

“The text specifies that the plague struck the livestock in the field. This detail is critical for understanding the scope of the destruction. The verse does not imply that all livestock throughout Egypt were eradicated”. Edward D. Andrews Damien Mackey’s note: Once again, now in Exodus 9:6, there appears that controversial Hebrew word, kol (כֹּל), “all”, “the whole”, “everything”, together with the Hebrew word miqneh (מִקְנֵה), “cattle”, “livestock” - the overall phrase typically being translated as “all the livestock”. As others, and I, have often explained, the word kol is not necessarily to be taken in a global context – this can happen most notably in the Flood narrative where it then serves those who would hopefully argue for a worldwide Noachic Flood. Anyway, Edward D. Andrews appears to have this matter, and others, well in hand, as he answers the question: How Did Pharaoh Obtain Horses to Pursue Moses in Exodus 14 If All the Livestock Had Died in Exodus 9? - Updated American Standard Version How Did Pharaoh Obtain Horses to Pursue Moses in Exodus 14 If All the Livestock Had Died in Exodus 9? The seeming contradiction in the biblical text regarding the survival of Pharaoh’s horses in Exodus 14 after the livestock were said to have perished in Exodus 9 has long been a topic of inquiry. To resolve this issue, a careful examination of the text using the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation is necessary. The goal is to assess the context, word usage, and the overall narrative flow while remaining faithful to the inspired Scriptures. This examination underscores the inerrancy of the Bible and the consistency of its accounts when properly understood. ________________________________________ The Death of Livestock in Exodus 9 In Exodus 9:1-7, God sent the fifth plague upon Egypt: a devastating pestilence targeting the livestock in the fields. The passage reads: “Behold, the hand of Jehovah will fall with a very severe plague upon your livestock that are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks. But Jehovah will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing of all that belongs to the people of Israel shall die.” (Exodus 9:3-4, ESV) The text specifies that the plague struck the livestock in the field. This detail is critical for understanding the scope of the destruction. The verse does not imply that all livestock throughout Egypt were eradicated. Rather, only those exposed in the fields succumbed to the plague. Livestock that may have been sheltered or kept in stables were unaffected. This differentiation is further emphasized in Exodus 9:6: “And the next day Jehovah did this thing. All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one of the livestock of the people of Israel died.” The phrase “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” reflects the totality of livestock affected by the plague in the specific category mentioned—those in the fields. It is not a statement about every single animal across all Egypt, as will be evidenced later. ________________________________________ Surviving Livestock Post-Plague The narrative of Exodus provides further clues that some Egyptian livestock survived the plague. Exodus 9:20-21, during the warning for the seventh plague (hail), states: “Then whoever feared the word of Jehovah among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses, but whoever did not pay attention to the word of Jehovah left his slaves and his livestock in the field.” This passage explicitly mentions the existence of livestock after the fifth plague. Egyptians who feared Jehovah’s warning took steps to protect their remaining animals by sheltering them indoors. This demonstrates that the earlier pestilence had not eradicated all livestock, as some were either protected or acquired after the fifth plague. These surviving animals were vulnerable to the subsequent hail plague, as described in Exodus 9:25: “The hail struck down everything that was in the field in all the land of Egypt, both man and beast.” The pattern remains consistent: animals left exposed in the fields suffered the consequences of the plague, while those sheltered survived. ________________________________________ The Role of Horses in Exodus 14 By the time of the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 14, Pharaoh had access to a significant number of horses and chariots for his pursuit of the Israelites: “And he took six hundred chosen chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them.” (Exodus 14:7) This passage raises the question: Where did Pharaoh’s horses come from? Based on the evidence, there are several plausible explanations that align with the biblical text: 1. Surviving Horses From Earlier Plagues As established, not all livestock perished during the fifth plague. Horses kept indoors or protected during subsequent plagues would have survived. Pharaoh’s stables, housing his most valuable warhorses, would likely have been prioritized for protection, ensuring that his military capabilities remained intact. 2. Acquisition of Livestock After the Plagues Pharaoh and the Egyptians could have acquired livestock, including horses, from neighboring regions not affected by the plagues. Egypt was a major power in the ancient Near East and had trade relationships with other nations. It is reasonable to conclude that Pharaoh replenished his livestock to sustain the economy and military operations. 3. Gradual Recovery Between Plagues The plagues were not instantaneous or without intervals. The text indicates time gaps between the plagues, providing an opportunity for Egypt to recover to some extent. Livestock from regions unaffected by the plagues, such as Goshen (where the Israelites lived), may have been seized or appropriated by the Egyptians to replace their losses. ________________________________________ Contextual and Linguistic Considerations Understanding the Bible’s language and narrative style is crucial to resolving apparent difficulties. The use of phrases like “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” in Exodus 9:6 reflects a common Hebrew idiom for extensive destruction rather than absolute eradication. Similar usage is found in other biblical passages, such as: • Genesis 41:57: “All the earth came to Egypt to buy grain” does not mean every single person on the planet, but rather people from many nations. • Matthew 3:5: “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,” does not imply every individual. The hyperbolic style emphasizes the magnitude of the event without requiring absolute literalness in every detail. This understanding aligns with the Historical-Grammatical method, respecting the original audience’s linguistic and cultural framework. ________________________________________ Theological Implications The survival of Pharaoh’s horses and chariots underscores God’s sovereignty and strategic purpose in delivering Israel. Jehovah’s actions in the plagues demonstrated His power over Egyptian gods and the natural order, while also setting the stage for the climactic Red Sea event. Pharaoh’s pursuit and subsequent destruction serve as a powerful testimony to God’s deliverance of His people and judgment upon those who oppose Him. As recorded in Exodus 15:1, the Israelites praised Jehovah for their deliverance: “I will sing to Jehovah, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.” This passage highlights the ultimate futility of Pharaoh’s reliance on his military might, despite his ability to muster horses and chariots for the pursuit. ________________________________________ Conclusion The apparent contradiction in the survival of Pharaoh’s horses in Exodus 14 after the fifth plague in Exodus 9 is resolvable through a careful reading of the text. The plague affected only livestock in the fields, leaving others unharmed. Subsequent plagues provided additional opportunities for survival or acquisition of animals. By considering context, linguistic usage, and historical realities, the consistency of the biblical account is evident. This reinforces the reliability of Scripture and highlights the providence of God in His dealings with both Egypt and Israel.

