Amarna Period of Egypt › Moses » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Amarna Period of Egypt › Antique Origins
- Moses › Who Was
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
Amarna Period of Egypt › Antique Origins
Definition and Origins
The Amarna Period of ancient Egypt was the era of the reign of Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE), known as 'the heretic king'. In the 5th year of his reign (c. 1348 BCE), he issued sweeping religious reforms which resulted in the suppression of the traditional polytheistic/henotheistic religious beliefs of the culture and the elevation of his personal god Aten to supremacy.According to some scholars, the period is limited to Akhenaten's reign while others claim it extends through the time of Akhenaten's successors and ends with the ascent of the pharaoh Horemheb (1320-1292 BCE). This latter claim is the one most commonly favored by mainstream scholarship, and the era is, therefore, most often designated as between c. 1348-1320 BCE.
Akhenaten's religious reforms are considered the first true expression of monotheism in world history and have been praised and criticized in the modern era by scholars arguing for and against the so-called 'heretic king'. The Amarna Period is, in fact, the era of ancient Egypt's history that has received the most attention because Akhenaten's reign is seen as such a dramatic departure from the standard of the traditional Egyptian monarchy.
Following Akhenaten's reforms, the temples of all the gods except those for Aten were closed, religious observances either banned or severely repressed, and the capital of the country was moved from Thebes to the king's new city of Akhetaten (modern-day Amarna). Akhetaten was essentially a city built for the god, not the people, and this reflects the central focus of Akhenaten's reign.
After embracing his new religious belief and suppressing that of others, Akhenaten more or less retreated to his god's city where he assumed the role of god incarnate and dedicated himself to the worship and adulation of his heavenly father, Aten.The lives of his people, trade contracts and alliances with foreign powers, as well as maintenance of the country's infrastructure and military, all seem to have become secondary concerns to his religious devotions.
The religious reforms he instituted would not last beyond his death. His son and successor Tutankhamun (c. 1336-1327 BCE) reversed his policies and brought back traditional religious practices. Tutankhamun's efforts were cut short by his early death but were continued, with far greater zeal, by one of his successors, Horemheb who destroyed the city of Akhetaten and erased Akhenaten's name from history.
AKHENATEN & THE GODS OF EGYPT
Akhenaten was the son of the great Amenhotep III (1386-1353 BCE) whose reign was marked by some of the most impressive temples and monuments of the New Kingdom of Egypt (c. 1570 - c. 1069 BCE) such as his palace, his mortuary complex, the Colossi of Memnon who guarded it, and so many others that later archaeologists believed he must have ruled for an exceptionally long time to have commissioned them all. These grand building projects are evidence of a stable and prosperous reign which allowed Amenhotep III to leave his son a wealthy and powerful kingdom.
THE LIVES OF HIS PEOPLE, TRADE CONTRACTS & ALLIANCES WITH FOREIGN POWERS, THE COUNTRY'S INFRASTRUCTURE & MILITARY, ALL SEEM TO HAVE BECOME SECONDARY CONCERNS TO AKHENATEN'S RELIGIOUS DEVOTIONS.
At this time, Akhenaten was known as Amenhotep IV, a name taken by Egyptian monarchs to honor the god Amun and which means 'Amun is Content' (or 'Amun is Pleased'). Amenhotep IV continued his father's policies, was diligent in diplomacy regarding foreign affairs, and encouraged trade. In his fifth year, however, he suddenly reversed all of this behavior, changed his name to Akhenaten ('Effective for Aten'), abolished the traditional belief structure of Egypt, and moved the capital of the country from Thebes (center of the Cult of Amun) to a new city built on virgin ground in middle Egypt which he named Akhetaten ('Horizon of Aten', but also given as 'Place Where Aten Becomes Effective'). Precisely what motivated this sudden change in the king is unknown, and scholars have been writing about and debating this question for the past century.
Akhenaten himself does not give any reason for his religious transformation in any of his inscriptions – even though many remain extant – and seems to have believed that the reason for his sudden devotion to a single god was self-evident: this was the one true god human beings should acknowledge, and all the others were either false or far less potent. However clear he may have felt his reasons to be, however, they were not understood that same way by his court or the people.
The ancient Egyptians – like any polytheistic society – worshipped many gods for a simple reason: common sense, or at least that is how they would have viewed their position. It was easy enough to see that in one's daily life a single person could not meet an individual's every need – one interacted with teachers, doctors, one's spouse, one's boss, co-workers, father, mother, siblings – and each of these people had their own unique abilities and contributions to one's life.
To claim that one person could fulfill an individual's every need – that all one required in life was just this one other person – would have seemed as absurd to an ancient Egyptian as it should to anyone living in the present day. The gods were viewed in this exact same way in that one would not think of asking Hathor for help in writing a letter – that was the area of Thoth ’s expertise – and one would not pray to the literary goddess Seshat for aid in conceiving a child – one would consult Bes or Hathor or Bastet or others who were divine experts in that area.
The gods were an integral part of the people's lives, and the temple was the center of the city. The temples of ancient Egypt were not houses of worship for the people but the earthly homes of the gods. The priests did not exist to serve a congregation but to care for the statue of the god in its home. These temples were often enormous complexes with their own staff who cooked, cleaned, brewed beer, stored grain and other surplus food, copied manuscripts, taught students, served as doctors, dentists, and nurses, and interpreted dreams, signs, and omens for the people.
Royal Couple
The importance of the temples was felt far outside the complexes in that they generated and supported entire industries. The harvest and processing of papyrus depended largely on the temples as did amulet makers, jewelers, those who made shabti dolls, weavers, and a host of others. When Akhenaten decided to close the temples and abolish the traditional religious beliefs, all of these businesses suffered for it.
In the present day, when monotheistic understanding is commonplace, Akhenaten is often regarded as a visionary who saw beyond the confines of his religion and recognized the true nature of God; but this far from how he was perceived in his time.Further, it is quite likely that his reforms had less to do with a divine vision and were more an attempt to wrest power from the Cult of Amun and reclaim the wealth and power they had accumulated at the expense of the crown.
