Moses and Divine Providence

In an excellent article, “When YHWH Tests People: General Considerations and Particular Observations Regarding the Books of Chronicles and Job,” published in The Philip R. Davies Festschrift, Ehud Ben Zvi deals with the issue of divine testing. He wrote that in many societies kings were concerned with assessing whether their servants were loyal and trustworthy servants. Ben Zvi’s contention is that even YHWH needed to know whether his servants were loyal and whether they loved him as king. In his article Ben Zvi said “that the more a personage seemed to embody the values of loyalty and commitment to YHWH, the more likely candidate she or he will be to stand as the main object of a tradition of a divine test.”

I agree with Ben Zvi’s conclusions. The examples Ben Zvi gives in his article provide irrefutable evidence that YHWH’s faithful and loyal servants are tested for their faithfulness and loyalty. In the present study I would like to include another reason for divine testing. I contend that potential servants of YHWH are also tested to see whether they are worthy of a greater assignment.

One good example of a person who was tested by YHWH in preparation for a greater assignment was Moses. The biblical narratives about Moses present him as an individual who went through much trial and tribulation before he was ready for the work God had prepared for him: to lead the people of Israel from their oppressive situation in Egypt to their journey toward the land of Canaan. From a child in peril, to the luxury of the palace, to a fugitive from justice, to the savior of his nation, Moses was tried and tested in preparation for his work of liberating Israel from their oppression in Egypt.

According to the biblical narratives, Moses grew up with the members of the royal family in Egypt, enjoying the life of luxury that came from being the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:10). But all that changed when, in a fit of rage, Moses killed an Egyptian who was mistreating a Hebrew. All of a sudden, Moses became a wanted man and a fugitive from justice.

His attempt at helping the Hebrew slaves was a costly mistake. Instead of becoming the savior of his people, Moses had become an outlaw. Because Pharaoh wanted Moses dead, he had to abandon his life in the palace and leave Egypt. By divine providence Moses fled to Midian, a region outside Egyptian control, where he lived for forty years. When Moses arrived in Midian, he sat by a well and there he was again confronted with injustice. Several women came to the well to water their father’s sheep but some shepherds came and chased them away. Moses rescued the women and helped them water their sheep.

By rescuing the women, Moses acted as a deliverer of the oppressed and by stooping down to water their flock, Moses was serving the women. And it is here where Moses’ education begins. People whom God calls into service must begin their education by finding a place of service because those who lead others must learn how to serve all. This was the lesson Rehoboam never learned.

When Rehoboam sought the counsel of the elders concerning the request of the people of Israel to remove the forced labor, the elder told him: “If you will be a servant to this people today and serve them, and speak good words to them when you answer them, then they will be your servants forever” (1 Kings 12:7). But Rehoboam disregarded the advice that the elders gave him because in his mind, a king could not be a servant of the people.

Moses’ life in Midian became a time of preparation. The first lesson that Moses had to learn was how to control his anger. Because of anger he became a fugitive. In his encounter with the shepherds he did not kill them as he had killed the Egyptian. The second lesson Moses learned was how to become a servant. By watering the flock for the women, Moses was learning how to serve others. Another lesson Moses learned while in Midian was how to survive in the wilderness. Living in the wilderness helped Moses gain a basic knowledge of wilderness survival and how to find food and water in the desert.

One experience in Midian that greatly contributed to Moses’ spiritual education was his association with Jethro and his family. Jethro was a priest and he became Moses’ father-in-law (Exodus 3:1). It is possible that Jethro belonged to the Kenites, a Midianite tribe of nomads who lived in the wilderness, in the vicinity of Mount Sinai. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2). Jethro was “the priest of Midian” and it is possible that his God was the God of Abraham. If the Midianites worshiped the God of their father Abraham, then Moses received religious instructions about the God of the Fathers from Jethro.

In addition, in Midian Moses became a shepherd. In fact, Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law at the time he came to Horeb, the mountain of God (Exodus 3:1). Moses’ new profession was his final break with Egypt since shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34). One lesson shepherds learn very fast is that sheep depend totally on shepherds for their care.