The Plagues of Egypt intensify

by Damien F. Mackey “This plague [lice] would have been a veritable nightmare for Egypt’s religious leaders! And they were entirely powerless to stop it. Notably, it is with this plague that the magicians admitted defeat. With their homes and bodies crawling with lice, they told Pharaoh, This is the finger of God. But Egypt’s leader was unmoved. His “heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them …”.” Christopher Eames I ended my most recent article on the Plagues of Egypt with the early part of Christopher Eames’ brilliant account (2021) of them as the Lord’s war on the gods of Egypt (‘Against All the Gods of Egypt’): Old Kingdom of Egypt fearfully devastated with blood and fire (3) Old Kingdom of Egypt fearfully devastated with blood and fire His article is so good and relevant that I have decided to continue on with it here: Moses told Pharaoh: “… ‘Be it according to thy word; that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God. And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only’” (Exodus 8:6-7). Was Moses also hinting at the Israelite connection to this plague—with a prophetic description of Israel’s departure from Egypt? Nevertheless, Pharaoh’s heart was again hardened. 3. Dust to Lice “… Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:17; King James Version). The Hebrew word translated as “lice” is only used in this biblical context, so the exact identity of this critter is unclear. Other translations describe “fleas,” “sandflies,” “gnats,” “ticks” or “mosquitoes.” The Hebrew word indicates a creature that digs into the skin. Regardless, the ground literally came alive with parasites. This plague would have been an affront to, among others, Geb, Egypt’s chief earth god. It was also aimed quite pointedly at a specific part of Egypt’s society: the priests and religious leaders. Egypt’s religious leaders went to extreme lengths to keep themselves clean and pure, especially of lice. Egyptian priests even removed their eyebrows and eyelashes—anything that could host parasites! This phobia for lice was noted by Herodotus, the famous fifth-century Greek historian: “The priests shave their bodies all over every other day to guard against the presence of lice, or anything else equally unpleasant, while they are about their religious duties …. [They] wear linen only, and shoes made from the papyrus plant …. They bathe in cold water twice a day and twice every night—and observe innumerable other ceremonies besides” (The Histories). This plague would have been a veritable nightmare for Egypt’s religious leaders! And they were entirely powerless to stop it. Notably, it is with this plague that the magicians admitted defeat. With their homes and bodies crawling with lice, they told Pharaoh, This is the finger of God. But Egypt’s leader was unmoved. His “heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them …” (verse 15). So the plagues continued. 4. Swarms Flies and beetles were popular charms in ancient Egypt. Flies adorned ritualistic objects; soldiers and leaders were decorated with a pendant known as the “Order of the Golden Fly.” The fly served as a symbol of relentless determination and bravery. It’s hard to imagine this affection for flies remaining after the fourth plague hit. “[B]ehold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are. … [A]nd there came grievous swarms of flies … the land was ruined by reason of the swarms of flies” (Exodus 8:17, 20). The original text does not use the word “flies”; it refers to them simply as swarms. Based on the translation of the ancient Greek Septuagint, most scholars identify this insect as the dogfly, similar to the March fly, horsefly, botfly or gadfly. As some of our readers may have experienced, these blood-sucking flies can inflict a painful bite. They can also be deadly, as they transmit various diseases such as anthrax and tularemia. The effect these flies had on Egypt was gruesome. Psalm 78:45 states that these swarms “devoured” the Egyptians. Various deities associated with flies and insects include the goddesses Wadjet, Iusaaset and Khepri, who was depicted with the head of a beetle. Bees were said to come from the tears of the sun god, Ra, and certain wasp-like insects made up part of the official royal title of the pharaoh. To end this plague, Pharaoh acquiesced and agreed to release the Israelites (ironic, given that flies symbolized unwavering Egyptian determination). But unfortunately for his people, he changed his mind again after the swarms departed. 5. Death of Livestock “Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks; there shall be a very grievous murrain. … [A]nd all the cattle of Egypt died …” (Exodus 9:3, 6). While this plague cut deep at countless Egyptian animal gods, its attack was most pointedly against cattle deities—the most significant animals in the Egyptian pantheon. Particularly important was the cow-goddess Hathor, daughter-consort of Ra and “mother of the pharaoh” (who himself was stylized as a bull). Egyptian wall art commonly depicts pharaohs suckling from the udder of Hathor. Another famous deity is the Apis bull, a “son of Hathor” and manifestation of the pharaoh. Only one such physical bull could exist at a time, and once the bull died, it was mourned almost as if Pharaoh himself had died, including being mummified and interred in a massive sarcophagus weighing up to 60 