THE KING & THE CULT OF AMUN
The Cult of Amun first gained power in the Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2613-2181 BCE) when the kings of the 4th Dynasty rewarded the priests with tax-exempt status in return for their diligence in performing mortuary rituals and maintaining the proper rites at the royal pyramid complex at Giza and elsewhere. Even a cursory study of ancient Egyptian history from this period forward makes clear that this particular cult was a perennial problem for the nobility in that they only grew more wealthy and powerful year after year.
Since they paid no taxes in the form of grain grown on their lands, they were able to sell it as they wished. The kings of the 4th Dynasty had also granted them enormous and fertile tracts of land in perpetuity, and this combination enabled them to accrue incredible wealth, and that wealth translated to power. In every one of the so-called 'intermediate periods' in Egyptian history – those eras in which the central government was weak or divided – the priests of Amun remained as powerful as ever, and in the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt (c. 1069-525 BCE), the Amun priests of Thebes ruled Upper Egypt with a greater display of power than the kings of Tanis (in Lower Egypt) could muster.
There was no way a successive king could reverse the policies of the Old Kingdom without undercutting the authority of the monarchy. A king in the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, for example, could not claim that Khufu of the Old Kingdom had made a mistake regarding the Amun cult without admitting that kings, including himself, were fallible. The king was the mediator between the gods and the people who maintained the most important aspects of the culture, and so the king could not be seen as anything less than perfectly divine. The only way a king would be able to reclaim the wealth given away to the priests was to abolish the priesthood, to make them seem less than worthy of their position and power, and this is the course Akhenaten pursued.
Even in Amenhotep III's prosperous reign there is evidence of conflict between the priests of Amun and the crown and the minor solar deity known as Aten was already venerated by Amenhotep III along with Amun and other gods. It may have been Amenhotep III's wife (and Akhenaten's mother), Tiye (1398-1338 BCE) who suggested the strategy of religious reform to her son.
Queen Tiye
Tiye exerted significant influence over both her husband and son and, through them, the court and bureaucracy of Egypt. Her support of Akhenaten's reforms is well documented, and as a savvy politician, she would have recognized them as the only means to elevate the power of the pharaoh at the expense of the priests. Some scholars have also suggested Akhenaten's famous queen Nefertiti (c. 1370 - c. 1336 BCE) as the inspiration for the reforms as she also clearly supported and participated in the new faith.
A number of scholars over the years have claimed that Akhenaten's religious reforms were not monotheistic but simply a suppression of the activity of other cults to elevate that of Aten. This claim makes little sense, however, if one is aware of that same kind of initiative in Egypt's past. Amun was elevated to the height of king of the gods, and his temple at Karnak was (and still is) the largest religious building ever constructed in history. Even so, the cults of all the other gods were allowed to flourish just as they always had.
One cannot claim that the religious initiatives of Akhenaten were along the same lines as the earlier one of the priests of Amun; they were not. Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten - as well as his religious policies - made clear that there was only one god worth worshipping. The Great Hymn to the Aten, written by the king, describes a god so great and so powerful that he could not be represented in images and could not be experienced in any of the temples or cities across the nation; this god needed his own new city with his own new temple, and Akhenaten would build it for him.
AKHETATEN
The city of Akhetaten was the fullest expression of Akhenaten's new vision. It was constructed c. 1346 BCE on virgin land in the middle of Egypt on the east bank of the Nile River, built midway between the traditional capitals of Memphis to the north and Thebes to the south. Boundary steles were erected at intervals around its perimeter which told the story of its founding.On one of these, Akhenaten tells the story of how he chose the location:
Behold, it is Pharaoh, who found it – not being the property of a god, not being the property of a goddess, not being the property of a male ruler, not being the property of a female ruler, and not being the property of any people. (Snape, 155)
The new city could not belong to anyone prior to Aten. In the same way that the god was to be understood in a new light, so his place of worship had to be entirely novel. Amun, Osiris, Isis, Sobek, Bastet, Hathor, and the many other gods had been worshipped for centuries at different cities sacred to them but Akhenaten's god needed a site where no god had been venerated before.
The four main districts were the North City, Central City, Southern Suburbs, and Outskirts. The North City was laid out around the Northern Palace which was dedicated to Aten. Throughout Egypt's history the king and his family lived in the palace, and Akhenaten himself would have grown up in the enormous and luxurious palace of his father at Malkata. At Akhetaten, however, the royal family lived in apartments to the rear of the palace, and the most opulent rooms, painted with outdoor scenes depicting the fertility of the Delta region, were dedicated to Aten who was thought to inhabit them. In order to welcome Aten to the palace, the roof was open to the sky.
Amarna, Northern Palace
The Central City was designed around the Great Temple of Aten and the Small Temple of Aten. This was the bureaucratic center of the city where the administrators worked and lived. The Southern Suburbs were the residential district for the wealthy elite and featured large estates and monuments. The Outskirts were where the peasant farmers lived who worked the fields and built and maintained the nearby tombs in the necropolis.
Akhetaten was a carefully planned engineering wonder with enormous pylons at its entrance, an awe-inspiring palace and temples, and wide avenues down which Akhenaten and Nefertiti could ride in their chariot in the mornings. It does not seem to have been designed with the comfort or interests of anyone but themselves in mind, however. Since the land had never been developed before, any of the other people who lived and worked there would have had to have been uprooted from other cities and communities and transplanted at Akhetaten.
THE AMARNA LETTERS
The area of the Central City has been of greatest interest to archaeologists since the discovery of the so-called Amarna Letters in 1887 CE. A local woman who was digging in the mud for fertilizer uncovered these clay cuneiform tablets and alerted the local authorities. Dating from the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, these tablets were found to be records of Mesopotamian rulers as well as correspondence between the kings of Egypt and those of the Near East.
