Passover Mystery

Charles Munroe asks, "Why didn't God talk to Pharaoh directly rather than have Moses do it with no results until innocent people were killed?"Charles: Do you think that it's interesting that up through the "plague" wherein all of Egypt's livestock died, that at the end of each plague episode, the pharoah's "hardened his own heart with stubborness" and did not set the Israelites free? But beginning with the plague of boils (I think this is the 7th plague) wherein the pharoah's magicians could not stand in contest with Moses, because of their affliction by the boils, that all of a sudden it was YHVH who "made the pharoah's heart strong- willed" rather than the pharoah making himself strong-willed. This may be significant in that the story reflects a contest between gods, the pharoah himself being one of the two competing gods, with the court magicians representing the pharoah-god, and Moses and Aaron representing the YHVH-god. Think of it kind of like a WWF or NCAA competition -- my icon is better than your icon, and my team is gonna prove it.Note again after the locust plague that "YHVH made the pharoah's heart strong-willed, and he did not set the Israelites free." What's up with this? Why is it required that YHVH intervene to make the pharoah resistent? Isn't this kinda like fixing the game?Then, once again, at the end of Chapter 11, after the first 9 plagues, and after God tells Moses and Aaron to instruct the Israelites to gather up their neighbors' gold and silver, and informing Moses of the impending death of all "the Egyptian firstborn", again "YHVH made Pharoah's heart strong-willed, and he had not set the Israelites free," in effect irreversibly sealing the Egyptians' fate.So, in answer to your question "why didn't God talk directly to Pharoah," it seems there was some sort of direct, but one-sided communication. It also seems like it was all a set-up contest with the rules skewed to ensure the outcome included the maximum suffering possible by the Egyptian population apparently for their transgression of backing the wrong god.

Prozacman answers question #2--Why did God choose to kill all the first-born?-- "I don't know, but I have an Idea that is not fully thought out at this time.: I think it has something to do with child-sacrifice of the first-born son in early Semetic religions, but I'm not sure."Pro: Within the context of the Exodus story or within the greater context of Torah, I'm not sure either; but while pondering the question, shouldn't we also consider that the 10th plague included the deaths of all first-born livestock as well as children? So, maybe we should look beyond just "child sacrifice" rites.

Pro:I looked into your supposition further, and find you have a very valid point even withing the context of the Exodus texts.Apparently, there are interpretations of YHVH's intent regarding the 10th plague that posit the killing of the first born cattle was to prevent the Egyptians substitute sacrifice of first born cattle for first born male offspring. This would be like rubbing salt in the wound -- to kill the first born male offspring and then the first born substitute sacrificial cattle as well. Double wammy!While there are many who will argue that there is no achaeological evidence to back up child sacrifice in Canaan, there is ample reference to such throughout the Tanakh such as Abraham/Isaak, the detailed instructions in Leviticus for substitute cattle sacrifices, and several references in Ezekiel to child sacrifice to Molech.There is also an indication in Torah that the rite of circumcision may be tied to previous rites of child sacrifice as Moses moves the traditional North African circumcision date from adolescence to eight days after childbirth and declares it a "covenant." (This is a supposition that requires more research.)Peace.