tons. Verse 6 indicates that the Apis bull at this time must have died—a blow to Pharaoh. The Egyptians considered the Israelite manner of handling livestock a blasphemous “abomination” (Genesis 46:34). So for the Egyptians to see their own cattle dying en masse while every Israelite cow was spared would have been distressing. Evidently Pharaoh himself couldn’t quite believe it and sent his own messengers to verify if the Israelite cattle truly had been spared (Exodus 9:7). Some scholars postulate that God destroyed Egypt’s livestock via a plague of anthrax. This makes sense, considering the previous plague; perhaps the swarms of flies transmitted the anthrax to the cattle. Whatever the case, this plague still did not breach Pharaoh’s hard heart. “… But the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn, and he did not let the people go” (verse 7). 6. Boils The next plague literally hobbled the nation, forcing the people to their beds. Exodus 9:11 shows that even the magicians were not able to stand upright as a result: “And the Lord said unto Moses and unto Aaron: ‘Take to you handfuls of soot of the furnace, and let Moses throw it heavenward in the sight of Pharaoh. And it shall become small dust over all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt’” (Exodus 9:8-9). This epidemic of boils was an affront to numerous Egyptian deities, such as Sekhmet, goddess of epidemics and healing; Thoth, god of medical knowledge; Isis, goddess of healing; Nephthys, goddess of health. But it was also an affront to the much-prized Egyptian doctors, famous in the ancient world for their knowledge in medicine, surgery, dentistry, even prosthetics, with known complex medical texts dating back more than 4,500 years. So venerated were the doctors that the physician Imhotep, who served under Pharaoh Djoser (circa 2600 b.c.e.), became deified as the “god of medicine.” …. The way that Moses initiated this plague, tossing ash from a furnace into the air, is also interesting. The word for furnace refers to a “kiln,” i.e. a brick-kiln—a device the Israelites would have known well. Exodus 5 describes the blistering, crippling labor forced upon the Israelites specifically in making bricks. Thus, in another apparent turn of poetic justice, the Egyptians became crippled and blistered from the same brick-making source of torment. But not even a plague of painful sores was enough to change the mind of Egypt’s king. 7. Hail and Fire The next plague would have been truly petrifying. “[A]nd the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran along upon the ground …. [F]ire mingled with the hail …. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field” (Exodus 9:23-25; kjv). This plague utterly destroyed everything and everyone not protected by substantial shelter. The sky-goddess Nut, who was supposed to protect the land from heavenly destruction, was evidently missing. So was her father, Shu, the “calming” god of the atmosphere. Gods of animals and agriculture (Set, Isis, Osiris and others) were also missing in action. This plague also would have struck at Egyptian beliefs surrounding the afterlife. The reference to fire is notable: To be incinerated was considered the worst punishment to the Egyptians. Without a body, there was nothing to mummify, which meant no afterlife. (Even the damage to victims by hail would have been problematic, as Egyptians went to great lengths to ensure that the dead bodies were preserved as intact as possible.) This afterlife-affliction was made worse by a primary crop destroyed by this plague—flax (verse 31). Flax was essential for wrapping mummies. With this plague, Pharaoh began to grow desperate. He finally admitted sin and recognized the supremacy of Israel’s God. “And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them: ‘I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Entreat the Lord, and let there be enough of these mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer’” (verses 27-28). Why the admission of sin and wickedness—and why now? In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was the primary intermediary between his people and the gods. The pharaoh was personally responsible for Maat, “cosmic order,” maintaining balance in the land. “Disorder had to be kept at bay,” states Encyclopedia Britannica. “The task of the king as the protagonist of human society was to retain the benevolence of the gods in maintaining order against disorder.” Perhaps Pharaoh felt he could retain some order amid the earlier plagues, but with this one—crashing hail, deafening thunder, blinding lightning, raging fires—the entire land was in utter chaos. With the hail, Pharaoh’s capacity for maintaining any semblance of Maat had vanished. And everyone knew it. When the plague ended, however, Pharaoh changed his mind again, despite the pleading of his servants to simply let the Israelites go (Exodus 10:7). 