The Amarna Letters have provided scholars with invaluable information on life in Egypt at this time as well as the relationship between Egypt and other nations. These tablets also make clear how little Akhenaten himself cared for the responsibilities of rule once he was ensconced in his new city. The pharaohs of the New Kingdom expanded the borders of the country, formed alliances, and encouraged trade through regular correspondence with other nations. These monarchs were keenly aware of what was happening both beyond and within Egypt's borders. Akhenaten chose to simply ignore whatever happened beyond the borders of Egypt and, it seems, anything beyond the boundaries of Akhetaten.
Amarna Letter
Foreign rulers' letters and appeals for help went unheeded and unanswered. Egyptologist Barbara Watterson notes that Ribaddi (Rib-Hadda), king of Byblos, who was one of Egypt's most loyal allies, sent over fifty letters to Akhenaten asking for help in fighting off Abdiashirta (also known as Aziru) of Amor (Amurru) but these all went unanswered and Byblos was lost to Egypt (112). Tushratta, the king of Mitanni, who had also been a close ally of Egypt, complained that Amenhotep III had sent him statues of gold while Akhenaten only sent gold-plated statues. There is evidence that Queen Nefertiti stepped in to answer some of these letters while her husband was otherwise engaged with his personal religious rituals.
AMARNA ART
The transformative nature of these rituals is reflected in the art of the period. Egyptologists and other scholars have often commented on the realistic nature of Amarna Art and some have even suggested that these depictions are so accurate that the king's physical infirmities can be detected. Amarna art is the most distinctive in all of Egypt's history and its difference in style is often interpreted as realism.
Unlike the images from other dynasties of Egyptian history, works from the Amarna Period depict the royal family with elongated necks and arms and spindly legs. Scholars have theorized that perhaps the king "suffered from a genetic disorder called Marfan's syndrome" (Hawass, 36) which would account for these depictions of him and his family as so lean and seemingly oddly-proportioned.
Akhenaten and the Royal Family Blessed by Aten
A much more likely reason for this style of art, however, is the king's religious beliefs. The Aten was seen as the one true god who presided over all and infused all living things through life-giving, transformative rays. Envisioned as a sun disk whose rays ended in hands touching and caressing those on earth, Aten not only gave life but dramatically changed the lives of believers.Perhaps, then, the elongation of the figures in these images was intended to show human transformation when touched by the power of the Aten.
The famous Stele of Akhenaten, depicting the royal family, shows the rays of the Aten touching them all and each of them, even Nefertiti, depicted with the same elongation as the king. To consider these images as realistic depictions of the royal family, afflicted with some disorder, seems to be a mistake in that there would be no reason for Nefertiti to share in the king's supposed syndrome. The claim that realism in ancient Egypt art is an innovation of the Amarna Period is also untenable. The artists of the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) initiated realism in art centuries before Akhenaten.
TUTANKHAMUN & HOREMHEB
These artworks were created to adorn the tomb of the king and his family in the city of Aten. Akhetaten was designed as the god's home in the same way that the gods' individual temples had once been built. Akhetaten was created to be grander than any of these temples and, in fact, more opulent than any other city in Egypt. Akhenaten seems to have attempted to introduce Aten to the great Temple of Amun at Karnak early in his reforms but these attempts were unwelcome and encouraged him to build elsewhere. Every aspect of the city was carefully planned by the king and the architecture was designed to reflect the glory and splendor of his god.
Akhetaten flourished throughout Akhenaten's reign but, after his death, was abandoned by Tutankhamun. There seems to be evidence that the city was still operational through the reign of Horemheb, notably a shrine to that pharaoh found on site, but the capital was moved to Memphis and then back to Thebes.
Tutankhamun
Tutankhamun in the present day is best known for the discovery of his tomb in 1922 CE but, after the death of his father, he would have been respected as the king who restored the ancient religious beliefs and practices of the land. The temples were reopened and the businesses which depended on them began to operate as they used to. Tutankhamun did not live long enough to see his reforms through, however, and his successor (the former vizier Ay) carried them on.
It was the pharaoh Horemheb, though, who finally restored Egyptian culture fully. Horemheb may have served under Amenhotep III and was commander-in-chief of the army under Akhenaten. When he came to the throne, he made it his life's mission to destroy all trace of the Amarna Period.
Horemheb razed Akhetaten and dumped the ruins of the monuments and stelae into pits as fill for his own monuments. So thorough was Horemheb's work that Akhenaten was wiped from Egyptian history. His name was never mentioned again in any kind of records, and where his reign needed to be cited, he was referred to only as "the heretic of Akhetaten".
CONCLUSION
Horemheb considered his former king worthy of what has come to be known as the Damnatio Memoriae (Latin for 'condemnation of memory') in which all memory of a person is erased from existence. Although this practice is most commonly associated with the Roman Empire, it was first practiced in Egypt centuries earlier through inscriptions known as Execration Texts. An execration text was a passage inscribed on ostraca (a shard of a clay pot) or sometimes on a figure (along the lines of a voodoo doll) and often on a tomb warning would-be robbers of the horrors which awaited them should they enter uninvited.
In the case of Akhenaten, the execration text took the physical form of completely eradicating his memory from history. He had inscribed his name and that of his god at the Temple of Amun at Karnak; these were erased. He had erected other monuments and temples elsewhere; these were torn down. He had replaced the name of Amun at the Temple of Hatshepsut with the name of Aten; this was changed back. He had built a grand city on the banks of the Nile surrounded by inscriptions which told the story of its building, its builder, and his god; this was razed to the ground. Finally, Horemheb backdated his reign in official inscriptions to that of Amenhotep III to completely blot out the memory of Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, and the vizier Ay.