Pro:Quoting from your Post #9: "I am aware of the verses in Ezekiel which tell of child sarifice to Molech. However, I have also read(somewhere again) that Molech did not exist as a god to the middle-eastern peoples. Perhaps you know something about this?"----------------------------------------------------------------------"Molech was an ancient fire deity, of a common type worshipped throughout Canaan generally, and Phoenicia particularly. Under various names, depending upon the city or country, Molech is essentially identical with Chemosh of Moab, and probably Melqart of Tyre. The general name for this type of fire god used throughout Palestine was Baal, meaning ‘lord.’ Molech was the national deity of the country of Ammon, east of the Jordan, or the Ammonites. Molech was also worshipped by the Israelites on many occasions, much to the distress of the prophets.
According to Jewish tradition, the cult idol of Molech was made of brass, hollow, and with hands so positioned that something laid therein would fall to the fire below. The practice of laying a child across the hands, and thus committing them to the fire, was termed ‘pass through the fire to Molech.’"For the rest of the article, see: http://www.ancientroute.com/religion/Godsname/molech.htm----------------------------------------------------------------------As to the origin of "Molech" I do not know whether it's Canaan, Assyria, or outside the Middle East, but it seems that most sources agree that Molech by his various names is Canaanite, Moabite, Carthagenean, and Phoenecian in origin.----------------------------------------------------------------------At http://www.btinternet.com/~eleanor.scott there is a very long page with a lot of information on the Eastern Mediterranean region. A ways down the page, under the heading "Sacrifice" you will find this:"The Carthaginians and other Phoenicians of the fourth and later centuries BC were a cosmopolitan, urbanised people, yet their religion retained a practice that was abhorrent to their Greek and Roman neighbours: they sacrificed their own young children to the gods. (Brown 1991, 13).A number of Greek and Latin texts dating from the fifth century BC to the fifth century AD survive which refer to infant sacrifice. Shelby Brown has observed that, if the victims are described at all, they are usually said to be one or more of the following: young, male, rich (freeborn, noble), poor, the dedicant's own infant or child, or an infant sold to the dedicant. There are also occasional mentions of the infant being the first-born male or the best-loved (e.g. by Philo and Silius Italicus), and of being sacrificed singly and in huge numbers, in times of personal crisis and in times of war (Brown 1991, 22). In a further useful study of the Phoenician practice, Alexandra Lee notes that the infants were aged between 0-4 years, and they were burnt, possibly whilst drugged or already dead, and their remains collected and placed in cinerary urns along with small trinkets or pottery provided by the parents (Lee 1994, 67; 1997). The pots depicted on sacrificial stelae indicate that there were rituals associated with killing and burying an infant which required planning, preparation and possibly professional assistance, and the parents were careful to add their names and genealogies to the markers in order to announce publicly that they had fulfilled their vow to the gods (Brown 1991, 171, 172).The ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the first century BC, discusses Carthaginian sacrifice as a response to war, and offers testimony to the feelings aroused in some parents to the practice. When Agathocles besieged Carthage in 310 BC the Carthaginians decided that the gods must be offended because, during recent sacrifices, noble parents had replaced their own children with secretly purchased substitutes who were clearly being regarded by the gods as less worthy offerings than "best-loved" children. Two hundred noble children were consequently selected for sacrifice and placed in the arms of a large bronze statue of Cronos, from which they fell into a pit of flames (Brown 1991, 23). Clearly that some parents endeavoured to substitute their own children with others' might be held to reveal a society deeply ill at ease with itself and its own religious practices, inasmuch as not all infants were willingly given and that there existed a trade in infants for sacrifice market which originated in the poorer parts of town." Plus additional information regarding human, and specifically child, sacrifice.----------------------------------------------------------------------I also found these links interesting regarding our discussion of blood sacrifice:Sorry, blocked (While you're at this site, click on "Cain's Problem" under "Burnt Offerings.)
and
Sorry, blocked----------------------------------------------------------------------It seems to me that the authors of the Pentateuch were at least as committed to eradicating child sacrifice from common practice (thank goodness!), whether in Egypt or Canaan, as were the Prophets who repeatedly condemned its apparent repeated resurgences in Israel, Samaria, and Judea.I guess the only paradox I see in it all is that in today's theology a grain (Cain's) offering is acceptable in leiu of a blood (Abel's) offering. Weird, huh?Peace.

Mr. Consequent:I truly admire your well-founded cynicism, and am sure it is based in your consequent knowledge of everything pertinent to this forum; or atleast everything relative to Judeo/Christian bibliography, history, and theology. There are some of us like Stormdancer and myself who are only here to enjoy an exchange of ideas and information rather that dispersing snitty little vitriols. Maybe sometimes, due to a lack of the scholarly wordsmithmanship that you obviously possess, our posts come up a little short of your lofty standards. And I realize that I can never achieve the depth of understanding, expanse of knowledge, and keen self-esteem that someone like you obviously has achieved.So, to avoid causing you any further frustration by our total and obvious "blatant ignorance" and "pedantic rubbish" may I suggest that the unenlighted smelly masses of ignoramuses such as I simply submit the links from which we obtain our pedantic, ignorant rubbish for your enlightened critiques.May I humbly ask your opinion and comments regarding the following link (a subject relevant to this thread): http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2004]