8. Locusts Plagues of locusts are not uncommon in the Middle East and Africa. But what here befell Egypt was on another level entirely. “And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt …. For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left; and there remained not any green thing, either tree or herb of the field, through all the land of Egypt” (Exodus 10:14-15). With this plague, all remaining plant life, including the new crops of wheat and spelt that had not emerged at the time of the hail (Exodus 9:32), were devoured. This plague struck at a number of important crop deities, including the grain gods Neper, Nepri, Heneb and Renenutet, as well as Isis and Set, two gods responsible for protecting the nation’s crops. With the total destruction of crops, the Egyptian population now faced the prospect of starvation. “Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said: ‘I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the Lord your God, that he may take away from me this [deadly plague]” (Exodus 10:16-17). Moses obliged, but Pharaoh again changed his mind. Judgment was now due upon the greatest Egyptian god of all. 9. Darkness Among all of Egypt’s gods, none was venerated as much as Ra, the all-powerful sun-god. This god, variously worshiped as Re, Amon-Ra, Atum or Aten, had power over all other gods. …. The ninth plague was a direct assault on Ra. “And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days; they saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days …” (Exodus 10:22-23). The New Living Translation says it was a “darkness so thick you can feel it” (verse 21). As darkness prevailed, Egypt’s greatest, most powerful god was exposed as entirely powerless. The darkness was a warning to Pharaoh himself, who was considered the “son of the sun.” To add insult to injury, verse 23 shows that while the Egyptians were covered in thick darkness, God’s people in the land of Goshen were bathed in bright sunlight! The first nine plagues built up to the 10th and thus could be categorized separately (Exodus 12:12). The number nine was significant in Egyptian religion. Regional pantheons throughout Egyptian history were worshiped as enneads, “nines,” or groups of nine deities. The most famous was the Great Ennead of Heliopolis, led by the sun god Atum and consisting of his descendants Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Isis, Osiris, Set and Nephthys (all noted among the above-described plagues). Still, the Great Ennead was occasionally worshiped with a “plus-one,” a 10th deity, the great son of Isis and Osiris: Horus. 10. Against Pharaoh (and Everything Else) The 10th and final plague struck at everything in a single stroke—from Pharaoh to commoner to rat, and any and all gods that represented them. It was a decisive blow for the nation, especially at a time when firstborn were all but revered. Exodus 12:30 shows that not a single Egyptian family was spared. “For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord” (verse 12). The pharaoh and his family were demigods to the Egyptians. Across the nation, they were revered as part god, part human, and the offspring of the gods themselves. Like Egypt’s countless gods, Pharaoh and his family were supposed to be untouchable to the plight of common mortals. With the final plague, the God of Israel struck down the final “god” family of Egypt, in a way that would be most crippling—more so than Pharaoh’s own death. Pharaoh’s most prized possession, his own son—the child-god, part of the Pantheon of “all-powerful” deities—was killed. “And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: ‘Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also’” (verses 30-32). Deliverance Following the catastrophic final plague, the Israelites were finally freed. Egypt, its pharaoh, and its gods had been utterly humiliated, and the Egyptians “thrust” the Israelites out of the land. In fact, Pharaoh and his people were so desperate to get them out, they essentially paid the Israelites to leave, showering them with gifts. “[F]or they said: ‘We are all dead men’” (see Exodus 11:1-3; 12:33-36). With the final plague complete, Israel joyously fleeing, and Egypt wallowing in dust and ashes, God’s plan was fulfilled. God had accomplished what He set out to do: “[T]he Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth My hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them” (Exodus 7:5). But bringing Israel out of Egypt was the easy part. What proved to be far more difficult was bringing Egypt out of Israel. It wasn’t long after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea [sic] that the masses were pleading to return to Egypt and its gods. Encamped at the base of Mount Sinai, they erected a “golden calf” after the form of Hathor-Apis worship. Aaron proclaimed: “‘This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt’” (Exodus 32:4). What a powerful lesson for us about human nature! Despite the many miracles—despite sparing the land of Goshen—despite the utter humiliation of the Egyptian deities—despite the freedom of an enslaved population—despite agreeing to God’s covenant at Mount Sinai (many of the terms and conditions of this covenant directly forbade the Egyptian-style pagan practices)—the Israelites simply refused to come completely out of Egypt and obey the God of Israel. Forty years later, only two of the million-plus freed adults were allowed to enter the Promised Land (Exodus 12:37; Numbers 14:26-31). The lessons of the 10 plagues hold true today. Stubborn human nature has not changed over the past 3,500 years. In many ways, we are like the ancient Israelites and the Egyptians. Even when faced with extreme adversity, human nature is determined to hold on to its own selfish, wicked ways and pursue its own evil ambitions. Like Pharaoh himself, we can find it hard to abandon our human will, even when it is exposed as corrupt. ….

