Review from KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, 8:3, Fall
1997 followed by author’s response
The Moses Mystery:
The African Origins of the Jewish People
By Gary Greenberg
1997, Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus, NJ;
308 pages, no illustrations; $24.95 hardcover;
ISBN 1-55972-371-8
Gary Greenberg’s treatise, another contribution to the
Egyptian/Israelite/Exodus controversy, strikes out along a totally
fresh and unique course. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, he
asserts, derive from the pharaonic kings lists of ancient Egypt. In
fact, for Greenberg, virtually the entire book of Genesis—not to
mention other parts of the Pentateuch— has its source in
Egyptian antecedents. Therefore, deduces the author, the twelve
tribes of Israel never existed and the ancient Israelites were
originally followers of the Aten-worshipping Akhenaten. Moses fled
Egypt after Akhenaten’s death, returned to Egypt where he and
the deceased pharaoh’s partisans made common cause in a coup
against Rameses I, then he led these remnants of the hated Atenists
out of Egypt (the Exodus). These Egyptian expatriates, Greenberg
holds, reinterpreted Egyptian history and myth into what became the
genealogies and stories of Genesis and Exodus, the legends of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.
Central to The Moses Mystery are two assumptions: that, for the Jews,
3761 BC was the beginning of the Genesis genealogies; and that the
ages of the patriarchs, as recorded in these genealogies, are
reliable. Second, that, among other things, biblical circumcision
derived from the ritual whereby the dead Egyptian king (Horus) became
the god Osiris, and that Jacob and Esau were originally the gods
Horus and Set. Chapters 1-10 of The Moses Mystery deal with
chronological matters, while chapters 11-14 discuss the lives of the
patriarchs and their alleged Egyptian counterparts. Chapter 15
provides a summary of Greenberg’s take on what is, admittedly, a
very complex and thorny set of problems.
A study such as this demands the deepest scholarship and the most
sound methodology. This Herculean task the author undertakes with
aplomb. Some of his results are insightful and valuable, for example
his equation of the reign lengths of the Twelfth Dynasty, as
preserved in Manetho vis-a-vis the extant Egyptian king lists, is
masterful (74-76), as is his correct refutation of the 215-year
sojourn of Israel theory.
In terms of scholarship, however, many flaws and shortcomings
confront the knowledgeable reader. Greenberg’s assertion that
there is no extra-biblical evidence [for] David, Solomon, or the vast
and glorious empire over which they ruled (13) contradicts recent
discoveries at Tell Dan and Moab, which mention King David by name.
The Bubastite Portal, well-known for so long, documents the existence
of an Israelite state powerful enough to cause a major pharaoh to
glory in his defeat of it. Other “bloopers” include: (1)
the assertion that Moses killed an Egyptian soldier (141), (2)
Amenhotep was a throne name (149) and (3) that the Amarna Letters
show the disintegration of Egyptian authority in Palestine (160).
This list is by no means exhaustive.
Methodologically, Greenberg encounters difficulties even more
serious. His whole argument hangs on a key anchor point, Jewish
tradition’s dating of creation as taking place in 3761 BC. This
point in time he chooses without discussion or elaboration, perhaps
unaware of the possibility that years might be missing from the
figure. An error of even a few decades would ripple down the year
totals, obviating any possible links between Genesis genealogies and
the Egyptian king lists. Better would have been to start with 1 Kings
6:1—which gives 480 years as the total from Solomon’s
fourth year to the Exodus—then, counting backward, arriving at
dates for the biblical patriarchs. Greenberg effectively rejects this
possibility because, according to his calculations, the fourth year
of Solomon (if there existed such a person!) would fall in 1017 BC.
He comes to this conclusion, apparently, without consulting
Thiele’s The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, long
respected as the standard work in the chronology of the Israelite
rulers, which puts Solomon’s fourth year at 966 BC. When
Greenberg can make his numbers coincide with Egyptian chronology, he
displays the results in neatly arranged tables (the books contains
ten of these). When he cannot, he accuses the biblical authors of
“sloppy editing” (135) or of making arithmetical errors
(140). This latter judgment is strange, since it is these very
numbers in the biblical record Greenberg relies on to make his
ultimate case. Of Manetho’s work, the author writes:
“...Manetho’s original history, before it was redacted by
subsequent editors, contained an accurate chronological account of
Egyptian dynasties” (282). This means that Manetho’s
chronology, as we have it, does not correspond to reality. So,
reasons the author, it must have originally. Such methodology is
nothing more than “begging the question.”
Even more ingenuous, the author interprets biblical customs and
stories in terms of Egyptian religion. For him Israelite circumcision
is nothing more than a reenactment of the ritual whereby Horus (the
living king) becomes Osiris (the dead king), for both Israelite and
Egyptian stories deal with the penis: Jewish men cut theirs, the
Egyptian god lost his (246-247).