Akhenaten's name was lost to history until the 19th century CE when the Rosetta Stone was deciphered by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1824 CE. Excavations in Egypt had unearthed the ruins of Akhenaten's monuments used as fill, and the site of Akhetaten had been mapped and drawn early in the 18th century CE. The discovery of the Amarna Letters, along with these other finds, told the story of the ancient 'heretic king' of Egypt in the modern age where monotheism has become accepted as a natural, and desirable, evolution in religious understanding.
In this age, Akhenaten has often been hailed as a religious visionary and hero who took the first steps, even before Moses, in trying to enlighten people to the true nature of God. Akhenaten is a staple example of a proto-Christian, according to some understandings, who – centuries before the Christian era – recognized the reality of a deity unlike his creations, one who dwells in "light inaccessible" (Isaiah 55:8-9 and I Timothy 6:16). This respect for the ancient king and his reign, however, should be recognized as a modern development based upon a modern-day understanding of the nature of divinity.
In his day, and for centuries after, Akhenaten and the Amarna Period were unknown to the people of Egypt and for a very good reason: his religious initiatives had thrown the country off balance and disrupted the core cultural value of harmony between the gods, the people, the land they lived in, and the paradise of the afterlife they hoped to enjoy eternally. A present-day understanding might see Akhenaten as a religious hero but to his people he was simply a poor ruler who allowed himself to forget the importance of balance and fell into error.
Moses › Who Was
Definition and Origins
Moses (c. 1400 BCE) is considered one of the most important religious leaders in world history. He is claimed by the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai as an important prophet of God and the founder of monotheistic belief. The story of Moses is told in the biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers but he continues to be referenced throughout the Bible and is the prophet most often cited in the New Testament. In the Quran he also plays an important role and, again, is the most often cited religious figure who is mentioned 115 times as opposed to Muhammed who is referred to by name only four times in the text. As in the Bible, in the Quran Moses is a figure who alternately stands for divine or human understanding.
Moses is best known from the story in the biblical Book of Exodus and Quran as the lawgiver who met God face-to-face on Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments after leading his people, the Hebrews, out of bondage in Egypt and to the "promised land" of Canaan. The story of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt is only found in the Penteteuch, the first five books of the Bible, and in the Quran which was written later. No other ancient sources corroborate the story and no archaeological evidence supports it. This has led many scholars to conclude that Moses was a legendary figure and the Exodus story a cultural myth.
The Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), however, tells the story of an Egyptian priest named Osarsiph who led a group of lepers in rebellion against the wishes of the king who wanted them banished. Osarsiph, Manetho claims, rejected the polytheism of Egyptian religion in favor of a monotheistic understanding and changed his name to Moses meaning "child of..." and usually used in conjunction with a god's name ( Ramesses would be Ra-Moses, son of Ra, for example). Osarsiph would have attached no god's name to his own, it would seem, since he believed himself a son of a living god who had no name human beings could - or should - utter.
MOSES COULD HAVE BEEN A MYTHOLOGICAL CHARACTER WHO TOOK ON A LIFE OF HIS OWN AS HIS STORY WAS TOLD OVER & OVER AGAIN OR COULD HAVE BEEN A REAL PERSON TO WHOM MAGICAL OR SUPERNATURAL EVENTS WERE ASCRIBED OR COULD HAVE BEEN PRECISELY AS HE IS DEPICTED IN THE EARLY BOOKS OF THE BIBLE & IN THE QURAN.
Manetho's story of Osarsiph/Moses is related by the historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37-100 CE) who cited Manetho's story at length in his own work. The Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56-117 CE) tells a similar story of a man named Moses who becomes the leader of a colony of Egyptian lepers. This has led a number of writers and scholars (Sigmund Freud and Joseph Campbell among them) to assert that the Moses of the Bible was not a Hebrew who was raised in an Egyptian palace but an Egyptian priest who led a religious revolution to establish monotheism. This theory links Moses closely with the pharaoh Akhenaten(1353-1336 BCE) who established his own monotheistic belief in the god Aten, unlike any other god and more powerful than all, in the fifth year of his reign. Akhenaten's monotheism may have been born of a genuine religious impulse or could have been a reaction against the priests of the god Amun who had grown almost as wealthy and powerful as the throne. In establishing monotheism and banning all the old gods of Egypt, Akhenaten effectively eliminated any threat to the crown from the priesthood. The theory advanced by Campbell and others (following Sigmund Freud's Moses and Monotheism in this) is that Moses was a priest of Akhenaten who led like-minded followers out of Egypt after Akhenaten's death when his son, Tutankhamun (c. 1336-1327 BCE), restored the old gods and practices. Still other scholars equate Moses with Akhenaten himself and see the Exodus story as a mythological rendering of Akhenaten's honest attempt at religious reform.
Moses is mentioned by a number of classical writers all drawing on the stories known in the Bible or by earlier writers. He could have been a mythological character who took on a life of his own as his story was told over and over again or could have been a real person to whom magical or supernatural events were ascribed or could have been precisely as he is depicted in the early books of the Bible and in the Quran. Dating Moses' life and the precise date of the Exodus is difficult and is always based on interpretations of the Book of Exodus in conjunction with other books of the Bible and so are always speculative. It is entirely possible that the Exodus story was written by a Hebrew scribe living in Canaan who wished to make a clear distinction between his people and the older settlements of the Amorites in the region. The story of God's Chosen People led by his servant Moses to a land their God had promised them would have served this purpose well.
Moses Found by Pharaoh's Daughter
MOSES IN THE BIBLE
The Book of Exodus (written c. 600 BCE) picks up from the narrative in the Book of Genesis (chapters 37-50) of Joseph, son of Jacob, who was sold into slavery by his jealous half-brothers and rose to prominence in Egypt. Joseph was adept at understanding dreams and interpreted the king's dream accurately predicting a coming famine. He was placed in charge of preparing Egypt for the famine, succeeded brilliantly, and brought his family to Egypt. The Book of Exodus opens with the Hebrew descendants of Joseph becoming more numerous in the land of Egypt so that the pharaoh, fearing they might seize power, enslaves them.