Over in the "Abel and His Flock" thread, Stormdancer offered this view, "Jews come in as younger brothers. They come in as barbaric Bedouins from the desert, into highly sophisticated agricultural areas, and they're declaring that although the others are the elders - as Cain was, the founder of cities and all that - they are God's favorite."To which Consequent Atheist replied, "Baseless sophistry. Note the glaring absence of evidence supporting this babble."So to supply at least a little support of Stormdancer's view, I offer:[M]mideen or Midianites , in the Bible, a nomadic Bedouin people of N Arabia in what is S Jordan. They were associated with the Moabites and the Israelites. Moses took refuge with them and married the daughter of their priest Jethro. They were defeated by the Hebrews after they gave refuge to Balaam, whose advice to the Midianites led to the disastrous Baal-peor incident. The defeat of the Midianites by Gideon became the precedent for God's final victory over his enemies.
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004."The Midianites consisted of a number of semi-nomadic and bedouin tribes, including Ishmaelites. They were connected with Abraham’s other sons (other than Isaac). They engaged in both caravan trade (Genesis 37.28) and despoiling any weaker than themselves, as well as herding sheep and goats (Exodus 2.15; 3.1). They dwelt in, and moved around in, the wilderness and desert from south of the Dead Sea to lands east of the Jordan (Genesis 25.2-6; 37.25 on; Exodus 3.1; Numbers 22.4, 7), and were fairly widespread. Because of what they had done to Israel some suffered at the hands of Israel (Numbers 25.16-18; 31.2, 7-12). Five Midianite chieftains, ‘the princes’ of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and thus his vassals and presumably fairly settled, were defeated by Moses in the approach to the land" (Joshua 13.21). Angelfire - error 403Genesis 25:2 "And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
However, the Midianites had intermarried with the Ishmaelites, and other nations, and mixed together, and took their heathen gods. These people were a Bedouin people, and it is important to know this, to understand what kind of people it is that conquered the Israelites. As Bedouins and wanderers, they are not soldiers and they were not well organized. When an organized army comes against any massive numbers of these wandering tent people, they will run from the danger. judges6And since my sources are nothing more than biblical references, I realize this additional information may just some more baseless, sophistic, unsupported folktales. But this just happens to be what Stormdancer, I, and others were enjoying a discussion about.Peace.

If for nothing other than art appreciation alone, visit this site: http://www.zaqen.com/web/IsraeliteImages.htmlI am not advocating, just facilitating. There are more references to follow on this subject of unmistakably close associations (linguistic, cultural, familial structure, and theological) between "proto-Hebrews," Midianites, and Bedouins of Negev and Sinai.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-12-2004]

Again, the following is offered as information only, and I am not espousing any belief in the opinions of the author. I submit the information in response to an earlier request to support someone else’s theory of a Hebrew/Bedouin invasion of Canaan.The pastoral-nomadic adaptation to the deserts of the Near East have included four prominent cultural traits for thousands of years: (1) the pastoral-military complex, (2) the importance of hospitality and honor, (3) the bint 'amm marriage system, (4) polygynous households and (5) prominent roles for independent women.Hospitality and honor are central values in Bedouin culture as they were to the Hebrews. Because pastoral societies typically occupy marginal environments such as the deserts of the Near East, they are usually not completely self-sufficient, and pastoralists must obtain some important goods that they cannot produce themselves from their sedentary, agricultural neighbors.The marriage patterns of the Patriarchs also remind one of those practiced by the Bedouin in recent times, a pattern called the bint 'amm, a preference for a man to marry within his own lineage by marrying his father's brother's daughter. By the standards of the non-Bedouin peoples of the Near East, such marriages would be considered incestuous, since both husband and wife were both descended from the same paternal grandfather and were therefore closely related members of the same patrilineage. In many languages, such cousins refer to each other as ‘brother’ and ‘sister’, but among the Bedouin such marriages renewed, generation after generation, the solidarity between members of the same patrilineage who might otherwise not see one another for years in their nomadic wanderings through the desert, a solidarity that time and distance might otherwise weaken."The marriage patterns of the Patriarchs also involved marriage within the patrilineage. We learn, for instance, that Abraham's wife Sarah was his ‘sister’, the daughter of Abraham's father Terah. Similarly, Nahor marries his brother Haran's daughter Milcah, Isaac marries Rebekkah, Isaac's father's, brother's son's daughter, Abraham's son Isaac's son Esau marries his grandfather Abraham's son Ishmael's daughter, and Jacob marries two sisters, Rachel and Leah, who are his father Isaac's father's brothers son's son's daughters. In each case, the marriage unites two husbands and wives that are all descendants of Terah and members of the same patrilineage.The Bedouin lifestyle was characterized by prominent roles for women, like those of the prominent and independent women of the Patriarchal families. Sarah, for instance, is portrayed as a strong-willed woman who first insists that Abraham bear a child by her servant, Hagar, and then in a fit of jealously demands that Abraham send Hagar and her son away into the desert (Genesis 16:1-7). Hagar herself demonstrates the ability to cope with the rigors of the desert alone with her son Ishmael (Genesis 16:7-14; 21:15-21). Rebekah does not shy away from addressing Abraham's servant at the well, even though he is a stranger (Genesis 24:18-19). And Miriam is a woman who was able to boldly call her brother Moses to task when she felt he was behaving wrongly (Numbers 12:1-2a, where the Hebrew verb is in the feminine singular form, indicating that Miriam, not Aaron, was the spokesperson)."The women of the Patriarchal period are consistently portrayed as the strong-willed, independent, and influential daughters of the desert that were typical of the women of the pastoral nomads of the Near Eastern deserts down to modern times!From: http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/patriarchs.htm

