by
Damien F. Mackey
The occurrence of the name “Shiphrah” and other Hebrew (NW Semitic) type names in the late Middle Kingdom’s Brooklyn Papyrus had constituted an integral part of my detailed argument that Egypt’s:
Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel
https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel
Here is just a part of what I wrote there:
The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians.
As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego.
In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water.
The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today.
Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law.
Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22)
Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego.
From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”.
Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt.
I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui.
“The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.”
That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”.
Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written:
It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt.
It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.
Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15).
“Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph.
Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled.
“... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”.
Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II).
The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14). ….
[End of quotes]
Interesting to read, along somewhat similar lines, this piece by Hershel Shanks:
http://cojs.org/first_person-_a_name_in_search_of_a_story-_hershel_shanks-_bar_24-01-_jan-feb_1998/
First Person: A Name in Search of a Story, Hershel Shanks, BAR 24:01, Jan-Feb 1998.
An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name—a midwife mentioned in Exodus
It would be easy to tell you how a story in BAR develops, but I thought I would instead tell you how a story didn’t develop—at least not yet.
The tip came from a lawyer, a faithful reader from Brooklyn named Harvey Herbert- An Egyptian hieroglyphic papyrus now in the Brooklyn Museum mentions an Asiatic slave named Shiphrah.
Shiphrah, of course, is the name of one of the Hebrew midwives (the other is Puah) whom Pharaoh summoned to carry out his order that all boys born to the enslaved Israelites be killed (Exodus 1-15). Shiphrah (and Puah) didn’t obey Pharaoh, however; they were devoted to God, so they let the boys live.
And here was an Asiatic slave with this same name mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus written in hieroglyphics. Was this for real?
It certainly was. The problem was that it had been in the museum for a long time—since 1935. An entire book had been written on this papyrus in the 1950s. So what was new? Sad, but true, journalism seems to require novelty. An interesting fact that has been known for a long time, but of which we are unaware, somehow seems less interesting than a newly revealed fact. At least so it is with editors. So I began looking for a new, novel angle.
I called a leading young Egyptologist at Johns Hopkins University, Betsy Bryan, who immediately recognized the papyrus I was speaking of. She was intimately familiar with it, as, she said, were most Egyptologists. But she knew the papyrus only from the Egyptological viewpoint, not from the Biblical viewpoint. She was able to tell me, however, that the publication of the papyrus was by a first-rate scholar, the late William Hayes.
I next called the distinguished Biblical historian Abraham Malamat, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He told me that the papyrus was a well-known text and that the great William Foxwell Albright had written a paper on it in 1954 (even before Hayes’s book came out), analyzing it from the Biblical viewpoint.
Trying to think of a new angle, I asked myself whether the appearance of the name Shiphrah could be used to date the origins of the Biblical narrative. So I called Avi Hurvitz, a leading Hebrew University scholar in the development of the Hebrew language. He told me that my methodology was sound—if the name appeared only at a particular time, that could help date a text. Whether there was sufficient evidence in this case was another question.
This would take a lengthy study. And I knew from past experience that we can rarely get scholars to do major studies for us, especially if the outcome is doubtful. We have to find out what scholars are working on and then see if that can be made interesting to our readers.
So I have neither an author nor a subject. All I can do is report what to some (surely, to me) are previously unknown facts that have nevertheless been known to scholars for a long time-
The papyrus was purchased by an American journalist and Egyptologist named Charles Wilbour on one of his regular winter sailing trips up the Nile, between 1881 and 1896, looking for Egyptian antiquities. On Wilbour’s death the papyrus was placed in a trunk and languished there until it was given to the Brooklyn Museum in 1935. It is reasonably certain that the papyrus originally came from ancient Thebes. It has been dated to about 1740 B.C.1
The back side of the papyrus contains a long list of slaves who are to become the property of the new owner’s wife. Each is identified as Egyptian or Asiatic. The Asiatic slaves, unlike the Egyptian slaves, almost all have Northwest Semitic names—nearly 30 of them. Among them is a female slave named Shiphrah.