Old Kingdom of Egypt fearfully devastated with blood and fire

by Damien F. Mackey “There is blood everywhere …. Lo the river is blood”. o “Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments”. “All is ruin!” “The land is without light”. Ipuwer Papyrus Have you ever heard of the Ipuwer Papyrus? It is an ancient document. Many believe it to be a recollection of the Ten Plagues, perhaps even by an eyewitness. Turning water to blood was one of the miraculous powers with which the Lord had invested his servant, Moses, in order to prompt his people, and even the Egyptians, to believe. The other miraculous abilities were the rod of Moses turning into a serpent, and the hand becoming leprous, but then restored to health. The water to blood phenomenon would be the last chance before Egypt would feel the full force of the Ten Plagues (Exodus 4:8-9): Then the Lord said, ‘If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground’. Amazingly, even this late - and in the face of the Lord’s powerful words about delivering his people “with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment” (Exodus 6:6) - we find Moses still reluctant to co-operate, to face Pharaoh, owing to his perceived lack of eloquence: ‘I speak with faltering lips’ (Exodus 6:1-12): Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country’. God also said to Moses, ‘I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself fully known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant. “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord’.” Moses reported this to the Israelites, but they did not listen to him because of their discouragement and harsh labor. Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Go, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt to let the Israelites go out of his country’. But Moses said to the Lord, ‘If the Israelites will not listen to me, why would Pharaoh listen to me, since I speak with faltering lips?’ A half century or more ago, now, this great man, Moses, had himself actually ruled Egypt as Pharaoh - as Djedefre (Djedefptah)/Niuserre Ini/Userkare. But, after a short time, he had abdicated. He was, too, a sage and a scholar, as Ptahhotep (as Kagemni), a writer of Instructions. But Moses was also Chief Vizier and Judge in Egypt. “This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush” (Acts 7:35). In this official guise, as Weni (Mentuhotep), Moses would lead the armies of Egypt, against Ethiopia (Cush), and against the Bedouin. A military genius, he was also known as General Nysumontu (a Moses-like name, Nysu, like Sinuhe, and Niuserre Ini, which latter element also connects nicely with Weni/Uni). On this, see my article: Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses (DOC) Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses Yet, despite all of that, Moses was most reluctant to confront pharaoh Neferhotep. How to explain this? Perhaps because (Numbers 12:3): “… Moses was a very humble man, more so than any man on the face of the earth”. He seemed to lack the self-assurance of his predecessor, Joseph, the Man of Dreams. Had pharaoh Neferhotep even heard of Moses? That this king had apparently no personal vendetta against Moses can be assumed from Exodus 4:19: ‘Go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead who sought thy life’. Egypt’s so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom (which was effectively still the Old Kingdom, hence the title of this article) was now rapidly coming to its end. Egyptian Magicians emulate miracles How so? A possible explanation for this is given here at: How were Pharaoh’s magicians able to perform miracles? | GotQuestions.org How were Pharaoh’s magicians able to perform miracles? Answer The story of Pharaoh’s magicians can be found in Exodus 7–8, when Moses and Aaron confront the Pharaoh in Egypt, demanding that he free God’s people, the Israelites, from slavery. Moses and Aaron performed miracles to confirm their message, and on three occasions Pharaoh’s magicians were able to duplicate the miracles. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush and charged him to speak to Pharaoh on His behalf (Exodus 3). During that commissioning, God granted Moses the ability to perform miracles (Exodus 4:21). Knowing that Pharaoh would demand a sign, God instructed Moses and Aaron to throw down Aaron’s staff upon their first meeting with the ruler. Aaron did so, and his staff turned into a snake. Pharaoh immediately summoned his magicians, who were able to turn their own staffs into snakes. In what must have been an ominous sign for Pharaoh’s court, Aaron’s snake devoured the magicians’ snakes (see Exodus 7:8–13). Twice more, Pharaoh’s magicians were able to perform miracles to match the signs of Moses and Aaron. The first plague that Moses called down upon the Egyptians was a plague of blood. The magicians were also able to turn water to blood as Moses had done to the Nile River (Exodus 7:14–22). The second plague was a horde of frogs sent among the Egyptian people, and the magicians summoned their own frogs as well—adding to the problem rather than alleviating it (Exodus 8:1–7). After this, however, the magicians’ power stopped, as they were unable to replicate any further plagues, and they acknowledged they were witnessing “the finger of God” in Moses’ signs (verse 19). But how were the magicians of Egypt able to perform the miracles in the first place? There are two possible answers to this question. The first is that the magicians received their power from Satan. Although not as powerful as God, Satan, formerly one of God’s highest angels, has the power to deceive, emulate miracles, and even tell the future with a certain degree of accuracy (see Luke 4; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Acts 16:16–18). Satan may have given Pharaoh’s magicians the power to duplicate some of the signs God performed through Moses and Aaron. The second option, and the more probable, is that the magicians simply created illusions. Through sleight-of-hand and conjurer’s tricks, they deceived their audience into believing that they were performing the same miracles as Moses and Aaron. The first illusion, that of turning the staffs into snakes, may have been performed by