Moses enters the story in the second chapter of the book after the unnamed pharaoh, still worried about the growing population of the Israelites, decrees that every male child must be killed. Moses' mother hides him for three months but then, afraid he will be discovered and killed, sets him adrift in a papyrus basket on the Nile where he floats down to where the pharaoh's daughter and her attendants are bathing. The child is taken from the river by the princess who calls him "Moses" claiming she chose the name because she "drew him out of the water" (Exodus 2:10) which is making the assertion that "Moses" means "to draw out". This etymology of the name has been contested since, as noted, "Moses" in Egyptian meant "child of".
Moses grows up in the Egyptian palace until one day he sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave and kills him, burying his body in the sand. The next day, when he is again out among the people, he sees two Hebrews fighting and pulls them apart asking what the problem is. One of them answers by asking if he plans to kill them as he did the Egyptian. Moses then realizes his crime has become known and flees Egypt for Midian.
In the land of Midian he rescues the daughters of a high priest (named Reuel in Exodus 2 and Jethro afterwards) who gives him his daughter Zipporah as a wife. Moses lives in Midian as a shepherd until he one day encounters a bush which burns with fire but is not consumed. The fire is the angel of God who brings Moses a message that he should return to Egypt to free his people. Moses is not interested and bluntly tells God, "Please send someone else" (Exodus 4:13). God is in no mood to be questioned on his choice and makes it clear that Moses will be returning to Egypt. He assures him all will be well and that he will have his brother, Aaron, to help him speak and supernatural powers which will enable him to convince pharaoh that he speaks for God. He also tells Moses, in a passage which has long troubled interpreters of the book, that he will "harden pharaoh's heart" against receiving the message and letting the people go at the same time that he wants pharaoh to accept the message and release his people.
Moses & The Seventh Plague of Egypt
Moses returns to Egypt and, as God had promised, pharaoh's heart is hardened against him. Moses and Aaron compete with the Egyptian priests in an effort to show whose god is greater but pharaoh is unimpressed. After a series of ten plagues destroys the land, finally killing the first-born of the Egyptians, the Hebrews are allowed to leave and, as God directed, they take a vast amount of treasure out of Egypt with them. Pharaoh changes his mind after they have gone, however, and sends his army of chariots in pursuit. In one of the best-known passages from the Bible, Moses parts the Red Sea so his people can cross and then closes the waters over the pursuing Egyptian army, drowning them. He leads his people on, following two signs God provides: a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. At Mount Sinai, Moses leaves his people below to ascend and meet God face to face; here he receives the Ten Commandments, God's laws for his people.
On the mountain, Moses receives the law and also instructions for the ark of the covenant and tabernacle which will house God's presence among the people. Down below, his followers have begun to fear him dead and, feeling hopeless, ask Aaron to make them an idol they can worship and ask for help. Aaron melts the treasures they took from Egypt in a fire to create a golden calf. On the mountain, God sees what the Hebrews are doing and tells Moses to return and deal with his people. When he comes back down the mountain and sees his people worshipping the idol he becomes enraged and destroys the tablets of the Ten Commandments. He calls all who remained faithful to God to his side, including Aaron, and commands they kill their neighbors, friends, and brothers who forced Aaron to make the idol for them. Exodus 32:27-28 describes the scene and claims "about three thousand people" were killed by Moses' Levites. Afterwards, God tells Moses he will not accompany the people anymore because they are "stiff-necked people" and, should he travel further with them, he would wind up killing them out of frustration.
Moses and the elders then enter into a covenant with God by which he will be their only god and they will be his chosen people. He will travel with them personally as a divine presence to direct and comfort them. God writes the Ten Commandments on new tablets which Moses cuts for him and these are placed in the ark of the covenant and the ark is housed in the tabernacle, an elaborate tent. God further commands that a lampstand of pure gold and a table of acacia wood be made and placed before his presence in the tabernacle for receiving offerings, specifies a courtyard to be created for the tabernacle, and outlines acceptable offerings and various sins one must avoid and atone for. No longer will the people have to question his existence or wonder what he wants because, between the Ten Commandments and the other instructions, everything is quite clear and, further, they will know he is among them in the tabernacle.
Even with God in their midst, however, the people still doubt and still fear and still question and so it is decreed that this generation will wander in the desert until they die; the next generation will be the one to see the promised land. Moses then leads his people through the desert for forty years until this is accomplished and the younger generation reaches the promised land of Canaan. Moses himself is not allowed to enter, only to look upon it from across the River Jordan. He dies and is buried in an unmarked grave on Mount Nebo and leadership is assumed by his second-in-command, Joshua son of Nun.
Moses' trials and challenges mediating between his people and God, as well as his laws, are given in the books of Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy which, taken with Genesis and Exodus, make up the first five books of the Bible, which traditionally are ascribed to Moses himself as author.
THE EXODUS STORY RESONATES AS IT DOES BECAUSE IT TOUCHES ON UNIVERSAL THEMES & SYMBOLS REGARDING PERSONAL IDENTITY, PURPOSE IN LIFE, & THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE DIVINE IN HUMAN AFFAIRS.
THE HERO'S STORY
Biblical scholarship, however, discounts Moses' authorship and maintains that the first five books were written by different scribes at different time periods. The story of Moses as related in Exodus is the hero's story as elaborated by Joseph Campbell in works such as The Hero with a Thousand Faces or Transformations of Myth Through Time. Although Moses is born a Hebrew he is separated from his people shortly after birth and denied his cultural heritage. Upon discovering who he is he must leave the life of comfort he has grown used to and embarks on a journey which leads to his recognition of his purpose in life. He is afraid to accept what he knows he must do but does it anyway and succeeds. The Exodus story resonates as it does because it touches on universal themes and symbols regarding personal identity, purpose in life, and the involvement of the divine in human affairs.