But she is not the only one. Another, according to Albright, has a name that is the feminine form of Issachar, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Another is the feminine form of Asher, also one of the twelve tribes. Still other Northwest Semitic names are related to the Hebrew names Menahem and Job.
Based on the date of the papyrus, Albright comments that “we should expect significant points of contact with Israelite tradition … Virtually all the tribal names of the House of Jacob go back to early times.”2
If anyone sees an angle for an article for BAR in all this, please let me know.
1. William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446] (New York- Brooklyn Museum, 1955).
2. William F. Albright, “Northwest Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954), pp. 222–233.
Brooklyn Papyrus lists Shiphrah, the name of
one of the Hebrew midwives prior to Exodus
“The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were
Shiphrah and Puah, ‘When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth
on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl,
let her live’. The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what
the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live”.
Exodus 1:15-17
“Titus” has written at:
https://apxaioc.com/?p=21#:~:text=Evidence%20from%20Papyrus%20Brooklyn,-%2F%20Uncategorized%20%2F%20By%20Archae27&text=The%20presence%20of%20Hebrews%20in,the%20subsequent%20settlement%20of%20Canaan.
Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn
/ Uncategorized / By Archae27
The presence of Hebrews in Egypt prior to their departure is a key component in the Exodus story, leading to the eventual formation of the Israelite nation and the subsequent settlement of Canaan.
However, skepticism about the historical validity of the Exodus story has spread through both academia and the general public over the last century. One of the key problems for asserting the Exodus narrative as historical has to do with the supposed lack of archaeological confirmation for Hebrews living in Egypt. Current academic consensus views the events described in the book of Exodus as myth, without any indication of an historical core, and now a topic which the vast majority of scholars decline to investigate due to their certainty that the story is fictional. Scholars have made claims that according to archaeological investigations, “Israelites were never in Egypt ….
The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt” (Zeev Herzog). Another archaeologist concluded that investigation of the Exodus story is pointless because of the alleged absence of evidence, stating that “not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event …. I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue” (William Dever).
Are claims that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Hebrew people were in Egypt prior to the time of the Exodus consistent with current archaeological and historical data?
Any possible evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt must be prior to the time of the Exodus in order to maintain that the story recorded in the Bible is an accurate historical narrative. Approximately when might have the Exodus occurred?
According to a reading of specific chronological information in the books of Kings, Judges, and Numbers, combined with chronological information from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Roman documents, the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt occurred around the 1440s BC (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26; Numbers 32:13; Ptolemy’s Canon; Neo-Assyrian Eponym List; Manetho’s King List; Uruk King List; Roman Consul Lists). This approximate date in the 1440s BC is a crucial chronological marker which restricts investigation of archaeological and historical material to a particular window of time.
Prior to this date, one would expect evidence for Hebrews in Egypt and an Egyptian policy of slavery towards Asiatics or Semites, the larger ethnic groups to which the Hebrews belonged, if the Exodus account is historical. According to the narrative in the Bible, near the end of the Patriarchal period calculated at approximately 1680 BC, Jacob and his family had settled into the northeastern Nile Delta region known as Goshen with their livestock and various possessions (Genesis 46:6, 47:1). Earlier, Abraham had resided temporarily in Egypt but he moved back to Canaan for the remainder of his life (Genesis 12:10-13:1). Around the time of these patriarchs, during the periods called the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan, many people from western Asia or Canaan immigrated into Egypt.
Damien Mackey’s comment: The early patriarchs pre-existed the Middle Bronze Age. See e.g. my article:
Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham
(3) Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham
“Titus” continues:
A famous contemporary depiction and description of this immigration was found painted on one of the walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II in Beni Hasan, Egypt. The scene, paired with a text, depicts a group of 37 Semites from Canaan—men, women, and children, along with their livestock and supplies—immigrating into middle Egypt during the early 19th century BC. ….
While this would be slightly earlier than when Joseph and subsequently his father Jacob arrive in Egypt,
Damien Mackey’s comment: It’s actually later than the time of the early Patriarchs.