snake charming, which was widely practiced in ancient Egypt (and even some today). There was a way in which snake charmers could cause a snake to stiffen like a staff and relax on command. Since the magicians were summoned after Aaron threw down his own staff, they would have had time to prepare the trick in advance. As for turning the Nile to blood, only dye is needed to make water run red. The frogs may be a more complicated illusion, but, just as modern illusionists can pull rabbits out of hats, Pharaoh’s magicians could have summoned frogs. Whether they were creating illusions or performing actual miracles, the Egyptian magicians were eventually stymied by God’s power. They were unable to summon gnats (Exodus 8:16–19), turn the sky dark (Exodus 10:21–23), call down hailstones (Exodus 9:22–26), or duplicate any of the other plagues. God’s power is great enough to defeat both man’s conniving and Satan’s power with ease. Did the Lord also use natural phenomena? So far, we have read of the Burning Bush episode and of Moses (and Aaron) being empowered to work certain miracles to generate belief among the Israelites – and, presumably, for any Egyptians of good will. The Burning Bush; the ability to turn one’s staff into a serpent; to cure a leprous hand; and to turn Nile water to blood; these are all purely miraculous manifestations. But what about the pillar of cloud, later, and the pillar of fire? (To be considered elsewhere). Many have argued that the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus event were the result of natural catastrophism, volcanoes and/or earthquakes. There does appear to be a fair amount of tectonic activity going on during the Exodus and the sojourn in the desert. A favourite idea is that the unprecedented cataclysmic eruption of Thera (Santorini) in the Mediterranean Sea provides the explanation for the Plagues, for the pillars of cloud and fire, and for the parting of the Sea of Reeds. A tsunami engendered by that awesome hecatomb can then be proposed to explain the drowning of the Egyptian army. A possible association of Thera and the Exodus is mentioned, for instance, at Britannica.com eruption of Thera, devastating Bronze Age eruption of a long-dormant volcano on the Aegean island of Thera, about 70 miles (110 km) north of Crete. Earthquakes, perhaps contemporaneous with the eruption, shattered Knossos and damaged other settlements in northern Crete. The Thera eruption is thought to have occurred about 1500 bce, although, on the basis of evidence obtained during the 1980s from a Greenland ice-core and from tree-ring and radiocarbon dating, some scholars believe that it occurred earlier, possibly during the 1620s bce. Ash and pumice from the eruption have been found as far away as Egypt and Israel, and there has been speculation that the eruption was the source of the legend of Atlantis and of stories in the Old Testament book of Exodus. [End of quote] The truth is, though, that Thera could have had nothing to do with it! While one of the dates given in this piece above, “1500 bce”, is, as an approximation, roughly compatible with the era of Moses, this date, when properly revised downwards on the timeline, must be re-cast closer to c. 1000 BC, which is chronologically well out of range of the Exodus event. The Thera catastrophe may have occurred just a bit before the reign of King Solomon (I Kings 6:1): “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the Temple of the LORD”. That is about half a millennium after the Exodus. Moreover, while the Thera cataclysm must have occurred close to the Late Bronze Age, the Exodus Israelites, the Middle Bronze I nomads, on the other hand, would become conquerors of Early Bronze Age civilisations. Finally, there is very little evidence for Thera, as massive as it was, impacting as far away as Egypt (some pumice finds, for instance): How Did the Eruption of Thera Affect the Egyptians? - GreekReporter.com The eruption of Thera in Egyptian chronology The exact date of the eruption of Thera is something that scholars continue to debate. This is due to conflicting evidence from radiocarbon dating and ice core evidence. Nevertheless, its relative date within Egyptian chronology is absolutely secure. The reason we can say this is that archaeologists have found various items made of pumice (rock formed from volcanic material) in Egypt from one specific time period. This is the reign of Ahmose I. The pumice in question matches that found on Thera itself, showing that it came from the Minoan eruption. Therefore, we can be absolutely sure that the eruption of Thera occurred in the reign of Ahmose I of Egypt, regardless of when the actual date really was. However, the weight of evidence places it in the 16th century BCE. [End of quote] Why I have wondered about the possibility of natural phenomena also being included amongst the miraculous in the Book of Exodus is because, after having read an account of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens in Washington State, in 198o, I was amazed how closely various of its effects seemed to parallel those of the Plagues of Egypt – though not necessarily in the same order. I read about this in Graham Phillips’ terrific book, Act of God (1998). This book also served to enlighten me mightily as to the nature of the enigmatic pharaoh, Akhnaton. According to the Old Testament account in the book of Exodus, when the pharaoh refused Moses’ demands to let the Israelite slaves leave Egypt, God inflicted the Egyptians with a series of what the Bible calls plagues, which included darkness over the land, the Nile turning to blood, fiery hail storms, cattle deaths and a plague of boils. In Act of God, Graham presents compelling evidence that these biblical plagues were real historical events - the result of a volcanic eruption so colossal that it also gave rise to the legend of Atlantis. {My own opinion about the highly popular subject of Atlantis would be that the legend about it was a composite mix of ancient catastrophes, including the Great Flood, the Thera eruption, and the Fall of Tyre}. The following is taken from The Graham Phillips Website: Act of God 1 …. There are various types of volcanic eruption: some spew forth rivers of molten lava, others produce