(1:4) Reconciling Genesis with History.

Identifying what caused the Hebrews to become alienated from the Egyptians remains a problem, as the Genesis and Exodus accounts have yet to be reconciled with the archaeological and historical data from any given period of Egyptian history. Many scholars state that there is little to no evidence to support the Exodus account. But an increasing body of archaeological data and a careful re-evaluation of both the Egyptian and Biblical text can show that these pastoralists peacefully co-existed for the most part, side by side.

For example; for Abram’s rescue of Lot from the hands of Chedor-laomer to have taken place, Abram probably employed the greater members of the tribal coalition that both he and Lot were part of, since there is no suggestion that Abram had an army of his own. Again, the Mari texts support this supposition, suggesting that there is a formal hierarchy of leadership within the Benu Yamina coalition, being composed of five groups, each having a king. But the relationship between Abram and the kings of the city states of Sodom and Salem seems very cordial. [20] [21]

During the third and early second millennia B.C.E., Egypt’s Delta region would have made a land bridge between Libya in the west and the Negev in the east, forming a vast region with low human density, scattered settlements, abundant grazing and wooded land and permeable borders. This was an ideal landscape for foragers and herders to wander.

Yet their self-governing mobile lifestyle is frequently portrayed as clashing with the sedentary interests of the growing populous of Egypt and, in-particular, with pharaoh in many commentaries. This may be due to the relatively abundant depictions of conflict, presented on the temple walls and earlier stella texts which exist from the Middle Kingdom period onwards. The New Kingdom pharaohs are frequently illustrated as smiting their enemies with their mace or bow. The pharaoh’s primary role was to ensure Ma’at, the Egyptian concept of balance, order and harmony. Yet the earlier Middle Kingdom Beni Hassan illustration suggests that conflict did not always ensue. It suggests a more harmonious existence of trade and exchange.

The Asiatics acted as international traders, carrying with them technologies such as the science of metal refining, glass making, together with seed and crop exchange. They also provided seasonal manpower for mining operations in the Sinai and the harvest, as well as wool and leather products generated from their herds. But their involvement in the trade networks provided access to highly valuable goods, creating an economy that seems more diverse and complex than is usually considered. Still their autonomy was liable to conflict with the interests of the pharaoh.

Genesis recounts the permission of the pharaoh for these pastoralists to occupy the land of Goshen, perhaps reflecting a time when Egypt was more open to trading with the Asiatics and the competition for land was not so great. But it might also suggest that pharaoh had something else in mind.

And if you know any capable men among them, put them in charge of my livestock.

Genesis 47: 6

Archaeological research from the Old Kingdom site at Kom el-Hisn, situated on the western border of the Nile Delta, has provided detailed information about this location’s farming activities. [22]

Kom el-Hisn was a site specialising in cattle, sheep and goat rearing, on abundant grazing land similar to that found on the desert fringe in the region of Biblical Ramesses and Succoth. Traces of cattle consumption from the site were small, suggesting that the local population were not eating the cattle. Instead, the local population were eating meat predominantly from pigs and older sheep and goats, together with fish. In all probability, selective parts of the herds were being removed by the authorities for the provisioning of large working gangs.

The overseers employed by the state had job titles that identifies their responsibilities as being concerned with controlling the lands usage. Their responsibilities also involved patrolling and controlling mobile people and the taxing of goods entering into Egypt. It seems that grazing rights may have been given in exchange for a portion of the farmer’s herd. Cattle were raised in the grassy areas while sheep were reared in the drier areas. Goats could have thrived in both places and would have complimented both sheep and cattle as they do not compete for the same food. [23]

In a region where people have traditionally reserved meat eating for special occasions and feast-days, evidence found at the pyramid builders’ cities of Giza and Abusir suggests that the state provisioned the workforce with enough cattle, sheep, and goats to feed thousands of people prime cuts of meat for more than a generation, even if they ate it every day. Sites, such as Kom el-Hisn, have been linked with supplying meat for the workforce building the great pyramids at Giza, as well as provisioning the palace staff as their form of pay. Can the Biblical text be shown to suggest the Hebrews were rearing sheep and goats for consumption by the builders of Pithom and Ramesses? Were the Hebrews supplying food for the royal palace? Surly Jacob’s descendants would have to pay some kind of tax to pharaoh in order to dwell in the land. [24]

The Egyptians ruthlessly imposed upon the Israelites the various labours that they made them perform. Ruthlessly they made life bitter for them with harsh labour at mortar and bricks and with all sorts of tasks in the field.

Exodus 1: 14

If such an arrangement proved to be mutually convenient for the Asiatics herders and the Egyptian administrators, collaboration and not conflict would initially have been the norm. However, the Bible suggests that the corvée labour agreement between pharaoh and the Hebrews became a source of conflict. The Brooklyn text has already highlighted how the state would deal with such individuals and the Mari correspondence also highlights that the Yaminites were equally averse to such duties of labour for the state. [25]

Joseph’s sixth change of clothes.

The Beni Hassan depiction of these colourful traders clearly shows how fully integrated these people were into the international networks of exchange around 1900 B.C.E. It also highlights the pharaoh’s use of permits, suggesting an attempt to control, regulate and participate in such a flow of wealth. Just as our boarder agencies collect duties, tax and perform controls on immigration, the forts along the eastern border of the Nile Delta can be seen as the pharaoh’s means of defence and control. Joseph’s story can be shown to fit well into an Egyptian late 12th, early 13th Dynasty chronology.

But identifying the Historical setting to the closing verses of Genesis and the opening introduction of Exodus is a little more problematic. One could suggest the rabbinic account of Joseph’s demise was an echo of the rising tensions between the Asiatics and the Egyptians, which resulted in the polarisation of the 2nd Intermediate Period of Egyptian history. Equally, it could be argued that the narrative reflects the reprisals of the 18th Dynasty pharaohs against the remaining Hyksos minded populous at the beginning of the New Kingdom.

Here then is the subject of the second programme; The death of a people, but their rebirth as a nation. Part Two: Egypt's Golden Age, The background to the Exodus.