Moses' entrance to the story purposefully employs the motif of the infant born of humble parents who becomes (or is unknowingly) a prince. At the time of the writing of Exodus this story had been known in the Middle and Near East for almost 2,000 years through the Legend of Sargon of Akkad. Sargon (2334-2279 BCE) was the founder of the Akkadian empire, the first multi-national empire in the world. His famous legend, which he made great use of in his lifetime to achieve his aims, relates how his mother was a priestess who "set me in a basket of rushes and sealed my lid with bitumen/ She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki/the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener" (Pritchard, 85-86). Sargon grows up to overthrow the king and unite the region of Mesopotamia under his rule.
Akkadian Ruler
Scholar Paul Kriwaczek, writing on Sargon's story, mentions the International Babylon Festival of 1990 CE at which Saddam Hussein celebrated his birthday. Kriwaczek writes:
The festivities came to a climax when a wooden cabin was wheeled out and large crowds dressed in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian costume prostrated themselves in front of it. The doors opened to reveal a palm tree from which fifty-three white doves flew up into the sky. Beneath them a baby Saddam, reposing in a basket, came floating down a marsh-bordered stream. Time magazine's reporter was particularly struck by the baby-in-the-basket theme, describing it as "Moses redux". But why on earth would Saddam Hussein wish to compare himself to a leader of the Jews? The journalist was missing the point. The motif was a Mesopotamian invention long before the Hebrews took it up and applied it to Moses. The Iraqi dictator was alluding to a much more ancient and, to him, far more glorious precedent. He was associating himself with Sargon (112).
The writer of Exodus also wanted his hero associated with Sargon: a true hero who would rise from inauspicious beginnings to achieve greatness. Those who believe the Exodus story is a cultural myth point to Moses' beginnings, along with many other facets of the story, to prove their claim. Other scholars, such as Rosalie David or Susan Wise Bauer, accept the Exodus story as authentic history and ascribe to the characters in the story a knowledge of Sargon's legend which the author of Exodus faithfully set down. Bauer writes:
Sargon's birth story served as a seal of chosenness, a proof of his divinity. Surely the mother of the Hebrew baby knew it, and made use of it in a desperate (and successful) attempt to place her own baby in the line of the divinely chosen (235-236).
Pharaoh, Victim of the 10th Plague of Egypt
To these scholars the fact that there are no records of the Exodus and no archaeological evidence to support it can be explained by the embarrassment the departure of the Israelites would have caused the pharaoh of Egypt. Bauer writes:
The exodus of the Hebrews was a nose-thumbing directed not just at the power of the pharaoh and his court but at the power of the Egyptian gods themselves. The plagues were designed to ram home the impotence of the Egyptian pantheon. The Nile, the bloodstream of Osiris and the lifeblood of Egypt, was turned to blood and became foul and poisonous; frogs, sacred to Osiris, appeared in numbers so great that they were transformed into a pestilence; the sun-disk was blotted out by darkness. Ra and Aten both made helpless. These are not the kinds of events that appear in the celebratory inscriptions of any pharaoh (236).
EXODUS AS HISTORY THEORY
A simpler explanation, however, is that the events described in the Book of Exodus did not take place - or, at least, not as described - and so no inscriptions were made relating to them. The Egyptians are famous for their record-keeping and yet no records have been found which make the slightest reference to the departure of a segment of the population of the land which, according to the Book of Exodus, numbered "six hundred thousand men on foot besides women and children" (12:37) or, as given in Exodus 38:26, "everyone who had crossed over to those counted, twenty years old or more, a total of 603,550 men" again not counting women or children. Even if the Egyptians decided the embarrassment of their gods and king was too great a shame to set down, some record would exist of such a huge movement of so vast a population even if that record were simply a dramatic change in the physical evidence of the region. There are seasonal camps from the Paleolithic Age in Scotland and other areas dating to c. 12,000 BCE (such as Howburn Farm) and these sites were not in use anywhere near the amount of time of the forty years of campsites the Hebrews would have made use of in their trip to the promised land.
Arguments by Egyptologists such as David Rohl, that evidence of the Exodus does exist, are not widely accepted by scholars, historians, or other Egyptologists. Rohl's claim is that one can find no physical or literary evidence of the Exodus only because one is looking in the wrong era. The Exodus has traditionally been placed in the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) but Rohl claims the events actually took place much earlier in the reign of the king Dudimose I (c. 1650 BCE). If one examines the evidence from that time, Rohl claims, the biblical narrative matches up with Egyptian history.
Moses & the Parting of the Red Sea
The problems with Rohl's theory are that it the evidence from the period of the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) and Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782-c. 1570 BCE) does not actually substantiate the Exodus story. The Ipuwer Papyrus, which Rohl claims is an Egyptian account of the Ten Plagues, is dated to the Middle Kingdom, long before Dudimose I's reign and, further, is quite clearly Egyptian literature of a known genre, not history. The Semites Rohl asserts lived in great numbers at Avaris cannot be identified with the Israelites. In every instance where Rohl makes his claims linking the Book of Exodus with Egyptian history he either ignores details which prove him wrong or twists evidence to fit with his theory. In spite of Rohl's claims, and those of others who have seized on them, there is no archaeological or literary evidence of Moses leading the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The only source for the story is the biblical narrative.
THE EGYPTIAN PRIEST THEORY
Still, there is an Egyptian record of an event which, some claim, inspired the Exodus story in Manetho's account of the Egyptian priest Osarsiph and his leadership of the community of lepers. Manetho's account has been lost but is quoted at length by Josephus and later by the Roman historian Tacitus. According to Josephus, the king Amenophis of Egypt (who is equated with Amenhotep III, c. 1386-1353 BCE) wished to "see the gods" but was told by an oracle that he could not - unless he cleansed Egypt of lepers. He therefore banished the lepers to the city of Avaris where they were united under the leadership of a monotheistic priest named Osarsiph. Osarsiph rebelled against the rule of Amenophis, instituted monotheism, and invited the Hyksos back into Egypt. In Tacitus' version, the Egyptian king is named Bocchoris (the Greek name for the king Bakenranef, c. 725-720 BCE) and he exiles a segment of his population afflicted with leprosy to the desert. The exiles remain in the desert "in a stupour of grief" until one of them, Moses, rallies and leads them to another land. Tacitus goes on to say how Moses then taught the people a new belief in one supreme god and "gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practiced by other men" (1).