The author devotes much space to linking incidents in the lives of
Abraham, Isaac, Esau and Jacob with Egyptian models. He foresees that
critics might nit-pick at some specifics, but is seemingly unaware of
Near Eastern clues in the patriarchal narratives which place the
origin of these tales well into the Second Millennium BC. These
include Abraham and Isaac describing their wives as sisters (sister
was the highest level of wife in Mesopotamian culture), Sarah letting
her maidservant bear a child in her stead (a custom well-attested at
Nuzi) and Esau’s selling of his birthright (also attested at
Nuzi). Such specifics and others place the origin of the Pentateuch
circa 1500 BC, for these customs were unknown or illegal in the
Israel of monarchical or exilic times (ca. 950-500 BC). They also
were unknown to the Egyptians, so could not have originated from that quarter.
Greenberg’s contention that Esau is Set and Jacob Horus, that
the story of these patriarchs derives from The Contending of Horus
and Set (238), therefore, is untenable prima facie, for the
patriarchal narrative predates the Egyptian myth, which was first
attested in 1145-1141 BC, during the reign of Rameses V. As for the
author’s assertions that Abram and Sarai are thinly disguised
from Re and Hathor, Abraham and Sarah from Geb and Nut (250-253),
these and other fanciful equations require more space than is
available here to evaluate and refute.
Greenberg, leaving no stone unturned, also plumbs extant Egyptian
sources, chiefly Manetho as quoted by Josephus, for clues to the
Exodus. While to be commended, this view is also fraught with peril.
Manetho’s work, The Aegyptiaca, compiled more than 1,000 years
after the Exodus, survives only in excerpts by the admittedly
partisan Josephus. The latter, identifying the Israelites with the
Hyksos, only then cites the Egyptian historian, Manetho, in a rather
lengthy quote recounting a story of civil war among the Egyptians,
the flight of a Pharaoh Amenophis into Nubia, the reconquest of Egypt
by the same king, and the subsequent ousting of Asiatics from
Egypt— along with discontented Egyptians. Greenberg assumes that
Manetho’s description accurately depicts the events leading up
to and concluding in the Exodus. For him Amenophis is Amenhotep
IV/Akhenaten, with the reference to a high-priest, Osarseph (Moses)
banning the worship of the gods corresponding to Akhenaten’s
well-known agenda.
The chronological objections notwithstanding, Manetho’s account
smacks more of the Egyptian war of liberation against the Hyksos than
of Akhenaten’s pogrom. The king Amenophis, however, could be the
pharaoh of the Exodus - Amenhotep II, who ruled Egypt at the time of
the biblically implied date. If Manetho’s Amenophis is, indeed,
Akhenaten, the radical departure of events as related in the
Ptolemaic historian’s account from those of the Bible precludes
that Manetho is speaking solely of that king’s reign. Osarseph
as Moses’s original name, unattested both in Egyptian sources
and the Exodus, must be discarded. Manetho’s account squares
almost exactly with what historians know about Ahmose I’s war
against the Hyksos, who Hatshepsut accuses of -ruling without Re,-
i.e., of being enemies of the gods. So Manetho—while he may have
added legends deriving from Akhenaten’s time—is certainly
recounting the course of the Egyptian war of liberation against the
Hyksos. It is Josephus who equates the Hyksos with the Israelites,
not Manetho. Greenberg’s Moses Mystery, all things considered,
fails to justify the unique interpretation it suggests: that proper
names of Egyptian gods correspond to their alleged counterparts in
the Bible, that the patriarchal tales derive from Egyptian models,
that the Exodus occurred during the reign of Rameses I in a form
radically different from the biblical account. While lawyer Greenberg
deserves praise for confronting a wide range of evidence, his case,
arguments and summation are reminiscent of the guy in the muffler ad:
“Don’t worry, I’ll make it fit.”
O. Zuhdi
Following is Gary Greenberg’s letter to the Editor of KMT about
this review
I want to thank Mr. Zuhdi for taking the time to read and review my
book, The Moses Mystery; the African Origins of the Jewish People. I
appreciate both his praise and his thoughtful criticisms. I do,
however, have a few points I would like to respond to or clarify.
Mr. Zuhdi states that I anchor my chronological arguments on the use
of 3761 BC (the traditional Jewish date of Creation) “without
discussion or elaboration, perhaps unaware of the possibility that
years might be missing from the figure. An error of even a few
decades would ripple down the year totals, obviating any links
between Genesis genealogies and the Egyptian king-lists.” His
complaint fails to come to grips with the core arguments presented
over several chapters in my book.