It was by taking care of Jethro’s flock that Moses learned how to be the shepherd of Israel, how to rescue, protect, and feed the people on their journey from Egypt to Canaan. When the Psalmist was thinking about what God had done for Israel, he said: “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses” (Psalm 77:20). At the end of his life, Moses asked God to raise another shepherd to care for Israel. Moses prayed: “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint someone over the congregation who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the LORD may not be like sheep without a shepherd” (Numbers 27:16-17).

God used the trials and tribulations in Moses’ life to prepare him for his work as the deliverer of Israel. Throughout all the ordeals Moses faced, God was training him for a very special work. It took God eighty years of training to prepare Moses for forty years of ministry.

Going to Midian, living in the wilderness, and becoming a shepherd was not part of Moses’ plan for his life. However, God used those events in Moses’ life to teach and prepare him for his assignment. In order for Moses to become the deliverer of Israel it was necessary for Moses to be tested and tried.

In Moses’ life and experience Christians discover the real meaning of Paul’s words: “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

The greatest desire in the lives of those who serve the Lord is to know that they will be able to serve God with gladness of heart and the assurance of divine help. However, the reality is that at times they serve the Lord with much sorrow, suffering, and trials. Although many of the trials and tribulations bring sorrows and discomfort, in God’s providence they can be useful. In fact, as Paul says, these things that happen to the Christian can be overruled by God for his good.

However, if God knows the problems and the struggles of his servants, why then are they not delivered from these afflictions? The answer, as Paul shows, is that in the providence of God, these trials and tribulations can become a teaching time for God’s friends, so that, although they are not removed, God can make them work for their good.

Paul’s words and Moses’ experience teach God’s friends that whatever may be the number and overwhelming character of their trials, they are all contributing to their spiritual preparation. Divine providence uses all things to teach and prepare God’s friends to serve him in a greater way.

It is tough being God’s friend.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Midian, Midianites, Moses, Providence, Test, Tribulation

Mario Liverani and the History of Israel

During the Christmas break I finished reading Mario Liverani’s Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2003). Last week I finished writing a review of the book that I will submit to a major journal for publication. The review is also part of the commitment I made to Chris Brady at Targuman to submit a scholarly work for publication during the Biblical Studies Academic Writing Month. The content of the present post is different from the review I wrote for publication and different from my previous post on Liverani’s book.

Liverani’s book is divided into three sections. In Part I, Liverani presents a description of the different archaeological periods of Israel’s history. In this section, which he calls “The Normal History,” Liverani studies the textual and archeological evidence that contribute to the proper understanding of what was actually happening in Israel and in the countries that form the land of the Bible during a time period that includes Palestine in the Late Bronze Age up to the Babylonian invasion and the exile of Judah in 587 BCE.

The second section is an Intermezzo, a section in which he discusses events that were happening in other parts of the world in the sixth century BCE, a time which he calls “The Axial Age.” In the Intermezzo, Liverani also discusses the diaspora and the myth of the empty land.

The third section, Part II of his book, Liverani discusses the “Invented History of Israel.” By invented history, Liverani means the ideological rereading and rewriting of the Deuteronomic history in order to undergird the political realities of post-exilic Judah. According to Liverani, the rewriting of Israel’s history served as a strategy to implement a program of national recovery that would provide political and religious legitimacy for the people who made a commitment to return and re-colonize Judah after the edict of Cyrus, king of Persia, allowed the exiles to return home.

Liverani makes a distinction between two groups of Jews in post-exilic Judah. Those Jews who were returning home from exile were the “returnees.” The returnees are also called “Zionists.” Those Jews who did not go into exile and remained in the land are called “the remainees.” The remainees are called “the people of the land” by the returnees. This pejorative term was used by those returning from exile to describe all those Jews who did not go into exile.

According to Liverani, the returnees needed a legal justification to take possession of the land that belonged to the remainees. Since the remainees occupied the land, the returnees needed an authoritative tradition assigning ownership of the land of Canaan to the tribes of Israel. This tradition needed to identify the returnees as the legitimate heirs of the land and declare that the remainees should be dispossessed of their land.