As with the Exodus story, there are no records which corroborate this version of events and the reign of Amenhotep III was not marked by any rebellions by lepers or anyone else. Tacitus' account of Moses coming to power during the reign of Bakenranef is equally unsupported. Further, Manetho's account explicitly states that Osarsiph "invited the Hyksos back into Egypt" where they ruled for thirteen years but the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt in c. 1570 BCE by Ahmose I of Thebes and no records indicate they ever returned.
Akhenaten
Historian Marc van de Mieroop comments on this, writing, "Scholars have different opinions about exactly what historical events Josephus's account recalls, but many see a lingering memory of Akhenaten and his unpopular rule in the tale" (210). Akhenaten famously introduced monotheism to Egypt through the worship of the one god Aten and proscribed the worship of all other gods. According to the theory most famously expounded by Freud, the Osarsiph story is actually an account of Akhenaten's reign and one of his priests, Moses, who carried on his reform. Freud is openly bewildered by the fact that no one seems to have noticed that this allegedly Hebrew leader of the Exodus from Egypt had an Egyptian name, writing, "It might have been expected that one of the many authors who recognized Moses to be an Egyptian name would have drawn the conclusion, or at least considered the possibility, that the bearer of an Egyptian name was himself an Egyptian" (5-6). Freud further states:
I venture now to draw the following conclusion: if Moses was an Egyptian and if he transmitted to the Jews his own religion, then it was that of Ikhnaton [Akhenaten), the Aten religion (27).
According to Freud, Moses was murdered by his people and the memory of this act created a communal guilt which infused the religion of Judaism and characterizes that belief system as well as those monotheistic faiths which came after it. As interesting as the theory may be, like many of Freud's theories, it is based on an assumption which Freud never proves but continues to build an argument on anyway. Susan Wise Bauer writes:
For at least a century, the theory that Akhenaten trained Moses in monotheism and then set him loose in the desert has floated around; it still pops up occasionally on History Channel specials and PBS fund raisers. This has absolutely no historical basis and in fact is incredibly difficult to square with any of the more respectable dates of the Exodus. It seems to have originated with Freud who was certainly not an unbiased scholar in his desire to explain the origins of monotheism while denying Judaism as much uniqueness as possible (237).
Although his name certainly suggests an Egyptian origin, the first text which introduces the character of Moses clearly indicates he was the son of Hebrew parents. Whether one accepts the Book of Exodus as a reliable account or a cultural myth, one cannot change the text to fit one's personal theories which is basically what Freud does.
At the same time, one cannot claim a "respectable date" for the Exodus when there is no historical record of the event outside of the manuscript of the Book of Exodus. The events of the Exodus are traditionally assigned to the reign of Ramesses II based on the passage from Exodus 1:11 where it states that the Hebrew slaves worked on the cities of Pithom and Rameses, two cities Ramesses II was known to have commissioned. Bauer, however, writes that a "respectable date" for the Exodus is 1446 BCE based on "a straightforward reading of I Kings 6:1 which claims that 480 years passed between the Exodus and the building of Solomon 's temple " (236). Further complicating the dating of the event is that Exodus 7:7 states that Moses was 80 years old when he first met with pharaoh but Moses' birthdate is given by Rabbinical Judaism as 1391 BCE making the 1446 BCE date impossible and there are plenty of other suggestions for possible birth years as well which also make the 1446 BCE date for the Exodus untenable.
EXODUS AS NARU LITERATURE
The problem with all these speculations stems from the attempt at reading the Bible as straight history instead of what it is: literature and, specifically, scripture. Ancient writers were not as concerned with facts as modern audiences are but were certainly interested in truth. This is exemplified by the ancient genre known as Mesopotamian Naru Literature in which a figure, usually someone famous, plays an important role in a story which they did not actually participate in.
The best examples of Naru Literature concern Sargon of Akkad and his grandson Naram-Sin (2262-2224 BCE). In the famous story "The Curse of Akkad", Naram-Sin is portrayed as destroying the temple of the god Enlil when he receives no answer to his prayers. There is no record of Naram-Sin doing any such thing while there is a great deal of evidence that he was a pious king who honored Enlil and the other gods. In this case, Naram-Sin would have been chosen as main character because of his famous name and used to convey a truth about humanity's relationship with the gods and, especially, a king's proper attitude toward the divine.
Naram-Sin Rock Relief, Sulaimaniya, Iraq
In the same way, the Book of Exodus and the other narratives concerning Moses tell a story of physical and spiritual liberation using the central character of Moses - a figure previously unknown in literature - who represents man's relationship with God. The writers of the biblical narratives go to great lengths to ground their stories in history, to show God working through actual events, in the same way the authors of Mesopotamian Naru Literature chose historical figures to convey their message. Literature, scripture, does not need to be historically accurate to express a truth. Insistence on stories such as the Book of Exodus as historical denies a reader a wider experience of the text. To claim that the book must be historically true to be meaningful denies the power of the story to relay its message.
Moses is a symbolic figure in the story while at the same time remaining a completely autonomous individual with a distinct personality. Throughout the narrative Moses mediates between God and the people but is neither completely holy nor secular. He accepts his mandate from God reluctantly, constantly asks God why he was chosen and what he is supposed to be doing, and yet consistently tries to do God's will until he strikes the stone to produce water instead of speaking to it as God had instructed (Numbers 20:1-12). God had previously told Moses to strike a rock to get water (Exodus 17:6) but this time told him to speak to the rock. Moses' actions here, ignoring God's instruction, prevent him from entering the promised land of Canaan. He is allowed to see the land from Mount Nebo but cannot lead his people once he has compromised his relationship with God.