What I show in my book is that the Genesis birth and death chronology
appears to coincide perfectly, on a direct year-to-year correlation,
with the high Egyptian chronology for every datable dynasty down to
the Eighteenth and for the ascension dates of several kings in the
Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties. For example, in the same chapter
where Mr. Zuhdi refers to my “masterful” analysis of
Manetho’s Twelfth Dynasty reign lengths vis-à-vis the
extant Egyptian king-lists, I also have a detailed analysis of
several Genesis birth dates vis-à-vis the high Twelfth Dynasty
chronology (1991 starting date). That analysis shows that once
allowances are made for the double-counting of coregencies, six of
the last seven birth dates in Genesis include precise correlations
with the high Egyptian chronology for Menthotpe’s unification of
Thebes, (2040 BC, birth of Eber in Genesis), the starting dates for
the first four kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, and the starting date
for the seventh king of the Twelfth Dynasty. A second Genesis
sequence gives the death dates for Terah and Eber as 1680 and 1576,
providing the high chronology dates for the start of the Fifteenth
and Eighteenth Dynasties. (Note Eber’s birth and death dates,
2040 and 1576, frame the starting dates for both the Middle and New
Kingdoms in the high chronology.)
Given the handful of Genesis dates following the start of the Middle
Kingdom, such a set of sequential coincidences can’t be
dismissed as a random occurrence, and they follow from a Genesis
starting date of 3761 BC. Several other chapters of the book are
replete with detailed evidence of the precise alignments between the
Genesis birth and death chronologies and the high Egyptian
chronology, covering the period from the start of the First Dynasty
to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Now, it may be that my
Twelfth Dynasty analysis is wrong and subject to error or criticism.
I would welcome a discussion on the matter. But one can’t simply
say that I fail to provide a discussion or elaboration of why Genesis
chronology begins with the traditional Jewish date of 3761 BC, or why
I rely on Genesis chronology to give me an accurate chronology for
Egyptian dynastic dating.
Mr. Zuhdi also challenges my conclusions because they disagree with
other theories that he holds to. For example, he asserts that I
overlook clues that support evidence for the existence of the
patriarchs well into the second millenium. Mr. Zuhdi’s view is
just one of many possible conclusions and it is rapidly losing
adherents among modern biblical scholars. The prominent Palestinian
archaeologist Wlliam Dever, in a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology
Review, says, “We’ve given up the patriarchs. That’s a
dead issue.” Certainly I could have, in an ideal world, have
discussed every possible theory on every possible issue, even those
without significant academic support, but the realities of popular
publishing and personal time commitments limit how much material can
be included. I had to edit my manuscript down from over three times
the length of the present book, and even the full length didn’t
include everything Mr. Zuhdi would have preferred to include.
Nevertheless, the more important issue is whether my chronological
analysis stands up to valid criticism. If I am wrong, then much of my
theory fails. If I am right, then most of these other theories are
explicitly refuted, whether I mention them or not.
Another criticism alleges that I try to explain the Israelite custom
of circumcision in terms of Egyptian religion. In fact, what I did
was point out that circumcision (according to Herodotus, for
instance) originated in Egypt, and that may explain where the
Israelites got it from. My attempt to develop a theory of
circumcision from the myth of Set castrating Osiris was merely a
speculative attempt to determine why the Egyptians (not the
Israelites) adopted circumcision.
Returning to the criticism of my attempt to explain patriarchal
history in terms of the Osiris-Horus-Set cycle, I do not say that the
Israelites took their patriarchal history from the specific copy of
“The Contendings of Horus and Set” that has been dated to
the Twentieth Dynasty. What I did do is show that there is a large
body of material concerning Horus and Set, beginning with the royal
feuds in the Second Dynasty and continuing down to the time of
Plutarch, that gives us an account of the Osiris legend. I point out
the relative conservatism in the Egyptian transmissions of these
myths and point to several features in the body of the literature
that find expression in the Book of Genesis. As to “The
Contendings of Horus and Set”, I point out that several
incidents in the Patriarchal history have nearly identical parallels
in the Egyptian story. I do not claim that the particular copy of
that Egyptian text that has been preserved contains the first
printing of the several stories contained within or that it formed a
template for Genesis.
One last point: Mr. Zuhdi challenges my claim that the Amarna letters
document a deterioration in Egyptian authority over Palestine, and
gives this as an example of the kind of scholarly errors I made. Let
me therefore quote briefly from Redford’s Akhenaten: The Heretic
King. “At any rate, Amenophis IV soon found it impossible to
enforce his will in Egypt’s Levantine sphere of influence. . . .
The king’s control over his Canaanite governors was so loose
that they scandalously intercepted and robbed official legates from
Babylon and apparently suffered not at all for their crimes. The
unfulfilled pleas for troops that are so characteristic of the Amarna
letters do not indicate the pharaoh’s disinterest, but rather
his indecision. (167, emphasis added.)
While I would like to respond to other points, I believe that for
purposes of a letter to the editor, this is sufficient. I welcome
further discussion, pro or con, from those who have read my book.
|