Thus, according to Liverani, those Jews returning from exile rewrote the Deuteronomic history and created a set of foundational myths that legitimized the claim of the returnees as the legitimate heirs of the promises of God.

The migration of Abraham from Babylon to Canaan and the promise of God to give Abraham the land of Canaan as an inheritance became the foundational myth to legitimize the returnees’ claim that God brought them from Babylon and gave them the land of Canaan. This idea is covered in Chapter 13: “Returnees and Remainees: The Invention of the Patriarch.”

Although the myth of the patriarchs gave the returnees a promise of the land, they needed another authoritative tradition that allowed them to actually take possession of the land. Thus, the foundational myth of the Exodus provided the returnees with the legitimation for a group of people from the outside to take possession of the land. The foundational myth of the Conquest provided the returnees with the legitimation to take the land from the remainees by force, if necessary. This idea is developed in Chapter 14: “Returnees and Aliens: The Invention of the Conquest.”

Thus, to Liverani, the history of Israel as presented in the biblical text is an invented history. He also deals with “The Invention of the Judges,” The Invention of the United Monarchy,” “The Invention of the Solomonic Temple,” and “The Invention of the Law.” In describing the aim of his work, Liverani wrote:

In the present work I have tried to write– at least in the form of a first draft–a new version of the history of Israel, starting from the results of textual and literary criticism as well as from data collected by archaeology and epigraphy. In doing so I felt free to change the Biblical plot, while keeping a properly historical approach.

Liverani’s history of Israel is a typical example of a minimalist approach to the history of Israel. The minimalists deny this historicity of the biblical narratives. Biblical minimalists say that the history of the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest, the giving of the law, together with the historicity of Moses and Joshua and the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon are post-exilic inventions that were created to justify the political and religious aspirations of a group of Zionists who desired to take possession of the land from of group of people who had lived in the land for almost a century. So, the minimalists feel “free to change the Biblical plot” in order to sustain their presuppositions.

To biblical minimalists, the biblical narratives reflect a rewriting of history that created an ideal past in order to justify the realities as they existed in the seventh and six centuries BCE. To many minimalists, these stories were first created by the people who were involved in the reforms of Josiah in the seventh century. Others believe that some of these stories were “invented” in the sixth and fifth centuries to provide political and religious legitimacy to the post-exilic community of Yehud.

However, if Abraham, Moses, and the patriarchs never existed and if these stories were “invented” in the sixth century, how can we explain the mention of the names of some of those invented people in the prophetic literature of the eighth century?

For instance, in the eighth century BCE, the prophet Micah mentions Moses, Aaron, and Miriam and the exodus from Egypt (Micah 6:4). The Exodus from Egypt is also mentioned by Amos (Amos 2:10; 3:1) and Hosea (11:1) in the eighth century. In addition, Amos speaks of Israel sojourning forty years in the wilderness (Amos 2:10). All the eighth century prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, mention the patriarch Jacob.

In the Elijah narratives, a source most scholars believe to be independent from the Deuteronomist, when the prophet Elijah (ninth century BCE) seeks to go back to the source of Israelite religion, he goes back to Horeb, the Northern name for Mount Sinai (1 Kings 19:8).

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never existed, then it is almost impossible to understand Jesus’ words when talking about the resurrection: “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:31-32). How can God be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and how can they be alive when Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never existed?

The problem with the minimalists is that they use the same approach atheists use when they deny the existence of God. Atheists say to theists: “God does not exist. Now, prove to me that God exists.” Minimalists say that these stories are invented; now the burden of proof is with those who say that they are historical.

James Hoffmeier, in his book Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 10, talks about the insistence of minimalists that a claim made in the Bible must be corroborated before the statement can be considered historical. Hoffmeier wrote: “[The] assertion that the burden of proof does not rest on the critical (minimalist) historian has become the prevailing attitude in biblical scholarship for the past several decades.”