Again, as in the two post just above, I offer the following information gleened from Websites regarding the current topic:As the Exodus account implies an attempt by some Semitic tribes to leave Egyptian Sinai to enter into Canaan, we soon find the evidence for the one and only such attempt. This only recorded exodus attempt by Bedouin tribes from Sinai trying to enter Canaan took place at the end of the short reign of Ramses I. Immediately after the death of Ramses I c.1333 BC, we find evidence of some Semitic Bedouin tribes of Sinai, called Shasu by the Egyptians, attempting to cross the Egyptian borders to Canaan.On the east side of the northern wall of the great Hypostyle Hall in Amun's temple at Karnak we find two series of scenes, which are distributed symmetrically on either side of the entrance to the temple, representing the wars of Seti I who succeeded Ramses I on the throne. The first of these wars, chronologically, is found at the bottom row of the east wall and represent the war against the Shasu. After setting out on the route between the fortified city of Zarw and Gazaknown in the Bible as 'the way of the land of the Philistines' (Exodus 13:17), and passing the fortified water stations, "pushing along the road in the Negeb, the king scatters the Shasu, who from time to time gather in sufficient numbers to meet him." One of these actions is depicted in this relief as taking place on the desert road. Over the battle scene stands the inscription: "The Good God, Sun of Egypt, Moon of all land, Montu in the foreign countries ... like Baal, ... The rebels, they know not how they shall (flee); the vanquished of the Shasu (becoming like) that which existed not."
In this campaign it seems that Seti pursued the Shasu into the northern Sinai area and Edom, which includes 'the waters of Meribah,' as well as the land of Moab at the borders between Sinai and Canaan/Jordanbefore returning to continue his march along the northern Sinai road between Zarw and Gaza until he reached Canaan itself. Just across the Egyptian border he arrived at a fortified town whose name is given as Pe-Kanan, which is believed to be the city of Gaza.Another scene has the following inscription over the defeated Shasu: "Year 1. King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menma-re. The destruction which the mighty sword of Pharaoh made among the vanquished of the Shasu from the fortress of Zarw to Pe-Kanan, when His Majesty marched against them like a fierce-eyed lion, making them carcasses in their valleys, overturned in their blood like those that exist not.And although Seti I was able to stop the Shasu leaving Sinai, forty years later, during the 20th year of Ramses II, we find them already in Canaan.Shasu was the name given by the Egyptians to the Beduin of Sinai, known in both the Bible and the Quran as the Midianites, allies of Moses. It seems that the Israelites were only a small part of a large Semitic attempt to leave Egypt for Canaan.Source: Ahmed Osman/Out of Egypt

Thank you, Connie, for giving me the benefit to once again see you provide the Donald Redford quote of which you seem so enamoured. You may assume that I had taken the time to actually read Redford's comments on the Exodus when you previously cut and pasted the exact same two paragraphs on December 30, 2003, in Post #12 of the "No Stealing" topic just two short weeks ago. It is indeed lucky that you still have a right index finger to click, copy, and paste so that my intellect can once again be so challenged. Before you redundantly paste the quote again, could you possibly remove the extra esses from Rameses's name for your dear Mr. Redford.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-13-2004]

[He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." <<< these were the esses to which I referred. No big deal really ... just got tired of seeing them redundantly pasted.]C.A. (that does sound so much more grown-up): I will read Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times by Dr. Redford before making any more comments on the migrations of Semite people into Canaan during the Late Bronze and Early Iron.Happy Trails.