searing mud slides, but by far the most devastating is when the pressure of the magma causes the volcano to literally blow its top. One of the largest eruptions in recent years was the Mount Saint Helens eruption in Washington State USA in 1980, when the explosion blasted away the mountainside with the power of a fifty megaton bomb. On the morning of 18 May 1980, a mass of searing volcanic material blasted outwards, killing almost every living thing or miles around. Thousands of acres of forest were flattened and molten debris covered everywhere like the surface of the moon. Within a few hours a cloud of ash thousands of feet high, containing billions of tons of volcanic material, had rolled east across three states - Washington, Idaho and Montana – where the massive volcanic cloud covered the sky and day was turned to night. Throughout the whole area ash fell like rain, clogging motor engines, halting trains and blocking roads. Thousands of square miles of lush farmland now looked like a grey desert and millions of dollars worth of crops were destroyed. Hundreds of people, as far away as Billings in Montana, over 500 miles from the volcano, were taken to hospital with sore eyes and skin rashes caused by exposure to the acidic fallout ash. For weeks afterwards fish in thousands of miles of rivers were found floating on the surface, killed by chemical pollutants in the water. Something very similar seems to have affected Egypt some three and a half thousand years ago when the Exodus story appears to be set. The Plagues of Egypt First of all there is the plague of darkness. This might have been the result of a massive cloud of fallout ash. After the Mount Saint Helens eruption the sun was obscured for hours over 500 miles from the volcano. According to Exodus 10: 21-23: And there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days. In Exodus 9:23-26 we are told that Egypt is afflicted by … another plague – a terrible fiery hailstorm: And the Lord sent thunder and hail… So there was hail and fire mingled with the hail… And the hail smote all throughout the land of Egypt, all that was in the field, both man and beast, and brake every tree in the field. This would be an accurate description of the dreadful ordeal suffered by people in the shadow of the Mount Saint Helens fallout cloud in 1980 - pellet-sized volcanic debris falling like hail; fiery pumice setting fires on the ground and destroying trees and houses; lightning flashing around, generated by the tremendous turbulence inside the volcanic cloud. For days volcanic debris fell like hailstones, flattening crops for miles around. The Exodus account of another of the plagues could easily be a report given by someone living in the states of Washington, Idaho and Montana, over which the volcanic fallout cloud was blown after the Mount Saint Helens eruption of 1980: And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast... (Exodus 9:9.) Fine dust causing boils and blains! Hundreds of people were taken to hospital with skin sores and rashes after the Mount Saint Helens eruption due to exposure to the acidic fallout ash, and livestock perished or had to be destroyed due to prolonged inhalation of the volcanic dust. According to Exodus 9:6: And all the cattle of Egypt died. After the Mount Saint Helens eruption fish also died and were found floating on the surface of hundreds of miles of waterways. The pungent odor of pumice permeated everything and water supplies had to be cut off until the impurities could be filtered from reservoirs. According to Exodus 7:21: And the fish that was in the river died: and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the river, and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. As well as the grey pumice ash volcanoes blast skywards, many volcanoes have another, more corrosive toxin in their bedrock - iron oxide. (This is the same red material that covers the surface of Mars.) After the Mount Saint Helens eruption thousands of tons of iron oxide were discharged into the rivers killing fish for miles around. It would certainly explain the Exodus reference to the Nile turning to blood, as iron oxide would turn the river red: And all the waters that were in the river turned to blood. (Exodus 7:20). Over the years various scholars have individually attributed these plagues to different natural phenomena. The darkness could have been due to a violent sandstorm; the hail the result of freak weather conditions; the boils caused by an epidemic; and the bloodied river may have been the result of seismic activity to the south, near the Nile’s source. However, the likelihood of them all happening at the same time seems just too remote. A volcanic eruption, however, would account for them all. …. [End of quote] The most that I could say, at this stage, is that, whilst much of what happened involving Moses and Aaron was purely miraculous, the Lord could also have allowed a natural catastrophe to trigger a series of plagues. The material and the timing, however, was all His. The Exodus account needs to be supplemented by King Solomon’s vivid description of the Plagues in the Book of Wisdom. For instance: Wisdom of Solomon 16 – God’s Justice in the Plagues: Plagues as lessons for the nations. - Pope Kirillos …. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 16 presents a profound meditation on God’s Justice and Mercy as revealed through the plagues visited upon the Egyptians and the corresponding blessings bestowed upon the Israelites. The chapter explores how God used these plagues not merely as instruments of punishment, but as pedagogical tools designed to teach both the Egyptians and the Israelites about His power, justice, and ultimately, His mercy. The plagues targeted the Egyptians’ objects of worship, demonstrating their futility. Simultaneously, the Israelites experienced miraculous deliverances, fostering faith and dependence on God. This chapter highlights the duality of God’s actions: judgment tempered with mercy, designed for both correction and salvation. We will delve into each verse, drawing from Patristic insights and Coptic Orthodox tradition, to uncover the deep spiritual truths embedded within this powerful narrative. …. War on the gods of Egypt Just prior to