The matter of the historicity of the biblical text is what prompts the debate between those who are called maximalists and those who are called minimalists. The minimalists accuse the maximalists of accepting the historicity of the biblical text because they presuppose divine intervention in human affairs. They demand proof of the historicity of the events narrated by the text. On the other hand, the maximalists accuse the minimalists of being skeptics and radical ideologues. They say that the minimalists reject Israel’s understanding of its own religious traditions as irrelevant because their views are based primarily on a literary interpretation of the text.

I would like to put the burden of proof on the other side. For once, I would like to see the minimalists prove that Moses did not exist.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Mario Liverani, Maximalists, Minimalists, Moses, Patriarchs

Mount Nebo

According to the book of Deuteronomy, after Moses declared the law to Israel and after he had finished the composition of the song to be presented to Israel (Deut. 32), the song in which Moses declared God’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness, the Lord gave Moses instructions about his death. The Lord commanded Moses to ascend the Abarim mountains and go up to Mount Nebo and there, before he died, look at the extension of the land that He was about to give Israel as its inheritance (Deut 32:49). The people of Israel had been camping near Mount Nebo since they had entered Moabite territory, after their 40 years’ journey in the wilderness.

The book of Deuteronomy provides specific details about the location of Mount Nebo. Mount Nebo was located in the land of Moab, facing the city of Jericho, in the Abarim chain of mountains, on top of Pisgah (Deut. 32:49; 34:1). Mount Nebo and Mount Pisgah were part of the chain of mountains known as Abarim (see Deut. 3:27).

Pisgah appears in Numbers 21:20 as one of the places on the itinerary of the Israelites’ march through Moabite territory and in Deuteronomy 3:17 as one of the boundaries separating the tribes of Reuben and Gad. The site of Mount Nebo has been identified with Ras es-Siyagha, a mountain between the cities of Madeba and Heshbon. As a result of archaeological excavations at Ras es-Siyagha done by the Franciscan Bible School in the early 1930s, archaeologists have excavated a Byzantine church dedicated to the memory of Moses.

According to Jennings, the church was decorated with beautiful mosaics. The church also contained a quatrefoil baptistry (a baptistry decorated with four leaflets). In addition, “elaborate pictures of trees, fruits, birds, and animals, as well as geometric motifs and dedicatory inscriptions decorated the floors" (James E. Jennings, "Nebo," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison [Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983], 332).

Evidently, Mount Nebo was located near the town of Nebo, a place on the eastern side of the Jordan. The book of Joshua declares that the territory of the tribe of Reuben included "the slope of Pisgah" (Josh. 13:20). The Book of Numbers says that the mountains of Abarim were located near Nebo (Num. 33:47). This town was part of the inheritance that Moses gave to the tribe of Reuben at the time of the division of the conquered land in the eastern side of the Jordan (Num. 32:38).

Possibly, both the town and the mountain were named after the god Nebo. According to Babylonian religious tradition, Nebo was the son Marduk, the chief god in the Babylonian pantheon. This association of Nebo with the Babylonia god may explain why the author of Numbers 32:38 declared that the name of the city was changed.

There at the top of Nebo Moses was to be gathered to his ancestors. Moses was going to die in the land of Moab without entering the promised land, which had been the focus of his ministry for 40 years. Because of his disobedience in Meribah, Moses had not honored the holiness of Yahweh in the presence of Israel (Num. 20:1-13; Deut. 1:37; 4:21). For this reason, Moses would contemplate the promised land from afar, without crossing the Jordan river with the new generation of Israelites.

After he had exhorted the people of Israel to be faithful and obedient to God's laws, Moses said his farewell to the people by blessing each tribe of Israel. Then, in obedience to God’s word, Moses left the plains of Moab, where the people were camped, and went up to Mount Nebo. From the top of Mount Nebo, the Lord showed Moses all the land of Canaan, the land that Israel was about to receive as its inheritance, as God had promised to Abraham. From the top of the mountain Moses was able to look at the land of Canaan. Even though it was impossible for Moses to see the complete extension of the land, the writer of Deuteronomy described the geographic limits of the land at it existed in his own day (Deut. 34:1-3). The description of the land follows a north-south direction.