… the events occur in the same general historical period. According to archaeological excavations and information derived from various ancient documents and art work, during this time large numbers of people from western Asia immigrated into Egypt and settled primarily in the Nile Delta region, just as Jacob and his family also did. ….
….
The making of mudbricks by Hebrew slaves and the difficulties in this task are detailed in the Exodus account (Exodus 5).
A remark on the scene in the tomb of Rekmire about an Egyptian master reminding slaves to not be idle lest they receive a beating with the rod brings to mind the episode in which Moses saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11).
Although many of these connections are circumstantial, the lack of contemporary texts or inscriptions directly attesting to Joseph, Moses, or a large scale enslavement of the Hebrews specifically may be due to the fact that no sites of the period have been excavated in either the central or western Nile Delta region and that few records from the Nile Delta region in this period have survived.
Damien Mackey’s comment: For a clearer account of Hebrew involvement in large scale building works, see e.g. my article:
Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them
(3) Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them
However, an important Egyptian document from Upper Egypt has survived the millennia. While the current scholarly consensus asserts that there is no definitive evidence for Hebrews living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, an Egyptian list of domestic servants written in the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps in the 17th century BC, contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names. This document was designated Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446.
Rediscovered on the antiquities market, this papyrus was examined by William Albright and Kenneth Kitchen, and published in a book by Egyptologist William Hayes of the Brooklyn Museum. Several references to Thebes on the papyrus indicate that it was originally composed in or around that city, the capital of Upper Egypt, although it is not certain exactly where in that region it came from, as information about its original place of discovery was lost.
The section of the papyrus dealing with the servants is thought to date from the 13th Dynasty of Egypt, or at least from some time in the era known as the Second Intermediate Period. The end of this period preceded the Exodus by approximately 120 years, while the period began around 300 years prior to the Exodus—encompassing the time that the Hebrews were in Egypt as settlers and perhaps even slaves. The dates for Pharaohs and even the existence of the Pharaohs themselves from this period are often tentative and highly disputed, so it is difficult to date anything with absolute certainty. However, the papyrus does contain the name of a Pharaoh called “Sobekhotep” who may have reigned around either the late 18th or the 17th century BC.
Damien Mackey’s comment: For clarification about Sobekhotep, see e.g. my article:
Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek
(5) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
While various publications have suggested rather definite and specific date ranges for the servant list section of the papyrus, it is difficult to establish the precise date due to the fragmentary history of the Second Intermediate Period. Pharaohs Sobekhotep III and VIII, who shared almost identical throne names, could possibly have been the same ruler. All of the monuments of Sobekhotep III are located in the south, and the only monument of Sobekhotep VIII is also located in the south at Karnak, indicating both were Theban kings during the 16th or 17th Theban Dynasties.
With the 18th Dynasty beginning ca. 1570 BC according to the latest chronological studies based on high precision radiocarbon samples, this could place the Pharaoh “sekem re sewadjtowy” Sobekhotep (?) in the approximate range of 1700-1620 BC. Further, studies of the phrases and handwriting of the servant list on the papyrus also suggest a date in the Second Intermediate Period. Therefore, the list of servants probably comes from a time during or just after the life of Joseph.
A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as “Asiatic” or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan).
The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus. Although it appears that the Israelites were centered around the northeast Nile Delta area—the regions of Goshen and Rameses and the cities of Rameses, Pithom, and On—this document is from the area of Thebes to the south and includes household servants like Joseph in his early years rather than building and agricultural slaves of the period of Moses. Thus, the list appears to be an attestation of Hebrews in Egypt in their earlier period of residence in the country, prior to their total enslavement, and perhaps shows that a group may have migrated south or was taken south for work. While remains of material culture such as pottery, architecture, or artifacts may be ethnically ambiguous, Hebrew names and possibly even the word or name Hebrew clearly indicates that there were Hebrews living in Egypt. Although rather obscure, the list includes the earliest attestation of Hebrew names that has ever been recovered in Egypt, and it demonstrates that Hebrews were in Egypt prior to the 1440s BC just as the story in the book of Exodus records.
~Titus~
No comments:
Post a Comment