the last devastating Plague, the death of Egypt’s firstborn, the Lord declares his intention to smite the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12): ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord’. This would almost certainly include Pharaoh himself (and his firstborn son), who was considered by the Egyptians to be the Divine Son of Ra (the Sun God). There have also been some excellent articles written on the Lord’s use of the Plagues to undermine the various gods of Egypt. For example, Joe LoMusio’s: “Against the Gods of Egypt” - Identifying the Ten Plagues (7) "Against the Gods of Egypt" - Identifying the Ten Plagues and Timothy Sliedrecht’s: Against All Gods: Purpose of the Ten Plagues (7) Against All Gods: Purpose of the Ten Plagues Christopher Eames has also written well on this subject (2021): ‘Against All the Gods of Egypt’ God used the 10 plagues to send a powerful message to Egypt and the Israelites—and to us. The 10 plagues of Egypt constitute one of the strangest collections of miracles in the Bible. Water turned to blood, legions of frogs, dust turned to lice, boils—nowhere else in the Bible do we see such a peculiar display of divine judgment. Have you ever wondered why God sent such an eclectic mix of plagues? And why He sent 10? He could have easily crushed Egypt and freed the Israelites through just one plague. Why didn’t God just intensify plague number seven—the hail—and be done with it? There is a fascinating reason why God performed so many powerful and peculiar miracles. He didn’t send the 10 plagues to merely free the Israelites or to punish Egypt’s Pharaoh and his people. In Exodus 12:12, God says, “[A]gainst all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.” Egypt at the time was the world’s dominant power, and it possessed one of the most widespread, complex and ancient religions on Earth. God used the plagues to warn and punish an entire religious and political system—and to free an entire civilization from slavery to false religion! The One True God …. Through the 10 plagues, God was making Himself known to the Egyptians and to the Israelites. The Israelites actually experienced the first three plagues because they needed to learn who God was! Some experts believe that Egypt had a pantheon of as many as 2,000 pagan gods and goddesses. Through the plagues, God proved that He was the one and only all-powerful, divine Being of the universe. “And God said unto Moses: ‘I am that I am’” (Exodus 3:14). …. First Blood: Snake Gods It is notable that the first words Pharaoh uttered to Moses and Aaron concerned the identity of their God. “And Pharaoh said: ‘Who is the Lord, that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, and moreover I will not let Israel go’” (Exodus 5:2). To Pharaoh, Moses’s God was just another deity. But then Moses performed a miracle that showed God’s identity in relation to Pharaoh, his magicians and the Egyptian gods: “… Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their secret arts. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods” (Exodus 7:10-12). There is more to this event than meets the eye. To the ancient Egyptians, a snake swallowing other snakes was a known religious refrain. In Egyptian mythology, the powerful primordial snake god Nehebkau is considered the “original snake.” His image was depicted as a protective deity on ivory rods. Worship of him was especially popular at this time in Egypt’s history (middle second millennium b.c.e.). According to the Coffin Text Spells (ancient Egyptian mythological accounts inscribed around 2100 b.c.e.), Nehebkau swallowed seven cobras, giving him power against harm from any magic. The Hebrew snake swallowing the Egyptian snakes, in the name of the “God of Israel,” would have been a startling display of supremacy. …. 1. Water to Blood With the first plague, God struck Egypt’s most important resource: the Nile River. “[A]nd he [Aaron] lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood” (Exodus 7:20). The Nile provided Egypt with a constant source of fresh water. Its nutrient-rich floodplains were Egypt’s breadbasket. Turning the Nile to blood was another targeted attack on one of Egypt’s most important gods: Osiris, the god of fertility, vegetation and agriculture. The Egyptians considered the Nile River to be the “bloodstream” of Osiris. As the chief god of the Nile, Osiris gave life to the Egyptian empire. When God turned the Nile to literal blood, the river (and its god) became the source of widespread death and suffering. This miracle attacked other gods as well: Khnum, god of the source of the Nile; Hapi, the god who presided over annual flooding; Sopdet, goddess of fertility-brought-to-soil-by-Nile-floodwater. It also insulted other Egyptian deities, including Nu, Naunet, Tefnut, Nehet-Weret and the fish-goddess Hatmehit. …. Although Pharaoh’s magicians successfully replicated this plague, they couldn’t make it stop (verse 22). Deities such as Taweret—the pot-bellied, hippo-headed, crocodile-tailed “Mistress of Pure Water”—were not able to cleanse the Nile or all the other water that had likewise miraculously turned to blood (verse 19). God’s onslaught on the gods of the Nile River continued for one week. But Pharaoh still refused to obey God’s command. So Moses and Aaron returned to the royal court. 2. Frogs “Thus saith the Lord: Let My people go …. And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs. And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into thy house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs” (Exodus 7:26-28). Besides being gross, this plague would have had a dramatic impact on the Egyptian mind. The best-known Egyptian frog deity is the goddess Heqet. Heqet, and frogs in general, symbolized childbirth and midwifery, as well as resurrection. These motifs are closely tied to the Israelite story in Egypt. To stop the immense population growth of the Israelites, Pharaoh had previously ordered that all newborn males be drowned by the midwives in the Nile (Exodus 1:15-22). Now, with the second plague, Pharaoh was inundated with these symbols of childbirth, midwifery and resurrection literally pouring back out of the Nile! Surely the symbolism was not lost on Pharaoh. …. [Etc., etc.]