The land of Gilead was on the east side of the Jordan River. This was the land where the Transjordanian tribes lived. Dan was the northernmost limit of the land of Canaan. This part of the land was later occupied by the tribe of Dan. Naphtali, Ephraim, and Manasseh represented the central part of the land. Judah was the southern limit. The Western Sea was the Mediterranean. Jericho, the city of palms (Josh. 6:16, 21; Judges 1:16), was the first city the Israelites conquered after they crossed the Jordan River. Zoar was situated at the south of the Dead Sea. The Negev was the wilderness of south Judah. After he was shown the extension of the promised land, Moses died in the land of Moab and was buried in a valley opposite Beth-Peor. Beth-Peor was the name of the valley where the Israelites had set their camp in preparation for crossing the Jordan River (Deut. 3:29; 4:46).

Thus, Mount Nebo is the site of an important event in Moses’ life and in the children of Israel’s life.

Note:

This article was published in the Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1999): 56-58. The Biblical Illustrator is published by Lifeway.com.

Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abarim, Deuteronomy, Moses, Mount Nebo, Pisga

Rereading Micah 6:4: Miriam, A Leader in Israel

Feminist hermeneutic has made an impact on biblical scholarship because it has demonstrated to interpreters that the biblical text reflects the patriarchal views of the society which gave birth to the text. In addition, feminist interpreters have shown that some of these same patriarchal values and concerns have affected biblical translations.

Feminist writers like to emphasize that the stories in the Bible were written by men for men. In many stories about women in the Old Testament, women remain nameless, as in the case of Jephthah’s daughter and the concubine that was raped and then dismembered or they remain voiceless, their voices only heard through the voice of the male redactor.

The portrayal of Miriam in the biblical text may demonstrate how the biblical writers lessened her influence as one of the leaders of the Israelite community at the time Israel journeyed through the wilderness.

The purpose of this study is to look at Miriam and how she is portrayed in the biblical text and then focus on Micah 6:4 and how the NIV portrays Miriam in its translation of that text.

Miriam appears in five books of the Old Testament: Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Chronicles, and Micah. Her name appears 15 times in these books, but only 13 in the NIV. On two occasions, in Numbers 12:10 and Numbers 12:15, the NIV uses the pronoun “she” instead of using Miriam’s name, as do most translations.

In Miriam’s first appearance in the biblical text, she is the nameless sister of Moses who watches him on the waters of the Nile. She is called only “his sister” (Exodus 2:4). In this text the reader can see the initiatives taken by Miriam: Miriam speaks to Pharaoh’s daughter and offers to find someone to take care of the child. Because of her, Moses lived his formative years with his own mother. Because of Miriam, Moses lives and does not die. Miriam saves her brother before he can save a single Hebrew.

In Exodus 15:20, Miriam is calledהנביאה “the prophetess.” A prophet (נביא) is a person called by God. Miriam was called by God to lead the people together with Moses and Aaron. Miriam was assigned a prophetical role because she led the community in celebrating God’s victory over the Egyptian army:

“Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exodus 15:21).

And yet, the song of Miriam has been attributed to Moses:

“Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, 'I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea'” (Exodus 15:1).

Some scholars have proposed that Miriam’s song was a response to Moses’ song. However, a critical review of Moses’ song in Exodus 15 reveals that the song was written many years after the events. Miriam’s song may be an old composition celebrating Israel’s crossing on the sea. Moses received the credit for the song, but it was Miriam who led Israel in celebrating God’s victory.

In Numbers 12:1-15 there is a controversy over the issue of leadership. In Numbers 12:2, Aaron and Miriam asked Moses: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:12). However, Numbers 12:1 attributes the controversy to questions about Moses’ Cushite wife.

The text is not clear on the nature of the conflict, but it seems that Miriam was raising an issue that reflected a concern in the community. Although both Aaron and Miriam are involved in this controversy, only Miriam was punished as a result of this challenge to Moses’ leadership. The public nature of her punishment may indicate that the issue was of interest to the whole community.