Moses Receives the 10 Commandments
As with the rest of the narrative concerning Moses, this episode with the rock would have conveyed (still conveys) an important message about a believer's relationship with God: that one must trust in the divine in spite of one's own perceived knowledge or reliance on precedent and experience. It does not finally matter whether a historical individual named Moses struck or spoke to a rock which then gave water; what matters is the truth of the individual's relationship with God that story conveys and how one can better understand one's own place in a divine plan.
MOSES IN THE QURAN
This is also seen in the Quran where Moses is known as Musa. Musa is mentioned a number of times throughout the Quran as a righteous man, a prophet, and a sage. In the story of the Exodus in the Quran, Musa is always seen as a devout servant of Allah trusting in divine wisdom. In Surah 18: 60-82, however, a story is related which shows how even a great and righteous man still has much to learn from God.
One day, after Musa has delivered a particularly brilliant sermon, a member of the audience asks him if there is another on earth as learned in God's ways as he is and Musa answers no. God (Allah) informs him that there will always be those who know more than one does in anything, especially regarding the divine. Musa asks Allah where he might find such a man and Allah gives him instructions on how to proceed.
Following Allah's guidance, Musa finds Al-Khidr (a representative of the divine) and asks if he might follow him and learn all the knowledge he has of God. Al-Khidr answers that Musa would not understand anything he said or did and would have no patience; he then dismisses him. Musa pleads with him and Al-Khidr says, "If you would follow me, ask me not about anything until I mention it myself" and Musa agrees.
AS WITH THE BIBLICAL MOSES, THE MUSA OF THE QURAN IS A COMPLETELY DEVELOPED CHARACTER WITH ALL THE STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF ANY PERSON.
As they travel together, Al-Khidr comes across a boat by the shore and kicks a hole in the bottom of it. Musa objects, crying out that the owners of the boat will not be able to earn their living now. Al-Khidr reminds him how he told him he could not be patient and dismisses him but Musa asks forgiveness and promises he will not judge or speak on anything else. Shortly after the boat incident, though, they meet a young man on the road and Al-Khidr kills him. Musa strongly objects asking why such a handsome young man should be killed and Al-Khidr again reminds him of what he said before and tells him to leave now immediately. Musa again apologizes and is forgiven and the two travel on together. They reach a town where they ask for alms but are refused. On their way out of the town they pass a stone wall which is falling down and Al-Khidr stops and repairs it.Musa is again confused and complains to his companion that at least he could have asked for wages in repairing the wall so they could get something to eat.
At this, Al-Khidr tells Musa that he has breached their contract for the last time and now they must part ways. First, though, he explains: he scuttled the boat because there was a king at sea seizing every boat which put out by force and enslaving the crew. If the good people who owned the boat had gone out, they would have met with a bad end. He killed the young man because he was evil and was going to bring great pain to his parents and community. Allah had already provided for another son to be born to the parents who would bring them and others joy instead of pain. He rebuilt the wall because there was a treasure hidden beneath it which two orphans were supposed to inherit and, if the wall had crumbled any more, it would have been revealed to those who would take it. Al-Khidr ends by saying, "That is the interpretation of those things over which you showed no patience" and Musa understands the lesson.
As with the biblical Moses, the Musa of the Quran is a completely developed character with all the strengths and weaknesses of any person. In the Bible, Moses' humility is emphasized but he still has enough pride to trust in his own judgment in striking the rock rather than in listening to God. In the Quran his faith in himself and his own perceptions and judgments is questioned through his inability to trust in God's messenger. The story from Surah 18 teaches that God has a purpose which human beings, even one as devout and learned as Musa, cannot understand.
CONCLUSION
Throughout the Christian New Testament Moses is cited more than any other Old Testament prophet or figure. Moses is seen as the Law Giver in the Christian writings who exemplifies a man of God. To cite only one example, Moses features prominently in the famous story Jesus tells concerning Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16: 19-31.
In this story a poor, but pious, man named Lazarus and a rich man (unnamed) live in the same town. Lazarus suffers daily while the rich man has everything he could desire. They both die on the same day and the rich man wakes up in the underworld and sees Lazarus with Father Abraham in paradise. He begs Father Abraham to help him but is reminded that, on earth, he lived a life of ease while Lazarus suffered and now it is only just that the roles are reversed. The rich man then asks Father Abraham to send someone to warn his family, as he has five brothers still living, and tell them how they should better live to avoid his fate. Abraham responds, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them." The rich man protests saying that if someone should rise from the dead to warn his family then they would surely listen but Abraham says, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets neither would they listen should someone rise from the dead."
In this story Moses is presented as the paradigm of God's truth. If people would heed Moses' example and words then they could avoid separation from God in the afterlife. The story emphasizes how Moses' teachings provide everything anyone needs to know about how to live a good and decent life and enjoy an afterlife with God and how, if one is going to ignore Moses and the prophets and justify one's life choices, one would just as easily dismiss someone returning from the dead; the two are equally self-evident of God's desires for human piety and behavior.
Moses is also featured in Jesus' transfiguation in Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:2-4, and Luke 9:28-30 along with Elijah when God announces that Jesus is his son with whom he is well pleased. In these passages and others in the New Testament Moses is held up as an exemplar and representative of God's will.
Whether there was a religious leader in history named Moses who led his people and initiated a monotheistic understanding of the divine is unknown. Individual beliefs will dictate whether one accepts the historicity of Moses or regards him as a mythical figure more than any historical evidence - or the lack of it - ever will. Either way, the figure of Moses has cast a long shadow across the history of the world. The monotheism he is credited with introducing was further developed by the teachers of the Jewish faith which influenced the atmosphere in which Christianity was able to thrive which then led to the rise of Islam. All three major monotheistic religions in the world today claim Moses as their own and he continues to serve as a model of humanity's relationship with the divine for people of many faiths around the world.
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License