While awaiting the arrival of a copy of Dr. Redford's book, I have been searching for online quotes therefrom, and found this one that reflected the topic:The following is [represented by the link given below as] a direct quote from "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" by Donald Redford.(13) "Shasu [literally meaning "a people who move on foot"](14) are found in Egyptian texts from the 18th Dynasty through the Third Intermediate Period. They most frequently occur in generalizing toponym lists where the context helps little in pinpointing their location. But lists from Soleb and Amarah [in Nubia], ultimately of fifteenth century [B.C.] origin [circa 17th/18th Dynasty] suggest that an original concentration of Shasu settlements lay in southern Transjordan in the plains of Moab and northern Edom. Here a group of six names is identified as in 'the land of the Shasu' and these include Se'ir (i.e., Edom), Laban (probably Libona, south of Amman), Sam'ath (cf. the Shim'ethites, a clan of the Kenites: 1 Chron. 2:55), Wrbr (probably the Wady Hasa) [, Yhw, and Pysps].(15) Elsewhere in texts of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, the consistent linking of Shasu with Edom and the Arabah (Timna) places the identifications on the earlier lists beyond doubt.""The localization of the 'Land of the Shasu' in the mountainous districts of Se'ir ... has an interesting consequence for one name in the mentioned lists from Soleb and Amarah - 'Yhw (in) the land of the Shasu.' For half a century it has been generally admitted that we have here the tetragrammaton, the name of the Israelite god, 'Yahweh'; and if this be the case, as it undoubtedly is, the passage constitutes a most precious indication of the whereabouts during the late fifteenth century B.C. of an enclave revering this god. ... Numerous passages in later Biblical tradition ... depict Yahweh 'coming forth from Se'ir' and originating in Edom."Donald Redford goes on to state that the Shasu "burst with especially grievous force just before the beginning of the 19th Dynasty across ... northern Sinai, cutting off Egypt's coastal route ... though Sety I had little trouble in beating them back ..." But why had these descendents of Laban (uncle/father-in-law of Jacob and great-great-great-grandfather of the Biblical Moses, Genesis 28:2) and adherents of Yahweh (i.e., Jehovah), whose homeland was in and around Mount Se'ir in Edom, suddenly appeared along the Via Maris (Mediterranean coastal route and main artery between Egypt and Canaan) at the same time that Moses and the Israelites are said (according to Manetho) to have been driven from Egypt by "Rampses?".[The Exodus - The Gospel According to Egypt]As I have not yet received the copy I ordered of "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" I have not checked this alleged quote to see if it has been reproduced exactly per Dr. Redford's original text. Nonetheless, I found it interesting and pertinent to our topic.A'shalom A'lecheim[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-13-2004]

CA: Thanks for the recommendation of what appears to be a great book. I look forward to reading it and subsequent discussions.Peace.

Please tell me, dear CA, that you are not now trying to lead me back into my former faulty ways of grasping at vague theories via other folks' suppositions? Does this Dever back up his folk-Moses theory with any archaeological discoveries of ancient hard-copy?BTW, while following your previous advice, I ran across the following review of "The Bible Unearthed" (Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyers:IBSS - The Bible - The Bible Unearthededit [For anyone who prints-out the link, highlight page by page only what your printer will select and print on a single page; because if you print the entire document at once, this link prints-out a severely indented, central column of text that cuts the tops and bottoms of sentences and headers in half at the bottom and tops of pages apparently due to the graphic photo of the book cover at the top of the document ??? so that you'll end up with 14 pages of a lot of negative wasted space with those irritating cut-up sentences.]My only criticisms of the review is that Meyers:1) Frequently interjects his own suppositions into the review (self-serving); and2) Frequently uses the singular first person pronoun "I" in a formal reporting of other people's material, demonstrating a obnoxious shortcoming all too common with today's "scholarly" post graduates. And this from a Ph.D.! (I mean a book report isn't a "what I did on my summer vacation" presentation.)Anyway, thanks again for the tips.Peace.

Good morning, CA.Re: Message 59; this topic:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: "Please tell me, dear CA, ..."You: "Do I detect facetiousness?"Me: "Nope, tongue-in-cheek maybe; negative facetiousness not intended."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Me: "Does this Dever back up his folk-Moses theory with any archaeological discoveries of ancient hard-copy?"You: "What 'folk-Moses theory' are you attributing to Dever?"Me: "I was responding to your statement that "... even some rather radical scholars would take seriously the notion that some of these 'Shasu of Yhw' were among the tribal peoples who became early Israel, and that they may indeed have been guided through the desert by a charismatic, shiekh-like leader with the Egyptian name of 'Moses'. In folk religion these pre-Israelite traditions, partly mythological, may have survived well into the late Monarchy.""I then took 'Moses' and 'folk religion' and manufactured the 'folk-Moses' entity. As I don't have Dever's book, and cannot refer to page 237, I apparently wrongly assumed your reference to the shiek-like leader came from that source. Obviously, I am going to have to either reactivate my public library card or open an account at Barnes and Knoble to keep up on this subject!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------You: "By the way, why not start a thread on the Shasu?"Me: "Good idea, good subject, but I think I better study-up a little more first. If someone else were to start a thread on Shashu, I will try to stay abreast. Meanwhile, I have a more wacky idea for a thread that may appear shortly."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Peace in Canaan.