That Miriam was a leader in Israel is clearly seen in Micah 6:4: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

In this text Miriam is named as one of the leaders of Israel, together with Moses and Aaron, whom God sent to lead the people out of Egypt. The prophet Micah lists Moses, Aaron, and Miriam as the three leaders of Israel.

Thus, Micah’s statement reflects an ancient tradition that affirms that Miriam had a very significant leadership role in early Israelite history, a role that in later writing was downgraded partly in order to promote Moses as the prominent leader of Israel. Although the biblical text refers to Moses and Aaron as the leaders of the community, the text in Micah 6:4 reveals that Miriam was their equal.

Anderson and Freeman acknowledge the importance of Micah’s statement. They wrote: “What makes Micah’s simple statement so remarkable, and so puzzling, is the fact that nowhere in the tradition are the three siblings presented in a shared leadership role” (p. 519).

However, the NIV’s translation of Micah 6:4 looks like an attempt to diminish Miriam as a leader in Israel. The NIV translates: “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 NIV). The same translation is found in the TNIV.

This translation does not reflect the biblical text. All the other translations reflect the Hebrew text: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

The translation of the NIV takes away the unique leadership role Miriam had in the community. By separating Aaron and Miriam from Moses, the NIV elevates Moses’ position (“I sent Moses to lead you”) and diminishes Miriam almost to an afterthought (“also . . . Miriam”).

The leadership role of Miriam is also diminished in the biblical text. In Psalm 77:20 the name of Miriam is omitted from the list of leaders in Israel: “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” Where is Miriam? Her position as a leader of Israel was marginalized by the Psalmist. The memory of what Miriam did for the community was forgotten, consigned to an ideology that minimized the contribution of women to their society.

Reading and interpreting the biblical text is not easy. At times, a translator, in order to make sense of a text, applies methods of interpretation that may reflect cultural and theological biases.

The NIV diminishes Miriam by omitting her name twice. Furthermore, the addition of the word “also” by the translators of the NIV and TNIV gives a slant to the text that serves to undervalue the role of Miriam as a leader in Israel. I do not know whether this addition to the text was intentional. However, the resulting translation has a strong theological overtone, one which may reflect an undercurrent of patriarchy.

In my judgment, the translation of Micah 6:4 in the NIV and the TNIV is not acceptable.

Reference: Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, Femenist Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Micah 6:4, Miriam, Moses, Translation

The Exodus from Egypt: A New Explanation

According to an article published in The New York Times, Dr. Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s chief archaeologist, has declared that the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a myth. According to him, the Exodus did not happen because there is no historical evidence for the presence of Israel in Egypt.

People who follow the archaeological debate about the historicity of the Exodus and even of the facts about early Israel know that many archaeologists and biblical scholars deny the events mentioned in the book of Exodus because there is no evidence for the pharaoh and his army being killed during the exodus.

However, another Egyptian archaeologist has developed a theory that may explain the reason no evidence has been found in archaeological discoveries for the defeat of the pharaoh of Egypt. What follows is an excerpt of the article published in The New York Times:

Recently, diggers found evidence of lava from a volcano in the Mediterranean Sea that erupted in 1500 B.C. and is believed to have killed 35,000 people and wiped out villages in Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula, officials here said. The same diggers found evidence of a military fort with four rectangular towers, now considered the oldest fort on the Horus military road.

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of the excavation, seemed to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt.

“A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army.

“This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”

The Egyptians and most nations of the past did not document their crises. This statement could explain why there is no record of pharaoh and his army drowning in the sea.

Come to think of it, this is an old explanation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, Moses, Red Sea, Zahi Hawass

Did Moses Exist?

Jewish scholars are divided over the issue of whether Moses was a real person.

Rabbi Norman J. Cohen believes that Moses was a real person and that he “changed the course of human history all by himself.”

Rabbi S. David Sperling from the Reform Judaism Seminary in New York City is not certain that Moses even existed or, if he did, whether the Bible provides much reliable information about him.

Read the controversy by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Moses